University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE INFLUENCE OF COUNSELORS AND HIGH SCHOOL ORGANIZATION
ON THE SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS FOR A DUAL CREDIT PROGRAM

by

Jean M. Osumi

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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Jean M. Osumi

ii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my husband Mark Hanson, our daughters Laura and
Jordan, and to my mother, Edith Osumi. This process would not have been
possible without their support, patience and understanding.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank the counselors and administrators of
the Hawai‗i Department of Education for taking the time to complete the surveys
and interviews that made up a large portion of the data collected for this work. I
am grateful and humbled by their willingness to share their knowledge about the
Running Start program.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee Dr.
Lawrence Picus and Dr. Melora Sundt for their teaching, advice and commentary
that helped to strengthen the methodology and instrumentation of this study. In
particular, I wish to thank Committee Chair, Dr. Dominic Brewer who made me
―talk to people‖.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Figure 1: Comparison of best performing state,
national and Hawai‗i on key transition points
in the educational pipeline 7
Statement of the Problem 12
The Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations of Study 16
Terms/Definitions 17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
Introduction 20
Access to Information 27
Dual Credit Programs 34
Summary of the Literature Review 52

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 54
Research Design 55
Descriptive Analyses 56
Case Study Method 58
Sample 59
Instrumentation 63
Data Collection 66
Running Start Admissions and Requirements Process 67
Data Analyses 69
Ethical Considerations 70

v

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 71
Research Question 1 71
Research Question 2 84
Research Question 3 86
Research Question 4 102

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 119
Overview of the Problem 119
Connections to the Literature 122
Implications for Policy and Practice 133
Implications for Future Research 137
Conclusion 139

REFERENCES 140

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Running Start: Counselor Survey 149

APPENDIX B: Running Start: Administrator Survey 157

APPENDIX C: Counselor Interview Guide 166

APPENDIX D: Administrator Interview Guide 167

APPENDIX E: University of Hawai‗i to Hawai‗i Department
of Education Ethnicity Codes 168

APPENDIX F: Running Start Participation Rates and Rank
Order by High School 169

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Map of Literature to Survey Questions 64

Table 2: Running Start Participant Demographic Information 72

Table 3: Running Start Participation Rates Over Time 73

Table 4: Ethnic Representation of Running Start Participants
Compared to DOE Ethnic Breakdown of High School
Enrollments Academic Years 2003-2009 75

Table 5: Comparison of Statewide High School Disadvantaged
Status and Running Start Participant Disadvantaged Status 77

Table 6: Comparison of Running Start Percent of Graduates to
Non-Running Start Percent of Graduates Entering
Postsecondary Education Following Spring Graduation 79

Table 7: Running Start Percent of Graduates to Non-Running Start
Percent of Graduates by Type of College 80

Table 8: Running Start and Non-Running Start Statewide Graduates:
Degrees Earned 80

Table 9: Grade Distribution of Running Start Participants 82

Table 10: Top Ranked Courses Taken by Running Start Participants 83

Table 11: Running Start Participation Rates by School Type 85

Table 12: Marketing Materials Used by Schools to Promote the
Running Start Program: Counselors 87

Table 13: Counselor Rank Ordering of Student Characteristics of
Potential Running Start Participants 91

Table 14: Counselor Perceived Student Characteristics for Not
Recommending the Running Start Program 93

vii

Table 15: Counselor Rating of Factors that Prevent Students
from Participating in Running Start 94

Table 16: Counselor Opinion of the Running Start Program 97

Table 17: Administrator Ranking of Student Selection Factors
of Running Start Participants 103

Table 18: Marketing Materials Used by Schools to Promote the
Running Start Program: Administrators 104

Table 19: Administrator Indicators of Success for Running Start 106

Table 20: Administrator Rating of Factors that Prevent Students
from Running Start Participation 108

Table 21: Administrator Opinion of the Running Start Program 111

Table 22: Administrator Ranking of Resources Needed to
Support the Running Start Program 113

viii

ABSTRACT

Over the past two decades dual credit programs have been increasingly
utilized as a pathway for secondary students to accelerate into postsecondary
education. This mixed-methods study evaluates Hawai‗i‘s dual credit program,
Running Start, on student participant characteristics such as demographics,
coursetaking, and postsecondary access and degree completion. Additionally, this
study investigated high school organization and structure, as well as factors that
influence counselor selection of participants into the Running Start Program.
Major findings from this study were: 1) Hawai‗i‘s dual credit student
participation rates differed by ethnic groups; 2) Running Start participants entered
postsecondary education and earned degrees at higher rates that statewide averages;
3) 86% of Running Start participants earned grades of C or better; 4) participation
rates differed by type of high school and geographic distance from a postsecondary
campus; 5) once school-based notifications were distributed, counselors relied on
students to ―self-identify‖ themselves as interested in Running Start; 6) counselors
evaluated the risk of the student passing or failing a class and its impact for the
student on graduation or on-time promotion; and 7) administrators and counselors
differed with respect to the student population that the Running Start program
should serve.
Two themes emerged from this study: 1) counselors provided school-based
notifications on the Running Start program to both students and parents, but relied
ix

on students to ―self-identify‖ themselves as interested in the program; and 2)
administrative barriers such as conflicts in the secondary and postsecondary
schedules, associated costs for tuition, fees and books, and transportation impeded
student participation rates. While Running Start participants show strong
postsecondary outcomes, the selection and participation of students in this program
was student-driven and influenced by external administrative factors.
The results from this study will be useful to state policy- and decision-
makers, as well as high school and postsecondary institutions on evaluating the
efficacy of dual credit as a high school reform initiative for college access.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is
your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to
opportunity — it is a pre-requisite. Right now, three-quarters of the
fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school
diploma ... just over half of our citizens have that level of
education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of
any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin
college never finish. This is a prescription for economic decline,
because we know that countries that out-teach us today will out-
compete us tomorrow.

President Barack Obama
Address to the Joint Session
of Congress, February 2009

America‘s workplace demands are being shaped by technological and
communication advances that impact the economy in global ways. The rapidity of
the acceptance and the use of technology, coupled with the ability to communicate
inexpensively and instantaneously, fuel the workforce need for highly skilled and
trained workers (Karoly & Panis, 2004). Routine tasks continue to be
computerized or outsourced to workers in other countries, enabling competition
across all sectors of the international economy (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2002;
Freidman, 2005). Additionally, American business is beginning to outsource not
only manufacturing and production, but also advanced research and development
(Friedman, 2005). These economic and political trends have American workers
competing with skilled workers at home and around the world (Achieve, 2008a).
2

The growing importance of a knowledge-based workplace mandates that
attention be focused upon the educational achievement of our youth. To remain
competitive in the global marketplace, there is an increasing emphasis on education
that promotes entry-level skills, as well as the continued development of job skills
throughout the career of our workers (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2002). Jobs
providing salaries that can support a family require knowledge and skills that are
similar to those required for college completion (Pennington, 2003). Valued skill
sets include the ability to read at high levels, abstract reasoning, the ability to solve
semi-structured problems, being able to communicate effectively orally and in
writing, and behavioral skills such as being able to work collaboratively in diverse
groups (Pennington, 2003; Karoly & Panis, 2004; Carnevale, 2007).

Educational Capital and Global Competitiveness
As America re-tools its manufacturing-based economy into a knowledge-
based economy, the educational achievement gap between America and the rest of
the industrialized countries has been growing wider (Carnevale & Desrochers,
2003; Achieve, 2008a). Four decades ago, the United States ranked first in high
school completion rates when compared to other countries. Recently, the U.S. has
fallen to 21
st
among 27 industrialized Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries. Similar trends were reported for college
completion rates, where America fell from 2
nd
to 14
th
between 1995 and 2006
(OECD, 2007).
3

International benchmarking measures of mathematics and science provide a
mechanism to identify current performance levels and areas of needed
improvement (Achieve, 2008a). Ginsburg, Cooke, Leinwand, Noell, and Pollack
(2005) reviewed data from three international surveys assessing mathematics
achievement in 2003: 1) the Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) which assesses students in the 4
th
grade (TIMSS-4); 2) the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which assesses students
in the 8
th
grade (TIMSS-8); and 3) the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) which assesses 15 year olds on mathematics and science skills
valued in adult life. This study compared 12 countries that participated in all three
assessments. Ginsburg et al. (2005) reported that the U.S. ranks 8 out 12 countries
on the TIMSS-4, 9 out of 12 on the TIMSS-8, and 9 out of 12 on the PISA.
Similarly, national trends on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) comparing 1992 to 2005 scores showed that the percentage of
12th grade students who performed at or above the proficient level in reading
declined from 40% to 35%, and only 23% of 12
th
grade students were performing at
or above the proficient level in mathematics (National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 2005). State-level results for Hawai‗i 8
th
grade students showed that
average scores in reading, mathematics, and science were lower than the national
average. The percentage of Hawai‗i students performing at or above proficient in
reading was 18%; mathematics 15%; and in science 18% (NAEP, Hawai‗i Scores
Reading; Math; Science, 2005). The lack of progress in educational achievement,
4

when compared against international and national benchmarks, reflects growing
concern in the development and maintenance of an educated workforce in Hawai‗i.
While education is viewed as a means towards providing the best pathway
for sustaining the economic growth of American society, individual benefits are
also tied to educational attainment. The benefit to the individual on economic
outcomes is well documented, with better-educated workers having improved
economic outcomes than those with less education (Brewer, Hentschke, & Eide,
2008; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2008). Perna (2005) argued that a student‘s
decision to enroll and pursue higher education was weighted by a comparison of
the expected benefits and the costs associated with attendance. Short-term benefits
to the individual included the learning experience, participation in cultural and
social events, and an increase in social status. Long-term individual investment in
higher education includes higher lifetime earnings, increase in health outcomes,
improved civic participation, increases in tax revenues, lower probability of
unemployment, and reductions in the provision of social services (Hanushek &
Woessmann, 2008; Ewell, Jones, & Kelly, 2003; Perna, 2005). Hanushek and
Woessmann (2008) argued that quantity and quality of education has powerful and
robust economic effects, with economic growth being positively affected by the
increase in the skills of workers.

5

The Education Pipeline
The importance of a quality educational experience, with its impact on
social, economic and individual quality of life, is critical to accessing a comfortable
standard of living. Education is a requirement for leveraging global and individual
competitiveness and productivity (Achieve, 2008b). On the local level, increasing
the educational capital of Hawai‗i‘s students has been identified as a strategic
outcome in both the Hawai‗i Department of Education (DOE) and the University of
Hawai‗i (UH) strategic plans. In recognition of the need to increase educational
attainment within the state of Hawai‗i, UH has set a system-wide strategic goal of
increasing degree attainment to 55% by 2025 (University of Hawai‗i, 2008a). The
DOE has set a goal to decrease the numbers of students who enter remedial
coursework at UH in their first year of attendance (Hawai‗i Department of
Education, 2008). These goals are tied to increasing the numbers of students who
access and are college-ready for postsecondary education. With these goals in
mind, UH and the DOE are focusing on strategically aligning the public education
pipeline in Hawai‗i on important college-readiness indicators such as math, science
and writing to entry-level expectations of public postsecondary institutions
(Achieve, 2008b).
A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of the educational system in
America is to view student progress as a continuum. This framework, commonly
called the ―Education Pipeline,‖ does not view K-12 or postsecondary education as
separate entities, but as a series of transition points from pre-K, to K-12, to
6

postsecondary education, and into the workforce (Ewell et al., 2003). Ewell et al.
(2003) conceptualized the education pipeline as having four major transition points:
1) on-time graduation from high school as measured against an incoming 9th grade
cohort; 2) entry into postsecondary education the fall semester after high school
graduation; 3) return for the second year of college; and 4) completion of an
associate‘s degree within three years or a bachelor‘s degree within six years of
initial enrollment. The National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems (NCHEMS) analyses of student ―flow‖ through this pipeline showed that
nationally, out of 100 students graduating from high school, an average of 69
students graduated on-time, with 42 entering postsecondary education, and 20
graduating with a college degree within six years after high school graduation
(NCHEMS, 2009). Hawai‗i figures were reported as 68 graduating from high
school on time, 41 entering postsecondary education, with 12 graduating from
college within six years after high school graduation (see Figure 1) (NCHEMS,
2009). Hawai‗i‘s movement towards its strategic goal of increasing the educational
capital of the state lagged well behind the best performing states in the country.
7

Figure 1: Comparison of best performing state, national and Hawai‗i on key
transition points in the educational pipeline.

Goldberger (2007) made an even more compelling analysis of the education
pipeline in looking at socioeconomic status as a factor affecting postsecondary
degree attainment. Research based on the National Education Longitudinal Study
showed that only 11% of the students in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status
(SES) earned college degrees as compared to 52% of students in the middle to
upper quintiles. The high school graduation transition point for students from the
lowest quintile showed that the lowest SES students graduated from high school at
a rate of 65% compared to 95% of the students in quintiles three to five. Further,
only 21% of those in the lowest quintile were adequately prepared to immediately
8

enter college-level coursework compared to 54% in quintiles three to five. At each
transition point of the pipeline, students at the lowest end of the SES scale were
struggling compared to their peers.

College-readiness
Greene and Forster (2003) argued that the flow through the pipeline to
postsecondary education was not the result of ―blockage‖ but rather ―leakage in the
middle.‖ The authors pointed to the need to determine whether inadequate
academic preparation in high school contributed to the failure of large numbers of
students accessing college. In order to determine the college-readiness of high
school students, the authors conducted an analysis of the college-readiness rates of
high school students. ―College-ready‖ rates were calculated on the following
factors: graduation from high school; college-ready transcripts which included, at a
minimum, four years of English, three years of math, two years each of natural
science, social science, and foreign language; and basic reading skills (proficiency
as measured by a minimum score of 265 on the NAEP reading score). Nationally,
36% of students graduated with college-ready transcripts, with 32% of the students
classified as ―college-ready.‖ Hawai‗i had 30% of students graduating with
college-ready transcripts, with only 25% of students considered ―college-ready‖.
While the significant number of students who did not complete high school
influenced momentum from secondary to postsecondary education, college
readiness indicators such as remediation rates in college also affected momentum
9

(Brewer, Stern, & Ahn, 2007). Chen (2005) found that 40% of 1992 high school
graduates who entered postsecondary education took at least one remedial course,
with 27% taking remedial mathematics, and nine percent taking a remedial reading
course. Being underprepared for college had significant consequences, with
associated increases in costs for the student and lengthening overall time to degree
completion. Low-income students were more likely to need remediation course
work and graduated at lower rates than their peers (Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio,
2003; Wirt et al., 2004; Brewer et al., 2007).
To summarize, while increased educational attainment benefits both society
and the individual, many of our students are not competitive on international
comparisons of academic achievement, with fewer and fewer students moving
through the education pipeline in graduating from high school, in accessing and
completing postsecondary education. America has fallen in ranking internationally,
and national comparisons leave Hawai‗i even further behind. Evidence from
studies reviewing the college-readiness of high school students coupled with
reports of high and unacceptable rates of remediation in college, indicates further
attention needs to be paid to the academic preparation of our students and their
continued progression through the educational pipeline.

From High School to College
Horn (1997) noted that the critical transition point in the education pipeline
from high school graduation to college enrollment was not only dependent upon
10

academic preparation but also required institutional and family/student engagement
in the process. In particular, the authors argued that student aspirations for college
were correlated to eventual college degree attainment. American high school
students and their parents appeared to be convinced that at least some
postsecondary education was an important factor in obtaining a family-supporting
job (Bailey & Karp, 2003). The National Center for Education Statistics (2004)
reported that nine out of 10 tenth grade students expected to access some kind of
postsecondary education, with 40% expecting to earn a bachelor‘s degree or higher.
Notably, the largest increase in bachelor‘s degree aspirations came from those in
the lowest socioeconomic sector. In 1980, 13% of low SES students intended to
earn a bachelor‘s degree compared to 38% in 2004.

Pathways to College and Dual Credit Programs
The research on America‘s achievement gap, when compared on
international benchmarks, underscores the need for attention to the pipeline
transition point from high school graduation to the entry into postsecondary
education. Researchers such as Adelman (1999; 2006), Warburton, Bugarin, and
Nuñez (2001), and Martinez and Klopott (2005) argued that rigorous academic
preparation, alignment of curriculum between and within levels of secondary and
postsecondary education, and a clear understanding of the expectations in college
was key to accessing and successfully completing a college degree. Alignment of
11

curricula between systems created seamless transition points and ensured that
students were prepared for the next level (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
One mechanism that was used to increase the numbers of students accessing
postsecondary education was accelerated learning options, or dual credit programs
such as Running Start (Karp, Bailey, Hughes, and Fermin, 2004). Programs known
as ―dual credit‖ or ―dual enrollment‖ referred to the concurrent enrollment of high
school students in college-level classes. Credit was earned for both the high school
and college degree (Boswell, 2001). Dual credit classes were viewed as a means
for secondary and postsecondary institutions to partner together to provide access
to a reasonably priced, rigorous education that helped students to develop critical
thinking, technical and content area skills needed in a globalized economy
(Boswell, 2001; Hugo, 2001).
At the student level, benefits from dual credit programs include:
1) academically preparing students for the rigor of college by exposing them to
challenging coursework; 2) providing realistic information on the skills they will
need to succeed in college; 3) providing opportunities for traditionally non-college-
bound students to experience college (e.g. first-generation students); 4) shortening
the time to degree or certificate completion at the postsecondary level; 5) reducing
the cost of postsecondary education; and 6) providing curricular options to high
school students that may not be readily available in the high school curriculum
(Bailey & Karp, 2003; Hunt, 2007; Hoffman, Vargas, & Santos, 2008).
12

Voke and Brand (2003) pointed out that defining the purpose of dual credit
programs and the populations it served was needed in order to evaluate the
educational outcomes, cost-benefits, and effectiveness of these programs. Dual
credit programs were also viewed as being a keystone to promoting a state‘s
educational equity agenda. Hoffman et al. (2008) noted that low income students,
students of color, and first-generation students, were groups that could benefit from
dual credit programs, and that these were often groups that lacked the resources to
easily access postsecondary opportunities.

Statement of the Problem
The public education system in the state of Hawai‗i has begun to explore
viable options for increasing the college readiness and the matriculation of students
from the secondary to the postsecondary system. Accelerated learning options,
such as dual credit, articulation of high school to college-level coursework,
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs are being utilized
by the DOE and UH to increase the access and the academic preparedness of
students entering postsecondary education.
Hawai‗i‘s dual credit policy, called ―Running Start,‖ has been legislatively
mandated since 2001, and established the rights of qualified public high school
students to access higher education. Running Start is open to all public high school
juniors or seniors who qualify for postsecondary admissions, have permission from
13

their principal, pass any relevant placement exam(s) at the college or university,
have the appropriate prerequisite for the class, and remits the appropriate tuition
and fees to the college for every college course (Hawai‗i Revised Statutes, §302A-
401). In 2007, the Hawai‗i legislature recognized that under-represented
populations may not have been accessing dual credit because of perceived financial
barriers, and that difficulties existed in information sharing on the purpose and use
of dual credit in completing high school requirements. House Bill No. 767, which
became law without the Governor‘s signature, stated:
Experience with the running start program has shown that students
in under-represented populations may not be participating in the
program because of financial difficulty. Experience has also
shown that there has been some confusion about obtaining dual
credit for courses completed at the University of Hawaii. The
purpose of this Act is to: (1) Require the department of education
to provide students who participate in the running start program
with guidance in earning credit toward high school graduation for
successful completion of one-hundred level and above University
of Hawaii courses; and (2) Increase financial support for the
families of low-income and under-represented students.
HB No. 767, HD2, SD2, CD1,
2007 Hawaii Legislative Session

Hawai‗i‘s educational policy recognizes the importance of dual credit in the
completion of high school graduation requirements and as a college access
program. Hawai‗i law has been amended to target the increase in the number of
under-represented students who access the dual credit programs and to focus on the
importance of the high school as a mechanism for support and the sharing of
information. Students are reliant upon the high school to provide relevant and
timely information about the existence and benefits of dual credit.
14

Although research on dual credit participation has recently begun to address
student characteristics and outcomes, little is known about the participant selection
process at high schools that enables student participation in the program.
Evaluating the effectiveness of Hawai‗i‘s dual credit policy requires an
understanding of the characteristics of the students who participate in the program,
as well as the influence of counselor and high school organization that affect the
student selection process for dual credit participation.

The Purpose of the Study
Students‘ access across the pipeline juncture between high school
graduation and postsecondary education may be affected by the high school where
a student attends — the school climate and the policies and behaviors of principals,
teachers and counselors. This study seeks to understand what high school features
and policies affect high school commitment to participation in Running Start.
Additionally, the role of counselors will be examined in order to determine the
extent to which they may facilitate or hinder student participation. Comparison of
principal and counselor responses across high schools will also help to identify
common practices in the selection process, as well as where counselor and
institutional differences may affect participation rates.
Results from this study will provide information to Running Start
counselors at the high school and postsecondary levels, principals and other
15

administrators, as well as policymakers at the institution and state level on the
student- and institution-level characteristics that contribute to, and/or inhibit the
effectiveness of Running Start in Hawai‗i in promoting college access.
The beneficiaries of this work are the students who are participating or plan to
participate in Running Start.

Research Questions
The following research questions will be addressed by this study:
Question 1: What are the characteristics of the students participating in Running
Start in Hawai‗i from school year 2002 to 2009?
Question 2: Are there differences in student participation rates by high school?
Question 3: What student-level characteristics influence counselor selection of
students for participation in Running Start?
Question 4: What institution-level characteristics influence student participation
in Running Start?

Significance of the Study
The National Center for Education Statistics (2004) has reported that
students‘ aspiration to attend college rose over the past twenty years, especially in
low socioeconomic status students. Comparisons of students in the upper and
lower quintiles of socioeconomic status underscore the gap in college-going rates
16

(Goldberger, 2007). Dual credit programs as one aspect of high school reform
showed promise in promoting the accessibility of college for students and
promoting momentum towards college degree completion (Adelman, 1999; 2006).
This study provides additional information on practices that facilitated or hindered
success in dual credit as a mechanism to college access and success.
Additionally, results from this study will help inform policy and decision-
making on the success of, and improvements to, the Running Start program in
Hawai‗i. Information gathered on the selection of student participants and high
school structures and support to the program will help identify and specify
activities that will promote the improvement of the program, such as professional
development for counselors and teachers, types of materials to enhance
information-sharing, or incentives that promote increases in access and equity in
under-represented student populations.

Limitations of Study
This study was limited to evaluating the transition point between high
school graduation and college entry. It is conceivable that factors such as
secondary school matriculation or academic preparation, retention and persistence
in postsecondary education could additionally inform counselor selection of
students for participation in dual credit. An additional limitation is that this study
focused only on high school counselors and administrators. The interaction
17

between high school and postsecondary institution may have also influenced
student participation rates. It is recognized that postsecondary counselors and
administration in all likelihood affected networking and establishment of
partnerships between feeder high schools and postsecondary campus. The samples
of counselor and principals were limited to those who choose to participate and this
may have influenced the data gathered. Further, the use of a researcher-designed
survey instrument and the potential for researcher bias may have further limited the
results of this study. Finally, demographic descriptive data gathered on Running
Start students was reliant upon appropriate coding of students within the University
of Hawai‗i‘s student information system. Students who were miscoded may have
been inadvertently dropped from the final analyses.

Terms/Definitions
Major terms and definitions relevant to this study include:
Accelerated learning options — descriptor for four major programs including the
College Board‘s Advanced Placement (AP) program, dual/concurrent
enrollment, International Baccalaureate, and Tech-Prep programs.
Career ready — a high school graduate who has the English and mathematics
knowledge and skills needed to qualify for, and succeed in the
postsecondary job training and/or education necessary for their chosen
career.
18

College-based programs — high school students take courses taught by college
faculty on a college campus, generally in a mixed classroom with
matriculated college students.
College or career ready — a high school graduate who has the English and
mathematics knowledge and skills necessary to qualify for, and succeed in
entry-level, credit-bearing college courses without the need for remedial
coursework.
Dual credit, dual enrollment, concurrent enrollment — permits high school students
to earn both high school and college credit for the same course.
Educational capital — the number of highly knowledgeable, skilled people in a
state‘s workforce
Examination-based programs — mastery of content material is determined by a
single examination (e.g., Advanced Placement).
Educational pipeline — the continuous progression of students from pre-K, to
elementary school, to secondary, to college, and into the workforce.
Running Start — State of Hawai‗i‘s dual credit program that allows public high
school juniors and seniors to earn college and high school credit with the
same coursework.
School-based programs — a college or university grants credit on its transcript for
a course taught in the high school.
Under-represented or underserved students — defined as low-income, first
generation, and students of color.
19

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review is to examine research on the key
indicators of college-going behaviors, the role of dual credit programs in promoting
college access and degree completion and to identify the barriers and facilitators of
student participation in dual credit programs. Specifically, this section will include
a review of: 1) key indicators of college-going behavior and its effect on the
transition of students from high school to college; 2) the purpose and function of
dual credit and its role in college access and equity for under-represented student
groups; 3) the role of policy in institutional and student participation in dual credit
programs; and 4) student characteristics in dual credit programs.
Research on dual credit has focused primarily on policy creation and
implementation with some recent focus on student characteristics and
postsecondary outcomes on measures such as grade point averages and persistence.
The literature has not examined how the organizational structure of the high school
administration or the activities of high school counselors facilitates or impedes
student participation in these programs. This study seeks to fill this gap.

20

Introduction
The literature on America‘s achievement gap when compared on
international benchmarks underscores the need for attention on the pipeline
transition point from high school graduation to entry into postsecondary education.
Horn (1997) pointed out that understanding the critical transition point in the
education pipeline from high school graduation to college enrollment was not only
dependent upon academic preparation but also involved institutional and
family/student engagement in the process. Key indicators of college-going
behavior included student aspiration for postsecondary education, rigorous
academic preparation, alignment of curriculum between and within levels of
secondary and postsecondary education, access to information, including college
application procedures, and a clear understanding of the expectations of the
behaviors, knowledge and skills required in college (Adelman, 1999; 2006; Cabrera
& La Nasa, 2000; Warburton et al., 2001; Plank & Jordan, 2001; Kirst & Bracco,
2004; Conley, 2007). Alignment of these indicators between secondary and
postsecondary systems created seamless transition points and ensured that students
were prepared for the next level (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
College access pathways promoted as encompassing many of the key
indicators that promoted college-access and college-going behavior were
accelerated learning options, or dual credit programs known as ―Running Start‖
(Karp, Bailey, Hughes, & Fermin, 2004). Programs called ―dual credit‖ or ―dual
21

enrollment‖ referred to the enrollment of high school students in college-level
classes. Credit was earned for both the high school and college degree (Boswell,
2001). Dual credit classes were viewed as a means for secondary and
postsecondary institutions to partner together to provide access to a reasonably
priced, rigorous education that helped students to develop critical thinking,
technical and content-area skills needed in a globalized economy (Boswell, 2001;
Hugo, 2001).
Brewer et al. (2007) pointed out that dual credit programs directly
addressed issues of academic preparedness, achievement, information about, and
transition to college. The over-arching goal of these programs was to reduce
student attrition as they progressed through the educational pipeline, and to provide
information on the knowledge and skills required for successful transition to, and
completion of, a college degree. Dual credit programs were also viewed as being a
keystone to promoting a state‘s educational equity agenda (Hoffman, 2005).
Hoffman et al. (2008) noted that low income, students of color and first-generation
students belonged to groups that may have benefitted from dual credit programs but
lacked the social capital to easily access postsecondary opportunities.
Coleman (1988) defined social capital as a resource that consisted of social
structures which facilitated action from the actors (individuals or organizations)
within the structure. Social capital was productive, enabling the achievement of
outcomes or goals and was dependent upon the relationships between or among the
actors. An important mechanism of social capital was the potential for information
22

sharing among actors. Coleman argued that it was the provision of information that
facilitated action affecting an outcome such as remaining in school. Similarly,
Martinez and Klopott (2005) noted that effectively addressing college access for all
students required ―intentional focus‖ by parents, students, and other actors on
factors that influenced college enrollment, such as knowledge about college, access
to information and academic preparation.

Knowledge about College
Choy, Horn, Nuñez, and Chen (2000) noted that the pipeline to college had
five sequential steps: 1) early aspirations for a college degree in time for students
to prepare themselves academically; 2) attainment of minimal college admissions
requirements; 3) taking admissions exams (SAT or ACT); 4) application to a
college; and 5) acceptance and enrollment. Cabrera and La Nasa‘s (2000) review
of the literature noted that parental encouragement was pivotal in the emergence of
educational aspirations. Early college planning played a role in securing critical
cultural capital important for activities such as academic preparation, maintaining
academic performance and gathering information on financing college. The
authors further argued that parental encouragement had two aspects:
1) motivational, in that parents maintained high educational expectations for their
child; and 2) proactive, in that parents became involved in college-going related
activities such as discussing college plans with their child and saving for college.
Parental involvement in the emergence and maintenance of their children‘s
23

aspiration and academic preparation provided the foundation for the building of
student momentum towards college.

Student Aspirations
Students and their families received the economic message of the personal
and societal benefits of postsecondary education. American high school students
and their parents were convinced that at least some postsecondary education is
important to being able to access a family-supporting job (Bailey & Karp, 2003;
Pennington, 2003). The National Center for Education Statistics (2004) reported
that nine out of 10 tenth grade students expected to access some kind of
postsecondary education, with 40% expecting to earn a bachelor‘s or higher degree.
Notably, the largest increase in bachelor‘s degree aspirations came from those in
the lowest socioeconomic sector. In 1980, 13% of low socioeconomic status (SES)
students intended to earn a bachelor‘s degree compared to 38% in 2004. Horn
(1997) noted that students‘ aspiration for college was an important and necessary
first step in attaining a college degree.
Aspirations for college however have not translated into equitable high
school graduation, college-going and degree-completion rates across the
socioeconomic spectrum. Utilizing the longitudinal High School and Beyond data,
Hanson (1994) studied the post-high school outcomes of eighth grade students with
aspirations for postsecondary education categorized as having academic potential
or ―talent‘ based on test scores. The author found that lower SES youths were
24

more than twice as likely as upper SES youths to either lower or fail to achieve
their postsecondary expectations. Steinberg and Almeida (2008) reported that
while the fastest growing population among school-aged youth was low-income,
under-represented ethnic minority groups, only 65% of those from the lowest SES
earned a high school diploma, compared to 91% of students from the middle to
upper levels. Further, while one out of two students from the middle and upper
level quintiles could be expected to complete a college degree, only one out of ten
students from the lowest socioeconomic quintiles did so (Goldberger, 2007).

Counselor Influence
High school counselors were an institutional resource of information-
sharing that may have facilitated outcomes such as college access (McDonough,
1997; Perna et al., 2008). Rosenbaum, Miller, and Krei (1996) argued that
counselors played a critical role in the transmission of information about academic
preparation for college access and degree completion, particularly for low-income
students who were less likely to obtain the information from home or peer
environments. Factors such as communication and discussion among students,
parents and school personnel on academic preparation for college, college
admissions tests, guidance on college choices and selection, and financial aid
opportunities were positively related to postsecondary attendance (Plank & Jordan,
2001). Similarly, in a study conducted by the College Board on SAT takers, King
(1996) reported that low-income students were more likely to attend a four-year
25

college if they frequently saw their school counselor several times a year through
their junior and senior year of high school. Additionally, 90% of the students who
reported that counselors recommended attending a four-year college had plans to
attend a four-year institution.

High School Environment Influence
Counselor efficacy regarding college was affected by school policies,
resources, student/counselor ratios, professional development, and their perceptions
of their role in influencing students‘ college plans (Rosenbaum et al. 1996;
McDonough, 1997; McDonough, 2005). The structural characteristics of a school
may have restricted low-income student access to college information by their
influence on social networks and relationships that allowed access to institutional
support (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Stanton-Salazar (1997) noted that the formation
of social ties were crucial because this provided consistent and reliable sources
from which students learned appropriate knowledge and skills to further develop
social capital. Within the social structure of a school, counselors were
―institutional agents‖ that had the capacity to directly or indirectly affect student
access to institutional resources. Additionally, factors influencing the access to
resources were derived from the organizational structure of the school, and
included factors such as class scheduling, competition for teacher or counselor time
and attention when serving large numbers of students, and the lack of regular
26

opportunities for sustained interaction that could enable help-seeking behavior from
students.
Perna et al. (2008) argued that availability of college counseling varied
across schools, districts and states. Variations were reflective of factors internal to
high school organization such as student to counselor ratios and dedicated college
counseling centers on campus, as well as external factors such as district- and state-
level policies. Policies such as state-level financial aid enabled counselors to link
both financial aid and academic advising to ensure student qualification of state-
driven aid. McDonough (1997) examined college-related decision-making among
students and found that the organizational structure of the high school determined
the type of linkages developed between the school and postsecondary institutions.
The individual student was influenced in his/her decision-making by the flow and
content of college information provided and supported by the high school.
Similarly, Perna et al. (2008) found that the availability of college counseling was
often defined and limited by school resources and priorities. Counselors identified
limits on their time to include high student loads and additional responsibilities
such as administering tests, compliance with data-reporting demands, and personal
and crisis counseling.
In summary, parental expectations and support of postsecondary planning,
emergence and maintenance of student aspirations for college, institutional support
from counselors and a high school environment that supported college-going
behaviors influenced students‘ knowledge about, and access to information about
27

college. These factors were foundational to the first necessary step in transitioning
towards postsecondary education. Choy et al. (2000) pointed out that the greatest
numbers of students left the educational pipeline because of the lack of emergence
of aspirations for a postsecondary degree by at least the tenth grade, which left
students academically unprepared to meet minimal levels of college qualifications.

Access to Information
Alignment of Expectations
Kirst and Venezia (2004) pointed out that students from lower SES quintiles
or those whose parents did not attend college, did not have the educational capital
to know what was expected of them in terms of college admissions requirements.
These groups often were not aware that even nonselective postsecondary
institutions, such as community colleges with open enrollment admissions, often
required placement testing in order to access credit-bearing, college level
coursework (Kirst & Venezia, 2004). The misalignment of high school exit
knowledge and skills and college and workforce readiness indicators reflected the
gap between what states tested and what colleges and universities expected from
well-prepared students (Conley & Bodone, 2002; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio,
2003). Achieve (2007) reported that college faculty across the states had fairly
consistent views on the knowledge and skills incoming freshman required for
success in first-year college coursework. In mathematics, students required skills
28

learned in a typical four-year high school math sequence beginning with Algebra I
and including geometry, data analysis and statistics. In English, students require
skills in writing and communicating effectively to various audiences, as well as
understanding and analyzing complex texts and to apply analytic and reasoning
skills.
In its fourth annual assessment the heads of K-12 systems for each of the 50
states responded to a survey on the status of each state on key indicators for
college- and career-ready expectations (Achieve, 2009). Twenty-three states had
aligned high school standards in English and mathematics with college- and career-
ready expectations. Twenty states and the District of Columbia required all
students to complete a rigorous curriculum to earn a high school diploma; and ten
states administered assessment testing, such as end-of-course exams to measure
student proficiency and readiness for credit-bearing college coursework. Hawai‗i
rated itself as in-progress or in-planning towards meeting these indicators (Achieve,
2009).
Carnevale and Desrochers (2002) argued that the current core curriculum in
secondary education was organized around ―discrete silos‖ that did not match either
postsecondary or career/workforce needs of working adults. Specifically, core
subjects such as math, science and humanities were taught as sequenced hierarchies
and were not as easily accessible to students who had a more applied orientation.
Secondary curricula needed to align more closely with the cognitive and behavioral
29

competencies such as cognitive reasoning, problem solving, and interpersonal skills
required in both college and career environments.
Kirst and Bracco (2004) argued that the misalignment of high school exit
exams, college admission exams and college placement tests were problematic and
sent conflicting signals to students. Better knowledge about college success was
needed by parents, teachers and counselors to effectively advise students on the
right selection of courses and the development of skills and competencies. The
misalignment of high school exit and college expectations of incoming knowledge
and skills affected the pipeline flow of students in seamlessly accessing
postsecondary education. Under-represented students were likely to be particularly
affected by limited access to college preparatory coursework, lack of educational
capital for college, and placement into remedial courses in college (Venezia et al.,
2003).

Signals as Information
Information such as college admissions and placement standards, what
constituted a rigorous curriculum and the knowledge and skills expected by faculty
for student success in a college course, all communicated meaningful information
from colleges about the behaviors that were expected from students and secondary
schools (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). Venezia and Kirst (2005) argued that information
provided by signals should be clear and consistent for the successful transition from
30

high school to college, and recommended collaboration between secondary and
postsecondary education.

Academic Preparation
Over the past four decades, the educational achievement gap between
America and the rest of the industrialized countries has grown wider (Carnevale &
Desrochers, 2003; Achieve, 2008a). Benchmarks such as college completion rates,
international and national assessments on mathematics and science all showed that
America had become less competitive when compared to other industrialized
countries (OECD, 2007; Achieve, 2008a; Ginsberg et al., 2005; National
Assessment of Education Progress, 2005). Increasing emphasis was placed on the
importance of a quality educational experience in influencing the social, economic
and individual quality of life that was critical to accessing a comfortable standard
of living. Education was a requirement for leveraging global and individual
competitiveness and productivity (Achieve, 2008b).
On the local level, increasing the educational capital of Hawai‗i‘s students
was identified as a strategic outcome in both the Hawai‗i Department of Education
(DOE) and the University of Hawai‗i (UH) strategic plans. UH set a system-wide
strategic goal of increasing degree attainment to 55% by 2025 (University of
Hawai‗i, 2008a). The DOE has a goal to decrease the numbers of students who
entered remedial coursework at UH in their first year of attendance (Hawai‗i
31

Department of Education, 2008). These goals were tied to increasing the numbers
of students who accessed and were college-ready for postsecondary education.
In a report assessing the rates of Hawai‗i public high school graduates
taking remedial coursework in the fall semester immediately following graduation,
3379 students enrolled at one of the University of Hawai‗i community college
campuses (University of Hawai‗i, 2008b). Of the 3379 high school graduates, 1645
students or 48.7% enrolled in a non credit-bearing, remedial English course; and
1680 or 49.7% enrolled in a non credit-bearing, remedial math course. Students
placed into remedial coursework had their progression towards degree completion
impacted by increasing the number of courses taken, increasing the cost associated
with attendance including tuition, fees and books, as well as foregone potential
earnings while a student (Perna, 2005).
The intensity and quality of the high school curriculum was often cited as
the best predictor of college degree attainment by a number of authors (Adelman,
1999, 2006; Warbuton et al., 2001; Martinez & Klopott, 2005). The effects of the
quality and intensity of high school course taking had profound effects on
propelling a student into and through postsecondary degree attainment. Adelman
(1999) found that academic quality and intensity had greater impact for African-
American and Hispanic students than other pre-college characteristics such as high
school grade point average (GPA) and class rank. Adelman (1999) defined
academic resources as a composite of high school curriculum, test scores, and class
rank and found that students from the two lowest SES quintiles who fell in the
32

highest academic resources quintile earned bachelor‘s degrees at a higher rate than
the majority of the students from the highest SES quintiles. Adelman (2006)
concluded that high school academic rigor was a greater predictor on bachelor
degree completion than student risk factors such as SES and ethnicity.
Greene and Forster (2003) pointed to the need to determine whether
inadequate academic preparation in high school contributed to the failure of large
numbers of students accessing college. In order to determine the college-readiness
of high school students, the authors conducted an analysis of the college-readiness
rates of high school students. ―College-ready‖ rates were calculated on the
following factors: 1) graduation from high school; 2) college-ready transcripts that
included at a minimum, four years of English, three years of math, two years each
of natural science, social science, and foreign language; and 3) basic reading skills
(proficiency as measured by a minimum score of 265 on the NAEP reading score).
Nationally, 36% of students who graduated from high school with college-ready
transcripts, with 32% of the students classified as ―college-ready.‖ While the
significant number of students who did not complete high school compounded
momentum from secondary to postsecondary education; college readiness
indicators such as remediation rates in college, also influenced momentum (Brewer
et al., 2007).
One measure of college under-preparedness was the high numbers of
remediation reported once students enter college. The National Center for
Education Statistics (2004) estimated that 61% of students who enrolled in a two-
33

year postsecondary institution and 25% who entered a four-year institution
completed at least one remedial course in reading, writing or math. Chen (2005)
found that overall many high school graduates were under-prepared for
postsecondary coursework. Forty percent of 1992 high school graduates who
entered postsecondary education took at least one remedial course, with 27% taking
remedial mathematics, and nine percent taking a remedial reading course.
Grimes and David (1999) studied 500 degree-seeking community college
students, comparing under-prepared and college-ready students on demographic,
experiential, and attitudinal characteristics on outcome variables such as graduation
rates, GPA, and course completion rates. Significant differences were found
between the two groups with under-prepared students taking fewer credits of high
school math, physical and biological science, and foreign language. The groups
also differed significantly on high school GPA.
To summarize, by the eighth grade, many students and families began the
pursuit of postsecondary education by articulating the desire for higher education
that would lead to family-supporting jobs. The organizational and human resources
available to different populations may have influenced exposure to the information
that facilitated the academic preparation and the college admissions process.
External factors such as curriculum alignment and differing priorities and needs
between secondary and postsecondary systems contributed to the degree of
academic preparedness of students as they transitioned to postsecondary education.
The lack of preparedness of students entering postsecondary education combined
34

with the difficulties in ensuring sufficient knowledge about accessing and
completing college resulted in high numbers of students being unable to
successfully complete a college degree (Venezia & Kirst, 2005; Ewell et al., 2003).

Dual Credit Programs
Successful transition to college appeared to be reliant on both individual
and organizational factors that affected students‘ preparation for college.
Improving the performance of the education pipeline required focused attention on
strengthening the connections between secondary and postsecondary education by
increasing the numbers of students that completed postsecondary degrees, reducing
the amount of time needed to complete the degree by accelerating students‘
momentum, and increasing the numbers of under-represented students (Pennington,
2004; Kirst & Bracco, 2004; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Adelman, 1999 & 2006).
One approach that grew significantly over the past two decades allowed
students to take and earn college credit while still in high school. These programs
were primarily used to advance the progress of high-achieving students who were
already prepared for college (Bailey & Karp, 2003). Accelerated learning options,
such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Early or Middle College
and dual credit programs were promoted as a mechanism for improving the flow of
students through the education pipeline (Karp et al., 2004; Hoffman & Vargas,
2005; O‘Brien & Nelson, 2004). Museus, Lutovsky, and Colbeck (2007) pointed
35

out that dual credit programs may serve to influence the college choice process.
The authors argued that if student aspirations were a necessary first step in
accessing college, then completion of college-level work could continue students‘
momentum into college. Over the past two decades dual credit programs were
increasingly utilized as a pathway not only for the academically proficient, but also
for middle- and low-achieving students, as well as those from underrserved, first-
generation, and low-income populations (Hughes, Karp, Fermin, & Bailey, 2005;
Bragg, Kim, & Rubin, 2005).

Student Participation Rates
The popularity of dual credit as a means for the completion of high school
degrees and early college enrollment was evident in the numbers of students taking
advantage of these programs. Programs known as ―dual credit‖ or ―dual
enrollment‖ referred to the concurrent participation of high school students in
college-level classes. Credit was earned for both the high school and college
degree (Boswell, 2001). The National Center of Education Statistics reported that
in school year 2002-2003, 71% of all public high schools, 57% of Title IV degree-
granting institutions and 98% of public two-year institutions offered dual credit
options to students with an estimated 1.2 million course enrollments (Kleiner &
Lewis, 2005; Waits, Setzer, & Lewis, 2005). This translated into an estimated
813,000, or 13% of all high school juniors and seniors completing college-level
courses (Hoffman et al., 2008). In its first year of dual credit enrollment, the
36

University of Hawai‗i reported 195 course enrollments in 2002, with 631 course
enrollments by 2007 (University of Hawai‗i, 2008b). In 2005, 42 states were noted
as having established policy on dual credit programs (Karp, Bailey, Hughes, &
Fermin, 2005).

Dual Credit Policy
Kisker (2006) pointed out that dual credit programs were discussed as early
as the 1930‘s and 1940‘s and have existed in one form or another for many years.
Recently, dual credit programs have been the focus of state policy, legislation and
regulation (Karp et al., 2004). Policymakers sought to increase college-going rates
by supporting programs which linked secondary and postsecondary education
through a closer collaboration and a sharing of institutional responsibility for
student access to college between sectors (Boswell, 2001; Hoffman et al., 2008).
As of 2005, 42 states had established state-level policy through state legislation or
board regulation on dual credit programs (Michelau, 2006).
Karp et al. (2004) reviewed state policies to address whether policies
encouraged or impeded access to dual credit programs for a broad range of
students, particularly for middle- and low-achieving students. Programs varied
along characteristics such as: 1) courses offered at either the college campus or the
high school; 2) instructors who are college faculty or specially-certified high school
teachers; 3) courses that are a mixture of college and high school students or high
school students only; and 4) credits earned at the completion of the course or held
37

in ―escrow‖ to be applied to the student‘s transcript record when students entered
postsecondary education. States also varied on whether dual credit was mandatory
or voluntary, i.e., whether or not credit had to be offered to eligible students by the
schools. There was also variance in the degree of oversight and regulation with
respect to financial reporting, quality control of faculty and/or curricular offerings,
and policy compliance.
Policies also varied in terms of specifying participant eligibility in the
program, requirements of counseling or information sharing on the program,
institutional accountability requirements, and incentives (Michelau, 2006). In her
analyses of state policies, Michelau (2006) reported that in general, states stipulated
that students meet minimum requirements such as for class standing, grade point
averages, class rank, and/or scores on a standardized test in order to be eligible to
participate in dual credit. Additional requirements may have included
recommendations for participation by a school administrator, completion of
application forms, and meeting course or institutional requirements. Several states
also acknowledged that programs had to be marketed in order to inform students
and parents about the opportunity to participate. Information sharing may have
been provided to all students, to at-risk students and their parents, or may have
required counseling services on the potential consequences of enrollment into dual
credit. Responsibility for the provision of information to students and/or parents
was generally the responsibility of high school counselors or teachers. Incentives
for success were generally based on student performance where students may have
38

been penalized by having to reimburse the state and/or school district for costs if
they did not complete or pass the course.
Michelau (2006) reported that the demand in dual credit programs raised
questions on whether programs were meeting their stated objectives. Ten states
required institutional accountability for program participation. States monitored
student and institutional outcomes such as courses taken and high school
participation, tracking student performance in the dual credit coursework and
through the first year of public higher education, costs of programs, and the number
of eligible students and the number accessing dual credit. Hoffman et al., (2008)
pointed out that accountability at the district or state level was contingent upon
communication and shared decision-making. States had to develop and maintain
an administrative structure that could provide support for data collection,
monitoring of program quality, implementing improvements, clear definitions of
the responsibilities of secondary and postsecondary institutions, as well as
dedicated staffing to coordinate dual credit programming.

Equity and Access to Dual Credit Programs
Dual credit programs have been promoted as one strategy for building
stronger and more collaborative relationships between postsecondary and
secondary education systems, which was foundational in assisting more minority
students in qualifying for postsecondary education (Hugo, 2001). Hoffman (2005)
argued that a goal of K-16 was to support under-represented students through the
39

transition points of the education pipeline, particularly from eighth to ninth grade,
and from high school through college. Middle and upper SES students were
navigating the transition points well when compared to low-income students
(Greene & Winter, 2005; Goldberger, 2007). Dual credit programs offered the
advantage of facilitating the supports that under-represented students required to
successfully transition to and complete a college degree, such as shortening the
time to degree, cost savings for families on tuition, exposure to the college
environment, and the fact that college assessment was conducted in multiple ways
throughout the semester rather than in one high stakes test as in Advanced
Placement (Andrews, 2000; Andrews & Barnett, 2002; Bailey, Hughes, & Karp,
2002; Hoffman, 2005). Adelman (2006) noted that dual credit could aid the
momentum of students through a college degree. Students who earned less than a
minimum of 20 credits at the end of their first calendar year in college were less
likely to complete a college degree. Adelman argued that earning a minimum of
six credits of college coursework while in high school facilitated a student‘s
progress towards achieving the 20 credits by the end of the first 12 months of
college.
Under-represented students, defined as low-income, first generation, and
students of color, were challenged in transitioning to, and completing college
(Green, 2006; Goldberger, 2007). Review of the literature showed that under-
represented students were more likely to delay entering college or a two-year
institution. These students were also more likely to need remedial coursework,
40

attend school part-time, or work while in school, and also to have their own
dependents (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Warburton et
al., 2001; Chen 2005). Large differences in academic preparation for college were
revealed among the 2002 public school graduates when parsed by racial and ethnic
groups, with 40% of white students, and only 23% of African-American and 20%
of Hispanic students graduating from high school ―college-ready‖ (Greene &
Winter, 2005). Research based on the National Education Longitudinal Study
showed that only 11% of the students in the lowest quintile of SES earned college
degrees as compared to 52% of students in the middle to upper quintiles
(Goldberger, 2007).
Hoffman (2005) argued that states needed to take a more proactive policy
position in supporting dual credit as a transition strategy for under-represented
students in accessing postsecondary education. Reframing current policies and
practices should include: 1) a mission statement that will address the need to serve
a wide range of students; 2) dual credit that is embedded within the state‘s K-16
structure and as a high school reform initiative; 3) equal access for students across
the state for dual enrollment opportunities; 4) concurrent credits to be used to meet
both high school and college requirements; 5) shared responsibility between
secondary and postsecondary sectors; 6) collection and analyses of data to assess
the impact and drive improvement of the program; 7) increase in rigor of the high
school diploma guided under the K-16 governance structure; and 8) funding
41

mechanisms based on the principle of ―no harm‖ to students and to participating
institutions (Hoffman, 2005; Hoffman et al., 2008).
Accelerated learning options such as dual credit programs showed promise
in promoting greater academic preparation, college enrollment, persistence, and
degree completion (Delicath, 1999; Adelman, 2006; Blanco, 2006). However, as
Michelau (2006) reported, only ten states had policies that specifically addressed
the tracking and reporting of student and institution participation. Significant gaps
existed in the understanding of the benefits and impact of dual credit because of the
lack of consistent accountability mechanisms, which resulted in the unevenness of
the types and quality of data collected across the country (Blanco, 2006).
Researchers such as Johnstone and Del Genio (2001) and Blanco (2006) pointed
out that the lack of research on dual credit in the literature to date raised questions
on whether dual credit programs were effectively providing equitable access to
college across economic and ethnic groups.

Funding of Dual Credit Programs
Policymakers argued that accelerated learning options produced a return on
investment by increasing the efficiency in earning an education by decreasing the
time it took to earn a degree, encouraging more students to complete advanced
degrees (associated with an increase in lifetime earnings and increases in tax
revenues), and opening more space in postsecondary institutions as students
matriculated through the system faster (Palaich, Blanco, Anderson, Silverstein, &
42

Myers, 2006). Common funding strategies supporting students‘ costs were tuition
remission where students were reimbursed for their costs upon successful
completion of coursework, the state or school district funding the cost of
attendance, students‘ and their families absorbing the costs, or funding through
external grants (Voke & Brand, 2003; Hoffman, 2005; Palaich et al., 2006).
In a study describing the influence of Florida‘s statewide funding structure
for dual credit participation Hunt (2007) found that increases in student
participation were positively influenced by incentives that made it financially
advantageous for schools or districts to participate. The author concluded that
while funding structures could be an inducement for increasing dual credit
participation, cost savings should not be the only factors that drive policy decision-
making. Hunt argued that a state‘s focus on reducing the costs of education should
be balanced against an educational priority of academic preparation and
enhancement of the students‘ learning experience.
To summarize, dual credit programs experienced rapid and sustained
growth over the past 20 years. Across the United States dual credit was viewed as
a policy mechanism designed to increase college access, foster collaboration
between secondary and postsecondary institutions, address issues of rigor in
academic preparation for post high school endeavors, enrich curricular offerings to
engage and motivate students to and through postsecondary education, and as a tool
to promote equity and diversity for under-represented students towards accessing
postsecondary education. Funding mechanisms for dual credit varied across states,
43

with financial incentives showing potential for increasing school and student
participation.

Benefits and Issues of Dual Credit
Karp et al. (2005) noted that the interest of the states in establishing dual
credit policy had been based on assumptions that dual credit programs strengthened
the linkage between institutions and was warranted by the benefits accrued by
students and secondary and postsecondary institutions. The authors pointed out
that conflicts could arise from balancing the desire to promote access and equity
across a broad range of students with the need to maintain academic standards by
ensuring that students are in fact college-ready. Justifications and support for the
benefits of dual credit programs have been addressed on the student and institution
level (Boswell, 2001; Voke & Brand, 2003; Blanco, 2006; Hoffman et al., 2008).
The literature on the potential benefits of dual credit programs was
extensive and included benefits for society, the individual and institution. On the
societal level, a college-educated, skilled workforce was expected to generally earn
higher incomes resulting in higher tax revenues, make less demands on social
services, have a lower probability of unemployment, have improved health
outcomes, increased civic engagement, and engagement in better financial planning
(Ewell et al., 2003; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004;
Brewer et al., 2008; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2008).
44

On the student level, benefits from dual credit programs included:
1) academically preparing students for the rigors of college by exposing students to
challenging coursework that helps to develop critical thinking, technical and
content area skills needed in a globalized economy; 2) providing real information
on the skills they would need to succeed in college by exposing the students to
placement test requirements, even for the students who did not pass the exams;
3) providing opportunities for traditionally non-college-bound students to
experience college (e.g., first-generation students); 4) shortening the time to degree
or certificate completion at the postsecondary level; 5) reducing the cost of
postsecondary education; and 6) providing high school students with curricular
options that may not be readily available in the normal high school curriculum
(Boswell, 2001; Hugo, 2001; AASCU, 2002; Bailey et al., 2002; Bailey & Karp,
2003; Hoffman, 2005; Hunt, 2007; Hoffman et al., 2008).
On the institutional level, perceived benefits to dual credit programs
included: 1) high school students as an untapped revenue stream for community
colleges; 2) the ―hidden‖ benefits of using under-utilized classroom space at both
the high schools or community colleges; 3) revenue streams that included ―double
dipping‖ where both high schools and colleges receive full time equivalent funding
for dual credit students; 4) providing information to college faculty, high school
teachers, administrators, and counselors on students‘ preparation for the college
experience, including a forum to discuss alignment of outgoing and incoming
knowledge and skills from secondary to postsecondary; 6) sharing of material or
45

physical plant resources for equipment or laboratory space for technical education
programs or science classes; 7) recruitment opportunities for postsecondary
institutions in attracting and retaining better prepared students; 8) academically
engaging students in their senior year of high school; and 9) allowing for a re-
distribution of highly-qualified high school teachers based on high-need content
areas such as science or math (National Commission on the High School Senior
Year, 2001; AASCU, 2002; Bailey et al., 2002; Huntley & Schuh, 2002; Bailey &
Karp, 2003; Morest & Karp, 2006; Michelau, 2006).

Issues and Concerns with Dual Credit Programs
The benefits of dual credit programs were widely promoted by
policymakers in response to the perception that differences in governance
structures, competition for funding, and institutional accountability requirements
have created barriers that impede students‘ transition from high school to college
(Boswell, 2000). Concerns raised about dual credit reflected these differences and
included issues such as: 1) the level of rigor of the coursework offered through dual
credit, particularly when high school faculty taught the course; 2) differing
academic calendars; 3) the geographic location of the course if offered off-campus
from the postsecondary institution; 4) faculty teaching load and the impact on
tenure and promotion; and 5) the transferability of the course credits across
postsecondary institutions; (AASCU, 2002; Boswell, 2001). The AASCU in their
state policy briefing also noted issues of contract liability with a minor and safety
46

issues for minors such as exposure to underage drinking and student-to-student
sexual harassment (ASSCU, 2002).
One of the major concerns associated with dual credit was the costs and
financing of these programs. In many cases, states paid all or a portion of the
tuition and fees for participants. Criticisms of ―double-dipping‖ were levied
against programs where states used tax-generated revenues to pay the school
district for students enrolled in high school while supporting dual credit costs for
college enrollment (Boswell, 2001; Karp et al., 2004). In some states participants
and their families bore the costs of tuition, fees, transportation and books. Dual
credit participation was therefore available only to students who could afford the
costs (Voke & Brand, 2003).

Student Participation in Dual Credit Programs
Museus et al. (2007) pointed out that while dual credit programs could
increase postsecondary opportunities they also had the potential to increase
inequities in college access. The authors cautioned that policymakers had to be
aware of the unintended consequence of inadvertently limiting enrollment to the
affluent or other traditional, college-bound student populations. States that did not
subsidize the cost of attendance may have created further inequities for students
from lower socio-economic quintiles. Examination of demographic characteristics
of students participating in dual credit programs from Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Florida showed gaps in the enrollment and participation numbers of students based
47

on ethnicity and SES, with White, Asian and higher income students
disproportionately participating in dual credit opportunities (O‘Brien & Nelson,
2004; Prescott, 2006; Museus et al., 2007). These studies reported similar variables
of ethnicity, enrollment, dual credit participation, and provided a SES proxy by
participation.
Museus et al. (2007) conducted a review of 42 two- and four-year
Pennsylvania institutions serving 5475 dual credit students that collected
demographic and utilized the socioeconomic status of the high school as a proxy
for SES. Results showed inequities in student access to dual credit based on
comparisons of enrollment and dual credit participation numbers in school year
2003-2004. White and Asian students participated at disproportionately higher
levels than African-American or Hispanic students. White students made up 78%
of enrollment and participated in dual credit at a rate of 90%. Similarly, Asian
students showed an increase in dual credit participation rates (3%) when compared
to enrollment rates (2%). African-American students comprised 15% of enrollment
and 5% in dual credit, while Hispanic students accounted for 5% of enrollment and
only 2% in dual credit coursework.
The authors also found a large disparity in dual credit participation and
socioeconomic status. Approximately, 50% of enrolled students came from the
lowest poverty quartiles (less than 25% families in poverty) but accounted for 69%
of dual credit participants. Conversely, 20% of enrolled students came from the
third poverty quartile (50-75% of families in poverty) with only 5% participating in
48

dual credit; 1.4% of enrolled students came from the highest poverty quartile and
accounted for 0.8% of dual credit participants.
O‘Brien and Nelson‘s (2004) analyses of school year 2002, Texas senior
dual credit participants showed similar ethnic patterns of enrollment and dual credit
participation as were found in Pennsylvania. White students comprised 68.5% of
all dual credit participants, representing only 51.7% of total senior class
enrollments. Asian students participated in dual credit at 4.3%, with enrollment
percentage of 3.2%. African-American and Hispanic students participated in dual
credit at lower rates (6% and 21.1%) than enrollment percentages (13.2% and
31.6%). Similar to the study done in Pennsylvania, the Texas study also showed a
disparity of student participation by SES. Free- and reduced-lunch eligible students
comprised 28.7% of the total high school seniors. Eighty-four percent of
participants in dual credit were non-free or reduced-price lunch students; only 16%
of participants were eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Prescott (2006) analyzed 734,467 Florida student transcript records from
1997 to 2003, and found 14.2% of students had participated in dual credit. Florida
showed similar ethnicity dual credit participant trends as were found in
Pennsylvania and Texas studies. White students comprised 59% of total
enrollments over the analyses period, and accounted for 77.6% of dual credit
enrollments. Asian students participated in dual credit at 4%, comprising 2.9% of
enrollments. African-American and Hispanic students participated in dual credit at
lower rates (9.8% and 8.1%) than enrollment percentages (19.98% and 16.4%).
49

Free- and reduced-lunch eligible students comprised 36.7% of total enrollments in
the study period. Seventy-six percent of dual credit participants were non-free- and
reduced-lunch eligible students; only 24% of dual credits participants were eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch.
In summary, while advocates and policymakers viewed dual credit as a
valuable tool to equalize ethnic and socioeconomic gaps in accessing
postsecondary education, inequities occurred among participants. Museus et al.
(2007) results suggest that disparities exist by geographic areas that encompass
lower income high schools. White and Asian students were disproportionately
over-represented in accessing dual credit options. Conversely, African-American
and Hispanic students were under-represented in dual credit opportunities. Similar
to the reported literature on underserved, first generation and low-income students
accessing postsecondary education, higher SES students participated more often in
dual credit coursework than lower SES students.

Dual Credit in Hawai‘i
In 2000, the Hawai‗i state legislature approved Act 236 creating Running
Start, a dual-credit program linking public education from secondary to
postsecondary and providing high school and college credit to qualified students
(Hawai‗i Revised Statutes, §302A-401). This program was implemented in spring
2002 with 195 credit enrollments and had gradually grown to 648 enrollments by
academic year 2004-2005 (University of Hawai‗i, 2006). Legislation stipulated
50

that UH coursework numbered from 100- to the 400-level was eligible for the
Running Start program, applicable as full credit towards high school requirements
for graduation. Students applied for the program through a Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) funded
website, and obtained parent, counselor and principal signatures as part of the UH
admissions requirements.
Hawai‗i‘s Running Start policy established the rights of qualified public
high school students to access higher education. Running Start was opened to all
public high school juniors or seniors who qualified for postsecondary admissions,
had permission from their principal, passed any relevant placement exam(s) at the
college or university, and/or had the appropriate prerequisite for the class. In 2007,
Act 282 supplemented Act 236 by recognizing that under-represented populations
in higher education often did not access college because of the perceived cost of
attendance. Act 282 strengthened the wording of Act 236 by requiring the DOE to
provide appropriate guidance to students of the benefits of dual enrollment. The
bill additionally provided $50,000 in general funds for school year 2007-2008 and
for school year 2008-2009 to be used as scholarships for under-represented
populations to participate in Running Start. Act 282 became law without the
Governor‘s signature, thereby requiring the Hawai‗i DOE to provide students
guidance on the use of college credits towards high school completion, but
withheld funding the scholarship for both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years.
51

Under the current policy, course registration and student participation
increased over time (University of Hawai‗i, 2006). A federal grant-funded stream
existed to subsidize tuition, fees and books for free or reduced-price lunch qualified
students. UH did not report statistically or anecdotally, that the numbers of
Running Start students served by the campuses had impacted class enrollments.
Additionally, the weighted student formula used to determine biennium K-12
funding by the DOE was not affected by Running Start participation. Schools
maintained the same level of funding whether students participated in Running
Start or not. UH ―passively‖ benefited from accepting Running Start students.
Students had to ―prove‖ they were college-ready, taking and passing the same
math, English, and reading placement tests as chronologically older, traditional
incoming freshman or transfer students.
Selection of participants into Hawai‗i‘s Running Start program was
dependent upon student academic preparedness as well as counselor knowledge and
information sharing about the benefits and consequences of dual credit. Close
collaboration between high school and postsecondary institutions was required in
order to successfully recruit, admit, and monitor student progress through their
coursework. While policy was created at the state level, (i.e., establishing the
program and addressing the need to serve under-represented students); this was not
effectively communicated through a joint statement of mission, purpose, or
consideration of the funding stream necessary to sustain financial aid to qualified
students. The program served relatively few students compared to the total
52

population of 11
th
and 12
th
grade public high school students. The impact on
administrative resources was relatively minimal, ―folding in‖ with the larger
recruitment, admissions, and orientation services already offered by UH campuses.

Summary of the Literature Review
To summarize, dual credit programs contained components that were
argued to be foundational to the successful transition of high school students to
postsecondary education. College and high school curricular requirements were
aligned and provided consistent signals regarding knowledge and skills, as well as
the academic preparation required for success in college. Dual credit students
clearly had aspirations that prepared them academically to take and pass college
placement exams in English, reading and mathematics. By statute, high schools
were required to provide institutional support for student advising and counseling
on the benefits and use of college credit towards their high school graduation.
Experience with the college learning environment also exposed students to
differing pedagogical approaches. Institutionally, high schools and postsecondary
institutions had to work collaboratively to ensure administrative oversight on
critical components such as student selection, registration and withdrawal dates,
grading policies, new student orientation, and access to tutoring services.
The literature review suggested that dual credit programs effectively
enhanced the college-going rates of a broad range of students, not just the elite.
53

The literature however, showed that middle to upper income students were the most
likely to access dual credit, as well as traditionally represented students such as
White and Asians. The role of the high school organizational structure and
priorities and the role of the high school counselor as a source of information were
not studied with respect to their influence on student access to dual credit
programs. This study focuses on delineating the high school organizational
structure and the factors that influence counselor selection of students into
Hawai‗i‘s dual credit program.
54

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to research how high school characteristics
and environment facilitated or hindered student participation in a dual credit
program. This chapter describes the methodology used in this mixed-methods
study by delineating the design, instrumentation, sample, data collection and
analyses. This study focused on identifying the student factors that counselors
utilized in selecting students to participate in this program. The Hawai‗i Running
Start population is described in terms of demographics, grades, coursetaking,
postsecondary access and degree completion as degree-seeking students. An
underlying assumption of this study was that differing student participation rates by
high schools reflected organizational structure and counselor influence on student
selection into the Running Start program. This study also describes institutional
and organizational policies and practices that affected student participation by high
school in the Running Start program.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions for the
Running Start program in Hawai‗i:
1) What are the characteristics of the participating students in Running Start
from 2002 to 2009?
2) Are there differences in student participation rates by high school?
55

3) What student-level characteristics influence counselor selection of student
participants in Running Start?
4) What institution-level characteristics influence student participation in
Running Start?

Research Design
A mixed-methods design was implemented in three phases of data
collection that included: 1) a descriptive analyses; 2) an administrator (principal
and vice-principal) and counselor survey; and 3) a qualitative case study with in-
depth interviews of five high school administrators and five high school counselors.
A descriptive analysis was conducted to identify Running Start student
demographic characteristics, coursetaking, and academic history such as grades
earned. Data was collected from the University of Hawai‗i Banner Student
Information System. Data included student demographics, registration, and
academic history. Additional data was collected from the Hawai‗i DOE through
published documents of enrollment by grade level and ethnicity for each high
school.
Two surveys were administered — one to high school counselors and one to
principals and vice-principals as administrators (See Appendix A and B). A third
source of data involved a case study method of five counselors and five
administrators in order to provide a richer source of information on student
56

selection and high school organizational factors that affected student participation
in Running Start. Responses from the survey and case studies were evaluated for
consistency of responses across data collection methods. This triangulation of
results served as a cross-data validity check (Patton, 2002, 248).
Additionally, the case studies employed purposeful, maximum variation
sampling in selecting participating counselors and principals/vice-principals for the
case study phase of this study (Patton, 2002, 235). This allowed for the
identification of common patterns or differences that were captured across high
schools with regard to similar policies, observations, practices or methods of
working with students.

Descriptive Analyses
Descriptive statistics were compiled from the University of Hawai‗i‘s (UH)
Banner student information system on student demographics, admissions,
registration, and academic history. All ten campuses within the UH system
contributed student data to a single database. Student records were tracked by a
unique student identifier which followed the student regardless of campus
enrollment in the UH system. In conjunction with the UH Institutional Research
Office (IRO), data was checked at the campus-level for formatting, missing values,
or inconsistent data entry, then edited and re-verified at the beginning and end of
each term for final storage in an operational data store.
57

The Hawai‗i Running Start (RS) program was implemented in Spring 2002.
Review of the data collected in the UH Banner Student Information System prior to
Spring 2009, showed initial implementation discrepancies in the proper coding of
the student records. Since Spring 2002, data coding and entry practice agreed upon
by the nine participating UH campuses was to assign a specific program code (ND-
SPEA or ND-SPEH for Non-degree special admissions) with an associated
―admission type‖ code of RS. Records used for these analyses encompassed seven
academic years beginning Fall 2002 through Summer 2009. In conjunction with
IRO, an automated report was developed by Hawai‗i P-20 Partnerships for
Education to extract Running Start participant data elements such as, demographic,
coursetaking information, credits attempted/earned and grades earned, UH campus
attended, and high school at the time of participation as a dual credit student. IRO
and participating campuses utilized this report to review and provide corrections to
initial data entry errors as warranted.
While current records were edited and reviewed for miscodes or
inconsistencies, prior academic year records were not re-evaluated (pre-Spring
2009). Manual review of records coded ND-SPEA or ND-SPEH showed that
typical miscoding by UH campuses was the ―admissions type‖ of code. The most
common error was the use of ―ST‖ for ―standard‖ admissions rather than ―RS‖ for
Running Start. Researcher review of the program and admissions type coding
based on detailed student transcript records showed that the most reliable data
elements to determine Running Start status was the program code, which was
58

utilized specifically for a dual credit student combined with reported high school.
This combination was used to classify student records when admissions-type code
appeared to be in error. A cross-validation of high school enrollment was
conducted on student Running Start applications collected by the University of
Hawai‗i, Hawai‗i P-20 which confirmed high school and postsecondary enrollment
and their participation in the program as Running Start students.
Specific data collected included UH campus, high school attended, student
ethnicity, age and gender, coursetaking, credits attempted and earned, grades, and
entry into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution upon graduation from high
school. Where possible, data was collected on postsecondary entry as degree-
seeking students after high school graduation through the UH system, and through
additional data sources such as the National Student Clearinghouse. The goal for
this phase of the data collection was to provide a detailed description of the
characteristics of Running Start participants, as well as providing information on
postsecondary academic progress through the Running Start program (e.g. credits
earned).

Case Study Method
A qualitative case study method was chosen because of the nature of the
research problem and questions that focused on the practices of the high school as
an organization. The case study approach allowed for an in-depth examination of
59

the organization‘s policies and the application of policy as it affected the
institution‘s participation in the program (Patton, 2002, 438). This method allowed
counselors to provide greater detail on their observations of student characteristics
that influenced counselor approval of the student to participate in Running Start.
The interviews served as a mechanism that detailed both counselors‘ and
administrators‘ perspectives, which provided a better understanding of the
personnel involved in the implementation and maintenance of their school-based
Running Start program (Patton, 2002, 341). The goal for this third phase of the
data collection was to collect rich descriptions of the key roles that administrators
and counselors played in students‘ participation in a the Running Start program, as
well as providing meaningful insights that could benefit the statewide Running
Start program (Merriam, 1998, 30).

Sample
Administrator and Counselor Participants in the Survey
―Hard copy‖ or paper surveys were administered as a second phase to the
data collection. The Hawai‗i DOE had 46 public high schools across the islands of
O‗ahu, Kaua‗i, Maui, Moloka‗i, and Hawai‗i. An a priori assumption was that
public charter schools might differ in both administrative and counseling practice
that was beyond the scope of this current study to catalog. Therefore, all public
charter schools were excluded from the Counselor and Administrator surveys. For
60

the same reason, three Hawaiian Language schools were also excluded from the
surveys.
The two populations sampled included counselors and administrators
(principals and vice-principals) at each eligible high school. Schools were
contacted with a request to identify and provide contact information for the ―post-
high‖ or college counselor, or other counselors who were responsible for college
counseling activities (i.e., ―grade-level‖ counselors), as well as for principals and
vice-principals.
Counselors asked to participate in the survey were college/career counselors
and 11
th
and 12
th
grade-level counselors. Grade-level counselors were included in
the sample population, since not all high schools had college/career counselors.
Additionally, information gleaned from the pilot survey indicated that the grade-
level counselors were often a key referral of students to the RS program even if the
school had a college/career counselor.

Administrator and Counselor Participants in the Interviews
The third phase of data collection involved interviews with five school
administrators (three principals, one acting principal and one vice-principal) and
five counselors identified as the ―Running Start‖ counselor. Selection of potential
schools to sample was based on RS high- and low-participation rates, as determined
by the percentage of RS participants compared to overall 10
th
, 11
th
and 12
th
grade
enrollment by high school. High- and low-participation rates were determined by
61

frequency counts of students participating in RS against the school‘s overall
enrollment of 10
th
, 11
th
and 12
th
grade participants in the RS program for the period
of Fall 2002 to Spring 2009. Tenth grade enrollment was included since students
were eligible to participate in the RS program from the summer preceding 11
th

grade (i.e., as rising juniors). High- and low-participating schools were public high
schools with a proportion of students greater than (high-participating), or less than
(low-participating) the statewide average of 1.5% of the eligible students that
participated in the Running Start program during the time period of this study.
Schools were selected on three criteria: 1) high or low student participation
in the RS program relative to their proportion of student participation to their
general student enrollment; 2) located within three miles of a participating UH
campus to control for geographic distance; and 3) agreement from the schools‘ RS
counselor and an administrator to participate in the study. Three of the high
schools selected for interviews had the highest proportion of students participating
in the RS program relative to their overall student enrollment (ranked 1
st
, 2
nd
and 4
th

out of 43 public high schools) and two high schools were selected based on low
proportions of student participation (ranked 18
th
and 19
th
out of 43 public high
schools). All selected high schools were located on the island of O‗ahu.
The administrator and counselor from each of the targeted schools were
asked to participate, for a total of five ―pairs‖ of administrators and counselors.
Administrator/counselor pairs were asked to complete the paper version of the
Administrator Survey and the Counselor Survey prior to the scheduled interviews.
62

The pairing of the administrator and counselor from the same school and the
written responses to the surveys enabled a richer understanding of the dynamics of
the organization and counselor influence in the student selection process for the
Running Start program (Patton, 2002, 438).

Counselor Interviews
Five counselors were interviewed in a semi-structured format. Interviews
were also analyzed as a means of triangulating the information against responses on
the paper surveys. This triangulation of results served as a cross-data validity
check (Patton, 2002, 248). All counselors were asked to complete the paper survey
prior to the interview. Counselor responses on the paper survey were reviewed
prior to the interview and used as the general format for the interview. All
counselors were asked the following questions:
1) How do your students find out about the Running Start program?
2) What school-based supports do you have to promote the Running Start
program at your school?
3) How are students selected into the Running Start program for your school?
4) What student characteristics do you look for in a Running Start participant?
5) What factors are obstacles in the student being able to participate in
Running Start?
6) Is there a conflict between Advanced Placement (AP) and Running Start in
competing for students?
63

Administrator Interviews
Five administrators; three principals, one acting principal and one vice-
principal were interviewed in a semi-structured format. Interviews were also
analyzed as a means of triangulating the information against responses on the paper
surveys. This triangulation of results served as a cross-data validity check (Patton,
2002, 248). All administrators were asked to complete the paper survey prior to the
interview. Administrator responses on the paper survey were reviewed prior to the
interview and used as the general format for the interview. Administrators were
asked the following questions:
1) How critical is your Running Start counselor to the success of the program
here at your school?
2) How do you benchmark success of the Running Start program at your
school?
3) What are the challenges and facilitators that hinder or promote student
participation in the Running Start program?
4) What do you see as the value of Running Start for your students?

Instrumentation
Two surveys were developed for this study (see Appendix A and B): 1) a
counselor survey that addressed student factors used by counselors in determining a
―good fit‖ for Running Start; and 2) an administrator survey that addressed
64

organizational characteristics, policies, and practices of the high school for the
Running Start program. The surveys, along with a description of the study, consent
to participate forms, and return envelopes were mailed to potential participants.
Both the administrator and the counselor surveys included a mix of short answers,
forced choice, Lickert-type scaled items, and open-ended responses. Survey
questions had been derived from the literature presented in Chapter 2 (see Table 1).

Table 1: Map of Literature to Survey Questions

Survey Question(s)
C= Counselor;
A = Administrator

Author, Publication
Date

Topic

A: 2

Hawai‗i Revised Statutes
§302A-401

Hawai‗i Running Start Policy:
selection criteria
A: 3, 4, 7, 8
C: 4-6
Hawai‗i Revised Statutes
§302A-401

Stanton-Salazar (1997)
McDonough (1997)
Perna et al. (2008)

Hawai‗i Running Start Policy:
Student notification of program and
advising requirement

High School Organization Factors
Counselor Influence/resource to
college access
A: 5, 6 Hawai‗i Department of
Education (2008a).
Department of Education
Strategic Plan: July 1,
2008-June 30, 2011.
Hawai‗i DOE Strategic Plan:
reduction in remedial/
developmental course placement;
college/career readiness for
graduates

65

Table 1 (continued)

Survey Question(s)
C= Counselor;
A = Administrator

Author, Publication
Date

Topic

A: 9a-i, 10a-g, 12,
13
C: 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9,
10a-i, 11, 12a-g; 13,
14
McDonough (1997)
Perna et al. (2008)
Rosenbaum et al. (1996)
Plank & Jordan (2001)
King (1996)

Choy et al. (2000)
Cabrera & La Nasa
(2000)

McDonough (1997)

Kirst & Venezia (2004)
Achieve (2008)

Museus et al. (2007)
Counselor Influence/resource on
college access

College choice process/early
college planning/parental
involvement

Secondary/postsecondary linkage

Alignment of expectations
Alignment of knowledge and skills

Dual Credit programs influence on
college choice process

A: 10a-g, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15
C: 9a-i, 10a-g, 11,
12, 15
Stanton-Salazar (1997)
McDonough (1997)

Kirst & Venezia (2004)
Achieve (2008)
Brewer et al. (2007)
Martinez & Klopott
(2005)

High school organization factors
Secondary/postsecondary linkage

Alignment of expectations
Alignment of knowledge and skills
A: 16-26
C: 16-26
Hoffman (2005)
Bailey et al. (2002)
Adelman (1999)
Green (2006)
Goldberger (2007)

Under-represented students and
dual credit policy
Dual credit programs and college
access

Two interview guides were developed and used in the interviews (see
Appendix C and D): 1) a counselor interview guide; and 2) an administrator
interview guide. The interview guides provided a list of questions that served as a
66

reference check for each topic and questions to be explored. The lists provided
consistency between subjects during the interviews that ensured that the same
topics were covered in each interview (Patton, 2002, 343-344).

Data Collection
A pilot study was conducted to test the survey instruments prior to formal
data collection. The pilot consisted of the administration of the survey to one
administrator and one counselor ―pair‖ from a single high school. The
administrator and counselor were contacted by phone and agreement to participate
in the pilot was secured. Upon completion of the survey, the subjects were queried
on the appropriateness of the survey items, perceptions of ambiguity, difficulty in
responding to specific items, and whether items should be added or deleted from
the survey. Results from the pilot were used to revise and strengthen the interview
and paper survey questions.
During the data collection phase for the surveys, a survey packet consisting
of a description of the purpose, population to be sampled, contact information for
the researcher and a consent form to participate were mailed to all potential
participants. All participants were given a minimum three-week period to respond.
Once the response period lapsed, a follow-up phone call was conducted for non-
respondents as a request to complete and mail back the survey.
67

For the interviews, a phone call to potential participants extending an
invitation to participate in this study was conducted. A follow-up email confirming
day and time of the interview was sent to each subject who agreed to participate.
Case study participants were interviewed in a semi-structured format. All
interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Subjects were given the
opportunity to review and edit the transcribed interview. Interviews with
administrators focused on established organizational dual credit policies and
practices, resource allocation, and observed factors that facilitated or inhibited their
school‘s participation in Running Start. Counselor interviews focused on factors
associated with student characteristics, extra curricular activities, as well as their
observations of what prevented or facilitated student participation in Running Start.

Running Start Admissions and Requirements Process
A summary of the RS admissions and requirements process is provided in
order to provide context for the focus of Research Questions 3 and 4.
Administratively, the Running Start program had to satisfy state law requirements,
as well as University of Hawai‗i admissions requirements for early admission
students. State law required that the students were counseled regarding the benefits
of the dual credit program and required counselor, principal and parent signatures
to provide approval and consent for the student‘s participation in the program. The
student‘s choice of coursework was also reviewed to ensure that course selection
68

met high school graduation requirements in some way (i.e., as a required course for
graduation or as an elective towards graduation).
Given these requirements, there were two applications that students
completed for the program: 1) the Running Start Application; and 2) the University
of Hawai‗i System Common Application form. Students had to complete both
applications, secure written parental approval, and meet with a high school
counselor to review course selection and obtain both counselor and principal
approval. The UH application was used for all students applying for admissions to
any of the UH campuses, and included student demographic information, as well as
establishing residency for tuition purposes.
State law and UH registration processes required that the student prove that
they were eligible to take college-level coursework by taking any placement test
requirements, as well as meeting all prerequisites in place for the class. In order to
meet UH registration deadlines, Running Start students had to plan well in advance
in order to meet the UH admissions requirements. In particular, to take the
placement tests, students had to have a UH student identification number. At most
of the UH campuses, the UH ID number was generated and sent to the student once
admitted to the UH campus. The placement test had to be scheduled and taken in
advance to allow for enough time for scores to be generated and loaded into the
student information system for UH advising and registration activities with the UH
Running Start campus counselor.
69

Early admissions students, such as the Running Start population were often
one of the last populations of new or incoming students to register for classes.
Students were limited in course selection by space- or seat-availability at the time
of registration. While students and counselors planned course selection based on
day/time availability per the UH campus published course schedules, last minute
changes to students high school schedules were often necessary due to actual UH
class availability.
State law also required that tuition, associated campus-specific student fees,
and other cost items such as books were the responsibility of the student and their
families. The only scholarship funds available to Running Start participants were
through the statewide GEAR UP college access program designed for students who
were eligible for the free or reduced lunch under the DOE School Lunch program at
the time that they took the UH class.

Data Analyses
Surveys included short answer, forced choice, and Lickert-type rating scale
items that were analyzed for frequency and percentages of responses with
Microsoft Excel. Where appropriate, comparisons of administrator and counselor
responses were analyzed with SPSS. Open-ended questions were coded and
categorized by response type. Case study interviews were recorded and
transcribed. Raw data were coded and categories of responses that described
70

relevant themes that emerged from the interviews were cataloged. The themes that
emerged from the data collection were analyzed for common patterns or differences
captured across high schools with regard to similar practices, concerns,
observations, or methods of working with their students (Patton, 2002, 235).
Responses from the paper surveys and the case study interviews were evaluated for
consistency of responses across data collection methods. This triangulation of
results served as a cross-data validity check (Patton, 2002, 248).

Ethical Considerations
Participation in this study was voluntary and informed consent was
collected from participants. Participants and their schools were not identified by
name to ensure confidentiality of their responses. Interviewed subjects were
provided the opportunity to review and edit the transcribed recorded interviews to
ensure accuracy of the transcription. Running Start student descriptive data was
reported in aggregate form only. Data collected such as audio recordings, student
data, and transcribed interviews were kept in password protected, secured files.
Institutional Research Board guidelines on research and ethics of the University of
Southern California, the University of Hawai‗i, and the Hawai‗i Department of
Education were adhered to at all times.
71

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

In this chapter, descriptive, survey and interview data are reported and
analyzed, framed by the research questions presented in Chapter 1. Specifically,
this study addressed the following research questions for the Running Start
program in Hawai‗i:
1) What are the characteristics of the participating students in Running Start
from 2002 to 2009?
2) Are there differences in student participation rates by high school?
3) What student-level characteristics influence counselor selection of student
participants in Running Start?
4) What institution-level characteristics influence student participation in
Running Start?

Research Question 1
What are the characteristics of the participating students in Running Start from
2002-2009?

Running Start Participant Characteristics
The Hawai‗i Running Start (RS) program was implemented in Spring 2002.
A total of 3292 individual students were identified as RS participants for the study
72

period of academic/school years 2002-2003 through 2008-2009. 2104 participants
or 64% were female, with 1188 or 36% male. Student ethnicity data was extracted
from the UH database and then re-coded based on Hawai‗i DOE ethnicity codes
and is presented in Table 2. Of the 3292 students, 62 students did not report
ethnicity as part of their application to UH. A crosswalk of UH and DOE ethnicity
coding is documented in Appendix E.

Table 2: Running Start Participant Demographic Information

Ethnicity Female % Male % N %
Other* 467 62 286 38 753 23
White 334 63 195 37 529 16
Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian 319 68 151 32 470 14
Japanese 265 61 167 39 432 13
Filipino 297 71 124 29 421 13
Chinese 211 57 160 43 371 11
Korean 60 66 31 34 91 3
Indo-Chinese
†
45 64 25 36 70 2
No Data 42 67 20 32 62 2
Hispanic 33 70 14 30 47 1
Black 17 63 10 37 27 0.5
Samoan 6 55 5 45 11 0.0
Native American 8 1 0 0 8 0.0
Totals 2104 64 1188 36 3292 100
* Other includes categories of two or more ethnicities reported.
†
Includes: Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese

73

RS participation numbers remained fairly consistent from year-to-year,
from a low of 369 students in the first full school year of implementation for the RS
program in 2002-2003 to a high of 637 students in school year 2008-2009, for an
average of 470 unduplicated students per school year (see Table 3). The data
shows an increase in student participation in 2008-2009 by 184 students over the
previous year.

Table 3: Running Start Participation Rates Over Time

Gender

2002
2003

2003
2004

2004
2005

2005
2006

2006
2007

2007
2008

2008
2009
2002
to
2009
Male 131 156 162 163 179 135 262 1188
Female 238 299 285 281 308 318 375 2104
Totals 369 455 447 444 487 453 637 3292

Ethnicity Data
RS participation data was disaggregated by ethnicity to evaluate the ethnic
representation of students in the RS program against the frequency and percent for
the statewide high school DOE population. The Hawai‗i DOE produced an annual
School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR) that reported school-level ethnicity
by frequency (Hawai‗i Department of Education, 2009b). The RS participation
rates by the percent of ethnicity were evaluated against DOE percentages of
enrollment by ethnicity to determine whether gaps existed in RS participation by
ethnicity.
74

For Hawai‗i‘s population, the category of ―Asian‖ was quite diverse and
encompassed a number of discrete ethnic groups (Sorenson, Wood & Prince,
2003). UH‘s ethnicity codes included two additional Asian categories, when
compared to the DOE coding schema and included categories of two or more Asian
races: Other Asian and Mixed Asian. Coding also included a generic category of
Mixed race (2 or more). These three categories were collapsed into the DOE
category of ―Other‖, along with all categories not represented in Table 4. For the
DOE, ―Other‖ encompasses all ethnicities, and combinations of ethnicities not
categorized in Table 4.

Finding 1:
Running Start participants‘ rates differed by ethnic groups when compared to
overall percentages of Non-Running Start participants‘ high school percentages by
ethnicity.

Table 4 shows that Whites and Asians participated in the RS program at
higher rates than their overall ethnic representation in the DOE. Over the period of
this study, Whites were 12.4% of the high school student population but
represented 16.1% of the RS participants. This reflected a 3.6% increase in RS
participation over the general White population in the DOE. Of the six ethnic
categories that showed a higher participation rate in RS over the general DOE
population percentages, four were of Asian descent: 1) Korean (1.5% of the DOE
population, RS participation at 2.8%); 2) Indo-Chinese (0.7% of the DOE
75

population, RS participation at 2.1%); 3) Japanese (10.8% of the DOE population,
RS participation at 13.1%); and 4) Chinese (3.3% of the DOE population, RS
participation at 11.3%). On the aggregate level, Whites and Asians represent
28.7% of the DOE population but participated in RS at a rate of 45.3%, a 16.6%
increase over general DOE population percentages.

Table 4: Ethnic Representation of Running Start Participants Compared to
DOE Ethnic Breakdown of High School Enrollments Academic
Years 2003-2009

Ethnicity RS N RS % DOE N DOE % % Difference
Hawaiian/Part
Hawaiian
470 14.3 99,742 26.6 -12.4
Filipino 421 12.8 83,683 22.4 -9.6
Samoan 11 0.3 13,797 3.7 -3.4
Portuguese 0 0.0 7,004 1.9 -1.9
Black 27 0.8 7,040 1.9 -1.1
Hispanic 47 1.4 9,215 2.5 -1.0
Native American 8 0.2 1,604 0.4 -0.2
Korean 91 2.8 5,661 1.5 1.3
Indo-Chinese 70 2.1 2,543 0.7 1.4
Japanese 432 13.1 40,404 10.8 2.3
White 529 16.1 46,522 12.4 3.6
Chinese 371 11.3 12,391 3.3 8.0
Other 753 22.9 44,769 12.0 10.9
No Data 62 1.9
Totals 3292 100 374,375 100

76

Gaps in ethnic representation in the RS program existed for Hawaiian/Part
Hawaiian, Filipino, Samoan, Portuguese, Black, Hispanic and Native Americans.
Of the seven ethnic categories that showed negative participation rates relative to
the general DOE population, the largest ethnic gaps were Native Hawaiians at
-12.4%, Filipino at -9.6%, and Samoans at -3.4%. Further, ―traditionally‖ under-
represented groups mirrored national data and include Black (-1.1%), Hispanic
(-1.0%) and Native Americans (-0.2%) (O‘Brien & Nelson, 2004; Prescott, 2006;
Museus et al., 2007). On the aggregate level, these seven groups represented
59.4% of the DOE population, but participated in RS at a rate of 29.8%, a 29.6%
deficit when compared to DOE general population percentages.

Disadvantaged Status: Free- and Reduced-Lunch Eligible Running Start
Participants
RS participants were compared on participation by free- and/or reduced-
lunch status. GEAR UP Hawai‗i, through Hawai‗i P-20 Partnerships for
Education, offered UH scholarships to Running Start students who had been
approved by the DOE as qualifying for free- or reduced-lunch status. Use of free-
and reduced-lunch (FRL) status served as a proxy for low income for this study‘s
population. This analysis excluded public charter school RS participants. Data on
free/reduced lunch status students for charter schools was dependent upon whether
the school offered a school lunch program and was not consistent over the charter
schools. Of the 3045 students left in the analysis, 701 or 23.0% of the RS
77

participants received GEAR UP Running Start Scholarships. Public high school
data reported by the DOE reported an average of 36.9% free- or reduced-lunch
eligible students over the seven-year period of this study (see Table 5).

Table 5: Comparison of Statewide High School Disadvantaged Status and
Running Start Participant Disadvantaged Status

Statewide Running Start
School Year N Disadvantaged % N Disadvantaged %
2002-2003 54021 18025 33.4 348 61 17.5
2003-2004 54328 27803 51.2 444 99 22.3
2004-2005 54771 18819 34.4 423 125 29.6
2005-2006 55363 18915 34.2 418 107 25.6
2006-2007 56110 19190 34.3 448 94 21.0
2007-2008 55455 19039 37.0 411 102 24.8
2008-2009 53729 19902 36.9 553 113 20.4
Totals 383777 141693 36.9 3045 701 23.0

College Access Rates
RS participants were tracked into postsecondary entry and degree
completion through data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). NSC
data represented 92% of postsecondary higher education institutions in the nation.
Data submitted from postsecondary institutions to NSC included enrollment data
but excluded students who stipulated that their directory information remain
confidential. As such, NSC did not reflect 100% of college enrollment but
provided a reasonable estimate of college-going rates for each graduating class.
NSC data was analyzed for spring graduation to fall postsecondary entry, entry to
postsecondary over time, two-year and four-year college type, and postsecondary
78

access by ethnicity. To evaluate the characteristics of the RS population as a
program, NSC college access, and degrees earned, descriptive statistics were based
on the population of RS Graduates compared to Non-RS Graduates from the DOE.

Finding 2:
Running Start graduates accessed college and entered four-year postsecondary
colleges at higher rates than Non-Running Start graduates.

Spring High School Graduation to Fall Postsecondary Enrollment
Of the 3292 RS graduates, two students graduated in Spring 2002 and 415
were current students in the DOE at the time of this analysis. With only two
graduates from the Class of 2002 comparative statistics could not be generated.
These 417 students were excluded from this set of analyses, which left a total of
2875 student records.
Of the seven graduating classes (2003 to 2009), 2253 or 78% of RS
participants entered postsecondary education the following fall immediately after
graduation, compared to 47% of DOE statewide percentage (see Table 6). Of the
2253 RS graduates who entered postsecondary education immediately following
high school graduation, 80.8% entered a four-year institution compared to 48.4% of
DOE statewide graduates; and 19.2% of RS graduates entered a two-year
institution compared to 51.6% of DOE graduates (see Table 7). After the initial fall
enrollment, the percent of RS graduates who entered postsecondary education
79

climbed to 88.0% compared to the percent of statewide DOE graduates of 60.6%
for the same time period.

Table 6: Comparison of Running Start Percent of Graduates to Non-Running
Start Percent of Graduates Entering Postsecondary Education
Following Spring Graduation

2003-2009 2003-2009
Enrollment RS % Non-RS %
Enrolled 2253 78.4 33483 45.8
Did not enroll 622 21.6 39698 54.2
Total 2875 73181

Degrees Earned
NSC reported degrees earned by graduating class by the end of the sixth
year of postsecondary education. Table 8 shows the breakout of degrees earned for
the RS and the non-RS DOE population. RS graduates earned degrees at higher
rates than non-RS graduates for the Classes of 2003 and 2004. RS graduates were
also earning 4-year degrees at higher rates when compared to non-RS graduates.

Disadvantaged Status, College Access and Degrees Earned
GEAR UP Hawai‗i, through Hawai‗i P-20 Partnerships for Education,
offered UH scholarships to Running Start students who had been approved by the
DOE as qualifying for free- or reduced-lunch status. Use of free- and reduced-
lunch (FRL) status served as a proxy for low income for this study‘s population.

80

Table 7: Running Start Percent of Graduates to Non-Running Start Percent of Graduates by Type of College

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003-2009
RS graduates n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
2 year 27 22.5 32 12.7 48 13.1 50 13.7 69 18.6 88 23.9 118 28.6 432 19.2
4 year 93 77.5 220 87.3 318 86.9 314 86.3 302 81.4 280 76.1 294 71.4 1821 80.8
Totals 120 252 366 364 371 368 412 2253

Non-RS
graduates

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%
2 year 2255 51.2 2388 53.4 2468 52.6 2498 54.6 2543 52.9 2974 68.2 2869 55.4 17995 53.7
4 year 2151 48.8 2080 46.6 2222 47.4 2078 45.4 2260 47.1 2387 54.7 2310 44.6 15488 46.3
Totals 4406 4468 4690 4576 4803 5361 5179 33483

Table 8: Running Start and Non-Running Start Statewide Graduates: Degrees Earned

Class of 2003 Class of 2004
Degree Type RS RS % Non-RS % RS RS % Non-RS %
No degrees* 91 52.9 7882 77.5 174 50.9 8076 79.6
4 yr 60 34.9 1483 14.6 135 39.5 1281 12.6
2 yr 21 12.2 808 7.9 33 9.6 788 7.8
Totals 172 10173 342 10145
*Includes those who did not enter postsecondary education

80
81

Excluding charter school Running Start participants, there were 701 students
identified as disadvantaged. Of the 701 students, 469 or 66.9% enrolled in college
immediately following high school graduation. This number increased to 538 over
time, accounting for 76.7% of the disadvantaged Running Start participants
entering postsecondary education after graduation. FRL RS participants from
public high schools accessed four-year institutions at a rate of 55.3% and two-year
institutions at a rate of 21.7%.
Analyses of National Student Clearinghouse data showed that of the 538
who entered postsecondary education, 62 earned four-year degrees (11.3%), 30
earned two-year degrees (5.3%), and three earned certificates (0.05%). One
hundred and five RS participants in the Classes of 2003 and 2004 were identified as
disadvantaged. Of these 105 students, 42 earned four-year degrees (40%) and 11
earned two-year degrees (10.5%).

Finding 3:
90% of RS participants earned passing grades for the coursework taken as a dual
credit student, with 75% of coursework fulfilling UH general education and focus
content areas.

Running Start Course-taking Patterns
3292 RS participants completed 5313 course registrations, averaging 1.6
classes per student. RS students took coursework at nine of the ten UH campuses.
UH at Mānoa did not participate in this program.
82

Grades and Coursework Taken
RS participants were successful at completing registered coursework, with
85.6% earning grades of C‘s or better (see Table 9). 4.6% of the students received
C-/D grades, which was still considered ―passing‖ in the UH system. Only 5.9% of
the students failed their classes, and 3.6% of the students withdrew, audited the
class, or did not earn a grade.

Table 9: Grade Distribution of Running Start Participants

Grades Frequency %
A+/A/A- 2440 45.9
B+/B/B- 1391 26.2
C+/C/Credit 728 13.7
C-/D 246 4.6
F/No Credit 316 5.9
Other* 192 3.6
Total 5313
*Includes withdrawals, audits and missing grade

In this study period, 286 different courses were taken as part of the RS
program, ranging from Accounting to Zoology. The top ranked 15 courses, based
on frequency of occurrence, comprised 75.2% of all course enrollments, with 14 of
the 15 courses fulfilling a UH general education (foundation or diversification) or
focus area requirement for graduation (see Table 10).

83

Table 10: Top Ranked Courses Taken by Running Start Participants

Course Title Frequency Rank
ENG 100 Composition I 1222 1
PSY 100 Survey of Psychology 1106 2
HIST 151 Western Civilization I 369 3
SOC 100 Survey of Sociology 271 4
HIST 152 Western Civilization II 262 5
SP 151 Personal/Public Speech 162 6
MATH 140 Trigonometry/Analytic Geometry 118 7
MATH 205 Calculus I 82 8
IS 105C* Orientation to Employment 71 9
PHIL 110 Introduction to Logic 66 10
MATH 100 Survey of Math 62 11
ASTR 110 Survey of Astronomy 58 12
BIOL 100 Human Biology 50 13
SPCO 151 Intro Speech & Communication 48 14
ART 101 Introduction to Visual Arts 46 15
Total 3993
*non-general education/focus area course

In summary, 86% of RS participants were completing college-level
coursework with grades of C or better, with 90% earning passing grades. As a sub-
population within the DOE, RS participants accessed college and earned degrees at
greater percentages than statewide, non-RS DOE graduates. Further, RS
participants entered four-year colleges at a greater rate than non-RS DOE
graduates. Relative to the overall percentages of ethnic groups within the DOE
high school population, Whites and Asians accessed the RS program in greater
84

numbers relative to the size of their overall population within the DOE.
Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian and Filipino‘s in particular, were not accessing this
program proportionate to the size of the overall population of these two ethnic
groups in the DOE.

Research Question 2
Are there differences in student participation rates by high school?

Finding 4:
Running Start participation rates differed by type of high school, as well as
geographic distance from a University of Hawai‗i campus.

High School Participation Rates

From Fall 2002 to Summer 2009 there were 43 public high schools and 13
public charter schools that had students participating in the RS program. RS
students made up 1.5% of the overall enrollments in grades 10-12 (see Table 11).
Although by state law, eligibility for Running Start was based on 11
th
or 12
th
grade
student status, tenth grade enrollment was included in enrollment data since
students were eligible to participate in the RS program from the summer preceding
11
th
grade (i.e., as ―rising‖ juniors). High school participation rates were calculated
by dividing Running Start frequency counts by the school‘s overall enrollment in
grades 10, 11 and 12. Of the top 10 schools with the highest proportion of RS
participants, seven were public charter schools (see Appendix F).
85

Table 11: Running Start Participation Rates by School Type

School Type

Schools N
Participating
Schools

RS N

DOE N
Student
Participation
Public High School 45 43 3050 221559 1.4%
Charter Schools 18 13 242 4933 4.9%
Totals 3292 226492 1.5%

A further analysis was conducted to determine whether a relationship
existed between distance from the nearest UH campus or UH Education Center
(i.e., satellite campus) and the number of RS participants. Due to differences in
participation rates by type of school, Charter Schools were excluded from this
analysis. Similarly, two Hawaiian Language Immersion programs and two
Neighbor Island high schools (Lana‗i and Ni‗ihau) served through distance
education options were also excluded from this analysis. Students from the high
schools left in the sample primarily attended classes on a UH campus, or through
classes held at satellite UH education centers located on the islands of Maui and
Hawai‗i. A Pearson product-moment correlation found a moderate strength,
indirect relationship between the number of RS participants by high school and
geographic distance from the UH campus. Geographic distance was determined by
Google Maps based on street address of the school to the UH campus or UH
education center. A moderate, negative correlation of -.358 was significant at the
.02 level. The further the high school was from a UH campus, the fewer RS
86

participants. Geographic distance from a UH campus or UH education center
explained 14% of the variance in participation rates.

Research Question 3
What student-level characteristics influence counselor selection of student
participants in Running Start?

Survey Administration
School counselors were surveyed through a paper survey mailed to their
schools. Surveys were designed to sample counselor opinion of important student
characteristics, as well as perceived barriers or facilitators of student participation
in the RS program. A total of 98 Counselor surveys were mailed to 43 high
schools, with 41 surveys completed for a 41.8% return rate.

Finding 5:
Running Start counselors relied on students to self-identify themselves as interested
in Running Start once school-based notifications were distributed to students and
parents.

How Do Students Find Out About Running Start?
Counselors were asked about the methods and materials that their schools
utilized and produced to market the RS program to their students. 129 responses
ranged from school-wide announcements, printed materials such as brochures,
87

newsletters, posters, and through the school‘s website (see Table 12). Counselors
used marketing tools that were readily available through the schools‘ organizational
structure (e.g., school-wide announcements, bulletins or newsletters) and avoided
special cost items like direct mailings. Counselors also viewed parents as a
population that should be informed of the RS program. The interviewed counselors
also reported using orientation meetings for students and parents to promote the RS
program, one-on-one appointments with interested students, and meetings with
grade-level counselors and teachers to share and update RS information with staff
and faculty.

Table 12: Marketing Materials Used by Schools to Promote the Running Start
Program: Counselors

Marketing Materials N %
announcements 32 24.8%
brochures 21 16.3%
parent newsletter 19 14.7%
posters 12 9.3%
website 11 8.5%
student newsletter 8 6.2%
student email 7 5.4%
other printed materials 7 5.4%
parent email 6 4.7%
presentations 5 3.9%
mailings 1 0.8%
Totals 129 100.0%

88

When asked how students found out about the RS program, the top four
survey responses listed counselors (27.9%), marketing materials (22.9%), friends
(22.1%) and teachers (17.1%). Further, counselors viewed themselves and their
counseling colleagues as being most effective in how students found out about the
program (48.6%); followed by friends (24.3%) and teachers (18.9%). Interviewed
counselors reported various mechanisms for promoting the RS program at their
schools. Similar to the survey responses, interviewed counselors also identified the
networking between other counselors and teachers as being important to the school-
based promotion of the RS program to students.
Counselor ―Y‖ from KHS classified as a high-participating high school
reported that he began the promotion of the RS program during orientation
assemblies for students from the 9
th
grade on. Another mechanism was the
coordination and sharing of information about the RS program among other
counseling staff at the school. All five interviewed RS counselors utilized student
referrals from other counselors in their school. Although the paper surveys
reported teachers as being a source of referral of students to the RS program, the
interviewed counselors reported that referrals from teachers were not as consistent,
and appeared dependent upon the cooperation of the teachers. Counselor ―S‖ from
WHS classified as a low-participating school noted:
So, we notify the English teachers, and ask them to please talk to
your students about it, please encourage them. We have Advanced
Guidance, and Mr. XX is very good to us, and that‘s a class open
to 11
th
and 12
th
graders. It‘s a guidance class for college
89

preparation, and he plays a really big part too, he will really try to
promote the Running Start.

Counselor ―H‖, from FHS, classified as a low-participating high school
remarked:
Teachers, I‘m not sure … whether they share with kids or
not. Because I do put it in the bulletin. Teachers I‘m
finding out, often times they don‘t read the bulletins to the
kids, which I find really frustrating, because I share a lot of
important information. But I know some do talk about it
with their students.

How Are Students Selected Into the Running Start Program For Your School?
The five counselors that were interviewed all felt that they did not ―select‖
students into the RS program. Rather, students were notified through the school-
based promotion activities (i.e., school announcements or bulletins) and were then
referred to the RS counselor by grade-level counselors or teachers. Students then
initiated what counselor ―Y‖ called a ―self-selection‖ process. That is, the student
then followed up with the designated high school RS counselor:
The counselors pass out the information which is very good. But
once the students have it, the more motivated ones follow up. So
it‘s student self-selection. It‘s more than our selection.

Additionally, since students had to pass the COMPASS placement exam at
the UH campuses and meet all course prerequisites, the RS counselors did not view
their role as being ―gatekeepers‖ to the program. As counselor ―S‖ put it:
… in fact, whoever wants to apply, I encourage them to apply.
Because they‘ll have to take the placement test and I think that is a
good screening to see if they‘re capable. If they want to, I don‘t
feel like I should stop them. So any student that applies, whether
90

they be ELL [English Language Learners], or if their GPA is low,
we let them apply.

Counselors surveyed through the paper survey appeared to concur with this
process. Twenty-six counselors provided a total of 67 responses to Question 13
―Why is it important for a student to express an interest in Running Start?‖
Counselor responses included, 1) ―… they have to take control of this class and the
very first step is to ask about it;‖ 2) ―At the very least, the student needs to buy into
all the positives of Running Start. They have to want to do well to earn the benefits
of the program;‖ 3) ―Because they have to get off their duffs and do it!;‖ and
4) ―Students need to be motivated in order to be successful in taking college-level
courses. We make it clear to students that it's not like high school; we can't just
check how they are doing/grades (due to privacy laws). It's their own
responsibility.‖
In summary, RS counselors utilized school-based activities such as daily
announcements, school-wide bulletins, student/parent newsletters, orientation
meetings, school assemblies and their school website to promote Running Start as a
alternate option for earning high school credit as well as college credit. From these
sources, students either contacted the high school RS counselor directly or were
referred to the counselor by grade-level counselors or by teachers. Counselors
viewed this as an important part of the ―student self-selection‖ process in that
student interest in the program appeared to be considered by counselors to be a
necessary step as part of the selection process for the RS program.
91

Running Start Student Characteristics

While student self-selection was important, counselors were able to identify
student characteristics, from their perspective, that made a student a good candidate
for the program. Counselors were asked to rank order the three most important
characteristics of a potential RS student (Question 3). Answers were categorized
into three distinct areas: 1) student attributes; 2) non-personal characteristics; and
3) an ―other‖ category that encompassed answers that did not fit the first two
categories. A total of 124 discrete responses were received and categorized.
Student attributes were researcher-determined categorization of responses (see
Table 13).
Table 13: Counselor Rank Ordering of Student Characteristics of Potential
Running Start Participants

Category N %
Academic Ability
grade point average, grades, rigor of courses taken, ability to
do postsecondary work, COMPASS placement into college-
level English/Math, intelligent
45 36.3
Motivation
successful, takes initiative, desire, interest in Running Start,
wants to attend college, driven
26 21.0
Maturity
committed, independent, responsible, attitude, serious,
dedication, self-discipline
18 14.5
Work/study habits
time management, works hard/work ethic, organizational
skills, attendance, completes assignments/work
15 12.1
Non-personal characteristics
class schedule, transportation
14 11.3
Other
parents, wants part-time status, has enough credits to
graduate, can afford costs
6 4.8
Totals 124 100.0
92

In order to validate the responses from the counselors, the question on
important student characteristics was asked twice, Questions 3 and 9. The second
question (Question 9) asked what student characteristics counselors looked for
when recruiting a student for Running Start. Ninety-six responses were obtained in
the second application of the question. In general, counselors were consistent in
the frequency of responses on the categories of academic ability (27.1%),
motivation (29.2%), maturity (17.7%) and work/study habits (15.6%).
Counselors were also asked to name factors that they looked for in a
―responsible‖ student (Question 11). Ninety responses were collected and coded
with the same categories as Questions 3 and 9. Forty-two percent of responses
were coded as work/study habits. Counselors reported attendance, time
management, follow-through or completion of assigned work as being important
characteristics of a ―responsible‖ student.
Counselors were also asked why they would NOT recommend a student for
the RS program (Question 14). Twenty-six responses (38.8%) cited student lack of
academic readiness or ability, inadequate work or study habits (22.4%), lack of
maturity (13.4%) and conflicting class schedules (11.9%) as being important in
their recommendation of the program to the student (see Table 14).

93

Table 14: Counselor Perceived Student Characteristics for Not Recommending
the Running Start Program

Categories

N
Percent
Response
Lack of academic readiness or ability 26 38.8
Lack of adequate work/study habits 15 22.4
Lack of maturity 9 13.4
Conflicting class schedules 8 11.9
Other 4 6.0
Lack of motivation 3 4.5
No transportation 2 3.0
Totals 67 100.0

As with the paper surveys, interviewed counselors reported grades, college-
preparation coursetaking, attendance, motivation, responsibility and follow-through
as being important student characteristics. Counselor ―I‖ reported that:
I think the characteristics that I see of the ones who are successful
is that they are self-motivated. That‘s kind of the most important
factors – that they are self-motivated. The second is that they take
―self-initiative‖ or are self-directed. The third thing is that they
have to have had academic success…they have to have at least a B
or better in their core subjects…English, math, science and social
studies.

Counselor Checks on Student Progress
Thirty-eight counselors responded to the question on checking on students‘
progress throughout the semester. Twenty-nine or 76.3% of the counselors
reported that they checked on their students‘ progress in the RS class at least once
during the semester, with nine or 23.7% reporting not checking on students‘
progress during the semester.
94

Factors that Prevent Students from Participating in Running Start
A series of Lickert-scale items was asked ranging from cost, transportation
and student responsibility (Question 10a-i). Items were based on a four-point scale
with responses ranged from Very Important, Important, Somewhat Important, and
Not Very Important. The categories of Very Important/Important and Somewhat
Important/Not Very Important were collapsed for analyses. Counselors rated both
student lack of placement into college-level English and student personal
responsibility as the greatest barriers to student participation in Running Start,
followed very closely by conflicts in fitting the college class schedule to the high
school ―bell‖ or class schedule (see Table 15).

Table 15: Counselor Rating of Factors that Prevent Students from Running
Start Participation

Question

N
Very
Important/
Important
% response
Somewhat/
Not Very
Important
% response
Does not pass English Placement Test 41 85.4 14.6
Student is not yet responsible enough to
take college classes
41 85.4 14.6
College course schedule conflicts with
high school schedule
41 82.9 17.1
Student is not interested in attending
college
41 75.6 24.4
Does not pass Math Placement Test 41 73.2 26.8
Cost of tuition, fees and books 41 68.3 31.7
Transportation to UH Campus 41 63.4 36.6
Student does not know about Running
Start Program

41

46.3

53.7

95

Interviewed counselors primarily reported on the conflicts between the
students‘ and UH class scheduling as being the biggest obstacle towards
participation. Student involvement in after-school activities such as band, sports,
part-time jobs, or family responsibilities limited students‘ ability to participate.
Counselor ―H‖ also noted that the bell schedule differences impacted students‘
participation:
A problem that I guess happens sometimes is, the kid fitting it into
his or her schedule because we‘re on the block schedule. A full
credit, like let‘s say a non-block school, you take English the
whole year. Here, you take English only the first semester. It‘s
just hard, like if they want to take a class that‘s offered in the
morning, and then just juggling it to try and fit the schedule is hard
sometimes.

Finding 6:
Counselors evaluated the risk of the student passing or failing a RS class and its
impact of the loss of credit on graduation or promotion to the next grade level.

Counselor Opinions of the Running Start Program
Counselors were asked a series of Lickert-type questions based on a four
point scale, that best represented their opinion of the RS program (see Table 16).
The categories of Strongly Agree/Agree and Disagree/Strongly Disagree were
collapsed for analyses. 80.5% of the counselors strongly agreed/agreed that they
viewed the RS program as being an important college access tool. Further, 60% of
counselors‘ disagreed/strongly disagreed that students participating in this program
should be selected from only the top tier of class rankings or only from the middle
96

tier of class rankings. 91.7% of counselors‘ disagreed/strongly disagreed that
students should be selected from the lowest tier of class rankings. Credits earned
through the RS program were used to replace high school coursework (82.9%) as
well as to augment credits earned in high school (79.4%).
Only 39% of the surveyed counselors strongly agreed or agreed that RS was
an important way for students to meet graduation requirements (see Table 16).
Counselors‘ open-ended comments obtained from the survey indicated that
counselors viewed taking RS as a ―high stakes gamble‖ that could prevent students
from graduating, such as: 1) ―We don‘t recommend seniors take RS classes in the
second semester that would count towards graduation because if for any reason
they fail the course, the student won‘t graduate‖; 2) ―… nice for some kids, but not
necessary‖; and 3) ―Majority of our students do not need the RS credits to count
towards graduation requirements‖.
Similarly, interviewed counselors agreed with responses on the survey.
Counselor ―S‖ reported:
A lot of the students, they‘re meeting their graduation requirements
anyways. This is like an extra, an extra course for them. The
majority are already meeting their graduation requirements. It‘s
not like they‘re taking it because they need the English credit …
Although, you know, that‘s always a hard one because a lot of
them are scared … because if they don‘t pass their Running Start,
they don‘t graduate, and that‘s scary. I tell the students that, just so
that they know, and it is their choice whether they want to not take
English [100] or not.

97

Table 16: Counselor Opinion of the Running Start Program

Question

N

Strongly Agree/
Agree %
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree %
RS is an important college-access
tool for all students
41 80.5 19.5
RS students should be selected from
the top tier of class rankings
40 40.0 60.0
RS students should be selected from
the middle tier of class rankings
35 62.9 37.1
RS students should be selected from
the lowest tier of class rankings
36 8.3 91.7
RS helps middle- and low-
academically achieving students to
access college
37 48.6 51.4
RS helps free- and reduced-lunch
eligible students in accessing college
39 79.5 20.5
RS students are highly engaged in
their high school activities
38 71.1 28.9
RS students are highly engaged in
their college activities
35 51.4 48.6
RS is an important way for students
to meet graduation requirements
41 39.0 61.0
In our school, credits earned through
the RS program are used to replace
high school diploma/graduation
requirements (e.g., ENG 100 in place
of 12th grade English/Language arts)

35

82.9

17.1
In our school, credits earned through
the RS program are used to augment,
or are in addition to, high school
diploma/graduation requirements.

34

79.4

20.6
98

Counselor ―Y‖ commented further:
We‘re reluctant to drop classes for juniors because if they goof
Running Start, then they have nothing, they won‘t even be a senior.
So, juniors, it has to, it‘s mostly an add-on, mostly. Then seniors
… if they‘re replacing [the high school] class, they must take a
Running Start class the first semester. So that if they fail, they
have second semester to get that credit. And sometimes they might
fail because they break a leg, they can‘t go to class...

Advanced Placement and Running Start Program
Interviewed counselors were asked whether Advanced Placement (AP) and
the Running Start program competed for the same student population. AP is a
national program under the College Board. Structurally and organizationally, AP
classes were set within the school ―bell‖ schedule with qualified, trained high
school teachers. The curriculum was standardized against national norms and
credit for scores of 3, 4, or 5 on the subject exams could be submitted to
postsecondary institutions for review for credit for coursework or content areas
(College Board, 2010). Four of the five interviewed schools had AP as part of their
curriculum. The one school, FHS, which did not have AP had eliminated the
courses ―about seven years ago‖. Counselor ―H‖ from FHS reported that low class
enrollments into AP were part of the reason for eliminating classes, as well as
continued teacher training and resources. RS was the only accelerated learning
option available to their students at FHS although the school did offer honors
classes.
99

In the remaining four schools in the interview sample, counselors reported
that students who gravitated towards AP were the students who were thinking of
applying to the most selective postsecondary institutions. Counselors recognized
that AP was an established program while dual credit programs were not as well
defined. Counselor ―Y‖, from KHS noted that:
The ones that are looking for the most competitive colleges, like
the top 10%, ivy leagues and stuff, they will go for AP first,
because AP is nationally recognized, it‘s been around forever,
people just know what it means. Running Start, in some states,
they don‘t have it, they call it dual enrollment, they‘re not really
sure exactly what it looks like, and they don‘t know how
challenging it is, even though it is a college class … it seems like
Running Start and AP, probably targets the top third of our classes.
It doesn‘t have to, but it does. That‘s just the way it falls in to
place.

At one school, the Counselor ―I,‖ from MHS, reported teachers pushing
students towards RS but that she then followed up with students‘ to discuss their
plans for college admissions. In this school‘s case, the counselor reported that the
schools‘ administration supported increasing the number of sections of AP classes,
as long as there was sufficient student enrollment. Counselor ―I‖ reported that in
working with her administrators and faculty, and in speaking with college
recruiters:
I had to provide information … to say that for these highly
selective schools — and even some of the schools that are not
highly selective — it‘s not to say that they are not going to view
Running Start as being competitive. It‘s more that, because the
way colleges look at the school — if our school offers AP they
want to see that students have challenged themselves with it … I
think from the college‘s view — what they have been saying to us
is that they want to see the rigor. But they don‘t want to see
100

students‘ [taking] college classes. I think what the colleges are
saying is that they don‘t want them to take it in lieu of. So if they
are taking the AP classes and they are taking the Running Start
classes — then even better. But they don‘t want them to take the
English 100 instead of AP Lit.

Through the paper survey, counselors reported that students preferred AP
since those classes were located on the high school campus and fit within the
school‘s bell schedule. Additionally, DOE policy allowed weighted credit for AP
classes, where an A was calculated on a 5.0 scale. Although the DOE had
discussions on weighting RS grades earned, they currently do not weight grades
earned through the RS program for high school transcripts.
In summary, surveyed and interviewed counselors were consistent in their
opinions of RS participant characteristics. Academic ability, student motivation
and maturity, as well as work/study habits or ―follow-through‖ were important RS
student characteristics. Counselors notified students of the RS program opportunity
through school-based bulletins, announcements, and other mechanisms such as
information sessions. Once the information was provided, counselors place
emphasis on student follow-through or ―self-selection‖ to persist in obtaining
specific information to the UH campus of choice, as well as application and
admissions process, placement testing, and meeting with the UH RS counselor to
register for classes. Counselors reported that students expressing an interest in the
program as well as follow-through were the key to the student selection process.
Additionally, while counselors did not view RS participants as necessarily
coming from the top, or middle tier of academic ability, 91.7% of the surveyed
101

counselors disagreed/strongly disagreed that students should be selected from the
lowest tier of academic ability. Counselors also reported that administrative
barriers such as the conflict in UH and DOE class schedules, lack of transportation,
cost of the program, and failure to place in college-level math or English affected
student participation rates in the program.
A consistent theme that emerged from both the surveys and interviewed
counselors was that while information regarding Running Start was provided to
students and parents, counselors were not, as a whole, ―recruiting‖ students into the
program. Once the information was presented, the student then had to initiate the
―next step‖. Across the public high schools, students had to approach the Running
Start counselor, or attend a Running Start information session in order to obtain
specific information on the application and admissions process for Running Start.
Counselors viewed this as ―student self-selection‖ and considered this to be a
measure of student motivation and ―follow-through‖.
Additionally, counselors viewed Running Start as ―high stakes‖ and ensured
that students understood the risks involved with taking the college class. Credit
award for high school classes were based on the completion of a full year, or two
semesters of coursework. College classes typically award credit for one semester
of coursework. Counselors appeared to be motivated in ensuring that students were
promoted to the next grade level and graduated on-time (with the Class cohort).
Failure in any class that replaced a required course for high school graduation
jeopardized on-time graduation.
102

Research Question 4
What institution-level characteristics influence student participation in Running
Start?

Survey Administration
Administrators were surveyed through a paper survey mailed to their
schools. Surveys were designed to sample the administrators‘ opinions of student
selection factors, the responsibility of program notification to parents and students,
the administrators‘ indicators of success to evaluate the RS program at their school,
the marketing materials, as well as the perceived barriers or facilitators of student
participation in the RS program. Administrators asked to participate in the survey
were the principal, vice-principal, or grade-level (11
th
or 12
th
) vice-principal of
each participating high school. A total of 101 surveys were sent to 43 high schools
with 24 surveys returned (10 principals and 14 vice-principals) for a 23.7% return
rate.

Student Selection into Running Start
Administrators were asked how students were selected to participate in the
Running Start program. Table 17 shows the frequency distribution of administrator
selection of factors that influenced the selection of students for participation in the
RS program. Seventy-five percent of the administrators surveyed selected the
following four factors as being the most important to the student selection process
for participation in Running Start: 1) student expresses an interest in college
103

(87.5%); 2) student expresses an interest in Running Start (83.3%); 3) 11
th
/12
th

grade standing (75%); and 4) counselor has screened the student (75%).

Table 17: Administrator Ranking of Student Selection Factors of Running
Start Participants

How are students selected to participate? N %
Student expresses an interest in college 21 87.5
Student expresses an interest in Running Start 20 83.3
11/12th grade standing 18 75.0
Counselor has screened the student 18 75.0
Student is considered to be "college bound" 14 58.3
GPA 12 50.0
Student can afford the tuition, fees and books 9 37.5
Student is excelling in English 6 25.0
Student is excelling in math 5 20.8
Student is ranked in the top tier of their class 3 12.5
Student is ranked in the middle tier of their class 2 8.3
Student is ranked in the lowest tier of their class 2 8.3

Administrators were asked about the methods and materials that their
schools utilized and produced to market the RS program to their students. 71
responses ranged from school-wide announcements, printed materials such as
brochures, newsletters, posters, and through the school‘s website (see Table 18).
Administrators appeared to rely on marketing tools that were readily available
through the schools‘ organizational structure (e.g., school-wide announcements or
newsletters) and avoided special cost items like direct mailings or methods that
required constant maintenance, such as student email. Administrators also viewed
parents as a population that should be informed of the RS program. When asked
104

how students found out about the RS program, administrators selected counselors
(32.8%) first, followed by teachers (23.9%), marketing materials (23.9%), friends
(17.9%), and other (1.5%).

Table 18: Marketing Materials Used by Schools to Promote the Running Start
Program: Administrators

Marketing Materials N %
announcements 17 23.9
brochures 13 18.3
parent newsletter 12 16.9
Website 9 12.7
student newsletter 6 8.5
Posters 6 8.5
parent email 3 4.2
Other 3 4.2
Mailings 2 2.8
student email 0 0.0
Totals 71 100.0

Responsible for Student and Parent Notification of the Running Start
Program
Administrators were asked who was responsible for notifying students and
parents about the RS program, as well as who they felt should be responsible.
60.8% of the administrators said that grade-level and post-high counselors currently
were responsible for notifying students and parents, followed by teachers (13.7%),
principals (13.7%), vice-principals (5.9%) and support staff (5.9%).
Administrators indicated that it was appropriate for counselors to be the source of
105

RS information at their schools (55.2%); followed by ―everyone or all school
personnel‖ (20.7%); teachers (13.8%), and support staff (10.3%).
Interviewed administrators reported that the designated RS counselor at
their school was the person primarily responsible for the program and that they
were a critical component for ensuring that the program was marketed and that
students and school‘s needs were served, and that the designated counselor served
as the school‘s liaison with parents for the program. Principal ―H‖ from WHS
noted:
I believe the counselor is very critical to the Running Start
program. I believe [Counselor “S”], also works with our other
grade-level counselors, in identifying students who would benefit
from participation, and also the teachers. I‘m depending on her to
be the lead person, in identifying students, and then contacting their
parents, and explaining what the benefits of the program are, and
having students participate.

Similarly, Principal ―T‖, from KHS felt that:

[Counselor “Y”] is so very critical because he provides that
information, and the initial knowledge to the students, in regards to
the Running Start program. He tells them about the benefits, as
well as some of the challenges that may come up.

Administrator Indicators of Success for the Running Start Program
Administrators were asked to check all of the items that applied as their
indicator(s) of success for the RS program at their school (see Table 19). 21 of the
24 administrators surveyed listed students‘ passing the college class as the best
indicator of success (87.5%), followed by participation numbers in the program
(66.7%). Notably, only 13 (54.2%) and 12 (50%) administrators viewed passing
106

the English and math placement as an indicator of success; 12 administrators (50%)
viewed student entry into postsecondary as an indicator of success; and only 5 or
20.8% viewed students graduating from college as an indicator of success for this
program. Administrators were also asked whether they benchmarked RS
participation as part of their school‘s college- and career-readiness indicators. Nine
(37.5%) administrators benchmarked RS participation as part of their students‘
college and career readiness. Ten (41.7%) did not benchmark RS participation, and
five administrators chose not to respond (20.8%).

Table 19: Administrator Indicators of Success for Running Start

Indicators of Success for Running Start N %
Students pass the college class 21 87.5
Student participation numbers in Running Start 16 66.7
Students pass the college English placement test 13 54.2
Students pass the college math placement test 12 50.0
Students enroll in college once they graduate from high
school

12

50.0
Number of college credits earned 6 25.0
Students graduate from college 5 20.8
Number of college credits attempted 4 16.7

Interviewed administrators were asked how they benchmarked the success
of the RS program at their school. Instead, administrators reflected on the lack of
data and the need for more data. One principal, ―T,‖ discussed basic data sharing
between the UH campus and his school:
Well, I just need data in regard to success rate. Enrollment, of
course, how many students are enrolling. Success rate. As well as,
107

you know, the kids that drop out for whatever reason … grades,
attendance.

Additionally, this principal discussed the need for training on the use of data
for his faculty and staff:
I think it‘s a process that‘s going to take some time. Although as a
department, we emphasize the fact of how important data is …
sometimes, number one, it‘s too much data. Or it‘s data that is
irrelevant to what we need. And then from the teacher‘s
perspective — as administrators we need to provide them the time
to be able to analyze and to synthesize that data, to make valid
decisions … that‘s a luxury, at this point. And it shouldn‘t be a
luxury. It should be a requirement, or a necessary process that
educators, and I say educators because not only teachers, but
administration, staff, everybody should be involved in that process.

One vice-principal, ―S‖ from MHS, a high-participating school pointed out
that the needs of the school as it went through structural and organizational changes
reflected long-term strategic planning and that Running Start had not necessarily
been a focus for the school:
Right now, although we look at these students [that] went to
Running Start in the past — it‘s not a data piece that we are
looking at specifically. Or have been. We are considered a re-
structuring school …. We do have it listed as one of the indicators
to look at. We get the data, we look at it, but I don‘t think we have
in the past been diligent about using it as an indicator to then drive
the practices or decisions.

Factors that Prevent Students from Participating in Running Start
A series of Lickert-scale items was asked ranging from cost, transportation
and student responsibility (Question 9a-i). Items were based on a four point scale,
with Very Important/Important and Somewhat Important/Not Very Important
108

collapsed for analyses. Administrators rated the conflict of the high school with the
college schedule (83.3%), student knowledge about the RS program (79.2%), and
the student not passing the English placement test (75%) as the top three factors
that prevented a student from participating in the RS program. This was followed
by the student not passing the math placement (70.8%) and transportation to the
UH campus (70.8%) (see Table 20).

Table 20: Administrator Rating of Factors that Prevent Students from Running
Start Participation

Question

N
Very
Important/
Important
% response
Somewhat/
Not Very
Important
% response
College course schedule conflicts with
high school schedule
24 83.3 16.7
Student does not know about Running
Start Program
24 79.2 20.8
Does not pass English Placement Test 24 75.0 25.0
Does not pass Math Placement Test 24 70.8 29.2
Transportation to UH Campus 24 70.8 29.2
Student is not yet responsible enough to
take college classes
23 65.2 34.8
Student is not interested in attending
college
23 56.5 43.5
Cost of tuition, fees and books 24 54.2 45.8

Interviewed administrators commented particularly on the conflict of school
―bell‖ schedule and the UH schedule of classes as being barriers to student
participation. Administrators also mentioned other barriers such as increasing
109

credit requirements for the DOE honors diploma, student ―comfort‖ zones, funding
structures based on student enrollment, student after-school activities. Other
administrative barriers were special memorandums of understanding to bring a
college class onto the high school campus.
As the credit requirements for DOE went up, it may decrease the
opportunities for students to have the flexibility to go and take a
Running Start class. We used to have students go in the morning.
They had enough credits to get their diploma. They could use that
block of time to go and take a class. Right now, more and more
students are taking advantage of the afternoon classes which
happens after school hours. Some of our students they also have
jobs to support their families. — Principal “S”

Because right now, say they only take two classes over there, but I
get funded for a teacher. But I can‘t take away, you know, two
sections of the teachers, because it is based on what we don‘t
know. We don‘t know who‘s going to be applying [to Running
Start], and if it‘s only going one semester. For us it‘s an unknown.
So somehow we have to figure out a way to create that
opportunity. That‘s why I was saying, that part of it might be,
even if the instructor and the regular teachers were co-teaching and
doing dual enrollment credits or something, you know, that could
help to support the program. — Principal “M”.

I know we‘re right next to [community college], but I also think
that for 17 and 18 year olds, juniors, and so seniors — WHS is
familiar for them. Taking a Running Start class, a college class, is
a step outside of their comfort area. Having them to take a college
class and physically get off our campus, and get onto another
campus is a huge step out of their comfort area.‖ — Principal
“H”.

Administrator Opinions of the Running Start Program
Administrators were asked a series of Lickert-type questions that best
represented their opinion of the RS program (see Table 21). Items were rated on a
four point scale, with categories of Strongly Agree/Agree and Disagree/Strongly
110

Disagree collapsed for analyses. 91.7% of the administrators strongly
agreed/agreed that they viewed the RS program as being an important college
access tool. Further, 79.2% of the administrators‘ disagreed/strongly disagreed that
students participating in this program should be selected from only the top tier of
class rankings. Administrator opinions were more mixed than counselors on the
middle (47.8%) and lowest tier of students (33.3%) being selected into this
program. While, only 39% of counselors‘ agreed/strongly agreed that credits
earned through RS were an important mechanism to meet high school graduation
requirements; 54.5% of administrators viewed the RS program as being an
important way for students to meet graduation requirements. Similar to the
counselors, administrators viewed credits earned through the RS program as being
used to replace high school coursework (78.9%), as well as to augment credits
earned in high school (81.8%).
Interviewed administrators were asked about the value of the Running Start
program for their school. Administrators noted that the program was part of
establishing a college-going culture for their students. Principal ―M‖ from RHS
noted:
Over the past year, the counseling department has actually started
to transform themselves in terms of their roles and responsibilities.
The over-arching goal is really, to ensure that all of our students
are college and career ready. They embrace that thought. So,
when they start talking about the goals for the department, they
actually start to look at the data that reflects the number of students
that are taking AP, the number of students that are in Running
Start, and the number of students, percentage of students
graduating on-time.
111

Table 21: Administrator Opinion of the Running Start Program

Question

N
Strongly
Agree/
Agree
% response
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
% response
RS is an important college-access tool
for all students
24 91.7 8.3
RS students should be selected from the
top tier of class Rankings
24 20.8 79.2
RS students should be selected from the
middle tier of class rankings
24 47.8 52.2
RS students should be selected from the
lowest tier of class rankings
21 33.3 66.7
RS helps middle- and low-academically
achieving students to access college
22 77.3 22.7
RS helps free- and reduced-lunch
eligible students in accessing college
23 87.0 13.0
RS students are highly engaged in their
high school activities
23 69.6 30.4
RS students are highly engaged in their
college activities
21 66.7 33.3
RS is an important way for students to
meet graduation requirements
22 54.5 45.5
In our school, credits earned through the
RS program are used to replace high
school diploma/graduation requirements
(e.g., ENG 100 in place of 12th grade
English/Language arts)
19 78.9 21.1
In our school, credits earned through the
RS program are used to augment, or are
in addition to, high school diploma/
graduation requirements.
20 90.0 10.0
112

Similarly, Principal ―H‖ from WHS said:

We‘re really trying to push that college going culture. Which is
really important. All of our students should have the choice of
going to college … I think whoever can take advantage of the
program and benefit from it, should have an opportunity to access
it. If you‘re saying a high, middle, low tier, I mean, who is to say
that I may be a student who is in the ―middle tier‖, or ―low tier‖ —
by having an opportunity to participate in the Running Start
program, that might be the one, the thing that helps provide
direction for me. And then, because of that experience that might
help turn me to join the ―top tier‖ … I think if we can provide
opportunities, that‘s the greatest thing, right?

Resources Needed to Improve Running Start for Their School
Administrators were asked what to indicate what resources were needed to
improve the RS program for their school (see Table 22). 50% or more of the
administrators indicated that the following four resource items were needed: 1)
more scholarship opportunities for low-income students (79.2%), 2) better
marketing materials (70.8%), 3) UH placement testing on the school site (58.3%),
and 4) better access to classes (50.0%).
Administrators indicated that there were a number of benefits to students in
their participation in the RS program. Notably, 21 to 24 administrators agreed that
students‘ earning credits for both high school and college were more likely to enroll
in college after high school. They also agreed that students learned about the
knowledge and skills they needed for college-level coursework and what it took to
succeed in college, as well as having the benefit of taking classes that matched their
113

interest and capabilities. Only 15 or 62.5% of administrators thought that
participation in the RS program reduced the time it took to earn a college degree.

Table 22: Administrator Ranking of Resources Needed to Support the
Running Start Program

Resources N %
More scholarship opportunities for free/reduced
lunch students

19 79.2
Better marketing materials 17 70.8
UH placement testing at our school 14 58.3
Better access to college classes (geographic distance) 12 50.0
Better counseling for students on the benefits of
Running Start
11 45.8
Better communication between our nearest UH
campus and my high school
10 41.7
Better information from UH about program
requirements
9 37.5
Better counseling for students about the potential
consequences of failing the college class
5 20.8
Other 1 4.2

Three additional questions were asked of administrators. Administrators
were asked: ―In what way does student participation in RS fill curricular gaps that
high schools have difficulty filling?‖ In the 18 responses received, administrators
saw the RS program as an opportunity for students to either take ―challenging‖ or
advanced classes, such as college-level math (12 responses). The RS program was
also perceived as a way to take elective offerings that were limited by teaching
114

lines (e.g., certain foreign languages, or vocational courses). Administrators also
noted that RS provided students with the opportunity to take courses not offered by
the school that fit a requirement/content area. As one administrator put it,
―Whereas our social studies department offers basic history classes, I noticed our
students are attracted to social sciences such as Psychology and Sociology.‖
Coursework taken through the RS program were also viewed as allowing students
greater opportunities to pursue individual college and/or career opportunities or to
fulfill specific interests.
When asked about teacher or counselor professional development to
enhance the RS program, administrators either reported that there was none needed
or that they were not sure of the kind of professional development needed (seven
responses). Thirteen administrators commented on the need for continued
information sharing and updates between the UH campuses and the high schools,
including time for secondary and post-secondary counselors to network and
collaborate on information sharing.
Administrators were asked about the accessibility of the RS program for
free- or reduced-lunch status students. Administrators acknowledged that while the
program was ―… very accessible — equal access for all qualified students …‖
there is recognition that the program is not necessarily ―… equitable because of
cost.‖

115

Finding 7:
Administrators and Counselors differed with respect to the student population that
the Running Start should serve.

Comparison of Counselor and Administrators Responses
Counselors and administrators responses were also analyzed through t-tests
to determine whether differences existed between the two groups on Lickert-scale
items. As a whole, both groups were in agreement on factors that prevented and
facilitated students from participating in the RS program. There were no
significant differences in responses between counselors and administrators on items
of related to perceived administrative barriers such as conflicts in class schedules,
transportation, college-level placement in English or math, student personal
responsibility and issues of cost. Additionally, no significant differences were
found between counselors‘ and administrators‘ opinions on facilitating free- or
reduced-lunch students participation in the program, student engagement in their
high school and college activities, RS as an important alternate method to complete
graduation requirements, and utilizing the earned credit to replace and augment
graduation requirements.
Significant differences between the groups were found on three items:
1) Running Start is an important college-access tool for all students (p<.05); 2)
Running Start students should be selected from the lowest tier of class rankings
(p<.01); and 3) Student is not yet responsible enough to take college classes
116

(p<.01). Additionally, responses on the item, Running Start students should be
selected from the top tier of class rankings approached significance at p=.066.

COMPASS Placement Testing
While there were no significant differences between administrators and
counselors on how the groups viewed COMPASS placement testing, counselors in
particular provided commentary on the placement testing issue. Counselors viewed
failure to pass the English placement as being the most important factor that
prevented students from participating in Running Start (85.3%). Math placement
testing was not rated as highly at 73.2%. There were two community colleges that
required placement into college level math and English as a prerequisite to being
able to enroll as a Running Start student. The rest of the campuses required
college-level placement in the appropriate prerequisite for the college course (e.g.,
placement into ENG 100 Composition I as a prerequisite to PSY 100 Survey of
Psychology).
Comments from the survey cited getting students tested for COMPASS
could often be problematic, requiring additional time, scheduling of testing, and
waiting for test results in order to complete the registration processes. One
counselor pointed out, ―When I talk to a kid about Running Start, he/she may be
interested and will go through the application process. If they fail the COMPASS,
it ends there … if we could offer COMPASS (at the high school), prior to applying,
then we could see who actually qualifies, who just missed the cut off, and who is
117

not recommended.‖ Interviewed counselors were asked whether students were
counseled on what their scores meant once they had their results. Counselor ―S‖
notes:
I know that right when they‘ve taken their test, they‘re given their
score. But the score, they distinctly give the raw score I believe,
and then where they would place them. But not as detailed as to
what area they need to improve. [They get] very general
information. If they score low on reading I just let them know
[that] here is an area you need to work on, maybe you should read
daily, just for practice, you know, knowledge. But very general
because the feedback for the specific need is not there.

Counselor ―H‖ concurs:

When they get their scores, you know, I tell them to show them to
me. When they show me, I tell them, what they would score, but
as far as the specific skills like that, I don‘t have that knowledge.

To summarize, counselors and administrators for the most part agreed upon
the factors that may have facilitated or impeded student participation in Running
Start. Administrators however, were more likely to view the RS program as a
college-access tool for all of their student population while counselors saw the
program as being a ―better fit‖ for students in the top or middle tier of academic
ability, combined with a perception of the student that indicated that the student
was responsible enough to take college classes.
The second theme that emerged from comparing both administrator and
counselor surveys and interviews was the agreement between the groups on the
administrative barriers that impeded student participation in Running Start. Cited
examples included: 1) the conflict in the schedule of courses and academic
118

calendars between the high school and UH; 2) transportation to the UH campus,
particularly for more geographically distant high schools; and 3) student/family
costs to cover UH tuition, fees and books. A concomitant issue for high schools
was students not passing the COMPASS placement at high enough levels to place
into college-level work. While students indicated motivation and follow-through to
access postsecondary education by applying for the Running Start program and by
taking the placement exams, there was little academic advising support for the
student to inform them of the knowledge and skills that needed to be augmented in
order to be college and career ready.

119

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Overview of the Problem
The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
(NCHEMS) analyses of student ―flow‖ through the educational pipeline showed
that nationally, out of 100 students graduating from high school, an average of 69
students graduated on-time, with 42 entering postsecondary education, and 20
graduating with a college degree six years after high school graduation (NCHEMS,
2009). Hawai‗i figures were reported as 68 graduating from high school on time,
41 entering postsecondary education, with 12 graduating from college six years
after high school graduation (NCHEMS, 2009). Hawai‗i‘s movement towards its
strategic goal of increasing the educational capital of the state lagged well behind
the best performing states in the country.
A review of the literature suggested that successful transition to college
appeared to be reliant on both individual and organizational factors that affected
students‘ preparation for college (Pennington, 2004; Kirst & Bracco, 2004;
Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Adelman, 1999 & 2006). Over the past two decades
dual credit programs were increasingly utilized as a pathway not only for the
academically proficient, but middle- and low-achieving students, as well as those
120

from underrserved, first-generation, and low-income populations (Hughes, Karp,
Fermin, & Bailey, 2005; Bragg, Kim, & Rubin, 2005).
Hawai‗i‘s educational policy recognized the importance of dual credit as an
alternate method to complete high school graduation requirements and as a college
access program. Recently, research on dual credit participation began to address
student characteristics and outcomes. Little was known about the student selection
process at high schools that enables student participation in the program. This
study sought to add to the literature on dual credit programs by evaluating the
effectiveness of Hawai‗i‘s dual credit policy by describing the characteristics of the
students who participated in the program. The factors that influenced counselor
selection of students and high school organization factors that affected the student
selection process for dual credit participation were also discussed.
This mixed methods study involved analyses that included: 1) a descriptive
analyses of Running Start student characteristics; 2) an administrator (principal and
vice-principal) and counselor survey; and 3) a qualitative case study with in-depth
interviews of an administrator and counselor ―pair‖ from five high schools.
Together, the data presented a rich picture of the factors that described the student
population that participated and did not participate in Running Start, as well as a
delineation of factors that influenced student participation in Hawai‗i‘s Running
Start program.
The major findings resulting from this study were: 1) Hawai‗i‘s dual credit
student participation rates differed by ethnic groups; 2) Running Start participants
121

entered postsecondary education and earned degrees at higher rates that statewide
averages; 3) 90% of Running Start participants earned passing grades, with 86%
earning grades of C or better; 4) participation rates differed by type of high school
and geographic distance from a UH campus; 5) counselors relied on students to
self-identify themselves as interested in Running Start once school-based
notifications were distributed to students and parents; 6) counselors evaluated the
risk of the student passing or failing a class and its impact for the student on
graduation or on-time promotion; and 7) administrators and counselors differed
with respect to the student population that the Running Start program should serve.
Two themes emerged from the counselor and administrator surveys and the
interviews. The first theme was that while counselors provided information on the
Running Start program through school-based tools such as bulletins and
announcements, counselors were not, as a whole, ―recruiting‖ students into the
program. Once the information was presented, the student had to then initiate the
―next step‖. Students had to approach the Running Start counselor, or attend a
Running Start information session, in order to obtain specific information on the
application and admissions process for Running Start. Counselors viewed this as
―student self-selection‖ and considered this to be a measure of a student‘s
motivation and ―follow-through‖.
The second theme that emerged focused on the administrative barriers that
were perceived to impede student participation in the program. Reported barriers
included: 1) conflicts in UH course scheduling and high school ―bell‖ schedules;
122

2) associated costs to participate in the program; 3) transportation to a UH campus;
and 4) COMPASS placement testing.
In summary, while Running Start participants showed excellent
postsecondary outcomes when compared to the statewide averages, the selection
and participation of students in the program was student driven and was influenced
by external administrative factors.

Connections to the Literature
The findings from this study supported and extended the prior literature on
dual credit programs. Chapter 2 examined dual credit in the following ways: 1)
key indicators of college-going behavior and its effect on the transition of students
from high school to college; 2) the purpose and function of dual credit and its role
in college access and equity for under-represented student groups; 3) the role of
policy in institutional and student participation in dual credit programs; and 4)
student characteristics in dual credit programs.
Review of the literature on dual credit programs argued that as a policy tool,
dual credit programs may have promoted and supported the transition of under-
represented students into postsecondary education. Research on the characteristics
of under-represented student populations showed that this population was more
likely to delay entering college, to start at a two-year institution, and were more
likely to need remedial coursework (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, &
123

Nora, 1996; Warburton et al., 2001; Chen 2005). Hoffman (2005) argued that a
goal of K-16 was to support under-represented students through the transition
points of the education pipeline, particularly from high school through college.
Dual credit programs offered the advantage of facilitating the supports that under-
represented students required to successfully transition to and complete a college
degree, such as shortening the time to earn a degree, cost savings for families on
tuition, exposure to the college environment, and that college assessment was
conducted in multiple ways throughout the semester rather than in one high stakes
test as in Advanced Placement (Andrews, 2000; Andrews & Barnett, 2002; Bailey,
Hughes, & Karp, 2002; Hoffman, 2005). Further, accelerated learning options such
as dual credit programs showed promise in promoting greater academic
preparation, college enrollment, persistence, and degree completion (Delicath,
1999; Adelman, 2006; Blanco, 2006; Brewer et al., 2007).

Research Questions 1 and 2
What are the characteristics of the participating students in Running Start from
2002-2009?
Are there differences in participation rates by high school?
Within the past few years, research has begun to look at the student
characteristics of the dual credit population. Reported dual credit student
performance indicators included participant numbers, student demographics and
free- and/or reduced-lunch status. Results from this study indicated that Hawai‗i‘s
124

dual credit population was comparable to ethnicity and income gaps reported from
Pennsylvania, Texas and Florida (Museus et al., 2007; O‘Brien & Nelson, 2004;
Prescott, 2006).
Similar to this study, the Pennsylvania, Texas and Florida studies
disaggregated data by ethnicity and income status and found that Whites and
Asians participated in dual credit programs at higher percentages than their overall
ethnic representation within the high school population. Further, Hawai‗i‘s data
showed that traditionally under-represented ethnic groups such as African
American and Hispanic populations were also under-represented compared to their
overall representation in the DOE. Unique to Hawai‗i however, were ethnic groups
that were not disaggregated relative to the mainland United States. In Hawai‗i, an
ethnic group of interest was Native Hawaiians/Part Hawaiians (categorized under
the sub-group of Pacific Islanders). Both the DOE and the UH system had strategic
goals seeking to increase the educational attainment of this ethnic group (Hawai‗i
Department of Education, 2008a; University of Hawai‗i, 2008b). In the DOE high
school population Native Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian represented 26.6% of the 10
th
,
11
th
and 12
th
grade population over the seven-year period of this study. Native
Hawaiians represented only 14.3% of the RS participants in this study, a
participation gap of -12.4%. Similarly, Filipinos at 22.4% of the DOE population
accounted for only 12.8% of the RS participants; and Samoans at 3.7% of the DOE
population was represented in the RS population at 0.3%.
125

The literature on dual credit argued that policymakers should view dual
credit as a tool to equalize ethnic and socioeconomic gaps for ethnic groups that
were under-represented in accessing postsecondary education (Hoffman, 2005;
Adelman, 2006). Results from Museus et al. (2007) study suggested that Whites
and Asian students were disproportionately represented as accessing dual credit
options. Conversely, African-American and Hispanic students were under-
represented in dual credit opportunities. Similar to the reported literature on
underserved, first generation and low-income students accessing postsecondary
education, higher SES students participated more often in dual credit coursework
than lower SES students (O‘Brien & Nelson, 2007; Prescott, 2006).
It‘s important to note that free- and reduced-lunch status for this study was
taken as a proxy for students who received a GEAR UP Running Start scholarship.
This scholarship specifically targeted free- and reduced-lunch eligible students,
with the high school RS counselor required to verify the lunch status of each
applicant for the scholarship. Results from the current study appeared comparable
to results reported in the literature on dual credit participants. While the statewide
average for free- and reduced-lunch status for public high schools was reported at
36.9% for the seven-year period of this study, free- and reduced-lunch eligible
students made up only 23% of the public high school RS population.
An exhaustive review of the literature did not uncover any studies that
described the postsecondary access of students who had participated in dual credit
programs. This study was able to track students into postsecondary through the
126

National Student Clearinghouse. Students who participated in dual credit were
expressing motivation and intent to obtain at least some postsecondary education.
Results from this analysis showed that RS participants clearly follow through on
their intent. Statewide averages for Hawai‗i on postsecondary entry for the period
of this study are 45.8%. RS participants were accessing postsecondary at an
average rate of 78.4% for students who graduated in the spring and entered
postsecondary in the fall immediately following graduation.
Further, the majority of the statewide DOE graduates tended to access two-
year (53.7%) over four-year (46.3%) institutions at higher rates. RS participants
showed a clear reverse of this trend, accessing more four-year (80.8%) institutions
over two-year (19.2%) institutions. RS participants for the graduating classes of
2003 and 2004 also showed higher degree attainment (48.4%) for those who
entered postsecondary education when compared to the statewide figures (21.5%).
Additionally, when disaggregating the RS participant data by free- or reduced-
lunch status, RS students entered postsecondary in the fall immediately following
graduation at a rate of 67.9%, with postsecondary entry rates rising to 76.7% over
time. Free/reduced lunch RS participants from public high schools accessed four-
year institutions at a rate of 55.3% and two-year institutions at a rate of 21.7%.
In summary, descriptive statistics on RS participant student outcomes
showed that RS students were succeeding at completing college-level coursework
and continuing into postsecondary education as well as completing college degrees.
They were doing so at rates higher than the statewide averages for the same time
127

period, regardless of income level. Results from this study showed that free- and
reduced-lunch eligible students that accessed postsecondary through Running Start
were showing higher than statewide averages for both postsecondary entry and
persistence to degree after high school graduation. Adelman (2006) argued that a
―tipping point‖ in college retention and persistence to degree completion was 20
credits at the end of the first calendar year in postsecondary education. He further
argued that a college access program such as dual credit, in effect creates
momentum for the student to meet that 20 credit tipping point. However,
disaggregating Hawai‗i‘s data by ethnicity and free- or reduced-lunch status
showed gaps in participation, with more non-disadvantaged students participating
in the program and with Whites and Asians participating at greater percentages than
traditionally under-represented groups. Although Hawai‗i state policy
acknowledged the difficulty that under-represented students may have faced in
accessing the Running Start program, particularly due to the associated costs,
official policy did not address Running Start as a tool to promote access and equity
for this student population.

Research Question 3 and 4
What student-level characteristics influence counselor selection of students for
participation in Running Start?
What institution-level characteristics influence student participation in Running
Start?
128

Horn (1997) pointed out that understanding the critical transition point in
the education pipeline from high school graduation to college enrollment was not
only dependent upon academic preparation but also involved institutional and
family/student engagement in the process. Key indicators of college-going
behavior included student aspiration for postsecondary education, rigorous
academic preparation, alignment of curriculum between and within levels of
secondary and postsecondary education, access to information regarding applying
to college, and a clear understanding of the expectations of the behaviors,
knowledge and skills required in college (Adelman, 1999; 2006; Cabrera & La
Nasa, 2000; Warburton et al., 2001; Plank & Jordan, 2001; Kirst & Bracco, 2004;
Conley, 2007). Brewer et al. (2007) pointed out that dual credit programs directly
addressed issues of academic preparedness, achievement, information about and
transition to college. The over-arching goal of these programs was to reduce
student attrition as the students progressed through the educational pipeline, and to
provide information on the knowledge and skills required for successful transition
to, and completion of a college degree.
High school counselors were an institutional resource of information
sharing that could facilitate outcomes such as college access (McDonough, 1997;
Perna et al., 2008). Rosenbaum, Miller, and Krei (1996) argued that counselors
played a critical role in the transmission of information about academic preparation
for college access and degree completion, particularly for low-income students who
were less likely to obtain the information from home or peer environments.
129

The structural characteristics of a school may restrict low-income student
access to college information by influencing on social networks and relationships
that allowed access to institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Stanton-
Salazar (1997) noted that the formation of social ties was crucial because it
supported consistent and reliable sources from which students learn appropriate
knowledge and skills to develop social capital. Within the social structure of a
school, counselors were ―institutional agents‖ that had the capacity to directly or
indirectly affect student access to institutional resources. Additionally, factors
influencing the access to resources were derived from the organizational structure
of the school, and included factors such as class scheduling, competition for teacher
or counselor time and attention when serving large numbers of students, and the
lack of regular opportunities for sustained interaction that enabled help-seeking
behavior from students.
Results from this study supported the literature on the key role that
counselors played in the information sharing and participation of students into the
Running Start program. Surveyed and interviewed administrators and counselors
both view counselors as the key support position in providing information about the
program. Administrators further relied on counselors to appropriately screen
students into the program. A striking theme that emerged from the survey and
interview data was that counselors did not proactively recruit students into the
program. Counselors promoted the program through school-based tools such as
school bulletins and announcements but then allowed students to self-select or
130

identify themselves as interested in the program. From there, counselors provided
detailed information on the administrative processes required to be able to enroll in
the UH system as a Running Start student. Students were expected to follow-
through on meeting all required documentation, UH admissions, and other
qualifying activities by established deadlines.
Additionally, counselors viewed Running Start as ―high stakes‖ when
students wished to replace a required high school course/credit with a college class.
In some cases, students may have been actively discouraged from particular classes
in order not to jeopardize their expected graduation date or promotion to the next
grade level. Counselors also used the COMPASS placement test as a gatekeeper
for students whom they felt may not have been academically ready for Running
Start.
The student self-selection process also satisfied traits that counselors looked
for as part of their ―profile‖ of a successful Running Start student. Aside from
academic ability; motivation, maturity and ―follow-through‖ (work/study habits) on
the part of the student, were considered by counselors to be important
characteristics for a Running Start student. Counselors were clear that they would
not be able to share educational information about their students with
postsecondary faculty as they would have been able to within their high school
structure. Students were ―on their own‖ unless they choose to discuss their college
academic progress with their high school counselor.
131

The second theme that emerged from the surveys and interviews was that
there were key administrative barriers that both administrators and counselors
viewed as impeding greater student participation in the program. As reported in the
literature, conflicts between the secondary and postsecondary academic calendar
and schedule of classes were physical barriers that required specialized scheduling
on the part of the high school registrar and counselor, as well as on the part of the
student. For example, in Summer 2010 the UH first summer session overlapped
the end of the school year by three instructional days, with the second summer
session overlapping the start of the new school year by two weeks. While three
instructional days may have seemed to be a small number of days to miss, it was
still a consideration when starting high school students in college-level work,
particularly in accelerated summer classes.
Student-related issues include family responsibilities and after-school
activities such as part-time jobs, or participation in sports or band, which made it
difficult for students to access college classes once the school day ended.
Transportation to a UH campus was also an issue for some students as geographic
distance, particularly in rural areas, increased. Tuition, fees and the cost of books
were recognized as a potential barrier for students who are not able to afford the
costs. While the state currently has access to GEAR UP funding to support
scholarships for free- and/or reduced-lunch eligible students, the funding period
ends in the summer of 2011. Additionally, demand for scholarships increased over
time, with students who received a prior GEAR UP scholarship having a lower
132

funding priority than those who did not. Not all free- and/or reduced-lunch eligible
students who applied received a scholarship.
Dual credit programs fundamentally aligned secondary knowledge and
skills and entry knowledge and skills expected at the postsecondary level
(Adelman, 1999; 2006; Kirst & Bracco, 2004; Brewer et al., 2007). For UH, the
current gatekeeper to college level coursework is COMPASS placement testing.
Nine of the ten campuses in the UH system utilize COMPASS testing as a means to
determine placement into college level math and/or English. This testing program
therefore reveals the expectations on the skill level of the incoming student. For
both UH and the DOE, students who did not achieve college level scores were
simply not allowed to participate in Running Start. While students had indicated
motivation and follow-through to access postsecondary education by applying for
the Running Start program and by taking the placement exams, there was little
academic support for the student to inform them of the knowledge and skills that
needed to be augmented in order to be college and career ready.
An additional factor to consider from a high school environment
perspective is the significant differences found between administrators‘ and
counselors‘ views as to which student population that the Running Start program
should serve. Administrators, through the survey and interviews, clearly voiced
their opinions that Running Start should not be selecting students from only the top
or middle tiers of academic achievement. Counselors, however, clearly did not
perceive students from the lowest tier of academic achievement as potentially
133

successful Running Start candidates. Incorporating college and career readiness on
the part of the school culture may require greater discussions among school
administration and counselors on the mission, purpose and goals of the Running
Start program. In particular, discussion is warranted regarding which student
populations may benefit from different methods of accelerated school-based
learning such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Advancement
Via Individual Determination (AVID), and Running Start, which are all current
school-based initiatives within the DOE to promote college and career readiness for
each high school graduate.

Implications for Policy and Practice
Based on the research findings of this study and findings from the literature
review, the Department of Education, University of Hawai‗i System as well as
individual high schools and UH campuses should consider the following:
1. Department of Education and University of Hawai‗i System:
a. The DOE and UH System should consider publishing a collaborative
annual report that compiles student demographic information
disaggregated by school, type of school (charter and public high
school), gender, ethnicity and free- or reduced-lunch status, coursework
taken, semester and cumulative credits attempted and earned while a
dual credit student, grades earned, UH campus attended, postsecondary
134

access after high school graduation, retention and persistence to
obtaining a degree. This report should be longitudinal across the
sectors, in order to capture postsecondary retention and degree
completion. Published statistics allow for benchmarking student
performance indicators as well as for the monitoring of sub-populations
to forward strategic goals established by the DOE and UH.
b. The DOE and UH System should consider collaborating on an alternate
academic calendar/schedule of courses which would be more
compatible with the school bell schedules. Currently, only one UH
campus provides an alternate calendar schedule for the summer
sessions. One possibility may be to offer the UH class, with UH faculty
at the high school site, within the schools‘ bell schedule. This should be
counted toward faculty workload. Currently, high schools may do this
as a special memoranda of understanding by the high school and UH
campus, which must be approved through the DOE and UH attorney
general and by the Superintendent‘s office. A broader approval or
administrative policy on the part of both agencies could facilitate greater
collaboration between feeder high schools and the UH campus.
c. COMPASS placement testing should be at high schools, or at one high
school within a geographic area. COMPASS testing prior to the
application process could facilitate identification of college-ready
students, as well as minimizing the administrative paperwork for
135

students, families, counselors and UH admissions staff. Early
COMPASS testing also provides the benefit of allowing high school
students who do not place into college-level coursework the time
necessary to augment college- and career-ready math and English skills
prior to high school graduation.
d. Concomitant to COMPASS testing at high schools, there should be
professional development for high schools inclusive of UH Running
Start counselors with regards to the meaning and interpretation of
COMPASS scores, which will enhance students‘ knowledge on college-
and career-ready objectives. A DOE-wide strategic goal is to reduce the
remediation rates of high school graduates. Information provided to
counselors about a student‘s performance who do not qualify for
college-level after taking COMPASS may help to focus programmatic
interventions to ensure that students are graduating with the necessary
college and career skills. This information could also benefit UH
campuses by effectively aligning the exit-high-school skills with the
entry-level skills required for placement into college-level coursework
upon admissions.
2. Statewide Policy
a. The state and the significant partners in the Running Start program,
DOE and UH should consider whether there is a specific mission and
purpose to this program. Policy questions should address the issues of:
136

1) equity and access to the program; 2) whether permanent staffing is
required to forward the goals and facilitate the administrative issues that
arise through this program; and 3) whether subsidized or state funding is
appropriate and will be made available for students who may not be able
to afford the program once GEAR UP funding terminates at the end of
Summer 2011. Currently, there is no state-funded staff position for this
program, maintenance of the Running Start website, or for the Running
Start web-based application.
3. UH campus and high school levels
a. The UH System has a specific strategic goal to increase the number of
Native Hawaiians accessing and persisting to degree completion. A
direct collaborative partnership between UH campus and feeder high
schools could begin to utilize data on student characteristics that may
enable the early identification of potential Running Start participants
from under-represented groups. UH and DOE recruitment and
academic advising of under-represented student populations as early as
the ninth or tenth grade may provide additional educational information
to offset the representation gaps observed in both ethnicity and income
status. The pooling of counseling resources may benefit both the UH
campus and high school.

137

Implications for Future Research
The policy and implementation literature associated with dual credit
programs outlined the reasons for promoting and supporting dual credit programs
(Hoffman, 2005; 2008; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Karp et al., 2004). Particularly,
dual credit programs were touted as vehicles that could support and facilitate under-
represented students‘ paths into postsecondary education (Hoffman, 2005). The
findings of the current study show that it is important to assess not only student
performance indicators to evaluate the success of dual credit programs, but that
more information is needed in terms of how the school and university
organizational structures facilitate or impede student participation in programs of
this type.
This study offers valuable information on the population of Hawai‗i
students that have participated in this program, as well as providing information on
some of high school selection factors for Running Start participants. While this
study provides information on the Running Start program, future research is needed
to deepen our understanding of the role of dual credit as a tool that facilitates
students‘ transition from secondary to postsecondary education in the following
areas:
1) Further quantitative research should be conducted to provide answers to
research questions that could inform practice and policy such as: 1) Is there
a particular pattern of course-taking that leads to attempting college-level
138

work while in high school?; 2) What are the early performance indicators
that predict accessing postsecondary education?; and 3) What is the
relationship of income status, combined with ethnicity and gender on
accessing postsecondary education?
2) A limitation of this study is its focus on only high school counseling and
administrative structures. An a priori assumption was that public charter
schools might differ in both administrative and counseling practice that was
beyond the scope of this current study to catalog. Public Charter Schools
were therefore deliberately excluded from the survey and interviews. With
4.9% of the eligible charter school population accessing dual credit, it
would be informative to also document the administrative, counselor and
student performance outcomes of charter school participants.
3) Research should also be conducted on the impact of dual credit enrollment
on the postsecondary campuses. Comparisons of high enrollment and low
enrollment periods and the impact of dual credit students on campus
resources should be investigated and documented in order to better
understand the administrative needs of this program.
4) Qualitative research should also be conducted on the Running Start
participants, as well as those who apply for the program and are found not
eligible due to COMPASS placement testing. An exploration of the
students‘ motivations to pursue the program, to access postsecondary
139

education, as well as further delineation on perceived supports and barriers
to participation would help to refine future policy and practice.
5) A matched pair comparison study should be conducted on Running Start
and non-Running Start students to evaluate whether differences exist on
student performance indicators such as college access, retention, and
persistence towards earning degrees. This study would help to inform
statewide policy on whether the Running Start program is a ―college
choice‖ (i.e., student self-selection) program or a ―college access‖ program.

Conclusion
The goal of dual credit programs has been to propel and support high school
students through the transition point of secondary to postsecondary education.
While these programs serve a large number of high school students nationwide, in
Hawai‗i only 1.5% of the eligible student population has participated during the
seven years of the program‘s implementation. Although this study has provided a
comprehensive review of key performance indicators, as well as providing some
insight into the administrative and selection processes of students, more work is
required in order to be able to evaluate the full impact and success of Running Start
as a college access program.
140

REFERENCES

Achieve. (2008a). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a
world-class education. Retrieved on February 26, 2009, from
http://achieve.org/BenchmarkingforSuccess.
Achieve. (2008b). Closing the expectations gap 2008. Retrieved on May 29,
2009, from http://achieve.org/files/50-state-2008ofinal02-25-08.pdf.
Achieve. (2009). Closing the expectations gap 2009. Retrieved on March 29,
2009, from http://achieve.org/closingtheexpectationsgap2009.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance
patterns, and bachelor‘s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved on March 27, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/index.html.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved on July 14, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/ rschstat/research/
pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf.
Advanced Placement. (2008). Annual AP program participation 1956-2008.
Retrieved on May 25, 2009, from: http://professionals.collegeboard.com/
data-reports-research/ap/data.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2002). The open door:
Assessing the promise and problems of dual enrollment. Retrieved on May
11, 2009, from http://www.aascu.org/pdf/dual_enrollment_02.pdf.
Andrews, H.A. (2000). Lessons learned from current state and national dual-credit
programs. New Directions for Community Colleges, 111, 31-39.
Bailey, T.R., Hughes, K.L., & Karp, M.M. (2002). What role can dual enrollment
programs play in easing the transition between high school and
postsecondary education? Community College Research Center, Institute
on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Retrieved on November 6, 2008, from
http://www.inpathways.net/dualcredit.pdf.

141

Bailey, T.R. & Karp, M. (2003). Promoting college access and success: A review
of credit-based transition programs. U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Adult and Vocational Education. Retrieved
on November 15, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/results.html?cx=
017789009494528204701%3Auzmeqn9qqxo&cof=FORID%3A9&hq=-
archived%3A&ie=UTF-8&q=Promoting+college+access+and+
success#1056.
Boswell, K. (2000). Building bridges or barriers? Public policies that facilitate or
impede linkages between community colleges and local school districts.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 111, 3-15.
Boswell, K. (2001). State policy and postsecondary enrollment options: Creating
seamless systems. New Directions for Community Colleges, 113, 7-14.
Bragg, D.D., Kim, E., & Rubin, M.B. (2005). Academic pathways to college:
Policies and practices of the fifty states to reach underserved students.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Philadelphia, PA.
Brewer, D.J., Hentschke, G.C., & Eide, E.R. (2008). The role of economics in
education policy research. In H.F. Ladd & E.B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of
research in education finance and policy. New York: Routledge, p. 23-41.
Brewer, D.J., Stern, S., & Ahn, J. (2007). An introduction to ―Early College.‖
Education Finance and Policy, 2(2), 175-187.
Cabrera, A.F. & La Nasa, S.M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 5-22.
Carnevale, A.P. (2007). Confessions of an education fundamentalist: Why grade
12 is not the right end point for anyone. In N. Hoffman, J. Vargas, & M.S.
Miller (Eds.) Minding the gap: Why integrating high school with college
makes sense and how to do it. Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA.
Carnevale, A.P. & Desrochers, D.M. (2002). The missing middle: Aligning
education and the knowledge economy. Paper presented at the Preparing
America.
Carnevale, A.P. & Desrochers, D.M. (2003). Preparing students for the knowledge
economy: What school counselors need to know. Professional School
Counseling, 6(4), 228-237.

142

Chen, X. (2005). First-Generation students in postsecondary education: A look at
their college transcripts. (NCES 2005-171). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on
September 29, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?
pubid=2005171.
Choy, S.P., Horn, L.J., Nuñez, A-M, & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college:
What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend
college. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 45-63.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The
American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
College Board, Advanced Placement. (2010). About AP. Retrieved on July 7,
2010, from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/about.html.
Conley, D.T. & Bodone, F. (2002). University expectations for student success:
Implications for system alignment and state standard and assessment
policies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 2002). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED464922).
Conley, D.T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Educational Policy
Improvement Center. Retrieved on April 11, 2009, from
http://www.epiconline.org/publications/college_readiness.
Conley, D.T. & Bodone, F. (2002). University expectations for student success:
Implications for system alignment and state standard and assessment
policies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education (Philadelphia, PA).
Delicath, T.A. (1999/2000). The influence of dual credit programs on students‘
integration and goal attainment. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(4),
377-398.
Ewell, P.T., Jones, D.M., & Kelly, P.J. (2003). Conceptualizing and researching
the educational pipeline. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

143

Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, S., & Pollock, E. (2005).
Reassessing the U.S. international mathematics performance: New
Findings from the 2004 TIMSS and PISA. American Institutes for
Research. Retrieved on February 26, 2009, from www.air.org/news/
documents/TIMSS_PISA%20math%20study.pdf.
Goldberger, S. (2007). Doing the math: What it means to double the number of
low-income college graduates. In N. Hoffman, J. Vargas, A. Venezia, & M.
Miller (Eds.), Minding the Gap: Why integrating high school with college
makes sense and how to do it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press,
p. 27-41.
Green, D. (2006). Historically underserved students: What we know, what we
still need to know. New Directions for Community Colleges, 135, 21-28.
Greene, J.P. & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college
readiness rates in the United States. Education Working Paper, No. 3,
September 2003. Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.
Greene, J.P. & Winters, M.A. (2005). Public high school graduation rates and
college readiness rates: 1999-2002. Education Working Paper, No. 8,
February, 2005. Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.
Grimes, S.K. & David, K.C. (1999). Underprepared community college students:
Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College
Review, 27(73), 73-92.
Hawai‗i Department of Education. (2008a). Department of Education Strategic
Plan: July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011. Retrieved on November 23, 2008, from
http://doe.k12.hi.us/curriculum/strategicplan.pdf.
Hawai‗i Department of Education. (2009). School Status and Improvement
Report. Retrieved on March 15, 2010, from http://arch.k12.hi.us/.
Hawai‗i Revised Statutes. §302A-401. Retrieved on November 23, 2008, from
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol05_Ch0261-0319/HRS0302A/
HRS_0302A-0401.htm.
Hawai‗i Legislative Session. (2007). HB No. 767, HD2, SD2, CD1. Retrieved on
May 25, 2009, from http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2007/
bills/HB767_CD1_.htm.
Hoffman, N. (2005). Add and subtract: Dual enrollment as a state strategy to
increase postsecondary success for under-represented students. Boston,
MA: Jobs for the Future.
144

Hoffman, N. & Vargas, J. (2005). Integrating grades 9 through 14: State policies
to support and sustain early college high schools. Boston, MA: Jobs for the
Future.
Hoffman, N., Vargas, J., & Santos, J. (2008). On Ramp to college: A state
policymaker‘s guide to dual enrollment. Double the numbers publications.
Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Horn, L.J. (1997). Confronting the odds: Students at risk and the pipeline to
higher education. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 98-094.
Retrieved on February 2, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/web/
98094.asp.
Hugo, E.B. (2001). Dual enrollment for under-represented student populations.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 113, p 67-72.
Hunt, E.L. (2007). Dual funding for dual enrollment: An inducement or an
impediment? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31,
863-881.
Huntley, H.J. & Schuh, J.H. (2002). Post-secondary enrollment: A new frontier in
recruitment and retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(2), 83-
94.
Hussar, W.J. & Bailey, T.M. (2007). Projection of education statistics: Thirty-
fifth edition. National Center for Education statistics. NCES 2008-060.
Retrieved on April 12, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008060.
Karoly, L.A. & Panis, C.W.A. (2004). The 21
st
century at work: Forces shaping
the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Retrieved on
February 13, 2009, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG164/.
Karp, M.M., Bailey, T.R., Hughes, K.L., & Fermin, B.J. (2004). State dual
enrollment policies: Addressing access and quality. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
Retrieved on November 13, 2009, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/a3/34.pdf.
Karp, M.M., Bailey, T.R., Hughes, K.L., & Fermin, B.J. (2005). Update to state
dual enrollment policies: Addressing access and equity. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
145

Kisker, C.B. (2006). Integrating the high school and community college: Previous
efforts and current possibilities. Community College Review, 34(1):
Education Module, 68-86.
Kirst, M.W. & Bracco K.R. (2004). Bridging the great divide: How the K-12 and
postsecondary split hurts students, and what can be done about it. In W. W.
Kirst & A. Venezia (Eds.), From high school to college: Improving
opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kleiner, B. & Lewis, L. (2005). Dual enrollment of high school students at
postsecondary institutions: 2002-03. (NCES 2005-008) U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Martinez, M. & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and
college access and success for low-income and minority youth. Washington,
DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.
Retrieved on October 23, 2008, from https://www.collegeaccess.org/
NCAN/Uploads/ 2006012447HSReformCollegeAccessandSuccess.pdf.
McDonough, P.M. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How social class and schools
structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McDonough, P.M. (2005). Counseling and college counseling in America‘s high
schools. National Association for College Admission Counseling. Retrieved
on April 26, 2009, from http://www.nacacnet.org.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Michelau, D.K. (2006). The state policy landscape. In Accelerated Learning
Options: Moving the Needle on Access and Success. Boulder, CO: Western
Interstate Commission on Higher Education.
Morest, V.S. & Karp, M.M. (2006). Twice the credit, half the time? In T.W.
Bailey (Ed.), Defending the community college equity agenda. Baltimore,
MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 223-245. Retrieved on
November 21, 2008, from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uhmanoa/Doc?id=
10188457&ppg=5.
Museus, S.D., Lutovsky, B.R., & Colbeck, C.L. (2007). Access and equity in dual
enrollment programs: Implications for policy formation. Higher Education
in Review, 4, 1-19.
146

National Center for Education Statistics, (2004). The condition of education 2004.
Indicator 15 Student Attitudes and Aspirations: Postsecondary expectations
of 10
th
-Graders. NCES 2004-077. Retrieved on February 15, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004077.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education 2004.
Indicator 18 Remediation and Degree Completion. NCES 2004-077.
Retrieved on October 4, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004077.
National Commission on the High School Senior Year. (2001). The lost
opportunity of the senior year: Finding a better way. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education: Author. Retrieved on January 24, 2009,
from www.admissionpossible.org/sites/f8fbff41-1a58-4318-914c-
3f89068c11cc/uploads/Lost_Opportunity_of_Senior_Year.pdf.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). 12
th
grade reading and
mathematics 2005. Retrieved on April 5, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch/pubsinfor.asp?pubid=2007478l.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation‘s report card:
Hawaii Scores 2005 Reading. Retrieved on April 5, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/stt2005/20064528.asp.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation‘s report card:
Hawaii Scores 2005 Math. Retrieved on April 5, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/stt2005/20064548.asp.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation‘s report card:
Hawaii Scores 2005 Science. Retrieved on April 5, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/stt2005/20064678.asp.
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2009). Student
pipeline-transition and completion rates from 9
th
grade to college: 2006.
Retrieved on May 28, 2009, from http://www.higheredinfo.org/
dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=119&year=2006&level=nation&mode=da
ta&state=0.
O‘Brien, D.M. & Nelson, T.D. (2004). Strengthening college preparation and
access through concurrent enrollment in high school and community
college. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Texas at Dallas.

147

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). Executive
Summary PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow‘s world.
Retrieved on January 24, 2009, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/
2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html.
Palaich, R., Blanco, C., Anderson, A.B., Silverstein, J.S., & Myers, J.L. (2006).
Financing accelerated learning options: Understanding who benefits and
who pays. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission on Higher
Education.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pennington, H. (2003). Accelerating advancement in school and work. Brookings
Papers on Education Policy, 6, 339-376.
Pennington, H. (2004). Fast track to college: Increasing postsecondary success for
all students. Renewing our Schools, Securing our Future. Retrieved on
March 2, 2009, from http://www.epi.elps.vt.edu/Perspectives/FastTrack.pdf.
Perna, L.W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic and
socioeconomic group differences. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1),
25-52.
Perna, L.W., Rowan-Kenyon, H.T., Thomas, S.L., Bell, A., Anderson, R., & Li, C.
(2008). The role of college counseling in shaping college opportunity:
Variations across high schools. The Review of Higher Education, 31(2),
131-159.
Plank, S.B. & Jordan, W.J. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions
on postsecondary destinations: A study of talent loss. American
Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 947-979.
Prescott, B.T. (2006). Follow the students. In the Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education (WICHE): Accelerated learning options: Moving the
Needle on Access and Success. Publication Number 2A358.
Rosenbaum, J.E., Miller, S.R., & Krei, M.S. (1996). Gatekeeping in an era of
more open gates: High school counselor‘s views of their influence on
students plans. American Journal of Education, 104, 257-278.
Sorenson, C.A., Wood, B., & Prince, E.W. (2003). Race and ethnicity data:
Developing a common language for public health surveillance in Hawaii.
Journal of Health Promotion, 1, Special Issues: Hawaii, 91-104.
148

Steinberg, A. & Almeida, C.A. (2008). Raising graduation rates in an era of high
standards: Five commitments for state action. Double the numbers
publications: Jobs for the Future.
Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P.M., Pascarella, E.T., & Nora, A. (1996).
First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and
cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1-22.
University of Hawai‗i. (2008a). Measuring Our Progress. Retrieved on March 15,
2009, from http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/mop/.
University of Hawai‗i. (2008b). University of Hawai‗i system strategic outcomes
and performance measures, 2008-2015. Retrieved on November 23, 2008,
from http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/uhplan/SOPM.pdf.
Venezia, A, Kirst M.W., and Antonio, A. L. (2003). Betraying the college dream:
How disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine
student aspirations. The Bridge Project, Stanford University.
Venezia, A., & Kirst, M.W. (2005). Inequitable opportunities: How current
education systems and policies undermine the chances for student
persistence and success in college. Educational Policy, 19(2), 283-307.
Voke, H., & Brand, B. (2003). Finance and resource issues in high school reform.
Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Waits, T., Setzer, T.C. & Lewis, L. (2005). Dual credit and exam-based courses in
U.S. public high schools: 2002-03. (NCES 2005-009) U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Warburton, E.C, Bugarin, R., & Nuñez, A-M. (2001). Bridging the gap:
Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation
students. (NCES 2001-153) U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The
condition of education 2004. (NCES 2004-007) U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved on October 1, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004077.

149

APPENDIX A
Running Start: Counselor Survey

1. School Demographics
a. How many students (grades 11-12) does your school have? _________

b. Is your school in an urban or rural area (circle one): Urban Rural

c. How many miles is the nearest University of Hawai‗i campus? _______

2. In order of importance, what are three characteristics you look for in a
potential Running Start student?

Most important: _______________________________________________

Second most important: _________________________________________

Third most important: ___________________________________________

3. How do you know this student will be successful in Running Start (i.e., pass
the college course)?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

4. How do students find out about Running Start? Check all that apply.
Counselors: _____
Teachers: _____
Friends: _____
Marketing materials (e.g. brochures, school-wide announcements, etc):
____
Other (please list): _____________________________________________

5. Referring to your answer(s) in Question 4: Which of these is the most
effective in students finding out about Running Start?
________________________________________________________
150

6. What kind of marketing materials does your school produce to market
Running Start to parents and/or students? Check all that apply.
School-wide announcements to students: _____
Brochure(s)/Flyer(s) available for student pick up: _____
Newsletter to students: _____
Newsletter to parents: _____
Posters posted at school: ______
Direct mailings to home: _____
Email to students: ________
Email to parents: _____
Information is posted on the school‘s website: ______
Other (please list): _____________________________________________

7. What is your estimate of the number of hours per week that a typical
Running Start student spends studying for high school coursework? Check
one answer.

0-5 hours ____ 11-15 hours ____ 20 or more hours ____
6-10 hours ____ 16-20 hours ____

8. How many times a semester do you check up on each Running Start student
as they take the college course? Check one answer.

0 times ____ 3-4 times _____ 7 or more times _____
1-2 time ____ 5-6 times _____

9. What student characteristics do you look for when you recruit a student for
Running Start?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

151

For each item below, please circle the number represents your opinion.

10. What factors prevents students from participating in Running Start?

a. Cost of tuition, fees and books

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

b. Transportation to the University of Hawai‗i campus (community
college or university)

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

c. Student does not pass the English placement test

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

d. Student does not pass the Math placement test

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

e. Student does not know about the Running Start program

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

f. College course schedule conflicts with the high school schedule

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

152

g. Student is not interested in attending college

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

h. Student is not yet responsible enough to take college classes

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

i. Please list any other factor(s) that prevents students from
participating in Running Start:
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

11. What factors do you look for in a ―responsible‖ student?

______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

For each item below, please circle the number represents your opinion.

12. What factors help students to choose to participate in Running Start?

a. Student wants to take a class that our high school does not offer

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

b. Students wants to get a ―head start‖ on college

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

153

c. Student is receiving a Running Start scholarship

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

d. Parent(s) is/are supportive of their child taking college classes

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

e. Student likes ―dual credit‖ for both college and high school
requirements

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

f. Having a record of college credit when they apply to college as full-
time students

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

g. Please list any other factor(s) that help students to choose to
participate in Running Start:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

13. Why is it important for a student to express an interest in Running Start?
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

154

14. What is the reason you would NOT recommend a student for Running
Start?
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

15. What do you need in order to improve Running Start for your school?
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

For questions 16-26, please circle the number that best represents your
opinion.

16. Running Start is an important college-access tool for all students.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

17. Running Start students should be selected from the top tier of class
rankings.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

18. Running Start students should be selected from the middle tier of class
rankings.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

155

19. Running Start students should be selected from the lowest tier of class
rankings.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

20. Running Start helps middle- and low-academically achieving students to
access college.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

21. Running Start helps free- and reduced-lunch eligible students in accessing
college.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

22. Running Start students are highly engaged in their high school activities.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

23. Running Start students are highly engaged in their college activities.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

156

24. Running Start is an important way for students to meet graduation
requirements.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

25. In our school, credits earned through the Running Start program are used to
replace high school diploma/graduation requirements (e.g., ENG 100 in
place of 12
th
grade English/language arts).

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

26. In our school, credits earned through the Running Start program are used to
augment, or are in addition to, high school diploma/graduation
requirements.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

27. Please provide any other comments you would like to share about the
Running Start program in your school.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

157

APPENDIX B

Running Start: Administrator Survey

1. School Demographics

a. How many students (grades 11-12) does your school have? _________

b. Is your school in an urban or rural area (circle one): Urban Rural

c. How many miles is the nearest University of Hawai‗i campus? _______

2. How are students selected to participate in Running Start? Check all that
apply.
GPA: ____
11
th
/12
th
grade standing: ____
Counselor has screened the student for participation: _____
Student can afford the tuition, fees and books: _____
Student is considered to be ―college-bound‖: _____
Student is ranked in the top tier of their class: _____
Student is ranked in the middle tier of their class: _____
Student is ranked in the low tier of their class: _____
Student expresses interest in college: ____
Student expresses interest in Running Start: ____
Student is excelling in math: _____
Student is excelling in English: _____
Other (please list): _____________________________________________

3. Who is currently responsible for ensuring that students/parents are notified
of Running Start?
Principal: _____
Vice-principal(s): ____
Grade level counselors: ___
Post-high counselor: ____
Teachers: ____
Other support staff (please specify): _______________________________

158

4. At your school, who should be responsible for ensuring that
students/parents are notified of Running Start? ______________________

5. What are your indicators of success for Running Start? Please check all that
apply.
Student participation numbers in Running Start: ____
Students pass the college class: ____
Students pass the college math placement test: ____
Students pass the college English placement test: ____
Students enroll in college once they graduate from high school: ____
Students graduate from college: ____
Number of college credits attempted: ____
Number of college credits earned: _____
Other (please list): _____________________________________________

6. Do you benchmark Running Start participation as part of your school‘s
college- and career-readiness indicators?
Yes: ____ No: _____

7. How do students find out about Running Start? Please check all that apply.
Counselors: _____
Teachers: _____
Friends: _____
Marketing materials (e.g. brochures, school-wide announcements, etc):
_____
Other (please list): _____________________________________________

8. What kind of marketing materials does your school produce to market
Running Start to parents and/or students? Check all that apply.
School-wide announcements to students: _____
Brochure(s)/Flyer(s) available for student pick up: _____
Newsletter to students: _____
Newsletter to parents: _____
Posters posted at school: ______
Direct mailings to home: _____
Email to students: ________
Email to parents: _____
Information is posted on the school‘s website: ______
Other (please list): _____________________________________________
159

For each item, please circle the number represents your opinion.

9. What factors prevents students from participating in Running Start?

a. Cost of tuition, fees and books

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

b. Transportation to the University of Hawai‗i campus (community
college or university)

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

c. Student does not pass the English placement test

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

d. Student does not pass the Math placement test

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

e. Student does not know about the Running Start program

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

f. College course schedule conflicts with the high school schedule

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

160

g. Student is not interested in attending college

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

h. Student is not yet responsible enough to take college classes

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

i. Please list any other factor(s) that may prevent students from
participating in Running Start:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

For each item, please circle the number that best represents your opinion.

10. What factors help students to choose to participate in Running Start?

a. Student wants to take a class that our high school does not offer

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

b. Students wants to get a ―head start‖ on college

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

c. Student is receiving a Running Start scholarship

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

161

d. Parent(s) is/are supportive of their child taking college classes

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

e. Student likes ―dual credit‖ for both college and high school
requirements

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

f. Having a record of college credit when they apply to college as full-
time students

1 2 3 4
Very Important Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important

g. Please list any other factor(s) that help students to choose to
participate in Running Start:
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

11. What resources do you need to improve Running Start for your school?
Please check all that apply.
Better marketing materials: _____
UH placement testing at our school: _____
Better information from UH about program requirements: _____
Better counseling for students about the benefits of Running Start: ____
Better counseling for students about the potential consequences
of failing the college class: _____
More scholarship opportunities for free/reduced lunch students: ____
Better access to college classes (geographic distance): _____
Better communication between our nearest UH campus and my high school:
_____
Other (please list): ____________________________________________

162

12. What are the benefit(s) that Running Start provides your students who
participate in this program? Please check all that apply.
Students earn credit for college and high school graduation: _____
Students learn what it takes to succeed in college: _____
Students can take classes that match their interest and capabilities: _____
Students are more likely to enroll in college after high school: _____
Students know what knowledge & skills they need for college-level
courses: _____
Students are reducing the time it takes to earn a college degree: _____
Other (please list): ___________________________________________

13. In what way does student participation in Running Start fill gaps that your
current curricular offerings cannot fulfill?
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

14. What kind of professional development is provided for Running Start
counselors or Teachers?
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

15. How accessible is Running Start for your free- or reduced-lunch eligible
students?
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

For questions 16-26, please circle the number that best represents your
opinion.

16. Running Start is an important college-access tool for all students.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

163

17. Running Start students should be selected from the top tier of class
rankings.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

18. Running Start students should be selected from the middle tier of class
rankings.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

19. Running Start Students should be selected from the lowest tier of class
rankings.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

20. Running Start helps middle- and low-academically achieving students to
access college.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

21. Running Start helps free- and reduced-lunch eligible students to access
college.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

164

22. Running Start students are highly engaged in their high school activities.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

23. Running Start students are highly engaged in their college activities.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

24. Running Start is an important way for students to meet high school
graduation requirements.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

25. In our school, credits earned through the Running Start program are used to
replace high school diploma/graduation requirements (e.g., ENG 100 in
place of 12
th
grade English/language arts).

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

26. In our school, credits earned through the Running Start program are used to
augment, or are in addition to, high school diploma/graduation
requirements.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

165

27. Please provide any other comments you would like to share about the
Running Start program in your school.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

166

APPENDIX C

Counselor Interview Guide

1. Review completed survey; ask about any blank responses, or clarifications
needed

2. How do your students find out about the RS program?

3. What school-based supports do you have to promote the RS program at
your school?

4. How are students selected into the RS program for your school?

5. What student characteristics do you look for in a RS participant?

6. What factors are obstacles in the student being able to participate in RS?
And

7. Is there a conflict between Advanced Placement (AP) and Running Start in
competing for students?

167

APPENDIX D

Administrator Interview Guide

1. Review completed survey; ask about any blank responses, or clarifications
needed

2. How critical is your Running Start counselor to the success of the program
here at your school?

3. How do you benchmark success of the Running Start program at your
school?

4. What are the challenges and facilitators that hinder or promote student
participation in the Running Start program?

5. What do you see as the value of Running Start for your students?

168

APPENDIX E

University of Hawai‘i to Hawai‘i Department of Education Ethnicity Codes

UH Codes UH Description DOE Codes DOE Description
AA African American B Black
AI American Indian A Native American
CA Caucasian L White
CH Chinese C Chinese
FI Filipino D Filipino
GC Guamanian or Chamorro M Other
HS Hispanic J Spanish, Cuban, Mexican,
Puerto Rican
HW Hawaiian E/F Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian
IN Indian (Asian) M Other
JP Japanese G Japanese
KO Korean H Korean
LA Laotian N Indo-Chinese (Cambodian,
Thai, Laotian)
MA Mixed Asian M Other
MC Micronesian (not GC) M Other
MH Mixed Hispanic M Other
MP Mixed Pacific Islander M Other
MX Mixed Race (2 or more) M Other
NO No data
OA Other Asian M Other
OP Other Pacific Islander M Other
PI Pacific Islander M Other
PO Portuguese I Portuguese
PR Puerto Rican J Spanish, Cuban, Mexican,
Puerto Rican
SA Samoan K Samoan
TH Thai N Indo-Chinese (Cambodian,
Thai, Laotian)
TO Tongan M Other
VI Vietnamese N Indo-Chinese (Cambodian,
Thai, Laotian)
169

APPENDIX F

Running Start Participation Rates and Rank Order by High School

High School RS N DOE N Student
Participation
Rank
Hakipu‗u Learning Center PCS 33 133 24.8% 1
Ke Kula ‗O Samuel M. Kamakau PCS 9 75 12.0% 2
Kīhei PCS 73 638 11.4% 3
Hawai‗i Academy of Arts and Sci PCS 39 381 10.2% 4
Ni‗ihau School Of Kekaha 5 57 8.8% 5
McKinley High School 440 7327 6.0% 6
Kalani High School 297 5010 5.9% 7
Ke Ana La‗ahana PCS 11 200 5.5% 8
Connections PCS 9 172 5.2% 9
Kua 'O Ka La PCS 3 64 4.7% 10
West Hawai‗i Explorations Academy PCS 17 431 3.9% 11
Hāna High & Elementary School 15 437 3.4% 12
Myron B. Thompson Academy PCS 35 1036 3.4% 13
Hālau Lokahi PCS 7 215 3.3% 14
Waters of Life PCS 4 130 3.1% 15
Honoka‗a High School 91 2983 3.1% 16
Roosevelt High School 191 7046 2.7% 17
Moloka‗i High Intermediate School 46 1712 2.7% 18
Kea‗au High School 91 3583 2.5% 19
Waimea High School 92 3671 2.5% 20
Kula Kaiapuni ‗O Ānuenue* 8 348 2.3% 21
Hilo High School 131 6224 2.1% 22
Konawaena High School 76 3621 2.1% 23
Kaiser High School 82 4652 1.8% 24
Kapa‗a High School 78 4457 1.8% 25
H. P. Baldwin High School 122 7030 1.7% 26
Waiākea High School 100 5782 1.7% 27
Pāhoa High School 33 2025 1.6% 28
Kaua‗i High School 89 5509 1.6% 29
King Kekaulike High School 81 5624 1.4% 30
Maui High School 95 7136 1.3% 31
W. R. Farrington High School 125 10574 1.2% 32
Waipahu High School 109 10153 1.1% 33
170

APPENDIX F (continued)

High School RS N DOE N Student
Participation
Rank
Wai‗anae High School 70 7234 1.0% 34
Moanalua High School 87 9042 1.0% 35
Kapolei High School 77 8644 0.9% 36
Kaimukī High School 40 5019 0.8% 37
Kailua High School 29 3859 0.8% 38
James B. Castle High School 49 6765 0.7% 39
Laupāhoehoe High & Elem School 2 278 0.7% 40
Lahainaluna High School 26 4187 0.6% 41
Kalaheo High School 25 4449 0.6% 42
Kanu O Ka ‗Aina PCS 1 179 0.6% 43
‗Aiea High School 30 5416 0.6% 44
Radford High School 25 5700 0.4% 45
Kealakehe High School 30 7019 0.4% 46
Pearl City High School 32 8212 0.4% 47
Mililani High School 39 10639 0.4% 48
James Campbell High School 33 9417 0.4% 49
Nānākuli High Intermediate School 10 2869 0.3% 50
Leilehua High School 23 7469 0.3% 51
Kahuku High & Intermediate School 16 5421 0.3% 52
Waialua High School 5 1825 0.3% 53
Ka‗u High School 3 1164 0.3% 54
Kohala High School 2 1169 0.2% 55
Education Laboratory PCS 1 1039 0.1% 56
Lāna‗i High & Elementary 0 748 0.0% 57
Hālau Kū Māna PCS 0 170 0.0% 57
Hawai‗i Technology Academy PCS 0 9 0.0% 57
Kanuikapono PCS 0 10 0.0% 57
Kawaikini PCS 0 2 0.0% 57
Ke Kula ‗O ‗Ehunuikaimalino* 0 53 0.0% 57
Kula Au‗puni Ni‗ihau PCS 0 49 0.0% 57
Total 3292 226492 1.5%

*Hawaiian Language Immersion Schools; PCS=Public Charter Schools

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Over the past two decades dual credit programs have been increasingly utilized as a pathway for secondary students to accelerate into postsecondary education. This mixed-methods study evaluates Hawaii's dual credit program, Running Start, on student participant characteristics such as demographics, coursetaking, and postsecondary access and degree completion. Additionally, this study investigated high school organization and structure, as well as factors that influence counselor selection of participants into the Running Start Program.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

Perceptions of Hawai`i TRIO Talent Search staff and target high school administrators of college access factors and project effectiveness

PDF

Professional development for teaching online

PDF

Implementing Chinese-English dual language programs in international schools: a study for an international school in southeast Asia

PDF

Designing an early warning system for Hawaii: identifying indicators of positive high school outcomes

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

The college selection process of high-achieving Latino students

PDF

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

PDF

New school counselor's perception of preparedness

PDF

Recruiting and hiring online learning teachers for online high schools

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

Asset Metadata

Creator Osumi, Jean M. (author)

Core Title The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/17/2010

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

Tag counselor,dual credit,dual enrollment,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy,postsecondary

Place Name Hawaii (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email josumi@hawaii.edu,osumij@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3453

Unique identifier UC1434134

Identifier etd-Osumi-4079 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-389481 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3453 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Osumi-4079.pdf

Dmrecord 389481

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Osumi, Jean M.

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