Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Improving post-secondary success for first generation college students through community partnerships: programming practices for charter high schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Improving post-secondary success for first generation college students through community partnerships: programming practices for charter high schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Improving Post-Secondary Success for First Generation College Students Through
Community Partnerships: Programming Practices for Charter High Schools
Submitted by
Chantelle Janeen Frazee
Dissertation Submitted in Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Public Policy and Planning
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
August 2015
2
Abstract
No Child Left Behind brought a heightened awareness to the quality of American
education, specifically spotlighting the performance of minority subgroups of students whose
learning needs previously went unaddressed. These previously underrepresented students are
now having greater success K-12, particularly in smaller school settings, such as charter schools
or smaller learning communities. As a result, low income minority subgroups of students are
now progressing into post- secondary education in unprecedented numbers. The dilemma is that
many are not having success once they get to college. Additional barriers to success exist for
these first generation college students beyond just academic preparedness.
To better prepare students for greater post-secondary success, schools must find ways to
develop resilience in students and build their social capital. This type of programming is beyond
what charter schools or small learning communities have the capacity to do on their own.
Schools must access community resources to provide supplemental services and programs that
better prepare students. Partnerships must be developed strategically in order to preserve human
capital. The key is discovering what programs should be partnered, to best prepare first
generation college students for post-secondary success.
Defining these key programs was the purpose of this research project. Alumni of
Camino Nuevo High School were surveyed about their transition to college and the programs
they were involved in during high school. Data provided was analyzed for correlations between
particular program involvement and a more successful transition to college.
The results showed the greatest correlation between overall success in college and being
involved in college specific social capital building programs. When data was examined by
specific transition indicator, other off campus programs that were interest specific appeared to
better prepare students for navigating systems, advocating for themselves and possibly
3
overcoming obstacles. As schools build their network of partnerships, there is a tendency to want
to bring all programming onto the school campus. The results of this research imply that actually
having students attend programs offsite build skills that later assist them in transferring more
successfully to college
4
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO STUDY .......................................................................... 8
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8
Significance of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 9
Understanding the Implications of Poverty ........................................................................... 10
Resilience .................................................................................................................................. 11
Social Capital ............................................................................................................................ 12
The Potential of Community Partnerships ............................................................................ 14
Research Question ................................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 18
Post-Secondary Success of First Generation Students ......................................................... 18
The Impact of Poverty ............................................................................................................. 20
Resilience .................................................................................................................................. 23
Social Capital ............................................................................................................................ 26
Community Partnerships ........................................................................................................ 31
School-Based Partnership Models ....................................................................................... 33
Community Based Partnership Model ................................................................................. 38
Benefits of Community School Partnerships ......................................................................... 42
Obstacles in Developing Community School Partnerships .................................................. 43
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 3: INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................... 49
Introduction of the Study ........................................................................................................ 49
Research Paradigm .................................................................................................................. 51
Setting of the Study .................................................................................................................. 53
The School ........................................................................................................................... 53
The Participants ................................................................................................................... 54
The Programs ....................................................................................................................... 57
Procedures ................................................................................................................................ 60
The Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 60
The Pilot Study .................................................................................................................... 62
Survey Distribution .............................................................................................................. 63
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 64
5
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 68
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 68
Graduation Status Subgroups ................................................................................................ 71
Already Graduated Sub-group ............................................................................................... 73
On Track to Graduate in Four Years Sub-group ................................................................. 74
On Track to Graduate in Five Years Sub-group .................................................................. 76
On Track to Graduate in more than five years or Unsure Sub-group ............................... 78
No Longer Enrolled in College Sub-group ............................................................................ 79
Post-Secondary Success and High School Program Involvement ....................................... 80
Leadership Program Participants ......................................................................................... 81
Social Capital Program Participants .................................................................................... 81
Resilience Program Participants .......................................................................................... 82
On-Site Afterschool Program Participants........................................................................... 83
Off-Site Afterschool Program Participants .......................................................................... 83
Other Program Participants .................................................................................................. 84
Data Analysis by High School Program Involvement and Specific Transition Indicators 84
Transition Indicator Category 1: Academic Preparedness ................................................... 85
Transition Indicator Category 2: Ability to Navigate College Systems .............................. 86
Transition Indicator Category 3: Ability to Advocate for Themselves ............................... 86
Transition Indicator Category 4: Ability to Navigate Social Life on Campus .................... 87
Transition Indicator Category 5: Overcoming Obstacles .................................................... 89
Qualitative Question Analysis ................................................................................................. 89
Question Twenty and Twenty-one: Biggest Success and Greatest Struggle in College ...... 89
Question Twenty-Two: Programing that Prepared Alumni for Success ............................ 93
Question Twenty-Three: Suggestions for Programmatic Improvements ............................ 95
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 98
Summary of the Study ............................................................................................................. 98
Correlations between Graduation Status and High School Program Involvement .......... 99
Leadership, Resilience and Social Capital Program Trends ................................................ 99
On-site Afterschool Program Trends ................................................................................. 100
Correlations between Program Involvement and Specific Transition Indicators ........... 101
Transition Indicator Category 1: Academic Preparedness ................................................. 101
Transition Indicator Category 2: Ability to Navigate College Systems ............................ 102
Transition Indicator Category 3: Ability to Advocate for Themselves ............................. 103
Transition Indicator Category 4: Ability to Navigate Social Life on Campus .................. 104
6
Transition Indicator Category 5: Overcoming Obstacles .................................................. 104
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 105
Recommendation One: Viable and Rigorous Academic Program ................................... 105
Recommendation Two: Foster Strong Student-Teacher Relationships ............................ 106
Recommendation Three: College Counselor Role and Program ...................................... 106
Recommendation Four: Community Partnerships ............................................................ 107
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 112
Opportunities for Future Research ...................................................................................... 115
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 116
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 118
APPENDIX 1: IRB INFORMATION SHEET & SURVEY TOOL ................................. 122
APPENDIX 2: IRB APPROVAL LETTER ........................................................................ 129
APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF PARTNERSHIP MODELS ............................................ 132
APPENDIX 4: DATA ANALYSIS BY SUCCESS INDICATOR ..................................... 134
7
List of Tables
Table 1: Overall College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data with the Class of
2014................................................................................................................................... 73
Table 2: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the Already Graduated
Subgroup ........................................................................................................................... 74
Table 3: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the on Track to Graduate
in Four Years Subgroup .................................................................................................... 76
Table 4: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the on Track to Graduate
in Five Years Subgroup .................................................................................................... 77
Table 5: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the on Track to Graduate
in More than Five Years or Unsure Subgroup .................................................................. 79
Table 6: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the Left School Subgroup
........................................................................................................................................... 80
8
Chapter 1: Introduction to Study
Introduction
This study defines first generation college students as those coming from families where
parents did not go to college. They are of the first generation in the nuclear family to attend
post-secondary education. First generation college students are now getting into higher
education in record numbers. The presenting problem is that many of these scholars are not
meeting with success on several levels. These students are prepared enough to get into these
universities but various obstacles are apparently preventing them from obtaining their college
degrees.
First generation students statistically earn lower GPAs and are less involved in
extracurricular activities on the college campus than their non-first generation colleagues. Their
college completion rates are also lower. They must navigate cultural and social differences that
other students do not have to struggle against (Nunez, 2011). Many first generation college
students come from low income backgrounds, often lacking the necessary social capital needed
to obtain their bachelor's degree (Baker & Robnett, 2012). Social capital is defined as the
development of a network of institutional and personal relationships that generate potential
resources for an individual (White & Gager, 2007).
These students often are not academically prepared, with a third of all first generation
college students entering the world of post-secondary education lacking key skills in at least one
subject. This statistic increases to 41% for community college students (Laskey & Hetzel,
2011). These students who enter college underprepared academically are less likely to complete
their degrees. They often also lack the soft skills necessary to help them be successful in
9
attending class, in holding focus, in advocating for themselves and in using adequate study
strategies (Laskey & Hetzel, 2011).
Minority first generation college students must develop the capacity to deal with the
psychological and cultural stress that comes with navigating the campus climate as well. They
must also be able to reconcile their value system with the systems presented by dominant culture
groups on campus (Jones & Cole, 2002). Many first generation students must manage the
culture shock of being in an unfamiliar environment with students of other cultural backgrounds
(Nunez, 2011). Of all races, Latinos have the lowest education attainment rates despite the fact
that as of 2010 they have become the largest minority group enrolled in higher education. In
addition, for first generation college students as a sub-group, degree attainment rates for Latino
students are lower than other ethnic groups (Nunez, 2011).
Unwelcoming environments can diminish any sense of belonging and confidence in these
Latino students. Building a sense of worthiness toward being a part of higher education, as well
as academic confidence and a sense of connectedness on campus are particularly important for
retention. Latinos often fight stereotypes that their admittance into more select universities is
based on affirmative action rather than merit (Nunez, 2011). Challenging these ingrained factors
must begin on a systemic level before students enter the postsecondary education world. Feeling
validated for their academic capabilities and for the positive contributions they can bring to
institutions are important elements in counteracting the isolation and stereotyping that they often
encounter (Nunez, 2011).
Significance of the Problem
Schools provide the greatest opportunity for preparing first generation students to be
more successful in higher education. Alas, schools do not appear to be achieving that potential,
10
especially in low income urban schools. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which was passed in
2001, has brought media attention to the academic performance of schools as well as heightened
awareness from parents concerning how their particular child may be performing (Education
Week, 2004). America has traditionally been charged with educating immigrant children, and
there have always been children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, but there is now a kind
of spotlight on the inequalities in the educational experience particular subgroups are receiving.
NCLB reveals how individual schools are meeting the needs of various subgroups within student
populations (Price, 2008).
Historically top performing schools are now put on program improvement plans if the
subgroups within their student population are not performing as highly as the rest of their peers.
Almost half of all Hispanic and African American high school students attend high schools that
have high rates of poverty and graduation rates that are low (Price, 2008). According to Price,
close to fifteen percent of secondary schools in the United States generate almost half of the high
school dropouts in the nation. Only about half of African American high school students and
fifty-five percent of Hispanic high school students graduate. In comparison, more than seventy-
five percent of Caucasian and Asian American students do graduate from high school (Price,
2008). This does not even begin to take into account what it means to academically prepare
these subgroups to be successful in post-secondary education.
Understanding the Implications of Poverty
To truly understand the obstacles that stand before these students, one must understand
what it means to live in poverty and the impact profound poverty may have on schools. The
common definition for poverty is the absence of monetary means. However, poverty goes
11
beyond simple financial measures. "Poverty is not as much the absence of goods but the absence
of power. It is the lack of ability to change one’s situation” (Linthicum, 1991, p. 10).
People often move in and out of financial poverty (Moser, 1998). A more acute poverty
concerns capability deprivation. Poverty in terms of capability takes into consideration the
confounding impact of factors beyond income and considers a person’s ability to reach their full
functioning. A relationship exists between low income and having low capability. However,
geographic location, handicaps and personality also play key roles in the ability to overcome
obstacles (Sen, 1999).
Resilience
In the world of social work and education, the concept of capacity and freedom is
calibrated in reference to resilience. Resilience is the ability to overcome challenges and the risk
factors in an individual’s life. Educational resilience is a student's capacity to succeed
academically, in spite of the obstacles and risk factors that make achieving success difficult for
them. If a child experiences difficult circumstances or trauma, but has the ability to overcome the
negative impacts of those events, that child would be considered a resilient child (Bryan, 2005).
It has been said to be “easier to take the people out of the empire than to take the empire
out of the people (Linthicum, 1991, p. 14).” The resonant mindset that comes from growing up
low income and the impact it has on attitudes toward education are definite barriers to capacity
building in youth. Much must be done to give low income students opportunities equal to those
who grow up in higher income level homes. The impact of acquired coping strategies must be
addressed and understood in order for students to move to increased levels of freedom
(Rothstein, 2005).
12
Capacities and resilience can be developed in youth and their families. There are
protective factors that can increase students’ ability to overcome obstacles. Studies show that
additional caring mentoring adult relationships are the most impactful in building resilience
(Winfield, 1994).
Social Capital
In addition to the idea of resilience, another way that students build capacities and
increase their effective functioning is through the development of social capital. Social capital is
defined as the development of a network of institutional and personal relationships that generate
potential resources for an individual. These social relationships may present themselves as
immediate resources or relationships through which future resources could result. These
relationships vary in the quality and quantity of resources that they provide (White & Gager,
2007).
Social capital can be understood as cumulative; it is the sum of all the institutional and
social relationships a person has in their network (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Beyond just the
network of relationships, the concept of social capital emphasizes a person's influence over social
structures; power brings more access to social capital (White & Gager, 2007).
Low income minority youth have different barriers to overcome than those who are of the
dominant culture group, but also low income. Every child brings with them their cultural
knowledge and fluency from the family of ethnic origin. These cultural upbringings carry with
them various types of language nuances, traditions and acceptable cultural norms. Students
learn to adhere to them in order to successfully navigate their day to day life in their homes and
communities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
13
These norms are different from that of the school system, often to the point of being
contradictory. Low income minority students enter the educational system with a completely
different social capital and corresponding resources than middle and upper class peers. Their
ability to succeed academically and socially in the educational setting depends on the student's
ability to make sense of the system and to negotiate the customs of the dominant group. Students
must learn the socially acceptable language and cultural modes of communication for both social
situations. This makes the acquisition of social capital difficult for these minority and bicultural
students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Schools act as catalysts for the development of social capital. Since a major factor in
social capital acquisition is in the quantity and nature of the connections a student has outside
their family unit, the school setting allows a child to interact with a variety of people of myriad
types outside of their home (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). They interact with teachers, school staff,
administrators and peers, who act as "institutional agents that become gate-keepers or informal
mentors” (Stanton-Salazar, p. 5, 1997).
Institutional agents must assist these bicultural minority students in the acculturation
process into the dominant society while simultaneously navigating their culture of origin. This
process is called socialization. In this process students learn to be a part of multiple social
contexts, negotiating the cultural norms of both worlds (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). For this reason,
schools are vital places for the development of social capital for low income students.
Educational experiences can empower these students, broadening their social network,
"expanding their access to a larger number and variety of potential network members” (Stanton-
Salazar, p.4, 1997). School personnel can provide resources or open up opportunities to youth.
This includes various tutoring programs, mentoring as well as college counseling and career
14
exploration. Involvement in afterschool programs and extracurricular activities provide youth
additional access to opportunities outside the family. These opportunities generate additional
supportive adult relationships to assist students in reaching various goals. Participation in these
activities is linked to higher academic performance, higher self-images, increased high school
graduation rates and less at risk behavior (White & Gager, 2007).
The Potential of Community Partnerships
Schools are charged with responsibilities beyond the simple transmission of academic
information. Schools must combat the consequences of poverty and all of its influences on
student success. They must find ways to develop resilience and social capital in youth in order to
prepare them for post-secondary education.
In comparison to large schools, small schools and more intimate learning communities
show more promise in developing these traits in students, better preparing them for greater post-
secondary success (Conchas & Rodriguez, 2008). The dilemma is that smaller schools have
limited funding and fewer staff members. It is harder for them to provide all of the diverse
services necessary to address fully the issues of developing resiliency and social capital. Small
schools also struggle to simply support students with the holistic services that they need to
overcome these academic and socio-emotional barriers in students’ lives. In many charter
schools or small school settings, these socioeconomic barriers to education continue to go
unaddressed due to a lack of resources (Wohlstetter, Mallooy, Hentschke & Smith, 2004).
Community partnerships have been promoted as keys to meeting these holistic student
needs. Schools do not have the monetary resources or the staffing to address all the systemic and
sociological issues in urban education, but there are organizations in communities which can
provide these additional programs or services (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke & Smith, 2004).
15
If schools can partner with strategic organizations in their local community, together they can
better meet the holistic needs of more students. Schools can develop partnerships with a variety
of non-profit, for profit and public agencies.
These partner organizations include various cultural and ethnic-based institutions,
educational programs, faith based organizations, and those who provide social services, local
businesses, organizations that provide health care and local police divisions (Wohlstetter,
Malloy, Hentschke & Smith, 2004). Partners work together to coordinate and implement
programming to increase the academic success of students, by providing emotional and social
support for these students being served (Bryan, 2005). Studies show that when families, schools
and communities work together there is an increase in student achievement, student behavior as
well as attendance improvment, in addition to creating a more positive school climate in general
(Anderson-Butcher, 2008).
School community partnerships hold the potential to unleash historically untapped
community capital and resources. They can provide facilities, staffing, and resources that
schools would otherwise not have access to. Partnerships can provide a myriad of supportive
services to address the wide array of needs in low income communities. They can create
networks of services that students and families would not have knowledge of or utilize otherwise
(Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke & Smith 2004).
The potential of community partnerships and extended networks of service providers,
opens up small schools and charter schools to a variety of previously unused resources to aid
them in developing students who move on to colleges and universities prepared for success
(Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke & Smith, 2004). These partnerships however take time and
manpower to generate as well as to maintain. It is not feasible to partner with every organization
16
or service provider in the surrounding community. The key is to discover which partnerships are
the most valuable and where the focus should be in developing these networks.
Research Question
To be able to strategically build these networks, there are a series of questions that must
first be answered about first generation college students and their post-secondary experiences.
Why are students not graduating from college at higher percentages? What are the struggles that
these students are facing? What was different about the experience of those that attained their
degree from the experience of those who did not graduate? What programs or services did these
students participate in when they were in high school or before, that may have prepared them for
greater success? What else could have been done to more adequately prepare these first
generation college students to be successful at the post-secondary level?
The purpose of this study is to begin answering these driving questions concerning the
lack of success first generation college students are experiencing in higher education. The
research is aimed at discovering what was different about the preparedness of students who were
able to graduate, from those who were not able to attain their degrees.
The various programs that students were involved in during their high school career prior
to attending higher education will be assessed. These programs will then be compared with the
current success of those students in post-secondary education. Success will be measured by
college graduation or a student's status for being on track to graduate within five years. The
central assumption of the project was that students who are on track to graduate in four or five
years or have already graduated were students who had been involved in programs that provided
them with leadership experience, built social capital or developed resilience.
17
The hope is that patterns will begin to arise in the research about the types of programs or
involvement prior to moving onto postsecondary education that better prepared them to graduate
or to be on track to graduate. This will provide a broad lens with which to analyze trends
between high school program participation and post-secondary success.
The second assumption is that students who participated in specific programs will show
greater success in the postsecondary transition with indicators specific to the soft skills the
various programs built in those students. The belief is that students who were involved in
programs that build resilience will have higher ratings on overcoming obstacles. Students who
were involved in programs that built social capital will be better prepared to navigate the systems
in college and advocate for themselves. Similarly, students who were involved in leadership and
empowerment programs in high school will score higher in adapting to the social life in college
as well as have greater involvement in extracurricular programs on their respective campuses.
This will allow for distinguishing more specific patterns between program participation and
success on specific aspects of the transition to college.
The results will be used to structure a community partnership plan that charter schools
can use to build a network of programs to better prepare first generation college students for
postsecondary success. This will assist them in maximizing their human capital, in choosing to
invest their time and resources in developing key partnerships that will best prepare their first
generation college students despite their socioeconomic status for post-secondary educational
success.
18
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Post-Secondary Success of First Generation Students
An academic achievement gap exists between the rich and the poor. Over the last
fourteen years, there has been heightened attention in the K-12 education world to this social
conundrum and to the impediments to success for low income minority students as a sub group.
Despite much media attention and a political reform agenda, statistics show little improvement in
closing the achievement gap (Price, 2008). For many poor students who graduate from high
school and who do move on to postsecondary education, obstacles to their success persist.
First generation students statistically earn lower GPAs and are less involved in college
activities in general than non-first generation students. Their college completion rates are also
lower (Nunez, 2011). They are often academically less well prepared: "41% of community
college students and 29% of all students entering college are under prepared in at least one
subject” (Laskey & Hetzel, p.31, 2011). Students who enter college underprepared academically
are less likely to complete their degrees (Laskey & Hetzel, 2011). Despite being the largest non-
white ethnic group enrolled in higher education, first Generation Latino students have the lowest
education attainment rates (Nunez, 2011).
First Generation Students also lack the soft skills necessary to help them to be successful,
to attend class, to focus, to advocate for themselves and to access necessary study strategies
(Laskey & Hetzel, 2011). Mastery of these skills helps build resilience that these students need
for post-secondary educational success. In a study performed at a mid-size private 4-year
university in the Midwest, five personality traits were studied in relationship to the academic
success of students who were labeled at risk. The traits examined were neuroticism,
extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. They were examined using a self-
19
reporting instrument called the Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Several of these non-academic
characteristics appear to be even more predictive in determining success among these vulnerable
students than solely academic considerations. Conscientiousness, defined as being detailed and
organized, for example, was positively related to academic success across the board.
Extraversion, understood as openness to experiencing new things, as well as agreeableness
appeared to be positive indicators for success in certain subject matters (Laskey & Hetzel, 2011).
These non-academic characteristics can be even more important for first generation
college students, who must navigate cultural and social differences that other students do not
have to struggle against (Nunez, 2011). Minority first generation college students often grow up
in communities that are not diverse ethnically or socioeconomically. As they transition to post-
secondary education, many encounter cultural differences in more pronounced ways. First
generation students must acquire new skills to help navigate the psychological and cultural
stresses that come with surviving in a new environment alongside students of diverse
backgrounds (Nunez, 2011).
Dominant groups on campus often have different value systems and expectations toward
cultural norms. Often minorities ‘become minorities’ on campus for the first time (Nunez,
2011). First generation students must develop the capacity to reconcile their primary value
system within the systems presented by dominant culture groups on campus (Jones, Castellanos,
& Cole, 2002). Students from low income backgrounds often do not possess sufficient social
capital needed to navigate the systems required to obtain their bachelor's degree (Baker &
Robnett, 2012).
Latino first generation students in particular often struggle to internalize a sense of
belonging, frequently lacking the academic confidence needed to be successful (Nunez, 2011).
20
This is especially true on campuses where the climate is perceived as unwelcoming. Building
this sense of worth in relationship to participation in higher education, academic confidence and
a sense of connectedness on campus are particularly important to retention. Fighting these
internal factors must begin before the students enter the postsecondary education world. Feeling
validated in their academic capabilities and the positive contributions they bring to institutions is
important in counteracting feelings of isolation and stereotyping (Nunez, 2011).
Students’ own identity development level impacts their interaction in postsecondary
education as well. Ferdman and Gallegos describe a variety of orientations that Latino students
in particular can have surrounding their own identity as a person of color. There is a spectrum of
students’ ability to integrate their identity as a Latino with other identities. Students who are
more assimilated tend to acculturate faster on campuses than those who are not as secure in their
ethnic identity or do not see it as an issue. Similarly, African American and Asian American
students also vary in their level of integration of their racial identity with their other identities.
These levels of integration impact student experiences in higher education (Torres, Howard-
Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003).
The Impact of Poverty
Understanding the implications growing up in poverty have on the success of these first
generation, minority students is essential. A typical definition of poverty is one based purely on
economics, focusing on the absence of financial resources. This is a very limited definition.
Poverty can also be described in terms of functioning and capabilities, which generates a wider
lens with which to analyze its impact on success. This theory concentrates on deprivations which
are all encompassing. Low income is only one instrument in generating capabilities. Capability
deprivation and poverty have influences beyond income (Sen, 1999). Functioning concerns the
21
things that a person may succeed in. Capability is what a person may be able to do or become.
There is a distinction between whether a person can actually do things they would value, and
whether they possess the means or the tools or are allowed to pursue what they would like to do.
Freedom is the degree to which the person is able to choose their level of functioning; the
freedom to have or do something (Sen, 2005). Freedom is the process that allows choices in
actions and decisions. Freedom also concerns the actual opportunities people have, taking into
account their personal and social circumstances. A lack of freedom can arise through processes
that are not fair (Sen, 1999).
Wealth is useful in that it allows one the freedom to do what one desires to do. But
income is not the only factor involved in the freedom to reach our potential. There are
significant other influences in our lives besides wealth (Sen, 1999). When poverty is defined in
terms of functioning and capacity, it helps to delineate the fact that people can have very
different opportunities even if they have the exact same income. There is an instrumental
relationship between low income and low capacity. However, the relationship is strongly
affected by the person's age, gender, social roles, and location geographically. It varies between
communities and families and individuals. Confounding factors exist in the disadvantages born
of being low income. These factors reduce the probability that income will be converted into
corresponding functioning (Sen, 1999). Disability or illness reduces a person's ability to earn
income. These handicaps additionally make it harder for income to become capability.
Individuals with disabilities may need more income to attain the same level of functioning
compared with someone without that particular handicap (Sen, 2005).
Social exclusion reduces self-reliance and confidence in one's self, and can be detrimental
to a person's health, both psychological and physical. This brings up the idea of relative
22
deprivation. Being poor in comparison to others in a wealthier country can be a greater barrier to
capacity building even if that person's absolute income is numerically higher than those of
people in other geographic locations. To survive adequately there is a need to achieve the same
level of social functioning as the larger population. Taking part in the life of a community may
include demands for modern technologies, making the income gap appear greater than in
developing countries (Sen, 1999).
Lower class and low income are terms that are often used interchangeably with many
other terms such as underprivileged, at risk, inner city or lower socioeconomic status. These
describe a group of students that come from these economically challenged families. Children
from these families generally have lower academic achievement than the achievement of middle
class children. None of these terms capture the essence of what it means to grow up in poverty
(Rothstein, 2005).
This is of course not the sole determinant in a child's success. Each child's unique
collection of personality, health, economic status and psychological make-up interact to predict
the child’s performance. Characteristics associated with social class are simply generalized;
every child is unique so all traits may not be apparent in all children who grow up in low income
homes. However socioeconomic status and race may influence learning in school. These
characteristics do not directly influence academic achievement, but the various differences
associated with social class may indirectly influence achievement (Rothstein, 2005).
The average differences in social class impact a child’s learning before they even reach
school age. There are differences in child rearing between families from different social classes.
A well-educated parent reading a book to a child is more likely to ask the child higher level
questions about the reading, which builds reasoning skills. Parents from lower class families are
23
more likely to ask recall questions instead. Recall questions do not develop the same level of
processing (Rothstein, 2005).
Health differences also exist between classes. Poor vision is often recognized in low
income children when compared to their middle class counterparts. These discrepancies are due
to variances in prenatal conditions and activities infants engage in at an early age that train their
eyes. Toddlers born into lower income families statistically watch more television. Children
from middle class homes often develop better hand eye coordination than low income children
due to access to certain types of toys that help the eyes to track and focus on objects. These are
all skills that are required in learning to read (Rothstein, 2005). Lower income children are two
times as likely to be distracted by dental and oral health care issues as middle class children due
to a lack of oral care. They suffer more from issues of lead poisoning, asthma, improper
nutrition, lack of pediatric care and more smoke exposure (Rothstein, 2005).
Additionally, there are sociological and socioeconomic factors in their communities that
cause distractions. One example of a distracting factor is the need to obtain affordable housing.
When families are struggling to find a stable home they are more likely to have to move around.
Student mobility may lower the academic achievement of that student (Rothstein, 2005).
Resilience
Resilience describes the ability to overcome the obstacles and disadvantages in an
individual’s life. Resilience is the capability to cope, and to persist and adapt despite adversity in
order to achieve long term success. Resilience is not a characteristic that remains the same over
one's lifetime, it is not fixed. As vulnerabilities or protective mechanisms are added or removed,
the individual’s response to risky situations can be modified. In order for a child to succeed
despite the influences, risks and vulnerabilities of their external environment, a child's internal
24
strength and protective factors must be greater than those outside influences. This is resiliency
(Winfield, 1994).
Resilient children possess five main characteristics. The first characteristic is social
competence, with which children are responsive, flexible, empathetic, caring, have the ability to
communicate adequately, and have acquired a sense of humor (Benard, 1991). Secondly,
resilient children have problem solving skills. These children can think abstractly, reflect and be
flexible. These children are able to identify various solutions to varied levels of problems.
Thirdly, resilient children demonstrate autonomy, which is the ability to perform adaptive
distancing - distinguishing between their own experiences and those of the family. They also
develop self-efficacy (Benard, 1991).
In order for children to be resilient, the fourth characteristic is that they must have a sense
of purpose. They believe that they can have the ability to change their environment or to control
it. These children also have hope (Benard, 1991). Lastly, resilient children have positive
interactions with those their own age as well as with adults. They are rarely defensive or
aggressive. They are cooperative, participatory and are emotionally stable. They have a positive
self-image and feel that they have personal power rather than feeling powerless (Winfield, 1994).
Certain protective factors help build resiliency. Examples of protective factors are
parents, educators and community members who can foster confidence in students to help them
face the potential risks of gangs, abuse, drugs, alcohol and pregnancy. Parents who are
concerned about the education of their children and participate in their day to day tasks tend to
have more resilient children. Children need the involvement of at least one parent in their
education. Resilient children generally have at least one adult in their lives beyond their parents
who plays a significant role (Winfield, 1994). If there is no parental support at home, the child
25
will need to find additional positive caring interactions at school or with other adults to foster
resiliency. The community must have social networks that care and support urban youth such as
available health care services, child care providers, housing assistance, job training, employment
and recreational opportunities. Many of the children’s social problems can be traced back to a
break down in social networks (Benard, 1991).
In addition to caring and supportive adults, children need those parents and adults to have
high expectations for them in order to help students develop resiliency. These expectations must
fight against the cultural norms that are present in most inner cities. A school's culture must also
build a sense of high expectations among students (Benard, 1991).
Children need to be encouraged to participate in their homes and schools. Parents need
to give students responsibilities to allow them to contribute to home and family. They must
respect their autonomy and foster their independence (Benard, 1991). Schools must do the same.
Students must be given chances to participate in sports and extracurricular activities. They must
be given responsibilities and a chance to participate in school–wide decision making. They
must also be given chances to engage with the community through service and internship type
opportunities (Benard, 1991).
The process of fostering resiliency has three characteristics: it develops over time, it does
not focus on deficiencies but rather focuses on a child's strengths, and it nurtures protective
processes (Winfield, 1994). There are four protective processes to foster resilience: reducing a
child's exposure to the external risk factors, eliminating or trying to reduce the negative chain
reactions that follow a child's encounter with a risk factor, building self-esteem as well as
developing a sense of self-efficacy and bringing positive opportunities into a child's life
(Winfield, 1994). Having adults in the home, at school and in the community who are
26
supportive, encouraging students toward involvement in activities outside of the classroom as
well as pushing them to challenge themselves educationally, builds resilience. This type of
involvement additionally develops a peer group for at risk students of other students who are
high achieving and builds a strong belief in self (Bryan, 2005).
Low income students are not the only children who must develop resiliency. Parental
expectations and the child’s capacity to meet those expectations play a role in the student’s
success, despite socioeconomic status. An imbalance can exist between culturally defined goals
of success and the means of achieving those goals in both middle and upper class families as
well as low income homes. There is a strain created when an individual realizes that the socially
acceptable methods for achieving the expected goals are not available (Marsing, 2011). The
ability to overcome unrealistic societal pressures and norms is vital for the success of all
children.
Social Capital
The development of social capital is another way that students build capacities and
elevate functioning. In addition to overcoming obstacles, which resilience encompasses, social
capital refers to a network of institutional and personal relationships that generate potential
resources for students. Social capital is cumulative; it is the sum of all the institutional and social
relationships a person has in their network (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Each student’s network of
relationships varies in number and in the quantity of resources that they provide (White & Gager,
2007).
Beyond just the network of relationships, the concept of social capital emphasizes a
person's influence over social structures (White & Gager, 2007). A person's family is their
primary resource in developing social capital (Oseguera, Conchas, & Mosqueda, 2011). Beyond
27
the nuclear family, the extended family, church, community organizations and peer groups are
important circles for developing a larger social network. These spheres increase the number of
people in a student's social web and open up additional relationship connections for that person.
The key is for these relationships to be with people who are committed to assisting students in
gaining various forms of knowledge as well as additional resources (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Economic status can impact one's ability to develop necessary social capital (White &
Gager, 2007). Immigrant parents may not be able to teach their children how to navigate the
education system in the United States because they are new to the country themselves. Often
these parents feel alienated from the system. Parents may not prove to be reliable resource
providers for students as they attempt to succeed in this new structure (Oseguera, Conchas, &
Mosqueda, 2011).
Available networks vary for different socioeconomic groups. Low income networks are
generally built on survival and conservation of resources. Middle income networks, however,
are generally built around maximizing accessibility to institutional resources, opportunities for
recreational activities and leisure pastimes, as well as career or social advancement. Middle
class networks produce a greater pool of resources for entering mainstream society than that of
working class networks (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Children from low income homes often have unequal access to relationship building with
institutional agents who have influence over resources at vital institutions, as well as those who
have political power. Developing these supportive types of relationships outside the family unit
is a systematic problem for low income youth. This is called social distribution of possibilities.
This generates a disadvantage for these students, reducing their access to vocational related
connections, potential mentors and various forms of training (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
28
These students may lack opportunities to connect with people who can help them learn
how to negotiate the rules and restrictions of various middle and upper class societal structures.
This also may reduce their ability to seek help in interpreting those structures, inhibiting them
from developing social networks across social classes (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Students need
middle class family members, educators, counseling professionals, social service workers,
ministers, leaders in the community, and college going youth to help open up doors for them, but
they often lack the ability to access these resource network providers (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Low income youth from minority groups have additional barriers to overcome than those
who are of the dominant culture group but low income. Every child brings with him a cultural
knowledge and fluency from their family of ethnic origin. These cultural influences carry with
them various types of language nuances, traditions and acceptable cultural norms. Students
learn to adhere to them in order to successfully navigate day to day life in homes and
communities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). These norms are different from that of the school
system, often different to the point of being contradictory. Low income minority students enter
the educational system with completely different social capital and corresponding resources than
that of middle and upper class peers. Their ability to succeed academically and socially in the
educational setting depends on the student's ability to make sense of the system and to negotiate
the customs of the dominant group (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Institutional agents must assist these bicultural minority students in the acculturation
process into the dominant society while simultaneously navigating their culture of origin. This
process is called socialization (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). In this process students learn to be a
part of multiple social contexts, negotiating the cultural norms of both. Students learn the
29
socially acceptable language and modes of communication for both social situations. This makes
acquisition of social capital difficult for minority and bicultural students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), four different types of obstacles present themselves
as low income minority youth attempt to develop social capital. The first barrier arises when the
traditions and norms of one culture are deemed inferior to those of the dominant culture. This is
considered a socio-cultural barrier. The second socioeconomic barrier prevents students from
taking part in various social aspects of their world. The third are language based barriers that
require the students to become bilingual. Finally, there are structural barriers which are obstacles
that prevent schools from meeting the holistic needs of the student - both academic and socio-
emotional.
Many minority cultures are collectivistic in nature, as opposed to Anglo-American
culture which tends to be highly individualistic. This requires significant negotiation as students
transition from one cultural mode of processing to another (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Individualism incorporates key components of competition, self-sufficiency and autonomy which
are unique and in opposition to a collectivist culture. Collectivist culture also creates dissonance
with the need to be self-reliant, and also seek help when necessary to achieve what one desires to
achieve (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Few students are culturally savvy enough to navigate these differences on their own
without significant support from outside parties. Beyond just decoding, if students are going to
succeed, they have to learn how to become participants in power. They must positively interact
with those who control resources. Success goes beyond just surviving the system. Students
must learn to thrive within the system, managing their various cultures with all their norms and
modes of thought (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
30
In this process, some students may attempt to completely give up their culture of origin to
more completely acculturate into the mainstream culture; however this often comes with adverse
psychological effects on the student over time (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). In order to be successful,
young people must be able to move between their culture at home and the culture at school, and
do so naturally. To do this, students must develop the social capital networks that they need to
be successful in the dominant society (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Schools are vital catalysts for the development of social capital for low income minority
youth. Since a major component of social capital is the number and nature of the connections an
individual has beyond their family unit, the school setting allows a child to interact with a variety
of types of people outside of their home (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). They interact with teachers,
school staff, administrators and peers, who act as "institutional agents that become gate-keepers
or informal mentors” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 5).
Students within the same school or class may develop different types of relationships
with various teachers, staff members or afterschool personnel on campus. Different teachers or
staff may provide alternative types of support or transmit different information to individual
students. This is just the nature of relationship development and the way that students connect to
various people for different reasons (Oseguera, Conchas, & Mosqueda, 2011). These
relationships are vital resources for students as they learn to navigate various institutional
systems (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Educational experiences can empower these students, broadening their social networks,
"expanding their access to a larger number and variety of potential network members” (Stanton-
Salazar, p.4, 1997). School personnel can provide institutional resources or open up
opportunities for youth. These include various tutoring programs, mentoring as well as college
31
counseling and career exploration (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Students also have the ability to
participate in on campus and off campus extracurricular activities which build additional social
capital relationships outside the family unit (White & Gager, 2007). Involvement in afterschool
programs and extracurricular activities provides youth additional access to opportunities outside
the family. These opportunities generate additional positive supportive adult relationships to
assist students in reaching various goals. Participation in these activities is linked to higher
academic performance, elevated self-images, better high school graduation rates and less at risk
behavior (White & Gager, 2007).
Community Partnerships
Developing resiliency in low income minority youth and building their social capital
remain in the shadows for many large urban schools. In comparison to large schools, small
schools and smaller learning communities show a lot of promise in improving the quality of
education and developing programming to address the holistic needs of low income, minority
students. The research suggests that small school environments have the ability to forge unique
cultures that influence students’ attitudes about success and their academic potential. Small
schools facilitate more connected environments where children and adults are more likely to
build deeper relationships with one another (Conchas & Rodriquez, 2008). At the core is the
notion that social interactions in schools are an important part of schooling. These interactions
develop social capital and social support which are associated with positive student outcomes.
This awareness has resulted in an emphasis among school reform movements to create stronger
community within schools because connectedness is viewed as an asset, developing
coordination, trust and the spread of information (Maroulis & Gomez, 2008).
32
This perspective has given rise to hundreds of independent charter schools all over the
nation. The dilemma is that these small schools with their limited resources and limited staff
members do not have the ability to meet all of their students’ needs. They cannot truly provide
the resources needed for all students to have equitable opportunities to succeed both at the high
school level and in preparation for postsecondary educational success (Wohlstetter, Malloy,
Hentschke, & Smith, 2004).
In light of this, community partnerships have been promoted as a key to meeting these
holistic student needs. Schools do not have the monetary resources or the staffing to address all
the systematic and sociological issues in urban education. However when they partner with
community organizations to support students together they can enhance their capacity to meet
the needs of students (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004).
Schools develop partnerships with non-profit, for profit and public sector agencies.
These partner organizations include various cultural and ethnic-based institutions, educational
programs, faith based organizations, those who provide social services, local businesses,
organizations that provide health care and local police divisions (Wohlstetter, Malloy,
Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). Partners work together to coordinate and implement programming
to increase academic success of students, by providing emotional and social support for these
students being served (Bryan, 2005). When families, schools and communities work together
there is an increase in student achievement, student behavior as well as attendance improve, and
it creates a more positive school climate in general (Anderson-Butcher, 2008).
School community partnerships hold the potential to unleash historically untapped
community capital and resources. They provide facilities, staffing, and resources that schools
would otherwise not have access to. Partnerships can provide a gamut of supportive services to
33
address the wide array of needs in low income communities, building resiliency and social
capital for students. They can create networks of services that students and families would not
have knowledge of or be able to utilize otherwise (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith,
2004).
Partnerships, however, require time to create, to assess the needs of the community and
select appropriate members. Relationships are not developed overnight. Even after the right
players are brought to the table, building trust and navigating various partner world views or
interests in a manner beneficial to the network is a time consuming process. Organizational
investment in partners and schools is vital to the success of the partnerships (Wohlstetter,
Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004).
Organizations have to be willing to give up a piece of their autonomy and work not only
for their own good but for the good of the collective. Human capital is needed to facilitate
collaboration and structure networks in a strategic manner. Keeping the partnership relationships
in spite of staff turnover takes deliberate structures and organizational buy in from leadership
(Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). Above all, varying levels of financial
resources are needed depending on the partnership model. Despite all of the obstacles, when
done well, the benefits associated with these partnerships seem to outnumber the costs
(Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). There are two types of community
partnership models: school based models, where the school is at the core of the network and
community based models, where the school is a member of the network but not the focal point.
School-Based Partnership Models
The Ohio Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement is a school-based
model, where partnerships are formed at the district level. This model was developed
34
collaboratively by leaders in the Ohio Department of Education and members from the Ohio
State University College of Social Work (Anderson-Butcher, 2008). The Ohio Department of
Education has piloted this framework in 12 schools. They have additionally used the model to
assist more than 3,500 schools across the state. This model employs community empowerment
strategies along with placing health care services, social service providers, programs for parents
and families, as well as afterschool programming on school site campuses. They call it “getting
conditions right for learning” (Anderson-Butcher, p. 162, 2008). They believe that through these
partnerships they can structure student time outside of the classroom and maximize the influence
on the family as a unit through providing these resources. Both of these better the conditions for
learning and academic success (Anderson-Butcher, 2008).
This model does not require all services to relocate on to campus like many other
community school models. Rather, it interweaves on site and off site services. It is not a rigid
model. Partnerships are developed at the district level but it is site based allowing for changes
based on individual site needs. The model is based on the idea that in order to address the
holistic needs of low income students outside resources must be mobilized (Anderson-Butcher,
2008). The school site is at the center of the partnership building, facilitating the development
and structure of the network (Anderson-Butcher, 2008).
There are five components to the Ohio development model. The first area of focus is
academic learning. They partner to provide tutoring, professional development for teachers and
test prep class for students to be successful on entrance exams. Second is youth development.
Partnerships are created to assist with mentoring, leadership development, sports, community
service and internships. Thirdly, they promote parent and family engagement or support
(Anderson-Butcher, 2008). The fourth component is health and social services, networking to
35
meet those sociological and medical needs of families as a whole. Lastly, they focus on
community partnerships. Beyond service providers, they desire to foster strong partnerships
within the community for neighborhood wide improvement and development (Anderson-
Butcher, 2008).
According to the Ohio community school model, there are several key pieces of the
process. One of the most important aspects of the process is building the table, deciding what
organizations or entities to include as partners (Anderson-Butcher, 2008). A needs assessment
of the neighborhood must be completed, identifying both the needs that must be addressed and
the resources currently available within the community. A gap analysis must then be completed
to decide what needs remain unmet. The resource or program development can then begin to
address the unmet needs. The partnerships must be developed and an infrastructure for the
collaborative must be created (Anderson-Butcher, 2008).
The collaborative must give all members equal power in order to be successful. Effective
partnerships require schools to view families and community stakeholders as equal partners in
education not just customers or clients. Meetings must be held regularly and collaboratives must
be evaluation driven, constantly looking at data to revise or change what is not generating
effective results (Anderson-Butcher, 2008). District and administrative support are absolutely a
must if this community partnership model is going to be successful. Beyond district support,
there must be funding for someone at the district level to oversee partnership development and
someone designated on the individual school site to broker network services to students and their
families (Anderson-Butcher, 2008).
Additional school-based partnership models exist where the partnerships are generated by
the local school themselves, rather than by the school district, as in the Ohio model. Often in
36
these models, schools become resource centers for the local community surrounding their school
site geographically beyond just their student body. These are called community schools. The
focus remains educational but is based on the idea that sound education requires healthy
communities Partnerships include parents, businesses, universities and community
organizations (Keith, 1996). Mentoring programs are included where parents and professionals
are on campus during the school day. Community schools desire to improve students’
intellectual and emotional preparation for learning, as well as find a fit between family, the
community and the school. Partnerships support families so they can create positive
environments for their children to learn at home. They supplement school resources and prepare
students for the workforce (Keith, 1996).
Community school models require human capital to develop and coordinate the
partnerships. Schools must have a staff or faculty member that knows how to assess the needs of
their school community. Someone must know what organizations are present in the community
around the school and what potential resources are available. This is the only way to design a
community partnership network that can meet the necessary student and family needs (Keith,
1996).
Contracting with an outside organization to develop site based community partnerships is
another possible structure for a school that lacks adequate personnel. One example is through
Communities in Schools, a non-profit organization that partners with local schools, assisting
them in developing a network of community partners. A site coordinator is placed on the school
campus. This site coordinator is the point of contact working to develop a comprehensive
network of services (www.communitiesinschools.org/ourwork). Coordinators address various
academic and non-academic concerns by connecting students and their families to a variety of
37
community partners and resource providers to assist in meeting the needs of that individual child.
The site coordinator role is to identify students within each school that are deemed at risk. The
coordinator evaluates the needs of both the school as a whole and the at risk student. Using the
data from the assessment, the coordinator then develops relationships with key businesses within
the community, non-profit agencies, health care providers and community volunteers to address
the specific needs within that school site (www.communitiesinschools.org/ourwork).
The services include those that meet their basic necessities such as food, clothing, access
to medical and dental care, as well as housing. Resources are made available to the school site as
a whole in some cases, while other services are focused solely on at risk students and their
families. They partner with local tutors to provide academic assistance, ensuring academic
success. Counselors and social workers are connected with students and their families to ensure
that their homes are healthy and nurturing. Communities in Schools provide service learning
opportunities to encourage students to make a difference in the community around them.
Partnerships prepare students for life beyond secondary education through career
exploration and job shadow programs, touring universities and colleges, and leadership
development (www.communitiesinschools.org). Schools contracting with Communities in
Schools have seen up to 87% of students receiving services to reduce their at risk behaviors. The
site coordinator is placed on the school campus for a cost of $189 annually per student, a cost
that the school must cover. This appears to be a moderate amount when juxtaposed against the
positive impact on students and families. However, in a climate of budget cuts and fiscal
shortages, many schools do not have the funds despite the potential benefits
(www.communitiesinschools.org/ourwork).
38
Community Based Partnership Model
Arguably, the most impressive and comprehensive model for addressing both the
systematic and sociological needs of students is the Harlem Children’s Zone, or HCZ, which is
located in New York City. HCZ is a community based model where there is a network of
services which has been created by an outside organization as the lead, with the schools being
just one aspect in a greater network rather than the center (http://www.hcz.org/about-us/history).
The organization began under the name of Rheelen in 1970. They were New York City's
first prevention program for truancy, working with youth and their families to keep them in
school. Through the 1980s and 1990s they offered a scattering of services to address the crack
epidemic in Harlem. In 1991, they opened after school programs in schools that had no
programming after school hours. Rheelen would offer a variety of academic and recreational
services at night, on the weekend and during the summer (http://www.hcz.org/about-us/history).
In the early 1990s a pilot program began where a wide range of services were provided
and targeted for one particular block. The idea was that if the primary problems faced by low
income families in one centralized geographic location were addressed, the community could be
transformed. This meant addressing living conditions in old apartment buildings, poor public
education, violence and crime as well as chronic health issues. Today, this initial one block pilot
program now spans 97 blocks and is known as the Harlem Children’s Zone
(http://www.hcz.org/about-us/history).
HCZ targets specific issues in determining what services to provide. They have five core
principles that have been used to guide their community development. The first one is that
organization is neighborhood based. What began as a one block pilot program extended to 24
blocks, then 60 blocks, and now 97 city blocks. This expansion was done slowly and
39
strategically to ensure continual quality programming for residents. The clients are from the
local community, so programs are completely housed inside the neighborhood for neighborhood
residents (http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project).
To bring about a widespread change in neighborhood culture, it is necessary to serve a
large percentage of the population in a concentrated area. The HCZ focuses on a finite area
where they can give specific targeted attention by providing those residents with intensive,
focused services. HCZ believes that to create a “tipping point” in the expectations and norms of
a community, approximately 65% of the children in the specific area need to be reached (HCZ,
2009). If there is an increasing percentage of the community that responds positively to the
influences and services provided, then there can be a shift in the community culture as a whole.
This allows for community wide transformation beyond just helping a few individuals at a time
(HCZ, 2009).
The second principle is that of a pipeline of support. HCZ believes the earlier a child is
provided quality health care, social stimulation and appropriate intellectual stimulation, and
guidance from loving adults, the more likely that child is to become a productive citizen.
Intervention at older ages is still important - children can enter the pipeline at any age - but there
is a focus on concentrated services at the early intervention stages. Prenatal care, infant
programs, early childhood programs, programs for elementary aged children, middle school aged
programming, secondary programming and programs for college-aged youth are pieces of what
the organization provides (http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project).
These programs are supported by additional programming for the whole family, including
various social services and health care programs. They are also supported by community
building outreach (HCZ, 2009). The services can be divided into two tracks: services provided
40
to children who attend HCZ Promise Academy I and II charter schools, and those services
provided to children who attend the local public schools (HCZ, 2009). The pipeline is designed
to be intense and holistic, meeting both academic and socioeconomic needs of students.
Principle 3 concerns building community. They supplement the programs targeted at
individual children and their families with ones targeted for the community as a whole. It takes
an entire community working together to completely change the life of a child. Children are
greatly affected by their environment. The most important element is the family and home
environment. However, the role models individuals see in the community have an impact as
well (HCZ, 2009). HCZ believes that pride in one’s neighborhood and strong local leadership
must exist to transform the entire community. It takes collaboration of residents, stakeholders,
and institutions to sustain community wide transformation. Harlem Children’s Zone engages in
neighborhood beautification projects, leadership training, community organizing, and links to
supportive services in order to build strong community and “mend the fabric of Central Harlem”
(HCZ, 2009).
The last two principles are evaluation and culture of success. Every program the HCZ
implements is evaluated regularly. Successful programs are maintained and unsuccessful
programs are altered or discontinued. This constant monitoring and evaluation drive the work
that is done and the services provided in Central Harlem. The organization also strives to hire
staff that believe in creating a culture of success. Great lengths are taken to ensure that every
person a child comes into contact with through the Harlem Children’s Zone believes in that
child’s individual potential and the ability to succeed (HCZ, 2009).
So what have been the results of these comprehensive services? Of the one hundred and
ninety children entering the Harlem Gems pre-kindergarten program in 2009 at the age of 4,
41
approximately sixteen percent were classified as delayed or very delayed. By the close of the
school year, none of the children were classified as very delayed. In addition, the percentage of
children being considered advanced went up by 20% (http://www.hcz.org/our-results).
All third graders in both charter schools were reported as being at the third grade level or
above in math after the annual standardized testing. In English, over 93% of children enrolled in
third grade at the original Promise Academy scored at or above grade level. In the second
Promise Academy, over 98% of the student body as a whole were considered to be performing at
their particular grade level or advanced in math. By 2008, 93% of the high school freshmen
were passing the Algebra New York Regents exam (http://www.hcz.org/our-results). These
statistics are not the norm for inner city schools. With their pipeline of support, the Harlem
Children’s Zone has apparently found a way to bridge the achievement gap for low income
children and youth.
The success of HCZ has promoted a desire from many organizations to replicate their
model, although the Harlem Children’s Zone program did not come cheap. The model requires
tremendous capital investment. The HCZ Project budget for the 2010 fiscal year was $48
million, spending an average of $5,000 per student (www.hcz.org). This is a daunting amount of
capital to raise even for this seemingly utopian model. However, the comprehensive pipeline
model and the concentrated geographic focus are aspects that could be created with community
partnerships rather than capital from one single organization.
By combining school based models that use networks of service providers with the
comprehensiveness of the Harlem Children’s Zone example, a less expensive solution could be
found. If a collaborative, either school based or community based, focused on a specific
geographic area, assessed the needs and resources, then completed a gap analysis, data could be
42
used to determine what types of services or programs might and should be included in the
network. Institutions or organizations could then be brought to the table, creating a similar
comprehensive pipeline in a focused location with the amount of necessary capital largely
decreased.
Benefits of Community School Partnerships
Community school partnerships, whether they are school centered or community
centered, have many benefits. Cross sectorial alliances enhance the capacity of organizations by
connecting them to assets that they do not have, including monetary resources, various new sets
of knowledge and expertise (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). Partnerships
enable schools to gain human capital with additional volunteers for teaching and business
expertise to support overworked staff members. Schools benefit politically from the
relationships, increasing their credibility or legitimacy through the endorsement of partner
organizations (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004).
These relationships are not one way. Schools allow partner organizations the ability to
provide quality services to a larger number of community members; simultaneously, partner
organizations find ways to use relationships with schools to provide other benefits for them in
return (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). Partnerships enable staff members and
organizations as a whole to support each other, benefiting from their collective strengths and
weakness (Andrew & Entwistle, 2010). There is power in professionals from various sectors
coming together to find solutions. Partners all potentially view issues differently, are motivated
by different goals and utilize different approaches – yet partnerships allow for continuity and
stability of services when groups work together. Partnership also allows for improvements in
service effectiveness (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010).
43
Charter schools, for example, often do not have district offices that provide curriculum or
school buildings or facilities for support or additional manpower. Charter schools must figure
out how to provide such resources for themselves. New charter schools consistently have issues
with implementation of their charter and struggle with insufficient funds, lack of necessary
expertise and unsatisfactory facilities (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004). The
main reason for charter revocations has been due to mismanagement of finances. Across the
country, charter schools are in search of partners who can provide facilities and financial
assistance, partners with knowledge about how to secure funding from diverse sources,
curriculum providers and trainers for effective management. They also search for partners that
add to their credibility in their local communities. Charter schools have to build relationships
with various partners outside of the world of education to meet their needs (Wohlstetter, Malloy,
Hentschke, & Smith, 2004).
In addition, these types of partnerships build resilience in at risk youth by adding
protective factors through additional adult relationships that provide an additional support
system. They provide opportunity for students to engage in meaningful participation in their
schools and neighborhoods, as well create high expectations from parents and teachers (Bryan,
2005).
Obstacles in Developing Community School Partnerships
Despite the benefits, there are also undeniable obstacles in creating community school
partnerships. Representatives from various organizations are frequently hesitant in relinquishing
power. Some back away from partnerships because of the decreased autonomy that can often
accompany partnerships (Brown, 2002). Individual agencies may have particular policies or
rules that make create obstacles in coordinating services, knowledge or resources, such as grant
44
or contract stipulations. Varying perspectives provide one of the greatest benefits of
partnerships. However, these same differences in knowledge, expertise or experiences among
members may create challenges in collaboration and communication when working together
(Brown, 2002). Developing partnerships requires time and money, as well as a willingness of
organizations to learn about each other. Establishing trust between organizations is imperative
and ultimately organizations have to be willing to change the way they do things in order to
become true partners (Brown, 2002).
Schools should not work with every partner that walks through the door, networks need
to be strategic (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2006). A partnership plan must be
created to guide partner selection, ensuring strategic partnership development (Bryan, 2005).
School staff must be knowledgeable, and be able to differentiate beneficial partnerships and
those that would not be profitable. Often, organizations do not want to invest this amount of
time in strategic partnership building (Bryan, 2005).
Finally, the largest obstacles in community school partnerships appear to be financial.
Organizations such as the Harlem Children’s Zone have multi-million dollar budgets. Similarly,
organizations like Communities in Schools require schools to pay close to $189 per student
(www.communitiesinschools.org). There is a need for financial capital that most schools cannot
meet. Human capital requires funding as well. There is a need for personnel to work on building
the partnerships and developing community relationships. Most school staff are overwhelmed
with solely educational tasks. In many schools staff members fill multiple rolls on campus; this
is especially true in charter schools. Devoting the necessary time to partnership building is not
an option. Charter schools and non-profits often have high turnover rates. Turnover can make
45
relationships difficult to foster and preserve over time when the players in the partnership are
frequently changing (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2006).
Summary
Schools develop histories that are transferred from one generation to another. School
cultures are complex rituals and traditions built over time. They pass on academic knowledge
from one generation to another and prepare students to enter the world of work. They are
transmitters of culture, socialization and citizenship (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
When one examines the various reform movements throughout the history of public
education in the United States, it does not appear that there has ever been full success at
educating all students equally. NCLB has simply placed an emphasis on school reform,
shedding light on schools that are failing to produce students who are proficient in core subject
areas. It has also brought to the forefront the inequalities in education among low income
minority students, requiring that schools improve performance (Price, 2008).
The number of first generation students graduating from high school has definitely
increased. The number of first generation students moving onto postsecondary education has
also improved. The dilemma lies in the fact that for those first generation students who are
moving on to post-secondary education there continues to remain an achievement gap in their
success at the university level.
All of the theories of development use different vocabulary to describe the same basic
concept. Social class, with all the socioeconomic factors that class encompasses, ultimately does
not determine the outcome of communities or individuals. There are deeper internal
characteristics and indicators that determine whether individuals reach their potential. Every
individual has strengths. Developers and educators must focus on these strengths and build on
46
them. As they further develop these assets in youth and communities, they build resilience.
Resilience allows individuals to overcome the obstacles they encounter. As assets are further
developed, resilience is built and capacity grows. As capacity grows, individuals, families and
communities gain additional freedoms. These freedoms empower students to not only change
their lives but the community around them.
The task of developing strengths and improving resiliency in the inner city requires
combating the risks, conditions and vulnerabilities in these at risk environments. Capacity
building is a process. It is more than schools can do alone, especially when attempting to
diminish various risk factors from students’ lives.
This is where networking comes in. Community networks and collaboratives are
necessary to meet student’s needs holistically. Networks are imperative in removing various risk
factors in students’ lives, providing them the mentorship they need to build resiliency. Young
people from families facing economic hardships are especially dependent on teachers and staff
from their school sites for additional support and guidance (Croninger & Lee, 2001). Students
need teachers' emotional support and encouragement, as well as information and assistance with
decisions, both personal and academic (Croninger & Lee, 2001). It provides a network of adult
relationships for students to be fully strengthened. Teachers are truly a key and vital source of
social capital for students who are academically at risk (Croninger & Lee, 2001).
Both of the models for developing these community partnerships - both school centered
and community centered - have strengths and weaknesses. There are many obstacles to building
community school partnerships, but the benefits of collective efforts appear to outweigh costs.
Models that involve large amounts of capital do not appear to be as easily replicable as those that
utilize and depend more on mutually beneficial partnerships.
47
With a partnership approach less capital is required and there is room for greater
participation from families themselves. These types of strategies are now being employed by
many charter schools to better support student success in K-12 education. There does, however,
exist a gap in adequately preparing the first generation, low income students for postsecondary
education.
First generation college students need resilience and social capital to be successful at the
college level. Schools do not have the adequate staff or resources to provide programs that build
these characteristics as well as other vital traits that will increase college graduation rates for this
subgroup. Community partnerships allow for these additional essential services to be provided
for students that support both the academic and non-academic needs of students that often
interfere with post-secondary achievement.
Equally important, these partner programs foster student empowerment, building the
capacity necessary for students to be successful in higher education, developing the sense of self
advocacy and intrinsic motivation. As with any community partnership network development,
program partnerships must be selected strategically incorporating the key programs that provide
essential experiences for students to be more successful at the post-secondary level.
Programs like the Harlem Children’s Zone are amazing in their geographic focus and all-
encompassing pipeline of services from birth to college. In a perfect world, all schools would be
in neighborhoods where this type of community based program was occurring. But this is not
the situation for the majority of charter schools. Because of lottery stipulations requiring that
proximity cannot be a requirement for attendance, charter school students travel from myriad
locations to attend their schools. Many of the charter organizations are not K-12, so generating a
pipeline from birth to college is not a realistic option.
48
How, then, do these schools create partnerships and programs that will best prepare their
first generation students for college success? If we look solely at the high school level and we
remove the option of geographic concentration, what programs do they need to best prepare their
students for postsecondary success?
This is where the gap in previous research exists. The current research is aimed at
discovering what was different about the preparedness of students who were able to graduate
from college compared to those who were not able to attain their degrees. Was there a difference
in the programs that students were involved in while they were in high school? Were those who
were successful involved in more programs that developed social capital, resilience or
leadership? What types of programs have stronger correlations in preparing these first
generation college students for post-secondary success? Were the most influential programs on
campus or offsite with community partners? How can charter schools maximize resources
providing students’ access to programs that improve their post-secondary success? These are the
questions that this research project is designed to address.
49
Chapter 3: Introduction to Research Design
Introduction of the Study
Schools must maximize their human capital. In order to do so, many charter high schools
opt to build community partnerships to provide supportive services for their students, families
and communities. These partnership opportunities are numerous and varied. In fact, partnership
opportunities are so vast, that it would be impossible to fully cultivate the myriad possibilities
and potential program combinations that present themselves in surrounding communities.
Therefore, schools must strategically choose programs and partnerships that show the
greatest potential for supporting their students as they prepare them for success both at the high
school level and for the world of postsecondary education. The difficulty is that there is little
research available about what programs best prepare first generation students for success at the
university level. The purpose of this research project is to begin to uncover what programs have
shown and are showing the greatest successes from the students’ perspectives in preparing them
for success beyond high school. The key goal of the research here is to look for connections
between the programs that students were involved in at the high school level and their eventual
success in transitioning to college.
In this study, success will be defined as being on track to graduate in five years.
Beyond academics, various transitional indicators will be analyzed to take into
consideration non-academic transition factors. These indicators include the ability of students to
advocate for themselves, ability to navigate the college system, ability to navigate social life on
campus, and the ability to overcome obstacles they encounter in college. The study will look at
the success of the students’ transitions to college overall and then for each of the transition
indicators separately.
50
This study is designed to examine potential relationships between success transitioning to
college and involvement in particular programs while they were in high school. In order to
examine these specific relationships, both for the broader lens of overall success as well as the
narrower lens of success on the five individual transition indicators, data will be analyzed
according to what programs survey respondents were involved in at CNHS. Programs and
partnerships will be categorized into seven groups:
Those designed to build general social capital.
Those designed to build college specific social capital.
Those designed to build resilience.
Those geared toward leadership development.
Basic on-site after school programs that provide various combinations of
resilience, leadership and social capital building opportunities on campus.
Basic off-site after school programs that provide various combinations of
resilience, leadership and social capital building opportunities off campus.
Other interest based community programs that students were involved in
independently rather than those above that are partnerships held by the school
site.
Although there is some crossover in the programs building social capital and resilience and
leadership development simultaneously, they are categorized here according to their core
purpose. Afterschool programs are their own subgroup because of the variety of programming
they offer. Youth centers and general afterschool programs provide a variety of programs that
span developing resilience, social capital building, academic tutoring and often even leadership
development. It was not possible to fully assign their programming to one of the more specific
51
subgroups so two all-inclusive categories were developed, one to incorporate these afterschool
programs that are held onsite and a second that includes the afterschool programming and youth
centers offsite.
Data was collected from alumni of Camino Nuevo High School (CNHS) via a
computerized survey. The study employed a Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods design
(Creswell, 2014). The survey used a numerical rating scale for each of the transition indicators,
as well as one for rating overall success in transitioning. This allowed for statistical analysis to
be done using means, standard deviation, t and z scores as well as p values to more easily
compare various sub-group participants with the non-participant alumni responses.
In addition to numerical rating scale questions, survey participants were asked four open
ended questions about their transition experiences, as well as about what programs helped to
prepare them for their transition at the end of the survey. These two types of questions were
analyzed simultaneously, comparing them for resounding trends.
Research Paradigm
The researcher is a participant observer in this study, having worked for Camino Nuevo
High School for the last nine years as a mathematics teacher and administrator. In addition, the
researcher developed the student leadership program on campus and currently facilitates all
community partnership programming for the high school campus.
Over time, the researcher has been able to develop deep relationships with many of the
students both in class and through their involvement in outside partnership programs that were
coordinated by the researcher. Each year students have graduated and moved on to college.
Many seem as if they have all of the academic and non-academic characteristics necessary to
succeed at the university level. However, once they arrived at their respective campuses, many
52
of these students struggled. Some struggle and succeed; others struggle and eventually give up.
It is always surprising to learn which students persevere and which ones do not. This is
especially interesting when student performance was reexamined in light of student involvement
and academic performance while attending Camino Nuevo High School.
Through informal conversations with alumni, reasons for success or the lack thereof vary
from case to case. The one common thread often appears to be non-academic characteristics that
have or have not been developed in students. Many of these soft skills or traits are not directly
taught in any curriculum but appear to be developed successfully in many students through their
involvement in extra-curricular programs and activities or through various supportive adult
relationships.
These trends have inspired the researcher to initiate this study to systematically collect
data about these programs and their success in preparing students for postsecondary success. The
paradigm basis for this research is one of a transformative worldview (Creswell, 2014). There is
a belief that all students can be successful in postsecondary education with adequate support and
preparation. There is also a belief that research is necessary to create a level playing field for
first generation college students, who enter universities with additional barriers to success than
their mainstream counterparts. The hope of this research is to identify trends that can be utilized
to design a partnership plan that charter schools can implement to more strategically align their
partnerships and on site programming to better prepare their students for success after high
school.
53
Setting of the Study
The School
Camino Nuevo was founded in 2000 by Pueblo Nuevo Development, PND. Pueblo
Nuevo was a nonprofit located near downtown Los Angeles, in the MacArthur Park area. The
mission of the organization is to “educate students in a college preparatory program to be literate,
critical thinkers, and independent problem solvers who are agents of social justice with
sensitivity toward the world around them” (www.caminonuevo.org).
The organization attempts to provide holistic services for each child, integrating
experiential learning and a variety of resource providers to afford optimal conditions for
learning. There is an emphasis on developing the strengths of both students and staff, engaging
students in the community around them, teaching them to respect all human beings despite their
differences and cultivating a real understanding of the importance of social justice
(www.caminonuevo.org).
The neighborhood that Camino Nuevo High School itself is situated in is one of the most
densely populated areas in the United States. The population of the surrounding neighborhood is
over 78,192 residents in a 2.38 square mile area, with approximately 31,095 people per square
mile. The community is 60.4% Hispanic, mostly from Mexico or Central America, followed by
15.5% Asian. The median income is $29,927 a year, with 14% making $20,000 or less a year and
23% making less than $40,000 a year. Ninety-one point three percent of the population rent
rather than own their homes. Sixty-six percent of residents are foreign born, and 28% of
residents who are 25 years old or older have less than a high school education
(http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhood s/neighborhood /easthollywood).
54
The high school is located within the Rampart district of the City of Los Angeles Gang
Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) zones. It is home to nine major gangs, with over
800 active gang members (A Snapshot of the Rampart GRYD Zone, 2008). Students are
admitted to the school by open lottery so students commute to campus from as far south as
Compton and as far north as Simi Valley. However, the majority of the students live in the area
surrounding the school.
The Participants
The participants in this research project are alumni from Camino Nuevo High School
which is a charter high school serving a student body of approximately 450 students, located in
Los Angeles, California. Camino Nuevo High School is a part of a greater charter organization
with a total of seven schools: an early childhood center, four kindergarten to eighth grade
campuses and two high schools (www.caminonuevo.org).
Camino Nuevo High School opened its doors to the first freshman cohort in 2004. The
school added one additional grade level each year until it was at capacity in the Fall of 2007,
with approximately 100-120 students per grade level.
The first cohort graduated in June of 2008. The first class had a graduation rate of 92%.
Of the 99 graduates, approximately 78 of those graduates entered some type of post-secondary
education. Of the 78, approximately 25 enrolled in a four year university upon graduation and 49
enrolled in a community college. The additional four students enrolled in a for profit institution
for career training. Six years after completing high school, the alumni program still had current
data on 90 of the Class of 2008 graduates. Of that 90, there was a 50% retention rate in post-
secondary education overall. 18 of the alumni had obtained their Bachelor’s Degree. Eight were
55
still enrolled in a four year university and 19 were still enrolled in a community college
(Frascona, 2014).
The Class of 2009 had a high school graduation rate of 97%. Of the 86 graduates, 65 of
the graduates entered postsecondary education. Twenty seven of the students enrolled directly in
a four year university, 37 enrolled in a community college and one enrolled in a for-profit career
college. Five years after graduation the alumni program had current information for 71 of the
cohort members. Of those members, the cohort showed a 54% retention rate. Approximately 13
had obtained their Bachelor’s Degree. Twenty four percent, or approximately 17 of the students
were still enrolled in a four year university and 12% or approximately 9, were still enrolled in a
community college or trade school (Frascona, 2014).
The Class of 2010 had a 99% graduation rate from high school. Of the 95 graduates, 72
enrolled in some type of higher education program. Thirty eight of these students enrolled in a
four year university, 31 enrolled in community college and three enrolled in a for-profit
institution. The total percent of students enrolling in post-secondary education appears to be
similar but this cohort showed a significant increase in the number of students moving directly to
a four year university when compared to the first two cohorts. Four years after completing high
school, the alumni program still had current data on 76 of the cohort members. Of those
students, this cohort has a 69% retention rate with 10 alumni completing their Bachelor’s Degree
on time. 20% of the cohort, or approximately 15 alumni, were still enrolled in a four year
University and 37%, or approximately 28, were still enrolled in a community college (Frascona,
2014).
The Class of 2011 also had a 99% high school graduation rate. Of the 93graduates, 91
went on to post-secondary education. This was a significant jump from the three earlier cohorts.
56
59%, or approximately 54, went directly to a four year University and 39%, or approximately 35,
went to a community college. The other 2% went to trade schools or other types of post-
secondary institutions. Three years after graduation the alumni program had current information
on 88 of the cohort members. Of those members, there appeared to be a 59% retention rate, with
43%, or approximately 38, still enrolled in a four year University and 15%, or approximately 13,
still enrolled in a community college. There was also one student who was able to graduate from
UC Riverside in three years and thus has already obtained her Bachelor’s Degree (Frascona,
2014).
The Class of 2012 had a 97% graduation rate from the high school. Of the 115 graduates,
108 enrolled in some type of higher education. Sixty four percent, or approximately 69, went
directly to a four year University and 30%, or approximately 32, enrolled in a community
college. The other 6% went to trade schools or other types of post-secondary institution. Two
years after graduation the alumni program had current information for 91 of the graduates. Of
those students, there appeared to be a 73% retention rate, with 43%, or approximately 39, still
enrolled in a four year institution and 30%, or approximately 27, enrolled in a community
college (Frascona, 2014).
The Class of 2013 like 2012 had a 97% high school graduation rate. Of the 114
graduates, 113 enrolled in post-secondary education. Seventy-six percent, or approximately 87
alumni enrolled directly in a four year university and 23%, or approximately 26, enrolled in
community college showing progressive growth in the number of students attending a four year
institution directly from high school. After one year, the alumni program obtained current data
for 112 of the alumni. This cohort showed an 87% retention rate with 68%, or approximately 76,
57
still enrolled in a four year university and 19%, or approximately 21, still enrolled in a
community college.
The school has complete data for the most current cohort of 116 graduates for 2014. This
class of 2014 had a 98% high school graduation rate. Of the 116 graduates, 95, or
approximately110 students, enrolled in post-secondary education. Seventy three percent, or
approximately 82, enrolled in a four year University and 21%, or approximately 23 students,
enrolled in a community college. These are slightly lower than the class of 2013 (Frascona,
2014).
Overall, when cohorts are combined, there are 718 alumni of the high school. For
cohorts prior to 2014, the school has been able to remain in contact with 529 alumni, 88% of
those 602 graduates. Of those alumni, 41 have graduated with their bachelor’s degree. Two of
those graduates are now enrolled in graduate programs. Eight alumni have graduated from a
community college or trade school. Two hundred and fifteen are enrolled in a four year
university and 137 are enrolled in a community college or trade school. Six of the graduates
entered into one of the branches of the armed services (Frascona, 2014).
The Programs
The programs offered by Camino Nuevo High School have grown and developed over
time. The first set of programs was designed to build resilience. Originally, almost all
programing was done on site. The school, for example, has had a very successful Students Run
Los Angeles program for the last 10 years. Each year students train to run the Los Angeles
marathon. This program has grown from 10 to 15 students running the marathon to now over 40
students participating each year. In addition, Camino Nuevo has an active athletics program on
campus. Teams participate in the California Interscholastic Federation leagues, where they
58
compete against other similar sized charter schools across the city. The athletics program started
with just basketball and soccer but has now grown to include softball and baseball.
The second category of programming concerns programs aimed at empowering students
to become leaders. Leadership development has been a key focus since the beginning of Camino
Nuevo High School. For the last ten years, there has been a strong student leadership base on
campus that participates in a student leadership program. The program originally started as an
afterschool program that planned mainly social activities for the student body. It has developed
into an actual course that students take during the school day and has expanded to a group of
students who actively focus on school culture.
Leadership students plan and lead three full school days a year. For these days, the
students develop programing aimed at building community among the student body. They have
also developed mentorship curriculum that they present at the CNCA feeder k-8 schools. In the
beginning years, there was also a program called Camino Corps which was an internship for
students who wanted to work on various issues of social justice both on campus and in the
community. The program only lasted a few years until the afterschool grant ended.
In addition to these onsite programs, Taking the Reins became a partner in 2011. They
run programming offsite, teaching young ladies leadership skills through horseback riding. They
run six week sessions, with nine new girls each session.
The third group of programming and partnerships are general afterschool programs that
provide academic tutoring and enrichment classes. From 2007-2012, CNHS had a contract with
Youth Policy Institute that provided what was called Rock on Education. They offered tutoring,
recreation activities as well as enrichment programming on campus. The contract ended in 2012
59
but Youth Policy Institute recently returned in the spring of 2014, running after school tutoring
and enrichment programs for students on site.
In addition to Youth Policy Institute, Camino Nuevo High School has developed several
partnerships with programs in the community. There are two youth centers that are near the
school, Heart of Los Angeles (HOLA) and the Bresee Foundation. Both of these youth centers
have been partners since the beginning, connecting Camino students with their programming.
Both centers provide after school tutoring, enrichment classes as well as college preparation
workshops. Children’s Institute became a third partner in the Fall of 2011, offering additional
after school programming for high school students as well as various social services for students
and their families.
The last group of programming and partnerships is geared toward developing social
capital for students through mentoring and internships. These programs are newer partners to
Camino Nuevo High School. One of the school’s most successful partnerships has been with
Big Brothers Big Sisters, who run a mentorship program through Union Bank. Starting with the
Class of 2012, 25 to 30 students each year are connected with individual mentors at Union Bank.
Many students begin as sophomores or juniors and continue in the program until they complete
their senior year. The Bresee Foundation also began a year-long paid internship program called
Goals for Life that many students have been a part of through the years. In addition to the Goals
for Life, some students participate annually in the Summer Business Institute, which is a summer
program run on a university campus introducing students to various business principles.
Two final partnerships build social capital specifically through college related
mentorship. College Match is a non-profit program that offers the top scholars of each
junior/senior class one on one mentoring through the college process from college selection, to
60
applications and financial aid. College Match takes eleventh grade students on a two week east
coast college trip each year, as well as providing Saturday SAT prep classes. When students
begin their senior year, they are assigned a mentor to meet with them onsite and assist them
through the application process. This program is designed to give low income first generation
college students the same social capital and college knowledge that students from other income
level families have. The class of 2012 was the first participating cohort.
In addition, Elite joined CNHS as an onsite partner in 2013. They, too, provide
afterschool SAT prep classes for juniors and seniors, as well as offering assistance with the
writing of personal statements for college applications. Beyond these programs and partnerships,
many students are involved with other community resources and internships, with students
seeking out or being referred to various outside programs like the Harmony Project, or the ACE
program for students interested in architecture.
Procedures
The Instrument
The survey used for this study was specifically developed for this research project.
The survey can be found as Appendix I. It contains 23 questions, combining both
quantitative and qualitative questioning. The first questions are gathering basic information -
name, graduation year, the type of institution that students attended and their high school GPA -
to give insight into the student’s prior academic performance before entering postsecondary
education. Finally, students’ grade point averages in college were asked for in question five to
allow for comparison with their high school GPA, institution type and overall success in college.
The second set of questions, six and seven were designed to retrieve the data specifically
related to the research topic of this study. The dependent variable was academic success as
61
defined by a student’s being on track to graduate in five years. This encompasses students who
had already graduated or will be able to graduate in four years as well. This information was
collected in question six. Question 7 requests information about the programs that students
participated in while at CNHS. This was the independent variable in this study. It allowed
students to choose the standard programs that are present at CNHS or partner programs that have
been offered over the years. It also allowed students to add any other additional programs that
they were involved in.
Questions eight to nineteen comprise the body of the survey. The questions are divided
into five categories:
1) academic success
2) ability to navigate the college system
3) ability to advocate for themselves
4) ability to navigate social life at college and extracurricular involvement
5) ability to overcome barriers
The tool was designed to determine what transition factors went well for each alumni and
where their struggles, if they had any, were most acute. Each question gave alumni the ability to
rate their success on a scale of one to five. The survey provided quantitative data with the rating
scale that allowed for the running of statistical tests to compare how various pre-college program
involvements are related to their average success rating for each indicator.
Question eighteen, which is included in the body of the survey, included an open ended
question about involvement on the college campus. Alumni were asked to numerically rate their
involvement for question seventeen and then qualitatively describe the campus activities that
they engaged in for question eighteen. Involvement in college can also positively impact student
62
success in a post-secondary setting as well as allow alumni to develop relationships that make
the transition more successful.
The final four questions were developed to allow alumni to reflect on their overall
transition experience. Participants had the opportunity to provide qualitative information about
what was their greatest overall success in college, their biggest struggle and what might have
helped them to transition more smoothly from high school to college. The qualitative questions
were analyzed for trends and patterns.
The Pilot Study
Since the survey was specifically created for this study, it had to be piloted before the
actual research began. It was sent to four alumni who are now employees of Camino Nuevo
High School. Of the four alumni to whom is was sent, three of them completed the survey.
They also gave feedback directly to the researcher about questions that they had about the
survey. There was a specific issue raised by one alumnus about question number 13. It was
originally worded - “On a scale of one to five, with five being the highest, how confident did
you feel to approach professors in class or during office hours.” The alumni commented that this
was hard to rate because she felt comfortable approaching professors after class but was
uncomfortable going to office hours so it was difficult to rate with both being connected to the
same question. The researcher was looking for an overall rating about seeking help from
professors and whether it was in class or in office hours did not make a difference, so the word
“either” was added to the question to address that concern.
The second issue noticed during the pilot was that none of the students answered
question number 18 about the programs that they were involved in on their college campuses. It
made it hard to determine if that meant that they were not involved in any activities or if they
63
simply skipped the question, since skipping questions is an option. To alleviate that particular
concern, a parenthesis comment was inserted asking alumni to write the word none instead of
leaving it blank if they were not involved in any programs. There was debate over allowing
students to skip questions at all but since data were being analyzed question by question
participants skipping a question does not impact the overall results. For students in general,
knowing that they can skip questions they are uncomfortable answering may lower their anxiety
level and thus raise the percentage of students providing feedback.
Once the alterations were made from the pilot survey, the survey was sent via an email to
the rest of the 641 alumni. The survey link was sent out to all of the 116 recent graduates as well
as approximately 525 alumni from 2008-2013 that the alumni coordinator had current
information for. The cohorts have varying percentages of current information available for them
so all alumni could not be reached.
Survey Distribution
The goal was to distribute the survey to as many alumni as possible. This provided an
opportunity for students from all of the graduating classes to reply. Email addresses for alumni
were organized in groups based on their graduation year. Emails were sent out to each of the
alumni groups explaining the purpose of the research project and giving them the link to take the
survey. The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board information sheet was
the first page of the computerized survey. In the first twelve days after the email link was sent
out, 102 alumni participated in the survey. On day 13, a reminder email was sent out to the
alumni who had not yet responded.
In addition, the school has an alumni Facebook page. Information about the survey was
posted on that page with a link for them to take the survey as well. Additionally, a message was
64
sent via Facebook to the alumni connected to the researcher who had not yet taken the survey
asking them to contribute their responses. The reminder email initiated 34 additional alumni
responses and 11 alumni responded to the survey link from the Facebook post or message.
Overall, 147 alumni participated in the survey out of the 644 total alumni. These
responses came from all of the respective cohorts: 20 from the Class of 2008, 11 from the Class
of 2009, 23 from the Class of 2010, 13 from the Class of 2011, 19 from the Class of 2012, 23
from the Class of 2013 and 27 from the most recent Class of 2014.
Data Analysis
Once the survey data was received, data was divided into seven groups according to the
types of programs that students had been involved in while they were in high school. The seven
groups were resilience building programs, leadership programs, and general social capital
building programs, college specific social capital building programs, on site afterschool
programming, offsite afterschool programming and those who participated in other interest based
programs beyond the specific school partner programs.
Within these seven program subgroups, data was retrieved for how many participants
went on to be successful in college and those who were not as successful as defined by this
study. Once again success is defined as having graduated from college or being on track to
graduate in four or five years. Inversely, being unsuccessful is defined as taking longer than 5
years to graduate, being unsure of their graduation timeline or having left post-secondary
education. These numbers of successful and unsuccessful participants from each of the seven
program subgroups were compared with the number of successful and unsuccessful alumni who
had not participated in that program.
65
A two by two Chi Square test was computed for each sub group using successful
participants, unsuccessful participants versus successful non-participants and unsuccessful non-
participants. The Chi Square statistic was converted to a p-value and these values were analyzed
for significance as defined by a p value less than 0.05.
After analyzing the data through a broad lens of overall success, the data was separated
by transition indicator specifically analyzing for trends in greater success in particular transition
indicators by specific program participants. This section was divided into the five transition
indicator categories listed previously: academic preparedness, navigating the college system,
advocating for themselves, navigating social life including extracurricular activities and
overcoming obstacles. Each category consisted of a different number of questions on the survey
instrument. For each of the five categories, the alumni responses for each question in that
indicator were combined to find the average response per alumni for that transition indicator.
These averages were used in the rest of the analysis.
For each of the five transition indicator categories, data was collected for participants in
each of the seven program types. For each these program groups, the mean and standard
deviation were computed for each transition indicator. The means and standard deviations were
also computed for the non-program participants for each transition indicator. These means were
then compared, participants to non-participants of each particular program group for each of the
five transition indicator categories. The t scores were computed and then converted into p values
as well. These p values were than determined significant or not as defined by being less than
0.05. This generated 35 comparisons in total.
The first hypothesis was that students who are on track to graduate in four or five years or
have already graduated would be students who had been involved in programs that provided
66
them with leadership experience, built social capital or developed resilience. This was tested by
analyzing the p values from each Chi Square test for the students who had been involved in these
types of programs comparing their success or lack of success in college with those who did not
participate in those particular programs.
The second hypothesis was that students who participated in specific programs would
show greater success in postsecondary transition in indicators specific to the soft skills the
various programs built in students. Categorical assumptions were that students who were
involved in programs that focused on resilience would have higher ratings on overcoming
obstacles, while students who were involved in programs that built social capital would be better
prepared to navigate the systems in college and advocate for themselves, and finally, that
students who were involved in leadership programs in high school would score higher in
adapting to college social life and having greater involvement in extracurricular programs on
their respective campuses. This was tested by comparing the p values for each of the transition
indicator categories for each of the program participant groups. In each case, significant p values
were used as the determining factor in defining one group of program participants more
successful at that transition indicator than their non-participant counterparts.
The qualitative responses were analyzed as well for patterns, similarities, differences and
trends among particular program participants that uphold hypotheses two as well. The responses
for question 20 about their biggest success in college and question 21 about their biggest struggle
were pulled according to the programs that alumni were involved in while they were at Camino
Nuevo High School. Each of the seven program subgroup qualitative replies were analyzed and
coded for responses that correlate with each of the five transition indicators. These trends were
used to either support hypothesis two or reject it.
67
The final two qualitative questions were analyzed for holistic trends about programs that
alumni felt helped prepare them for post-secondary success. Similarly patterns and trends were
collected for what programs or changes alumni felt might have better prepared them. Both
questions were coded for trends in responses.
Summary
Despite the possible threats to validity, the data collected will be valuable in looking for
overall trends in student transition to college. Even if there is a bias among program responders
or the potential for misreporting program involvement, when enough data is collected the
potential threats of these outliers is diffused.
The fact that students were not pre-assessed before their involvement in these programs
removes a baseline of students’ soft skill levels. However, whether students naturally possess the
soft skills they need to transition successfully to college or those skills were developed as a result
of the various programs analyzed in this research, the determination of a potential connection
between programs and success in particular areas provides a much needed entry point into the
greater conversation.
Whatever trends appear in the data can be generalized to help charter schools decide what
types of programs and partnerships they should focus on to best prepare their students for post-
secondary success.
68
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
Two key hypotheses guided this study. The first was that students on track to graduate in
four to five years or those that have already graduated were students who had likely been
involved in programs that provided them with leadership experience, that helped to build social
capital or aided in the development of resilience. This hypothesis was analyzed by
disaggregating data according to alumni’s status toward graduation.
The second guiding hypothesis was that students who participated in specific programs
would have greater success in postsecondary transition indicators specific to the soft skills that
those various programs were designed to develop in students. Categorical assumptions were that
students who were involved in programs that focused on resilience would have higher ratings on
overcoming obstacles, while students who were involved in programs that built social capital
would be better prepared to navigate the systems in college and advocate for themselves, and
finally, that students who were involved in leadership programs in high school would score
higher in adapting to college social life, having greater involvement in extracurricular programs
on their respective campuses.
Camino Nuevo High School has a total of 718 alumni. The alumni program has current
contact information for 645 of those students. Of those 645 accessible alumni, 147 responded to
the research survey. The responders represented all of the graduating cohorts: 20 from the class
of 2008, 15 from 2009, 23 from 2010, 14 from 2011, 21 from 2012, 25 from 2013 and 29 from
the most recent Class of 2014.
Overall, the survey alumni sample represented a cross section of post-secondary
educational institutions, including responses from alumni who attended community colleges,
69
California State Universities, University of California campuses, as well as in state and out of
state private institutions. The most comprehensive data available for all Camino Nuevo High
School alumni was compiled in May of 2014 by alumni coordinator Monica Frascona. The data
is only available as percent breakdowns comparing the percent of each graduating class that went
to community college out of high school and the percent of the class that transitioned directly to
a four year university. Current alumni program data is not broken down by the particular type of
four year universities alumni attended. However these two groups- community college attendees
versus the four year college attendees- can be compared using the data collected in this research
study by combing the four year institution types together in one all-encompassing category.
For the class of 2008 overall, of those who transitioned to post-secondary education
62.8% attended a community college directly after high school while 32% transitioned directly to
a four year university. For the 2008 survey responders, only 15% transitioned to a community
college while 85% transitioned directly to a four year university. Data provided by this survey
were disproportionally given by four year college attenders.
The data for the class of 2009 is similarly skewed with 56.9% transitioning to community
college while 13.33% of the survey respondents made this actual transition type. For four year
university transitions, 41.5% of the cohort overall made this original postsecondary transition but
86.67% of the alumni survey responders skewed the data towards four year college attenders.
The class of 2010 additionally had 32% transition to community college while the survey
had 23.81%. Then 40% actually went to a four year university but 76.18% of survey takers
report going directly to a four year institution. The numbers for the Class of 2011 and 2012
reflected similar trends of those of the first three cohorts. For the class of 2013, 23% of the
70
overall class transitioned to community college but only 8.0% of survey takers and 76% overall
transitioning to a four year university but 92% of survey takers.
The final cohort, the Class of 2014, had the sample that most closely resembled the
overall data concerning the type of institution alumni transitioned to. Overall 21% transitioned
to a community college and 17.24% of survey takers represented this group. Out of the total
cohort, 73% of the alumni transitioned to a four year university while 82.75% of survey
respondents made this same transition (Frascona, 2014).
The alumni program’s May 2014 report can also be used to compare survey data for
status towards graduation to the alumni data as a whole as well. Comprehensive data is not
available for all 644 regarding the number of years it will take them to graduate. However, 299
alumni are reportedly still enrolled in a four year university which is 46.43% of total alumni as
well as 161 alumni currently enrolled in a community college, or 25% (Frascona, 2014). This
makes a total of 460 alumni currently enrolled in post-secondary education or 71.43%. For the
subgroup of alumni that participated in the survey 109 are currently enrolled or 74.15%. These
results appear to be a close reflection of the alumni data as a whole.
In terms of actual graduation itself, alumni program data indicate that 41 alumni have
graduated, out of the 528 alumni they have current contact information for. This comprises
7.77% of the total alumni population 2008 to 2013. The class of 2014 cannot be taken into
account in this comparison as they were not yet in college when the data was collected.
Among survey responders, 29 of the 117 alumni respondents from 2008 to 2013 had
already obtained their Bachelor’s degree. This is 24.79% of the survey takers, over-representing
the 7.77% of Camino Nuevo alumni graduates as a whole.
71
The research data obtained for this project are reported below using both a macro and
micro lens. The first big picture focus examines progress toward graduation. The narrower,
more focused lens analyzes individual transition indicators that comprise the overall transition
from high school to post-secondary education. As the results are presented, this larger context of
sample representation must be kept in mind, especially when analyzing the responses of the
underrepresented groups, acknowledging that individual data points have greater influence upon
the reported means. These discrepancies between alumni program data as a whole and the
survey takers who represented them do not nullify the data provided by the research. However,
it remains vital to consider background information when drawing conclusions about post-
secondary transitions for Camino Nuevo alumni as a whole.
Graduation Status Subgroups
Graduation status data was examined by using five specific subgroups: already graduated,
on track to graduate in 4 years, on track to graduate in 5 years, on track to graduate in more than
5 years or unsure of their timeline to graduation and then those who prematurely left post-
secondary education. A description of each subgroup will be provided that includes the type of
college they attended, their high school GPA, the types of programs each group was involved in
while in high school and then the average quantities of programs subgroup alumni had
participated in. The data descriptions do not include most recent cohort of 2014. When the data
was collected, this cohort had only been in college two months; this is not long enough to
generate a realistic assessment of their timeline to college graduation.
Without the responses from the 2014 cohort, 117 alumni responses existed from cohorts
2008 to 2013. Of those 117, 15.52 % attended a community college directly from high school,
40.52% transitioned to a California State University (CSU), 19.83% transitioned to a University
72
of California campus (UC), 15.52% went to an in state private university and 8.62% attended a
private out of state university. Of the alumni surveyed, 34.48% had a high school GPA of 3.6 or
higher and 41.38% had a GPA of a 3.1 to 3.5. There were 18.10% with a GPA of 2.5 to 3.0., and
6.03% had a GPA of less than 2.5.
Program participation was divided into seven discreet categories: programs focused on
key leadership development, programs aimed at developing resilience, programs attempting to
develop social capital in general, programs designed specifically for college related social capital
acquisition, additional afterschool enrichment programs held on campus, and further afterschool
programs held offsite at community youth centers, with a final general category for programs
labeled “other.” Alumni reported having been involved in a total of 17 additional programs
outside of the standard Camino Nuevo programing, as reported in question seven on the survey.
These additional programs were music programs, religious clubs, civic engagement programs,
regular service learning opportunities, internships as well as career focused programs. These
programs comprise the final category “other”. For the sake of this study, data was reported using
these seven specific categories. For simplicity, these categories will be labeled as leadership,
resilience, general social capital, college related social capital, offsite afterschool, onsite
afterschool and other.
For the entire 2008 to 2013 sample, 67.35% of the 117 alumni participated in leadership
programs, 48.98% participated in resilience programs, 22.45% joined general social capital
programs and 13.27% joined college related social capital programs. Regarding afterschool
programming, 25.10% participated in onsite programming and 26.53% participated in offsite
afterschool programs. Lastly, 18.37% participated in other general programs.
73
Table 0:1: Overall College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data with the Class of 2014
Overall Data
without Class of
2014
Type of Institution Attended
(question answered by 116
respondents of the 117 in this
subgroup)
Average GPA in
High School
Types of Programs involved in
(question answered by 98
respondents of the 117 in this
subgroup)
117 Respondents Community College
18
15.52%
California State University
47
40.52%
University of California
23
19.83%
Private CA
18
15.52%
Private Non CA
10
8.62%
Percent of students
with a 3.6 or higher
34.48%
Percent of students
with a 3.5 to 3.0
41.38
Percent of students
with a 2.5 to 3.0
18.10%
Leadership
66/98
67.35%
Resilience
48/98
48.98%
Social Capital
General
22/98
22.45%
College Specific
13/98
13.27%
After School
Onsite
25/98
25.10%
After School
Offsite
26/98
26.53%
Other
18/98
18.37%
Already Graduated Sub-group
The first subgroup represents those alumni who have already obtained their Bachelor’s
degree (see Table 2). Of the 117 students surveyed, 29 or 24.79% have graduated with a
Bachelor’s degree. These students represent attendance at all five types of post-secondary
institutions, with 3.45% going to a community college, 27.59% attending a CSU, 34.48%
attending a UC, 24.14% attending a private in state university and 10.34% attending an out of
state private university. This subgroup of alumni who have already graduated had lower
percentages of community college and CSU attendees than the overall sample. However, they
had significantly higher percentages for UC campuses and private schools attendance. In
addition, 62% of graduated alumni had a high school GPA of 3.6 or higher which is nearly
double the sample as a whole.
The high school program involvement for the graduated subgroup appears to be
proportional to the larger sample with the exception of the social capital building programs, of
which there were none. College graduate alumni had a 75.86% participation rate in leadership
programs, 8.1% higher than the sample average. Conversely, 41.37% alumni were involved in
74
resilience programing, which is 8.51% lower than the norm. For the other three categories,
subgroup participation is within five percentage points of the whole sample, with 24.14%
participating in onsite afterschool programs and 20.69% participating in offsite afterschool
programs and 20.69% attending other outside programming.
When the data for this subgroup are described according to the actual numbers of
programs that alumni were involved in, all alumni were involved in at least one program. The
percent of college graduate alumni involved in one program was 44.83%, 22.14% participated in
two programs, 20.69% in three, 6.9% in four and 3.45% were involved in five or more
programs.
Table 0:2: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the Already Graduated
Subgroup
Already
Graduated
Subgroup
Type of Institution
Attended
Average
GPA in
High School
Types of Programs
involved in
Number of Programs
Students are involved in
29 Respondents
24.79%
Community College
1
3.45%
California State University
8
27.59%
University of California
10
34.48%
Private CA
7
24.14%
Private Non-CA
3
10.34%
Percent of
students with a
3.6 or higher
62%
Percent of
students with
3.1-3.5
24.14%
Percent of
students with
2.5-3.0
13.79%
Percent of
students below a
2.5
0%
Leadership
22/29
75.86%
Resilience
12/29
41.37%
Social Capital
General
NONE
College Specific
NONE
After School
Onsite
7/29
24.14%
After School
Offsite
6/29
20.69%
Other
6/29
20.69%
Skipped
0
Zero
0
One
13/29
44.83%
Two
7/29
24.14%
Three
6/29
20.69%
Four
6/32
18.75%
Five or More
1/32
3.13%
On Track to Graduate in Four Years Sub-group
The second subgroup analyzed is the group of alumni who reported being on track to
graduate in four years (see Table 3). Of 117 students surveyed, 32 or 27.35% were on track to
obtain their bachelor’s degree in four years. These students represent all five types of post-
secondary institutions, with 3.13% going to community college, 28.13% attending a CSU school,
75
21.88% attending a UC, 21.88% attending private in state universities and 18.75% attending out
of state private universities. The percentages for this subgroup are lower than the overall
percentages for community college and CSU attendees. Conversely, they are slightly higher than
the overall percentages for UC campuses and in state private schools. This subgroup has a larger
number of alumni attending out of state private schools. In addition, 50.01% of alumni on track
to graduate in four year subgroup had a high school GPA of 3.6 or higher which is higher than
sample as a whole.
The high school program involvement for the on track to graduate in four years subgroup
varies significantly in particular areas from the sample as a whole. Leadership programs were
participated in by 46.88% of this subgroup, 20.47% lower than the sample average. Of this
group, 37.50% were involved in resilience programing, which is 11.48% lower than the norm.
Participation was 12.50% for onsite afterschool programing and 18.75% for offsite afterschool
programing. Finally, there was 18.37% involvement in other programming. All of the
percentages are lower than the sample as a whole. The key difference between this subgroup and
the first is participation in social capital building programs.
Of those on track to graduate in four years, 21.88% participated in general social capital
building program and 34.38% participated in college specific social capital building programs.
The latter is almost three times the rate of the sample as a whole.
When quantity of program involvement is considered, all but three alumni on track to
graduate in four years were involved in at least one program. Beyond those three outliers, 25%
of this subgroup was in exactly one program, 25% participated in two, 12.5% three, 18.75% in
four and 3.13% were involved in five or more programs. Two alumni chose to skip only this
76
question, providing no data. As a subgroup, a larger number of students on track to graduate in
four years were involved in more programs than those of the already graduated cohort.
Table 0:3 College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the on Track to Graduate in Four
Years Subgroup
On Track in
Four years
Subgroup
Type of Institution
Attended
Average
GPA in
High School
Types of Programs
involved in
Number of Programs
Students are involved in
32 Respondents
27.35%
Community College
1
3.13%
California State University
9
28.13%
University of California
7
21.88%
Private CA
7
21.88%
Private Non-CA
6
18.75%
Percent of
students with a
3.6 or higher
50.01%
Percent of
students with
3.1-3.5
31.25%
Percent of
students with
2.5-3.0
6.25%
Percent of
students below a
2.5
3.13%
Leadership
15/32
46.88%
Resilience
12/32
37.50%
Social Capital
General
7/32
21.88%
College Specific
11/32
34.38%
After School
Onsite=
4/32
12.50%
After School
Offsite=
6/32
18.75%
Other
18/98
18.37%
Skipped
2/32
6.25%
Zero
3/32
9.38%
One
8/32
25%
Two
8/32
25%
Three
4/32
12.5%
Four
6/32
18.75%
Five or More
1/32
3.13%
On Track to Graduate in Five Years Sub-group
The third sub group involving progress to graduation status was alumni who reported
being on track to graduate in five years (see Table 4). This subgroup contained 22 alumni or
18.8%. These students represent four types of post-secondary institutions, with 22.73% going to
a community college, 59.09% attending a CSU, 9.09% attending a UC and 9.09% attending a
private in state university. No alumni in this subgroup attended an out of state private university.
The percentages of community college and CSU attendees are higher for those on track to
graduate in five years than for the sample as a whole. Percentages for UC campuses and private
schools were slightly lower than the whole sample. In addition, only 13.64% of alumni on track
to graduate in five years had a high school GPA of 3.6 or higher. Similarly, the largest
percentage of this subgroup had a high school GPA between 3.1 and 3.5 at 54.55% followed by
77
those with a GPA between 2.5 and 3.0 at 31.82%, both higher than the percentages of the sample
as a whole.
High school program involvement for the on track to graduate in five years subgroup
varies from the sample as a whole. Leadership program participation was at 58.33%, slightly
lower than the sample average. These alumni were involved in resilience programing at 41.67%,
also slightly lower. General social capital building programs had a participation rate of 25%,
slightly above the entire sample. No one was involved in college specific social capital programs.
Percent of participation in onsite afterschool programing was 29.17% and 29.17% for offsite
afterschool programing, both higher than the sample averages. Involvement was 8.33% for other
additional programming, less than half of the rate of the sample.
When data provided by this subgroup is analyzed according to the quantity of program
involvement, all alumni were involved in at least one program. For this subgroup, 4.17% of
alumni on track to graduate in five years were involved in exactly one program, 29.17%
participated in two, 20.83% in three and 20.83% in four. None were involved in five or more
programs. Six alumni chose to skip this question.
Table 0:4: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the on Track to Graduate in Five
Years Subgroup
On Track in
Five years
Subgroup
Type of Institution
Attended
Average
GPA in High
School
Types of Programs
involved in
Number of Programs
Students are involved in
22
Respondents
18.8%
Community College
5
22.73%
California State University
14
59.09%
University of California
2
9.09%
Private CA
2
9.09%
Private Non-CA
0
Percent of students
with a 3.6 or
higher
13.64%
Percent of students
with a 3.0 to 3.5
54.55%
Percent of students
with a 2.5 to 3.0
31.82%
Percent of students
below a 2.5
0%
Leadership
14/24
58.33%
Resilience
10/24
41.67%
Social Capital
General
6/24
25%
College Specific
0%
After School
Onsite
7/24
29.17%
After School
Offsite
7/24
29.17%
Other
2/24
8.33%
Skipped
6/24
25%
Zero
0/24
0%
One
1/24
4.17%
Two
7/24
29.17%
Three
5/24
20.83%
Four
5/24
20.83%
Five or More
0/24
0%
78
On Track to Graduate in more than five years or Unsure Sub-group
The fourth sub group is the alumni that will take longer than five years to graduate or are
unsure of their graduation timeline. These groups were combined because there is overlap in the
number of years. Of the 117 students surveyed 26 or 22.22% reported being unsure of their
graduation timeline or anticipating a timeline longer than five years to obtain their bachelor’s
degree. These students represent five types of post-secondary institutions, with 36% going to a
community college, 40% attending a CSU, 12% attending a UC , 8.0% attending a private in
state university and 4.0% at a private out of state college. The percentages for this subgroup are
higher than the overall percentages for community college and CSU attendees. Parallel to the
on track to graduate in five year subgroup, this group is significantly lower than the overall
percentages for UC campuses and private schools as well. Similarly, only 7.14% of alumni in
this subgroup had a high school GPA of 3.6 or higher. The largest percentage of this subgroup
had a high school GPA between 2.5 and 3.0 at 53.57%. This is higher than high school GPA
percentage for the entire sample. As GPAs are compared by graduation status subgroups, they
appear to lower as the number of years in the graduation timeline increases.
Program involvement for alumni with extended or unsure graduation timelines is lower
than those of the sample as a whole. Only 53.85% of these alumni participated in leadership
programs and 38.46% of this alumni subgroup were involved in resilience programing. General
social capital building programs were attended by 11.54% of this subgroup; however none were
involved in college specific social capital programs. Onsite afterschool programing was
participated in by 15.38% of these alumni, 19.23% in offsite afterschool programing and 7.69%
in other additional programming.
79
When quantity of program involvement is considered, all but one alumnus were involved
in at least one program. Of the alumni with extended or unsure graduation timelines, 26.92%
were in at one program, 34.62% participated in two, 7.69% in three, 7.69% in four programs and
none were involved in five or more. (This data did not include five alumni who chose to skip this
question.) Overall, this subgroup had larger numbers of students involved in one or two
programs but fewer involved in three, four, five or more programs.
Table 0:5: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the on Track to Graduate in More
than Five Years or Unsure Subgroup
On track to
Graduate in
more than 5
years/unsure
Subgroup
Type of Institution
Attended
(question answered by
25 respondents of the
26 in this subgroup)
Average
GPA in
High School
Types of Programs
involved in
Number of Programs
Students are involved in
26
Respondents
22.22%
Community College
9
36%
California State University
10
40%
University of California
3
12%
Private CA
2
8%
Private Non-CA
1
4%
Percent of
students with a
3.6 or higher
7.14%
Percent of
students with a
3.1 to 3.5
53.57%
Percent of
students with a
2.5 to 3.0
24.14%
Percent of
students below a
2.5
17.86%
Leadership
14/26
53.85%
Resilience
10/26
38.46%
Social Capital
General
3/26
11.54%
College Specific
0%
After School
Onsite=
4/26
15.38%
After School
Offsite=
5/26
19.23%
Other
5/26
19.23%
Skipped
5/26
19.23%
Zero
1/26
3.85%
One
7/26
26.92%
Two
9/26
34.62%
Three
2/26
7.69%
Four
2/26
7.69%
Five or More
0/26
0%
No Longer Enrolled in College Sub-group
The final sub group is alumni who are no longer enrolled in post-secondary education
(see Table 6). Of the 117 students surveyed, five or 4.27% were no longer enrolled. These
students represent two types of post-secondary institutions, with 40% transitioning to a
community college and 60% to a CSU. Percent comparisons are difficult with only five
members in this subgroup, but three out of five alumni no longer enrolled had a high school GPA
between 3.1 and 3.5.
80
For high school program involvement, three out of five of these alumni participated in
leadership programs and resilience building programing. None of these alumni participated in
social capital focused programs. One out of five participated in onsite afterschool programing
and offsite afterschool programing. One out of five was involved in other additional
programming.
When the data for this subgroup are analyzed according to the number of programs
alumni were involved, all alumni were involved in at least one program. Alumni from this
subgroup were split evenly between involvement in exactly one, two, three and four programs,
each being one out of five. None of the students who had left post-secondary education were
involved in five or more programs. Also, one alumnus chose to skip this question.
Table 0:6: College Attendance, GPA and Program Involvement Data for the Left School Subgroup
Left School
Subgroup
Type of Institution
Attended
Average GPA
in High School
Types of Programs
involved in
Number of Programs
Students are involved in
5
Respondents
4.27%
Community College
2
40%
California State University
3
20%
University of California
0
Private CA
0
Private Non-CA
0
Percent of students
with a 3.6 or higher
16.67%
Percent of students
with a 3.1 to 3.5
66.67%
Percent of students
with a 2.5 to 3.0
16.67%
Percent of students
below a 2.5
0%
Leadership
3/5
60%
Resilience
3/5
60%
Social Capital
General
0/5
0%
College Specific
0%
After School
Onsite=
1/5
20%
After School
Offsite=
1/5
20%
Other
1/5
20%
Skipped
1/5
20%
Zero
0
One
1/5
20%
Two
1/5
20%
Three
1/5
20%
Four
1/5
20%
Five or More
0
Post-Secondary Success and High School Program Involvement
The first hypothesis that guided this study was that students on track to graduate in four or five
years or those who had already graduated were students that had been involved in programs that
provided them with leadership experience, built social capital or developed resilience. These students,
for the purposes of this study, are defined as successful while those who are on track in more than 5
years, are unsure of their timeline towards graduation or are no longer enrolled are defined as
81
unsuccessful. This hypothesis was analyzed by disaggregating data according to alumni’s high school
program involvement.
Graduation status subgroups were combined to create two larger categories, those
students who were successful by definition of this study and those who were unsuccessful.
These two groups of alumni were then examined by program participation. Each of the seven
program types were analyzed separately, dividing the overall data into two groups: those who
participated in each program subgroup versus those who did not participate or were non-
participants. A Chi-square test was computed with these four subgroups: participants, non-
participants, successful in post-secondary education and unsuccessful.
Leadership Program Participants
Overall there were 66 alumni who participated in leadership building programs while
they were in high school. Of those 66 students, 49 were successful in post-secondary education
and 17 were unsuccessful. There were 32 survey respondents who were not involved in
leadership programs. Of those non-participants, 25 were successful in post-secondary education
and seven were not. When the Chi square was completed, the chi square statistic was 0.1757.
The P value was 0.0675114. The result was not significant at p < 0.05. This does not support
the premise that students who participated in leadership programs would be more successful at
the post-secondary level.
Social Capital Program Participants
Social Capital programs were divided into two different groups: general social capital
building programs and those that are specifically college related. Sixteen of the survey
respondents had participated in general social capital building programs. Of those 16, 13 were
successful at the university level and three were not. There were 82 survey respondents who
had not participated in these types of programs. Of those students, 61 were successful in college
82
and 21 were not. The Chi-square statistic was 0.3407 and the P value was 0.559443. This result
was not significant at p<0.05 and does not uphold the hypothesis for this study.
The second subgroup was those students who participated in college specific social
capital building programs. This group was comprised of 11 students. Of those 11, all of them
were successful at the post-secondary level. There were 87 respondents who did not participate
in these college specific programs, 63 of whom were successful in college and 24 who were not.
The Chi-square statistic was 4.0186 and the P value was 0.045. This result was significant at p<
0.05. This result does uphold the premise that students who participated in social capital
programs were more successful at the post-secondary level.
Six of the eleven alumni from this college specific social capital subgroup attended out of
state private colleges. There were only four survey respondents who attended out of state
colleges but were not a part of these college specific social capital building programs. When
comparted, the Chi-square statistic was 32.5361 and the P value was 0. This result was
significant at p<0.05. Additionally, six of the 11 subgroup participants had a high school grade
point average above a 4.0. When compared to only five non-participants in this GPA category,
the Chi-square statistic was 28.7495 and the P value was 0. This result was also significant at
p<0.05.
Resilience Program Participants
Overall, there were 48 survey respondents who participated in resilience building
programs during high school. Thirty-five of those participants were successful in college and 13
were not. There were 50 survey respondents who did not participate in this type of
programming. Of those non-participants, 39 were successful in college while 11 were not. The
Chi-square statistic for this comparison was 0.3422 and the P value was 0.558557. This result
83
was not significant at p< 0.05. Thus the data analysis does not uphold the premise that students
who participated in resilience building programs would be more successful in the post-secondary
level.
On-Site Afterschool Program Participants
The fifth subgroup consisted of alumni who had participated in onsite afterschool
programming. There were 25 survey respondents in this subgroup. Of those students, 19 had
been successful in college and six were not. There were 73 who had not participated. Of those
non-participants, 55 were successful and 18 had been unsuccessful at the post-secondary level.
The Chi-square statistic was .0044 and the P value was 0.94739. This result was not significant
at p<0.05.
This subgroup of participants had a higher percentage of students who attended a
community college after high school. Of the 25 participants, eight went to a community college
while 17 attended a four year university. The community college attenders represent 32% of
onsite afterschool programming participants. Comparatively, nine non-participants attended a
community college representing approximately 10% of all non-participants. The Chi-square
statistic was 7.6653 and the P value was 0.005629. This result was significant at p< 0.01.
This subgroup also had more participants with a college grade point average between 3.1-
3.5. Of the 25 participants, 11 had this college GPA compared to 19 from the larger group of
non-participants. The Chi-square statistic was 5.3161 and the P value was 0.02113. This was
also significant at p< 0.05.
Off-Site Afterschool Program Participants
There were 26 survey respondents that participated in off-site afterschool programs. Of
those participants, 21 were successful at the college level and five were unsuccessful. There
84
were 72 survey respondents that did not participate in these types of programs. Of the non-
participants, 53 were successful and 19 were unsuccessful. The Chi-square statistic was 0.5293
and the P value was 0.466909. This result was not significant at p< 0.05.
This subgroup had a higher percentage of participants with a high school grade point
average of 3.1-3.5, with 14 of the 26 in this category. When compared to number of non-
participants with the same grade point average, the Chi-square statistic was 4.0434 and the P
value was 0.044343. This result was significant at a p<0.05.
Other Program Participants
The last program subgroup is the survey respondents who participated in other outside
programs that were not school partnerships. There were 15 respondents in this subgroup of
whom 12 were successful in college and three were not. This is compared to 83 non participants,
with 62 successful participants and 21 who were unsuccessful. The Chi-square statistic was
0.1931 and the P value was 0.660378. The result was not significant at p< 0.05.
Data Analysis by High School Program Involvement and Specific Transition Indicators
The second guiding hypothesis in this study was that students who participated in specific
programs would have greater success in postsecondary transition indicators specific to the soft
skills that those various programs were designed to develop in students. Categorical assumptions
were that students who were involved in programs that focused on resilience would have higher
ratings on overcoming obstacles, while students who were involved in programs that built social
capital would be better prepared to navigate the systems in college and advocate for themselves,
and finally, that students who were involved in leadership and empowerment programs in high
school would score higher in adapting to college social life as well as have greater involvement
in extracurricular programs on their respective campuses.
85
Survey questions for this section were split into categories - academic preparedness,
ability to navigate the college system, ability to advocate for themselves, navigation of social life
and ability to overcome barriers. Each program participant subgroup data was analyzed
separately, computing the mean rating and standard deviation for each of the transition indicator
questions. The mean rating and standard deviation were computed for each transition indicator
for non-participants of each program group as well. The means and standard deviations for
program subgroups and their corresponding non-participant groups were compared using a T
test. The T score was converted to a p value and analyzed to determine if it was significant at p<
0.05. For this section, responses from the class of 2014 were also included. Below are the
results of these comparisons and identifications.
Transition Indicator Category 1: Academic Preparedness
The first quantitative question on the survey asked alumni to rate on a scale of one to five
how academically prepared they felt for college. There was no hypothesis related to this
indicator and outside program involvement because this indicator is generally associated with
curriculum and instruction during the school day. Nonetheless, feeling academically prepared is
a major part of the transition to post-secondary education. When all of the subgroups were
analyzed, none of them had means higher than their non-participant counterpart group.
However, the alumni who had participated in college specific social capital programs had a mean
rating of 2.89 for feeling academically prepared for college which was significantly lower than
the mean rating of 3.54 for those who had not participated in those programs. The T test had a
value of 2.881 and a P value of .002285, which was significant at p< 0.01.
86
Transition Indicator Category 2: Ability to Navigate College Systems
The second transition indicator category was represented by two survey questions; the
first was about navigating college systems in general. The second question, number ten, asked
alumni to rank their ability to navigate financial aid processes specifically. The results for these
two questions were averaged together for each survey respondent to compute an average rating
for their ability to navigate college systems.
It was hypothesized that students who had been in social capital building programs would
be better prepared for this transition indicator. For general social capital program participants
the mean rating was 3.75, with a standard deviation of .9014. For those survey respondents who
had not participated in these general social capital programs, the mean rating was 3.55, with a
standard deviation of .9631. The T score was 1.013, which converted to a P value of .15638.
This was not significant at p< 0.05.
The college specific social capital program participants had a mean rating for this
indicator of 3.6, with a standard deviation of 0.84. Those who had not participated in these types
of programs had a mean rating of 3.57 and a standard deviation of .96. The T score was .15 and
P value was .440488. This also was not significant at p < 0.05.
There was one group that did have a significant P value. This was the group of alumni
who had participated in other non-partner programs. The mean rating for this subgroup was 3.89
compared to the non-participants who had a mean rating of 3.46. The T score was 1.87 and the P
value was .0031764, which is significant at p < 0.01.
Transition Indicator Category 3: Ability to Advocate for Themselves
Three questions were used to measure alumni’s ability to advocate for themselves on
their college campuses. The first question was about advocating for themselves in general. The
87
second question in this category asked alumni specifically about seeking tutoring when needed.
The final question in this category was about the comfort level alumni felt in approaching their
professors either in class or during office hours. Once again survey respondents’ ratings for all
three questions were averaged, to provide a holistic rating for their ability to advocate for
themselves.
The hypothesis for this study held that once again students who had participated in social
capital building programs would score higher in this transition indicator. For those who had
participated in general social capital programs, the average rating was 3.55, with a standard
deviation of 1.01. Non-participants had an average rating of 3.39, with a standard deviation of
.9793. The T score was .724 and the P value was .23518. Although the mean of the general
social capital program group was higher than their non-participant counterparts, the difference
was not significant at p< 0.05. The college specific social capital subgroup actually had a mean
slightly lower than that of the non-participants, with a mean of 3.29 compared to 3.37. Neither
of these two groups upheld the hypothesis.
The participants in other programs were the only subgroup that had a mean significantly
higher than the non-participants. This subgroup had a mean rating of 3.74 compared to the non-
participants who had a mean of 3.33. The T score was 1.71 and the P value was .044725, which
is significant at p< 0.05.
Transition Indicator Category 4: Ability to Navigate Social Life on Campus
The fourth category of transition indicators also has three questions. Question fourteen,
the first question for this indicator, asked alumni to rate their ability to navigate social life on
their college campus. The second question in this transition category, number fifteen, was about
interacting with people of diverse ethnic groups. Then lastly, question seventeen, dealt with
88
alumni’s involvement in extracurricular activities. These questions were analyzed together in the
same manner as transition indicator two and three.
It was hypothesized that students who had participated in Leadership programs would be
better equipped to navigate the social life on their college campuses. This subgroup had a mean
of 3.75, with a standard deviation of .838. Non-leadership participants had a mean of 3.4 and a
standard deviation of .844. The T score was 2.465, with a P value of .007451. This was
significant at p< 0.01, thus upholding the hypothesis.
Leadership participants were not the only group to have a mean significantly higher than
non-participants in their programs. Participants in resilience building programs had a mean of
3.7, just slightly lower than leadership program participants. When compared to 3.43, the mean
for non-participants, the T score was 1.93 and the P value was .0278. This result was significant
at p<0.05.
Question eighteen asked for qualitative data regarding students’ ability to navigate the
social life on their respective campuses. Alumni reported being involved in a variety of
extracurricular activities on their particular college campuses. Of the 147 survey respondents,
143 provided specific information about their campus involvement.
The most frequently represented involvements were in minority clubs and organizations
related to ethnicity, comprising 27.97% of the extracurricular activities reported. The second
largest group of extracurricular involvement was in clubs related to alumni’s major or program
of emphasis. This group made up 22.38% of reported involvement. Greek life came in third
with 13.99% of alumni reporting involvement in fraternities or sororities.
Holding leadership positions on campus or being part of the associated student
associations was reported by 12.59%. Service learning programs or groups were participated in
89
by 11.89%. Involvement in internship programs, first generation support groups, LGBT groups,
art or culture groups, religious groups or intramural sports were all reported but cumulatively
comprised less than 10% of the total programs reported by alumni. Importantly, of the 143
respondents, 45 or 31.47% reported no on campus involvement at all.
Transition Indicator Category 5: Overcoming Obstacles
The final indicator category is based on alumni’s ability to overcome obstacles they
encounter in post-secondary education. Question sixteen asks alumni to specifically rate their
ability to overcome barriers. Question nineteen, then asks alumni to rate their overall transition
to college. Survey respondents’ ratings were averaged for these two questions and then analyzed
in consistency with the other categories.
The hypothesis predicted that alumni who had participated in resilience building
programs would be better equipped to overcome the obstacles they faced during their transition
to post-secondary education. The mean rating for this subgroup was 3.63, with a standard
deviation of .8274. Non-resilience program participants had a mean rating of 3.53 and a standard
deviation of .8352. The T score was .7082, with a P value of .240003. The mean of the program
participant subgroup was higher but the P value was not significant at p < 0.05.
The other program subgroup however, did have a significant P value that was very close
to being significant at p< 0.05. This subgroup had a mean rating of 3.88 compared to 3.49 for
non-participants. The T score was 1.63 and their P value was .052675.
Qualitative Question Analysis
Question Twenty and Twenty-one: Biggest Success and Greatest Struggle in College
Qualitative, open ended questions were asked at the end of the survey. The first
concerned students’ biggest success in college. The second addressed the greatest struggle in
90
transitioning to post-secondary education and speculation about what might have helped to make
the transition smoother. Responses for these two questions were pulled and analyzed according
to the programs that alumni were involved in during their time at Camino Nuevo High School.
The responses were analyzed for trends among student successes, as well as patterns among their
respective struggles.
Resilience building programs. The resilience building program subgroup consisted of
students who had participated in the Students Run Los Angeles program and on Camino Nuevo’s
California Interscholastic Federation Sports teams. Overall 67 students participated in these
programs across the seven cohorts. Common themes for their biggest successes were most
frequently identified to be in the area of academic success. Presenting, writing, good grades,
passing classes and handling the workload were referred to as the greatest success of 19 alumni.
Navigating the college system was the second most frequently referenced success for this
subgroup of students. Graduating on time, choosing a major, finding internships and research
opportunities as well as scheduling classes were listed as successes for 14 alumni. Involvement
in the social life on campus and advocating for self were mentioned as successes, but with less
frequency. Academic preparedness was deemed both the greatest success for many, but also the
greatest struggle listed for many alumni as well. Time management was mentioned by 13 alumni
as a struggle. Commuting and issues with finances or affording books were reported by multiple
alumni. In addition, being undocumented was listed as a difficult struggle to be overcome.
Leadership development programs. Leadership development programs consisted of
Camino Corps, Taking the Reins and the school-wide leadership program, similar to student
government. This subgroup involved 82 alumni total, the largest of the subgroups. The most
frequent responses for greatest success were similar to those of the resilience program subgroup,
91
with 24 alumni responding with academic related successes. The second most frequent successes
mentioned were those in navigating social life, having been delineated by 18 participants.
Getting involved, meeting new people, handling diverse environments, making a circle of
friends, starting organizations and leading groups were all areas of success. Navigating systems
was listed by 16 alumni, with graduating on time being mentioned the most by this subgroup.
Former leadership students’ greatest struggles appear to have been in the academic arena as well.
Difficulty handling the workload, time management, study skills and issues with balancing all
the demands of college were all reported as obstacles for alumni.
Social capital building programs. Social capital developing programs were a
combination of general mentoring programs, internships and college preparation programs.
These programs were Big Brothers Big Sisters, Summer Business Institute, Goals for Life,
College Match and Elite. Combined, this subgroup represented 47 alumni. By far this subgroup
of students referenced their greatest success as academic, being mentioned specifically by 18 of
alumni who participated in these types of programs. They mentioned meeting deadlines, good
grades, passing classes, note taking and their ability to write, as positive aspects of their
transition. This subgroup also had six mention successes navigating various systems on campus
as well as time management and organizational success. There were six additional alumni who
felt empowered to advocate for themselves, approach their professors and ask for help when they
needed it.
The struggles for social capital program participants fall mainly into the academic arena,
which appears to be a pattern survey wide. Navigating the system was referenced by 12 alumni.
Uniquely, this subgroup referenced greater difficulty in navigating campus social life,
particularly dealing with being in a new culture or with students of different backgrounds.
92
Afterschool programming. Afterschool programming was divided into two subgroups:
onsite and offsite. The onsite partner was Youth Policy Institute and had 30 surveyed
participants. The offsite partners were the Bresee Foundation, HOLA and the Children’s
Institute, of which 36 alumni were a part. For those who participated in on site afterschool
programming, their biggest successes appear to be academics and with navigating the college
systems. Good grades, passing particular classes, writing papers, handling the workload and
presenting were identified as the greatest successes for 10 of the participating alumni. Choosing
the right classes, registering for classes, meeting paperwork deadlines, choosing a major and the
ability to graduate were mentioned by seven alumni. Similarly the biggest struggles were also in
those two categories, with under preparedness academically and time management being
mentioned the most.
Offsite after school program participants mentioned successes that match those of onsite
participants for the most part, although offsite program participants had more students discuss
successes in navigating college social life, joining clubs, holding leadership positions,
participating in EOP programs, and interacting successfully with new people. This subgroup’s
major struggles also appeared to be academic and navigating college systems. Issues with
organization and time management were repetitive themes throughout their responses as well.
Other outside programs. The last program subgroup was “other programs,”
incorporating 21 total alumni from all seven cohorts. These students’ biggest successes cross all
major transition indicators. Academics were listed the most, with 6 students writing about being
proud of their GPA, writing, senior thesis completion, their ability to present in class or their
success in a particular subject. Social life was mentioned second most frequently with five
alumni being proud of joining clubs, holding leadership positions, being role models or planning
93
campus events. Navigating systems, advocating for themselves and overcoming obstacles were
written about by three students, with each discussing their abilities to choose a major, schedule
classes, complete financial aid paperwork, asking professors for help, seeking tutoring and
developing the determination to figure out how to balance or adjust to college expectations.
The struggles of these subgroups appeared to have less of a pattern but academic issues
of preparedness, workload and study habits were mentioned most frequently with navigating
particular systems mentioned as the second most frequent response. This group did mention
struggling with ethnic diversity and culture shock, for students that attend school outside of Los
Angeles and the east coast in particular, as well.
Question Twenty-Two: Programing that Prepared Alumni for Success
Of the 147 overall survey participants, 133 provided qualitative responses about what
programs had helped them to be successful in college. Four major strands surfaced when
analyzing the free response questions regarding what most prepared alumni for success in
college. The biggest strand of alumni responses referred to the relationships that they formed
with their teachers. Overall, 32 alumni mentioned how much their teachers cared for them; how
they were motivated by them and how supportive they were even after they left for college.
Many alumni felt that because they were able to develop deep and meaningful relationships with
their teachers, they were able to transfer those skills once they got to college, and were unafraid
to approach their professors and to develop relationships with them as well.
The second strand is related to the academic programing of the school itself. The largest
group of alumni in this strand, 21 in total, referenced the project based learning as having
prepared them for success by teaching them to work with others, meet deadlines and present
frequently in front of their peers and adults. The next largest group of 10 alumni mentioned the
94
help that AP courses provided in preparing them for college. Similarly, seven former students
cited essays and research papers in their English and Social Science classes as preparing them for
the writing they would have to do in college. A couple of alumni also felt that the workload at
Camino prepared them adequately for what they experienced in college. Lastly, the on campus
courses through Los Angeles City College were mentioned by five alumni as having given them
a glimpse into the workload of college courses as well as pre-college course credits.
The third strand of responses centered on navigating the college systems. Multiple
students wrote about the significant help the college counselor and college center gave them
through the college process, equipping them with the knowledge they needed to navigate college
systems on their own once they arrived on campus. The senior seminar course was brought up
by 10 alumni, discussing how having this class dedicated to the application process and financial
aid assistance was vital to their post-secondary educational success.
The last strand of responses referred to specific programs that students had been a part of
while they were at Camino Nuevo High School. Afterschool programming both onsite through
Youth Policy Institute and offsite at HOLA were credited for student success by two different
students. Involvement in on campus athletic teams were mentioned by five alumni in connection
with their success. Students Run Los Angeles was referred to by five students as well, with one
alumni specifically mentioning determination learned through completing the Los Angeles
marathon.
College preparatory programs such as Elite and South Central Scholars were mentioned
independently by two different alumni. College Match was referenced by two survey
respondents, commenting that this program assisted them with test taking skills and an
understanding of the true rigor of college as well as the importance of seeking help when needed.
95
Summer Business Institute was mentioned by four of the 10 participants as having helped them
experience the real world, learn to be organized and understand how to interact positively with
people of other cultures. Big Brothers Big Sisters was mentioned by 3 students as having
prepared them for college success by providing mentors who knew how to be successful and
who gave them helpful advice or guidance.
The last set of responses for this final strand all referenced the leadership programs that
they had been involved in. The on-campus leadership program was mentioned by 24 of the
alumni. These alumni commented that being in leadership helped them to connect with people
once they got to college. Leadership had helped them to be better public speakers, to confidently
interact with professors and to network effectively. Comments about teaching them to be more
socially engaged and preparing them to get involved on their college campus were also provided.
Camino Corps was also mentioned by six students for similar reasons as the Leadership program.
Taking the Reins was additionally praised for leadership development and helping one student
try something she had never tried before.
Question Twenty-Three: Suggestions for Programmatic Improvements
The final part of the survey asked alumni what changes or program additions might have
better prepared them for post-secondary success. Of the 147 total participants, 130 provided
feedback for improvement. The most common feedback consisted of academic programmatic
changes beyond the scope of this project. The greatest concern of alumni was access to more
challenging classes, being highlighted by 17 responses.
Alumni were also concerned about the way that teachers and staff would “baby” them.
There were 11 comments referring to the need for teachers to not enable poor work habits by
allowing students to turn work in late, and desires that the faculty had been stricter when they
96
were students. Similarly, two alumni referred specifically to the grading system as a systematic
enabler of bad work habits being mastery based rather than subject to deadlines. Several alumni
wrote about wishing more Advanced Placement courses had been available to them, and wishing
community college classes, as well as college level writing courses, had been more readily
available. The last thread of academic related feedback was related to the mathematics and
science programs not preparing them adequately for college level coursework.
Beyond academics, desire for additional support navigating the college system appeared
to be a theme. There was a desire from one alumni to have opportunity for additional college
visits. Supplementary workshops were suggested by five alumni to assist them with navigating
the process of registration, financial aid and various other deadline related systems they would
encounter once they got to college. Having these types of programs for alumni once they were in
college was suggested as well as an extension of the preparatory work done prior to graduation.
The last group of responses concerned more access to alumni for seniors before they actually
made the transition to post-secondary education so that they could learn from those who had
gone before them.
The third pattern in the response feedback was in the area of personal development.
Alumni asked for more preparation for dealing with race, gender and class issues on non-diverse
college and university campuses. They also would have benefited from clubs or activities that
allowed them to explore possible majors, discovering what their strengths and weaknesses are so
that they could choose their majors more effectively. This was requested by seven different
alumni. Additional responses requested personal finance workshops, nutrition classes, emotional
coping skills and more extracurricular activities in general.
97
The last trend was in the area of study skills, mentioned by nine alumni. These survey
respondents wished they had more help learning how to be organized, study habits, test taking
skills, time management tips and additional note taking structures.
Unrelated to the four major response groups, two alumni specifically brought up the fact
that they felt that Camino Nuevo pushed students to four year universities when they were not
ready. They felt that this pressure was systemic and that a cultural shift in priorities was
necessary to assist alumni in being more successful after high school.
Summary
The hypotheses presented in this study were upheld for overall success for college
specific social capital building program participants. Leadership, resilience and general social
capital program participants did not show significantly greater success in post-secondary
education overall. For the specific transition indicator hypotheses, leadership program
participants were more successful at transitioning to the social life at the university level. Those
who participated in resilience building programs also transition significantly better to the social
life on their respective campuses. The subgroups hypothesized to show greater transition success
for navigating systems, advocating for themselves and overcoming obstacles did not have
significant p values. However, the students who participated in other programs specific to their
interests did show significantly greater success in navigating systems and advocating for
themselves. This subgroup also had the highest scores for overcoming obstacles, having a p
value that was close to being significant. These results, along with the trends that surfaced in
the qualitative responses provide valuable programmatic implications for strategically
developing program partnerships that have the potential to increase transition success for first
generation college students.
98
Chapter 5: Summary
Summary of the Study
Two driving research questions existed for this research project.
The first was to discover what programs provided the most significant assistance for first
generation college students in becoming successful by having already graduated from college, or
being on track to obtain their Bachelor’s degree in four years or in five years. The second
objective was to break down avenues leading to post-secondary success into five separate
indicators, and examining those contributions to an overall successful transition to college.
Those indicators were: academic preparedness, navigating college systems, advocating for
themselves, navigating social life and overcoming obstacles.
In examining data for trends among these indicators, patterns were observed as to
particular programs that better prepared students for particular aspects of the transition to
college. These trends were then combined with those from the broader lens of overall success to
determine what programs schools should provide or develop with partners to holistically prepare
first generation students for post-secondary success.
The results from both of these analyses will be used to construct and present a final
partnership prescription that will provide an outline for charter schools to use to build a focused,
and strategic network of partnerships that will be of optimal benefit for their first generation
college bound students.
99
Correlations between Graduation Status and High School Program Involvement
The first assumption of this study was that students on track to graduate in four to five
years or those that have already graduated were students who had likely been involved in
programs that provided them with leadership experience, or ones that helped to build social
capital or aided in the development of resilience.
Leadership, Resilience and Social Capital Program Trends
The results from the leadership and general social capital participant subgroups did not
show any significant success over their non-participant counterparts. The only group that
supported this hypothesis was the subgroup of students who participated in college specific
social capital building programs. This category was comprised of students who participated in
one of two different partner programs. The first was College Match, which takes our top
performing students on campus. The number of students accepted into the program varies from
year to year but they are chosen based on their grade point average and their PSAT scores. Elite
College Prep usually than accepts our second highest performing tier of students. They are also
screened by grade point average and must endure a very in depth application process. All
participants in this subgroup had a high school grade point average above a 3.1, with 55% having
grade point averages above a 4.0.
College Match in particular has relationships developed with small private liberal arts
colleges outside of California. They take students on a two week college tour to the east coast so
that students can visit these private schools. Elite students often attend a week-long tour that is
planned by the high school itself, also introducing them to small liberal arts schools on the east
coast. With their high academic records and exposure, it is not surprising that this subgroup had
a significantly higher number of its students attend out of state private colleges. These schools
100
are often much more conducive to graduating in four years, with fewer issues of course
impaction and access to highly individualized attention for students. With the high number of
students from this subgroup attending these smaller schools and the selection criteria for
involvement in these programs being based on strong academic performance, the fact that this
group would show a significantly higher post-secondary success rate appears congruent. It may
be difficult to distinguish whether the success is a result of program involvement since their
records for academic success were pre-established prior to participating in these college related
social capital building programs.
On-site Afterschool Program Trends
The onsite afterschool programming subgroup did not have a significantly different rate
of post-secondary success, however the data did reveal a trend in the types of institutions that
these participants attended and their grade point averages in college. This subgroup of
participants had a significantly higher percentage of students who attended a community college
after high school. The community college attenders represent 32% of onsite afterschool
programming participants. Comparatively, nine non-participants attended a community college
representing approximately 10% of all non-participants. These students were under represented
overall in this study but there appears to be a trend in on-site afterschool programming
participants attending a community college at a higher rate.
Alumni who had participated in on-site afterschool programming also had more
participants with a college grade point average between 3.1-3.5. Most subgroups had a grade
point average drop in college. When the grade point average percentage breakdowns are
compared for the various subgroups, analyzing high school grade point averages against college
performance there is usually a shift lower. Generally the highest category in high school for
101
shifts at least one GPA category lower in college. This participant group was the only group
whose largest GPA category remained same in college. They had 36% of participants with a
high school GPA between 3.1-3.5. This was also the largest grade point average category. In
college these participants had a significantly higher number of students in the 3.1-3.5 GPA range
than non-participants. The consistency of academic performance of these participants between
high school and college was unusual for this study. This consistency may be related to the large
number of alumni from this subgroup who attended community college.
Correlations between Program Involvement and Specific Transition Indicators
The second guiding hypothesis for this study examined data from a more focused lens,
specifically analyzing program participant subgroups success using the same five transition
categories as the first hypothesis. The specific hypothesis was that alumni who were involved in
resilience building programs will have higher ratings on overcoming obstacles. Students
involved in programs that build social capital will be better prepared to navigate the systems in
college and advocate for themselves. Lastly, students who were involved in leadership programs
will score higher in adapting to college social life as well as have greater involvement in
extracurricular programs on their respective campuses.
Transition Indicator Category 1: Academic Preparedness
From the qualitative data provided, academic preparedness often has more to do with
actual school structures, effective instruction and curriculum than outside program involvement.
All of the qualitative responses from the survey questions related to academic preparedness
referred to changes that could be made within the school day, appearing to be unrelated to
afterschool programming.
102
The quantitative data did reveal one interesting trend for students who had been involved
in college specific social capital building programs. As mentioned before, these participants are
historically our highest performing students academically. They actually had a mean that was
significantly lower than their non-participant counterparts. This subgroup, as already mentioned,
had a significantly higher percentage of its participants attend out of state colleges. Those that
did not go out of state for college either attended a University of California or a private in state
university. Only two attended a California State University and none attended a community
college. There appears to be a disconnect between the academic preparedness coming out of
Camino Nuevo High School and the difficulty of the colleges the higher performing students
were attending.
Transition Indicator Category 2: Ability to Navigate College Systems
It was hypothesized that students who had been in social capital building programs would
be better prepared to navigate college systems. Neither general social capital program
participants nor college specific social capital program participants had a mean significantly
higher than non-participants. Thus, the quantitative data did not support this hypothesis.
Conversely, the qualitative data did support this correlation with references to four specific social
capital focused programs having helped to prepare them for navigational success: Big Brothers
Big Sisters, College Match, Elite and South Central Scholars. This connection is general but
does show some support for the hypothesis.
Alumni who had participated in other outside programs did however show a significantly
higher average rating for navigating the college system than non-participants. This points to a
connection to participating in these programs and being better prepared to successfully navigate
the systems in college.
103
Although it was not specifically aligned to particular program involvement, alumni often
referenced the role of the college counselor in giving them the knowledge and support they
needed to navigate college systems.
Camino Nuevo’s senior seminar class, taken by all seniors, was also referenced as
providing alumni with informational knowledge that later helped them to be successful on their
own. In this course, teachers walk students through the college application process and the
financial aid paperwork.
Transition Indicator Category 3: Ability to Advocate for Themselves
The hypothesis held that once again students who had participated in social capital
building program would score higher in their ability to advocate for themselves. The
quantitative data did not support this, with neither of the social capital subgroups having
significantly higher means than their non-participants. The ability to advocate for themselves
appears to be most closely related to participation in other non-standard programs. This was the
only subgroup that had an average rating that was significantly higher than the non-participants.
The qualitative responses resoundingly suggest that the strong relationships alumni had
with their teachers at Camino Nuevo prepared them for post-secondary success, allowing them to
build similar rapport with their college professors. These long term and deep relationships can be
understood as key in post-secondary success. Although this is not particularly linked to outside
program participation, it supports the literature concerning the ability of teachers to become
“institutional agents that become gate-keepers or informal mentors” (Stanton-Salazar, p. 5,
1997).
104
Transition Indicator Category 4: Ability to Navigate Social Life on Campus
The hypothesis for this category was that students who were involved in leadership
programs would potentially score higher for this indicator. This hypothesis appears to be true.
The leadership students had a significantly higher mean than their non-participant counterparts.
In addition the qualitative data responses also supported the hypothesis, with higher percentages
of alumni who had been involved in leadership programs referencing their involvement helping
them to get more involved on their college campuses and inspiring them to assume leadership
roles at the post-secondary level.
Resilience program participants demonstrated a strong correlation to success navigating
the college social life in the quantitative data, having a mean rating significantly higher than non-
participants. The mean was slightly lower than that of the leadership subgroup but was
significant nonetheless. There is significant overlap between these two subgroups with over half
of the resilience program participants also participating in leadership programming.
Transition Indicator Category 5: Overcoming Obstacles
The last transition indicator category was overcoming obstacles to success at the post-
secondary level. The research hypothesized that alumni participating in programs aimed at
building resilience would have greater success for this indicator. The data does not support that
assertion. Resilience program participants did not have a mean significantly higher than the non-
participant’s. None of the subgroups had a mean that was significantly higher than their non-
participants. The other subgroup which did have a P value that was very close to being
significant. It is possible that a connection exists between participating in these other programs
and greater success in overcoming obstacles in college.
105
Conclusions and Recommendations
In order for charter schools to prepare first generation college students for post-secondary
success there must be strategic planning toward creating academic coursework that gives them
the proper skills for academic success as well as school-wide structures and partner programs
that build resilience in youth, providing them with social capital so that they can reach their full
capabilities and functioning after high school.
Recommendation One: Viable and Rigorous Academic Program
The importance of a viable academic program on campus is essential.
This was not the focus of this particular research but the qualitative data provided rich
feedback about the need to have courses that progressively prepare students for the rigor they
will encounter in college. It is also important to help students become increasingly more
independent, and able to meet deadlines on their own to better enable success in college.
There was a correlation between being a part of college specific social capital building
programs and greater success in college. There was also a higher percentages of these students
going to out of state universities and lower ratings from them for feeling academically prepared.
This suggests that perhaps despite their high school academic success, classes were not rigorous
enough to make them feel prepared for college. They had other traits that allowed them to
overcome their deficiencies. Alternate subgroups, with higher percentages attending CSU
campuses or community colleges, rated this indicator higher, feeling that their high school
coursework had adequately prepared them for success. The onsite afterschool program subgroup
in particular had a higher percentage attending community colleges and higher grade point
averages in college. It is of fundamental importance, though, that academic programs at charter
106
schools prepare students adequately for all types of post-secondary institutions, and not just
community college and Cal State Universities.
Recommendation Two: Foster Strong Student-Teacher Relationships
The importance of charter school cultures that foster strong student-teacher relationships
was a significant key finding of this study. Students learn how to interact with teachers before
they get to college. Developing strong relationships with faculty members not only provides the
informal mentorship as mentioned by Stanton-Salazar, it also models healthy relationships they
can transfer to their college professors (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This diminishes potential fear of
approaching professors and helps to demystify hierarchical structures for students developing
relationships with adults. Having experience at cultivating viable relationships with adult
mentors in the form of teachers will benefit students, no matter where they go to college.
Schools must build in structures like advisory programs, community building activities and field
trips that strategically facilitate the development of these vital relationships between students and
their teachers.
Recommendation Three: College Counselor Role and Program
Quality, rigorous academic programming and a culture of strong teacher-student
relationships are structures that charter schools must have on their campuses in addition to any
community partnerships. They must also have structures in place that begin to assist students in
acquisition of college knowledge.
The role of the College Counselor was mentioned frequently in this study as significant in
assisting alumni in navigating success post high school. The senior seminar course dedicated to
assisting seniors with the college application and financial aid processes paves the way for not
only admittance into post-secondary education but in achieving greater success once they are
107
there. Not all charter high schools have the human capital to provide these classes or the
financial resources for personnel in the form of counselors. However, in these situations, one of
the key partnerships charter schools need to search for in the community should be college
process specific. There must also be structures in place to capitalize on the experience of alumni
who are in college, having them mentor or share their experiences with the seniors before they
transition. Access to college going youth as role models develops social capital, and was asked
for as a part of this project (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Recommendation Four: Community Partnerships
Outside of the structures that charter schools must have in place during the school day, as
a part of their on campus school culture, what do the results suggest about who else needs to be
brought to the table?
College specific social capital building programs. Whether schools have their own
college counselors or courses geared at assisting students with the college application process,
college specific social capital programs appear to be the most successful in preparing students for
postsecondary success. Despite the stipulations for involvement and the prior academic success,
these programs appear to take these academically promising students and provide them with the
social capital they need for success. They have the ability to be successful in college despite
feeling less academically prepared than other program participants. These are important
partnerships for charter schools to develop.
Leadership and resilience building programs. Leadership and resilience building
programs appear to prepare students to more easily navigate the social life on college campuses.
For this study, these programs were held on campus. It seems that if we can get students to
engage in these types of programs while they are in high school then they are more likely to be
108
involved in extracurricular activities once they are in college. If charter schools cannot provide
these types of programs on campus, then it is important that they supplement by developing
partnerships with youth centers, afterschool programs or other types of organizations that
provide these types of programs.
Other interest-based programs. The other non-partner programs students were involved
in appear to consistently be identified as powerhouses in preparing students for post-secondary
transition success in navigating systems, advocating for themselves and possibly overcoming
obstacles as well. These programs vary in nature but the single common denominator for these
programs is that they are not held at the school site. They connect students with programs that
require them to venture beyond the school walls, into the community.
This voyage allows students to build relationships with people in their community that
they might not otherwise encounter. Even just one caring adult outside of the nuclear family
builds resilience in young people (Winfield, 1994). If students have powerful relationships with
their teachers and then acquire additional caring adults through these community programs, they
increase their stabilizing networks and enhance their social capital.
Community partnership plan. If college specific social capital building programs,
leadership and resilience building programs and other independent programs show the most
promise in preparing students for college transition success, how can a network of partnerships
be built? What model should be used? A school cannot foster every partnership that comes its
way (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004).
To make the most of a schools’ time and human capital, a strategic plan must be created
and a community partnership model chosen (Bryan, 2005). Of the partnership models mentioned
in Chapter 2, Harlem Children’s Zone appears by far to be the most transformational model of
109
community school partnerships. Their pipeline of support encompasses support services for
students from birth to college. It is difficult to match that level of programming, especially if a
school does not have the same level of funding. The concentrated geographical nature of HCZ
allows for increased impact in altering the entire community, generating a college going culture
neighborhood wide.
Most charter schools do not have the privilege of being exclusively geographically
concentrated, with lottery requirements and open enrollment legalities often infringing upon a
more geo-centric approach. This does not even mention the presumed dearth of capital required
to provide these wraparound services (www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project). A model like this
would be best built with an outside community organization that could build the network or
pipeline and then include charter schools within the boundaries of the communities they are
targeting. The average charter high school often does not belong to a k-12 organization the way
that Camino Nuevo High School does. For many, the concept of building a pipeline of services
from kindergarten to college is not possible.
The Ohio model uses a combination of onsite and offsite services but services are
coordinated by the district (Anderson-Butcher, 2008). With all the limitations that many charter
high schools work with, a community school model seems most feasible, focusing partnership
development around each individual campus rather than at the district level (Keith, 1996). In
order to truly meet the needs of a specific school community, onsite development of partnership
networks are vital to relationship building, which become the basis for most referral systems.
What partners should be brought into the network? This research did not rank service
providers or their value in post-secondary success; however the literature has much to say about
the necessity of providing low income students and their families with supportive services.
110
Assisting families in finding services that provide basic needs such as access to healthcare,
housing, and food as well as things like parenting classes and counseling have shown to improve
student academic performance.
Increased academic performance better prepares students indirectly for college success.
Providing access to these services reduces risk factors for students. Reducing risk factors in
return develops resilience in students, which they need for success both in high school and
beyond success (Winfield, 1994).
It is imperative then to have a network of service providers that either come on campus to
provide services or that are easily accessible for families. In any partnership plan key service
providing programs are best to have on campus when possible, especially if parents will be
accessing them as well.
The plan should start with a needs assessment of the school community to discover what
the greatest needs of families and students are, and then bringing partnerships in that provide the
services most needed (Anderson-Butcher, 2008). The service providers’ part of the partnership
network is usually two tiered. There are the regular programs that provide the most frequently
used services on campus. Then there are those offsite partnerships that school personnel refer
students and families to as needed.
For program partners, research suggests leadership and resilience program involvement
prepares students to navigate the social life in college. Charter school partnership plans should
build relationships with these types of programs, especially if they are not available on campus.
Partnerships with youth centers and afterschool programming near the school that offer these
types of programs should be identified. Much of the focus should be in fostering those key
relationships. Allowing those centers to recruit on campus and finding ways to get students to go
111
to particular programs at the off campus centers is usually the biggest challenge during the initial
building of the partnership.
Once the partnership is developed and programs become well known on campus,
recruitment becomes easier. Due to the logistics of enrollment, and the distance many students
travel to school, it is important to have a resource list of youth centers in other areas as well.
Secondly, key college specific social capital building programs must be established.
Mentorship programs in the community, long term internships and apprenticeship programs all
provide forums for social capital development that is college specific. For schools that do not
have strong college centers or college counselors, building partnerships with college exposure
programs that walk students through the college application process becomes extremely
important.
Lastly, other programs that students can be a part of based on interest deserve
consideration. These programs allow the development of resilience by focusing on students’
strengths, and by encouraging them to pursue outside programs that develop those strengths and
interests (Winfield, 1994). These partnerships are not fostered to the same degree as the ongoing
leadership, resilience and college specific social capital program relationships. These programs
relationships are mainly referral based, sending students to the various programs based on need
and interest.
112
Charter School Partnership Model
Finding partner programs that provide financial literacy, nutrition, study skills and time
management skills would also better prepare students for post-secondary success. Alumni
suggested these as things that would have helped them transition more successfully. These types
of curricula may already be embedded in other courses for some charter schools, but for those
not already providing these courses, having outside organizations come on campus to present the
topics to transitioning seniors is a simpler way to address these concerns. Additionally, for
students who will be going to colleges or universities where particular races are underrepresented
on campus, mentoring and discussions around race, gender and class are necessary to make those
transitions more successful.
Limitations
There are several limitations of this study. First, this data was self- reported. There was
no verification of status toward graduation, program involvement or GPA. With no verification
students could have misreported data by accident because they remembered incorrectly or they
Service Providers Programs Partners
Tier 2: Referral Partners
Various interest focused
community programs and
internships students are
referred to and given
enrollment support
Tier 2: Referral Partners
Community programs that
students and families can be
referred to on an as needed
basis
Tier 1: Key Partnerships
Most needed service providers
based on the needs assessment
Tier 1: Key Partnerships
Local youth centers with
leadership and resilience programs
Mentoring programs
College preparation programs
Charter
High School
113
could have reported falsely because the research involved someone they did not want to
disappoint. A filter was used by year so that students who incorrectly reported being a part of
programs not offered during their years at Camino were not included in the data. This however,
did not alleviate the potential problem of data from students who inaccurately reported being in
programs that were offered during their time at Camino. Similarly there is a concern about
misreporting of success. Since the researcher is a former teacher of these alumni, it is possible
that students will not be completely forthright if they have not been as successful as they would
like to have been in college.
The last concern related to this limitation regards the researcher’s involvement in the
leadership program on campus and the relationships formed with those students. It is possible
that a higher percentage of leadership students responded to the survey than accurately reflect the
cohorts as a whole. These concerns create an issue of reliability of the data collected in this
study.
In conjunction with the first limitation, a smaller percentage of community college
attendees and students who have left school responded to the survey than is representative of
those groups for the CNHS alumni data overall. This may have occurred for a variety of reasons
but as the qualitative data referenced, there is a cultural push by the host organization for
students to attend and be successful at four year universities. Those who did not feel they met
that requirement or had been unsuccessful may have not wanted to respond to the survey or
provide their data. No matter the reason, it is difficult to adequately compare alumni responses
from those who are no longer enrolled because they are underrepresented.
The third limitation may be the most significant, especially in terms of the second
hypothesis. Many of the programs included in this project build multiple characteristics in
114
students. Afterschool programs both onsite and offsite provide participants with additional
caring adult relationships, which builds social capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Having these
adult relationships, also builds resilience in youth (Bryan, 2005). These programs often provide
social services for the youth and family which additionally foster resilience (Bernard, 1991).
Afterschool programs tend to be the broadest in the enrichment activities, social services and
potential programming that they provide. It was not possible to categorize them into leadership
development, resilience building or social capital developing because these programs
encompassed varied levels for each of those purposes. The placing of these programs into
separate categories, however, may have generated overlap between the subgroups.
Afterschool programs are just one example of overlap, potentially the most extreme.
Other programs in this study do not simply build one trait in participants exclusively; they were
placed in subgroups according to the trait that was most closely aligned with their mission.
Involvement in any program has the potential to develop resilience, since the literature
credits participation outside of the home or school as developing resilience (Bernard, 1991). All
programs involve potential institutional agents who can assist in developing social capital or
leadership development as well (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This creates an overlap in the program
categories used in this study to analyze program involvement.
The last limitation is that this study does not pre-assess students’ levels of social capital,
resilience or leadership skills before they participate in these programs. It is difficult to
determine if students’ innately had these various skills and therefore pursued participation in
these types of programs. Some students may have already possessed resilience or social capital
or were natural leaders. Similar to the nature versus nurture debate, we have no data related to
whether the students had those soft skills and that is what drove them to be a part of particular
115
programs or if those soft skills were developed as a result of their participation. It cannot be
determined that these programs actually build the associated skills, only that there appears to be a
correlation.
Opportunities for Future Research
This research is just an entry level exploration of the connection between involvement in
various programs and their ability to assist first generation students in transitioning more
successfully from high school to college. More extensive research would need to be completed,
incorporating pre-assessing students prior to their involvement in various programs as freshman.
These assessments would evaluate students’ levels of academic success, their self-advocacy
skills, their ability to navigate systems, cross cultural interactions and social situations, as well
are their ability to overcome barriers before they entered into these partnership programs.
Having this pre-assessment data would allow for norming the results of this research,
determining what skills were developed through students’ involvement in these programs and
what skills the students innately possessed prior to their involvement. This type of longitudinal
study would need to be performed to imply causation.
With heightened attention on the success of subgroup performance with No Child Left
Behind, it would be beneficial to create a longer study to more specifically test individual
program participants for growth through participation. Assessing participants prior to their
involvement would give baseline data from which to measure growth in various transition
indicators. Following participants through the transition to post-secondary education and then
measuring their transition success periodically would generate more conclusive data than this
research has provided.
116
This study was performed from the perspective of the school, analyzing the responses of
their alumni who had participated in these programs or partnership. It was a broad study, with a
large range of students and factors. Individual programs could perhaps gather very specific data
from the outside organizations about their individual programs that might guide programmatic
changes if this type of longitudinal study was performed.
Conclusion
Partnerships take time to develop.
They require a point person on campus that can create the partnership, and continue to
foster it. If community partnerships are going to be used to better prepare first generation college
students for post-secondary success, partnership networks need to be site based, including both
service providers and program partners. Schools should complete a needs assessment to
determine what the greatest needs are of their students and families. Key service provider
partnerships should be developed based on the results. These key service providers comprise tier
one. Three or four close partnerships are all that schools can generally manage effectively,
providing services on campus and then off campus as well.
Tier two is a network of service providers that school staff can refer students and families
to as the needs arise. Other than gathering the resources initially, less time or focus is spent
developing relationships with these partners. They are looser partnerships based on referrals
rather than consistent contact.
These tiers work similarly for programmatic partners.
Close relationships are developed with the nearby youth centers, mentoring programs and
key internship programs that provide leadership, resilience and college specific programming.
These are the tier one programmatic partners. Again, three or four close relationships are all
117
schools can realistically manage. It is important to strategically choose these programs. Based
on the research in this project, these programs should push students beyond the school walls.
This may be an obstacle for schools that have historically kept all programming on their
campuses. It requires letting go and entrusting students to outside partners, which may be more
difficult for some school sites than others. Tier two would include other programs that are more
interest specific that students can be referred out to but are not developed or fostered in the same
focused manner as tier one.
Additional programming and services must be provided to better prepare first generation
college students for success at the college level. Community partnerships have the potential to
assist charter schools with the programming and supportive services that can reduce risk factors,
build resilience, and attain the social capital that is needed in order to access equal opportunities
for success at the post-secondary level.
Inequality still exists in the opportunities and in the education that low income minority
youth receive. With heightened attention on these subgroups, many more are having success at
the secondary level and graduating from high school. Many more are entering post-secondary
education. The dilemma is that many first generation college students are having less success
than their non-first generation counterparts. Equality is not just about access but also about
providing the same opportunity for success. Structures must be put in place and partnerships
developed in order for this type of equality to truly exist for first generation college students.
It is vital not only for their future and for the future of their families but for the future of these
communities as a whole.
118
References
A Nation at Risk, Education Week (2004). www.edweek.org/ew/issues/a-nation-at-risk
Anderson-Butcher, D. (2008). Community Collaboration to Improve Schools: Introduction to a
New Model from Ohio. Children and Schools, 30, 161-171.
Andrews, R. and Entwistle, T. (2010). Does Cross-Sectorial Partnership Deliver? An Empirical
Exploration of Public Service Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity. Journal of
Administration Research and Theory.20 (3), 679-701.
Baker, C., & Robnett, B. (2012). Race, Social Support and College Student Retention: A Case
Study. Research in Brief, 53(2), 325-335.
Benard, B. (1991). Fostering Resiliency in Kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and
community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 335781)
Brown, E. (2002). The Continuity Framework: A Tool for Building Home, School and
Community Partnerships. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4 (2).
Bryan, J. (2005). Fostering Educational Resilience and Achievement in Urban Schools through
School Family Community Partnerships. American School Counselor Association, 8 (3)
219-227.
Camino Nuevo High School Website; about us. www.caminonuevo.org.
City of Los Angeles, Gang Reduction and Youth Development. “A Snapshot of the Rampart
GRYD Zone Brochure.” (2008).
Communities in Schools. www.communities inschools.org
Conchas, G. and Rodriguez, L. (2008). Digging Beneath the Layers of School Reform Size,
Culture, and Personalization, Small Schools and Urban Youth (pp. 2). Corwin Press.
Thousand Oaks, CA.
119
Creswell, John (2014). Part 1: Preliminary Considerations: The Selection of a Research
Approach, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 4
th
Edition (pp.9,15). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Croninger, R. and Lee, V. (2001). Social Capital and Dropping out of High School: Benefits to
at-risk students of teachers’ Support and Guidance. Teacher’s College Record. 103 ( 4),
548-581.
Deal, T and Peterson, K. (1999). Introduction: The Case for School Culture, Shaping School
Culture (pp.4-5). John Wiley and Sons. San Francisco, CA.
Frascona, Monica (2014). Alumni Update Report for Camino Nuevo Board Meeting June 10,
2014.
Harlem Children’s Zone. www.hcz.org.
Harlem Children’s Zone. (2008) Whatever it Takes. www.hcz.org.1-32.
Jones, L., Castellanos, J. & Cole, D. (2002). Examining the Ethnic Minority Student Experience
at Predominately White Institutions: Case Study. The Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 1 (1), 19-39.
Keith, N. (1996). Can Urban School Reform and Community Development be Joined? The
Potential of Community Schools. Education and Urban Society, 28, 237-268.
Laskey, M., & Hetzel, C. (2011). Investigating Factors Related to Retention of At-risk College
Students. Learning Assistance Review, 16(1), 31-43.
Linthicum, R. (191).Why are so many Urban People Poor, Empowering the Poor, (pp.10,14)).
Marc Books, Monrovia, CA.
Maroulis, S. and Gomez, L. (2008). Does Connectedness Matter? Evidence from a Social
Network Analysis within a Small School Reform. Teacher’s Record, 110 (9), 1901-1929.
120
Marsing, N. (2011). Upper class Adolescent Delinquency: Theory and Observation. All
Graduate Theses and Dissertations. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from Utah State
University, Paper 868.
Moser, C. (1998). The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction
Strategies. World Development, 26 (1), 1-19.
No Child Left Behind. Education Week (2004, Updated 2011). www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-
child-left-behined)
Nunez, A. (2011). Counterspaces and Connections in College Transitions: First-Generation
Latino Students' Perspectives on Chicano Studies. Journal of College Student
Development, 52(6), 639-655.
Oseguera, L., Conchas, G. and Mosqueda, E. (2011). Beyond Family and Ethnic Culture:
Understanding the Preconditions for the Potential Realization of Social Capital. Youth
Society. 43 (3), 1136-1166.
Price, H. (2008). Understanding the Challenge, Mobilizing the Community (pp.10-13).
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.
Rothstein, R. (2005). The Role of Schools and Society in Closing the Achievement Gap.
Principal Leadership. 5 (7) 16-21.
Sen, A. (2005). Human Rights and Capacities. Journal of Human Development, 6 (2), 151-166.
Sen, A. (1999). Poverty as Capability Deprivation, Development as Freedom, (pp. 87-89).
Anchor Books. New York, NY.
Sen, A. (1999). The Perspective of Freedom, Development as Freedom, (pp. 14,17, 20-22).
Anchor Books. New York, NY.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the Socialization of
Racial Minority Children and Youths. Harvard Educational Review. 71 (1), 1-41.
121
The Times’ Neighborhood Mapping of Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles Times,
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhood s/neighborhood /easthollywood.
Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M., & Cooper, D. (2003). Section: Theoretical Frame Works of
Diverse Identity Development Theories: A View through a Different Lens. Identity
Development of Diverse Populations, (pp.55-59). Jossey Bass Hoboken, N.J.
White, A., and Gager, C. (2007). Idle Hands and Empty Pockets? Youth Involvement in
Extracurricular Activities, Social Capital and Economic Status. Youth Society. 39 (1) 75-
111.
Winfield, L. (1994). Developing Resilience in Urban Youth .Urban Monograph Series. Oak
Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 37-59. (NCREL monograph,
NCREL, Urban Education Program), available:
(http://ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educators/leadershhip/htm)
Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Improving Schools through Partnership: Learning from Charter Schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, February 2006, 464-467.
Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. , Hentschke, G and Smith, J. (2004). Improving Service Delivery in
Education Through Collaboration: An Exploratory study of the role of cross-sectorial
alliances in the development and support of Charter Schools. Social Science Quarterly. 85
(5), 1078-1096.
122
APPENDIX 1
IRB Information Sheet & Survey Tool
123
IRB Template Version: 3-8-13 Page 123 of 136
University of Southern California
Sol Price School of Public Policy
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Using Community Partnerships to increase Post-Secondary Success for First Generation
College Students
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Chantelle Frazee under the supervision
of Deborah Natoli, PhD at the University of Southern California because you graduated from Camino
Nuevo High School between 2008 and 2014. Research studies include only people who voluntarily
choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions
about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how programs you were involved with in high school helped
prepare you for higher education or work after graduation.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey which is anticipated to take
about 5-10 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, simply move to the
next question.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with Camino Nuevo High School will not be
affected whether you participate or not in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. The data
will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed. The members of the research team and the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
124
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.When the
results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Chantelle Frazee via email at cfrazee@usc.edu or phone at (213) 200-9065 or Faculty
Advisor Deborah Natoli at natoli@price.usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.
125
Alumni Survey Tool
1. Name_____________________________________
2. What year did you graduate from Camino Nuevo High School?
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
3. What type of university or college did you attend your first year after high school?
Community College Cal State University University of California Private In State College
Private Out of State College Public Out of State College
4. What was your approximate GPA in High School?
Below 2.0 2.0 to 2.5 2.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 4.0 Above 4.0
5. What is your approximate GPA in College?
Below 2.0 2.0 to 2.5 2.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 4.0
6. What is your current status in regards to completing your Bachelor’s degree?
Already graduated On track to graduate in 4 years On track to graduate in 5 years
On track to graduate but longer than 5 years Unsure about graduation timeline
Left College before graduation
7. What programs were you involved in while you were in high school?
Students Run Los Angeles Athletics Leadership Big Brothers Big Sisters
Youth Policy Institute/Rock on Education Camino Corp College Match
Bresee Foundation After School Program Goals for Life Taking the Reins Children’s Institute
HOLA Summer Business Institute/ABL Other:_______________________
126
8. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest, how academically prepared did you feel for your
college course work?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
9. How easy was it for you to navigate college systems such as registering for classes or working with
other non-academic offices on campus?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
10. How easy was it for you to figure out issues with financial aid, such as turning in required
documents and appeal processes?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
11. How confident were you in advocating for yourself and seeking assistance from key people on
campus when you encountered various obstacles?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
12. How comfortable did you feel seeking out tutoring on campus when needed?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
13. How confident did you feel to approach professors either in class or during office hours?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
14. How easy was it for you to engage in the social life on campus, making new friends and getting
involved with campus clubs or other activities?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
127
15. How comfortable did you feel interacting with students, professors and staff members of other
ethnic backgrounds?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
16. How well were you able to overcome the difficulties and barriers that you encountered in college?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
17. How involved did you become in campus life and extracurricular activities on your college
campus?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
18. What programs or groups did you become involved in?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
19. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest, rate your overall feeling of success in transitioning
from high school to college?
1 2 3 4 5
Low High
20. Overall, what has been your biggest success in college? What prepared you for that success?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
21. Overall, what has been your biggest struggle in college? Why do you think that has been such a
struggle? What might have helped you to be better prepared to overcome that obstacle?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
128
22. Overall, what programs or aspects of CNHS helped you feel prepared to be successful in college?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
23. Overall, what programs or changes might have made you feel better prepared to for college?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
129
APPENDIX 2
IRB Approval Letter
130
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099
Exempt Review
Date: Sep 26, 2014, 12:45pm
Principal Investigator: Chantelle Frazee
SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Faculty Advisor: Deborah Natoli
SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Co-Investigators:
Project Title: Post Secondary Success for First Generation Students
USC UPIRB # UP-14-00512
The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
designee determined that your project meets the requirements
outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b) category (2) and qualifies for
exemption from IRB review. This study was approved on
09/26/2014 and is not subject to further IRB review.
Per the PI’s clarifications, minor revisions were made to the information sheet by the
IRB Administrator (IRBA).
Approved Documents Include:
Certified Information Sheet UP-14-00512 9.26.14
To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in
the study workspace. These are also available under the “Documents” tab.
Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register
with clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE) approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The
ICMJE will not accept studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to
enrollment, despite the fact that these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as
defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For support with registration,
131
go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan (jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825
323-442-2825).
Approved Documents: view
Funding Source(s):
No Funding Sources
This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message
using the "reply" address. A response sent in this manner cannot be
answered. If you have further questions, please contact your IRB
Administrator or IRB/CCI office.
The contents of this email are confidential and intended for the specified
recipients only. If you have received this email in error, please notify
istar@usc.edu and delete this message.
132
APPENDIX 3
Summary of Partnership Models
133
Summary of Partnership Models
Organization
Facilitating
Partnerships
Goal
Key Components
Location of
Services
Focus
Ohio District Model
School District
Meet the holistic needs
of low income students
so that they can be
ready to learn
-academic learning
-youth development
-parent and family involvement
-health and social services
-community partnerships
Both on the
school site and
off site
Service providing
Community School
Model
Individual School
Site
Create healthy
communities in order to
facilitate education
-providing core social services
-network with local businesses,
universities and government
agencies
On site
Service providing
and Community
empowerment
Communities In
Schools Model
Staff person provided
by outside agency
Connect students and
their families to outside
resources
-provide resources to meet the
basic needs of students-Provide
career exploration, college
awareness and leadership
development programs
On school site
and off- site
Service providing
and empowerment
Harlem Children’s
Zone
Non-profit Agency
To develop a new
culture of success
within their targeted
neighborhood
-neighborhood based
-pipeline of support: providing
programming from pregnancy
through college
-building community
-evaluation
Both on
school sites
and off site,
throughout the
neighborhood
Service providing
and empowerment
134
APPENDIX 4
Data Analysis by Success Indicator
135
Data Analysis by Success Indicator
Overall w/ all classes
Overall w/o 2014
Successful
Less Successful but
Enrolled
Not Enrolled
Graduated On Track in
4 years
On Track in 5
years
On track to
Graduate in more
than 5 years or
unsure
Left School
#2: Number of
Respondents
147 117 29 32 22 26 5
#3: What type of
School Did you
attend
CC
23
15.86%
CC
1
3.45%
CC
1
3.13%
CC
5
22.73%
CC
9
36%
CC
2
40%
CSU
50
33.78%
CSU
8
27.59%
CSU
9
28.13%
CSU
14
59.09%
CSU
10
40%
CSU
3
20%
UC
36
24.83%
UC
10
34.48%
UC
7
21.88%
UC
2
9.09%
UC
3
12%
UC
0
Private CA
22
14.86%
Private CA
7
24.14%
Private CA
7
21.88%
Private CA
2
9.09%
Private CA
2
8%
Private CA
0
Private Non
CA
14
9.66%
Private Non-
CA
3
10.34%
Private Non-
CA
6
18.75%
Private Non-CA
0
Private Non-CA
1
4%
Private Non-CA
0
#4: Average GPA
in High School
2.0-2.4
4.73%
2.0-2.4
0
2.0-2.4
1
3.13%
2.0-2.4
0
2.0-2.4
5
17.86%
2.0-2.4
0
2.5-3.0
18.92%
2.5-3.0
4
13.79%
2.5-3.0
2
6.25%
2.5-3.0
7
31.82%
2.5-3.0
6
24.14%
2.5-3.0
1
16.67%
3.1-3.5
35.86%
3.1-3.5
7
24.14%
3.1-3.5
10
31.25%
3.1-3.5
12
54.55%
3.1-3.5
15
53.57%
3.1-3.5
4
66.67%
3.6-4.0
30.34%
3.6-4.0
16
55.17%
3.6-4.0
9
28.13%
3.6-4.0
1
4.55%
3.6-4.0
2
7.14%
3.6-4.0
1
16.67%
Over 4.0
10.34%
Over 4.0
2
6.70%
Over 4.0
7
21.88%
Over 4.0
2
9.09%
Over 4.0
0
Over 4.0
0
#8:Academic
Preparedness
3.44
SD: .9757
3.38
SD: .9879
3.48
3.26 3.32
3.54
3
#9: Navigating
Systems
3.64
SD: 1.07
3.6
SD: 1.1
3.86
3.5
3.59 3.5 3
#10: Issues w/
Financial Aid and
Documents
3.51
SD: 1.05
3.45
SD: 1.07
3.72 3.26 3.71 3.46 3.2
#11: Advocating
for Self /Seeking
Non Academic
Help
3.48
SD: 1.15
3.39
SD: 1.17
3.83 3.43 3.32 3.27 3.2
#12: Seeking
Tutoring
3.32
SD: 1.18
3.24
SD: 1.23
3.55
3.44
3.32 2.96 2.81
#13: Approaching
Professors
3.38
SD: 1.18
3.32
SD: 1.23
3.59 3.5 3.09 3.23 3.2
#14: Engaging in
Social Life on
Campus
3.65
SD: 1.08
3.71
SD: 1.11
4.2 3.57 3.63 3.31 4
136
#15: Diverse
Ethnic Groups
3.98
SD: .965
3.93
SD: 1.02
3.92 3.83 4.04 4.08 4
#16: Overcoming
Obstacles
3.65
SD: .8975
3.59
SD: .9359
4 3.73 3.36 3.42 2.8
#17: College
Extracurricular
Involvement
2.99
SD: 1.21
3
SD: 1.26
3.55 3.34 3.04 2.31 2.2
#19: Overall
Transition
3.41
SD: 1.06
3.39
SD: 1.09
3.75 3.57 3.33 3.23 2
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students
PDF
The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college
PDF
Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education
PDF
The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice
PDF
Facilitation of postsecondary opportunities for secondary students with special needs: an evaluation study
PDF
High-achieving yet underprepared: first generation youth and the challenge of college readiness
PDF
The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach
PDF
An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution
PDF
Native Hawaiian student success in the first-year: the impact of college programs and practices
PDF
College readiness: terms and conditions may apply
PDF
"God has my back": the role of faith-based institutions in preparing African-American students for college success
PDF
Community college leadership for student success
PDF
And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students
PDF
Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships
PDF
Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice
PDF
Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced
PDF
Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study
PDF
A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy
PDF
Peer mentor curriculum: post-secondary students with autism: success in self-regulation and thriving
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Frazee, Chantelle Janeen
(author)
Core Title
Improving post-secondary success for first generation college students through community partnerships: programming practices for charter high schools
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
08/05/2015
Defense Date
08/05/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
charter high schools,community partnerships,first generation college students,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-secondary success
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Natoli, Deborah (
committee chair
), Enciso, Martha (
committee member
), Robertson, Peter John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
chantellefrazee@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-626716
Unique identifier
UC11305884
Identifier
etd-FrazeeChan-3809.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-626716 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-FrazeeChan-3809.pdf
Dmrecord
626716
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Frazee, Chantelle Janeen
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
charter high schools
community partnerships
first generation college students
post-secondary success