University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPROVING COLLEGE PARTICIPATION SUCCESS IN GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: AN APPLICATION OF THE GAP ANALYSIS MODEL by Dawn Marie Cassady A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2010 Copyright 2010 Dawn Marie Cassady ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are so many people who had a part in this monumental milestone in my life. First, I would like to thank my chairs, Dr. David Marsh, Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. Rob Arias. To Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda, I would like to thank you for your patience, advice, guidance, and understanding throughout this process. Without their incredible organizational skills, ability to keep everyone on task, calm, and ongoing feedback, this dissertation might still be hanging in chapter 1. To the many professors in the doctoral program, I would like to say thank you for helping all doctoral students to work on skills for different pieces of the dissertation with assignments, presentations, and discussion meant to stimulate our minds and creative processes. To all the members of my thematic dissertation group, thank you for all the questions, peer reviews, discussions, laughter, and support. A special thanks to the members of my three-man group: Zim Hoang and Danny Kim, I cannot express how grateful I am for all your e-mails, editing, Skyping, and especially your support. THANK YOU! Finally, I could not have done this without the extraordinarily generous support of my friends and family. Thank you to my mother, Gloria Caster to whom I owe my focus and work ethic, my Uncle Dennis and Aunt Dorothy for always being supportive, my stepfather Glenn Caster who always pushed me to pursue my educational goals, and my very patient and understanding daughter, Morgan. Morgan challenged me to pursue my goal of earning a doctorate and would not let me settle for less. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Overview 1 Historical Background 1 Student Demographic Profile 5 Graduation Rates for the Nation and California 6 Statement of the Problem 7 Importance of this Project 12 CHAPTER 2A: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14 High School Design 15 School Reform Legislation 18 School Reform and Comprehensive School Reform 20 Common Core Standards and Curriculum 25 CHAPTER 2B: METHODOLOGY 31 Partnership with Glendale Unified School District 33 GUSD Comprehensive High Schools 36 Gap Analysis Model 38 Performance Gap Analysis 41 Solutions 45 Project Timeframe 45 Sampling and Instrumentation 48 Data Collection Methods 48 Limitations of the Project 52 Presentation of Findings 54 Human Subjects Considerations 56 CHAPTER 2C: FINDINGS 58 Summary of Interviews 58 CHAPTER 3A: REVIEW OF SOLUTIONS LITERATURE 86 Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 1 88 Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 2 98 Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 3 109 iv CHAPTER 3B: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SUMMARY 118 Thematic Solution 1: Create and Communicate Explicit Goals 120 Thematic Solution 2: Close Persisting Barriers and Increase Four-Year Access for All GUSD Students 126 Thematic Solution 3: Maximize Success for Community College Transfer 129 REFERENCES 135 APPENDICES APPENDIX A 144 APPENDIX B 145 APPENDIX C 146 APPENDIX D 147 APPENDIX E 175 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Percentage of UC/CSU eligible students in the district 9 Table 2: Percentage of eligible students attending UC/CSU 10 Table 3: Project Timeline 45 Table 4: Coding of Root Causes 47 Table 5: Stages of Concern Model 48 Table 6: College Readiness Dashboard Samples 90 Table 7: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample 92 Table 8: Solutions Matrix 113 Table 9: College Readiness Dashboard Samples 117 Table 10: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample 118 vi ABSTRACT From the time of Brown v. Board of Education, the role of education has been on the forefront of our social, political and economic landscape. Legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind as well as publications like A Nation at Risk have all illustrated the lack of access, equity and achievement in American schools for the last fifty years. Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate, which varies between subgroups and of those students only 57% continue their education in college. Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is a high-performing, large, urban school district that serves an economically and culturally diverse population. This project examined the root causes of the gaps in college going rates for all students as well as those of the underrepresented subgroups by applying the Clark and Estes (2005) gap analysis model. Gaps between goal achievement (college participation) and actual student performance were examined and then research-based solutions for closing the achievement gap and recommendations based on those solutions were recommended to the school district administrative team. 1 Chapter 1 Overview This chapter will provide a brief background of the school system, school reform, and its impact on the development of American high schools and American high school students. The second section will look at the student demographic profile including ethnicity, language status, school status and graduation rates for the United States in general and California in particular. The third section will examine the district and its request for assistance, the focus of this project, and the importance of this work to the field of education. Historical Background In modern society, the world has become a more global and competitive community and the role of education has become increasingly more important because American students need to be able to compete in the global marketplace. The need to reform our educational system has been the focus of the nation since the U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which eliminated the segregation of schools in the United States. The advent of the Brown decision demonstrated the need to close gaps in the educational system for all children, no matter their race or ethnic identity. Years after the Brown decision, in 1965, two more pieces of legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which requires states and local districts to focus on the achievement of at-risk students by improving services available to them, and the Head Start Act. 2 Head Start is a preventative program meant to ameliorate the negative effects of poverty on low SES, preschool age and elementary school children (Joo, 2010). By the early 1980’s the educational system was still trying to address the inequalities that existed. Secretary of Education T.H. Bell said that there was “widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system” (A Nation At Risk, 1983). This prompted the Secretary of Education to form a commission to investigate the problem and publish a report, A Nation At Risk, in which several studies were cited and standardized test scores were used to illustrate the academic underachievement of American students. In 1994, the Clinton administration amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with IASA, or Improving America’s Schools Act. This act introduced AYP (annual yearly progress) and gave states the latitude to decide which criteria would determine AYP and student progress had to be measurable on state’s tests (Forte, 2010). The result of this flexibility in AYP standards Forte (2010) tells us is that few states ever developed or employed rigorous AYP models. In 2001, President Bush signed a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act called No Child Left Behind. When NCLB was signed into law in 2002, it brought with it increased federal control from Kindergarten to 12 th grade, over a school system that was under the authority of individual states and local agencies (Woodside- Jiron and Gehsmann, 2009; Schraw, 2010; Wiliam, 2010). The increase in federal control and higher state accountability resulted in a lack of rigor and control, realized under IASA (Forte, 2010). The benefit of increased oversight by the federal government means greater accountability, but the downside is that increased accountability also 3 brings greater consequences for failure. Educators and legislators alike have debated the merits and pitfalls of increased accountability and arguments range according to Schraw (2010) from “testing and accountability improve learning and equity to testing dumbs down standards, curriculum, and instruction”. NCLB requires all schools to meet their AYP and expects that all students will meet 100% proficiency by 2014. All schools that fail to meet these requirements are identified as “in need of improvement” by their State Education Agency. The program improvement designation, or PI also requires schools to help improve student achievement by providing after school tutoring or the option for parents to transfer their children to other schools in the district that are meeting their AYP and are therefore, not rated as PI schools (Woodside-Jiron and Gehsmann, 2009). The option to leave the low- achieving school can cause a wave of cascading ripples in the community by reinforcing the already suffering low self-image of the community and its students, thus devaluing the educational potential and outcomes of that school. Furthermore, schools “in need of improvement” face further sanctions by potential loss of federal funding and reorganization by the state as well as limited professional development and curriculum choices if they do not make adequate progress toward goals (Woodside-Jiron and Gehsmann, 2009; Schraw, 2010). As previously mentioned, groups that are most affected by this legislation are the underrepresented populations; students who attend underfunded schools in low SES 4 areas. Schools that were already struggling before the implementation of NCLB may fall further into the educational divide thus increasing the gap in student achievement even more. In California, local districts and schools are required not only to meet their AYP, but they must also meet their Academic Performance Index (API), which is an annual growth target for each institution and district. In an effort to create an equal platform for students and provide more opportunities for meeting the stricter guidelines of NCLB, teachers must also meet federal and state requirements for “highly qualified teacher”, new teachers are provided training that meets the “highly qualified” criteria and must take exams to prove subject mater competency. In school reform, the role of the school district is to work within federal, state, and local policies to ensure that their district is demonstrating growth in meeting their annual yearly growth targets. In addition, school districts need to facilitate student achievement and close any gaps in achievement that exist for all subgroups. In a recent case study, researchers reviewed the complexities of school reform and findings suggested that districts and schools should find ways to create opportunities for context-based solutions, curricular coherence including best practices and socially responsive pedagogy, consistent and responsive coaching, sustainability of teaching practices, and finding ways to sustain the reform in the long-term (Woodside-Jiron and Gehsmann, 2009). 5 Student Demographic Profile Currently, the diversity in American schools reflects the shifting demographics of the country’s population for the last fifty years. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 55% of American students are White, 22% are Hispanic, 16% are African American, 3.7% are Asian, 0.2% are Pacific Islander, 0.9% are American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 2.6% identify with two or more races. Not only are the demographics for the United States changing, but so too are the languages spoken by its citizens. In a study run by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2008, parents surveyed were asked whether there were any children in the house who spoke a non-English language, if they answered “yes”, they were asked to identify the level of difficulty with which their child spoke English and then asked to rate this level utilizing a Likert-type scale of “very well”, “well”, “not well”, “not at all”. Children reported as not speaking English “very well” were listed as speaking English with difficulty. Also reported in this survey were the numbers of students who speak a language at home other than English; 17% of the Hispanic and 16% of the Asian students speak a language other than English at home and speak English with difficulty. Other groups reported as speaking a language other than English at home, and speaking English with difficulty: 8% Pacific Islanders, 3% American Indians/Alaska Natives, 1% African American, 1% White, and 1% of students who identify with two or more races. Of all the subgroups reported, three-quarters, or 75% of the students who reported speaking a 6 language other than English at home speak Spanish; 12% speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language, 10% speak an Indo-European language, and 3% speak a language other than the ones previously listed. Graduation Rates for the Nation and California According to the Alliance for Excellence in Education (2009), America has an average high school graduation rate of 69%; this rate varies amongst subgroups: 76% White, 79% Asian, 55% Hispanic, 51% African American, 50% Native American, and of those students listed previously, only 57% continue their education in college (Ruppert, 2003). Although in California, graduation rates are similar to the national standard as offered in a report by the Education Commission of the States: the overall rate is 68.9% for students earning a diploma in four years and is broken down into the by the following racial groups: White 75.7%, Asian 82%, Hispanic 57%, African American 55.3%, American Indian 49.7%. The Alliance for Excellence in Education states that college readiness in California is at 24% whereas the national average is 32%; the definition of college readiness according to the Alliance for Excellence in Education is a student who is ready for the rigors of college work because they participated in a college preparatory program in high school and having the skills and financial tools to be able to negotiate their way through college, thus earning a college diploma. 7 Statement of the Problem A report by the Education Commission of the States indicates that there is a gap in the current college-going rate (57% of high school graduates) in the United States and this gap shows that millions of people are unable to participate in postsecondary training and/or college. This would seem to indicate that they would not be able to benefit from having a college education; i.e. changing a life of impoverishment through postsecondary training to achieve a higher level of income. Furthermore, the Education Commission of the States report concludes that without universal access to the lifelong benefits of a college education, the nation will fail to meet the social and economic changes of the future. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan stated that the results of the National Educational Progress Report indicated that there are serious achievement gaps in American schools, and if American students want to graduate and participate in a global market we need to equip our schools with the tools to help students develop the skills to compete. Currently, the United States has a 69% graduation rate overall for students earning a diploma in four years, and that graduation rates for different groups vary: 76% White, 79% Asian, 55% Hispanic, 51% African American, and 50% Native American which further illustrates that the educational gap has not closed amongst subgroups (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009). Glendale Unified School District is a large, urban school district that serves an economically and culturally diverse population. The largest group within the district, according to the 2008-2009 District Accountability Report Card, is White at 55.1%; the 8 next largest group is the Hispanic/Latino 21.3%, and the third largest is Asian 13%. Linguistically, the two largest non-native, English-speaking groups are Armenian 12.8% and Spanish 7%. According to GUSD’s Strategic Plan 2010, the school district’s mission is to provide excellence in teaching, quality educational programs, and the necessary enrichment for all students to learn and develop with the primary focus being student achievement and preparing all students to go to college. In order to realize each student’s potential in the classroom and beyond, the school district implemented a new program called Focus on Results (FOR). FOR is a nationwide organizational model that helps school administrators and teachers focus on teaching practices and culture within the school in order to improve student achievement across the curriculum; thereby enabling the school district to meet its goal of preparing all students to go to college. Since the district is committed to preparing all its students for high school graduation and matriculation to college, it helps to prepare students for advancement to postsecondary institutions by helping them successfully meet all graduation requirements including passing the CAHSEE and college entrance exams such as the SAT. The 2008 API (Academic Performance Index) for this district averaged 815 out of a potential 1000 (State of Schools Report, 2008), and the 2009 API is 830, which is well above the state average of 712, thus indicating that this district is high performing. While the overall API for this district is high and continues to increase, looking at these scores delineated by subgroups gives a more detailed picture of the challenges the school district has, why the district considers this matter important, and specific areas that will need to 9 be addressed if they are to raise their college-going rate. For example: the district SARC report reports that Clark Magnet High School has an API of 873, and that the majority of the school can be delineated in two subgroups, both fairly equal in terms of API: White/Other 865, low SES 860; whereas Crescenta Valley High School has an API score of 879, and the Asian American subgroup is the top performer at 915, with the White/Other subgroup at 868, and the Hispanic/Latino at 822, the low SES at 811, displaying a disparity of student achievement within the school. Both these schools are the top performing high schools in the district. Furthermore, Hoover High School has an API of 761, and the Asian American subgroup has the highest API at 887, then we can see a decline in API of over 100 points in the White/Other subgroup at 753, followed by the Hispanic/Latino 710, and low SES 708; Glendale High School has an API of 754, and the top performing subgroup is Asian American at 893, with the Filipino subgroup coming in 90 points below at 803, followed by the White/Other 753, low SES 711, and Hispanic/Latino 710, also showing a decline in API of over 100 points. Although the district is high performing, gaps in the college-going rate exist at every school site and there is a significant disparity in the college-going rate between the four comprehensive high schools. Although the four comprehensive high schools have high student achievement, there is a distinct gap between seniors graduating qualified to enter a four-year institution and those who actually attend a four-year institution. To better illustrate this point, the percentage of students who meet UC or CSU course requirements 10 for the four comprehensive high schools, the county and the state are listed as reported in the district’s School Accountability Report Card (SARC) reports for 2008 in table 1 below. Table 1: High School Percentage of students County State Clark Magnet High School 64% 34% 36% Crescenta Valley High School 63% 34% 36% Herbert Hoover High School 30% 34% 36% Glendale Senior High School 31% 34% 36% Between the four comprehensive high schools, the top two high schools have twice as many seniors graduating who are UC or CSU eligible than the lower performing high schools, yet according to the above mentioned SARC report significantly lower numbers of students actually enroll in a four-year institution. Percentages of students who are UC or CSU eligible and enroll in a four-year institution for 2007 are illustrated in table 2 below. Table 2: Clark Magnet High School School Percentage attending County State Graduates attending UC 16% 9% 8% Graduates attending CSU 12% 13% 13% 11 Table 2 (Continued) Crescenta Valley High School School Percentage attending County State Graduates attending UC 13% 9% 8% Graduates attending CSU 19% 13% 13% Glendale Senior High School School Percentage attending County State Graduates attending UC 8% 9% 8% Graduates attending CSU 10% 13% 13% Herbert Hoover High School School Percentage attending County State Graduates attending UC 7% 9% 8% Graduates attending CSU 6% 13% 13% As represented in the above tables, the percentage of four-year eligible students is between 30% and 67%, yet the percentage of students who enroll and attend four-year institutions hovers between 6% and 19% district wide; whereas the percentage of students who enroll and attend community colleges falls between 40% and 57%. The numbers clearly demonstrate that there is a gap in the college-going rate for the district despite the districts efforts to create a consistent college-going culture within its high schools. The project team will examine the college-going rates of different subgroups within the district and determine where the gaps exist and the causes of those gaps by applying 12 the Clark and Estes (2005) gap analysis model. Specifically, the gap analysis model will examine the roots that contribute to this lack of participation in college and then research- based solutions will be sought so that college access can be increased. The gap analysis model looks at three factors known to cause gaps: knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. We will examine the gaps between goal achievement (college participation) and actual student performance. In examining the gap between student performance, which can be based on test scores, coursework, graduation and then enrollment in a postsecondary institution; the project team can ascertain which barriers; i.e. knowledge/skills, motivation, organizational or a combination of barriers are creating the performance gap. Upon completion of the gap analysis, the project team will be able to determine the root causes of the gaps in performance and then be able to recommend research-based solutions to the GUSD Administrative Team. The school district can select from recommended solutions and implement the most effective ones to provide faculty, staff, and students with the most support to deal with issues pertaining to knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational barriers so that they can continue to pursue their goal of improving the college-going rate for all students within the school district. Importance of This Project Although GUSD is a high achieving district with a 92% graduation rate, only 23.5% of GUSD students continue their education in college which is below the national average of 48% (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009), thus indicating that a gap 13 exists in the college-going culture of the district in general and the schools in particular. This means that less than one quarter of GUSD students will attend college, either full- time or half-time with many students being challenged and unprepared for the rigors of college life, resulting in a lack of persistence, which could contribute to students leaving school before graduation. Finding a way to bridge the gap in college access is important to improving the social and economic well being of students and the greater community at large. Having citizens who are able to navigate through society and can make sound decisions was always one of the goals of the American educational system. The significance of the study is that it will contribute more knowledge to the research on college access and provide a foundation for that body of knowledge within the school district and it will add to the research and knowledge within education. 14 Chapter 2 Review of Literature Ever since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision illustrating a lack of equity and access in American schools, education and its role in society has been put under the microscope, by the government and the public. It is this scrutiny that has prompted legislation like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), Head Start Act (1965), Improving America’s Schools Act (1994), and No Child Left Behind (2002) as well as various publications like A Nation at Risk (1984). These various legislative attempts at equalizing education for all students has resulted in the adoption of trendy intervention strategies, high stakes testing, and the highest level of accountability for student achievement that the nation has ever seen. The groups that are most affected by the lack of equity and access as well as the increased levels of accountability and scrutiny are typically underrepresented subgroups such as Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and low socioeconomic students from urban and rural areas. These students may attend schools in areas that are well funded or underfunded, or schools where they are mixed but tracked out of academically challenging courses. These students lack rigorous academic preparation, either because they self-select out of rigorous coursework or are tracked out; thus insuring that they are neither academically qualified to meet admission requirements for colleges and universities, nor do they possess the knowledge of how to apply, or even how to pay for college (Hagedorn and Tierney, 2002). This lack of education will severely impact American youth and the type of future they will be able to provide for 15 themselves (Coddling and Rothman, 1999). The end result will be that students who come from low SES or disadvantaged backgrounds will be unable to ameliorate their condition in life; budget constraints, school culture, or organizational culture prevents these students from accessing needed information, therefore denying these students the ability to earn a college degree, which is what Hagedorn and Tierney (2002) call “a necessary passport to the middle class” (p.3). High School Design To understand the challenges of the American high school, it is first necessary to briefly review how the modern comprehensive high school developed. Originally, schools were a place in which the average “free” child in the colonies could attend school so they could learn the 3 R’s: reading, writing, and arithmetic; students would learn the basic facts of Grecian, Roman, English, and American history (Honeywell, 1969). The idea of the early schools was that citizens would be educated enough to run their own lives and make important community decisions. In 1893, the National Education Association formed a committee, known as the Committee of Ten, to deal with the problems in secondary schools (Marsh and Codding, 1999). Leaders for this committee came for the most notable institutions in the country to decide how the American high school should adapt to the growing demand for education (Marsh and Codding, 1999). The committee had several functions: align the curriculum to reflect the needs of American students; allot time needed to study each subject effectively; discuss best methods of testing students’ knowledge. According to Marsh and 16 Codding (1999) the committee looked at who was attending secondary schools and whether they were likely to attend college or enter into a profession, from that the committee decided that a liberal arts education focused on cultivating a student’s mind would be more valuable for everyone, no matter their profession. Ultimately, the committee influenced the way high schools developed and a track system emerged: college preparatory, technical, and commercial (trade). School enrollment continued to climb in the 1930’s, technical and commercial schools were overflowing and Marsh and Codding (1999) tell us that this led to the development of general program schools, which led to neither college nor trade school. Approximately twenty-five years after the Committee of Ten, another document called the Cardinal Principals of Secondary Education, relies on the philosophy of social efficiency which says that curriculum should be driven in terms of a student’s future occupational and educational goals (Lee & Ready, 2009). Furthermore, supporters of the Cardinal Principals argued that schools should offer different curricular options because students entered high school with different sets of academic skills and they had very different life goals and it was inequitable to require students to take all academic coursework because that ignored “students’ social realities” (Lee & Ready, 2009). With the population explosion at the beginning of the 20 th century, schools were expanding rapidly, adjusting to the “consensus about the value of education up to the age of 18.” (Wiliam, 2010). Because high school was meant to educate the population to take over their role as adults in society, high school education generally focused on the career paths of individual students as opposed to students furthering their education in college. 17 Ultimately this led to the formation of the comprehensive high school, which contained multiple study tracks: college preparatory, commercial, general, and technical programs but led neither to college nor trade school (Marsh and Codding, 1999). This system of education is very different from other countries in that the American system was created to educate people for adulthood whereas other school systems educated their students for adulthood up until the age of 15 or 16 and education beyond those ages was meant for approximately 5 to 10% of the population (Wiliam, 2010). For example, in Great Britain assessments called General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) were created to assess student knowledge and criteria for these exams was determined by the universities. Thus creating a vertical alignment between curriculum and instruction, and high stakes assessments that are standards-based and based on student achievement as opposed to teacher competency (Wiliam, 2010). The United States has been struggling with the idea of how to create a system of education that takes into account the differences between people’s goals and abilities; still equipping them with the skills needed to navigate life or higher education and life. Currently, school reform measures focus on closing the achievement gap by having “highly qualified” teachers in the classroom delivering content. This idea of “highly qualified” refers to the fact that the teacher delivering course content is very knowledgeable about that content, and “the content of instruction is a key variable in determining student achievement gains” (Hochberg and Desimone, 2010). 18 School Reform Legislation The current educational reform movement in America began in response to the publication A Nation at Risk (1984), which highlighted the underachievement of American students in comparison to students from around the world (A Nation at Risk, 1984; Hochberg and Desimone, 2010). This publication went on to state that school reform needed “excellence throughout education”; that American students needed to have the skills, knowledge, and confidence to compete in a global marketplace (A Nation at Risk, 1984). Moreover, with the advent of the computer and other technologies appearing in the 1980’s, the Commission noted that students were going to need more preparation for the new generation of jobs, which required more advanced math, reading, and writing skills (A Nation at Risk, 1984). Although the Commission made recommendations for closing the achievement gap and went further to describe how their suggestions should be implemented, states were allowed to decide for themselves how schools and school districts should fulfill federal requirements, with little accountability demonstrating that they have fulfilled federal requirements (Hochberg and Desimone, 2010). Twenty years later, it appeared that no progress had been made towards closing the achievement gap for all students; President Bush reauthorized ESEA by signing a newer version called No Child Left Behind (NCLB) into law. NCLB reinforced the ideas set forth in A Nation at Risk, but set more definitive parameters for closing the achievement gap. NCLB increased state and local accountability by requiring states to submit a plan where they would have to demonstrate that they are requiring challenging academic 19 standards; accountability, where each school and school district is meeting their AYP (annual yearly progress); implementing high-quality, yearly academic assessments; instruction is provided by highly qualified teachers; parents are involved in the school community (No Child Left Behind, 2001). Since NCLB demands “highly qualified instruction” the increased professional development accountability for schools and school districts has made external reform strategies such as the New American Schools, which are whole-school models like Success for All, and Roots and Wings (Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003; Desimone, 2002); Focus on Results and America’s Choice very popular interventions in many school districts across the nation (Desimone, 2002). External reform strategies allow administrators and teachers to implement a complete, pre-designed program of reform instantaneously. To meet the more stringent accountability requirements, school districts tend to adopt multiple school reform strategies that focus on different skills and areas for improvement of instruction, which Hochberg and Desimone (2010) argue leaves “teachers feeling pushed and pulled in different directions.” With the increased accountability also came the reintroduction of an old concept: The three R’s; although instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic, we now have rigor, relevance, and research. If professional development is to be effective, teachers must feel that there is relevance not only in the intervention strategy, but also that the professional development is essential to their own content and teaching practices. Teachers must continually be learning; they must be current in educational research, which discusses strategies, methods, and interventions. Hochberg and Desimone (2010) 20 state, “Success of professional development depends on the development of teacher knowledge and the extent to which the professional development can foster a commitment to change and beliefs that teachers can effect the instructional changes required by the accountability reform.” School Reform and Comprehensive School Reform For the past two decades, educators and legislators alike have been trying to create and implement lasting reform programs to try and bridge the student achievement gap. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk, different reforms have been have been created as a direct response to improve schools and student learning. Desimone (2002) characterizes these reform movements as “waves”; the first wave focused on top-down approaches such as increasing standards, increased teacher’s salaries, increased core requirements, longer school day and longer school year. The second wave dealt with improving relationships between families and schools, addressing special needs students, recruiting and retaining effective teachers, professional development, emphasizing teachers as professionals (Desimone, 2002). These different waves of reform paved the way for comprehensive school reform models such as: Charter schools, magnet schools, redesigned traditional schools, and school-wide reform models (Desimone, 2002). The Comprehensive School Reform Program (CSR) began in 1998, and was authorized as part of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or NCLB in 2002 (U.S. Department of Education). The purpose of this reform act is to provide schools with scientifically based research and effective practices with which to 21 implement school-wide reform, which will allow “all children to meet challenging State academic content and achievement standards” (U.S. Department of Education). Desimone (2002) offers that CSR is the result of the effective schools movement which embodies the following characteristics: Clear and focused school mission, safe and orderly environment, high expectations, opportunity to learn and time on task, instructional leadership, frequent monitoring of student progress, positive home-school relations (History of the Effective Schools Movement). The CSR program helps schools to implement school-wide improvements that will encompass all aspects of the school’s operations as opposed to focusing on just one group or program (Desimone, 2002; U.S. Department of Education). One of the most studied models within the CSR program is America’s Choice; this model focuses on student achievement through a rigorous academic program with embedded student safety nets (May & Supovitz, 2006). The cornerstone’s of this program’s success is to daily block of extended literacy, the adherence to New Standards Performance Standards, which are expectations for student performance that are internationally known, and the belief that all students can meet the expectations (May & Supovitz, 2006). In order to qualify for funding, schools must implement reforms that demonstrate the most potential for success and will help all students meet challenging State achievement standards. Additionally, states must utilize a reform program that integrates the following eleven components of the legislation (U.S. Department of Education): 1. Employs proven methods and strategies on scientifically based research 2. Integrates a comprehensive design with aligned components 3. Provides ongoing, high-quality professional development for teachers and staff 22 4. Includes measurable goals and benchmarks for student achievement 5. Is supported within the school by teachers, administrators and staff 6. Provides support for teachers, administrators and staff 7. Provides for meaningful parent and community involvement in planning, implementing and evaluating school improvement activities 8. Uses high-quality external technical support and assistance from an external partner with experience and expertise in school-wide reform and improvement 9. Plans for the evaluation of strategies for the implementation of school reforms and for student results achieved, annually 10. Identifies resources to support and sustain the school’s comprehensive reform effort 11. Has been found to significantly improve the academic achievement of students or demonstrates strong evidence that it will improve the academic achievement of students CSR focuses on improvement school-wide as opposed to creating and implementing interventions for certain underperforming groups. Desimone (2002) states, “CSR attempts to address that weakness by providing designs by which effective schools can be created.” Thus providing a much-needed blueprint for schools that want to close the achievement gap, but are uncertain as to how to go about doing it. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been working for almost the past decade to help facilitate equity and access in education and to help “ensure that 80% of students graduate prepared for college, with a focus on low-income and minority students meeting this target” (Shear, Means, et al., 2008; College Ready Education Plan, 2010). The foundation has donated approximately $4 billion over the past ten years for high school reform in multiple schools and districts across the country (College Ready Education Plan, 2010; Shear, Means, et al., 2008). Part of the foundation’s philosophy, which has 23 renewed the idea of the 3 R’s; now rigor, relevance, and relationships and its mission says, “the key to opportunity is education and that education is the great equalizer” (College Ready Education Plan, 2010). Recently, a five-year evaluation done of the first stage of the foundation’s initiative, mixed-methods design, reports on two types of high school reform in the creation of smaller learning communities (SLC), which focus on extensive teacher collaboration, ongoing professional development and collaboration with students, and their results: Small-school start-up and large school conversion into smaller learning communities (Shear, Means, et al., 2008). In the small school start-up, there were several challenges such as: recruiting for the new school, creating a brand-new curriculum, lack of an existing school infrastructure, multiple roles for teachers and administrators, lack of qualified faculty to teach all courses required, inexperienced teaching staff, differing relationships with local school districts, discipline issues, and financial sustainability (Shear, Means, et al., 2008). On the other hand, the conversion schools had some alternate challenges to meet such as: students are allocated to the new smaller school instead of choosing to attend, fostered closer student/staff relationships, more positive environment for teaching and learning, moderate or substantial rigor in assignments pre- and post-conversion, changes in student work quality varied by subject, physical limitations to the creation of SLC’s, frustration of faculty and staff, restructuring of curriculum, school leadership structure, relationship with local school district, and financial sustainability (Shear, Means, et al., 2008). 24 Overall, Shear, Means, et al. (2008) concluded that there was increased student achievement in some start-up schools, but there not in others; initial improvement in school climate did not apply to all schools; student engagement declined in conversion schools; quality of work in English increased whereas quality of work in math decreased; and the hope that students would achieve more in a shorter time was not realized and that a time longer than five years would be needed in order to facilitate increased student achievement. Launched in 2004 by Achieve, Inc. is another reform effort known as The American Diploma Project. This project is intended to address and find solutions for the following issues: most high school graduates need remedial help in college, most college students never attain a degree, most employers say high school graduates lack basic skills, most workers question the preparation high schools provide. The main purpose of this project is to establish a connection “between high school exit expectations and the intellectual challenges that graduates invariably face in credit-bearing college courses or in high- performance, high-growth jobs” (The American Diploma Project, 2010). Additionally, the project calls for the alignment of core curriculum in high school to reflect work required in college such as: Four years of English; four years of math which includes Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II (The American Diploma Project, 2010). Organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as forty-eight states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have joined in this effort to create a clear set of academic expectations and skills that every student must fulfill by the time they finish high school (The American Diploma Project, 2010). Moreover, it is thought that if high 25 school curriculum and assessments can be aligned to real-world standards then the American high school diploma will have more value instead of how it appears currently, which is “nothing more than a certificate of attendance” (The American Diploma Project, 2010). Common Core State Standards and Curriculum The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort facilitated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The purpose of this initiative is to provide a clear and consistent framework that defines the knowledge and skills students should have from their elementary and secondary education, school-to-school and state-to-state (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). According to a report from the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers in June 2010, the common core standards are based on best practices in national and international education; research from scholars, assessment developers; professional organizations; educators representing all grade levels. Moreover, the report states that the common core standards: 1. Are aligned with college and work expectations 2. Are clear, understandable and consistent 3. Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher- order skills 4. Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards 5. Are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society 6. Are evidence-based 26 The initiative provides consistent standards and assessments for English language arts and mathematics so that no matter which state students live in, parents and educators know and understand what each student should know. Although this initiative is relatively new, the discussion for the need for universal standards such as college preparatory curriculum for all students began prior to the signing and implementation of NCLB. The core standards call for an alignment of curriculum so that high school students will have met certain requirements and possess a depth of understanding and ability to apply that understanding in a collegial and professional setting (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). In a speech to educators from around the country at the AP National Conference in July 2010, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan stated that the College Board was right “to hail that the Common Core state standards are a monumental achievement in education”. Although the common core standards address the two main subjects that students often have challenges with, they do not address all the subjects within a high school curriculum. Part of the reform movements has been to address curricular relevance to student outcomes. All states have been working to create tougher state standards for curriculum and according to Ed Source (2007); none is more rigorous than the California state standards. However, California state standards may be rigorous and thorough, but it is up to the discretion of the school districts to determine curriculum; the only requirement is an adherence to the minimum high school graduation requirements (Ed Source, 2007): 1. Social science (U.S. History; world history; one semester American Government; one semester economics); Three years 27 2. English; Three years 3. Mathematics (including Algebra I); Two years 4. Science (including biological and physical sciences); Two years 5. Foreign language or Visual and Performing Arts; One year 6. Physical Education; Two years The minimum graduation requirements for high school in California do not align with UC/CSU requirements; thus indicating a serious gap in the realities of student eligibility for college. As a result of the inequity of curricular standards across the country, there is also a deficiency in social capital amongst certain subgroups in American schools, Coleman (1988) suggests that social capital is instrumental in developing human capital, which can be seen in more students graduating from high school instead of dropping out, and proceeding to enroll in college and earn a degree. The importance of higher education cannot be underestimated; Hagedorn and Tierney (2002) assert that having a college degree is not a luxury, but a necessity, not only to provide people with a way to ameliorate their everyday lives but to provide human capital for the betterment of society. In today’s society we are seeing the effects of this lack of social capital in the dropout rate for Los Angeles County, which is reported at 33.6%. According to a State of California review, the dropout rate is 33.6% and by an independent review the rate is 25.7%, or approximately 1 out of 3 students (Landsberg and Blume, 2008). In Los Angeles Unified School District, there are 680,167 students, approximately 224,455 students dropout every year, indicating that there are many students who do not possess the skills, e.g. social, cultural, or linguistic capital necessary to get through school successfully (Landsberg and Blume, 2008). 28 With the diversity of American schools and the issues that accompany such diversity, it becomes necessary to globally realign curriculum in schools. Incorporating the different ethnicities into the American curriculum, as part of the curriculum, would be an equitable solution to create a more diverse learning community. The lack of recognition in school curriculum may be the reason many subgroups are limited in their ability to access to college; they feel no connection, either from a cultural perspective or from a societal perspective. Bennett (2001) posits that teachers, especially in a society as culturally diverse as the United States, cannot individualize or personalize instruction without considering culture. To have a curriculum reform that is all-inclusive, culture must be affirmed; “society reinforces the democratic right of each ethnic group to retain its own heritage” (Bennett, 2001, p.173). A more immediate goal to address the needs of the different subgroups in high school would be to look at teachers and the skills those teachers possess. Some questions to consider: How diverse is the campus upon which I teach? Am I meeting the needs of individual students? Am I delivering culturally responsive pedagogy? One of the most important things a teacher can do is to create a classroom environment in which all students feel welcome and are part of the community. Some ways in which to accomplish this would be to create a collaborative classroom community where activities that help facilitate student belonging and withitness such as the as jigsaws, where everyone in the group participates and contributes; thus reinforcing that no matter which race, gender, or ethnicity one is, their contribution is valuable (Aronson, 2008). That is 29 not to say that this is the only method to engender these characteristics in students, it is merely one strategy amongst many. It is important to make students feel as though their contributions are important building blocks to collaborative learning. If they feel invested in their learning community and derive knowledge and satisfaction from these experiences this may help to inform their perspective about continuing their education at the postsecondary level. Most often underrepresented populations disengage from school because they feel no connection, they cannot see themselves as college students, or family or societal expectations have caused them to feel as though they have no choice (autonomy) about their future. In a country that has become increasingly more diverse and global in the past few decades, education has been remarkably slow to address this shift in student culture and learning. With the failure to successfully implement the vision engendered by the Brown decision, the government has been looking for ways to bring about an immediate change in the way schools educate students without much consideration for the long-term effects of its actions. There is no quick fix to these issues; long-term solutions must be sought in order to repair the damage of short-term educational trends. A major factor in the deliberations should be the diversity of ethnicities in the United States since social/cultural aspects of such diversity are a factor that prohibits students in certain subgroups from being able to access educational opportunities, and finding solutions to make education more accessible and relevant. Furthermore, individual schools must reevaluate their pedagogical practices and attributions concerning certain subgroups; the 30 communication, either verbal or non-verbal, that certain groups are unworthy in some way creates negative expectations and contributes to students forming maladaptive behaviors. Ultimately, the goal is for all schools to be able to deliver culturally responsive pedagogy, thus equipping students to qualify for college admission and successfully complete their degrees becoming productive adults in an increasingly global economy. 31 CHAPTER 2B METHODOLOGY Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang Project Team Members A three-member team of graduate student professionals from the University of Southern California (USC) undertook a project that investigated college participation rates amongst Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) student subgroups and analyzed factors that prevented some student subgroups from accessing, pursuing and/or matriculating into college. This project applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework to determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational barriers that prevent all GUSD students from participating in college. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals achieved when these three causes are properly addressed. Each member of the project group offered a distinctive set of skills, come from diverse backgrounds, and have unique professional experiences that lent insight to the college participation problem as a whole, and how it affects GUSD specifically. Danny Kim served recently as an administrator at a comprehensive public high school located in an affluent area of east San Gabriel Valley. The school graduates nearly 100% of its students and consistently ranks as one of the top high schools in all of Southern California in terms of API (882) and similar schools rankings. There is a distinct cultural model of high college participation at this school with roughly 55% of each graduating class matriculating into a four-year university. 32 The internal and external school community places a high value on seeing its students accepted into the top universities in the nation, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Cal Tech, and all University of California schools. Dawn Cassady served as a high school administrator at a private institution located in the large urban area of Long Beach. The school services a small population of students and aims to support non-traditional college participants by providing the appropriate teaching and counseling services necessary for college preparation and admittance. Roughly 25% of each graduating class in this college preparatory private school successfully matriculates into a four-year university. Zim Hoang served as the Coordinator of Assessment and Evaluation for a large- urban school district in Los Angeles County. This individual oversees the entire testing program for the eighteen schools in the district. Schools in this district face increasing levels of both Federal and State accountability as students continue to perform poorly on standardized tests. In fact, most schools in the district are on Program Improvement status and a low percentage of students go onto four-year universities upon high school graduation. All three members of this project team share a particular interest in researching and understanding college participation gaps that exist in many high schools today. Although each team member works in unique organizations with varied successes in graduating and matriculating students to four-year universities, there is a common element of certain student subgroups that have historically been underrepresented in the college-going experience in our respective schools. The project team gained valuable 33 insight on the successes and challenges of closing the college participation gap at Glendale Unified, and used gathered information, best practices, and offered solutions as a springboard to solving similar gaps in our respective workplaces. Also, it is the hope of the authors that the findings and subsequent solutions offered in this project will result in improved access and equitable opportunities for all students to pursue higher education at four-year universities. We desire to see K-12 schools and districts provide high student expectations and academic rigor for all student subgroups, and to ensure that historically underrepresented and underperforming students have the necessary interventions in place so that their higher-education dreams are realized. The work undertaken by this three-member team included the joint authorship of the following common sections: • Chapter 2B: Methodology • Chapter 2C: Findings • Chapter 3A: Review of the Solutions Literature • Chapter 3B: Executive Summary of Solutions Partnership With Glendale Unified School District The USC project team created a partnership with the Glendale Unified School District in analyzing their college participation gap. Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is a high-performing, large, urban school district that serves an economically and culturally diverse population. The school district’s mission is to provide excellence 34 in teaching, quality educational programs, and the enrichment necessary for all students to learn and develop with the primary focus being student achievement. GUSD schools include twenty elementary, four middle, four comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school. The district services students residing primarily in the City of Glendale, and the smaller foothill communities of La Crescenta and Montrose. The City of Glendale is located nearly 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, and hosts growing financial, entertainment, retail and commercial centers within its suburban residential borders. Glendale is home to nearly 74,000 Armenian-Americans, who make up 37% of the city population. Glendale Unified School District educates its students within the context of both federal and state accountability expectations. GUSD’s Academic Performance Index of 842 (2010) demonstrates a high achieving culture. However, gaps in achievement exist within each comprehensive high school site, and between each school site. For example, at Crescenta Valley High School (CVHS), Asian subgroups’ API score topped at 918, while the Hispanic subgroup scored at 831- nearly a 90-point difference between student populations. Also, while CVHS (883 API) and Clark Magnet High School’s (889 API) rank as two of the highest performing in the State, Hoover (772) and Glendale High School’s (754) API rankings are both separated by over 110-points from their two high- performing sister schools. This differentiation in achievement is also evident in 2009 AYP targets: while CVHS and Clark Magnet both met AYP status, Hoover and Glendale High School failed to do so. 35 In order to address both State and Federal accountability measurements, the school district implemented a reform initiative called Focus on Results: an organizational reform model that helps school administrators and teachers focus on teaching practices and culture in order to improve student achievement across the district. According to GUSD school district officials, Focus on Results has helped shift the district to data- driven practices resulting in improved academic performance over time. The Focus on Results reform model is rooted in seven defining principles: 1) Identification of school-wide instructional focus based on assessment of student needs; 2) Development of an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a guiding coalition for the school; 3) Selection of three to five high-quality, research-based strategies used consistently by every teacher; 4) Provision of targeted professional development to ensure all teachers are implementing those three to five practices with fidelity; 5) Realignment of school to support the instructional focus; 6) Implementation of an internal accountability system using assessment measures that benchmark progress in the focus area; 7) The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting focus through classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocation of resources and support. 36 Along with overall academic achievement gains, the district is committed to preparing all its students for graduation and successful matriculation into college and careers. GUSD students prepare for advancement to postsecondary institutions by successfully meeting all graduation requirements, including passage of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), enrollment in college prep and advanced placement courses, and participation in college entrance exams such as the SAT. Despite GUSD’s preparation of students for postsecondary studies, a college participation gap exists and is often based on students’ race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or English language proficiency. GUSD Comprehensive High Schools Glendale Unified School District boasts four comprehensive high schools, each with its own set of unique characteristics and traditions. All four high schools offer a college preparatory curriculum and career/technical education that prepares students for higher education and/or success in the workplace. Clark Magnet High School sits atop a hill in an affluent and well-maintained neighborhood in the city of La Crescenta, California and serves approximately 1,000 students. The school opened in 1998 as a science and technology magnet that focuses on strong academic achievement as evidenced by its 2010 Growth API of 889. In addition, the school prepares its students with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in our technological world. All Clark Magnet students are required to take technology courses for graduation, and nearly 70% of its students enroll in a career/technical education 37 course. Clark Magnet offers both Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, which prepares students for rigorous college preparatory level studies. The school graduates nearly 100% of each class, and roughly 64% of Clark Magnet graduates meet the minimum eligibility requirements for entrance to the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) school systems. Although many Clark Magnet students meet eligibility requirements for four-year universities, nearly 57% of the 2007 graduating class subsequently enrolled in a two-year college. Glendale High School has served students since 1906. Today, the school serves a diverse student body of approximately 3,000, with 28% Armenian, 25% White, 0.6% Black, 17% Asian, and 20% Hispanic/Latino. Glendale High’s 2010 Growth API of 754 is the lowest of the four comprehensive high schools. In addition to academic coursework, the school has several career/technical education programs, including Cosmetology, Construction, and Food Academies. In terms of college preparation, 31% of Glendale High School students met minimum course requirements for admission to UC and CSU schools. In 2007, 58% of the graduating class matriculated into community colleges. Crescenta Valley High School is a high-achieving California Distinguished (2005) and National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence (2000). The school of nearly 3,000 students opened its doors in 1946 and its 2010 Growth API of 883 ranks as one of the highest in the State. Crescenta Valley High prepares its students to meet rigorous course requirements for entry to four-year universities and offers students a Science and Medicine Academy. Sixty-three percent of the 2008 graduating class met minimum 38 course requirements for UC and CSU schools. Forty percent of the 2007 graduating class enrolled in community colleges. The last of the four comprehensive high schools in Glendale Unified is Herbert Hoover High, named after our nation’s 31 st President. The school began instructing students in 1929 and currently serves a diverse student population of 2,700, with 63% White (primarily Armenian), 22% Hispanic/Latino, and 10% Asian. Hoover High offers both academic and Career Technical educational offerings, including the Business, Engineering, and Technology Academy (BETA), a Virtual Enterprise Business class, a Police and Fire Academy, and the only Auto Shop program in the district. In 2010, Hoover High witnessed a 10-point API growth to 772, and saw 30% of its 2008 graduating class meet minimal course requirements for UC and CSU entry. In 2007, fifty-five percent of the graduating class attended a community college. Gap Analysis Model Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis model provides an effective lens for fleshing out gaps in performance and leading Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) and high school site leaders in selecting the right solutions for closing those gaps. This proven problem-solving model has been applied within a variety of business industries, and offers a framework for school district leaders to solve their own organizational problems. For this particular project, we applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) framework by looking deeply at the root causes of GUSD’s gap in student participation in four-year universities. 39 The Gap Analysis model is a dynamic process that examines the “active ingredients” that lead to improved work processes. The model consists of six steps that lead to improved work performance and goal achievement. The steps are as follows (Clark and Estes, 2002): 1) Identification of key business goals; 2) Identification of performance goals; 3) Determination of performance gaps; 4) Analysis of performance gaps to determine knowledge, motivation, or organizational causes; 5) Identify solutions to knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational process causes and implement; 6) Evaluation of results and revision of goals. In essence, Clark and Estes (2002) assert that business goals are not realized because of gaps in individual performance. Performance gaps are attributed to three primary causes: lack of knowledge or skills; lack of motivation; or ineffective organizational processes or culture. In order to select the right solutions in closing these performance gaps, it is critical that organizations analyze and determine the correct root cause(s). Once solutions have been identified, it is important for an organization to implement and evaluate to see if business goals have been met. This project utilized the Gap Analysis model to determine performance gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District graduating students from accessing four-year 40 universities. The following section details the Gap Analysis processes our project team undertook to accomplish this task: Goal Identification: In order to properly identify gaps in performance a clearer understanding of GUSD’s organizational- and cascading intermediate and performance- goals needed to be established. Behind GUSD’s mission of student achievement for all lays a range of key organizational goals, one of which is access to college participation. During Spring 2010, our project team examined district and school site goals as it relates to college participation. The team sought a clear definition of GUSD college participation goals, and determined if all levels- global, intermediate, and performance- were compatible, aligned, and measurable. Furthermore, we examined performance or works goals that set out to increase college participation for GUSD graduating students to determine if they met the ‘C3’ criteria- concrete, challenging, and current (Clark and Estes, 2002). During Spring 2010, our project team assessed whether performance goals were clearly defined so that desired performance could be effectively measured against actual performance. Upon analyzing the district’s and the school’s goals against their actual performance, our project team settled on analyzing gaps in four-year university participation for GUSD students. It was clear from our data that a large percentage of GUSD students were matriculating into two-year community colleges, yet a disproportionate number were failing to enter four-year universities despite a growing 41 percentage meeting minimum course requirements for entry. For our purposes, we have defined GUSD’s college participation gap to mean access to four-year universities. Although GUSD aims to increase the number of its graduating students participating in four-year universities, a certain subgroup population of students fails to meet this organizational goal. While the district realizes high graduation rates and students meeting minimum university entrance requirements, not all student subgroups are matriculating into universities upon completion of their secondary studies. At GUSD, levels of income, English language development, and immigrant experience are factors that invariably demarcate student participation in four-year universities. With the existence of some students’ non-participation in four-year universities, it is evident that gaps in the performance of various GUSD stakeholders- students, parents, and educators- may very well be preventing students from successfully participating in four-year undergraduate programs. Performance Gap Analysis: Clark and Estes (2002) assert that performance gaps are attributed to three causes: lack of knowledge/skills, lack of motivation, and/or organizational barriers. Once our team defined organizational goals related to college participation, we set out to complete the next critical step in Clark and Estes’ (2002) problem-solving model: the identification of root causes of GUSD college participation gap. Specifically, the work of various role groups was critically examined and we analyzed various data to determine root causes in 42 knowledge, motivation, or within the organization that prevented some GUSD students from participating in four-year universities. Knowledge Gaps: According to Clark and Estes (2002), performance gaps can be attributed to lack of knowledge and/or skills. Essentially, individuals in different role groups may not have the specific knowledge and skills to accomplish a certain task or goal. For our purposes, this can amount to graduating students not knowing how to access college applications, or teachers not having the pedagogical skills to deliver rigorous college preparatory curriculum to her students. In both these examples, a specific knowledge/skill deficit exists that will inevitably prevent more students from accessing four-year university education. There are four different types of knowledge: factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Factual knowledge is knowledge of concrete pieces of information, including terminology and details. On the other hand, conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge of more complex ideas, mental models, schemas, or theories. For example, although an individual might have the factual knowledge about enrolling in college, his reluctance in applying might be based on not knowing the conceptual importance of a college education. Procedural knowledge involves the knowledge of “how-to” do something. This could involve knowledge of techniques, sequences, or steps that can range in the routine to rather difficult. Finally, metacognitive knowledge refers to “knowledge about cognition in general as well as 43 awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition” (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 27). Simply put, metagcognition is the knowledge of one’s own self in relation to learning and solving different tasks, including knowledge of strengths and limitations. Motivation Gaps: Gaps in performance can also be attributed to a lack of motivation. GUSD students’ lack of motivation to pursue a four-year university education is based on the following four roots (Mayer, 2008): • Interest: students’ value and interest in college; • Self-efficacy: students perceive themselves as capable of entering college; • Attribution: students attribute college-going success to hard work and effort; • Goal orientation: students are most successful when they want to be best prepared for a college education and perform well to get there. According to Clark and Estes (2002), there are three types of motivational processes that come into play in students’ pursuit of college: active choice, persistence and mental effort. Active choice is the active pursuit of a goal; persistence involves continued pursuit of a goal despite distractions; and, mental effort is the investment of energy in pursuit of a goal that is dependent on an adequate level of confidence. Optimal performance towards a goal is contingent upon these three facets of motivation. Motivation itself is a critical area of study in the area of education. Students who lack motivation to succeed in school are apt to fail compared to their more confident counterparts. In fact, research points to the fact that “people who are positive and believe 44 that they are capable and effective will achieve significantly more than those who are just as capable but tend to doubt their own abilities” (Clark and Estes, 2002, p. 82). For our purposes, motivation problems can manifest itself in a number of ways: students’ lack of buy-in to the importance of a four-year university education; students’ avoidance of rigorous academic study in preparation for college; students’ procrastination in completing their college application process; teachers’ refusal to best prepare all students for college preparatory study based on assumed beliefs about student capabilities, etc. Altogether, motivation is a powerful force that may be inhibiting GUSD students’ pursuit and participation in college. Organizational Gaps: The third cause of performance gaps can be attributed to barriers that exist within the organization or its culture. When knowledge/skill or motivation gaps are ruled out, it is often something within the organization itself that is preventing individuals from achieving optimal performance. For our purposes, there are organizational gaps that are preventing some GUSD students from accessing a four-year university education. These gaps are a result of inefficient work processes and policies, insufficient material resources, and misaligned value chains and value streams. Barriers within the organization can be symptomatic of its culture. An organization’s culture dictates how work is accomplished, and describes the core beliefs and values of the organization itself. When considering college participation and access 45 issues within Glendale Unified School District, our team critically examined the culture of the organization itself to determine if it was conducive for preparing and graduating its students onto four-year university institutions. Solutions: Once performance gaps were identified and analyzed to determine causes, our project team selected research-based solutions to close those gaps. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that varying causes require specific solutions. For example, a lack in knowledge or skill will necessitate some form of information aid, training, and/or education. Our project team determined the root causes to the college participation gap in Glendale Unified and offered a specific set of solutions to improve overall student access to four-year universities. The solutions were organized into a written Executive Summary of Findings and presented as a PowerPoint slideshow to the Glendale Unified Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet. Project Timeframe On November 30, 2009, our Gap Analysis project team made an initial visit to the district where the Superintendent of GUSD and his cabinet presented an overview of the district and provided potential problem areas to consider. Following this initial visit, our three-member team narrowed the problem to college access gaps for GUSD students. Our team sought to clarify GUSD’s goals as it relates to college participation, and conducted an unstructured interview with two district administrators on February 18, 46 2010. Following this interview, our team conducted a final unstructured interview with the GUSD Superintendent of Schools on March 17, 2010. These two interviews helped our team to clarify and focus our project on the four-year college participation gap extant in GUSD high schools. During the early part of this project, our team researched literature that helped provide context and research concerning the gap analysis model, the high school reform movement, and issues related to college access and participation. Our project team successfully passed a qualifying examination in late February that started the process for our group to begin conducting interviews and gathering data. During Spring 2010, the focus of our work was to gather information and data that helped us diagnose those gaps in performance preventing GUSD students from accessing four-year universities. In order to determine root causes, our team conducted a series of interviews at each of the four comprehensive high schools. These interviews involved various agents within each comprehensive schoolhouse, including administrators, teachers, and counselors. The first round of scanning interviews were conducted on the following days at these respective sites: April 1- Clark Magnet; April 15- Crescenta Valley; Glendale- April 1, 13; Hoover- April 15. A second round of interviews was conducted on the following dates at these respective sites: May 25- Glendale; May 28- Hoover; June 7- Crescenta Valley. A final round of interviews were conducted in mid-June. Due to time limitations and the close of the school year, the final round interview questions were e-mailed to respondents. 47 During the Spring and Summer of 2010, our project team focused on analyzing root causes to the college participation problem in GUSD. The collected data was organized into findings along specific gaps- knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization. Next, the project team organized the findings of the root causes into emergent themes that allowed for chunking of ideas and placement into a presentable fashion. An executive summary of findings was submitted to the Superintendent of GUSD schools. In the Fall of 2010, our project team researched literature on best practices to closing college participation gaps and drafted an executive summary of research-based solutions. The executive summary was organized into a PowerPoint presentation and presented to the GUSD Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet. Table 3: Project Timeline Fall 2009 • Meet with GUSD leaders to determine the performance goal: college access for all students • Data collection on the school district and recent research on college access and multiple pathways Spring 2010 • Qualifying exams • Conduct first and second round of interviews with key district personnel • Complete Draft of Chapter 2 and address possible findings • Institutional Review Board (IRB) Summer 2010 • Complete data collection • Complete Chapter 2 • Provide draft of Chapter 1 • Provide District with Executive Summary Fall 2010 • Complete Chapter 3 • Present findings to District stakeholders • Evaluate District’s response to findings and solutions • Finish Capstone Project Spring 2011 • Defend Dissertation • Graduation 48 Sampling and Instrumentation In order to diagnose the root causes to GUSD’s college participation gap, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted between the Fall of 2009 and the Spring of 2010. The interviewees included district administrators, school site administrators, counselors, and teachers. District administrator interviews were conducted at the Glendale Unified School District administration office, and school site officials were interviewed at their respective high schools (Glendale, Hoover, Crescenta Valley, and Clark Magnet High Schools). The purpose of these interviews was to provide unique insight from those individuals who have direct involvement with students’ college-going experiences. According to Clark and Estes (2002), interviews provide an opportunity to learn the beliefs and perceptions of those that are directly involved with the work, which, for our purposes, is the work of getting students into four-year universities. The questions were formulated so that responses could be analyzed and categorized into knowledge, motivation, or organizational barrier causes. Data Collection Methods: Data collection methods included different types of informal interviews wherein a respondent could answer in a conversational way, thus allowing the project team a glimpse into that person’s point of view as to the problem and what it looks like in their school and the district. The first interview was a scanning interview (See Appendix A), which is a semi- structured interview that contains five broad, open-ended questions, with subsequent 49 probing questions that allow the project team to gain more insight. For the first round of scanning interviews, each member of the project team interviewed personnel representing different role groups at each of the four comprehensive high schools: the principal, assistant principals, teachers, and counselors. Each interviewee was asked a set of questions dealing with college participation issues within their school. The five questions were based on developing an overview of the topic, the historical perspective on the situation, identifying formal or informal goals, the interviewee’s perception of the performance gap and suggestions on improving our project. Each interview was approximately forty-minutes and was electronically recorded with the interviewee’s permission and then later transcribed and coded for further analysis by the project team. The first round of interviews provided key insight into the college participation problem as it was experienced at each school site. Responses from the first round of interviews were coded to determine if a root cause to the college participation gap was found in knowledge/skills, motivation, or organizational barrier gaps. During the coding process, interviewee responses that indicated a root cause were color-coded in the following manner: knowledge/skill gaps- green; motivation gaps- blue; organizational barrier gaps- yellow. The project team grouped responses into categories and charted them into themes that emerged through our analysis. Interviewee responses were further coded to indicate a specific type of root cause. This analysis helped the project team further categorize their findings into specific areas of knowledge, motivation, and 50 organization gaps, which provided greater clarity for analysis. The chart below indicates the specific root cause coding that was used: Table 4: Coding of Root Causes Knowledge Gaps: Factual knowledge Kf Procedural knowledge Kp Conceptual knowledge Kc Metacognitive knowledge Km Motivation Gaps: Interest Mi Self-efficacy Mse Attributions Ma Goal orientation Mgo Active choice Mac Persistence Mp Mental effort Mme Organization Gaps: Policy/procedures Op Resources Or Value chains/value streams Ov Culture Oc The second type of interview was a one month interview wherein teachers were interviewed to determine what the individual role of the school agent (i.e. teacher, counselor) was in improving college access for all students, whether they believed they had a role in this process, and, if not, what the school or school district has done to help realize this goal. Each interviewee was asked one question and one follow-up question to determine their viewpoints on what has been undertaken to address the college participation gap, as well as capturing their personal level of concern for this problem. The two simple questions (see Appendix B) that our team asked in this second round of 51 interviews lasted no more than 10 minutes per interviewee. Interviews were electronically recorded with the interviewee’s permission and then later transcribed and coded for further analysis by the project team. The last interview, the stages of concern, was based on the Concerns-Based Adoption Model created by Hall and Loucks (Bailey and Palsha, 1992). In the Concerns- Based Adoption Model, there are seven stages of concern, which focus on “describing the concerns that professionals may have about an innovation” (Bailey and Palsha, 1992). The seven stages of concern as given by Bailey and Palsha (1992) are listed in the table below: Table 5: Stages of Concern Model Stage 0 Awareness Professional has little awareness of the innovation; not concerned Stage 1 Informational Primary concern is to know what the innovation is and does Stage 2 Personal Professional will want to know how the innovation affects them personally Stage 3 Management Professional focuses on how the innovation is to be implemented Stage 4 Consequences Concerned about whether the innovation will have a positive of negative affect Stage 5 Collaboration Concerned about cooperation among professionals in implementing the innovation Stage 6 Refocusing After evaluating the innovation, concerns are about modifying it to make it more effective or other innovations As a result of limited time, the project team had to e-mail the questions (See Appendix C) to teachers from which they received enough responses to gauge the level of concern about the implementation and efficacy of college-going interventions in their respective 52 school sites. Electronic mail responses were coded and reviewed by the project team and compared to the results from the other interviews in order to discern the roots of the college access problem facing GUSD students. After the entire set of interview data was analyzed and coded, the project team set out to find similar or repeated responses within the coded data and chunk them into themes. From these themes, the project team pinpointed the root causes to the college participation gap within GUSD. These findings were grouped into knowledge, motivation, and organizational barrier categories. An executive summary that grouped our findings of root causes into emergent themes was presented to the Glendale Unified Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet (See Appendix D). The following section of this Chapter provides in-depth explanations for each finding based on the extant data. Limitations of the Project Although this project shows that there are distinctive gaps in the achievement level of certain underrepresented subgroups, it has several limitations. First, time constraints caused the period of data collection in the schools to be limited to the end of the Spring semester, when schools were preparing to administer state tests, Advanced Placement exams, and finish the school year. Interview times were limited due to preparation for Spring testing, events, and final exams at the school sites. Interviews were also cancelled due to unforeseen events such as the death of a student. 53 Considering that the team was able to interview personnel utilizing three different interview models over a period of three months, the team determined that the data collected was sufficient for identification of root causes to the problem. A second limitation the project team faced revolved around concerns expressed by administrators at some of the high school sites. At the beginning of this process, when school sites were contacted to arrange the first round of interviews, administrators were eager to help, offering assistance in gathering school site data and providing access to the requested personnel. However, some administrators were wary of the purpose of the team visits, which led to limited access to personnel and data. The concern was based on the false belief that the project team was conducting evaluations for the school district about performance, and repercussions could follow an administrator for their forthrightness. As a result, the team was unable to arrange interviews with other administrators, teachers, or counselors at some sites. Instead, the principal or the principal’s assistant arranged interviews. The project team was concerned that selected interviewees would not be candid with the project team. A final limitation tied in the project team’s inability to interview students or parents directly. Since this project was consultative in nature, our team was limited in who we could contact and glean information from. The limitations on interview sampling left the project team to rely solely on perspectives shared in interviews with district administrators, school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. The ability to interview parents and students directly would enable the team to more fully comprehend 54 the dynamics and culture of each school site, therefore creating a more thorough understanding of the root causes and creating a clearer foundation from which to find solutions. Presentation of Findings Upon completion of the gap analysis and findings of thematic root causes, a visit was made to the Glendale Unified School District Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet on September 13, 2010 to help clarify any issues or concerns with the Executive Summary of Root Causes. Finally, a more thorough presentation of findings and recommendations was made to the Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet on November 1, 2010 via a PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix E). The presentation was focused on presenting several areas of strength in regards to GUSD college success, along with the inquiry undertaken by our project team, and the subsequent thematic areas for consideration given to address gaps to college success in GUSD. Our presentation and executive summary offered a range of solutions to performance gaps in hopes of attaining the goal of college for all GUSD students. Our goal was not to present an inapplicable set of solutions, but to demonstrate before GUSD leaders that our solutions were based on a thorough examination of root causes to gaps in college participation. In the team’s presentation to GUSD leadership team, it was important to communicate the information in a meaningful way that the district would be able to utilize the information to address the district’s college participation gap. The achievement gap of underrepresented students in their ability to access higher education 55 is an important issue and the district’s ability to close the gap is relevant to individual students, as well as society as a whole. In order to close the gap, it was necessary that the district understood the information gathered and that resultant findings were gained from interviews and data gathered from the district. As well, the project team understood the political ramifications and context in which we presented the information (i.e. relationships with bargaining units, change of superintendency, etc.). Our goal in presenting our findings and solutions was to be firm in our recommendations while being sensitive to our audience and climate. Ultimately, the goal of the project team was to have the district take ownership of the college participation gap, review the solutions gained from gap analysis, and apply these solutions in hopes of closing gaps. The purpose of this project in general, and the application of the gap analysis model in particular, was to partner and assist GUSD by helping them understand why goals, as it relates to college access, were not achieved, and to offer a dynamic proposal of solutions that will lead to goal achievement. In the end, our team believes the presentation and findings will serve as a workable manual for helping the district offer an improved educational experience and route more underrepresented subgroup population of students to college. In essence, the goal of our work was to witness the application of our proposed solutions so that more graduating students in GUSD will indeed apply for and matriculate into college. 56 Human Subjects Considerations The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project: Federal Regulations define research as a systematic investigation, including development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge 1 (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont Report 2 , the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis [and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that objective. Research generally does not include operational activities such as defined practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g., routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted-for services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2) Further clarification is provided in the following section: 1 "Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to populations or situations beyond that studied. 2 The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 57 Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of an institutional practice. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4) Reference: Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of Southern California. 58 CHAPTER 2C FINDINGS Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang Introduction The purpose of this project was to determine whether Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) high schools had a college-going culture on their campuses and the degree to which these cultures were supported. The overall goal of GUSD is to improve the college participation and academic success of their students. Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model offers a construct for identifying roots causes to problems. The following section presents a series of findings that demonstrate clear and compelling evidence of the root causes to GUSD’s college participation problem. Data gathered from two sets of interviews and email responses with district and high school administration, counselors, and teachers were coded and organized into knowledge/skills, motivation, or organizational gaps. Summary of Interviews During the first set of interviews, it became clear that there was a lack of goal alignment. Two high-level district administrators agreed that they wanted to improve college participation success; however, both had a different definition of what college participation success looked like. One administrator thought that any post-secondary education was an example of college participation success, and the other thought that 59 attending a two-year college and transferring to a four-year institution, or going straight to a four-year institution was the idea of college participation success. In order to further clarify the definition of college participation success, another interview was conducted with a high-level district administrator. In that meeting, the administrator stated that a four-year university was desirable but a two-year college with potential for matriculation to a university could be considered part of the college participation terminology. Clearly, there are different definitions to the meaning of college participation within Glendale Unified School District. Based on these preliminary interviews, it appeared that the district’s goals were not clearly defined as it related to students’ college participation. In fact, there may potentially exist a misalignment of goals at the district level, the result of which filters down to the comprehensive high schools and influences the overall effect of improving college participation for GUSD students. One of the objectives of this project was to discover if there was indeed a misalignment of goals that contributed to the low college participation rate. Based on school data and extensive interview responses, it became clear our focus narrowed on access to four-year universities. The following section presents a thorough review of our project team’s findings. Upon completion of our interviews, it became apparent that knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps existed that prevented GUSD students from accessing a four-year university education. The following gaps were coded into emergent themes and presented as an executive summary of findings before the Glendale Unified Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet. 60 Knowledge Gaps: The importance of student, parent, and school knowledge of college admission requirements and application procedures to insure student success is often underestimated. The basic assumption that all schools make is that students and parents have the knowledge to navigate through the college application quagmire. Since knowledge is gained through familiarity and experience, students who have never been to a postsecondary institution lack the knowledge to fully understand the pathway to college. Thus, the assumption schools make puts many students at a disadvantage. Based on our findings, it is evident that a knowledge gap exists within GUSD that prevents many students from accessing four-year universities. The following section will describe our findings in detail and indicate the areas of knowledge within which gaps exist. Finding #1: Some students lack knowledge about the American system of education and college admission requirements causing students from underrepresented groups to be ineligible for college admission. Many of the students within Glendale Unified School District are recent immigrants, or the children of immigrants who either lack modeling at home because their parents did not attend college themselves, or they have other priorities that take precedence over education. 61 This is not to say that immigrants and their children do not value education, but that there are social or financial restrictions that may preclude them from participating in educational opportunities. In GUSD, there are three main subgroup populations: Armenians make-up the largest, while Latinos and Asians, respectively, make-up the next largest groups. According to teachers, principals, and counselors, the Armenians are the largest student population in each of the four high schools. Additionally, the newer Armenian immigrants do not appear to value education as much as their older Armenian immigrant counterparts. One teacher confided that Armenian students are encouraged to go to school, but most parents encourage them to attend Glendale Community College because they want them to stay close to home. As many teachers, counselors, and high school administrators pointed out this phenomenon is especially true of female Armenian students, with some parents requiring girls to live at home until they marry. One teacher recounted a story about one of her former students who had been accepted to the University of Southern California: One of my former students was accepted to USC, but her parents didn’t want her to go. She’s a girl, so they (parents) want her home everyday. The only way she could go to USC was to commute. Otherwise they would’ve made her go to Glendale Community College. The Asian students within GUSD appear to have different perceptions than those of the Armenian population. Asian students are encouraged and even pressured by family to be successful in school so that they are eligible to apply for four-year universities. These students’ parents may not have been through the American 62 educational system, but they recognize that education is a tool that will help them attain financial stability. These students are encouraged to apply to four-year schools, primarily University of California schools, including the University of CA, Los Angeles. A high school administrator indicated that more and more Asian students have been going to Santa Monica Community College instead of Glendale Community College believing that attendance at SMCC is a guarantee to junior standing at UCLA. One of the high school principals indicated that about ten years ago, the Asian population in GUSD was larger and most of that group elected to take more challenging courses so they would be eligible for UC admission. The Latino subgroup is the second largest and the lowest performing subgroup within GUSD. This group underperforms on standardized tests such as the California Standards Tests (CST’s), the SAT’s, Advanced Placement (AP) exams, and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). One counselor stated that Hispanic students usually come from lower socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds. Their parents usually work in some sort of service-oriented employment and are unlikely to have had much formal education. Often these low SES students have low reading and math ability, which translates to low-test scores. When asked about the likelihood of these students attending a four-year university the counselor said that if these students continued their education, they would go to Glendale Community College. When asked why, the counselor stated: “These students cannot see themselves in school, because no one in their family has gone.” When these students begin high school it is with the idea that 63 they are not “college material” or if they do go to college, it will not be a four-year university, so they self-select out of challenging courses further limiting their postsecondary options. Finding #2: Many students, parents, teachers, and counselors perceive that the community college pathway is a better alternative- both financially and academically- thus limiting student options after high school. The challenge that modern secondary schools have is the perception that attendance at a two-year college automatically means that a student will persist and matriculate to a four-year institution. The common perception of students, parents, teachers, and counselors in GUSD is that students who attend Glendale Community College will transfer to a four-year school when according to one of the counselors in a GUSD high school “the attrition is high and the matriculation rate is less than 35%.” Teachers, counselors, and parents sometimes focus on community college because students do not take challenging courses, or underperform in high school, but the message communicated reinforces student’s fears that they are not prepared for the rigors of college and that their high school did not adequately prepare them. Although the recommendation for community college is meant to give students another option for postsecondary education, it can serve to undervalue a student’s high school preparation. The more alarming part of the community college perception is that the cost of attendance is more reasonable than a four-year university. Whereas costs at a community 64 college are lower, the availability of courses and people to teach them has become a concern in recent years as a result of education cuts in the California budget. This issue, coupled with a lack of knowledge as to how to finance a four-year education, and the ensuing fear that this lack of knowledge inspires causes many students and parents to focus solely on community college as the only viable option for postsecondary education. Finding #3: Some students lack the knowledge of college admission requirements or University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, which limits their postsecondary opportunities. In all GUSD high schools, faculty and staff indicated that school counselors and teachers speak to students about the ‘a-g’ requirements for college admission and their importance, but some students appear to lack conceptual knowledge of these requirements. This lack of knowledge is demonstrated countless times during a student’s high school career in their choices of academic coursework. Subsequently, many students have limited their postsecondary options, thus giving them fewer opportunities to apply to a four-year institution. Counselors make classroom visits to talk about college admissions, distribute handouts with college admission and University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, host college nights, and meet with parents and students to discuss student progress. Counselors meet with students individually once a year to review their course selections for the next academic year, graduation requirements to make sure that students are on 65 track as well as college admission requirements. At several GUSD high schools, posters delineating UC ‘a-g’ requirements and the difference in income between students who have a college degree and students who have a high school diploma are displayed in hallways and classrooms. The expectation at most high schools is that all students will be able to meet admission requirements for a four year university, or enter a community college so they can later matriculate to a university. In addition, all faculty and staff are dedicated to providing students with information, support, and guidance so they can incorporate the “dream of college” into their post-high school goals. Whereas the district has made college participation success a priority, not all the high schools have established a college-going culture. One high school principal shared: “We are hesitant to use the term ‘college-going’ culture because some groups might find it offensive and we want to be sensitive to the cultures that exist within the school.” Each high school communicates the importance of students continuing their education after high school. However, not all the high schools have the expectation that students will attend a four-year university. Several of the high schools have taken the position that “students have different directions” and that the high school has to accept that not all students are suited for college, although they will continue to offer the students information. One high school associate principal said: “We do not have a college-going culture for all students. We see it in certain groups, but a great percentage of them won’t access resources.” Unfortunately, with recent government and district budget reductions, counseling services have been reduced and counselors stretched as far as they can be to meet student 66 needs. As a result of budget reductions within the district, some counselors work part- time at one school and part-time at another school within the district. Counselors meet with parents and students when practical to discuss student course selections for the next academic year, their progress toward graduation, and ‘a-g’ requirements for college admission. In addition, teachers speak to students about college admission requirements and encourage them to seek out the counselors and speak to them about college, or help students to go online and look at college websites to get more information. Finding #4: Some teachers lack knowledge of college admission requirements as well as knowledge about the sequence of courses within their discipline and the requirements of those courses, which leaves students unprepared for advancement. Although GUSD has made college participation a priority, there is no program in place to help train teachers about college requirements, the differences between public and private college requirements, application procedures, and financial aid information. It would appear that this knowledge is assumed since teachers, administrators, and counselors have been to college. In interviews, both counselors and principals observed that teachers appear to be unaware of specific UC ‘a-g’ requirements. Teaching is an isolated activity, often without any interaction with other teachers during break and lunch, certainly not enough time to discuss at any length the goals and objectives for course sequencing. Some schools recognize the need for common planning time so that teachers within departments can meet and discuss course goals and 67 objectives. One high school teacher remarked, “Teachers are so isolated that they focus on their own classes and not what comes before or after.” Part of this focus is making sure that the student is successful in each teacher’s respective class, thus creating a “narrow” focus on individual class content and assessment. In addition, teachers must focus on district-wide Focus on Results reform objectives and prepare for standardized assessments. One pathway for student success is the ability to advance from one level within a subject to another. The only way to facilitate this is for teachers to be aware of what is necessary at the next course level so they can help students strengthen their skills. GUSD implemented a program called Focus on Results, which helps schools focus on one skill across the curriculum with research-based best practices. The program is being administered in every school within GUSD; however, one high school principal remarked that there are too many programs being implemented, results are expected within the first years, and then there is no follow through to see what the long-term results look like. Because of this lack of follow through, teachers often do not take the new programs as seriously as they should because they know that there will be a new one coming in the next year. Finding #5: A lack of district leadership direction and support on college-going goals creates a lack of comprehensive knowledge and strategies to improve students’ college eligibility. In order to improve overall student success, GUSD implemented a district wide program called Focus on Results, which is a nationwide intervention program designed to 68 help schools and districts facilitate student achievement. School or district teams work with a consultant who helps design an individualized plan for student success; they offer training and assistance for the team so that they can take the information back to their site. The overall goal is to improve student achievement across the curriculum. This intervention is designed to improve student academic achievement in high school, with an indirect goal being improving the student’s ability to qualify for college. Although this intervention encourages the utilization of research-based best practices and peer-reviewed journals by school site teams, it is not designed to specifically address the college participation gap within GUSD. In fact, no district level goals or direction has emerged from Focus on Results to enable students to meet ‘a-g’ requirements or qualify for college admission. When asked about district-wide goals related to college participation, several school site officials responded that nothing explicit existed. Motivation Gaps: Lack of motivation can seriously inhibit the pursuit of goals. Motivation itself is based on four critical areas: interest, self-efficacy, attributions, and goal orientation (Mayer, 2008). Motivation is then processed through the active choice of pursuing a task, persistence to follow through on the task, and the requisite amount of mental effort to complete the task. Based on our findings, it is clear that motivations gaps exist within Glendale Unified School District’s (GUSD) four comprehensive high schools that 69 prevent some students from participating in a four-year university education upon graduation. This ensuing section will describe our findings in detail and indicate the areas of motivation where gaps currently exist. Finding #6: Some school officials lack the motivation to raise college eligibility levels for underrepresented groups of students due to beliefs about those students’ ability to achieve. District and school site officials hold varying expectations for students. In fact, one high level district administrator pointed out that a consistent message of high academic achievement for all is not found at all four comprehensive high schools. Although some schools have pushed students towards meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements, there has not been increased pressure from all school sites and for each individual student. In fact, school officials are resigned to the fact that some students are not cut out for college. One school site administrator commented: We don’t think that every student is ready for college. We have a realistic view about kids. Across the board, there is a belief that not all students will attend college. During our WASC visit, we came to the conclusion that students will have different destinations. District and school officials’ lack of motivation to raise college eligibility is found in an absence of clearly defined formal goals related to four-year university access and participation. Moreover, there appears to be varying degrees of belief regarding raising student access to four-year universities. While a high-ranking district administrator claimed the goal of Glendale Unified was to promote all students to enter a four-year 70 university, either directly or via community college, another district administrator believed that certain students were better prepared for direct entrance to the workplace. School site officials also presented conflicted beliefs regarding student ability to enter college: some pushed and advocated for all students to meet UC ‘a-g’ requirements, while others were resigned to the belief that some students, particularly those not enrolled in college preparatory courses, were not able to achieve at a college ready level. Teachers’ perceptions about the ability of students also varied. One teacher expressed a strong belief that certain students were on the college track- Advanced Placement students- and those that were not enrolled in such classes were often described as “regular” kids. Of course, the rigor and approach taken in non-honors classes is vastly different from the advanced studies and preparation for college presented in Advanced Placement classes. The “regular” students typically faced a less rigorous instructional program with the end goal being high school graduation and receipt of a diploma. Another teacher who worked primarily with English Language Learners was not as resigned about the inability of certain students to achieve at a college-ready level. In fact, this teacher felt strongly that students in her English Language Development program did have the academic ability to achieve yet faced roadblocks to advancement because of language barriers or inability to access certain coursework. Finding #7: Some students’ familial and cultural framework creates motivation gaps in pursuing a four-year university education. 71 GUSD students’ motivation to pursue a four-year university education is stunted by a variety of cultural factors, including parental value, consent, and goal orientation. Some students fail to actively choose or persist in college preparatory high school coursework because parents have dictated their pathways for them. Several interviewees pointed out that some students fail to find value or lack engagement in the academic work because they are resigned to attending a two-year college upon high school graduation. Armenian and Armenian-American students who have met rigorous college preparatory coursework and have been accepted to a four-year university face roadblocks due to parental demands or concerns. These students have met UC ‘a-g’ requirements, completed the SAT or ACT testing requirement, and enrolled in rigorous Advanced Placement courses. For all purposes, they have met secondary educational goals in preparation for a four-year university education. However, many parents discourage their student’s motivation to advance. For these students, college-going access is ultimately attributed to parental consent and not on their efforts. The large Armenian population that resides in the greater Glendale area holds strong cultural and gender expectations for their children. One counselor, who also happens to be an Armenian immigrant herself, shared that parents expect young Armenian females not to go away to college. The counselor explained an experience with one particular counselee: I actually had a student, that really wanted to go to UCI [University of California, Irvine] and she got into like four UC’s and the parents said the only way I’m going to let you go to UCI is to commute day in and day out. And that’s what the student was doing. I had a meeting with the parents explaining the danger of just being on the road versus staying there. 72 Cultural factors related to college access are affected by patterns of immigration. One administrator shared a historical overview of the Armenian immigrant experience, and differentiated between the “old guard,” well-educated immigrants with the more recent Armenian immigrant population. The former held high expectations for the formal educational processes and believed it to be a gateway for economic opportunity. Conversely, the new wave of Armenian immigrants appeared to value college far less than the previous generation. Finding #8: Some GUSD students’ lack of interest and self-efficacy result in a failure to actively choose a four-year university educational route. A lack of student interest and value in a four-year university education exists within GUSD high schools. There are several indicators that support this finding, including the existence of non-graduating dropouts and fifth-year high school students. Low student achievement at this level demonstrates a lack of individual interest in the high school academic learning process. If students demonstrated more willing attention to the learning process rather than forcing themselves just to complete their requisite coursework for graduation, improved matriculation to four-year universities would assuredly occur. One principal described these types of students as “capable underachievers.” Another principal indicated that: We have a high failure rate in certain areas. So, I’ll ask the teachers, ‘Why are these kids failing?...Is it [a lack of] skill or motivation?’ And, 99% will say its motivation; it’s a lack of work ethic. It’s not that they can’t do the work, but they choose not to. 73 Some GUSD students fail to actively choose the goal of a four-year university education. These students lack the motivation despite the organizational changes made within schools sites to push more students to meet minimum eligibility requirements. For example, one high school has created a movement to raise overall UC ‘a-g’ requirements for their student body. Although many barriers have been removed to create better access, there are still students who do not actively choose this pathway. Self-efficacy is also a motivation issue faced by GUSD students. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s abilities to accomplish a particular task. When students lack self- efficacy in their ability to attain a four-year university education, it can impair their motivation to pursue this goal. One administrator at a GUSD high school pointed to the fact that students are given the curricular opportunities, including meeting University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, yet some students seem to lack the beliefs to actually realize this curricular goal. Although students are given an opportunity to pursue the ‘a-g’ college preparatory track, students are self-selecting themselves out of this academic pathway. As one high school administrator pointed out: We’re going to provide access to kids. I want kids to be prepared to go straight into a four-year. Go to Harvard if they so desire, go to Glendale Community College, go to trade tech, go to Cal Tech. Wherever their interests lie. What I struggle with is that kids make that decision in 9 th grade. We’ve got to work harder to help kids keep their options open longer so in the end you can do whatever you want… ‘a-g’ gives you the most options. Students’ lack of self-efficacy about college outcomes appears to be a shared belief by some high school teachers and staff members. One administrator indicated that 74 not all students were capable of or ready for a four-year university education. One teacher referred to this as a “realistic” view that students will have different destinations and that some are not capable of attending a four-year college. Still, another district administrator pondered whether all school agents’ held the same expectations for all students to continue on to a four-year university. Finding #9: Student motivation to pursue a four-year university and school officials’ willingness to support this pursuit is often stunted by the common and comfortable practice of entering Glendale Community College. In Glendale Unified high schools, an inordinate number of students choose to attend two-year community colleges upon graduation. Many GUSD students are fixated on following this community college track, particularly continuing their studies at Glendale Community College (GCC). Student interest in four-year universities is tempered by the reality of this easy and reliable track that has been accessed by previous GUSD graduates. In fact, one high school principal recounted the tale of a graduating student that was accepted to the University of California, Riverside yet ultimately enrolled in Glendale Community College. Students that enter community colleges with the intent of transferring to a four- year university face an uphill climb in actually transferring. The percentage of students who do transfer to a four- year university is low. Despite this reality, GUSD students choose to enter the community college setting. 75 One counselor described the Glendale Community College corridor as having evolved into a “way of life” for many GUSD students, particularly Armenian and Armenian-American students. The community college pathway affects students’ motivational choice to participate in rigorous high school curricular work. For example, some students who were eligible to take rigorous Advanced Placement course chose not to because it was not a required course for entrance to Glendale Community College. One disgruntled counselor described her feelings about this situation: When I see there are some very capable students that have good GPAs, they have taken the higher level rigorous classes and they end up going to a community college, not that I have anything against community college. But one of the things that I think that they miss most is being part of that culture. For some other GUSD students, the motivation to persist through rigorous academic coursework is halted at a certain point in their high school career. One counselor indicated that some students will enroll in challenging courses up until a certain point whereby they revert to less challenging courses that will meet minimum graduation requirements. When pressed why this occurs, the counselor stated: “Because they do not see themselves in college.” Still, other students enter Glendale Community College because they limit their choice of potential four-year universities to attend. For many Armenians in the Glendale area, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is the sole attractive destination for postsecondary studies. Unfortunately, denied entrance to UCLA amounts to 76 community college matriculation with the rationale that the student will eventually be able to transfer to UCLA. Altogether, GCC has become the “default destination” for many GUSD students. Finding #10: Some GUSD students’ goal orientations and how they attribute failure has negatively affected their prospects of entering a four-year university. Although many students have been informed about the economic and social benefits of a four-year university education, some GUSD students have poor goal orientations that ultimately affect their prospects of pursuing this route. For example, many GUSD students operate with a performance-avoidance approach: instead of a curricular outlook to master the content, students will work hard to avoid failing a class. One English teacher described the work submitted by a student that lacked the depth and insight of another student. For this teacher, the former student approached coursework and learning with the goal of “passing the class.” Also, parents’ goal orientations for their students do not always amount to mastery of rigorous curricular work in preparation for a four-year university education. Instead, parents’ school goals for their students may be limited to ensuring appropriate student behavior or a safe school environment. Many GUSD students attribute their inability to enter a four-year university to causes outside their locus of control. For example, instead of hard work and rigorous preparation leading to successful matriculation into a university, students hold to a 77 variety of uncontrollable causes that will inhibit their chances. These causes could amount to lack of financial support, familial desires to stay closer to home, or ease of access to GCC. Organizational Gaps: Organizational barriers can limit the pursuit of performance goals. Lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes and material resources may discourage the most motivated, knowledgeable and skilled person in the organization (Clark and Estes, 2002). Organizational gaps are based on: work processes, material resources, value chains and value streams, and organizational culture. According to our findings, there exists in GUSD organizational barriers that prevent students from matriculating to four-year university institutions. Finding #11: Organizational resources that promote college access have been cut, including counseling positions and hours, and financial grants, such as GEAR UP. Organizations require material resources to achieve goals. The placement of available resources determines the organization’s emphasis in ensuring the needs of the programs are met. There were two major areas of spending cuts that affected the development of a college going culture in GUSD: the elimination of the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant and the counseling personnel in the district. GEAR UP was a six-year discretionary grant 78 program that awarded GUSD funding to provide services and intervention programs to promote college attendance to low-income secondary level students. The district’s grant extension request was denied due to lack of evidence of program efficacy. The reduction of counselors at each of the four comprehensive high schools in GUSD creates a challenge for many of the students to access the kind of services needed to receive college information or assistance in the college application process. In the last year, ten counselors were cut from the district, thereby distributing much of the responsibilities and workload to the remaining counselors. In all of the schools, student to counselor ratio increased and some services that were previously provided by the counselors were eliminated. For example, due to the increase number of caseloads, at some of the schools in GUSD, the counselors are only able to meet with students to discuss course requirements and college information, whereas before, counselors met with students and their parents at least once a year, if not more, to plan, schedule and counsel students about choices. Not only has quality and time in meeting with students and parents been affected, at some schools, parent and student conferences are only conducted upon request. To add to this problem, certain high school counselors must split their hours between two school sites. The overall concern with site administrators and teachers was the number of counselors cut and the responsibilities that had to be subsequently distributed to the remaining counselors. These responsibilities include dissemination of college information to all grade level students, providing assistance with college applications and financial aid applications, and assisting students with their personal statement letters and 79 writing letters of recommendations. As the only certificated staff to receive dismissal notices, counselors questioned their value and the perception of the importance of their role in GUSD and promoting the college going culture. As one of the counselors indicated: “Counseling is not perceived as important or a priority. Counselors work hard, however, the perception is that it’s an easy job.” Counselors play a critical role in developing the school’s response to college planning and create an organizational worldview of different options of college choices. Through increasing workload on site counselors, counselors are unable to effectively respond to providing the kind of support needed to ensure students are on the right path to four-year institutions. Finding #12: There are no explicit district or school wide goals that address four-year university access, thus creating a misalignment of work processes. All students will achieve is an explicit message that has resonated in the GUSD community, however, what that achievement looks like is more implicitly communicated. In order to increase the participation rate of qualified GUSD students into four-year institutions, the district must clearly state what its goals are promoting a college going culture. Districts must clearly communicate concrete and clear expectations for student achievement, including goals related to postsecondary studies. There is a lack of clear goals and values for GUSD graduates with conflicting views regarding participation in 80 four-year institutions, community college, or vocational careers. By providing a clear expectation of a college going culture, the work processes will be better aligned to the performance goals of the stakeholders. While GUSD seeks to increase the college participation rate for their students, work processes do not communicate that same message. According to more than one administrator, there are no formal goals addressing the development of a college going culture from the district. School sites have their own plans, but there is no formal goal or message that is communicated from the district level. This is further evidenced by the lack of discussion at district level meetings around goals for college success and the lack of professional development around increasing college participation. According to one administrator, “I don’t feel we get the message from the board or the superintendent [that the goal is] the college going culture, only the achievement gap and reducing the gaps through CAHSEE and STAR results…those are the goals set for the schools, not college going culture.” Once organizational goals are clearly stated and work processes are developed to support those goals, performance goals may be more readily achieved. Finding #13: Many GUSD school officials do not reach out to various cultures despite knowledge that other cultures lack the social capital to access the American Higher Educational System, thus further exacerbating the gap in college participation. Glendale Unified School District is a large urban school district that services a diverse student demographic population. The differences are evident in the linguistic, cultural and racial, as well as economically diverse student population. The majority of 81 GUSD’s student population is white (56%), many of whom are Armenian descendants, 22% are of Hispanic or Latino background, 13% Asian and 7% Filipino. The district has over 26% of its students identified as English Learners, and even more students identified as Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient students at 31%. Throughout the district at least 43% of the students come from low-income families as indicated in their National School Lunch Participation rate. At least 46% of GUSD parents report having a college or a post graduate degree. Many of the administrators, counselors and teachers attribute the low college participation rate to the students and the parents’ lack of understanding of the American educational system. This is further affirmed by a veteran teacher’s statement, “Some students lack modeling at home because they are first generation. Students lack knowledge about requirements for college and do not know how to get the information.” Many attribute certain groups’ cultural beliefs and values as the reasons for the lack of interest or knowledge in navigating through the difficult college application process without offering concrete support systems to help students and parents negotiate through the myriad of hoops needed to meet those requirements. In an interview with a counselor in regards to parent groups and equitable distribution of information on college access to parents, a statement was made that certain subgroup populations “must motivate themselves and empower themselves” and seek out college information for themselves. A teacher interviewed, also concurred, “The onus is on the parents, not the school.” There are individuals who are willing to help as evidenced by teachers who stay after school on their own time to assist students with their personal statements. However, 82 the current organizational culture is such that there is no concrete plan to overcome the cultural differences of each of the student subgroups. This is detrimental to the achievement and aspirations of many minority students, as the majority of the student population does not fit the traditional “college going” student demographic: White, middle class, and educated. If the organization does not change its view in the current interaction with its student and parent population, then the end result will be the persistent, if not increasing, low rate of four-year college participation rate. Finding #14: Some schools’ inability to raise the academic rigor and achievement level for all students. High school graduation and even college access is not only a high school issue, but also a K-12 education issue. The outcome of student success lies in the culmination of their years of education in the comprehensive school system. Students will be more readily successful in the ‘a-g’ requirements if they have the foundations and skills necessary to access the curriculum. When students are prepared and proficient with primary grade standards, they will not have to take remedial courses at the secondary level which diminishes their opportunity to access college bound courses. According to an administrator at one high school, over 586 incoming freshmen students have been identified as possible candidates for remediation based on middle school grades and test scores. 83 GUSD can improve its four-year college participation rate by ensuring academic rigor in all of its classes and ensuring student mastery of the content. There is evidence of a lack of district wide expectation to ensure all students receive ‘a-g’ courses that will ensure entrance to four-year colleges, regardless of student background or linguistic ability. Some high schools do have the expectation that all students should be on the ‘a- g’ program, however, it is not a district wide expectation. For example, high schools must ensure all students have the opportunity to complete their ‘a-g’ requirements, even for English Learners and students enrolled in vocational programs. In more than one instance, more than one staff member interviewed reported the exclusion of certain student groups from ‘a-g’ requirement courses. Teachers reported, “the Academy students were previously tracked out of ‘a-g’ courses and were not eligible [for college],” and, “12 th grade English Learners are disappointed because they know they will not graduate from high school because they need at least one year in regular English classes.” A counselor also noted: “Another reason [students] go to GCC is language issues, English language learners not completing ‘a-g’ courses.” And an administrator went on further to say: “Preparation for college isn’t offered to all students…the [school] culture creates a different kind of access.” It would benefit the district if all of the schools were able to apply the mindset of one principal who realized that, “fourteen year old students were making life altering decisions… [and] it was decided that every kid was going to be programmed as though 84 they were going to four-year colleges.” Students must be given every opportunity to succeed, regardless of their demographic characteristic and it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure equal access is provided. Finding #15: The design of GUSD comprehensive high schools and instances of continued school-wide tracking limits underrepresented students’ access to four-year universities. Tracking has been an educational practice for many years, especially in senior high schools. According to Jeannie Oakes (1986) tracking is the practice of curriculum placement by dividing students into separate classes for high, average, and low- achieving, thus placing students into different pathways for college and the workplace. She further contends that tracking “contributes to mediocre schooling for most secondary students. And because it places greatest obstacles to achievement in the path of those children least advantaged in American society – poor and minority children – tracking forces schools to play an active role in perpetuating social and economic inequalities as well” (Oakes, 1986, p. 13). GUSD high schools have made changes in recent years to align course offerings with “a-g” requirements, however, the district has not made it a requirement that the district’s minimum graduation requirements meet the “a-g’ coursework. This may create obstacles for students if they are tracked early on into the curriculum path to graduate from high school and not the college path. This is especially true for EL students in GUSD. In schools with the largest numbers of EL students, more than one district 85 personnel has stated, “English Language Learners are not completing “a-g” courses.” Meaning, the district’s EL population- 26% of the district’s entire student population- will not be on track to meet college admission requirements. Finding #16: District leadership’s perceptions of each comprehensive high school creates expectation gaps between each of the four schools. District leadership’s perceptions about a college going culture will affect their expectations for each of the high schools. The current organizational culture regards the two higher-performing schools “up on the hill” as college-going, whereas the remaining two high schools lack a college-going culture. This gap in perception may affect the allocation of resources and the district’s ability to support each school to persist in nurturing a college-going culture. For example, several district administrators remarked that the two under-performing high schools had an absence of a college-going culture. However, officials at these school sites shared evidence of an emerging college-going culture, with increased allocation of human and financial resources in creating this culture. The gap in perception between district and school level officials may affect the school’s attempts to improve their image to be a college preparatory high school. 86 CHAPTER 3A REVIEW OF THE SOLUTIONS LITERATURE Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang Glendale Unified School District is a high-achieving educational institution that exists to serve the students of the greater Glendale community. The District’s simple, yet powerful, mission of student achievement for all resonates across school sites and affects classroom practices, decision-making, allocation of material and human resources, and professional development. GUSD’s culture of high achievement, as evidenced by its recent 842 Growth API (2010), should be praised and considered a model for neighboring urban school districts. Currently, GUSD affords their students a multitude of postsecondary opportunities, including access to trade schools, community colleges, and four-year universities. Based on existing data, graduates from GUSD are entering two-year colleges at a strong rate (52%). Although, GUSD graduates are entering four-year universities at a comparably higher rate (~23%) against State averages (~19%), the overall need for witnessing more GUSD graduates matriculating into four-year colleges is important, particularly for underrepresented minorities. Based on extensive interviews with various GUSD agents- district/school administrators, teachers, counselors- our project team found gaps to college access and success in GUSD. The findings (see Chapter 2C) unearthed roots to the college access problem and were analyzed to determine what types of gaps- knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture- were contributing to the college access problem. 87 The roots to the problem were coded into sixteen specific findings and further organized around emergent themes. The three emergent themes below are applicable across the district’s four comprehensive high schools, and serve as areas to focus on in order to close Glendale Unified School District’s college participation gap. 1) Four-Year University Education: A Lack Of Explicit Goals. Academic achievement at Glendale Unified School District has steadily improved over the years. However, district-wide achievement goals, and professional development related to those goals, do not include explicit goals pertaining to student four-year university education. In fact, variance in defining college success for GUSD students exists amongst district and school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. This lack of clarity in student postsecondary education goals creates misaligned work processes, varied expectations, and perception issues regarding the college-going success rates at each comprehensive high school. 2) Persistent Barriers To College For Certain Student Subgroups. Glendale Unified comprehensive high schools have made significant steps in aligning coursework to meet four-year university eligibility, and improved knowledge gaps concerning college entrance requirements. However, knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps continue to persist presenting barriers for specific subgroups of students (i.e. Hispanic, Armenian) in pursuing a four-year university education. 88 3) Systems That Prevent Extension Of Student Postsecondary College Pathways. Although Glendale Community College presents a viable postsecondary option for graduating Glendale Unified students, this postsecondary pathway has become commonplace and comfortable for many GUSD students, thus creating gaps in students’ pursuit of a four-year university education. Instead of opening doors to four-year access, or maximizing the two-year to four-year college route, community college has become the default and final destination for many GUSD students. The following section of this chapter will present a review of literature that offers research-based solutions in closing gaps to college access. Solution Summary For Emergent Theme 1: The Need For Explicit Goals Focused On Improving Four-Year University Education Access And Success Through extensive interviews with Glendale Unified School District agents, it became evident that explicit goals pertaining to students’ four-year university access and participation did not exist. District and school site administrators gave varying perspectives about both the benefit of emphasizing a four-year college-going goal, and the abilities of all students to actually achieve it. In effect, the college and career readiness mantra appeared to be defined differently for different people: while some 89 advocated for preparation of all students for a variety of postsecondary pathways (i.e. workforce, two-year college, four-year college), others argued that the four-year college pipeline was inexplicably narrow for certain student subgroups and needed increased attention to close participation gaps. Altogether, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) either lacks specific organizational goals that address four-year university participation and access, or have not thoroughly and explicitly communicated extant goals, which has misaligned certain practices and communicated unclear expectations across the four comprehensive high school sites. This was evident in interviews with teachers and counselors: while some were committed to seeing more students reach four-year eligibility goals, others were of the opinion that some students were not fit for the four-year college route. When asked about the existence of college-going cultures at their school sites, administrators, teachers, and counselors held varying beliefs about whether it existed on their respective campuses. It was evident that a college-going culture was not established district-wide. Goal Setting In order to align work processes and hold expectations for all students, there is a need for clear and explicit goals to be set as it relates to improving the overall number of students pursuing and matriculating into a four-year college. By establishing district- wide goals, school sites and their agents will have a common base and hear a common 90 message regarding their work to increase access and create college-going cultures. In effect, there will be greater clarity regarding the importance of improving the four-year college pathway. Research indicates that goal setting is a critical component of workplace motivation and behavior. Greater workplace performance occurs when goals are specific and challenging, given that performers are committed to the goal, possess self-efficacy in accomplishing those goals, and do not have conflicting goals (Locke and Latham, 2006; Karakowshky and Mann, 2008). Goal setting itself is the admission of discontent with present circumstances and a desire for a specific outcome. Even more, specific and challenging goals increase the motivation of workplace performers by inducing greater effort and persistence, and directing attention and work-related behaviors (Locke and Latham, 2006). The type of work goals established in an organization, along with how well those goals are communicated are critical components to goal achievement. According to Clark and Estes (2002), clear and compelling organizational goals cascade down to work processes and clarify the tasks and objectives that employees must set out to accomplish. When organizational goals are undefined or unaligned with work processes, gaps in performance can occur and stunt achievement of organizational goals. Thus, it is imperative that performance goals are clearly defined for individuals in the organization so that work processes can improve. Effective performance goals are concrete, challenging and current, and support achievement of organizational goals. In fact, workplace performance is more effective 91 when goals are well understood and individuals can determine the cause of gaps between current and desired performance (Clark and Estes, 2002). Based on extensive interviews, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) lacks clearly defined goals as it relates to graduating students’ postsecondary educational aspirations, particularly advancement towards a four-year university education. In addition to GUSD’s powerful goals related to student achievement via the Focus on Results initiative, powerful goals related to raising eligibility, participation, and success rates to four-year universities need to be created. The research on Professional Learning Communities contributes to the work of goal setting by indicating the critical components of effective goals: results-oriented; helps clarify priorities; establishes indicators of progress; and, embeds continuous improvement throughout the organization (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many, 2006). In fact, goals are most effective when they are few and focused. For example, a multitude of initiatives coming from the district office can be daunting to school sites, whereas a clearly designed and articulated goal emanating from a compelling purpose can have profound impact on student achievement. The production of SMART goals has contributed to greater clarity in defining and setting organizational goals (Dufour et al, 2006). SMART goals follow a simple acronym: Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and Timebound. Altogether, effective SMART goals that address four-year college access will create greater clarity across the organization in regards to the importance of increasing postsecondary access for students. In effect, work processes (i.e. counseling 92 services, enrollment in rigorous coursework, outreach programs, etc.) stand to take priority and improve when school agents have a clear mandate to follow as to who and how many graduating students are expected to enter four-year universities. Organizational Culture and Change Clark and Estes (2002) substantiate the importance of a clear vision and goals in order to close organizational gaps. As well, they assert that organizational culture is a powerful force that inevitably shapes beliefs, practices and processes. An organization’s culture is shaped over time and the cognitive learning that shapes a culture’s perceptions, language, and thought processes will determine the feelings, attitudes, actions and behaviors of members of the culture (Schein, 1990). One GUSD high school was found to preach a four-year college-going mantra by suggesting that all their students will “get on the ‘a-g’ bus.” In essence, agents within the school site built a culture that promoted students’ meeting rigorous requirements to attend a four-year university. This type of symbolic and explicit communication of desired results creates a culture that shapes the work processes within that particular school site. In addition to establishing clearly defined goals, there is a need to create a college-going culture (specifically, four-year colleges) for all GUSD schools and students. In order to create culture change within an organization, certain dysfunctional elements need to be unlearned and leaders need to bring the organization through a process of guided evolution (Schein, 1990). Meaning, leaders within the organization need to take stock of present circumstances, and emphasize the threats to the organization 93 should no change occur. In the case for GUSD, leaders need to see how a non-college- going culture only perpetuates extant inequities certain student subgroups face in gaining access to four-year colleges. Clark and Estes (2002) provide the following features to effective organizational change programs: 1) Alignment of structures and processes with organizational goals. Meaning, the work at both district and school sites will address the need to improve four-year college participation. 2) Communication to all stakeholders about plans and progress. From the Superintendent’s office down to the classroom, all facets of the work chain must be explicitly communicated to about organizational goals related to four- year college participation and its importance. 3) Top management must be continually involved in the improvement process. A high degree of involvement and accountability must come from top-level district officials back to the school sites regarding improvement of four-year college participation. 4) Provide adequate knowledge, skills, and motivational support for everyone. The organization needs to assess current practices and determine gaps in performance. Subsequently, management needs to provide the requisite support to close those gaps. 94 5) Take caution regarding change processes as different sites have different needs. Four-year college improvement plans are not canned approaches with a one-size-fits-all model for all school sites. Instead, the district will need to take stock of needs and support at each site, and act accordingly to the unique gaps and conditions that exist at each site without excusing certain sites from pursuing their desired targets. Organizational Improvement: Academic and Diversity Scorecards In addition to establishing explicit goals for four-year colleges, organizations such as GUSD need to closely examine and monitor overall college readiness factors. There are several quantifiable factors that can be monitored through the development of an academic scorecard or dashboard that measures college-readiness factors. The scorecard and dashboard concepts derive from research on quality control and institutional accountability (O’Niel, Bensimon, Diamond, and Moore, 1999). This innovation provides organizational leaders “metrics of excellence” (O’Niel et al, 1999, p. 34) to determine, monitor and set growth targets for specific factors, which in turn helps an organization accomplish its strategic goals. Although the academic scorecard was designed to improve the overall quality of a higher education institution, the concept itself can be applied in a variety of organizations, including schools districts that aim to improve four-year college participation. The current performance in the following college readiness factors can be measured against benchmarks for growth: • Graduation rate • Enrollment and grades in higher-level coursework (i.e. Honors, AP, IB) 95 • Early Assessment Program (EAP) English (11 th grade) participation and ‘ready for college’ percentage • EAP Math (11 th grade) participation and ‘ready for college’ conditional percentage • Number of Advanced Placement enrollees and exams taken • Percentage of Advanced Placement exams passed (scoring 3+) • SAT number tested and total score > 1,500 • ACT number tested and total score > 21 • Percentage of graduates completing UC ‘a-g’ courses A college readiness scorecard or dashboard provides visual graphics focusing on those metrics that support college-going behavior. In essence, organizations identify those indicators that predict or promote college-going behavior. By charting indicators along with benchmarks for growth, organizations will be able to view overall effectiveness and progress in college readiness for their students. The following are examples of college-readiness dashboards: Table 6: College Readiness Dashboard Samples UC ‘a-g’ eligibility SAT participation 20% 60% 80% 40% 10% 30% 50% 75% 100% 96 Each dashboard above represents an indictor of four-year college participation. The red arrow represents current performance, while the green arrow represents desired performance. For example, currently 47% of GUSD students meet UC ‘a-g’ course eligibility requirements. The district could then map a goal of 75% of its students meeting those requirements over a specific period of time. Similarly, SAT participation stands at 46% with a target dash pointed at 80%. Altogether, this management instrument provides a practical and visual tool to plan and accomplish organizational goals (O’Neil et al, 1999). For GUSD, college readiness scorecards or dashboards can be instrumental in plotting and forecasting college readiness indicators and providing district and school site agents various metrics of excellence towards meeting their organizational goals. In addition to a baseline college-readiness scorecard or dashboard, the use of diversity measurements will help ensure that organizational goals are intentional and strategic in closing achievement and opportunity gaps for minority students of color. The diversity scorecard was developed with the purpose of raising “increased recognition of the existence and scope of inequities for students of color among faculty members, administrators, and counselors…[to] remove the conditions that deny or impede equitable outcomes for all students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45, 46). In practice, the diversity scorecard has been previously implemented in colleges and universities to measure equity within those institutions. The framework disaggregated data based on race and ethnicity to determine the extent of positive outcomes and close of gaps for underrepresented students of color. For example, instead 97 of looking at overall student access to financial aid or gateway courses, the scorecard broke down data by race/ethnicity to determine the level of access per subgroup (Bensimon, 2004). This type of valuable information presents indicators of current performance and leads institutions to identify targets for growth for specific student subgroups. The diversity scorecard presents a powerful opportunity to identify and target current and expected performance on a variety of college-readiness metrics disaggregated by subgroup. The following example looks at one college-readiness factor- Advanced Placement enrollment- and includes a diversity component by indicating the current and expected performance per subgroup: Table 7: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample (NOT based on actual percentages) In the example above, the Yellow bar indicates the Baseline, or current percentage of students enrolled in Advanced Placement. The Green bar indicates the Target, or expected growth for the subgroup. Once targets have been reached, notice that the level 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% White (Armenian) White (non-Armenian) Black Hispanic Asian Current Subgroup Enrolled Expected Subgroup Enrollment Growth Target Subgroup NOT enrolled 98 of Yellow and Green bars combined per subgroup creates a more equitable situation across the site. Meaning, gaps in opportunity closed from a high of 30% (between Asians and Hispanics) to a more equitable gap of 15%. Diversity scorecards provide school and district officials an opportunity to measure those college-readiness metrics with a diversity lens. This approach will reveal those equity gaps that prevent all subgroups from successfully accessing four-year universities. Furthermore, diversity scorecards will help target and apply resources that will improve educational outcomes for underrepresented student populations (Bensimon, 2004). Solution Summary For Emergent Theme 2: Close Persisting Barriers That Prevent Specific Student Subgroups From Accessing Four-Year Universities And Increase Overall Four-Year College Access For All Students Glendale Unified high schools have worked hard and made significant strides in aligning coursework so that more students will be eligible for a four-year university education as well as ensuring students feel supported and are aware of college admission requirements. GUSD has made significant progress in closing some achievement gaps; however, as in many urban school districts, achievement gaps continue to persist in GUSD. Of course, the achievement gap invariably affects the level of access certain student subgroups (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic) have to college, particularly four-year universities. The lack of access for certain subgroups is symptomatic of specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that exist within GUSD. To a great 99 extent, underrepresented students from GUSD lack the social capital to effectively navigate through traditional educational systems and structures. Research points to several areas that need to be addressed in order to close persisting barriers that prevent certain student subgroups from accessing four-year colleges. Academic Preparation and Rigor Students are best prepared for the challenges of college courses when their secondary courses have provided sufficient preparation and rigor. Academic rigor in the high school classroom is the strongest indicator of a student’s overall academic achievement, graduation from high school, and a further indicator of enrollment in a postsecondary institution (Martinez and Klopott, 2005; Perna, 2005). Most college preparation programs are geared towards offering component services, such as college awareness, counseling and campus visitations (Swail and Perna, 2002). However, the greatest predictor of college-going behavior, preparation, and success is found in a high level of rigor leading to student achievement at the secondary level (Perna, 2002). A more rigorous core curriculum for all students contributes to equity in educational opportunities and better preparation for the challenges of postsecondary schooling. One longitudinal study found that students on an academic track that rigorously prepared them for postsecondary studies were more apt to aspire to, apply for, and be accepted into a four-year college (Perna, 2002). In addition to reviewing the rigor of academic coursework, the work of increasing the number of students taking higher-level coursework in math is critical to improving 100 college access. Student participation in higher-level math courses such as Algebra II or above is the strongest predictor of college preparedness and success as well as college completion (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Math placement and preparation for higher- level math is certainly not determined at the high school level, but predicated upon the preparation and success students receive while advancing from Kindergarten through 8 th grade. Hence, a systems-wide approach to college preparedness by taking a K-12 perspective is necessary in order to close the college participation gap. A variety of model programs that address issues related to access to traditional academic “gate-keeping” courses exist that serve as a model for school districts. For example, students involved in EQUITY 2000 are expected to complete Algebra by 9 th grade and Geometry by 10 th grade, and teachers in the program use standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (College Board, 2000). The Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) was designed to give low-income and minority youth access to higher-level math and science courses that were traditionally closed to minorities. Additionally, the USI program also strives to build partnerships and provide support for schools, staff, and students (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Connecting Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions Not only does a lack of academic preparation and rigor contribute to poor college- going outcomes for students, so too does the fractured and disconnected system between secondary and postsecondary educational systems (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio, 2003). Increasing the level of rigor in classrooms must coincide with improved alignment of 101 coursework between high schools and postsecondary institutions in order to close barriers to students’ college aspirations. Unfortunately, most standardized assessments (the results of which schools are held accountable for), measure minimum competencies that demonstrate knowledge gained for a specific subject and by a specific grade level (Venezia et al, 2003). One study found that the skills measured on state content tests do not adequately measure the math and language arts skills that students need for college and workplace readiness (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). The research literature points to several steps that can be initiated in order to create a more seamless transition between secondary and postsecondary institutions, including: examining postsecondary placement exams against K-12 standards and assessments; sequencing senior-level high school work with undergraduate courses; expansion of dual enrollment programs; and, effective use of data to determine progress (Venezia et al, 2003). Creating a common set of expectations that delineates what students should know and be able to do in order to transition from high school to higher education, in addition to standards which delineate what students should know and be able to do in each grade level, would enable educators to more clearly define goals and objectives for classes at each level and best prepare students for postsecondary education. Another successful strategy to bolster students’ college readiness is to reexamine the nature and design of the American high school itself. In their seminal work, The New American High School, Marsh and Codding (1999) describe a radical high school curricular program that abolishes the tracking and sorting of college- and non-college bound students that exist in today’s comprehensive high schools. All students are 102 required to take a rigorous course of study in their initial years of high school, and demonstrate learning of challenging standards through end-of-course assessments, submission of a portfolio of work, and completion of a capstone project (Marsh and Codding, 1999). All students who have accomplished these high standards are awarded with a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). The awarding of a CIM guarantees that all students are prepared for the rigor of college coursework, but provides students the option to continue on their secondary studies based on the career pathway they have selected (either further academic studies or participation in a professional or technical education program). This dynamic high school model provides leaders in Glendale Unified both a philosophical and practical framework that signifies the importance of rigorous education for all students, while providing student choice towards their postsecondary pathway. Raising Underrepresented Students’ Capital Research indicates that increasing the participation of minorities in higher education is crucial to their participation in the economic and social aspects of society (Goldrick-Rab and Shaw, 2005). The reality of high poverty in minority communities, coupled with the high cost of college tuition, leads many students feeling left out of the college picture, instead pursuing the workforce and wage earning (Bohon, Johnson, and Gorman, 2006). The current design of today’s comprehensive high schools facilitates low student expectations and achievement. In addition to increasing the academic rigor of a school program, raising the level of expectations for student achievement and the restructuring of relationships between students, faculty, and staff must occur in order to 103 realize a greater participation of minorities in higher education. This is accomplished through a variety of means, including provision of requisite social support; access to information; parental involvement and knowledge about college; and, provision and information on financial aid (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). A capital one gains certainly benefits from a monetary standpoint. However, underrepresented minorities need to raise a variety of non-monetary capital in order to successfully navigate the American system of education. Academic capital is gained when students are exposed to academic rigor, which is the result of participation in a college-preparation track, including Advanced Placement (AP) courses (Hagedorn and Fogel, 2002). Cultural capital is the result of everyone’s shared beliefs, social values, worldviews, and preferred standards of living (Bennett, 2001). On the other hand, social capital is created as a result of actual or potential resources connected to a durable network of institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu, 1986; Dika and Singh, 2002). Often the most challenging form of capital to develop in students is linguistic capital, which is an individual’s ability to communicate effectively and comprehend mainstream language. Possessing both cultural and linguistic capital is necessary for success because both enable a student to successfully “decode” mainstream language and are needed in order to successfully navigate the educational environment (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The implication for a student is clear, in order to access the information that will lead them to higher education, one must possess different forms of capital, and if that capital is not available at home, then schools must help to provide it. Typically, low 104 socioeconomic, minority, and immigrant students lack the cultural, linguistic, and social capital to successfully navigate the educational environment in order have the knowledge and skills to gain college admission. Schools can facilitate the development of academic, cultural, and linguistic capital by creating a college-going environment where the expectation for college is attainable and all students are expected to go. To create a college-going environment that encourages and supports all students, especially those student who traditionally are underrepresented in higher education, schools must directly address certain school cultural factors such as teacher expectations, race-based assumptions, and students’ lowered expectations (Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002; Hagedorn and Tierney, 2002). When building a strong college-going culture it is necessary to address the cultural barriers that prevent certain underrepresented subgroups from participating in higher education. Status socialization theory proposes that future educational success amongst underrepresented adolescent groups must be related to current beliefs about such success being likely (attainable) and desirable (Haller and Portes, 1973; Bohon, Johnson, and Gorman, 2006). Moreover, this theory serves to clarify the difference between aspirations (desire to achieve high levels of education) and expectations (the assessment of one’s ability to personally achieve high levels of education), with aspirations being higher and expectations being lower and more “realistic” (Bohon, Johnson, and Gorman, 2006). Schools can raise student’s expectations and aspirations by ensuring that all students are 105 highly engaged in the classroom, that student’s diverse backgrounds, both ethnically and linguistically, are addressed in the curriculum, and teacher-student interactions are more personalized (Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002; Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003). Strategic Intervention For Underrepresented Minority Subgroups College preparation programs that simultaneously focus on academic preparation and cultural enrichment provide the best possible postsecondary outcomes for minority students of color (Villalpando and Solorzano, 2002). Students’ cultural capital is raised when a concerted effort is given to recognizing that minority students’ culture brings a wealth of value and is considered an asset to their college-going aspirations. The following programs that effectively link academic preparation with a cultural wealth worldview have brought improved college-going outcomes for minority students: placement of underrepresented students into college prep academic tracks; promises of financial aid; ethnic-specific college prep and mentoring programs; and, summer bridge programs that link students of color with colleges (Villalpando and Solorzano, 2002). Although it is the practice of counselors, teachers, and administrators to talk to students about college and college requirements, many low socioeconomic, minority, and immigrant students are not college familiar and are unlikely to have participated in activities that would get them college ready (Hagedorn and Tierney, 2002). 106 Creating opportunities for these students to participate in higher-level coursework, visits to college campuses, and early identification of skill deficiencies could help to alter student self-efficacy and improve student achievement. Because these student subgroups are deficient in academic capital, they may avoid full participation in their academic endeavors because they either believe that there is no future for them in academia or they believe that they will be unsuccessful. These learners have low academic self-efficacy (i.e. the belief in their ability to prepare for exams and write terms papers), causing some students to avoid homework, tutoring, or asking teachers for help (Margolis and McCabe, 2004; Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade, 2005). Implementing a professional development program for teachers and counselors to help identify students who have low-level skills or skill deficiencies will provide teachers and counselors effective solutions to raising student self-efficacy and achievement. Teachers and counselors can implement strategies such as linking new work to recent successes, teaching needed learning strategies, reinforcing effort and persistence, peer modeling, identifying and creating personal goals as ways to raise student academic capital (Margolis and McCabe, 2004). Other strategic interventions that support underrepresented minority students are peer evaluation, tutoring, and mentoring. By implementing these interventions, students are receiving help and guidance from peers: a potentially powerful strategy considering research indicates that peers have almost as much or more influence over adolescent decision-making. Peer collaboration can be a powerful tool in creating students 107 friendships with like-minded students, sharing of similar interests, and most importantly, creating respect amongst peers (Dodge and Kendall, 2004). Students may become more involved academically and socially, thus further enhancing their academic self-efficacy and motivation. Additionally, peer tutoring can bring content to a more accessible level for a struggling student; provide learning and strategies for learning to the struggling student, while simultaneously enhancing the learning of the peer tutor. Currently, established programs, such as America’s Choice or the Coalition of Essential Schools, raise minority students’ expectations and improve student academic and social capital, through a focus on smaller learning communities. America’s Choice provision of small schools increases rigor in the core academic curriculum and provides strong college and work-based technical preparation, thus leading to a greater expectation for students to attend college (Sizer, 1986; Malloy, 1997; Martinez and Klopott, 2005; May and Supovitz, 2006). The creation of smaller learning communities can help foster a sense of community and belonging within the school environment. The purpose of these smaller learning communities is to increase student achievement by increasing the student’s academic, social, cultural, and linguistic capital while at the same time strengthening student, faculty, and staff relationships. In order to create and implement these smaller learning communities, faculty must collaborate daily or weekly, create assignments and assessments, attend each others classes, team teach, participate in projects and field trips to enhance curricular objectives, and enhance student learning and success (Dodge and Kendall, 2004). 108 One study shows that earlier implementation of this model in elementary school or middle school has shown to be more successful than at the high school level, and has longer-lasting effects on the development of students’ social and academic capital (Juan and Colyar, 2002). Another study conducted by May and Supovitz (2006) indicated America’s Choice schools helped reduce the minority achievement gap with significant improvement amongst Hispanic and African American students. The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) was designed to create strong relationships between students and adults, which ultimately raises the level of social capital for underrepresented minority students (Sizer, 1986; Malloy, 1997; Martinez and Klopott, 2005). CES provides strong academic and social support, and places a high value on family participation and teacher collegiality (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Studies done on the first five years of CES’ implementation in New York City show that graduation and college-going rates were higher, and dropout rates were lower than the rest of the city (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). The Schools-within-Schools model is yet another smaller learning community model that can also be created or applied to existing career academies with the intent on raising students’ social capital. By increasing academic rigor and expectations, academy students are assured of acquiring subject mastery and skill attainment and improved prospects of continuing their postsecondary education. Students who participate in learning communities can develop strong goal orientation, motivation, and self-regulation (Dodge and Kendall, 2004). 109 Solution Summary For Emergent Theme 3: Improve The Two-Year Community College To Four-Year University Pathway For GUSD Students. In order to effectively address the issue of college access for all students, high school reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence students’ preparedness or college readiness. A student’s accessibility and sustainability in college is due in large to their experience in high school (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Haycock, Barth, Mitchell, Wilkins & Somerville, 1999). Although the 1980’s high school reform movement has contributed to an increase in college participation, there remains gaps in college participation and degree attainment for certain ethnic minority groups, specifically African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians. As previously mentioned in this chapter, effective reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence student’s preparedness for college, particularly for underrepresented minority students of color. Another area of concern as it relates to students of color is the poor transfer rates between two-year colleges to four-year institutions. Glendale Unified School District witnesses a large percentage of their student population matriculate into a local college- Glendale Community College (GCC). Recent reports indicate that transfer rates for students from a two-year to a four- year institution are abysmal: 70% of students seeking degrees or wanting to transfer to a four-year college failed to do so (Rivera, 2010). 110 In fact, rates were even worse for minority students of color: only 26% Black students and 22% Latino students successfully transferred to a four-year school compared to 37% Whites and 35% Asian. The disparity in transfer and success rates for specific student subgroups underscores the importance of addressing the two-year to four-year college pathway between GUSD and GCC. In order to maximize the success for community college transfer rates to four-year institutions and colleges, an innovative program is needed in which a K-12 school district works collaboratively with a local community college by monitoring student progress and achievement. The foundation of this relationship can be established through an articulation between K-12 and two-year colleges, and the effective use of data to identify and monitor student postsecondary success. A collaborative relationship between K-12 public schools and two-year community colleges will ultimately result in a more seamless transition for high school students and lead to improved transfer rates to four-year institutions. Improving Vertical K-16 Articulation Research demonstrates that a lack of articulation between K-12 and higher education institutions undoubtedly affects minority students’ transition from high school to college (Gandara, 2002). In fact, greater coherence in content, knowledge and skills, and assessments between K-12 school districts and institutions of higher education is 111 needed in order to see student success in postsecondary education. Unfortunately, once students are accepted into college- two- or four-year institutions- far too many students are not prepared for the advanced work required of them. Almost half of all incoming college freshmen take at lease one remedial course (Haycock et al, 1999), which results in a large percentage of students prolonging their start to core general education courses, and potentially stunting their prospects for transferring to a four-year institution. In essence, students’ inadequate preparation for college contributes to a high percentage of dropouts: a full one third of freshmen in four-year colleges won’t make it to their sophomore year, while nearly half at community colleges will not return for their sophomore year (Haycock, et al., 1999; Haycock and Huang, 2001; Carey, 2004). Martinez and Klopott (2005) highlight several programs that address K-12 and postsecondary curricular alignment, and provide students the best opportunity for postsecondary preparation and success. Dual enrollment offers high school students the opportunity to concurrently enroll in college courses. Students enrolled in dual credit courses are exposed to rigorous college curricula that serve as a continuum between high school and college level coursework. Dual enrollment programs can be advantageous for students because college credits can be earned without passing an examination, as required by Advanced Placement courses (Dowd, 2003). Studies show students who participated in dual enrollment programs have, on average, a higher GPA, higher postsecondary aspirations, higher participation in postsecondary education, as well as higher retention rates in postsecondary education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). 112 Dual enrollment programs offer the least threatening (to school systems) path to providing opportunities for students to learn (Adelman, 2002). Schools use dual enrollment programs to encourage college preparedness and to help reduce the cost of remedial courses in higher education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). The dual enrollment programs with the community colleges will provide valuable skills and knowledge to students prior to their enrollment in college. Furthermore, it provides the students with a seamless transition from high school to college. Another program that benefits the K-16 vertical pipeline is Tech Prep 2+2 Articulation, which awards college credit to students enrolled in a high school course that contains the same agreed upon course content with an equivalent college course. Studies indicate that underrepresented students involved in Tech Prep are more apt to benefit because the academic program is tied to real-world learning experiences (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). A third program- GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs)- is a federally funded intervention program that helps increase the number of low-income minority students entering a postsecondary institution. The uniqueness of this program is found in its early outreach: students in the middle grades are targeted for support and provided mentoring, tutoring and guidance opportunities. In addition to programmatic concepts that seek to best prepare high school students for college, a partnership between K-12 and a two-year institution is needed to help facilitate this outcome. In 2003, the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees launched the Campus Actions to Facilitate Graduation initiative in order to 113 improve the transfer process for students from the California Community Colleges (CCC), and provide a way to help students complete their bachelor’s degree (Engle and Lynch, 2009). As part of the process, a memorandum of understanding was established between CSU and CCC that all CSU institutions will accept courses completed at the CCC within the Lower Division Transfer Pattern (LDTP): courses which clearly delineated statewide and campus-specific requirements (Engle and Lynch, 2009). This type of program between the CCC and CSU provides a rich model for school districts and community colleges to follow: a memorandum of understanding between two institutions who share common students with the common goal of successfully transferring students out- a secondary to two-year to four-year college pathway. Top leadership within both institutions could come to the table and discuss how a partnership between both institutions could mutually benefit their stakeholders. For one, the school district could see a greater number of their students better prepared for the community college setting, and more “transfer-ready” to a four-year school. Likewise, the community college stands to gain by receiving better-prepared students that need less remediation in their first year. Across the nation, states and colleges are working together to develop a coherent system of expectation and transfer for all high school students. For example, in Massachusetts, two- and four-year colleges are using the English Language Arts section of the state high school graduation assessment in place of writing placement exams (Haycock et al., 1999). This practice can certainly be implemented in California. As an example, while the California High School Exit Exam may have minimal cut scores for 114 high school graduation, two-year colleges can require a higher cut score for both the English Language Arts and Mathematics sections to meet college entrance requirements for non-remedial or credit bearing courses. Create data systems to review and improve student transfer rates to four-year institutions One of the driving forces behind No Child Left Behind was the need for states to develop a comprehensive data system to track student performance across grade levels. The use of data has been successful in identifying specific areas of need for different subgroups, and to identify overall school and district performance in meeting a set of achievement criteria. The use of data systems has helped schools and districts to better identify the needs of individual students and subgroups. Similarly, colleges and universities need to know where they stand, where they are going, and how to measure progress along the way to produce a better educated and more diverse work force- work that can be accomplished through the gathering and analysis of data (Engle and Lynch, 2009). The 2009 Digest of Educational Statistics, produced by the National Center for Educational Research, offers a limited purview on retention and transfer rates of students by publishing only the number of students who have obtained an Associate’s Degree from community colleges. This lack of information provides little insight on the level of success underrepresented minority students (African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians) may or may not be finding at the community college level. Furthermore, while colleges and universities are improving their assessment of progress using data, most of 115 the data published by government agencies and higher education institutions report on progress made in college access, and not necessarily on student transfer success rates. Budgetary constraints and general resource issues has made it even more difficult for community colleges to have institutional researchers who can gather and analyze the effects of their programs and their policies. The only data community colleges have available to them are those collected from K-12 institutions or from neighboring four- year institutions (Venezia, Kirst and Antonio, 1997). A recent publication by the Institute for High Education Leadership and Policy exhorted the State of California to adopt data systems as a means to understand student success/failure rates at the community college level and application of that knowledge towards institutional change and responsiveness (Moore and Shulock, 2010). To that end, data systems that will track graduates’ progress in transferring to four-year universities, and assess current and future institutional practice need to be created so that information is available to make strategic decisions that will produce positive results for students. Of course, data use needs to be grounded in institutional learning that effectively frames diversity and equity outcomes. Despite increased focus on educational accountability and diversity, there has historically been a lack of attention on procuring equitable outcomes for traditionally underrepresented students of color. The University of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE) has focused on shaping institutional learning and data systems to confront and change the “educational outcomes for students with a history of exclusion, discrimination, and disenfranchisement (i.e. 116 African Americans and Latinas/os)” (Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, and Harris III, 2007, p. 4). CUE’s Equity for All theory-based model assists institutions in framing inequitable outcomes that undoubtedly exist, and helps shape organizational learning by closing disparities, and improving outcomes for underrepresented students of color (Bensimon et al, 2007). Altogether, the Equity for All model provides an effective lens by which to make sense of and use data for maximizing college outcomes for students of color. By viewing outcomes with an equity lens, the creation and implementation of a Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004) can be a valuable data analysis tool used to address issues of college access and success. K-12 and community colleges can identify quantifiable data that will be used as metrics of excellence in seeing more students successfully transfer to four-year institutions. The diversity scorecard was developed out of CUE and used by higher education institutions to measure the level of equity in educational outcomes for underrepresented students of color (Bensimon, 2004). The scorecard helps measure equity around four areas: access, retention, institutional receptivity and excellence. For example, the access perspective was used to determine the extent to which underrepresented students had access to an institution’s programs and resources (Bensimon, 2004). The diversity scorecard has three measurements: current baseline data, an improvement target, and an equity mark to determine the point at which it is attained. The diversity scorecard serves as a useful framework for K-12 and community colleges systems to use in measuring the level of achievement and successful transfer rates for minority students. Leaders from both institutions can determine together the data to measure in hopes of closing gaps in 117 student access and transfer rates. As an example, the retention perspective can be used to measure the current level of underrepresented students’ participation/retention in rigorous programs, such as math and engineering (i.e. retain only 20 out of 100 students), and place an improvement target to see growth of underrepresented students in this area (i.e. improve retention to 40 out of 100 students). Finally, the equity point could be represented as a percentage of underrepresented students who are successfully retained in the program proportionate to their population both in the program and school-wide. Altogether, the diversity scorecard will create opportunities between a community college and K-12 school district to utilize existing data into actionable knowledge that will mutually benefit both institutions’ students. For our purposes, this framework allows institutional leaders at GUSD and GCC to develop evidence-based practice to evaluate the condition of GUSD students’ matriculation into GCC and to provide concrete data on specific areas of improvement to enhance student success at GCC and beyond. 118 CHAPTER 3B PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SUMMARY Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang Glendale Unified School District is a high-achieving educational institution that exists to serve the students of the greater Glendale community. The District’s simple, yet powerful, mission of student achievement for all resonates across schools sites and affects classroom practices, decision-making, allocation of material and human resources, and professional development. GUSD’s culture of high achievement, as evidenced by its recent 842 Growth API (2010), should be praised and considered a model for neighboring urban school districts. Our three-member project team took on this project to offer support to an issue that faces all urban school districts- improving college access for all students, particularly to four-year universities. Currently, GUSD affords their students a multitude of postsecondary opportunities, including access to trade schools, community colleges, and four-year universities. Based on existing data, graduates from GUSD are entering two- year colleges at a strong rate (52%). Although, GUSD graduates are entering four-year universities at a comparably higher rate (~23%) against State averages (~19%), the overall need for witnessing more GUSD graduates matriculating into four-year colleges is important, particularly for underrepresented minorities. Based on extensive interviews with various GUSD agents- district and school administrators, teachers, counselors- our project team found three emerging themes that 119 presented gaps to more students accessing four-year colleges: 1. A need for explicit goals related to four- year university education. 2. Persisting barriers preventing specific student subgroups from accessing four-year universities. 3. Improving the two-year community college to four-year university pathway for GUSD students. Our project team offers the following set of solutions that aim to close gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture preventing all GUSD student subgroups from realizing four-year college success. Each set of solutions is organized around specific themes and are substantiated by research and current best practices. Our solutions are best captured by this graphic: Table 8: Solutions Matrix 120 Thematic Solution 1: Create And Communicate Explicit Goals Solution: Create SMART organizational goals related to four-year college participation, which will lead to improved alignment with work processes. Through extensive interviews with Glendale Unified School District agents, it became evident that explicit goals pertaining to students’ four-year university access and participation did not exist. District and school site administrators gave varying perspectives about both the benefit of emphasizing a four-year college-going goal, and the abilities of all students to actually achieve it. In effect, the college and career readiness mantra appeared to be defined differently for different people: while some advocated for preparation of all students for a variety of postsecondary pathways (i.e. workforce, two-year college, four-year college), others argued that the four-year college pipeline was inexplicably narrow for certain student subgroups and needed increased attention to close participation gaps. Altogether, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) either lacks specific organizational goals that address four-year university participation and access, or have not thoroughly and explicitly communicated extant goals, which has misaligned certain practices and communicated unclear expectations across the four comprehensive high school sites. This was evident in interviews with teachers and counselors: while some were committed to seeing more students reach four-year eligibility goals, others were of the opinion that some students were not fit for the four-year college route. When asked about the existence of college-going cultures at their school sites, administrators, 121 teachers, and counselors held varying beliefs about whether it existed on their respective campuses. It was evident that a college-going culture was not established district-wide. In order to align work processes and hold expectations for all students, it is recommended that GUSD create and communicate explicit goals to improve the overall number of students pursuing and matriculating into a four-year college. By establishing district-wide goals, schools sites and their agents will have a common base and hear a common message regarding their work to increase access and create college-going cultures. In effect, there will be greater clarity regarding the importance of and improving four-year college pathway. The research on Professional Learning Communities indicate that effective goals are results-oriented, help clarify priorities, establish indicators of progress and embed continuous improvement throughout the organization (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many, 2006). Clear and compelling organizational goals cascade down to work processes and clarify the tasks and objectives that employees must set out to accomplish. When organizational goals are undefined or unaligned with work processes, gaps in performance can occur and stunt achievement of organizational goals. Effective performance goals are concrete, challenging and current, and support achievement of organizational goals. In fact, workplace performance is more effective when goals are well understood and individuals can determine the cause of gaps between current and desired performance (Clark and Estes, 2002). Based on extensive interviews, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) lacks clearly defined goals or targets as it relates to graduating students’ postsecondary educational aspirations, particularly 122 advancement towards a four-year university education. In addition to GUSD’s powerful goals related to student achievement via the Focus on Results initiative, it is recommended that powerful goals be created to raise eligibility, participation, and success rates to four-year universities. This can be accomplished through the production of SMART goals, which will contribute to greater clarity in defining and understanding organizational four-year college goals (Dufour et al, 2006). SMART goals follow a simple acronym: Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and Timebound. Altogether, effective SMART goals that address four-year college access will create greater clarity across the organization concerning increasing postsecondary access for their students. In effect, work processes (i.e. counseling services, enrollment in rigorous coursework, outreach programs, etc.) stand to take priority and improve when school agents have a clear mandate to follow as to who and how many graduating students are expected to enter four-year universities. A well-designed SMART goal that addresses four-year college participation can juxtapose GUSD’s current reality against goals for closing four-year college gaps. Below are two examples of specific SMART goals to address college participation: Reality: In the 2008-2009 school year (based on SARC data), 47% of GUSD graduating students met UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements. GUSD Goal: In the next three years, GUSD will increase the percentage of students meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements to 75%. Reality: In the 2008-2009 school year, 23% of GUSD students matriculated to UC/CSU out of a total 47% graduating students who met eligibility requirements. GUSD goal: This year, GUSD will close the eligibility-matriculation gap (the gap between those students meeting UC eligibility and those students who successfully matriculating into UC) by 5%. 123 Solution: Create and utilize scorecards or dashboards to monitor and set growth targets for college readiness indicators. In addition to explicit goals, it is recommended that Glendale Unified School District closely examine and monitor overall college readiness factors through the development of college readiness scorecards or dashboards. The scorecard and dashboard concepts derive from research on quality control and institutional accountability (O’Niel, Bensimon, Diamond, and Moore, 1999). This innovation will provide district leaders “metrics of excellence” (O’Niel et al, 1999, p. 34) to determine, monitor and set growth targets for specific factors that improve four-year college participation. Examples of college readiness factors include: • Graduation rate • Enrollment and grades in higher-level coursework (i.e. Honors, AP, IB) • Number of Advanced Placement enrollees and exams taken • Percentage of Advanced Placement exams passed (scoring 3+) • SAT number tested and total score > 1,500 • ACT number tested and total score > 21 • Percentage of graduates completing UC ‘a-g’ courses A college readiness scorecard or dashboard provides visual graphics focusing on those metrics that support college-going behavior. 124 The following are examples of college-readiness dashboards: Table 9: College Readiness Dashboard Samples GUSD UC ‘a-g’ eligibility SAT participation Each dashboard above represents an indictor of four-year college participation. The red arrow represents current performance, while the green arrow represents desired performance. For example, currently 47% of GUSD students meet UC ‘a-g’ course eligibility requirements. The district could then map a goal of 75% of its students meeting those requirements over a specific period of time. Similarly, SAT participation stands at 46% with a target dash pointed at 80%. In addition to a baseline college-readiness scorecard or dashboard, the use of diversity measurements will help ensure that GUSD’s organizational goals are intentional and strategic in closing achievement and opportunity gaps for minority students of color. The diversity scorecard was developed with the purpose of raising “increased recognition of the existence and scope of inequities for students of color among faculty members, administrators, and counselors…[to] remove the conditions that deny or impede equitable outcomes for all students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45, 46) The diversity scorecard presents a powerful opportunity for GUSD to identify and target current and expected performance on a variety of college-readiness metrics 20% 60% 80% 40% 10% 30% 50% 75% 100% 125 disaggregated by subgroup. The following example looks at Advanced Placement enrollment and pass rates overall at GUSD with a diversity component: Table 10: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample (not based on real percentages) In the example above, the Yellow bar indicates the Baseline, or current percentage of students enrolled in Advanced Placement. The Green bar indicates the Target, or expected growth for the subgroup. Once targets have been reached, notice that the level of Yellow and Green bars combined per subgroup creates a more equitable situation across the site. Meaning, gaps in opportunity closed from a high of 30% (between Asians and Hispanics) to a more equitable gap of 15%. Diversity scorecards provide school and district officials an opportunity to measure those college-readiness metrics with a diversity lens. This approach will reveal those equity gaps that prevent all subgroups from successfully accessing four-year universities. As well, diversity scorecards will help GUSD school or district officials target and apply resources that will improve educational outcomes for underrepresented student populations (Bensimon, 2004). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% White (Armenian) White (non-Armenian) Black Hispanic Asian Current Subgroup Enrolled Expected Subgroup Enrollment Growth Target Subgroup NOT enrolled 126 Thematic Solution 2: Close Persisting Barriers And Increase Four-Year College Access For All GUSD Students One of the most significant predictors of academic achievement and college success is a strong academic program in high school and a variety of social support offered by the school (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Glendale Unified high schools have worked hard in closing some achievement gaps, and made significant strides in aligning coursework so that students will be eligible for a four-year university education, while ensuring that students are supported and aware of college admissions requirements. However, the persistence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps continue to prevent certain groups of students (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic) from accessing a four-year university education. To a great extent, these underrepresented students lack the social capital to effectively navigate through traditional educational systems and structures. The following are a set of solutions to increase access to four-year colleges for all GUSD students, particularly underrepresented minorities. Solution: Increase preparation and number of four-year university eligible students. Academic rigor in high school is the strongest indicator of a student’s academic achievement and greatly determines whether a student will advance towards postsecondary studies (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). A challenging core curriculum required of all students provides access to the same educational opportunities, high standards, and potentially leads to the highest level of academic achievement (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Moreover, by closely aligning these core curricula with college 127 admissions criteria will lead to improved rates of student eligibility for four-year university enrollment. Some ways in which core curricula can be established and evaluated to ensure rigorous preparation and improved eligibility is: 1. Evaluate established curriculum and determine its content and rigor 2. In lower level courses, significantly increase academic content and rigor, or eliminate the course 3. Strengthen all core programs: offer more challenging coursework, increase number of Advanced Placement courses offered 4. Modify graduation requirements to reflect expectations that all students complete a rigorous core curriculum and are eligible for college admission 5. Incorporate higher level thinking skills in all courses 6. Encourage student enrollment in challenging coursework 7. In career/vocational tracks increase course content rigor and connect academic and work-related skills 8. Increase number of college courses offered on high school campuses in partnership with local community colleges 9. Prepare and encourage students to take algebra II or higher Solution: Hold high expectations for all students across all school sites, and increase underrepresented minority students’ social capital. During the interview process with GUSD administrators and school site officials, it became clear that high expectations for schools and students were held in two of the four high schools. In fact, one school was touted for it’s college-going mantra of getting all students on the “UC ‘a-g’ bus.” In effect, this particular school site held strong expectations for students to pursue four-year colleges. However, the perceptions about the ability of other school sites and their students from creating the same type of college- going culture were not as confident. In order to increase the college-going culture within 128 the district, it is necessary to have high expectations for all four high schools and to ensure that all four schools have access to the resources that would help create and maintain a college-going culture. Studies show that increasing the participation of minorities in higher education is crucial to ensuring their full economic and social participation in society (Goldrick-Rab and Shaw, 2005). Strong predictors of college attendance and completion are: academic preparation; social support; access to information; parental involvement and knowledge about college; and, access to financial aid (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Schools can help encourage student growth and achievement, while holding high expectations for all, by developing each student’s social capital. Some ways in which to set high expectations and help increase student social capital include: 1. Increase student social capital by integrating students from different socioeconomic status, ethnicities, and academic background into peer mentoring groups 2. Create faculty mentoring groups to augment mentoring/counseling offered by school counselors 3. Create workshops that are focused on filling out college applications and FAFSA forms 4. Create networking opportunities for students with college admissions counselors and adult professional mentors 5. Utilize college model for grade rank (magna cum laude, summa cum laude, cum laude) as opposed to class rank 6. Require all students to take the SAT/ACT as a graduation requirement 7. Upon entry into high school, counselors create a learning plan to help students meet college admissions requirements Solution: Provide strategic intervention for underrepresented minority subgroups. Although it is the practice of counselors, teachers, and administrators to talk to students about college and college requirements, many low SES, minority, and immigrant 129 students are not college familiar and are not likely to have participated in activities that would get them college ready (Hagedorn and Fogel, 2002). It is recommended that GUSD create strategic opportunities so that underrepresented minority students can continue to grow academically, intellectually, and personally, leading towards improved college access. Some ways in which schools can help are: 1. Conduct a needs assessment early in 9 th grade to ascertain student strengths and weaknesses 2. Create or restructure existing parent nights to thoroughly address high school graduation requirements and college admissions requirements 3. Offer outreach opportunities (i.e. parent nights, college fairs, etc.) with native language speakers, or have college graduates of the same race/ethnicity (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic graduate) present and serve as an effective role model for parents and students 4. Create a summer bridge program for incoming Freshmen who are below grade level standards 5. Students receive instruction in study skills 6. Creation of teacher teams that support and help students entering high school continue to improve skills learned in the summer bridge program Thematic Solution 3: Maximize Success For Community College Transfer Students In order to effectively address the issue of college access for all students, high school reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence student’s preparedness or college readiness. To that end, K-12 public schools and two-year community colleges need to develop relationships that will lead to a more seamless transition for high school students, which will ultimately lead towards improved transfer rates to four-year institutions. Solution: Improve vertical K-16 alignment and articulation. 130 Student course completion has a decisive impact for their future. In fact, one of the most important factors of college success is the quality and intensity of the high school curriculum (Haycock et al, 1999). At the same time, there should be coherence in content, knowledge and skills, and assessments between K-12 and institutions of higher education. Once students are accepted into college- two-year or four-year institutions- far too many students are not prepared for the advanced work required of them. Almost half of all incoming college freshmen take at lease one remedial course (Haycock et al, 1999). While we recognize the high percentage of Glendale Unified School District’s enrollment at Glendale Community College (GCC), research shows that incoming freshmen are often unprepared for college course work. In order to maximize the success for GCC transfer rates to four-year institutions and colleges, GUSD is in a position to develop collaborative relationships with GCC to ensure success on behalf of GUSD students. When secondary faculty dialogue with their postsecondary counterparts on course alignment and rigor, GUSD students will have access to the best academic curriculum, and be taught the appropriate knowledge and skills necessary to eventually succeed in a four-year college. There currently exists in GUSD a program for English Language Arts courses to articulate credits with GCC. Students who take a particular GCC-approved English Language Arts course offered at GUSD and successfully meet course requirements are 131 not required to take remedial English courses when they matriculate to GCC. This practice is a powerful model for aligning course content and coherence across the K-16 spectrum. GUSD should consider solidifying and expanding these types of practices through a memorandum of understanding between the two institutions, or with other local community colleges. This program could be expanded to other core subject areas as well, including mathematics, science and social studies. Solution: Create data systems to review and improve student transfer rates to four-year institutions. One of the driving forces behind No Child Left Behind is the need for states to develop a comprehensive data system to track student performance across grade levels. The use of data has been successful in identifying specific areas of need for different subgroups, and to identify overall school and district performance in meeting a set of achievement criteria. While colleges and universities are improving their assessment of progress using data, most data published by higher education institutions report progress on college access, and not on transfer rates. To that end, it is recommended that GUSD partner with GCC in creating data systems that will track GUSD graduates’ progress in transferring to four-year universities. By using data to assess current and future practice, and measuring progress along the way, GUSD and GCC will witness the greater likelihood of a better-educated and more diverse work force (Engle and Lynch, 2009). District-wide, GUSD is very knowledgeable and skilled at using data to drive student learning and achievement. It is recommended that GUSD share their student 132 information with the local community colleges to demonstrate students’ ability and to facilitate student placement in appropriate colleges-level courses. Also, GUSD can collaborate with GCC to create a data system that tracks the retention and transfer rates of GUSD graduates, and ensure students do transfer from the community college to public or private four-year institutions, as the students had originally intended. To further expand the relationship between GUSD and GCC, both institutions can join forces to develop a “Diversity Scorecard” as it relates to the following equity measures in educational outcomes for higher educations: access, retention, institutional receptivity and excellence for GUSD students at GCC (Bensimon, 2004). The Diversity Scorecard will allow opportunities for both GUSD and GCC to apply the existing data into actionable knowledge that will better assist GUSD student success at GCC. Both institutions can be engaged in a collaborative inquiry into the state of equity and access of GUSD students at GCC. This will allow both institutional leaders to develop evidence- based practice to evaluate the condition of GUSD matriculation into GCC and to provide concrete data on specific areas of improvement to enhance student success at GCC and beyond. Solution: Partner with California Community Colleges to create bridge programs to four-year institutions. GUSD is in a position to take a step further and see how they can partner with local community colleges in creating a targeted bridge program that focuses on a secondary to two-year to a four-year pipeline. In effect, GUSD can develop a bridge program to improve GUSD student transfer rates to four-year institutions and eventual 133 degree attainment. Currently, a variety of bridge programs exist that supports secondary to two-year matriculation, as well as two-year to four-year matriculation. These include dual enrollment and credits programs. It is recommended that GUSD expand the current dual enrollment program for students. Dual enrollment programs offer the least threatening (to school systems) path to providing opportunities for students to learn (Adelman, 2002). Schools use dual enrollment programs to encourage college preparedness and to help reduce the cost of remedial courses in higher education (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). The dual enrollment programs with GCC will provide valuable skills and knowledge to students prior to their enrollment in college. Furthermore, it provides the students with a seamless transition from high school to college. A step beyond the current bridge program is to create a partnership between GUSD and GCC whereby GUSD identifies and targets students choosing the two-year college route, creates a GUSD-to-GCC-to-Four Year pathway contract, and outreaches to those students to ensure they successfully reach their goals. These types of targeted interventions stand to improve the overall level of preparation for students and helps school agents create support systems for those identified students that aim to eventually 134 continue their postsecondary studies at a four-year university. Some components of these types of bridge programs could include: 1. Reviewing students’ secondary four-year plans to identify students targeted for two-year college enrollment. 2. Ensuring students successfully complete their secondary studies while preparing for postsecondary studies at the two-year college. 3. Targeted counseling, exposure to, and networking with community college agents during their 12 th grade year in preparation for successful matriculation to the two-year college. 4. By utilizing a K-16 data system, monitor the progress and make necessary adjustments to ensure the most amount of students are successfully transferring to a four-year university. 135 References Adelman, C. (2002). The Relationship between Urbanicity and Educational Outcomes. In W. Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities for all Students (pp. 35-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Alliance for Excellence in Education (July 2009). Understanding High School Graduation Rates Retrieved, February 13, 2010 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/National_wc.pdf American Diploma Project (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts. Washington, D.C.: Anderson & Krathwohl (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal (10 th ed.). New York: Worth. Attewell, P, Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30 (1), 51-71. Bailey, D., Palsha, S. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and implications for educational innovations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85 (4), 226-232. Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217. Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change. Change, 36(1) 45-52 Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan, 18(3), 28-45. Bohon, S., Johnson, M., & Gorman, B. (2006). College aspirations and expectations among latino adolescents in the united states. Social Problems, 53 (2), 207-225. Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73 (2), 125-230. 136 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press. California Department of Education. (2008). California High School Exit Exam, CAHSEE State Report. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cahsee/ Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M., Usdan, M. & Venezia, A. (2006). Claiming Common Ground, State Policymaking for Improving College Readiness and Success. Boston, MA: The Institute for Educational Leadership, The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education & The Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. Cameron, J., Pierce, W. D., Banko, K. M., & Gear, A. (2005). Achievement-based rewards and intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 641-655. Carey, K. (2004). A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year Colleges and Universities. Washington DC: The Education Trust. Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press. College Board. (2000). Equity 2000: A summary report. Retrieved December 11, 2010 from:http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/association/equity/Equ ityHistoricalReport.pdf Comprehensive School Reform. U. S. Department of Education. retrieved, August 15, 2010 from: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved, August 21, 2010 from: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards Corpus, J. H., McClintic-Gilbert, M. S., & Hayenga, A. O. (2009). Within-year changes in children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Contextual predictors and academic outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 154-166. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Wichterle Ort, S. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the coalition campus schools project. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (3), 639-673. 137 Datnow, A., Borman, G., Stringfield, S., Overman, L., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 25 (2), 143-170. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72 (3), 433-479. Desimone, L. & Hochberg, E. D. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45 (2), 89-106. Dika, S. L. & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72 (1), 31-60. Dodge, L. & Kendall, M. (2004). Learning communities. College Teaching, 52 (4), 150- 155. Donnelley & Lee Library Archives & Special Collections. (1995). History of the effective schools movement. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from: http://library.lakeforest.edu/archives/HistoryofEffectiveSchools.html Dowd, A. (2003). From Access to Outcome Equity: Revitalizing the Democratic Mission of the Community College. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586 (March), 92-119. Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. ( 2006 ) Learning by Doing – A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Indiana: Solution Tree Duncan, A. (2010). The three myths of high school reform: Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks at the college board AP conference. U.S. Department of Education, retrieved, August 21, 2010 from: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/three-myths- high-school-reform-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-college-board-ap-conference EdSource. (2007, May). Levers for change: Opportunities to strengthen California’s high school curriculum. California: Venezia, A., & Perry, M. Education Trust. (1999). Thinking K-16. Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between Leaving High School and Entering College and High-Performance Jobs. Washington DC: Haycock. Engle, J, and Lynch, M. (2009). Access to Success: Charting a Necessary Path, The Baseline Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success Initiative. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. 138 Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45 (2), 76-88. Gandara, P. (Ed.). (2002). Meeting common goals: linking k-12 and college interventions. New York City, NY: State University of New York Press. Garcia, G.E. (2002). Student Cultural Diversity: Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3 rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. The Gates Foundation. (2010). Foundation Fact Sheet. Access from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx The Gates Foundation. (2008). All students ready for college, career, and life: reflections on the foundation's education investments 2000-2008 Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx Goldrick-Rab, S., & Shaw, K. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in the impact of work first policies on college access. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27 (4), 291-307. Hagedorn, L. S. & Fogel, S. (2002). Making school to college programs work: Academics, goals, and aspirations. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college; Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 169-194). Albany: State University of New York Press. Haller, A., & Portes, A. (1973). Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education 46 (1), 51-91. Haycock, K., Barth,P., Mitchell, R., Wilkins, A., & Somerville of National Association of System Heads. (1999). Thinking K-16. Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between Leaving High School and Entering College and High-Performance Jobs. Washington DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/dc/resources/publications Haycock, K. & Huang, S. (2001). Thinking K-16. Are Today’s High School Graduates Ready? Washington DC: The Education Trust. Honeywell, R. (1969). A note on the educational work of Thomas Jefferson. History of Education Quarterly, 9 (1), 64-72. Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping pathways to higher education. Educational Researcher 31 (2), 3-11. 139 Jun, A., & Colyar, J. (2002). Parental guidance suggested: Family involvement in college preparation programs. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college; Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 195-216). Albany: State University of New York Press. Karakowshky, L., & Mann, S. (2008). Setting goals and taking ownership understanding the implications of participatively set goals from a causal attribution perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(3), 260-270. Landsberg, M. & Blume, H. (2008). 1 in 4 California high school students drop out, state says state, retrieved February 16, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dropout17-2008jul17,0,1269326.story Lee, V., Ready, D. (2009). U.S. high school curriculum: Three phases of contemporary research and reform. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 135-156. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009). District profile, retrieved February 16, 2009 from: http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe Malloy, W. (1997). Struggling to become an essential school: A qualitative study. The High School Journal, 80 (2), 125-138. Margolis, H. & McCabe, P. (2004). Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation of struggling learners. The Clearing House, 77 (6), 241-249. Marsh, D., Codding, J., et al. (1999). The New American High School. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. Marshall, K. October 14, 2009. Retrieved, November 9, 2009 from http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/14/schools.report.card/index.html Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access and success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network. May, H. & Supovitz, J. (2006). Capturing the cumulative effects of school reform: An 11-year study of the impacts of America’s choice on student achievement. Educational Policy and Analysis, 28 (3), 231-257. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2 nd .ed.) Pearson: Upper Saddle River: NJ 140 Montgomery, S. (1993). Science, education, and republican values: Trends of faith in America: 1750-1830. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2 (4), 521- 540. Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided We Fail: Improving Completion and Closing Racial Gaps in California’s Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy. Mudge, G.O. (1937). Horace Mann and his educational ideas. The High School Journal, 20(5), 163-169, 198. Nash and Education Trust. (2009). Access to Success: Charting a Necessary Path, The Baseline Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success Initiative. Washington, DC: Engle, J. & Lynch, M. Nation At Risk (1983). Presidential Commission for Excellence in Education. Retrieved, February 13, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk National Center for Education Statistics. (2010) Condition of Education Report 2010. Retrieved, June 21, 2010 from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ No Child Left Behind. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved, February 13, 2010 from www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of Southern California. Ohio State Board of Regents. (1997). Common expectations. Retrieved, December 11, 2010 from:http://www.education.ohio.gov O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Bensimon, E. M., Diamond, M. A., & Moore, M. R. (1999). Designing an implementing an academic scorecard. Change, 31(6), 32-40. Patrick, H., Knee, C.R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of self- fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (3), 434-457. 141 Perna, L.W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: Characteristics of programs serving historically underrepresented group of students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 64-83. Perna, L.W. (2005). The Key to College Access: Rigorous Academic Preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z.B. Corwin, and J. E. Colyar (Eds.). Preparing for College: Nine Elements of Effective Outreach. Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (4), 734-746. Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44 (3), 159-175. Rivera, C. (2010, October 20). Community colleges not preparing california's future workforce, study says. Los Angeles Times, retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-1020-community-colleges-20101020 Ruppert, S. (2003). Closing the College Participation Gap: A National Summary. Center for Community College Policy. Schein, E. (1990) Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Schraw, G. (2010). No school left behind. Educational Psychologist, 45 (2), 71-75. Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and Applications. (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schwartz, B. (2009). Incentives, choice, education and well-being. Oxford Review of Education, 35 (3), 391-403. Shear, L., Means, B., Mitchell, K., et al. (2008). Contrasting paths to small-school reform: Results of a 5-year evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s national high schools initiative. Teachers College Record, 110 (9), 1986-2039. Sizer, T. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the coalition of essential schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (1), 38-42. Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67 (1) 1-40. 142 Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (2001). Manufacturing Hope & Despair: The School and Kin Support Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth.” Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Chapter 8, “ Empowering Relations of Support Between Students and School Personnel.” St. John, E., Musoba, G., Simmons, A., Chung, C., Schmit, J., & Peng, C. (2004). Meeting the access challenge: An examination of Indiana’s twenty-first century scholar’s program. Research on Higher Education, 45 (8), 829-871. Swail, W.S., & Perna, L. W. (2000). A view of the landscape: Results of the national survey of outreach programs. In College Board, Outreach program handbook 2001 (pp. xi-xxix). New York: The College Board. Swail, W.S., & Perna, L. W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national perspective. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 15-34). Albany: State University of New York Press. Tierney, W., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2002) Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities for All Students. Albany: State University of New York Press. Vansteenkiste, M., & Lens, W. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self- determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41 (1), 19-31. Vaughn, E.S., (2010). Reform in an urban school district: The role of PSAT results in promoting advanced placement course-taking. Education and Urban Society, 42 (4), 394-406. Venezia, A., Kirst, M., and Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations. The Bridge Project: Stanford University. Villalpando, O. & Solorano, D. (2005). The Role of Culture in College Preparation Programs: A Review of the Research Literature. In W. G. Tierney, Z.B. Corwin, and J. E. Colyar (Eds.). Preparing for College: Nine Elements of Effective Outreach. Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45 (2), 107-122. 143 Woodside-Jiron, H., & Gehsmann, K. (2009). Peeling back the layers of policy and school reform: Revealing the structural and social complexities within. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56 (1), 49-72. Zajacova, A., Lynch, S., & Espenshade, T. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Reseach in Higher Education, 46 (6), 677-706. 144 Appendix A Client’s Name: Role in District: Date: Interviewer: GUSD College Participation Project Scanning Interview Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’ve been asked by the district to look at college participation and access for GUSD graduating seniors. Your comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team. 1. Please give me an overview of college participation and success for GUSD students? • What is the current situation? • What is being done about it? • Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense? 2. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation. • Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding college participation? • Has the district tried to address college participation in specific ways? Please describe. • Was there any success with these efforts? • Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts? 3. Regarding college participation, are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the district are trying to accomplish? • What is the goal(s) of this effort? • What do you aspire to? In what time frame? • How will you/the district know if it is successful? • Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get details) • How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire to be? 4. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district from achieving perfect success in college participation? Is the problem linked to many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of politics or what? • Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture/structure • Probe by role group 5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to better understand the college participation and success here in the district—any suggestions 145 Appendix B Client’s Name: ____________________Role in District: ________________________ Date & Time: _____________________Interviewer: __________________________ Stages of Concern 1). Based on your experience, what would you say the school or district has done to improve access to four-year universities for your students? a. If the client gives a response, ask: What was your role in this? b. If the client does not give a response, ask: What do you think the school should do to address this? What would your role be in this? 146 Appendix C Good afternoon High School staff members. I am working with a team of three doctoral students at USC partnering with Glendale Unified to learn more about improving student access and participation in four-year universities. We've had an opportunity to meet with some of your staff members to help us make sense of this topic as it relates to your students. We would like your opinion on one question. Your responses will be extremely helpful for us and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team. Please help us by responding directly to @usc.edu to the following question: “In your opinion, what are the factors that are preventing “X” High School students from entering four-year universities?" 147 Appendix D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Closing Gaps to College Participation: An Application of the Gap Analysis Model Presented to Glendale Unified School District Danny Kim, Dawn Cassidy, Zim Hoang University of Southern California August 2010 148 Background A highly educated society leads to a stronger economy and higher standard of living, demonstrating the importance of raising intellectual capital for competing in today’s high-tech, global economy. It also contributes to what we hold dear as a nation: democratic participation, social accord, family cohesion and healthy behavior (Engle and Lynch, 2009). The collective education of individuals will result in improved outcomes for our nation, including higher rates of invention, improved productivity, and the development of new products and technologies (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). Our nation stands to gain economically by increasing the educational attainment for our citizenry, particularly education and training beyond high school (Ruppert, 2003). Failure to engage in America’s youth today and to provide them with the education they need to live a fulfilling life will be harmful not only to them, but to the nation as a whole (Codding, J. and Rothman, 1999). Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate with varying rates between subgroups: White 76%, Asian 79%, Hispanic 55%, African American 51%, and Native American 50% (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009). Of those students who graduate from high school in four years, only 57% of graduates continue their education in college (Ruppert, 2003). In California, graduation rates are similar to national averages, yet only 48% of CA high school graduates go on to college. This gap in college participation is particularly alarming for minority Hispanic and Black subgroups who historically participate less than their white, non-Hispanic counterparts 149 (Ruppert, 2003). The continued persistence of this college participation gap poses significant problems for the social and economic outlook of individuals and our nation. Just as America has an achievement gap, it also has an income gap. Education is vital in breaking the cycle of poverty. For individuals, a strong relationship exists between a person’s educational attainment and his economic status: 21% of adults with less than a high school education live under the poverty level compared to 4% of adults with a college degree (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). A person’s lifetime earnings increase dramatically with a postsecondary degree, making nearly twice as much in a lifetime than a high school graduate. In addition to the economic advantages of a college education, an individual stands to gain socially in a variety of ways, including better outcomes for children, more leisure time, a more optimistic outlook on the future, and an improved quality of life (Cunningham, 2007; Porter, 2002). Although a postsecondary education presents a clear pathway to a more prosperous and productive life, there are signs that a gap in college participation continues to persist. Purpose of the Project The percentage of students matriculating to four-year universities is a concern in America’s ability to compete in the global market. According to the Census Bureau, the earning differential for degree attainment can be over $900,000 for bachelor degree holders over high school graduates; and a difference of $400,000 for associate’s degree holders (Porter, 2002). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) offer a compelling argument for college attendance and frames the consequences of declining college attendance from 150 individual to national consequences. Specifically, they assert that the continuing decline of non-college attendance will result in a deteriorating American presence in the international marketplace, decreased economic achievement for non-college participating individuals, and continued economic and social stratification between races. The purpose of this project is to use the gap analysis model to assist Glendale Unified School District to increase their student participation in four-year university institutions. This project will apply Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework to determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational barriers that prevent the district’s students from participating in four-year universities. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals achieved when these causes are properly addressed. The Gap Analysis The purpose of the gap analysis is to identify whether all employees have sufficient knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to achieve the desired organizational goal (Clark and Estes, 2002). Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model have been applied to a variety of business industries, and offers a framework for school district leaders to solve their organizational problems and to select the right solutions for closing performance gaps. The gap analysis model helps organizations clarify goals, identify and analyze performance gaps in attaining goals, and determine which strategies, products or services are needed to close gaps between existing performance and desired outcomes. 151 Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process: 1. Identify key organization goals and individual performance goals: determine if goals at all levels – global, intermediate, and performance – are compatible, aligned and support the larger organizational goals 2. Determine performance gaps: the distance between the current performance levels and the desired goals to be reached 3. Analyze gaps to determine causes: the root causes may be based on knowledge/skills, motivation, organizational barriers 4. Identify solutions based on: knowledge/skills, motivation, organizational process and materials solution 5. Evaluate results, tune system and revise goals: evaluate the changes made and determine if changes were worthwhile Methodology Project Timeline: Fall 2009 • Meet with GUSD leaders to determine the performance goal: college access for all students • Data collection on the school district and recent research on college access and multiple pathways Spring 2010 • Qualifying exams • Conduct first and second round of interviews with key district personnel • Complete Draft of Chapter 2 and address possible findings • Institutional Review Board (IRB) Summer 2010 • Complete data collection • Complete Chapter 2 • Provide draft of Chapter 1 152 • Provide District with Executive Summary Fall 2010 • Complete Chapter 3 • Present findings to District stakeholders • Evaluate District’s response to findings and solutions • Finish Capstone Project Spring 2011 • Defend Dissertation • Graduation Data Collection Methods: The initial data collection was conducted through informal interviews with district personnel to survey opinions on beliefs about the performance gaps. The purpose of the interviews was to identify the individuals who were in the front line and to assess their views and opinions on what the current status was and what they view as the causes of the problem. An interview protocol was used for each of the interviews. The five questions were based on gleaning an overview of the topic, the historical perspective on the situation, identifying formal or informal goals, the interviewee’s perception of the performance gap and suggestions on improving our project. The team of three graduate students interviewed teachers, counselors, site and district administrators at each of the District’s four comprehensive high schools to determine the district’s college going rate. The initial rounds of interviews were conducted in early spring with district administrators to determine the specific performance goal the district was interested in examining. The next rounds of interviews were conducted with school site administrators, counselors and key lead teachers. For the Scanning Interviews (See Appendix A), the five-question survey was used as a data collection instrument. Once the initial rounds of interviews were completed at the school sites, it was determined that to better assist the District in improving it’s college 153 going rate, the project would be better served if the performance goal was streamlined to examine GUSD students’ ability to matriculate into four-year institutions of higher education. Once the decision was made, the follow up innovation configuration model interview (See Appendix B) reflected the focus on four-year institutions. The innovation configuration interview was used to determine the level of implementation and awareness of college improvement strategies taken on in each of the comprehensive high schools. Each interviewee was asked one question and follow-up probing questions to determine their viewpoints on what has been undertaken to address the college participation gap, as well as capture their personal level of concern to this problem. In order to obtain final opinions and perceptions on the factors that prevent GUSD students from accessing four-year institutions, an email was sent out to school site officials throughout the district (See Appendix C). The email question explicitly asked respondents to cite their personal explanations as to the factors that prevented GUSD high school students from entering four-year universities. The Sample: All four comprehensive high schools in the district participated in the project. All four schools were chosen because although the district is considered “ high performing” district according to state and federal accountability systems, there still remain an achievement gap for all students in accessing four-year institutions in the district. Some schools may perform better than others in the district, however, in terms of access to 154 four-year institutions, not all minority, low social economic status or linguistically challenge students perform at the same rate at their white, high SES or English only counterparts. The team interviewed 3 district level personnel, 7 site administrators, 7 counselors and 21 teachers. Findings Based on our interviews of Glendale Unified district and school-site administrators, teachers, and counselors, our three-member team has concluded that the college participation gap that prevents all students from accessing a four-year university education is attributed to the following three themes (For specific findings, see Appendix D). These themes are applicable across all four comprehensive high schools in Glendale Unified, and serve as areas to focus on in order to close Glendale Unified School District’s college participation gap. Emergent Theme #1: CLOSING PERSISTENT BARRIERS TO COLLEGE FOR SPECIFIC STUDENT SUBGROUPS. Glendale Unified comprehensive high schools have made significant steps in aligning coursework to meet four-year university eligibility, and improved knowledge gaps concerning college entrance requirements. However, knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps continue to persist presenting barriers for specific subgroups of students (i.e. Hispanic, Armenian) in pursuing a four-year university education. 155 Glendale Unified is a large urban school district that services a diverse student demographic population. The differences are evident in the linguistic, cultural, racial, as well as economically diverse student population. The majority of GUSD students are White (56%; many of Armenian ethnicity), 22% Hispanic/Latino, 13% Asian and 7% Filipino. The district has over 26% of its students identified as English Learners, and 31% students identified as Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient students. Throughout the district at least 43% of students come from low-income families based on National School Lunch Program participation. Four-year university eligibility (based on meeting rigorous UC ‘a-g’ course requirements) and participation rates differ between Glendale Unified high schools, as demonstrated in the following chart: UC ‘a-g’ eligibility Students attending UC Students attending CSU Students attending Community College State 36% 9% 13% 32% County 34% 8% 13% 35% GUSD 47% 11% 12% 52% Clark Magnet 64% 16% 12% 57% Hoover 30% 7% 6% 55% Glendale 31% 8% 10% 57% Crescenta Valley 63% 13% 19% 39% On average, GUSD graduating students’ four-year university participation stands at 23% percent (UC/CSU) of its graduating class. This varies significantly from those that choose a community college (52%) or other postsecondary route. In all GUSD high schools, school counselors and teachers communicate to students about the importance of ‘a-g’ requirements for college admission. Counselors make classroom visits to talk about 156 college admissions, distribute handouts that explicitly communicate college admission and University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, host college nights, and meet with parents and students to discuss student progress. Counselors meet with individual students annually to review course selections and graduation requirements, and to make sure that students are on track in their college admission requirements. At several GUSD high schools, posters delineating UC ‘a-g’ requirements and the difference in income between students who have a college degree and students who have a high school diploma are displayed in hallways and classrooms. It was observed at GUSD high schools that all students were encouraged to meet admission requirements for a four-year university, or enter a community college so they could later matriculate to a university. In addition, all faculty and staff are dedicated to providing students with information, support, and guidance so they can incorporate the “dream of college” into their post-high school goals. Although efforts have been made to close the college admission knowledge gap, there are still barriers that prevent certain student subgroups from accessing four-year universities upon graduation. Many administrators, counselors and teachers attribute the low four-year university participation rate to students and parents’ lack of understanding of the American educational system. This is affirmed by a veteran teacher’s statement, “Some students lack modeling at home because they are first generation. Students lack knowledge about requirements for college and do not know how to get the information.” Many attribute certain groups’ cultural beliefs and values as the reasons for the lack of interest or knowledge in navigating through the difficult college application process. 157 Unfortunately, these very students require concrete support systems to help them negotiate through the myriad hoops needed to understand and meet requirements. In an interview with a counselor in regards to parent groups and the equitable distribution of information on college access to parents, a statement was made that certain subgroup populations “must motivate and empower themselves” and seek out college information. A teacher echoed these sentiments: “The onus is on the parents, not the school.” Of course, placing the primary responsibility of understanding the complicated American system of higher education on underrepresented students and their families alone is a strong predictor of those very students will be severely handicapped in reaching their postsecondary higher education goals. To be sure, GUSD students’ motivation to pursue a four-year university education is stunted by a variety of cultural factors, including parental value, consent, and goal orientation. Some students fail to actively choose or persist in college preparatory high school coursework because parents have dictated their pathways for them. Several interviewees pointed out that some students fail to find value or lack engagement in the academic work because they are resigned to attending a two-year college upon high school graduation. Armenian and Armenian-American students who have met rigorous college preparatory coursework and have been accepted to a four-year university face roadblocks due to parental demands or concerns. These students have met UC ‘a-g’ requirements, completed the SAT or ACT testing requirement, and enrolled in rigorous Advanced Placement courses. For all purposes, they have met secondary educational goals in 158 preparation for a four-year university education. However, many parents discourage their student’s motivation to advance. For these students, college-going access is ultimately attributed to parental consent and not on their efforts. Despite the work involved in communicating college entrance requirements, some students face challenges in meeting these requirements. This lack of awareness is demonstrated countless times during a student’s high school career in their choice of academic coursework. Subsequently, many students have limited their postsecondary options, thus giving them fewer opportunities to apply to a four-year institution. Some students self-select themselves out of challenging coursework. When asked why, one counselor stated: “These students cannot see themselves in school, because no one in their family has gone.” Students’ self-selection out of a four-year university pathway can be attributed to a lack of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s abilities to accomplish a particular task. When students lack self-efficacy in their ability to attain a four-year university education, it can impair their motivation to pursue this goal. One administrator at a GUSD high school pointed to the fact that students are given the curricular opportunities, including meeting University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, yet some students seem to lack the beliefs to actually realize this curricular goal. Although students are given full opportunity to pursue the ‘a-g’ college preparatory track, students are self-selecting themselves out of this academic pathway. As one high school administrator pointed out: “We’re going to provide access to kids. I want kids to be prepared to go straight into a four-year. Go to Harvard if they so desire, go to Glendale Community 159 College, go to trade tech, go to Cal Tech. Wherever their interests lie. What I struggle with is that kids make that decision in 9 th grade. We’ve got to work harder to help kids keep their options open longer so in the end you can do whatever you want… ‘a-g’ gives you the most options.” Students’ lack of self-efficacy about college appears to be a shared belief by some high school teachers and staff members. One administrator indicated that that not all students were capable of or ready for a four-year university education. One teacher referred to this as a “realistic” view that students will have different destinations and that some are not capable of attending a four-year college. Still, another district administrator pondered whether all school agents held the same expectations for all students to continue on to a four-year university. Some GUSD students fail to actively choose the goal of a four-year university education. These students lack the motivation despite the organizational changes made within schools sites to push more students to meet minimum eligibility requirements. For example, one high school has created a movement to raise overall UC ‘a-g’ requirements for their student body. Although many barriers have been removed to create better access, there are still students who do not actively choose this pathway. One principal described these types of students as “capable underachievers.” Another principal indicated that: “We have a high failure rate in certain areas. So, I’ll ask the teachers, ‘Why are these kids failing?...Is it [a lack of] skill or motivation?’ And, 99% will say it’s motivation; it’s a lack of work ethic. It’s not that they can’t do the work, but they choose not to.” 160 Finally, many GUSD students attribute their inability to enter a four-year university to causes outside their locus of control. For example, instead of hard work and rigorous preparation leading to successful matriculation into a university, students hold to a variety of uncontrollable causes that will inhibit their chances. These causes could amount to lack of financial support, familial desires to stay closer to home, or ease of access to GCC. Emergent Theme #2: EXTENDING STUDENTS’ POSTSECONDARY COLLEGE PATHWAYS BEYOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE. Although Glendale Community College presents a viable postsecondary option for graduating Glendale Unified students, this postsecondary pathway has become commonplace, comfortable and/or dictated for many GUSD students, thus creating gaps in students’ pursuit of a four-year university education. In Glendale Unified high schools, an inordinate number of students choose to attend two-year community colleges upon graduation. Many GUSD students are fixated on following this community college track, particularly continuing their studies at Glendale Community College (GCC). Student interest in four-year universities is tempered by the reality of this easy and reliable track that has been accessed by previous GUSD graduates. In fact, one high school principal recounted the tale of a graduating student that was accepted to the University of California, Riverside yet ultimately enrolled in Glendale Community College. 161 The large Armenian population that resides in the greater Glendale area holds strong cultural and gender expectations for their children. Part of these expectations includes a strong attachment to the family unit and living within close proximity to parents. One counselor, who also happens to be an Armenian immigrant herself, shared that parents expect young Armenian females not to go away to college. The counselor explained an experience with one particular counselee: “I actually had a student, that really wanted to go to UCI [University of California, Irvine] and she got into like 4 UC’s and the parents said the only way I’m going to let you go to UCI is to commute day in and day out. And that’s what the student was doing. I had a meeting with the parents explaining the danger of just being on the road versus staying there.” These cultural experiences and expectations create a community college vacuum for many immigrant children: since Glendale Community College lies close to home and provides an affordable college opportunity, students are relegated to follow this particular postsecondary pathway. One teacher recounted a story about one of her former students who had been accepted to the University of Southern California: “One of my former students was accepted to USC, but her parents didn’t want her to go. She’s a girl, so they (parents) want her home everyday. The only way she could go to USC was to commute. Otherwise they would’ve made her go to Glendale Community College.” Students who enter community colleges with the intent of transferring to a four- year university face an uphill climb in actually transferring. The percentage of students who do transfer to a four-year university is low. Despite this reality, GUSD students choose to enter the community college setting. One counselor described the Glendale 162 Community College corridor as having evolved into a “way of life” for many GUSD students, particularly Armenian and Armenian-American students. The community college pathway affects students’ motivational choice to participate in rigorous high school curricular work. For example, some students who were eligible to take rigorous Advanced Placement course choose not to because it was not a required course for entrance to Glendale Community College. One disgruntled counselor described her feelings about this situation: “When I see there are some very capable students that have good GPAs, they have taken the higher level rigorous classes and they end up going to a community college, not that I have anything against community college. But one of the things that I think that they miss most is being part of that culture.” For some other GUSD students, the motivation to persist through a rigorous academic coursework is halted at a certain point in their high school career. One counselor indicated that some students will enroll in challenging courses up until a certain point whereby they revert to less challenging courses that will meet minimum graduation requirements. When pressed why this occurs, the counselor stated: “Because they do not see themselves in college.” Still, other students enter Glendale Community College because they limit their choice of potential four-year universities to attend. For many Armenians in the Glendale area, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is the sole attractive destination for postsecondary studies. Unfortunately, denied entrance to UCLA amounts to community college matriculation with the rationale that the student will eventually be 163 able to transfer to UCLA. Altogether, GCC has become the “default destination” for many GUSD students. The challenge that modern secondary schools have is the perception that attendance at a two-year college automatically means that a student will persist and matriculate to a four-year institution. The common perception of students, parents, teachers, and counselors in GUSD is that students who attend Glendale Community College will transfer to a four-year school. This perception is tempered by the reality that many will not transfer. As one counselor pointed out: “The attrition is high and the matriculation rate is less than 35%.” Although a community college pathway is meant to give students another option for postsecondary education, it can serve to undervalue student’s long-term aspirations and lifetime earnings prospects. Another rationale for entering the community college route is the reasonableness of cost compared to four-year universities. Despite the difference in cost, many students do not recognize that course availability and lack of qualified instructors has become a concern in recent years as a result of education cuts in the California budget. Still, other students and their families choose the community college path due to a lack of knowledge of the four-year university financial aid process, along with the pressures of taking on such financial responsibilities. Altogether, these challenges cause many students and parents to focus solely on community college as the only viable option for postsecondary education. 164 Emergent Theme #3: SETTING EXPLICIT GOALS FOR FOUR- YEAR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION. Academic achievement at Glendale Unified School District has steadily improved over the years. However, district-wide achievement goals, and professional development related to those goals, do not include explicit goals pertaining to student four-year university education. In fact, variance in defining college success for GUSD students exists amongst district and school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. This lack of clarity in student postsecondary education goals creates misaligned work processes, varied expectations, and perception issues regarding the college-going success rates at each comprehensive high school. In order to improve overall student success, GUSD implemented a district wide program called Focus on Results- a nationwide intervention program designed to help schools and districts facilitate student achievement. School or district teams work with a consultant who helps design an individualized plan for student success. These consultants offer training and assistance for the team so that they can take the information back to their site. The overall goal is to improve student achievement across the curriculum. This intervention is designed to improve student academic achievement throughout the district. Although this intervention encourages the utilization of research-based best practices and peer-reviewed journals by school site teams, it is not designed to specifically address the college participation gap within GUSD. In fact, no district level goals or direction has emerged from Focus on Results to enable students to meet ‘a-g’ 165 requirements or qualify for college admission. When asked about district-wide goals related to college participation, several school site officials responded that nothing explicit existed. In fact, district and school site officials hold varying expectations for students in regards to academic achievement and college participation. In fact, one high level district administrator pointed out that a consistent message of high academic achievement for all is not found at all four comprehensive high schools. Although some schools have pushed students towards meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements, there has not been increased pressure from all school sites and for each individual student. In fact, school officials are resigned to the fact that some students are not cut out for college. One school site administrator commented: “We don’t think that every student is ready for college. We have a realistic view about kids. Across the board, there is a belief that not all students will attend college. During our WASC visit, we came to the conclusion that students will have different destinations.” The absence of clearly defined formal goals related to four-year university participation translates to varying beliefs held by school and district officials regarding a four-year university education. While a high-ranking district administrator claimed the goal of Glendale Unified was to promote all students to enter a four-year university, either directly or via community college, another district administrator believed that certain students were better prepared for direct entrance to the workplace. School site officials also presented conflicted beliefs regarding student ability to enter college: some pushed and advocated for all students to meet UC ‘a-g’ requirements, while others were 166 resigned to the belief that some students, particularly those not enrolled in college preparatory courses, were not able to achieve at a college ready level. While GUSD implicitly seeks to increase the college participation rate for their students, the work processes do not communicate that same message. According to more than one administrator, there are no formal goals on developing a college going culture from the district. School sites have their own plans, but there is no formal goal or message that is communicated from the district level. This is further evidenced by the lack of discussion at district level meetings on improving college-going outcomes and the lack of professional development provided to increase college participation rates. According to one administrator, “I don’t feel we get the message from the board or the superintendent [that the goal is] the college going culture, only the achievement gap and reducing the gaps through CAHSEE and STAR results…those are the goals set for the schools, not college going culture.” At the site level, each school communicates the importance of students continuing their education after high school. However, not all the high schools hold expectations that students will attend a four-year university. Several of the high schools have taken the position that “students have different directions” and that the high school has to accept that not all students are suited for college, although they will continue to offer the students information. One high school administrator said: “We do not have a college- going culture for all students. We see it in certain groups, but a great percentage of them won’t access resources.” Still another high school administrator shared: “We are hesitant 167 to use the term ‘college-going’ culture because some groups might find it offensive and we want to be sensitive to the cultures that exist within the school.” Teachers’ perceptions about the ability of students also varied. One teacher expressed a strong belief that certain students were on the college track- Advanced Placement students- and those that were not enrolled in such classes were often described as “regular” kids. Of course, the rigor and approach taken in non-honors classes is vastly different from the advanced studies and preparation for college presented in Advanced Placement classes. The “regular” students typically faced a less rigorous instructional program with the end goal being high school graduation and receipt of a diploma. Another teacher who worked primarily with English Language Learners was not as resigned about the inability of certain students to achieve at a college-ready level. In fact, this teacher felt strongly that students in her English Language Development program did have the academic ability to achieve, yet faced roadblocks to advancement because of language barriers or inability to access certain coursework. District and school priority on improving four-year university access and participation have faced stiff challenges with recent budget reductions. Of course, the allocation of material, financial and human resources is an indicator of district priorities. The reduction of counselors at each of the four comprehensive high schools in GUSD creates a challenge for many of the students to receive the kind of services needed for college information or assistance in the college application process. In the last year, ten counselors were cut from the district, thereby distributing much of the responsibilities and workload to the remaining counselors. In all of the schools, student-to-counselor 168 ratio increased and some services that were previously provided by the counselors were eliminated. For example, due to increased caseload sizes, some counselors are only able to meet with students to discuss course requirements and provide minimal college information, whereas before, counselors met with students and their parents at least once a year, if not more, to thoroughly plan, schedule and counsel student about their postsecondary choices. To compound this problem, certain high school counselors must split their hours between two school sites. Counselors play a critical role in developing the school’s response to college planning and creating an organizational worldview of different options of college choices. Through their increased workload, counselors are unable to effectively provide the kind of support needed to ensure students are on the right path to four-year institutions. As the only certificated staff to receive dismissal notices, counselors questioned their value and the importance of their role in GUSD in promoting a college- going culture. As one of the counselors indicated: “Counseling is not perceived as important or a priority. Counselors work hard, however, the perception is that it’s an easy job.” Conclusion Glendale Unified School District’s strong focus on improving student achievement has resulted in a culture of continuous improvement. It is in this context that the district sought the assistance of our project team to make sense of the four-year university participation gap that currently exists within the district. Our project team 169 found three emergent themes that prevented all GUSD students from accessing four-year universities: persisting knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers for specific student subgroups; the commonplace, comfortable and/or dictated practice of entering the community college path; and, the lack of explicit district-wide goals as it relates to improving four-year university education rates and opportunities. In the ensuing months, our project team intends to provide effective research-based solutions to close these gaps to college participation and provide support to Glendale Unified School District. 170 Executive Summary, Appendix A Client’s Name: Role in District: Date: Interviewer: GUSD College Participation Project Scanning Interview Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’ve been asked by the district to look at college participation and access for GUSD graduating seniors. Your comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team. 6. Please give me an overview of college participation and success for GUSD students? • What is the current situation? • What is being done about it? • Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense? 7. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation. • Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding college participation? • Has the district tried to address college participation in specific ways? Please describe. • Was there any success with these efforts? • Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts? 8. Regarding college participation, are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the district are trying to accomplish? • What is the goal(s) of this effort? • What do you aspire to? In what time frame? • How will you/the district know if it is successful? • Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get details) • How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire to be? 9. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district from achieving perfect success in college participation? Is the problem linked to many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of politics or what? 171 • Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture/structure • Probe by role group 10. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to better understand the college participation and success here in the district— any suggestions? 172 Executive Summary, Appendix B Client’s Name: __________________________Role in District: ________________________ Date & Time: __________________________Interviewer: __________________________ Stages of Concern 1). Based on your experience, what would you say the school or district has done to improve access to four-year universities for your students? c. If the client gives a response, ask: What was your role in this? d. If the client does not give a response, ask: What do you think the school should do to address this? What would your role be in this? 173 Executive Summery, Appendix C Good afternoon High School staff members. I am working with a team of three doctoral students at USC partnering with Glendale Unified to learn more about improving student access and participation in four-year universities. We've had an opportunity to meet with some of your staff members to help us make sense of this topic as it relates to your students. We would like your opinion on one question. Your responses will be extremely helpful for us and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team. Please help us by responding directly to @usc.edu to the following question: “In your opinion, what are the factors that are preventing “X” High School students from entering four-year universities?" 174 Executive Summary, Appendix D Knowledge Gaps: Finding #1: Students lack knowledge about the American system of education, and college admission requirements causes students from underrepresented groups to be ineligible for college admission. Finding #2: Students, parents, teachers, and counselors perceive that the community college pathway is a better alternative, financially and academically thus limiting student options after high school. Finding #3: Students lack the knowledge of the college admission requirements or University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, which limits their postsecondary opportunities. Finding #4: Teachers lack knowledge of college admission requirements as well as knowledge about the sequence of courses within their discipline and the requirements of those courses, which leaves students unprepared for advancement. Finding #5: A lack of district leadership direction and support on college-going goals creates a lack of comprehensive knowledge and strategies to improve students’ college eligibility. Motivation Gaps: Finding #6: School officials lack of motivation to raise college eligibility levels for underrepresented groups of students due to beliefs about those students’ ability to achieve. Finding #7: Students’ familial and cultural framework creates motivation gaps in pursuing a four-year university education. Finding #8: GUSD students’ lack of interest and self-efficacy result in a failure to actively choose a four-year university educational route. Finding #9: Student motivation to pursue a four-year university and school officials’ willingness to support this pursuit is stunted by the common and comfortable practice of entering Glendale Community College. Finding #10: Some GUSD students’ goal orientations and how they attribute failure has negatively affected their prospects of entering a four-year university. Organizational Gaps: Finding #11: Organizational resources that promote college access have been cut, including counseling positions and hours, and financial grants, such as GEAR UP. Finding #12: There are no explicit district or school wide goals that address four-year university access, thus creating a misalignment of work processes. Finding #13: GUSD school officials do not reach out to various cultures despite knowledge that other cultures lack the social capital to access the American Higher Educational System, thus further exacerbating the gap in college participation. Finding #14: Inability to raise the academic rigor and achievement level of ALL students. Finding #15: The design of GUSD comprehensive high schools and continued school-wide tracking limits underrepresented students’ access to four-year universities. Finding #16: District leadership perception of each comprehensive high school creates expectation gaps between each of the four schools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•! 4#+5-3"#)"*)#%U)8%&'"##%0) (')#",)(#'3,53"#/0(2%+) •! O%%+=/-?)0""8)"*) 4#',&5-3"#/0)>/0?M97&"517') #",)-"#'(',%#,) =7>/?!>/76& •! V('8%&-%83"#)"*),7%) #/,5&%)"*)&%*"&:)-7"(-%) •! V('8%&-%83"#)"*) "$%&-"#K+%#-%)=A)',/J) 7@;!6/A!>/76!.& •! V('/0(1#:%#,)"*)F"/0) H,&5-,5&%) •! 6%$%0)"*)-"::(,:%#,),") &%*"&:)&%:/(#')5#-0%/&) •! I(',&(-,U(+%)%$/05/3"#)"*) O"P)(:80%:%#,/3"#)7/') #",)A%,)=%%#)-":80%,%+) W) !"#$%&'("#)"*)+(',&(-,) ".-%)(#,")/)-%#,&/0) '%&$(-%')"&1/#(2/3"#) 4#',&5-3"#/0) 6%/+%&'7(8)9%/:') ;469'<)(#-&%/'%+)0%$%0)"*) -"00/="&/3"#) 4#',&5-3"#/0) >/0?) 97&"517) @&"-%'') !0%/&0A)/&3-50/,%+) "&1/#(2/3"#/0)1"/0'B) (#-&%/'%)C@4)D)CE@) D)-0"'%)/-7(%$%:%#,)1/8') 4#-&%/'%)(#)(#,%&#/0) -/8/-(,A)"*)FGHI)',/J),") +%'(1#)D)0%/+) 8&"*%''("#/0)+%$%0"8:%#,) H5880%:%#,/0)1&/#,) '%-5&%+),")K#/#-%) (:80%:%#,/3"#) I%'(1#%+)D) 4:80%:%#,%+) -":8&%7%#'($%)LMA%/&) -/8/-(,A)=5(0+(#1)80/#) !"::"#)0/#15/1%) 5'%+),")+('-5'') ',5+%#,)/-7(%$%:%#,) @&&&& 9&&&& .&&&& !&&&& >&&&& /&&&& 7&&&& 6&&&& )&&&& B&&&& /&&&& C&&&& )& D&)&&&7&&&&&.&&&&&.&&&&&9&&&&&;&&&&&/&&&&&!&&&&&.&&&&&/&&&&&>&&&&&E&& >&&&&& @&&&&& 1&&&&& )&&&&& >& =&&&&&1&&&&&>&&&&&1&&&&&!&&&&&.&&&&&&&&&&&&@&&&&&9&&&&&)&&&&&C&&&&&9&&&&&D&&&&&&>&& >&&&&&@&&&&&!&&&&&6&&&&&)&&&&&C&&&&&!&&&&&@&&&&&9&&&&&6&&&&&D&&&&&E&& D&&&&&7&&&&&.&&&&&.&&&&&9&&&&&D&&&&&>&&&&&/&&&&&?&&&&&9&&&&&&&&&&&7&&&&&&8&&&&&6&&&&&9&&&&&@&&&&&)&&&&&B&&&&&/&&&&&C& X#"U0%+1%) D)'?(00) -/8/-(,A)"*) &"0%)1&"58') H5',/(#/=(0(,A) C0(1#:%#,) "*)F"/0) H,&5-,5&%) !"#$%&'(&6##4&Y)O"-5')"#)P%'50,')4:80%:%#,/3"#) E%/&')QZB))H,&%#1,7%#)D)[#7/#-%)O"5#+/3"#) \) C-/+%:(-)H5--%'')"*)!..)H,5+%#,') 178 11/26/10 4 !"#$%&'%()*+),-$.%#/.0*%.")1*.")2(-34(3-'5)) !"#$%&'()*"#$+ !!6".-#+7)(8')*-$.%#/.0*%.") $*.")9(-34(3-') !!6-'.(').):;<.$')$-.<8#4) ='<#40*%)*+)(8')=#9(-#4() $*."9).%=)>*?)+-.&'@*-A) !!B-*C#=')<-#%4#<."9)@#(8) 9<'4#D4)(-.#%#%$)%''='=) (*).E'4()3%='-9(.%=#%$) *+)(8')$*.")9(-34(3-').() (8'#-)9#('9)@#(8)(8'#-) 9(.E9) F%('-&'=#.(')1*."5) ,-./'-'#0+ 1"23$+"#+4'$3/0$+ 9'C'%).-'.9)*+)+*439) ,-$.%#/.0*%.")1*."5)) !4.='&#4)2344'99)+*-) 566)2(3='%(9) G*-A)1*."95) FHI;='C'"*<'=J) 948**";9<'4#D4) 78549:'+;")/$+ I8#9)"#%A) &39()K') &.=') &*-')4"'.-) +*-)."") 1L2M)-*"') $-*3<9) N) O%*@"'=$'P2A#"")6.<.4#(7)*+)?*"')1-*3<95)) ,$$3'$+ "! Q*()."")'%$.$'=)#%)(8')>*?) -'+*-&)#%#0.0C') "! Q*()."").-')C'-9'=)#%) "! >*?)+-.&'@*-A)R) <-#%4#<"'9) "! S*@)#()#9)=#-'4("7)"#%A'=)(*) (8')@*-A)(8'7).-')=*#%$)#%) (8')4".99-**&T))) "! Q'@)<'-9*%%'")(*)(8')=#9(-#4() %*()<-*C#='=).%)*-#'%(.0*%)*-) (-.#%#%$)(8.()@#"")4.(48)(8'&) 3<)(*)(8')-'9()*+)(8')9(.E)@#(8) -'$.-=)(*)>*?T))) <%$0(%20+ "! >''=K.4A)"**<)+*-)(8')FGI) <-*4'99)#9)%*()4*%9#9('%(J)%*() -'.48#%$)."")-*"')$-*3<9) "! ?'+*-&)#&<"'&'%(.0*%9)=#E'-) $-'.("7)(8-*3$8*3()(8')=#9(-#4() "! F%4*%9#9('%()@#(8)<-*C#=#%$) 4*%9#9('%()+''=K.4A)-'$.-=#%$) 9<'4#D4)FHI;9'"'4('=) #%9(-340*%.")9(-.('$#'9)#%)(8') 4".99-**&) 9')2='($+ >(%#2%.)/$+ :U) 72=""/+>(%#2%.)/$+?+,69$)&39() (.A')!"#$%&#'(')'*+)(*)'V<".#%5) :W! (8')>*?)<-*4'99)X)(8'#-) 9#(').%=) YW! I8')2Z!?I;')$*."9) 23<<*-().%=)'%8.%4') (8')-*"')*+).(%#2%.)/$+)$+ %#$0(32*"#)/+/')&'($+ Z*-')."%#0'&@+'A./%2%0+ B''&C)2D++*-)('.48'-9)#%) ,#$0(32*"#)/+E)/D: 9=("3;=$+ L9')$3.."(0+.'($"##'/)(*) 'V<".#%)="F)(*)&.A')='9#-'=) 48.%$'9)(*)4".99-**&) #%9(-340*%) ::) 1"(-)/+,#&32*"#+ 7G$0'-+ +*-))//)%'@)<'-9*%%'") HIJE6K<LKM+ 7H,66+!5>5!,9N+++++++ *+)?*"')1-*3<9) 179 11/26/10 5 !"#$%&'%(&)&$*+,-+$./+0/-,12+34,1$5+ !""#$"% 67+ 8%9,1+ &#'()*$'%+(% ,$-.$'"/+0%%$+ :&#$1&;$+<+#&$/+ )/=/)#+ 1(.%)2% 2#(.+(3% 0$'+).%-,1+ #">>)/2/'$%)+ ?1%'$+ 4/$%5)-.%&)%!60')*$.% 7&#.$(&%89-.$6+9% 89/+$*$6$(&% 5:;<=% 5:8>% 8=18>% 0/@/#$%()&#.+(/)&/-#+ &'+3)-,%"&'#9&#'$+ %':+0')9$""+ ?$,$@'-&$%3')A&/% +(%"&#.$(&% -9/+$*$6$(&% )#&9)6$"+%;1,##+%))+ #;.,,)#+ B+C3-&$% 6+"0$'9$0C)("%)2% &/'$-&"%D%E+,,F+(&$(&G% A/=%)"%B,'+=#C+ ;,%;.&'?+<+#">>,1$D+ 3#$%()&#.+6#&#-,% "#00)'&%"H"&$6% -6)(3%<;7>%"9/)),"+ -,1+#>/;&E;+1/-,12+ #">>,1$+ F#/+G,0+1"(1&;#+$,+ 6$-"#'$%.$3'$$%)2% +60,$6$(&-C)(% $I$9C*$($""+%$+ /%;.+HF!I+#&$/+ J/%:/1#+2"#$+(/+%()/+ $,+!"#$"%&/$% EJ!<%K!?4;51G+ EL$A%J$3+((+(3"G% >M>%K&$.+$./+ 7#0$'+(&$(.$(&N"% B$""-3$% 5$-O'6% 9)66+&6$(&%&)% P)5%'$2)'6% +(+C-C*$%"':/1+ )/%:/1#.&>+,-+'/K+ !">/1&'$/':/'$+ 6L+ 7;748!L8J!Q!4R% ,-+$./+0/-,12+34,1$+ M,'=/1#&,'+,-+:&#$1&;$+ ,N;/+&'$,+%+;/'$1%)+ #/1=&;/#+,1?%'&O%B,'+ P'#$1";B,'%)+ J/%:/1#.&>+Q/%2#+ APJQ#D+&';1/%#/:+)/=/)+,-+ ;,))%(,1%B,'+ P'#$1";B,'%)+ R%)S+ Q.1,"?.+ T1,;/##+ M)/%1)*+%1B;")%$/:+ ,1?%'&O%B,'%)+?,%)#5+ &';1/%#/+UTP+<+UVT+ <+;),#/+%;.&/=/2/'$+?%>#+ P';1/%#/+&'+&'$/1'%)+ ;%>%;&$*+,-+HF!I+#$%4+$,+ :/#&?'+<+)/%:+ >1,-/##&,'%)+:/=/),>2/'$+ !">>)/2/'$%)+?1%'$+ #/;"1/:+$,+E'%';/+ &2>)/2/'$%B,'+ I/#&?'/:+<+ P2>)/2/'$/:+ ;,2>1/./'#&=/+W@*/%1+ ;%>%;&$*+("&):&'?+>)%'+ M,22,'+)%'?"%?/+ "#/:+$,+:&#;"##+ #$":/'$+%;.&/=/2/'$+ 5%%%% 1%%%% Q%%%% 8%%%% 4%%%% !%%%% :%%%% L%%%% 7%%%% =%%%% !%%%% K%%%% 7% ?%+%%%:%%%%%Q%%%%%Q%%%%%1%%%%%<%%%%%!%%%%%8%%%%%Q%%%%%!%%%%%4%%%%%R%% 4%%%%% 5%%%%% ;%%%%% 7%%%%% 4% B%%%%%;%%%%%4%%%%%;%%%%%8%%%%%Q%%%%%%%%%%%%5%%%%%1%%%%%7%%%%%K%%%%%1%%%%%?%%%%%%4%% 4%%%%%5%%%%%8%%%%%L%%%%%7%%%%%K%%%%%8%%%%%5%%%%%1%%%%%L%%%%%?%%%%%R%% ?%%%%%:%%%%%Q%%%%%Q%%%%%1%%%%%?%%%%%4%%%%%!%%%%%M%%%%%1%%%%%%%%%%%:%%%%%%S%%%%%L%%%%%1%%%%%5%%%%%7%%%%%=%%%%%!%%%%%K% X',K)/:?/+ <+#S&))+ ;%>%;&$*+,-+ 1,)/+?1,">#+ !"#$%&'%(&)&$*+ U)&?'2/'$+ ,-+H,%)+ !$1";$"1/+ 7#66-'H%)2%?)("+.$'-C)("% 6Y+ 180 11/26/10 6 !"#$%##"&'()(*%+#,"&'#( !"#$%&'()*'*+,-./+%/0%1/234%/+%5*43),4% 67% $-./012(345( 6781.(+66(9:405;5<513(=7>( 01(+-5<5137?@(#:4..-/% 9/4-5@(A51B7<01( +?0:(C5D?71.( #4711.1(E.F5?/% 68% !0/3?0:3(#3?51234/( 69% 1/234%/+%5*43),4:%$;4,<;2,:=;>*%-=-<*+*44?*'(@-4;4%/+% 4,3>*+,%,*4,%>-,-% A/4;.B*%*+B;</+'*+,-)C%;+>;B;>3-)C%-+>%D</3(%23),3<*4% #,-E%F+/=)*>D*-G)*%-G/3,%4,3>*+,4H%-2@;*B*'*+,% >-,-%-+>%34*%;,%,/%D3;>*%;+4,<32./+% #,-E%@-4%@;D@%4*)0:*4,**'%-+>%G*);*B*%-))%4,3>*+,4%2-+% )*-<+% #,-E%0**)4%*>32-.+D%I-.+/%JII4%-+>%2)/4;+D%,@*%D-(% ;4%;'(/<,-+,% 181 11/26/10 7 !""#$"%&'()*$+$,-%%.')/0$,1$234500% !"# $%&'#()*'+,-./)&0# *'+&'12(1*#31*'#411'#'%1# )115*#/6#7&.)/#877*9# :/;#&)5#;%1)#-&)#<# (4=0141)'#'%149# >/#7&.)/#877*#)115# *=1-(?-#()*'+,-./)&0# *'+&'12(1*9##<#6110#0(@1# 2//5#'1&-%()2#(*# *(4=0A#2//5#'1&-%()2B# 6$()77$',89)'-%%:8+1$;%<89')%=<<%>$$,"%/5;?%=@$(9*$% !'";+#(9)'80%3;+8;$15$" !C# A5@$+$'989)'% 3AB!=% C+)D$(;%E<BA%)+%3!FC% 6$()77$',89)'-%=<A# DE# FG#8H-,+*(/)*# FG#I+1&*,+1*#87># J1&+*/)#FG#7&)2,&21# F1)'+&0# <4&2()1#<'K#87># GA=%6$()77$',$,%6$"$8+(?HI8"$,% =<A%C+)1+87"% :&L1#&)#87>#I(41#M0/-@# &)5#&#5(*'+(-'N;(51#87>#J+/2+&4# 182 11/26/10 8 !""#$"%&'()*$+$,-%.(/))0%!'"1+#(2)'30%4+3(2($"% 1/31%536%78',$+%.1#,$'1%9)2*32)'% !"# $%&'&()#*+,-.&/0# 1(-23/(4#533'&/0# (63&+#7-'(-+3#,+#'&834# 9+3#:&4-/23+4(,,2# :$()55$',32)'-%%!'(+$3"$%"1#,$'1"%"$0;<$"1$$5=%"$0;<$>(3(6=% 8'1$+$"1%8'%0$3+'8'?=%3',%8'1+8'"8(%5)2*32)'%1/+)#?/-% ;94(3+)<,+&3/(32#0,9'4#9/2#(94=4# !!# >,,.3+9?83#@39+/&/0# >-'(-+9'')#A3'389/(#B2-79?,/#C>AD#,+#>AABE# !""#$"%&'()*$+$,-%@+?3'8A32)'30%B#01#+$% !F# CD$(2*$%!'"1+#(2)'30# .1+31$?8$"% G,7-4#,/#A34-'(4#3:.694&4#,/#29(9# 4,:3?:34#+34-'(32#&/#9#'97=#,5# 9H3/?,/#9/2#2&47-44&,/#,/#3I37?83# &/4(+-7?,/9'#4(+9(30&34# .(/))0%!'"1+#(2)'30% E)(#"$"% 1,:3#476,,'#J/4(+-7?,/9'#G,7-434# :9)#/,(#%3#2&+37(')#7,//37(32#(,#29(9# ,/#(63#@9?/,#B@@#09.#,+#3I37?83# &/4(+-7?,/9'#4(+9(30&34K# F$3(/$+%G)30"% D39763+#0,9'4#5,+#@9?/,#B@@4#433:32# (,#89+)L#9/2#M3+3#/,(#7'39+L#7,/7+3(3L# ,+#7-++3/(K# 183 11/26/10 9 !"#$%%"&'()$&*+,-./'+-0$&+1$-2+342$&5+'(4(6'2.7"&+ '"#.3.$&+%(8.&5+91+2":&.&5+'(4(+-3"+"7"&+%$2"+ !"# ;&342-#)$&+ <#=$$/+;&342-#)$&(/+ >$#-3"3+ ?"34+<#$2"+@(4(++ @(4(+$&+A()&$+BAA+C(0+ @(4(+$&+BD"#)7"+;&342-#)$&(/+ <42(4"5."3+ !"#$%%"&'()$&+*+E/.5&"'F+G(3#('.&5F+!"/"7(&4+C$(/3 # !$# ?"(#="2+ C$(/3+ •!<HE!?+C$(/3+ E'%.&+ C$(/3+ @.342.#4+ C$(/3+ Mastery Based Goals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`\"+"G'B44-#4'($3,C#.#%' >DEFGH*!H'I')>BGG' •! Q&82$$2#$262&428!64-82&46a 79<%=%26Z!b&0B=28'2!07! UC<2$%39&!6.642<!07! 28-39>0&X! •! `%<%428!b&0B=28'2!9&8! #2$32#>0&!07!30<<-&%4.! 30==2'2!=%<%46!70-$K.29$!#-$6-%4!! JEKBL?KBED' •! H0<<0&!9&8!30<70$49W=2! #$93>32!07!2&42$%&'!AHH!64-&46! #-$6-%4!07!70-$K.29$!30==2'26! •! F0>;9>0&!'9#!3$29428!W.! 64-82&46Z!79<%=%9=!9&8!3-=4-$9=! 7$9<2B0$b!9W0-4!30==2'2! •! /00$!4$9&672$a30<#=2>0&!$942! 94!H0<<-&%4.!H0==2'26! EM!?DB:?KBED?G' •! c9$%24.!07!;%2B6!$2'9$8%&'! %<#0$49&32!07!70-$K.29$! 30==2'2!70$!9==!64-82&46! •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ot based on actual percentages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`.)-,1+&N-$$-,"& ^1_&B.)-,$2&Q%),2,"#$& 8ON^&^.%#1.)#&a$,+$1%-.C&G$,0& 8ON^&%.#$&,+0.".%#1,#(1%&&&&&&&&&&&&& Z&%#,b& %#$( ^1_&^,/.+&B,1%-& ^1_&`(U$1#&`*$+,& ^1_&`(U&:1.,%& B,1%-c`*$+,&7=>=& ^.%%$1#,3("&81(*C& @5& 188 11/26/10 14 !""#$%&'( )*+,-./(0"%1(2."3"*4%56*( •! !"#$%&'$()&(*&+#( ,-&+(.-/(01-$2( 34(

Abstract (if available)

Abstract From the time of Brown v. Board of Education, the role of education has been on the forefront of our social, political and economic landscape. Legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind as well as publications like A Nation at Risk have all illustrated the lack of access, equity and achievement in American schools for the last fifty years. Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate, which varies between subgroups and of those students only 57% continue their education in college.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

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

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

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

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

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

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

Improving and sustaining math achievement in urban high schools: a case study of a southern California high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Cassady, Dawn Marie (author)

Core Title Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2010-05

Publication Date 04/29/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag college access,OAI-PMH Harvest,school reform,Secondary Education

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Glendale Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email cassady@usc.edu,Kedwyn@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3806

Unique identifier UC156341

Identifier etd-Cassady-4360 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-466021 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3806 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Cassady-4360.pdf

Dmrecord 466021

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cassady, Dawn Marie

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu