University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

College readiness: terms and conditions may apply

(USC Thesis Other)

College readiness: terms and conditions may apply

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY APPLY by Joshua D. Watson A dissertation presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2018 Doctoral Committee: Dr. Paula M. Carbone, Chair Dr. Jenifer Crawford Dr. Daniel Schugurensky COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 2 Dedication I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my immediate and extended family who has been there for me from the very start. I am forever grateful for you all praying for me, challenging me, motivating me, believing in me, and most importantly, loving me. To my parents, Steve and Melissa Watson, thank you for providing me with such a strong framework, for supporting me in all of my endeavors, and making sure that I did not ignore my mental, physical, and emotional health during this process. I thank you both for your willingness to allow me to actualize my hopes and dreams. I love you, I cherish you, and I adore you both more than words can describe. To my siblings, Cory and Shavonda, and my nieces and nephew, Dinah, Dominick, and De’Asia: You all have loved me and shown me the person I can become through many beautiful and not so beautiful moments. I love that we can be ourselves whenever we are around each other, no matter how old we are. I love you all and am glad the Creator gave me this life to be able to call you my brother and sister and my nieces and nephew. I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to those students who were unable to attend college or finish college due to the opportunity gaps addressed in this research. May this research be a beacon of hope in your pursuits to not fall victim to the inequities in the education system, but to overcome obstacles and fight for equitable college readiness structures for minoritized students. You belong! COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 3 Acknowledgements First, I would like to acknowledge the Creator (who has many names), for giving me the valor, fortitude, and capability to press through this dissertation process. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Patrick D. Patterson for his encouragement, intelligence, and collaborative work ethic in writing much of the first three chapters of this dissertation with me. I am truly grateful for the attributes of this remarkable individual as well as his words of comfort when I often had doubts. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Paula Carbone, my dissertation chair. Words cannot describe the passion of this individual and how she allows you to realize your potential through her stewardship. I am truly grateful to have selected her as my dissertation committee chair and for her to accept me back to fly under her wing. I want to acknowledge my systems of support. Without their motivation, love, and support, this road to completion would have been long and lonely. First, I want to acknowledge my “extra most bestest” friends, Catrici Malone and Darius Enos. Since moving to Los Angeles to pursue my doctorate, these two have been by my side through thick and thin. They’ve seen me at some of my worst moments through this process. However, they built me back up, allowed me to realize my potential, and guided me back on my way. Thank you! I would also like to acknowledge my support systems from Epsilon Sigma Rho Fraternity, Inc., and friends and family domestic and abroad. I appreciate the countless ways that individuals from these places have supported me through this process both personally and academically. Lastly, this dissertation would be nothing without the participation of the study participants Maya, Jackie, Brenda, Jennifer, Switch, Javier, Vere, Daphne, and Gabby. I COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 4 appreciate the time these individuals spent with me and opening up their lives and experiences in order to aid future college students and research. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 5 Table of Contents Dedication Acknowledgements Abstract CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 12 Background of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 12 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 16 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 17 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 18 Limitations and Delimitations....................................................................................................... 19 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................................... 20 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 23 History of the College Readiness for Minoritized Students ......................................................... 25 Historical Background of Remediation and College Readiness .............................................. 26 College Readiness Perspectives of Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions ....................... 28 Student Proficiency & Remedial Education ............................................................................. 29 Current State of College Readiness .............................................................................................. 30 College Readiness in the 21st Century ..................................................................................... 30 Opportunity Gaps, Remediation and Preparedness .................................................................. 32 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 6 College Readiness Policies, Programs, and Supports .............................................................. 35 College Completion for Minoritized Students ......................................................................... 37 Black and Brown Students at Highly Selective Institutions of Higher Education ................... 38 Important Constructs of College Readiness for Minoritized Students ......................................... 40 From Achievement Gaps to Opportunity Gaps ........................................................................ 41 Educational Debt ................................................................................................................. 41 Opportunity Gaps ................................................................................................................ 42 Color Blindness .............................................................................................................. 43 Cultural Conflicts ........................................................................................................... 44 Myth of Meritocracy ...................................................................................................... 44 Low Expectations and Deficit Mindsets ........................................................................ 45 Context Neutral Mindsets .............................................................................................. 45 College Readiness and Remediation ........................................................................................ 47 Social and Cultural Capital ....................................................................................................... 49 Cultural Capital ................................................................................................................... 50 Social Capital ...................................................................................................................... 51 The impact of social and cultural capital in educational settings ....................................... 52 The student achievement impact of capital ......................................................................... 53 Minoritized Student College Readiness Conceptual Framework ................................................. 54 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 7 Student Agency and Transformational Resistance ................................................................... 55 Student agency .................................................................................................................... 53 Transformational resistance ................................................................................................ 57 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 60 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 61 Sample & Site Selection ........................................................................................................... 61 Site ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 62 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 63 Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 63 Documents and Artifacts..................................................................................................... 64 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 65 Researcher Biases & Positionality ................................................................................................ 67 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 69 Context of Study Sites and Participants ........................................................................................ 71 Study Sites ................................................................................................................................ 71 University of Coastal Pacific ............................................................................................. 71 University of America West ............................................................................................... 75 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 8 Study Participants ..................................................................................................................... 79 Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 84 College Knowledge as College Readiness ............................................................................... 84 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 89 Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 90 Preparedness ............................................................................................................................ 90 Imposter Syndrome ............................................................................................................. 91 Cultural Capital .................................................................................................................. 96 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 106 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 106 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 108 Brief Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 109 Implications for Practice ............................................................................................................. 111 Understanding of the Transcending Student Identity ............................................................ 112 Guidance and Support from Secondary and Postsecondary Practitioners ............................. 113 Strategies to Account for a Student's Sense of Belonging .................................................... 114 Recommendations for Research ................................................................................................ 115 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 116 References ................................................................................................................................... 119 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 9 Appendix A: Student Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 132 Appendix B: Staff Interview Protocol ........................................................................................ 135 Appendix C: Informed Consent Sheet ........................................................................................ 137 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 10 Abstract This qualitative study applied a minoritized student college readiness framework to understand the college readiness experiences of minoritized students at two highly selective research institutions of higher education to inform K-12 and higher education practices. The purpose of this study was to privilege oppressed voices in highlighting specific ways the college readiness gap can be closed for minoritized students, moving toward equity in higher education attainment and completion. The research questions involved understanding these students’ college readiness and how they informed their college experiences. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews developed with a minoritized student college readiness lens to understand current college readiness experiences among the participants. This study generated findings related to the college readiness experiences of minoritized students attending elite and highly selective institutions of higher education. This study generated findings related to the college readiness experiences of minoritized students attending elite and highly selective institutions of higher education. The findings in this study highlights the voices of first-generation students of color at elite universities and is one of the few studies to do so. No participant in this study felt that they came to college being college ready, despite the college readiness programs that many of the participants were involved in. Findings showed how imposter syndrome affected a student’s college readiness and their college experiences, at times requiring double consciousness. Lastly, while students had some forms of cultural capital, they lacked social capital when it came to college readiness and their college experiences. Three important implications for practice and research arose from the findings. These strategies should note student voices in how they came to prepare and often times cope or overcome these barriers of their sense of belonging. The implications in this study should not be COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 11 benched or disregarded. Opportunity gaps will remain gaps for minoritized students (Milner, 2010) and students will ultimately undergo the consequences of being ill prepared for college. This study may aid practitioners and researchers to alleviate opportunity gaps and offer more equitable college readiness structures for minoritized students. Conclusions suggest specific ways in which practitioners and researchers may enhance the college readiness experiences for minoritized students. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 12 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 The focus of this dissertation was to address the problem of the disproportionate number of first generation Black and Brown students at highly selective institutions of higher education who, although accepted, do not feel college ready. Moreover, student voices are often ignored or silenced when it comes to college readiness policies and practices. As a result, this dissertation sought to address the role of student agency in illuminating the voices of students in this matter. This chapter presents the background of the problem to set the context for the study. In the background for the study section, concepts on opportunity gaps are introduced (Milner, 2010; Milner, 2012) and educational debts (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Then, the chapter will move into introducing concepts related to college readiness (Almeida, 2015; Duncheon, 2015; Rueda, 2005), followed by the background of the discrepancies of college readiness between secondary and postsecondary education (Levin & Calcagno, 2008; Michaels, Hawthorne, Cuevas, & Mateev, 2001). The statement of the problem highlights evidence of the problem. The chapter ends with the purpose and significance of the study as well as its limitations and delimitations. The chapter concludes with a definition of terms and overview of the dissertation structure. Background of the Problem The education field has moved from discussing educational achievement gaps to discussing educational opportunity gaps (Milner, 2010). Achievement gap mindsets frame White students as the norm, compare White students to students of color without understanding their differences, conceptualize students of color from a deficit mindset, and focus on students over structures (Milner, 2012). Opportunity gap mindsets focus, instead, on oppressive systems 1 Chapters One, Two, and Three were co-authored by Patrick Patterson (degree candidate for the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership at the University of Southern California; pdpatter@usc.edu), however some revisions were made for the final dissertation solely by the author of this dissertation. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 13 (Milner, 2010). Milner identified five major areas from which opportunity gaps emerge: color blindness, cultural conflicts, the myth of meritocracy, low expectations and deficit mindsets, and context-neutral mindsets. Color blindness exists when individuals say they “don’t see color,” which in turn, ignores an important aspect of a person’s background. Cultural conflicts are the cultural incongruences between teachers and students, where teachers tend to operate from dominant cultural ways of knowing. The myth of meritocracy exists when privileged educators believe success and failure are earned. Low expectations and deficit mindsets result when teachers see different thinking as deficient and set lower expectations as a result. Context-neutral mindsets arise when teachers fail to consider the social and cultural context of students’ lives. Opportunity gaps are related to Ladson-Billings’ (2006) concept of education debts. Ladson-Billings identifies four types of education debts: historical debts (resulting from educational disparities caused by laws, courts, and segregation); economic debts (arising from funding inequities for minoritized students); sociopolitical debts (resulting from lack of access to representative legislators); and moral debts (arising from disparities in what society should do because it is right and what society actually does). Like fiscal debts and deficits, educational debts are the sum of educational deficits. Ladson-Billings compares these deficits to the achievement gap. The overall debt does not decrease merely by focusing on the deficit, so the mindset must switch from a focus on the achievement gap to that of opportunity gaps. This reframes the emphasis from being on student deficits to institutional actions. These opportunity gaps, in-turn, become gaps in college readiness for Black and Brown students. Conley (2007) defined college readiness as the need to enroll in remedial education. These gaps in college readiness are linked with a lower likelihood of graduating from college. More broadly, though, college readiness is associated with cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 14 integration factors (Almeida, 2015a; Duncheon, 2015). Cognitive factors include academic preparation, such as in reading and math (Almeida, 2015), whereas non-cognitive factors would include mindsets and behaviors (Duncheon, 2015), such as campus integration factors include relationships with others on-campus and college knowledge, such as understanding financial aid processes and admissions processes. However, typically, researchers only measure cognitive factors, such as test scores. So, while studies show that race and socioeconomic status are related to National Assessment of Educational Progress math scores and other standardized tests scores (Strayhorn, 2014), this does not account for non-cognitive and campus-integration factors. According to Welner and Carter (2013), many selective institutions of higher education across the United States compete over the limited pool of Black and Brown high school graduates who are college-ready (that is, eligible to begin college without remediation). Unfortunately, a majority of Black and Brown high school graduates are never adequately prepared to attend these selective institutions. The authors credit the problem of Black and Brown low college attendance rates and lack of college readiness to the “ongoing salience of racial, ethnic, and class inequalities in American society and education” (Welner & Carter, 2013, p. 5). Each year, more than 2.5 million students graduate from public high schools in the United States (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). This number continues to grow due to enrollment increases. Over 70% of these graduates enter higher education within two years and over half of those seek a bachelor’s degree. From this 70%, over 50% will be required to enroll in remedial courses, with many enrolling in several subject areas. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these students do not persist on to a second year of college, and 41% who earn more than 10 credits at a college or university never complete a 2- or 4-year degree (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). The COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 15 National Conference of State Legislators (n.d.) found that low-income, Brown and Black students are more likely to need remediation than their middle- and upper-class White peers and that 41% of Hispanic students and 42% of Black students require remediation, compared to 31% of White students. Unfortunately, Black and Brown students are more likely to take remedial coursework nationally and thus, career readiness interventions disproportionately impact these students (Castro, 2013). Levin & Calcagno (2008) refer to this large number of non-college ready students entering postsecondary institutions as a “remediation crisis” (p.181). Postsecondary education is important to achieving several of the United States governmental and educational goals (Castro, 2013), but there are several shortcomings when considering the transition from K-12 to higher education. On-average, recent high school graduates do not tend to be college ready, with only 23% of students ready to enroll in college- level courses without remediation (Strayhorn, 2014). Thus, there is a need to both increase the number of individuals who enter college as college-ready and the number of individuals with college degrees, meaning they are prepared to succeed in college-level coursework or in the workforce (Cline et al., 2007). However, there is a discrepancy in what “college readiness” means at the secondary and postsecondary level: As educators struggle with the conceptual differences between college readiness vs. college eligibility, instructors at all levels are realizing there needs to be a stronger alignment between what high schools teach and the skills and knowledge universities expect entering students to have mastered. (Kirst & Bracco, 2004, p. 31) In recent efforts to establish a K-16 transition, there is a lack of information when it comes to students, K-12, and postsecondary educators understanding each other’s college readiness expectations and, as such, mutual goals become a hindrance (Michaels et al., 2011). COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 16 Based on recent research, 44% of higher education faculty believe students are underprepared for the rigors of college-level writing whereas only 10% of secondary school teachers hold this professional position (Levin & Calcagno, 2008). Statement of the Problem This study addressed the problem of the disproportionate number of minoritized students who are not college-ready at elite institutions in the United States. College readiness is traditionally defined as beginning college without requiring remediation, but includes cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus integration factors (Duncheon, 2015). The fact that the least-ready students tend to be Black or Brown and from a low socioeconomic status (Castro, 2013; National Conference of State Legislators, n.d.; Welner & Carter, 2013) demonstrates that this is a problem and that it is defined by race. The evidence highlights that White students and some Asian students perform better on standardized tests than Black and Brown students and are more class- prepared (Strayhorn, 2014). The problem was important to address because college education helps increase lifetime income (Johansen & Arano, 2016), quality of life (Winters, 2011), and psychic income, or non-material contributions to one’s life satisfaction (Becker, 2015). K-12 education under-prepares Black and Brown students for college compared to their White and Asian peers (Castro, 2013; Duncheon, 2015; Rodríguez, 2015; Strayhorn, 2014). Opportunity gaps in K-12 education lead to college readiness gaps for these students (Ladson- Billings, 2006; Milner, 2010; Milner, 2012). One form of opportunity and social capital is college knowledge (Almeida, 2015b), which is not evenly distributed in the United States. Furthermore, the misinformation about college is widespread in many high school students, especially first-generation and low-income students, and their parents (Tierney & Duncheon, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 17 2015). At highly-selective institutions, these gaps are further heightened (Kim, Rennick, & Franco, 2014). Duncheon (2015) defined college readiness specifically as “the preparation required to enroll in college and persist to graduation without need for remediation” (p. 25), but also discussed the cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus integration factors that encompass college readiness. Minoritized students who are more likely to need this education are facing fewer chances of obtaining a college degree (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Per Duncheon (2015), low- income students and students of color are far less likely to enroll in college. Once these students do enroll, they are far less likely to enroll in college and more likely to dropout (Cline, Bissell, Hafner, & Katz, 2007). Many Brown students are seeing gains in postsecondary education access, but there remain wide discrepancies. For example, they are less than half as likely to graduate from college as White students (Rueda, 2005). Being less college-ready has real impacts on students (Rodríguez, 2015). Specifically, these students have several fiscal impacts. For example, remedial coursework is not credit-bearing toward transfer or graduation, so students pay for the cost of additional coursework. Moreover, these students are more likely to be part-time meaning they are less eligible for federal aid in the form of grants and loans. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative study was to illuminate the voices of underserved and underprivileged students related to issues of college readiness, specifically those who identify as Black or Brown, to inform K-12 and higher education practice. In addition, this study explored what strategies these students used to be college-ready and attend a highly-selective institution of higher education. Interviewing current undergraduate students at two large, one private research and one public research institutions in California, the researcher uncovered their perceptions of COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 18 what methods these students used to overcome institutional barriers to success. By interviewing current students, the researcher identified tools current practitioners, such as high school counselors and college advisors, can use to prepare their students for success. This study used qualitative methodology because it provides “rich, thick description” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 256). The researcher utilized a purposeful selection of students who identify as Brown, attend a highly-selective institution of higher education, and who have overcome institutional obstacles to achieve success. The researcher used a minoritized student college readiness lens as a conceptual framework to focus on participants’ college readiness experiences through their own perspectives and words (Soló rzano & Yosso, 2001) as well as how race was a factor that contributed to their actions, behaviors, and perceptions of college readiness. Using this, the researcher seeks to inform K-12 on practices that can enhance college readiness for Brown students and inform higher education practitioners on the experiences these students bring with them into the classroom. The research questions that guided this study were: 1. In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at highly-selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience? 2. What are the perspectives of first generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college? Significance of the Study While the research on college readiness is vast, qualitative research on college readiness using student interviews is scarce. The voices of these students are thus silenced or ignored. At COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 19 the time of this writing, Reid and Moore’s (2008) work was the only published work to be identified that used this methodology to consider issues of college readiness. Moreover, none of the current works identified consider college readiness from a qualitative perspective in terms of students at highly-selective institutions of higher education. I intend to use this work to add these students’ voices to the literature. While the college readiness and remediation literature focuses largely on public institutions and community colleges, this research considers the under- researched area of college readiness for minoritized students at highly-selective private institutions. Using student perspectives and experiences, I aim to inform practice for both K-12 educators and administrators and higher education faculty, staff, and administrators. Limitations and Delimitations Despite using rigorous qualitative methods, this study still had several limitations. First, concepts of college readiness vary (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). The researcher’s specific definition of this phrase may differ from concepts presented in other works. For example, Duncheon (2015) focused on cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus-integration factors, whereas Conley (2007) defined it more narrowly as “the level of preparation a student needs to enroll and succeed— without remediation—in a credit-bearing general education course at a postsecondary institution” (p. 5). This research used Duncheon’s concepts (see definitions below). Second, this study was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Cross-sectional designs are frequently used in qualitative research (Bryman, 2006). However, because students had to reflect on past experiences, current experiences may have biased students’ recollections. Third, to ease issues of access, this study was restricted to one site versus various sites. Additionally, given the small sample size, the concepts from this research may not be generalize to all scenarios and all types of institutions. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 20 The researcher employed several methods to ensure validity and reliability in the study. First, to make-up for the cross-sectional nature of the design, he used several types of questions that helped students reflect specifically on their experiences (Patton, 1987). For example, in addition to questions about opinions, the researcher asked students specific questions in an attempt to place the student in the form of an observer as they recalled their past experiences. Second, the researcher employed descriptions of rich data to the most information about the contexts and participants (Maxwell, 2013). Though qualitative research is criticized for not being able generalizable, qualitative methods were chosen because they illuminate cases and can provide in- case and theoretical generalizability (Ali & Yusof, 2011). Additionally, as a dissertation, this work underwent regular expert review from faculty advisors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Moreover, the author wrote this dissertation alongside another student examining similar research questions with different cases. This method provides appropriate peer examination, which can further help with issues of trustworthiness in the work (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Definition of Terms Achievement gaps are the discrepancies in educational outcomes between primarily White and some Asian students and underserved populations (Howard, 2010). College knowledge is “understanding the procedural requirements and cultural expectations of college” (Duncheon, 2015, p. 9). Counter-storytelling is “a method of telling the stories of those people whose experiences are not often told” and those whose stories are often not heard (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 26) Cultural capital is “widely shared, legitimate culture made up of high status cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, behaviors, and goods) used in direct or indirect social and cultural exclusion” (Lamont & Lareau, 2015, p. 52). COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 21 Highly selective institutions of higher education are not easily defined. For example, Astin and Oseguera (2004) defined the top 10% of ranked institutions as “highly selective.” In this study, we define highly-selective institutions as those that admit far smaller proportions of students than apply. Student selectivity plays a significant role in U.S. News & World Report rankings of colleges and universities; so, more selective institutions are thus more likely to be highly ranked (Gladwell, 2011). Least ready students are those who place at least three levels below transfer-ready in English or math at a two-year college (Rodriguez, 2015). Minoritized groups are those groups that may not represent a numerical minority but, due to racism and historical and institutional oppression, dominant groups still exclude minoritized individuals (Chase, Dowd, Pazich, & Bensimon, 2014). Opportunity gaps pertain to the disparity in access to quality schools and the resources needed for all students to be academically successful (Milner, 2010; Milner, 2012). Remediation is coursework retaken or prepare students for further college-level classwork (Bettinger & Long, 2009). Social capital is the relationship networks among people who work and live in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively (Lin, 1999; Bordieu, 1986). Student Agency is the “concept that students should be in control of their educational decisions rather than following a prescribed path determined by others” (Zimmerman, 2015, pg. 21). Organization of the Study After this introductory chapter, four chapters follow. The second chapter includes a review of the pertinent literature. The third chapter further elaborates the research methodology (e.g., Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These three chapters composed the proposal for COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 22 the dissertation. The final two chapters elaborate on the research findings and then provide a discussion and implications for the results. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 23 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Quantitative research conducted on college readiness is vast. Unfortunately, qualitative research to examine college readiness utilizing student interviews is scarce. Thus, the voices of students are often silenced or ignored when it comes to college readiness. Few researchers considered college readiness from the student’s perspective. The works of Reid and Moore (2008) and Byrd and MacDonald (2005), however, are two such works that do. Yet, none of the current works found considered college readiness from a qualitative perspective in terms of students at highly-selective institutions of higher education. This study’s intent was to use this work to add these students’ voices to the literature. Therefore, by illuminating the voices of underserved and underprivileged students related to issues of college readiness, specifically those who identify as Black and Brown, this study sought to inform researchers and practitioners on various perspectives of how students become college-ready and attend a highly-selective institution of higher education and could inform K-12 and higher education practices of college readiness. K-12 education under-prepares Black and Brown students for college compared to their White and Asian American peers (Castro, 2013; Duncheon, 2015; Rodríguez, 2015; Strayhorn, 2014). From this, opportunity gaps in K-12 education lead to college readiness gaps for these students (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Milner, 2010; Milner, 2012). Moreover, at highly-selective institutions, these gaps are further heightened (Kim, Rennick, & Franco, 2014). Using student perspectives and experiences may inform practice for both K-12 educators and administrators and higher education faculty, staff, and administrators. The following research questions provided a greater understanding of how Black and Brown students perceive and articulate college readiness. Furthermore, these questions provide COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 24 context and strategies on how secondary and postsecondary institutions can bridge the discourse on how college readiness is defined, perceived and implemented. Two research questions guided this study: 1. In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at highly-selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience? 2. What are the perspectives of first generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college? These research questions guided and provided a greater understanding of how Black and Brown students perceive and articulate college readiness. Furthermore, they were designed to provide context and strategies on how secondary and postsecondary institutions can bridge the discourse on how college readiness is defined, perceived, and implemented. Defining college readiness is difficult, though, most researchers agree it is a constellation of non-cognitive and cognitive factors (Duncheon, 2015). There are several differences in how researchers define college readiness. An example of this difference would be how Duncheon (2015) focuses on cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus integration factors, whereas Conley (2007) defined college readiness more narrowly as “the level of preparation a student needs to enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit-bearing general education course at a postsecondary institution” (p. 5). This study used Duncheon’s (2015) broader operationalization of college readiness, including factors outside of remediation alone. As for college readiness gaps, Duncheon (2015) defined them as the need to enroll in remedial education, as these gaps are linked to a lower likelihood of graduating from college. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 25 The field of education has moved from discussing “achievement gaps” to discussing “opportunity gaps” in education (Milner, 2010). Whereas the achievement gap rhetoric focused on student deficits, opportunity gaps focus largely on inequitable systems. Opportunity gaps in college readiness largely impact Black and Brown students. This chapter provides a historical background on college readiness, remediation, and institutional discrepancies to build a greater understanding on how the issue of college readiness have disproportionately affected minoritized students, or students from underrepresented and underserved backgrounds, at highly selective institutions of higher education. The next two sections focus on the current state of college readiness and the important constructs of college readiness for minoritized students. In the current state of college readiness section, literature will focus on college readiness in the 21st century, opportunity gaps, remediation, and preparedness; college readiness policies, programs and supports; college completion for minoritized students; and Black and Brown students at highly selective institutions. Literature in the important constructs of college readiness for minoritized students section will focus on achievement gaps to opportunity gaps; college readiness and remediation; social and cultural capital; and student agency. The last section of this chapter presents this study’s theoretical framework. Literature in the theoretical framework section will covers social and cultural capital. Thereafter, a summary of the literature findings pertaining to college readiness, gaps, and other notable themes will conclude this chapter. History of the College Readiness for Minoritized Students College readiness is a newer phenomenon in the overall structure of American higher education (Almeida, 2015b). However, secondary and postsecondary institutions have been at COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 26 odds with how college readiness should be delivered. More recently, an emphasis has been placed on remediation and shifting the focus of college readiness from four-year institutions to high schools and two-year higher education institutions (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Unfortunately, these college readiness policies have disproportionately affected minoritized students (Castro, 2013). Historical Background of Remediation and College Readiness One of the earliest forms of remediation existed 1871 when Charles Eliot, Harvard’s president at the time, noted how entering students lacked skills in the fundamentals of spelling, punctuation, and writing (Casazza, 1999). These concerns led the university to provide additional assistance to prepare incoming students for college-level courses. Thereafter, by the early twentieth century, more than 350 colleges across the nation began offering supplemental courses for students deemed underprepared for the academic rigors of college. With this historical anecdote, it can be understood that remediation in higher education is not a new phenomenon. The term “college readiness” did not enter the literature until March 1948 when colleges began to condemn high schools for ill-preparing secondary school students for the rigors, work habits, and overall quality of preparation to persist in college (Almeida, 2015b). Prior to the term, “curriculum articulation” (Wheat, 1948) was used for secondary and higher education. Articulation was “the close coupling of courses and educational experiences in a sequential manner for the purpose of obtaining continuity of student development” (Wheat, 1948, p. 147). However, curriculum articulation did not address cognitive and non-cognitive factors pertinent to college readiness. While cognitive and non-cognitive factors are significant to college readiness (Duncheon, 2015), the earliest programs and policies focused solely on cognitive factors (Almeida, 2015a). COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 27 Cognitively, institutions considered reading and mathematics especially important. Reading became more important as colleges moved toward survey courses in the 1800s. This emphasis emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of the shift away from emphasizing Greek and Latin language requirements in universities. Additionally, universities began to embrace the Germanic tradition of emphasizing research by expanding access to libraries. These combined phenomena resulted in faculty starting to focus more largely on their students’ entry- level writing skills. Institutions of higher education started to create departments specifically to prepare students for college-level writing. The University of California, Berkeley, a highly selective institution, was the first to implement such a program. While mathematics was always important to early universities in the United States, Yale was the first institution to include mathematics on its entrance exams in 1745. Mathematics’ importance to college readiness increased exponentially with the rise of the Industrial Revolution and the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. As access to higher education expanded because of the land grant missions, institutions began to focus more heavily on entry-level mathematics preparation. There was an additional surge during the Cold War (Almeida, 2015b). Practitioners and researchers began to realize the importance of non-cognitive factors, like study skills or mindsets (e.g., growth mindsets), to college readiness in the early to mid-20th century (Almeida, 2015b). The Scholastic Aptitude Test’s (SAT) creators recognized the test could only be a supplement and lamented the dangers of using it as the only consideration of college readiness. During this time, psychologists also started to understand the role that certain non-cognitive habits of mind played in college readiness. More recently, researchers have associated grit, a construct that that encompasses “perseverance and passion toward long-term goals” (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007, p. 1087), with success in high school COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 28 and college (Duckworth & Seligman, 2012). The emphasis of non-cognitive factors, such as mindsets and behaviors, has grown in importance over the past decades, though researchers still disagree on its place (Duncheon, 2015). College Readiness Perspectives of Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions There was a tension in the mid-20th century about who was responsible for college readiness efforts (Almeida, 2015a). During the 1940’s, college educators began to criticize high schools for not focusing on college readiness while, on the other hand, high school teachers indicated secondary students were not ready to undergo the academic rigors of postsecondary institutions (Almeida, 2015a). Secondary education has steadily become more responsible for preparing students for college. To this extent, there needs to be a more secure alignment between what is taught in high school and the knowledge and skills postsecondary institutions expect incoming students to have mastered (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). Access to higher education has expanded for students of color, but college readiness programs and policies still affect them disproportionately (Duncheon, 2015). After the passage of both compulsory secondary education across the United States and the California Master Plan for Higher Education of 1960 that made community college universally available to California residents, access to higher education has grown dramatically (Rodríguez, 2015). However, issues of tracking and re-segregation still adversely affect students of color excessively (Almeida, 2015b). Unfortunately, many of the least-prepared students, who are more likely to be minoritized students, are still unable to earn degrees because of issues related to college preparedness (Rodríguez, 2015). Michaels et al. (2011) suggested that assessment is a critical element of education at every level, while Brown and Conley (2007) applied systems coherence theories (Fuhrman, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 29 2001) as a conceptual approach for examining the information asymmetry between K-12 and postsecondary education. The theories of systems coherence posit, “By creating more explicit connection between local educational systems and state standards, superior learning will result” (Brown & Conley, 2007, p. 138). The researchers noted that the “lack of shared knowledge about assessment at each level makes it difficult for secondary and postsecondary institutions to develop cohesive academic communities that are able to use assessment to align student achievement standards” (Michaels et al., 2011, p. 16). To this point, there is little being done at institutions of secondary and postsecondary education to factor in how the battery of tests adhere or align to common standards (Michaels et al., 2011). Student Proficiency & Remedial Education At the end of the 19th century, the first non-credit-bearing remedial writing program emerged at the University of California, Berkeley, as a means and need to remediate the proficiency of students before enrolling them in college-level courses (Almeida, 2015a). In the late 1990s, Massachusetts significantly reduced the number of students allowed to enroll in remedial education, with community colleges becoming the site of remedial education (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Over time, the proportion of minority students has slightly increased, so there is not extensive analysis of the impact. In 1995, political pressure in New York led to a remediation plan where most students requiring remediation were referred to community colleges or night schools, eventually eliminating remediation from senior colleges. The immediate impact here is also unclear, but the long-term impact is likely going to increase stratification, even though overall minority profiles remain stable. This may result from The City University of New York’s summer immersions and dual enrollment programs. However, there has been a significant decrease in English Language Learner students. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 30 Although remedial education has been prevalent for over a century, nowadays it seems to be primarily for students of color. For instance, Black and Brown students are more likely to take remedial coursework nationally and as a result, college and career readiness interventions disproportionately affect them (Castro, 2013). In addition, low-income students and students of color are far less likely to enroll in college, and once in college, are less likely to graduate with a degree (Duncheon, 2015). As community colleges take on more responsibility for remedial education, minoritized students who are more likely to need this education face fewer chances of getting a degree (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). This leads to questions about whether access to the system as a whole equals access to the whole system. It appears it does not. Current State of College Readiness As postsecondary education attainment is important to achieving several of the nation's goals, there are shortcomings when considering the educational pipeline. A cornerstone of higher education policy in the United States is ensuring equality of opportunity and access for all people (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Understanding that there is a great deal of research on achievement gaps, achievement gaps have been reframed, by some, as gaps in opportunity for students, because whereas achievement gaps focus on student deficits, opportunity gaps focus on systemic gaps in opportunity for students (Milner, 2012). Furthermore, issues of college readiness and gaps in opportunity are greater for Black and Brown students at highly selective institutions of higher education. College Readiness in the 21st Century College readiness is a term used throughout the United States as a way of ensuring that high school students are prepared with the knowledge, skills, and capacity to qualify and succeed at a postsecondary institution, without remediation (Conley, 2007). While remediation is COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 31 designed to aid students in achieving expected competencies in fundamental academic skills such as mathematics and academic literacy, the large number of underprepared students entering postsecondary institutions has created a “remediation crisis” (Levin & Calcagno, 2008, p.181). Although students are entering college with a high school diploma, Levin and Calcagno (2008) found that many students enter college unprepared for college-level coursework in reading, writing, and mathematics. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the Southern Regional Education Board (2010) found that nearly 60% of first-year college students are not academically ready for college-level work, despite being eligible to enroll in college. Recent high school graduates do not tend to be college-ready on average, with only 23% of students ready to enroll in college-level courses without remediation (Strayhorn, 2014). Strayhorn (2014) conducted a study to identify factors that influence college readiness for students from historically marginalized at 4-year colleges and universities. He found that first- generation students, who are more likely to be minoritized students, scored lower than non-first- generation students across several indicators. White and Asian students scored much higher than Black, Brown, and Native Americans on standardized tests. White students scored better than Black, Brown, and multiracial students in class preparation. Students in the highest socioeconomic status quartile scored higher than all other students on reading and college readiness in general. This study is useful toward this investigation because the framework utilized in the Strayhorn study only contributed 30% to college readiness, finding that 70% was unknown and leaves open room for expansion of the framework itself in its discussion and implications. Student voices could contribute to enlightening on this unknown factor toward contributing to college readiness. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 32 Opportunity Gaps, Remediation and Preparedness Low-income and minority students typically have unmet needs in attending college. One of these unmet needs is financial dependence. At highly selective private institutions of higher education, low-income students pay greater proportions of their family income to attend college (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010). Some practices, such as early admission and increases in merit- based aid, have disadvantaged low-income students who may seek to “shop-around” for financial aid packages or may lack opportunity to earn merit-based aid. However, some colleges are beginning to replace loans in their packages with grant aid, which could benefit low-income and minority students. Unfortunately, as family income decreases, the likelihood that a student attends a highly selective private college decreases as compared to a public college (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010). Students with lower expected family contributions, a number that decides a student’s eligibility for federal student aid, on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) are less likely to attend highly selective private colleges, thus creating a lack of opportunity. For undocumented college applicants and for the applicants who are U.S. citizens with undocumented parents, financial aid raises technical issues (Olivas, 2009). Undocumented students are generally ineligible for federal financial aid as well as state aid. Even naturalized college applicants face administrative and technical issues in navigating the often-perplexing federal financial aid application process. Research suggests that undocumented students are often “trapped by imprecise definitions and applications of immigration categories among financial aid regulation, statutory immigration terms, and Internal Revenue Code provisions” (Olivas, 2009, p. 413). Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and who identify as minorities are overrepresented in higher education remedial course-taking (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 33 2006). This illustrates the lack of opportunity that causes students from underserved communities (first-generation, low-income, students of color) to be more likely to have to take remedial coursework and be less likely to graduate from college, which has an important impact on the cycle of poverty because they are ill-prepared for many careers requiring post-secondary training. Specifically, Black and Brown students are more likely to take remedial coursework nationally (Castro, 2013) with 41% of Brown students and 42% of Black students placed into remediation, compared to 31% of White students (Levin & Calcagno, 2008). As a result, they are greatly affected by college and career readiness interventions (Castro, 2013). Remedial higher education is largely relegated to community colleges, leaving minoritized students who are more likely to need this education with fewer chances of obtaining a college degree (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Bettinger and Long (2009) posited that the large volume of remediation is administered by non-selective public institutions, which is the gateway for 80% of 4-year students and, ultimately, all 2-year students. Four-fifths of 4-year public institutions and 98% of 2-year colleges provide remedial courses. In addition, remedial coursework is not credit-bearing toward transfer or graduation, yet still costs student’s money, and students must often pay for these courses out of pocket (Rodríguez, 2015). According to Rodríguez (2015), students in remedial education tend to be part-time, more likely to be non- traditional (over the age of 25), more likely to be Black or Brown and far less likely to complete transfer-level coursework. Moreover, because these students are more likely to be part-time, they are often not eligible for financial aid in the form of grants or federal loans. These non-academic challenges only compound the academic challenges the students already face (Rodríguez, 2015). Many students of color generally do not enter postsecondary institutions equipped with the academic rigor or work ethic that prepares them for the expectations of instructors or course COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 34 requirements (Conley, 2007; Almeida, 2015b; Reid & Moore, 2008; Levin & Calcagno, 2008). Advocates of remediation suggest that the remedial courses help these underprepared students gain the skills necessary to persist in college (Soliday, 2002). However, the absence of information like admissions requirement is also a problem because many high school students may not understand the academic preparation needed to succeed in college (Secondary and Higher Education Remediation Advisory Commission, 1997). Most postsecondary educators expect incoming students to have high levels of critical thinking skills, including to infer and interpret data and results, analyze sources, support arguments with evidence, conduct research, and think deeply. Postsecondary courses require that students be independent, self-reliant learners who understand that they should seek support from instructors, their colleagues, or other sources if they are facing difficulties (National Research Council, 2002). In these courses, students will be expected to write multiple short study’s that must be articulate, well-structured, and supported with evidence (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2006). Furthermore, the National Survey of Student Engagement reports that the clear majority of first-year college students are also expected to work with their peers in and out of the classroom on complex problems and projects and thereafter must present on their group findings. Research reports that 44% of higher education faculty believe that students are underprepared for the academic rigors of postsecondary-level writing (Michaels et al., 2011). Therefore, it is critical to ensure that students, especially underserved and underrepresented students, are entering college equipped with the academic rigors of what will be expected of them from the postsecondary institution(s) in which they attend. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 35 College Readiness Policies, Programs, and Supports States have implemented diverse college readiness initiatives, producing a patchwork of policies not easily generalized (Blume & Zumeta, 2014). The 1980s brought several policies that decreased access to higher education for underrepresented and minoritized students (Mumper, 2003). Tuition rose, federal student aid changed, and affirmative admissions policies declined as ways to create disadvantages for these students. Currently, these state policies take on one of four general types (Blume & Zumeta, 2014): advanced coursework (an emphasis on honors and Advanced Placement [AP] classes), academic readiness (an emphasis on advanced coursework and dual enrollment), statewide assessment emphasis (an emphasis on dual enrollment and statewide assessments), or low policy effort related to college readiness. States with low policy effort tend to cluster in the northeastern United States where there is better college readiness in general or in states with laissez-faire policy emphases. Dual enrollment and Advanced Placement (AP) courses allow high school students to earn college credit. Statewide assessments include tests to measure student achievement in academic areas such as mathematics, writing, and reading. Two major policies targeting high schools are the College for All curriculum and college readiness assessments (Duncheon, 2015). The College for All curriculum movement seeks to provide a college preparatory curriculum to all students. Twenty-one states require college preparatory course-taking, as do many other school districts that have standard curricula. Assessments are meant to provide early indicators of college readiness, typically aligned through federal standards. However, these policies’ effect on college readiness is not yet fully understood. Several states implemented policies that could work to help or hinder college readiness. California’s Master Plan for Higher Education of 1960 was an early entrant (Rodriguez, 2015). COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 36 While this made community college universally available and created a tiered system of access (with community colleges being open-access, California State Universities being selective, and University of California campuses being highly selective), it continued to disenfranchise the least prepared students, who are more likely to be students from underrepresented backgrounds, because of poor transfer preparedness. Similarly, the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education moved most remedial education from 4-year colleges to community colleges in the 1990s, creating strong mission differentiation amongst institutions (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). While the proportion of minority students at senior colleges in the state increased, some still question if this will lead to further stratification. New York’s City University of New York (CUNY) system has a strong Honors Program which some have argued will lead to inequitable social hierarchies; however, as money flowed to these programs, some has helped create scholarships for minority students. There has not been extensive research on the long-term impact of the program. In Illinois, the state legislature tasked community colleges with closing the readiness gap (Castro, 2013). Five Illinois community colleges were charged with developing interventions for students still in high school. The effectiveness of these interventions was analyzed using Conley’s (2007) framework. However, Castro (2013) pointed out that, because of the college readiness equity gap, this framework was likely unable to be fully effective in examining these programs because it does not take racialized concepts of college readiness into account. This connects to this study, in which the selection of a highly selective institutions of higher education extends the discussion of college readiness to the idea that the rhetoric does not focus on inequities and opportunity gaps and presses for a model of measuring college and career readiness that accounts for institutionalized racism. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 37 College Completion for Minoritized Students The dropout rate at the postsecondary level is significantly higher among those who arrive to college academically underprepared (Michaels et al., 2011). Boulton (2005) suggests that the embarrassment and shame students with deficiencies often face leads to “intellectual danger” and diminished educational outcomes. (Cline et al., 2007). Cline et al. (2007) posited that, as more low-socioeconomic-status and underrepresented students attend college, they often have difficulties meeting strict college readiness requirements in their first year and require remedial courses for a year or more. Furthermore, they addressed how the concept of college readiness focuses on making sure students are prepared to succeed in college-level academia or in the workforce, rather than just fulfilling the institution’s eligibility requirements. Some practices at highly selective institutions of higher education, such as early admission and increases in merit-based aid, have disadvantaged low-income students who may seek to “shop- around” for financial aid packages or may lack opportunity to earn merit-based aid (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010). However, some highly selective institutions are beginning to replace loans in their packages with grant aid, which could benefit low-income and minority students. Low-income students and students of color are far less likely to enroll in college than their White and some Asian American counterparts. The college attainment gap for minoritized students has remained largely unchanged or even worsened in the past decade (The Campaign for College Opportunity, 2013). Once in college, these students are less likely to graduate (Duncheon, 2015). Unfortunately, placement in remedial coursework typically increases the time to degree and decreases the likelihood of degree completion (Michaels et al., 2011). Many of these students do not persist to a second year of college and 41% who earn at least 10 credits never complete a degree (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). The United States Department of Education COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 38 discovered that 58% of students who do not need remediation receive a bachelor’s degree, compared to only 17% of students registered in remedial reading courses and 27% of students registered in remedial math courses (Bautsch, 2013). According to the Campaign for College Opportunity (2013), Black students have the lowest completion rates for transfer and freshman students at all three California higher education segments. The findings in this report also indicate that Black students are more likely to start college and not finish than any other ethnic group. As a result, in 2012, more Black students were enrolled at for-profit institutions than at any California State University system and University of California system school combined. As a result, over the last decade, the gap between Black student and White student bachelor or higher degree attainment has only decreased by one percentage point. Findings from this report show that, in 2011, about 24% of Black adults had obtained a bachelor’s degree compared with 41% of White adults. Though far more of these students are attending these colleges, indicating a college readiness gap, some of these students still get admitted to and attend highly selective elite institutions. Black and Brown Students at Highly Selective Institutions of Higher Education Brown students are underrepresented at selective institutions of higher education and overrepresented at open-access 2-year colleges (Kim, Rennick & Franco, 2014) and Black undergraduates are overrepresented in community colleges and underrepresented in 4-year public and private non-profit institutions (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005). Most students who attend these highly-selective private and public colleges are students who come from upper-middle and high-income families (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010). Furthermore, students who graduate from these highly selective private colleges play disproportionate roles in society, such as politicians COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 39 and business leaders, and receive unparalleled benefits (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010), including higher lifetime incomes (Dale & Krueger, 2002). Standardized tests play a growing role in admissions, especially at selective institutions. However, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) creators recognized that the SAT could only be a supplement and warned of the dangers of using it as the only consideration of college readiness (Almeida, 2015a). Moreover, in a study of University of California schools after the implementation of Proposition 209 in the state banning affirmative action policies in public institutions, race neutral admissions processes that rely solely on SAT/ACT and GPA had major impacts at selective institutions that can no longer achieve pre-Proposition 209 diversity levels (Koretz, Russell, Shin, Horn, & Shasby, 2002). Because of the opportunity gaps in education, Black and Brown students earn lower scores than their White and some Asian American counterparts on the SAT exam (Howard, 2010), making it less likely they would meet eligibility requirements at a highly-selective institution. Howard (2010) found that Black and Brown students are more likely to have poor reading and mathematics scores, which are indicative of future performance and college entrance. Additionally, Black and Brown students are more likely to be retained in secondary education, resulting in higher likelihood for suspensions and expulsions. Moreover, they are less likely to graduate, more likely to be referred to special education, and less likely to be placed into advanced mathematics or AP courses. They are also more likely to underperform on the SAT exam. In a study of the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program at a highly selective private university in the Western United States, Melguizo (2010) found that students who participated in the program scored higher on non-cognitive measures like realistic self-appraisal than their peers outside of the program. These students are more likely to complete college than their peers, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 40 indicating that college admissions counselors may want to consider these non-cognitive factors in recruiting and admitting students. The Gates Millennium program, developed by the Gates Foundation, was a response to the problem of using only cognitive measures, such as the SAT, in college admission criteria (Melguizo, 2010). Program leaders believed that including non-cognitive factors would be more equitable for students of color. Melguizo (2010) found that “low-income minorities with a strong self-concept, leadership experience, a record of community work, and a history of successfully overcoming life challenges had graduation rates comparable to those of individuals in the most selective institutions” (p. 239). These students are also more likely to complete college than their minoritized peers at other less-selective institutions (Melguizo, 2008). Noting the underrepresentation of Black and Brown students at selective institutions of higher education and the impacts of standardized testing in the admissions process at these elite institutions, literature reveals the disproportionate number of minoritized students within these campuses who are not college-ready. The next section focuses on the important constructs of college readiness for minoritized students. Important Constructs of College Readiness for Minoritized Students The rhetoric on achievement gaps has moved to one on opportunity gaps (Milner, 2010). This framework helps provide a racialized and more equitable understanding of college readiness (Castro, 2013; Duncheon, 2015). As students enter, matriculate in, and complete college, there are several social and cultural capital impacts (Becker, 2015; Lamont & Lareau, 2015; Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 41 From Achievement Gaps to Opportunity Gaps While literature and popular media previously focused on achievement gaps, opportunity gaps and educational debt mindsets have started to replace the achievement gap rhetoric. The achievement gap references the educational outcome imbalance between Black, Brown, and Native American students and their White and Asian American peers (Howard, 2010). Educational debts are similarly the resources that should have been, but were not, invested in low-income students (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The denial of crucial opportunities and resources for students of color harms their likelihood of attaining life and educational success (Carter, Welner & Ladson-Billings, 2013). Educational debt. Educational debt is a result of historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral debts that helps to conceptualize how each of these has had an impact on disparities in education for underserved populations (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Historical debt results from years of disparities in education, caused by laws, legal cases, and de facto segregation. Economic debt arises from funding inequities for underserved students and from lack of opportunities due to educational attainment for these populations. Sociopolitical debt arises from lack of access to representative legislators for these populations. Moral debt arises from disparity in what people know they should do because it is right and what they are actually doing for these populations. While these gaps and debts have existed for centuries, policymakers and researchers have focused more heavily on it in the past 20 to 30 years (Howard, 2010). There are several outcomes of these gaps. Students receive poorer reading and math scores on standardized tests, indicative of future issues in gaining college entrance. There is a greater likelihood that these students will be retained in their grades and have more suspensions and expulsions. There is lesser likelihood these students graduate and a greater likelihood these students are referred to COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 42 special education. They are also less likely to be placed in advanced coursework. Additionally, they tend to be receive poorer standardized test scores (Howard, 2010). Like educational debts, opportunity gaps move beyond blaming the victims of these gaps for the disparities in achievement. Opportunity gaps. Opportunity gaps are "complicated, process-oriented, and much more nuanced than achievement" gaps (Milner, 2010, pp. 7-8). The frame of opportunity gaps shifts the attention from “outcomes to inputs - to the deficiencies in the foundational components of societies, schools, and communities that produce significant differences in educational and ultimately socioeconomic outcomes” (Carter, Welner & Ladson-Billings, 2013, pg. 3.) Rather than focusing on student deficits as the term “achievement gap” tends to, opportunity gaps focus on oppressive institutionalized systems. Milner advanced that all students deserve opportunities to succeed, but that oppressive systems advantage some over others. Similarly, educational debts are owed to underserved and underrepresented students in education (Ladson-Billings, 2006). These are moral debts because closing these gaps is a moral imperative. Opportunity gaps, in this sense, are similar to economic debts, whereas the achievement gap is similar to an economic deficit. Ladson-Billings argues that closing the achievement gap only reduces the deficit, while still not impacting the overall debt, so policy and practical decisions must focus on lowering the educational debt and closing opportunity gaps. Furthermore, Carter et al. (2013) argued that educational debt arises from a long-term failure to produce equitable conditions and a failure to address deficits, represented in year-to-year testing. Opportunity gaps are multifaceted. The opportunity gap framework consists of five interconnected areas in which educators can bridge opportunity gaps: rejection of color blindness; understanding of how to navigate cultural COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 43 conflicts; rejection of the myth of meritocracy; rejection of low expectations and deficit- mindsets; and rejection of context-neutral mindsets (Milner, 2010). Opportunity gaps are multifaceted. The opportunity gap framework consists of five interconnected areas in which educators can bridge opportunity gaps: rejection of color blindness, understanding of how to navigate cultural conflicts, rejection of the myth of meritocracy; rejection of low expectations and deficit mindsets, and rejection of context-neutral mindsets (Milner, 2010). Color blindness. Teachers that take on color-blind mentalities by believing they “do not see color” can hinder students’ learning by neglecting important aspects of their background that contribute to their understanding and can lead to not appropriately developing learning opportunities to address these (Milner, 2012). This actually can justify inaction and perpetuate the status quo. Moreover, with the great demographic disparity between students and teachers, there is a rising issue. Especially with this widening gap, when White teachers work with minoritized students and adopt color-blind mentalities, they risk denying students of important learning opportunities (Howard, 2010). While all teachers can help students learn, teachers of color tend to have experiences that allow them better opportunity to connect with and teach students of color. Moreover, while individual teachers may not be racist, and may see discussing race as racist itself, this does not negate that broader institutions tend to be racist, and, if they do not work against these structures, they will persist and continue to prevent student success. Some direct impacts of these colorblind mentalities include fewer minoritized students in gifted education (Howard, 2010) and fewer in co-curricular activities (Milner, 2010). The term “colorblindness” can often be more simply defined as a purposeful silencing of race words themselves. Pollock (2004) explained how using racial labels in describing people, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 44 such as saying “my White or Black” friend rather than “my friend,” is one of the many pitfalls inherent in racialization. Pollock further stated how humans wrestle, for example, “with the act of placing infinitely diverse human beings into simple ‘racial’ boxes; we then wrestle with the fact that these categories of ‘racial’ difference are central to the most troubling power struggles we have” (Pollock, 2009, pg. 1). This wrestling will ultimately lead to a paradoxical reality for a world with the existence of racial inequality, both not talking and talking about individuals in racial terms seem alternately necessary to make things “fair.” Cultural conflicts. Cultural incongruence between teachers and students can hamper student learning, especially when teachers operate from their dominant cultural ways of knowing (Milner, 2010). In this, students and teachers can work against each other and students will believe their cultural preferences to be insignificant, perhaps resulting in them refusing to engage in the classroom. Normalcy is at the core of this, so students must be taught how to be successful in the classroom and that they live in an oppressive system; the onus, then, is on teachers to educate students on this. Students must also be prepared to challenge and change these structures, and teachers are responsible for preparing students in this way. Furthermore, linguistic and cultural understanding in curriculum, instruction, and classroom behavior prove its significance in the lives of children who stem from middle-class families and constructs an appreciation and respect for society's institutions and dominant culture (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Myth of meritocracy. Educators, especially privileged and/or White educators, believe their own and their students' success has been earned and that failure is also earned as a result of wrong choices (Milner, 2010). Unearned opportunities, though, are often passed from generation to generation. These teachers, then, have no concept of how privilege manifests. US society is built on the idea of the American Dream, that everyone has equal opportunity for success; COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 45 however, educational opportunities are neither equal nor equitable. This philosophy, then, rejects institutional and systemic issues. Stanton-Salazar (1997) argued that the very myth of meritocracy is purposefully advanced by school systems as a way to maintain and conserve current educational systems. Low expectations and deficit mindsets. Those with deficit mindsets see “different” as deficient (Milner, 2010). This view, paired with low expectations, makes it difficult to develop meaningful learning opportunities. In these mindsets, culturally diverse students’ backgrounds are seen as liabilities and students’ strengths are not built upon. These educators often believe they are doing students a favor when they are not, creating a cycle in which they do not have high expectations, students do not learn, and students perform poorly on tests. Solórzano (2000) specifically identified low expectations as a form of faculty microagression and has found, even when faced with contrary evidence, faculty tend to maintain these mindsets. These deficit-type mindsets are more pervasive in educational organizations, where even those who espouse commitment to diversity may do so through deficit views (Bensimon, 2005). Underlying this view is that minoritized students must change to adapt to existing systems (Iverson, 2007). Context neutral mindsets. Social contexts impact human development and opportunity, often reinforcing the status quo (Milner, 2012). Context neutral mindsets, then, do not allow educators to recognize the realities of their students’ context. The fact is, urban and high-poverty schools face many persistent challenges. Educators must understand the overall context and their local context to create responsive teaching. Specifically, four arguments underscore the opportunity gap framework and how it differs from an achievement gap framework. First, it does not compare diverse students with White students without understanding the disparities between them. Second, it does not frame COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 46 White students as the norm. Third, it does not use deficit mindsets to conceptualize students of color. And, fourth, it focuses on inequitable structures rather than students (Milner, 2012). These comparisons present White students as the norm, discounting the achievements and struggles of other racial groups. Out-of-school influences, such as geography, specifically play into opportunity gaps (Milner, 2013). Particularly, poorer neighborhoods tend to be clustered away from important resources largely because of a monolithic regime of business leaders who attempt to serve their own interests. As a result, cities are becoming even poorer while suburbs become richer (Tate, 2008). To close opportunity gaps, there should be a focus on reform at the individual, school, and district levels, particularly on teaching and instruction. The individual teacher can be a powerful change-maker in students’ lives. Teachers, however, exist within educational systems. Holistic reform to these systems will bring about the most transformative and sustainable changes in students (Milner, 2015). At the individual level, effective teaching occurs when teachers are more patient with students, increase class rigor and expectations, continue to dedicate themselves to their work, and communicate more often and more effectively with their students. Moreover, teachers can learn and understand their students’ lived experiences and centralize this in their design of curriculum and instruction to strengthen student learning (Milner, 2013). Expertise should be located within the students and their families, using their cultural funds of knowledge as assets. The teacher in a home-based context of learning will be able to know the child not only as a student, but a whole person. These interactions will yield knowledge about the multiple spheres of activity in which curriculum is motivated by the child’s interest and questions (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). This holistic approach is in contrast to the COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 47 classroom knowledge children gain that may not be imposed by adults. At the system level, specific recommendations include reducing class sizes, reforming narrow curricula, practicing equitable decision-making, and responding to neighborhood conditions (Milner, 2015). Moreover, teachers, policymakers, and researchers all should use the opportunity gap framework to frame their decision-making, rather than an achievement gap framework or deficit mindsets (Milner, 2012). Opportunity gaps are an essential component to this investigation toward considering the ways race plays into discussions of the relationship of opportunity and student performance. This study sought to illuminate student experiences wherein the intersection of opportunity, race, and achievement are highlighted. College Readiness and Remediation One of the most concrete impacts of opportunity gaps is resulting college readiness gaps. The college readiness gap ranges from 10% at highly selective 4-year institutions to 60% at non- selective 2-year colleges (Shulock, 2010). While college readiness is defined in several ways, it is generally understood as the ability to enroll in college without remedial education (Conley, 2007; Duncheon, 2015); however, it includes a constellation of cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus integration factors (Duncheon, 2015). Racism and meritocracy issues, directly related to Milner’s (2010) concepts within the opportunity gap framework, are reasons proffered for the gap in readiness (Arnold, Lu, & Armstrong, 2013), which can be conceptualized in two ways (Shulock, 2010). The first is the gap between having a high school diploma and being college- ready and the second is the gap between receiving a college preparatory curriculum and being college-ready (Shulock, 2010). These gaps exist for several reasons (Shulock, 2010). First, there are differential expectations between high schools and colleges, which lead to a disconnect between college COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 48 readiness in terms of high school academic preparation and what higher education institutions expect. Second, there are standardized assessments, such as the PSAT, SAT, and ACT, that do not measure student attainment of specific college readiness skills. Many states have not created specific readiness standards, and, among the few that have, the tests have not been specific to the states’ tailored standards and curriculum. Third, there has been a focus on seat time over proficiency. According to Shulock (2010), seat time is not an indicator of student knowledge and ability. Fourth, poor school and teacher accountability contribute to the latter gap. Shulock stated that high school accountability systems need focus on increasing college readiness. Furthermore, Shulock recommended holding high schools more accountable to increasing the rate at which their graduates enroll in college without the need for remediation. Finally, poor college accountability to completion rates also contribute to the latter gap. Many state finance and accountability systems do not monitor or incentivize college completion. Doing so would encourage colleges to join secondary institutions in comprehensive and systematic endeavors to monitor, articulate, and improve college readiness fundamentals in math, reading, and writing. College knowledge is of particular importance to several conceptualizations of college readiness (Arnold et al., 2013; Duncheon, 2015; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). Though researchers and policymakers typically understand readiness as the preparation to start college without remediation (e.g., Conley, 2007), it goes beyond mere cognitive skills (Duncheon, 2015) to include non-cognitive academic factors and campus-integration factors. Arnold et al. (2013) framed college readiness using an ecological model, considering the macrosystem (such as capitalism and racism), the exosystem (economy and financial aid structures), the mesosystem (such as educational institutions), the microsystem (such as neighborhoods and individuals), and the individual (including their age, socioeconomic status, race, and other factors). Conley and COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 49 French (2014) considered key cognitive strategies, content knowledge, learning skills, and transition knowledge (or, thinking, knowing, acting, and going). As stated, college readiness gaps disproportionately impact minoritized students. Specifically, Black, Brown, and Native American students perform, on average, below their White counterparts on standardized tests (Strayhorn, 2014). Moreover, White students score better in areas of class preparation than Black and Brown students. First-generation students underperform on several indicators when compared to their counterparts. “Least-ready” students, those who place at least three levels below transfer-ready in English or math, are more likely to be Black or Brown and less likely to complete transfer-level coursework (Rodriguez, 2015). Furthermore, first-generation students have several disadvantages in college readiness compared to their peers, including lesser assistance from their parents in applying and preparing for college; less rigorous curricula on average; and poor conceptions of institutional fit (Reid & Moore, 2008). Poverty has a strong, negative outside-of-school influence on student opportunities and achievement (Milner, 2013). Minoritized students are more likely than their White peers to live in poverty. As a result, when students pay for a degree they never earn, the lifetime economic impacts can be large, continuing to perpetuate this racial stratification. Social and Cultural Capital Social and cultural capital can be important constructs in understanding children’s upbringing and funds of knowledge. Cultural capital refers to the cultural artifacts that positively impact individuals’ outcomes (Lamont & Lareau, 2015). Social capital, though, resides in the relationships between individuals and how those relationships can (or cannot) be leveraged for personal advancement (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). It derives from students’ relationships and includes relationships with families, which are especially important, as well as COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 50 religious communities and other forms of relationships. For example, a child’s parents’ educational level can directly impact their success in school and, in turn, affect their readiness for college and success later in life. Social capital can be used for the advancement of those who have accrued it, but, often, minoritized students lack the social capital to take advantage of its benefits. Students with more cultural capital are more likely to attend institutions of higher education, or aspire to attend these institutions (Conley & French, 2014). Cultural capital. Pierre Bourdieu (1986) first envisioned the concept of cultural capital specifically considering differential academic outcomes of children from different social and cultural backgrounds. Defined as “widely shared, legitimate culture made up of high status cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, behaviors, and goods) used in direct or indirect social and cultural exclusion” (Lamont & Lareau, 2015, p. 52), cultural capital theorists posit that schools typically reflect the dominant social and cultural groups, so students outside of the dominant groups must learn to adapt to these norms to succeed. Oppositional researchers, however, have argued that this deficit-based mindset of capital resituates the dominant culture (typically White middle-class individuals) as the norm while neglecting to recognize the cultural wealth that communities of color possess (Yosso, 2005). Bourdieu (1986) considered cultural capital to be inherited, in that it is passed down within the family. Additionally, his focus was largely on economic means of production. For example, he postulated that those with economic capital can control means of production, but that they need cultural capital to use them for their purpose. In educational contexts, he argued, it would follow that certain cultures are privileged in education and that, for students to receive the best use of their educational experience, they would need the appropriate and congruent cultural capital of the majority. Also, while Bourdieu focused heavily on “high-brow” forms of capital COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 51 such as art, others have lamented this framing, expanding cultural capital to include more direct applications to education such as “(i) attitude, interest and preference toward cultural activities; (ii) cultural knowledge; and (iii) language fluency” (Davies, Qiu, & Davies, 2014, p. 806). Social capital. Social capital is a collective capital that is bestowed by networks to people typically as part of membership in a group (Bourdieu, 1986). Group membership, then, bestows certain capital. Social capital exists when one can use these relationships for personal advancement and enhancement (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). Coleman (1988) offers several major types of social capital. Information channels are relationships in which information passes from one person to another. This could include high school students trying to get information about college-going. Norms are another form of social capital, in that it can facilitate certain actions. Norms of high expectations in school can be a powerful form of social capital. Appropriable social organizations are those that can work to advocate for individuals, even those who may lack personal capital to advocate themselves. While Coleman offered several other forms of capital, these are some of the most important to understanding college readiness in this study. Social capital can be related to cultural capital in some ways, as the family too can be a group that confers social capital (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). As a matter of fact, for children, the family is one of the strongest group memberships that imparts social capital. As a result, family capital (e.g., parental education) can affect students’ outcomes. Parents with higher levels of education may be better able to provide academic support which can have an impact on a student’s college readiness. Outside of the family, religious communities also have particular import in social capital. Especially for students at schools within religious communities, the networks between parents can be important assets. Stanton-Salazar (1997) has focused on school agents as important in social capital attainment. For example, cultural differences between COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 52 predominantly White faculty and minoritized students can make border crossing (both physical and sociological) difficult. Additionally, a middle-class focus in schools can alienate minoritized students who may not come from middle-class backgrounds. The impact of social and cultural capital in educational settings. While some argue that cultural capital has an effect on high school and college grades and impacts educational inequities and success, others have critiqued the application of capital in education. Parents pass along cultural advantages to their children (DiMaggio, 1982). These advantages build capital that, in turn, directly affect high school grades. After high school, social and cultural capital continue to play a significant role in college performance, serving as a positive predictor of undergraduate GPA for Black and Latino men (Strayhorn, 2010). Specifically, socioeconomic status (a potential form of social capital) had the most significant impact on college achievement for Black men. This was not true for Latino men, though, where previous academic preparation had the largest impact. Parental jobs, another form of social capital, also affects student likelihood to intend to attend college, where those with fathers in managerial and professional jobs more likely to intend to attend (Davies, Qiu, & Davies, 2014). Some, though, disagree with what impact capital plays in education. For example, Yosso (2005) argued for a racialized understanding of capital using a critical race lens and argues against using White, middle-class communities as the norm by which other cultures and communities should be judged. She argued that communities of culture are wealthy in their ability to contribute to cultural capital. Another argument is that capital, specifically cultural capital, is so ill-defined and poorly operationalized that it is a poor indicator of student success in schools (Kingston, 2001). These arguments, though, may be criticized for their lack of a racialized perspective. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 53 Institutional agents in schools can promote or inhibit growth of social capital to affect college knowledge, which is important to college readiness (Almeida, 2015a). This is usually disseminated by socialization agents, such as parents, as a form of social and cultural capital. First-generation students are disadvantaged compared to their non-first-generation peers in acquiring college knowledge, then. Institutional agents, such as teachers and counselors, can act as providers of social capital, but issues of trust, especially when minoritized students work with privileged adults, complicate this (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Teachers and counselors must, then, help students navigate multiple worlds. Specifically, the dominant culture in schools may differ from students’ home culture (Milner, 2012; Strayhorn, 2010), so teachers must help students use their own cultural funds of knowledge to navigate these differing cultures (Moll et al., 1992). The student achievement impact of capital. Social and cultural capital have positive impacts on student achievement. In an empirical study, Georg (2004) found that cultural capital was reproductive for upper classes (though, significantly only for women) and helped create upward mobility for students from lower classes. When looking at immigrant students, Kao and Rutherford (2007) found that first-generation and second-generation immigrant students had lower social capital than their peers. While this typically diminished by the third generation, it persisted for Brown students. Moreover, parent-school involvement was positively linked to social outcomes, but, because first- and second-generation immigrants possessed lower social capital, it was less likely their children could gain advantage from these connections. Peer social capital is also an important construct that can help student achievement; however, Brown students typically have lower levels of peer social capital (Ream, 2005). One significant reason for this is that these students tend to be more mobile. Social and cultural capital measures also COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 54 positively impact student persistence from the first-to-second years of college in both community colleges and 4-year institutions (Wells, 2008). Minoritized Student College Readiness Conceptual Framework Race is a critical factor in college readiness (Duncheon, 2015; Almeida, 2015a). Cultural and social capital are both related to race; they are both affected by race and can affect how race impacts life. (Kao & Rutherford, 2007; Ream, 2005). As a result, a racialized perspective of college readiness can be particularly important. The intersection of these various conceptual frameworks forms the theoretical basis for understanding our problem. Opportunity gaps, college readiness, capital, and student agency are important constructs within this framework. Opportunity gaps, which challenge the dominant ideology of deficit mindsets in achievement gaps, impact student capital. Specifically, when teachers have low expectations and use deficit or context-neutral mindsets, students are not able to use their inherent cultural capital or start to build further social capital (Lamont & Lareau, 2015, Milner, 2010, Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). Opportunity gaps, student capital, and student agency impact college readiness. While all students deserve opportunities to contribute meaningfully to society, many are not afforded the right to do so in schools (Milner, 2010). These gaps in opportunity in turn create achievement gaps whereby minoritized students are not given opportunities to achieve at a level similar to their non-minoritized peers. These achievement gaps then become gaps in college readiness. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 55 Figure 1. Conceptual Framework: Minoritized Student College Readiness Framework Social capital can have a large impact on college readiness, specifically in the form of parents. When students are not first-generation in college, they are more likely to have the appropriate college knowledge to be successful in college than their first-generation peers, for example (Almeida, 2015a). College readiness then helps build more capital. Students who attend college being college ready and persist to graduation help build social capital. They build social capital in being able to act as agents for others and make strong interpersonal connections (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). Using the Minoritized Student College Readiness Framework helped the researcher to frame the study in a way that recognizes students’ assets, rather than focusing on deficits. Student Agency and Transformational Resistance Student agency. Student agency plays a vital role in this research when it comes to illuminating the voices of students who are often silenced or ignored regarding the practice and policies of college readiness. Student agency is defined as a “concept that students should be in College Readiness Student Social & Cultural Capital Opportunity Gaps Student Agency & Transofrmational Resistance COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 56 control of their educational decisions rather than following a prescribed path determined by others” (Zimmerman, 2015, pg. 21). Student voice is one way in which students express their agency, hoping to find their own unique viewpoints outside of the traditionally-emphasized voices (Rudduck & Fielding, 2006). The traditional concept of student voice aims to be transformative and emancipatory; however, the practice can be different (Taylor & Robinson, 2009). Specifically, power plays an important role in devaluing student voice as transformative. First, teachers are rarely empowered themselves because they exist in sociopolitical power cultures. Second, the relationship between students and teachers is raced and gendered. Third, teachers and others are more likely to value the voices of the students who have the cultural capital to participate in conversations. Moreover, teachers often see students as immature and fail to value the voices and opinions of students (Rudduck & Fielding, 2006). Students, too, may see opportunities to offer their voice as inauthentic, especially if they were not involved in determining the conversations, if they view the teacher interest as being contrived, and if they believe there may be active follow-through to the conversation. Additionally, students may see that some voices are valued over others (e.g., those that have the appropriate cultural capital, as mentioned before) and this may stand in the way of truly drawing out student voice. Dialogue provides a potential solution to the disconnect between the theory and practice of student voice (Taylor & Robinson, 2009). However, issues of power to mar it. While some see dialogue as egalitarian and cooperative, however these may be neither “transparent [nor] unproblematic” (p. 169). Dialogue does not break down power relations, but instead tries to work within traditional power structures. In this scenario, those with power can undermine the egalitarian nature of dialogue. However, dialogue and traditional notions of student voice can COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 57 help to bring these issues to the forefront, promoting potential change (though the changes may be small or incremental). Moreover, they may help break down the binaries inherent in power structures, deconstructing power in some ways. Student agency also helps students build efficacy (Williams, 2017). That is, it can help them “act with effect” and feel empowered to take the appropriate steps to reach their goals (p. 10). Efficacy and agency, then, can act as key motivators (Lin-Siegler, Dweck, & Cohen, 2016). This motivation may not only encourage academic success (Williams, 2017), but also work to empower students to develop citizenship and prepare them for the job market (Zimmerman, 2015). Transformational resistance. One way in which students express their agency is through resistance (Soló rzano & Bernal, 2001). While most of the resistance literature has focused on self-defeating resistance, that which recreates oppressive conditions, Chicana and Chicano students have engaged in resistance to create equitable environments. Resistance theories, different from reproduction theories, focus on the struggle with structures and how individuals create meaning from the interactions with these structures, acknowledging human agency. There are four types of oppositional behavior: reactionary behavior, self-defeating resistance, conformist resistance, and transformational resistance. These occur along two intersecting dimensions: one focused on critiquing social oppression and the other focused on motivation by social justice. Reactionary behavior is not resistance because there is neither a social justice motivation or reaction or critique to oppression. An example may be the student who acts out in class. Self-defeating resistance is seen as the traditional form of resistance, occurring when one critiques oppressive conditions without working toward social justice. The high school dropout is self-defeating in that they do not transform their oppressive status, for COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 58 example. Conformist resistance focuses on an interest in social justice without critiquing oppressive structures, taking a liberal view in which students may blame themselves or their culture for negative conditions, rather than oppression. An example would be students who work to offer tutoring without challenging pedagogical standards. Transformational resistance, which critiques oppressive systems and has a desire for social justice, holds the greatest possibility for change. Transformational resistance comes in two forms: internal and external (Soló rzano & Bernal, 2001). With internal resistance, behavior is subtle or silent. One example is the student who goes to graduate school to engage in social justice against oppression and give back to her community. External resistance is more overt and does not conform to institutional and cultural norms. An example would be the student who demonstrates to integrate facilities. This is often romanticized, while internal resistance is often ignored. Both have the potential to affect college readiness, however. For example, the 1968 East Los Angeles high school protests in which Chicanx students walked-out demanding changes to their curriculum. Education has been an important form of transformational resistance for others, too (Brayboy, 2005). One tribal elder from a southwestern United States tribe, for example, used his education after the Korean War as an impetus for change in his community. As such, he acted as a mentor to many youths in the tribe who aspired to receive college education. Transformational resistance has also become an aim in some mathematics education, where a Los Angeles educator used critical mathematics pedagogy to encourage her students to pursue change within their shared community, in this case specifically related to food insecurity (Raygoza, 2016). Similar youth participatory action research (YPAR) was used in Tucson schools to encourage transformational resistance among high school students (Cammarota, 2017). In this program, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 59 students engaged in social justice issues within their community, thinking critically about how to address them, and presented research to influential members of the community. Through these examples, students have taken initiative in their communities to impact important levels of change. Summary Over the last 70 years (Almeida, 2015b), there has been a tension between high schools and colleges in conceptualizing college readiness (Kirst & Bracco, 2004). Also, while access to college has expanded for minoritized students (Rodríguez, 2015), their success has grown as an issue (Almeida, 2015b). The opportunity gap (Milner, 2010) and educational debt (Ladson- Billings, 2006) frameworks, combined with understandings of student capital and student agency, offer a perspective on college readiness and success. College readiness is understood from cognitive and non-cognitive perspectives (Conley, 2007; Conley & French, 2014; Duncheon, 2015), however little research has looked qualitatively as students’ perspectives. Also, while capital has been used to understand issues of college readiness (Almeida, 2015a), there has not been significant research relating Milner’s (2010) opportunity gap framework to college readiness gaps. The convergence of opportunity gaps, capital, and student agency and their effect on college readiness offers a unique opportunity to inform practice. The next chapter highlights the study’s methodology. After discussing sample and population, the chapter illuminates the study’s instrumentation. It then focuses on the methods used for data collection and analysis, laying out the procedures for how the study was conducted. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 60 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY For underserved and underprivileged students are often silenced or ignored when it comes to college readiness, this study sought to illuminate their voices on this topic. This work serves to add these students’ voices to the literature. Furthermore, this study aimed to help inform minoritized students on various perspectives of how they may become college-ready and prepared to attend a highly selective institution. It also aimed to inform K-12 and higher education practices of college readiness. The following research questions guided the study: 1. In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at highly-selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience? 2. What are the perspectives of first generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college? By interviewing current Black and Brown undergraduate students at a large, highly selective institutions in California, the researcher aimed to illuminate what methods and practices these students used to overcome institutional barriers to success. By interviewing current first generation Black and Brown students, the researcher identified tools current practitioners, such as high school counselors and college advisors, could use to prepare their students for success. This study employed a qualitative methodology because it provided a “rich, thick description” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 256). The researcher used a purposeful selection of students who identify as Black or Brown, attend a highly-selective institution of higher education, and who have overcome institutional obstacles to achieve success. A minoritized student college readiness conceptual framework illuminated these students’ experiences through COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 61 their own perspectives and words (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). This dissertation sought to inform K-12 on practices that can enhance college readiness for Black and Brown students and inform higher education practitioners on the experiences these students bring with them into the classroom. Methods Qualitative methods were a critical way to illuminate participants’ voices. Maxwell (2013) identifies both intellectual and practical reasons to use qualitative methods. The intellectual reasons include understanding meaning participants ascribe to experiences; understanding contexts; understanding processes; and identifying unanticipated events. These match well with the goals of the conceptual framework of the research and connect directly to the research questions, specifically of understanding individuals’ college readiness experiences and their perspectives of how these influence their behaviors in college. The practical reasons include generating results that are credible to participants and improving practices. This connects directly to the researcher’s goal of informing practice. Sample & Site Selection Site. Researchers need to explain and describe why they chose their site (Maxwell, 2013). This study’s research questions concerned highly selective institutions of higher education. The site selections consisted of two large highly selective institutions of higher education in California. Issues of college readiness and gaps in opportunity are greater for Black and Brown students at highly selective institutions. The college readiness gap ranged from 10% at highly selective four-year institutions to 60% at non-selective two-year colleges (Shulock, 2010). Many of the students who attend these highly-selective private and public colleges are students who come from upper-middle and high-income families (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010). COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 62 Furthermore, students who graduate from these highly selective private colleges play disproportionate roles in society, such as politicians and business leaders, and receive unparalleled benefits (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010), including higher lifetime incomes (Dale & Krueger, 2002). Unfortunately, for many students of color, as family income decreases, the likelihood that a student attends a highly-selective private college decreases as compared to a public college (Dezhbakhsh & Karikari, 2010). Research and literature pertaining to college readiness at highly selective institutions of higher education is scarce, especially involving first generation Black and Brown students. Participants. Entry into the research setting and with research participants was attained using gatekeepers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Gatekeepers acted as important ports of entry to the research participants and included staff at the research sites who worked with programs that specifically serve Black and Brown first-generation college students. Specific offices were chosen these specific offices because they serve the populations explicitly listed in our research questions. Employees who worked with these programs, also served as potential informants and participants to identify student participants and provide a background to the resources provided on-campus. After working with these gatekeepers to establish entry, the researcher sent out emails to potential participants to elicit interest. Participants were selected based on willingness to participate and as long as they fit the research criteria: identifying as Black or Brown, being a first-generation college student, and attending the institution that is host to the research. To indicate their interest, participants filled out an online Qualtrics survey. Qualtrics was used because it used a secure server and is available through the host institution. Once students filled out the online survey indicating interest (and giving contact information and affirming they meet COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 63 the selection criteria), the researcher followed-up with each student to schedule an interview. Potential participants were allowed to give their preferred form of first contact, either a phone number or e-mail address. Purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to discover, understand, and gain insight from participants in this study. Therefore, the researcher selected a sample from which the most can be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through purposeful sampling, the researcher screened 12 potential participants. Of the twelve potential participants, nine participants met the criteria to participate in the study. Of the participants, four were Black and five were Brown. There were two male participants and seven female participants. A more detailed description of the participants will be offered below in the Study Participants section. Data Collection This study utilized interviews, documents and artifacts that were beneficial to the investigation. The researcher used a purposeful selection of students who identify as Black or Brown, attend a highly-selective institution of higher education and who have overcome institutional obstacles to achieve success. Though this proposal was being co-written, each researcher interviewed students separately and separately analyzed the data. The researcher utilized documents and artifacts in this study which were ready-made sources of data that were easily available to the resourceful and imaginative researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews. The researcher utilized interviews because they provided a gateway to the observations of others (Weiss, 1994) and illuminated their feelings, thoughts, and intentions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher administered interviews to students and to staff who work with minoritized populations. After using gatekeepers to gain access to the site and potential participants, potential interested participants filled out an online survey with their contact information. The researcher COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 64 then contacted these students to further explain the study, allow them to ask questions, and set up an in-person meeting. The researcher gained written informed consent from the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews typically lasted between thirty minutes to one hour, based upon student responses; this is usually a preferred time frame for qualitative interviews (Weiss, 1994). Interviews were tape recorded and supplemental notes were taken by the researcher. Additionally, the researcher followed a mixture of interview approaches, using both a standard interview guide and allowing for open-ended responses (Patton, 2002). The standard guide allowed the researcher to understand what makes our participants’ experiences similar and different, while allowing for open-ended responses empowers participants to tell their own stories. Because the researcher aimed to inform practice, this was critical. The researcher interviewed students until research saturation was reached (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher sought this may be as many as ten students. All interviews transcribed using a third- party transcription service (Rev.com) with students’ informed consent. The researcher then reviewed the transcripts against the recordings to make corrections and to identify important connections to the research questions. The researcher conducted interviews with staff who work with programs serving first- generation Black and Brown students at our host site as a way to approach the data from multiple perspectives. Again, the researcher used a mixed approach of the standard interview guide and open-ended responses. Additionally, the researcher interviewed the staff after interviewing the students to use the students’ stories to inform our interviews. Documents and artifacts. In qualitative research, documents and artifacts involved are sources of data in research settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, with IRB approval, this study utilized documents and artifacts such as student progress reports, testimonial videos COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 65 from students that are publicly available, website information, support meetings in residence halls, mentor logs, and other pertinent documents and artifacts from programs that support first generation college students and students who identify as Black or Brown. Documents and artifacts provided from students in this study adhered to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) guidelines and will not breach confidentiality or serve as a risk to students in this study. FERPA is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records and is applicable to educational institutions that obtain federal dollars under applicable programs under the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Collection of these documents and artifacts took place during student interviews and follow up interviews. Students were asked if there was any information from programs or correspondence that aided them towards college readiness that they are willing to share for the study. Artifacts were stored in a password protected drive that will only be available to the researcher and principal investigator in this study. If needed be, a backup of these files were to be stored on a hard drive that will be locked in a lock box in the principal investigator's office on the respective campus. Data Analysis Interviews were transcribed and coded using a constant comparative approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A constant comparative approach was utilized for transcribing and coding interviews in this study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This researcher identified first-cycle codes by summarizing the data into segments after transcribing the interviews (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Second-level coding, known as axial coding or pattern coding, started the process of categorizing the first-level open codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Lastly, in third level of coding, the researcher identified COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 66 the most important codes through the process of selective coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this approach, each data incident is compared against other incidents to develop codes. The constant comparative method involved three steps of coding (Lichtman, 2014). In the open coding process, raw data was categorized and named. In the axial coding phase, codes were related to each other for theme identification. In the selective coding phase, choices were made about the most important codes. The researcher interviewed students separately, gathered the data separately, and separately analyzed the data. While data will not be shared, findings may be shared to identify similarities and discrepancies to enhance each study. A constant comparative approach was utilized for transcribing and coding interviews in this study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher identified first- cycle codes by summarizing the data into segments after transcribing the interviews (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Second-level coding, known as axial coding or pattern coding, started the process of categorizing the first-level open codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Lastly, in third level of coding, we will identify the most important codes through the process of selective coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After transcribing the interviews, the researcher identified first-cycle codes by summarizing the data into segments (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). This open coding process assigned terms or keywords to the data. The researcher used several types of codes at this first level: a priori codes, such as student agency, come from the previous research (Creswell, 2014); in vivo codes come from the participants own words (Corbin & Strauss, 2008); other open codes emerged from the researcher. Second-level coding, known as axial coding or pattern coding, began the process of categorizing the first-level open codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). At this level, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 67 themes, categories, and constructs emerged. The researcher identified pattern codes through several processes, including identifying relationships among codes, looking at relationships to theoretical constructs, and identifying explanations for phenomena. The researcher also utilized Harding’s (2013) recommendation to identify discrepancies and differences as an important aspect of second-level coding. In the third level of coding, the researcher identified the most important codes through the process of selective coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this phase, the researcher collapsed codes into broader themes as well as continued to identify, based upon the interviews, what appears most important to answering the research questions. Using this constant-comparative method was crucial because the research questions involved examining students’ perspectives and the constant-comparative method allows the researcher to do this in a way that could build broader theoretical perspectives and understandings that would help this study inform practice. Researcher Biases & Positionality For qualitative inquiry, the researcher was a key and primary instrument (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While this carried many advantage, some potential disadvantages existed if the researcher was not cautious. The researcher wanted to recognize and understand his own positionality and biases as they related to this research so that he could best use his experience and identity as a tool and instrument in the research. The researcher identified as a Black male. Rhodes (1994) discusses several downsides to the role of Black researchers interviewing Black participants. Rhodes posits that assuming or having thrust upon Black interviewees, sole authority for interpretation of the Black experience, Black researchers risk exposure to some of the same criticisms as White researchers. Furthermore, Rhodes states that is it crucial for Black researchers to have the encouragement to partake at all aspects in all levels of research and to COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 68 have control of input into the entire research process from start to finish, regardless of the race of the participant. As a result, the researcher worked constantly to be aware of his role as a Black researcher, avoiding sole authority for interpretation of the Black experience, and reflected on his biases by not assuming or having thrust upon Black interviewees. As a first-generation college student of color, there were ways in which the researcher could connect with the research on a personal level that would be a potential advantage to the research. Maxwell (2013) notes that research interest can be important in the overall goals of a study. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 69 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS This study addressed the problem of the disproportionate amount of first generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education who are not college-ready. In the first three chapters of this dissertation, the researcher provided an introduction to the problem of college readiness for Black and Brown students at elite universities, outlined opportunity gaps in college readiness for minoritized students, and reviewed pertinent methodologies. Despite research on college readiness being vast, qualitative research on college readiness using student voices was scarce. During the time of this study, Reid and Moore’s (2008) work was the primary published work that used qualitative methodology to consider issues of college readiness. Moreover, none of the current works identified by the researcher considered college readiness from a qualitative perspective in terms of students at highly-selective institutions of higher education. The purpose of this study was to add students’ voices to the literature. The identified literature on college readiness and remediation focused generally on public institutions and community colleges, and this study considered the under-researched area of college readiness for minoritized students at highly- selective private institutions of higher education. As stated in the Chapter one, K-12 education underprepares Black and Brown students for college compared to their White and many Asian peers (Castro, 2013; Duncheon, 2015; Rodríguez, 2015; Strayhorn, 2014). Opportunity gaps in K-12 education lead to college readiness gaps for these students (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Milner, 2010; Milner, 2012). At highly-selective institutions, these gaps are further heightened (Kim, Rennick, & Franco, 2014). Given the human capital impact highly-selective institutions bring about, this issue is an important one to consider. Using student perspectives and experiences, the researcher sought to inform practice for both K-12 educators and administrators as well as higher COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 70 education faculty, staff, and administrators. The findings in this section are presented as they relate to each research question. The following research questions guided the study’s inquiry: 1. In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at highly- selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience? 2. What are the perspectives of first generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college? This chapter provides a background for the site selections, gives a brief biography for the study participants, and presents the findings of the study. The data shared in this section were collected between August to December of 2017 in order to capture the voices of incoming and current juniors as well as current seniors in their final or beginning semester(s). The themes emerged in this chapter were structured by the research questions and elaborated upon utilizing supportive data and analysis. While some of the findings intersected within themes, the data were positioned under the theme in which it was most prominent. The next section provides a background and descriptors for the site selections and the participants in the study. First, there is a background and descriptors of the two sites, the University of Coastal Pacific (UCP), a pseudonym, and the University of America West (UAW), a pseudonym. Thereafter, a brief biography is given about each of the nine student participants (also referred to using pseudonyms) who took part in the research. Seven of the student participants attended UCP and two student participants attended UAW. All of the information reported is representative of what was collected at the time of the study. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 71 Context of Study Sites and Participants Study Sites This study included participants from two highly selective, elite institutions of higher education in California. At the time of the study, the size of the Black student population at the sites was comparable to other California elite universities, with percentages ranging from 3.9 to 5.9 at the time of the study. The size of the Brown student populations at similar elite institutions ranged from 19% to 33%. The two site selections below will provide information in regards to university and neighborhood demographics, resources and support for Black and Brown students, resources and support for first generations students, and actions taken by students to fill the gaps in resources and support at each institution. University of Coastal Pacific. The first university, University of Coastal Pacific (UCP), is a private university in California. It is also one of the oldest universities in its region. UCP is ranked in the top 25 of United States universities according to the US News & World Report. UCP’s endowment is in the billions, contributes to its high ranking as a top university. This highly selective institution admitted less than 18% of its applicants. Pertaining to SAT scores, the median 50 percent of incoming admitted SAT scores within the 90 t and 99 t percentile range. In addition, nearly nine out of every ten admits were in the top tenth of their high school graduating class for incoming first-year first-time college students. UCP received over 50,000 applicants and accepted 8000 of them during the time of this study. The average GPA for incoming freshman was 3.84 with 1 in 7 students being first generation college students. The first generation student population at UCP had grown over the past few years, with about 17% of the current year’s incoming freshmen falling being first generation college students, a five percent increase from previous years, according to UCP statistics. Admissions in the graduate schools at COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 72 UCP had much higher numbers, with about 7,100 first-generation students making up 28% of the total graduate enrollment during the time of this study. UCP’s ever-expanding drive to increase diversity on campus may have been a result of this increase in first generation college students. UCP made great progress towards expanding admissions acceptance to students from non- traditional, underserved, low-income, underrepresented and first-generation backgrounds over the past couple of years. Programs such as the Community Academic Program (CAP, as pseudonym), which provided enrolled local middle and high schoolers with full scholarships and academic enrichment to attend the University, demonstrated a commitment to recruiting a more diverse student body, mainly from the surrounding campus community. However, the resources for first generation college students offered at UCP were not centralized. This led to the potential first-generation students not knowing where to seek out guidance and support on the unique set of problems and concerns they may encounter. Similar highly selective institutions such as Brown University and numerous schools within the University of California system, centralize their offerings by setting up resource centers in which first-generation college students are able to obtain financial assistance, food assistance, academic tutoring and mentoring, free printing services, professional and career advice as well as a number of other services that first generation college students may need each day. Cultural centers at UCP, such as the Black and African Student Cultural Center (BASCC, as pseudonym) or Chicano Central (a pseudonym) were first- generation resource centers that served as a gathering place for students to obtain information, ask questions, and feel like they are part of a community on campus. The First Generation Assembly of Students at UCP (a pseudonym), a student-run organization, sought to fill this gap in resources by offering support to first generation students university-wide, local students, out- COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 73 of-state-students, transfer students as well as supporting university programs such as CAP and UCP Student Aid Fund (a pseudonym). UCP’s drive for a diverse student body included students from out-of-state, transfer students, the local community, and community programs. It is important to note that first generation college students and transfers students were on par with other UCP student admits. This meant that there was no preferential advantage regarding a first generation or transfer student’s GPA, test scores, or other factors required for admission. UCP’s CAP supported close to 3,500 children in college access programs each year. CAP also supported more than 600 children in community pre-schools and early literacy programs each year. CAP was the university’s signature college preparation program that enrolled close to 1,000 students each year. For transfer students, transferring into an elite public or private institution of higher education is often challenging. For instance, Princeton University had not accepted a transfer student in more than 20 years, based on the recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics. In the fall of 2015, Stanford University enrolled only 15 transfer students; Yale University enrolled 24 transfer students; Cornell and Georgetown University, typically known for accepting transfer students, only accepted about 497 and 186, respectively. In contrast, UPC accepted 1,505 transfers from 350 colleges in 2015. The transfer student population at UPC made up almost one-third of its new undergraduates. Of these transfer students, 800 transferred from a community college. Many of these transfer students at UCP were also first generation college students receiving financial aid. UCP offered a variety of support programs for students from various backgrounds. First generation and low-income students at UCP were able to benefit, if accepted, from a student aid fund program that assisted students with great financial needs whom demonstrate a high level of COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 74 community awareness towards their journey of a higher education. The student aid fund was called UCP Student Aid Fund and it had been around for over 40 years and served over 3000 undergraduates and first generation college students each year. This program offered supplemental scholarships to incoming transfer, freshman, and graduate students based on their university financial aid package, with primary consideration being given to those living (within five miles) in communities surrounding two of UCP’s campuses. However, the scholarship was not limited to just those populations in the surrounding UCP campuses. Students in the program strived to encourage and support one another towards academic achievement as well as community service. The aid from this fund could be renewed annually to students who fulfilled the scholarship requirements. These requirements included continual full-time enrollment of full attendance at the programs events and maintaining a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher. In addition to understanding the university student make-up, the local community demographics were also important for understanding university outreach efforts, as well as some of the neighborhoods UCP serves. The following information provides statistical data of the UCP neighborhood and study area demographics at the time of this study. Of the nine participants in this study, six were from neighborhoods surrounding the UCP campus. Many participants in this study stated that their families were low-income, living in low-income neighborhoods, and living in some form of poverty. Education plays a pivotal role towards increasing low-income US residents to move up the income ladder and out of poverty. The percentage of families with children under the age of 18 living in poverty in the UCP study area was about 47.8 percent. Data showed that 11 percent of White children in the respective city of UCP, live below the poverty line. A third of African-American and another one-third of Latino children live in poverty. In relation to students and their families living in poverty, high-poverty schools also COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 75 play pivotal roles towards college attainment. According to the National Student Clearinghouse (2014), students from high-poverty schools are less likely to directly enroll in college and are likely to stay enrolled after one year versus students from well-off high schools. Compared to the city overall (about 55 percent), only 28.8 percent of the UCP study area residents that were 25 years of age or older had obtained some sort of college education. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2012) reported that a combined impact of poverty and reading proficiency, decreases high school graduation rates. According to the National Institute for Literacy (2009), reading proficiency at an early grade is a predictor of future school success in high school and in higher education. Four out of 30 elementary schools in the UCP local community had more third-graders scoring proficient compared to the county school district, while the other 26 schools did not score proficient. Among the 14 high schools in the UCP study area (grades 9 through 12), all but two schools had graduation rates that were above the school district’s graduation rate of about 66.6 percent. The schools in shared partnerships with UCP or affiliated, such as CAP, reported higher graduation rates than the overall school district’s schools. Another predictor of future school success is low school truancy rates. About half of the 20 UCP surrounding schools with grades 6 through 8 had lower truancy rates than the county’s school district as a whole (about 43.9 percent). University of America West. The University of America West (UAW), is a large public university in California. UAW is also ranked in the top 25 of United States universities according the US News & World Report. UAW’s endowment is also in the billions, contributing to its high ranking. During the time of this study, UAW was one of the most applied-to universities in the United States. During fall of 2017, more than 95,000 freshman applications were received by the university. In the fall of 2017, UAW admitted less than 19% of its applicants, making UAW a COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 76 highly selective institution. The average GPA for admitted incoming freshmen was around 4.3, with an SAT score between 1940 and 2240. An approximate 96% of UAW freshmen lived in university housing at the time of this study with about 52% of undergraduates receiving some sort of financial assistance. Of the incoming freshman class, 38% received Pell Grants. Of the in- state California freshmen class, 31 percent were from families in which neither parent obtained a four-year college degree. About 32 percent of the in-state California freshman came from low- income families, which is defined as families earning less than $50,000 per year. Of the total admits to UAW, 21 percent of the admits for the 2017-2018 school year were first-generation college students and 23 percent were from low-income families. UAW’s commitment to increase student diversity is promoted through one of its first generations programs, Going First (as pseudonym). Going First aimed to highlight visibility and campus involvement by focusing on the success and retention of all first-generation students at UAW. Going First was a resource hub at UAW that assisted enrolled UAW undergraduate students through their college going experience on campus. Another measure to increase campus diversity was embedded in UAW’s early outreach program. The early outreach program at UAW was an academic preparation program that worked with K-12 students to aid them in becoming competitively eligible applicants for college admission. This program assisted students in going beyond the minimum eligibility requirements for college admissions. The early outreach program at UAW collaboratively worked with educators, families, schools, communities, and various campus programs to provide K-12 students with perplexed academic enrichment undertakings to stimulate and nurture a “college- going” environment. The early outreach program was one of California’s most successful pre- collegiate student academic development programs. The early outreach program at UAW, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 77 worked with over 15,000 students each year, ranging from middle school. The reach of UAW’s early outreach program reached to over 85 schools and over 9 school districts in its region. Since the 1990’s, about 60% of high school seniors met eligibility at elite public California institutions each year with about 81% attending a postsecondary institution upon high school graduation and 62% attend a 4-year institution, with 25% attending a University of California school. Support and outreach of students who benefited from the early outreach program and enrolled in UAW extended into UAW’s academic achievement and excellence program. UAW offered an academic achievement and excellence program that provided a variety of academic services that encouraged and promoted the success of historically underrepresented, low-income, and first generation college-going students. The program focused on career and academic advancement while students were at the university. This non-remedial program offered seven services and resources that included scholarships, academic counselors, peer counselors, peer learning services, graduate mentoring and research programs, a computer lab, and new student programs. In tandem with this program was a seven-week rigorous academic residential program is offered to incoming transfer students in which the transfer students received personal attention from counselors, professors, peer counselors and become familiar with campus programs and resources in addition to earning units toward their degree. The academic achievement and excellence program served over 6000 students who were low-income and often first generation college students. This program has been in existence for over 45 years and has attributed to the high graduation rates of Black and Brown students at UAW. For the residential transfer program, the counselor mentioned that the program serves 200 transfer students and a similar freshman program serves about 300 freshmen. Lastly, the counselor educated the researcher on a residential boot camp that the program offers. These are COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 78 UAW courses that students are allowed to take up to six tracks for the transfer program and two tracks for the freshman program and is a “no favors program to get into,” he stated. Unlike UCP, UAW did not have student spaces or centers for Black and Brown students during the time of this study. UAW only had academic centers and libraries catered to Chicano & Hispanic studies and African & African American Studies. The university did, however, have student led organizations that were catered to the needs of Black and Brown students on campus. UAW had a Black and African Student Union that had been around UAW since the 1960’s. The unions mission was to promote, protect and serve the broad cultural, educational and professional interest of Black and African students at UAW as well as the greater Black and African community. For Brown students, UAW’s Assembly of Latinx, Hispanic, and Chicanx Students (ALHCS) students offers programs, services, and educational experiences aimed at promoting the academic success of students. ALHCS seeks to strengthen and enhance the quality of the student cultural identity at UAW. These services are catered toward supporting a safe, healthy, and intellectual development of students in a challenging space. The services that both student led organizations provided to members in the organizations, sought to fill the gaps in resources to Black and Brown students that were not provided by UAW at the time of this study. This initiative of transformational resistance was similar to that of UCP, with students creating the UCP Student Aid Fund to establish resources and support for first generation college students. Student demographics and the local community also plays a pivotal role on the makeup of UAW. Unlike UCP, UAW’s neighborhood and local demographics were drastically different. The income per capita in UAW’s surrounding neighborhoods was 115% higher than the national average. In addition, the poverty level in the surrounding neighborhoods was equivalent to the COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 79 national average. In UAW’s surrounding neighborhoods, about 61% of the population was Caucasian. About 2.77% of the population was African American. About 27.28% of the population was Asian. About 10% of the population was Hispanic. The median household income was over $72,000, about $20,000 above the major cities median income. Over 70% of residents 25 and older had a four-year degree or higher. Of this amount, 38% held a master’s degree, while the other 35% held a bachelor’s degree. In regards to educational data for the local neighborhood, the average school test scores were 62% higher than the national average. The surrounding neighborhood of UAW comprised of approximately 11 public schools with over 96% of people in the neighborhood having completed the 8th grade. Over 96% of the people in the surrounding neighborhood had completed high school. Of the study participants, zero were from neighborhoods surrounding UAW. The next section will focus on the nine participants in this study as well as a brief account of their biographies. Study Participants Of the nine participants in this study, seven identified as female and two identified as male. The female participants in this study identified as, but not limited to, Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Latina, Mexican American, or Biracial. The two male participants in this study identified as either Black or Chicano. Two of the female participants in this study attended UAW, while the other seven participants attended UCP. Seven of the participants in this study grew up and were raised in the surrounding UCP neighborhoods. Four of the nine participants in this study were transfer students, two from local county community colleges and one from an out of state university on the east coast of the United States. Two of the students in this study were not from California and the surrounding communities like many participants in this study. All of the participants mentioned hereafter will have go by pseudonyms. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 80 Jessica identified as female and was a junior attending UCP at the time of this study. Jessica identified as Latina, was a first generation college student majoring in global health, and was a Pell Grant recipient. Neither of her parents went to college. Her awareness and willingness to apply to UCP was due to her being enrolled in UCP’s CAP. Jessica grew up in the UCP neighborhood and attended elementary and high school in the local UCP neighborhood. Jessica’s dream school was UAW, in which she received an acceptance letter from, however, it came down to finances of attending UAW, and she ultimately chose to attend UCP as it was more economical. Daphne identified as female and was a senior attending UCP at the time of this study. Daphne identified as half-Black and half-White for racial identity. While her late father attended college in the United States, Daphne does not know if he finished. Her mother completed an online degree. Daphne identified as a non-traditional first generation college student for she was not able to receive the guidance and support with her father passing at an early age and stated that her mother didn’t know how a ground-campus experience worked. This rationale is important for it departs from the traditional definition of what it means to be a first generations college student. Daphne was a global health major and also a Pell Grant recipient. Daphne grew up in a small town in Utah and attended both elementary and high school there. She found out about UCP through QuestBridge, a program that works with high achieving low income students get through the admissions process. Brenda identified as female as was a junior attending UCP at the time of this study. Brenda identified as Hispanic, Latino, and Mexican American. She was a first generation college student and a Pell Grant recipient. Like Jessica, Brenda was guided and supported through UCP CAP and grew up and went to elementary and high school in the UCP neighborhood. Neither of COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 81 Brenda’s parents attended college. Brenda was a global health major. She felt that her acceptance to UCP was more for her family than herself, although she wanted to attend UCP as well. Jackie identified as female and was a senior attending UCP at the time of this study. Jada identified as Hispanic and a first generation college student. Jackie was a Pell Grant recipient, however, due to her extended time in school, she no longer qualified to receive the Pell Grant. Neither of Jackie’s parents attended college. She was raised Jehovah’s Witness and did not have a supportive college going experience from her mother. Her father did support her decision to go to college, however. She attended a private school growing up and is also resided in a surrounding UCP neighborhood. She wanted to attend NYU, her dream school, however, due to religious constraints, she did not go. Jackie attended a local community college before transferring in to UCP. She stated that she didn’t’ have a good reason to applying to UCP, aside from it being close to home and being interested in the school’s gerontology program. Jackie was an environmental studies major. Javier identified as male and Chicano. Javier was a senior attending UCP at the time of this study and was majoring in health and human sciences. Javier identified as a first generation college student and a recipient of the Pell Grant. Like Jada, Javier also attended a local community college before transferring in to UCP. Neither of Javier’s parents attended college. Javier also came from a single parent household of four children, with the main provider being his mother. Javier graduated high school with a 1.8 GPA and didn’t foresee college in his future. Javier was a recipient of the UCP Student Aid Fund program that help support him in some ways through college. While attending a local community college, Javier was involved in a transfer program that gauged his interest in to applying to top universities in the US, something he was never interested in applying to or attending during that moment. Javier grew up in the COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 82 surrounding UCP community and attended local elementary and high schools in the area. Javier went on tours at two other elite universities in the state and fell in love with UCP during a campus tour, sparking him to apply only to UCP and ultimately transferring in. Maya identified as female and was a junior attending UCP at the time of this study. Maya identified as Black and African American and as a first generation college student receiving a Pell Grant. Neither of Maya’s parents attended college. Like Javier and Jada, Maya is a transfer student. However, Maya transferred in from a state university in New York City to UCP. Her senior year of high school, Maya applied to UCP and did not get accepted. Maya had a strong desire to move to California. She attended campus tours at UCP as well as UAW and ultimately fell in love with UAW. The basis of her attending UCP came down to her financial aid package. Maya applied to Pepperdine, Occidental, Syracuse, and NYU and was denied admissions. Her acceptance to UCP, with a comfortable financial aid package, led her enroll after her second time applying to the university. Maya was a non-governmental organizations and social change major. Vere identified as female and Latina. Vere was a sophomore attending UAW at the time of this study. Her mom attended college in Guatemala. Neither of her parents attended school in the United States. Vere identifies as a first generation college student. Vere grew up in the surrounding UCP community and attended elementary and high school in the area. Vere’s major was in anthropology. Vere was also a Pell Grant recipient. UAW was Vere’s dream school. After receiving rejections and being wait-listed at other institutions, she was excited to be accepted to the university. In eighth grade, Vere took a campus tour which made her desire to apply to the school even stronger. While attending UAW, Vere was accepted to UAW’s AEP, a program that supported and guided her experience in some ways while attending UAW. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 83 Switch identified as male and was a senior attending UCP at the time of this study. Switch identified as Black. His father graduated from a university in east Africa and obtained a bachelor’s degree and his mother attended a community college in southern California, where she received an associate’s degree. Like Daphne, Switch also departs from the traditional notion of what it means to be a first generation college student. Switch identified as a first generation college student for his father’s degree was obtained outside of the United States and his mother only attending a city college, which led to him having an experience of what first generation students often face. In addition, UCP identified Switch as a first generation college student based on one of his parents having an international degree and mother only having an associate’s degree. Switch identified as a first generation American citizen as well. Switch was a philosophy major at UCP. Like other participants in this study, Switch transferred to UCP from a local community college. Switch grew up in the surrounding UCP community with UCP being his dream school since he was nine years old. Gabby identified as female and Latina. Gabby was a senior attending UAW at the time of this study. Neither of her parents went to or completed college. Her father was the sole provider for her family. She is not a Pell Grant recipient due to her undocumented status, however, she received the California Dream Act grant to support her college education. Gabby grew up and went to elementary and high school in the UCP surrounding community. She was an anthropology major. Like Vere, Gabby also benefited from UAW’s AEP’s guidance and support while attending UAW. UAW was not her first choice as far as obtaining a higher education. She wanted to attend a private university. Gabby applied to various colleges/universities and was accepted to UAW. She was proud to be admitted to UAW based on the universities prestige and academia. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 84 Research Question 1 In the first research question, the researcher wanted to know, “In what ways do first- generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience?” To explore and answer this question, this chapter will report the participants’ definition of college readiness as well as how their understanding of college readiness related to their college experiences during the time of this study. Conley (2007) defines a lack of college readiness as the need to enroll in remedial education. While no participants needed to enroll in remedial education, they articulated how programs and areas of support influenced their definitions and understandings of college readiness. For many participants, community and neighborhood academic partnership programs were social capital agents that helped participants define and articulate their understanding of college readiness. These programs also helped participants to develop facets of social and cultural capital. Participants who did not benefit from these programs had alternative experiences in how they defined and articulated college readiness. College Knowledge as College Readiness College knowledge is important to college readiness (Almeida, 2015a). This is usually disseminated to children and students through socialization agents, such as parents, as a form of social and cultural capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). A few of these agents who aided in the social and cultural capital of a few participants were UCP CAP, QuestBridge, RISE, and other college readiness programs. With college readiness being defined as a way of ensuring that high school students are prepared with the knowledge, skills, and capacity to qualify and succeed at a postsecondary institution, without remediation (Conley, 2007), participants like Jessica and Brenda did not need COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 85 remediation and noted how other college knowledge and forms of social capital helped them articulate their definition of college readiness. Jessica and Brenda were participants of UCP CAP, a seven-year college readiness program for high school students around the community who are low income. Both participants felt that this program helped them to gain a better understanding of what it took to be college ready. Jessica felt that being college ready meant taking Advance Placement (AP) courses that are in part designed to provide preparation for college level rigor. Similarly, Brenda noted that preparatory classes are useful, but “also having taken classes that give you strong foundation in math, writing, science, arts, reading, all those kinds of things to be ready for college level material and discussions,” she said. Brenda also said, “it means having familiarity with what college looks like and what to expect in terms of living on campus, books, how to navigate campus, where to find your resources, how to do your homework, and things like that.” This was important to note because, students with more cultural capital are more likely to attend institutions of higher education, or aspire to attend these institutions (Conley & French, 2014). Maya came to college not needing remediation and noted what college knowledge looked like from her experiences. Maya participated in a college readiness program in high school aimed at preparing its participants to attend four-year colleges and universities, but not large institutions. She noted that the program had counselors that helped them within the program. This program allowed Maya to articulate and see college readiness as knowing how to navigate college. She noted, “there are things that you do in college, and there are things that you do to get to college, so college readiness would be what you do to get to college.” Although Maya didn’t feel that this program was as adequate as it could have been, she noted that getting tutoring for SATs, going on campus tours outside of the state, and having exposure to college life is how she COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 86 would have defined what it meant to be college ready. Maya could have benefited from school agents in building social capital. School agents in college readiness programs play pivotal roles towards students developing social capital and being college ready. Stanton-Salazar (1997) distinguished this importance through noting that school agents are an important form of social capital attainment for students. Daphne did not need remediation based on the definition of being college ready and found college knowledge and social capital from a college readiness support program. Daphne participated in QuestBridge, a program that works with high achieving low income students in high school get through the college admissions process. Daphne noted that being college-ready is having someone sit you down and explain to you what the world is like and what to expect, and “why education should be important to you… or what you would do if you decided not to go to college, like, what you should be prepared to understand going straight into the world,” she said. She articulated college readiness, in comparison to her current college experience, that “students should know what to expect about money, and make sure that they know what to expect about people and the fact that there aren't free handouts, and that the world isn't meant to give you extra credit." She also added that “there's a lot of cruel, harsh realities that they just don't teach you because they're trying to shelter you, and I don't think that makes a person college-ready.” Daphne spoke of this reality by sharing, “being a student of color and growing up in a mostly middle-class and predominately White community, they’re missed opportunities of college readiness for students of color because it seems to be based on the experiences of the White majority.” Daphne found that being resilient aids in defining if someone is college ready and said “if you don't have it, you don't succeed.” She explained further, “It's not that people don't start, it's just that they can't finish…. a part of it is a resiliency thing, also a money thing.” She felt that COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 87 if people don't see the purpose of education, if they don't understand why college degrees are like currency, then there's really no point in pursuing a higher education. Understanding students like Daphne, a minoritized student, it is important to note that the dominant culture in schools may differ from students’ culture (Milner, 2012; Strayhorn, 2010). Thus, teachers must help students use their own cultural funds of knowledge to navigate these differing cultures (Moll et al., 1992) to be better prepared for college and to develop more social and cultural capital. As a junior college and transfer students, Javier did not need remedial education based on the definition of being college ready and found college knowledge and social capital to appear in various avenues. Javier found that, based on his current college readiness experience, that being college ready would mean being suited for the university as well as understanding what is required from him and how to seek out the knowledge or information if a person is not familiar with a certain situation. He stated, “You tend to be more college ready… you know what to expect and, if any problems arise, you know how to get help for those problems.” Javier was involved with a program at a local community college called RISE (Respect, Integrity, Self- Determination, and Education). This program, with the support of counselors and mentors, aided junior college students in transferring to 4 year colleges. He found that this program helped him define what it meant to be college ready and to transfer in to a top university. Institutional agents, like the mentors and counselors from Javier’s RISE program, can work to promote or inhibit growth of social capital, which, in turn, can have a direct impact on college knowledge and success. The remaining participants noted no involvement in college readiness programs at their high school or at the community college. None of the remaining participants needed remediation and found college knowledge in other areas. Their articulation of college readiness and COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 88 knowledge pertaining to their current college experience had some similarities of those who were involved with college readiness programs. Gabby noted that students would need to have had prior experience in taking advance placement courses in high school to be prepared for the rigors of college level courses. She also noted how exposure to college campuses and classes may help challenge students to think outside of high school, therefore making them more college ready. Howard (2010), noted that Black and Brown students are less likely to graduate from high school, are more likely to be referred to special education, and less likely to be placed into advanced mathematics or AP courses. This type of social capital could have aided students like Gabby in college knowledge and college readiness. Jackie expressed how to be college ready, “would mean to have some kind of working framework for how college works…knowing how to talk to people, having soft skills, financial preparation, and having comfortable housing. Vere noted that having concrete study habits, utilizing all available resources, and having a strong educational background from high school, aides in defining college knowledge. For Switch, he noted that knowing about available major and minor combinations are beneficial, for many majors, especially in biology, tend to be off of the traditional route. He also noted that managing time, knowing how and when to study for exams, and how much to get involved in extracurricular activities to help pursue passions are all important for college readiness and knowledge. Social and cultural capital was something either missing, or not as developed, that could have aided participants who were not involved in college readiness programs, to have altered perceptions of what it means to be college ready. Conley and French (2014) considered key cognitive strategies, content knowledge, learning skills, and transition knowledge (or, thinking, knowing, acting, and going) as college knowledge. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 89 Summary Conley (2007) defines college readiness as “the preparation required to enroll in college and persist to graduation without need for remediation” (p. 25). Although no participants required remedial education, they had profound definitions and articulations of college readiness and college knowledge. While college knowledge is important to college readiness (Almeida, 2015a), it is usually disseminated to children and students through socialization agents, such as parents, as a form of social and cultural capital. Based on the current college readiness experiences and knowledge of the participants at the time of this study, college knowledge tended to build or hinder social capital based on the resources available to the participants. Social capital resides in the relationships between individuals and how those relationships can (or cannot) be leveraged for personal advancement (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). It derives from students’ relationships and includes relationships with families, which are especially important, as well as religious communities and other forms of relationships. For example, a child’s parents’ educational level can directly impact their success in school and, in turn, affect their readiness for college and success later in life. Social capital can be used for the advancement of those who have accrued it, but often minoritized students lack the appropriate social capital to take advantage of its benefits. In addition, many students of color generally do not enter postsecondary institutions prepared with the academic rigor or work ethic that prepares them for the expectations of instructors or course requirements (Conley, 2007; Almeida, 2015b; Reid & Moore, 2008; Levin & Calcagno, 2008). In this study, five of the nine participants took part in college readiness programs throughout their secondary education. The four participants who did not participate in college readiness programs, faced greater disadvantages upon their arrival to COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 90 their respective institutions. Thus, first-generation students tend to be more disadvantaged compared to their non-first generation peers in acquiring college knowledge. Research Question 2 The second research questions asked, “What are the perspectives of first generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institution of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college?” The emphasis of non-cognitive factors, such as mindsets and behaviors, has grown in importance over the past decades, though researchers still disagree on its place (Duncheon, 2015). Participants in this study were faced with many non-cognitive factors when it came to college readiness and how they acted accordingly. Participants, frequently went on feeling when it came to knowledge and information. Often times, they were unsure if their actions or behaviors worked for them or against them. Participants sought to process large capacities of content, questions such as, “Do I belong here?” and “What if I don’t know the content?” These thoughts questioned their confidence and provided them with self-doubt. Many participants did find value in the learning process of not being college ready. This, in turn, helped shape their actions and behaviors during college. Preparedness While some of the college readiness programs and college knowledge helped participants to become college ready in some areas, none of the participants felt fully prepared to attend a highly-selective institution of higher education. With all participants were first generation college students, and some were first generation US citizens, none had the lived experiences as a college student. This experience is usually disseminated to children and students through socialization agents, such as parents, as a form of social and cultural capital (Stanton-Salazar, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 91 1997). More broadly, college readiness is associated with cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus integration factors (Almeida, 2015a; Duncheon, 2015). Cognitive factors include academic preparation, such as in reading and math (Almeida, 2015), whereas non-cognitive factors, discussed in this section, include mindsets and behaviors (Duncheon, 2015). Campus integration factors include relationships with others on-campus and college knowledge, such as understanding financial aid processes and admissions processes. According to Welner and Carter (2013), many selective institutions of higher education across the United States compete over the limited pool of Black and Brown high school graduates who are college-ready (that is, eligible to begin college without remediation). Unfortunately, a majority of Black and Brown high school graduates are rarely adequately prepared to attend these selective institutions. Welner & Carter (2013) credit the problem of Black and Brown low college attendance rates and lack of college readiness to the “ongoing salience of racial, ethnic, and class inequalities in American society and education” (p. 5). The data collected shows how though imposter syndrome and social and cultural capital, participants felt ill prepared for many obstacles that were faced in college. The obstacles they identified included a sense of belonging, and the experience of racism, prejudice, and othering. Imposter syndrome. Although fitting, Imposter Syndrome was an unexpected finding. According to Thompson (2016) Imposter Syndrome has often been described as “the feeling that, regardless of your accomplishments, you’ll still be unmasked as a fraud” (n.p.). Imposter syndrome became a reoccurring finding for many participants in this study and often times affected participants’ actions and behaviors. Imposter Syndrome can be gained through a lack of cultural capital, in that schools often reflect the dominant and social groups, so students who do not belong to these dominant groups may feel ostracized, left out, or feel that they need to adapt COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 92 to these dominant norms in order to succeed at the university. Daphne felt Imposter Syndrome upon her arrival to UCP. She said, “when I first got here, I felt like I didn't belong because I just didn't understand. I felt kind of like, probably how a hillbilly feels when they go to a big city,” she said. She further noted, “Granted, I'm from suburban Utah, so it's not like I'm coming from the rural south or anything, but it's more of, like, clearly I'm not supposed to be here, or at least I probably was never meant to be here, and by some stroke of luck or by God-given blessing, I'm allowed to be here. So I felt displaced at first, but I don't feel that way now.” Growing up, Daphne felt like that she was at a disadvantage because she was learning things from a skewed cultural lens. “Everything was all based on white experience, and white Mormon experience, no less. That was very, very much entrenched into everything that we learned,” she said. She noted how in grade school, her and her classmates would learn about slave culture and how different students in her class would look at her like she was supposed to know all about this topic and wondered how she would react. Daphne stated, “I think it definitely ostracized me, especially coming into school. It left me at a disadvantage and a sense of understanding. When I interact with the black community here at school, I realize just how much they have, like, the strides they've taken to understand and how much I wasn't taught so many things, and now I'm also behind in that sense.” Daphne felt that being isolated in that way has stunted her from a lot of different avenues that she could have pursued. She said, “it makes so much of a difference for me to realize how the US has developed itself to help to subconsciously suppress all of the important information about what it means to be an oppressed minority in the US.” This feeling of imposter syndrome affected her behaviors in school leaving her to feel, unprepared for college and impacted her COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 93 academic performance. She stated “it also impacted just all of my interactions in the university and what I understood, and how I was able to participate in all of that.” For Brenda, imposter syndrome was experienced through her expression of “fake it ‘til you make it.” Brenda stated, “I would feel like I need to show I do get it. In a way it was like, I guess it's like, do some people call it fake it 'til you make it or something like that? So I would be like, ‘Yeah, I totally get this. I totally understand what this is. I totally get this,’ and then I go back to my room and like, ‘I don't get this at all. I'm trying to figure this out.’ In a way though, I do feel like it made me work harder because I was trying to figure out how to understand it.” Brenda noted how this affected her self-confidence of feeling that she would always be needing to “play catch-up” on course materials. She shared how her high school was underfunded and using textbooks from the 1980’s. She felt that this put her at a disadvantage and not equal to her classmates at UCP. She wished that she didn’t have this disadvantage and said, “but you know, you get what you get. You've gotta work with it.” Brenda showed how the feeling of imposter syndrome can often lead to a lack in self-confidence of individuals (Thompson, 2016) Switch spoke of self-confidence. He said “I wish I had more if it, I felt 2 years behind everyone else when transferring to UCP as a junior.” Vere noted that “the first day of summer bridge at UAW, I didn’t feel like I belonged.” She said, “coming from the hood you usually don’t hear success stories. You always hear how people dropped out, people got pregnant, people die. I wasn’t exposed to people coming back to the community and being a success story.” She felt that her time at UAW was coming to an end. She noted, “my confidence in being a UAW student from my neighborhood was tough, especially being at a predominantly White institution COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 94 and the university being in a predominately White neighborhood. For Brenda, her self- confidence and motive for working harder reflected her behavior towards keeping up with her peers. She said, “I think it has had a positive impact because it makes me work harder. If I'm not at the same level as everyone else, well then I just have to work twice, three times, whatever much harder to get to that point. Then, to stay at that point you have to work even harder because if you slack off, then well yeah, you can't keep up. That's how it makes me work harder. According to Welner and Carter (2013), many selective institutions of higher education across the United States compete over the limited pool of Black and Brown high school graduates who are college-ready (that is, eligible to begin college without remediation). Unfortunately, a clear majority of Black and Brown high school graduates, like Brenda, are rarely adequately prepared to attend these selective institutions. Similarly, Maya shared that she should have changed her behavior to work twice as hard if she had the chance to start over again. She stated, "Yeah, your work at that school was totally different than this university because it is an elite university. I don't think I really understood the importance of going here until recently. It's like, ‘Oh wow. This is getting real because I'm about to graduate from here, which is a long time.’ I don't regret anything because I learned along the way, but if I would've changed anything, I would be for me to ... going back to the same idea of networking, reaching out to people, and realizing that I just have to work twice as hard as the next person who knows all the information already.” COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 95 Through networking and a realization to work twice as hard, social capital could have benefited Maya towards becoming more college ready. Social capital can be used for the advancement of those who have accrued it, but often minoritized students lack the appropriate social capital to take advantage of its benefits. In relation to Maya feeling that she needed to work twice as hard, like other participants in this study, imposter syndrome often leaves those affected with a feeling of phoniness for those who believe that they are not capable, intellectual, or innovative, despite proof of high accomplishments. For instance, despite some participants feeling excitement of being accepted to highly selective institutions like UCP and UAW, they often felt that they were not equal to their counterparts on campus, a characteristic of imposter syndrome. Almost similarly, Javier stated, “I always have this mindset that I'm not as equal as the other students, that they're far more intelligent than me, and I'm always trying to keep up with them instead of being at a similar level with them. I use that to motivate myself to study more but, at the same time, it also stresses me out more.” Imposter Syndrome is known to manifest itself in individuals with feelings of self-doubt and uncertainty (Thompson, 2016), like it did for Javier. These feelings of self-doubt and uncertainty can often affect one’s behavior. For Javier, not seeking or asking for help was an outcome of this form of Imposter Syndrome, a topic that will be addressed later in this chapter. The absence of confidence (Thompson, 2016), a trait of Imposter Syndrome, affected how participants felt and engaged in college. Like Maya and Javier, Daphne felt that she spent her time catching up as well. She said, “I felt really behind, pretty much all of my peers, because I didn't understand so many things. I spent all of my time catching up, whereas everybody else I feel like already knew what was going on.” Other students like, Vere and Gabby, often felt shy, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 96 which deterred them from feeling on par with their classmates. Vere said, “being shy kept me from asking questions for the fear of being rejected or being put down by other classmates.” Gabby shared similar sentiments by stating, “I don’t look like the rest of the students in my classes and it is hard to speak up because in the Latino culture, I was taught to be independent, not ask questions, and figure things out on my own.” Imposter Syndrome could deter students from completing a college education. One reason for this could be a fear that their perceived lack of knowledge would one day be brought to public attention (Thompson, 2016), often being their classmates, faculty, and staff. In addition, Imposter Syndrome has a role in college readiness programs. It has social and cultural dimensions rooted in race/class hierarchies. Unfortunately, minoritized students, then, require double consciousness to feel ready. Imposter Syndrome could be understood or further examined through one’s cultural capital. Cultural capital. Although many participants had obtained some social capital through college readiness programs, cultural capital was not as developed. Participants often faced challenges when it came to cultural capital. Cultural capital theorists posit that schools typically reflect the dominant social and cultural groups, so students outside of the dominant groups must learn to adapt to these norms to succeed (Lamont & Lareau, 2015, p. 52). Cultural capital also includes more direct applications to education such as “(i) attitude, interest and preference toward cultural activities; (ii) cultural knowledge; and (iii) language fluency” (Davies, Qiu, & Davies, 2014, p. 806). Participants described behaviors that often translated into actions pertaining to their current college experience. These actions would define how participants would go about COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 97 situations and seek help. Student voice was one way in which students could express their agency, hoping to find their own unique viewpoints outside of the traditionally-emphasized voices (Rudduck & Fielding, 2006). These actions and behaviors derive from participants’ social capital. It derives from participants’ relationships and includes relationships with families, which are especially important, as well as outside communities and other forms of relationships in how those relationships may or may not be leveraged for personal advancement (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). The lack of social and cultural capital could affect one’s agency. For Javier, he felt alone in the college going process and sensed that he needed to figure things out on his own. He stated, “just being a first-generation minority, really surrounded by positive role models who have went through the system.” The system that Javier talked about here is the higher education system and the positive role models who have graduated from four-year colleges and universities. He went on to say, “So, just off the bat, you know that if you're going to navigate the education system and go to the university, that you really do not have anybody to ask for help.” He mentioned students not having grandparents or even a parent, cousin, or anyone to ask about what college is like and how to get there. “You know, I have to do this on my own, and, because of that mindset that you have to do it on your own, you tend to not seek for help because of that,” he said. Javier talked of the Machismo attitude in the Latino culture is like, "I'm the male of the family. I should be able to do this on my own. I shouldn't have to get help for it. Just that mentality also stops me from asking for help.” Social capital can be related to cultural capital in some ways, as the family too can be a group that confers social capital (Coleman & Becker, 2015). As a matter of fact, for participants like Javier, family is one of the strongest group memberships that imparts social capital. As a result, family capital (e.g., parental education) can affect students’ outcomes. For parents with higher levels of education, they may be better able to provide academic support COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 98 which, in turn, can have an impact on a student’s college readiness. Asking for help was a common dialogue with participants in this study. Participants felt a wide range of emotions when it came to asking for help. Jessica felt as if she took her resources for granted by being a good student in high school and thinking that those resources would transfer over to college. She said, “Using my resources is something that I’ve taken for granted, because I was such a good student in high school, I would have good relationships teachers. I wouldn't ask them for help as much. That's kind of transcended into college.” Jessica then went on to state how this help seeking mentality is cultural and how it affected her in college. She said, “I would have a good relationship with them (teachers), and sometimes I wouldn't ask them about homework, or class work, just because I knew what was going on. When I don't know, here in college when I don't know something, I'm just kind of like, "Ahhh." Which I feel, I've talked about this with other people about how when you ask for help, it's considered a weakness in my culture. I didn't realize that kind of transcended onto me until I got to college, because I was very much embarrassed to go ask for help, or I wouldn't want to go do it just because it's very much like, it's looked down upon. I'm trying to look into overlooking that, overcoming that. Yeah, I think academically, it's really just helped me to persevere, and if I've done it before, I can do it again.” Students like Jessica, may see that some voices are valued over others (e.g., those that have the appropriate cultural capital, as mentioned before) and this may stand in the way of truly drawing out student voice (Rudduck & Fielding, 2006). Jessica viewed asking for help a weakness, something that many minoritized students who lack the appropriate social capital may share and are not able to take advantage of the benefits of having social capital. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 99 Asking for help was described as a cultural characteristic that many of the Brown students in this study identified. For Javier, he would have liked to improve on his skillset of asking for help. He stated, “Personally, me and a lot of friends, we do not ask for help so, when I was starting into a situation where I had to navigate the educational system, I didn't seek help, which could've been more ideal for me in understanding what's required for me. Again, growing up in a single parent household, I would have to do stuff on my own in order to help people, so I didn't really seek for help. I know that's one of the problems that I'm struggling with it, but it goes a long way just to reach out.” Javier found himself joining organizations and campus groups to help fill this void of reaching out. He talked about growing up in very poor communities surrounded by gangs and violence. He noted that the rule of these types of communities was for individuals to keep to themselves and not opening up too easily. This is what drove him to want to give back to his community through outreach and support for higher education. With internal resistance, Javier’s behavior was subtle, but very inspirational to the students he was able to reach through his involvement on campus. Unfortunately, he felt that if he would have reached out to the other student cultural groups on campus and really understood them from the perspective how their time here was spent that he would have not chosen to attend UCP. Having these peer interactions with other cultural groups on campus could have developed a stronger sense of social capital for Javier in his first years at UCP, but developed overtime as he joined organizations and campus groups. Peer social capital is an important construct that can help student achievement (Ream, 2005). However, for students like Javier, lower levels of peer social capital often manifest (Ream, 2005). In addition, having a sense of agency plays a vital role in college readiness. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 100 On the contrary, Daphne took advantage of the groups and services on campus by finding people who could do things for her. She stated, “In regards to resources, I was finding people who would do things for me that I couldn't do. So, seeing an academic counselor, or seeing a counselor for mental health, or having jobs with certain employers who ask for certain things. You know what I mean? People who are doing that for me so I don't have to think about it. Sometimes that would include food and things like that. AKA, if I could find a person who would do it for me, I was doing that so I wouldn't have to, then I don't have to think about it either, I just have to show up.” Daphne utilized her agency and social capital, through individuals and relationships, to maximize her resources and personal advancement. Student voice was one way in which students, like Daphne, expressed their agency, hoping to find their own unique viewpoints outside of the traditionally-emphasized voices (Rudduck & Fielding, 2006). Social capital as it relates to sense of belonging. Participants often faced difficulties with social capital from being outside of the dominant groups culture while attending UCP and UAW. Aforementioned, social capital resides in the relationships between individuals and how those relationships can (or cannot) be leveraged for personal advancement (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). It derives from students’ relationships and includes relationships with families, which are especially important, as well as religious communities and other forms of relationships. For example, a child’s parents’ educational level can directly impact their success in school and, in turn, affect their readiness for college and success later in life. Social capital can be used for the advancement of those who have accrued it, but often minoritized students lack the appropriate social capital to take advantage of its benefits. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 101 A student’s sense of belonging could be showcased in many ways. These may include feeling welcomed, feeling ostracized, or feeling isolated within campus culture, classrooms, community, and/or peers. Fortunately, Maya felt that being in the presence of other first generation students had really opened her up to being able to ask for help and finding her group of belonging at UCP. Maya ended up joining many different clubs and organization, just so she can feel that she belonged at UCP in order for her to de-stress. She stated, “Instead of me trying to feel like I have to belong, I can already know I belong.” For some participants, race played a factor towards their decision to apply to UCP and UAW and affected their sense of belonging. Prior to attending UCP, Javier did his research and looked up the ethnic/racial demographics for the school. He didn't know what to really expect going to a top university and did not understand the culture at UCP. He said, “I thought everything would be all fine, and just not feeling a sense of belonging here when I first got here kind of messed me up in the beginning because I spent too much time trying to really find that group of belonging. It took time away from studying.” On a campus tour, Javier saw how happy people where and knew he wanted to attend. However, he wished that he knew more about the cultural aspects of being a Chicano student and the resources available at an institution like UCP. Javier did his research and looked up the ethnic/racial demographics for the school. He stated, “15% of Hispanics are here, and they always are proud about that number. When you get here, you only feel like there's 5%. You don't really feel like there's 15%.” Javier felt that he wasted a couple of semesters during his first semesters because he didn't know what to really expect going to a top university and did not understand the culture at UCP. Javier noted this by saying, COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 102 “Just knowing to really use the different resources on these campuses, like Chicano Central and all these and reach out to them before you're making your decision to transfer I think would've really gave me the perspective from what I would really go through on these campuses before transferred.” He felt that he could find a sense of belonging at UCP, but regretted not getting insight or opinions from the Latino organizations on campus. “It wasn't until I transferred when I didn't feel like that,” he said. Social and cultural capital theorists posit that schools typically reflect the dominant social and cultural groups, so students outside of the dominant groups must learn to adapt to these norms to succeed (Lamont & Lareau, 2015, p. 52). Javier did not seem aware of these norms until he developed a stronger sense of social capital by partaking in student clubs and organizations to help current and future students build social capital so they could feel a sense of belonging. Other participants, like Brenda, faced challenges from campus tours as well. Brenda went on a campus tour at UCP. She felt that she was misled when she was partaking in the campus tour. She explained, “As I was going through middle school and high school on this campus with CAP, I would see my flag there, and I'm like, "Okay, there are students here of my kind." It is true. There are students from Mexico or different people from Hispanic and Latin culture, but in terms of diversity, it's not just like okay, yeah, we have a few kids from that country, from that country, from that skin color, and the other skin color. It's a lot more complicated. So when people would say UCP is very diverse. I wish people would have been a little more specific to what diversity means because when you come here, you see, oh, it's not that diverse. Or trying to be diverse, but then diversity's just too complicated.” COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 103 This reflection of the dominant groups and cultures on campus tended to exclude the very individuals it was seeking to attract. For instance, UCP’s drive to create a more diverse student body was reflected in its goal to recruit and admit more first generation students. However, minoritized first generation students were not seeing this reflection on campus. Social and cultural capital theorists speculate that educational institutions typically reflect the norms of the dominant culture (Lamont & Lareau, 2015), which seemed to be the situation at UCP, despite the presence of support. Many participants in this study had faced or may have been in situations of bias, racism, and othering that had informed their experiences as a student of color at an elite institution of higher education. This, at times, altered how they seen themselves “belonging” or fitting in with the university. Maya shared her experience of being the only Black student in her class at UCP and feeling uncomfortable. She explained, “I just had a conversation with my professor in his office hours, and we were talking about social issues or whatever and of course, he brings up the social issue of ... He asked me where I went to school and stuff like that, and he said something about like, "Oh, my black co-worker, he's the only black person in Brentwood," or something like that. I was just like, "Okay. I'm the only black person in your class, and you probably don't even realize." It's funny because the first week of school this semester… I realized that I was the only black person in the room, and I was just very uncomfortable. I was uncomfortable because it was new. I'm so used to being the only black person in the room, but I think in terms of this class because it was so like social issues and social change based. I was like, ‘These people don't know anything about social change because they're privileged, and they're white," and my teacher had to dumb down basic ideas such COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 104 as employment and poll taxes and education, stuff like that, which I already know because I experience it.’ These racial labels Maya referenced were a pitfall inherent in racialization and connect to colorblindness, a characteristic of opportunity gaps. The term “colorblindness” can often be more simply defined as a purposeful silencing of race words themselves under the guise of being “fair.” Colorblindness could leave individuals to think and feel that they are being just, and not biased. In addition, these types of cultural conflicts hamper student learning, especially when teachers operate from their dominant cultural ways of knowing (Milner, 2010). Participants like Brenda were warned of these realities. While Brenda was in high school and in CAP, she mentioned how her Resident Advisors (RA), who were already in college and students of color, told them how UCP was going to be predominantly White. “You're gonna be in classrooms where you're gonna be the only student of color. It's gonna be hard. It was always told to me, college is gonna be hard,” she said. “It's not until you actually experience it, that you're just like oh, it is hard. What they said was true,” Brenda said. Vere faced unwanted challenges in her discussion of othering at UAW. She stated, “Every time I go into class, I get looked at really weird, because I’m not White. And I get, ‘oh you have a very ghetto accent, a very ghetto voice.’ I’m just different,” she said. Student agency helps students build efficacy (Williams, 2017), like Vere did to help combat issues like these. She noted how students and teachers often look at her different because of her hand gestures and the way that she dresses. “People look at you like “she’s Latina! What is she doing here?’ It’s so rare to see people of color,” she says. While individual teachers and students may not be racist (and may see discussing race as racist itself), this does not negate that broader institutions tend to be racist and ignoring cultural conflicts ((Milner, 2010). This is important to note for if institutions do not COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 105 work against these structures, they will persist and continue to prevent student success, often leaving students like Vere and many others to feel like they do not belong at the institution. Jackie shared her experience of being distracted by others in her class for being Hispanic. She said, “I was too angry and paying too much attention to that anger from different racial groups in class... for being Hispanic ... When all I wanted to do was just concentrate on my work. So it was distracting. But it's a real thing that I have to deal with.” Like Jackie and others, these experiences tended to inform students on what it means to be a student color and find a sense of belonging at institutions like UCP and UAW. Switch was an RA during the 2016-2017 school year, which was during the 2016 election. His floor, so happened to be extremely politically divided. His floor had intense Trump supporters and intense Hillary supporters, with the students being mostly pre-law majors. He was situated in the freshman suites. “Not only are they living by themselves for the first time and meeting people to disagree with them for the first time, they’re the richest of the richest, so that informs their experience as well,” said Switch. He talked about how it got very heated and he had to play the mediator role, even though he clearly took a side. He found a Nazi symbol on his bulletin board and had to remove that and report that to campus police. He says that this experience had informed his experiences as a Black student at UCP. Welner & Carter (2013) credit the problem of Black and Brown low college attendance rates and lack of college readiness to the “ongoing salience of racial, ethnic, and class inequalities in American society and education” (p. 5). Race is a critical factor in college readiness (Duncheon, 2015; Almeida, 2015a). Cultural, and social capital are all related to race; they are both affected by race and can affect how race impacts life (Kao & Rutherford, 2007; Ream, 2005) and a student’s sense of belonging. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 106 Summary Understanding participants’ mentality and how it has influenced their actions, behaviors, emotions and sense of belonging in college is vital to advancing the field and understanding of school readiness and academic achievement through early elementary school. In addition, Participants in this study were faced with many non-cognitive factors when it came to college readiness and how they acted accordingly. From this state of mind, participants in this study reflected and accounted on their emotions and behaviors through their informed experiences of being a first generation minority student. The emphasis of non-cognitive factors, such as mindsets and behaviors, has grown in importance over the past decades (Duncheon, 2015). Participants in this study were faced with many non-cognitive factors when it came to college readiness and how they acted accordingly. Participants, frequently went on feeling when it came to knowledge and information. Often times, they were unsure if their actions or behaviors worked for them or against them. Participants sought to process large capacities of content, questions such as, “Do I belong here?” and “What if I don’t know the content?” which at times, questioned their confidence and provided them with self-doubt. Many participants did find value in the learning process of not being college ready. This, in turn, helped shaped their actions and behaviors during college. These actions and behaviors would also define how participants would go about situations and seek help. Conclusion Through utilizing a minoritized student college readiness lens, this chapter has considered how participants defined college readiness, preparedness, imposter syndrome, and how their social and cultural capital effect and are effected by college readiness and its ultimate implications for student success. It has shown how some participants have used transformational COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 107 resistance through students taking action to partake in campus organizations, and to give back through organizational leadership to other students and their communities. Participants often faced challenges when it came to social and cultural capital. Social and cultural capital theorists posit that colleges, then, emphasize independence is not surprising given that educational institutions typically reflect the norms of the dominant culture (Lamont & Lareau, 2015), prevalent at UCP and UAW. In addition, the lack of cultural capital led to negative feelings around college readiness for participants in this study. Transformational resistance in relation to cultural capital in this study exposes a weakness in college readiness programs. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 108 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION This study addressed the problem of the disproportionate number of minoritized students at elite intuitions of higher education who do not feel college-ready. Typical definitions of college readiness involve beginning college without requiring remediation (Conley, 2007, 2010), but cognitive, non-cognitive, and campus-integration constructs have been important in college readiness research (Duncheon, 2015). The least-ready students tend to be Black or Brown and from low socioeconomic status, signifying this is an important problem (Castro, 2013; National Conference of State Legislators, n.d.; Welner & Carter, 2013). White students and their Asian counterparts tend to perform better on standardized tests and come to college more class- prepared (Strayhorn, 2014). This establishes college readiness as a specifically racialized problem. Specifically, issues of differential racialization (e.g., different races, such as Asian minorities versus Black and Brown minorities, receiving certain privileges or oppression) and the normalization of racism are at play (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This problem is important because college education increases lifetime income (Johansen & Arano, 2016), quality of life (Winters, 2011), and psychic income, or non-material contributions to an individual’s life satisfaction (Becker, 2015). The purpose of this study was to illuminate voices of underserved and underprivileged students related to issues of college readiness at an elite institution to help inform K-12 and higher education practice. Specifically, few studies use a qualitative lens to understand the experiences of minoritized students related to college readiness (Reid & Moore, 2008). The study investigated what strategies the students used to become college-ready, or not, and how they came to attend a highly selective institution. Specifically, the research looked at how these COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 109 students described overcoming institutional barriers to success and worked to identify tools that current practitioners could use to prepare students. Two research questions guided this study: 1. In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience? 2. What are the perspectives of first-generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college? The research employed qualitative methods because they provide “rich, thick description” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 256). Moreover, the study utilized a purposeful selection of participants chosen because of their unique experiences in helping illuminate the questions of this study, specifically students who identified as minoritized, attending the host site (a highly selective institution of higher education), and overcame institutional barriers to success. This chapter provide will provide a brief summary of the findings. Thereafter, implications for practice will be presented. Three practical implications are discussed; an understanding of the transcending student identify; guidance and support from secondary and postsecondary practitioners; and strategies to account for a student’s sense of belonging. Thereafter, the study presents recommendations for research. Lastly, a conclusion of the chapter and the dissertation follow. Brief Summary of Findings In the first research question, the researcher wanted to know, “In what ways do first- generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience?” To COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 110 explore and answer this question, the researcher reported the participants’ definition of college readiness as well as how their understanding of college readiness related to their college experiences during the time of this study. Conley (2007) defines college readiness as “the preparation required to enroll in college and persist to graduation without need for remediation” (p. 25). While no participants needed to enroll in remedial education, they articulated how programs and areas of support influenced their definitions and understandings of college readiness. For many participants, community and neighborhood academic partnership programs helped them define and articulate their understanding of college readiness. These programs also helped participants to develop facets of social and cultural capital. Participants who did not benefit from these programs had alternative experiences in how they defined and articulated college readiness. These programs supported a few of the participants cultural capital. College knowledge is important to college readiness (Almeida, 2015a). This is usually disseminated to children and students through socialization agents, such as parents, as a form of social and cultural capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). A few of these agents who aided in the social and cultural capital of a few participants were UCP CAP, QuestBridge, RISE, and other college readiness programs. This research question explains the impacts of college readiness programs, in that readiness has social and cultural dimensions rooted in race/class hierarchies. There hierarchies often require minoritized students to require double consciousness to feel ready. This notion of double consciousness sheds light to the cultural capital gap that exists between minoritized students and some of their White and Asian peers. The second research questions asked, “What are the perspectives of first generation Black and Brown college students at highly selective institutions of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college?” The emphasis of COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 111 non-cognitive factors, such as mindsets and behaviors, has grown in importance over the past decades (Duncheon, 2015). Participants in this study were faced with many non-cognitive factors when it came to college readiness and how they acted accordingly. Participants, frequently based their perspectives of influence on feeling when it came to knowledge and information. Often times, they were unsure if their actions or behaviors worked for them or against them. A persistent gap in cultural capital often left participants to sought to process large capacities of content, questions such as, “Do I belong here?” and “What if I don’t know the content?” These thoughts questioned their confidence and provided them with self-doubt, undergirded by the fact that cultural capital awarded is based on White, patriarchal, and dominant norms. This revealed how participants handled Imposter Syndrome and cultural flexibility. Many participants did find value in the learning process of not being college ready. This, in turn, helped shape their actions and behaviors during college. Implications for Practice Based on participant responses, three major implications arose. First, the significance of a students’ identity as it transcends from a secondary to postsecondary educational setting. High school counselors and college counselors should seek to develop an understanding of their students’ identity as well as an understanding that cultural dissonance exists between many minoritized students home culture and school culture in both high school and college (Stanton- Salazar, 1997). Second, the significant role that guidance and support plays from secondary and postsecondary practitioners towards a student’s preparedness towards college readiness. Practitioners at both levels should seek to develop and nurture a college going environment for students, especially minoritized students. Activities and programs that support a student’s college readiness may promote capacity building in a student’s community as well as a student’s social COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 112 capital. Third, an understanding from practitioners that a student’s sense of belonging shapes their actions and behaviors while in college. Practitioners at both levels should incorporate strategies that will be embedded in college readiness practices that take into account sense of belonging. These strategies should note student voices in how they came to prepare and often times cope or overcome these barriers of their sense of belonging. Understanding of the Transcending Student Identity Participants in this study looked back at their family life and upbringing and how these experiences transcended into college. Many of the participants in this study noted how speaking up and asking questions was something that they were advised against in their upbringing. This notion of not speaking up and asking questions followed these participants through high school and in college. A few participants felt intimidation from asking questions to their counselors or teachers, as some mentioned these as people in authority, while some were raised to figure problems and questions out on their own and not to ask questions. This created a gap in understanding of cultural norms leaving for participants feeling the need to be independent learners of their own education. Lamont & Lareau (2015), noted how colleges that emphasize independence is not surprising given that educational institutions typically reflect the norms of the dominant culture (Lamont & Lareau, 2015). Unfortunately, students outside of the dominant groups (e.g., minoritized students) have to learn to adapt to these norms to succeed. This significance of a students’ identity as it transcends from a secondary to postsecondary educational setting is important for practitioners in both educational settings to take into account. High school counselors and college counselors should seek to develop an understanding of their student’s identity as well as an understanding that cultural dissonance exists between many minoritized students home culture and school culture in both high school COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 113 and college (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Specifically, the dominant culture in schools may differ from students’ culture (Milner, 2012; Strayhorn, 2010). Therefore, teachers, counselors, and college advisors must help students use their own cultural funds of knowledge to navigate these differing cultures. Guidance and Support from Secondary and Postsecondary Practitioners Many students of color generally do not enter postsecondary institutions prepared with the academic rigor or work ethic that prepares them for the expectations of instructors or course requirements (Conley, 2007; Almeida, 2015b; Reid & Moore, 2008; Levin & Calcagno, 2008). Most postsecondary educators expect for incoming students to draw inferences, interpret results, analyze conflicting source documents, support arguments with evidence, solve complex problems that have no obvious answer, draw conclusions, offer explanations, conduct research, and generally think deeply about what they are being taught. Postsecondary courses require that students be independent, self-reliant learners who understand that they should seek support from instructors, their colleagues, or other sources if they are facing difficulties (National Research Council, 2002). Majority of the participants in this study felt that they spend much of their college experience catching up with academic rigor and teachings that they did not receive in secondary schooling, which addresses a gap in social capital for students. The significance of guidance and support from secondary and postsecondary practitioners towards a student’s preparedness towards college readiness is vital to student success. Practitioners at both levels should seek to develop and nurture a college going environment for students, especially minoritized students. Social and cultural capital measures positively impact student persistence from the first-to-second years of college in both community colleges and four-year institutions (Wells, 2008). Activities and programs that support a student’s college COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 114 readiness may promote capacity building in a student’s community as well as a student’s social capital. Social capital, resides in the relationships between individuals and how those relationships can (or cannot) be leveraged for personal advancement (Coleman & Hoffer, 2015). Therefore, high school teachers and counselors should seek to embed some form of college rigor in their teachings as well as through mentorship and involving the local community. Strategies to Account for a Student’s Sense of Belonging Similar to some facets of a student’s identity, participants in this study, frequently went on feeling when it came to knowledge and information. Often times, they were unsure if their actions or behaviors worked for them or against them. Participants sought to process large capacities of content, questions such as, “Do I belong here?” and “What if I don’t know the content?” agonized their emotional well-being, questioned their confidence, and provided them with self-doubt. Specifically, when teachers have low expectations and use deficit or context- neutral mindsets, students are not able to use their inherent cultural capital or start to build further social capital (Lamont & Lareau, 2015, Milner, 2010, Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). Combining a student’s cognitive function and emotion, a non-cognitive function, would result in models that considerably advance practitioners understanding of school readiness and academic achievement through early elementary school (Blair, 2002). An understanding from practitioners that a student’s sense of belonging depicts their actions and behaviors while in college is critical to college readiness and success. Practitioners at both levels should incorporate strategies that will be embedded in college readiness practices that take into account sense of belonging. These strategies should note student voices in how they came to prepare, embrace, cope, or overcome these actions and behaviors of finding belonging. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 115 Recommendations for Research There are several recommendations that emerged from this research in regards to future research. First, future research should account for other groups of first generation minoritized students. Second, because Imposter Syndrome became an unexpected finding, future research should further examine how student’s faced with Imposter Syndrome affects their college readiness and current college experience. Third, socioecological perspectives of minoritized students, pertaining to how they come to, or not, to be college ready. Lastly, further research on cultural capital gaps in college readiness programs. A few participants noted how other minoritized groups could benefit from the type of research that this study sought to address. Research noted how White students and their Asian counterparts tend to perform better on standardized tests and come to college more class- prepared (Strayhorn, 2014). This establishes college readiness as a specifically racialized problem. Specifically, issues of differential racialization (e.g., different races, such as Asian minorities versus Black and Brown minorities, receiving certain privileges or oppression) and the normalization of racism are at play (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This problem is important to research with other minoritized groups because college education increases lifetime income (Johansen & Arano, 2016), quality of life (Winters, 2011), and psychic income, or non-material contributions to an individual’s life satisfaction (Becker, 2015). Research on other minoritized groups will help to further illuminate voices of underserved and underprivileged students related to issues of college readiness at an elite institution to help inform K-12 and higher education practice. Participants faced with Imposter Syndrome in this study, affected how they came (or not) to be college ready. Often times, participants were unsure if their actions or behaviors worked for COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 116 them or against them, causing for many to feel stressed, depressed, or emotionally drained. Future research should focus on the role of Imposter Syndrome and maybe even mental health in relation to students’ readiness and success at the postsecondary level. This research should focus on avenues of belonging, social support, academic preparedness, race relations, and other cognitive and non-cognitive factors. Participants noted how various levels of support benefited them in their college going process or hindered them in their pursuit of a college education. With future research on the socioecological perspectives of college readiness, it could allow for results on how students can become more cognizant of the interrelationships and interdependence that may occur between themselves, others, and the society around them. With socioecological perspectives in mind, students would then be capable of understanding how wider physical, social, political, economic, ethical, and cultural environments and memoirs impact the ways in which they, and others, make sense out of their thoughts and experiences towards their understanding and articulation of what it means to be college ready. Conclusion This study generated findings related to the college readiness experiences of minoritized students attending elite and highly selective institutions of higher education. The findings in this study highlights the voices of first-generation students of color at elite universities and is one of the few studies to do so. No participant in this study felt that they came to college being college ready, despite the college readiness programs that many of the participants were involved in. Findings showed how imposter syndrome affected a student’s college readiness and their college experiences, at times requiring double consciousness. Lastly, while students had some forms of COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 117 cultural capital, they lacked social capital when it came to college readiness and their college experiences. Three important implications for practice and research arose from the findings. Frist, high school counselors and college counselors should seek to develop an understanding of their student’s identity as well as an understanding that cultural dissonance exists between many minoritized students home culture and school culture in both high school and college (Stanton- Salazar, 1997). Second, practitioners at both levels should seek to develop and nurture a college going environment for students, especially minoritized students, through examining the effectiveness of socioecological perspectives of college readiness. Activities and programs that support a student’s college readiness may promote capacity building in a student’s community as well as a student’s social capital. Third, practitioners at both levels should incorporate strategies that will be embedded in college readiness practices that take into account sense of belonging. These strategies should note student voices in how they came to prepare and often times cope or overcome these barriers of their sense of belonging. This study intended to use student voices, or stories from non-dominant and oppressed groups (Solórzano & Yosso, 2011), to emphasize and illuminate the issues that minoritized students experience as it relates to college readiness. Utilizing a minoritized student college readiness lens to identify the significant findings from this study, the researcher was optimistic that future qualitative research will arise in forms of student narratives regarding the college readiness experiences of minoritized students. Furthermore, future studies that use a minoritized student college readiness lens to close opportunity gaps in college readiness may promote critical thinking and self-reflection that could ultimately lead to positive action and results. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 118 The implications in this study should not be benched or disregarded. Opportunity gaps will remain gaps for minoritized students (Milner, 2010) and these students will ultimately undergo the consequences of being ill prepared for college. The responsibility for closing these opportunity gaps and promoting college readiness and success is in the hands of practitioners at all socioecological levels. A cornerstone of higher education policy in the United States is ensuring equality of opportunity and access for all people (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). As postsecondary education attainment is important to achieving several of the nation's goals, there will always remain shortcomings for minoritized students when considering the educational pipeline. It is the hope of the researcher that this study aide’s practitioners and researchers to alleviate these opportunity gaps and to offer more equitable college readiness structures for minoritized students. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 119 References Ali, A. M., & Yusof, H. (2011). Quality in qualitative studies: The case of validity, reliability, and generalizability. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 5(1/2), 25-64. doi: 10.22164/isea.v5i1.59 Almeida, D. J. (2015a). College readiness and low-income youth: The role of social capital in acquiring college knowledge. In W. G. Tierney & J. C. Duncheon (Eds.), The Problem of College Readiness (45-63). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Almeida, D. J. (2015b). The roots of college readiness: An old problem with new complexities. In W. G. Tierney & J. C. Duncheon (Eds.), The Problem of College Readiness (45-63). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Arnold, K. D., Lu, E. C., & Armstrong, K. J. (2013). The ecology of college readiness: ASHE higher education report. Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341. Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924. Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005). What we know about community college low- income and minority student outcomes: Descriptive statistics from national surveys. New York, NY: Community College Research Center. Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education, 46, 341-359. Bautsch, B. (2013). Reforming remedial education. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 120 Becker, G. S. (2015). Human capital. In R. Arum, I. R., Beattie, & K. Ford (Eds)., The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99–111. Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2009). Addressing the Needs of Underprepared Students in Higher Education: Does College Remediation Work? The Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736-771. Blair C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist. 57:111–127. Blume, G. H., & Zumeta, W. M. (2014). The state of state college readiness policies. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(4), 1071-1092. doi: 10.1177/0002764213515235 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Transformational resistance and social justice: American Indians in Ivy League universities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(3), 193-211. Brown, R. S., & Conley, D. T. (2007). Comparing state high school assessments to standards for success in entry-level university courses. Educational Assessment, 12(2), 137-160. doi: 10.1080/10627190701232811 Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97.113. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058877 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 121 Byrd, K. L., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First- generation college student perspectives. Community College Review, 33(1), 22-37. Cammarato, J. (2017). Youth participatory action research: A pedagogy of transformational resistance for critical youth studies. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 15(2), 188-213. Campaign for College Opportunity. (2013). The state of higher education in California: Black. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Casazza, M. (1999). “Who are we and where did we come from?, Harvard Symposium 2000: Developmental Education.” Reprinted from the Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1). Castro, E. L. (2013). Racialized readiness for college and career: Toward an equity-grounded social science of intervention programming. Community College Review, 41(4), 292-310. doi: 10.1177/0091552113504291 Chase, M. M., Dowd, A. C., Pazich, L. B., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Transfer equity for “minoritized” students: A critical policy analysis of seven states. Educational Policy, 28(5), 669-717. doi: 10.1177/0895904812468227 Cline, Z., Bissell, J., Hafner, A., & Katz, M. (2007). Closing the college readiness gap. Leadership, 37(2), 30-33. Coleman, J., & Hoffer, T. (2015). Schools, families, and communities. In R. Arum, I. R., Beattie, & K. Ford (Eds)., The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 122 Conley, D. T., & French, E. M. (2014). Student ownership of learning as a key component of college readiness. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 1018-1034. doi: 10.1177/0002764213515232 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Davies, P., Qiu, T., & Davies, N. M. (2014). Cultural and human capital, information and higher education choices. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 804-825. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2014.891762 Dezhbakhsh, H., & Karikari, J. A. (2010). Enrollment at highly selective private colleges: Who is left behind? Contemporary Economic Policy, 28(1), 94-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1465- 7287.2009.00166.x DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participate on the grades of U.S. high school students. American Sociological Review, 47(2), 189- 201. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087– 1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540–547. doi:10.1080/17439760903157232 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 123 Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). IQ outdoes self-discipline in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12), 939–944. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x Duncheon, J. C. (2015). The problem of college readiness. In W. G. Tierney & J. C. Duncheon (Eds.), The Problem of College Readiness (3-44). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036 Espenshade, T. & Radford, A. (2009). No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in elite college admission and campus life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin. Furhman, S. (2001). From the capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gartner, M. N., & McClarty, K. L. (2015). Performance, perseverance, and the full picture of college readiness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(2), 20-33. Georg, W. (2004). Cultural capital and social inequality in the life course. European Sociological Review, 20(4), 333-344. doi: 10.1093/esr/jch028 Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: a critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293. Gladwell, M. (2011, February 14). The order of things: What college rankings really tell us. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-order- of-things. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 124 Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimized racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29. Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Ikenberry, S. O. (2006). American higher education: The new balancing act. In R. Clark & M. d’Ambrosio (Eds)., The New Balancing Act of Higher Education. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586–611. doi: 10.1177/0013161X07307794 Johansen, T., & Arano, K. (2016). The long-run economic impact of an institution of higher education: Estimating the human capital contribution. Economics Development Quarterly, 30(3), 203-214. doi: 10.1177/0891242416655204 Kao, G., & Rutherford, L. T. (2007). Does social capital still matter? Immigrant minority disadvantage in school-specific social capital and its effects on academic achievement. Sociological Perspectives, 50(1), 27-52. doi: 10.1525/sop.2007.50.1.27 Kim, Y. K., Rennick, L. A., & Franco, M. A. (2014). Latino college students at highly selective institutions: A comparison of their college experiences and outcomes to other racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13(4), 245–268. doi:10.1177/1538192714532815 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 125 Kingston, P. W. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of cultural capital theory. Sociology of Education, 74, 88-99. Kirst, M. W., & Bracco, K. R. (2004). Bridging the great divide: How the K-12 and postsecondary split hurts students, and what can be done about it. In M. W. Kirst, & A. Venezia (Eds.), From High School to College: Improving Opportunities for Success in Postsecondary Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Koretz, D., Russell, M., Shin, C.D., Horn, C. & Shasby, K. (2002). Testing and diversity in postsecondary education: The case of California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n1/ Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what is it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24. doi: 10.1080/095183998236863 Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). The evolving role of critical race theory in educational scholarship. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 115-119. doi: 10.1080/1361332052000341024 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68. Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (2015). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. In R. Arum, I. R., Beattie, & K. Ford (Eds.), The Structure of Schooling: Readings in the Sociology of Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 126 Levin, H., & Calcagno, J. C. (2008). Remediation in the community college: An evaluator’s perspective. Community College Review, 35(3), 181-207. Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51. Lin-Siegler, X., Dweck, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2016). Instructional interventions that motivate classroom learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 295-299. doi: 10.1037/edu0000124 Lovaglio, P. G., Vacca, G., & Verzillo, S. (2016). Human capital estimation in higher education. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 10(4), 465-489. doi: 10.1007/s11634-016- 0259-5 Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mieners, E. (2007). Right to be hostile: Schools, prisons, and the making of public enemies. New York: Routledge. Chapter 4 Melguizo, T. (2008). Quality matters: Assessing the impact of attending more selective institutions on college completion rates of minorities. Research in Higher Education, 49, 214-236. doi: 10.1007/s11162-007-9076-1 Melguizo, T. (2010). Are students of color more likely to graduate from college if they attend more selective institutions? Evidence from a cohort of recipients and nonrecipients of the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 230-248. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 127 Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Michaels, H. R., Hawthorn, K., Cuevas, N. M., & Mateev, A. G. (2011). Creating seamless K-16 pathways: Role of assessment. Research & Practice in Assessment, 6, 15-21. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Milner, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693-718. Milner, H. R. (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race theory lens. Review of Research in Education, 37, 1-53. doi: 10.3102/0091732X12459720 Milner, H. R. (2015). Rac(e)ing to class: Confronting poverty and race in schools and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory in Practice, Qualitative Issues in Educational Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, 132-141. Mumper, M. (2003). The future of college access: The declining role of public higher education in promoting equal opportunity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585(1), 97-117. doi: 10.1177/0002716202238569 Murdoch, K. (2015). “Tuning in... to Tuning in...” Just wondering (August 18). <www.kathmurdoch.com.au/blog/2015/08/18/tuning-in-to-tuning-in> COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 128 Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Keyes, T. S., … & Beechum, N. O. (2013). Readiness for college: The role of noncognitive factors and context. Voices in Urban Education, 38, 45-52. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the Southern Regional Education Board. (2010). Beyond the Rhetoric - Improving college readiness through coherent state policy. San Jose: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2006). Engaged learning: Fostering success for all students. Bloomington, IN. Olivas, M. A. (2009). Undocumented College Students, Taxation, and Financial Aid: A Technical Note. The Review of Higher Education 32(3), 407-416. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from Project MUSE database. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Raygoza, M. C. (2016). Striving toward transformational resistance: Youth participatory action research in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 9(2), 122-152. Ream, R. K. (2005). Toward understanding how social capital mediates the impact of mobility on Mexican American achievement. Social Forces, 84(1), 201-224. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 129 Reid, M. J., & Moore, J. L. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for postsecondary education: Oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban Education, 43(2), 240-261. doi: 10.1177/0042085907312346 Rhodes, P. J. (1994). Race-of-interviewer effects: A brief comment. Sociology, 28(2), 547-559. Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban high schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185-210. Rodríguez, B. A. (2015). The challenge of the least ready: A historical perspective. In W. G. Tierney & J. C. Duncheon (Eds.), The Problem of College Readiness (65-85). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rudduck, J., and M. Fielding. (2006). Student voice and the perils of popularity. Educational Review, 58(2), 219–231. doi: 10.1080/00131910600584207 Secondary and Higher Education Remediation Advisory Commission. (1997). A total approach: Improving college preparation in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio Board of Regents. Shulock, N. (2010). Beyond the rhetoric: Improving college readiness through coherent state policy. Washington, DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Pittsburgh Press. Solórzano, D. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1-2), 60-73. Soló rzano, D. G., & Bernal, D. D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36(3), 308-342. doi: 10.1177/0042085901363002 COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 130 Soló rzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter- storytelling. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471-495. doi: 10.1080/09518390110063365 Soló rzano, D. & Yosso, T. (2002). A critical race counterstory of race, racism and affirmative action, Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(2), 155–168. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40. Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). What role does grit play in the academic success of Black male collegians at predominantly White institutions? Journal of African American Studies, 18(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s12111-012-9243-0 Strayhorn, T. L. (2014). Modeling the determinants of college readiness for historically underrepresented students at 4-year colleges and universities: A national investigation. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 972-993. doi: 10.1177/0002764213515230 Sullivan, P. (2012). Essential habits of mind for college readiness. College English, 74(6), 547- 553. Tate, W. F. (2008). “Geography of opportunity”: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 397-411. Taylor, C., & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: theorizing power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture, & Society, 17(2), 161-175. doi: 10.1080/14681360902934392 Thompson, J.D. (2016). I’m not worthy! – Imposter syndrome in academia. Research Whisper. Retrieved from https://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/tag/jay-daniel-thompson/ U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html?src=rn. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 131 Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press. Wells, R. (2008). The effects of social and cultural capital on student persistence: Are community colleges more meritocratic? Community College Review, 36(1), 25-46. doi: 10.1177/0091552108319604 Welner, K. G., & Carter, P. L. (2013). Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do To Give Every Child a Chance (11-22). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wheat, L. B. (1948). Curriculum articulation for secondary and higher education. The School Review, 56(3), 146-155. Williams, P. (2017). Student agency for powerful learning. Knowledge Quest, 45(4), 8-15. Winters, J. V. (2011). Human capital, higher education institutions, and quality of life. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41, 446-454. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.03.001 Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. doi: 10.1080/1361332052000341006x\ Zimmerman, M. (2015). The value of student agency. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 95(2), 21. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 132 Appendix A: Student Interview Protocol Research Questions: 1. In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institutions define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience? 2. What are the perspectives of first-generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institution of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college? Interview Protocol and Questions: First, thank you for agreeing to this interview. I very much appreciate your time. To start our interview, I’m going to go over the study. Some of this may seem technical, so let me know if you have any questions while I’m talking. Feel free to ask questions at any point. This research is guided by two research questions. The first is “In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institution define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience?” The second research question is “What are the perspectives of first-generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institution of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college?” During this interview, I will ask questions that help to illuminate your college readiness experiences to help me understand the potential answers to these questions. With your permission, I will tape record this interview. However, if you choose not to be tape recorded, I will just take notes of our interaction. Your willingness to be tape recorded won’t affect our ability to continue with the interview. If at any time during the interview you COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 133 want me to stop tape recording, you can ask me or stop the recorder yourself. [Give instructions on how to stop the tape recorder.] If there are any questions you wish not to answer, you are free not to answer them. If you wish to stop the interview at any time, please let me know and we can stop the interview. I am going to start with some demographic questions. As with any questions, you’re free to not answer these, ask me to skip, or stop the recording. 1. To begin, how would you identify your gender? 2. How would you identify your race? 3. Did either of your parent’s complete college? 4. What year in college are you? 5. Are you a Pell Grant recipient? 6. Based upon your current college experience, what does it mean to be college-ready for you? 7. What skills did you have that you think helped you succeed here? 8. What skills do you wish were more developed for you that you think would have made it easier for you to succeed here? 1. [Potential Probing Question] Can you tell me more about that? Why do you think these would have been more helpful? 2. [Potential Probing Question] In what ways do you think these skills may be different because you are [Black or Brown]? 9. Were there any skills that you realized would have been helpful? 1. [Potential Follow-Up Question] Can you describe a situation where you realized that? COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 134 10. Based on your comments about your skills, do you feel you came to college as college- ready? 1. [Potential Follow-Up Probing Question If Answer is No] What do you think might have helped you to be more college-ready? 2. [Potential Follow-Up Probing Question If Answer is Yes] What do you think helped you to be college-ready? 11. What would you have liked to known prior to attending a university like this one that you didn’t know? 12. How do you feel your level of college readiness has impacted your actions or behavior? 1. [Potential Probing] For example, do you feel you changed your class-taking, study, or social habits? 13. How do you feel your level of college readiness has impacted your willingness to do what it takes to succeed in class? 14. How do you feel your level of college readiness has impacted your involvement with social events on campus? 15. How do you feel your level of college readiness has impacted your involvement with student organizations? 16. How do you feel you’ve been able to integrate into the campus culture? 17. What inspired you to apply to this university? 18. Once you were accepted, what inspired you to enroll in the institution? 1. [Potential Probe] What influences might have impacted your decision? COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 135 Appendix B: Staff Interview Protocol Opening Script: First, thank you for agreeing to this interview. I very much appreciate your time. To start our interview, I’m going to go over the study. Some of this may seem technical, so let me know if you have any questions while I’m talking. Feel free to ask questions at any point. This research is guided by two research questions. The first is “In what ways do first-generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institution define and articulate their own understanding of college readiness as it relates to their current college experience?” The second research question is “What are the perspectives of first-generation Black and Brown college students at a highly selective institution of higher education on how college readiness has influenced their behaviors, actions, and engagement in college?” During this interview, I will ask questions that help me understand the way you and your office support minoritized students related to college readiness. With your permission, I will tape record this interview. However, if you choose not to be tape recorded, I will just take notes of our interaction. Your willingness to be tape recorded won’t affect our ability to continue with the interview. If at any time during the interview you want me to stop tape recording, you can ask me or stop the recorder yourself. [Give instructions on how to stop the tape recorder.] If there are any questions you wish not to answer, you are free not to answer them. If you wish to stop the interview at any time, please let me know and we can stop the interview. Interview Questions: 1. Which students do you serve? 2. What are the services your office provides? COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 136 1. [Follow-Up] How does this address the needs of your students specifically? 3. How do you feel your office meets its students’ needs? 4. What have you found to be some common issues facing your students in your time working with them? 1. [Follow-up] Were you surprised by any of these issues? 2. [Follow-up] Were there any issues you thought would present themselves that haven’t? 5. How do students interface with your office? 6. How do students find out about the services you offer? COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 137 Appendix C: Informed Consent Sheet University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Ed.D. in Educational Leadership 404 Waite Phillips Hall INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH The College Readiness Experiences of Black and Brown Students at a Highly Selective Institution of Higher Education You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Joshua D. Watson under the supervision of Dr. Paula Carbone at the University of Southern California because you are an undergraduate student at USC who identifies by Black or Brown. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study aims to understand the college readiness experiences of Black and Brown students who attend a highly-selective university. It aims to inform secondary and postsecondary administrators in how to best serve this student population. COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 138 PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an in-person audiotaped interview. These interviews typically will last between 45 and 60 minutes. You will not be required to answer any question you do not want to, can choose to discontinue the interview at any time, and will not be audio recorded without your express permission. If at any time during the interview you wish to discontinue the audio recording but continue the interview, the recording will be stopped. If you choose not to be recorded, the interviewer will take detailed notes and may capture some of your direct quotes if possible. If you agree to participate, you also will be asked to provide documents such as essays submitted for college admission. You are not required to submit any documentation for your participation, though. PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION You will not be compensated for your participation. CONFIDENTIALITY Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. This file will COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 139 specifically be password protected, in addition to being in a password-protected folder. Your responses will be transcribed by an external third-party (Rev.com), but no identifying information will be provided to this third party. Only the primary investigator will have access to the key that codes your pseudonym to your identity. At the completion of the study, all audio recordings will be destroyed, though transcripts will be maintained on a password-protected computer. Some information may be contained in a Google Drive which is password protected. The data may be used for future research studies. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Joshua D. Watson, Principal Investigator, by phone at (480) 217-3019 or by e-mail at watsonjd@usc.edu. IRB CONTACT INFORMATION If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board COLLEGE READINESS: TERMS & CONDITIONS 140 (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study applied a minoritized student college readiness framework to understand the college readiness experiences of minoritized students at two highly selective research institutions of higher education to inform K-12 and higher education practices. The purpose of this study was to privilege oppressed voices in highlighting specific ways the college readiness gap can be closed for minoritized students, moving toward equity in higher education attainment and completion. The research questions involved understanding these students’ college readiness and how they informed their college experiences. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews developed with a minoritized student college readiness lens to understand current college readiness experiences among the participants. This study generated findings related to the college readiness experiences of minoritized students attending elite and highly selective institutions of higher education. This study generated findings related to the college readiness experiences of minoritized students attending elite and highly selective institutions of higher education. The findings in this study highlights the voices of first-generation students of color at elite universities and is one of the few studies to do so. No participant in this study felt that they came to college being college ready, despite the college readiness programs that many of the participants were involved in. Findings showed how imposter syndrome affected a student’s college readiness and their college experiences, at times requiring double consciousness. Lastly, while students had some forms of cultural capital, they lacked social capital when it came to college readiness and their college experiences. Three important implications for practice and research arose from the findings. These strategies should note student voices in how they came to prepare and often times cope or overcome these barriers of their sense of belonging. The implications in this study should not be benched or disregarded. Opportunity gaps will remain gaps for minoritized students (Milner, 2010) and students will ultimately undergo the consequences of being ill prepared for college. This study may aid practitioners and researchers to alleviate opportunity gaps and offer more equitable college readiness structures for minoritized students. Conclusions suggest specific ways in which practitioners and researchers may enhance the college readiness experiences for minoritized students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

""Having the right info"": College readiness as college knowledge among minoritized students in an urban education setting

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

PDF

Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges

PDF

Impact of mentoring on former pre-college program participants: gaining while giving back

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Honorary mention: the untold stories of minoritized community college honors students

PDF

Beyond deficit thinking: highlighting the strengths and resilience of Black indigenous and people of color students thriving in higher education

PDF

The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college

PDF

Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study

PDF

Who’s taking care of our graduate students? The impact of the onboarding process for first-generation students transitioning into graduate school during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

High-achieving yet underprepared: first generation youth and the challenge of college readiness

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students

PDF

Development of leadership skills of low-income first-generation college students at predominately White, highly selective research institutions

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

Asset Metadata

Creator Watson, Joshua Dwight (author)

Core Title College readiness: terms and conditions may apply

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/24/2018

Defense Date 10/24/2018

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

Tag college knowledge,college readiness,College students,cultural capital,education,Educational Leadership,equity,first generation,first generation college students,High School,higher ed,Higher education,highly selective institutions,imposter syndrome,low SES,low-income,minoritized students,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity gaps,post-secondary education,preparedness,qualitative,remediation,secondary education,selective institutions,social capital,student voice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Schugurensky, Daniel (committee member)

Creator Email jwatsonedd@gmail.com,watsonjd@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-91341

Unique identifier UC11675619

Identifier etd-WatsonJosh-6910.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-91341 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WatsonJosh-6910.pdf

Dmrecord 91341

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Watson, Joshua Dwight

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA