University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Changing course, creating opportunity: a study on the implementation of an early college model for African American ninth grade students

(USC Thesis Other)

Changing course, creating opportunity: a study on the implementation of an early college model for African American ninth grade students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
CHANGING COURSE, CREATING OPPORTUNITY: A STUDY ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EARLY COLLEGE MODEL FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN
NINTH GRADE STUDENTS
by
Rachel Iheanacho

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2023

Copyright 2023 Rachel Iheanacho

ii
Acknowledgments
Thank you, Almighty God!! I give honor to God for His everlasting grace and mercy. I
thank my wonderful parents, Mitchell and Felicia, and my family for their continued prayers and
encouragement. Daddy, I kept my promise! Mommy, you will always be my (s)hero! My parents
planted in my heart seeds of education. They have always encouraged me to strive for excellence
and to finish what I start. I also thank my incredible siblings: Churchill, Patience, Charity, Ivory,
and Ebony, for their unrelenting cheerleading and support. Mitchell, Jazara, and Alex, your
Aunty is always proud of you and loves you very much! My amazing village, Kira (who gets the
“r” in Dr.), Courtney, Chido, Krystle, Laela, Branton, Brandi, Bianca, Trevar, Erika, Jerome,
Larry and Chey, also deserve special thanks for being there for me throughout this journey. They
answered late night phone calls, sent loving prayers, and pushed me onward when I needed it the
most. I truly love my family and village! I wouldn’t have made it this far without any of them.
Thank you, Dr. D. Bagayoko and Ms. J. Reed, for your mentorship; it watered the seeds in my
heart that have grown to bear good fruit!
A great thanks goes to my incredible dissertation chair, Dr. Krop, and committee! Thank
you, Dr. Cathy Krop, Dr. Ruth Chung, and Dr. Mark Robison, for your saint-like patience,
encouragement, and guidance. I will forever be grateful for the gems you all shared with me each
session. To my professors and instructors, Dr. Tambascia, Dr. Seli, Dr. Maddox, and Dr.
Gettridge, thank you! To my fellow classmates, I truly cherish every moment we have spent
together. I look forward to seeing all of the great things Cohort 9 will accomplish. I’ve learned so
much from everyone, and I wish you all the best.

iii
I dedicate this work to my beloved father, Mazi Mitchell Onwuha Iheanacho, and my
dear sister, Dr. Ebony Iheanacho. Ebony, I watched you achieve through the impossible; your
amazing strength encouraged me to start this journey. You deserve it all! Thank you both! Igbo
Kwenu!!

iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………………….. ii
List of Tables ………………………………...………………………………………………….. vi
List of Figures ……………………...…………………………………………………………… vii
Abstract .…………………...……………………………………………………..…………..…viii
Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ………………………………………….. 2
Importance of the Study ………………………………………………………………….. 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ………………………………… 4
Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………... 4
Organizational Context …………………………………………………………………... 5
Organization of the Dissertation …………………………………………………………. 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review …...……………………………………………………………. 8
What is College Readiness? ……………………………………………………………… 8
College Readiness of African American Students ……………………………………… 15
Early College High School Models …………………………………………………….. 18
Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………………. 25
Chapter Three: Methodology …………………………………………………………………… 30
Organization Overview …………………………………………………………………. 31
Population and Sample …………………………………………………………………. 31
Instrumentation …………………………………………………………………………. 32
Data Collection …………………………………………………………………………. 34
Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………………… 36
Credibility and Trustworthiness ………………………………………………………… 36
Role of the Researcher ………………………………………………………………….. 37

v
Ethics …………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Chapter Four: Results and Findings …………………………………………………………….. 40
Participants ……………………………………………………………………………… 40
Emergent Themes ………………………………………………………………………. 45
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice …………………………………. 65
Discussion of Findings ………………………………………………………………….. 65
Recommendations for Practice …………………………………………………………. 72
Evaluation Plan …………………………………………………………………………. 76
Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………………………… 78
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………… 79
References ………………………………………………………………………………………. 81
Appendix A. Leader and Key School Organizer Interview Protocol ........................................... 95

Appendix B. Focus Group Protocol ……………………………………………………………..96

Appendix C. Student Survey Protocol ………………………………………………………….. 98
Appendix D. Informed Consent Form ………………………………………………………… 107

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Interview Participants Demographics 41
Table 2: Survey Participants Demographics 43
Table 3: Focus Group Participant Demographic Information 44
Table 4: Survey Data from Key Survey Items 60
Table 5: Evaluation Plan 77

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of Students Earning a Postsecondary Degree During the Study Period by
Degree Type and Study Group 25
Figure 2: Building for Equity Theoretical Framework 27
Figure 3: Emergent Themes Related to Research Questions 46

viii
Abstract
This study examines the implementation of an early college high school model for low-
income African American ninth-grade, high school students. Specifically, the purpose of this
study was to examine what key organizers gained after implementing an early college high
school model at their school and explore the attitudes and beliefs student participants held after
participation in the early college model program. Six key organizers were interviewed, 45
student participants were surveyed, and 14 students participated in two focus groups. This study
used Building for Equity framework as the theoretical framework to analyze the early college
model through three critical drivers: culturally responsive design principles, intersections of self
and systems, and community-driven process. Findings revealed that key organizers primarily
considered ways to increase disadvantaged students’ access to advance and college courses and
to align the model pathways with local career opportunities. I also found that key organizers
observed an increase in students’ confidence and college aspirations. However, survey data did
not reveal a significant increase in the number of students planning to attend college from
students prior to participating in the early college model. In addition, student participants
reported expecting more “college-level” rigor in the dual enrollment courses in the program..
1

Chapter One: Introduction
African American students are increasingly interested in pursuing a college degree after
graduating from high school. However, graduating seniors in low-income and predominantly
African American communities experience challenges getting accepted to colleges and
universities of their choice (Havlik et al., 2017). Moreover, the percentage of African American
students who graduate with their incoming class is significantly lower than the percentage of
students in other racial demographics. Curry and Shillingford (2017) estimated that while 90% of
African American students graduate from high schools in the United States, only 20% earn
degrees from postsecondary institutions. Further, while college enrollments for Black students
are increasing overall, they are still less likely than their White and Asian peers to graduate
college (NCES, 2016). Among students enrolled in 4-year public institutions, 45.9% of Black
students complete their degrees in 6 years—the lowest rate compared to other races and
ethnicities (Bridges, 2018).
This performance problem of the lack of college preparation of graduating seniors in low-
income predominantly African American communities was examined through the first-year
implementation of an early college model called Road to Success (RTS, a pseudonym). This
program offers high school students college credit, up to an associate degree, in addition to a
high school diploma at Victory High School (VHS, a pseudonym, was created to protect study
participant confidentiality). This model was selected to address the disproportionate number of
low-income African American students graduating from high school unprepared for college-level
coursework and, subsequently, not eligible to compete for high-paying jobs or career
opportunities. Over 90% of the student population at VHS is African American and identified as
economically disadvantaged. Victory High School’s current school performance score is a D
2

(Performance Scores, 2019). According to the Louisiana Department of Education, 62% and
73% of students who tested scored at Approaching Basic or Unsatisfactory on the 2018 LEAP,
2025 English I and Algebra I exams, respectively (High School Performance, 2020). The
findings will enable the district to more effectively implement RTS in additional high schools
and enable the school to graduate more students deemed college ready, which is the acquisition
of knowledge and skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing first-year courses
at a postsecondary institution (4–year college, trade school, or technical school).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study examined the implementation and performance of the newly initiated early
college model RTS at VHS. This investigation provided program outcome data after RTS
implementation from the perspectives of the school district leaders; RTS key organizers who
included: the principal, program site coordinator, and 9th-grade teachers; and 9th-grade students
involved in the RTS program. Specifically, to examine the influence of the RTS program on
students’ college readiness, student participants participated in focus groups to discuss their
experiences. Study findings will be considered in the implementation of the RTS model in
additional high schools in the district with the same socioeconomic demographics. This study
addressed the following research questions:
1. What do key organizers consider in their approach to increasing college readiness in a
low-income African American community?
2. How do key organizers perceive the implementation of the early college model Road to
Success, for increasing students’ college readiness?
3. How has participation in the early college model Road to Success affected low-income
African American students’ attitudes and behaviors toward college preparation?
3

Importance of the Study
Improving African American students' college and career readiness remains a key priority
for 21st-century educators and schools (Turner, 2019) because of its far-reaching impact on the
future of African American communities. Increasing career and college readiness in low-income,
African American high schools is an issue for many school districts across the United States,
including the school district of study. Limitations like teacher availability and capacity in schools
serving low-income African American students negatively impact student preparation for
college, their success in college, and their participation in their desired careers. Due to these
instructional barriers, African American students typically have limited access to the kind of
rigorous and responsive instruction that will prepare them for competitive colleges and career
environments (Turner, 2019).
The RTS Program is an emerging model that allows high school students to earn an
associate degree (or up to 60 college credits) while earning their high school diplomas. Students
are dual-enrolled in courses at a local junior college so participants can earn college credits in
high school. The pilot group of students in the RTS program were ninth-grade students in the
2021-22 school year. According to the benefits of the program, students will obtain competitive
skills and secure a higher-paying job upon graduation. A primary goal of the program is to
accelerate the number of students graduating on time with an associate degree and a statewide
industry-based credential and who are eligible for a Taylor Opportunity Program for Students
(TOPS) scholarship. TOPS is a state scholarship program for Louisiana residents who attend a
Louisiana Public College or University. Institutions eligible for TOPS include the Louisiana
Community and Technical College System, Louisiana-approved Proprietary and Cosmetology
Schools, or part of the Louisiana Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
4

(mylosfa.la.gov). Organizers of the RTS program intend to implement this model in additional
high schools in the local school district after its pilot year. This study will help inform the
expansion of this program within the VHS district as well as inform similar efforts to improve
college readiness among low-income, African American students elsewhere.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study used the Building for Equity framework as a foundation to examine the
development and implementation of the RTS pilot initiative. The Building for Equity framework
is an inclusive school redesign centered on equitable student outcomes. Within this framework is
a guide for inclusive school redesign and a four-phase Equitable Redesign Cycle. The Equitable
Redesign Cycle emphasizes equity in every phase in action-oriented, practicable ways. This
framework will support the investigation of practical problems.
This study used a mixed methods research methodology to capture a broader and deeper
understanding of the performance problem. One important use that pilot studies have in
qualitative research is to develop an understanding of the concepts and theories held by the
people you are studying (Maxwell, 2013). Interviews, focus groups, and a survey were used to
evaluate the implementation of the pilot early college model, RTS program, to develop
recommendations to consider for the expansion of this initiative.
Definitions
This study examined a pilot early college model implementation of college readiness with
African American ninth-grade high students in a low-income community. Here are key terms
related to the focus of this study:
5

Early college model: In most settings, students begin taking college courses in their
freshman year of high school, and in all settings, the expectation is that participating students
will graduate from high school with 2 years of transferable college credit (Edmunds, 2013).
College readiness: College readiness can be defined 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 that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfers to a baccalaureate
program (Conley, 2008).
Succeed: Succeed is defined as completing entry-level courses at a level of understanding
and proficiency that makes it possible for the student to consider taking the next course in the
sequence or the next level of course in the subject area (Conley, 2008).
Equity: Equity is giving specific resources and support to disadvantaged students to bring
them up to the same opportunity level as their peers (Learning Circle Software, 2020).
Dual enrollment: Dual enrollment is the simultaneous enrollment of a student at both
high school and college in which the student receives credit on both their high school and college
transcripts for the same course (Dual Enrollment, n.d.).
Postsecondary: Postsecondary education, also known as tertiary education, is the
education level that follows the successful completion of secondary education, often referred to
as high school (Top Hat, 2020).
Organizational Context
Victory High School is a predominately African American high school located in
southeast Louisiana. VHS was established in the 1960s and has a deep historical connection to its
community. Currently, the high school campus houses just over 500 students. For many years,
the school has struggled with low student performance scores on standardized tests and
6

decreasing numbers of graduates enrolling in postsecondary institutions or colleges. According
to the Data Center on the Louisiana Department of Education website, VHS’s 2019 average
American College Test (ACT) score is below 15. In the 2018-2019 school year, more than 50%
of students scored an “Unsatisfactory” on the Algebra I exam on the Louisiana 2025
standardized test, and graduation rates remained near 65%. School district leaders, in partnership
with the school’s administration, decided to adopt the early college model RTS for the incoming
freshman 2021–2022 cohort. This model offers dual-enrollment courses from the local
community college and allows students to graduate with an associate degree in addition to their
high diploma. Dual-enrollment classes are delivered virtually by the partnering community RTS
college teacher, and an RTS ninth-grade teacher remains in the classroom with the students to
support class facilitation. In addition to the opportunity to earn college credits, the RTS program
offers tutoring, workshops, and career-focused activities for the participating students.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study was organized into the following chapters: introduction, literature review,
methodology, results, and discussion. In this first chapter, the problem of practice was introduced
with the significance of the problem, the research questions guiding the study and supporting
background literature. Chapter Two will discuss key literature for examining the problem of
practice in the areas of increasing college readiness in low-income, African American high
school students. In addition, Chapter Two discusses the theoretical framework guiding the study.
In Chapter Three, the design of the study and the research methods that were used to collect data
are discussed. Findings from the data were presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five provided a
discussion of the results, research-based recommendations to improve practice, and summarized
7

the conclusions of the study with implications for future directions to improve college readiness
among low-income, African American high school students.

8

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study examined the implementation of an early college model to establish college
readiness pathways for African American students early in their high school careers. The
literature will first discuss the meaning of college readiness and how students, particularly
African American students, benefit from adequate preparation for college. Next, the discussion
will turn to the current state of college readiness of African American high school students and
explore the barriers they face when preparing for college. Examining and addressing these
barriers will aid in innovating and establishing new college readiness pathways for rising
freshman African American high school students, including the roles and responsibilities of key
school stakeholders when implementing college readiness programs and models of success. The
chapter will end with a discussion of Building for Equity, the theoretical framework that guided
this study.
What is College Readiness?
Defining College Readiness
College readiness represents an accumulation of knowledge and experiences that prepare
students for college and is embedded within broader processes of educational achievement and
attainment (Maruyama, 2012; Maruyama, 2014). The concept of college readiness has evolved
over time as multiple factors contribute to a student’s preparedness for college. Earlier
definitions of college readiness focused on students’ grade point average (GPA) and performance
on standardized tests. Researchers at the National Center on Education Statistics (Berkner &
Chavez, 1997) identified multiple measures of college readiness, including high school GPA in
academic courses, class rank, National Education Longitudinal Study test scores, and ACT/SAT
score. Greene and colleagues’ (2003) later definition of college readiness employed other
9

thresholds. To be college ready, a student must have (a) completed high school; (b) taken 4 years
of English, 3 years of math, and 2 years each of natural science, social science, and foreign
language; and (c) attained the official cutoff for what National Assessment of Educational
Progress calls a “basic” level of achievement. David Conley’s research and theoretical
framework on college readiness extended this definition and has been widely referenced. Conley
(2010) defined college readiness 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 that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfers to a baccalaureate program” (p. 21).
Conley explained that the current measures of college preparation are limited in their ability to
communicate to students and educators the true range of what students must do to be fully ready
to succeed in college. Conley also noted that being ready for college means having the
“information, formal and informal, stated and unstated, necessary for gaining admission to, and
navigating within, the postsecondary system” (p. 27). Maruyama (2012) argued that new
definitions are needed and suggests principles that may underlie messages about college
readiness that make them more accurate and meaningful.
Recently, the emergent field of college readiness has blossomed into an expansive effort
involving multiple actors and spanning multiple sectors (McAlister, 2012). Definitions of college
readiness may also include students’ aspirations, social and emotional development, study skills,
navigational and social capital, and home support as essential components of college
preparedness (Cortez et al., 2014; Mishkind, 2014; Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011). Bowman and
Denson (2012) analyzed data from more than 3,000 college freshmen and found that precollege
exposure to difference and heterogeneity moderates the relationship between college
interactional diversity and students’ overall college satisfaction. Moreover, Convertino and
10

Graboski-Bauer (2017) summarize that varying combinations of diverse criteria result in
different definitions of college readiness that are not easily reconciled with one another and, in
turn, defy easy comparison.
Benefits of College Readiness
College readiness helps provide students with early momentum toward long-term college
success (Readiness Matter, 2013). Being prepared for college is integral to a student’s career
journey, as often times where a student receives their higher education, in turn, plays a large role
in their future career prospects, access to a career that provides sustainable wages, and pathways
to advancement (REL, 2015). Effective preparation for college has many positive outcomes,
including higher persistence through college, more career and financial potential, and more
social and emotional development opportunities.
College generally requires students to interact with dozens of diverse faculty members
and administrators and to navigate diverse social frameworks requiring students to assess
individual approaches to classroom behavior, academic expectations, and collaborative learning
(Williams, 2021). Employers may be using college graduation as a marker of at least some
acquisition of the social and emotional learning skills necessary for workplace success, such as
setting and achieving goals, perseverance, and willingness to learn as compared to high school
graduates (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020). Ma and colleagues (2019) further asserted
that having a college degree is associated with a healthier lifestyle, potentially reducing
healthcare costs. In 2018, 69% of 25- to 34-year-olds with at least a bachelor’s degree and 47%
of high school graduates reported exercising vigorously at least once a week (National &
Community Service, 2018).
11

Students with stronger academic preparation also have a higher likelihood of securing
scholarships and admission into a technical, junior, and 4-year college. Increasing the proportion
of students entering college adequately prepared for the challenges of higher education translates
into more students persisting to a credential or degree—in less time and at a lower cost (DeMaria
et al., 2015). According to an ACT college readiness report, being better prepared academically
for college improves a student’s chances of completing a college degree. ACT benchmark scores
were created to provide a gauge to identify how college ready a student is based on their
performance on the ACT. A benchmark score is set for each of the following sections of the
ACT: English, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning. Students who have met all of the
ACT benchmark scores have the highest 6-year bachelor’s degree completion percentages, and
as the number of benchmark scores met increases, the rates of degree completion increase for
each racial/ethnic and family income group (Readiness Matters, 2013).
Further, students that are college ready have a better chance of advancing in college
courses and acclimating to the college setting. Students who are academically prepared for
college are not required to take remedial, or developmental, courses. Remediation courses often
become prerequisites to take college courses, increasing the length of time it takes to complete a
college degree (An, 2013; Hanover Research, 2014). Additional research suggests that students
who need remedial coursework as they begin college have lower postsecondary education
completion rates (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2016).
Completing a college education can result in numerous benefits, including increased
employment rates, higher income levels, and greater opportunities for health care, retirement,
and financial stability (Trostel, 2015). Occupational projections from 2004 to 2014 indicated that
80% of the fastest-growing occupations would require a minimum of an associate degree, and
12

36% would require a bachelor’s degree. By comparison, only 37% of new jobs would be
appropriate for those with a high school diploma or less (Hecker, 2005). Median earnings
increase with the level of education, but there is considerable variation in earnings at each level
of educational attainment (Ma et al., 2019). Obtaining a college education increases your
potential earnings and career advancement. Job opportunities are still improved with some years
spent in college, even without graduating. Data from the 2020 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reveal that bachelor’s degree holders have $1,305 in median usual weekly earnings, while high
school diploma holders have $781 weekly. In the same survey, individuals with some college or
no degree have $877 median usual weekly earnings. Carnevale and colleagues (2020) wrote that
having some postsecondary education, even without earning a degree, adds nearly one-quarter of
a million dollars to lifetime earnings. Helping more students become ready for first-year college
courses in at least one more subject area has the potential to help our nation increase the number
of its students with a college degree and build a more highly-skilled and productive workforce
(Preparing for the Act 2021–2022, 2013).
Assessing College Readiness
Identifying college readiness in students requires more than a review of grade point
averages. Research reveals that there are multiple indicators of college readiness. Venezia and
Jaeger (2013) stated that factors are academic and nonacademic; schools can control some of
them but not others, such as family variables and peer influences outside of school. A college
readiness assessment system that consisted of a series of end-of-course exams would yield much
more detailed, fine-grained information regarding student knowledge and skills relative to
college readiness standards (Conley, 2007). The result is course titles that appear standardized on
transcripts but reflect a lack of “alignment between what is required to get into college vs what’s
13

needed to stay in college and succeed as an adult” (Wagner, 2006, p. 28). Conley (2009) later
found that students sometimes fail in college due to a lack of academic skills and contextual
knowledge about the college experience itself.
Beyond using high school course titles to define college readiness, a more direct
approach is to test students on knowledge they are presumed to need to succeed in entry-level
college courses (Conley, 2007). The ACT is a widely used exam that assesses content mastery in
the areas of English, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning and, in turn, many facets of
college readiness. The ACT College Readiness Benchmarks are the minimum ACT test scores
required for students to have a reasonable chance of success in first-year credit-bearing college
courses at the typical college (Allen & Radunzel, 2017). A student’s performance on the ACT
and similar college entrance exams can sharply influence their college admissions and
scholarship opportunities. Students who meet an ACT benchmark have at least a 50% chance of
earning a B or higher grade and approximately a 75-80% chance of earning a C or higher grade
in the corresponding college course or courses (Allen & Radunzel, 2017). With larger
proportions of underserved student populations going to college, traditional indicators of
academic preparation such as the SAT and ACT have come under fire (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013).
Venezia and Jaeger (2013) stated that the limitations of standardized tests, together with new
thinking and research on what it means to be prepared for college or a job right out of high
school, have led to efforts to develop new and more comprehensive measures.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded the College Readiness Indicator System (CRIS)
initiative in collaboration with the John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities
(JGC) to develop a working definition of college readiness key indicators in 2011. The CRIS
initiative aimed to develop and study the implementation of a system of signals and supports
14

designed to increase the number of students who graduate from high school ready to succeed in
college (JWG Center for Youth and their Communities, 2014). The initiative found college
knowledge includes “the knowledge base and contextual skills that enable students to
successfully access college and move along through the system once they arrive” (CRIS, 2011).
Key college readiness indicators identified by the CRIS Teams were academic preparedness,
academic tenacity, and college knowledge. The CRIS framework also highlights the importance
of college knowledge, combining this with academic preparedness and academic tenacity as keys
to college success (Darche & Stam, 2012). The CRIS initiative was a 3-year effort implemented
in five select sites (San Jose Unified School District, Dallas Independent School District,
Pittsburgh Public Schools, New Visions for Public Schools in New York City, and School
District of Philadelphia) to customize the indicator system to the specific needs of each
community. Each site began by appointing a CRIS Team composed of central office leadership
and staff and other college readiness stakeholders in their community (JWG Center for Youth
and their Communities, 2014). Since the CRIS initiative, more ways to develop, identify and
assess college readiness in students have continued to evolve, particularly the college readiness
of African American students.
Overall, college readiness research continues to evolve with more indicators that help
educators, community stakeholders, and students better understand the benefits and assessments
involved in ensuring students are prepared for college and a future career. The next section
describes the research on college readiness among African American students.

15

College Readiness of African American Students
Current College Readiness of African American Students
While college enrollments for African American students are increasing overall, African
American students are still less likely than their White and Asian peers to graduate college
(NCES, 2016). Moreover, although 85% of African American students aim to obtain a
postsecondary degree, achievement and opportunity gaps contribute to 20% of this population
being undecided or not selecting a college major (ACT, 2016). African American high school
students have not been as college ready as their counterparts. One measure of college readiness is
the ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks. According to this measure, only 10% of African
Americans who graduated high school in 2013 met at least three of the ACT’s four College
Readiness Benchmarks, compared to 39% of all graduates who took the test (Morones, 2014).
Further, just nine percent of underserved learners who met all three underserved criteria (i.e.,
members of minority groups from low-income families whose parents did not attend college)
met three or more ACT College Readiness Benchmarks (ACT, 2019). Among students enrolled
in 4-year public institutions, 45.9% of Black students complete their degrees in 6 years, the
lowest rate compared to other races and ethnicities (Bridges, 2018).
Barriers to College Readiness African American High School Students Face
African American students in high school, especially from low-income households, can
experience many obstacles that impede their success in preparing for college and postsecondary
opportunities. The factors are academic and nonacademic; schools can control some of them but
not others, such as family variables and peer influences outside of school (Venezia & Jaeger,
2013). Even as more African American students are more interested in attending college, a
college and university experience can be beyond their reach because of a lack of college
16

preparatory coursework, teacher and staff biases, and lack of family support (Adelman, 2006;
Havlik et al., 2017; National Center for Education Statistics, 2018b).
The insufficiencies of the educational system have created significant barriers to success
and have locked many into what has been characterized as second-class educational
environments that neglect their core needs (NAACP, 2005). Low-income, African American
high school students are not receiving quality instruction, specifically college prep-caliber
courses, needed to prepare for postsecondary education. In predominantly African American K-
12 school settings, present-day problems include weak college preparatory curriculum, low
advanced placement exam passing rates, ineffective and insufficient guidance counselor services,
unqualified teachers, minimal and outdated school materials, and inadequate school facilities
(Kozol, 2005; Malott, K et al., 2019; Moore et al., 2010). Most African American students have
not attained the literacy skills that build strong college and career readiness (Harris et al., 2020).
African American students typically receive skill-and-drill instruction, which emphasizes basic
reading and writing skills, rote memorization of information, and worksheet completion
(Edwards, McMillon, & Turner, 2010). In 2016, the Alliance for Excellent Education reported
that Black students lag behind their White and Asian peers in reading, and by eighth grade, only
15% of Black students score at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress reading tests.
One pervasive misconception is that African American students are not interested in
pursuing higher education, have lower career goals and expectations than students of other races
and that their families do not support their postsecondary futures (Turner & Danridge, 2014).
The K–12 school structure often views students of color through a deficit lens and does not
encourage the mindsets and behaviors that can lead to college and career aspirations (Martinez,
17

Dye, & Gonzalez, 2017). Public school students are less likely to seek college information when
they perceive that their counselor does not expect them to go to college or are unclear about their
counselor’s aspirations (Bryan et al., 2009). Black students have long endured an educational
system that views them as morally and intellectually inferior (Morton & Hart, 2015). In addition
to burdensome workloads, school counselors often lack training specific to college and career
counseling, particularly in relation to meeting the needs of underrepresented students (McKillip
et al., 2018; Savitz-Romer, 2012). At times, this results in a lack of placement into advanced
coursework (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018b) by school leaders who do not see
African American students as “at potential.” As a result, many African American students are not
provided with adequate support when preparing for college because of biases and low
expectations from school counselors and teachers (Marinez et al., 2017).
Their families tend to have lower levels of support and attainment expectations and are
poorly equipped to navigate the application and financial aid processes (McWhirter et al., 2007).
According to results of longitudinal study data by the National Center for Education Statistics’
annual condition of education data compendium, after tracking how the poorest and wealthiest
students entering ninth grade in 2009 fared 7 years later, more than 60% of students from both
groups were working in 2016, but 78% of the wealthiest 20 Percent of students were enrolled in
postsecondary-degree programs, 50 percentage points more than students from families with the
lowest 20% of income. Holcomb-McCoy (2010) wrote that ‘‘although all students benefit from
family and parent involvement, low-income students and students of color … fare significantly
better in gaining admission to 4-year colleges and universities when their parents are involved in
their schooling” (p. 115). Furthermore, Holcomb-McCoy found that while Latino and other
minoritized parents have high college aspirations for their children, they often lack access to the
18

information, experiences, and networks utilized by parents who are indoctrinated in the highly
competitive world of college admissions (Convertino & Graboski-Bauer, 2017).
Furthermore, the literature on the college readiness of African American students
suggests they may have more obstacles to overcome in their desire to become college ready.
From insufficient educators, lower school counselor expectations, and lack of familial guidance
to navigate collegiate systems, how to overcome these obstacles are now at the forefront of
educational research, such as early college high school models.
Early College High School Models
What Are Early College High School Models?
Early college high schools (ECHS) are a new and rapidly spreading model that merges
the high school and college experiences and are designed to increase the number of students who
graduate from high school and enroll and succeed in postsecondary education (Edmunds et al.,
2012). Early Colleges (EC) were created as part of the Early College High School Initiative
(ECHSI) established in 2002 by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (Song et al.,
2021). Early and middle college high schools (E-MCHSs) are explicitly designed to provide
dual-enrollment opportunities to students who may not have had access to college in the past
(Barnett & Wagonlander, 2015). The ECHSI partners with colleges and universities to offer free
or low-cost college credits to high school students. According to the North Carolina New
Schools Project (NCNSP), a North Carolina initiative that conceptualized the model and
managed the implementation of ECHS models all across the country, the many key elements of
the ECHS model include: serving a target population of minority students that are
underrepresented in college, partnering a local school district with a community college or
19

university, locating the schools on the campus of the higher education partner, offering courses
to 9th-grade students, and graduating high school participants with 2 years of transferable college
credit. High school students can obtain an associate’s degree or up to 2 years of college credit.
Since 2002, more than 280 ECs have opened nationwide as part of the ECHSI, serving more than
80,000 students in 31 states and the District of Columbia (Webb, 2014). Early colleges are a
comprehensive model of schooling explicitly focused on college readiness for all (Edmunds et
al., 2012). The implementation of the ECHSI was guided by the following five core principles
(Jobs for the Future, 2008, p. 2):
1. ECs are committed to serving students underrepresented in higher education.
2. ECs are created and sustained by a local education agency, a higher education
institution, and the community, all of whom are jointly accountable for student
success.
3. ECs and their higher education partners and community jointly develop an integrated
academic program so all students earn 1–2 years of transferable college credit leading
to college completion.
4. ECs engage all students in a comprehensive support system that develops academic
and social skills as well as the behaviors and conditions necessary for college
completion.
5. ECs and their higher education and community partners work with intermediaries to
create conditions and advocate for supportive policies that advance the EC
movement.
In a report released by Jobs for the Future in 2014, 90% of EC students received a high
school diploma versus 78% of students nationally, despite the fact that ECs served primarily
20

low-income students and students of color (Webb, 2014, p. 10). In addition to increasing the
number of students enrolling in college, research indicated that ECs have a positive impact on
degree attainment. Figure 1 shows the results of a study comparing the percentage of
postsecondary degrees earned by students in Early College and students in a comparison group.
Results from the study reveal that a higher percentage of Early College students earned
postsecondary degrees than those not enrolled in the Early College Initiative. In addition, more
students in the Early College Initiative obtained an Associate’s degree than the students in the
control group, which supports the initiative’s goal of providing students with more
postsecondary opportunities.
While ECHS models continue to expand and evolve, some critics have also challenged
the success of high school dual-enrollment ECHS models. Literature highlights challenges like
transitional issues and lack of adequate support for struggling students. ECHS students having
difficulties transitioning to the academic demands of college is a concern of the expanding
model. Jacobson (2005) described this expectation: “The programs are expected to work in an
almost counterintuitive way. They take students who may be below grade level and try to
slingshot them ahead with a combination of extra support and challenging work” (p. 1). Howley
and colleagues argued that “underprepared” students participating in early college programs
present a “substantial challenge” because the early college or dual-enrollment arrangement must
somehow cultivate preparedness for college-level work while requiring “underprepared” students
to perform such work adequately (p. 83). Alaie (2011) noted that there are widely recognized
transitional problems in the move from high school to college, even for successful high school
graduates. Among these problems are an under-appreciation of the difficulty of college courses,
an experience of having been successful in high school while only doing focused studying a few
21

days before the exam, and the shift in focus of responsibility for completing learning tasks from
the teacher in high school to the student in college (Collier & Morgan, 2008). Barnett and Stamm
(2010) further expressed concern that ECHSs may not serve students who are struggling or in the
academic middle. Or sometimes they serve them poorly, providing too little support for them to
achieve success. Edmunds and colleagues (2017) reported that a sample of professors rated
ECHS students as “somewhat less prepared” than typical college peers in terms of writing
(despite ECHS’s stated strong emphasis on writing abilities). In addition, students sometimes get
discouraged when they are unable to pass entrance exams for college-level coursework and leave
the ECHS programs (Zeiser, 2019).
Many emerging early college models have gleaned lessons learned and customized their
models to the specific needs of their students. Considering the benefits and challenges of the
models can further the ways to strengthen the preparation of students for college and careers
(Alford, 2014). There are many models of EC implementation to look to for lessons, including
North Carolina’s Cooperative Innovative High Schools, Michigan’s Enhanced Dual Enrollment
System, and the New York Board of Regents’ Smart Scholars Program.
North Carolina’s Cooperative Innovative High Schools
Cooperative Innovative High Schools (CIHS) were established in 2004 through a
partnership between the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the North Carolina
Community College System, the University of North Carolina (UNC) system, and the North
Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities in response to legislation passed by the General
Assembly (CIHS, 2019). CIHS provided North Carolina students with innovative dual
enrollment opportunities. At the time of this study, North Carolina created 133 ECs and similar
schools. The targeted populations include students who (a) are the first in their families to go to
22

college, (b) come from low-income families, and (c) are members of racial and ethnic groups
that are underrepresented in college (Edmunds et al., 2017). All students in these EC schools are
expected to take a default college preparatory course of study so that, by the time they graduate
from high school, they will have all of the courses required for entrance into the UNC system
(Edmunds et al., 2017). EC campuses are located on university or college campuses to allow
high school students to experience a college environment while in high school. Early reports
from studies on the effectiveness of the ECHSs show that students in the ECs were more likely
to progress in core college preparatory classes, especially in mathematics. In a 2020 SERVE
Center report on North Carolina’s CIHS, 6 years after 12th grade, 32.8% of early college
students had earned an associate degree, compared to 11.0% of control students, and exploratory
analyses did find a statistically significant positive impact for economically disadvantaged
students. Further, 21.3% of the early college group earned a bachelor’s degree by 6 years after
12th grade compared to 16.8% of the control group. In a 2019 Cooperative Innovative High
Schools brief issued by the Hunt Institute, “of the 5,581 students who graduated from CIHS in
2017–18, 51% graduated with an associate degree. Of the 3,408 degrees, diplomas, or certificates
earned by CIHS students, 83% were earned by students at early college high schools” (p.4). Even
with the success of the CIHS, challenges have been noted. According to Joel Vargas, vice
president at Jobs for the Future (JFF), “Even with that growth, there is still underrepresentation
of participation by African American and Latino students and low-income students,” (Bell,
2019).
Michigan School Districts’ Enhanced Dual Enrollment Systems (EDES)
Michigan started its early college efforts in 1991 with the opening of an early middle
college high school, E-MCHS, at Mott Middle Community College. Michigan school districts
23

created the EDES to provide high school students with more college courses, and many of the
program participants are low-income and would be first-generation college students. EDES
models vary, but all are guided by a goal of “12×12” whereby students work to earn 12 college
course credits by the end of their 12th-grade year (Barnett et al., 2015). According to the
Michigan Department of Education, dual-enrollment courses students are eligible for must be a
part of an accredited curriculum and not be offered at the high school. Students must earn a
qualifying score on the ACT Plan, PSAT, or Michigan Merit Exam to enroll.
In addition to taking college courses, students in the EDES programs are given additional
academic support throughout the school year: tutoring, timely intervention, and academic plans.
As of 2014, 27 high schools offered enhanced dual enrollment, with approximately 1,300
students participating (Barnett et al., 2015). According to Michigan state department data, in
2012-2013, the number of students participating in dual-enrollment high schools grew five times
compared to 2001-2002 enrollment data. They demonstrated that it was possible to create a
positive and nurturing high school environment that fosters academic success in a higher
education setting (Barnett et al., 2015). By the 2019–2020 school year, the percentage of schools
with dual-enrollment students increased by 21.8% since 2014-2015. In addition, 83.8% of dual-
enrollment students enrolled in college within a year of high school graduation, compared to
only 61.8% of non-DE students (MI School Data, 2021).
New York State Board of Regents’ Smart Scholars Program
In the Smart Scholars program, launched in 2009 by the New York Department of
Education, high school students can earn 24 to 60 college credits upon graduation. This program
increases high school graduation and college completion rates while reducing tuition costs due to
the free college program and the compressed time to complete a college degree (College in High
24

School Alliance, 2020). Smart Scholars schools offer college courses at the high school during
the school day. Similar to many other E-MCHSs, the Smart Scholars schools and programs had
the support of an intermediary organization during their initial 4 years of planning and
implementation that helped ensure alignment with key early college design principles (Barnett et
al., 2015). Smart Scholars ECHS is targeted at students who are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education (Barnett et. al., 2013). Essential components (College in High School
Alliance, 2020) of the Smart Scholars ECHS Program include an active partnership between a
school district and an institution of higher education to provide an integrated high school and
college curriculum and focus on students academically at risk of not completing high school or
not enrolling in or completing postsecondary education.
A recent evaluation of the Smart Scholars ECHS program conducted by the National
Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia
University (2015), found that the average number of college courses offered in 2011–2012 was
8.8 for the schools and programs that opened in 2010 and 6.5 for those that opened in 2011
(Barnett et al., 2013). In 2014, 87% of Smart Scholars graduated on time compared to 76% of
traditional students that year, and 87% of the Smart Scholars enrolled in postsecondary
institutions (Kuhlmann, 2016). Research also highlighted the program’s success in enrollment of
the target student population and implementation. In the Schenectady Smart Scholars Early
College High, 70% of their enrolled students were minority and economically disadvantaged. In
2018, the New York State Education Department awarded 19 Smart Scholars ECHS programs
$14 million in grant funding to support new partnerships with higher education institutions.

25

Figure 1
Percentage of Students Earning a Postsecondary Degree During the Study Period by Degree
Type and Study Group

Despite the criticisms of the ECHS models, the research suggests that they are successful
in bridging the gap between preparing African American students to complete a college degree at
higher rates than previously achieved without the implementation of these models. Therefore, the
current study selected RTS to examine the design and implementation of the ECHS program and
explore African American high school students’ attitudes and beliefs after participation in the
early college model program.
Theoretical Framework
To better understand the factors that influenced the selection and implementation of the
early college model, RTS, this study will be centered on the theoretical framework: Building for
26

Equity. This framework provides an inclusive school redesign, and its critical drivers include
culturally responsive design principles, the intersection of self and systems, and community-
driven processes (see Figure 2). In 2020, The Building for Equity framework was developed by
the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE), with the focal point of this framework ensuring
equitable student outcomes, the result of aligned and equity-focused people, policies, processes,
and practices. The main goal of this framework is to ensure genuine equity in the United States
K-12 education system. In this study, the Building for Equity critical drivers, as shown in Figure
2, will be used to examine the development, implementation, and initial impact of the RTS
program. According to the Building for Equity framework, the design principles of a culturally
responsive school are culturally proficient teachers and leaders, inclusive school culture, student-
centered academic learning, supportive resources, and an engaged community. These drivers
ensure that students of color, low-income students, and students with learning differences feel
supported and included in the school’s culture (CCE, 2020). To support this, the CCE designed a
School Self-Assessment tool for school administrators to gauge the inclusivity of a school’s
culture.

27

Figure 2
Building for Equity Theoretical Framework

Note. Adapted from the Center for Collaborative Education

The intersection of self and system driver addresses teachers and educators examining
their own positionalities. The CCE (2020) added that this examination would be into their biases,
beliefs, and privileges in the wider context of their local, national, and global institutions. The
CCE included an intersection of self and systems personal learning guide where teachers can
answer reflective questions to explore how their identity and background influence their
engagement with students.
The third driver, the community-driven process, establishes that the school redesign
process includes the students, parents, and families of the community it supports. For schools to
28

become authentically responsive, the process by which they are created must include and give
voice to the community that will be most affected by its school (CCE, 2020). From design
through implementation, equitable solutions for the students, parents, and community need to be
considered. This framework offers tools for completing the four phases of the Equitable
Redesign Cycle. The Equitable Redesign Cycle incorporates equity in each phase.
According to CCE, this equity-focused framework has been implemented in five schools.
Each case study revealed how each school used the Building the Equity framework to innovate
for equity. For example, Chelsea Opportunity Academy (CCE, 2022), founded in 2018,
implemented a competency-based learning and assessment model and used multi-lingual
courses, holistic curricula, and flexible schedules to support its students. The design team kept
the process malleable, adapting the plan along the way to allow for flexible class schedules and
more time for proficiency-based learning (CCE, 2022). Although Chelsea Opportunity Academy
opened in 2018, much of the student performance data is not available. However, according to
the 2020 School Report Card, 100% of the high school graduates completed MassCore. The
MassCore program of studies includes four years of English, 4 years of math, 3 years of a lab-
based science, 3 years of history, 2 years of the same foreign language, one year of an arts
program, and five additional “core” courses (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, 2020).
Barriers prevent many African American, low-income high school students from
receiving quality preparation for college. School districts and local education agencies are
increasingly developing early college models to address the barriers African American high
school students face. Early college models offer students the opportunity to take college courses
during high school and, upon graduation, they have earned enough college credits for an
29

associate degree. Additional benefits of the early college models are tutoring, academic
counseling, and lower postsecondary costs.
This study investigated the design and implementation of RTS through the Building for
Equity framework. The study’s goal is to increase college readiness and address the equity issues
facing low-income, African American high school students. The Building for Equity framework
provides an understanding of the impact of the implemented model through the lens of inclusive
school redesign. The critical drivers will guide the analysis to address the equity needs of the
students and community. Chapter Three discusses the methodology used to collect and analyze
data from my pilot early college model in a low-income, predominantly African American high
school in Louisiana.

30

Chapter Three: Methodology
This mixed methods study explored the development, implementation, and preliminary
results of RTS (a pseudonym) at VHS. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative
researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they
construct their words, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences. Through interviews,
focus groups, and a survey, I captured the experiences of key organizers and implementers of the
RTS model at VHS as well as student participants in the model. The goal is to identify
recommendations for the next implementation of the RTS model at other high schools within the
district. The recommendations presented will assist in improving the RTS implementation and
increase program results. This chapter discusses the organization studied, the population sample,
instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and protocols, and the steps taken to maintain
credibility and trustworthiness. The following research questions guided the study:
1. What do key organizers consider in their approach to increasing college readiness in a
low-income African American community?
2. How do key organizers perceive the implementation of the early college model Road
to Success for increasing students’ college readiness?
3. How has participation in the early college model Road to Success affected low-
income African American students’ attitudes and behaviors toward college
preparation?

31

Organization Overview
The organization studied is a predominately African American public high school in
Southeast Louisiana. The community around the school is also predominantly African American
and low-income. The socioeconomic status of the community impacts the revenue, like state
taxes, sent to the high school. In addition, many of the students do not come from households
with parents holding college degrees. The high school will be referred to as VHS, a pseudonym.
According to the Louisiana Department of Education Data Center, LEAP 2025 scores at
VHS in the 2018–2019 school year revealed that more than 50% of test takers scored below the
“Basic” achievement level. Also, graduation rates from 2016 to 2020 remained below 64%, and
less than 50% of those graduating seniors enrolled in college by the first fall semester after
graduation. VHS’s persistence data from 2015 to 2019 show that, on average, 51% of graduated
students matriculated to their second year of college.
Population and Sample
Purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover,
understand, and gain insight, and, therefore, must select a sample from which the most can be
learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Six key organizers (the superintendent and two school board
members) and school-level organizers (the RTS onsite coordinator, the VHS principal, and one
RTS teacher) were interviewed. With parent consent, the full population of students in the first
RTS cohort at VHS, 45, were surveyed. A sample population from the cohort was selected to
participate in one of two focus groups. The key organizers were identified based on their role in
the selection, development, and implementation of the RTS. Each key organizer has a great deal
of knowledge on the generation of the RTS initiative, is a key stakeholder in the school’s
community, and possesses a unique vantage point around education.
32

After securing permission from the parents of the RTS student participants, surveys were
disseminated to the student population with assistance from RTS teachers. Student participants
were selected based on whether or not they are a member of the RTS freshman class. At the time
of the study, the number of student participants in the RTS freshman class was 55. The criteria
for the students selected for the survey were all students participating in the RTS program. The
criteria for participating in the focus group were free-reduced lunch status, currently enrolled in
the RTS program, and identifying their race as African American. The onsite RTS coordinator
and RTS teachers assisted in identifying students who met these criteria, and those who had
parental consent were asked if they would like to participate in one of two focus groups. Students
were randomly selected from the collected survey responses, with a goal of 12 student
participants in each focus group. Students were asked to provide their perspectives and first-hand
experience with implementing RTS.
Instrumentation
This study used the following data sources: interviews, a focus group, and a survey.
Dexter (1970) summarizes when to use interviewing: “Interviewing is the preferred tactic of data
collection when … it will get better data or more data or data at less cost than other tactics!”
(p.11). Questions for each protocol were field-tested with colleagues. Interviewing is necessary
when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the world around them
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The district leaders and RTS key school organizers were asked to
participate in an approximately 45-minute, 12-question interview. The interview questions were
used to answer my research questions. The interview was semi-structured, and each leader and
key organizer provided responses from a unique lens. Upon consent from the participant, audio
from each interview was recorded and stored securely for transcription with the Otter
33

application. The interview protocol included semi-structured, open-ended questions (Appendix
A) that are correlated to the three critical drivers of the Building for Equity framework: the
intersection of self and systems, culturally responsive design principles, and community-driven
process.
Using Qualtrics, a 28-question survey was created to assess the influence of the RTS
program on students’ college readiness and how well the students have acclimated to the
program (see Appendix C). The survey is designed to take less than 10 minutes to complete.
Survey research describes “what is,” meaning how variables are distributed across a population
or phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The survey was provided in both a hard copy form
and virtually using Google Forms. I worked with teachers in the RTS classes to ensure that
student participants who had parental consent to participate were able to complete the survey
during class.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) suggested that for focus groups, researchers should try to select
people from different teams to get a representative sample of many teams, as long as the teams
all share common goals. In addition, “A primary difference between focus group research and
other types of research, such as surveys, individual interviews, and laboratory experiments is that
data collection occurs in and is facilitated by, a group setting” (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015, p.
13). I conducted two focus group sessions with the student participants. Each focus group
consisted of up to 12 students enrolled in the RTS who met the selection criteria and volunteered
to participate. Parental authorization was required before facilitating the focus group. Purposeful
sampling guided the selection of the focus group participants with parental approval. Each focus
group was effective for me to gain first-hand accounts from the student participants’ experiences
in the RTS. The focus group questions focused on obtaining in-depth student reasons for their
34

attitudes and feelings toward the RTS program (Appendix B). An analysis of the data was used
to address the following research question: How has participation in the RTS affected low-
income African American students’ attitudes and behaviors toward college preparation?
Data Collection
Approval was obtained from the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional
Review Board (IRB) and the Parish School System Accountability and Assessment Department
in Louisiana. First, the district leaders and key school organizers were contacted and interviewed.
Key stakeholder groups involved in the research will be given the Informed Consent Form
(Appendix D). This document will inform the potential participants of the purpose of the study,
confidentiality terms, and my contact details. There was no compensation offered to participants.
Closer to the end of the spring semester, five to seven students were selected from the ninth-
grade cohort participating in the RTS program to participate in one of the two focus groups. The
onsite RTS coordinator and RTS teachers assisted in identifying potential focus group
participants based on the stated criteria. Food was provided at the student focus groups as a
thank-you for participation. Student surveys were disseminated to the RTS cohort; survey
responses were collected electronically or by paper and will be anonymous. Data collection took
one month to allow time for data review and analysis at each stage. Field notes and memos were
taken throughout the process of data collection.
I began data collection by contacting the district leaders and key school organizers via
email and phone to inform them about the study and to schedule times for the interviews. The
identities of the interviewees were kept anonymous, and the participants were labeled by their
positions and experience. The introduction email included the purpose of the study with my
contact information for the scheduling and questions. Each interview lasted no more than 45
35

minutes and was audio recorded with permission. Recorded interviews were utilized for
transcription and securely stored in a password-protected storage device.
Recruitment for the student survey respondents was coordinated with the teachers at the
designated school site and involved parental consent. Selection decisions should also take into
account the feasibility of access and data collection, your research relationships with study
participants, validity concerns, and ethics (Maxwell, 2013). For convenience sampling, student
participants in the RTS program completing the surveys during the school day would be
optimum for data collection. Virtual survey responses were captured with an online survey
platform; responses were automatically populated for data analysis after completion. Hard-copy
survey responses were collected by hand and sorted for analysis. Responses from both types of
surveys were stored securely, and the identities of student participants remained anonymous.
Since the focus group participants were current students in the RTS program at VHS,
parental approval was secured before commencing the focus group session. The session was 45
minutes, and the students were selected based on their level of participation and engagement in
the RTS program, their participation in the free and reduced lunch program, and their
identification as African American. I randomly selected up to 12 student participants for each
focus group. The selected students were informed that participation was voluntary. RTS teachers
and the RTS coordinator were solicited for potential student participants who meet the selection
criteria. Student participants were anonymous, and the audio from the focus group session was
recorded when permission was granted.

36

Data Analysis
Data analysis is complex and involves moving back and forth between concrete bits of
data and abstract concepts, between inductive and deductive reasoning (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Flick (2014) described the process of data analysis as “the classification and interpretation
of linguistic (or visual) material to make statements about implicit and explicit dimensions and
structures of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it” (p. 5). According to
Charmaz (2014), the constant comparative method of data analysis is inductive and comparative
and so has been widely used throughout qualitative research to generate findings.
Using the category construction process of analysis, I examined the data with a wide net.
Data were transcribed utilizing a transcription application. To narrow the data to uncover themes,
or categories, coding was conducted to connect responses to the study research questions. A
grounded theory consists of categories, properties, and hypotheses that are the conceptual links
between and among the categories and properties (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I sorted the
discovered categories to link the categories together in a “meaningful” way to address the
research questions and to obtain tentative hypotheses.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To reduce the risk of data reflecting biases from a specific method, a triangulation of
collected information improved the study’s credibility. Fielding and Fielding (1986) emphasized
the need to recognize the fallibility of any particular method or data and to triangulate in terms of
validity threats. For this study, triangulation took place through the review of the data for
convergence of themes. Data triangulation began after survey responses were received. In
addition, member checking was conducted by soliciting feedback on preliminary findings from
the study participants. After each interview, I shared my notes and major takeaways from the
37

session with the leaders and key organizers to ensure accuracy. I discussed my findings with the
focus group participants at the end of the meeting to validate their credibility. Maxwell (2013)
suggested that “This is the single most important way of ruling out the possibility of
misinterpreting the meaning of what participants say and do and the perspective they have on
what is going on, as well as being an important way of identifying your own biases and
misunderstanding of what you observed” (p.126).
Role of the Researcher
In my role as an ACT Prep teacher, I have a front-row seat to the college readiness
challenges of my students. Throughout the years, I have studied their performance and asked
questions about my students’ backgrounds to gain a better understanding of what can contribute
to why a student is, or is not, prepared for the demands of college. I believe many students have
not received a strong academic foundation throughout their K–8th grade levels. As a result, I
maintain that high school administrators and school districts need to implement more
programming geared toward remediating incoming high school students to improve their chances
of becoming college ready by graduation. I have found success in the classroom with my
students when I incorporate support to repair their weak academic backgrounds. However, my
strategies and program can be a great undertaking in a school with little to no college readiness
programs or school culture.
My perspective as a classroom teacher assisted with the framing and investigation of my
study. My research questions seek to understand what practices teachers believe are effective in
accelerating college readiness in African American students and what type of school culture
school leaders must foster for college readiness. My research questions aim to find successful
college readiness models that can be the reference and the evidence for an innovative approach
38

for incoming African American high school students. I believe the college readiness of African
American high school students can be improved by implementing an effective college
preparation initiative in conjunction with college readiness mentoring from school counselors.
I am aware of how my role, experiences, and beliefs contribute to my bias, and I took
measures as the researcher to limit the influence of bias on the results of my study. I reviewed
my interview notes with my subjects to validate what I recorded (i.e., member checks). In
addition, similar methods of member checking were completed after the focus group and survey.
Ethics
According to Glesne (2011), the closer the relationship between the researcher and
participants, the more special obligations and expectations emerge. The rules and guidelines
from the USC IRB were adhered to throughout data collection, analysis, and when conveying the
findings. The study was submitted to the IRB for approval prior to data collection and data
collection occurred only after the study is approved. Thus, codes of ethics instruct researchers to
consciously consider and protect the rights of participants to privacy, to reflect on and mitigate
deceptive aspects of research, and to consider issues of reciprocity (Glesne, 2011). Participants
may be concerned with their identities and responses being exposed to administration and school
leadership, which could compromise their working relationships with colleagues. I hold no
supervisory role related to nor any connection to the interview, survey, and focus group
participants. Surveys and interviews were conducted using methods to protect the participants’
identities, and the information collected was stored in an encrypted, password-protected file.
Informed consent is necessary to ensure the participants are aware that their participation
is voluntary. All the discussions were kept confidential, and participants could withdraw at any
point without penalty (Glesne, 2011). Participants received recruitment letters with information
39

about my role in the study and to request their participation. Also, informed consent forms and
documentation were supplied to the participants. The informed consent forms included my
responsibilities as a researcher and the participants’ confidentiality rights. Participants were
notified of their right to opt-out of the study at any time.

40

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This chapter presents the findings of interviews, surveys, and two focus groups from key
organizers and students participating in the pilot year of the early college model: RTS. Chapter
One discussed the purpose of the study and introduced the guiding research questions. Chapter
Two detailed the history of early college models and barriers preventing African American
students from low-income communities from college readiness. Chapter Three presented how the
study was conducted and the methods used to collect data from study participants. Chapter Four
consists of the emerging themes found from the interviews and focus groups and an analysis of
the survey data.
Data from the one-on-one interviews with key program organizers were used to answer
the following research questions established at the beginning of this study: (a) What do key
organizers consider in their approach to increasing college readiness in a low-income African
American community? (b) How do key organizers perceive the implementation of the early
college model Road to Success for increasing students’ college readiness? Lastly, responses
collected from interviews, the student survey, and two focus groups were used to address the last
guiding research question: (c) How has participation in the early college model Road to Success
affected low-income African American students’ attitudes and behaviors toward college
preparation?
Participants
Interview Participants
Six participants were interviewed. Each participant was selected because of their
role in the design and implementation of the early college model at the local school district: a
superintendent, two program managers, two high school administrators, and one teacher. The
41

participants had between 2 and over 20 years of experience in education, and the majority were
African American and female. The purpose was to understand better the motivation behind
designing a program to improve students’ preparation for college and the lessons learned. Table
1 presents some demographic information on the participants.

Table 1
Interview Participants Demographics
Pseudonym Gender Race/ethnicity Years in education
Kenneth Male Undisclosed Over 20 years
Aubrey Female Undisclosed 10 years
Blake Male African American 15 years
Charlie Female African American 13 years
Alex Female African American 17 years
Hayden Female African American 2 years

42

Survey Participants
Forty-five students were surveyed. All survey respondents completed the first year of the
pilot early college model and attended in-person classes. Over 85% of the students surveyed are
African American students. The survey aimed to discover how participation in the early college
model influenced their attitudes and behaviors toward college preparation. Table two shows the
survey respondents’ demographics.

43

Table 2
Survey Participants Demographics
Characteristic Total responses Percentage
Age
12 0 0%
13 0 0%
14 4 8.9%
15 or older 41 91.1%
Grade level Total responses Percentage
9th Grade 0 0%
10th Grade 45 100%
11th Grade 0 0%
12th Grade 0 0%
Parent(s)/ guardian(s) highest education level Total responses Percentage
Middle school graduate 3 6.7%
High school graduate 20 44.4%
Bachelor’s degree 14 31.1%
Master’s degree 6 13.3%
Doctorate degree 2 4.4%
I attend my Road to success (RTS) classes Total responses Percentage
Virtually 0 0%
In-Person 45 100%

44

Table 3
Focus Group Participant Demographic Information
Focus Group Session 1
Pseudonym Gender Race
Brittany S. Female African American
Aurora G. Female African American
Chloe G. Female African American
Tiffany G. Female African American
Mary B. Male African American
Peter P. Male African American
Michael Male African American
Pan P. Male African American
Barry Female African American
Leela Female African American
Charlene Female African American
Cheryl Female African American
Focus Group Session 2
Kay Male African American
Seven Male African American
Scrunchie Female African American
Shayla Female African American
Vicky Female African American
Baxter Male African American
Fletcher Male African American
Blue Female African American
Anasia Female African American

45

Focus Group Participants
Following the survey, two student focus group sessions were conducted to better
understand the influence of the RTS model on the attitudes and behaviors of the student
participants when preparing for college. Each session lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. Focus
group student participants were randomly selected from the survey responses collected. Each
survey response was labeled with a student ID number that was unknown to me. Each student
selected participated in the RTS model during their ninth-grade year of high school and had just
begun the 10th grade when the survey and focus groups were conducted in the fall. Table 3
shows some demographic information on the focus group participants.
Emergent Themes
Using the constant comparative method for data analysis (Charmaz, 2014; see Figure 3),
eight significant themes revealed answers to the research questions: (a) What do key organizers
consider in their approach to increasing college readiness in a low-income African American
community? (b) How do key organizers perceive the implementation of the early college model
Road to Success for increasing students’ college readiness? The remaining two themes answer
the third research question: (c) How has participation in the early college model Road to Success
affected low-income African American students’ attitudes and behaviors toward college
preparation? Additional findings highlight the influence the RTS model had on students’
attitudes and behaviors toward college preparation. Findings were reported using pseudonyms to
protect participant confidentiality.

46

Figure 3
Emergent Themes Related to Research Questions

RQ 1: What Do District Leaders Consider in Their Approach to Increasing College Readiness
in a Low-Income African American Community?
The findings showed that the key organizers initially considered the input of the district
members, teachers, administrators, community stakeholders, and partner colleges when
designing the early college model. Discussions with various departments and stakeholders
highlighted factors that steered the design of the implemented model. The following themes
emerged from the six key organizer interviews: leveraging coursework with existing career
opportunities, increasing access to college courses for disadvantaged students, and supporting
teachers and students in a more rigorous school setting.

What Key Organizers
Considered?

Lessons Learned After
Implementation?

Effect of Early College
Model on Participants’
Attitudes & Behaviors?

Leveraging
Coursework to
Create Career
Pathways

Improving
Protocols,
Communication,
and Community
Engagement for
Buy-in

Building
Confidence and
College
Aspirations

Increasing Access
to Advanced
Courses for
Disadvantaged
Students

Supporting
Teachers and
Students in
Creating a More
Rigorous School
Setting

Effective Student
Monitoring and
Intervention

The Desire for
“College-Level”
Work and
Experience

Better Alignment
among School
District, High
School, and
Partner College
THEMES
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
47

Theme 1: Leveraging Coursework to Create Career Pathways. In terms of what key
organizers considered in their approach to increasing students’ college readiness in their
community, respondents pointed to creating pathways with dual-enrollment courses that would
allow students to take college-level courses while in high school. With dual-enrollment courses,
students could complete an associate degree in high school in a desired career or field.
Interviewees identified several career opportunities that did not require 4-year college degrees
and the possibility for students to join the workforce faster with 2-year college associate degrees.
All respondents discussed the mission to create course pathways that would allow students to
obtain an associate degree in high school. Kenneth stated,
But what was really interesting was I went to a report and looked at this report and it
talked about things like the five areas that jobs were either in construction,
manufacturing, technology, transportation, logistics, medical, pre-med, and then the
liberal arts business–more like business, you know.
A key point Kenneth made was that most people who are born in Louisiana stay in Louisiana. He
pointed to the stability of the population, noting, “So, most people who are born here stay. So,
let’s say Louisiana’s likes, it’s like a ridiculous amount, and it was like 70%. … and [the city] is
even higher than that.” If students are exposed to college courses in high school and earn their
associate degree in a field of need or continue onto a 4-year college degree, that benefits the
student and the state. According to responses, key organizers, together with representatives from
local colleges and universities, reviewed the high school course offerings to identify courses that
would align with associate degree discipline and trade certification requirements. Students
participating in RTS must take college-level, advanced (dual enrollment, advanced placement
(AP), or industry-based, IBC) courses. Alex explained,
48

And so, we also have... our [city] Area Chamber, who’s also very immersed in this
because of their industry connection because industry-based credential is another
component of the…Program. And we want our industries to be able to speak to us about
the employability skills they want to see in their potential employees and to be able to
invest in the students to be able to make those things realities.
Charlie and Alex both discussed how it was to incorporate industry-based courses to support the
various career pathways that would be established within the early college model. Alex added,
And then the third option or opportunity is with industry-based credentials and those IBC
courses that again, are still linked to a particular career or skill. Or a point of interest for
our students that they can engage in. And so, from that model, what we initiate is we
looked at Bloom’s transform to great program, and that was map a course of study that
incorporated not only those college development courses but also the high school
courses, so we can decide how our students could both earn your high school diploma
and that college degree simultaneously while going through the program.
Early college model organizers reported that input from different educational and
community stakeholders shaped the design of the model implemented. Stakeholders desired
course work creating career pathways, a shorter track to local job opportunities, and better
preparation for life after high school.
Theme 2: Increasing Access to Advanced Courses for Disadvantaged Students. In
their approach to increasing college readiness in their low-income African American community,
key organizers believed it was critical for the early college model to increase access to precollege
coursework. Respondents explained that earlier exposure to college courses assists
disadvantaged students in their transition once they enter college. Also, earlier access to college
49

courses can reduce the costs for developmental college courses. Key organizers at the district
level reported that disadvantaged students are often not taking precollege or advanced courses. In
addition, the bridge–or pathway–to college is created when students can experience college-
caliber coursework and instruction while in high school. Most organizers shared that students
benefit from access to advanced coursework when preparing for college and building a school
culture geared toward college readiness. Alex explained,
There is a level of expectation and instructional rigor that is persistent, and students are
constantly being exposed to that and the expectation is for them to work at that level. The
school leaders need to be acclimated and on board with this understanding of the vision
of the program, being able to develop a culture in their schools in which this type of
instructional model will be something embraced.
Alex further added, “Making sure that within this model, we have integrated intentionally
considering how we will ensure that they will be able to access the content with little to no
disruption.” Respondents revealed that during many community forums aimed at launching the
new early college model, some parents and teachers voiced concerns about sharing resources that
would increase access to college and industry-based courses for more students. Comments from
the community forums conveyed that some school representatives interpreted “more for
disadvantaged students” results in less for their students. Kenneth and Charlie also highlighted
the goal of removing the “gatekeeping” of dual-enrollment and AP courses that limit access to
disadvantaged students. Kenneth stated,
So, when they were trying to get kids earlier access, and I was watching, you know, who
got the opportunity in [the] program how do they go to the programs, those kinds of
things influenced me a little bit. And a question that I used to ask myself was why not,
50

why don’t everybody have this access? And then people started talking about well, why
kids, you know, who should be and who should be out, you know, which bothers me a
lot. And people are trying to identify who that is. And that’s something we love to do,
Who’s In Who’s Out? So, that kind of influenced me in that space.
According to interview data, providing disadvantaged students with access to precollege
coursework is an important factor when preparing them for post-secondary opportunities.
Respondents believed that the design of the implemented early college model needed to remove
the barriers to advanced coursework and enhance college preparation for all students.
Theme 3: Supporting Teachers and Students in Creating a More Rigorous School
Setting. Key organizers stressed the importance of supporting the teachers and students in
transitioning to a school culture with higher expectations and more rigorous coursework.
Respondents described that the approach they took to the early college model needed to keep
students in cohorts where they matriculate through their courses together; students would be in
the same RTS and core classes with each other throughout the school day. According to Alex,
students would also participate in college tours, field trips, and college preparation workshops
together. Charlie mentioned creating the academic coordinator (AC) role to assist with the onsite
support and monitoring of the students and RTS teachers. Charlie stated,
So, your design implementation team were essentially the same folks–with the extension
of the actual site level team–that came on to support, and that’s where we got the
academic program coordinator, which is what they’ll [it] call now, but at the time, it was
an AC to help manage and they’re stationed on the site.
According to Alex and Charlie, the RTS classroom teachers, college instructors, and the
AC work in tandem to foster a school environment that encourages rigor and high expectation.
51

Now that students have access to college and advanced coursework, the AC will track student
progress and behaviors. Using student performance and progress data, the AC would set up
additional supports like one-on-one tutoring and mentoring–connecting with community youth
organizations like Big Buddy. Alex, Hayden, and Charlie discussed the creation of the AC role
and the part the position played in driving the vision of the early college model. Alex noted,
So, from there, you know, we looked at the things and the factors that will influence the
success of this program. Well, one would be student readiness, right, academics,
instructionally, what do we, what, first of all, what do I students need to have? What do
they need to invest to be able to be effectively engaged in this more rigorous course
setting? Secondly, teacher readiness, are our teachers prepared for this?
Hayden also illustrated this point well when she stated,
I think as a teacher a very could be just a lack of communication. I think that will be the
biggest one that might be faced with being in a model like this like you feel like you’re
especially with it being a first time thing sort of model for our school is specific that a
lack of human communication might cause some problems, but so far. I mean, with
anything when it’s coming up, yes, that happens, but once you vocalize that, you need
that to be worked on for you to succeed is pushed for more communication. So, my only
barrier would be like a lack of communication.
In an effort to enhance the precollege school culture, the key organizers detailed the creation of
the AC role to support the RTS model. The AC, along with the site principal and instructional
team (RTS high school and college instructor), facilitates tutoring, mentoring, and college
preparation programming for RTS participants acclimating to the more rigorous school
environment.
52

RQ 2: How Do Key Organizers Perceive the Implementation of the Early College Model Road
to Success for Increasing Students’ College Readiness?
The results from the study revealed lessons learned such that key organizers believed the
pilot implementation was successful. However, key organizers discussed their learnings and
opportunities to improve future model implementations. More effective communication,
improved student support systems, and more alignment with program partners were themes that
were the most noted in discussions.
Theme 4: Improving Protocols, Communication, and Community Engagement for
Buy-in. Participants detailed that some of the pitfalls during the design and implementation of
the early college model were caused by the lack of protocols, communication, and community
buy-in. Some of the pitfalls described were model onboarding woes, unclear expectations from
the key organizers to school sites, and misinformation causing pushback from parents, teachers,
and community stakeholders.
According to three key organizers, staff had difficulty registering RTS students for the
partnering college. Alex cited students not having identification information, like birth
certificates and social security numbers, readily available. Responses revealed that more
effective protocols and communication with parents and students could have improved the
onboarding process. Alex explained,
So, things just technical things, but also a student needs to know their social security
number in order to do the application. Half these children don’t know their social, you
know, they didn’t know they had a social security numbers. You know, they would need
that to even be able to do a basic application. We need to write some protocols and build
53

out some protocols for what that looks like for all these new coordinators that are going
to be handling this right, so that they can plan.
Further, in terms of lessons learned, Charlie and Alex advised reviewing the RTS courses for the
upcoming school year to ensure student success with the college-level courses is realistic–even
with the instructional supports. Charlie shared as an example that foreign language was very
challenging for the students because many students did not have a strong foreign language
foundation from middle school, and the school did not have a high school foreign language
instructor. From the responses, there was a sense that key organizers handled many operational
issues on the fly. Charlie also reflected on the learnings from using the dual-enrollment
instructors for high school teacher vacancies: “We learned what you should already know is that
you can’t utilize operational fixes to address, or you can’t utilize academic fixes to address
operational issues. In doing so, like we have [learned] there is a shortage of foreign language
teachers.” District-level key organizers initially believed the vacancy in the high school foreign
language department could be quickly remedied. After experiencing multiple foreign language
teachers quitting throughout the year, key organizers realized that using college instructors for
high school was not sustainable.
Four out of seven key organizers believed effective communication, or over-
communication, is crucial in successful model implementation. Respondents found more
resistance to the model from students, parents, and teachers when the mission of RTS was not
clearly communicated or understood. Kenneth stated: “Continue to engage the community,
depending on the community. I think some can . . . receive it better than others. I do believe that,
once they can see what the outcome is.” As a lesson learned, Alex and Charlie agreed that
getting as many voices as possible to contribute during model designing and “over-
54

communicating” the mission enhances buy-in. Alex explained that communicating the rationale
and goals of the model is more effective than selling the program to the community: “I think that
we took too much time trying to sell the program as we were trying to, to implement the
program. And it was because, again, I don’t think people understood the rationale for the why.
We were doing this, and also, like I said, there were these perceptions about our students that
need to be eradicated or redefined.” Examples of perceptions that need to be eradicated or
redefined are lower expectations held by the community and teachers. Kenneth stated,
So, like you already think less of them before you start class. But those problems are still,
you know, you see gradually through education for poor kids, right. So, especially Black
and White. We don’t have a lot of brown kids. Black kids, you know, it’s just, it’s just
such an interesting phenomenon.
Kenneth stressed that adults having preconceived low expectations of their students was a
challenge to the implementation of the RTS with far-reaching impact on their students’ college
readiness.
Furthermore, the RTS model was presented to the community with forums and
workshops to bolster buy-in and garner community support. Teachers, students, and parents were
given the opportunity to ask questions and openly discuss any concerns about the proposed
rollout. Charlie encouraged,
Communicate! And when you think you’ve communicated too much, communicate some
more. Because somebody no matter what, how many times you say it, it’s the first time
they heard it and-or-it is the first time it clicked. They may have heard the same thing all
week. Like we did those community forums. They’re all over the internet. They said the
same thing … And yet it’s just now that it’s starting to click with some folks.
55

Most key organizers expressed that improving processes and communication were prevalent
lessons learned after implementing the early college model. Challenges with both systems and
conveying the model’s mission resulted in hesitation to buy into the new model. When the goals
and benefits of the model became more apparent to teachers, parents, and students, support for
the model increased.
Theme 5: Effective Student Monitoring and Intervention. Three of the key organizers
expressed that more effective and “intentional” monitoring of students’ progress would enhance
the implementation of the early college model. Aubrey believed that the consistency of
monitoring is directly correlated to student success, and Blake described student monitoring as a
form of intense “driving” motivation. In addition to more student monitoring, respondents added
that intervention should be more individualized.
Many responses revealed that more than a superficial examination of student progress,
engagement, and performance is needed. Effective student monitoring requires not only key
performance indicators but also an in-tuned team driving for results. Blake stressed,
I just think we also learned that you got to stay on top of these kids. You know,
interventions got to be intentional. Walkthroughs for teachers got to be intentional. It’s a
must, that you stay connected and that you stay driving. Because what’s gonna keep the
wheel turning? It’s the oil, so you got to keep the wheel greased. Because if you don’t,
it’s gonna freeze up. So, you just got to drive and hopefully, in 2 years of driving, the
kids can lead the pack.
Both Blake and Aubrey emphasized that student progress monitoring should be continuous.
According to responses, students appreciated the continuous attention from the key organizers,
and students mentioned that “special attention” was an allure to the program. Aubrey said,
56

The level the consistency of monitoring three simple things is directly related, directly
correlated to student success. I may not have in previous roles, or even as a teacher felt I
had the time to monitor absences, grades, and behavior to the degree that I had to do for
all of these students. And just catching students early when they start to falter is so
important. And so, I think that moving forward into the next year PDF, I’m actually
putting together some dashboards and things that I think will be more efficient and really
bring our teachers in more on the monitoring.
All respondents reported that more time spent on supporting some of the students’ individual
needs could provide earlier opportunities for intervention. Kenneth discussed how challenges at
home or in their neighborhood could interfere with progress in the classroom:
Things we could do more support one-on-one, we got to keep doing that. I mean, our kids
did pretty good. But we still had some kids struggled a little bit in terms of like
community elements that we still had to keep figuring out how to get better and I think
that’s always gonna be a hard thing. Because they are coming from certain
neighborhoods where now I wish I could pull some my kids and put them in a different
neighborhood.
However, Aubrey cautioned not letting the awareness of challenges students face fall on deaf
ears. One-on-one interventions can also initiate discussions about different options within the
model that will better serve students. Aubrey also added,
So, I think moving forward, we will have a more individualized approach. Now we don’t
want to take away the opportunity. So, everyone may start in one dual enrollment. That
doesn’t mean we have to leave that student there or hurt them with a grade or a W. There
have to be some earlier you know, identifying times or a rubric that we use.
57

Most key organizers believed improving the consistency and intensity of student
monitoring will improve the effectiveness of the model. In addition to reviewing overall student
grades and performance, responses revealed that more efforts should be made on individualized
support.
Theme 6: Better Alignment Among School District, High School, and Partner
College. Most respondents felt improving alignment among the district key organizers, high
school administrators, and partnering college instructors would assist in better model
implementation. According to interview responses, some of the challenges were differing
expectations, out-of-sync calendars, and not sharing the same vision.
Many key organizers mentioned how they handled misaligned expectations. District-level
key organizers initially presented to primarily offer students access to dual-enrollment courses
with the model. And according to Charlie and Alex, many teachers and high school leaders who
mostly offered AP at their schools protested only dual-enrollment classes at the community
forums. Consequently, the model now includes AP courses. Blake continued and Hayden shared
similar sentiments, including concerns about handling district-level expectations. Blake said,
It’s not going to be 100%. You got to stop playing with numbers and playing with real
people. Yeah. We know we want this astronomical number but if we get 50% that’s 50%
better than we would have had. You know, you want 80, 90, and 100%. You know, at a
school like mine, to get 50%, to me, is winning. You know, and to get this year it was
like 67; that was great. Right? You know?
Hayden’s approach was to set aside any apprehensions and communicate more with all key
organizers, including district key organizers:
58

Communication, communication, communication; don’t be afraid to communicate with
the teachers, professors, district, and the coordinators. Initially, I was timid and didn’t
want to step on anyone’s toes, but as time progressed, I was able to voice my concerns in
order to get the resources needed. . . you can’t make it worse, only better.
Aubrey also provided an example of an ongoing issue with the model with the partnering
schools’ calendars: “[The partnering college] calendar and [the school district] calendar are quite
different, right? So, for 2 weeks, every semester. At the beginning of each semester, a teacher is
managing this class with no professor, because college starts 2 weeks after the high school
calendar starts. It also ends 2 weeks before the, you know, [the school district] semester ends. So,
what does this teacher do in the meantime, the high school teacher because this teacher doesn’t
necessarily have the content knowledge, right?”
Interview responses also revealed that better planning and understanding mindsets would
support alignment with model goals and mission. Alex stated, “We really figured it out as we
went,” and suggested a better planning model between the high school teacher and dual-
enrollment instructor. As a part of more effective planning, Alex and Hayden believed that the
classroom teacher and dual enrollment (college) should meet and discuss classroom management
prior to the start of each term. Hayden stressed, “having the teacher and professor meet, have that
settle early on. Who that professor is going to be teaching those students, so that teacher
coordinator, district, if they want, can all meet together and talk about some of the experiences
from like the year before sort of thing.”
Key organizers highlighted many lessons learned throughout the implementation. The
model's goals should be clearly communicated, the pilot's progress should be intentionally
monitored, and the supporting partners must also share the mission. The emerging themes
59

captured the areas where optimization could enhance the students’ experience, performance, and
preparation for college.
RQ 3: How Has Participation in the Early College Model Road to Success Affected Low-
Income African American Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors Toward College Preparation?
Data were collected over 2 and half months during the first semester of the 10th-grade
year of the RTS students, due to limited access to students over the summer break. Participants
of the student survey were selected if they were rising 10th-grade students and participated in the
RTS early college model during their ninth-grade year. Prior to the survey data collection, 55
students were listed as RTS students, according to the RTS coordinator. However, at the start of
the survey, the RTS coordinator reported that 8 of the 55 students were no longer at the school or
participating in the early college model. The survey was administered to 47 students, and 45
students completed the survey. Ninety-six percent of the eligible RTS students were surveyed.
Overall results from the survey reflect that the majority of students’ experiences in the
RTS program were reported as positive. Most of the student participants were planning to attend
college prior to the program. According to the survey results, 43 out of 45 students either
“Strongly Agreed” or “Somewhat Agreed” with the survey item about their confidence: I am
now confident in my ability to complete future college courses after graduating from high
school. Further, 51.1% of students surveyed strongly agreed that their RTS classes increased
their interest in going to college. Also, 64.4% of students strongly agreed they would recommend
the RTS program to other students preparing for college. Table 4 displays the student survey data
for key survey items about attitudes and behaviors.

60

Table 4
Survey Data from Key Survey Items
Survey Item
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
8. At this time, I plan to enroll in a college or
university after I graduate from high school
30 14 1 0
10. Before participating in the Road to
Success (RTS) program, I already planned to
go to college after graduating from high
school.
28 13 3 1
11. I attend my RTS classes regularly (absent
only 2 days or less a month).
30 13 1 1
23. The RTS program is helping me prepare
for college.
25 18 2 0
25. The RTS program has increased my
knowledge of the expectations in college
classes.
23 18 3 1
26. I am now confident in my ability to
complete future college courses after
graduating from high school.
24 19 1 1
28. I would recommend the RTS program to
other students preparing for college.
29 13 2 1
Mean (SD) 28.4 (4.0) 15.4 (2.8) 1.9 (0.9) 0.7 (0.5)

61

According to survey data, most students attended RTS classes regularly. In addition,
before starting the RTS program, 28 of the 45 students strongly agreed that they had planned to
go to college after high school. With the already high number of students planning to attend
college before the RTS program, there was an increase of 17 students who, through participating
in the program, now stated they plan to enroll in college after participating in the RTS. Notably,
after participating in the RTS, 0 students strongly disagreed with planning to enroll in college
after high school. The following qualitative findings provide more of the perspectives and
attitudes of the study participants.
Respondents were asked about the influence of the early college model on their attitudes
and beliefs about attending college after high school. Most interview responses conveyed an
increase in student confidence. According to most interview respondents, the idea of college
became more attainable. However, more than half of the focus group members did not report any
influence from the early college model on their attitudes and behaviors when preparing for
college. Two students suggested the program had an influence on their behaviors in the
classroom (taking notes and completing assignments); other students explained changing their
behaviors to remain in the RTS program.
Theme 7: Building Confidence and College Aspirations. Four key organizers noted an
increase in the students’ confidence (ability to handle college-level coursework), and three
organizers described that students started changing their aspirations for life after high school.
Aubrey reported that students began to have a different picture of themselves after their
experience in the early college model pilot year. Aubrey also explained,
So, just the sheer confidence; the idea that I deserve to have advanced coursework and be
exposed to more things, right? I think that part of it was as important as change and as
62

saying I’m gonna go to college. But just that I deserve to have the same classes in my
catalog as a [higher performing school] should; I wish to do that
Like Aubrey, Alex observed a positive change in attitudes toward college preparation,
‘It’s just a pride; you can see the confidence and aspirations that appear to have grown or been
strengthened through this opportunity.’ Hayden reported, “They were even aspiring to go to
college out of state, which is something different from what I’ve seen before.”
In contrast, responses from the student focus group sessions did not suggest any
significant changes in attitudes and behavior resulting from participating in the RTS program
model. Most students’ remarks supported the survey data responses to questions about plans after
high school. The focus group students appeared assured in their next steps; majority of the
participants confidently answered “college” as the next step after high school. However, students
did not explicitly express any increases in their confidence. Most participants responded “No”
and did not offer many supporting comments to the focus group question: How has your
experience in RTS changed your attitudes and behaviors toward college preparation, if at all?
Students expressed appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the college preparation
program, but students did not feel their behaviors, especially their attitudes, were influenced
greatly by the program. Most students reported that before RTS, they were not actively preparing
for college. Four to six students even expressed no desire to go to college, which was more than
the survey data indicated. Perhaps, students felt more comfortable expressing dissatisfaction with
the program when questioned in-person. The majority of participants in each session echoed that
they intended to attend college but had not taken any actual steps to prepare before participating
in RTS.
63

Theme 8: The Desire for “College-Level” Work and Experience. Interestingly, while
56% of students strongly agreed and 40% of students agreed that “The RTS program is helping
me prepare for college,” most students responded “No” to the focus group question, Do you feel
the RTS program is preparing you for college? Many students expressed concerns about the
caliber of work in the dual-enrollment classes. Many complained that the coursework “did not
feel” like college-level work. The students were afraid that the coursework was not actually
preparing them for the college-level coursework they expect to encounter after high school. Also,
students noted that high school classrooms don’t appear to mimic a college setting. Chloe
expressed,
I feel like I am lacking the actual knowledge of a college class. Like they are just giving
us credits for college. It’s not actually teaching us what we are going to learn in college.
It’s baby work.
Students also commented that they already learned about the course topics in elementary
school and that an instructor was staying too long on a particular topic in the course. Charlene
echoed,
It’s baby work. It’s like they not really showing us. It’s just basically high school work.
You saying it’s a college class, but it’s work you can give to a fifth grader. This like fifth
grade. … The work is not even high school work.
The idea of earning 2 years of college credits and getting “ahead” appealed to the students, but
they still expressed uncertainty because of the coursework. Chloe feared their dual-enrollment
credits will not transfer when they graduate: “That’s why I feel like they are not going to give us
this associate degree.”
64

Students also expressed dissatisfaction with the limited curriculum and courses. Most
participants desired to take dual-enrollment courses aligned with their interests or college
aspirations. Students believed they would have more autonomy in selecting courses when they
get to college, so they wanted that autonomy reflected in the RTS model.
Summary of Findings
This study sought to understand the implementation of a new early college model
program for ninth-grade African American students in a disadvantaged community. The study’s
results identified the primary factors program organizers considered when developing the early
college model and the lessons learned after the first year of the model implementation. In
addition, the study revealed the influence of the model on student participants’ attitudes and
beliefs toward college preparation from the perspective of both key organizers and students.
The findings indicated that providing disadvantaged students with access to advance and
college preparatory courses was the primary factor contributing to the design of the early college
model. Most key organizers believed that the student’s socioeconomic status should not limit
their ability—or access—to take college-level courses. Post implementation, key organizers cited
improving communication and student monitoring as actions to take after reflecting on lessons
learned. Lastly, though key organizers observed more confidence and college aspirations in the
student participants, the student participants desire more college-level college coursework and
class settings. In the next chapter, the recommendations for practice are discussed through the
lens of the Building for Equity framework. Chapter Five also highlights limitations and
delimitations of this study.
65

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
This mixed methods study examined the implementation of an ECHS model for African
American ninth-grade students from low-income communities. The study aimed to reveal the
significant factors considered when designing the model, the lessons learned after
implementation, and the influence of the model on the student participants’ college preparation.
This chapter presents a discussion of findings through the themes that emerged as related to the
theoretical framework and literature addressing the college readiness of African American high
school students from low-income communities. Through the lens of the three critical drivers of
the Building for Equity framework: the culturally responsive design principles, the intersection
of self and systems, and the community-driven process, this framework addresses inequitable
conditions that limit the college preparation of disadvantaged African American students. Also
included in this chapter is a discussion of recommendations for practice to effectively implement
an early college readiness model to support the success of low-income African American high
school students. Chapter Five concludes after discussing the limitations of this research and
recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
This section provides an analysis of the key findings in the context of current research to
answer the following research questions:
1. What do key organizers consider in their approach to increasing college readiness in a
low-income African American community?
2. How do key organizers perceive the implementation of the early college model Road
to Success for increasing students’ college readiness?
66

3. How has participation in the early college model Road to Success affected low-
income African American students’ attitudes and behaviors toward college
preparation?
The Building for Equity framework supported the findings of this study because the key
organizers touched all of the framework’s critical drivers when designing and implementing the
RTS early college model. Results suggested the key organizers paid the most attention to the
culturally responsive design and community-driven process drivers, and there were evolving
efforts in the intersection of self and systems throughout the implementation of the model.
RQ 1: What Do Key Organizers Consider in Their Approach to Increasing College
Readiness in a Low-Income African American Community?
Study findings reflected the framework, which centers on inclusive designing and
implementing equitable outcomes, such that district leadership primarily considered increasing
access to college-level courses for disadvantaged African American students. Key organizers,
which included district leaders, believed increasing access to advanced and college courses for
disadvantaged African American high school students was an important factor to consider when
addressing college readiness. Five out of seven responses indicated that providing opportunities
for disadvantaged students is an essential factor to consider. This finding is supported by
research that cites limited access to precollege or college coursework as a barrier for
disadvantaged African American students to overcome (Hoxby & Turner, 2013). According to
the respondents, RTS student participants have access to any advanced or industry-based
credentials courses in the program. Research does support a positive influence of equal access to
dual enrollment courses on low SES and African American students’ college readiness
(Henneberger et al., 2022). College access for students in high school through dual enrollment
67

classes affords early opportunities for college-going and otherwise non-college-going students to
gain exposure to postsecondary education (Moreno et al., 2021). High school students who
participated in an academic track are better prepared to transition to college than those who
participated in a general track (Breen & Jonsson, 2000; Gamoran & Mare, 1989).
Four out of six key organizer participants reported on the various career opportunities
available to students after graduation and the benefits of leveraging the curriculum of the early
college model with current career pathways. Career readiness is often tied to college readiness.
Stone and Lewis (2012) defined career and college readiness as encompassing the need to
graduate high school with proficient academic knowledge as well as employability and technical
skills. Five interviewees reported the design of the early college should include industry-based
courses and dual enrollment college courses. All key organizers noted that if students took full
advantage of the early college model, they could graduate high school with a two-year associate
degree, allowing students to complete a trade program or university prerequisites faster.
Promising findings do support the positive link between career pathways and college readiness.
Fletcher et al. (2018) found that while CTE programs have historically—and to some extent
today—been stigmatized as a curriculum for non-college-bound students, findings show promise
that career academies are a more modern approach under the programs of study initiative that
have better alignment with the current expectations of secondary education.
Another consideration reported by key organizer participants was creating an ideal school
climate that supports more academic rigor. Low-income students tend to benefit from dual
enrollment as much as, if not more than, high-income students because they can build academic
momentum by earning college credit in high school (Lee et al., 2022). Morgan et al. (2018)
stated that it is also vital to ensure that advanced coursework is college preparatory rather than
68

being exclusively college-level. Fifty percent of participants stated that consistent support and
resources for teachers and students aid in building a more rigorous culture. Resources included
additional training for teachers and additional academic enrichment, workshops, and field trips
for student participants. Further, robust school counseling helps to eliminate the limited and
incomplete information that students and caregivers often have available when making decisions
about postsecondary options (Morgan et al., 2018). This study revealed that the position of
academic coordinator was created to provide onsite school support for program instructors and
student participants and served as an effective mechanism to provide needed support.
According to the Building for Equity framework, a community-driven process requires a
thoughtful and authentic inclusion of student voices, parent and family voices, and the voices of
the wider community. Also, this is not easy to achieve. Simply including stakeholder voices in
the design discussion is not enough; community engagement must be sustained and profound.
The Building for Equity framework references that equitable change requires a “nimble”
understanding of–and a willingness to dismantle–long-established power dynamics at every
phase and step.
Key organizers of RTS reported an intention to increase access to advanced courses that
were previously reserved for privileged students and more affluent communities. Some opposers
to the early college model wanted to maintain the status quo. However, the needs of the greater
school community, which mostly included low-income African Americans, to have more access
and opportunities to better prepare for college drove the decision to open up dual enrollment and
IBC credits to all students.

69

RQ2: How Do Key Organizers Perceive the Implementation of the Early College Model
Road to Success for Increasing Students’ College Readiness?
Many of the findings speak to the significance of examining the intersections of self and
systems, a Building for Equity critical driver when designing and implementing an early college
model. As the driver supports allowing space for educators to consider one’s positionality and
bias, not practicing this exercise can lead to blind spots. Many of the blind spots were
communicated as lessons learned after the early college model was implemented during the pilot
year.
Interview data revealed the value of effective communication was a major lesson learned
after the RTS model was implemented. Respondents noted how difficulties conveying the
benefits and mission of the model delayed community buy-in, college and high school instructor
collaboration, and student engagement. Data from interview responses revealed teachers from
higher-performing schools expressed fears that increasing access to all meant losing prestige and
exclusivity for them at various community forums. Further, the interview responses from the
high school instructor in this study highlighted the challenges in the classroom when there was
no cohesion between the high school and college instructors. Research has cautioned that in
implementing a college readiness model the importance of not hesitating to meet with the college
instructor early to review the curriculum and share best practices. Lukes (2014) reported that the
benefit of establishing a professional relationship between high school and college instructors
before courses begin allows both instructors the ability to work through the paperwork on both
ends and meet in the middle, rather than one of them trying to coordinate both, saving time and
frustration. Even though the pilot year required all ninth-grade students to have access to college-
level courses, many student focus group responses indicated that students felt forced to
70

participate in courses they did not select and did not feel welcome to communicate any concerns.
Student participant responses suggested instances of low engagement were due to students not
being questioned for feedback or input.
Most participants discussed needing to make changes to initial systems and supports to
meet the evolving needs of the teachers, students, and program. Key organizers’ responses
highlighted the need for additional and more consistent student and program monitoring.
Research supports over half of the key organizer interviewees’ observation of increased student
engagement with more student intervention (Downey, 2018). Most of the student focus group
participants also agreed that the additional supports, like homework help and tutoring, increased
their engagement with the college courses. Interview respondents discussed effective student
intervention activities were one-on-one tutoring and mentoring. Research showed a positive
relationship between additional academic support and student achievement (Lukes, 2014).
However, costs for additional tutoring and academic remediation remain a challenge for schools
in disadvantaged and marginalized communities (Lukes, 2014).
RQ3: How Has Participation in the Early College Model Road to Success Affected Low-
Income African American Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors Toward College
Preparation?
According to Building for Equity framework designers, if programs are not examined
explicitly from an equity point of view, inequitable outcomes will likely persist. Therefore, it
was important to explore participation in the early college RTS model through the community-
driven process and intersection of self and systems critical drivers. The following are the
culturally responsive design principles posited in the Building for Equity framework: (a)
culturally proficient teachers and leaders, (b) inclusive school culture, (c) student-centered
71

academic learning, (d) supportive resources, and (e) engaged community. Throughout the
interviews, key organizers discussed efforts to ensure the early college model design would meet
the needs of the student population in the school district. Local job opportunities,
socioeconomics, and demographics were considered when designing the components of the RTS
model. Interview responses highlighted the importance of ensuring that teachers understood the
cultural aspects of the community they served and providing resources to foster a student-
centered learning environment. Responses from the interviews reported the various forums
conducted to engage the community when developing the design of the RTS model.
Furthermore, it was interesting to find that both key organizer interviews and student
focus group data supported that participation in the RTS increased students’ confidence and
aspirations for college. This is consistent with the theory that dual enrollment may help
underrepresented students become familiar and comfortable with college early on, making them
more likely to enroll in and complete degrees at 4-year colleges after high school (An, 2013;
Bailey et al., 2002). Research supports early college models with a dual enrollment emphasis to
increase students’ confidence in handling the college experience. Dual enrollment programs can
support students through exposure to on-campus resources and environments, increasing
confidence and the ability to navigate the transition from high school to college (Bailey et al.,
2002). All key organizers interviewed observed students discussing their options after high
school graduation more frequently and openly. However, findings did not support significant
behavioral changes in student participants toward college preparation after participation in the
RTS program. Focus group student participants only discussed understanding the benefits of
completing the program activities, like classwork and homework, as required.
72

Focus group data also revealed that student participants believed that the academic level
of the RTS courses was not “college-level.” Survey results showed that participants were very
satisfied with the courses and instruction. However, the survey data failed to parallel the
sentiments shared in the focus groups. Responses from students indicated an expectation that
coursework of the early college model would have reflected more rigor. Research supports the
negative impact of not coupling higher-level curriculum with higher-level expectations and
instruction. Tyson (2013) writes educators must change the way they think about intelligence as
well as what they think about students from low-income and minority backgrounds. Tyson
(2013) added that, although the change in the curriculum structure is a key component of the
students’ achievements, such change is not likely to be successful without concomitant changes
in instructional methods and in the beliefs and dispositions of school and district administrators,
teachers, and other adults. Focus group participants discussed concerns that less rigorous–or
college-level–coursework would not adequately prepare them for college classes after
graduation.
Recommendations for Practice
Both the theoretical framework and study findings were used to create my
recommendations for practice. Specifically, the Building for Equity framework, as developed by
the CCE, centers on inclusive designing and implementing equitable outcomes. Because this
theoretical framework aims to bind together the personal learning, process considerations, and
design principles that drive sustainable, equitable school change (CCE, 2020), programs
grounded in the Building for Equity framework must consider these elements to reduce
inequitable outcomes from persisting.
73

Furthermore, the results shed light on the design and implementation of an early college
model aimed at increasing the college readiness of low-income African American ninth-grade
students. The findings will assist district leadership when considering utilizing early college
models or dual-enrollment courses to increase college readiness more broadly.
The following sections discuss recommendations for practice for district and school
administrators designing and implementing an early college model for African American high
school students in marginalized communities.
Recommendation 1: Allow Adequate Time to Design and Plan
Data revealed that the RTS model was implemented six months after conception. Key
organizers’ responses suggested that enough time was not allocated for design. Prior to
implementation, the organizing team should determine a realistic time frame for designing an
early college model. Findings alluded to limited time for designing and planning resulting in a
“disorganized” early experience for participating teachers and students. Coordinators and
teachers detailed many changes to the program in the middle of implementation to remedy issues
that arose from a planning oversight. Some students also referenced not having consistent college
instructors and the lack of communication from model organizers as reasons they felt the
program appeared disorganized. This recommendation reflects the community-driven process
critical driver of the Building for Equity theoretical framework because this valuable feedback is
necessary to allow time to flush out any blind spots inherent to early college model development
and implementation. Future consideration of this critical driver will allow research to properly
consider and learn from implementation. The following are factors that should be considered
when determining an adequate design timeline: the time required to schedule and complete
community forums to gain stakeholder input on the needs that the model should address to
74

develop the major design components of the model, hire and on-board key personnel, and secure
funding for model implementation.
Recommendation 2: Customized Academic Support and Intervention
This recommendation is supported by the Building for Equity framework such that it
aligns with the culturally responsive design principles critical driver. Key organizers and student
participants expressed the need for the RTS program to maintain consistent and customized
academic support for student participants. According to research, low-income African American
high school students fall behind academically in comparison to their White and Asian peers.
Incorporating academic supports like group and one-on-one tutoring for students concurrent to
the dual enrollment courses would help students succeed. In particular, program designers should
consider securing tutoring resources that have expertise in serving students with similar racial
and socio-economic demographics. This could include leveraging tutoring and support services
at the partnering college to increase the likelihood of student achievement in the dual enrollment
class and the students’ exposure to typical college resources. Design team members should also
proactively respond to course grade reports and assignment completion reports. Therefore, this
recommendation would allow program participants to be contacted and given intervention
measures much sooner, ideally at the first signs of trouble in the course.
Recommendation 3: Ensure “College-Level” Experience
Grounded in the culturally responsive design critical driver of the Building for Equity
framework, it is recommended that dual enrollment classes and courses should mimic the caliber
of college classes. Based on data from focus group responses, students believed the coursework
must be college-level for credible college preparation. Interview results conveyed that students’
experience in the early college model increased their observed confidence and college
75

aspirations. However, focus group participants shared disappointment with the rigor level of the
RTS dual enrollment coursework, suggesting that students felt it was ineffective in preparing
them for post-graduation college coursework. Because of this, students appeared less engaged
and connected to the college preparation goals of the program. District and school administrators
designing and implementing an early college model for African American high school students
in marginalized communities should consider examining the course content and goals with
college instructors in an effort to align course content and goals with program leadership
expectations.
Recommendation 4: Continuous Performance and Program Monitoring
This recommendation overlaps with the culturally responsive design and community-
driven process drivers of the Building for Equity framework because RTS programs must ensure
that schools are built to foster their students’ mental and social-emotional needs and include and
give voice to the school’s community. For example, once the early college model is
implemented, the program should be continuously monitored. Monitoring systems and protocols
should be relevant to the program and students’ needs. Interview responses supported the need
for more consistent monitoring to maintain constant communication, address staff concerns, and
encourage student engagement. Attendance reports, test scores, grade reports, engagement
surveys, and focus groups are some of the recommended monitoring tools to keep program
leaders, including the AC, abreast of student progress and to make needed changes over time.
Recommendation 5: Prioritize Implicit Bias and Positionality Training
The intersection of self and systems’ driver supports teachers in examining their
positionality. According to the framework, this driver guides teachers, educators, and
administrators on the self-discovery of identity and how it influences their roles in schools. The
76

goal is that with a deeper understanding of self, educators are more aware of the impact of
implicit biases and resist potential inequities embedded in the design of the early college model.
Responses from the interviews suggest that key organizers are concerned about the influence
implicit biases have on the quality and equity of the supports provided to students participating
in the early college model. This recommendation reflects the intersection of self and system
critical driver because the personal learning that individual educators must do to examine their
own identities will inherently influence the quality of education they provide to RTS programs.
A key organizer discussed the importance of addressing implicit biases that may exist in college
instructors. Study findings did not suggest major design elements of the early college model that
provided guidance for self-exploration and awareness of one’s identity, and this is an area that
may require additional attention.
Early college model designers should prioritize and embed implicit bias training into the
professional development. Model organizers should incorporate bias training into teachers’
mandatory training schedule. Training should focus on fostering self-examinations and
discussions around how positionality can influence classroom expectations and environment. In
line with the theoretical framework’s critical driver, Intersection of Systems and Self, prioritizing
identity discussions allows instructors and staff personal learning. The Building for Equity
framework offers coaching options for organizers facilitating training on identity, bias, beliefs,
etc.
Evaluation Plan
The findings revealed in this study and corresponding recommendations for practice
provide an opportunity to enhance the implementation of the RTS early college model. To
77

evaluate the recommendations for practice, The Kirkpatrick model (2006) for evaluation could
be employed. Table 5 is a sample of recommended evaluation plan using the Kirkpatrick model.

Table 5
Evaluation Plan
Intervention
proposed
Level 1: reaction Level 2: learning Level 3: transfer Level 4:
impact
1. Supporting
teachers and
students in
creating a more
rigorous school
setting
Verbal reactions Meeting
observations
training
attendance
Monthly meeting
minutes and
notes
Completion of
monthly
meetings post
survey
2. Protocols,
communication,
and community
engagement for
buy-in
Feedback forms
pre/post surveys
Classroom
observations
student/teacher
interviews
Pre/post surveys Post surveys
course
completion and
grades
completion of
applications to
colleges
3. Better
alignment
among school
district, high
school, and
partner college
Feedback forms
questionnaires
Course
enrollment
student
interviews
questionnaires
Attendance
records feedback
surveys
Course
assessments and
grades

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are influences that the researcher cannot control, and delimitations are the
boundaries set by the researcher that need to be addressed (Creswell, 2014). Constraints with
data collection and access to key organizers for interviews were some limitations in this study. In
addition, the IRB approval times required data collection to start near the end of the semester.
78

The end of the school year is a busier time for the key organizers, and they may have limited
schedule availability for interviewing. Further, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic surge
continued to threaten in-person learning for students, which affected selecting and coordinating
the focus groups, and student participants. Also, since the RTS pilot initiative was in its first year
during the data collection period, some student performance results from the first cohort’s school
year were not available for document review. The data gathered from the key organizers,
teachers, and student participants only included their perspectives after the culmination of the
first school year.
Delimitations set for this study were excluding data collection from the parents of the
student participants of the RTS. The first-hand experiences and attitudes of the parents were not
able to be addressed in the study to prevent extending the data collection window and potentially
delaying the study. Another delimitation was that the RTS initiative was already in progress at
the time of the study, and much of the design and planning data were not available during data
collection. Therefore, the implementation phase of RTS was studied but understanding the
design and planning was reliant on participant perceptions of past events.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings suggest that future research on increasing college readiness with early
college models can be explored in many different ways. For example, more emphasis could be
made on examining quantifiable measures of college readiness after graduating from a high
school with an early college model. The following are some recommendations for future
research:

79

Assessing Rigor of Dual Enrollment Coursework
In future studies, a recommendation would be to further examine the rigor of the dual-
enrollment coursework. The responses from the student participants in the focus group
illuminated an area that was overlooked when developing the study and an important area for
future research. This area of future research would assist in implementing more “college-level”
courses that support students’ future college success.
Extend Study Time
Another recommendation for future research would be to adjust the study time to include
the entire high school experience of an RTS cohort, starting in ninth grade. The study would last
for 4 years to accommodate each year of high school. Extending the study time could help
explore the influence of the early college model on persisting through high school. Also, a longer
study could reveal more findings on barriers that can exist within an early college program that
may limit college readiness.
Include Documents Review
A final recommendation for future research is to consider a document review as an
additional tool for data collection. Data from key documents like class assignments, attendance
records, grading rubrics, and syllabi could provide more support for ensuring the specific needs
of low-income African American youth are met through dual-enrollment courses and
programming. Findings from this additional research could aid in updating an established ECHS
that has low attendance, student engagement, and credibility.
Conclusion
African American high school students from disadvantaged communities seeking college
opportunities face multiple challenges and barriers in the pursuit. College-bound low-income
80

African American students tend to be unfamiliar with various systems and processes that are
necessary for successful matriculation from high school to college (Cox, 2016). As illustrated in
the study, improving African American students' college and career readiness remains a key
priority for 21st-century educators and schools (Turner, 2019). According to research, ECs are a
comprehensive model of schooling explicitly focused on college readiness for all (Edmunds et
al., 2012). In examining the perspectives of key organizers and students, the major findings of
this study revealed that educators implementing early college models for low-income African
American high school students should ensure access to the program is not limited, program
monitoring and communication is continuous, and coursework aligns with college preparation
expectations.
The results of this study support that low-income African American students do aspire to
attend college. School districts and administration serving African American students from low-
income communities must understand that their students can determine whether the course or
curriculum provided is college-level material, so caution should be taken when selecting colleges
for partnership. In addition, comprehensive measures, remediation plans, and interventions
should be in place to assist disadvantaged students with rising to the challenge of more rigorous
coursework.

81

References
Abbott, S. E., Templeton, K., & Great Schools Partnership. (2013). Ninth grade counts: Using
summer bridge programs to strengthen the high school transition. U.S. Department of
Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/slcp/ninthgradecounts/ninthgradeCountssummerbridgegui
de.pdf
ACT. What we know about college success: Using ACT data to inform educational issues.
ACT. Mind the gaps: How college readiness narrows achievement gaps in college success.
ACT. (2012). The condition of college & career readiness. www.act.orgreadiness/2012
ACT. (2016). The condition of college and career readiness 2016.
https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/CCCR_National_2016.pdf
ACT, Inc. (2019). The condition of college & career readiness 2019.
https://www.act.org/Condition2019
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. U.S. Department of Education.
Akaba, S., Peters, L. E., Liang, E., & Graves, S. B. (2020). “That’s the whole idea of college
readiness”: A critical examination of universal Pre-K teachers’ understandings around
kindergarten readiness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, Article 103172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103172
Alford, B., Rudolph, A., Beal, H. O., & Hill, B. (2014). A school-university math and science P-
16 partnership: Lessons learned in promoting college and career readiness. Planning and
Changing, 45(1), 99–119.
82

Allen, J. & Radunzel, J. (2017). What are the ACT® college readiness benchmarks?
http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/pdfs/ACE-what-are-the-ACT-
college-benchmarks.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2016). Adolescent literacy: Bridging the college-and career-
readiness gap. www.aa4ed.org/reports-factsheets/adolescentliteracybridging/
American School Counselor Association. (2014). Mindsets & behaviors for student success: K-
12 college- and career-readiness standards for every student.
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/MindsetsBehaviors.pdf
An, B. P. (2013). The impact of dual enrollment on college degree attainment: Do low-SES
students benefit? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 57–75.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712461933
An, B. P. (2013). The influence of dual enrollment on academic performance and college
readiness: Differences by socioeconomic status. Research in Higher Education, 54(4),
407–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9278-z
An, B. P., & Taylor, J. L. (2015). Are dual enrollment students college ready? Evidence from the
Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
23(58). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1781
Bailey T. R., Hughes K. L., Karp M. M. (2002). What role can dual enrollment play in easing the
transition between high school and postsecondary education? Journal for Vocational
Special Needs Education, 24, 18–29.
Barnett, E., & Stamm, L. (2010). Dual enrollment: A strategy for educational advancement of all
students.
83

Barnett, E., Kim, J., Zander, S., & Avilo, O. (2013). Smart scholars early college high school
program: Evaluation report. National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and
Teaching.
Barnett, E., Maclutsky, E., & Wagonlander, C. (2015). Emerging early college models for
traditionally underserved students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2015(169),
39–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20131
Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase
college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational
Researcher, 40(4), 175–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11409927
Bell, L. (2019, January 7). Cooperative innovative high schools: What are they and why does
North Carolina have so many? Education NC. https://www.ednc.org/cooperative-
innovative-high-schools-what-are-they-and-why-does-north-carolina-have-so-many/
Bibb, B. (2019). Improving college readiness and preparedness: Using professional
development and curriculum alignment to improve instructional practices and build
capacity and self-efficacy in teachers and principals [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech
University]. Texas Tech University Libraries. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
https://hdl.handle.net/2346/84976
Bowman, N., & Denson, N. (2012). What’s past is prologue: How precollege exposure to racial
diversity shapes the impact of college interracial interactions. Research in Higher
Education, 53, 406-425.
Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2000). Analyzing educational careers: A multinomial transition
model. American Sociological Review, 65(5), 754–772
84

Bridges, B. (2018). African Americans and college education by the numbers. United Negro
College Fund Newsletter.
Bryan, J., Holcomb-McCoy, C., Moore-Thomas, C., & Day-Vines, N. (2009). Who sees the
school counselor for college information? A national study. Professional School
Counseling, 12(4), 280–291.
Bettinger, E. & Loeb, S. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of online education. The Brookings
Institution.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results.
College in High School Alliance. (2020). Expanding New York’S college in high school
programs. https://www.bard.edu/news/web-resources/BEC-Expand-College-
Whitepaper.pdf
College Readiness Indicator System. (2011). John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their
Communities, Stanford University and Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown
University. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Conley, D. T. (2007). Toward a more comprehensive conception of college readiness.
Educational Policy Improvement Center, University of Oregon.
Conley, D. T. (2009). Components in a comprehensive definition of college readiness.
http://www.adlit.org/article/31528/
Conley, D. (2009). Redefining college readiness. Prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation. https://www.epiconline.org/files/pdf/RedefiningCR_Vol3.pdf
Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high
school. Jossey-Bass.
85

Conley, D. T. (2012). A complete definition of college and career readiness. https://
eric.ed.gov/?id = ED537876
Convertino, C. & Graboski-Bauer, A. (2017). College readiness versus college worthiness:
Examining the role of principal beliefs on college readiness initiatives in an urban U.S.
high school. The Urban Review, 50(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0429-
6
Cortez, L. J., Martinez, M. A., & Sa ́enz, V. B. (2014). Por los ojos de madres: Latina mothers’
understandings of college readiness. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 877–900.
Cox, R. D. (2016). Complicating Conditions: Obstacles and Interruptions to Low-Income
Students’ College “Choices.” Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 1–26.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Curry, J. R., & Shillingford, M. A. (Eds.). (2017). African American students’ career and college
readiness: The journey unraveled. Lexington Books.
Darche, S., & Stam, B. (2012). College and Career Readiness: What Do We Mean?--Maria's
Story. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J3), 87(3), 20-25.
DeMaria, P., Vaishnav, A., Cristol, K., & Basu Mann, S. (2015). Achieving the Benefits of K-
12/Higher Education Alignment. K-12/HIGHER EDUCATION ALIGNMENT.
Dexter, L. A. (1970). Elite and specialized interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Downey, J. A. (2008). Recommendations for fostering educational resilience in the
classroom. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 53(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.3200/psfl.53.1.56-64
86

Edmunds, J. (2020). What Happens When You Combine High School and College? The Impact
of Early Colleges on Postsecondary Performance and Completion. SERVE Center at
University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Edmunds, J. A., Unlu, F., Furey, J., Glennie, E., & Arshavsky, N. (2020). What happens when
you combine high school and college? The impact of the early college model on
postsecondary performance and completion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
42(2), 257–278 https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720912249
Evaluating the impact of early college high schools. (2021). American Institutes for Research.
https://www.air.org/project/evaluating-impact-early-college-high-schools
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking Data. SAGE Publications.
Fletcher, Edward C., Jr, & Dumford, A. D. (2021). Preparing Students to be College and Career
Ready: The Effect of Career Academy Participation on Student Engagement in College
and Career Preparatory Activities. Career and Technical Education Research, 46(2), 23-
41.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 3-18).
SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Foley, E., Mishook, J., & Lee, J. (2013, Winter/Spring). Developing college readiness within and
across school districts: The federal role. Vue, 36, 7-17.
http://www.annenberginstitute.org /sites/default/ files/issuePDF/VUE36.pdf
Friedmann, E., Kurlaender, M., & Van Ommeren, A. (2016). Addressing college readiness gaps
at the college door: Addressing college readiness gaps at the college door. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(176), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20221
87

Francis, G. L., Duke, J., Brigham, F. J., & Demetro, K. (2018). Student Perceptions of College-
Readiness, college services and supports, and family involvement in college: An
exploratory study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3573–3585.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3622-x
Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality:
Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology 94(5), 1146–
1183.
Gasman, M., Samayoa, A.C., Boland, W.C., & Esmieu, P. (Eds.). (2017). Educational
challenges at minority serving institutions (1st ed.). Routledge.
Gildersleeve, R. E. (2010). Access between and beyond borders. Journal of College Admission,
206, 3–10.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Greene, J. P., & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college readiness rates in
the United States. Education Working Paper No. 3. New York, NY: Center for Civic
Innovation. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ewp_03.pdf
Harris, P. N., Gonzalez, L. M., Kearney, B., & Ingram, K. (2020). Finding Their SPARCK:
College and Career Readiness Groups for African American Females. The Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 45(1),40–55.https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2019.1702128
Havlik, S. A., Rowley, P., Puckett, J., Wilson, G., & Neason, E. (2017). “Do whatever you can to
try to support that kid”: School counselors’ experiences addressing student
homelessness. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1096-2409.
Hecker, D. E. (2005). Occupational employment projections to 2014. Monthly Lab. Rev., 128,
70.
88

Henneberger, A.K, Witzen, H., & Preston, A. M. (2022). A Longitudinal Study Examining Dual
Enrollment as a Strategy for Easing the Transition to College and Career for Emerging
Adults. Emerging Adulthood, 10(1), 225–236.
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2010). Involving low-income parents and parents of color in college
readiness activities: An exploratory study. Professional School Counseling, 14(1), 115–
124.
Hoxby, C. & Turner S. (2013). Expanding college opportunities for high-achieving, low-income
students. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
Kless, L., Soland, J., & Santiago, M. (2013). Analyzing evidence of college readiness: A tri-level
empirical and conceptual framework. John w. gardner center for youth and their
communities.
Klepfer, K., & Hull, J. (2012). High school rigor and good advice: Setting up students to
succeed. Center for Public Education, National School Boards Association.
Kobrin, J. L. (2007). Determining SAT® Benchmarks for College Readiness. Research Notes.
RN-30. College Board.
Kuhlmann, J. (2016, October 26). Case Study: Your Background Doesn’t Determine Your
Future Schenectady Smart Scholars Early College High School. Knowledge Works.
https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/case-study-schenectady-early-college/
Lawrence, T. B. & King, S. B. (2019). Dual Enrollment Participants’ Attainment of an
Associate’s Degree from the College in which they Participated in Dual Enrollment as
Compared to Nonparticipants’ Attainment. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 43(4), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1463302
89

Lee, J., Fernandez, F., Ro, H. K., & Suh, H. (2022). Does Dual Enrollment Influence High School
Graduation, College Enrollment, Choice, and Persistence?. Research in Higher
Education, 63(5), 825-848.
Lee, J. (2012). College for all: Gaps between desirable and actual P–12 math achievement
trajectories for college readiness. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 43-55.
Lee, J., Kim, N., & Wu, Y. (2019). College readiness and engagement gaps between domestic
and international students: Re-envisioning educational diversity and equity for global
campus. Higher Education, 77, 505-523.
Leuwerke, W. C., Ingleby, L. D., Tillery, C. Y., Cech, T. G., & Sibaouih, C. M. (2021).
Narrowing the college readiness gap: Assessing GEAR UP Iowa's intermediate impact on
underserved students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 26(4),
352-370.
Lukes, L. A. (2014). Considerations and recommendations for implementing a dual-enrollment
program: Bridging the gap between high school and college level science. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 44(1), 17-22.
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education Pays 2016: The Benefits of Higher
Education for Individuals and Society. Trends in Higher Education Series. College
Board.
Malin, J. R., Bragg, D. D., & Hackmann, D. G. (2017). College and career readiness and the
Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 809–838.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17714845
Malott, K. M., Havlik, S., Gosai, S., Diaz Davila, J., & Steen, S. (2019). College readiness and
first-generation college goers: group impacts with students from an urban, predominantly
90

African American Population. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 5(3), 256–
274. https://doi.org/10.1080/23727810.2019.1672241
Malhotra, G. S., & Mehta, M. (2015). Study skills. A practical approach to cognitive behaviour
therapy for adolescents, 57-90.
Martinez, R. R., Dye, L., & Gonzalez, L. M. (2017). A social constructivist approach to
preparing school counselors to work effectively in urban schools. Urban Review, 49,
511–528. doi:10.1007/s11256-017-0406-0
Martinez, R. R., Baker, S. B., & Young, T. (2017). Promoting career and college readiness,
aspirations, and self-efficacy: Curriculum field test. Career Development Quarterly, 65,
173–188. doi:10.1002/cdq.12090
Maruyama, G. (2012). Assessing college readiness: Should we be satisfied with ACT or other
threshold scores? Educational Researcher.;41(7), 252–261.
doi:10.3102/0013189X12455095
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd. ed.). Sage.
McAlister, S. & Mevs, P. (2012). College readiness: A guide to the field.
Http://www.Annenberginstitute.Org. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531948.pdf
McWhirter, E. H., Torres, D. M., Salgado, S., & Valdez, M. (2007). Perceived barriers and
postsecondary plans in Mexican American and White adolescents. Journal of Career
Assessment, 15, 119–138. doi:10.1177/1069072706294537
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
MI School Data. (2021). Dual Enrollment. Www.mischooldata.org; Center for Educational
Performance and Information. https://www.mischooldata.org/dual-enrollment/
91

Mishkind, A. (2014). Overview: State Definitions of College and Career Readiness. College and
career readiness and success center.
Mokher, C. G., & Leeds, D. M. (2019). Can a college readiness intervention impact longer-term
college success? Evidence from Florida’s Statewide Initiative. The Journal of Higher
Education, 90(4), 585–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1525986
Moore, G. W., Slate, J. R., Edmonson, S. L., Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A.
J. (2010). High school students and their lack of preparedness for college: A statewide
Study. Education and Urban Society, 42(7), 817–
838.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510379619
Morgan, T. L., Zakhem, D., & Cooper, W. L. (2018). From high school access to postsecondary
success: An exploratory study of the impact of high-rigor coursework. Education
Sciences, 8(4), 191–
More Students Still Not College-Ready, ACT Report Finds; 2012 SRI R4800-2.606.1. (2012).
Moreno, M., McKinney, L., Burridge, A., Rangel, V. S., & Carales, V. D. (2021). Access for
whom? The impact of dual enrollment on college Matriculation among underserved
student populations in Texas. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
45(4), 255–272.
Morones, A. (2014). College readiness; “The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2013:
African American Students.” Education Week, 33(27), 5–5.
Morton, B. R., & Hart, D. C. (2015). Making a way out of no way: A contextualized history of
African Americans in higher education. In Curry, J. R., & Shillingford, M. A. (Eds.),
African American students’ career and college readiness: The journey unraveled (pp. 39-
54). Lanham, MD: Lexington.
92

Ngo, F., & Kwon, W. W. (2015). Using multiple measures to make math placement decisions:
Implications for access and success in community colleges. Research in Higher
Education, 56(5), 442–470. doi:10.1007/s11162-014-9352-9
Parikh‐Foxx, S., Martinez, R., Baker, S. B., & Olsen, J. (2020). Self‐efficacy for enhancing
students’ career and college readiness: A survey of professional school
counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 98(2), 183-192.
Preparing for the Act 2021–2022 - the ACT - Solutions.
https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Preparing-for-the-ACT.pdf.
Regan, D. (2017, February 28). Early to college, likely to rise? Benefits and challenges of early
college programs. New England Board of Higher Education.
https://nebhe.org/journal/early-to-college-likely-to-rise-benefits-and-challenges-of-early-
college-programs/
Sparks, S. D. (2019). College and Career Readiness; “The Condition of Education 2019.”
Education Week, 38(34), 4–4.
Stewart, V. (2012). A World-class education: Learning from international models of excellence
and innovation. ASCD.
Stokdyk, J., Johnson, S. Z., & Grandone, J. (2020). Finding value, building value: A dual
enrollment model that works. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 48(1), 116–
143.
Stone, J. R. III., & Lewis, M. V. (2012). College and career ready in the 21st century: Making
high school matter. Teacher’s College Press.
Sullivan, P. (2012). Essential habits of mind for college readiness. College English, 74(6), 547–
553.
93

Taylor, J. L., & Lichtenberger, E. J. (2013). Who has access to dual credit in Illinois? Examining
high school characteristics and dual credit participation rates (IERC 2013-4).
Edwardsville: Illinois Education Research Council at Southern Illinois University.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2020). The employment mismatch. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-employment-mismatch/
Trostel, P. A. (2015). It’s not just the money the benefits of college education to individuals and
to society. Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and School for Economics (University of
Maine) and Lumina Issue Papers. https://www.luminafoundation.org/resources/its-not-
just-the-money
Tuckman, B. W., & Kennedy, G. J. (2011). Teaching learning strategies to increase success of
first-term college students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), 478–504.
doi:10.1080/00220973.
Turner, J. D. (2019). Improving Black students’ college and career readiness through literacy
instruction: A Freirean-inspired approach for K–8 classrooms. The Journal of Negro
Education, 88(4), 443-453.
Tyson, K. (2013). ‘Tracking, segregation, and the opportunity gap: What we know and why it
matters’, in Prudence L. Carter, and Kevin G. Welner (eds), Closing the Opportunity gap:
What America must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford Academic
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, April 21). Education pays. U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-education.htm
Wagner, T (2006) Rigor on trial. Education Week, 25(18), 28-29
Watson, C., & Duren, P. (1988). PROJECTS. The Mathematics Teacher, 81(6), 500–500.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27965915
94

Webb, M. (2014). Early college expansion: Propelling students to postsecondary success, at a
school near you. Jobs for the Future.
Williams, L. (2021). The unspoken social and emotional benefits of a college education. The
Apopka Voice. https;//theapopkavoice.com/stories/the-unspoken-social-and-emotional-
benefits-of-a college-education,1590.
Wooten, M. E. (2016). College admissions and academic Ethic: How context-specific evaluation
within a science-based compensatory program benefits African American Students.
Education and Urban Society, 48(2), 176–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124514530151
Zeiser, K. (2019, September). Evaluating the Impact of Early College High Schools. American
Institutes for Research; Institute of Education Sciences.
https://www.air.org/project/evaluating-impact-early-college-high-schools

95

Appendix A
Leader and Key School Organizer Interview Protocol
1. What do key organizers consider in their approach to increasing college readiness in a
low-income AA community?
2. How do key organizers perceive the implementation of Road to Success, an early college
model, for increasing students’ college readiness?
3. How has participation in the RTS affected low-income AA students’ attitudes and
behaviors toward college preparation?
Theoretical Framework: Building For Equity
Interview Question(s)
1. How would you define college readiness?
2. Why did you select the RTS? (district leaders only)
3. What factors did you consider when selecting your design and implementation
team (district leaders only)
4. What are some of the barriers against college readiness at your schools?
5. What inequities in college readiness does the RTS address?
6. What are some of the barriers in the community preventing students from
being college-ready?
7. Tell me about how the RTS model was implemented? (school key organizers
only)
8. How were teachers involved in the implementation of the RTS? (school key
organizers only)
9. How were students involved in the implementation of the RTS? (school key
organizers only)
10. How did you involve the community in the implementation of the RTS?
11. How has participation in the RTS affected low income AA students’ attitudes
and behaviors towards college preparation? (school key organizers only)
12. What have been some lessons learned in the first year of implementation?
13. What are some changes that you would suggest being incorporated for the
next school year to enhance the RTS impact?

96

Appendix B

Focus Group Protocol
NOTE: Make sure each student has submitted a signed Parental Consent Form before entering
the focus group. Begin with providing introductory comments:
Welcome and thank the students for volunteering to participate.
Introduce yourself.
CONFIRM Parental Consent forms before starting
1. Give a very brief overview of the project and goals for the focus group. For example,
“We are discussing your experience in the Road to Success (RTS)”
2. Give student participants information about the process, times, breaks, and bathroom
locations
3. Provide basic guidelines for the focus group, review them with participants, and consider
posting them for everyone to see:
• If you feel uncomfortable during the meeting, you have the right to leave or to pass on
any question. There is no consequence for leaving. Being here is your choice.
• The meeting is NOT a counseling session or support group.
• Keep personal stories “in the room;” do not share the identity of the attendees or what
anybody else said outside of the meeting.
• Everyone’s ideas will be respected. Do not comment on or make judgments about what
someone else says, and do not offer advice.
• One person talks at a time.
• It’s okay to take a break if needed or to help yourself to food or drink (if provided).
• Everyone has the right to talk. The facilitator may ask someone who is talking a lot to
step back and give others a chance to talk and may ask a person who isn’t talking if he or
she has anything to share.
• Everybody has the right to pass on a question.
• There are no right or wrong answers.
• Does anybody have any questions?
97

4. Let students know that I will be taking notes and audio recording what is discussed, but
that individual names or identifying information will not be attached to comments.
5. An opening question can help break the ice and should be easy to answer. A first question
can be as simple as “How did you find out about this focus group (or interview)?” Your
goal is to put the group at ease while keeping the focus on getting the information you
need.
6. Key questions for the focus group:
(1) How was the RTS program first introduced to you?
(2) What did you think when you first heard about the RTS program?
(3) How did you decide whether or not to participate?
(4) What were some of your initial concerns about starting the RTS program?
(5) How are your college classes facilitated/taught?
(6) What are some of the challenges you have faced with the program (classes, teachers,
and coursework)?
(7) Did you receive any support for your challenges? If so, which methods of support?
Was the support helpful?
(8) Do you feel the RTS program is preparing you for college after graduation? How?
(9) How has it changed your attitudes and behaviors toward college preparation, if at all?
(10) Would you recommend to other students that they should participate in the
program—why or why not?
(11) What are some aspects of the RTS program you would change, if you could?
7. Let students know when you are going to ask the last question. This cues participants to
share relevant information that may not have come up in answer to your key questions.
For example, “Is there anything you would like to share with the group about the RTS
program and your experience with the program?”
8. Thank all for participating and dismiss focus group.

98

Appendix C
Student Survey Protocol

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Appendix D
Informed Consent Form

108

109

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the implementation of an early college high school model for low-income African American ninth-grade, high school students. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine what key organizers gained after implementing an early college high school model at their school and explore the attitudes and beliefs student participants held after participation in the early college model program. Six key organizers were interviewed, 45 student participants were surveyed, and 14 students participated in two focus groups. This study used Building for Equity framework as the theoretical framework to analyze the early college model through three critical drivers: culturally responsive design principles, intersections of self and systems, and community-driven process. Findings revealed that key organizers primarily considered ways to increase disadvantaged students’ access to advance and college courses and to align the model pathways with local career opportunities. I also found that key organizers observed an increase in students’ confidence and college aspirations. However, survey data did not reveal a significant increase in the number of students planning to attend college when compared to the number of students prior to participating in the early college program. In addition, student participants reported expecting more “college-level” rigor in the dual enrollment courses in the program.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

PDF

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

PDF

School connectedness for Latinx English learners

PDF

Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources

PDF

Increasing the number of petroleum engineering students in the United Arab Emirates: an improvement model

PDF

Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study

PDF

Supporting online English language teachers’ ability to implement advanced technical teaching proficiency: a gap analysis case study

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

PDF

Standing at the precipice: purposeful postsecondary pathways

PDF

Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis

PDF

Closing the “college aspirations - enrollment gap” in America’s urban public high schools: an innovation study

PDF

Understanding digital transformation of early childhood pre-service teacher education in China

PDF

From the African continent to Colombia: a Case study of African Leadership Academy and developing a new generation of purpose driven Afro-Colombian agents of change

PDF

Dual language programs at Qatar Foundation schools: examining teachers' perspective

PDF

Perceptions and approaches to Armenian genocide education among reputably effective public secondary school educators in greater Los Angeles

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

Lived experiences of African American expatriate teachers abroad and back: a teacher's experience that brings effect to the community

PDF

Preparing international students for management school through pathway programs

PDF

Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance

PDF

Understanding student persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCs): an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Iheanacho, Rachel C. (filename)

Core Title Changing course, creating opportunity: a study on the implementation of an early college model for African American ninth grade students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/10/2023

Defense Date 01/31/2023

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

Tag African American,college readiness,dual enrollment,early college,ninth grade,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Robison, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email Iheanach@usc.edu,rihean@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113004112

Unique identifier UC113004112

Identifier etd-IheanachoR-11590.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-IheanachoR-11590

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Iheanacho, Rachel C.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230411-usctheses-batch-1019 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu