University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors related to college graduation among private and public secondary school students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content FACTORS RELATED TO COLLEGE GRADUATION AMONG PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

by
Darlene Anne Milecki

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements For The Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

December 2006

Copyright 2006 Darlene Anne Milecki
ii
DEDICATION

To my husband, Edward whose continued love and inspiration have guided
me every step of the way.
To my mother, Marguerite O’Connell Giuliani, who although she is battling
terminal cancer, still manages to inspire and motivate me everyday. All of this work
has been for you.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to those individuals who without their
continued support and encouragement this work would not have been possible. To
my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Linda Serra Hagedorn who inspired me to
never give up despite several unforeseen obstacles, you have my infinite
appreciation. To Dr. Andrei Simic who graciously guided the cultural component of
this work, “HVALA LEPO!” To Dr. Tatiana Melguizo thank you for the renewed
momentum and your encouraging and youthful enthusiasm. I am privileged to have
had the opportunity to work with such distinguished scholars.
To the Native Hawaiian students and their families who give so freely,
Mahalo. May you reach your fullest potential in any endeavor that you seek.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication............................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... iv
List of Tables....................................................................................................... vi
Abstract............................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .....................................1
Background of the Problem...................................................................................1
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................5
Purpose of the Study..............................................................................................6
Research Questions ...............................................................................................7
Significance of the Problem ..................................................................................7
Methodology..........................................................................................................8
Assumptions ..........................................................................................................9
Limitations.............................................................................................................9
Delimitations .......................................................................................................10
Organization of the Study....................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................12
Historical Background: Public and Private Schools in the United States ...........13
Types of Private Schools in the United States .............................................16
Differences and Similarities: Private and Public Schools............................17
Students ........................................................................................................18
Teachers .......................................................................................................19
School and Class Size ..................................................................................20
Historical Background: Public and Private Schools in Hawaii ...........................22
Background ..................................................................................................26
Current Findings...........................................................................................27
The Model Minority Myth...................................................................................31
Proponents of the Asian Model Minority Myth ...........................................34
Opponents of the Asian Model Minority Myth............................................37
The Double Minority...........................................................................................40
Cultural Discontinuity Model.......................................................................44
v
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........................................46
Study Sites ...........................................................................................................46
Research Questions .............................................................................................50
Participants ..........................................................................................................50
Research Design ..................................................................................................51
Dependent Variable: College Graduate/ Non College Graduate.........................55
Independent Variable: High School Type ...........................................................55
Population and Sample........................................................................................56
Instrumentation.............................................................................................58
Data Collection.............................................................................................59
CHAPTER 4. PARTICIPANTS...................................................................61
Design and Analysis ............................................................................................62
Results .................................................................................................................62
Dependent Variable: College Graduate/ Non College Graduate..................62
Independent Variable: High School Type...................................................63
Significance Testing.....................................................................................63
Chi Square ....................................................................................................75
Regression ....................................................................................................76
CHAPTER 5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION .........................................81
Introduction .........................................................................................................81
Discussion ....................................................................................................82
Theoretical Perspective ................................................................................86
High School GPA.........................................................................................87
Family Responsibilities in College ..............................................................89
Financial Aid Knowledge.............................................................................90
Semesters Taken Off in College...................................................................92
College Self-Efficacy Scale .........................................................................94
Conclusions .........................................................................................................95
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................96
Implications for Practice......................................................................................98
Recommendations ...............................................................................................99
References .........................................................................................................101
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Enrollments and Disadvantaged Students in Hawaiian Public Schools.......28
Table 2. Educational Attainment in Hawaii by Ethnicity...........................................32
Table 3 The Average Number Of Students In Primary, Middle, & High Schools.....49
Table 4. Hawai‘I’s Largest Schools ...........................................................................49
Table 5. Graduate from College or not (By age)........................................................62
Table 6. Psychometric Properties of Items and Means of Significance .....................65
Table 7. Psychometric Properties of Derived Scales and Means of Significance......71
Table 8. Complete Model of Logistic Regression for College Graduate or Not........77
Table 9. College Graduates and Non-College Graduates by Type of High Schools .84
Table 10. Table Graduate from College or not by Gender.........................................84
Table 11. Graduate from College or not Present marital status?................................85
Table 12. High School GPA of College Graduates vs. Non College Graduates........89
Table 13. Dependents Supported by Students at High School Graduation................89
Table 14. Number of Semesters Taken off From College..........................................92
Table 15. College Satisfaction Scale of College Graduates vs. Non-Graduates ........93
Table 16. College Choice Decision of College Graduates and Non-Graduates.........94

vii
ABSTRACT
This study examines the educational outcomes of 456 Native Hawaiian
students who have graduated from private and public high schools in Hawaii
between 1993 and 1995 and have enrolled at a two or four year college. The students
were divided into two groups: the ones that received a bachelor’s degree and the
one’s that did not receive a bachelors’ degree. Factors such as high school grade-
point average, socioeconomic status, receipt of college financial aid, proficiency in
the Hawaiian language and identification with Hawaiian culture will all be examined
as to the completion of a bachelor’s degree. The study will identify the significant
factors that lead to the fulfillment of a bachelor’s degree. Findings revealed that the
students who graduated from the Kamehameha schools demonstrated a much higher
rate of bachelor’s degree completion than the public high school students. High
school grade-point average, family responsibilities in college, number of semester
taken off in college, college satisfaction, financial aid knowledge and self-efficacy
were significant factors in bachelor’s degree completion.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The Hawaiian Islands have greatly changed in character
since the days when Hawaiians were warriors, fisherman
and gardeners. In fact, the impression which Captain Cook
and his men received of the neat villages with their well
kept-gardens and fishponds was not shared by the visitors
who came in the first part of the 19
th
century for already at
that time the situation had changed drastically.
(Wittermans 1964).
Clearly, Hawaii of today is quite a different place from when Captain Cook
anchored off the coast of Kauai in January of 1778 (Crawford 1933; Kuykendall
1927; Hass 1992). Described by many as a’ multiracial/multiethnic’ paradise and the
key to the Pacific, Hawaii certainly possesses a great array of natural beauty (Haas
1992; Edles 2004; Okamura 1980). On the societal side the situation meets with
mixed results. Often termed the “melting pot in the Pacific”, where the blending of
several races have coexisted for the last 200 years, Hawaii is the newest and most
racially integrated state in the country (Edles 2004; Haas 1992; Okamura 1980).
However, the tale of the Native Hawaiians is in many ways a tragedy.

Background of the Problem
A great majority of Native Hawaiian students do not experience academic
success in the public school system in Hawaii (Hormann 1957; Weinburg 1997;
Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi 2003, PASE Info Brief 2003; Yamauchi et al 1993). As a
group, Hawaiians are overrepresented in special education and underrepresented in
2
higher education (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1994; Takenaka, 1995). On
the national level, Hawaii is a low achievement state. In the1998 National
Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, known as the nation’s report card,
Hawaiian fourth-graders ranked 39th among groups of students from 39 states in
reading. In 2003, Kanaiaupuni and Ishibashi published a report documenting the
status of Hawaiian students in Hawaiian public schools. The findings indicate that
“Hawaiian students rank among the lowest of all major ethnic groups in the state’s
public school system by nearly every measure of educational attainment and
success” (Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi 2003).
Of Hawaii’s 280 public schools, 180 or 64 percent failed the mandate of No
Child Left Behind (PASE Info Brief 2003). Designed as a 12 year plan to improve
the basic skills of the nation’s 47 million public school students, “No Child Left
Behind” is clearly a challenge for the public schools in Hawaii. Results from the
2003 Hawai’i Opinion Poll on Public Education conducted by the Department of
Education imply that a considerable majority of people think public schools in
Hawaii have not improved (Hawaii Department of Education, June 2003).
In the area of higher education Native Hawaiian students still lag behind their
peers in several key areas. Results from the 2005 Native Hawaiian Educational
Assessment indicate that college enrollment among Native Hawaiians is 25.6 percent
whereas statewide enrollment is 32 percent. Also, the percentage of Native
Hawaiians who have completed a bachelor’s degree is 12.5 percent which is half the
statewide rate of 26.2 percent. Native Hawaiian students at the University of Hawaii
3
at Manoa are less likely than the major ethnic groups to graduate within
six years and have a greater probability of working full-time while attending college
(2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment).
Limited studies exist that examine the lack of academic success of Hawaiian
students. Research has shown that students who are educated by people from cultural
backgrounds that are different from their own often experience “cultural conflict” or
serious conflicts in the educational environment (Borish 1988; Hornberger 1988;
Tueba 1989). And it is this lack of success in an academic environment, i.e., the
classroom that is often attributed to “cultural conflict”. Borish 1988; Hornberger
1988; Tueba 1989 found that when students experienced less overlap in the values
and goals in the “multiple worlds” in which students operate (i.e., home, school and
peer communities), they had a difficult time adjusting and a lesser likelihood that
they could navigate the three environments successfully.
Research on the education of minority students has shown that schools that
respect and support a child’s culture show considerably better outcomes in educating
these students (Estrada & Vasquez, 1981; U.S. Department of Education, 1991).
D’Amato (1988), Benham and Heck (1998) suggest that the superiority of the
dominant culture led to classroom activities that often deprived Hawaiian students of
Hawaiian cultural traditions and ways of learning. Au & Kawakami (1994), D'Amato
(1993), Vogt et al. (1993), found that cooperation and sibling teaching among
Hawaiian students was essential to getting things done. Also, implementation of
small group activities in the classroom was effective in smoothing out the
4
disarticulation between home and school. However, Henze & Vanett
(1993) and Banks (1992) found that academic and career success also depends on the
student developing an understanding of the relationships with society as a whole.

Theoretical Framework
Several theories exist to explain the persistent, lower academic achievement
of minority children. Much research has centered on the notion of cultural
discontinuity (Borish 1988; Hornberger 1988; Tueba 1989; Phelan 1991). This
theory posits that minority children are not successful in the academic environment
due to the ‘disconnect’ or vast differences in the values, norms , teaching and
learning styles of the home culture and school culture. Other research points to the
model minority myth, the double minority and voluntary and involuntary theories
(Ogbu 1993; Chan 1991; Sue 1973; Takaki 1989; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
1980; Hu 1989). The model minority theory attributes the positive academic and
occupational outcomes to the hard work and values of Asian Americans and their
families.
This broad all encompassing term “Asian American” is no longer valid for
Native Hawaiians as of the year 2000. With the 2000 Census the “Asian” category
will be replaced by “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” (Makuakane-
Drechel 1999). On the other hand, Ogbu (1993) terms indigenous populations, like
Native Americans as “involuntary minorities: Hu (1989) describes the double
5
minority theory fitting both the pattern of a privileged “over minority” and
the disadvantaged or “under minority” position.

Statement of the Problem
The public knows and we should not be afraid to say it—
Hawaii’s public school system is broken. It is like no other
system in America, and it’s not working.
Governor Linda Lingle, State of the State Address Hawaii,
2003
In the1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, known
as the nation’s report card, Hawaiian fourth-graders ranked 39th among groups of
students from 39 states in reading. In 2003, Kanaiaupuni and Ishibashi published a
report documenting the status of Hawaiian students in Hawaiian public schools. The
findings indicate that “Hawaiian students rank among the lowest of all major ethnic
groups in the state’s public school system by nearly every measure of educational
attainment and success” ( Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi 2003). Significant findings
include: Hawaiian students have the lowest test scores and the lowest graduation
rates of all students in the public school system. Between grades 9 and 12, more than
one in five Hawaiian students will be held back a grade each year. 79 percent of
predominantly Hawaiian schools are in corrective action, compared to 17 percent of
predominantly non-Hawaiian schools. These schools tend to have less experienced
teachers. Hawaiian students are overrepresented in the special education system and
the subsidized lunch program.
6
In 2005, Kamehameha Bishop Schools Estate published the
findings from the 2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment (Kana’iaupuni,
Malone & Ishibashi 2005). In the area of educational well- being the results were
mixed. On the positive side, the majority of Native Hawaiian parents are involved in
their child’s education and activities supportive of education. The enrollment of
Native Hawaiian children in preschool was 20 percentage points higher than in 1990,
with 47.5 percent enrolled. There were modest gains in reading and math at the
elementary and secondary level; however the achievement outcomes still continue to
be considerably lower than those of other ethnic groups. The number of bachelor’s
and graduate degrees in the Native Hawaiian population increased considerably from
1990 to 2000.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the educational outcomes of Native
Hawaiian students who have graduated from private and public high schools in
Hawaii and have enrolled at a two or four year college. These students will then be
divided into two groups: the ones that received a bachelor’s degree and the one’s that
did not receive a bachelors’ degree. Factors such as high school grade-point average,
socioeconomic status, receipt of college financial aid, proficiency in the Hawaiian
language and identification with Hawaiian culture will all be examined as to the
completion of a bachelor’s degree. The study will identify the significant pre college
factors that lead to the fulfillment of a bachelor’s degree. The results of the study
7
will provide useful information to policymakers, administrators and
instructors about this category of students.

Research Questions
1. What factors significantly increase or decrease the probability of
bachelors’ degree completion for Native Hawaiian students?
2. What are the rates of bachelors’ degree attainment among Native
Hawaiian students who have attended Kamehameha schools?
3. What are the rates of bachelors’ degree attainment for Native
Hawaiian students who have attended public high schools who
have received financial aid from Kamehameha Schools?

Significance of the Problem
Historically, Native Hawaiian students have not been well served by the
public school system in Hawaii (Weinburg 1997; U.S. Code Title 20, Chapter 70). In
the 1950’s the high school dropout rate was nearly double the rate of the state as a
whole (Hormann 1957). Fifty years later the situation has not improved dramatically
(Weinburg 1997; Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi 2003, PASE Info Brief 2003; Yamauchi
et al 1993). Clearly, the need for new innovative methods and strategies for positive
educational outcomes is long overdue. This study will significantly add to the narrow
body of research on Native Hawaiian students in secondary education. A review of
8
recent research suggests that the public secondary schools in Hawaii have
not been studied extensively within this set of parameters.
Beneficiaries of this study include students and their families, teachers,
administrators and policymakers. Native Hawaiian students are the prime
beneficiary. Results from the study aim to equip these students with the skills to
successfully navigate the “multiple worlds” they encounter on a daily basis.
Policymakers, administrators and teachers will have a better understanding and
awareness of the needs of these students. School-community partnerships, culturally
compatible learning environments and new teacher orientations are examples of
programs that could be utilized by educators of Hawaiian children.

Methodology
The study will use data from the Completion, Persistence, Transfer and
Success of Kamehameha Students Project (CP-Tasks) which is a joint project with a
large urban university in the United States and the Kamehameha Schools. This
project is a far-reaching study of the academic and professional outcomes of students
who attended a Kamehameha school or received Kamehameha financial aid. The
project includes the 1993, 1994, 1995 graduates of Kamehameha schools and
graduates from other private and public high schools who received college financial
aid from Kamehameha schools. Through the use of a 54 part questionnaire including
demographics, Hawaiian culture, junior and senior high school questions, college
location and completion as well as college satisfaction this study will isolate the
9
significant factors that add or subtract to bachelor’s degree attainment.
Logistic regression analysis will be used to determine the effect of the independent
variables on the dichotomous dependent variable, persistence. The analysis will
uncover whether the variables that were significant for persistence for the public
high school students were significant for the private high school students. Clearly,
this is important as the majority of Native Hawaiian students attend public high
schools.

Assumptions
For purposes of this study, it is assumed that subjects will respond honestly to
the questionnaire.

Limitations
1. This study is limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily.
2. This study is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time
available to conduct the study.
3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used.

Students from private schools include a substantial number of Kamehameha
School graduates which is a selective college predatory private institution that serves
a majority Native Hawaiian population and tuition is very low. Other private schools
10
in Hawaii are generally college predatory yet quite expensive, with the
possible of exception of the Catholic schools which are somewhat less expensive.
Students from high schools on islands (i.e., Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and
Kauai) other than Oahu may not have access to the variety of educational resources
that students have on Oahu. The outcomes of this study may not be generalizable to
the universal Hawaiian student population in Hawaii and/or on the mainland.

Delimitations
This study will confine itself to surveying the 1993, 1994, 1995 graduates of
Kamehameha schools and graduates from other private and public high schools who
received college financial aid from the Kamehameha schools. This study will focus
on several factors: gender, high school grade-point average, socioeconomic status,
receipt of college financial aid, proficiency in the Hawaiian language and
identification with Hawaiian culture. These factors will then be isolated in order to
determine how significant they are in the completion of a bachelor’s degree. All
subjects who have completed the questionnaire will be included in the study.

Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be
answered, the research hypotheses, the significance of the study, a brief description
11
of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the
definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature. It addresses the following topics: 1) a
brief history of public and private schools in the United States and in Hawaii, 2) the
model minority myth, 3) the double minority, 4) involuntary and voluntary
minorities and 5) theories of cultural compatibility and cultural discontinuity.
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology used in the study, including the
research design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their
selection or development, together with information on validity and reliability. Each
of these sections concludes with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of
the design elements. The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data
collection and the plan for data analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes
the results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.

12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There are a wide range of theories that address the persistent low educational
outcomes of minority children. Thus, an overview of the historical events that shaped
the educational history of Hawaii followed by pertinent theories will provide a
framework for understanding and analyzing the present situation in Hawaii. This
chapter will address the following topics: 1) a brief history of public and private
schools in the United States and in Hawaii, 2) the model minority myth, 3) the
double minority, 4) involuntary and voluntary minorities and 5) theories of cultural
compatibility and cultural discontinuity.
In view of the fact that the aim of this study is to analyze and understand the
present public and private educational system in Hawaii and its connections among
Hawaiian society as a whole, it would not be complete without a brief history of
public and private schools in the United States and a subsequent account of
schooling in Hawaii. The impact of the arrival of Captain Cook, the missionary
period and the introduction of western education and business practices would
forever alter the social and economic composition of Hawaii (Wittenburg 1964;
Young 2003).

13
Historical Background: Public and Private Schools in the United States
The beginnings of schools in the United States can be traced to the Puritan
and Congregationalist religious schools of the 1600s and to the establishment of free
elementary education for all in the 1800s. However, it is only within the last one
hundred years that schooling has been widely available to the majority of the
population (Hurn 1993; Thattai 2002). Prior to the 1830s and 1840s there was not a
clear difference between public and private schools in the United States. Schools at
this time ranged from an unsystematic collection of dame schools, reading and
writing schools, private academies, Latin grammar schools and colleges.
At this point the public system of schooling was still not in place and many
schools were private and often time’s local governments funded schools that
included Bible reading and prayer in the curriculum. The Land Ordinance of 1785
established the funding for public education. Also, Thomas Jefferson recommended
that a public education system, free of religious biases and available to all people
regardless of status, should be implemented (Thattai 2001; Butts 1978; Senese, Tozer
& Violas 1995).
Thus, until the 1840s private schools and religious institutions were the major
players in primary and secondary education. This point is further illustrated by
educational historian Kaestle’s comment, “America had schools, but, except in large
cities, America did not have school systems” (Kaestle 1983).
Begun in the 1830s, the common-school movement supported the
establishment of free public schools for all children in the United States (Collins
14
1979; Hurn 1993). The common school was designed to encourage a
common educational system in a culturally diverse society, which at that time
included Catholic immigrants and native-born Americans (Senese, Tozer & Violas
1995). The common school advocates also rejected government funding of nonpublic
schools (mostly Catholic schools). In response to this the Catholic leaders sensed that
the common or public schools had a Protestant bias, especially when it included the
reading of the King James Version of the Bible (Senese, Tozer & Violas 1995;
McClusky 1968; Buetow 1970). In the 1880s the Catholic Church called for the
founding of a separate and private Catholic elementary and secondary schools
system.
Further deepening the divide, in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v.
Society of Sisters that an Oregon law requiring all children in the state to attend
public schools was unconstitutional. In this case, an order of Catholic nuns filed suit
against Oregon officials who were requiring all children who were of school age to
attend only public schools. Other reasons attributed to the Catholic churches’
expansion of its school system according to Baker and Riordan was:
…in response to the massive immigration of a polyglot
Catholic congregation largely from the poorest strata of the
collapsed European agrarian society… it posed as complex
a challenge to the internal working of the American church
as it did to the church’s standing in Protestant America.
Simply put, due to all the language differences among the new immigrants, the
neighborhood Catholic school emerged to form an Americanized, English speaking
Catholic congregation (Baker & Riordan 1998). Thus, it unified the members of the
15
Catholic Church in the United States. The mission of the school was to
provide all Catholic children low cost basic education with a religious curriculum
emphasizing Catholic doctrine along with a secular curriculum that was analogous to
the public schools (McCluskey 1968; Shaw & Hurley 1969; Baker & Riordan 1998).
Catholic school enrollments increased dramatically during the first half of the
20
th
century. Fueled by an exploding population, Catholic immigrants filled the
modest neighborhood Catholic schools. By 1960 more than 5 million students
attended Catholic schools. However, in the mid sixties enrollments declined due to
the secularization of public schools and the preference of Catholics for a
conventional type of education. Also, during the 1960s the Catholics moved away
from the inner cities (where the majority of these schools were located) which caused
many of these schools to close (Baker & Riordan 1998; McCluskey 1968). Presently,
the mission of Catholic schools and the type of student that attends Catholic school
has changed dramatically. According to Baker and Riordan,
Findings from a recent national assessment of the state of
Catholic education show that Catholic schools are on the
verge of becoming a system of proprietary schools that
educate growing numbers of non-Catholic, children from
the wealthiest strata of the society, and increasing numbers
of children who do not consider themselves religious at all.
In short, the old common school Catholic school is fast
becoming an elite private school in which indoctrination
into the faith seems to be taking a back seat to academic
preparation.

16
Types of Private Schools in the United States
By definition, “a private school is a school that is not supported primarily by
public funds” (National Center for Education Statistics 2005-305). Private schools
can be generally categorized as either religious or nonsectarian institutions. Religious
schools fall within two categories: Catholic schools and other religious schools.
Nonsectarian, or secular, private schools are by definition not associated with any
religion or church. As of fall 2001, private school students represent approximately
10 percent of the total elementary and secondary enrollments in the United States
(NCES 2005-305). Also, the proportion of these students has remained stable, at
around 11 percent over the past ten years, which is analogous to the growth rates of
public schools (U.S. Department of Education 2001b).
The enrollment division is as follows: 47 percent of private school students
were enrolled in Catholic schools, 36 percent in other religious schools and 17
percent were enrolled in nonsectarian schools (NCES 2005-305). Thus, 83 percent of
all private school students attend schools associated with religious organizations,
with more than half of private school students attending Catholic schools. In terms of
campus locations there are 29,273 private schools in the United States as of 2001-2.
The ‘other religious’ schools represent the highest percentage, or 49 percent of
locations, with Catholic schools at 28 percent of locations and nonsectarian schools
at 23 percent of locations(NCES 2005-305).

17
Differences and Similarities: Private and Public Schools
Differences and similarities among public and private schools are a source of
scholarly debate; yet how different and how similar these two institutions actually
are is not well understood (NCES 96-322 1996). To begin, the first major difference
is funding or source of support. Private schools are funded primarily by tuition
payments, charitable donations, private foundations, etc. Conversely, public schools
receive their funding from local, state and federal governments (NCES 97-983 1997,
Alt & Peter 2002). The second distinct feature of private and public schools is school
choice. Parents can choose to send their children to a wide range of private schools
provided that they can afford the tuition and the student is admitted.
On the other hand, parents of students in public schools have two options:
they are assigned a public school or they exert limited discretion in which school
their child attends (NCES 97- 983 1997; Alt & Peter 2002). For example, some
parents choose a public school by their choice of residence; others have chosen to
enroll their children in magnet or charter schools (although, in some cases the child
must be accepted to the school). And lastly, some families are assigned a public
school where choice is not an option. However, the proportion of public school
children attending a chosen public school has risen from 12 percent in 1993 to 16
percent in 1999 (NCES 97-983; Alt & Peter 2002).
In addition, families with annual incomes over $50,000 have the most choice.
Families in this income bracket have the ability to afford private school tuition or
have the option of choosing a residence that is influenced by where their children
18
would go to school (NCES 97-983 No. 12). Furthermore, parents who
employ some degree of choice in their selection of their child’s school are inclined to
be more satisfied than those who do not have this option (NCES 97-983 No. 12).

Students
As of fall 2001, there were 5,341,513 students enrolled in the nation’s private
schools (Characteristics of Private Schools, NCES 2001). Students in public and
private schools differ in three demographic gauges: race/ethnicity, limited English
proficiency and the family’s socioeconomic background. The racial/ethnic student
composition as of 2001 in private schools is as follows: 75.9 percent White, non-
Hispanic, 9.7 percent Black, non-Hispanic, 8.6 percent Hispanic, 5.1 percent
Asian/Pacific Islander, and .7 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native (Private
School Universe Survey 2001-2002, NCES). The percentage of minorities in
Catholic schools has more than doubled in the past 30 years. In 1970, minorities
comprised 10.8 percent of the Catholic school population, in 1980 it had increased to
19.4 percent and in 2004 it is at 26.8 percent (Mc Donald 2005).
Conversely, public schools tend to have more racially and ethnically diverse
populations, with over 30 percent in the minority category (Alt & Peter 2002). Public
schools have more students with Limited English proficiency (LEP) with public
schools enrolling 10 percent LEP and private schools enrolling 7 percent LEP (Alt &
Peter 2002). Although the federally funded free lunch or reduced price lunch
program is not an exact measure of socioeconomic status it does provide an indicator
19
of the prevalence of poverty in public schools. For private schools this
program is difficult to measure as private schools are not responsible for tracking this
data. Public schools reported 40 percent of students were eligible for this program
while private schools reported 10 percent. In comparison with other religious and
nonsectarian schools, Catholic schools had a much larger percentage (69 percent
versus 38-40 percent) eligible to receive the lunch program (NCES Private Schools:
A Brief Portrait).

Teachers
Bryce, Lee and Holland (1993), in a far-reaching study of Catholic high
schools found that an array of attributes was found to contribute to the schools’
effectiveness. Among these attributes were the teacher’s commitments to the
student’s academic, spiritual and social development, including setting aside time to
offer additional help and to participate in extracurricular activities. In the NCES,
”Teachers’ Sense of Community: How Do Public and Private Schools Compare?
“(IB-10-96, 1996), private school teachers were more likely than public school
teachers to state that they and their contemporaries shared goals, beliefs, and
expectations; that they were recognized for good work and that they participated in
most of the important decisions in their schools.
However, over 85 percent of both public and private school teachers reported
that they had a lot of control over teaching techniques, grading students and the
quantity of homework (Alt & Peters 2002). In terms of academic qualifications,
20
public school teachers appear to be more qualified in terms of their
education and years of teaching experience (NCES Private Schools in the United
States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-4). For example, 30 percent of private school
teachers are not state certified, compared to 3 percent of public school teachers. In
excess of 6 percent of private school teachers do not have a bachelor’s degree,
compared to less than I percent of public school teachers. Public school teachers are
more likely to have a master’s degree (47 percent versus 34 percent). In addition, on
average public school teachers receive higher salaries and more benefits. However,
private school teachers are more likely to receive in-kind reimbursement in the form
of tuition waivers for their children, free meals and housing support (NCES 97-983
No. 12, NCES Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-4).

School and Class Size
Lee and Smith (1996) found that smaller schools foster a greater sense of
community among teachers and students and larger schools tend to offer a wider
variety of educational programs and services. At the secondary level the advantage
of a larger school becomes greater. However, they are quick to clarify that there are
two very different research “streams” when looking for optimal school size:
The first research stream, that reflects an economy-of-scale argument,
focuses on the potential for increased savings through reduced
redundancy and increased resource strength as schools get bigger.
The second stream directs attention toward how size influences other
organizational properties of schools. As schools grow, it is natural
that they become more formal and bureaucratic.
21
Conclusions from the two streams go in opposite
directions: the efficiency argument suggests benefits from increased
size, whereas the organizational argument favors smaller schools.

A critical reading of the Lee and Smith (1996) study suggests that this study may be
flawed in several ways. Although they endeavor to correct for the wide range of SES
and minority enrollment percentages, it appears that these variables may still
influence their results. For example, why do they choose the arbitrary Q40% vs.
<40% delineation between high and low minority enrollments? Are forty percent
minority enrollments really that low? The same concern applies to the use of high vs.
low SES. The reduction of these important linear variables to dichotomous variables
raises questions about the validity of this study.

Most private schools are small. Public schools, on the average, are twice the
size of private schools (NCES 97-983 No.12, 1997). Although there is not irrefutable
evidence substantiating the relationship between educational outcomes and class
size, in general small classes are regarded as optimal (Mosteller, Light & Sachs
1996). The average class size is smaller in private schools, with the average class
size in 1993-4 at 22, whereas the public school class size was 24 (NCES 97-983 No.
12, 1997)

22
Historical Background: Public and Private Schools in Hawaii
Prior to the arrival of the missionaries in the 1820s, the Hawaiians had an
informal or traditional system of education (Crawford 1933; Kuykendall 1927; Hass
1992). The purpose of this system was twofold: to prepare the aristocracy to rule and
to educate the masses in agricultural and subsist Nance skills. Crawford describes it
rather succinctly:
In that early period education consisted of learning how to
prepare land for planting, how to grow taro and a few other
crops, how to obtain food and other materials from forest
and sea, how to build a simple house, how to perform
certain religious rites and ceremonies, how to play the
various games in which they indulged, how to throw a
spear, how to snare birds, how to make a canoe, and many
other things which constituted their way of living. There
was no written language to learn, but many legends and
stories and traditions. There was relatively little organized
science, but a great deal of lore and experience to be
learned by each generation, and many tribal laws and kapus
(thou-shall-nots) which had to be kept in mind.
Interwoven within this informal system of education was the feudal system.
Commoners did not receive the same education as chiefs and the male offspring of
chiefs (Kuykendall 1926; Crawford 1933).
Boys who were destined to be chiefs had to learn more than
the children of commoners. Some simple astronomy and
geography entered into their schooling, as did also the art of
public address and the art and science of war. They had to
learn the meanings of more words than did the children of
commoners. (Crawford 1933).
Thus, the arrival of Western education begun by the New England
missionaries was dramatically different from what the Native Hawaiians had
23
experienced. The implementation of formal schooling and ultimately
equal educational opportunity for all was just the beginning of the vast differences in
the two types of educational structures. Arriving in 1820, the missionaries converted
spoken Hawaiian into a written language, translated the Bible into Hawaiian and
according to Crawford, ‘came to give rather than to get’ (Chinn 2003; Kuykendall
1927; Weinberg 1997; Castle 1933; Tagupa 2001). However, several scholars point
out the underlying purpose of the missionaries was to propagate their religion.
According to Tagupa (2004) in the missionary Bingham letters of 1820, the
missionaries would teach “industry by the aid of art, science, and piety” as well as
“rear the altars of Jehovah and establish institutions, civil and literary, for the
improvement and happiness of a people now barbarous and wretched”.
By 1822 the missionaries had printed religious reading materials and then set
out to establish a system of mission schools. With the assistance of the local chiefs
the schools flourished. Initially, the chiefs were interested in the missionaries for the
sole purpose of attaining literacy. They found the political value of literacy as a way
to communicate their thoughts to ‘friends at distance’ (Tagupa 2004). In fact, the
chiefs intended to control who would be able to attain literacy and only allowed
fellow chiefs to receive literacy training, as adult commoners and children were
forbidden to attend the early mission schools (Weinburg 1997; Tagupa 2004;
Crawford 1933; Kuykendall 1927; Steuber 1964).
The first classroom in Hawaii was initiated by Jean Rives, who started a
school in 1810 for Liholiho (who became Kamehameha II) and his four brothers.
24
However, she abandoned the schooling effort after only three weeks. In,
May 1820, the first protestant mission school opened in Honolulu. Within two
months, about thirty pupils were being instructed. The mission schools became
increasingly popular and by 1826 there were four hundred native teachers and one
third of the entire population was enrolled in the mission schools (Kuykendall 1933;
Castle 1927; Tagupa 2004; Chinn 2003). During this time the majority of the
students were adults as the adults had a strong desire to attain literacy (palapala).
The parents did not want their children to go to school until they themselves learned
to read.
There were two categories of mission schools: common and select. Common
schools were dispersed throughout the islands and enrolled Hawaiian children of the
non-elite Hawaiian classes. These schools were taught by native Hawaiian
instructors and instruction was in Hawaiian. Select schools consisted of the boarding
schools, the English language government operated O’ahu Charity School, which
opened for the education of the children of foreign residents who had married native
women, and various private schools for white (haoles) students (Hass 1992;
Kuykendall 1933; Chinn 2004; Crawford 1927; Tagupa 2003). The Chief’s
Children’s School founded in 1839 was the first government boarding school that
was designed for children of the Ali’I who wanted to learn English.
Punahou, a private English language Protestant school was established in
1841 for the education of the children of the missionaries (Crawford 1927;
Kuykendall 1933; Hass 1992). Today it remains one of the top college prepatory
25
schools in the islands. By 1848, other children were admitted besides
those of the missionaries; Hawaiians began to enroll progressively more within the
decade, but according to Pennybacker (1991) they had to be “wealthy and civilized”.
Punahou also had a quota system in place which limited Oriental enrollment to 10
percent from 1896 until 1945, when the quota was raised to 12 percent. The quota
system was terminated in 1955, when Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
recommended that it might put in jeopardy its’ tax-exempt status (Hass 1992).
Currently, less than one fifth of Hawaii’s K-12 students attend private
schools, which is a higher percentage than anywhere else in the United States with
the exception of Washington, D.C. (Chinn 2002). Caucasians, Japanese, Chinese,
and Koreans are apt to be enrolled in middle class public schools and/or select
private schools. In rural, agricultural areas public schools are generally composed of
Filipinos, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders from Samoa, Tonga and
Micronesia. In poor rural areas, Native Hawaiians are often the largest ethnic group,
with low standardized test scores, high teacher turnover and elevated drop out rates
(Chinn 2003; Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi 2003). Tobin, and colleagues, (1992) found
that Hawaii’s public schools have been among the most closely watched in the
nation. In addition, 45 percent would be considered racially segregated by federal
law due to their associations with plantations.

26
Background
In 1981, Congress ordered the Office of Education to provide Congress with
an all-inclusive report on Native Hawaiian education. The report titled, “The Native
Hawaiian Educational Assessment Project ‘was completed in 1983 .It recognized
that Hawaiian children were performing poorly in the public school system (U.S.
Code Title 20, Chapter 70). Specifically, the report stated that, “Native Hawaiians
scored below parity with regard to national norms on standardized achievement tests,
were disproportionately represented in many negative social and physical statistics
indicative of special education needs, and had educational needs that were related to
their unique cultural situation, such as different learning styles and low self-
image”(U.S.C. Title 20, Chapter 70). The report also gave a short synopsis of the
United States relationship with the Native Hawaiians since 1778 to the present. The
report also points out how the indigenous people of Hawaii, in the mid 1800s, had a
literacy rate of 97 percent, which at that time was one of the highest in the world.
Subsequent to this report, in 1988 Congress established the Native Hawaiian
Education Act to “authorize and develop supplemental educational programs to
address the unique conditions of Native Hawaiians”.
In 1993, the Kamehameha Schools Bishops Estate issued a 10-year update of
the outcomes of the Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment Project. The results
indicated that despite the achievements of the programs created under the Native
Hawaiian Education Act in 1988, many of the same educational needs remain.
Several educational risk factors were identified, among those are those that occur
27
before birth for many Hawaiian children, such as: 1) late or no prenatal
care, 2) high rates of birth by Native Hawaiian women who are unmarried and 3)
high rates of birth to teenage parents (U.S. Code Chapter 20 Subchapter VII, Part B,
§7512 (16 A, i, ii, iii). Although consistent with the findings of the 1983 Native
Hawaiian Educational Assessment Project, the 1993 findings were more detailed and
specific regarding every measure of educational attainment. The report identified that
Hawaiian students continued to lag behind other students in: vocabulary test scores,
national norms on standardized education achievement tests at all grade levels, and
were overrepresented in special education programs (U.S. Code Chapter 20
Subchapter VII, Part B, §7512 (16 B,C,E).

Current Findings
Several factors combine to make the public school system in Hawaii unique:
the isolation present in an island location, the initial language of Hawaii was not
English, and the lifestyle and culture is markedly different from the mainland.
Hawaii is the only state in the United States in having a single united public school
system and the state has two official languages: English and Hawaiian (Wilson 1998;
Gronna et. al 2002). Another factor contributing to the uniqueness of Hawaii is that it
is the oldest public school system west of the Mississippi. The Hawaii Department of
Education has a centralized school system that includes 283 schools on seven
islands. Total school enrollment is 182,798 students which is the 10th largest school
district in the U.S (Hawaii Department of Education). Of the 283 schools 25 are
28
charter schools and 5 schools are classified as Hawaiian immersion
schools where English is not taught until the 5
th
grade. The Hawaii Department of
Education consists of four major districts:
Oahu contains 68% of the students who attend public schools
Hawaii contains 14% of the students who attend public schools
Kauai contains 6% of the students who attend public schools,
including the privately owned island of Niihau
Maui contains 12% of the students who attend public schools,
including the islands of Molokai and Lanai

Also, the Kaua`i district includes the privately owned island of Niihau. Niihau has
one school with 40 students who all speak and write Hawaiian.

Table 1. Enrollments and Disadvantaged Students in Hawaiian Public Schools
Description of Enrollments and Disadvantaged Students in Hawaiian Public Schools
2002
Hawaii’s Public Schools Enrollment 184,360
Number of Regular Public Schools 258
Number of Public Charter Schools 25
Total Percent
Not Disadvantaged 90,670 (49%)
Poverty Only 58,422 (31.8%)
Special Education Only 9,429 (5.1%)
Limited English Only 6,264 (2.3%)
Multiple Disadvantages 20,907 (11.4%)
1990 2000 Increase
Students Receiving Lunch Subsidies 46,522 74,558 60%
Special Education Students 9,778 20,138 106%
Limited English Proficiency 8,861 12,837 45%
Source: Hawai‘i State Department of Education 2002.

29
As the table indicates over half (51%) of all public students in the
state of Hawaii are disadvantaged. Perhaps more disturbing is the trend within the
last ten years that the numbers of disadvantaged students is growing, as the table
indicates that the numbers of students receiving lunch subsidies has increased by
sixty percent , the number of special education students has more than doubled and
the number of students with limited English proficiency has increased by forty
percent .
In the1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, known
as the nation’s report card, Hawaiian fourth-graders ranked 39th among groups of
students from 39 states in reading. In 2003, Kanaiaupuni and Ishibashi published a
report documenting the status of Hawaiian students in Hawaiian public schools. The
findings indicate that “Hawaiian students rank among the lowest of all major ethnic
groups in the state’s public school system by nearly every measure of educational
attainment and success” ( Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi 2003). Significant findings
include: Hawaiian students have the lowest test scores and the lowest graduation
rates of all students in the public school system. Between grades 9 and 12, more than
one in five Hawaiian students will be held back a grade each year. 79 percent of
predominantly Hawaiian schools are in corrective action, compared to 17 percent of
predominantly non-Hawaiian schools. These schools tend to have less experienced
teachers. Hawaiian students are overrepresented in the special education system and
the subsidized lunch program.
30
In 2005, Kamehameha Bishop Schools Estate published the
findings from the 2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment (Kana’iaupuni,
Malone & Ishibashi 2005). In the area of educational well- being the results were
mixed. On the positive side, the majority of Native Hawaiian parents are involved in
their child’s education and activities supportive of education. The enrollment of
Native Hawaiian children in preschool was 20 percentage points higher than in 1990,
with 47.5 percent enrolled. There were modest gains in reading and math at the
elementary and secondary level; however the achievement outcomes still continue to
be considerably lower than those of other ethnic groups. The number of bachelor’s
and graduate degrees in the Native Hawaiian population increased considerably from
1990 to 2000.
Given the well supported fact that the public school system is facing
significant challenges in educating Native Hawaiian children, the opportunity to
utilize alternative forms of education is necessary (Kana’iaupuni & Ishibasi, 2003).
However, most low-income families find affording private school difficult, if not
impossible. A study done by Kamehameha Schools (2003) found that Hawaiian
children are underrepresented in K-12 private schools throughout the country.
Kamehameha School is a private college prepatory day and residential K-12 school
serving the indigenous Hawaiian population (Kamehameha Schools 2003). In 2003,
55 percent of all Hawaiian private school students were enrolled at Kamehameha
schools (PASE Info Brief 2003). Also, when Kamehameha Schools are omitted from
31
the aforementioned percentage, only eight percent of Hawaiian students
attend private schools.

The Model Minority Myth
The population of contemporary Hawaii is a rich cultural
and ethnic blend-Hawaiian, Caucasian, Chinese, Japanese,
Portuguese, Okinawan, Korean, Filipino, Samoan,
Vietnamese and Hmong.
(Mc Dermott, Maretzki and Tseng 1980)
Due to the diverse population in present-day Hawaii and with a large portion
of this population originating from Asia it is appropriate to include an analysis of the
model minority myth. As Table 2 shows, the educational attainment of Native
Hawaiians, Caucasians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino and Other groups demonstrates
extreme differences among these groups. For example, 15.2 percent of Native
Hawaiians hold a bachelors’ degree whereas 42.5 percent and 42.2 percent of
Caucasians and Chinese, respectively hold bachelor’s degrees.

32
Table 2. Educational Attainment in Hawaii by Ethnicity
State
Total
Native
Hawaiian
Cauc-
asian
Chinese Filipino Japanese Other
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total 862,912 154,482 206,748 52,720 130,918 212,350 105,693
No
School/
Kinder-
garten
1,407
(0.2)
58
(0.0)
53
(0.0)
642
(0.5)
191
(0.1)
463
(0.4)
Grades
1-8
33,151
(3.8)
2,901
(1.9)
2,432
(1.2)
1,297
(2.5)
12,831
(9.8)
10,289
(4.8)
3,401
(3.2)
Grades
9-11
34,054
(3.9)
9,855
(6.4)
4,791
(2.3)
2,650
(5.0)
6,911
(5.3)
5,434
(2.6)
4,413
(4.2)
Grade
12
/GED
297,299
(34.5)
79,798
(51.7)
50,537
(24.4)
14,339
(27.2)
48,118
(36.8)
65,032
(30.6)
39,475
(37.3)
College
1-3
Years
216,717
(25.1)
36,169
(23.4)
58,609
(28.3)
10,495
(19.9)
29,267
(22.9)
52,873
(24.9)
28,604
(27.1)
College
4+
Years
257,840
(29.9)
23,546
(15.2)
87,817
(42.5)
22,357
(42.4)
25,173
(19.2)
74,303
(35.0)
24,643
(23.3)
Unknown
/Ref.
22,444
(2.6)
2,155
(1.4)
2,510
(1.2)
1,582
(3.0)
7,277
(5.6)
4,227
(2.0)
4,694
(4.4)
Source: Office of Health Status Monitoring, Hawai‘i State Department of Health
33
During the mid sixties the model minority theme surfaced in journals with the
appearance of sociologist William Petersen’s’ article in the 1966 New York Times
Magazine titled, “Success Story, Japanese American Style”. Petersen cited the
unparalleled success of the Japanese as a testament to their endurance and their
“unaided effort” (Weinburg 1997). Proponents of the Asian Model Minority Myth
argue that all Asian Americans have achieved extraordinary academic and economic
success (Chan 1991; Sue 1973; Takaki 1989; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1980).
According to Weinburg,
“Advocates contended that Asian-Americans were the most
successful American minority, a standard for all other
minorities. Advanced beyond the majority even, Asian-
Americans were hailed by many as leaders in education, in
community cohesion, family relations, occupational
attainment, family income, citizenship, self-dependence, and
more”.
Weinburg also notes that Asian-Americans never self reported these claims.
Sun, on the other hand, describes the ‘split image’ of Asian Americans in the news
media, beginning with the “yellow peril” image which portrayed Asian Americans as
“a threat and problem that could undermine the “American” life of whites” (Sun
1999). Its’ counterpart, the “model minority” reflecting the success of Asian
Americans appeared in the news media in the 60s’ (Sun 1999; Sue & Kitano 1973). As
an example, Sun cites Petersen’s’ article referring to the “Japanese Success Story” and
also includes the 1966 U.S. News and World Report article, “Success Story of One
Group in the U.S.” Like Petersen’s’ article, the U.S. News and Report article only
34
lauded the success of a particular minority group, which in this case was the
Chinese Americans. Other themes emerged, as evidenced by, “At a time when it is
being proposed that hundreds of billions be spent to uplift Negroes and other
minorities, the nation’s 300,000 Chinese Americans are moving ahead on their own –
with no help from anyone” (U.S. News and Report, December 26, p. 73).
An abundance of media reports and academic pieces on this topic continued
during the 1970s and 1980s (Sun 1999; Yen 1989; Kim & Hurh 1983). The titles
appearing in the mainstream media were similar to those from the 1960s and included
such titles as, “Japanese Outdo Horatio Alger” (The Los Angeles Times, 1977),
“Korean Americans: In Pursuit of Economic Success” (The Washington Post, 1978),
“Asian- Americans: A ‘Model Minority’,” (Newsweek, 1982). Although on the
surface the articles appear similar, upon closer investigation the model minority myth
has grown to include other Southeast Asian-Americans, for instance the Koreans,
Filipinos, Vietnamese and Asian Indians (Sun 1999; Hugh & Kim, 1989). The
favorable image of the model minority continues into the 1990s with the media
presenting copious examples of Asian American success stories (Sun 1999;
Hammonton 1992). Thus, the development of the model minority myth was influenced
by several factors: socio-economic, political, and international circumstances.

Proponents of the Asian Model Minority Myth
Citing U.S. census figures showing that Asian Americans median family
income and educational attainment is higher than the white population, advocates of
35
the model minority myth argue that Asian Americans are the picture of
economic and educational success (Kim 1998; Sue 1999; Akaka 1989). In 1985,
journalist and historian David A. Bell published an article in the New Republic titled,
“America’s Greatest Success Story: The Triumph of Asian-Americans”. While
acknowledging and expounding upon the difficulties Asian Americans have faced
(i.e., discrimination, problems of adjustment, etc.) he finds, “In light of this history,
the current problems of the Asian-American community seem relatively minor, and its
success appears even more remarkable’ (Bell 1985).
Bell concludes in accordance with sociologist Sowell that their success is
attributable to self sufficiency. Self sufficiency is composed of two elements: family
and strong community organizations. Bell does not view the success of Asian
Americans as posing a threat to Americans and he does not see this success as
hindering the success of others (Bell 1985). Moreover, Bell sees the achievements
Asian Americans have made as only enriching the United States and as he put it,
“Asian-Americans improve every field they enter, for the simple reason that in a free
society, a group succeeds by doing something better than it had done before. Korean
grocery stores provide fresher vegetables… Asian science students raise the quality of
science in the universities, and go on to provide better medicine, engineering,
computer technology, and so on” (Bell, 1985).
From a historical and immigration perspective, Winnick details the plight of
Asian Americans from their first arrival in the United States and their eventual rise
from ‘pariah’ to ‘paragon’ status (Winnick 1990). Like Petersen he shows the many
36
parallels between Asian Americans and the Jewish community (Petersen
1966, 1971; Winnick 1990). He points out that, ‘More so than other immigrant groups,
both minorities have sought early Americanization, to acquire as rapidly as possible
some proficiency in English and legal citizenship. For example, of all immigrants
admitted during the decade of the 70’s, 55 percent of the Koreans, 60 percent of the
Chinese, and 71 percent of the Indians were naturalized by 1988.
By contrast, for Mexicans, Dominicans, Cubans, the respective proportions
were 12, 21, and 26 percent’ (Winnick 1990, p. 24). The attainment of higher
education for Asian and Jewish women was beyond their reach in their home countries
and as Winnick put it, ‘Asia’s cultural traditions are bound up with sons, not
daughters, for whom marriage and children are often deemed the summum bonum and
over education a handicap’ (Winnick 1990, p. 25). Thus, the access afforded to Asian
American women in the various forms of higher education in the United States has
given rise to numerous career and educational opportunities (Winnick 1990). Winnick
attributes the value of a good education, willingness to work, and the creation of small
businesses’ as the road to success for Asian Americans (Winnick 1990). Noting that
‘Asians brought their diplomas with them’, Winnick asserts that,’ Asian-Americans
native-born and new, possessed twice as many college or advanced degrees as did
other Americans, 34 percent compared to 16’ (Winnick 1990, p. 25). He also refers to
the high numbers of Asian Americans present in ivy league universities and explores
the issue of an ‘overrepresented minority’ (Winnick 1990). The emergence of Asian-
American small businesses’ seen in metropolitan areas is another factor contributing to
37
Asian-American success. ‘The self-employment rate of Asian immigrants is
an astonishing 33 percent, compared to a 10-percent rate for the general population’
asserts Winnick, (p. 26). And lastly, Winnick views Asian-Americans as having,
‘enriched the nation as have few past migrations, and none as or from so humble a
beginning’ (Winnick 1990, p. 29).

Opponents of the Asian Model Minority Myth
Misunderstanding or misinterpreting educational and income statistics are the
starting point for the case of opposition within the model minority myth (Monk 2000).
Takaki, a historian at the University of California at Berkeley, holds the media and
social scientists responsible for perpetuating the model minority myth (Monk 2000).
Takaki views the Medias commemoration of Asian American success as ‘exaggerated’
and this exaggeration has contributed to a new myth (Takaki 1989).
Takaki points out that the income statistics for Asian Americans do not take
into consideration the location of the states in which Asian Americans reside (.i.e.,
most Asian Americans are concentrated in California, New York and Hawaii which
have higher incomes coupled with a higher cost of living) and that family incomes are
higher due to the fact that are more workers per family living in the same household
(Monk 2000; Takaki 1989). Also present in his case is the notion that Asian
Americans feel required to conform to the ‘model minority’ mold in the educational
and work environment, thus not leaving them the freedom to pursue other educational
and career pursuits (Takaki 1989; Monk 2000).
38
Examples of the vast differences in academic and economic success
present within Asian groups are exposed. Takaki elaborates, “Asian Americans find
themselves lumped together and their diversity as groups overlooked. Groups that are
not doing well, such as the unemployed Hmong, the Downtown Chinese, the elderly
Japanese, the old Filipino farm laborers, and others, have been rendered invisible”
(Takaki 1989). Further, Takaki points out that due to the invisibility of these groups
and the publics’ perception of the model minority myth the government and
educational institutions have often denied services to Asian Americans (Takaki 1989).
Min explicitly shows the discrimination present in the model minority myth
(Kramer 2003). Citing the case of The People v. Soonja Du (before the Los Angeles
riots in 1992, Du a fifty-one year-old Korean immigrant mother and store owner shot
and killed a fifteen-year-old African American girl in a dispute over a bottle of orange
drink), Du was released on probation and ordered to complete four hundred hours of
community service and pay a $500 fine (Gotanda, 2000; Kramer 2003). Min
demonstrates how the good minority (i.e., in this case the successful Asian minority)
stereotype in the case of Du is shown and how the bad or monitored minority is the
African American girl (Gotanda, 200; Min 2003; Kramer 2003). According to Min,
“Du’s sentencing clearly shows sympathy by portraying her as an innocent shopkeeper
who cared about her son and who had been repeatedly robbed by gang members.
On the other hand, in the judge’s colloquy, the victim is portrayed as a criminal
and associated with gangs and gang violence’ (Min 2003; Kramer 2003; Gotanda
2000). Like Takaki, Min asserts that the model minority myth groups together all
39
Asian Americans and by doing so precludes the recent immigrants from
Southeast Asia, China, the Philippines and Pacific Islands from educational services as
the assumption is ‘there is no need to worry about the model minorities because they
are doing better than everyone else’ (Min 2003; Kramer 2003; Lee 1996). Min also
reveals the poverty rates of the Laotians, Hmong and Vietnamese, who have poverty
rates of 29 percent, 55 percent and 21 percent, respectively (Kramer 2003; Min 2003;
Chang 2000). According to Chang these rates are obviously higher than the national
poverty level of 12 percent. Also noted is income level: the 1990 U.S. census reports
the median family income for Japanese Americans was $51,500 and for the Hmong it
was $14,277 (Chan 2001).
Interviewing six hundred fifteen Korean immigrant adults in Los Angeles in
1979, Kim and Hurh analyzed the socioeconomic status of this group by examining
the validity of the model minority myth (Kim & Hurh 1983). Beginning with a
definition of what “success” means is the starting point for the framework of the study.
Proponents of the model minority myth, according to Kim and Hurh, view success as:
the level of social status and privileges that a minority group
has in comparison with the dominant group. From their
perspective, if the level of social status and privileges that a
minority group enjoys is as high as that of the dominant
group, the minority group is successful… Proponents use
three socioeconomic variables to measure the level of social
status and privileges of Asian Americans: 1) education… 2)
occupation… 3) earnings” (Kim& Hurh 1983, p.6).
The authors then give evidence (i.e., the high level of Korean educational attainment
and the positive occupational distribution of Koreans in small business and white
40
collar positions resulting in a median family income that either equals or
surpasses that of whites) that support the model minority myth.
However, Kim & Hurh point out that in this ‘success theme’ are three political
messages. First, the ‘benefit denying function’ which means that ‘if Asian Americans
are successful then they no longer need public policies designed to benefit deprived
minorities’ (Kim & Hurh 1983, p.7). Second, the ‘system preserving function’, which
attributes Asian American success to the United States being the land of opportunity.
Thirdly, the ‘minority blaming function’ which blames the minority for their lack of
success as, again, the United States is the land of opportunity.

The Double Minority
Utilizing U.S. Census data and College Board statistics, Hu views the model
minority thesis as, “both viewpoints are wrong and perhaps also a bit right” (Hu 1989,
p. 244). In fact, he introduces the concept of the “double minority”. According to Hu,
“Depending on which Asians you choose, they fit both the pattern of a privileged
“over minority” and a disadvantaged “under minority” (Hu 1989 p. 244). According to
Hu, Asians have a “bipolar distribution” meaning that the normal curve for income per
capita for Asians is much wider for Asians than other groups, thus there are Asians
that are very wealthy and Asians that are very poor (Hu 1989). This is why the average
income for Asians is misleading; in other words the persons at the extremes balance
each other out (Hu 1989). Hu also demonstrates how this “dual” or “double” minority
effect is prominent in higher education. Although Asians received 19 percent of the
41
highest SAT scores in 1988, they also received 14 percent of the worst SAT
scores (largely due to poor verbal skills (Hu 1989).
From an economic standpoint, Hu employs the U.S. Census from the state of
Massachusetts to show the great divide. Suburban Asians had an average income 20
percent greater than that of whites whereas urban Asians in Massachusetts had a
household income of $15,958 and a poverty rate of 28 percent which is the same for
African-Americans in the state (Hu 1989). Surprisingly, Asian women working full
time earned 10 percent more than white women (Hu 1989). Hu references the fact that
he has conversed with several Asian American Studies Experts who disbelieve this
statistic; however he acknowledges the fact that this statistic has been cited in studies
since 1965 and in the 1970 Census as well.
Examining both sides of the model minority debate, Okutsu surveyed students
educational concerns in the Asian American studies classes at California State
University, San Francisco (Okutsu, 1989). Overall, he found that these students were
generally pleased with their educational experience. What surfaced from the study was
the Asian American born students’ strong support of the Asian American Studies
curriculum. According to Okutsu, “the strong presence of Asian American Studies
assists in counteracting student alienation toward the academic institution” (Okutsu,
1989, p. 240). As an opponent of the model minority myth, Okutsu is clearly
recommending curricular and institutional changes that are responsive to the needs of
the Asian student population.
42
Examining the academic achievement of 94 Asian-American college
students matched with non-Asian classmates in a small private East coast college, Son
and Toupin tested the validity of the model minority myth (Son and Toupin, 1991).
The results of the study indicated that only one portion of the model minority
stereotype was supported: The Asian-American college student is a “model minority”
who tends to major in the sciences (Son and Toupin, 1991). In contrast to the model
minority stereotype, the study found that Asian American students compared with
non-Asian American students were,
(a) less likely to graduate than their matches,
(b) more likely to be placed on academic probation,
(c) have a lower grade point average, and
(d) withdraw from the university than their non-Asian
matches. (Son and Toupin, p. 403).
The authors then discuss the significance of the findings. Questions such as
why are Asian-Americans having such a difficult time in college and is it possible that
Asian-American students are experiencing a high level of pressure to be the “model
minority” emerged. In response to these questions, Son and Toupin refer to the ‘dual
cultural conflict-Asian versus American identity’ that is alluded to by many Asian-
American students. Also, present in their final analysis is if Asian-Americans in this
highly selective and prominent liberal arts college are experiencing problems it raises
concern for the other Asian-American students at less selective colleges and
universities and the impact of the model minority theory (Son and Toupin 1991).
Exploring the relationship between Asian American students participation in
evangelical Christian student organizations on campus, Busto suggests that the
43
philosophy behind the model minority stereotype and upward social
mobility may be signs as to why these religious organizations are thriving at several
colleges (Busto 1996). Citing several studies (Hsia & Nakanishi 1991; Hunt 1991)
showing the dramatic increase in Asian American college enrollments between 1976-
1986, Busto shows the ‘natural’ increase in Asian American student participation in
large national Para church organizations and local ethnic specific “bible studies” and
“fellowships”. According to Busto, “My suspicion is that campus Christian
organizations, besides offering a supportive and familial structure for Asian American
students, reinforce an upwardly mobile middle-class ethic consonant with the model
minority image.” (Busto 1996, p.140). Busto also points out that Asian Americans
‘benefit where evangelicalism overlaps and coincides with dominant American culture
rendering them less foreign’.
Lee (2001, 1996) through the use of several ethnographic studies of Hmong
high school students has refuted the simplistic media description of Hmong students
as either high achieving ‘model minorities’ or low achieving ‘delinquents’.
Specifically, Lee’s data challenges the assumption that there is a simple “one-to-one
relationship between the maintenance of traditional culture and high achievement and,
and Americanization and low achievement and delinquency (Hutchinson, 1997; Thao,
1999)”. Interviewing traditional Hmong or 1.5 generation students (i.e., foreign born
individuals who arrive in the United States as children and are largely educated and
socialized in the United States) and second-generation Hmong students, Lee found
that the ‘model minority’ and ‘delinquent’ description was naïve and thus required
44
further explanation. The two groups, the “good kids” and the “bad kids”
although initially appeared very different, shared one important difference: both
groups had students who were high achievers and low achievers (Lee 1996, 2001). Lee
attributes the’ marriage of both external and internal forces’ as the reason for the
success and/or failure of the two groups.

Cultural Discontinuity Model
Interest in culturally responsive teaching methodology began to surface in the
1980s and early 1990s as a result of the increasing diversity present in the nation's
classrooms and with the lack of success ethnic/minority students were experiencing
despite the efforts of educational reform. In fact, Pewehandy and Hammer (2003)
describe the beginnings of this movement:
During the 1980s several terms emerged in the anthropology
of education literature that describe pedagogical strategies
used by teachers in an effort to make the schooling
experiences of American Indian students more compatible
with their everyday lives. Those terms include cultural
congruence, cultural appropriateness, cultural compatibility,
culturally sensitive, culturally aware, mitigating cultural
discontinuity, culturally relevant, cultural synchronization,
and cultural responsiveness. The term culturally responsive
incorporates concepts embodied in all these descriptors but
also connotes a more dynamic relationship between tribal
(home or community) culture and school culture.
This theory posits that minority students, who are raised in a culture that is
uniquely their own face a culture clash when they arrive in the classroom as they are
45
expected to know and understand the values of the dominant culture. If the
conflict continues, the minority child may feel that he has to choose one culture at the
expense of the other. According to St. Germaine, "a tragic paradox emerges: Success
(in school) becomes failure (in the community), and failure becomes success.”
Spindler (1987) and McDermott (1987) have noted that "failure in school is a tacit
cultural goal that must be achieved”. Thus failure in school is the minority child’s way
of preserving his own cultural identity as conforming to the values of the dominant
culture is not viewed positively.
Dehyle (1992) found that Navajo high school students with a strong sense of
cultural identity were more likely to resist the school in an effort to preserve their
identity. On the other hand Ledlow (1992) argues that cultural discontinuity does not
adequately explain why Native American students dropout. She finds racism and
discrimination against Native Americans as a more common reason why Native
Americans do not complete their studies. Ogbu (1982, 1991) when referring to Native
Americans as involuntary minorities (i.e., they did not join the United States by
choice) has argued that although involuntary minorities may show or express a desire
for education, they do not believe that education in and of itself can change their status
in a society that discriminates against them. This then leads to a general distrust of the
dominant group and by extension the institutions and/ or schools that they control
(Ogbu 1991).
46
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In 2005, Kamehameha Bishop Schools Estate published the findings from the
2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment (Kana’iaupuni, Malone & Ishibashi
2005). Despite modest gains in reading and math at the elementary and secondary
level, the achievement outcomes still continue to be considerably lower than those of
other ethnic groups. The purpose of this study is to examine the educational outcomes
of Native Hawaiian students who have graduated from private and public high schools
in Hawaii and have enrolled at a two or four year college. This chapter includes the
research questions and a description of the research methodology. The latter includes
the sampling procedure and population, instrumentation, and procedures for data
collection and analysis.

Study Sites
Kamehameha Schools- In 1883, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a direct
descendant of King Kamehameha the Great, directed that the remainder of her estate
be held in trust "to erect and maintain in the Hawaiian Islands two schools, each for
boarding and day scholars, one for boys and one girls, to be known as and called the
Kamehameha Schools (retrieved from Kamehameha Schools, www.ksbe.edu.). The
original Kamehameha School for Boys was established in 1887 with thirty-seven
47
students and four teachers. The girls' school was subsequently established in
1894 with 27 girls aged thirteen and above. By 1955 both schools moved to their
current 600 acre headquarters in Kapalama Heights. Today this trust supports the
largest private pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools in the United States
(Kamehameha Schools 2006). The philosophy of Princess Bishop according to her
husband Charles Reed:
“Her heart was heavy when she saw the rapid diminution of
the Hawaiian people going on decade after decade.” She
hoped, he said, “That there would come a turning point,
when, through enlightenment, the adoption of regular habits
and Christian ways of living, the natives would not only hold
their own in numbers, but would increase again like the
people of other races”
(cited from the biography of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop,
www.ksbe.edu).
Through the will and vision of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Kamehameha
Schools has graduated more than 20,500 young Hawaiian men and women. This
includes students who have been homeless or orphaned as the philosophy of
Kamehameha Schools is “that no student be denied admission or continued attendance
at KS because of inability to pay school fees” (Kamehameha Schools 2006).
Regarding the admissions policy, “Kamehameha’s policy on admissions is to give
preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry to the extent permitted by law”
(Kamehameha Schools 2006). Presently, Kamehameha manages three K-12 campuses
serving 5,100 students. The Kapalama campus located on the island of Oahu educates
3,200 students in Kindergarten through grade 12. The other two campuses on the
islands of Hawai’i and Maui enroll 1,950 students. Also, it operates 32 preschools
48
throughout the islands with enrollments totaling 1400 students
(Kamehameha Schools 2006). In the area of higher education the Kamehameha
Schools are actively involved in assisting Native Hawaiian students.
“Currently, all graduates apply and are accepted to colleges nationwide. Of the
93-97% of graduates that actually enroll in post-high school programs the fall after
their senior year, about an average of 80% attend four-year colleges and 15% attend
two-year colleges” (cited from Kamehameha Schools 2006, www.ksbe.edu). In
addition, Kamehameha graduates as well as other Hawaiian high school graduates
may apply for $15 million in financial aid from the Kamehameha Schools.
Public High Schools in Hawaii- Founded by King Kamehameha III on October
15, 1840 the Hawaiian school system is the oldest public school system west of the
Mississippi (Hawaii Department of Education, 2006). The Hawaii Department of
Education has a centralized school system that includes 284 schools on seven islands.
Total school enrollment is 184,360 students which is the 10th largest school district in
the U.S (Hawaii Department of Education). Of the 284 schools 24 are charter schools
and 5 schools are classified as Hawaiian immersion schools where English is not
taught until the 5th grade. Hawaii’s public schools are grouped into complexes
consisting of a high school and the middle and elementary schools that feed into it. Of
the high schools that do not include the intermediate and middle school levels there
are 33, of the schools that include the middle and intermediate levels within the high
school there are 17, and there are 16 K-12 Charter schools. Thus, there are 63 high
schools throughout the state of Hawaii (Hawaii Department of Education 2006).
49
Also, Hawaii’s schools tend to be much larger than schools on the
mainland and this is especially evident in the high schools. Interestingly, the largest
high schools in Hawaii are triple the size of the national average. Smith and Lee
(1997) found that the model high school, in terms of positive educational outcomes
enrolls between 600 and 900 students. In schools smaller than this, students learn less
and those in large high schools (especially over 2,100) learn considerably less. Also
noted was that students from lower SES backgrounds coupled with a high minority
population faced several learning challenges.
Table 3 The Average Number Of Students In Primary, Middle, & High Schools
Average number of students in primary, middle, & high schools
Hawaii’s National
Primary School 576 466
Middle School 836 595
High School 1,468 752
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.

Table 4. Hawai‘I’s Largest Schools
Hawai‘i’s largest schools
Farrington High 2,455
Waipahu High 2,411
Campbell High 2,102
Mililani High 2,044
Pearl City High 2,032
Waianae High 1,988
Moanalua High 1,889
Castle High 1,869
McKinley High 1,855
Hilo High 1,777
Maui High 1,734
Roosevelt High 1,541
50
Research Questions
1. What factors significantly increase or decrease the probability of
bachelors’ degree completion for Native Hawaiian students?
2. What are the rates of bachelors’ degree attainment among Native
Hawaiian students who have attended Kamehameha schools?
3. What are the rates of bachelors’ degree attainment for Native
Hawaiian students who have attended public high schools who have
received financial aid from Kamehameha Schools?

Participants
The study will consist of three groups of Native Hawaiian high school
graduates from the 1993, 1994, 1995 classes:
1. The students who graduated from Kamehameha Schools and received
college financial aid from Kamehameha Schools
2. The students who graduated from public high schools in Hawaii and
received college financial aid from Kamehameha Schools
3. The students who graduated from private schools in Hawaii (not
including the graduates of Kamehameha Schools) and received college
financial aid from Kamehameha Schools

51
Research Design
Data derived from various sources (The 1983 Native Hawaiian Educational
Assessment Project, The1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress and the
2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment) quantitatively describe the low
educational outcomes of Hawaiian students. This study will employ a quantitative
analysis to isolate the significant factors that contribute to bachelor degree attainment
among Native Hawaiian private and public secondary graduates. More specifically,
this is an inferential study utilizing a quasi-experimental design with logistic
regression as the model. It was based on this model as the purpose of this study is to
separate the independent variables that contribute to bachelor degree attainment
among Native Hawaiian private and public secondary school graduates. The study
uses descriptive and inferential statistics to examine the level of interaction among
selected variables.
The study is a secondary analysis of data from the Completion, Persistence,
Transfer and Success of Kamehameha Students Project (CP-Tasks). This project is a
far-reaching study of the academic and professional outcomes of students who
attended a Kamehameha school or received Kamehameha financial aid. The project
includes the 1993, 1994, 1995 graduates of Kamehameha schools and graduates from
other private and public high schools who received college financial aid from
Kamehameha schools. Through the use of a 54 part questionnaire including
demographics, Hawaiian culture, junior and senior high school questions, college
location and completion as well as college satisfaction this study will isolate the
52
significant factors that add or subtract to bachelor’s degree attainment.
Logistic regression analysis will be used to determine the effect of the independent
variables on the dichotomous dependent variable, persistence. The analysis will
uncover whether the variables that were significant for persistence for the public high
school students were significant for the private high school students. Independent
variables include gender, Hawaiian blood quantum, level of parental education, high
school grade point average, advanced placement courses, and socioeconomic status.
Clearly, this is important as the majority of Native Hawaiian students attend public
high schools.

Theoretical Framework
In statistical analysis the researcher is seeking answers to different types of
questions. When the research question involves predicting or explaining what quantity
(called the independent variable) has a significant effect on another quantity (called
the dependent variable) regression analysis is often chosen as the appropriate method
for this type of analysis. Put simply, regression looks at causation among the
independent variable (s) and the dependent variable. However, there are several types
of regression analysis depending on the relationship and types of variables used in the
research (Shannon and Davenport 2001). Linear, multiple and logistic regression are
some of the more popular and widely used methods. Choosing the appropriate method
depends on the type of variables used and the relationship between them.
53
Simple linear regression involves the use of one independent
variable and of course the relationship is linear. Multiple linear regression is utilized
when the dependent variable is continuous and there are several independent variables
that are simultaneously affecting the dependent variable (Babbie 1992). Logistic
regression is employed when the dependent variable is binary or dichotomous. There
can be several independent (predictors) variables.
In higher education many of the research problems involve an outcome that is
binary or dichotomous. Examples include whether a student will graduate from
college, whether an adolescent should be coded as a high risk student , etc. In the past
these research questions were tackled by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression or
linear discriminant function analysis (Peng,Lee, and Ingersoll 1990). These methods
according to Peng , Lee , and Ingersoll (1990),
“were subsequently found to be less than ideal for handling dichotomous
outcomes due to their strict statistical assumptions, i.e., linearity, normality, and
continuity for OLS regression and multivariate normality with equal variances and
covariances for discriminant analysis (Cabrera, 1994; Cleary & Angel, 1984; Cox &
Snell, 1989; Efron, 1975; Lei & Koehly, 2000; Press & Wilson, 1978; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001, p. 521). Logistic regression was proposed as an alternative in the late
1960s and early 1970s (Cabrera, 1994), and it became routinely available in statistical
packages in the early 1980s”.
Following this pattern, several researchers in higher education have continued
to use logistic regression as the method of choice for persistence studies. For example
54
Takeuchi,, Agbayani, & Kuniyoshi (1990) used logistic regression to predict
graduation rates at the University of Hawaii for five different ethnic groups. They used
a dichotomous dependent variable, i.e., “graduated” or “not graduated” and continuous
and categorical independent variables such as high school grade point average, SAT
score and the type of high school attended. Several of the classic retention studies
were conducted using logistic regression. Tinto (1975) and Terenzini and Pascarella
(1980) have used this method for analyzing undergraduate persistence in the freshman
cohort.
Thus, logistic regression was utilized to predict college graduation in this
study. The rationale is as follows : first, the dependent variable is binary, second
several landmark studies in higher education have confirmed the appropriateness of
this method and lastly, numerous scholars (Cabrera 1994; Garson 2001) have proven
scientifically the validity of this model for the types of variables involved in this study.

This project is a far-reaching study of the academic and professional outcomes
of students who attended a Kamehameha school or received Kamehameha financial
aid. The project includes the 1993, 1994, 1995 graduates of Kamehameha schools and
graduates from other private and public high schools who received college financial
aid from Kamehameha schools. Through the use of a 54 part questionnaire including
demographics, Hawaiian culture, junior and senior high school questions, college
location and completion as well as college satisfaction this study will isolate the
significant factors that add or subtract to bachelor’s degree attainment. Logistic
55
regression analysis will be used to determine the effect of the independent
variables on the dichotomous dependent variable, persistence. The analysis will
uncover whether the variables that were significant for persistence for the public high
school students were significant for the private high school students. Independent
variables include gender, Hawaiian blood quantum, level of parental education, high
school grade point average, advanced placement courses, and socioeconomic status.
Clearly, this is important as the majority of Native Hawaiian students attend public
high schools.

Dependent Variable: College Graduate/ Non College Graduate
Participants’ self report of degree(s) earned defined the dependent variable of a
college graduate or a non college graduate. The variable was coded dichotomously
with 1 indicating the participant had reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher and
0 indicating the participant had less than a bachelor’s degree or reported “None.”
Participants who left this item blank (n = 34) on the survey were excluded from the
sample as it could not be determined if they graduated from college or not. Of the 456
total participants, 302 had graduated from college, or 66.2 percent.

Independent Variable: High School Type
The independent variable of high school type was defined as participant
response to a survey item asking what type of high school he or she attended in the
56
twelfth grade. It is assumed this is where the participant graduated from
high school. Depending on the response, participants were categorized into three
possible levels of the variable: graduated high school from Kamehameha High School,
graduated from a public high school or graduated from a private high school other
than Kamehameha High School. Of the 456 participants, 358 (78.5%) graduated from
Kamehameha High School, 9 (2.0%) graduated from a private school other than
Kamehameha High School and 89 (19.5%) graduated from a public high school.

Population and Sample
The population of interest is the Native Hawaiian students who attend
secondary public or private schools in Hawaii. Due to the unique nature of the students
from the Kamehameha schools as well as the public and other private schools in
Hawaii the findings from this study are not generalizable to the Native Hawaiian
student population outside of the state of Hawaii. The sample of the 456 students for
this study comprises the Kamehameha High School graduates, the Hawaiian public
high school graduates and the other Hawaiian private high school graduates from the
graduating classes of 1993, 1994, and 1995 that willingly responded to the
questionnaire and attended college. However, the sampling procedures of the CP-
TASKS project were such that it over sampled those who attended college (Hagedorn
et al 2005). Due to the fact that all the public and private high school graduates (other
than Kamehameha students) were college financial aid recipients they had to attend
college in order to receive financial aid from the Kamehameha Schools. In truth, there
57
was only a small portion of Kamehameha High School students who elected
not to attend college. Of this sample who responded to the surveyor roughly 66.2%
completed a bachelor’s degree from all three types of schools, i.e., Kamehameha,
Public and other private schools. However, when the bachelor’s degree completion is
divided into the three distinct groups the results are quite different. Graduates from
Kamehameha have the highest number of bachelor degree holders at 70 per cent with
the other private school graduates at 55per cent and finally the public school graduates
come in last with 48 per cent attaining a bachelor’s degree. This is not to imply that
the remaining third will not complete their bachelor’ degree; they simply have not
completed their degree in the seven to ten years since high school graduation.
Several scales were used in the survey to assess knowledge of financial aid,
level of college satisfaction, level of family support and the internal locus of control.
As the dependent variable is completing a bachelor’s degree or not completing a
bachelor’s degree, all of the scales and demographic questions function as independent
variables contributing or not contributing to degree completion. Thus, the rationale in
including specific scales, measures and questions was driven by several measures
developed by various researchers. The self efficacy scale, designed to measure the
students’ belief in his/her ability to succeed in academic endeavors was implemented
as those who believe they will be successful in college generally do well in college
(Bandura 1996). The self efficacy scale used in this study was spawned from the
Factors Influencing Pursuit of Higher Education (FIPHE) Questionnaire (Harris and
Halpin 2002). The locus of control scale, which measures the students view as to how
58
much control he/she has over their surroundings, was used in the
questionnaire and contained two items from the FIPHE Questionnaire. As a higher
level of college satisfaction is associated with a higher level of college completion, the
college satisfaction scale was incorporated into the survey. And as the more
knowledgeable a student is regarding financial aid the more likely the student will
complete his/her degree, thus a financial aid knowledge scale was included.

Instrumentation
Hagedorn and the Kamehameha Schools research team (2002) designed and
developed the questionnaire based on prior research, studies and obtainable literature.
The Kamehameha Schools research group was highly involved and provided the
majority of the input for the survey instrument. The questionnaire was comprised of
54 items including demographics, Hawaiian culture, junior and senior high school
questions, college satisfaction, and others. Prior to the development of the
questionnaire a series of focus group interviews were held with school administrators,
faculty students and alumni to gain a thorough understanding of the Kamehameha
schools and its culture. A stratified random sampling technique was utilized as
according to Best and Kahn (1998) “it is advisable to subdivide the population into
smaller homogeneous groups to get more accurate representation”. Thus, three groups
of graduates from Kamehameha and other private and public schools in Hawaii as well
as Kamehameha faculty and administrators comprised the three stratified sample
populations that were invited to participate in the focus groups.
59
The results of these focus groups were instrumental in the creation of
the questionnaire. Starting in April of 2002 printed letters were sent to the most recent
address of each of the graduates and financial aid recipients of the classes of 1993,
1994 and 1995 asking them to respond to the Internet questionnaire (Hagedorn et al
2005). Various forms of communication (i.e., emails, hard copy reminder letters and
telephone calls) were initiated to boost the response rate. The majority of the
responses were returned in the hard copy format while 33 per cent were submitted via
online. The total response rate of returned surveys was 30 percent (Hagedorn et al
2005). The final quantitative questionnaire consisted of the 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001,
2002, and 2003 graduates of Kamehameha Schools and other private and public high
schools in Hawaii who received college financial aid from Kamehameha.

Data Collection
The study employed a number of t-tests of significance with the dependent
variable as the grouping variable due to its dichotomous properties. The testing
variables consisted of single items from the survey as well as derived scales or
grouped items that proved high internal consistency with alpha reliability analysis.
Additionally, a Chi Square was employed as well as a Logistic Regression. For
statistical significance purposes, an alpha level of .05 level was observed. The
dependent variable was coded dichotomously with 1 indicating the participant had
reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher and 0 indicating the participate had less
than a bachelor’s degree or reported “None.” Participants who left this item blank (n =
60
34) on the survey were excluded from the sample as it could not be
determined if they graduated from college or not.
The independent variable of high school type was defined as participant
response to a survey item asking what type of high school he or she attended in the
twelfth grade. It is assumed this is where the participant graduated from high school.
Depending on the response, participants were categorized into three possible levels of
the variable: graduated high school from Kamehameha High School, graduated from a
public high school or graduated from a private high school other than Kamehameha
High School.
61
CHAPTER 4
PARTICIPANTS
Four hundred and fifty six students who graduated from Hawaiian high schools
in 1993, 1994, and 1995 voluntarily participated in the study. This cohort of students
were selected as they have had a reasonable amount of time to graduate or not to
graduate from college, with the completion window from eight to ten years from high
school graduation. Although some students will return after several years to complete
their degree this study is confined to these parameters. The participants were either
graduates from the Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii or from other high schools in
Hawaii but received college financial aid from the Kamehameha Schools. The sample
only consisted of Native Hawaiian students since the requirements to receive such
financial aid or attend the Kamehameha Schools at the time the survey was completed
was that one can trace ancestry to Hawaii. The research participants were not paid and
did not receive any other compensation for their participation.
Approximately 70% of the sample was female and 30% was male. Most
participants (64.3%) reported being between the ages of 25 and 26. While 34.0%
reported being 25 years of age or older and only .4% were 22 to 24 years of age. No
one in the sample reported being less than 22 years old.
62
Table 5. Graduate from College or not (By age)
How old will you be on December 31 of this year? Total
22-24 25-26 25-older
Graduate from
College or not
No 1 93 58 152
Percent 0.7% 61.2% 38.2% 100.0%
Yes 1 200 97 298
Percent 0.3% 67.1% 32.6% 100.0%
Total 2 293 155 450
Design and Analysis
The study employed a number of t-tests of significance with the dependent
variable as the grouping variable due to its dichotomous properties. The testing
variables consisted of single items from the survey as well as derived scales or
grouped items that proved high internal consistency with alpha reliability analysis.
Additionally, a Chi Square was employed as well as a Logistic Regression.

Results
Dependent Variable: College Graduate/ Non College Graduate
Participants’ self report of degree(s) earned defined the dependent variable of a
college graduate or a non college graduate. The variable was coded dichotomously
with 1 indicating the participant had reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher and
0 indicating the participant had less than a bachelor’s degree or reported “None.”
63
Participants who left this item blank (n = 34) on the survey were excluded
from the sample as it could not be determined if they graduated from college or not.
Of the 456 total participants, 302 had graduated from college, or 66.2 percent.

Independent Variable: High School Type
The independent variable of high school type was defined as participant
response to a survey item asking what type of high school he or she attended in the
twelfth grade. It is assumed this is where the participant graduated from high school.
Depending on the response, participants were categorized into three possible levels of
the variable: graduated high school from Kamehameha High School, graduated from a
public high school or graduated from a private high school other than Kamehameha
High School. Of the 456 participants, 358 (78.5%) graduated from Kamehameha
High School, 9 (2.0%) graduated from a private school other than Kamehameha High
School and 89 (19.5%) graduated from a public high school.

Significance Testing
The results of the significance testing with the dependent variable of graduated
from college or not are presented in tables 6 and 6. Table 6 includes all single items
that produced a significant difference between participants who graduated from
college and those who did not (with the addition of one of the isolated levels of the
independent variable not being significant). Table 6 includes all derived scales or
64
clusters of items that proved high alpha reliabilities. All derived scales were
included in the table regardless of significance with the dependant variable. Of the ten
derived scales, four demonstrated a significant difference of means between those who
were college graduates and those who were not. These scales include: the College
Satisfaction Scale [t(1,454)=6.44; p=.000], the Financial Aid Knowledge items
[t(1,452)=-4.38; p=.000], the Family Support Scale [t(1,450)=-3.67; p=.000], and the
College Self-Efficacy Scale [t(1,451)=-4.93; p<.000].
65
Table 6. Psychometric Properties of Items and Means of Significance
Item College
Graduate
Mean
Not College
Graduate
Mean
t-test
significance
Graduated high school from
Kamehameha.
Whereas 0= no and 1= yes.
.84 .68 t(1, 454) = -
4.14; p=.000
Graduated high school from a
private school other than
Kamehameha.
Whereas 0= no and 1= yes.
.03 .02 t(1, 454) = .420;
p=.675
(not significant)
Graduated high school from a
public school.
Whereas 0= no and 1= yes.
.15 .31 t(1, 454) = 4.10;
p=.000

Mother’s Highest level of education.
Eleven level scale ranging from 1 =
6
th
grade or less to 11 = Graduate
Degree
7.02 6.04 t(1, 451) = 4.07;
p=.000
Father’s Highest level of education.
Eleven level scale ranging from 1 =
6
th
grade or less to 11 = Graduate
Degree
6.67 5.72 t(1, 440) = 3.66;
p=.000
Sum of aid type received (WIC,
Med-QUEST, AFDC, Welfare,
Social Security and Food Stamps).
Ranging from 0 to 6
.368 .723 t(1, 454) = -
3.79; p=.000
Ability level to read English.
Four level scale ranging from 1= Not
at all to 4= Very Well.
2.11 2.18 t(1, 452) = 2.89;
p=.004
Language primarily spoken at
home. 1= English, 2= Other.
1.30 1.42 t(1, 453) = -
2.42; p=.016
I think a lot about how my life will
be affected by my Hawaiian
ethnicity.
Four level scale with 1= Strongly
Agree and 4= Strongly Disagree
3.92 3.56 t(1, 452) = 2.89;
p=.004
AP courses taken while in high
school. Four level scale ranging from
1= 0 to 4= 5 or more.
2.54 2.33 t(1, 416) = 2.93;
p=.004
66
Table 6. Continued
Item College
Graduate
Mean
Not College
Graduate
Mean
t-test
significance
What was your GPA in high
school?
Nine level scale ranging from 1= A or
A+ (Extraordinary) to 9= D or lower
(Poor)
3.20 4.59 t(1, 453) = -
9.10; p=.000
Honors courses taken while in high
school.
Four level scale ranging from 1= 0 to
4= 5 or more.
3.12 2.51 t(1, 415) = 5.10;
p=.000
Number of people financially
supporting at the time of high
school graduation.
Six level scale ranging from 1= None
to 6= Myself plus 4 or more.
1.26 1.45 t(1, 453) = -
2.90; p=.000
(If attended high school at
Kamehameha) Importance of
reason of going to a high school
different than many of my friends.
Seven level scale ranging from 1=
Very Unimportant to 7= Very
Important.
2.43 2.88 t(1, 369) = -
2.49; p=.013
(If attended high school at
Kamehameha) Importance of
reason of already enrolled in that
school.
Same scale as above.
4.45 4.03 t(1, 368) = 2.12;
p=.034
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent doing
housework or childcare.
Nine level scale ranging from 1= No
Time to 9= 46 hours or more.
3.31 3.75 t(1, 445) = -
2.40; p=.017
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent watching TV.
Same scale as above.
4.41 4.08 t(1, 445) = 2.31;
p=.021
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent on campus.
Same scale as above.
7.10 6.16 t(1, 447) = 6.52;
p=.000
67
Table 6. Continued
Item College
Graduate
Mean
Not College
Graduate
Mean
t-test
significance
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent talking with
students.
Same scale as above.
5.07 3.93 t(1, 436) = 6.73;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent studying
alone.
Same scale as above.
5.05 4.43 t(1, 448) = 4.68;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent studying with
others.
Same scale as above.
3.76 3.01 t(1, 445) = 5.08;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent participating
in athletics.
Same scale as above.
3.06 1.99 t(1, 446) = 5.32;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent talking with
teacher before or after class.
Same scale as above.
2.47 2.07 t(1, 448) = 4.23;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent talking with a
teacher during office hours
Same scale as above.
2.43 2.07 t(1, 448) = 3.92;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent participating
in volunteer or community service
projects.
Same scale as above.
2.55 1.92 t(1, 445) = 4.72;
p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent participating
in religious clubs/groups.
Same scale as above.
2.09 1.76 t(1, 446) = 2.33;
p=.021
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent helping other
students understand homework.
Same scale as above.
2.50 2.15 t(1, 445) = 3.38;
p=.001
68
Table 6. Continued
Item College
Graduate
Mean
Not College
Graduate
Mean
t-test
significance
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent participating
in intramural sports.
Same scale as above.
2.05 1.43 t(1, 447) =
4.479; p=.000
Number of hours as an
undergraduate spent studying in
small groups out of class.
Same scale as above.
2.93 2.35 t(1, 446) = 4.16;
p=.000
How large of a problem was
scheduling classes for next semester
while in college?
Four level scale ranging from
1= Not a Problem to 4= Large
Problem.
1.92 2.13 t(1, 449) = -
2.12; p=.030
How large of a problem were family
responsibilities while in college?
Same scale as above.
1.45 1.77 t(1, 406) = -
3.32; p=.001
How large of a problem were job
related responsibilities while in
college?
Same scale as above.
1.80 2.33 t(1, 435) = -
5.49; p=.000
How large of a problem was college
food while in college?
Same scale as above.
1.69 1.50 t(1, 381) = 2.11;
p=.035
Number of semesters taken off
during undergraduate experience.
1= None
2= 1 to 2 semesters off
3= 3 or more semesters off
1.26 2.05 t(1, 450)=-
11.29; p=.000
Satisfaction with student housing
facilities.
Four level scale ranging from 1= Very
Satisfied to 4= Dissatisfied.
2.23 2.59 t(1, 294) = -
2.03; p=.043
Satisfaction with recreational
faculties.
Same scale as above.
2.04 2.34 t(1, 324) = -
2.61; p=.010
Satisfaction with opportunities to
participate in Hawaiian clubs or
originations. Same scale as above.
2.00 2.29 t(1, 325) = -
2.59; p=.010
69
Table 6, Continued
Item College
Graduate
Mean
Not College
Graduate
Mean
t-test
significance
I worried about paying for tuition
as an undergraduate.
Four level scale where:
1= Strongly Agree and 4= Strongly
Disagree
2.21 1.81 t(1, 450) = 3.05;
p=.002
In most ways my life is closest to my
ideal.
Seven level scale where:
1= Strongly Agree and 7= Strongly
Disagree.
2.83 3.71 t(1, 454) = -
5.70; p=.000
The conditions of my life are
excellent.
Same scale as above.
2.59 3.36 t(1, 454) = -
5.43; p=.000
I am satisfied with life.
Same scale as above.
2.43 3.05 t(1, 452) = -
4.49; p=.000
So far, I have gotten the more
important things I want in life.
Same scale as above.
2.41 2.97 t(1, 453) = -
4.25; p=.000
If I could live my life over, I would
change nothing.
Same scale as above.
3.27 4.12 t(1, 451) = -
4.70; p=.000
Those who graduated from college produced a significantly higher mean (M =
3.98) on a five point “Hate it” to “Love it” college satisfaction scale than those who
did not graduate from college (M = 3.39) indicating those who did not graduate from
college were significantly more dissatisfied with their undergraduate college
experience than the college graduate participants.
Those who did graduate from college generated a significantly lower mean (M
= 1.86) than those who did not graduate from college (M = 2.17) on the four point
“Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” Financial Aid Knowledge Scale. This
70
signifies that those who did not graduate from college had significantly less
financial aid knowledge.
Additionally, those who did graduate from college produced a significantly
lower mean (M = 1.41) than those who did not graduate from college (M = 1.64) on
the four point “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” Family Support Scale. This
signifies that those who did not graduate from college had significantly less family
support than those participants who graduated from college.
Lastly, those who graduate from college generated a significantly lower mean
(M = 1.92) than those who were not college graduates (M = 2.19) on the four point
“Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” College Self-Efficacy Scale. This signifies
that those who were college graduates had significantly agreed more with the success
of their going to college being within their control (internal locus of control) than
those participants who did not graduate from college.
71
Table 7. Psychometric Properties of Derived Scales and Means of Significance
Derived Scales with Alpha Reliability
Scale Graduate
Mean
Not
Graduate
Mean
t-test of
significance
College Satisfaction Scale:
- How well did you like college when
you were an Undergraduate?
(1- hated it; 5= loved it)

- If you could do it all over again, would
you attend the same undergraduate
college?
(1= definitely not; 5= Definitely)
Alpha reliability = .627
3.98* 3.39 t(1, 454) =
6.44; p=.000
Self-Perceived Discrimination Scale:
My skin-color does not limit my ability to
succeed in life

- My gender does to limit my ability to
succeed in life

- Society does not limit my ability to
succeed in life

Five level scale where:
1= Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly
Agree
Alpha reliability = .841
4.28 4.38 t(1, 453) =-
1.14; p=.255
72
Table 7. Continued
Derived Scales with Alpha Reliability
Scale Graduate
Mean
Not
Graduate
Mean
t-test of
significance
Hawaiian Culture Exploration:
I have spent time tying to find out more
about Hawaiian history, traditions, and
customs

- I am active in organizations or social
groups that include mostly Hawaiians

- I think a lot about how my life will be
affected by my Hawaiian Ethnicity

- In order to learn more about my
Hawaiian heritage, I have often talked to
other people about my Hawaiian
ethnicity

- I participate in Hawaiian cultural
practices such as special food, music, or
customs

Five level scale with 1= Strongly
Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
Alpha reliability = .760
3.74 3.60 t(1, 454) =
1.78;
p=.076
Proficiency in Hawaiian Language
Scale:
- Read
- Write
- Understand a college lecture
- Read a college text book
- Write an essay or exam
- Write a term paper

Scale range 6 to 24 with 6= Not
proficient in Hawaiian Language to 24=
Proficient in Hawaiian Language
Summed scale
10.03 9.84 t(1,
454)=.443;
p=.195
73
Table 7. Continued
Derived Scales with Alpha Reliability
Scale Graduate
Mean
Not
Graduate
Mean
t-test of
significance
Belonging to Hawaiian Culture Scale:

- I have a clear sense of my Hawaiian
background and what it means to me

- I am happy that I am Hawaiian

- I have a strong sense of being Hawaiian

- I understand what it means to be
Hawaiian

- I have a lot of pride in Hawaiian People

- I feel strong attachment towards
Hawaiians

- I feel good about my Hawaiian culture
and ethnic background

Five level scale with 1= Strongly Disagree
to 5 = Strongly Agree
Alpha reliability = .823
4.52 4.48 t(1,
454)=.49;
p=.622
Number of family members able to carry
on a conversation in Hawaiian
Summed scale
.99 1.01 t(1, 454)=-
.13; p=.894
Financial Aid Knowledge:
- I was knowledgeable about the types of
financial aid available to me

- I knew where to find information about
financial aid.

Four level scale where:
1= Strongly Agree and 4= Strongly
Disagree
Alpha reliability = .902
1.86* 2.17 t(1, 452)=-
4.38;
p=.000
74
Table 7. Continued
Derived Scales with Alpha Reliability
Scale Graduate
Mean
Not
Graduate
Mean
t-test of
significance
Family Support Scale:
- My father encouraged me to go to
college

- My mother encouraged me to go to
college

- My father stressed the importance of
having a college education

- My father stressed the importance of
having a college education

Four level scale with 1= Strongly
Agree and 4= Strongly Disagree
Alpha reliability = .875
1.41* 1.64 t(1, 450)=-
3.67; p=.000
College Self-Efficacy Scale:
- I chose my major because I was good
at it

- I chose my college major because I
found the work challenging

- I believed I would be successful at
my college major

- I considered myself a good college
student

Four level scale with 1= Strongly
Agree and 4= Strongly Disagree
Alpha reliability = .723
1.92* 2.19 t(1, 451)=-
4.93; p=.000
75
Table 7. Continued
Locus of Control Scale:
- I had the power to achieve my
educational goals

- I felt that each person had control of
his or her fate

- No matter how hard I worked, I was
unable to succeed at anything I did
(reverse coded)

- I had no control of my future
(reverse coded)

Four level scale with 1= Strongly
Agree and 4= Strongly Disagree
Alpha reliability = .665
2.58 2.56 t(1, 452) =
.504; p=.615
* = Significant difference between Graduate mean and Not Graduate mean; p<.05

Chi Square
A Chi Square analysis was employed on the main dependent variable of
college graduate or not and the main (three levels) independent variable of high school
type. The analysis revealed a significant difference across the groups, [x
2
(1, N =
456) = 16.80; p = .000] suggesting there was a relationship between graduating from
college or not and high school type (where the participant graduated from high
school).

76
Regression
Due to the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable a logistic regression
was conducted. The results of the regression are presented in Table 3. Included in the
regression model are the independent variables (single items and derived scales) which
where hypothesized to contribute to graduating from college or not, and high school
graduation type (defined here as graduating from Kamehameha High School or
graduating from a public high school). The Chi-square goodness of fit test indicated
the model was justified and significant (Chi-square = 130.33; df=15; p=.000) with a –
2 log likelihood of 261.34. The Cox and Snell R-square was .334 and the Nagelkerke
R-square was .473. Five of the items entered in the equation were significant. These
items were: “High school GPA,” “Number of semester taken off in college,” “College
Satisfaction Scale,” “Financial Aid Knowledge Scale,” and “College Self-Efficacy
Scale.” See table 3 for details pertaining to the full model.
77
Table 8. Complete Model of Logistic Regression for College Graduate or
Not
Complete Model of Logistic
Regression for College
Graduate or Not
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Graduated from
Kamehameha high school or
public high school
where 1= Kamehameha and 3=
public school.
-.256 .224 1.304 1 .254 .774
Mother’s highest level of
education
.109 .073 2.207 1 .137 1.115
Father’s highest level of
education
.018 .072 .060 1 .807 .1018
Sum of aid type received
(WIC, Med-QUEST), AFDC,
Welfare, Social Security and
Food Stamps)
.014 .159 .008 1 .930 1.014
High school GPA .359 .120 9.029 1 .003* .698
Number of AP course taken in
high school
-.535 .359 2.225 1 .136 .586
Complete Model of Logistic
Regression for College
Graduate or Not
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Number of honors course
taken in high school
.306 .205 2.216 1 .137 1.358
Number of people finically
supporting at time of high
school graduation
-.095 .225 .178 1 .673 .910
Scale of family responsibilities
being a problem while
attending college
-.297 .176 2.861 1 .091 .743
Scale of job related
responsibilities being a
problem while attending
college
-.259 .176 2.178 1 .140 .772
Number of semesters taken
off in college
(Not including summers)
-1.144 .206 30.903 1 .000* .319
78
Table 8. Continued
College Satisfaction Scale .399 .180 4.944 1 .026* 1.491
Financial Aid Knowledge
Scale
-.473 .226 4.393 1 .036* .623
Family Support Scale .031 .263 .014 1 .906 1.031
College Self Efficacy Scale -.618 .316 3.841 1 .050* .539
Constant 5.808 1.812 10.268 1 .001 332.799
Table 8 provides the variables and their effects on the regression equation.
Noted in each column are: B or beta weight, S.E. or standard error, WALD statistic, df
or degrees of freedom, sig. or significance and Exp(B). B or Beta shows the magnitude
or weight of each independent variable on the dependent variable. It is also referred to
as the estimated log odds ratio which is the estimated change in the log odds when the
independent variable increases by one unit (Simon 2006). S.E. is the standard error or
distribution of B. The Wald statistic is the significance of the B of the variable. Sig. is
the significance of the Wald test (SPSS). Exp(B) is the odds ratio (Simon 2006).
Determining the ranking of the significant variables involves examining the
absolute value of B or the beta weight. Roughly translated, the higher the absolute
value of beta the more sensitive is the dependent variables response which translates
into more significance of the independent variable. Thus, of the 5 independent
variables in this study the most significant is the independent variable with the largest
beta weight and the others follow in degree of significance in descending numerical
order. In this study, “Number of semesters taken off in college,” had the highest beta
weight at -1.144 which indicates that the greater the number of semesters taken off
from college plays a significant role in not graduating from college. Next was the
79
“College Self-Efficacy Scale” with a beta weight of -.618 indicating that
those students who did not believe in their ability to complete their studies had a
significantly lower odds of graduating from college. Lack of financial aid knowledge
ranked third in the analysis with a beta weight of -.473 demonstrating that a deficiency
in knowing how to navigate the financial component of college clearly hindered these
students from completing their degree. The “College Satisfaction Scale” ranked fourth
in the results with a beta weight of .399 indicating that those who were generally
happier or content with their college experience tended to complete their degrees. And
lastly, “High school GPA,”with a beta weight of -.359 demonstrated that those
students with lower high school grade point averages’ had a reduced likelihood of
completing their degrees. Without a doubt, the number of semesters taken off in
college is an enormous factor in degree completion and proved to be the most
significant factor in this study. However, this variable could also operate as a proxy
for other factors such as financial problems, low grade point average, family and work
related responsibilities, homesickness, etc.
Although the independent variable, attending Kamehameha Schools did not
prove to be significant in the regression analysis further explanation is warranted.
Results of the Chi Square indicated that there was a relationship between graduating
from college or not and high school type (where the participant graduated from high
school). Descriptive statistics also indicated that 71 percent of the Kamehameha high
school graduates graduated from college whereas 48 percent of the public high school
graduates graduated from college. From an analytical perspective, it is important to
80
note that a "predictor" analysis such as regression is theoretically different
than a "significant difference" analysis. In addition, the beta weight for the
independent variable, attending Kamehameha, is .256 which is just below the beta
weight of .356 for grade point average and as indicated earlier grade point average was
statistically significant. Further, the admissions process at Kamehameha Schools is
highly competitive and selective fostering a student that has a much higher probability
of graduating from college. Public schools, on the other hand, do not have the
advantage of a selective admissions policy and thus admit everyone regardless of
academic potential.
81

CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction
That the great majority of Native Hawaiian students do not experience
academic success in the public school system in Hawaii (Hormann 1957; Weinburg
1997; Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi 2003, PASE Info Brief 2003; Yamauchi et al 1993) is
a grave concern to all stakeholders involved in the education of Native Hawaiian
students. Of Hawaii’s 280 public schools, 180 or 64 percent failed the mandate of No
Child Left Behind (PASE Info Brief 2003). In the area of higher education Native
Hawaiian students still lag behind their peers in several key areas. Results from the
2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment indicate that college enrollment
among Native Hawaiians is 25.6 percent whereas statewide enrollment is 32 percent.
Also, the percentage of Native Hawaiians who have completed a bachelor’s degree is
12.5 percent which is less than half the statewide rate of 26.2 percent (Kahuaka‘i 2005
Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment, Kana’iaupuni, and colleagues, 2005).
Accordingly, it is vital to understand what significant factors contribute to bachelor’s
degree completion for Native Hawaiian students from public and private high schools
in the state of Hawaii.
82

In general, this study examined the educational outcomes of Native Hawaiian
students who had graduated from private and public high schools in Hawaii and had
enrolled at a two or four year college. These students were divided into two groups:
those who have received a bachelor’s degree and those that did not receive a
bachelors’ degree. Significant factors such as high school grade-point average,
socioeconomic status, receipt of college financial aid, proficiency in the Hawaiian
language and identification with Hawaiian culture were all examined as to their
relationship with the completion of a bachelor’s degree. The study identified the
significant pre college and institutional factors that led to the fulfillment of a
bachelor’s degree. This study employed a number of t-tests of significance with the
dependent variable as the grouping variable due to its dichotomous properties. The
testing variables consisted of single items from the survey as well as derived scales or
grouped items that proved high internal consistency with alpha reliability analysis.
Additionally, a Chi Square was employed as well as a Logistic Regression.

Discussion
As outlined in Chapter 4, the analysis began with a number of t-tests of
significance to isolate the significant factors or items that produced a significant
difference between participants who graduated from college and those who did not
graduate from college (with the addition of one of the isolated levels of the
independent variable, i.e., other private schools, not being significant). In other words,
83

were factors such as level of parental education, graduation from a private high school
vs. a public high school, socioeconomic status, English fluency, high school GPA,
supporting a family during college, allotment of time for social and academic activities
on the college campus, overall life satisfaction and knowledge of financial aid
significant among those that completed their bachelors’ degree versus those who did
not. The means of each group were compared (See Tables 6 and 7) indicating that
those who graduated from college shared the following characteristics:
Parents had more years of education
Mothers having more education than the Father, 7.02 vs. 6.67
Come from families that received fewer social services (WIC, Med-
QUEST, AFDC, Welfare, Social Security and Food Stamps).
Possessed a higher High School Gpa
Financially supporting less family members during college.
Spent more hours studying on campus alone and in small groups, as an
undergraduate.
Participated in intramural sports
Participated in religious clubs/groups
Had less family and work related responsibilities during undergraduate
years
Less concerned with paying for tuition as an undergraduate.
Had overall, greater life satisfaction

A Chi Square analysis was subsequently employed on the main dependent
variable of college graduate or not and the main (three levels) independent variable of
high school type. The analysis revealed a significant difference across the groups, [x
2
(1, N = 456) = 16.80; p = .000] suggesting there was a relationship between graduating
from college or not and high school type (where the participant graduated from high
school). Of the Kamehameha high school graduates 71 percent graduated from
84

college, 56 percent of the other private high schools graduated from college and 48
percent of the public high school graduates graduated from college (Table 9). As the
results indicate the graduates of Kamehameha schools have a much higher rate of
bachelor’s degree completion (i.e., 71 percent vs. 48 percent) than the public high
school graduates.

Table 9. College Graduates and Non-College Graduates by Type of High Schools
High School Type Total
Graduate from College or not Kamehameha Private Public
no 104 4 46 154
Percent 29% 44% 52% 34%
yes 254 5 43 302
Percent 71% 56% 48% 66%
Total: 358 9 89 456
As Table 10 indicates 69 percent of the males graduated from college whereas
the females were slightly under the males graduation rate at 65 percent. Although
there was a gender bias (i.e., 70 percent of the survey respondents were female), due to
the voluntary nature of the survey, gender proved to not be a significant factor in
degree completion.
Table 10. Table Graduate from College or not by Gender
Gender Total
Graduate from College or not Male Female
no 42 112 154
Percent 31% 35% 34%
yes 92 209 301
Percent 69% 65% 66%
Total 134 321 455
85

Hagedorn and colleagues (2006) found that being married while attending
college actually increased the likelihood of completing a bachelors degree among
Native Hawaiian students who began their post secondary education at the community
college. Conversely, Hagedorn and colleagues (2006) also found that being married
while attending college actually decreased the likelihood of completing a bachelors
degree among Native Hawaiian students who began their post secondary education at
four year universities. While 70 percent of the college graduates were married (Table
11) this demographic variable deserves further attention as the results of this study do
not differentiate among students who began their post secondary education at the
community college and four year universities.

Table 11. Graduate from College or not Present marital status?
Your present marital status? Total
Graduate from
College or not
Single Married Living with
a partner
Separated Divorced
no 82 45 20 1 6 154
Percent 34% 30% 40% 50% 46% 34%
yes 158 106 30 1 7 302
Percent 66% 70% 60% 50% 54% 66%
Total 240 151 50 2 13 456
Due to the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable a logistic regression
was conducted. Five of the items entered in the equation were significant. These items
were: “High school GPA,” “Number of Semesters Taken Off in College,” “College
86

Satisfaction Scale,” “Financial Aid Knowledge Scale,” and “College Self-Efficacy
Scale.” In the following sections each of these significant variables will be addressed
in greater detail.

Theoretical Perspective
Several theories exist to explain why students leave college. Prior research has
shown students that demonstrate high levels of academic and social integration are
more likely to graduate from college (Tinto 1995; Astin 1998). On the other hand,
Tierney (1993, 1996) asserts that Tinto’s theory requires that to be successful in
college the minority student must undergo a “cultural suicide of sorts in order to avoid
an intellectual suicide”. Examining external factors that lead to persistence, Bean and
Vespa found that family approval had a direct and indirect effect on persistence.
Combining Tinto’s Student Integration Model with Beans’ Model of Student
Departure Cabrera, Casteneda and Nora (1993) found that “a more complex
understanding of the complex interplay among individual, environmental and
institutional factors was achieved. In this respect, the effect of environmental factors
was by far more complex than the one envisioned by the Student Integration Model”.
Some researchers (Collier, Jones 1990) attribute attrition to differential
treatment that occurs at the elementary and secondary levels. They view the
discrimination that these “high risk” students received as contributing to their low self
esteem which ultimately facilitates attrition. Ledlow (1992) and Ogbu (1982, 1991)
87

substantiate this view in their work with Native Americans, as they found that Native
Americans do not believe that education in and of itself can change their status in a
society that discriminates against them.
In addition, knowledge of and receipt of financial assistance contributed to
degree completion. Lesser family and work related responsibilities contributed to
degree completion as well. As the aforementioned research indicates there are a
myriad of personal, environmental and institutional factors that contribute to degree
completion. However, the results of this study reveal that all of these persistence
dynamics-social and academic integration, financial aid, discrimination at the
elementary and secondary level, family support and a host of others play various roles
and in different combinations throughout the college years for most students.

High School GPA
As expected, a strong high school GPA is a strong predictor of future degree
completion. Tierney and contemporaries (2002) noted that, “71 percent of students
who enroll in a rigorous academic curriculum in high school persist to complete a
bachelor’s degree (including first-generation students).” While several studies have
confirmed the link that students with high grades from high school tend to complete
college , it is interesting to note that although the majority of Native Hawaiian students
graduate from public high schools in Hawaii (Cooke 2001) the underlying issue is are
88

they academically prepared to enter college. This is where high school grade point
average and college prepatory classes enter the equation.
As Table 12 indicates of the students who graduated from college, 81 percent
had a high school GPA of 3.0 or higher whereas the students who did not complete
their degree had only 45 percent earning a 3.0 GPA or higher. The Kamehameha high
school graduates receive a college prepatory curriculum whereas the public high
school graduates originate from some of the largest high schools in the country, and
several are three times the size of the national average.
Smith and Lee (1997) found that the model high school, in terms of positive
educational outcomes enrolls between 600 and 900 students. It is not uncommon for
high school students in Hawaii to attend a high school in excess of 1500 students. The
National Center For Education Statistics reports that Asian/Pacific Islanders in 2000
hold the highest mean grade point average in the country at 3.20 , white students are at
3.01, Hispanic students are at 2.80 and Black students are at 2.63 (NCES 2006). As
the data shows Native Hawaiians are still being categorized into a group that masks
their characteristics, which is in direct opposition to the ‘Model Minority Myth”.
89

Table 12. High School GPA of College Graduates vs. Non College Graduates
Graduate from College or not What was your GPA in high school?
no yes
Total
A or A+ (Extraordinary) 7 33 40
Percent 4.5% 11.0% 8.8%
A- (Superior Quality) 14 67 81
Percent 9.1% 22.3% 17.8%
B+ (Excellent) 21 89 110
Percent 13.6% 29.6% 24.2%
B (Very Good) 28 61 89
Percent 18.2% 20.3% 19.6%
B- (Good) 33 26 59
Percent 21.4% 8.6% 13.0%
C+ (Above Average) 26 19 45
Percent 16.9% 6.3% 9.9%
C(Average) 246 30
Percent 15.6% 2.0% 6.6%
C- (Below Average) 1 0 1
Percent 0.6% 0.0% 0.2%
Total 154 301 455
Family Responsibilities in College
Table 13. Dependents Supported by Students at High School Graduation
At the time of high school graduation, how many
people were you financially supporting?
Total
Graduate from
College or not?
None Only
myself
Myself
plus 1
more
Myself
plus 2
more
Myself
plus 4
more

No 103 38 7 4 1 153
Percent 67.32% 24.84% 4.58% 2.61% 0.65% 100.00%
Yes 242 49 4 7 0 302
Percent 80.13% 16.23% 1.32% 2.32% 0.00% 100.00%
Total 345 87 11 11 1 455
90

Balancing the demands of college with supporting a family can certainly pose
a challenge for students. Research has shown that students who work are at an
elevated risk of dropping out of college than those who do not work while attending
college (Astin 1993; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto 1993). Although family and
work related responsibilities did not statistically predict degree completion in this
study, it is essential to not disregard the importance of this variable. As Table 13
indicates only 3.64 percent of the college graduates were supporting themselves and 1,
2 or 4 more family members. On the other hand nearly double or 7.84 percent of
students who did not complete their degree were supporting themselves and 1, 2 or 4
more family members.
Financial Aid Knowledge
The financial maze that students attempt to navigate is at times frustrating and
at times rewarding. This powerful piece of the degree completion puzzle contains two
components: is the student aware of the financial aid programs and will these
programs be available for the duration of the student’s time spent on campus.
According to the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (2006),
“Our research has shown that low-income students and their
families have limited access to college information, including
the availability of financial aid, the costs of college, and
payment options. No student should miss the opportunity for
vital financial assistance because he or she lacks necessary
information, is misinformed about the nature of student aid
programs, or is unable to navigate the financial aid
application process”.
91

In this area the majority of the Kamehameha high school graduates clearly
possess the financial aid knowledge necessary to finance their education and
ultimately complete their degrees. In the Native Hawaiian community the
Kamehameha students are a unique group which has been afforded the opportunity to
obtain a demanding college prepatory education. They are actively involved in a
curriculum that supports and values higher education and are strongly encouraged to
utilize all forms of financial assistance and apply at major universities throughout the
country (Hagedorn and colleagues 2006). It must be noted that without the generous
financial support of the Kamehameha schools higher education for this group of
students may not be a possibility.
By contrast, Native Hawaiian students from public schools in many cases are
not equipped with the ‘cultural capitol” necessary to navigate the financial aid process.
Embedded in all cultures is “cultural capitol”. Cultural capitol in a general sense refers
to the general cultural background, knowledge, dispositions, and skills that are passed
from one generation to another” (Gandara 1995, cited in Arredondo 1999). Mc
Donough (1997) views the students’ cultural capitol, i.e., the ability to efficiently
navigate the college application and admission process, as affecting the level and
quality of education the student will acquire and how college choice is determined.
And as Harker succinctly put it “our educational institutions are structured to favor
those who already possess cultural capitol” (Harper 1990, cited in Arredono
1990).Thus, lack of financial aid knowledge was a strong factor for this group of
students supporting the research in this area.
92

Semesters Taken Off in College
Hoyt and Winn (2004) in their study of various types of students ‘stopping-
out’ of college found that the main reason cited was financial. As Table 14 shows a
substantial amount (42 percent) of the non-college graduates took 3 or more semesters
off (not including summers) while only 7 percent of the college graduates took 3 or
more semesters off. Although not readily apparent, is the relationship between taking a
semester off due to lack of finances to remain in college and/or having to take care of
family responsibilities. Research has also revealed that students also take a semester
off due to low grades which is interrelated as grade point average was found to be
significant among the non completers.

Table 14. Number of Semesters Taken off From College
From the time you started college as a freshman, how many semesters did
you NOT take courses?
Total
(Note: does NOT include
summers).
None 1-2
semesters off
3
or more
semesters off

no 55 32 63 150
Percent 36.67% 21.33% 42.00% 100.00%
Graduate from
College or not
yes 246 33 23 302
Percent 81.46% 10.93% 7.62% 100.00%
Total 301 65 86 452
Both Tables 15 and 16 assess how satisfied the student was with being in
college and whether there is a good match with the student to the college. Simply put,
93

is the student happy with college in general and is the student happy with the college
he or she has chosen. Pascarella, Smart and Ethington (1986) have confirmed the
significance of a ‘person-environment fit as a salient influence’ for degree completion.
As Table 15 indicates 79.47 percent of the college graduates liked college to some
degree whereas only 52.29 percent of the non college graduates liked college to some
degree. By contrast, 47.72 percent of non-college graduates were neutral or hated
college, while only 20.52 percent of college graduates fell in the same category.
Further , 38.74 percent of the college graduates definitely would have attended
the same undergraduate college whereas 22.08 percent of the non college graduates
would have definitely attended the same undergraduate college ( Table 16). Only 6.95
percent of the college graduates definitely would not have attended the same college.
By comparison, 13.64 percent of the non-college graduates, almost double the
percentage, definitely would not have attended the same college.

Table 15. College Satisfaction Scale of College Graduates vs. Non-Graduates
Using a scale from 1-5, how well did you like college when
you were an undergraduate ?
Total
Graduate
from
College
or not
1
(I hated it)
2 3 4 5
(I loved it)

No 7 17 49 61 19 153
4.58% 11.11% 32.03% 39.87% 12.42% 100.00%
Yes 1 5 56 127 113 302
0.33% 1.66% 18.54% 42.05% 37.42% 100.00%
Total 8 22 105 188 132 455
94

Table 16. College Choice Decision of College Graduates and Non-Graduates
On a scale from 1-5, if you could do it over again, would you attend the
same undergraduate college?
Total
1 3 Graduate
from College
or not
(definitely
not)
2
(Not
Sure)
4 5
(definitely)
No 21 14 44 41 34 154
Percent 13.64% 9.09% 28.57% 26.62% 22.08% 100.00%
Yes 21 30 52 82 117 302
Percent 6.95% 9.93% 17.22% 27.15% 38.74% 100.00%
Total 42 44 96 123 151 456
College Self-Efficacy Scale
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in their ability to perform a task
(Bandura 1986). In actuality, it is the notion of “I can do it”. Research shows that there
is a positive relationship among students’ self efficacy beliefs and their academic
outcomes (Del Siegle 1995). Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement
with the following statements:
- I believed I would be successful at my college major
- I considered myself a good college student
- I chose my major because I was good at it
- I chose my college major because I found the work challenging

The college graduate mean on this scale was 1.92 (1- strongly agree and 4-strongly
disagree) whereas the non college graduate mean was 2.19 (refer to Table 9)
indicating the college graduates shared a stronger belief in their ability to be successful
in college.

95

Conclusions
Confirming the work of Hagedorn and colleagues (2004) that the financial aid
provided by the Kamehameha schools significantly increases the probability that
Native Hawaiian students will complete their bachelor’s degree, financial aid was a
strong factor in this study as well. However, other significant variables should not be
overlooked and the interplay among these variables is noteworthy. Semesters taken off
from college demonstrated a negative relationship in terms of college completion.
While higher levels of self-efficacy contributed to degree attainment. An obvious
predictor of degree completion, grade point average was found to be significant as
well as was overall satisfaction with the college experience.
Without a doubt, the generous financial assistance provided by the
Kamehameha schools allows many Native Hawaiian students the greatly enhanced
possibility of a college education. Most students typically begin their education at the
university level and often they are in attendance at universities on the mainland
(Hagedorn and colleagues 2004). These students exhibit grade point averages that are
generally higher and they tend to have lower levels of family and job responsibilities.
In the CP-TASKS Report Volume 1, Issue 1, May 2002 during the focus groups one
of the students in this study remarked about the financial assistance given by
Kamehameha, “The aid allowed me to consider going to a private college”. Another
commented, “Without the money, I would have gone to a community college”. On the
other hand, other students in the study entered community colleges and universities in
Hawaii. Although this study does not differentiate among the groups that attended
96

community colleges and universities, these environmental or situational factors are
acknowledged.
Taking time off from college can lead to a longer time to degree completion or
as often is the case the student does not return to complete the degree. Thus, this
variable proved to be quite significant in this study. The important question this factor
raises is, “Why did the student take the semester off?” The literature most often cites
financial reasons as the strongest factor (Hoyt and Winn 2004). As one Kamehameha
student put it, “Without the funds, I would have struggled and taken longer to
graduate”, (CP-TASKS Report Volume 1, Issue 1, May 2002).

Significance of the Study
Of Hawaii’s 280 public schools, 180 or 64 percent failed the mandate of No
Child Left Behind (PASE Info Brief 2003). As of July 2006 66 percent of Hawaii’s
public schools failed the mandate of No Child Left Behind. Designed as a 12 year plan
to improve the basic skills of the nation’s 47 million public school students, “No Child
Left Behind” is still clearly an enormous challenge for the public schools in Hawaii.
In general, the outcomes of this study highlighted the vast differences in the
higher education academic outcomes in the Native Hawaiian Kamehameha high
school graduates and the Native Hawaiian public high school graduates. Several
factors account for this outcome: higher grade point average, greater knowledge of
financial aid, less work and family responsibilities, lower number of semesters taken
97

off from college, and higher levels of self efficacy. That said, the results of this study
bring to light the critical need for major changes in the quality of the Hawaiian public
schools for Native Hawaiian students. In a comprehensive assessment of the current
status of Native Hawaiian students in Hawaiian public schools Kanaiaupuni and
Ishibashi note:
Rather than being helped with these disadvantages, many
Hawaiian children are marginalized in the public school
system. They are separated from their peers into special
education programs, and more than four out of every ten
Hawaiian children attend inferior schools with
inexperienced, transitory teachers. Thus, Hawaiian children
consistently lag behind the “average” student and are
deprived of opportunities for intellectual engagement, social
growth, and other aspects of a quality education that help to
pave the way to fulfilling futures.
In total, the data presented in this report document a need for
change within the state’s public school system and within the
Hawaiian community. It is clear that the DOE requires
support for making change happen. Limited state resources
for education constrain the ability of the DOE to raise the
quality of educational services for students, especially clearly
disadvantaged groups like Hawaiians.
(Citation from LEFT BEHIND? The Status of Hawaiian
Students in Hawai‘i Public Schools, PASE Report 02-03: 13
June 2003)
Additionally, the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate and the Hawaii Department of
Education have been working as partners in several projects to improve the
educational outcomes of Native Hawaiian students (Kanaiaupuni and Ishibashi 2003).

98

Implications for Practice
Unquestionably, the issues Native Hawaiian students confront in higher
education can be linked to their academic outcomes in elementary and secondary
schools. As outlined in Chapter 1, Native Hawaiian students have not achieved
academic success within the public school system in Hawaii (Hormann 1957;
Weinburg 1997; Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi 2003, PASE Info Brief 2003; Yamauchi et
al 1993). This study confirmed the connection among specific pre-college and
environmental variables and degree completion. Thus, we can ascertain that Native
Hawaiian students with strong grade point averages, high levels of self efficacy,
minimal family and work responsibilities, and knowledge of financial aid are more
likely to graduate from college.
In addition, students who graduate from the Kamehameha schools are more
likely to graduate from college than students who graduate from public schools.
Unfortunately at this point in time the Kamehameha schools can only reach a fraction
of the Native Hawaiian student population. Therefore, the results of this study would
be useful in the public schools in Hawaii. Beneficiaries of this study include students
and their families, teachers, administrators and policymakers. Native Hawaiian
students are the prime beneficiary. Policymakers, administrators and teachers will
have a better understanding and awareness of the academic and college counseling
needs of these students. School-community partnerships, culturally compatible
learning environments and new teacher orientations are examples of programs that
could be utilized by educators of Hawaiian children
99

Recommendations
While the results of this study support various tenets of the retention literature,
it would be wise to duplicate this study using different types of schools with a Native
Hawaiian student population. The academic outcomes of Hawaiian charter schools and
Hawaiian immersion schools would provide researchers with the opportunity to
explore the impact of these alternative forms of education. A qualitative analysis in
this area would significantly add to the lack of elementary and secondary studies in the
Native Hawaiian community.
The results of this study raised several important questions. Among them:
1. What is the impact of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ on principals,
teachers and students in schools with high concentrations of Native
Hawaiians’ ? Has it helped or hindered the Native Hawaiian students?
2. What ‘best practices’ can be gleaned from the Kamehameha schools
and how could they be applied and utilized in the public schools in
Hawaii?
3. What ‘best practices’ can be gleaned from the Catholic schools in
Hawaii and how could they be applied and utilized in the public
schools?
100

4. What motivational strategies and teaching techniques at the secondary
level would be effective in preparing Native Hawaiian students to enter
college academically prepared to succeed?
5. How can Native Hawaiian role models be identified and how can they
serve as mentors in the public school system in the state of Hawaii?
As with most studies, they raise more questions than they answer. However,
the need for additional research to explore these questions and others would
significantly add to the scarcity of research concerning Native Hawaiians and would
help in assisting the Native Hawaiian community with the education of their most
precious resource, their children.
101
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic integrity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Jessup, MD Educational Publications
Center, U.S. Department of Education.
Afaga, L.B. and Yamada, M.M., (1999) Pihana Na Mamo Project (Native Hawaiian
Special Education Project) 1996-97 Evaluation Report. University of Hawaii at
Manoa Curriculum Research and Development Group.
Andrade N.H., Hishinuma, E.S., McDermot, J.F., Johnson, R.C., Makini, G.K.,
Nahalua, L.B., Yuen, N.Y.C., Bell, C.K., Carlton, B.S., Goebert, D.A.,
MaArdle, J.J., Miyamoto, R.H, Nishimura, S.T., Else, I.R.N., Guerrero, A.,
Waldron, J.A., & Yates, A., (2003) Prevalence of Mental Disorders I Native
Hawaiian Adolescents Using NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children and Met Analysis of Comparison studies. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Asato, N. (2005) "Mandating Americanization: Japanese Language Schools and the
Federal Survey of Education in Hawai'i, 1916-1920," History of Education
Quarterly Spring 2003
http://historycooperative.press.uiuc.edu/journals/heq/43.1/asato.html (29 May
2005)
Au, K. & Kawakami, A. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. Hollins, J.
King & W. Hayman (Eds), Teaching Diverse Populations (pp. 5-23). New
York: SUNY Press.
Azuma, E. (2003), The politics of transnational history making: Japanese immigrants
on the western "frontier," 1927-1941, The Journal of American History.
Bloomington: Mar 2003. Vol. 89, Issue. 4; pg. 1401, 30 pgs
Babbie, E. (1992). The Practice of Social Research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Baker, D., & Riordan, C. (1998) “It’s Not about the Failure of Catholic
Schools, It’s about. Demographic Transformation” Phi Delta Kappan October
1998
Baker, D., Han, M., & Keil, C.T. (1996). How Different, How Similar: Comparing
Key Organizational
Bean J. & Metzner, M., (1985) "A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate
Student Attrition," Review of Educational Research 55 (4) 1985.
102
Bell, D., America’s Greatest Success Story: The Triumph of Asian-
Americans. The New Republic,1985
Benham, M. & Heck, R. (1994) Political Culture and Policy in a state-controlled
educational system: the case of educational politics in Hawaii. Educational
administration Quarterly, 30 (4), 419-450
Bennett, C. E. & Martin, B. (1995). The Asian and Pacific Islander Population.
Population Profile of the United States 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Washington D.C., Bureau of the Census.
Bhattacharyya, S. (2001) Yellow Peril" to "Model Minority": The Transition of Asian
Americans. Tennessee; 2001-11-00
Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (1993). Applying educational research: A
practical guide (3rd ed.). New York: Longman
Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.V.S. & Johnson, R.M.J. (1997) Appraising Tinto’s Theory
of college student departure. In C.J. Smart (Ed.) Higher Education: Handbook
of Theory and Research (Vol. 12, pp. 107-164) New York, NY, Agathon Press
Brodkin, K. How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in
America, Rutgers University Press 1998
Broughman, S.P., and Colaciello, L.A. (2001). Private School Universe: 1999–2000
(NCES 2001–330). U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., and Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common
Good. Cambridge, MA:
Buetow, H. (1970).Of Singular Benefit: The Story of U.S. Catholic Education 5
Busto, R. V., (1996) The Gospel According to the Model Minority?: Hazarding an
Interpretation of the Asian American Evangelical College Students, Ambrosia
Journal, 22:1, 133-147,
Caces, F. & Loos, G. P. (1987). SmaN space analysis: A profile of maternal and child
well-being among Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. Technical Report. Honolulu,
HI: Hawaii State Department of Health.
Castle, W.R., (1917) Hawaii, Past and Present. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York,
NY
Caudill, W., & De Vos, G., (1956). Achievement, Culture and personality: The case of
the Japanese Americans. American Anthropologist, 58, 1102-1127
103
Chinn, P.W. U., (2004) “Eh, Mus’ Be Smart Class”: Race, Social Class,
Language and Access to Academic Resources, in Preparing Mathematics and
Science Teachers for Diverse Classrooms: Promising Strategies for
Transformative Pedagogy. Alberto J. Rodriguez & Richard S. Kitchen, eds
Cho, Sumi K. (1993). Korean Americans vs. African Americans: Conflict and
Construction, In Reading Rodney King Reading Urban Uprising by Robert
Gooding-Williams, Routledge 1993
Coleman, J.S., et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and
Cooke, J. (2001) A Report on the State of Native Hawaiian Keiki in Hawaii. Pacific
American Research Center, August 2001
Crawford, D. L., (1933) Paradox In Hawaii, An Examination of Industry and
Education and the Paradox They Present, The Stratford Company, Boston,
MD. Schugurensky (Ed.), History of Education: Selected Moments of the 20th
Century. [Online]. Available at:
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/File [July 23,
2005]
D’Souza, Dinesh. (1991) Illiberal Education, New York, Vintage Books
D'Amato, J. (1993). Resistance and compliance in minority schools. In E. Jacob and
C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 118-
207). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Eaton, S.E. (2001). Blurring the Race Boundary: Black Adults Raised in Urban
Neighborhoods and Schooled in White Suburbia. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Education, Change, And Assimilation In Nineteenth Century Hawai ‘I WEH Tagupa -
patriot.lib.byu.edu Answers. 33. Missionary Herald, Vol. LIX (1863), 298-99.
Endo, G. T., and Della-Piana, C. K., Japanese Americans, Pluralism and the Model
Minority Myth. Theory in Practice, Volume XX, Number 1, pgs. 45-51
Espiritu, Y.L., Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. 1992
Falk, D, R.; Aitken, L. P.; (1984) Journal of American Indian Education. v23 n2 p24-
31 Jan 1984
104
Findings from the Condition of Education 2002: Private Schools: A Brief
Portrait. Findings from the Condition of Education 2002: Private Schools: A
Brief Portrait National Center for Education Statistics U. S. Department of
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf - 236.5KB
Fuller, S. M. (2004) Implementation of No Child Left Behind in six Virginia
elementary schools: The principals' perspectives. University Of Virginia, 2004
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1986). Educational research: An introduction
(6th ed.). New York: Longman Harvard University Press.
Hagedorn, L. S., (2003) The Academic and Occupational Outcomes of Residential
High School Student Instruction, University of Southern California Presented
at the April 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL. Submitted for publication to the Pacific Education
Research Journal.
Hagedorn, L. S., Tibbetts, K., Moon, H. S. & Lester, J. (2003). Factors Contributing to
College Retention in the Native Hawaiian Population Presented at the
September 2003 Kamehameha Schools Research Conference, in Honolulu, HI.
Submitted for publication to Hulili, Kamehameha Schools' multi-disciplinary
journal on Hawaiian well-being.
Handy, E.S.C., (1931) Cultural Revolution in Hawaii, The Institute of Pacific
Relations. Wellington NZ.
Handy, E.S.C., & Pukui, M. K., (1958) The Polynesian Family System in Ka-‘U,
Hawaii, The Polynesian Society, Inc., Wellington NZ.
Hanushek, E.A. (2000). Evidence, Politics, and the Class Size Debate. In The Class
Size Policy Debate. Working Paper Number 121 (October). Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute
Haas, M., (1992) Institutional Racism: the case of Hawai’i, Praeger Publishers,
Westport, CT.
Hawaii University, Honolulu. Institutional Research Office. Graduation and
Persistence Rates: A Summary of Selected Data from the NCHEMS/University
of Hawaii System Longitudinal Database Project. Special Report. U.S.;
Hawaii; 1997-01-00
Henke, R.R., Choy, S.P., Chen, X., Geis, S., and Alt, M.N. (1997). America’s
Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993-1994. U.S. Department of Education.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-460
105
Hirschman, C. and Snipp, M. C. 2001. “The State of the American Dream:
Race and Ethnic Socioeconomic Inequality in the United States 1970-1990”
Social Stratification: Class, Race and Gender in Sociological Perspective, 2
nd

edition, Westview Press
Hirschman, C. and Wong, M. G. (1984). “Socioeconomic Gains of Asians Americans,
Blacks, and Hispanics:1960-1976” American Journal of Sociology 90: 584-607
Hosokawa, B. (1969) Nisei: The Quiet Americans: The Story of a People (New York,
1969)
Hosokawa, F. The Sansei: Social interaction and ethnic identification among third
generation Japanese (San Francisco, 1978)
Hsia, J. (1988) Asian Americans in Higher Education and at Work. Laurence Erlbaum
Associated, 1988.
Hsia, J. and Hirano-Nakanishi, M. (1989)The Demographics of Diversity: Asian
Americans and Higher Education. Change November 1989; 21 6 p. 20.
Hu, A. (1989) Asian Americans: Model Minority or Double Minority? Amerasia
Journal 15:1, pgs. 243-257
Hune, S. Rethinking race: Paradigms and policy formation. Amerasia Journal, 21, 1,2,
pgs. 29-40 1995
Hurh, W. M. & Kim, K. C. (1989) The 'success' image of Asian Americans: its
validity, and its practical and theoretical implications. Ethnic and Racial
Studies Oct 1989 vol. 12 No.4 pgs. 512(27)
Hurn, C. J. 1985. "Theories of Schooling and Society: The Functional Pp. 42-76
(Chapter 2) in The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling
Ichiyama, M.A., McQuarrie E.F. & Ching, K.L., Contextual influences on ethnic
identity among Hawaiian students in the mainland United States. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, July 1996 v27 n4 p458(18).
Ingersol,G. M., Lee, K. L.,and Peng, C.-Y. J. (2002) An Introduction to Logistic
Regression Analysis and Reporting. Journal article by; The Journal of
Educational Research, Vol. 96, 2002
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation : a collection
of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and
evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences ( 3rd ed.). San
Diego, Calif.: EDITS Publishers.
106
Kaestle, C. F. (1983) Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and
American Society, 1780-1860. New York: Hill and Wang
Kahakalau, K., (2004) Idigenous Heuristic Action Research: Bridging Western and
Indigenous Research Methodologies, Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on
Hawaiian Well-Being Vol. No1, Kamehameha Schools Ka Huaka'i: Findings
from the 2005 Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment
Kamehameha Schools, 2006. http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/factsheet_maui.pdf
Kamehameha Schools, 2006, Doe v. Kamehameha Schools: History and Key
Arguments http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/doe_history.pdf
Kana ‘iaupuni,S.M.,& Ishibashi,K. (2003). Left behind: The status of Hawaiian
students in Hawai ‘i public schools. Honolulu,HI:Kamehameha Schools,PASE
Report 02-03:13.http://www.ksbe.edu/services/pase/
pdf_lib/hawaiian_population/02_03_13.pdf.
Kanaiaupuni, S. M., & Ishibashi, K., (2003) Education Hawaiian Children, How the
Learning Environment Matters, PASE , Info Brief, September 2003
Kana‘iaupuni, S. K., Malone, N. and Ishibashi, K.. (2005). Ka huaka‘i: 2005 Native
Hawaiian educational assessment. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools,
Pauahi Publications.
Kato, N. R. (1996) ‘Voices of Color, Asian Americans Defy ''Model Minority'' Myth’,
The Freedom Socialist. October/December Vol. 17, No. 3 1996
Ke Ali'i Pauahi Foundation, 2006
http://www.pauahi.org/page_server/About/4304CA49F8DF3A57E723F440CA
.html
Kim, E.H. (1978) English and the Asian American College student. Education and
Urban Society, 10 (3) , 1978
Kim, H., Rendon, L. & Valadez, J. (1998) Student characteristics, school
characteristics, and educational aspirations of six Asian American ethnic
groups. Journal of Multicultural Counseling Development, July 1998. Vol. 26,
Iss. 3; p.166.
Ko, G. k. and Clogg, C. C. (1989). “Earning Differentials between Chinese and
Whites in 1980: Subgroup Variability and Evidence for Convergence.” Social
Science Research 18:249-70
Kuykendall, R. S. (1931) , Education Prior to 1831, Hawaiian Education Review,
November 1931
107
Kuykendall, R. S., (1933) A History of Hawaii, Macmillan Company, New
York
Kuykendall, R. S., (1938)The Hawaiian Kingdom, 1778–1854: Foundation and
Transformation, Honolulu
Kwong, P. 1992, The first multicultural riots. In Inside the L.A. riots. Los Angeles:
Institute for Alternative Journalism
Lee, S.J., (2001) More than “Model Minorities” or “Delinquents”: A Look at Hmong
American High School Students, Harvard Educational Review, Fall 2001,
Vol. 71, No. 3, Pg. 505
Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1993, July). Effects of School Restructuring on the
Achievement and Engagement of Middle-Grade Students. Sociology of
Education, 66(3): 164–187. 1993, July
Lichter, S. Rothman, S. and Lichter, L.. The Media Elite: America's New
Powerbrokers. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1990.
Liliuokalani. (1898). Hawaii's story, by Hawaii's Queen. Honolulu, HI: Mutual.
Loos, G. P. (1995) A Blended Qualitative-Quantitative Assessment Model for
Identifying and Rank-Ordering Service Needs of Indigenous Peoples.
Evaluation and Program Planning v18 n3 p237-44 Jul-Sep 1995
Makuakane-Drechsel, T. H., (1999) Factors affecting Hawaiian student persistence at
four community colleges on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Southern California
Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994) Beginning Qualitative Research, A philosophic
and Practical Guide. The Falmer Press, Washington D.C.
McCluskey, N. (1968) Catholic Education Faces Its Future
McLaren, P. (1994), A Dialogue with Lisa Chin: An Asian-American Feminist
Perspective. International Journal of Educational Reform v3 n4 p456-63 Oct
1994
McLaughlin, D. (1997). Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile,
1993–94 (NCES 97–459).
Min, P. G. (1995). “An overview of Asian Americans .” Asian Americans:
Contemporary Trends and Issues. Pgs. 10-57 Sage Press
108
Muramoto, M. (1972) First Year Immigrants to Hawaii, East Across the
Pacific. Santa Barbara, CA: American Bibliographic Center, Clio Press, 197
National Center for Education Statistics, (2003) A Brief Profile of America’s Private
Schools. NCES 2003-417, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
2003.
Newmann, F., and Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful School Restructuring. Madison,
WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools October-December
1996
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1994). Cultural models of school achievement: A
quantitative test of Ogbu's theory (Cultural models of literacy: A comparative
study, Project 12). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 515)
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998) Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A
Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for
Education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 29 no2 155-88 Je '98
Okutsu, J. K. (1989)Pedagogic “Hegemonicide” and the Asian American Student.
Amerasia 15: 1, 233-242.
Osajima, K. Thinking about Asian Americans, Educational Researcher. Jan/Feb 2003
Vol. 32 Issue 1, pgs. 38-43
Pascarella, E.T. Smart, J.C. and Ethington, C.A., (1986) Long-term persistence of two-
year college students , Research in Higher Education. Springer Netherlands
Volume 24, Number 1 , pgs. 47-71
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1979). "Interaction effects in Spady's and Tinto's
conceptual models of college dropout." Sociology of Education, 52, 97-210
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peshkin, A. (1993), The Goodness of Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher
Volume 22 number 2 pgs. 23-29 March, 1993
Petersen, W. (1966). Success Story, Japanese-American Style. New York Times.
January 9, 1966, pg.180
Petersen, W. (1971). Japanese Americans: Oppression and Success, Random House
Phelan, P.; Davidson & Cao, H.T. (1991) Student’s multiple worlds: Negotiating the
boundaries of family, peer and school cultures. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 22, 224-249.
109
Prashad, V. Anti-D’Souza: The Ends of Racism and the Asian American. Amerasia
Review, 24:1, 1998. pgs. 23-40
Rumbaut. R. G. & Ima, K. (1987) The Adaptation of Southeast Asian Refugee Youth:
A Comparative Study. San Diego Office of Refugee Resettlement, Final
Report
Ryujin, D.H., Ford, L.D. & Breaux, C.. (2001) Asian American Students Beliefs and
Perceptions of Therapy. Paper presented at the 109th Conference of the
American Psychological Association, New York NY.
Sahlins, M. (1981) Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities, Structure in the Early
History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1981)
Sakamoto, A. & Yap, K. L. (2003) The Socioeconomic Attainments of Native-Born
Asian Americans: A Critique of the Model Minority Myth. Population
Research Center, University of Texas 12/18/2003 );
Shaw, R. & Hurley, R., ed., (1969). Trends and Issues in Catholic Education
Siegle, D. L. (1995). Effects of teacher training in student self-efficacy on student
mathematics self-efficacy and student mathematics achievement, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Son, L. & Toupin, E. Preliminary findings on Asian Americans. “The Model
Minority” in a Small Private East Coast College. Journal of Cross- Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, September 1991 403-417. State of Hawaii
Department of Education (1999). The Superintendent’s Tenth Annual Report.
State of Hawaii Department of Education (1999). The Superintendent’s Tenth Annual
Report.
Success Story of One Minority Group in the U.S. (1966) U.S. News & World Report
(December 26, 1966) PR. 73-76
Sue, S. & Kitano, H. H. l. (1973) Stereotypes as a measure of success. Journal of
Social Issues., 29 83-98
Suzuki, B.H. (1977). Education and the socialization of Asian Americans: A
revisionist analysis of the model minority thesis. Amerasia Journal 4, 2 1977
Suzuki, B.H. (1989). Asian Americans as the “Model Minority”. Change
November/December 1989
110
Suzuki, B.H. (2002). Revisiting the Model Minority Stereotype:
Implications for Student Affairs Practice and Higher Education. New
Directions for Student Services n97 p21-32 Spr 2002
Takeuchi, D. T., Agbayani, A. & Kuniyoshi, L. (1990) Higher Education in Hawaii: A
Comparison of Graduation Rates Among Asians and Pacific Americans. In
Contemporary Perspectives on Asian and Pacific American Education
Tierney, W. G, Hagedorn L.S., (2002) Increasing Access to College. State University
of New York Press Press
Tierney, W. G.; Colyar, J. E.; Corwin, Z. B. (2003) Preparing for College: Building
Expectations, Changing Realities. Prepared by the Center for Higher Education
Policy Analysis (Los Angeles, CA).; 2003
Tinto, V. (1975). “Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent
Research”, Review of Educational Research, 65 (Winter): 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Cause and Cures of Student
Attrition, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Cause and Cures of Student
Attrition (2nd Edition), Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tozer, SE, Violas, PC and Senese, G. (2002) (4th ed.) School and Society. Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill. McLaren, P. (2003) 4th. ed.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous
peoples. New York: Zed Books. Bishop Museum Press.
U.S. Department of Education Private School Universe Survey, 1993-94
NCES Number: 96143 Release Date: May 15, 1996
U.S. Department of Education Private School Universe Survey, 1997-98
NCES Number: 1999319 Release Date: August 31, 1999
U.S. Department of Education Private School Universe Survey, 1999-2000
NCES Number: 2001330 Release Date: July 2, 2001
U.S. Department of Education, NCES Qualities of American Public and Private
Secondary Schools (NCES 96–322).. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2001a). The Condition of Education 2001
(NCES 2001–072). Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
111
U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2002). The Condition of Education
2002 (NCES 2002–025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, NCES. 1993–94 (NCES 97–460). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Van Disk, T.A. (1991) Racism and the Press. London Rouldege
Vogt, L., Jordan, C. & Tharp, R. (1993). Explaining school failure, producing school
success: Two cases. In E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds), Minority Education:
Anthropological Perspectives. (pp. 53-66). New York: Ablex.
Weinberg, M. (1997) Asian-American Education, Historical Background and Current
Realities, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey
Welfare, Office of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Winnick, L. (1990), America’s “Model Minority”. Commentary; August 1990, pgs.
22-29
Wittermans, E. (1964) Inter-Ethnic Relations in a Plural Society, J.B. Wotlers and
Groningen
Wong, E. F., Asian American Middleman Minority Theory, The Framework of the
Myth. The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 13:1 pgs 51-88
Yamauchi, L. A., Greene, W. L., Ratliffe, K. T. & Ceppi, A. K. (2000) "Community
Perceptions of Culture and Education on Moloka'i", in Pacific Educational
Research Journal v10 n1 2000
Young, J.J. Discrimination, income, human capital investment, and Asian Americans.
San Francisco, 1977
Young, M.; (2002) Standard English and Student Bodies: Institutionalizing Race and
Literacy in Hawai'i., College English, v64 n4 p405-31 Mar 20
Yuen, N.Y.C.; Nahulu, L. B.; Hishnuma, E.S.; & Miyamoto, R.H. (2000). Cultural
Identification and Attempted Suicide in Native Hawaiian Adolescents. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 39(3):360-367,
March 2000.
Zhou, Min. Coming of Age: The Current Situation of Asian American Children.
Amerasia Journal; 1999. 25(1); p. 1

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the educational outcomes of 456 Native Hawaiian students who have graduated from private and public high schools in Hawaii between 1993 and 1995 and have enrolled at a two or four year college. The students were divided into two groups: the ones that received a bachelor's degree and the one's that did not receive a bachelors' degree. Factors such as high school gradepoint average, socioeconomic status, receipt of college financial aid, proficiency in the Hawaiian language and identification with Hawaiian culture will all be examined as to the completion of a bachelor's degree. The study will identify the significant factors that lead to the fulfillment of a bachelor's degree. Findings revealed that the students who graduated from the Kamehameha schools demonstrated a much higher rate of bachelor's degree completion than the public high school students. High school grade-point average, family responsibilities in college, number of semester taken off in college, college satisfaction, financial aid knowledge and self-efficacy were significant factors in bachelor's degree completion.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors which lead to reverse transfer

PDF

Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

Factors influencing nursing students' motivation to succeed

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

College choice of natural science students: the factors and sources that influence enrollment decisions

PDF

Female graduate student decision-making and graduate student loan debt

PDF

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement

PDF

Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

Leadership development in student affairs graduate preparatory programs

PDF

Secondary school reform: student achievement in mathematics -- a case study: Hot Springs High School

PDF

Navigating success: what factors influence success among Latina STEM community college students?

Asset Metadata

Creator Milecki, Darlene Anne (author)

Core Title Factors related to college graduation among private and public secondary school students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/15/2008

Defense Date 10/02/2005

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

Tag completion,Graduation,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Hagedorn, Linda Serra (committee chair), Melguizo, Tatiana (committee member), Simic, Andrei (committee member)

Creator Email milecki@cox.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m145

Unique identifier UC1304377

Identifier etd-Milecki-20061115 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-27447 (legacy record id),usctheses-m145 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Milecki-20061115.pdf

Dmrecord 27447

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Milecki, Darlene Anne

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu