University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

(USC Thesis Other)

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

BYPASS FOR A “LEAKY” EDUCATIONAL PIPELINE:
A CASE STUDY OF THE BRIDGE PROGRAM AT PUNAHOU SCHOOL

by

Casey Agena

___________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Casey Agena

ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Joanna Agena who provided great
motivation for me to finish. To my parents Carlton Agena and Lois Agena for always
supporting my education.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation to those individuals who have been
most helpful in the completion of this study. My deep gratitude to Dr. Dominic J.
Brewer, chair of my dissertation committee and the individual most responsible for
keeping me focused. To Dr. Melora Sundt and Dr. Darnell Cole also members of my
dissertation committee. To the Punahou School students and alumni, and members of
the Bridge Program (2009-10).

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
Abstract vi
Chapter One: Introduction of the Study and Theoretical Framework 1
Figure 1. Ninth Graders in the Educational Pipeline 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 24
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology 55
Chapter Four: Data and Analysis 74
Chapter Five: Summary 105
References 123
Appendices 134
Appendix A: Freshmen Questionnaire 134
Appendix B: Services Listed in the Freshmen Questionnaire 138
Categorized by Factor that Affects College Access
Appendix C: Barriers and Challenges for Students 139
Appendix D: Type of Participants, Number of Questions, and Time 141
Required for Questions in Interview Organized by
Theme for the Bridge Program (BP)
Appendix E: Bridge Program Upperclassmen Interview 142
Appendix F: Questions in Interview Organized by Theme and 144
Interviewee
Appendix G: Na Opio Questionnaire 146
Appendix H: Levels of Evaluation 151
Appendix I: Adapted - Bracken’s Multidimensional Self Concept 153
Scale (MSCS, 1992)
Appendix J: Evaluation Plan 154
Appendix K: Freshmen Group - Profiles 155
Appendix L: Upperclassmen Profiles 157
Appendix M: Results of Freshman Group and Upperclassmen 158
Group Interviews

v
List of Tables
Table 1. College Going Rate in America – By Family Income, 1973 - 2004 7
Table 2. Seven Ethical Issues at Research Stages 71
Table 3. Emerging Themes from Study 78
Table 4. Recommendations for Program Improvement 108

vi
Abstract
This study identifies the challenges low-SES students face in a high-
achieving academic environment, and to capture the model of academic and social
success for students from this population. This study examines the assumptions of
the program, and examine if the effectiveness of the educational organization
provides in meeting the academic and social needs of a diverse student population,
particularly low-SES students. There is a scarcity of data linked to the support for
low-SES students’ success in high-achieving environments, as it relates to
postsecondary education outcomes. The study measures the extent to which Punahou
School provides support for low-SES students, and defines the organizational
structures for supporting academic and social success through postsecondary
education in its Bridge Program. The factors that were explored in this study are
school culture, impact of SES, the extent to which low-SES students navigate the
college-going culture, and the characteristics of programs that support students of
low-SES to socially find success in schools.

1
Chapter One
Introduction of the Study and Theoretical Framework
The current global economy has changed the demands of the workplace and
consequently the education needed for the available jobs. The use of social
networking, information technology and knowledge of globalization requires a
broader range of skills than ever before (Friedman, 2005). Employment that used to
require, at minimum, a high school diploma has become outsourced or automated,
here and abroad (Friedman, 2005). Some reports have claimed that even high school
graduates, once employed, are not prepared for their workplace assignments
(Achieve, 2008; Adelman, 1999) in this era of globalization. In the early 2000s,
Achieve, Inc. produced a series of reports documenting the “sizeable gap between
the standards students are required to meet to earn a high school diploma and the
knowledge and skills they need to be successful in their college and career pursuits
after high school” (Achieve, 2008, p.2). The question then is, “What is the minimum
educational background to be successful in today’s global economy?”
In 1973, one-third of the jobs in America required less than a high school
diploma, but that proportion shrank to only 9% by 2001 (Achieve, 2008).
Dissimilarly, the proportion of jobs requiring a college education doubled during the
same period, increasing to 60% of the labor market in 2001 (Achieve, 2008;
Carnevale & Desrochers, 2003). It has been projected that by the end of 2010, nearly
two-thirds of all jobs and 70% of new jobs in the United States will require some
postsecondary education (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2003). If this holds true, the

2
ability for individuals to find success in postsecondary education is a challenge,
especially for those with academic and social barriers (Padilla, 2008).
The possibility of a student having access to higher education varies
considerably by student’s socioeconomic status (SES). Only 43% of students from
families who made less than $30,000 annually immediately entered postsecondary
education in 2004; by contrast, 75% of students from families who made more than
$50,000 entered postsecondary education (Long & Riley, 2007). Maximizing the
number of students graduating from postsecondary education is a critical objective in
building our nation’s economy, especially those from low-SES families. Promoting
students from kindergarten through high school graduation can no longer be the
measuring stick of academic success. The “K-16” route, or graduation from high
school for access to (and completion of) postsecondary institutions must be the
educational norm, which will increase the potential for students to become
productive citizens. While there are many barriers (Padilla, 2008) or challenges that
prevent students from attaining K-16 academic success, the goal is to promote
students through the educational system, viewed as an educational pipeline (Ewel,
Jones, & Kelly, 2003), by supporting students academically and socially.
This study focused on how a private school in the state of Hawaii is
attempting to facilitate access to postsecondary education for low-socioeconomic
status (SES) and/or first-generation students through the educational pipeline,
supporting them academically and socially. By exploring the school’s specific

3
program, implications were drawn as to what structures had/have the greatest
potential in the transition from high school to college and beyond.
Background of Problem
A study by the Education Trust forecasts that the United States will have
more than three million more jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree than we have
college graduates to fill them by the year 2012, and nearly one million more jobs
requiring at minimum, an associate’s degree (Haycock, 2006). If this holds true,
how can the education system in this country support this prospective? If the
educational pipeline is strong, then the students should fill these occupational
expectations. However, the factors that allow students to “flow” through the pipeline,
and complete postsecondary education, are not evident in all parts of the pipeline.
Some students tend to “leak” out of the educational pipeline due to barriers (Padilla,
2008) or challenges to their educational endeavors. This outlook, given a “leaky
pipeline” in which many students do not successfully navigate their way to a
postsecondary education, particularly challenges many states in America, including
the state of Hawai’i.
The Educational Pipeline
The educational pipeline can be conceived in terms of a series of successive
transitions through a student’s educational career. Each of these transitions are
important in keeping the pipeline flowing, and creating a strong “K-16” educational
system (Ewel, Jones, & Kelly, 2003). Through each transition, identified challenges

4
in each of the areas force us to think of how to “fix” this system (Ewel, Jones, &
Kelly, 2003):
1) Graduation from High School.

Although most children in the U.S. attend school through the middle grades,
we know that increasing numbers do not complete high school by the time
they are nineteen. A first key transition measure is therefore the proportion of
ninth graders in high school who promptly attain a high school degree.

2) Entry into Postsecondary Education.

Unlike secondary school attendance, attending college is an elective decision.
Rates of entry into postsecondary education are thus conditioned not only by
such matters as postsecondary capacity and student preparation levels, but
also by culturally conditioned choices and perceived costs versus benefits. A
second key transition measure is thus the proportion of recent high school
graduates who enter postsecondary education.

3) Persistence in Postsecondary Education.

We know that fewer than half of those entering postsecondary education as
first-time, full-time students in the U.S. complete a baccalaureate degree at
the institution they entered within six years. Research also tells us that, in
general, the greatest point of attrition in postsecondary enrollment is the first
year of college (Tinto, 1987). A third key transition measure is therefore the
proportion of entering first-year postsecondary students who enroll for a
second year of study.

4) Completing Postsecondary Education.

Although experiencing some amount of college does result in economic
benefit, we know that possession of a baccalaureate credential clearly
delineates populations with respect to income (Carnevale & Rose, 1998).
Thus a fourth key transition measure is the proportion of students enrolled in
college who promptly earn a degree.

Although the public and private benefits of postsecondary education are well
documented, the United States continues to “leak” students from the educational
pipeline. Only recently have educators and education policymakers begun to

5
conceptualize the idea of a kindergarten through college, or “K-16” pipeline, through
“an articulated system of schools and postsecondary institutions” (Ewell, Jones &
Kelly, 2003). No longer is it reasonable to look at K-12 systems separately from
postsecondary education (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
2004). Since 2000, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education has
published reports on the student “flow” through the education pipeline, “four key
transition points” are cited as critical transitions: 1) high school graduation within
four years of entering high school; 2) enrollment in college the fall semester after
receiving a high school diploma; 3) return for the second year of college; and
4) completion of an associate’s degree within three years or a bachelor’s degree
within six years of enrolling in college (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2004).
The national pipeline data has remained consistent over recent years, but a
comparison of states reveals variation in college completion rates and intermediate
outcomes. Nationally, for every 100 ninth graders in the year 2006, 68 ninth graders
graduated from high school, 42 immediately entered college upon graduation, 28
returned for their second year, and 19 graduated from college within six years of
postsecondary education (National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems, 2009). Over the past three reporting periods, national pipeline data has
shown consistency in the numbers of students who are leaking out of the educational
system. Low-SES students perform at even lower rates.

6
In 2005, the high school graduation rate for students from low-SES families
(in terms of family income) was 68.6% ($36,174 or lower annual income) as
compared to 92.5% for the high-SES families of students ($96,560 or more annual
income) (Mortensen, 2006). Although strides have been made in increasing college
access for students at all income levels, the amount of support for low-income
students still lags. In 1973, 64 percent of high-SES students attended college; in
2004, only 50 percent of low-SES students attended college (NASH, 2008). In other
words, thirty years later, college access for low-SES students does not begin to
approach the same access for high-SES students (Table 1).
The Center cites Hawaii as below the national average. For 2006, the
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems study revealed that out
of 100 ninth graders, 67 ninth graders graduated from high school, 40 immediately
entered college upon graduation, 23 returned for their second year, and 12 graduated
college within six years of postsecondary education (National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 2009). Furthermore, low-SES students in Hawaii
do not fare as well as the rest of the state. According to Figure 1, only 34 percent of
all 2006 Hawaii high school graduates who were eligible for Free and Reduced
Lunch status went directly to any two- or four-year college; only 11 percent of the
same population went directly to a four-year college (The National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, 2006).

7
Table 1. College Going Rate in America – By Family Income, 1973 - 2004

Year Low Income Mid Income High Income
1973 20 41 64
1979 31 43 63
1984 34 48 74
1989 48 55 71
1994 43 58 78
1999 49 59 76
2004 50 63 79
Source: NASH, Access to Success Initiative (NASH, 2008).

Figure 1. Ninth Graders in the Educational Pipeline

(Number of 100 ninth graders remaining at each level of the educational pipeline,
comparing best performing state, national average, and Hawaii)

Source: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2006)

8
Factors Related to a “Leaky Pipeline”
A review of the literature suggests there are several interrelated factors that
influence a leaky educational pipeline. The four most cited are: 1) academic
preparation, 2) the college-going culture and social support offered to a student, 3)
access to college information, and 4) affordability of college (Achieve, 2008;
Adelman, 2006; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Schramm & Sagawa, 2008). Although
all are significant, the literature consistently points to the college-going culture and
the social support offered to students as having the greatest impact on the successful
navigation through the educational pipeline. Finding a culture where the faculty,
environment, and peer interaction creates an environment where students fell socially
and academically supported for postsecondary education is a key component of
ensuring student success.
There have been many interventions in public schools that have tried to
facilitate a college-going environment and improve educational achievement. For
example, small school and class size (Glass & Smith, 1989), early childhood
education, federal programs such as Title 1, U.S. Department of Education’s TRIO
programs, after school programs and summer school sessions (Entwisle &
Alexander, 1994), all have sought to help propel students through the educational
pipeline through postsecondary education in our public schools. However, “leaks” in
the pipeline occur due to foreseen, and unforeseen factors, or barriers, that inhibit the
success of students through the pipeline (Padilla, 2008). In Hawaii, the leaks in the
K-12 public education pipeline, which occurs nationally, are much the same.

9
However, the uniqueness of Hawaii’s school systems, private and public, serve as an
opportunity to bypass the leaks.
The state of Hawaii has one school district, a total public school enrollment --
with all 257 DOE schools and 28 charter schools -- of 178,369 (Hawaii Department
of Education - DOE, 2008). Of the total population, 73,567 or 41% are from
economically disadvantaged families or low-SES (Hawaii Department of Education -
DOE, 2008). This population’s impact on the school system is significant, as the
amount of resources needed to support these students is limited. Academic and social
supports for low-SES students to be successful in schools, is of primary concern,
specifically in regards to the academic future of these students. Programs in Hawaii
addressing the academic and social needs of these students have been hurt due to
budget cuts and fiscal deficiencies. Since 1999, government spending in Hawaii’s
public schools has grown more than 150 percent, to its current $2.34 billion (DOE,
2008). To this fact, the competition between private and public schools in Hawaii
grows. Even though academic gains were made at Hawaii’s public schools, private
school enrollment in Hawaii remains high, compared to the rest of the nation. There
are 39,344 isle students attending preschool to grade 12 at the 128 independent
campuses this year, according to the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools
(HAIS) (HAIS, 2009). Private school options, along with the less than significant
increases in academic achievement, makes private school a viable option.

10
Role of Private Schools in Hawaii
The challenges of postsecondary access for students in Hawaii’s public
schools namely underrepresented low-SES students, present a multitude of possible
opportunities that are in need of research. One understudied factor is the role that
private schools play in providing educational opportunities. Private schools in
Hawaii play a unique role, like no other state in the U.S. According to HAIS (2008),
enrollment in private schools in Hawaii have been rising over the last five years to
represent just over 17% of the state’s students (as opposed to 10% nationally). The
uniqueness of the role private schools play in Hawaii’s education of students at the
K-12 level provides an opportunity in the education of the population as a whole. Al
Adams (2000) of the National Association of Independent Schools has stated, “ (a)
public purpose commitment I propose derives, first, from the progressive notion that
human beings have both the desire and the capacity to make the world a better place.
Similarly, schools should be viewed as transforming institutions that measure their
success, in large part, by the extent to which their graduates contribute positively to
their world. One reason, then, for a school to develop public purpose initiatives is to
provide the opportunity for students to participate” (Honolulu Advertiser, 2000,
A23). Adams’ examination of public purpose allows for a shift in the ideals of
independent institutions. Students from all backgrounds should be given the
opportunity to participate in high achieving academic cultures. The public purpose of
private schools, in this regard, is to provide access and opportunity for all students to
its school, specifically targeting the access to postsecondary education. This

11
institutional shift must be actualized in the policy for admissions of students of
diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.
Research has shown that prestigious academic institutions provide more
educational resources for students to be successful (Astin, 1985; Bowen & Bok,
1998). While it is debatable whether these institutions, many times private schools,
always offer the best educational experience for students, their position in the top
ranks of the educational hierarchy, clearly promotes further benefits not available in
other institutions (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Carnevale & Rose, 1993). From a strictly
educational perspective, longitudinal research (Astin, 1993) has shown that attending
an institution where the majority of students come from high-SES environments,
presents a number of benefits (academic) not available at institutions that enroll a
majority of lower-SES students. Seventy-four percent of the students at the top 146
highly selective colleges came from families in the top quarter of the SES scale (as
measured by combining family income and the education and occupations of the
parents), just 3 percent came from the bottom SES quartile, and roughly 10 percent
came from the bottom half of the SES scale (Carnevale & Rose, 2003).
While many private institutions look to diversify their student population
(Fitz, Gorard & Taylor, 2002), particularly in the area of socioeconomic diversity,
the principal barrier to access to highly ranked institutions among low-SES students
is the system of selective admissions. High-SES private institutions typically favor
students who perform well on standardized admissions tests and who have high
grade point averages (GPAs) (Fleming, 2002). Since pipeline analysts show students

12
from poor and less-well-educated families tend to perform less well than other
student groups by these measures, they are disadvantaged in competing for access to
the most prestigious institutions (Fleming, 2002). There rests a social responsibility
of educating and supporting children from low-SES environments. There is a social
responsibility on educational institutions to educate children of all social
backgrounds, specifically low-SES environments (Delpit, 1988). In educating
children, schools are an essential supplier of products and services on which the
society is highly dependent, such as advanced training, expertise of various types,
and new ideas (Shapiro, 2005). Empirical studies have emphasized the importance of
access to high achieving peers (Astin, 1985; Bowen & Bok, 1998).
Punahou School – Bridge Program
Punahou School has prepared high-achieving students for college and, as a
mission, developed their academic and social minds (Punahou School, 2009).
Through its one hundred sixty nine years of existence, the school has maintained its
status as a successful academic institution, with over 99 percent of its graduates
being accepted to four-year colleges and universities after their final year of high
school. According to the College Counseling Department (Punahou School, 2008),
over 95 percent of the Class of 2009 attended four-year colleges/universities. This
educational outcome, while providing academic success, is challenged by a societal
perception of the school and its students.
Hawaii Senator, Daniel Inouye (D), in an interview with The Honolulu
Advertiser before the Hawaii caucuses, said, "If you ask the people in Hawai'i what

13
they know about Barack Obama, I think the honest answer is, 'Very little.' He went to
school in Hawai'i but he went to Punahou, and that was not a school for the
impoverished” (2008). The perception of Punahou School, as an elitist school, from
the people of Hawaii is a constant battle for those connected to the school. Originally
named Oahu College in 1841, the initial admissions policy was designated for
missionary children in Hawaii. The indigenous population (Native Hawaiians) was
also considered for admission to the independent school, if they were able to speak
English. Currently, the student population is diverse in ethnic, cultural, and religion,
however, the historical public perspective drives the idea that the school is
homogeneous, specifically when taking into account socioeconomic status. The
challenge is breaking down the stigma, or negative public perception of the school
being “elitist.” Over the past one hundred and sixty seven years, modernization and
technological advances have helped the school thrive within the community.
Ironically, this change has had an adverse effect, in terms of “the rich.” The ability
to look historically at this issue provides a broader explanation to where these ideals
are rooted.
According to commentary from Kris DeRego, in the University of Hawaii
student newspaper, the admissions policy at Punahou School exasperates the public
perceptions.
Clearly, Hawaii’s high cost of living exacerbates the problem, but other
factors are involved as well. Punahou's admissions policy is extremely
exclusive, with the children of alumni, faculty of Hawaiian descent and the
bloodlines of the school's missionary founders given preference over other
applicants. Generally speaking, the school's faculty and alumni hail from

14
upper-class backgrounds (you'd have to be, in order to afford tuition), so a
legitimate argument can be made that the school's admissions policy
perpetuates not only a legacy of wealth, but the increasing economic disparity
between the richest and poorest sectors of society (2008, p. 13).

This editorial on the admissions policy may be perceived as rhetoric, yet it declares
the views of a larger population, as exemplified by Senator Inouye’s comments
earlier. Historically, Punahou School did focus its admissions on the missionary
population in Hawaii. In an excerpt from the admission policy from the original
school charter (Beckwith, 1851),
The Oahu College is open to natives speaking the English language; but it is
especially designed for pupils from that increasing and important portion of
the Hawaiian community, which is of foreign origin. This of course includes
those who have heretofore constituted the mission. These, with their families,
must be regarded as in the highest degree essential to the religious welfare of
the Islands.

The school is rooted in a religious education, and the missionaries and missionary
families that started the school, with land given from the Hawaiians, was a
consequence of the imperialistic American sentiment of the period. The missionaries
who came to Hawaii in the earliest years were a majority from puritan New England,
which explains much about their character. The missionaries reduced the Hawaiian
language to written form, enabling the Hawaiian people to read and write in their
own language, hence the admissions policy at Punahou School for Native Hawaiians
in that era. Many schools were established throughout the islands as rapidly as
possible. Because of the policy in the charter, the historical perception in Hawaii of
the school being “exclusive” provides a clearer. Today, the admissions policy
somewhat echoes the original Punahou School charter (2008),

15
Preference is given to qualified candidates who are: children of alumni,
faculty or staff or of Hawaiian descent; descendants of Punahou's missionary
founders; or siblings of enrolled students. Admission, however, is not
automatic for applicants in these categories.

To alleviate the negative perceptions, Punahou School strives to be a viable member
of the community. Programs, which expand access to rich resources, such as its
public school partnership programs and focuses admissions during the school year,
allow Punahou to develop transparency. Historical perspectives, especially one
rooted deep in tradition for over one hundred sixty years, is difficult to change. Over
the past decade, there has been much effort from the school’s administration to
change the diversity of its student population, through the admissions and financial
aid department, in considering more students from low-SES families who do not or
would not otherwise have the academic, social, or financial opportunities to attend
Punahou. This decision would provide an opportunity for access to high-level
education to all students that can qualify – meaning qualifying scores on the SSAT
(Secondary Schools Admissions Test), previous school record (report cards, letter of
recommendations), and a personal interview with a writing sample. The concurrent
challenge then lies within the academic culture of the school. Punahou is striving to
diversify the student population, to reflect the ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic
population of Hawaii, however, it desires to maintain the high-level of academic and
social success its graduates have enjoyed over the past two centuries (Punahou
School, 2008).

16
Two of the school’s new goals within its mission and strategic plan reflect the
efforts of the trustees, faculty and staff, and the community at-large in supporting a
more diverse student population (Punahou School, 2008):
Student Economic Diversity - To admit academically qualified student body
that more closely reflects the economic diversity of the Hawai’i
community.

Institutional Advancement - To provide the necessary resources beyond
tuition to meet Punahou’s educational mission and vision; and, to
create advocacy for the school among its constituents and within the
Hawaii and global community.

Supporting a diverse ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic population of students, and
determining how an educational organization addresses low-SES students in
particular, is a challenge at Punahou because of the traditional student population it
has had, and the pedagogical approaches its faculty have used (Punahou School,
2009). Punahou has directed its efforts on admitting a percentage of low-SES
students, as well as high-SES student with academic and social challenges, or as
Padilla (2008) refers to as “barriers,” to the school via its Bridge Program. The
program aims at continuing students through the education pipeline, by transitioning
students to a high-achieving, college-going environment, through academic and
social support – combating the academic and social barriers.
According to Seidman, Aber, Allen and French (1996), success through the
pipeline may be both challenging and disruptive to the self-system and to social
relationships, placing youth who are challenged by successfully negotiating a
college-going culture, at increased risk for long-term negative developmental

17
outcomes. Navigating a new academic environment successfully, especially without
knowing how, may be challenging. If students from a broad range of social classes
and income levels enroll in school (with disregard of financial implications), what is
the impact on the institution? Further, what is the impact on the individual students?
Punahou’s tradition rich environment, such as maintaining a high percentage of
students attending colleges and universities, is challenged by a public purpose of
providing educational opportunities to a wider population. Conversely, the public
perception of the school compounds this issue. However, it is the students from
diverse populations (low-SES) enrolled in Punahou School who are challenged by a
college-going culture. They are amongst students whose social capital (Stanton-
Salazar, 1995) carries them through the educational pipeline, without the challenges
or barriers low-SES students may face more readily. The impact of successful
navigation in a college-going culture on these individual students (both socially and
academically) does play a role in their success in their education beyond high school.
Further, internal perception (stigma) of low-SES students in a college-going
environment from faculty, peers and community impacts the students. The impact of
the perceptions and/or social stigmas (Steele, 2009) on individual students puts
pressure on the educational institution, in regards to the successful outcomes of low-
SES students in the school.
As stated earlier to ensure the a clear educational pipeline for students, the
following factors must be in place: 1) academic preparation, 2) the college-going
culture and social support offered a student, 3) access to college information, and 4)

18
affordability of college (Achieve, 2008; Adelman, 2006; Martinez & Klopott, 2005;
Schramm & Sagawa, 2008). The effectiveness of the Bridge Program, and the impact
of being educated in a college-going environment, is in question. Does placing a
student form low-SES environ in a college-going culture positively impact his/her
postsecondary endeavors through the educational pipeline?
Statement of Problem
The leaky educational pipeline in the United States is a significant problem
affecting the nation’s economic and social development as globalization and
technological change continue. Hawaii is in a worse position than many other states.
For example, despite reports that there are 13,000 jobs available annually which
require a college degree, Hawaii continues to graduate only approximately 10,000
students per year from postsecondary institutions (Johnsrud, 2008). It is believed that
education provides students with a firm foundation for learning new knowledge
(Dewey, 1937). Over the thirty years, a variety of models of education and studies
have revealed that low-SES students “leak” through the educational pipeline. The
literature does not tell us whether students from low-SES backgrounds demonstrate
corresponding high levels of success through the educational pipeline in high-SES,
college-going environments. If the barriers low-SES students face in attaining
success through pipeline were “non-factors,” would the students be successful?
Would they have more of an opportunity to attain postsecondary education and
contribute to a global economy? Can a private institution be a “bypass” for the leaky
pipeline?

19
A student’s social capital and the cultural resources have an impact on
success in school and beyond (Bourdieu, 1979). According to Bourdieu, schools
reward students with cultural capital, defined as instruments for the appropriation of
symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought and possessed (1979).
Teachers, it is argued, communicate with students more easily with students from
high-SES cultures, give them more attention and special assistance, and perceive
them as more gifted, or intelligent than those that lack cultural capital (Bourdieu,
1979). Low-SES students who aspire for upward mobility must consider all aspects
of culture as they navigate through a new high-achieving environment. Further, the
social stigmas (Steele, 2009) the students are challenged with on campus impact their
social success in academic environments. The extent to which Punahou School’
Bridge Program provides a structure for low-SES students to find success through
the pipeline is the focus of this study. Three general assumptions were made
regarding this review of this program focused on these students:
1. Students in a structured educational environment have positive
educational outcomes – based on the system the school has created for
their success.
2. Students from common cultural/ethnic/social backgrounds, who are
grouped together, have positive educational outcomes – based on the
relationships created.

20
3. Students in these programs are successful in furthering their education at
post-secondary institutions because of the strong relationships between
students, faculty and the program.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges low-SES students face
in a high-achieving academic environment, and to capture the model of academic
and social success for students from this population. This study will examine the
assumptions of the program, and examine if the effectiveness of the educational
organization provides in meeting the academic and social needs of a diverse student
population, particularly low-SES students. There is a scarcity of data linked to the
support for low-SES students’ success in high-achieving environments, as it relates
to postsecondary education outcomes. To gauge the extent to which Punahou School
provides support for academic and social success through the educational pipeline
was the focus of this study. The study measured the extent to which Punahou School
provides support for low-SES students, and define the organizational structures for
supporting academic and social success through postsecondary education. The
factors that were explored in this study are school culture, impact of SES, the extent
to which low-SES students navigate the college-going culture, and the characteristics
of programs that support students of low-SES to socially find success in schools.
In the past, Punahou School has traditionally been successful in meeting the
academic and social needs of the students from high-SES backgrounds, however, the

21
diverse population the school now endures, calls for a new purpose of education at
this high profile school: educating all students.
The research questions for this study are:
1. From a student’s perspective, how effective is the organizational
structures at Punahou School, in facilitating college access for low-SES
students in a college-going environment?
2. From a student’s perspective, to what extent do the relationships between
students, faculty, and within the Bridge Program provide an
organizational construct for low-SES students to be academically and
socially successful?
This study focused on building individual social and academic success
through postsecondary education, in the context of the Punahou School’s high
academic culture, where the overall goal of developing intellectual, academic and
social potential of its students to the fullest degree. The school focuses on preparing
students for postsecondary education. The challenge exists in preparing all its
students, from all socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. This study will
examine if the organizational construct is changing to meet the academic and social
needs of a diverse student population, within a sociocultural and cognitive
framework, through student’s academic and social involvement on campus. While
the school has traditionally been successful in meeting the needs of the students in a
high-achieving college-going environment, the diverse population the school now

22
calls for a new purpose of education at this high profile school: educating all students
for a positive economic impact on society.
Importance of the Study
Beyond the economic argument in favor of better secondary and
postsecondary educational attainment, there exist documented personal and
community benefits. In 2004, the national average total annual personal income for
workers aged twenty-five and over with a bachelor’s degree were approximately
$25,000 more than those with just a high school diploma (IHE, 2005). Only 3
percent of those with a baccalaureate degree were unemployed in 2004, while 6
percent of those with a high school diploma were not employed (IHE, 2005).
Citizens with a bachelor’s degree also report better health; in some states, 95 to 97
percent described their health as good, very good, or excellent in 2004 (IHE, 2005).
Punahou School provides an opportunity to study the academic success of
low-SES students through the educational pipeline. The study will help practitioners
and at Punahou School to investigate the effectiveness of its programs for social
success for low-SES students. Through Padilla’s (2008) model of success and
Astin’s (1975) student involvement theoretical framework, low-SES students in
college-going environments can find academic and social success, specifically in
transitioning schools. In addition, this study focuses on a unique setting, given the
academic and social culture of Hawaii, where private school education plays a
significant role (HAIS, 2008).

23
Definitions
The following are definitions of terms or frequently used acronyms, as used
in this study:
SES: Socio-Economic Status - based on family income, parental education
level, parental occupation, and social status in the community (such as contacts
within the community, group associations, and the community's perception of the
family), note Demarest, Reisner, Anderson, Humphrey, Farquhar, and Stein (1993).
PD: Professional Development - a comprehensive, substantiated, and
intensive approach to improving teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in raising
student achievement (NSDC, 2000).
Organization of Study
Chapter Two is a review of the literature about the significance of supporting
low-SES students in a high-SES environment, through the educational pipeline. This
chapter also focuses on the literature in areas of sociocultural theory and social
capital. Chapter Three describes the design, methodology, and analysis for the
study. The results of the study are explained in Chapters Four and Five. Chapter
Four will report the discoveries of the interviews of the students and analysis, while
Chapter Five will report the results and discussion of the study. The findings will be
reported, followed by a discussion of the findings and suggestions for faculty,
administrators and researchers.

24
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to provide background on the issues
of low-SES students finding academic and social success in a high-achieving
environment. The issues that pertain to a high-achieving academic environment and
its role in the educational pipeline will be discussed. While multitudes of theoretical
perspectives on student academic and social success have been employed in studying
low-SES students in various environments, this review of literature focuses on
private school education, and its efforts to bypass a leaky educational pipeline.
Low-SES in the Educational Pipeline
In comprehensive studies of the patterns of high school graduation and
participation in college, drawn from the Current Population Surveys 1970-1989,
Mortenson and Wu (1990) found neither an increase in the overall rates of high
school graduation, nor any major change in college participation rates. However,
access to postsecondary education was strongly affected by SES. Direct entry of
students from different income levels increased in the early 1990’s. In 1992, for
example, 41 percent of the low-SES students entered college directly from high
school, compared to 57 percent of the middle- SES students and 81 percent of the
high-SES students (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). First-generation students
also exhibit different college enrollment behaviors than their counterparts whose
parents have more education (Levine & Nidiffer, 1996; Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin,
1998; Terenzini et al., 1996). A 1988 study from the National Education

25
Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88/94) supports the gap by showing that less first-
generation students meeting the minimum qualifications for college application.
Furthermore, first-generation students were less likely than non-first-generation
students to enroll in four-year institutions (Horn & Nuñez 2000). The rationale for
studying both low-SES and first-generation students is that both groups do not
achieve postsecondary access at levels comparable to their peers.
Social Support in a College-going Environment
Students from affluent backgrounds are more likely to persist and graduate
from college than are students with low SES backgrounds. For example, data from
High School and Beyond (HSB) collected by the National Center for Education
Statistics indicated that six years after graduation from high school, 80 percent of the
high-SES-quartile students, but only 40 percent of the low-SES-quartile students,
who started college had finished (2008). However, once other factors are controlled,
the direct impact of SES on attainment of the bachelor's degree is modest, at best
(Velez, 1985). Low-income students are not nearly as likely as their more affluent
counterparts to have completed college preparatory curricula in high school, an
experience that is positively linked to persistence in college (Mortenson & Wu,
1990).
Education research based on curriculum and organizational structures in
secondary and higher educational settings through the United States have examined
the challenge of low-income students attainment. If one can understand how it is that
low-SES students are successful within the educational pipeline, one can develop

26
models and structures for success. Presumably specific strategies, practices and
organizational structures provided by the school will enable more students
(specifically low-SES) to perform as successful students do, for access to
postsecondary education.
In a world of constant change, humans need to make connections between
past and future, between their own experiences and the world they live in; they need
a frame of reference (Barker, 2000). The system of American K-12 education has
had difficulty providing a strong compulsory education since at least the early 1800’s
(Lucas, 1994). Eliot (1869) clearly defined the role of K-12 education, as it is the
foundation for preparing students for higher education. Higher education provides a
frame of reference for students to use their developed knowledge base to “specialize”
in a field where they foresee a career, at the end of the educational pipeline.
The overall goal of Punahou School is to develop the intellectual, academic
and social potential of its students to the fullest degree. The challenge exists in
guiding its low-SES students towards academic and social success, from the time
they are admitted to the school in grade 9, to the time they graduate. Punahou has
been in existence from the time of Eliot’s study (1841), through the current era of
knowing the value of education towards developing an individual’s career.
Historically, while the model has been proven for a specific social class of students,
the role of Punahou as a factor on educating all of Hawaii’s children in this era
requires a look at the effectiveness of doing so. The tradition and historical backdrop
of the school provides a challenge for a new population the school is looking to

27
serve. This study examined the effectiveness of organizational structures at Punahou,
which facilitates the transition for low-SES students in a college-going environment,
through social support. The study will also examine the extent to which, the
relationships between faculty, staff and peers impacts social success, in the college-
going environment, through its Bridge Program. While the school has traditionally
been successful in meeting the needs of the students from high-achieving
backgrounds, the diverse population the school now calls for a new purpose of
education at this high profile school: educating all students. This chapter is arranged
in three sections to address this strategy.
The first section of the literature review explores factors influencing college
access, within the context of a low-SES population. Conceptual frameworks are
introduced to provide a lens for examining the social support and cultural capital of
transition programs. The second section focuses on social support and cultural
connectedness, for the success of low-SES students. This strategy is based upon the
theoretical framework of Bourdieu (1977) and Colman (1986) and social capital.
Applications of this framework are reviewed through, through two lenses, Mastery
(sociocultural) and Performance (cognitive) (Rueda & Dembo, 1995). Each strategy
is reviewed, with a focus on organizational structures for student success. The third
section draws upon literature based on programs that are rooted in student success,
both academically and socially. While many of the studies focus on higher education
in their research, the correlation between the college prep campus cultures at
Punahou School reflects that of a small college campus.

28
The purpose of this review of literature is to explore programs that are and
were successful, and how each was challenged. While Punahou School may not be
the same environment as in the studies, the strategies and models of success as
Padilla (2008) eludes to, provides a framework for successful programs, the faculty
who are connected to the program and the factors involved in creating a successful;
low-SES student in a high-achieving, college-going environment.
Factors Affecting College Access
There are five factors that affect college access, and each applies in particular
to low-SES students: access to information, parental or adult mentor involvement
and knowledge about college, social support and cultural capital, academic
preparation, and financial aid (Martinez, 2005). The Pathways Project further
identified several factors that explain why low-SES students are less likely to enroll
in college: less demanding high school curricula, less likelihood of being in a
college-preparatory or accelerated track, fewer financial resources, a lack of college
financial aid to sufficiently address need, less qualified high school teachers and
counselors, lack of access to college planning information because of social or
linguistic barriers, and less exposure to information regarding college access
opportunities (Pathways to College Network, 2004). The framework for this study
will focus on the adult mentor involvement combined with social support and
cultural capital.
To provide a framework of post-secondary educational success, both
academic and social success models should be used. Starting in the student’s first

29
year in secondary school, a framework for a high-achieving college-going
environment should be introduced. For low-SES students, transitioning into this
environment is a challenge. Most programs with low-SES students transitioning from
one academic environment to another rely heavily on the framework of social
integration outlined by Tinto’s (2006), which focuses on how the student can adapt
to the existing higher education system. If the goal is to attain academic and social
success through secondary school, and in post-secondary education, the transition
periods between schools are key. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfe (1986) used
Tinto’s model to study the effectiveness of transition programs to schools in
increasing social integration. The results were positive, as social integration and
commitment to the institution were correlated to the orientation program
participation. Tinto’s (1989) landmark content analysis primarily focused on student
departure from college, but has implications to student access as well because it
implies that students have difficulty integrating into a new environment, particularly
in their first year. Further, Tinto (1993, p. 81) identified student departure as taking
two forms, academic dismissal and voluntary withdrawal. Only 15 to 25 percent of
all institutional departures come as a result of academic failure. The remaining 75 to
85 percent come as a result of voluntary withdrawal. Tinto’s model proposes that
individuals enter institutions of education with a range of differing family and
community backgrounds (e.g. social status, parental education), a variety of personal
attributes (e.g. sex, race), skills (social, intellectual), financial resources, dispositions
(e.g. motivations, political references), and various types of precollege educational

30
experiences and achievements. These attributes are filtered through the students’
commitment to the institution and their personal goal to graduate. Each attribute is
posited as having a direct impact upon departure from college. Utilizing Tinto’s
framework, programs are suggested to focus on assisting low-income students by
familiarizing them with the college-going environment.
Astin’s (1975) theory of student involvement focuses on the interactions a
student has within the environment. Astin defines involvement as the amount of
physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic
experience” and states that the amount of involvement increases learning and
personal development. Astin (1999) later referred to the quantity and quality of the
energy students invent in the academic experience. This involvement may include
participation in extra-curricular activities, interaction with faculty, or understanding
the academic workload. If the expectation of the students is portrayed as focusing on
the student being involved, on their own, the transition program and the institution is
perpetuating a lack of cultural awareness that has already been cited as problematic.
Tierney (1992) has argued that while Tinto incorporates factors such as
family income and student background, he has used the information to develop
general theories that do not focus on individual circumstances and needs. Although
many programs have responded to the needs of students, education systems should
move to a more student-centered position, which is more closely aligned with the
framework of social construction (Bourdieu, 1984). Tierney (1992) has incorporated
this framework in a cultural approach that analyzes student participation in college

31
settings. He argues that conforming to the postsecondary design is the responsibility
of the individual, whose success depends on how well he or she can integrate to the
existing college culture. Tierney goes on to emphasize that college culture is not one
and all encompassing, but rather a collection of many cultural groups that are often
left unidentified as individual entities. The theory of social construction therefore
does not simply state that there is one mainstream culture in which students should
assimilate to, but rather that the high-achieving academic culture is a construction of
the students who enroll. While the setting of “college” is used, the theoretical
framework should be used in secondary schools as well, specifically college-going
environments like Punahou School, for underrepresented low-SES students on its
campus. Underrepresented students face not only the challenge of assimilating to this
high achieving, college-going culture; a culture that is foreign to them, but also they
are challenged with cultivating their own cultural identity within that existing
culture. Steele (2009) points to building self-identity as crucial for these students in
particular, in environments providing social barriers on campus. Steele defines these
barriers as stereotype threats. Low-SES students should be equipped with the support
in order to take on this challenge of navigating through a high-achieving
environment, while simultaneously maintaining their own cultural integrity.
Social Support - Cultural Connectedness
Before high schools spread across America, many public and private
universities and colleges had their own preparatory programs. Students often enter
these programs after completing elementary school or middle school. But secondary

32
schools in the nineteenth century were institutions that generally trained youths to
attend university. They often prepped pupils to pass the entrance examination of the
local private college or the state university, if it had one. High schools were
reinvented beginning in the late nineteenth century to be places of practical and
applied learning. This change in educational philosophy was intended to provide
students with a new definition on success; to enter institutions of higher education.
However, this created change not only for the diverse student population, but also for
the educators and the institution. Further schools were needed to nurture students,
and for social support.
This section explores the issue of change within educational institutions,
primarily with a change in educational culture and philosophy towards promoting the
social supports for student success. Diverse student populations and the
socioeconomic demographics of the school environment results in culture change
within the institution. The framework for why the social support takes place is
layered in accountability of the institution and the organizational culture for students
to be successful.
Social Support in Schools
Astin (1984) suggests an organizational and institutional structure, which
focuses on subject matter (curriculum), resources (infrastructure), and the individual
student (sociocultural). Rueda and Dembo (1995) define student success through two
lenses within two theoretical frameworks, Mastery (sociocultural) and Performance
(cognitive). Their studies present dual theoretical frameworks, however, their

33
research indicates a strong relationship between the two frameworks, especially for
low-SES language and ethnic minority students. An educational institution, whose
population is of high achievement, the sociocultural and cognitive framework Rueda
and Dembo (1995) present, lends itself to a change within the organizational
structure for the academic and social supports for success of low-SES students.
Students are both recipients of institutional influence and also a source of
influence on each other (i.e., the peer group). This is consistent with the concept that
organizations, and the individuals within these organizations, simultaneously
influence and are influenced by their environment (Astin, 1984). Similarly, the
importance of both formal and informal organizational structural elements (akin to
structural vs. cultural elements) as expressed in “modern” structural organizational
theory (Bolman & Deal, 2001), is reflected in the view that student outcomes can be
influenced both by formal structures (e.g., programs and faculty) and by informal
structures (e.g., the peer group).
Providing an organizational construct for low-SES students to a culture of
academic and social success should be presented as a solution to educational and
social issues. Dika and Singh (2002), focused on the works of Coleman (1987) and
Bourdieu (1982) on social capital applications to educational institutions. Bourdieu
proposes that the volume of social capital an individual possesses is dependent on the
person’s social network. The volume of capital – economic, cultural, and symbolic –
possessed by each person connected with, determines social capital volume.
Coleman’s views social capital as intangible, having three forms: 1) level of trust, 2)

34
information channels, and 3) norms and sanctions that promote common good. The
academic supports for new students, especially low-SES students, contribute to
building a student’s social capital volume, specifically in terms of academic and
social success and high school preparedness.
Supporting low-SES students as they transition to a new high school is
challenging, and must be a focus. Increased academic requirements and an increase
of students failing to enroll in two-year or four-year colleges (Lillard & DeCicca,
1997) can be rooted in the first year of high school. Thus, the expectation of
providing academic and social success is heightened. The transition to high school
(Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994), may be both challenging and
disruptive to the self-system and to social relationships, especially for low-SES
students to a high-achieving environment, placing youth who do not successfully
negotiate this transition at increased risk for long-term negative developmental
outcomes (Seidman, Aber & French, 1996). When students transition to high school,
the focus of learning shifts from participation to performance, which is difficult for
many students (Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005). This type of challenge contributes to
student disengagement. Low-SES students attending an institution where the
majority of students come from the high-SES levels or high-SES environments,
presents a number of educational challenges not available at institutions that enroll
students from the lower SES levels (Astin, 1993).

35
Family Support
Stanton-Salazar (1997) notes that all children, regardless of background,
bring cultural knowledge, information used in households and community for
success everyday. However, structural advantages exist for middle-SES and high-
SES children, in terms of cultural knowledge to succeed (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). For
low–SES students to attain success, they need to decode the system through social
and academic mobilization of mentors and faculty members at a large organization
(such as Punahou School). In high-achieving, college-going environments, the
sociocultural and cognitive theoretical frameworks (Rueda & Dembo, 1995) must be
used as a “hybrid” design (Cuban, 1998). This suggests that there is no specific
structure to use for all settings, rather the sociocultural aspects of students’ lives
must be taken into account. In terms of transitioning to a new educational
environment, programs designed to find academic and social success must have the
organizational framework to allow institutional structures and pedagogy to have
converging perspectives with the students’ lives. This design of a program to support
students and build their capital takes place, both at school, and at home. Family
engagement, and supporting the social success of students at home and school is an
important factor in maintaining the social network of the students.
Increasingly, researchers examine educational processes, including academic
achievement, in relation to socioeconomic background (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,
1997; Coleman, 1988). SES incorporates parental income, parental education, and
parental occupation as the three main indicators (NCREL, 2006). Many empirical

36
studies examining the relations among these components found correlations, but
more important, these studies showed that each component of SES is unique and
measures a substantially different and important aspect (Hauser & Huang, 1997).
Parental income reflects the potential for social and economic resources that are
available to the student. Parental education is typically established at an early age
and tends to remain the same over time. Moreover, parental education is an indicator
of parent’s income because income and education are highly correlated in the United
States (Hauser & Warren, 1997). The third traditional SES component, occupation, is
ranked on the basis of the education and income required to have a particular
occupation (Hauser, 1994). A fourth indicator, home resources, is not used as
commonly as the other three main indicators. In recent years, however, researchers
have emphasized the significance of various home resources as indicators of family
SES background (Coleman, 1988; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). These resources
include household possessions such as books, computers, and a study room, as well
as the availability of educational services.
Within our schools, these resources should be available for those who do not
have these possessions if they lead to indicators for further academic success. The
idea that it is a shared responsibility, between school and the student’s home for
solidifying academic and social success in school is critical. Chickering’s (2006)
study of American colleges and universities, focused on the idea that “every students
can learn,” six characteristics or preexisting conditions effective educational
institutions have. The six conditions Chickering says would be evident at strong

37
performing programs are: 1) a “living” mission and a lived educational philosophy,
2) an unshakable focus on student learning, 3) environments adapted for educational
enrichment, 4) clearly marked pathways to student success, 5) an improvement-
oriented ethos, and 6) shared responsibility for educational quality and student
success. Corwin et al. (2005) states that family engagement is critical in college
preparation programs and an integral part of a social support network that will help
students gain college access. In a 1999 survey that involved 1,110 college
preparation programs nationwide, 69% of all programs involved parents and 22% of
all programs mandate parental involvement (Swail & Perna, 2002). Of those
programs that involve parents, 58% provide information to the parents that reinforces
that college is possible for their child and 51% of the programs request that parents
participate in activities with the student. It was also noted that 27% of all programs
found that coordinating with parents was at least somewhat of a problem or an area
requiring additional resources. The survey shows that parental involvement is a
common theme in over half of the programs surveyed, but it does not inform if
stakeholders perceived parental involvement to be helpful, nor does it show what the
specific problems with involving parents were.
The most important social spheres for children and youth are the extended
family, the school, community organizations (e.g. the church), and the peer group
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Low-SES students at Punahou School need to know how to
access and use the academic and social structures in the school to support their
academic and social emotional needs. The knowledge of capital, motivation for

38
attaining it, and cultural acceptance of transitioning to a new academic culture, leads
to the primary purpose of the Bridge Program. Underlying reforms designed to raise
student achievement are two diverse approaches that focus on supporting low-SES
students. One uses a social support approach and focuses on the role of schools in
providing affective connections among their members and with the broader adult
community (Anson et al., 1991; Noddings, 1988). A second centers on academic
achievement. It emphasizes strict adherence to codes and values of academic
performance, typically in a more competitive than cooperative environment (Phillips,
1997). Although these two means to improve children's learning are not necessarily
contradictory, they are commonly presented as competing ideologies (Shouse, 1996).
While both are important aspects of success in the educational pipeline, the first
notion will be a focus in this study.
A Sociocultural Perspective
The Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) article, The Effects of Poverty on
Children, examined longitudinal studies in children in families with low income
(below the national poverty line). These students scored 6 and 13 points lower on
various IQ, verbal ability, and achievement tests, administered by schools.
Furthermore, they found that even those children in families, closer to, but still
below the poverty line consistently did worse in IQ, verbal ability assessments, and
achievement tests, than those from higher-income families. According to the study,
unclear understanding of the social and academic constructs needed to support low-
SES students challenges educational institutions. Programs attempting to ease

39
academic challenges and increase the potential for success of low SES students and
further their educational endeavors.
According to Tierney and Jun (2001), programs in which mentors provide
support for building a student's social and academic success is necessary. For low-
SES students who do not know how to achieve academic and social success need an
organizational structure, and social support. Tierney and Jun (2001) examined how
connections (social networking) were made with students in one program - the
Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) - and how those connections can have an
impact beyond a student’s higher educational aspirations. Students thrived in the
environment of the program that occurred “outside” of school hours and on the
weekends, which had implications socially and the students could see the economic
impact in the future as well. For this to occur, Tierney and Jun state it is important to
realize “extended” programs need to be in place to have students build their self-
concept, then transition to a new academic culture. The students had a group to have
a cultural identity with, yet had their mentors to build a social network for social
capital.
With an understanding that the social spheres of the student are indeed an
integral part of academic and social success at school, the organization should
structure itself to allow this ideology to play out in the programs the school develops.
Programs then, would then be based in a sociocultural model, in which the student’s
lives are taken into account. The theoretical perspective of sociocultural goals, are
based in Bronfenbrenner’s ecocultural niche (Weisner, 1984). According to Weisner

40
(1984), ecocultural niche is defined as the ecology of child development, and the
sociocultural environment surrounding the child, at home and at school. Niche is
referred to as the context or setting of the child as it evolves through time, and
further refers to the environment and social structure of the child. This theoretical
perspective, along with the theoretical framework of Stanton-Salazar (1997),
suggesting the importance of mentoring students to meet their performance goals and
understand how the social network can, ultimately help to develop positive academic
and social growth. Creating an environment, where educational prowess and internal
motivation for students is a goal, appears critical. Modeling these behaviors for
students is key. Students need to understand how to access social capital and
maintain it themselves through mentorship. Encouraging and supporting social and
cultural identity parallels this structure. In gathering self-knowledge, students
explore interest skills and values (Makela, 2006). For low-achieving students,
structuring access to social capital through academic and social constructs within
their concept of school provides an avenue for acceptance of this framework. As
Cummins (1986) noted, organizational structures must address a central role of three
exclusive sets of interactions or power relationships in order to have a positive
impact on the social success of low-SES students: 1) knowledge, 2) power, and 3)
identity.
Programs for Success
Tinto and Goodsell (1993) suggest learning communities for students in high
achieving environments must be on-going. For students making a transition to

41
colleges and universities, pre-college courses and orientation courses are offered to
make the transitions appropriate, both for social and academic success. The culture
of the educational community shapes the norms and organizational goals, as it
pertains to each student, both high and low achieving.
This section draws upon Tinto and Goodsell’s (1993) suggestion of learning
communities, through specific school-based programs to guide low-SES students in
achieving academic and social success is the focus of this section. The literature is
based on programs that are rooted in student success for college-access and college
success, and how it can be transcended towards low-SES students in a high-SES
academic environment in secondary schools. This section of the review of literature
explores programs that are and were successful, and how each was challenged.
While Punahou may not be the same environment in the studies, the strategies and
models of success as Padilla (2008) alludes to, provides a framework for successful
programs.
Academic and Social Success through the Pipeline
The current economic instability will challenge just about every public and
private sector institution in America. Schools are no exception: big deficits and tight
budgets are likely to mean that spending on schools will not rise in the near future
(Goldhaber, 1999). Without such support, the current system is likely to produce an
end to the pipeline, which reaches to and beyond postsecondary education.
Specifically hurt, are children of low-SES (socioeconomic status) backgrounds in
schools that do not have the resources necessary for innovative programs (Sirin,

42
2005). Economists have contributed to this idea on the impact of education on low-
SES education, examining the role played by schools and labor market outcomes
(Currie & Madrian, 1999). Currie and Madrian (1999) link education to positive
labor market outcomes for individuals. Their research suggests that lack of effective
education for low-SES students will not allow for the opportunity to remove
themselves from this status group after high school. To facilitate this, there have
been many interventions in public schools that have successfully improved the
educational achievement in these areas. For example, small school and class size
(Glass & Smith, 1989), early childhood education, federal programs such as Title 1,
U.S. Department of Education’s TRIO programs, Head Start programs, A-Plus after
school programs and summer school sessions (Entwisle & Alexander, 1994), all have
been found to be important factors in propelling students through the educational
pipeline through postsecondary education in our public schools. However, “leaks” in
the pipeline occur due to foreseen, and unforeseen factors, or barriers, that inhibit the
success of students through the pipeline (Padilla, 2008).
Within the “leak” of postsecondary access, namely underrepresented low-
SES students, there is a multitude of components that are in need of research. One
common component of these programs is that they have made an effort to promote
more equitable access to postsecondary education by encouraging underrepresented
and low-SES students to attend college. These programs stem from federal
government initiatives, postsecondary institutions, the community, and occasionally
from within the secondary school system itself, and provide services for

43
underrepresented students to gain college access (Swail, 2001). These programs are
designed to provide students with personal guidance and information essential to
academically and socially prepare for, and find success in college. According to
Rainwater and Venezia (2003), the most successful programs share key components,
including a focus on the individual, engagement of young people in the context of
their own culture, access to information that emphasizes the importance and
attainability of postsecondary education, information on the academic standards
required at each step of the process, and high-quality teaching and coaching
throughout. Federally funded programs, however, cannot be the "end all" to facilitate
an educated population. Private and independent schools can facilitate the public
purpose of the pipeline as well.
Effective programs are framed within the appropriate social and cultural
contexts of the students served. Hagedorn and Tierney (2002) state that programs
within college-going environments have assumed a deficit model, where the students
have to overcome insufficient funds to pay for college, insufficient academic
preparation, and insufficient understanding of the world of higher education in order
to succeed. They discuss the idea of “cultural capital” and how equipping students
with capital is essential for transition programs to succeed. They also examine
cultural awareness that is away from assimilation, and taking into account individual
student’s cultures. Villalpando and Solorzano (2005) found that college preparation
programs framed by a focus on cultural wealth and academic skills development
could have a substantial impact on college enrollment rates of underrepresented

44
students. They recommend that programs should be tailored to students’ needs and
provide a diverse array of components to meet those needs.
One of the areas, in a social context, that students’ need in the school setting
to feel successful is through the interpersonal relationships they build, specifically
through their peers. In their study of peer influence in relation to academic
performance and socialization among adolescents, Dembo (2004) examined
adolescents and peer influence in decision-making, specifically towards academic
performance and socialization in college-going environments. The study uncovered
two areas within a social capital framework. First, adolescents were challenged in
decision-making and need support and mentorship to have a clear understanding of
building a social network. This component of social support, specifically through
peers, in a high-achieving college going environment, is important for the students to
feel connected to the school, and to guide them in their post-secondary educational
goals.
Models for success (Padilla, 2008) are essential, and providing a structure to
support adolescents in the constructs of socialization and academic performance in
school was needed. Stanton-Salazar (1997) noted the importance of developing a
framework for students that do not have the social and academic structure for
success. Second, understanding the importance of peer influence provides rationale
for structures for students to engage in social and academic settings, for social and
academic success. Tinto and Goodsell (1993) offer insight into structures for
providing transitions to this structure for low-SES students entering a university

45
setting. In their first year, freshmen enrolled in interest groups develop transitioning
and management skills in adjusting socially and academically to a new educational
setting. These groups focus on minimizing dropout rates and maximizing retention.
However, the social network built, called Freshman Interest Group (FIGs), falls short
of providing social identity, focusing only on social capital. As stated by Tierney and
Jun (2001), the cultural identity must be developed for students to have a sense of
their own cultural knowledge before beginning to access social norms in another
environment, like a high-achieving, college-going environment. Tinto and Goodsell
point to institutional anxiety for this program from faculty and students and hi-lights
the importance of a “complete” program, versus one focusing only on learning
outcomes. Even secondary schools should structure clubs or organizations that allow
students to build a connection to the school. Dembo and Howard (2004) earlier
alluded to the point that peer influence pays a key role in academic and social
decision-making (i.e. post-secondary education).
Punahou School’s college campus environment allows for correlations to be
made with studies at post-secondary institutions. In a study at Assumption College,
Fernandez, Whitlock, et. al. (1998) examined a first year pilot program for
academically underprepared students. The student population for the study was based
on low SAT scores (verbal below 407, math below 418, total below 825) and high
school ranking. The college created an academic support program through the first
year of the students’ acceptance. The focus of the program was to improve retention,
academic achievement, and student satisfaction. The forty-nine under prepared

46
students enrolled together in a cohort. The students made gains academically, even
though they were taking courses that required increased levels of writing. Each
student was assigned a faculty mentor to support them academically, and assist
students in all areas of their transition to college. This study did uncover flaws in the
student evaluation of the program in terms of the social aspects of their relationship
with their mentor. The study examined the students’ breakthroughs and failures;
however, the study could also include failures of the structure, within the framework.
Soussou’s (1995) study of a program in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, of 180
students in a summer enrichment program further examines the limitations of
transition programs for low–SES students in a social capital framework. The
program called ‘Gain the Edge’ is a summer enrichment program for low-income
high school students for Pine Crest School (an independent school in Ft. Lauderdale,
FL). ‘Gain the Edge’ summer program was developed to reinforce the pleasure of
learning, self-discipline, and allow students to have individual attention in an
educational setting. Success of the students beyond the six-week program was not
apparent. A summer program to enrich children does not provide continuity through
the academic years to develop a social and academic success. A limiting program
geared towards low-SES students, without having a larger perspective, which
includes the social and economic needs of students, limits the benefits of the
population focused on. The performance gaps were explicit, in terms of the low–SES
students and the “regular students” were the reason ‘Gain the Edge’ program was
needed at the Pine Crest School. The motivation of developing a pleasure of learning

47
and self-discipline was the missing learning trait of the students in the program that
needed development.
Low–SES students enrolled in schools with a high-achieving academic
culture, cannot rely on programs or mentoring alone to support academic and social
engagement (Astin, 1984). Nor can the institutions or educational organizations rely
on the classroom teacher alone to provide academic, social, emotional, and cultural
knowledge and support (cite). The problems that exist is further steps towards
finding success for this particular population, must specifically support low-SES
students to transition into, and find academic and social success through their time at
school. These programs suggest models of success (Padilla, 2008) in which programs
for students have guided the transition from one culture to another, within the
context of education. The models outline rationale for programs, and the framework
in which positive outcomes for low-SES students in various institutions have the
potential to achieve.
Bridging Low-SES Students
Since 1841, Punahou has prepared high-achieving students for college and
for developing their academic and social minds (Punahou School, 2008). Through its
first one hundred sixty years, the school has maintained its status as a successful
academic institution, with over 90% of its graduates attending four-year colleges and
universities. According to the College Counseling Department (Punahou School,
2008), the graduating class of 2009 will have 95 percent of its graduates attend four-
year colleges/universities in the 2009-10 academic year. Over the past decade, there

48
has been much effort from the school’s administration to change the diversity of its
student population, through the admissions and financial aid department, in
considering more students from low-SES families who do not or would not
otherwise have the academic, social, or financial opportunities to attend Punahou.
This decision would provide an opportunity for access to high-level education to all
students that can qualify – meaning qualifying scores on the SSAT (Secondary
Schools Admissions Test), previous school record (report cards, letter of
recommendations), and a personal interview with a writing sample. The concurrent
challenge then lies within the academic culture of the school. Punahou is striving to
diversify the student population, to reflect the ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic
population of Hawaii, however, Punahou must still maintain the high-level of
academic and social success its graduates have enjoyed over the past two centuries
(Punahou School, 2008).
Traditionally, Punahou School has been deemed as having a high
achieving/high socioeconomic population. Families with high-SES often have more
success in preparing their young children for school because they typically have
access to a wide range of resources to promote and support young children's
development. This study determines the need for academic support for low-SES
students within this generally high-achieving environment Punahou now strives
towards focusing its academic resources to a student population that is a high
achieving, diverse SES school. The addition of a higher percentage of low-SES
students (11% receiving financial aid in 2008-09 school year) is the new piece –

49
Punahou has admitted them but hasn’t thought about the implications for a different
kind of support that might be needed for student social success beyond the
classroom, or graduation (Tierney & Jun, 2001). Furthermore, determining who is
accountable for the success of this particular population is a question of itself.
Over the past decade, there has been much effort from the school’s
administration to change the diversity of its student population, through the
admissions and financial aid department, in considering more students from low-SES
families who do not or would not otherwise have the academic, social, or financial
opportunities to attend Punahou School. In developing a wider pool of applicants, the
hope has been to identify, admit, and support a relatively small percentage of
students who have high academic promise, but who are low SES. Within Punahou,
this is roughly 3-5% of a given class.
In 2003, Punahou promoted a program for newly accepted students,
identified with social and academic challenges (low-SES), focusing on academic and
social transitions. The intent of the Bridge Program provided an academic foundation
for the students, specifically within the technology portion of the school curriculum
and its laptop program. In addition, it provided socialization among the students
because of the collaborative environment of the pedagogy. Because the population of
the program was newly admitted students, the focus on transitions to a new academic
and social culture of Punahou School was an important facet of the curriculum and
context of the teaching and learning in the course.

50
Students in this program became familiar with the use of technology in the
classroom, developed a familiarity with the structures of the school, began
relationships with peers, and had a social awareness of the school. While a number
of faculty members at Punahou were involved in developing the rationale of the
program and the desired outcomes of the students, data collected in a manner that
took narratives from students during the course, and the overall perception from the
class was positive. The current Bridge Program intends to focus on the transitions
approximately 15 new students accepted to the school. Because of the continued
support for the Bridge Program, and the fact that transitions for new students are
important to the school, the institution will continue to support the program.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) points to mentors as agents within the social network
of an organization, and these agents have vital roles in the success of students. The
agents play a decisive role in raising students, specifically with low-SES students.
Chin’s social reproduction model (2000) highlights Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of
reproduction of social subjects as a valuable conceptual tool for understanding the
roles of schools, families and churches in developing or enduring self and other
identities. Furthermore, the role of mentors for modeling and reproducing student
success is vital in Chin’s theoretical framework for succeeding in an academic
culture, foreign to the student. The underlying goal is having students build a sense
of self, which is vital especially for the low-SES population striving for success in a
high-achieving, college-going environment. Further, the social stigma (Steele, 2009)

51
of being in the Bridge Program can influence the, not only the perception of social
standing in school, but also create a perceptions of “self” in school.
Defining success through the student’s belief in self, and motivation to
achieve, is the backdrop for both cognitive and sociocultural frameworks in success.
Having a strong sense of self, and a strong motivation to achieve, creates a sense of
achievement for the student (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Much like
Garrison’s (1997) self-directed learning model, learners need to “take control” and
develop a sense of “social independence or freedom from influence” (p. 114) to
succeed. Self-concept can be rooted within Maslow’s theory of motivation (1973,
1987, in Omrond, 2008), and has been a central aspect of humanism, which focuses
on how individuals acquire emotions, attitudes, values, and interpersonal skills.
Maslow reminds us that self-actualization, which is rarely ever achieved, is the
hierarchical epitome of success, in terms of the hierarchy of needs, which is
intrinsically motivating. This intrinsic motivation and need for competence, “is the
belief one can deal effectively with the overall environment” (Omrond, 2008).
Punahou School must strive to be a viable member of the community.
Programs, which expand access to rich resources through its Bridge Program, will
allow Punahou to work within Hawaii’s educational system, and provide more
students with the opportunities for post-secondary education. Historical perspectives,
especially one rooted deep in tradition for over one hundred sixty years, is difficult to
change, however, the greater the academic and social success of all the students in
the school, the greater the role the school can play in bypassing the leaky pipeline.

52
Conclusions of Literature Review
The college access gap has remained stagnant for low-income and first-
generation students (Mortenson, 2001a; Horn and Nuñez 2000). The factors that
contribute to this gap include access to information, social support and cultural
capital, academic preparation, and financial aid (Martinez, 2005). The Bridge
Program at Punahou School focuses on postsecondary access, targeting the social
support and cultural capital of the students directly, and indirectly addressing access
to information and academic preparation. The program has shown signs of success
in increasing postsecondary access, but there is a limited understanding of why this
type of success is occurring (Constantine et al., 2006; Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto,
2008b; Richards, 2008). Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) work with the AVID program
notes that all children, regardless of background, bring cultural knowledge,
information used in households and community for success everyday. The Bridge
Program models itself with these ideas in mind, however, the perceptions of the
Bridge Program students revealed a much deeper perspective on the college-going
pipeline. The structural advantages (social and academic) which exist for middle-
SES and high-SES children, in terms of cultural knowledge to succeed (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997) for college access and completion is part of the goal for the Bridge
Program as well, yet the challenges for low–SES students to attain success, they need
to decode the system through social and academic mobilization of mentors and
faculty members at a large organization (such as Punahou School) is the barrier.

53
This study examined the perceptions of the faculty and staff at the school
regarding The Bridge Program, and the programs effectiveness, to improve the
partnerships between the students and schools, with the intent of increasing
underrepresented students’ access to postsecondary education.
In summary, the balanced broad based educational systems at Punahou
School, where academic and social success are equal factors in teaching and
learning, and the academic and social norms of the individual students is taken into
account, is the goal. A prospective look at academic and social success for a
changing, diverse student population allows school leaders to have an ideology to not
compromise the academic freedom given to professors and teachers, yet have them
be accountable for the low-SES students in their classroom. Astin (1984) suggests an
organizational framework, focusing on subject matter (curriculum), resources
(infrastructure), and the individual student (sociocultural), especially when a broad
spectrum of students (diverse population) are the focal point. Students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds, in one school, pose academic and social hurdles, within
an organizational construct, to a point at which finding success in these two areas are
challenging.
Based on these studies, it will be important to investigate low-SES students in
a high-achieving environment. In Chapter Three, a cross-sectional design of study is
reviewed, as it was central in determining the effect of environmental variables
(school culture, academic expectations, sociocultural affects) in a college-going
environment, on low-SES students at Punahou School. Punahou’s Bridge Program,

54
and the faculty directly, and indirectly, associated with the program was the focus of
study in determining, 1) the effectiveness of the organizational structures Punahou
facilitates to transition low-SES students, and 2) the extent to which relationships
between Punahou faculty, programs and peers provided a culture of college-going
for low-SES students to be academically and socially successful through its Bridge
Program.

55
Chapter Three
Research Design and Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine if the effectiveness of the
educational organization provides to meet the social needs of a diverse student
population, particularly low-SES students in a high-achieving, college-going
environment. In the past, Punahou School has been successful in meeting the
academic and social needs of the students from high-achieving backgrounds,
however, the diverse population the school (increase in low-SES students), calls for a
new purpose of education at this college prep school: educating all students.
This study focused on how the Bridge Program at Punahou School builds
individual social and academic success through postsecondary education, in the
context of its high academic culture. The school has always focused on preparing
students for postsecondary education. The challenge exists in preparing all its
students, from all socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. This study
examined the effectiveness of the program in meeting the academic and social needs
of a diverse student population, within a sociocultural and cognitive framework.
In this chapter, the research design and the specific methodology employed to
answer the question regarding the social success of low-SES students in a high-
achieving college-going environment are described. First, the rationale for selecting
the research design, and the strategy for implementing the methodology are
discussed. Secondly, the site and sample of the study is described. Third, a descriptor
of the methodology and data collection is given. Lastly, a description of the

56
researcher bias, limitations, the reliability of the data, and the ethical concerns that
arose is reviewed.
The Design
This study was an investigation of low-SES students in a high-achieving,
college-going environment. The design of this study was central in determining the
effect of environmental variables (school support, academic expectations,
sociocultural affects) in a high-achieving environment, on low-SES students.
Punahou’s Bridge Program students and the faculty, directly and indirectly
associated with the program, is the focus.
The research questions for this study are:
1. From a student’s perspective, how effective is the organizational
structures at Punahou School, in facilitating college access for low-SES
students in a college-going environment?
2. From a student’s perspective, to what extent do the relationships between
students, faculty, and within the Bridge Program provide an
organizational construct for low-SES students to be academically and
socially successful?
This section provides an overview of the choice made in the design of the study, the
strengths and weaknesses of the design, and the assumptions in theory.
Qualitative Research Design
Qualitative research can produce descriptions or explanations (Patton, 2002).
It aims to ‘give voice’ to those whose accounts tend to be marginalized or

57
discounted. It can aim to interpret what people have said in order to explain why they
may have said it. It can aim to make links between micro-processes, such as teacher–
student communication, and macro-structures, such as economic and social relations.
It may be designed to capture the subjective ‘feel’ of a particular experience or
condition, or it may wish to identify recurring patterns of experience among a group
of people.
Qualitative researchers define their work in many ways. Definitions range
from, “any kind of research that produces findings that are not arrived at by means of
statistical procedures or other means” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.17) to descriptive
definitions such as “a research paradigm, which emphasizes inductive, interpretive
methods applied to the everyday world, which is seen as subjective and socially
created” (Anderson, 1987, p. 384). Finally, Patton (2002) describes qualitative
research as findings that grow out of a range of data collection protocols, including:
1) in-depth open-ended interviews and 2) focus group discussions.
Qualitative researchers tend to be concerned with meaning. That is, they are
interested in how people make sense of the world and how they experience events.
They aim to understand ‘what it is like’ to experience particular conditions (e.g. what
it means and how it feels to live with chronic illness or to be unemployed) and how
people manage certain situations (e.g. how people negotiate family life or relations
with work colleagues). Qualitative researchers tend, therefore, to be concerned with
the quality and texture of experience, rather than with the identification of cause–
effect relationships. They do not tend to work with ‘variables’ that are defined by the

58
researcher before the research process begins. This is because qualitative researchers
tend to be interested in the meanings attributed to events by the research participants
themselves (Willig, 2001).
Theses methodologies used in this study were effective, because the “stories”
that were important to tell. Each individual Bridge Program student who was part of
the study had their perspective on the social successes and challenges encountered at
Punahou School. Answering the question, “What was it like?” could only be
completed through this methodology.
Site and Sample
Bridge Program at Punahou School
The intent of the Bridge Program is to provide an academic foundation for
the students, specifically aimed at transitioning students (academically and socially)
from their previous school, to a high-SES, academic culture. In addition, the program
aims at providing socialization among the students because of the collaborative
environment of the pedagogy. Because the population of the course is newly
admitted students, with academic and social transition needs, the focus on transitions
to a new academic and social culture of Punahou School is an important facet of the
curriculum and context of the teaching and learning in the program. According to the
program descriptor:
This course is for students who will be new to Punahou School …Students
will develop, research, and share their own unique experiences with each
other. Through this process, students will be introduced to the academic skills
they will use through high school, and reinforcing practices they can apply in

59
all subject areas. Research, study and organization skills will also be
reinforced.

Students in this program strive to become familiar with the academic and
social culture of the school, develop a familiarity with the structures of the school,
begin relationships with peers within the program, and have a social awareness of the
school. A number of faculty members at Punahou School were involved in
developing the rationale of the program, at its conception, create the desired
outcomes of the students and provided clarity for the intended outcomes of the
ultimate goal, which is student success. Familiarity of the students in the Bridge
Program, who participated in the study, and the teachers who have these students in
their classroom was necessary to have clarity about the study.
Sample Group: Bridge Program Students
Criterion sampling is described by Patton (2002) as a study of “all cases that
meet some sort of predetermined criterion of importance” (p. 238). Criterion
sampling was chosen for this study because the participants have to meet the criteria
of the Punahou School faculty/staff and of the student participants in the Bridge
Program. The students in the study were selected by the Bridge Program faculty.
The first step of collecting data was to interview the freshman Bridge
Program students, and use their data much like a pilot study. This included the
instruments of the pre-interview questionnaire which was developed utilizing
researcher-selected questions that were based upon the literature provided in chapter
two. The freshman study analysis was then conducted, after which adjustments in

60
the instrument and design was implemented accordingly. The finalized instruments
were then used to collect data through an upperclassman interview process that was
coded, analyzed, and reported.
Among the 54 Bridge Program students in the 2009-10 school year, 14
freshamen students in the Bridge Program were selected for the freshmen study, of
which, 10 out of the 14 were primarily female and they varied in age from 14-15
years. The sample group was made up of students from varied classes (Freshmen and
Sophomore). These statistics presented do not fully depict the average student gender
ratio in the Bridge Program at Punahou School. These statistics only present a
framework for having clarity about the typical student in the Bridge Program. The
sample was selected for the study to validate the questions from the questionnaire,
and to filter the questions on the questionnaire to use for the primary interview.
Methodology
According to Patton (2002), doctors who look only at test results and don’t
also listen to their patients are making judgments with inadequate knowledge, and
vise versa. Qualitative methods facilitate a study on in-depth issues and allow for
descriptive detail and account of specific programs or institutions. This section’s
purpose is to provide detail about the methodology of the research on low-SES
students, including the process conducted the study. The students interviewed were
divided into two groups, Freshmen Group and Upperclassmen Group. The Freshmen
Group was interviewed using a protocol in which two or three students were
interviewed together. The Upperclassmen Group interview was completed using an

61
individual semi-structured interview protocol. The survey instruments for the two
groups are also discussed and a rationale behind their design, content and theoretical
framework is presented. Data analysis of the survey results, as well as descriptions of
the faculty who participated in the study is provided.
Freshmen Group
Kamehameha Schools (Honolulu, Hawaii) Strategic Planning and
Implementation (SPI) Group developed a project called Hawaiian Cultural
Influences in Education (HCIE). The HCIE study involved ongoing research that
assesses the effects of culture-based educational strategies on the outcomes of Native
Hawaiian students. A common research question of the HCIE study was (Appendix
D): “What kinds of teaching strategies are being used in Hawaii classrooms?”
(Ledward & Takayama, 2008). The SPI group used a 70-question survey called the
Culture Based Education Instructor Tool. Using this tool as a foundation for creating
questions based on college access, and examining low-SES students in a high-
achieving, college-going environment, the intent was to incorporate the use of two
qualitative methods of collecting data: survey and interview. While the focus of the
study was not based on cultural relevant pedagogy or curriculum, the social support
aspects of the instrument provided a framework for creating interview questions.
The fourteen Bridge Program freshman and sophomores, all in their first year
at Punahou) were asked to complete a Freshmen Questionnaire through an interview
(40 questions) based on the 70 questions, Kamehameha Schools survey. This group
interview was intended to find consistency and compare responses for reliability of

62
the questions used (Patton, 2002). This was done prior to collecting data regarding
the content and context, in which small groups (2-3) students, were together as part
of a focus group interview. This investigation was deemed as a pilot study because
the protocols for semi-structured individual interviews with the upperclassmen
would be based off the quality of questions with this group. The investigation of the
focus group’s perception of the instructional approaches by their teachers,
relationships with peers, and how they “fit in,” in the development of their academic
and social success was examined. Beyond the scope of the classroom, the students’
social success factors were a focus.
As stated in Chapter Two, Astin’s (1975) theory of student involvement
focuses on the interactions students have within their environment. Astin defines
involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student
devotes to the academic experience” and states that the amount of involvement
increases learning and personal development. The relationships students have with
their peers beyond the school-setting, and the adults in their academic life, all play a
role in the individuals social make up (Stanton-Salazar, 1995). Astin (1999) later
referred to the quantity and quality of the energy students invent in the academic
experience. This involvement may include participation in extra-curricular activities,
interaction with faculty, or understanding the academic workload and its impact on
social involvement. The questions directed at the focus group examined this facet of
the college-going environment.

63
Freshmen Questionnaire
The purpose of the Freshmen Questionnaire was to develop foundation for
student perspective. I wanted to compare student perspective with document
analysis. Further, developing a relationship with these first-year students was
important, and looking for the comfort level of the individuals with the particular
questions impacted the semi-structured interview questions with the Upperclassmen
Group.
The Freshmen Questionnaire was separated into two sections. The first asked
for demographic information (student perception) (questions 1 thru 6). In the second
section (table) participants were asked to complete a table (Appendix A) using the
directions provided:
First, of the following Bridge Program services, check off items that are
provided to high school participants. Second, think of the services that you
feel are effective at promoting college access for Bridge Program high school
participants that are either low-income, and/or first-generation. Please write
Y next to items that you feel are effective at promoting college access n the
last column, or an N to the items you feel are not effective. Third, please rank
the top four services from most effective in promoting college access to the
least effective with 1 being most effective.

The Freshmen Questionnaire was developed utilizing information gathered
from this study’s literature review that showed that access to information, social
support and cultural capital, academic preparation, and financial aid were the
primary factors that affect college access (Martinez, 2005). Questioning the
demographics of the freshman participants, provided responses determining the
starting point for the social network and social capital in their first year.

64
The second section of the questionnaire is the table focusing on the Bridge
program and the services provided by the program. The questions from the table
analyzing the services of the Bridge Program (Appendix B) were categorized by
factor that affects college access. Appendix B lists the services by research question.
Twelve services were categorized into two groups based on the focus of the question,
whether its focus is on research question one or research question two. This aided in
operationalizing the questionnaire, as it relates to the two research questions focusing
on the social success factors of college access, and made the data collected more
comparable in data analysis.
The literature review in chapter two showed the most common services
offered through the Bridge Program, and this list was utilized to help answer the
second research question, which is the evaluation of the perceptions of the program’s
effectiveness. The list includes effective measures such as counseling, academic
advising, mentoring programs, and workshops for participants’ families (Cahalan et
al., 2004; IES, 2006). Given the experiences of the student respondents, it can be
concluded that each of the individuals experience a number of barriers, which
preclude their current lives, and the expectations of the social supports needed in a
college-going environment. These barriers include parental and family education,
family pressures, and pressures in school to succeed. According to a recent study
(Padilla, 2008), these barriers (Appendix C) are the areas, which were factors in
student social successes in schools, thus were used as a template for the Bridge
Program students.

65
The Freshman Questionnaire utilized the range of services, both academic
and social (Appendix B), to ask participants to review the range of services the
Bridge Program could possibly provide, and if already evident, to state whether the
service was effective or not. Finally, students were asked to rank the effectiveness of
the services to obtain their perceptions of program effectiveness. This instrument
was chosen to operationalize the perception of effectiveness, in terms of the services
that the Bridge Program provides.
Data Collection of Freshmen Questionaire
The freshman students were part of a focus group and their data was collected
through the use of a demographic questionnaire and a table focusing on the research
questions. Based on theses questions done in a group format, the interview questions
for the semi-structured upper classmen interview was formed (Appendix E). The
upperclassmen in the Bridge Program were part of the semi-structured interview
experience, where each participant during the data collection process was unique as a
result of the opportunity to add and change the interview questions in light of the
information provided in the questionnaire and autobiography (which was the same as
the section one of the Freshmen Questionnaire). Furthermore, as I asked questions
about personal histories with each of these upperclassmen students, the process
allowed the participants to update me regarding their post-secondary educational
goals and retrospective responses about the Bridge Program. Having these previous
interpersonal relationships with the older participants seemed (to me) to result in
their ability to quickly become at ease with the research process, in particularly,

66
when they were asked to share details from their personal lives. As a result, I was
able to acquire rich textural accounts of their academic and mathematics histories
from which we, together, could explore the factors they attributed to their success in
college-going environment.
While these students were placed in the program within the same contexts of
category and research scheme, it was important to remember that each is an
individual with extremely different backgrounds and personalities. The experiences
that were shared within the data collection process not only allowed me to develop
an understanding of how they were able to negotiate school culture and school social
structures within a college-going environment, which also reminded me as to the
diversity that exists within even the smallest subgroup of designated students.
Upperclassmen Interview
The individual interview portion of the study was done with the sample group
of upperclassmen Bridge Program students at the school. The interview guide
approach, in order to format questions (Patton, 2002, p. 342), was used in this semi-
structured protocol. In using this method, consistency in covering topics for each
individual interview was present, yet having the option to probe and explore and ask
more specific questions regarding a specific subject area was also an option. Using a
guide allowed for the interviews to be systematic, which helped in ensuring all
questions were addressed. The interview guide was developed from the pilot focus
group interview, previously described, to check for reliability and validity of the
interview protocol (Patton, 2002).

67
The interview took a standardized open-ended approach where the “exact
wording and sequence of questions are determined in advance…[and all]
interviewees are asked the same basic question in the same order” (Patton, 2002, p.
349). The limitations to the standardized open-ended interview are in flexibility of
customizing interview questions to individuals and circumstances, and the
constraints of naturalness in dialogue (Patton, 2002). Despite these limitations, the
standardized open-ended interview was chosen for this particular sample group
because the consistency of questions reduces interviewer effects and bias, while
facilitating organization and analysis of the data (Patton, 2002). It also diminished
the possibility of identical statements that all participants, regardless of verbiage of
the question, would have to respond to, versus using a five-response item Likert
scale of agreement (Appendix E).
The focus of the individual interviews was on the relationships with faculty,
peers, the program, as well as the perceptions of academic and social success beyond
high school. The literature review in chapter two of this study, was again the basis
for this focus and the interview questions. This focus and the research questions were
used in developing the semi-structured questions, which were specific to factors that
affect college access and questions about Bridge Program effectiveness at increasing
postsecondary access for underrepresented students. For example, questions like
“What is contributing to the Bridge Program effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access?” and “What could be improved to increase the effectiveness
in the desired outcome of postsecondary access?” Appendix F shows the breakdown

68
of questions dedicated to each research question, and the theme the question was
focused on. This identifies the purpose of each individual question and whom the
question will be directed towards. The purpose for both of this table is to show that
the questions are aligned with the purpose of answering the research questions.
Data Collection and Analysis
The primary study focused on the semi-structured interviews, using eleven
upperclassmen Punahou students in the Bridge Program and document analysis
(student profile folders). All the Punahou students selected for the interview
completed the interview. The focus of the individual interviews was on the
relationships with faculty, peers, the program, as well as the perceptions of academic
and social success beyond high school.
After collection of data from the Upperclassmen Group interviews, I was able
to analyze the results in the areas of content and context and compare the results to
each of the individual students responses. The findings allowed me to determine
areas to focus on for the document analysis (student profile folders form the
Admissions Department), which helped me determine appropriate semi-structured
interview questions. Triangulation of sources, in this case, the data results of the
analysis from focus group interviews, the document analysis (student profile folders)
and semi-structured interviews allowed me to determine the consistency in the
findings of this study (Patton, 2002). Since I conducted a Freshmen Group interview
prior, I was able to compare the different points of view of the respondents.

69
Role of the Researcher
Since I was the primary instrument of investigation in this qualitative study, I
had to maintain integrity and sensitivity to maintain high ethical standards. Because
I am not a direct faculty member of the students, and served as a peripheral staff
member to the participants in the study, consideration was given to the relationships
I maintain with them. I am grateful that the students I worked with were willing to be
interviewed for my study. My desire was for all of them to examine what the role is
of the Bridge Program, in regards to the academic and social success of the students.
I shared with the students the raw data of the study, and will continue to hold myself
responsible for keeping the participants informed of any new findings in the future,
and make available all findings and reports of the data.
Limitations
One potential limitation that might have hindered my study was that of
working with the fourteen freshmen high school students from diverse backgrounds.
The sample size and sampling procedures are limiting factors. Given the disparities
in life experiences of the students used in the study, and varied maturity levels, as
well as multi-generational perspectives, there may be incongruent in perceptions and
attitudes. Compounded by the diverse ethnic backgrounds, and education
backgrounds of the students, the perceptions and attitudes betweens respondents and
interviewer may be different. Challenges in developing rapport, because of age,
gender difference, ethnicity, and social position, may incur preconceived notions.

70
The highly specialized sample necessitates that the data not be generalized to
all low-SES, urban, children in a high-achieving, college-going environment. No
differentiation was made among the children on other important variables denoting
risk and resiliency in this population. Therefore, these results may not generalize to
populations of children deemed to be at risk because of social or academic
difficulties, or to other samples of low-SES children who do not have the adverse life
circumstances shared by the students in this sample. Second, it is likely that the
group of students in this sample differed on the meaningful variables of social or
academic competence. The students in this study base the limitations that are present
on the self-reporting.
Ethical Concerns
The methods available within qualitative research open the researcher to a
variety of potential ethical conflicts. Within interview formats, respondents have an
opportunity to disclose information that would otherwise go undocumented. Ethical
problems in the interview approach arise because of complexities of researching the
private lives of respondents in a public arena (Kvale & Brinkman, 2008). The Seven
Ethical Issues at Research Stages (Table 2) are concerns that should be taken into
consideration when preparing protocol, which include, thematizing, designing,
interviewing situation, transcription, analysis, verification, and reporting.

71
Table 2. Seven Ethical Issues at Research Stages

Ethical Issue Descriptor
Thematizing Focusing on the purpose of the interview
Designing Obtaining informed consent to participate in the study
Interviewing
Situation
Stress during interview, or changes in self-understanding
Transcription Confidentiality of the respondents need to be considered
Analysis How penetratingly can the interview responses be analyzed?
Verification Researcher’s responsibility to report knowledge is secure.
Reporting Confidentiality when reporting private interviews in the pubic
arena
Based on The Seven Ethical Issues at Research Stages (Kvale & Brinkman, 2008)

Ethical considerations were of utmost importance. Participation in the study
was completely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained for participation. All
participants included in the data analyses will continue to be kept anonymous in the
reporting process to ensure confidentiality. All documents, audiotapes, and
transcriptions will continue to be kept private in a password protected electronic file
for three years, until May 2013. All guidelines of University of Southern
California’s, Internal Review Board protocols, and Punahou School’s student
confidentiality protocols were followed to ensure that ethical practices were
maintained throughout the study.

72
Reliability, Validity, and Researcher Bias
To fully capture the voice of respondents, it was imperative that the
investigators ensure that the experiences and thoughts of the respondents were
respected and validated. The issue of trustworthiness and validity, raised concern of
ensuring the data was reliable. One of the primary methods employed to ensure
trustworthiness of data was a process known as triangulation. According to Patton
(2002), triangulation is using a combination of data types. The purpose of this
method, Patton writes, is “by using a combination of observations, interviewing, and
document analysis, the fieldworker is able to use different data sources to validate
and cross check findings” (2002, p. 306). Furthermore, once data was transcribed, it
was given to the respondents (students), so there was a clear interpretation.
The general concern while developing the questions through the interview
was to avoid leading the respondents toward any pre-determined responses. The
interview questions were tested on the focus group, and their responses were not
used in the study. This was important in determining the appropriateness of the
questions. To address validity and trustworthiness of data, a committee (group of
three teachers – not included in the study) read the text, critiqued and questioned the
data.
Conclusion
The qualitative research design and associated methodologies provide the
best fit for investigating the research questions:

73
1. How effective is the organizational structures at Punahou School, in
facilitating college access for low-SES students in a college-going
environment?
2. To what extent do the relationships between students, faculty, and within
the Bridge Program provide an organizational construct for low-SES
students to be academically and socially successful?
Understanding the perspectives of the students in the Bridge Program about
their academic and social success, and the barriers that prevent them from attaining
success in the high achieving, college-going environment, is the first step in creating
effective policies and developing curricular standards. Secondly, the perspectives of
the teachers with students from the Bridge Program will help in understanding the
organizational constructs of supporting low-SES students in a high-achieving
environment. Furthermore, the extent to which Punahou School does this will be
reported in Chapter Four through the stories and perspectives from students and
teachers at Punahou School. This will attempt to provide insight into each student’s
successes and failures, academically and socially, in a college-going environment.
Perspectives from teachers about the extent to which Punahou School supports them
in being successful with their students, will also provide insight to how successful
these students are in this environment.

74
Chapter Four
Data and Analysis
The aim of this study was to explore the student perspectives of social
success factors in a college going environment. The study focused on individual
social successes through postsecondary education, in the context of the Punahou
School’s academic college-going culture. While the school focuses on preparing
students for postsecondary education, the challenge exists in preparing all its
students, from all socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.
This study was designed to find the effectiveness of the Bridge Program at
Punahou School, and aimed to explore the social success factors for these students in
a college-going environment, and how the Bridge Program facilitated this success.
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of data analyzed from the
document reviews, the semi-structured interviews of the Upperclassmen Group and
Freshmen Group interviews. The following research questions directed the study and
subsequent analysis of data:
1. From a student’s perspective, how effective is the organizational
structures at Punahou School, in facilitating college access for low-SES
students in a college-going environment?
2. From a student’s perspective, to what extent do the relationships between
students, faculty, and within the Bridge Program provide an
organizational construct for low-SES students to be academically and
socially successful?

75
First I will describe the participants in the study, both the Freshmen Group
and the Upperclassmen Group. Next I will present the findings from the interviews
by research questions. There were two major ideas which emerged from the study of
the Bridge Program and its participants, and will be used to guide the presentation of
the results: 1) the need for social support in a college-going environment, and 2) the
positive effect of the Bridge Program on the students.
Participants
Freshman Students
Fourteen freshman students participated in the Freshmen Group interview
portion of the study. My interpretations of the participants’ personal histories, based
on the Freshmen Questionnaire competed, display the individuality that characterizes
this group of students in this unique program. Although each of these students
were/are highly successful (as defined earlier) in some aspect of school life, their
revelations confirmed that they were each complex and unique. Although it is true
that each of the participants had attended the differing middle schools before
entering Punahou, and lived in different communities, they were of different
graduating classes. Two sophomores were included with this group, as it was their
first year at Punahou School. Thus, the only characteristics that were consistent
among the group were that each had been a shared experience in the Bridge Program
for three weeks. Their backgrounds, familial and cultural, as well as their schooling,
family and social experiences varied from one participant to another (see Appendix
K for a summary of the participants’ profiles). They are presented here, together, as a

76
composition of students whose social success outcomes were similar regardless of
their means of social success.
My first encounter with the fourteen freshmen occurred during a summer
freshman seminar course. It was an introduction to the school and the new
environment. While the students had only been on the campus, not more than
fourteen days, I focused on building interpersonal relationships with the group as a
whole. I introduced myself to the group (along side the Bridge Program faculty) and
invited them to be part of a study about their experiences on campus through the
Bridge Program. Through the initial introductions, and analyzing the documents
from the Admissions Department (Appendix K) of the freshmen, the group had many
similarities. None of the group were first generation college-going, and none had
parents and/or guardian who did not have at minimum an associates degree. The fact
that college-going was part of the family dynamic, played a important role in
comparing the Upperclassmen Group and their family profile.
Upperclassmen
Eleven Upperclassmen participated in the Upperclassmen Group interview
portion of the study. My interpretations of the participants’ personal histories, based
on the questionnaire (a copy of the Freshmen Questionnaire) was competed prior to
the interview. This displayed the individuality that characterizes this group of
students in this unique program. As with the Freshmen Group, although each of these
students were/are highly successful in some aspect of school life, their revelations
confirmed that they were each complex and unique. Although it is true that each of

77
the participants had attended the differing middles schools before entering Punahou,
and live in different communities, they were of differing graduating classes. Thus,
the only characteristics that were consistent among the group were that each had
been a shared experience in the Bridge Program for at least one year. Their
backgrounds, familial and cultural, as well as their schooling, family and social
experiences varied from one participant to another (see Appendix K for a summary
of the participants’ profiles). Furthermore, when the context of two or more
participant’s experiences was the same (in setting), the reported impact of that
experience was often dissimilar. As a result, the participants’ data are not presented
as independent from one another. Rather, they are presented here, together, as a
composition of students whose social success outcomes were similar regardless of
their means of social success.
Results of the Research Questions
The following section is based on the two research questions from the study:
1. From a student’s perspective, how effective is the organizational
structures at Punahou School, in facilitating college access for low-SES
students in a college-going environment?
2. From a student’s perspective, to what extent do the relationships between
students, faculty, and within the Bridge Program provide an
organizational construct for low-SES students to be academically and
socially successful?

78
Two areas emerged from the student responses from each research question:
1) Impact of social supports and relationships on the student's college-going process,
and 2) Impact of the Bridge Program on the students' college-going aspirations
(Table 3). These areas will be used to guide the presentation of the results, and the
predominant themes from each area will be the focus of analysis.

Table 3. Emerging Themes from Study

Emerging Theme 1 Emerging Theme 2
RQ 1 Realization of access to
college
Academic and Financial
Opportunities beyond college
RQ 2 Student need for social
support in a college-going
culture
Relationship with the school
and program as an
organizational system

Results Research Question One: Impact of Social Supports
The first research question (RQ1) asked, "From a student’s perspective, how
effective is the organizational structures at Punahou School, in facilitating college
access for low-SES students in a college-going environment?" Two areas, which
emerged from the RQ1, was 1) the students knowledge of and realization of college
access in a college-going culture, and 2) the opportunities of college (financial and
academic) they never knew, through the mentors and faculty who supported them.
The structure of the Bridge Program facilitates constant communication between
students and faculty in a closed environment. The impact of creating a communal

79
environment within a large fluid college-going population allows for informal and
formal relationships built. The Bridge Program creates open access to faculty
throughout the day, and strives to connect students together for peer support as well.
Literature points to social support in a college-going environment as a positive factor
for students (Achieve, 2008; Adelman, 2006; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Schramm &
Sagawa, 2008), and the second being social capital and the cultural resources have an
impact on success in school and beyond (Bourdieu, 1979). Each of the interview
questions was designed to solicit rich information relevant to the research question.
Indicators of how Jason (Upperclassman male Bridge Program students) focused his
responses on relations with the program, while Trina (Upperclassman female Bridge
Program student) focused her responses on the program faculty, which led to her
college-going aspirations.
Trina’s Story on the Realization of College Access in a College-going Culture
Trina is a young woman that at the time of data collection was in her senior
year. At that time, when not on campus, she lived with her mother and father and
siblings in Waipahu, about 45 minutes outside of Honolulu. One of her parents has a
college degree. Trina came to Punahou School in 9
th
grade. Although she was not
academically strong, she maintained her standing in traditional-level courses in the
new high school. Trina struggled to find immediate successes academically,
specifically in English and Social Studies, and was encouraged by the Bridge faculty
to inquire as to “why” she was struggling and how she needed to find academic
success. A self-proclaimed “quiet girl” she found it difficult to assert herself in class,

80
and ask questions. Her mother forced her to join cheerleading to be part of something
and to develop other friendships. Trina has since found success in pursuing
academics beyond high school and has made an impact on the cheerleading team by
involving herself in a number of different programs and events.
Trina believed that her affiliation to the Bridge Program was an issue that
motivated her to be different than others like her in the program. Upon arriving at her
new high school, after having attended public school outside of Honolulu, Trina
realized immediately that her affiliation with the cheerleaders, put her with a group
of students that did not look like her. She realized then, that Bridge Program students
were an underrepresented demographic when it came to specific extracurricular
activities (i.e. football, basketball, etc.). Having noticed this absence, being of
Polynesian decent has motivated her to go beyond what she ever thought she was
capable of achieving. She believed that being of different ethnicity than the greater
majority, made her have to work doubly as hard to prove herself to others. She
stated:
Because I feel like… being different, even though I don’t see myself as that,
it… on first impression, people don’t expect as much from me as they
should… as I expect from myself… I don’t feel like people hold me
accountable for that because, “Oh, she’s just a Bridge kid”… I’m not just
Bridge, I’m a Punahou student, so, I feel like I have to work twice as hard to
prove myself in everything.

The role Bridge Program faculty have with the students, is to transition them
to the new college-going culture. The curriculum intends to give students an
understanding how to manage themselves and their time. Having faculty that

81
students can relate to is an important piece of the of this curriculum. While students
like Trina feel disconnected to the student population at large, the connections she
has to the program and the faculty can ease the anxiety on campus.
Jason’s Story -The Opportunities for College
Jason was a senior at the time of data collection and was already accepted
into a private university. At that time, when not on campus, he lived in Kaimuki, a
section of Honolulu about 10 minutes from Punahou School. Jason started Punahou
in the 9
th
grade through the Bridge Program, and admitted it took him about three
months to adjust. He immediately found it difficult adjusting, to Punahou School, but
to the Bridge Program. He found himself the only Asian student, among the
Polynesian students. Upon coming to Punahou School, he was encouraged and
influenced by the Bridge faculty to join the swim team. The relationships he built
with the faculty and peers within the Bridge Program provided an opportunity for
college, not realized. He continues his relationships with friends from his previous
public school, and when asked, "What colleges are your friends outside Punahou
School considering?"
College isn't talked about. I think they are going to college, but it's not
something we talk about. I think that’s the difference. Because we (students)
talk about, like people ask, 'What school you applying to?' you need to know
and, it makes you think. My friends from public school don't ask that.

While not a strong academic student, his successes, specifically in
mathematics, provided him with the confidence he would succeed beyond high
school. Jason was highly influenced by his peers in the program, more so than the

82
faculty. The contAs he prepares to complete his final year at Punahou School, and
looks ahead to college, he reflected on what the Bridge Program provided him in
terms of preparation:
Because the (Bridge) program always talked about college – from the first
summer (freshman year), we talked about it – and it made me think about
what I can do after (after high school). When we (peers) talk, it's not only
about what school we are going to, but what we want to major in. I want to
do TV or radio – like a sportscaster.

Jason alluded that college aspirations were not part of his long-term plan. He did not
have long-term plans which included furthering his education beyond high school, or
in to a career. Jason points to Bridge as a factor in his potential success beyond high
school, in terms of the curriculum, the faculty and the effectiveness of the program.
RQ1 – Research Findings
The Bridge Program’s goals are exactly what its name says; bridge the
students to the students to the college-going culture. Exposing the students to the
range of experiences and opportunities on campus, and involving them in activities
beyond the classroom within a social context is the need the students have for the
program. Based on the review of literature in Chapter Two, there are five factors that
affect college access, and each applies in particular to low-SES students: access to
information, parental or adult mentor involvement and knowledge about college,
social support and cultural capital, academic preparation, and financial aid (Martinez,
2005). While the Bridge Program aimed at addressing all of these needs, the focus of
this study was on the social support and the cultural capital. The interview questions
for RQ1 focused on social supports for the Bridge Program students, produced

83
responses that elicited two themes. Theme one was how effective the program was
for the students.
The effectiveness of the Bridge Program, and the program's successes with
students was evident in the discussions the students had before they arrived at
Punahou School. Each of the students discussed early schooling experiences,
focusing more of their discussions on their middle school experience, in which they
did not have the opportunities to develop a college-going mindset. Each of the
students’ experiences took place both in public and private school settings. The
context of the curriculum in middle schools, before enrolling at Punahou School,
created a foundation for entering freshman. Trina stated, that success is different for
everyone. For herself, success is measured by how happy you are with what you
have accomplished and what you are doing. She feels that “you must feel that you
are doing something with your life”(Interview). When I asked her directly about the
effectiveness the Bridge Program, however, her answers changed. “In my freshman
year and sophomore, I really needed the program and teachers,” she said, “but now I
feel like they showed me how to do it so I’m ready” (Interview). Within the social
structures of school Trina finds it extremely important to expand her network of
friends. She said that through athletics (cheerleading), she was able to find friends
beyond the Bridge Program. Trina said she hopes of pursuing a degree at the
University of Southern California, and if she does go there sometime in the future,
“that is success.” She reflects on the program as being a big part of her success in
school, largely to the adult relationships she has developed. Drawing from her initial

84
reluctance to reach out and make friends during her first two years at Punahou
School, Trina further defined success as “being able to reach out to others—
especially adults in my life”.
Sammy too highlights the effectiveness of the Bridge Program through his
transition three years ago to Punahou School. He spoke of the importance of these
experiences:
I know my friends and I didn’t think of that stuff at King (middle school)…in
my main classes. So that got my brain working kind of in that way… Well
it’s important like in the early stages in your life to get you thinking
differently, like what your goals are and in the real world it helps solve
everything pretty much. It can be applied to any career or area of the world.

These middle school learning experiences greatly influenced the way he
approached his new environment, especially amongst his peers in the Bridge
Program during his freshmen year. Sammy, now a senior reflected on the absence of
the social aspects a college going culture that the Bridge Program aims at building,
through a creating a small cohort of students. Furthermore, all of the participants
indicated that they had developed affections of their new peer group among Bridge
students early on, especially within the first three weeks of class.
Trina and Sammy responses focused on the relationships the students in the
Bridge Program build over four years in high school (between faculty and with other
students) is directed at impacting their college access and opportunities beyond high
school. This involvement may include participation in extra-curricular activities,
interaction with faculty, or understanding the academic workload. The expectation of
the students is they will eventually be involved with the academic and social aspects

85
of campus, on their own, as the program and fulfills the void of knowledge of a
college-going culture. As cited in Chapter Two, Rueda and Dembo (1995) defined
student success through two lenses within two theoretical frameworks, Mastery
(sociocultural) and Performance (cognitive). Their studies present dual theoretical
frameworks, however, their research indicates a strong relationship between the two,
especially when targeting low-SES language and ethnic minority students. The
Bridge Program students self identified as being minorities within the school and
reported being challenged, within the first two years of high school, of fully
engaging themselves within the college-going culture at Punahou School. Astin’s
(1975) theory of student involvement focuses on the interactions a student has within
the environment. Astin defined involvement as the amount of physical and
psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” and states
that the amount of involvement increases learning and personal development.
The participants’ perspectives on success, their views on the impact of the
relationships to the faculty and the Bridge Program were definitely focused on
college-going, yet diverse and far ranging on the Bridge Program's impact on their
success within college. The reported impact of being a member of the program
ranged from one participant who shared that she had always understood the influence
of the program to one who stated that she had never felt that the program impacted
her social success at all. Furthermore, members in the students social group (family,
teachers and peers) held firm to their expectations of social success:

86
Bridge (Program) had the greatest influence on me because I mean, in school
and extra-curricular, and in everything else. Mrs. K (Bridge Faculty) really
stressed the fact that I should be more involved…and she was the one who
called my house as soon as happened in school. Like I said, she doesn’t care
necessarily if I did really well in school, as long as I did what I was supposed
to do. (Trina, Interview)

The students shared that their common experiences helped them to develop a “family
feeling,” and in particular, being in a new college-going environment Onaona said:
From the first day, I was like, wow… this is tight. So I started feeling a lot
more comfortable. Even a few days, plus I knew some guys in the Bridge
group.

Desmond, who identified himself as an outgoing student (and person in
general), surprisingly defined success as “wearing the powder blue of UCLA.”
(Desmond, Interview). For Desmond, success is about “going to the college of the
team I remember from watching play on TV when I was about 8 years-
old.”(Interview). Questioning Desmond about school and academics, he reassessed
his outlook on success. He believes success is making it to college via basketball, but
realizes, “ it isn’t just about the sport. It’s about knowing there’s a chance; being able
to go to college.”(Interview). Toward the end of our discussion about success in
school and the college-going environment he is in now, his competitive side came
out. Referring back to his competitiveness in school he stated, “I gotta be the one to
raise my hand and answer the questions, to show them that I know the answers
too.”(Interview). This aspect was extremely important to him, due to his tone of
voice. He stood out amongst his peers, who interviewed, due the details of in class
behaviors he described. For Desmond, success seemed to have a lot to do with

87
having a chance or opportunity to do more beyond high school – and the Bridge
Program is the pipeline he will take to be successful beyond high school.
Each of the participants identified numerous factors and experiences that
might have attributed to their ability to succeed in school, and anticipation of
pursuing post-secondary education. The Upperclassmen described their college-
going ideal, by which they are able to motivate themselves. For all the students in the
Bridge Program this study highlighted the development of their competitiveness with
others. Thus, they learned to compete, in a way, against themselves. Especially the
seniors, their abilities to reenact the situations they had through the program, yet
found a way to succeed. Their accomplishments, as time went on, required that they,
independent of external sources, find ways that they might be motivated to
accomplish their personal goals as well as those set forth by the school culture. As a
result, their success in high school, and in particularly through the Bridge Program,
to a great extent, depended on the participants being able to establish routines and
habits in their personal motivations (especially through the direction of the dedicated
faculty). These routines, in turn, reaffirmed their attitudes about success and the
efforts required to achieve. Through the socio-cultural theoretical framework used, I
was better prepared to approach the analysis of student responses from the
standpoints of the individual, rather than the social group. I was not only able to
focus on the impact of the program (in general) but also the impact of race, culture,
family, and social experiences for each participant. Furthermore, these traditions
offered me an opportunity to examine the lived experiences of the participants (even

88
though it is impossible for me to experience them in the same ways). Chapter five
will focus on these experiences, and the individual impacts the program had on the
students through a socio-cultural lens.
Results for Research Question Two: Impact of the Bridge Program
The second research question (RQ2) asked, " From a student’s perspective, to
what extent do the relationships between students, faculty, and within the Bridge
Program provide an organizational construct for low-SES students to be
academically and socially successful?" Two areas, which emerged from the RQ2,
was 1) the student need for social support in a college-going culture, specifically
through a relationships of individuals and 2) the relationship with the school and
program as an organizational system. Literature points to social support in a college-
going environment as a positive factor for students (Achieve, 2008; Adelman, 2006;
Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Schramm & Sagawa, 2008), and the second being social
capital and the cultural resources have an impact on success in school and beyond
(Bourdieu, 1979). Each of the interview questions was designed to solicit rich
information relevant to the research questions. The following findings use student
perspectives about social supports, relationship with the Bridge Program, teacher
student interaction, peer interaction, and the "sense of belonging" students have in a
college-going environment and findings in these areas will be discussed.
This section presents the ways that Bridge Program students perceive teacher
student interaction, peer interaction, and the "sense of belonging" in a college-going
environment. Indicators of how Shon and Sammy (Upperclassman male Bridge

89
Program students) focused their responses on relations with individual people who
were part of the program, while Mina (Upperclassman female Bridge Program
student) focused her responses on the program, school and the organizational system,
which led to her college-going aspirations.
Shon’s Story – Social Supports and Relationships
Shon was a senior at the time of data collection and was contemplating two
small universities to play soccer. At that time, when not on campus, he lived in Laie,
a town about 60 minutes outside of Honolulu. Shon started Punahou in the 9
th
grade
through the Bridge Program, and admitted it took him about three months to adjust.
At that time, he had completed one semester of the 9
th
grade and looked forward to
continuing a tradition left by his older brother, and play football. Upon entering
Punahou School, he was encouraged and influenced by the Bridge faculty to explore
all the opportunities the school provides. "They told me to take advantage of all the
opportunites the school had to offer… not only football." Although he was
considered a top student in his middle school in Laie, he was placed in traditional-
level courses in this new college-going environment. His successes, specifically in
mathematics, provided him with the confidence he can succeed. He also chose a new
sport to pursue, (soccer) and thrived. Shon contrasts his early schooling experiences
in Laie with those in high school at Punahou School. The most striking aspect about
Shon is his maturity. His will, to break from his friends and family, rooted in
community school culture to a college-going environment. "I remember sitting on
the steps of Old School Hall on the first day of school. It was about 6 o'clock and no

90
one was around. I had to catch the bus into town. I remember thinking, 'What the
heck am I doing here.' But, thinking back, its kind of amazing its been four years."
His interview reflected an internal need for success beyond high school, which only
helped in his willingness to accept a new college-going environment and thrive.
Shon's family dynamic was what led him to Punahou School. For him, the
students that he went to school with all learned the same things within the same
classes. The beliefs of teachers and family alike at that time, he said, were that
college was a dream, not reality. Thus, beginning his freshman year at Punahou
School, in this setting set a path within which he understood himself as educationally
talented, the same as any other student. "The teachers were the ones who pushed
me." The impact then, of this attitude, was that he never had reason to doubt that he
could learn go to college. Further, being that his brothers did not have a successful
life after high school, only motivated him more to, “I didn’t want to be like them. I
had to be different - better” (Interview).
As a result, he developed the belief that his responsibility as a student was to
make good grades and participate in activities that his brother did not participate in
(soccer versus football). As Shon explained, “I started to make small improvements
in my grades and do well in the classroom,” and he began to develop a belief in his
own academic ability. Furthermore, as he reached his senior year in high school, his
social network started to expand and peers began to encourage him to participate in
other facets of school life, as well as encourage him to look at particular schools for
college. The participants’ perspectives regarding the Bridge Program as a factor in

91
being successful is a shared experience among the students. Statements such as
“Well it’s important like in the early stages in your life to get you thinking
differently, like what your goals are and in the real world it helps solve everything
pretty much” (Sammy, Interview). The significance of Shon's story through the
research question revealed two important themes: 1) Importance of the relationships
for college-going, 2) Consistency of relationships with students and their families,
early and often.
Sammy’s Story - Relationship with the School and Program
Sammy was a senior at the time of data collection and was contemplating two
large universities to play football and/or wrestling. At that time, when not on
campus, he lived in Kaneohe, a town about 30 minutes outside of Honolulu. Sammy
started Punahou in the 9
th
grade through the Bridge Program, and admitted he is still
adjusting to the school. Sammy looked forward to playing football, being that he was
bigger than everyone. Upon coming to Punahou School he was encouraged, and
influenced by the Bridge faculty to explore other opportunities the school provided.
His successes, specifically in wrestling, provided him with the confidence he can
succeed in other areas, not just football. Through wrestling, he was able to travel to
tournaments in the Midwest and the West Cost, something he knows he would not
have been able to do through football.
Sammy described the impact of teachers (specifically those in the Bridge
Program) that influenced them, with regard to their orientation and transition to
Punahou School. These teachers saw potential in each of the participants (from the

92
student’s perspective) and shared these beliefs with them. This support was
manifested in multiple ways. First, the caring relationships that these teachers shared
with the participants and their family members (specifically in their freshman year)
provided encouragement and engagement within the culture of the school. The
Bridge Program faculty members hold a summer parent orientation, discussing each
individual student’s academic level and planning for the next four years. This
engagement was critical for the participants’ continued development:
The teachers were really supportive and then when I got involved on the
football team it just kind of like the teachers were always there – in the
classroom, checking up on me at lunch, after school, and at practice! It let me
know that they were not going to let me fall. It got me just thinking a lot
more about what teachers are. At King (middle school) I hated my teachers. I
don’t think they gave a crap. So now I can talk to them about anything, home
stuff, school stuff, personal stuff, and its not like I’m getting busted. It’s
different with the teachers here (Bridge Program). Stuff like that helped.
(Sammy, Interview)

Sammy's statements are reflective of the relationship he had with the adults in the
program. He compares the adult relationships between his middle school teachers
and his current teachers, and expresses why he feel he has a strong relationship with
his Bridge Program teachers.
Mina's Story - Relationship with the School and Program
Mina is a young woman that at the time of data collection was in her senior
year. She to shared the same perspective of Sammy, that the school and Bridge
Program played a significant role in her success as a student and potentially beyond
Punahou School. She lived with her mother and father and siblings in Laie, about 60
minutes outside of Honolulu. Both of her parents have college degrees. Mina came to

93
Punahou School in 9
th
grade. Although she was considered a top student in her
school in Laie, she was placed in traditional-level courses in the new high school.
Her immediate successes, specifically in English and Social Studies, encouraged her
teacher to inquire as to whether she belonged in “on-level” courses or should be
moved into the more rigorous and exploratory “honors” courses. Her second year in
high school, Mina was offered an opportunity to join a few academic teams. Mina
has since found success in pursuing academics beyond the U.S. borders through
different opportunities.
Mina was one young woman among the eleven upperclassmen interviewed
who had pursued academic excellence and achieved at the highest of level. While
other students within the program struggled in one class or another, she came to
understand the commitment it would take to maintain her grades in school and her
standing on different academic teams among the other high achieving students not in
the Bridge. The mandatory study halls early in her freshman and sophomore year,
plus the consistent “check-ins” by Bridge faculty and staff, provided a structure for
success. As she felt that she had worked extremely hard to achieve within the school
social settings and classrooms, she was determined that her example was one that
other students might have been able to follow to create their own successes, Mina
stated:
I hope by showing this that other students would be inspired to be better to
reach above and beyond what they think they’re capable of now and I hope
that my friends and others will say, ‘I can go to that school, and I can go to
college… I don’t want to take the easy way out. I actually want to work hard
for what I want to achieve.

94
As a result, she felt the obligation to model her study habits and attitudes toward
academic and social success. By doing so, Mina will be able to not only maintain her
standards of learning, but to pass them on to others who were also inclined to
participate in similar ways. The significance of Mina and Sammy's stories provide
common themes that Shon also expressed through his responses: 1) The impact of
the relationships within the Bridge Program and 2) The impact of relationships for
College-going. The results of the interviews with the students revealed how the
program was effective in developing the relationships with students and the factors,
which facilitate a college-going environment through the relationships of faculty,
staff, and peers, had an impact on the individual students.
RQ2 – Research Findings
These relationships with adults encouraged the participants to develop
socially. Furthermore, these teachers established expectations for success beyond the
borders of the participants’ level of comfort; the Bridge Program. The participants
discussed the importance of having teachers that held them to high standards of
performance. Also, the trusting relationships that these teachers formed with the
participants were critical:
I felt that Jonah them (other teachers) thought I was better than I was. But
that made me try harder, so I guess that was good. I don’t see myself as
amazing at school. I see myself as pretty good compared to most…but…so I
wanted to do better for them and [my other teachers] because I know how
they thought I was at school (Sammy, Interview).

The participants also found it valuable to have someone that was perceived as mentor
and trusting adult, had shared beliefs about the participants’ abilities to succeed.

95
Teachers who developed these trusting relationships compelled the participants to
enjoy learning and motivated them to pursue academics further, as a result of the
seniors interviewed:
So now, I guess, I gotta do my part and be like the teachers…give back.
Especially these new freshmen, they think they’re all that, so gotta tell ‘em
how its done, and to chill out. They gotta know how to make through here
(Punahou) and know what not to do, the teachers to talk to, and the teachers
not to. It’s hard if you don’t know how. (Sammy, Interview)

When asked, “How do the teachers in the Bridge Program understand ‘you’
and the challenges you faced in the high-achieving, college-going environment?” of
the Bridge Program 10 of the 11 Upperclassmen Group participants indicated that
the Program was set up for them to go to college. Shon was adamant that the faculty
needed to understand his reasons for even wanting to go to Punahou School. "It was
difficult to connect at first – but it got beeter over time and Opened up about what I
wanted out of this (time at Punahou School). I could not have this success in school
with the teachers." For him, “it’s so competitive (school). It matters that you are the
best at something and that was new… I kind of need their support in that”
(Interview). He extended himself beyond Bridge and has a social network outside the
program, and beyond the football field, which he is not at all regretful about quitting.
He has succeeded at soccer and has started to develop a strong sense of self, which
reflected his feelings about his family. At home, Shon felt that success meant he can
show that he knew more and could be a more successful person than his brother –
with the help of the Bridge program faculty. Thus, within the college-going setting,
success was measured not only by grades and test scores. For Shon, having had a

96
successful athletic career, as well as having been accepted to college, were extremely
important to him, and fulfill his promise that, “I don’t want to be like my brother, I
want to be better.”
These responses only reaffirmed the initial data collected by the
underclassmen (Appendix M), in which they responded to open-ended questions
about their initial feelings of social support from the Bridge Program, three weeks
into school. The focused answers provided show their expectations in the social
supports needed by the faculty and staff - just three weeks into their freshman year.
There is also a clear difference in the expectations of faculty and staff in the Bridge
Program and those not. The social-emotional supports the students look forward to
having in the next three years, is confirmed by the responses of the upperclassmen in
their semi-structured interviews. As Sammy eluded to in his response, that the initial
thought of what faculty in the Bridge Program would provide students (from the
point of view of freshman) was met through the four years of school. In turn, he felt
like he had a responsibility towards the underclassmen.
Encouragement and direction for success to college for the students was not
only provided by members of the Bridge Program faculty but also by those who were
close to graduating from Punahou School and the Bridge Program, who either were
looking forward to continuing their education in college or had already accepted
some scholarship to college. As indicated by the data, peer influence (and in
particular other Bridge students) had great influence when it came to the perceptions

97
of academics for the participants. This influence ranged from advice to forceful
guidance. As Sammy indicated earlier:
I know my friends and I didn’t think of that stuff at King (middle school)…in
my main classes. So that got my brain working kind of in that way… Well
it’s important like in the early stages in your life to get you thinking
differently, like what your goals are and in the real world it helps solve
everything pretty much. It can be applied to any career or area of the world.
(Sammy, Interview)

Many of the teachers identified by the participants provided a nurturing
school environment where the participants could come to seek both personal and
academic advice. Others demanded academic excellence from the participants in
ways that had not been expected of them before. In either case, the participants
reported having formed strong relationships with these teachers. Within these
relationships the participant came to see these teachers as people that they could
trust. They also reported that these teachers remained strong positive influences and
mentors. At some point during the student’s academic careers at Punahou, all of the
participants came to define social success in similar ways. Furthermore, the
participants differentiated between the academic success that they enjoyed and saw
use for, and what I term “school success.” The participants spoke about the academic
success they were taught in the classroom as typically rote and an exercise in
memorization. The problem was they described school success, as skills based on the
intangible; the relationships built in the four years of high school at Punahou. As a
result, the participants all described having to find a venue separate from the social

98
scene, in which they could continue to enjoy the aspects of the their home life, and
school life simultaneously.
For two of the participants, Mina and Shon, the relationships to the Bridge
Program, beyond the individual teachers and peers was important. Both described the
idea of the Bridge Program providing them with success. "Success is being able to
do what ever you want after your done with school… I mean college" (Shon).
Having been surrounded by a program that had high expectations for each student
academically, and a strong work ethic in all aspects of the school life through out
their four years, both felt that its was something each individual student in the Bridge
Program was expected to meet. "Going to college is the expectation for me. I had a
great time at Stanford this past summer – hopefully I can go there next fall
(2010)"(Mina). Each of these students indicated from the beginning of data
collection that the Bridge Program had provided a setting within which they were
encouraged to follow a path toward success.
The program not only provided encouragement, but all the teachers were
right there…all the time…showing the importance of education by calling
our homes, communicating with our families early (freshman in high school).
They always talked about certain classes and clubs and sports that would be
good for my college application. My parents didn’t really know about that
(the college-going process) but the teachers kept on me and my
family.(Interview, Shon)

Furthermore, as they encountered challenges with other students or other faculty at
Punahou School, the Bridge Program teachers provided guidance, either explicitly or
by their examples, from which they could learn the actions and ethics of successful
students. Through this informal instruction, the participants developed the attitudes

99
toward education and school from which they established their personal sense of
success (both in general and academic). In sum, the Bridge Program brings the
students together (both freshman and upperclassman), provides many challenges
(socially and academically), and allows the students to rise to the top, together.
However, in other areas of school (such as sports), the social impacts felt by the
students when they are alone or fell singled out has a negative impact. In particular,
the perceived impact of the Bridge Program, and particular setting of the building
which the program is housed, indicates a bicultural ambivalence (Rueda & Dembo,
1995), or a stereotype threat (Steele, 2009) that initially separates the students in the
first two years of school.
The one participant who reported having not felt an impact from the Bridge
Program on his learning and his opportunities to succeed later reported instances in
which his choices were influenced by others perceptions. In this way, the
participants’ reflections regarding how the Bridge Program social structures affected
his schooling were lacking in both retrospection and consistency. First, when Jason
stated, “there were always others that were successful in my classes that I never
noticed any differences in my classmates or the Bridge kids.” Then followed the
statement with the comment “I always felt that as a Bridge student, I was expected to
be a certain way, like an athlete or something.” (Jason, Interview). When directly
asked about the remark, He indicated that the Bridge students seemed to be expected
to have a different group of friends. Thus, when Bridge Program students were
enrolled as freshmen, he believed, they were expected to play sports and not

100
necessarily do well in school as a result. Later, Jason made a comment that began
with the statement, “Although others’ are more likely for go to college…” While the
remainder of her comment was very much in line with his belief that being part of
the program had little or no impact on her successes, the lead in to this part of the
discussion indicates that he might of accepted, at least in part, the conclusions made
in studies with African-American students (Steele, 2008), that had been maintained
by “the myth.” However, as one of the few “full-Asian students” in the Bridge
Program he felt an identity crisis early on. Jason said, “I’m not an athlete, I’m not
Poly (Polynesian), so it was a little weird. But I have good friends from Bridge
(Program). Plus I don’t play football, I swim…definitely not the main sport.” It is
likely, however, that Jason, in the search for the “right answers” during the
interview, also alluded to the previous studies of “stereotype threat” (Steele, 2009) in
this way. Although he is self-identified as not the typical Bridge Program student, he
has his closes friends from the program, and maintains he had to break from the idea
that others had about the program.
In order to fully understand the educational pipeline through the Bridge
Program in its current model, one interview of a subject who had graduated from
Punahou School and had been a member of the Bridge Program confirmed the
findings (Lily). She highlighted the relationships she had with the program and
school, and the relationship with her teachers as vital to her success. She is now in
her third year of college and looking ahead to post-graduate work. Her interview
provided a larger scope of the Bridge Program. From orientation in the summer

101
before their freshman year, through high school, and through college, the Bridge
Program has made an impact on students in their college-going efforts.
I didn't really know what to expect after (high school). Everyone is so tight
and the teachers are really on you. When I went to UH (University of
Hawaii), it was completely different. There wasn't anybody calling home,
calling you into the office, or whatevahs. I had just do it. I know some of my
Bridge friends were in UH too, and it didn't work out – I think they dropped
out and are looking to get back to school later.

Lily did discuss, without detail, two students who currently are not in college
(whom she graduated with and went through the Bridge Program). The college-going
process and the support of the Bridge Program may have to extend beyond the limits
of high school. Lily feels a connection to Punahou School, as she continues to give
part of her time, once a week, to the teachers to help them. While this may be an
anomaly, it is the connection and relationships with the program and adults during
her time at Punahou School that provided an opportunity for success through the
pipeline.
So I think that’s why I like to come back to Punahou. The teachers are cool
and the Bridge kids need to know that college is tough and they need to take
what they learned and just do it. Its different coming from me than from a
teacher.

What I assert as significant from the participants responses is having students
from all levels of school, reflect on the intimate close-knit program, and its impact
on individuals’ social aspects of college going, allowed for diverse perspective and
introspective from each student. Although each of the students came from diverse
backgrounds, family level of education, and SES, common threads of the perception
other students in the Punahou community had on them; race, social affiliation and

102
social capital. As stated previously, Coleman’s (1987) views social capital as
intangible, having three forms: 1) level of trust, 2) information channels, and 3)
norms and sanctions that promote common good. The academic supports for new
students, especially low-SES students, contribute to building a student’s social
capital volume, specifically in terms of academic and social success and high school
preparedness for college. The impact the Bridge Program has had in terms of a
college-going focus has been significantly positive. It has also helped the students
(specifically the upperclassmen) to take an introspective look, and ask, "Why am I in
the Bridge Program?" As Shon and Trina perceived that race had no impact on their
college-going experience at Punahou, however, their descriptions indicated ways in
which (they thought) that social biases (for themselves and others in the Bridge
Program) had been a source of influence. Sammy and Alise, however, perceived
gender as having a direct influence on their success. As such, their descriptions detail
those means by which they incorporated their affiliation to the program into their
schooling and their learning of the social structures of school. Participants in the
interviews commented that others perceived Bridge Program students (or Bridge
Students) as “Polynesian” and “athletes.” As Trina said: “Anyone who is Polynesian
and an athlete is part of the Bridge Program.” This response to the interview
question, “Why are you in the Bridge Program and not the rest of your classmates?”
highlighted the idea of other’s perception on them – which explained the general
perception of a stereotype on the program and its participants. The ideology of
“sticking together” was a highly influential piece of her experience.

103
Supporting low-SES students as they transition to a new high school is
challenging, and must be a focus. Increased academic requirements and an increase
of students failing to enroll in two-year or four-year colleges (Lillard & DeCicca,
1997) can be rooted in the first year of high school. Thus, the expectation of
providing academic and social success is heightened. The transition to high school
(Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994), may be both challenging and
disruptive to the self-system and to social relationships, especially for low-SES
students to a high-achieving environment, placing youth who do not successfully
negotiate this transition at increased risk for long-term negative developmental
outcomes (Seidman, Aber, French, 1996). When students transition to high school,
the focus of learning shifts from participation to performance, which is difficult for
many students (Daniels and Arapostathis, 2005). This type of challenge contributes
to student disengagement. Trina was the one student who highlighted this
disengagement:
Because I feel like… being different, even though I don’t see myself as
that… on first impression, people don’t expect as much from me as they
should… as I expect from myself… I don’t feel like people hold me
accountable for that because, “Oh, she’s just a Bridge kid”… even though I
love my Bridge family (the program) I wonder how it will help me in
college? (Trina, Interview)

This highlights the diverse viewpoints for these participants. These
differences surprised me as I would have been apt to believe that these students look
to the program and the school as providing a successful college environment. While
this is true in an academic, college-going perspective, the social college going

104
perspective provides a contrast. While the program is indeed successful from the
students perspective on a social-emotional level (in terms of being attached to the
program, faculty, peers), it remains to be seen how effective it can be beyond
secondary education – and allow them to be successful in college.

105
Chapter Five
Summary
This chapter begins with a review of the problem, including the purpose of
the study and the guiding research questions. I follow with a summary of the
findings, implications for practice, recommendations for research and conclusion.
In Chapter Two, I reviewed the factors that helped or hindered the social
success of low-SES students in a college-going environment (within the context of
the educational pipeline). The literature suggested that there are several interrelated
factors that influence a breakdown in the educational pipeline. The four most cited
are: 1) academic preparation, 2) the college-going culture and social support offered
a student, 3) access to college information, and 4) affordability of college (Achieve,
2008; Adelman, 2006; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Schramm & Sagawa, 2008).
Although all are significant, the literature consistently pointed to the college-going
culture and the social support offered to students as having the greatest impact on the
successful navigation through the educational pipeline. This study focused on
building individual social and academic success through postsecondary education, in
the context of the Punahou School’s high academic culture, where the overall goal of
developing intellectual, academic and social potential of its students to the fullest
degree.
I focused on the study on eleven in-depth interviews with high school
students currently in the Punahou School Bridge Program. The program (initially for
low-SES students transitioning to a new college-going culture) has changed over the

106
past years according to the data provided by the students in the interviews. While
still focused on this population, the overall demographics of the group changed.
Among the fourteen freshmen in the Bridge Program in the 2009-10 school year, half
are on financial aid, and all have at least on parent/guardian in the household who
has a post-secondary degree from a two or four year institution. Comparatively, the
senior class of fourteen students in the program have nine of which are receiving
some financial aid, and eight students among this group have at least on
parent/guardian in the household who has a post-secondary degree from a two or
four year institution.
Further, the account of their personal experiences in the program was both
insightful, but acute in nature. The ability of the respondents to draw out a fine detail
of social experiences in retrospect was a challenge. However, the openness of the
students did make for a rich conversation. The interviews heightened their own
awareness of the structures of social groups and a consciousness of their sense of
place within the school. The potential for interpreting their own life chances as
limited is possible, however the impact of the support from faculty and peers within
the Bridge Program is strong enough where students want to return to the Bridge
Program after graduation to reconnect and reunite. Nonetheless, the students’ ability
to identify with peer groups, and understand how strong faculty and peer
relationships can be supportive and assist their own college-going endeavors is
evident.

107
Students in this program make every effort to become familiar with the
academic and social culture of the school, develop a familiarity with the structures of
the school, begin relationships with peers within the program, and have a social
awareness of the school. This begins the summer before their freshman year.
Familiarity of the students in the Bridge Program, who participated in the study, and
the teachers who have these students in their classroom was necessary to have clarity
about the factors for successful student in the program. The data analyzed was
organized in two parts (based on the two research questions):
1. How effective is the organizational structures at Punahou School, in
facilitating college access for low-SES students in a college-going
environment?
2. To what extent do the relationships between students, faculty, and within
the Bridge Program provide an organizational construct for low-SES
students to be academically and socially successful?
The research questions guided the organization of the findings and the
recommendations for program improvement.
Discussion
The data presented in Chapter Four can set forth policies that impact change
to the Bridge Program through: 1) Punahou School administration, 2) faculty and
staff in the program, and 3) those looking to create or improve similar support
programs. Although this study focused on a specific group of students in a specific
setting, the research on the program can be transferable. From the analysis of this

108
study, recommendations for solutions for improvement to the Bridge Program, and
next steps beyond this study are made. There are two recommendations for program
improvement (Table 4) in the following sections: 1) focus on a sociocultural
perspective of the program and 2) create an evaluation tool for analyzing program
effectiveness.

Table 4. Recommendations for Program Improvement

Research Base
Recommendation 1

Focus on a sociocultural
perspective of the
program
Social impacts on
academic success of
students (Stanton-Salazar,
1997)
Academic and Financial
Opportunities beyond
college
Recommendation 2

Create an evaluation tool
for analyzing program
effectiveness
K-16 academic success, the
goal is to promote students
through the educational
system, viewed as an
educational pipeline (Ewel,
Jones, & Kelly, 2003).
Five-Step Evaluation
Process of the
effectiveness of the
Bridge Program , and
impacts beyond high
school

A Program with a Sociocultural Lens
As stated in chapter two, the school, community organizations (e.g. the
church), and the peer group (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) have great influence on the
academic successes of students, particularly those from low-SES families. The
Bridge Program students need to know how to access and use these social networks
built in the school to support their academic and social emotional needs. If the

109
research tells us that the social success of students plays a role in the academic
success of students, and the results from the student interviews highlight their
perspective that the relationship with the program is a success factor in their college-
going endeavors, this should be an explicit part of the program. This can lead to a
new primary purpose of the program, which would explicitly focus on accessing
social capital through a student’s academic and social world. Stanton-Salazar notes
that all children, regardless of background, bring cultural knowledge, information
used in households and community for success everyday. However, structural
advantages exist for high-SES children in terms of cultural knowledge to succeed
(1997). For low-SES students to attain success, they need to learn to decode the
system through social and academic mobilization of adults at a large school, such as
Punahou.
Punahou School purposefully prepares students for college, focusing on the
academic, yet Bridge Program students also benefit from the social support as well.
Creating an environment where educational prowess and internal motivation from
students is a goal. Furthermore, modeling these behaviors is key. Students need to
understand how to access social capital and maintain it themselves through
mentorship. Encouraging and supporting social and cultural identity parallels this
structure. In gathering self-knowledge, students explore interest skills and values
(Makela 2006). For Bridge Program students, structuring access to social capital
through academic and social constructs within their concept of school provides an
avenue for acceptance of this framework. The faculty and staff play a key role in the

110
relationships the students have with each other, and with the program. However, the
faculty must be part of the student’s lives through college, through their
postsecondary education for true success.
Evaluation of the Bridge Program
The final question of the upperclassman interview had students indicate areas
of improvement for the Bridge Program. Many did not have any recommendations to
improve the program, so a follow up question was, “How do you know if it s because
of the Bridge Program that you find success in school?” The students did not know,
or found it difficult to explain. Not knowing how they arrived at a point of success.
Is telling. Not knowing why a program is effective does not give credence to the
program. Gauging the effectiveness of the program would require multiple steps at
varied points in time of the academic careers of the students (within high school and
after high school). This data would be important in looking at K-16 academic
success for the student, keeping in mind the goal of the program to promote students
through college, or promote students through the educational system, viewed as an
educational pipeline (Ewel, Jones, & Kelly, 2003).
A five-step, long-term evaluation of the Bridge Program, specifically for
college-going (and college completion) goals is necessary to determine effectiveness
of the program. Clark and Estes (2002) suggests that Don Kirkpatrick’s four-level
evaluation system is the preferred approach for organizations to evaluate
performance goals. Clark and Estes slight modification of the four-level evaluation
can be used for all performance support systems (Appendix G). Kirkpatrick’s four-

111
level evaluation provides a framework for assessing the performance gap solutions
(Kirkpatrick 1998).
It is recommended that the school and the program have a focused approach
to integrating an evaluation of the program and its students as part of the solution for
improvement (Appendix E). The first step in the five-step process is to collect the
data. The study revealed that the Bridge students have much to offer from their
experiences for program improvement. The social successes student find through the
program and their four years in high school should be examined, and analyzed as a
context for creating a template for the social needs of students, and from their
perspective, the mechanisms that triggered their success through the Bridge Program
at Punahou School. Evaluations from the students should be completed at the end of
each school year, using a Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (Braken, 1992) as a
basis for the academic and social examination (Appendix F). Further, faculty too
should compete the evaluation for an adult perspective on program improvement.
Observations should be made from all perspectives of the program – faculty and
students, with the curricular goals in mind, and recommendations should be made
year-to-year, after evaluating the data from the self-concept assessment.
A second step as part of the solution for examining effectiveness of the
program is to focus on the student learning, as supported by the faculty in the Bridge
Program. At the completion of each school year, Bridge Program faculty members
can be interviewed to assess the relationship between faculty and Bridge Program
students, from the perspective of teachers. The faculty can provide information about

112
how relationships between students and teachers can be a factor in the college going
process.
Evaluating if a student has retained the knowledge of finding social success,
and a student’s full implementation/use of new learning, in a college-going
environment should be analyzed. The work students do, the connections students
make (in terms of peer and faculty) and even the challenges Bridge students
encounter should be archived as a resource to other students. A collection of
academic work for each student should be archived and presented at the end of the
year for Bridge Program faculty to assess before the students enroll in their first year
of college. This can be used as a presentation tool for underclassmen, as individual
case studies Bridge students who have enrolled in college, and how their Bridge
experience at Punahou facilitated success beyond high school. Further, students
should also present self-reported college activity to faculty, as a demonstration of
knowledge base developed in their four years at Punahou, and applied in their first-
year at college.
A fourth step as a solution for examining the effectiveness of the program
would be to evaluate the perspectives of faculty on the effectiveness of the Bridge
Program. Punahou School Faculty should be asked to evaluate implementation of the
program and the process for student learning, not as a “separate program” but one
that is inclusive in the college-going environment. Some indicated challenges about
the structure of the program, especially within their first two years, retrospectively.
Mina’s Samoan heritage, her family and church affiliation, her high expectations for

113
herself in academia are values that are evident in her responses. Further, telling her
story of how, in four years at Punahou School and through the Bridge Program she
has the opportunity to life beyond high school. Sacrificing athletic extracurricular
activities for academic activities was not something she thought possible. A major
fault that Trina observed about the school was that the school “leaves the Bridge
Program out there.” In this instance, she believes that the actual building is removed
from the social setting of the campus, and may lead to a separate culture of campus
altogether stating, “I think they are scared of us. Like, they don’t want to come on
this side of campus, or near this building. Its kind of crazy.” Trina feels that the
stigma placed on the Bridge students is carried, not only in the social setting of the
campus, but in the classroom as well. The fact that no other freshman is involved in
their own “Bridge Program.” Because she feels that there were no expectations for
finding success in her first year at school (from her peers, faculty, etc.) she had to
find ways to create those expectations for herself. She felt that people, and
specifically other upperclassmen in the program, “do not rise up to the levels of their
ability, because they reach a stopping point, a level where they are comfortable,
where they feel they are satisfied with their accomplishments.” The difficulty for
Trina was to not hold herself to the same minimal expectations that seemed prevalent
for the other students in the program. Her ability to do effectively negotiate these
minimal expectations, within the high school setting, made her feel as though she
was a role model for other students.

114
A fifth step would be to look beyond high school. Self-reported student
progress after one year of enrollment in college, after the four years through the
Bridge Program, should be used to assess the success of student’s personal and
academic development in high school. The data should be used, in terms of
summative assessment, by Punahou School faculty, to determine if the performance
of Bridge Program students beyond high school is successful. These four steps
(Appendix F) should not only impact the students in the Bridge program in any given
year, but also the individual students in their academic endeavors, through the
pipeline, beyond high school.
Implications for Practice
The success the Bridge Program students find in the structure of the program
and the relationships through the relationships made is unique to Punahou School.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) revealed the importance of a structured program and the
intimacy of relationships and student success through the AVID program. Further,
Tierney and Jun (2001) revealed a successful college-going focus through orientation
transition to college culture. The sociocultural thread that connects the academic
success and social success in maintaining the educational pipeline is what makes the
Bridge Program, from the perspective of student, effective.
The data analyzed in this study has provided several directions for
opportunities for further research. While the focus of the study was on those students
who are currently in the program, there can be a broader range of social impacts on
individual students. The study focused on the high school college-going

115
environment, however the educational pipeline is cited as going beyond the college
experience, and attainment of employment through the pipeline. The next steps for
the evaluation of the program must be beyond the scope of access to college.
The in-depth upperclassmen interviews revealed two significant findings. The
first is the fear that the students have as they approach the end of their four years at
Punahou School. For the successful transition the students had between middle
school and the new college-going environment, strong social and academic support-
on a daily basis was needed. The students expected it, and depended on the structure
that was provided. The second significant finding in the interviews is the strong
support in school the students are receiving – and the significantly less support, from
the students perspective, outside of school. In light of the findings mentioned, two
recommendations for future research are provided: 1) a longitudinal analysis
(focusing on “beyond Punahou,” and 2) further social success supports – beyond the
school environment.
Implications for Research
The rationale for Punahou School to dissect and examine its Bridge Program
within the sociocultural framework is to allow the institution to uncover areas of
advancement, yet realize areas where students are already successful. The study
uncovered areas within a social capital framework. Models for success were
essential, and providing a structure to support these adolescents in the constructs of
socialization and academic performance in high school was needed. Stanton-Salazar
(1997) notes the importance of developing a social capital framework for students

116
that do not have the access. The study revealed the support students are receiving “to
college” rather than “through college.”
Tierney and Jun (2001) examine these transitions from high school to college
as a significant in the retention and the completion of college, specifically for low-
SES students. The social capital students have from high-SES families, and the
transitions from high school to college do not have as much of a significant impact
on the individual student, as compared to a low-SES student. The Bridge students
revealed their intrepidness towards not having the transition, supports, or adult
mentors beyond Punahou. Additional research is needed for gathering information
on students beyond high school, within college settings. Future research should
analyze social success factors of students within college, after the Bridge Program
experience. A follow up study would include, not only a look at the college-college
going successes of the individual students, but following them through the pipeline at
college completion and the social success factors allowing them to complete the
pipeline.
While Lily was interviewed as someone who has been successful in college,
the focus of the data collection was retrospect on her experiences in high school
impacting her college experience. She revealed the challenge of, “being on my own,
with nobody to talk to,” in terms of the adults faculty from the Bridge Program who
are significant in the day-to-day lives of the students. While the program has been
successful in providing access to, and information about college, the educational
pipeline calls for more. The Bridge Program should have a second focus, targeting

117
the transition to college, retention in college, and completion of college for its
members. The opportunity to find true success through the pipeline is still a
possibility. It remains to be seen how the acquirement of capital (Punahou School
degree) has had an impact on Lily’s college success, and how it has played a role in
her social network for successful employment.
The support needed by the students in the Bridge program to feel socially
successful on campus, greatly rested on the limited faculty/staff of the Bridge
Program. While, the depth of the relationships between faculty and students varied,
as evidence from the upperclassmen interviews, the data from the interviews
revealed the magnitude of these relationships, as a crutch on their day-to-day lives.
Beyond the scope of the school day, the significance of the home environment had a
role in the students approach to school. Outside of the school environment, there
were many events in the individual students life that impacted their education.
Further study should focus on the social success factors outside of the school
environment impacting the individuals in the Bridge Program. The important lesson
learned from this study focused on the school and its programs impacting the
college-going students. Alternative factors (family, peers outside of school, etc.) can
also play a role with students in a college-going culture. The soccer player (Shon)
had implied how his home life affected his motivation for success in school,
however, the social implications of the home environment was not further addressed.
The impact of home life on the overall college-going process fuels the wealth of, or
deficiencies of emotional and/or educational support through out high school. The

118
significance of parental involvement and/or siblings as a factor in the success of a
student in a college-going environment ay help inform school structures for services
or supports (mentors, counselors, educational assistance, etc.) to better meet the
needs of students.
Limitations
The research reviewed in this case study was not merely an account of these
particular students, but a framework for the social success factors for students in
large college-going institutions. The study highlighted the importance of any
program besides the Bridge Program focus their college-going efforts in areas of: 1)
The relationships students have with the program, which will then facilitate 2) the
impact of the program itself for their college-going endeavors. The interpersonal
relations individuals have/had (with both faculty and students) was a key factor in
how successful students felt in school. The social networks created (over time)
increased the students access to social groups, academic help, and information about
college access, beyond the classroom. Information about clubs, programs, or other
social groups in colleges, not discussed in College Counseling courses, was delivered
through social networks built at school. The college-going culture is beyond the
structured course, or high school college counselor, or access to college; it is the
actual years in college as well. The Bridge Program cannot only be about
transitioning for a successful college prep experience, but it needs to focus too on a
successful college-going, and college-finishing experience as well.

119
The pursuit of a bachelor’s degree, and maintaining one’s course on the
educational pipeline, is laden with blockages. For the underclassmen in the Bridge
Program, the early morning commutes, late evenings, long rides home, seem never-
ending. To the upperclassmen, the sacrifices made are slowly bearing fruit, with each
college acceptance letter received in the mail. For those in higher education, a look
back at their years in the program, serve as a reminder of the academic foundation
that enables academic success. The model of success for these students is not built
solely on academic prowess, but on the interpersonal connections made through out
their time at Punahou School. The strength of a program is how sustainable it is , and
how effective it is beyond the program itself.
While many affluent families understand the pathway to academic success,
the Bridge Program assumes that these students will succeed beyond high school
based on the appropriate academic mentoring and strong interpersonal relationships
created from their freshman year. However, the program should be somewhat
structured, with the idea, of “Beyond College.” What is created then, is a norm (or
standard) of which all students in the program will continue their education through
college, and the support they will receive beyond college are the next steps of the
Bridge Program. Through this study, these students have provided a framework that
the social success occurs at many levels, whether through the program, or outside.
The social networks the students build (amongst faculty and students) provides a
successful model for them to access college, and to get through college. The

120
Punahou community and school should make a concerted effort to follow the
educational pipeline through the end – beyond college.
Conclusion
The impact of legislation such as No Child Left Behind (in the public sector)
and the economic recession, has further directed the focus of education researchers
toward investigating the essential nature of failure in schools and the college-going
ideology. As evidence by previous research presented in the review of literature,
student success in the educational pipeline, is a difficult and complex issue to
investigate, especially in high school settings such as Punahou School. As a result,
researchers have historically shied away from conducting studies that focus on
student achievement through college (rather than lack of achievement or dropout
rates). Furthermore, educational policy, set by school systems or administration,
tends to be politically motivated and concentrate on the lack of success attained by
students. Proposed solutions to well politicized problems tend to be described in
terms of the perceived problems within the educational system. Rather than looking
to successful students for guidance as to which methods aided in their achievements,
administrators and education researchers default to the generalizable stance of failure
of students. In doing so, schools have implemented new requirements for teachers
and additional testing in an attempt to further measure acquired student knowledge.
Policymakers have even gone so far as to design new curricula as wholesale
replacements for identified “problem” curricula. The result these approaches,
however, in the real-world classroom has been a lack of focus on success and

121
achievement through post-secondary education and a re-focusing on only “passing
the test” or high school graduation as a definition of success.
Padilla (2009) refers to the rise in interest in student success (Attewell &
Lavin, 2007; Colley, 2007) is evident in such events such as the 2006 National
Symposium on Student Success. While student dropout and student success studies
continue to be linked, leaders in education have often spoken about “closing the gap”
between those who are successful in school and those who are not. In private school
settings, particularly in the state of Hawaii, one attempt to close this gap has been to
admit a range of students (low-SES) to their college-going school culture. The
challenge has been to keep the school focused on not only the academic needs of the
students, but also the social successes students need to navigate a college-going
culture. The Bridge Program at Punahou School has been a model for facilitating
success beyond high school, and be part of the solution of greater opportunities for
all students to continue their education. Based on the two research questions he
student interviews reflected on this success through two important themes in their
discussions: 1) The importance of the relationships with the Bridge program and 2)
the impact of the program itself for their college-going endeavors. From the students’
perspective, this study has shown the Bridge Program is an example of a school with
dedicated faculty focused on the success (beyond high school) of all students.
However, this cannot rest on the shoulders of four faculty members.
The focus of the Bridge Program needs to be based on the success of students
beyond college. Students from diverse cultures have made great strides in their levels

122
of achievement at Punahou School. However, as stated earlier, the majority of
research with regard to the Bridge Program has been limited to the essential nature of
failure (who has not continued with their Punahou education). Until the school
begins to focus on the successes these students, beyond high school graduation,
perception will continue to center on the negative, essential, and easily generalizable
nature of failure. In an effort to counteract the influence failure-oriented research has
had on the Bridge Program students’ education, the school, and those who have
interest in exploring the success for our students to join in the re-direction of the type
of research that might be conducted and as a result, the re-focusing on the successes
of the students that will follow. Success then, will not only be for the students and
faculty on the Punahou campus, but extend beyond its seventy-acres and provide an
opportunity for those who do not see school as a realistic venture beyond high
school.

123
References
Achieve (2009). Closing the expectations gap. Retrieved February 14, 2009 from
http://www.achieve.org/files/50-state-2009.pdf

Achieve (2008). Achieve data profile: Hawaii. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.achieve.org/files/Hawaii01-08-08.ppt#423,1,Slide 1

Adams, A. (2000, Fall). The Public Purpose of Private Schools. In The Public
Purpose of Private Schools. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from National
Association of Independent Schools Web site:
http://www.nais.org// ‌ismagazinelist.cfm?Itemnumber=145814&sn.ItemNum
ber=145956&tn.ItemNumber=145958

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved June 3, 2009 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/1b/c0/63.pdf.

Anson, A. R., Cook, T. D., Habib, F., Grady, M. K., Haynes, N., & Comer, J. P.
(1991). The Comer School Development Program: A theoretical analysis.
Urban Education, 26, 56--82.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of
priorities in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Astin, A. W. (2006). Making sense out of degree completion rates. Journal of
College Student Retention, 7(1-2), 5-17.

Astin AW, Oseguera L. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher
education. Rev. High. Educ. 27:321–41 Baron JN, Mittman BS, Newman.

Barker, C. (2000). Liberal Arts Education for a Global Society. Carnegie
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/libarts.pdf/

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2001). Leading with Soul: An Uncommon Journey of
Spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

124
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7, 55-71.

Bourdieu P. (1979). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Transl.
R Nice, 1984. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press (From French).

Bourdieu P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Transl. P Collier, 1988. Stanford, CA:
Stanford Univ. Press.

Braken, B. A. (1992). Multidimensional self concept scale [Data file]. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.

Cahalan, M., Silva, T., Thomas, M.., & Cunningham K. (2004). Implementation of
the Talent Search program, past and present: final report from phase I of the
national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved November 14, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/talentsearch/talentreport.pdf

Carnevale, A., & Desrochers, D. (2002). The missing middle: aligning education and
the knowledge economy. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from:
http://www.cceconptnr.org/WorkforceInitiative/Research/The%20Missing%2
0Middle.pdf

Carnevale, A., & Desrochers, D. (2003). Standards for what? the economic roots of
k–16 reform, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.learndoearn.org/For-Educators/Standards-for-What.pdf

Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuting vs. resident students: Overcoming
educational inequities of living off-campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W. (2006). Every student can learn-if. About Campus, May-June, 9-
15.

Chinn, P. (2000). Isabella Aiona Abbott and the education of minorities and females.
Teaching Education.

125
Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. S., Silva, T., & Myers, D. (2006). A
study of the effect of the Talent Search program on secondary and
postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas: Final report from
phase II of the national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy
Research for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 14,
2008 from http://www.mathematica-
mpr.com/publications/PDFs/talentseach3state.pdf

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13.

Corwin, Z.B., Colyar, J.E., & Tierney, W.G. (2005). Introduction: engaging research
and practice—extracurricular and curricular influences on college access. In
Z.B. Corwin, J.E. Colyar, & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Preparing for college: nine
elements of effective college outreach (pp. 1-9). New York: State University
of New York Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 15, 32-38.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95--120.

Cuban, L. (1998). How Schools Change Reforms: Redefining Reform Success and
Failure [Electronic version]. Teachers College Record, 99(3).

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. TESOL QUARTERLY
528.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. New York: Longman.

Currie, J. and Madrian, B. C. (1999). Health, Health Insurance and the Labor Market,
in O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (eds.) Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3C,
(Amsterdam: North-Holland).

Daniels, E., & Arapostathis, M. (2005). What do they really want? Student voices
and motivation research. Urban Education, 40, 34–59.

126
Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New
York: The New Press.

Dembo, M. (2004). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A self-
management approach (2nd ed.). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeRego, K. (2008, January 31). Revisiting Punahou Carnival [Editorial]. Ka Leo -
The Voice. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from University of Hawaii Web site:
http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2008/01/31/Com
mentary/Revisiting.The.Punahou.Carnival-3179994.shtml

Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and Educational Administration.. In John Dewey: The
Later Works, vol. 11 of The Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882-1953,
edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1987.

Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational
literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31–60.

Education Week (2007). From cradle to career: connecting American education
from birth through adulthood. Education week.
http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2007/17shr.hi.h26.pdf

Education. (2006). Hawaiian Roots. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from
http://www.hawaiian-roots.com/index.htm

Ewell, P., Jones, D., & Kelly, P. (2003). Conceptualizing and researching the
educational pipeline. National Center for Higher Education Management
Services. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from
http://www.nchems.org/pubs/docs/Pipeline%20Article.pdf

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1994). Winter setback: School racial
composition and learning to read. American Sociological Review, 59, 446–
460.

Fernandez, Y. M., Whitlock, E. R., Martin, C., & Van Earden, K. (1998, October).
Evaluation of a First-Year Pilot Program for Academically Under prepared
Students at a Private Liberal Arts College. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. 426680) University of Massachusetts, Amherst - Educational
Policy, Research and Administration Department.

Fleming, J. (2002). Who will succeed in college? When the SAT predicts Black
students' performance. Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 281–296.

127
Friedman T. The World Is Flat, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005.

Glass, Gene V., and M. L. Smith, (1979). Meta-Analysis of Research on Class Size
and Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, I , 2–16.

Goldhaber, Dan. 1999. “School Choice: An Examination of the Empirical Evidence
on Achievement, Parental Decision Making and Equity.” Educational
Researcher 28:16–25.

Goldin, C., 1999. A brief history of education in the United States, NBER Working
paper H0119.

Gorard, S., Taylor, C. and Fitz, J. (2003) Schools, Markets and Choice Policies.
London: Routledge Falmer.

Hagedorn, L.S., & Tierney, W.G. (2002). Cultural capital and the struggle for
educational equity. In L.S. Hagedorn & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Increasing
access to college (pp. 1-11). New York: State University of New York Press.

Hashimoto, L. (2008a) Talent Search annual performance report for windward
district. Kaneohe, Hawaii: Windward Community College.

Hashimoto, L. (2008b) Talent Search annual performance report for Honolulu
district. Kaneohe, Hawaii: Windward Community College.

Hauser, R. and Huang, M. (1997). "Verbal Ability and Socioeconomic Success: A
Trend Analysis," Social Science Res. pp. 331- 76.

Hauser, R. and Warren, J. (1997). “Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A
Review, Update, and Critique.” Sociological Methodology 27:177– 298.

Hauser, R. (1994). Measuring socioeconomic status in studies of child development.
Child Dev. 65:1541–45.

Haycock, K. (2006). Promise abandoned: How policy choices and institutional
practices restrict college opportunities. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

Horn, L., & Nuñez, A.M. (2000). Mapping the road to college: first-generation
students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support (NCES 2000–
153). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

128
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998).
Enhancing campus climates for racial/diversity: Educational policy and
practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.

Institute for Higher Education. (2005). The investment payoff: a 50 state analysis of
public and private benefits of higher education. Retrieved March 16, 2009
from: http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/g-l/InvestmentPayoff.pdf

Institute of Educational Sciences (2006). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved October
30, 2008, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_Talent_Search_122806.pdf

Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). Faculty work: Making our research matter—more. Review
of Higher Education, 31(4), 489–504.

Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative
research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ledward, B. and B. Takayama. (2008). Ho'opilina kumu: Culture-based education
among Hawai'i teachers. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools, Research and
Evaluation Division.

Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the odds: how the poor get to college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lillard, D. R., & DeCicca, P. P. (2001). Higher Standards, More Dropouts? Evidence
Within and Across Time. Economics of Education Review, 20, 459-473.
Abstract retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.elsevier.com//.

Long, B. T. and Erin K. Riley. (2007a) Financial Aid: A Broken Bridge to College
Access? Harvard Educational Review.

Lucas, C. J. (1994). American Higher Education: A History. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press.

Makela, J. P. (2006, June). Advising Community College Students: Exploring
Traditional and Emerging Theory. Office of Community College Research
and Leadership, in brief. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from ERIC Web site:
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ ‌ERICWebPortal////.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS
earch_SearchValue_0=ED495222&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_acc
no&accno=ED495222

129
Making of America Books. (n.d.). (Reprinted from Life in the Sandwich Islands, by
H. Cheever). Retrieved May 7, 2008, from University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor Web site: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/ABA2388.0001.001.

Martinez, M and S Klopott. (2005). The link between high school reform and college
access and success for low-income minority youth. Washington, DC:
American Youth Policy Forum.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in
Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Mortenson, T. (2000). NCES-IPEDS graduation rate survey. Postsecondary
Education Opportunity.

Mortenson, T. (2001a, October).Graph titled: BA attainment by age 24 by family
income quartile. Postsecondary education opportunity.

Mortenson, T. (2001b, October). Graph titled: college continuation rates by family
income quartiles for dependent 18-24 year-old high school graduates.
Postsecondary education opportunity.

Mortenson, T. G., and Wu, Z. (1990). High school graduation and college
participation of young adults by family income backgrounds, 1970 to 1989.
ACT Student Financial Aid Research Report No. 90–3. Iowa City: ACT
Educational and Social Research.

Mortenson, T. (2006). College participation rate for low-income families by state
1992-93 to 203-04. Postsecondary Education Opportunity Newsletter 163.

Mortenson, T., (1991). Equity of higher educational opportunity for women, 90-105.
Higher Education Newsletter 163.

National Association of System Heads. (2008). Trends in family income for college-
going. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from: http://www.nashonline.org/

National Center for Higher Education and Public Policy. (2006). Income of U.S.
Workforce Projected to Decline If Education Doesn’t Improve. San Jose, CA.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). Enrollment Trends in Public and
Private Elementary and Secondary Schools. Unpublished raw data. Retrieved
October 3, 2007, from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educational Statistics (2006) Web site: http://nces.ed.gov//.asp?id=65

130
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The condition of education 2008.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2008/section3/indicator24.asp

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2009). Student
Pipeline -Transition and Completion Rates from 9th Grade to College: 2006.
Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=119&year=20
06&level=nation&mode=data&state=0

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004). The Educational
Pipeline: Big Investment, Big Return [Policy brief]. Retrieved March 16,
2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pipeline/

National Staff Development Council. (2000). Learning to lead, leading to learn.
Oxford, OH: Author.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional
arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215-231.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Wolfle, L.M. (1986). Orientation to college and
freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of higher education,
57(2), 155-175. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981479

Pathways to College Network. (2004). Full report for a shared agenda: a leadership
challenge to improve college success. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from the
Pathways to College website:
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/sharedagenda_FullReport.pdf

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective: A comparison of the relationships
of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement
and attendance in middle school. American Educational Research Journal,
34, 633-662.

131
Punahou School (2008). Admissions Department. Betsey Hata, Lon Wysard.
Honolulu, HI. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from Admissions Department Data
– Punahou School site: http://www.punahou.edu.

Rainwater, T., & Venezia, A. (2003). Early outreach. In Student success: statewide
P-16 systems. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from Pathways to College
Network website:
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/StudentSuccess_EarlyOutreach.pdf

Richards, P. (2008). Talent Search annual performance report for leeward district.
Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii at Mania.

Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. H. (1985). Motivational processes in learning: A
comparative analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frame- works. In P. R.
Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
(Vol. 9, pp. 255-288). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Severeide, R., Ph.D. (1998). Establishing a Baseline for School Readiness of
Washington County Children Entering Kindergarten. Portland, OR: Early
Childhood Strategies. Abstract obtained from Early Childhood Strategies,
1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 437155).

Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J. L., Mitchell, C., & Feinman, J. (1994). The impact of
school transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived
social context of poor urban youth. Child Development, 65, 507–522.

Seidman, E., Aber, J. L., Allen, L., & French, S. E. (1996). The impact of the
transition to high school on the self-esteem and perceived social context of
poor urban youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 409–
515.

Shapiro, S., (1987). The Social Control of Impersonal Trust The American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 623-658
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780293.

Shouse, R. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict and
congruence in American high schools. In A. M. Pallas (Ed.), Research in
sociology of education and socialization (pp. 173--202). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and student achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

132
Soussou, H. (1995). Gain the Edge: An Academic Summer Enrichment Program. Mt.
Kisco, NY: Plan for Social Excellence, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. 391852) The Greater Fort Lauderdale Consortium of Secondary
Schools

Swail, W.S. (2001). Educational opportunity and the role of pre-college outreach
programs. Retrieved February 25, 2009, From College Board website:
http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/OutreachHandbookEssays.pdf

Swail, W.S., & Perna, L.W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs. In L.S.
Hagedorn & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Increasing access to college (pp. 15-34).
New York: State University of New York Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-
40.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing Hope & Despair: The School and Kin
Support Networks of U.S. - Mexican Youth. Columbia University: Teachers
College Press.

Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., & Bernal, E.M.. (2001). Swimming against the tide.
College Board. Retrieved on April 10, 2009, from
http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/rdreport200_3918.pdf.

Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P.M., Pascarella, E.T., & Nora, A. (1996).
First-generation students: characteristics, experiences, and cognitive
development. Research in higher education, 37(1): 1–22.

Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
Journal of higher education, 63(6), 603-618.

Tierney, W. G., & Jun, A. (2001). A university helps prepare low-income youths for
college: tracking school success. Journal of higher education, 72(2), 205-
225.

Tinto, V. (1997) ‘Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character
of Student Persistence’, Journal of Higher Education. 68, pp. 599-623.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2d ed.) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

133
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: what next? Journal of
college student retention, 8(1), 1-19.

Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1993). Freshmen Interest Groups and the First Year
Experience: Constructing Student Communities in a Large University. Kansa
City, MO: Syracuse University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
358778) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the College Reading and
Learning Association

Tinto, V., Goodsell, A. & Russo, P. (1993). Building community among new college
students. Liberal Education, 79, 16-21.

USC 706 Course Reader. (2008). (Reprinted from The Rise of American Universities
during the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. By Eliot, C. W. (n.d.).
Liberty in Education).

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001).
Bridging the Gap: academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-
generation students, NCES 2001–153, by Edward C. Warburton, Rosio
Bugarin, and Anne-Marie Nuñez. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll.
Washington, DC: 2001.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A.L. (2003). Betraying the college dream: how
disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student
aspirations. Retrieved February 4, 2009 from
http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/betrayingthecollegedream.pdf.

Velez, William. "Finishing College: The Effects of College Type." Sociology of
Education 58 (1985): 191-200.

Villalpando, O., & Solorzano, D.G. (2005). The role of culture in college preparation
programs: a review of the literature. In Z.B. Corwin, J.E. Colyar, & W.G.
Tierney (Eds.), Preparing for college: nine elements of effective college
outreach (pp. 13-28). New York: State University of New York Press.

Weisner, T. (1984). Ecocultural niches of middle childhood: A cross-cultural
perspective. In W. Andrew Collins, Development during middle childhood
the years from six to twelve (pp. 335-369). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham:
Open University.

134
Appendix A
Freshmen Questionnaire
Section I: Demographics
Please fill in the following information:
1. Please list your educational background
Grade Level Extra-curricular Activities
2. Please list all prior relevant, most recent, educational experiences:
School Location Duration in Years
3. Could you describe the responsibilities and duties of the faculty/staff in the
Bridge Program?

4. Could you describe the responsibilities and duties of the faculty/staff not in
the Bridge Program?

5. How many years have you been at Punahou School?
Section II: Program Operation and Effectiveness
6. First, of the following Bridge Program services, check off items that are
provided to high school participants.

Second, think of the services that you feel are effective at promoting college
access for Bridge Program high school participants that are either low-
income, and/or first-generation. Please write Y next to items that you feel are
effective at promoting college access in the last column, or an N to the items
you feel are not effective.

Third, please rank the top four services from most effective in promoting
college access to the least effective with 1 being most effective.

135

Social Support Mechanisms
Offered
(check)
Effective
(Y)es or
(N)o
Numerical Rank of
Effectiveness
(Rank top four: 1,
2, 3, and 4)
Support is in place to help connect
classroom learning to the way “I” learn

Teachers contact students’ family through
open houses and school events

The school supports teacher-parent contact
in regards to students’ performance.

The school creates a sense of community
The school provides my family with
information about how they can support
our learning at home

The school has a structures that involves
family and community in student learning
(volunteer opportunities and mentoring
programs for parent)

My culture is important in our classes and
our school environment

My family support is important to my
success at this school

Teachers to get to know students, their
families, through interactions outside the
classroom (sporting events)

The school has a system and structure that
improves academic achievement and
college readiness

The teachers encourage students to teach
and learn from each other on a daily basis

Standardized tests is the primary tool to
determine how to better meet students
needs

Teachers are supported so that they use
appropriate curricula and materials that
include some postsecondary relevant
content

136
Social Support Mechanisms
Offered
(check)
Effective
(Y)es or
(N)o
Numerical Rank of
Effectiveness
(Rank top four: 1,
2, 3, and 4)
Along with vendor-developed textbooks
and materials students have other academic
support to ensure understanding of content.

Students have the support to keep
themselves engaged in projects or
performances that are purposeful and
useful in college settings

The classroom delivery and instructional
methods much to do with the college-going
environment

A wide range of college materials and
resources (books, electronic media, and
community members) are used in addition
to traditional learning structures.

The school understand “me” and the
challenges I face in this high-achieving,
college-going environment

At our school students who are challenged
in their academics, have the necessary
support to be successful at the school.

The school is just as responsible for
students’ social and emotional growth, as it
is for their academic achievement

Teachers integrate socially relevant
practices rituals and protocol as part of the
college-going experience

Students feel their classes and the school
environment supports students not from a
college-going environment

Our teacher’s relevant knowledge,
practices, behaviors, and language towards
a college-going environment in the content
and materials.

The school ensures that no student feels
“left out.”

137
Social Support Mechanisms
Offered
(check)
Effective
(Y)es or
(N)o
Numerical Rank of
Effectiveness
(Rank top four: 1,
2, 3, and 4)
The teachers on campus understand where
I come from and support services are in
place to help me.

The school ensures that students have a
strong identity and value of place

138
Appendix B
Services Listed in the Freshmen Questionnaire Categorized by Factor that
Affects College Access
Factor Affecting
College Access Academic Preparation
Social Support and
Cultural Capital
Services: 1) aptitude assessment
2) tutorial services
3) assistance in preparing for
college entrance exams
4) test taking development
5) study skills development
6) Assisted Computer Labs
1) exposure to college
campuses
2) counseling
3) mentoring programs
4) workshops for
participants’ families
5) cultural activities
6) One-on-one guidance
with parents

139
Appendix C
Barriers and Challenges for Students
Barriers Descriptors
Personal Health Problems (physical/emotional)
Lack of Time Management skills
Family Responsibilities
Lack of Support by family and friends
Transportation
Coursework Lack of instructor support
Lack of motivation by instructors
Level of instruction doesn’t match expectations
Short notice of assignments
Mandatory out-of-class group work
Finding out the importance of each class
Limited online access at home
Negative student behavior in class
Fellow students (peers) lacking motivation
Financial Family Employment
Unemployment
Learning Discipline
Lack of technology at home
Making time to study
Lack of computer literacy
Problems with English Language
Lack of communication skills
Lack of note taking skills
Lack of study groups
Lack of study habits
Hard to concentrate
Lack of attention span
Undecided about future education

140
Barriers Descriptors
Institutional Confusion of the process of furthering education
Lack of information on extracurricular activities
Lack of social life on campus
Insufficient study areas
Scheduling of events not student friendly
Limited library hours
Not open on the weekends
Parking
Student Support Advisors are not on the same page
No designated advisor
Long wait to access advisor
Insufficient guidance regardless of program of study
Wrong information on classes to take
Based on Student Success Barriers for Community College (Padilla, 2008)

141
Appendix D
Type of Participants, Number of Questions, and Time Required for Questions
in Interview Organized by Theme for the Bridge Program (BP)
Organizing
Theme Purpose
Suggested
Interviewee(s)
Number of
Questions
Time
Required
Program
Evaluation
Explores how the
BP is evaluated
in regards to the
outcome of
postsecondary
access
BP Staff,
Non-BP
staff/faculty,
10 10 minutes
College –Going
Factors
Explores
perceptions of
college access
factors and how
they relate to
postsecondary
access
BP Staff,
Non-BP
staff/faculty, BP
students
9 10 minutes
Program
Effectiveness
Explores BP
program
effectiveness on
the outcome of
postsecondary
access
BP Staff,
Non-BP
staff/faculty, BP
students
5 10 minutes

142
Appendix E
Bridge Program Upperclassmen Interview
1. What is the Bridge Program? What is its purpose?
2. Why are you in the program?
3. How did the teachers in the Bridge Program get to know your family? Was it
effective?

4. How did the other teachers you had at Punahou get to know your family?
5. How is your relationship with your teachers? Is it important to your success?
6. What kind of support is in place to help you learn better in class? Is it effective?
7. Do you feel a sense of “community” within the Bridge Program? At Punahou
School?

8. Do you feel Punahou School has a system and structure that improves academic
achievement and college readiness? Was it effective?

9. How do teachers encourage students to learn from each other on a daily basis?
10. How do the teachers in the Bridge Program understand “you” and the challenges
you faced in the high-achieving, college-going environment?

11. How do the other teachers you had in high school understand “you” and the
challenges you faced in the high-achieving, college-going environment?

12. Does the school ensure that no student feels “left out?” How?
13. Do you think the teachers on campus understand where you come from?
14. Do you think the Bridge Program has changed from last year in how it helps
students? If so, in what ways?

15. What is contributing to the Bridge Program effectiveness?
16. What is impeding the Bridge Program effectiveness?
17. What could be improved to increase the effectiveness of the Bridge Program?

143
18. Define “success,” in your words.
19. How is your success directly attributed to the Bridge Program?
20. What aspects of the Bridge Program did we not cover in the interview?

144
Appendix F
Questions in Interview Organized by Theme and Interviewee
Interview
Question
Research
Question Theme Question
1 1 Program
Effectiveness
What is the Bridge Program? What is its
purpose?
2 1 Program
Effectiveness
Why are you in the program?
3 2 Program
Effectiveness
How did the teachers in the Bridge Program
get to know your family? Was it effective?
4 2 Program
Effectiveness
How did the other teachers you had at
Punahou get to know your family?
5 2 College –
Going Factors
How is your relationship with your teachers?
Is it important to your success?
6 1 Program
Effectiveness
What kind of support is in place to help you
learn better in class? Is it effective?
7 2 Program
Effectiveness
Do you feel a sense of “community” within
the Bridge Program? At Punahou School?
8 1 Program
Effectiveness
Do you feel Punahou School has a system and
structure that improves academic achievement
and college readiness? Was it effective?
9 2 Program
Effectiveness
How do teachers encourage students to learn
from each other on a daily basis?
10 2 College –
Going Factors
How do the teachers in the Bridge Program
understand “you” and the challenges you
faced in the high-achieving, college-going
environment?
11 2 College –
Going Factors
How do the other teachers you had in high
school understand “you” and the challenges
you faced in the high-achieving, college-going
environment?
12 2 Program
Effectiveness
Does the school ensure that no student feels
“left out?” How?
13 2 Program
Effectiveness
Do you think the teachers on campus
understand where you come from?
14 1 Program
Effectiveness
Do you think the Bridge Program has changed
from last year in how it helps students? If so,
in what ways?

145
Interview
Question
Research
Question Theme Question
15 1 Program
Effectiveness
What is contributing to the Bridge Program
effectiveness?
16 1 Program
Effectiveness
What is impeding the Bridge Program
effectiveness?
17 1 Program
Effectiveness
What could be improved to increase the
effectiveness of the Bridge Program?
18 1 College –
Going Factors
Define “success,” in your words.
19 2 Program
Effectiveness
How is your success directly attributed to the
Bridge Program?
20 1 Program
Effectiveness
What aspects of the Bridge Program did we
not cover in the interview?

146
Appendix G
Na Opio Questionnaire
Organizational Instructional Strategies Support Mechanisms
Our school helps connect
classroom learning to their
experiences at home and in the
community
I connect classroom learning to
the experiences of my students’
home and in the community
Support mechanisms are in
place to help connect
classroom learning to students
experiences at home and in the
community
Our teachers rely heavily on
standardized to test to
determine how to better meet
students needs
I rely heavily on standardized to
test to determine how to better
meet students needs
Standardized tests is the
primary tool to determine how
to better meet students needs
Our faculty and staff work
closely with families to support
their children’s growth and
success in and out of the
classroom
I use my professional
development experiences to learn
more about Hawaiian culture
lands and traditions
Professional development is
available for teachers to learn
more about Hawaiian culture,
lands, and traditions
Our school integrates family,
community members and
kupuna into the learning
experience
I work closely with families to
support their children’s growth
and success in and out of the
classroom
Systems are in place to
promote family support child's
growth and success
Our school supports
professional development to
learn more about Hawaiian
culture lands and traditions
I integrate family, community
members and kupuna into the
learning experience
Teachers have access to family,
community members and
kupuna for involvement in to
support the learning
experiences of students
Our school environment and
daily practices are grounded in
Hawaiian beliefs and native
spirituality
My classroom environment and
daily practices are grounded in
Hawaiian beliefs and native
spirituality
There are opportunities to learn
daily practices that are
grounded in Hawaiian beliefs
and native spirituality
Most of our teachers use
textbook based lectures and
discussions
I use textbook based lectures and
discussions
In addition to textbook based
lectures and discussion,
teachers differentiate
instruction using multiple
pedagogical strategies.
Our faculty and staff get to
know students, their families,
their community through
interactions outside the
classroom
I get to know students, their
families, their community
through interactions outside the
classroom
Our faculty and staff are
encouraged to get to know
students, their families, their
community through
interactions outside the
classroom
In our school we communicate
entirely in olelo Hawaii
I communicate entirely in olelo
Hawaii to my students
Teachers participate in olelo
Hawaii lessons to support
student needs

147
Organizational Instructional Strategies Support Mechanisms
10. Our school environment
incorporates universal values,
using Hawaiian terms such as
ohana and lokahi
10. My classroom environment
incorporates universal values,
using Hawaiian terms such as
ohana and lokahi
Using Hawaiian terms such as
ohana and lokahi promotes a
stronger understanding by
students of universal values
Most faculty and staff contact
with students families, occurs
through open houses and school
events
My contact with students
families, occurs through open
houses and school events
none
Our teachers contact family
members by phone, in person,
or email when students are
having problems in class
I contact family members by
phone, in person, or email when
students are having problems in
class
The school supports teacher-
parent contact in regards to
student’s performance.
Our school invites family
members on our campus to
create a sense of ohana
I invite family members to my
classroom to create a sense of
ohana
Our school invites family
members on our campus to
create a sense of ohana
Our school provides family
members with information
about ways that they can
support child’s learning at home
I provide family members with
information about ways that they
can support child’s learning at
home
The school provides family
members with information
about ways that they can
support child’s learning at
home
Our school has formal systems
and structures that facilitate
family and community
involvement in student learning
(volunteer opportunities and
mentoring programs
My curriculum has formal
systems and structures that
facilitate family and community
involvement in student learning
(volunteer opportunities and
mentoring programs for parents,
kupuna)
Our school has formal systems
and structures that facilitate
family and community
involvement in student learning
(volunteer opportunities and
mentoring programs
Our school’s primary job is to
improve students academic
achievement
My primary job is to improve
students academic achievement
15. Our school has formal
systems and structures that
facilitate family and
community involvement in
student learning (volunteer
opportunities and mentoring
programs
A community based advisory
group plays an active role in the
management and governance in
our school
None A community based advisory
group plays an active role in
the management and
governance in our school
Our school provides
opportunities to apply what they
learned in class to community
settings
18. My curriculum provides
opportunities to apply what my
students learn to community
settings (YES/NO)
The school provides
opportunities for students to
apply what they learned in
class to community settings

148
Organizational Instructional Strategies Support Mechanisms
Our teachers embed Hawaiian
knowledge, practices,
behaviors, language and
spirituality in the content and
materials in their classes
My curriculum embeds Hawaiian
knowledge, practices, behaviors,
language and spirituality in the
content and materials of my
classroom (YES/NO)
Our teachers embed Hawaiian
knowledge, practices,
behaviors, language and
spirituality in the content and
materials in their classes
Our school provides students
with hands-on learning
activities outside the classroom
I provide students with hands-on
learning activities outside the
classroom
The school provides
opportunities for students to be
exposed to hands-on learning
activities outside the classroom
Our teachers encourage students
to teach and learn from each
other on a daily basis
I encourage students to teach and
learn from each other on a daily
basis
Our teachers encourage
students to teach and learn
from each other on a daily
basis
Our teachers use culturally
appropriate curricula and
materials that include some
Hawaiian content
I use culturally appropriate
curricula and materials that
include some Hawaiian content
Teachers are supported so that
they use culturally appropriate
curricula and materials that
include some Hawaiian content
At our school we expect
students to recognize their roles
and carry out their
responsibilities on their own
Within my classroom, I expect
students to recognize their roles
and carry out their
responsibilities on their own
At our school students who are
challenged in recognizing their
roles and carrying out their
responsibilities on their own,
have the necessary support to
do so.
We incorporate Hawaiian
culture in our classes and our
school environment to better
engage students
I incorporate Hawaiian culture in
my class to better engage my
students
We incorporate Hawaiian
culture in our classes and our
school environment to better
engage students
Our teachers use vendor-
developed textbooks and
materials to ensure that the
content reflects standards and
guidelines
I use vendor-developed
textbooks and materials to ensure
that the content reflects standards
and guidelines
Along with vendor-developed
textbooks and materials
students have other academic
support to ensure
understanding of content.
Our school is just as responsible
for students’ social and
emotional growth, as it is for
their academic achievement
I am responsible for students’
social and emotional growth, just
as their academic achievement
Our school is just as
responsible for students’ social
and emotional growth, as it is
for their academic achievement
We try to keep our school
neutral and free of cultural
references so that no students
feel left out
I try to keep my classroom
neutral and free of cultural
references so that no students
feel left out (YES/NO)
When students feel "left out,"
our school has the social
emotional support structure for
them.

149
Organizational Instructional Strategies Support Mechanisms
The classroom delivery and
instructional methods have little
to do with Hawaiian culture
practices values or beliefs
My classroom delivery and
instructional methods have little
to do with Hawaiian culture
practices values or beliefs
(YES/NO)
The classroom delivery and
instructional methods have
little to do with Hawaiian
culture practices values or
beliefs

Our teachers have access to a
wide range of Hawaiian
materials and resources (books,
electronic media, kupuna, and
community members)
I have access to a wide range of
Hawaiian materials and
resources (books, electronic
media, kupuna, and community
members) (YES/NO)
A wide range of Hawaiian
materials and resources (books,
electronic media, kupuna, and
community members) are used
in addition to cognitive
learning structures.
Our school has mandatory
community service and/or
service learning requirements
for students
My curriculum integrates
community service and/or
service learning requirements
(YES/NO)
The school supports and
provides opportunities for
students to participate in
community service and/or
service learning requirements
for students, families and staff
Our school is grounded in the
belief that students should have
a basic level of competency in
the Hawaiian language
I believe that students should
have a basic level of competency
in the Hawaiian language
(YES/NO)
To achieve a basic level of
competency in the Hawaiian
language, our students have the
necessary academic support.
All students should be
proficient in the Hawaiian
language to achieve our vision
for a Hawaiian speaking
community
I believe all students should be
proficient in the Hawaiian
language to achieve our vision
for a Hawaiian speaking
community (YES/NO)
Students are supported to learn
and be proficient in the
Hawaiian language
We have students help plan
community based activities for
our school
I encourage students to help plan
community based activities for
our school (YES/NO)
none
The parent teacher organization
at our school is very active and
involved
I am involved with the parent
teacher organization at our
school (YES/NO)
The parent teacher organization
at our school is very active and
involved
Our school has a formal system
for familiarizing new educators
with the cultural expectations
and practices of the community
When I was hired, I went
through a formal system for
familiarizing new educators with
the cultural expectations and
practices of the community
(YES/NO)
A formal system for
familiarizing new educators
with the cultural expectations
and practices of the
community, and student
support services are in place.
Our school is responsible for
ensuring that students have a
strong cultural identity and
value of place
I feel a responsibility for
ensuring that students have a
strong cultural identity and value
of place (YES/NO)
Support mechanisms are in
place for ensuring that students
have a strong cultural identity
and value of place

150
Organizational Instructional Strategies Support Mechanisms
Our teachers assess students by
having them engaged in
projects or performances that
are culturally purposeful and
useful
I assess students by having them
engaged in projects or
performances that are culturally
purposeful and useful
Students have the support to
keep themselves engaged in
projects or performances that
are culturally purposeful and
useful
Our school integrates Hawaiian
practices rituals and protocol as
part of the learning experience
In my class, I integrate Hawaiian
practices rituals and protocol as
part of the learning experience
Teachers and students are
knowledgeable to integrate
Hawaiian practices rituals and
protocol as part of the learning
experience
We structure our classes and
our school environment to
support the diverse cultural
background of our students
In my class, I support the diverse
cultural background of our
students
Students feel their classes and
the school environment
supports their cultural
background and their learning
style
Our school creates opportunities
for intergenerational learning
In my class, there are
opportunities for
intergenerational learning
Intergenerational learning
opportunities exist at our
school.
In addition to students, our
faculty and staff talk to family
and community members to
better understand the values,
norms, knowledge that make
this community special
In addition to students, I talk to
family and community members
to better understand the values,
norms, knowledge that make this
community special
none
At our school, we encourage
students to initiate and lead
community projects to promote
greater community well being
At our school, we encourage
students to initiate and lead
community projects to promote
greater community well-being
Students and teachers have
opportunity to initiate and lead
community projects to promote
greater community well-being
Our classes use the community
as a setting for student learning
that is responsive to community
needs and is grounded in
Hawaiian practices, knowledge,
associated with a place
In my class, we use the
community as a setting for
learning that is responsive to
community needs and is
grounded in Hawaiian practices,
knowledge, associated with a
place
Students have access to the
community as a setting for
supporting their learning that
is grounded in Hawaiian
practices, knowledge,
associated with a place
Our ultimate goal in working
with students is to preserve and
perpetuate Hawaiian culture, for
generations to come
My ultimate goal in working
with students is to preserve and
perpetuate Hawaiian culture, for
generations to come (YES/NO)
Support mechanisms are in
place to assist in the education
of students to preserve and
perpetuate Hawaiian culture,
for generations to come

151
Appendix H
Levels of Evaluation
Level 1: Data to Evaluate Plan
• Evaluations from faculty post-course, will be completed by both faculty and
students, using a Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (Braken, 1992) as a
basis for the academic and social examination

• Observations will be made of all facets of the program – faculty, students,
curricular goals, and recommendations made after evaluating the data from
the self-concept assessment for students.

Level 2: Data to Evaluate Student Learning
• At the completion of the Bridge Program, faculty members in the
demonstration of college-going knowledge will assess every student.

• At the completion of the student’s four years at Punahou through the Bridge
Program, each faculty member will assess students’ social network – one
faculty member – that will provide support for the students for academic and
social needs, through college.

• Evaluations of student academic and social stability will be used for the
academic and social examination, the data collected is aimed at having a
large spectrum of questions to attempt at understanding both the social and
academic aspects of the student.

Level 3: Data to Evaluate full implementation/use of new learning
• Collection of academic work for each student will be archived and presented
at the end of the course for Punahou School faculty to assess before the
students enroll in their first year of college.

• Students will present self-reported college activity to faculty, as a
demonstration of knowledge base.

Level 4: Data to Evaluate Results
• Punahou School Faculty will be asked to evaluate implementation of the
program and the process for student learning.

152
• Self-reported student progress after one year of enrollment in college, after
the four years through the Bridge Program, will be used to assess the success
of student’s personal and academic development in high school.

• The data will be used in terms of summative assessment by Punahou School
faculty, to determine if the performance of Bridge Program students beyond
high school.

153
Appendix I
Adapted - Bracken’s Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (MSCS, 1992)
Selected Self-Concept Items
Academic Self-Concept
• I am a good student
• Learning is quite difficult for me.
• I frequently don’t understand much of my study materials
• I quickly forget much of what I’ve learned
• I usually do well on tests
• I have a better knack for learning than most students my age

Social Self-Concept
• I have quite a number of friends
• Most people like me
• People appreciate me just the way I am
• I find it difficult to relate to other people
• I get along pretty well with others

Note. The Academic and Social Self-Concept subscales were based on selected items
of the Academic and Social Self-Concept subscales of an experimental version of the
Hebrew adaptation (Zeidner, 1995).

The scale was designed to assess an examinee’s self-perceptions in six contextual
domain: Social, Competence, Affect, Academic, Family, and Physical.

154
Appendix J
Evaluation Plan
Levels Evaluation
1 Reactions
Are the participants motivated by the program? Do they value it?
2 Impact During the Program
Is the system effective while it is being implemented?
3 Transfer
Does the program continue to be effective after it is implemented?
4 Bottom Line
Has the transfer contributed to the achievement of the organizational
goals?

155
Appendix K
Freshmen Group - Profiles
Student
Name
Parent Educational
History
Place of
Residence Extra-Curricular
Nani F - Radford ‘76
UoP BBA
M - Kailua ‘77
UH BBA
Kaneohe 96744 6-8
th
Volleyball
7
th
-Spelling Bee Champ
7
th
May Day princess
6
th
Basketball
Allison F-Maryknoll ‘88
Pima Comm.Co.
M-W.Valley HS
Spokane,WA ‘88
Pima Comm. Co.
Waipahu 96797 AYSO, USTA, Swimming Club,
USAT, Hawaii Youth Triathalon Club,
Youth Ministry, Paddling Club,
Reading Club, Ohana Counsel,
Yearbook Committee, Meals on
Wheels
Annie F-Richards HS ‘75
Illinois
M-Waipahu ‘78
KCC Assoc. in
Science
Honolulu 96816 Hula, Tahitian, Volleyball, Basketball
Kris F-Wichita South ‘90
Western Illinois A.A.
M-Ac. Of Our Lady
Illinois ‘91
U of W. Florida B.A.
Honolulu 96818 Basketball, Volleyball, track
Pi’i F-Waianae HS ‘94
M-Kam Schools ‘97
UH ASECE/Human
Services
Waianae 96792 Leeward Young Artist Finalist; Oregon
Goalie Champ; Special Olympics
Volunteer; Jr. Leader Church;
basketball; soccer
Brandy F-UH Lab School ‘85
UH BA PoliSci
M-UH LabSchool‘84
UH/Sac State (no
degree listed)
Honolulu 96816 Volleyball, Basketball, Hula, Singing
Onaona F-McKinley ‘78
UofPheonix BS
(Bus. Mgmt.)
M-McKinley ‘81
UofPheonix BS
(Bus. Mgmt.)
Honolulu 96817 Volleyball, Basketball, string bass,
Piano, Ukulele, guitar, Hula

156
Student
Name
Parent Educational
History
Place of
Residence Extra-Curricular
Desmond F-Tafuna (Samoa)’93
M-Moanalua ‘97
Heald College
(Ass. in Science)
Honolulu 96818 Football, Basketball, Ukulele, Guitar
Jason F-Kahuku ‘86
Dixie Co. (no degree)
M-W.Jordan, HS
Utah ’89
Weber State Univ.
(Nursing)
Laie 96762 Football, Basketball, Baseball, Drums
Eva F-Kahuku ‘89
BYU BS-pre med
M-Kahuku ‘89
BYU- BSW
Laie 96762 Volleyball, Basketball
Kristy F-Phillipines ‘86
(No HS listed)
M-Arellano HS ‘88
Phillipines
Polytechnic Univ.
BA Office Admin.
Waipahu 96797 AYSO soccer, Guitar
Brian F-Leilehua ‘84
Ohio State/HCC
Assoc. Sheet Metal
M-Punahou ‘79
U of Oregon
BS Journalism
Wahiawa 96786 Volleyball, Basketball, Golf
Denise F-Moanalua ‘76
KCC (no degree list)
M-Kaiser ‘76
Honolulu 96819 Tennis, Ukulele, Hula, Drama, Track,
Cheerleading
Freshmen Group - Profiles
Table based on information gathered via Punahou School Admissions Office, 2009
(Punahou School, 2009).

157
Appendix L
Upperclassmen Profiles
Student Name Place of Residence Extra-Curricular
Shon Laie 96762 Soccer, Football
Sammy Kaneohe 96744 Football, Wrestling, Boy Scouts
Imai Waianae 96792 Football, Basketball
Mina Laie 96762 Debate, Mock Trial
Leona Waianae 96792
Gus Honolulu 96816
Kylie Honolulu 96818
Tara Laie 96762 Volleyball
Jason Honolulu 96816 Swimming
Alise Honolulu 96818 Track, Basketball
Trina Waipahu 96797 Cheerleading, Impact Club
Upperclassmen Profiles
(Self –reported) Table based on information
gathered via Punahou School Bridge Program Students, 2009
(Punahou School, 2009).

158
Appendix M
Results of Freshman Group and Upperclassmen Group Interviews
Interview
Question
Research
Question Theme Question
Freshmen
Group –
Positive
Answers
Upperclassmen
Group
Positive
Answers
1 1 Program
Effectiveness
What is the Bridge
Program? What is
its purpose?
11 11
2 1 Program
Effectiveness
Why are you in the
program?
13 11
3 2 Program
Effectiveness
How did the
teachers in the
Bridge Program
get to know your
family? Was it
effective?
11 3
4 2 Program
Effectiveness
How did the other
teachers you had
at Punahou get to
know your family?
1 8
5 2 College –
Going
Factors
How is your
relationship with
your teachers? Is it
important to your
success?
17 11
6 1 Program
Effectiveness
What kind of
support is in place
to help you learn
better in class? Is
it effective?
17 11
7 2 Program
Effectiveness
Do you feel a
sense of
“community”
within the Bridge
Program? At
Punahou School?
5 11

159
Interview
Question
Research
Question Theme Question
Freshmen
Group –
Positive
Answers
Upperclassmen
Group
Positive
Answers
8 1 Program
Effectiveness
Do you feel
Punahou School
has a system and
structure that
improves
academic
achievement and
college readiness?
Was it effective?

9 2 Program
Effectiveness
How do teachers
encourage students
to learn from each
other on a daily
basis?

10 2 College –
Going
Factors
How do the
teachers in the
Bridge Program
understand “you”
and the challenges
you faced in the
high-achieving,
college-going
environment?
13 11
11 2 College –
Going
Factors
How do the other
teachers you had
in high school
understand “you”
and the challenges
you faced in the
high-achieving,
college-going
environment?
16 3
12 2 Program
Effectiveness
Does the school
ensure that no
student feels “left
out?” How?
1 8

160
Interview
Question
Research
Question Theme Question
Freshmen
Group –
Positive
Answers
Upperclassmen
Group
Positive
Answers
13 2 Program
Effectiveness
Do you think the
teachers on
campus
understand where
you come from?
17 11
14 1 Program
Effectiveness
Do you think the
Bridge Program
has changed from
last year in how it
helps students? If
so, in what ways?
17 11
15 1 Program
Effectiveness
What is
contributing to the
Bridge Program
effectiveness?
5 11
16 1 Program
Effectiveness
What is impeding
the Bridge
Program
effectiveness?

17 1 Program
Effectiveness
What could be
improved to
increase the
effectiveness of
the Bridge
Program?

18 1 College –
Going
Factors
Define “success,”
in your words.
13 11
19 2 Program
Effectiveness
How is your
success directly
attributed to the
Bridge Program?
16 3
20 1 Program
Effectiveness
What aspects of
the Bridge
Program did we
not cover in the
interview?
1 8

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study identifies the challenges low-SES students face in a high-achieving academic environment, and to capture the model of academic and social success for students from this population. This study examines the assumptions of the program, and examine if the effectiveness of the educational organization provides in meeting the academic and social needs of a diverse student population, particularly low-SES students. There is a scarcity of data linked to the support for low-SES students’ success in high-achieving environments, as it relates to postsecondary education outcomes. The study measures the extent to which Punahou School provides support for low-SES students, and defines the organizational structures for supporting academic and social success through postsecondary education in its Bridge Program. The factors that were explored in this study are school culture, impact of SES, the extent to which low-SES students navigate the college-going culture, and the characteristics of programs that support students of low-SES to socially find success in schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

Perceptions of Hawai`i TRIO Talent Search staff and target high school administrators of college access factors and project effectiveness

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

Plugging the leaky pipeline: how academic deans support the persistence of underrepresented minority students in science and mathematics

PDF

The impact of cultural capital on advancement via individual determination students from two southern California high schools

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

PDF

Shoring up the pipeline: a case study of female navigation throughout the science instructional pathway (SIP)

PDF

Experiences of African American males accessing the pipeline of higher education through the Neighborhood Academic Initiative

PDF

Impact of culturally responsive education on college choice

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

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

PDF

Factors influencing admissions counselors’ ability to increase the number of African American males in a private college: a gap analysis

PDF

Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap

PDF

Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Agena, Casey (author)

Core Title Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/31/2011

Defense Date 01/28/2011

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

Tag Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,private school,Public Policy,social capital

Place Name Hawaii (states), Honolulu (city or populated place)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email cagena@gmail.com,cagena@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3631

Unique identifier UC1177049

Identifier etd-Agena-3753 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-430127 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3631 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Agena-3753.pdf

Dmrecord 430127

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Agena, Casey

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