University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INCREASING COLLEGE MATRICULATION RATE FOR MINORITIES AND
SOCIOECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS BY UTILIZING A GAP
ANALYSIS MODEL

by

Zim Law Hoang

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 Zim Law Hoang

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the invaluable support and encouragement I have
received from the change agents in my life. First, I would like to thank my Dissertation
Committee members. To Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda, your patience and
guidance throughout this entire dissertation process has been invaluable, and more
importantly, your wealth of knowledge and experience. Also to Dr. Rob Arias, I would
like to express my appreciation for your time and input regarding our project. I feel so
fortunate to have been a part of this cap stone project.
To my dissertation team members, I would like to express my gratitude to Danny
Kim and Dawn Cassady, my partners in this endeavor. Thank you for your talents,
perseverance and desire to improve the educational system for all.
To all of my friends who have provided the support and words of encouragement
in pursuit of my dreams, I would like to say thank you. Moreover, it is with utmost
sincerity that I express my gratitude to Shari Kaya for her friendship and support.
Finally, to my family, thank you for your patience and support throughout this
entire process. I am so grateful for the opportunity to pursue my dream of a doctorate
and to grow in my knowledge. To this end, I owe much to the values my family,
especially my parents; have instilled in me that of hard work, loyalty, and perseverance.
A special thank you to my sisters: Shaan Hou, Josephine Tangsouvanh, Lorna Lo, and
Mary Yafuso. I am so grateful to have family along in this life’s journey. This doctorate
is dedicated to the next generation of the Lo family who will take our “American Dream”
even further.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... v
ABSTRACT................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ......................................................... 4
Purpose of the Project .............................................................. 8

CHAPTER 2A: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................... 13
Theoretical Frameworks Supporting Root Analysis .................. 16
Knowledge .............................................................................. 16
Motivation................................................................................ 20
Organizational/Culture ............................................................. 22
High School Reform ................................................................ 23
Comprehensive School Reform Program .................................. 24
Small Learning Communities.................................................... 27
High School Curriculum........................................................... 28
High School/College Alignment .............................................. 29
Institutional Cognitive Framework............................................ 32

CHAPTER 2B: METHODOLOGY............................................... 36
Partnership with Glendale Unified School District.................... 38
GUSD Comprehensive High Schools ....................................... 41
Gap Analysis Model ................................................................. 43
Performance Gap Analysis........................................................ 46
Solutions................................................................................... 49
Project Timeframe .................................................................... 50
Sampling and Instrumentation................................................... 52
Data Collection Methods .......................................................... 53
Limitations of the Project.......................................................... 56
Presentation of Findings ........................................................... 58
Human Subjects Considerations................................................ 60

CHAPTER 2C: FINDINGS........................................................... 62
Summary of Interviews............................................................. 62
Knowledge Gaps ...................................................................... 64
Motivation Gaps ....................................................................... 72
Organizational Gaps ................................................................. 80

iv
CHAPTER 3A: REVIEW OF THE SOLUTIONS LITERATURE . 89
Proposed Solutions Based on Best Practices ............................. 89
Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 1 ................................ 91
Goal Setting.............................................................................. 92
Organizational Culture and Change........................................... 95
Organizational Improvement: Academic and Diversity
Scorecards..................................................................... 97
Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 2 ................................ 101
Academic Preparation and Rigor............................................... 102
Connecting Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions .............. 103
Raising Underrepresented Students’ Capital ............................. 105
Strategic Intervention for Underrepresented Minority
Subgroups ..................................................................... 108
Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 3 ................................ 111
Improving Vertical K-16 Articulation....................................... 113
Create Learning and Data Systems to Improve Student
Transfer Rates to Four-Year Institutions ....................... 116

CHAPTER 3B: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SUMMARY ............... 120
Thematic Solution 1: Create and Communicate Explicit Goals . 122
Thematic Solution 2: Close Persisting Barriers and Increase
Four-Year Access for All GUSD Students..................... 128
Thematic Solution 3: Maximize Success for Community
College Transfer Students ............................................. 132

REFERENCES............................................................................... 137
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Scanning Interview ......................................... 146
APPENDIX B: Stages of Concern ........................................... 148
APPENDIX C: Email .............................................................. 149
APPENDIX D: Executive Summary of Findings ..................... 150
APPENDIX E: Solutions PowerPoint Presentation .................. 178

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project Timeline 51
Table 2: Coding of Root Causes 54
Table 3: Stages of Concern 55
Table 4: College Readiness Dashboard Samples 98
Table 5: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample 100
Table 6: Solutions Matrix 121
Table 7: College Readiness Dashboard Samples 126
Table 8: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample 127

vi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project was to apply the Clark and Estes gap analysis model
to improve the college participation rate for all students at Glendale Unified School
District (GUSD), especially minorities, low socioeconomically disadvantaged students,
and English Language Learners. GUSD is a high achieving district in terms of state and
federal accountability systems, and like many large urban school districts, it faces the
challenge of closing the achievement gap for all students. A team of USC graduate
students examined the different role groups that impact the district’s student college
admissions through the lenses of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
root causes of the problems.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background
“Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the
conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.” – Horace Mann, 1849
Since 1970 – 2000, little progress has been made in student achievement;
however, strong federal government influence in the form of government funding has
changed the educational landscape in the last three decades. Since the release of A
Nation at Risk in 1983, federal funding for K-12 education has tripled (Wirt & Kirst,
2005). The focus on America’s academic excellence evolved into the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) - the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
signed by President George W. Bush in January 2002. NCLB expanded on the 1994
ESEA that require states to be held accountable to more stringent assessment and
performance requirements. It also held teachers, schools, districts, and states to be
accountable for the achievement of all student subgroups, including racial/ethnic minority
groups, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Students
with Disabilities.
The NCLB Act of 2002 set out to “end the soft bigotry of low expectations” by
establishing high academic standards and holding states, districts, and schools
accountable for the achievement of all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
The basic construct of NCLB is an accountability system based on student performances
on state exams administered once a year. The fundamental elements of the NCLB
accountability system are in three parts: goals, assessment measuring goal attainment,
2
and consequences (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Through accountability measures and data
reports, this federal mandate seeks to close gaps in achievement with the goal of raising
achievement levels of minority and disadvantaged students (Kim & Sunderman, 2005).
Local districts and schools are compelled to meet rigorous Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) in mathematics and English language arts until 100 percent of students
reach proficiency levels by 2014. The difficulty of understanding the accountability
system in California is compounded by use of the Academic Performance Index (API)
under California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) that was passed by
lawmakers three years prior to NCLB. The API accountability model measures the
institution’s growth over time regardless of its starting point (EdSource, 2005). Since
then California has integrated both systems; however, AYP and API come with
increasing levels of consequences for all districts and schools, including hiring process
for teachers, to complete restructuring of school sites.
Over the past decades, the evolution of school reforms and educational policies
has shed some light on student achievement in public schools. In the 1950s, James B.
Conant, a former Harvard President, chose to report on the condition of American high
schools and identify ways to improve it. While the study was in progress, the Soviet
Union launched Sputnik, which raised even more concerns about the American public
school system’s ability to compete with its Cold War competitors. Conant’s findings for
high school reform highlighted the importance of counselors, individualized programs,
and the role of teachers in student learning. He recommended an end to tracking students
through vocational programs and college preparation. Conant prescribed programs not
3
only for general education included remedial, vocational preparation, and academically
gifted programs in public high schools (Eurich, 1982). Today, schools are expected to
uphold high academic standards for all students while paying particular attention to the
academic needs and low college participation rates among economically disadvantaged
and minority students (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
The numerous school reforms and shifts in educational philosophy enacted over
the years underscore the important role education plays in our nation. Human potential is
vital to the prosperity of this nation. The cost of underutilization of human capital to
society and to individuals is tremendous. For individuals, the consequences may include
lifetime earnings with lower wages, poorer health, and higher rates of incarceration. For
the economy, underutilization of human capital resulted in lower Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) by at least nine to sixteen percent in 2008 – approximately $1.3 trillion to $2.3
trillion (McKinsey & Company, 2009).
A highly educated society leads to a stronger economy and higher standard of
living, demonstrating the importance of developing intellectual capital to compete in the
current high-tech, global economy. It also contributes to what we hold dear as a nation:
democratic participation, social accord, family cohesion, and healthy behavior (Engle &
Lynch, 2009). The collective education of individuals will result in improved outcomes
for our nation including higher rates of invention, improved productivity, and the
development of new products and technologies (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). In terms
of dollars, projections reveal that improving the educational quality and quantity of
citizens could result in billions more in per capita GDP (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
4
Our nation certainly stands to gain economically by increasing the educational attainment
of our citizenry, particularly education, and training beyond high school. Failure to
engage today’s future generation by providing them with the education they need to live a
fulfilling life will be harmful not only to themselves but to the entire American nation
(Codding & Rothman, 1999).
Statement of the Problem
Just as America has an achievement gap, it also has an income gap for the
racial/ethnic minorities and non-English language proficient students. The role of
education is vital in breaking the cycle of poverty. For individuals, a strong relationship
exists between a person’s educational attainment and his economic status: 21percent of
adults with less than a high school education live under the poverty level compared to
4percent of adults with a college degree (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
According to the United States Census Bureau (2008), those adults who earned a
bachelor’s degree nearly doubled their average annual income compared to those who
completed a high school education. In fact, a person’s lifetime earnings will increase
dramatically with a postsecondary degree, earning nearly twice as much in a lifetime
versus a high school graduate (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). In addition to the economic
advantages of a college education, an individual stands to gain socially in a variety of
ways including better outcomes for children, more leisure time, a more optimistic outlook
on the future, and an improved quality of life (Cunningham, 2007; Porter, 2002).
Although a postsecondary education presents a clear pathway to a more
prosperous and productive life, there are signs that a gap in college participation
5
continues to persist. Furthermore, a similar achievement gap is reflected in the low
percentage of minorities in higher education. According to a recent study conducted by
Education Trust and members of the National Association of System Heads (NASH),
comprised of leaders in public higher education institutions across the United States,
college degree attainment between whites and minorities has actually grown wider since
1975 (Engle & Lynch, 2009). Although the degree attainment rates for minorities and
low-income students have improved over recent years, it has not increased at the same
rate as other students. The study’s baseline data revealed that overall college completion
rates are stagnate and far too few low-income and minority students are enrolling and
completing college (Engle & Lynch, 2009).
The achievement gap in minority students’ college entrance is evident by the gap
in high school graduation rates. Currently, the average high school graduation rate in
United States is 69 percent with varying rates between subgroups: White 76 percent,
Asian 79 percent, Hispanic 55 percent, African American 51 percent, and Native
American 50 percent (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009). Moreover, of those
students who graduated from high school in four years, only 57 percent of graduates
continue with their education in college (Ruppert, 2003).
The gap in college participation is particularly alarming for minority Hispanic and
African American subgroups that historically participate less than their White, non-
Hispanic counterparts (Ruppert, 2003). Since the lift of the immigration restrictions in
the 1960s, the Hispanic population grew from 6.9 million to over 42.7 million people in
2005, with growth projections of 55 million people in 2020 (Smelser, Wilson & Mitchell,
6
2001). The Rand Corporation Briefs (2001) reported the changing trend of national
demographics in the United States 2000 Census indicating that the largest immigration
population in numbers was the Hispanic population at 38 percent. The 2000 Census data
also indicate that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the population in United States and
32.4 percent in California. The change in the Hispanic demographics requires
consideration of the foreign-born and different nationality status. As the largest group of
immigrants to the United States, consideration must be made on the history and
experience of the new Hispanic immigrant group. This is especially true in the area of
education.
While the Hispanic population is the fastest growing immigrant population, they
also comprise the majority of the English Language Learner (ELL) population at 85
percent in California (Edwards, Leichty & Wilson, 2008). California Education code
under Section 306 (CDE, 2011) defines English Language Learners as “a child who does
not speak English or whose native language is not English and who is not currently able
to perform ordinary classroom work in English.”
The state of California services 6.3 million students in the K-12 education system
with 1.6 million students designated as ELLs. At 1.6 million, California’s ELLs
represent one-third of the nation’s English Language Learners (Edwards et al., 2008).
This number is significant because it translates into the percentage of students who are
able to attain their high school diploma or access higher education thus impacting their
ability to obtain better jobs. As the number of ELLs and the Hispanic subgroup increase,
the wealth of California, as well as the nation’s economic future, will weigh heavily on
7
how these two subgroups perform (Smelser et al., 2001). The continued persistence of
this college participation gap poses significant problems for the social and economic
outlook of individuals and our nation.
The social and economic condition of the ELLs and the Hispanic populace in
America today will affect not only the condition of the individual’s life, but this affects
the standard of living for all Californians and the nation as well. The impact of the
condition of Hispanics as it relates to overall economic condition of United States can be
further expanded in what sociologists consider “socioeconomic achievement” of the
major racial/ethnic groups in 2000 (2000 Census Brief, 2002). The data reveals statistics
on the five major racial/ethnic groups in the United States (Whites, African Americans,
Hispanic/Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans) that impacts the economic well
being of the nation. In terms of national average, 48.5 percent Hispanic are non - high
school graduates and only 9.9 percent hold college degrees. Across the five-racial/ethnic
groups, Hispanics have the lowest Median Personal Income and Median Family Income
(per household), as well as the lowest Median Socioeconomic Index score.
A study conducted by Education Commission of the States (2003) indicates
similar numbers for California: 22 percent low-income students have a chance for
college; 53 percent Hispanic adults from age 25 and older have less than a high school
diploma, compared to 10 percent White and 23 percent state average; whereas, 12 percent
Hispanic adults from age 25 and older have a college degree (associate or higher),
compared to 42 percent White and 34 percent state average. In terms of economics in
California, the median household income was $53,025 and 14.2 percent of the population
8
lived in poverty. A majority of Californians (53.4 percent) selected a category for racial
group classification other than “white alone,” the second largest percentage of minority
population in United States. These figures indicate that as the population of Hispanics
increases in California and the academic performance of Hispanic students continues to
drop, the standard of living for the Hispanic youths and Californians overall will also see
a decrease. Particular focus is given to local school districts in examining how they are
working to close high school graduation and college participation gaps.
Purpose of the Project
The percentage of all students in America to matriculate into college, especially
four-year colleges, is a concern in America’s ability to compete in the current global
market and its ability to meet the growing demand for skills base employment.
According to a 2000 Census Bureau report (Porter, 2002), the earning differential for
degree attainment could potentially be over $0.9 million for bachelors’ degree holders
versus high school graduates and a difference of $0.4 million for associate’s degree
holders. The continuing decline of non-college attendance for all students will result in a
deteriorating American presence in the international marketplace, decreased economic
achievement for non-college participating individuals, and continued economic and social
stratification between races.
The purpose of this project is to apply the gap analysis model to assist a local
school district to frame the district’s educational problem by increasing student
participation rate to four-year institutions and closing the racial/ethnic minority, low-
income, and linguistic achievement gap in the district’s student populace. Glendale
9
Unified School District (GUSD) is a large economically and culturally diverse urban
school district nestled in the San Fernando Valley north of downtown Los Angeles,
California. The school district’s mission is to ensure all students achieve by providing
excellence in teaching, quality educational programs, and the enrichment necessary for
all students to learn and become lifelong learners. GUSD is considered a high
performing school district according to the California Academic Performance Index
(API) score of 830; however, the district did not meet the federal accountability measure
under NCLB, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report in 2008 and 2009, due to a
significant subgroup: Students with Disabilities.
Glendale Unified School District educates its students within the context of both
federal and state accountability expectations. GUSD’s 830 API score demonstrates a
high achieving culture (CDE, 2009). However, gaps in achievement exist within the
district at each comprehensive high school site (Crescenta Valley High School, Clark
Magnet High School, Hoover High School and Glendale High School) and among
individual school sites. For instance, at Crescenta Valley High School (CVHS), the
Asian subgroup API score topped at 915 while the Hispanic subgroup scored at 822 –
nearly 100 points difference between student populations. Also, while CVHS (879 API)
and Clark Magnet High School’s (873 API) rank as two of the highest performing in the
state, Hoover (761 API) and Glendale High School’s (754 API) rankings are both
separated by nearly 125 points from their two high-performing sister schools (CDE,
2009). This disparity in achievement is also evident in the 2009 AYP targets: CVHS and
Clark Magnet both met AYP status; Hoover and Glendale High School failed to do so.
10
To improve the district’s ability to support the instructional practices in the
classroom, the district implemented a program called Focus on Results, an organizational
model that helps district leadership to develop focused framework on improvement.
According to district officials, Focus on Results has produced a change in the
organization’s teaching practices and culture, as well as generated a data-driven culture in
the district, resulting in academic improvement over time.
The district is committed to preparing all students not only for graduation but also
for successful matriculation into college. Despite GUSD’s preparation of students for
postsecondary studies, there remains a college participation gap that is often based on the
students’ race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or English language proficiency.
With the assistance of the district personnel, a three-member University of Southern
California (USC) graduate student team applied the Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis
framework to determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers that prevent all GUSD students from participating in four-year
colleges. Clark and Estes (2002) contend that gaps in performance will only be closed or
reduced and goals achieved when these three causes are properly addressed.
The purpose of applying the gap analysis model is to frame GUSD’s educational
problem in a manner that will identify root causes and provide effective solutions in order
to achieve performance goals. Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model has been applied to
public and private business industries. It offers a construct for organizational leaders to
identify the problem, establish a desired performance goal, identify gaps that hamper that
the performance goal, and offer solutions that are based on addressing the gaps in the
11
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational barriers in the institution that thwart the
success of performance goal achievement. The gap analysis process includes findings to
determine if the employees have sufficient knowledge, motivation, and organizational
support to achieve the desired organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). This project
examined components that hindered attainment of the performance goals:
• Knowledge and skills about pursuing and participating in college.
• Motivation to pursue and participate in college.
• Organizational barriers within GUSD that prevent some students from pursuing
and participating in college.
The project team analyzed the factors that are causing gaps between goal achievement,
college participation, and students’ actual performance. Since deficiencies in college
participation may be attributed to many factors and role groups, the team identified and
analyzed the root causes of the gaps within GUSD’s four comprehensive high schools:
Crescenta Valley High School, Clark Magnet High School, Hoover High School and
Glendale High School. Special attention was given to the knowledge and skills of
different role groups on college admission requirements, motivational factors in student
persistence in higher education attainment, and the organizational structure in promoting
or assisting students in pursuit of higher education.
The three-member team of graduate students conducted interviews with district
and school site leadership, teachers, and counselors to ascertain the current status of
college participation at each school. The team members also reviewed district and school
site state and federal accountability reports as well as the School Accountability Report
12
Card (SARC) reports required by the state of California. The team also examined district
and school site artifacts such as course offerings, district graduation requirements,
workshop offerings on college information, literature or media offerings on college
participation, and the structure of district programs as it relates to Students with
Disabilities, English Language Learners and specific minority groups as reported in the
state and federal accountability systems, such as African Americans or Hispanics.
Further examination was made into instructional programs in the district, high school
design, and the instructional or academic alignment between the high schools and
colleges.
Upon completion of this gap analysis, the team presented to the district, the
findings and possible solutions rooted in existing literature as it pertains to the gap
analysis framework. Recommendations were made to GUSD proposing the most
effective solutions to provide students with adequate knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support in pursuing and participating in college. The project offered a
range of solutions to performance gaps in hopes of attaining the goal of four-year
colleges for all GUSD students. The purpose of this project was to partner with GUSD
by helping them understand why goals were not achieved and to offer a proposal of
solutions through the application of the gap analysis model, that would lead to future goal
achievement. The final outcome of the findings was presented before the GUSD
leadership team and a workable manual provided for district use to improve the
educational experience of all students and to route more underrepresented subgroup
population of students to four-year institutions of higher education.
13
CHAPTER 2A: LITERATURE REVIEW
The following section will cite key theoretical research and literature that offers
support for the problem statement. Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis model offers an
effective framework for solving organization problems. Specifically, the framework
examines organizational goals against current performance in pursuit of those goals. The
difference, or gap, between performance and goal achievement is rooted in three factors:
lack of knowledge/skills, lack of motivation, and organizational barriers or culture.
Through the lenses of the three factors at the source of performance barriers, the team
analyzed instructional practices, school design, and the course and academic alignment
between high schools and institutions of higher education. The project root analysis was
substantiated through careful examination of the following theoretical frameworks.
Various forms of gap analysis model have often been applied to businesses to
identify gap in performance, whether to improve productivity or to increase performance.
The purpose of the gap analysis model is to help organizations make effective decisions
about performance products and services with the strategy to identify the “active
ingredients” of effective products and processes (Clark & Estes, 2002). Success in this
new world economy is defined by the knowledge, skills, and motivation in the human
resources, not the product produced. To achieve a sustainable competitive advantage,
organizations must invest resources in the knowledge of workers. In order to make
effective and sustainable changes to an organization, analyzing the human causes and
identifying appropriate solutions is necessary.
14
In this market economy where work organizational success is based on
knowledge and skills, it is to the best interest of organizations to identify areas of need
and areas for improving the processes for meeting performance goals. There are several
effective gap analysis models; however, the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model
could be expanded to accommodate the challenging needs of organizations such as school
districts. Clark and Estes’ (2009) propose the seven steps of gap analysis as: goals,
status, gaps, causes, solutions, implement, and evaluate.
The gap analysis model emphasizes identifying different stages of goals: global,
intermediate and performance goals. The global or organizational goals result from a
vision of where the organization should go in order to survive in a competitive market for
years to come. The goals are often presented in mission statements or annual
development plans. According to Clark and Estes’ (2002), the first step to maximizing
performance in an organization is to identify organizational or business goals. Once the
organizational goals are established, then cascading performance or work goals for
individuals must be identified and aligned to ensure the over-arching organizational goals
are met. In large organizations, clear and specific performance or work goals
communicated in order for employees to focus on supporting the achievement of the
organization’s most important goals.
In order to close the performance gap between the organizational goal and the
actual performance, the next step in the gap analysis model is to analyze the current
status, specifically, what goals have been currently achieved and to measure the current
progress of the goals (Clark, 2009). The information can be triangulated through survey
15
or interview, unobtrusive observation, and data collection on performance. To quantify
the gap of the organizational goal to the current performance goals, measurement of the
current status is needed to determine the distance from the desired goal.
Clark and Estes’ (2002) contend the causes of the gap can be identified in
knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers to their achievement. Causes of
knowledge gap may be due to lack of knowledge (factual, procedural, conceptual, or
Metacognitive) in accomplishing a task (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Motivation
causes may be determined by identifying individual actions towards the goal: if people
are not starting something (self-efficacy), persisting (task value, goal orientation), or
working smarter (mental effort) to accomplish a task (Clark, 2009). Organizational gap
may result from conflict in organizational policies and procedures (resources, structural,
or political) with organizational goals.
Once the causes to the performance gaps are determined, the appropriate solutions
can be made to address each cause. Simply put, knowledge gaps require learning,
motivation requires value and confidence and organizational causes require process
change (Clark, 2009). The sixth step of Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model is
implementation. The implementation process should be staged in different units, with
continuous modifications throughout the entire process, before full implementation. The
final process in improving productivity or increasing performance is to evaluate the
results in terms of success and continued use of change after implementation and then
determine if changes closed the gap. The final process is to refine the system and revise
goals if necessary.
16
Theoretical Frameworks Supporting Root Analysis
In order to demonstrate the importance of college participation for all, this project
examined research on the intellectual, social, and economic benefits of college
participation. Students who obtain post-secondary level education earn more on average
than high school graduates. As previously stated, the earning differential for degree
attainment can be over a million for bachelors degree holders over high school graduates;
and a difference of $.4 million for associate’s degree holders (Porter, 2002).
Furthermore, there are individual and national consequences to the declining college
attendance. Specifically, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) assert that the continuing
decline of non-college attendance will result in a weakening American presence in the
international marketplace, diminished democratic participation and decreased economic
achievement for non-college participating individuals, and continued economic and social
stratification between races.
Knowledge
College admission and retention are highly related to the quality education a
student receives. The academic achievement is highly connected to other factors as well,
such as family characteristics, student self-efficacy and motivation, and the academic
preparation a student receives prior to entrance. Research indicates that the more
parental involvement in student education and college decision-making cultivates a more
successful and motivated student with academic pursuits (Jun & Colyar, 2002). A
detailed application of cultural capital theory was used to frame and understand barriers
to student success.
17
Researchers have found several factors that contribute to the lack of success of
minority students and more importantly, college participation. The theoretical framework
of social reproduction theory, specifically cultural capital theory, is that family is the
source of student social mobility. Family origin plays an important role in student
success when parents pass along social norms, knowledge, skills, and behavior to their
child that is socially acceptable or will motivate the child to succeed (Blossfeld & Shavit,
1993). Bourdieu’s cultural capital framework provides that inequality is a result of
institutionalized capitalistic structure that forces constraints on the mobility of lower class
(Jun & Colyar, 2002).
Cultural capital framework also suggested that cultural capital of upper and
middle class is more congruent with the educational system that provide students with
access to a support system that is a strong predictor of academic success, specifically,
education mobility, economic constancy, and organizational context (Hagedorn & Fogel,
2002). Therefore, students from low socioeconomic status groups will not have the
same-shared values and beliefs as the dominant culture. The values, attitudes, and forms
of communication that are necessary to be successful in school are not available to lower
socioeconomic status students resulting in educational inequities (Blossfeld & Shavit,
1993; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The difference in the students’ mental schema from the
dominant school culture may be a contributing factor that prevents students from
accessing the resources available in the school setting.
There are many views of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory. Lamont and Lareau
(1988) define Bourdieu’s theoretical framework as an indicator of a social classes
18
position. Certain shared social norms and behaviors are social selection behaviors that
exclude other class, despite the ability to access the same resources. This includes widely
shared “high status signals” such as behavior patterns, academic standards, formal
knowledge and access to goods and resources promote the institutionalized inequality of
social classes or more specifically, direct or indirect social and cultural exclusion
(Lamont & Lareau, 1988).
Dika & Singh (2002) views social capital theory in two parts: through norms and
access to institutional resources. They view Bourdieu’s framework of cultural capital as
a means of networking and gaining access to valued resources. According to Bourdieu,
the measure of one’s social capital is in the volume and quality of the network to provide
the resources necessary to maneuver through the system and ensures success. The
function of parents and families is to develop the social networking system that will
ensure student success through “intergenerational closure” as parents develop
associations with other parents (Dika & Singh, 2002).
Stanton-Salazar (1997) contends that social capital is defined as the relationship
between the institutional agent (administrator, teacher, or counselor) and the student. The
social network connections between schooling and network development is established
through interactions resulting in “differential access to highly valued institutional
resources, opportunities and privileges” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 5). He further asserts
that social capital only works for a certain social class because the functionality of social
capital theory is different for each social class. The lower socioeconomic status groups
have a limited view of social networks, that as a means to exchange goods and services or
19
for protection. The middle class, however, has a broader acceptance of social networks
and takes advantage of the process by maximizing its access to “institutional resources,
privileges, and opportunities for leisure, recreation, career mobility, social advancement,
and political power” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 4). Therefore, in an institutional context,
middle class families are able to utilize social networking as a means of accessing higher
education for their children (McDonough, 1997). Conversely, low socioeconomic status
students will have difficulty taking advantage of the social network offered at schools
because they lack the social capital necessary to access and maneuver through the system
itself.
Bourdieu’s cultural capital framework is made evident in a study conducted by
McDonough (1997) on student access to college through school counseling programs.
The study evaluates the college choices made by students in four high schools located in
different socio-economic income levels. The study reveals differences in students’ post-
secondary educational attainment level based on the supportive system students received
during the college selection process. McDonough (1997) contends that cultural capital is
the very “knowledge that the elites value yet schools do not teach” (p. 9). McDonough
observes that according to Bourdieu’s cultural capital framework, those with high cultural
capital have clear strategic plan for the kind of education each generation should have.
Parents transmit cultural capital by informing offspring about the value and
process for securing a college education, and its potential for conversion in the
occupational attainment contest (1997, p. 9).
20
Essentially, cultural capital is derived from one’s social class, and if used
effectively, can help one access the resources for social mobility.
Motivation
Motivation is a complex psychological process, and Clark and Estes (2002) offer
that motivation results from an individual’s experiences and beliefs about themselves, the
people who surround them, and an individual’s beliefs about the prospect of being
effective. Individual’s belief in their ability to produce the desired effect can influence
goal aspirations and goal commitment (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
1996). An examination of student motivation in GUSD was made through a variety of
theoretical frameworks such as self-determination theory that included further analysis of
self-efficacy and goal orientation.
Self-efficacy expectations determine how much a person is willing to exert and
persist in an activity when faced with obstacles and difficulties of the task (Bandura,
1977). Self-efficacy is also defined as one’s belief in one’s ability to organize and
execute a course of action necessary to accomplish a task (Hagehorn & Fogel, 2002). It
can also be improved when short-term attainable goals are achieved to document
incremental progress (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).
The stronger the self-efficacy, the more mental effort is placed in persisting in the
task. It is this control that is a critical part of a student’s intrinsic motivation and
influences the type of activities that a student wants to be involved in (Schunk, 2008).
Self-efficacy determines individuals’ choice of activities and persistence in task
completion. It also determines the level of goal challenge people are willing to set for
21
themselves, the amount of effort mustered and persistence when face with challenges
(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). When an individual’s self-efficacy is
low, they will often choose a less challenging activity that will not engage them
sufficiently or help them learn new skills; however, when self-efficacy is high, an
individual will choose to engage in activities that will challenge them and help them learn
new skills.
Goal orientation theory is prominent in understanding achievement motivation in
schools and why individuals engage in specific tasks (Rueda & Dembo, 1995; Hagehorn
& Fogel, 2002). According to Rueda and Dembo, goal setting controls how people
behave and motivates them with information about their abilities as they fail or succeed
in a task. There are two kinds of goal orientation: mastery and performance. Mastery
orientation is the desire to learn for the sake of learning, to learn new information and
skill sets, and to improve competence. Performance orientation is a focus on competition
and social comparison (Rueda & Dembo, 1995). What is important is the focus on the
individual’s perceived social acceptance and ability to outperform others on a task.
Mastery goal orientation is perceived as a more positive attitude toward
completing performance goals. Individuals with mastery goal orientation are more likely
to persist in a task, are more open to feedback to improve performance, and are more
likely to value the activities required to meet the goal completion. Understanding
students’ goal orientation will help in determining their attitude towards academic
achievement and their choice in college enrollment (Hagehorn & Fogel, 2002).

22
Organizational/Culture
Lastly, the root cause of the organization barrier will be examined. Clark
and Estes (2002) contend that barriers within an organization can create gaps in
performance. Not only is an individual’s motivation important in the persistence in task
completion, but also the structure of the organization is vital in ensuring task completion.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe cultural models as “shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47). In other
words, cultural models are established norms in a school environment that help shape
beliefs, ideas, thinking, and interpretations of events and conditions. Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) propose that in order for dysfunctional cultural models to change, the
process of re-acculturation is needed.
A major problem is the misalignment of district achievement goals with students’
achievement goals. The district, like any in the nation, is held to a different form of
accountability than students. Outside of the high school exit exam requirement, high
school students are not vested in how schools are held accountable for their performance
and learning. While schools and districts are held accountable for student performance in
the API and AYP, it is not related to student aspirations for life after high school. High
school students are concerned about their next step, whether it involves a vocational or
college track. While much of the organization’s time and resources are placed on
improving state and federal accountability, a student’s personal being is neglected.
Furthermore, while the state and federal accountability systems’ goal has resulted in
23
higher test scores, there is no evidence that it has translated into post school success or
access to higher education (Wood, 2004).
According to researchers, the skills and attitude that students developed prior to
college enrollment have an impact on student enrollment and college retention (Nora,
2002; Adelman, 2002; Haycock, 1999). McDonough’s (1997) study of college choice in
the cultural context of high schools supported similar findings. High schools play an
important role in influencing students’ choice in the types of post-secondary institutions
they pursue. Essentially, the institution’s organizational process and linkage to college
programs have an impact on students’ college aspirations and attainment. This speaks to
the importance of the role that K-12 institutions play in student performance as lifelong
learners.
High School Reform
The mantra “All students leaving high school ready for college and career” has
been the driving force behind high school reform (EdSource, 2010). In an effort to
ensure America prepares its high school students for college and career, high school
reform efforts have been underway during the last three decades to continue America’s
place in a competitive world market. However, the current high school graduation rate in
America is a cause for concern for educational policy leaders. Currently, the average
high school graduation rate in United States is 69 percent with significant differences
between subgroups: White 76 percent, Asian 79 percent, Hispanic 55 percent, African
American 51 percent, and Native American 50 percent (Alliance for Excellence in
Education, 2009). Of those graduates who completed high school in four years, only 57
24
percent continue their education in college (Ruppert, 2003). What is more problematic,
some high schools produce the majority of the dropout rate in United States, especially in
areas with a large minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Duncan,
2010).
The Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan (2010), described the American high
school system as an outdated architecture designed to track students presumed not to be
college or career material during his address at the 2010 College Board Advanced
Placement (AP) Conference. He asserted that today’s comprehensive high schools were
designed over a half century ago during a time when a student could drop out of school
and still be able to earn a wage to support a family. That is not the case today. In an
information age, a well-rounded curriculum that challenges students and instills
analytical skills with higher order thinking is necessary in ensuring that American
students are able to compete in the global market. The mission of a comprehensive high
school can no longer be as simple as graduating the students, but it is to prepare students
for career and college without remediation (Duncan, 2010; Haycock & Huang, 2001;
Adelman, 2002). To achieve this goal, the current systematic approach to high school
organization must be changed.
Comprehensive School Reform Program
In the last three decades, some of the recent high school reform movements have
addressed the organizational structure of the high school design. Most notable is the
Comprehensive School Reform Program (CSRP) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
CSRP is one of the largest school reform endeavors in recent history. Although
25
education is a state responsibility as outlined in the United States Constitution, through
NCLB, the federal government has instituted itself in the educational system across
America. As part of NCLB, the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) was an important
component that was signed into law in 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Prior to Comprehensive School Reform Program, school reform efforts did little
to change school organization or the way that teachers teach (Desimone, 2002). CSRP
pushed comprehensive reform that is scientifically researched based with proven results.
In the past, many school reforms have addressed specific needs in the school; however,
CSRP promotes coherence among programs and policies (May & Supovitz, 2006). CSR
providers offer a system of improvement and improve student learning that entails a
comprehensive set of instructional expertise, school reorganization techniques, and
curriculum materials (May & Supovitz, 2006). A few examples of CSRP or providers are
Direct Instruction, Edison Schools, High Schools that Work, School Development
Program, and Success for All (Borman et al., 2003). All of these programs have their
pros and cons, yet one thing is clear, the fluctuating program implementation without
fidelity only exacerbates the problem.
The purpose of the CSR was to assist schools and school districts across America
to improve student achievement through comprehensive school reforms that are
scientifically proven research based methods and effective practices (May & Supovitz,
2006). The intent of the program is to provide funding to schools through grants if
schools can demonstrate they are ready for a coherent, systematic school wide reform.
Schools can demonstrate their ability to reform by meeting the criteria set by the
26
legislation. Specifically, schools are required to implement a Comprehensive School
Reform Program that:
• Employs proven methods and strategies based on scientific research
• Integrates a comprehensive reform that is aligned in all components (i.e. instruction,
assessment, professional development)
• Provides ongoing high quality professional development for teachers and staff
• Includes measurable goals and benchmarks for student achievement
• Is supported by all school administrators, teachers and staff
• Provides support for school administrators, teachers and staff
• Provides for meaningful involvement for parents and community to participate in
school improvement activities
• Uses high-quality external technical assistance with experience in school reform and
improvement
• Includes plans for annual evaluation of implementation strategies of school reform
• Identifies funds available to support the sustainability of reform effort
• Has been found through scientifically based research to significantly improve student
achievement (EdGov, 2004; Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003)
In a meta-analysis of various CSR Programs, Borman et al. (2003) found positive
change in schools that implemented CSR. However, the success of CSR at the school is
also dependent on the quality of CSR model implementation, clearly defined effects on
teaching and learning, strong professional development, and training components that
teachers and administrators support or “buy into” (Borman et al., 2003). Overall, the
27
focus of schools and policymakers in determining the best CSRP models should be the
outcome of the program.
Small Learning Communities
The last decade has seen numerous efforts to improve high schools; even private
sectors have invested millions if not billions to transform America’s high schools. One
notable financier of high school reforms today is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
To date, the foundation spent over $1.5 billion dollars in 2006 and approximately $6
billion to date, in the United States to create fundamental changes in schools and school
districts across America (Shear, Means, Mitchell, House, Georges, Joshi, Smerdon, &
Shkolnik, 2008; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010).
One of the foundation’s key approaches took the path of small-school reform.
Essentially, the school reform was to start small schools from scratch (such as charter
schools) and to convert existing large comprehensive schools into several small schools
or “learning communities” within the existing school building (Shear et al., 2008). Some
of the benefits of small-learning communities are to foster workforce skills, encourage
problem-solving skills, and increase retention through relationships (Dodge & Kendall,
2004).
The Gates Foundation reframed the old 3Rs of reading, writing, and arithmetic
into the “new 3 Rs” which are rigor, relevance, and relationships. Learning communities
provide the forum for students to receive the benefits of the new 3 Rs (Shear et al., 2008).
These learning communities encompass various models such as one with loose coupling
where a group of students are placed in a set of different classes and others with a tight
28
coupling in which students are in structured cohorts (Dodge & Kendall, 2004). Shear et
al.’s (2008) study on the Gates Foundation initiative of small learning communities found
that while converting large schools into small learning communities may not produce the
kind of improvements hoped, starting small schools from scratch did produce a
significant higher academic achievement and interest as well as aspirations in students.
High School Curriculum
One of the many changes in school reform is the narrowing of high school
curriculum and its effect on student outcomes (Lee & Ready, 2009). Lee and Ready
(2009) described the transformation of high school curricular into three Phases. Phase I
is part of the standards-base reform in the 1980s, which made it necessary for students to
complete more classes to meet diploma requirements. Phase II began a body of research
on how course taking differences affected student achievement and equitable outcomes
for students by student social background. Phase III is currently underway in high
schools and require high schools to offer only college preparatory courses.
Competition in the U.S. and world market has increased demand for more
academic rigor in the high school curriculum. Policy makers and educational leaders
realize that the skills students need to succeed in college are the same as for the work
force, but the current course work is insufficient to prepare students for life after high
school (Lee & Ready, 2009). This is especially true for minority and underrepresented
high school graduates. The demand is for all students to have access to rigorous
academic courses that would better prepare students for college or the work force.
29
The demand for more challenging course work has also affected the
implementation of a coherent standards-based curriculum and instructional programs. In
highly effective schools, researchers have found that teachers and administrators reported
employment of a coherence of curricular programs within the classes and between grade
levels (Williams, Kirst, Hartael, et al., 2005). Furthermore, teachers reported that their
schools identified essentials standards and their instructions were guided by state
standards. While the use of standards-based instruction may have streamlined the
curriculum and instruction programs for students, it has also demonstrated an
improvement in student achievement (Williams et al., 2007).
The outdated theory of teaching and learning must be re-evaluated for its
effectiveness. The heavy reliance on covering the materials from the beginning to the end
of a textbook can no longer be deemed as the course curriculum. Instead, instruction
should begin with clear expectations of what students must learn and be able to
demonstrate their understanding in complex forms of student work (Codding & Rothman,
1999). The expectations must be clear and explicit for the standards to be learned and to
generate expected student outcome.
High School/College Alignment
It is a well-known fact that those who earn a baccalaureate degree earn
substantially more than high school graduates, almost twice as much, and nearly 1.4
times as associate’s degree recipients (Dowd, 2003). Yet among the college qualified
high school graduates, by age 24, only 9 percent of students from the lowest
socioeconomic status (SES) earn a bachelor’s degree compared to students in the highest
30
SES (Haycock, 2006). According to Haycock (2006), 75 percent of students in the top
income quartile receive their bachelor’s degree by age 24. Unfortunately,
disproportionate numbers of Hispanics and African American students are in the lowest
SES, and their college participation rate is 17 percent for African Americans and 18
percent for Latinos compared to 27 percent among White students (Dowd, 2003).
The achievement gap has increased even more as the years progressed. In a
report commissioned by then Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, the study found
18 percent of African Americans and 10 percent of Latinos earned college degrees by age
25-29 compared to a third of Whites (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). According
to the study, poor academic preparation for college is compounded by the poor alignment
between high schools and colleges, thus exacerbating the “expectations gap” between
college requirements and high school graduation requirements.
Another study conducted by the Institute for Educational Leadership (Callan,
Finney, Kirst, Usdan & Venezia, 2006), asserts challenges in raising student achievement
can be found at the “disjuncture” between K-12 systems and higher education. The
disjuncture between K-12 and college is manifested in several ways. Specifically,
knowledge and skills required for high school assessments are different from college
entrance and placement requirements. Furthermore, high school course-work does not
build toward college readiness. Due to historically divergent policies and practices, the
two systems have limited communication with each other and have contributed to the
lack of coherence between K-12 system and higher education.
31
Higher education statistics reinforces the need to improve college readiness and
success through more effective collaboration. The majority of America’s high school
students today aspire to attend college: 90 percent across all racial and ethnic groups
(Callan et al., 2006). Approximately 60 percent of high school students enroll in college
right after high school; however, students must navigate through a maze of disconnected
curriculum and assessments (Callan et al., 2006). A study conducted by the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2003) indicated similar numbers: For
every enrolled ninth graders, 67 graduated from high school, 38 enrolled in college, 26
are still enrolled in college after the sophomore year, and 18 graduated from college
within 6 years. Out of 100 ninth graders, only 18 would have attained a college diploma
within 6 years of enrollment.
There is also an increasing educational disparity by income in United States.
Two-thirds of high school graduates in the wealthiest quartile (25 percent) enroll in four-
year college or university right after high school. Conversely, only one in five from the
lowest quartile enrolled in four-year institutions (Callan et al., 2006). Once students are
admitted into college, they discover that they must take placement exams to determine if
they are ready for college level courses or are required to take remedial courses.
Approximately 50 percent of college students in America are required to take college
remediation (Callan et al., 2006). The percentages could have been dramatically reduced if
high schools and colleges convened to connect their “standards, assessments, policies and
coursework” (Callan et al., 2006, p. 5).
32
In order to close the achievement gap for minority student subgroups,
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and English Language Learners, a research
based school reform is needed. This reform examined all of the actors involved in
affecting student achievement and identified the areas for strategic improvement as well as
viable solutions to the problem. These are all essential in producing the significant change
needed to see improvements in student achievement. The GUSD project team hoped to
successfully provide GUSD schools with workable solutions to improve student access to
four-year institutions.
Institutional Cognitive Framework

An important method of overcoming the equitable outcome for all students that is
often overlooked is examining the organization cognitive framework. Bensimon (2005)
raises an important, yet often ignored, consideration in organizational learning theory.
Although her study examined organizational learning in higher education, it can also be
applied in the K-12 setting. Bensimon (2005) attributes much of the educational problems
in the institution and the institutional prejudices against students of color and low
socioeconomic status (SES) through an individual’s perception and prejudices regarding
race which impacts the policies and choices made in regards to certain subgroups (i.e. our
view on high achieving students). Bensimon (2005) viewed inequality of educational
outcomes of minority and underrepresented students as a kind of organizational learning
problem due to individual cognitive framework. Individuals in organizational leadership
(administrators, faculty members, counselors, and others) who are in positions of
33
authority and affect organizational policies and practices have three cognitive
frameworks: diversity, deficit, and equity cognitive framework.
Individuals with diversity cognitive framework focus on the ethnic makeup of the
student body and view diversity as the interactions of human relationships. They view
diversity as the institution’s responsibility to provide opportunities for student learning
outcomes and student preparation for the diverse workforce and society. These
individuals view diversity as beneficial to the institution and promote acceptance and
cross-racial understanding. In summary, diversity minded individuals promote diversity
on a surface level, but do not take racial achievement into consideration (Pollock, 2001;
Bensimon, 2005).
Individuals with deficit cognitive framework view diversity as a positive, but they
do not see that these diverse student populations may be experiencing unequal
educational outcomes due to negative attributions on the part of institutional leaders.
Instead, they attribute differences in student outcomes as “natural” in light of the
student’s cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. Deficit minded
individuals view student outcomes, such as student retention, poor graduation or
matriculation rates for minorities and underrepresented students, to cultural stereotypes
on the part of the students, such as lack of social capital, lack of motivation, and
initiative.
Individuals with equity cognitive framework focus attention intentionally on the
educational outcomes of minority and underrepresented students. They are cognizant of
the racial achievement patterns and often question the educational outcomes of minority
34
and underrepresented students. They view educational shortcomings of these students as
inequalities in the context of historical discrimination and educational segregation.
Moreover, equity minded individuals are more inclined to understand that individual
beliefs, expectations and actions influence whether or not minority group students are
regarded as capable or incapable (Bensimon, 2005).
Bensimon (2005) further contends that to be equity minded thinking requires
double loop learning. Double loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1996 in Bensimon, 2005)
is in essence the ability to focus attention on the root causes of the problem and the
changes needed to be made in the attitudes, values, beliefs, and practices of individuals to
bring about enduring results (Bauman, 2002 in Bensimon, 2005). Double loop learning is
the ability of the individual and institution to evaluate how their actions produce racial
inequalities. The development of equity cognitive framework of the individual and
institution requires the willingness of individuals and institutions to look inward and
analyze their attitudes, values, beliefs, and practices in promoting inequalities in student
outcomes for minority student groups. Furthermore, to bring about individual and
institutional change would require a willingness to examine disaggregated student
outcomes by race/ethnicity and gender, to identify inequity student outcome as indicator
of institutional performance by not attributing it to student performance, and to assume
personal responsibility for the elimination of the unequal student outcomes (Bensimon,
2005; EdSource, 2010).
In evaluating student performance, it is essential for high functioning districts,
such as GUSD, to be willing to examine the equitable outcomes of all students by closely
35
analyzing the success of all students in each minority subgroups in terms of coursework
access (Advanced Placement, IB, GATE), grades received, standardized test
performance, graduation rate, and college access (community college level or four-year
institutions). By closely analyzing the disaggregated data for student performance,
GUSD will be able to better identify, support, and raise the achievement of all students.
Furthermore, GUSD will see sustainable change in student performance for all students at
all levels, including increase matriculation rate into four-year colleges.

36
CHAPTER 2B: METHODOLOGY
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Project Team Members
A three-member team of graduate student professionals from the University of
Southern California (USC) undertook a project that investigated college participation
rates amongst Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) student subgroups and analyzed
factors that prevented some student subgroups from accessing, pursuing and/or
matriculating into college. This project applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis
framework to determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers that prevent all GUSD students from participating in college.
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals
achieved when these three causes are properly addressed.
Each member of the project group offered a distinctive set of skills, come from
diverse backgrounds, and have unique professional experiences that lent insight to the
college participation problem as a whole, and how it affects GUSD specifically. Danny
Kim served recently as an administrator at a comprehensive public high school located in
an affluent area of east San Gabriel Valley. The school graduates nearly 100% of its
students and consistently ranks as one of the top high schools in all of Southern
California in terms of API (882) and similar schools rankings. There is a distinct cultural
model of high college participation at this school with roughly 55% of each graduating
class matriculating into a four-year university. The internal and external school
community places a high value on seeing its students accepted into the top universities in
37
the nation, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Cal Tech, and all of the
University of California schools.
Dawn Cassady served as a high school administrator at a private institution
located in the large urban area of Long Beach. The school services a small population of
students and aims to support non-traditional college participants by providing the
appropriate teaching and counseling services necessary for college preparation and
admittance. Roughly 25% of each graduating class in this college preparatory private
school successfully matriculates into a four-year university.
Zim Hoang served as the Coordinator of Assessment and Evaluation for a large-
urban school district in Los Angeles County. This individual oversees the entire testing
program for the eighteen schools in the district. Schools in this district face increasing
levels of both Federal and State accountability even as student scores have increased on
the standardized tests. In fact, most schools in the district are on Program Improvement
status and yet a small percentage of students are still able to continue onto four-year
universities upon high school graduation.
All three members of this project team share a particular interest in researching
and understanding college participation gaps that exist in many high schools today.
Although each team member works in unique organizations with varied successes in
graduating students to four-year universities, there is a common element of certain
student subgroups that have historically been underrepresented in the college-going
experience in our respective schools. The project team gained valuable insight on the
successes and challenges of closing the college participation gap at Glendale Unified, and
38
used gathered information, best practices, and offered solutions as a springboard to
solving similar gaps in our respective workplaces. As well, it is the hope of the authors
that the findings and subsequent solutions offered in this project will result in improved
access and equitable opportunities for all students to pursue high education at four-year
universities. We desire to see K-12 schools and districts provide high student
expectations and academic rigor for all student subgroups, and to ensure that historically
underrepresented and underperforming students have the necessary interventions in place
so that their higher-education dreams are realized.
The work undertaken by this three-member team included the joint authorship of
the following common sections:
• Chapter 2B: Methodology
• Chapter 2C: Findings
• Chapter 3A: Review of the Solutions Literature
• Chapter 3B: Executive Summary of Solutions
Partnership with Glendale Unified School District
The USC project team created a partnership with the Glendale Unified School
District in analyzing their college participation gap. Glendale Unified School District
(GUSD) is a high-performing, large, urban school district that serves an economically
and culturally diverse population. The school district’s mission is to provide excellence
in teaching, quality educational programs, and the enrichment necessary for all students
to learn and develop with the primary focus being student achievement. GUSD schools
39
include twenty elementary, four middle, four comprehensive high schools, and one
continuation high school.
The district services students residing primarily in the City of Glendale, and the
smaller foothill communities of La Crescenta and Montrose. The City of Glendale is
located nearly 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, and hosts growing financial,
entertainment, retail and commercial centers within its suburban residential borders.
Glendale is home to nearly 74,000 Armenians-Americans, who make up 37% of the
entire city population.
Glendale Unified School District educates its students within the context of both
federal and state accountability expectations. GUSD’s 842 Academic Performance Index
(2009) demonstrates a high achieving culture. However, gaps in achievement exist
within each comprehensive high school site, and between each school site. For example,
at Crescenta Valley High School (CVHS), Asian subgroups’ API score topped at 918,
while the Hispanic subgroup scored at 831- nearly a 90-point difference between student
populations. Also, while CVHS (883 API) and Clark Magnet High School’s (889 API)
rank as two of the highest performing in the State, Hoover (772) and Glendale High
School’s (754) API rankings are both separated by over 110-points from their two high-
performing sister schools. This differentiation in achievement is also evident in 2009
AYP targets: while CVHS and Clark Magnet both met AYP status, Hoover and Glendale
High School failed to do so.
In order to address both State and Federal accountability measurements, the
school district implemented a reform initiative called Focus on Results: an organizational
40
reform model that helps school administrators and teachers focus on teaching practices
and culture in order to improve student achievement across the district. According to
GUSD school district officials, Focus on Results has helped shift the district to data-
driven practices resulting in improved academic performance over time. The Focus on
Results reform model is rooted in seven defining principles:
1) Identification of school-wide instructional focus based on assessment of
student needs;
2) Development of an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a
guiding coalition for the school;
3) Selection of three to five high-quality, research-based strategies used
consistently by every teacher;
4) Provision of targeted professional development to ensure all teachers are
implementing those three to five practices with fidelity;
5) Realignment of school to support the instructional focus;
6) Implementation of an internal accountability system using assessment
measures that benchmark progress in the focus area;
7) The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting focus through
classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocation of resources and support.
Along with overall academic achievement gains, the district is committed to
preparing all its students for graduation and successful matriculation into college and
careers. GUSD students prepare for advancement to postsecondary institutions by
successfully meeting all graduation requirements, including passage of the California
41
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), enrollment in college prep and advancement
placement courses, and participation in college entrance exams such as the SAT. Despite
GUSD’s preparation of students for postsecondary studies, a college participation gap
exists and is often based on students’ race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or English
language proficiency.
GUSD Comprehensive High Schools
Glendale Unified School District boasts four comprehensive high schools, each
with its own set of unique characteristics and tradition. All four high schools offer a
college preparatory curriculum and Career Technical education that prepares students for
higher education and/or success in the workplace.
Clark Magnet High School sits atop a hill in an affluent and well-maintained
neighborhood in the city of La Crescenta, California and serves approximately 1,000
students. The school opened in 1998 as a science and technology magnet that focuses on
strong academic achievement as evidenced by its 2010 Growth API of 889. In addition,
the school prepares its students with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in our
technological world. All Clark Magnet students are required to take technology courses
for graduation, and nearly 70% of its students enroll in a Career Technical education
course. Clark Magnet offers both Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
courses, which prepares students for rigorous college preparatory level studies. The
school graduates nearly 100% of each class, and roughly 64% of Clark Magnet graduates
meet the minimum eligibility requirements for entrance to the University of California
(UC) and California State University (CSU) school systems. Although many Clark
42
Magnet students meet eligibility requirements for four-year universities, nearly 57% of
the 2007 graduating class subsequently enrolled in a two-year college.
Glendale High School has served students since 1906. Today, the school serves a
diverse student body of approximately 3,000, with 28% Armenian, 25% White, 0.6%
Black, 17% Asian, and 20% Hispanic/Latino. Glendale High’s 2010 Growth API of 754
is the lowest of the four comprehensive high schools. In addition to academic
coursework, the school has several Career Technical education programs, including
Cosmetology, Construction, and Foods Academies. In terms of college preparation, 31%
of Glendale High School students met minimum course requirements for admission to
UC and CSU schools. In 2007, 58% of the graduating class matriculated into community
colleges.
Crescenta Valley High School is a high-achieving California Distinguished
(2005) and National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence (2000). The school of nearly
3,000 students opened its doors in 1946 and its 2010 Growth API of 883 ranks as one of
the highest in the State. Crescenta Valley High prepares its students to meet rigorous
course requirements for entry to four-year universities and offers students a Science and
Medicine Academy. Sixty-three percent of the 2008 graduating class met minimum
course requirements for UC and CSU schools. Forty percent of the 2007 graduating class
enrolled in community colleges.
The last of the four comprehensive high schools in Glendale Unified is Herbert
Hoover High, named after our nation’s 31
st
President. The school began instructing
students in 1929 and currently serves a diverse student population of 2,700, with 63%
43
White (primarily Armenian), 22% Hispanic/Latino, and 10% Asian. Hoover High offers
both academic and Career Technical educational offerings, including the Business,
Engineering, and Technology Academy (BETA), a Virtual Enterprise Business class, a
Police and Fire Academy, and the only Auto Shop program in the district. In 2010,
Hoover High witnessed a 10-point API growth to 772, and saw 30% of its 2008
graduating class meet minimal course requirements for UC and CSU entry. In 2007,
fifty-five percent of the graduating class attended a community college.
Gap Analysis Model
Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis model provides an effective lens for
fleshing out gaps in performance and leading Glendale Unified School District (GUSD)
and high school site leaders in selecting the right solutions for closing those gaps. This
proven problem-solving model has been applied within a variety of business industries,
and offers a framework for school district leaders to solve their own organizational
problems. For this particular project, we applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) framework by
looking deeply at the root causes of GUSD’s gap in student participation in four-year
universities.
The Gap Analysis model is a dynamic process that examines the “active
ingredients” that lead to improved work processes. The model consists of six steps that
lead to improved work performance and goal achievement. The steps are as follows
(Clark and Estes, 2002):
1) Identification of key business goals;
2) Identification of performance goals;
44
3) Determination of performance gaps;
4) Analysis of performance gaps to determine knowledge, motivation, or
organizational causes;
5) Identify solutions to knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational process
causes and implement;
6) Evaluation of results and revision of goals.
In essence, Clark and Estes (2002) assert that business goals are not realized
because of gaps in individual performance. Performance gaps are attributed to three
primary causes: lack of knowledge or skills; lack of motivation; or ineffective
organizational processes or culture. In order to select the right solutions in closing these
performance gaps, it is critical that organizations analyze and determine the correct root
cause(s). Once solutions have been identified, it is important for an organization to
implement and evaluate to see if business goals have been met.
This project utilized the Gap Analysis model to determine performance gaps that
prevent Glendale Unified School District graduating students from accessing four-year
universities. The following section details the Gap Analysis processes our project team
undertook to accomplish this task:
Goal Identification
In order to properly identify gaps in performance a clearer understanding of
GUSD’s organizational- and cascading intermediate and performance- goals needed to be
established. Behind GUSD’s mission of student achievement for all lays a range of key
organizational goals, one of which is access to college participation. During Spring 2010,
45
our project team examined district and school site goals as it relates to college
participation. The team sought a clear definition of GUSD college participation goals,
and determined if all levels- global, intermediate, and performance- were compatible,
aligned, and measurable. Furthermore, we examined performance or works goals that set
out to increase college participation for GUSD graduating students to determine if they
met the ‘C3’ criteria- concrete, challenging, and current (Clark & Estes, 2002). During
Spring 2010, our project team assessed whether performance goals were clearly defined
so that desired performance could be effectively measured against actual performance.
Upon analyzing district and school’s goals against their actual performance, our
project team settled on analyzing gaps in four-year university participation for GUSD
students. It was clear from our data that a large percentage of GUSD students were
matriculating into two-year community colleges, yet a disproportionate number were
failing to enter four-year universities despite a growing percentage meeting minimum
course requirements for entry. For our purposes, we have defined GUSD’s college
participation gap to mean access to four-year universities.
Although GUSD aims to increase the number of its graduating students
participating in four-year universities, a certain subgroup population of students fails to
meet this organizational goal. While the district realizes high graduation rates and
students meeting minimum university entrance requirements, not all student subgroups
are matriculating into universities upon completion of their secondary studies. At GUSD,
levels of income, English language development, and immigrant experience are factors
that invariably demarcate student participation in four-year universities. With the
46
existence of some students’ non-participation in four-year universities, it is evident that
gaps in the performance of various GUSD stakeholders- students, parents, and educators-
may very well be preventing students from successfully participating in four-year
undergraduate programs.
Performance Gap Analysis
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that performance gaps are attributed to three causes:
lack of knowledge/skills, lack of motivation, and/or organizational barriers. Once our
team defined organizational goals related to college participation, we set out to complete
the next critical step in Clark and Estes’ (2002) problem-solving model: the identification
of root causes of GUSD college participation gap. Specifically, the work of various role
groups was critically examined and we analyzed various data to determine root causes in
knowledge, motivation, or within the organization that prevented some GUSD students
from participating in four-year universities.
Knowledge Gaps
According to Clark and Estes (2002), performance gaps can be attributed to lack
of knowledge and/or skills. Essentially, individuals in different role groups may not have
the specific knowledge and skills to accomplish a certain task or goal. For our purposes,
this can amount to graduating students not knowing how to access college applications,
or teachers not having the pedagogical skills to deliver rigorous college preparatory
curriculum to her students. In both these examples, a specific knowledge/skill deficit
exists that will inevitably prevent more students from accessing four-year university
education.
47
There are four different types of knowledge: factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Factual knowledge is knowledge of
concrete pieces of information, including terminology and details. On the other hand,
conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge of more complex ideas, mental models,
schemas, or theories. For example, although an individual might have the factual
knowledge about enrolling in college, his reluctance in applying might be based on not
knowing the conceptual importance of a college education. Procedural knowledge
involves the knowledge of “how-to” do something. This could involve knowledge of
techniques, sequences, or steps that can range in the routine to rather difficult. Finally,
metacognitive knowledge refers to “knowledge about cognition in general as well as
awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001,
p. 27). Simply put, metagcognition is the knowledge of one’s own self in relation to
learning and solving different tasks, including knowledge of strengths and limitations.
Motivation Gaps
Gaps in performance can also be attributed to a lack of motivation. GUSD
students’ lack of motivation to pursue a four-year university education is based on the
following four roots (Mayer, 2008):
• Interest: students’ value and interest in college;
• Self-efficacy: students perceive themselves as capable of entering college;
• Attribution: students attribute college-going success to hard work and effort;
• Goal orientation: students are most successful when they want to be best
prepared for a college education and perform well to get there.
48
According to Clark and Estes (2002), there are three types of motivational processes that
come into play in students’ pursuit of college: active choice, persistence and mental
effort. Active choice is the active pursuit of a goal; persistence involves continued
pursuit of a goal despite distractions; and, mental effort is the investment of energy in
pursuit of a goal that is dependent on an adequate level of confidence. Optimal
performance towards a goal is contingent upon these three facets of motivation.
Motivation itself is a critical area of study in the area of education. Students who
lack motivation to succeed in school are apt to fail compared to their more confident
counterparts. In fact, research points to the fact that “people who are positive and believe
that they are capable and effective will achieve significantly more than those who are just
as capable but tend to doubt their own abilities” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 82). For our
purposes, motivation problems can manifest itself in a number of ways: students’ lack of
buy-in to the importance of a four-year university education; students’ avoidance of
rigorous academic study in preparation for college; students’ procrastination in
completing their college application process; teachers’ refusal to best prepare all students
for college preparatory study based on assumed beliefs about student capabilities, etc.
Altogether, motivation is a powerful force that may be inhibiting GUSD students’ pursuit
and participation in college.
Organizational Gaps
The third cause of performance gaps can be attributed to barriers that exist within
the organization or its culture. When knowledge/skill or motivation gaps are ruled out, it
is often something within the organization itself that is preventing individuals from
49
achieving optimal performance. For our purposes, there are organizational gaps that are
preventing some GUSD students from accessing a four-year university education. These
gaps are a result of inefficient work processes and policies, insufficient material
resources, and misaligned value chains and value streams.
Barriers within the organization can be symptomatic of its culture. An
organization’s culture dictates how work is accomplished, and describes the core beliefs
and values of the organization itself. When considering college participation and access
issues within Glendale Unified School District, our team critically examined the culture
of the organization itself to determine if it was conducive for preparing and graduating its
students onto four-year university institutions.
Solutions
Once performance gaps were identified and analyzed to determine causes, our
project team selected research-based solutions to close those gaps. Clark and Estes
(2002) assert that varying causes require specific solutions. For example, a lack in
knowledge or skill will necessitate some form of information aid, training, and/or
education. Our project team determined the root causes to the college participation gap
in Glendale Unified and offered a specific set of solutions to improve overall student
access to four-year universities. The solutions were organized into a written Executive
Summary of Findings and presented as a PowerPoint slideshow to the Glendale Unified
Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet.

50
Project Timeframe
On November 30, 2009, our Gap Analysis project team made an initial visit to the
district where the Superintendent of GUSD and his cabinet presented an overview of the
district and provided potential problem areas to consider. Following this initial visit, our
three-member team narrowed the problem to college access gaps for GUSD students.
Our team sought to clarify GUSD’s goals as it relates to college participation, and
conducted an unstructured interview with two district administrators on February 18,
2010. Following this interview, our team conducted a final unstructured interview with
the GUSD Superintendent of Schools on March 17, 2010. These two interviews helped
our team to clarify and focus our project on the four-year college participation gap extant
in GUSD high schools.
During the early part of this project, our team researched literature that helped
provide context and research concerning the gap analysis model, the high school reform
movement, and issues related to college access and participation. Our project team
successfully passed a qualifying examination in late February that opened the process for
our group to begin conducting interviews and gathering data.
During Spring 2010, the focus of our work was to gather information and data
that helped us diagnose those gaps in performance preventing GUSD students from
accessing four-year universities. In order to determine root causes, our team conducted a
series of interviews at each of the four comprehensive high schools. These interviews
involved various agents within each comprehensive schoolhouse, including
administrators, teachers, and counselors. The first round of scanning interviews were
51
conducted on the following days at these respective sites: April 1- Clark Magnet; April
15- Crescenta Valley; Glendale- April 1, 13; Hoover- April 15. A second round of
interviews was conducted on the following dates at these respective sites: May 25-
Glendale; May 28- Hoover; June 7- Crescenta Valley. A final round of interviews were
conducted in mid-June. Due to time limitations and the close of the school year, the final
round interview questions were e-mailed to respondents.
During Spring and Summer of 2010, our project team focused on analyzing root
causes to the college participation problem in GUSD. The collected data was organized
into findings along specific gaps- knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization. Next,
the project team organized the findings of the root causes into emergent themes that
allowed for chunking of ideas and placement into a presentable fashion. An executive
summary of findings was submitted to the Superintendent of GUSD schools.
In the Fall of 2010, our project team researched literature on best practices to
closing college participation gaps and drafted an executive summary of research-based
solutions. The executive summary was organized into a PowerPoint presentation and
presented to the GUSD Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet.
Table 1: Project Timeline
Fall
2009
• Meet with GUSD leaders to determine the performance goal: college access
for all students
• Data collection on the school district and recent research on college
access and multiple pathways
Spring
2010
• Qualifying exams
• Conduct first and second round of interviews with key district personnel
• Complete Draft of Chapter 2 and address possible findings
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)

52
Table 1: Project Timeline (Continued)
Summer
2010
• Complete data collection
• Complete Chapter 2
• Provide draft of Chapter 1
• Provide District with Executive Summary
Fall
2010
• Complete Chapter 3
• Present findings to District stakeholders
• Evaluate District’s response to findings and solutions
• Finish Capstone Project
Spring
2011
• Defend Dissertation
• Graduation

Sampling and Instrumentation

In order to diagnose the roots causes to GUSD’s college participation gap, a series
of semi-structured interviews were conducted between the Fall of 2009 until the Spring
of 2010. The interviewees included district administrators, school site administrators,
counselors, and teachers. District administrator interviews were conducted at the
Glendale Unified School District administration office, and school site officials were
interviewed at their respective high schools (Glendale, Hoover, Crescenta Valley, and
Clark Magnet High Schools). The purpose of these interviews was to provide unique
insight from those individuals who have direct involvement with students’ college-going
experiences. According to Clark and Estes (2002), interviews provide an opportunity to
learn the beliefs and perceptions of those that are directly involved with the work, which,
for our purposes, is the work of getting students into four-year universities. The
questions were formulated so that responses could be analyzed and categorized into
knowledge, motivation, or organizational barrier causes.

53
Data Collection Methods
Data collection methods included different types of informal interviews wherein a
respondent could answer in a conversational way, thus allowing the project team a
glimpse into that person’s point of view as to the problem and what it looks like in their
school and the district.
The first interview was a scanning interview (See Appendix A), which is a semi-
structured interview that contains five broad, open-ended questions, with subsequent
probing questions that allow the project team to gain more insight. For the first round of
scanning interviews, each member of the project team interviewed personnel representing
different role groups at each of the four comprehensive high schools: the principal,
assistant principals, teachers, and counselors. Each interviewee was asked a set of
questions dealing with college participation issues within their school. The five questions
were based on gleaning an overview of the topic, the historical perspective on the
situation, identifying formal or informal goals, the interviewee’s perception of the
performance gap and suggestions on improving our project. Each interview was
approximately forty-minutes and was electronically recorded with the interviewee’s
permission and then later transcribed and coded for further analysis by the project team.
The first round of interviews provided key insight into the college participation
problem as it was experienced at each school site. Responses from the first round of
interviews were coded to determine if a root cause to the college participation gap was
found in knowledge/skills, motivation, or organizational barrier gaps. During the coding
process, interviewee responses that indicated a root cause were color-coded in the
54
following manner: knowledge/skill gaps- green; motivation gaps- blue; organizational
barrier gaps- yellow. The project team grouped responses into categories and charted
them into themes that emerged through our analysis. Interviewee responses were further
coded to indicate a specific type of root cause. This analysis helped the project team
further categorize their findings into specific areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps, which provided greater clarity for analysis. The chart below indicates
the specific root cause coding that was used:
Table 2: Coding of Root Causes
Knowledge Gaps:
Factual knowledge Kf
Procedural knowledge Kp
Conceptual knowledge Kc
Metacognitive knowledge Km
Motivation Gaps:
Interest Mi
Self-efficacy Mse
Attributions Ma
Goal orientation Mgo
Active choice Mac
Persistence Mp
Mental effort Mme
Organization Gaps:
Policy/procedures Op
Resources Or
Value chains/value streams Ov
Culture Oc

The second type of interview was a one month interview wherein teachers were
interviewed to determine what the individual role of the school agent (i.e. teacher,
counselor) was in improving college access for all students, whether they believed they
had a role in this process, and, if not, what the school or school district has done to help
55
realize this goal. Each interviewee was asked one question and one follow-up question to
determine their viewpoints on what has been undertaken to address the college
participation gap, as well as capture their personal level of concern to this problem. The
two simple questions (see Appendix B) that our team asked in this second round of
interviews lasted no more than 10 minutes per interviewee. Interviews were
electronically recorded with the interviewee’s permission and then later transcribed and
coded for further analysis by the project team.
The last interview, the stages of concern, was based on the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model created by Hall and Loucks (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). In the Concerns-
Based Adoption Model, there are seven stages of concern, which focus on “describing the
concerns that professionals may have about an innovation” (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). The
seven stages of concern as given by Bailey and Palsha (1992) are listed in the table
below:
Table 3: Stages of Concern Model
Stage 0 Awareness Professional has little awareness of the
innovation; not concerned
Stage 1 Informational Primary concern is to know what the
innovation is and does
Stage 2 Personal Professional will want to know how
the innovation affects them personally
Stage 3 Management Professional focuses on how the
innovation is to be implemented
Stage 4 Consequences Concerned about whether the
innovation will have a positive of
negative affect
Stage 5 Collaboration Concerned about cooperation among
professionals in implementing the
innovation
Stage 6 Refocusing After evaluating the innovation,
concerns are about modifying it to
make it more effective or considering
other innovations

56
As a result of limited time, the project team had to e-mail the questions (See Appendix C)
to teachers from which they received enough responses to gauge the level of concern
about the implementation and efficacy of college-going interventions in their respective
school sites. Electronic mail responses were coded and reviewed by the project team and
compared to the results from the other interviews in order to discern the roots of the
college access problem facing GUSD students.
After the entire set of interview data was analyzed and coded, the project team set
out to find similar or repeated responses within the coded data and chunk them into
themes. From these themes, the project team pinpointed the root causes to the college
participation gap within GUSD. These set of findings were grouped into knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barrier categories. An executive summary that grouped
our findings of root causes into emergent themes was presented to the Glendale Unified
Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet (See Appendix D). The following section of
this Chapter provides in-depth explanations for each finding based on the extant data.
Limitations of the Project
Although this project shows that there are distinctive gaps in the achievement
level of certain underrepresented subgroups, it has several limitations. First, time
constraints caused the period of data collection in the schools to be limited to the end of
the Spring semester, when schools were preparing to administer state tests, Advanced
Placement exams, and finish the school year. Interview times were limited due to
preparation for spring testing, events, and final exams at the school sites. Interviews
were also cancelled due to unforeseen events such as the death of a student. Considering
57
that the team was able to interview personnel utilizing three different interview models
over a period of three months, the team determined that the data collected was sufficient
for identification of roots causes to the problem.
A second limitation the project team faced revolved around concerns expressed
by administrators at some of the high school sites. At the beginning of this process, when
school sites were contacted to arrange the first round of interviews, administrators were
eager to help, offering assistance in gathering school site data and providing access to the
requested personnel. However, some administrators were wary of the purpose of the
team visits, which led to limited access to personnel and data. The concern was based on
the false belief that the project team was conducting evaluations for the school district
about performance, and repercussions could follow an administrator for their
forthrightness. As a result, the team was unable to arrange interviews with other
administrators, teachers, or counselors at some sites. Instead, interviews were arranged
by the principal or the principal’s assistant. The project team was concerned that selected
interviewees would not be candid with the project team.
A final limitation lied in the project team’s inability to interview students or
parents directly. Since this project was consultative in nature, our team was limited in
who we could contact and glean information from. The limitations on interview
sampling left the project team to rely solely on perspectives shared in interviews with
district administrators, school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. The ability to
interview parents and students directly would enable the team to more fully comprehend

58
the dynamics and culture of each school site, therefore creating a more thorough
understanding of the root causes and creating a clearer foundation from which to find
solutions.
Presentation of Findings
Upon completion of the gap analysis and findings of thematic root causes, a visit
was made to the Glendale Unified School District Superintendent of Schools and his
Cabinet on September 13, 2010 to help clarify any issues or concerns with the Executive
Summary of Root Causes. Finally, a more thorough presentation of findings and
recommendations was made to the Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet on
November 1, 2010 via a PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix E). The presentation
was focused on presenting several areas of strength in regards to GUSD college success,
along with the inquiry undertaken by our project team, and the subsequent thematic areas
for consideration given to address gaps to college success in GUSD. Our presentation
and executive summary offered a range of solutions to performance gaps in hopes of
attaining the goal of college for all GUSD students. Our goal was not to present an
inapplicable set of solutions, but to demonstrate before GUSD leaders that our solutions
were based on a thorough examination of root causes to gaps in college participation.
In the team’s presentation to GUSD leadership team, it was important to
communicate the information in a meaningful way that the district would be able to
utilize the information to address the district’s college participation gap. The
achievement gap of underrepresented students in their ability to access higher education
is an important issue and the district’s ability to close the gap is relevant to individual
59
students, as well as society as a whole. In order to close the gap, it was necessary that the
district understood the information gathered and that resultant findings were gained from
interviews and data gathered from the district. As well, the project team understood the
political ramifications and context in which we presented the information (i.e.
relationships with bargaining units, change of superintendency, etc.). Our goal in
presenting our findings and solutions was to be firm in our recommendations while being
sensitive to our audience and climate. Ultimately, our project team aimed to have the
district take ownership of the college participation gap, heed the solutions gained from
gap analysis, and apply these solutions in hopes of closing gaps.
The purpose of this project in general, and application of the gap analysis model
in particular, was to partner and assist GUSD by helping them understand why goals, as it
relates to college access, were not achieved, and to offer a dynamic proposal of solutions
that will lead to goal achievement. In the end, our team believes the presentation and
findings will serve as a workable manual for helping the district offer an improved
educational experience and route more underrepresented subgroup population of students
to college. In essence, the goal of our work was to witness the application of our
proposed solutions so that more graduating students in GUSD will indeed apply for and
matriculate into college.

60
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that objective.

“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g.,

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to
populations or situations beyond that studied.

2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human
subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

61

routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal
management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality
improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted-for
services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However,
some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge. (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)
Further clarification is provided in the following section:
“Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data
derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of
an institutional practice.” (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4)

62
CHAPTER 2C: FINDINGS
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
The purpose of this project was to determine whether Glendale Unified School
District (GUSD) high schools had a college-going culture on their campuses and the
degree to which these cultures were supported. The overall goal of GUSD is to improve
the college participation and academic success of their students. Clark and Estes’ (2002)
gap analysis model offers a construct for identifying roots causes to problems. The
following section presents a series of findings that demonstrate clear and compelling
evidence of the roots causes to GUSD’s college participation problem. Data gathered
from two sets of interviews and email responses with district and high school
administration, counselors, and teachers were coded and organized into knowledge/skills,
motivation, or organizational gaps.
Summary of Interviews
During the first set of interviews, it became clear that there was a lack of goal
alignment. Two high-level district administrators agreed that they wanted to improve
college participation success; however, both had a different definition of what college
participation success looked like. One administrator thought that any post-secondary
education was an example of college participation success, and the other thought that
attending a two-year college and transferring to a four-year institution, or going straight
to a four-year institution was the idea of college participation success.
In order to further clarify the definition of college participation success, another
interview was conducted with a high-level district administrator. In that meeting, the
63
administrator stated that a four-year university was desirable but a two-year college with
potential for matriculation to a university could be considered part of the college
participation terminology. Clearly, there are different definitions to the meaning of
college participation within Glendale Unified School District.
Based on these preliminary interviews, it appeared that the district’s goals were
not clearly defined as it related to students’ college participation. In fact, there may
potentially exist a misalignment of goals at the district level, the result of which filters
down to the comprehensive high schools and affects the overall effect of improving
college participation for GUSD students. One of the objectives of this project was to
discover if there was indeed a misalignment of goals that contributed to the low college
participation rate. Based on school data and extensive interview responses, it became
clear our focus narrowed on access to four-year universities.
The following section presents a thorough review of our project team’s findings.
Upon completion of our interviews, it became apparent that knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps existed that prevented GUSD students from accessing a four-year
university education. The following gaps were coded into emergent themes and
presented as an executive summary of findings before the Glendale Unified
Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet.

64
Knowledge Gaps
The importance of student, parent, and school knowledge of college admission
requirements and application procedures to insure student success is often
underestimated. The basic assumption that all schools make is that students and parents
have the knowledge to navigate through the college application quagmire. Since
knowledge is gained through familiarity and experience, students who have never been to
a postsecondary institution lack the knowledge to fully understand the pathway to
college. Thus, the assumption schools make puts many students at a disadvantage.
Based on our findings, it is evident that a knowledge gap exists within GUSD that
prevents many students from accessing four-year universities. The following section will
describe our findings in detail and indicate the areas of knowledge within which gaps
exist.
Finding #1: Some students lack knowledge about the American system of education and
college admission requirements causing students from underrepresented groups to be
ineligible for college admission.
Many of the students within Glendale Unified School District are recent
immigrants, or the children of immigrants who either lack modeling at home because
their parents did not attend college themselves, or they have other priorities that take
precedence over education. This is not to say that immigrants and their children do not
value education, but that there are social or financial restrictions that may preclude them
from participating in educational opportunities.
65
In GUSD, there are three main subgroup populations: Armenians make-up the
largest, while Latinos and Asians, respectively, make-up the next largest groups.
According to teachers, principals, and counselors, the Armenians are the largest student
population in each of the four high schools. Additionally, the newer Armenian
immigrants do not appear to value education as much as their older Armenian immigrant
counterparts. One teacher confided that Armenian students are encouraged to go to
school, but most parents encourage them to attend Glendale Community College because
they want them to stay close to home. As many teachers, counselors, and high school
administrators pointed out this phenomenon is especially true of female Armenian
students, with some parents requiring girls to live at home until they marry. One teacher
recounted a story about one of her former students who had been accepted to the
University of Southern California:
One of my former students was accepted to USC, but her parents didn’t want her
to go. She’s a girl, so they (parents) want her home everyday. The only way she
could go to USC was to commute. Otherwise they would’ve made her go to
Glendale Community College.

The Asian students within GUSD appear to have different perceptions than those
of the Armenian population. Asian students are encouraged and even pressured by
family to be successful in school so that they are eligible to apply for four-year
universities. These students’ parents may not have been through the American
educational system, but they recognize that education is a tool that will help them attain
financial stability. These students are encouraged to apply to four-year schools, primarily
University of California schools, including the University of CA, Los Angeles. A high
school administrator indicated that more and more Asian students have been going to
66
Santa Monica Community College instead of Glendale Community College believing
that attendance at SMCC is a guarantee to junior standing at UCLA. One of the high
school principals indicated that about ten years ago, the Asian population in GUSD was
larger and most of that group elected to take more challenging courses so they would be
eligible for UC admission.
The Latino subgroup is the second largest and the lowest performing subgroup
within GUSD. This group underperforms on standardized tests such as the California
Standards Tests (CST’s), the SAT’s, Advanced Placement (AP) exams, and the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). One counselor stated that Hispanic
students usually come from lower socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds. Their parents
usually work in some sort of service-oriented employment and are unlikely to have much
formal education. Often these low SES students have low reading and math ability,
which translates to low test scores. When asked about the likelihood of these students
attending a four-year university the counselor said that if these students continued their
education, they would go to Glendale Community College. When asked why, the
counselor stated: “These students cannot see themselves in school, because no one in
their family has gone.” When these students begin high school it is with the idea that
they are not “college material” or if they do go to college, it will not be a four-year
university, so they self-select out of challenging courses further limiting their
postsecondary options.

67
Finding #2: Many students, parents, teachers, and counselors perceive that the
community college pathway is a better alternative- both financially and academically-
thus limiting student options after high school.
The challenge that modern secondary schools have is the perception that
attendance at a two-year college automatically means that a student will persist and
matriculate to a four-year institution. The common perception of students, parents,
teachers, and counselors in GUSD is that students who attend Glendale Community
College will transfer to a four-year school when according to one of the counselors in a
GUSD high school “the attrition is high and the matriculation rate is less than 35%.”
Teachers, counselors, and parents sometimes focus on community college because
students do not take challenging courses, or underperforms in high school, but the
message communicated reinforces student’s fears that they are not prepared for the rigors
of college and that their high school did not adequately prepare them. Although the
recommendation for community college is meant to give students another option for
postsecondary education, it can serve to undervalue student’s high school preparation.
The more alarming part of the community college perception is that the cost of
attendance is more reasonable than a four-year university. Whereas costs at a community
college are lower, the availability of courses and people to teach them has become a
concern in recent years as a result of education cuts in the California budget. This issue,
coupled with a lack of knowledge as to how to finance a four-year education, and the
ensuing fear that this lack of knowledge inspires causes many students and parents to
focus solely on community college as the only viable option for postsecondary education.
68
Finding #3: Some students lack the knowledge of college admission requirements or
University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, which limits their postsecondary
opportunities.
In all GUSD high schools, faculty and staff indicated that school counselors and
teachers speak to students about the ‘a-g’ requirements for college admission and their
importance, but some students appear to lack conceptual knowledge of these
requirements. This lack of knowledge is demonstrated countless times during a student’s
high school career in their choices of academic coursework. Subsequently, many
students have limited their postsecondary options, thus giving them fewer opportunities
to apply to a four-year institution.
Counselors make classroom visits to talk about college admissions, distribute
handouts with college admission and University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, host
college nights, and meet with parents and students to discuss student progress.
Counselors meet with students individually once a year to review their course selections
for the next academic year, graduation requirements to make sure that students are on
track as well as college admission requirements. At several GUSD high schools, posters
delineating UC ‘a-g’ requirements and the difference in income between students who
have a college degree and students who have a high school diploma are displayed in
hallways and classrooms. The expectation at most high schools is that all students will be
able to meet admission requirements for a four year university, or enter a community
college so they can later matriculate to a university. In addition, all faculty and staff are
69
dedicated to providing students with information, support, and guidance so they can
incorporate the “dream of college” into their post-high school goals.
Whereas the district has made college participation success a priority, not all the
high schools have established a college-going culture. One high school principal shared:
“We are hesitant to use the term ‘college-going’ culture because some groups might find
it offensive and we want to be sensitive to the cultures that exist within the school.”
Each high school communicates the importance of students continuing their
education after high school. However, not all the high schools have the expectation that
students will attend a four-year university. Several of the high schools have taken the
position that “students have different directions” and that the high school has to accept
that not all students are suited for college, although they will continue to offer the
students information. One high school associate principal said: “We do not have a
college-going culture for all students. We see it in certain groups, but a great percentage
of them won’t access resources.”
Unfortunately, with recent government and district budget reductions, counseling
services have been reduced and counselors stretched as far as they can be to meet student
needs. As a result of budget reductions within the district, some counselors work part-
time at one school and part-time at another school within the district. Counselors meet
with parents and students when practical to discuss student course selections for the next
academic year, their progress toward graduation, and ‘a-g’ requirements for college
admission. In addition, teachers speak to students about college admission requirements
70
and encourage them to seek out the counselors and speak to them about college, or help
students to go online and look at college websites to get more information.
Finding #4: Some teachers lack knowledge of college admission requirements as well as
knowledge about the sequence of courses within their discipline and the requirements of
those courses, which leaves students unprepared for advancement.
Although GUSD has made college participation a priority, there is no program in
place to help train teachers about college requirements, the differences between public
and private college requirements, application procedures, and financial aid information.
It would appear that this knowledge is assumed since teachers, administrators, and
counselors have been to college. In interviews, both counselors and principals observed
that teachers appear to be unaware of specific UC ‘a-g’ requirements.
Teaching is an isolated activity, often without any interaction with other teachers
during break and lunch, certainly not enough time to discuss at any length the goals and
objectives for course sequencing. Some schools recognize the need for common
planning time so that teachers within departments can meet and discuss course goals and
objectives. One high school teacher remarked, “Teachers are so isolated that they focus
on their own classes and not what comes before or after.” Part of this focus is making
sure that the student is successful in each teacher’s respective class, thus creating a
“narrow” focus on individual class content and assessment. In addition, teachers must
focus on district-wide Focus on Results reform objectives and prepare for standardized
assessments. One pathway for student success is the ability to advance from one level
71
within a subject to another. The only way to facilitate this is for teachers to be aware of
what is necessary at the next course level so they can help students strengthen their skills.
GUSD implemented a program called Focus on Results, which helps schools
focus on one skill across the curriculum with research-based best practices. The program
is being administered in every school within GUSD; however, one high school principal
remarked that there are too many programs being implemented, results are expected
within the first years, and then there is no follow through to see what the long-term
results look like. Because of this lack of follow through, teachers often do not take the
new programs as seriously as they should because they know that there will be a new one
coming in the next year.
Finding #5: A lack of district leadership direction and support on college-going goals
creates a lack of comprehensive knowledge and strategies to improve students’ college
eligibility.
In order to improve overall student success, GUSD implemented a district wide
program called Focus on Results, which is a nationwide intervention program designed to
help schools and districts facilitate student achievement. School or district teams work
with a consultant who helps design an individualized plan for student success; they offer
training and assistance for the team so that they can take the information back to their
site. The overall goal is to improve student achievement across the curriculum. This
intervention is designed to improve student academic achievement in high school, with
an indirect goal being improving the student’s ability to qualify for college.
72
Although this intervention encourages the utilization of research-based best
practices and peer-reviewed journals by school site teams, it is not designed to
specifically address the college participation gap within GUSD. In fact, no district level
goals or direction has emerged from Focus on Results to enable students to meet ‘a-g’
requirements or qualify for college admission. When asked about district-wide goals
related to college participation, several school site officials responded that nothing
explicit existed.
Motivation Gaps
Lack of motivation can seriously inhibit the pursuit of goals. Motivation itself is
based on four critical areas: interest, self-efficacy, attributions, and goal orientation
(Mayer, 2008). Motivation is then processed through the active choice of pursuing a
task, persistence to follow through on the task, and the requisite amount of mental effort
to complete the task. Based on our findings, it is clear that motivations gaps exist within
Glendale Unified School District’s (GUSD) four comprehensive high schools that
prevent some students from participating in a four-year university education upon
graduation. This ensuing section will describe our findings in detail and indicate the
areas of motivation where gaps currently exist.
Finding #6: Some school officials lack the motivation to raise college eligibility levels
for underrepresented groups of students due to beliefs about those students’ ability to
achieve.
District and school site officials hold varying expectations for students. In fact,
one high level district administrator pointed out that a consistent message of high
73
academic achievement for all is not found at all four comprehensive high schools.
Although some schools have pushed students towards meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility
requirements, there has not been increased pressure from all school sites and for each
individual student. In fact, school officials are resigned to the fact that some students are
not cut out for college. One school site administrator commented:
We don’t think that every student is ready for college. We have a realistic view
about kids. Across the board, there is a belief that not all students will attend
college. During our WASC visit, we came to the conclusion that students will
have different destinations.

District and school officials’ lack of motivation to raise college eligibility is found
in an absence of clearly defined formal goals related to four-year university access and
participation. As well, there appears to be varying degrees of belief regarding raising
student access to four-year universities. While a high-ranking district administrator
claimed the goal of Glendale Unified was to promote all students to enter a four-year
university, either directly or via community college, another district administrator
believed that certain students were better prepared for direct entrance to the workplace.
School site officials also presented conflicted beliefs regarding student ability to enter
college: some pushed and advocated for all students to meet UC ‘a-g’ requirements,
while others were resigned to the belief that some students, particularly those not enrolled
in college preparatory courses, were not able to achieve at a college ready level.
Teachers’ perceptions about the ability of students also varied. One teacher
expressed a strong belief that certain students were on the college track- Advanced
Placement students- and those that were not enrolled in such classes were often described
as “regular” kids. Of course, the rigor and approach taken in non-honors classes is vastly
74
different from the advanced studies and preparation for college presented in Advanced
Placement classes. The “regular” students typically faced a less rigorous instructional
program with the end goal being high school graduation and receipt of a diploma.
Another teacher who worked primarily with English Language Learners was not as
resigned about the inability of certain students to achieve at a college-ready level. In fact,
this teacher felt strongly that students in her English Language Development program did
have the academic ability to achieve yet faced roadblocks to advancement because of
language barriers or inability to access certain coursework.
Finding #7: Some students’ familial and cultural framework creates motivation gaps in
pursuing a four-year university education.
GUSD students’ motivation to pursue a four-year university education is stunted
by a variety of cultural factors, including parental value, consent, and goal orientation.
Some students fail to actively choose or persist in college preparatory high school
coursework because parents have dictated their pathways for them. Several interviewees
pointed out that some students fail to find value or lack engagement in the academic work
because they are resigned to attending a two-year college upon high school graduation.
Armenian and Armenian-American students who have met rigorous college
preparatory coursework and have been accepted to a four-year university face roadblocks
due to parental demands or concerns. These students have met UC ‘a-g’ requirements,
completed the SAT or ACT testing requirement, and enrolled in rigorous Advanced
Placement courses. For all purposes, they have met secondary educational goals in
preparation for a four-year university education. However, many parents discourage their
75
student’s motivation to advance. For these students, college-going access is ultimately
attributed to parental consent and not on their efforts.
The large Armenian population that resides in the greater Glendale area holds
strong cultural and gender expectations for their children. One counselor, who also
happens to be an Armenian immigrant herself, shared that parents expect young
Armenian females not to go away to college. The counselor explained an experience
with one particular counselee:
I actually had a student, that really wanted to go to UCI [University of California,
Irvine] and she got into like four UC’s and the parents said the only way I’m
going to let you go to UCI is to commute day in and day out. And that’s what the
student was doing. I had a meeting with the parents explaining the danger of just
being on the road versus staying there.

Cultural factors related to college access are affected by patterns of immigration.
One administrator shared a historical overview of the Armenian immigrant experience,
and differentiated between the “old guard,” well-educated immigrants with the more
recent Armenian immigrant population. The former held high expectations for the formal
educational processes and believed it to be a gateway for economic opportunity.
Conversely, the new wave of Armenian immigrants appeared to value college far less
than the previous generation.
Finding #8: Some GUSD students’ lack of interest and self-efficacy result in a failure to
actively choose a four-year university educational route.
A lack of student interest and value in a four-year university education exists
within GUSD high schools. There are several indicators that support this finding,
including the existence of non-graduating dropouts and fifth-year high school students.
76
Low student achievement at this level demonstrates a lack of individual interest in the
high school academic learning process. If students demonstrated more willing attention
to the learning process rather than forcing themselves just to complete their requisite
coursework for graduation, improved matriculation to four-year universities would
assuredly occur. One principal described these types of students as “capable
underachievers.” Another principal indicated that:
We have a high failure rate in certain areas. So, I’ll ask the teachers, ‘Why are
these kids failing?...Is it [a lack of] skill or motivation?’ And, 99 percent will say
it’s motivation; it’s a lack of work ethic. It’s not that they can’t do the work, but
they choose not to.

Some GUSD students fail to actively choose the goal of a four-year university
education. These students lack the motivation despite the organizational changes made
within schools sites to push more students to meet minimum eligibility requirements. For
example, one high school has created a movement to raise overall UC ‘a-g’ requirements
for their student body. Although many barriers have been removed to create better
access, there are still students who do not actively choose this pathway.
Self-efficacy is also a motivation issue faced by GUSD students. Self-efficacy is
the belief in one’s abilities to accomplish a particular task. When students lack self-
efficacy in their ability to attain a four-year university education, it can impair their
motivation to pursue this goal. One administrator at a GUSD high school pointed to the
fact that students are given the curricular opportunities, including meeting University of
California ‘a-g’ requirements, yet some students seem to lack the beliefs to actually
realize this curricular goal. Although students are given full opportunity to pursue the
77
‘a-g’ college preparatory track, students are self-selecting themselves out of this
academic pathway. As one high school administrator pointed out:
We’re going to provide access to kids. I want kids to be prepared to go straight
into a four-year. Go to Harvard if they so desire, go to Glendale Community
College, go to trade tech, go to Cal Tech. Wherever their interests lie. What I
struggle with is that kids make that decision in 9
th
grade. We’ve got to work
harder to help kids keep their options open longer so in the end you can do
whatever you want… ‘a-g’ gives you the most options.

Students’ lack of self-efficacy about college outcomes appears to be a shared
belief by some high school teachers and staff members. One administrator indicated that
that not all students were capable of or ready for a four-year university education. One
teacher referred to this as a “realistic” view that students will have different destinations
and that some are not capable of attending a four-year college. Still, another district
administrator pondered whether all school agents’ held the same expectations for all
students to continue on to a four-year university.
Finding #9: Student motivation to pursue a four-year university and school officials’
willingness to support this pursuit is often stunted by the common and comfortable
practice of entering Glendale Community College.
In Glendale Unified high schools, an inordinate number of students choose to
attend two-year community colleges upon graduation. Many GUSD students are fixated
on following this community college track, particularly continuing their studies at
Glendale Community College (GCC). Student interest in four-year universities is
tempered by the reality of this easy and reliable track that has been accessed by previous
GUSD graduates. In fact, one high school principal recounted the tale of a graduating
78
student that was accepted to the University of California, Riverside yet ultimately
enrolled in Glendale Community College.
Students that enter community colleges with the intent of transferring to a four-
year university face an uphill climb in actually transferring. The percentage of students
who do transfer to a four- year university is low. Despite this reality, GUSD students
choose to enter the community college setting. One counselor described the Glendale
Community College corridor as having evolved into a “way of life” for many GUSD
students, particularly Armenian and Armenian-American students.
The community college pathway affects students’ motivational choice to
participate in rigorous high school curricular work. For example, some students who
were eligible to take rigorous Advanced Placement course chose not to because it was not
a required course for entrance to Glendale Community College. One disgruntled
counselor described her feelings about this situation:
When I see there are some very capable students that have good GPAs, they have
taken the higher level rigorous classes and they end up going to a community
college, not that I have anything against community college. But one of the
things that I think that they miss most is being part of that culture.

For some other GUSD students, the motivation to persist through a rigorous
academic coursework is halted at a certain point in their high school career. One
counselor indicated that some students will enroll in challenging courses up until a
certain point whereby they revert to less challenging courses that will meet minimum
graduation requirements. When pressed why this occurs, the counselor stated: “Because
they do not see themselves in college.”
79
Still, other students enter Glendale Community College because they limit their
choice of potential four-year universities to attend. For many Armenians in the Glendale
area, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is the sole attractive destination
for postsecondary studies. Unfortunately, denied entrance to UCLA amounts to
community college matriculation with the rationale that the student will eventually be
able to transfer to UCLA. Altogether, GCC has become the “default destination” for
many GUSD students.
Finding #10: Some GUSD students’ goal orientations and how they attribute failure has
negatively affected their prospects of entering a four-year university.
Although many students have been informed about the economic and social
benefits of a four-year university education, some GUSD students have poor goal
orientations that ultimately affect their prospects of pursuing this route. For example,
many GUSD students operate with a performance-avoidance approach: instead of a
curricular outlook to master the content, students will work hard to avoid failing a class.
One English teacher described the work submitted by a student that lacked the depth and
insight of another student. For this teacher, the former student approached coursework
and learning with the goal of “passing the class.”
Also, parents’ goal orientations for their students do not always amount to
mastery of rigorous curricular work in preparation for a four-year university education.
Instead, parents’ school goals for their students may be limited to ensuring appropriate
student behavior or a safe school environment.
80
Many GUSD students attribute their inability to enter a four-year university to
causes outside their locus of control. For example, instead of hard work and rigorous
preparation leading to successful matriculation into a university, students hold to a
variety of uncontrollable causes that will inhibit their chances. These causes could
amount to lack of financial support, familial desires to stay closer to home, or ease of
access to GCC.
Organizational Gaps
Organizational barriers can limit the pursuit of performance goals. Lack of
efficient and effective organizational work processes and material resources may
discourage the most motivated, knowledgeable and skilled person in the organization
(Clark & Estes, 2002). Organizational gaps are based on: work processes, material
resources, value chains and value streams, and organizational culture. According to our
findings, there exists in GUSD organizational barriers that prevent students from
matriculating to four-year university institutions.
Finding #11: Organizational resources that promote college access have been cut,
including counseling positions and hours, and financial grants, such as GEAR UP.
Organizations require material resources to achieve goals. The placement of
available resources determines the organization’s emphasis in ensuring the needs of the
programs are met. There were two major areas of spending cuts that affected the
development of a college going culture in GUSD: the elimination of the Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant and the
counseling personnel in the district. GEAR UP was a six-year discretionary grant
81
program that awarded GUSD funding to provide services and intervention programs to
promote college attendance to low-income secondary level students. The district’s grant
extension request was denied due to lack of evidence of program effectiveness.
The reduction of counselors at each of the four comprehensive high schools in
GUSD creates a challenge for many of the students to receive the kind of services needed
to receive college information or assistance in the college application process. In the last
year, ten counselors were cut from the district, thereby distributing much of the
responsibilities and workload to the remaining counselors. In all of the schools, student
to counselor ratio increased and some services that were previously provided by the
counselors were eliminated. For example, due to the increase number of caseloads, at
some of the schools in GUSD, the counselors are only able to meet with students to
discuss course requirements and college information, whereas before, counselors met
with students and their parents at least once a year, if not more, to plan, schedule and
counsel students about choices. Not only has quality and time in meeting with students
and parents been affected, at some schools, parent and student conferences are only
conducted upon request. To add to this problem, certain high school counselors must
split their hours between two schools sites.
The overall concern with site administrators and teachers was the number of
counselors cut and the responsibilities that had to be subsequently distributed to the
remaining counselors. These responsibilities include dissemination of college
information to all grade level students, providing assistance with college applications and
financial aid applications, and assisting students with their personal statement letters and
82
writing letters of recommendations. As the only certificated staff to receive dismissal
notices, counselors questioned their value and the perception of the importance of their
role in GUSD and promoting the college going culture. As one of the counselors
indicated: “Counseling is not perceived as important or a priority. Counselors work hard,
however, the perception is that it’s an easy job.”
Counselors play a critical role in developing the school’s response to college
planning and create an organizational worldview of different options of college choices.
Through increasing workload on site counselors, counselors are unable to effectively
respond to providing the kind of support needed to ensure students are on the right path to
four-year institutions.
Finding #12: There are no explicit district or school wide goals that address four-year
university access, thus creating a misalignment of work processes.
All students will achieve is an explicit message that has resonated in the GUSD
community, however, what that achievement looks like is more implicitly communicated.
In order to increase the participation rate of qualified GUSD students into four-year
institutions, the district must clearly state what its goals are promoting a college going
culture. Districts must clearly communicate concrete and clear expectations for student
achievement, including goals related to postsecondary studies. There is a lack of clear
goals and values for GUSD graduates with conflicting views regarding participation in
four-year institutions, community college, or vocational careers. By providing a clear
expectation of a college going culture, the work processes will be better aligned to the
performance goals of the stakeholders.
83
While GUSD seeks to increase the college participation rate for their students,
work processes do not communicate that same message. According to more than one
administrator, there are no formal goals on developing a college going culture from the
district. School sites have their own plans, but there is no formal goal or message that is
communicated from the district level. This is further evidenced by the lack of discussion
at district level meetings around goals for college success and the lack of professional
development around increasing college participation. According to one administrator, “I
don’t feel we get the message from the board or the superintendent [that the goal is] the
college going culture, only the achievement gap and reducing the gaps through CAHSEE
and STAR results…those are the goals set for the schools, not college going culture.”
Once organizational goals are clearly stated and work processes are developed to support
those goals, performance goals may be more readily achieved.
Finding #13: Many GUSD school officials do not reach out to various cultures despite
knowledge that other cultures lack the social capital to access the American Higher
Educational System, thus further exacerbating the gap in college participation.
Glendale Unified School District is a large urban school district that services a
diverse student demographic population. The differences are evident in the linguistic,
cultural and racial, as well as economically diverse student population. The majority of
GUSD’s student population is white (56%), many of whom are Armenian descendants,
22% are of Hispanic or Latino background, 13% Asian and 7% Filipino. The district has
over 26% of its students identified as English Learners, and even more students identified
as Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient students at 31%. Throughout the district at least
84
43% of the students come from low-income families as indicated in their National School
Lunch Participation rate. At least 46% of GUSD parents report having a college or a post
graduate degree.
Many of the administrators, counselors and teachers attribute the low college
participation rate to the students and the parents’ lack of understanding of the American
educational system. This is further affirmed by a veteran teacher’s statement, “Some
students lack modeling at home because they are first generation. Students lack
knowledge about requirements for college and do not know how to get the information.”
Many attribute certain groups’ cultural beliefs and values as the reasons for the lack of
interest or knowledge in navigating through the difficult college application process
without offering concrete support systems to help students and parents negotiate through
the myriad of hoops needed to meet those requirements. In an interview with a counselor
in regards to parent groups and equitable distribution of information on college access to
parents, a statement was made that certain subgroup populations “must motivate
themselves and empower themselves” and seek out college information for themselves.
A teacher interviewed, also concurred, “The onus is on the parents, not the school.”
There are individuals who are willing to help as evidenced by teachers who stay
after school on their own time to assist students with their personal statements. However,
the current organizational culture is such that there is no concrete plans to overcome the
cultural differences of each of the student subgroups. This is detrimental to the
achievement and aspirations of many minority students, as the majority of the student
population does not fit the traditional “college going” student demographic: White,
85
middle class, and educated. If the organization does not change its view in the current
interaction with its student and parent population, then the end result will be the
persistent, if not increasing, low rate of four-year college participation rate.
Finding #14: Some schools’ inability to raise the academic rigor and achievement level
for all students.
High school graduation and even college access is not only a high school issue,
but also a K-12 education issue. The outcome of student success lies in the culmination
of their years of education in the comprehensive school system. Students will be more
readily successful in the ‘a-g’ requirements if they have the foundations and skills
necessary to access the curriculum. When students are prepared and proficient with
primary grade standards, they will not have to take remedial courses at the secondary
level that diminishes their opportunity to access college bound courses. According to an
administrator at one high school, over 586 incoming freshmen class students have been
identified as possible candidates for remediation based on middle school grades and test
scores.
GUSD can improve its four-year college participation rate by ensuring academic
rigor in all of its classes and ensuring student mastery of the content. There is evidence
of a lack of district wide expectation to ensure all students receive ‘a-g’ courses that will
ensure entrance to four-year colleges, regardless of student background or linguistic
ability. Some high schools do have the expectation that all students should be on the ‘a-
g’ program, however, it is not a district wide expectation. For example, high schools must
ensure all students have the opportunity to complete their ‘a-g’ requirements, even for
86
English Learners and students enrolled in vocational programs. In more than one
instance, more than one staff member interviewed reported the exclusion of certain
student groups from ‘a-g’ requirement courses. Teachers reported, “the Academy
students were previously tracked out of ‘a-g’ courses and were not eligible [for college],”
and, “12
th
grade English Learners are disappointed because they know they will not
graduate from high school because they need at least one year in regular English classes.”
A counselor also noted: “Another reason [students] go to GCC is language issues,
English language learners not completing ‘a-g’ courses.” And an administrator went on
further to say: “Preparation for college isn’t offered to all students…the [school] culture
creates a different kind of access.”
It would benefit the district if all of the schools were able to apply the mindset of
one principal who realized that, “fourteen year old students were making life altering
decisions… [and] it was decided that every kid was going to be programmed as though
they were going to four-year colleges.” Students must be given every opportunity to
succeed, regardless of their demographic characteristic and it is the responsibility of the
organization to ensure equal access is provided.
Finding #15: The design of GUSD comprehensive high schools and instances of
continued school-wide tracking limits underrepresented students’ access to four-year
universities.
Tracking has been an educational practice for many years, especially in senior
high schools. According to Jeannie Oakes (1986) tracking is the practice of curriculum
placement by dividing students into separate classes for high, average, and low-
87
achieving, thus placing students into different pathways for college and workplace. She
further contends that tracking “contributes to mediocre schooling for most secondary
students. And because it places greatest obstacles to achievement in the path of those
children least advantaged in American society – poor and minority children – tracking
forces schools to play an active role in perpetuating social and economic inequalities as
well” (Oakes, 1986, p. 13).
GUSD high schools have made changes in recent years to align course offerings
with “a-g” requirements, however, the district has not made it a requirement that the
district’s minimum graduation requirements meet the “a-g’ coursework. This may create
obstacles for students if they are tracked early on into the curriculum path to graduate
from high school and not the college path. This is especially true for EL students in
GUSD. In schools with the largest numbers of EL students, more than one district
personnel has stated, “English Language Learners are not completing “a-g” courses.”
Meaning, the district’s EL population- 26% of the district’s entire student population-
will not be on track to meet college admission requirements.
Finding #16: District leadership’s perceptions of each comprehensive high school create
expectation gaps between each of the four schools.
District leadership’s perceptions about a college going culture will affect their
expectations for each of the high schools. The current organizational culture regards the
two higher-performing schools “up on the hill” as college going, whereas the remaining
two high schools lack a college-going culture. This gap in perception may affect the
allocation of resources and the district’s ability to support each school to persist in
88
nurturing a college-going culture. For example, several district administrators remarked
that the two under-performing high schools had an absence of a college-going culture.
However, officials at these school sites shared evidence of an emerging college-going
culture, with increased allocation of human and financial resources in creating this
culture. The gap in perception between district and school level officials may affect the
school’s attempts to improve their image to be a college preparatory high school.

89
CHAPTER 3A REVIEW OF THE SOLUTIONS LITERATURE
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Proposed Solutions Based on Best Practices
Glendale Unified School District is a high-achieving educational institution that
exists to serve the students of the greater Glendale community. The District’s simple, yet
powerful, mission of student achievement for all resonates across school sites and affects
classroom practices, decision-making, allocation of material and human resources, and
professional development. GUSD’s culture of high achievement, as evidenced by its
recent 842 Growth API (2010), should be praised and considered a model for neighboring
urban school districts.
Currently, GUSD affords their students a multitude of postsecondary
opportunities, including access to trade schools, community colleges, and four-year
universities. Based on existing data, graduates from GUSD are entering two-year
colleges at a strong rate (52%). Although, GUSD graduates are entering four-year
universities at a comparably higher rate (~23%) against State averages (~19%), the
overall need for witnessing more GUSD graduates matriculating into four-year colleges
is important, particularly for underrepresented minorities.
Based on extensive interviews with various GUSD agents- district/school
administrators, teachers, counselors- our project team found gaps to college access and
success in GUSD. The findings (see Chapter 2C) unearthed roots to the college access
problem and were analyzed to determine what types of gaps – knowledge/skill,
motivation, organizational culture – were contributing to the college access problem. The
90
roots to the problem were coded into sixteen specific findings and further organized
around emergent themes. The three emergent themes below are applicable across the
district’s four comprehensive high schools, and serve as areas to focus on in order to
close Glendale Unified School District’s college participation gap.
1) Four-Year University Education: A Lack Of Explicit Goals.
Academic achievement at Glendale Unified School District has steadily improved
over the years. However, district-wide achievement goals, and professional
development related to those goals, do not include explicit goals pertaining to
student four-year university education. In fact, variance in defining college
success for GUSD students exists amongst district and school site administrators,
teachers, and counselors. This lack of clarity in student postsecondary education
goals creates misaligned work processes, varied expectations, and perception
issues regarding the college-going success rates at each comprehensive high
school.
2) Persistent Barriers To College For Certain Student Subgroups.
Glendale Unified comprehensive high schools have made significant steps in
aligning coursework to meet four-year university eligibility, and improved
knowledge gaps concerning college entrance requirements. However, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps continue to persist presenting barriers for
specific subgroups of students (i.e. Hispanic, Armenian) in pursuing a four-year
university education.

91
3) Systems That Prevent Extension Of Student Postsecondary College Pathways.
Although Glendale Community College presents a viable postsecondary option
for graduating Glendale Unified students, this postsecondary pathway has become
commonplace and comfortable for many GUSD students, thus creating gaps in
students’ pursuit of a four-year university education. Instead of opening doors to
four-year access, or maximizing the two-year to four-year college route,
community college has become the default and final destination for many GUSD
students.
The following section of this chapter will present a review of literature that offers
research-based solutions in closing gaps to college access.
Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 1:
The Need for Explicit Goals Focused on Improving Four-Year University Education
Access and Success
Through extensive interviews with Glendale Unified School District agents, it
became evident that explicit goals pertaining to students’ four-year university access and
participation did not exist. District and school site administrators gave varying
perspectives about both the benefit of emphasizing a four-year college-going goal, and
the abilities of all students to actually achieve it. In effect, the college and career
readiness mantra appeared to be defined differently for different people: while some
advocated for preparation of all students for a variety of postsecondary pathways (i.e.
92
workforce, two-year college, four-year college), others argued that the four-year college
pipeline was inexplicably narrow for certain student subgroups and needed increased
attention to close participation gaps.
Altogether, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) either lacks specific
organizational goals that address four-year university participation and access, or have
not thoroughly and explicitly communicated extant goals, which has misaligned certain
practices and communicated unclear expectations across the four comprehensive high
school sites. This was evident in interviews with teachers and counselors: while some
were committed to seeing more students reach four-year eligibility goals, others were of
the opinion that some students were not fit for the four-year college route. When asked
about the existence of college-going cultures at their school sites, administrators,
teachers, and counselors held varying beliefs about whether it existed on their respective
campuses. It was evident that a college-going culture was not established district-wide.
Goal Setting
In order to align work processes and hold expectations for all students, there is a
need for clear and explicit goals to be set as it relates to improving the overall number of
students pursuing and matriculating into a four-year college. By establishing district-
wide goals, school sites and their agents will have a common base and hear a common
message regarding their work to increase access and create college-going cultures. In
effect, there will be greater clarity regarding the importance of improving the four-year
college pathway.
93
Research indicates that goal setting is a critical component of workplace
motivation and behavior. Greater workplace performance occurs when goals are specific
and challenging, given that performers are committed to the goal, possess self-efficacy in
accomplishing those goals, and do not have conflicting goals (Locke & Latham, 2006;
Karakowshky & Mann, 2008). Goal setting itself is the admission of discontent with
present circumstances and a desire for a specific outcome. Even more, specific and
challenging goals increase the motivation of workplace performers by inducing greater
effort and persistence, and directing attention and work-related behaviors (Locke &
Latham, 2006).
The type of work goals established in an organization, along with how well those
goals are communicated are critical components to goal achievement. According to
Clark and Estes (2002), clear and compelling organizational goals cascade down to work
processes and clarify the tasks and objectives that employees must set out to accomplish.
When organizational goals are undefined or unaligned with work processes, gaps in
performance can occur and stunt achievement of organizational goals. Thus, it is
imperative that performance goals are clearly defined for individuals in the organization
so that work processes can improve.
Effective performance goals are concrete, challenging and current, and support
achievement of organizational goals. In fact, workplace performance is more effective
when goals are well understood and individuals can determine the cause of gaps between
current and desired performance (Clark & Estes, 2002). Based on extensive interviews,
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) lacks clearly defined goals as it relates to
94
graduating students’ postsecondary educational aspirations, particularly advancement
towards a four-year university education. In addition to GUSD’s powerful goals related
to student achievement via the Focus on Results initiative, powerful goals related to
raising eligibility, participation, and success rates to four-year universities need to be
created.
The research on Professional Learning Communities contributes to the work of
goal setting by indicating the critical components of effective goals: results-oriented;
helps clarify priorities; establishes indicators of progress; and, embeds continuous
improvement throughout the organization (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). In
fact, goals are most effective when they are few and focused. For example, a multitude
of initiatives coming from the district office can be daunting to school sites, whereas a
clearly designed and articulated goal emanating from a compelling purpose can have
profound impact on student achievement.
The production of SMART goals has contributed to greater clarity in defining and
setting organizational goals (Dufour et al, 2006). SMART goals follow a simple
acronym: Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and Time
bound. Altogether, effective SMART goals that address four-year college access will
create greater clarity across the organization in regards to the importance of increasing
postsecondary access for students. In effect, work processes (i.e. counseling services,
enrollment in rigorous coursework, outreach programs, etc.) stand to take priority and
improve when school agents have a clear mandate to follow as to who and how many
graduating students are expected to enter four-year universities.
95
Organizational Culture and Change
Clark and Estes (2002) substantiate the importance of a clear vision and goals in
order to close organizational gaps. As well, they assert that organizational culture is a
powerful force that inevitably shapes beliefs, practices and processes. An organization’s
culture is shaped over time and the cognitive learning that shapes a culture’s perceptions,
language, and thought processes will determine the feelings, attitudes, actions and
behaviors of members of the culture (Schein, 1990). One GUSD high school was found
to preach a four-year college-going mantra by suggesting that all their students will “get
on the ‘a-g’ bus.” In essence, agents within the school site built a culture that promoted
students’ meeting rigorous requirements to attend a four-year university. This type of
symbolic and explicit communication of desired results creates a culture that shapes the
work processes within that particular school site.
In addition to establishing clearly defined goals, there is a need to create a
college-going culture (specifically, four-year colleges) for all GUSD schools and
students. In order to create culture change within an organization, certain dysfunctional
elements need to be unlearned and leaders need to bring the organization through a
process of guided evolution (Schein, 1990). Meaning, leaders within the organization
need to take stock of present circumstances, and emphasize the threats to the organization
should no change occur. In the case for GUSD, leaders need to see how a non-college-
going culture only perpetuates extant inequities certain student subgroups face in gaining
access to four-year colleges.
96
Clark and Estes (2002) provide the following features to effective organizational
change programs:
1) Alignment of structures and processes with organizational goals. Meaning,
the work at both district and school sites will address the need to improve
four-year college participation.
2) Communication to all stakeholders about plans and progress. From the
Superintendent’s office down to the classroom, all facets of the work chain
must be explicitly communicated to about organizational goals related to four-
year college participation and its importance.
3) Top management must be continually involved in the improvement process. A
high degree of involvement and accountability must come from top-level
district officials back to the school sites regarding improvement of four-year
college participation.
4) Provide adequate knowledge, skills, and motivational support for everyone.
The organization needs to assess current practices and determine gaps in
performance. Subsequently, management needs to provide the requisite
support to close those gaps.
5) Take caution regarding change processes as different sites have different
needs. Four-year college improvement plans are not canned approaches with
a one-size-fits-all model for all school sites. Instead, the district will need to
take stock of needs and support at each site, and act accordingly to the unique
97
gaps and conditions that exist at each site without excusing certain sites from
pursuing their desired targets.
Organizational Improvement: Academic and Diversity Scorecards

In addition to establishing explicit goals for four-year colleges, organizations such
as GUSD need to closely examine and monitor overall college readiness factors. There
are several quantifiable factors that can be monitored through the development of an
academic scorecard or dashboard that measures college-readiness factors. The scorecard
and dashboard concepts derive from research on quality control and institutional
accountability (O’Neil, Bensimon, Diamond, & Moore, 1999). This innovation provides
organizational leaders “metrics of excellence” (O’Neil et al, 1999, p. 34) to determine,
monitor and set growth targets for specific factors, which in turn helps an organization
accomplish its strategic goals. Although the academic scorecard was designed to
improve the overall quality of a higher education institution, the concept itself can be
applied in a variety of organizations, including schools districts that aim to improve four-
year college participation. The current performance in the following college readiness
factors can be measured against benchmarks for growth:
• Graduation rate
• Enrollment and grades in higher-level coursework (i.e. Honors, AP, IB)
• Early Assessment Program (EAP) English (11
th
grade) participation and ‘ready
for college’ percentage
• EAP Math (11
th
grade) participation and ‘ready for college’ conditional
percentage
98
• Number of Advanced Placement enrollees and exams taken
• Percentage of Advanced Placement exams passed (scoring 3+)
• SAT number tested and total score > 1,500
• ACT number tested and total score > 21
• Percentage of graduates completing UC ‘a-g’ courses
A college readiness scorecard or dashboard provides visual graphics focusing on
those metrics that support college-going behavior. In essence, organizations identify
those indicators that predict or promote college-going behavior. By charting indicators
along with benchmarks for growth, organizations will be able to view overall
effectiveness and progress in college readiness for their students. The following are
examples of college-readiness dashboards:
Table 4: College Readiness Dashboard Samples

UC ‘a-g’ eligibility SAT participation
Each dashboard above represents an indictor of four-year college participation. The red
arrow represents current performance, while the green arrow represents desired
performance. For example, currently 47% of GUSD students meet UC ‘a-g’ course
20%
60%
80%
40%

10%
30%
50%
75%
100%
99
eligibility requirements. The district could then map a goal of 75% of its students
meeting those requirements over a specific period of time. Similarly, SAT participation
stands at 46% with a target dash pointed at 80%.
Altogether, this management instrument provides a practical and visual tool to
plan and accomplish organizational goals (O’Neil et al, 1999). For GUSD, college
readiness scorecards or dashboards can be instrumental in plotting and forecasting
college readiness indicators and providing district and school site agents various metrics
of excellence towards meeting their organizational goals.
In addition to a baseline college-readiness scorecard or dashboard, the use of
diversity measurements will help ensure that organizational goals are intentional and
strategic in closing achievement and opportunity gaps for minority students of color. The
diversity scorecard was developed with the purpose of raising “increased recognition of
the existence and scope of inequities for students of color among faculty members,
administrators, and counselors…[to] remove the conditions that deny or impede equitable
outcomes for all students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45, 46).
In practice, the diversity scorecard has been previously implemented in colleges
and universities to measure equity within those institutions. The framework
disaggregated data based on race and ethnicity to determine the extent of positive
outcomes and close of gaps for underrepresented students of color. For example, instead
of looking at overall student access to financial aid or gateway courses, the scorecard
broke down data by race/ethnicity to determine the level of access per subgroup

100
(Bensimon, 2004). This type of valuable information presents indicators of current
performance and leads institutions to identify targets for growth for specific student
subgroups.
The diversity scorecard presents a powerful opportunity to identify and target
current and expected performance on a variety of college-readiness metrics disaggregated
by subgroup. The following example looks at one college-readiness factor- Advanced
Placement enrollment- and includes a diversity component by indicating the current and
expected performance per subgroup:
Table 5: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample (NOT based on actual percentages)

In the example above, the Yellow bar indicates the Baseline, or current percentage of
students enrolled in Advanced Placement. The Green bar indicates the Target, or
expected growth for the subgroup. Once targets have been reached, notice that the level
of Yellow and Green bars combined per subgroup creates a more equitable situation
across the site. Meaning, gaps in opportunity closed from a high of 30% (between Asians
and Hispanics) to a more equitable gap of 15%.
101
Diversity scorecards provide school and district officials an opportunity to
measure those college-readiness metrics with a diversity lens. This approach will reveal
those equity gaps that prevent all subgroups from successfully accessing four-year
universities. As well, diversity scorecards will help target and apply resources that will
improve educational outcomes for underrepresented student populations (Bensimon,
2004).
Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 2:
Close Persisting Barriers that Prevent Specific Student Subgroups from Accessing
Four-Year Universities and Increase Overall Four-Year College Access for All
Students
Glendale Unified high schools have worked hard and made significant strides in
aligning coursework so that more students will be eligible for a four-year university
education as well as ensuring students feel supported and are aware of college admission
requirements. GUSD has made significant progress in closing some achievement gaps;
however, as in many urban school districts, achievement gaps continue to persist in
GUSD. Of course, the achievement gap invariably affects the level of access certain
student subgroups (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic) have to college, particularly four-year
universities. The lack of access for certain subgroups is symptomatic of specific
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that exist within GUSD. To a great
extent, underrepresented students from GUSD lack the social capital to effectively
102
navigate through traditional educational systems and structures. Research points to
several areas that need to be addressed in order to close persisting barriers that prevent
certain student subgroups from accessing four-year colleges.
Academic Preparation and Rigor
Students are best prepared for the challenges of college courses when their
secondary courses have provided sufficient preparation and rigor. Academic rigor in the
high school classroom is the strongest indicator of a student’s overall academic
achievement, graduation from high school, and a further indicator of enrollment in a
postsecondary institution (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Perna, 2005). Most college
preparation programs are geared towards offering component services, such as college
awareness, counseling and campus visitations (Swail & Perna, 2002). However, the
greatest predictor of college-going behavior, preparation, and success is found in a high
level of rigor leading to student achievement at the secondary level (Perna, 2005). A
more rigorous core curriculum for all students contributes to equity in educational
opportunities and better preparation for the challenges of postsecondary schooling. One
longitudinal study found that students on an academic track that rigorously prepared them
for postsecondary studies were more apt to aspire to, apply for, and be accepted into a
four-year college (Swail & Perna, 2002).
In addition to reviewing the rigor of academic coursework, the work of increasing
the number of students taking higher-level coursework in math is critical to improving
college access. Student participation in higher-level math courses such as Algebra II or
above is the strongest predictor of college preparedness and success as well as college
103
completion (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Math placement and preparation for higher-
level math is certainly not determined at the high school level, but predicated upon the
preparation and success students receive while advancing from Kindergarten through 8
th

grade. Hence, a systems-wide approach to college preparedness by taking a K-12
perspective is necessary in order to close the college participation gap.
A variety of model programs that address issues related to access to traditional
academic “gate-keeping” courses exist that serve as a model for school districts. For
example, students involved in EQUITY 2000 are expected to complete Algebra by 9
th

grade and Geometry by 10
th
grade, and teachers in the program use standards developed
by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (College Board, 2000). The Urban
Systemic Initiative (USI) was designed to give low-income and minority youth access to
higher-level math and science courses that were traditionally closed to minorities.
Additionally, the USI program also strives to build partnerships and provide support for
schools, staff, and students (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
Connecting Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions
Not only does a lack of academic preparation and rigor contribute to poor college-
going outcomes for students, so too does the fractured and disconnected system between
secondary and postsecondary educational systems (Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003).
Increasing the level of rigor in classrooms must coincide with improved alignment of
coursework between high schools and postsecondary institutions in order to close barriers
to students’ college aspirations. Unfortunately, most standardized assessments (the results
of which schools are held accountable for), measure minimum competencies that
104
demonstrate knowledge gained for a specific subject and by a specific grade level
(Venezia et al, 2003). One study found that the skills measured on state content tests do
not adequately measure the math and language arts skills that students need for college
and workplace readiness (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
The research literature points to several steps that can be initiated in order to
create a more seamless transition between secondary and postsecondary institutions,
including: examining postsecondary placement exams against K-12 standards and
assessments; sequencing senior-level high school work with undergraduate courses;
expansion of dual enrollment programs; and, effective use of data to determine progress
(Venezia et al, 2003). Creating a common set of expectations that delineates what
students should know and be able to do in order to transition from high school to higher
education, in addition to standards which delineate what students should know and be
able to do in each grade level, would enable educators to more clearly define goals and
objectives for classes at each level and best prepare students for postsecondary education.
Another successful strategy to bolster students’ college readiness is to reexamine
the nature and design of the American high school itself. In their seminal work, The New
American High School, Marsh and Codding (1999) describe a radical high school
curricular program that abolishes the tracking and sorting of college – and non-college
bound students that exist in today’s comprehensive high schools. All students are
required to take a rigorous course of study in their initial years of high school, and
demonstrate learning of challenging standards through end-of-course assessments,
submission of a portfolio of work, and completion of a capstone project (Marsh &
105
Codding, 1999). All students who have accomplished these high standards are awarded
with a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). The awarding of a CIM guarantees that all
students are prepared for the rigor of college coursework, but provides students the option
to continue on their secondary studies based on the career pathway they have selected
(either further academic studies or participation in a professional or technical education
program). This dynamic high school model provides leaders in Glendale Unified both a
philosophical and practical framework that signifies the importance of rigorous education
for all students, while providing student choice towards their postsecondary pathway.
Raising Underrepresented Students’ Capital
Research indicates that increasing the participation of minorities in higher
education is crucial to their participation in the economic and social aspects of society
(Goldrick-Rab & Shaw, 2005). The reality of high poverty in minority communities,
coupled with the high cost of college tuition, leads many students feeling left out of the
college picture, instead pursuing the workforce and wage earning (Bohon, Johnson, &
Gorman, 2006). The current design of today’s comprehensive high schools facilitates
low student expectations and achievement. In addition to increasing the academic rigor
of a school program, raising the level of expectations for student achievement and the
restructuring of relationships between students, faculty, and staff must occur in order to
realize a greater participation of minorities in higher education. This is accomplished
through a variety of means, including provision of requisite social support; access to
information; parental involvement and knowledge about college; and, provision and
information on financial aid (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
106
A capital one gains certainly benefits from a monetary standpoint. However,
underrepresented minorities need to raise a variety of non-monetary capital in order to
successfully navigate the American system of education. Academic capital is gained
when students are exposed to academic rigor, which is the result of participation in a
college-preparation track, including Advanced Placement (AP) courses (Hagedorn &
Fogel, 2002). Cultural capital is the result of everyone’s shared beliefs, social values,
worldviews, and preferred standards of living (Bennett, 2001). On the other hand, social
capital is created as a result of actual or potential resources connected to a durable
network of institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition
(Bourdieu, 1986; Dika & Singh, 2002). Often the most challenging form of capital to
develop in students is linguistic capital, which is an individual’s ability to communicate
effectively and comprehend mainstream language. Possessing both cultural and
linguistic capital is necessary for success because both enable a student to successfully
“decode” mainstream language and are needed in order to successfully navigate the
educational environment (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
The implication for a student is clear, in order to access the information that will
lead them to higher education, one must possess different forms of capital, and if that
capital is not available at home, then schools must help to provide it. Typically, low
socioeconomic, minority, and immigrant students lack the cultural, linguistic, and social
capital to successfully navigate the educational environment in order have the knowledge
and skills to gain college admission.
107
Schools can facilitate the development of academic, cultural, and linguistic capital
by creating a college-going environment where the expectation for college is attainable
and all students are expected to go. To create a college-going environment that
encourages and supports all students, especially those student who traditionally are
underrepresented in higher education, schools must directly address certain school
cultural factors such as teacher expectations, race-based assumptions, and students’
lowered expectations (Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002; Hagedorn &
Fogel, 2002). When building a strong college-going culture it is necessary to address the
cultural barriers that prevent certain underrepresented subgroups from participating in
higher education.
Status socialization theory proposes that future educational success amongst
underrepresented adolescent groups must be related to current beliefs about such success
being likely (attainable) and desirable (Haller & Portes, 1973; Bohon, Johnson, &
Gorman, 2006). Moreover, this theory serves to clarify the difference between aspirations
(desire to achieve high levels of education) and expectations (the assessment of one’s
ability to personally achieve high levels of education), with aspirations being higher and
expectations being lower and more “realistic” (Bohon et al. 2006). Schools can raise
student’s expectations and aspirations by ensuring that all students are highly engaged in
the classroom, that student’s diverse backgrounds, both ethnically and linguistically, are
addressed in the curriculum, and teacher-student interactions are more personalized
(Jones et al., 2002; Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003)

108
Strategic Intervention for Underrepresented Minority Subgroups

College preparation programs that simultaneously focus on academic preparation
and cultural enrichment provide the best possible postsecondary outcomes for minority
students of color (Villalpando & Solorzano, 2002). Students’ cultural capital is raised
when a concerted effort is given to recognizing that minority students’ culture brings a
wealth of value and is considered an asset to their college-going aspirations. The
following programs that effectively link academic preparation with a cultural wealth
worldview have brought improved college-going outcomes for minority students:
placement of underrepresented students into college prep academic tracks; promises of
financial aid; ethnic-specific college prep and mentoring programs; and, summer bridge
programs that link students of color with colleges (Villalpando & Solorzano, 2002).
Although it is the practice of counselors, teachers, and administrators to talk to
students about college and college requirements, many low socioeconomic, minority, and
immigrant students are not college familiar and are unlikely to have participated in
activities that would get them college ready (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002). Creating
opportunities for these students to participate in higher-level coursework, visits to college
campuses, and early identification of skill deficiencies could help to alter student self-
efficacy and improve student achievement.
Because these student subgroups are deficient in academic capital, they may avoid
full participation in their academic endeavors because they either believe that there is no
future for them in academia or they believe that they will be unsuccessful. These learners
have low academic self-efficacy (i.e. the belief in their ability to prepare for exams and
109
write terms papers), causing some students to avoid homework, tutoring, or asking
teachers for help (Margolis & McCabe, 2004; Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005).
Implementing a professional development program for teachers and counselors to help
identify students who have low-level skills or skill deficiencies will provide teachers and
counselors effective solutions to raising student self-efficacy and achievement. Teachers
and counselors can implement strategies such as linking new work to recent successes,
teaching needed learning strategies, reinforcing effort and persistence, peer modeling,
identifying and creating personal goals as ways to raise student academic capital
(Margolis & McCabe, 2004).
Other strategic interventions that support underrepresented minority students are
peer evaluation, tutoring, and mentoring. By implementing these interventions, students
are receiving help and guidance from peers: a potentially powerful strategy considering
research indicates that peers have almost as much or more influence over adolescent
decision-making. Peer collaboration can be a powerful tool in creating students
friendships with like-minded students, sharing of similar interests, and most importantly,
creating respect amongst peers (Dodge & Kendall, 2004). Students may become more
involved academically and socially, thus further enhancing their academic self-efficacy
and motivation. Additionally, peer tutoring can bring content to a more accessible level
for a struggling student; provide learning and strategies for learning to the struggling
student, while simultaneously enhancing the learning of the peer tutor.
Currently, established programs, such as America’s Choice or the Coalition of
Essential Schools, raise minority students’ expectations and improve student academic
110
and social capital, through a focus on smaller learning communities. America’s Choice
provision of small schools increases rigor in the core academic curriculum and provides
strong college and work-based technical preparation, thus leading to a greater expectation
for students to attend college (Sizer, 1986; Malloy, 1997; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; May
& Supovitz, 2006). The creation of smaller learning communities can help foster a sense
of community and belonging within the school environment. The purpose of these
smaller learning communities is to increase student achievement by increasing the
student’s academic, social, cultural, and linguistic capital while at the same time
strengthening student, faculty, and staff relationships.
In order to create and implement these smaller learning communities, faculty must
collaborate daily or weekly, create assignments and assessments, attend each others
classes, team teach, participate in projects and field trips to enhance curricular objectives,
and enhance student learning and success (Dodge & Kendall, 2004). One study shows
that earlier implementation of this model in elementary school or middle school has
shown to be more successful than at the high school level, and has longer-lasting effects
on the development of students’ social and academic capital (Jun & Colyar, 2002).
Another study conducted by May and Supovitz (2006) indicated America’s Choice
schools helped reduce the minority achievement gap with significant improvement
amongst Hispanic and African American students.
The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) was designed to create strong
relationships between students and adults, which ultimately raises the level of social
capital for underrepresented minority students (Sizer, 1986; Malloy, 1997; Martinez &
111
Klopott, 2005). CES provides strong academic and social support, and places a high
value on family participation and teacher collegiality (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Studies
done on the first five years of CES’ implementation in New York City show that
graduation and college-going rates were higher, and dropout rates were lower than the
rest of the city (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
The Schools-within-Schools model is yet another smaller learning community
model that can also be created or applied to existing career academies with the intent on
raising students’ social capital. By increasing academic rigor and expectations, academy
students are assured of acquiring subject mastery and skill attainment and improved
prospects of continuing their postsecondary education. Students who participate in
learning communities can develop strong goal orientation, motivation, and self-regulation
(Dodge & Kendall, 2004).
Solution Summary for Emergent Theme 3:
Improve the Two-Year Community College to Four-Year University Pathway for
GUSD Students
In order to effectively address the issue of college access for all students, high
school reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence students’
preparedness or college readiness. A student’s accessibility and sustainability in college
is due in large to their experience in high school (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Haycock,
Barth, Mitchell, Wilkins & Somerville, 1999). Although the 1980’s high school reform
movement has contributed to an increase in college participation, there remains gaps in
college participation and degree attainment for certain ethnic minority groups,
112
specifically African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians. As previously
mentioned in this chapter, effective reform must focus intentionally on how to address
factors that influence student’s preparedness for college, particularly for underrepresented
minority students of color.
Another area of concern as it relates to students of color is the poor transfer rates
between two-year colleges to four-year institutions. Glendale Unified School District
witnesses a large percentage of their student population matriculate into a local college-
Glendale Community College (GCC). Recent reports indicate that transfer rates for
students from a two-year to a four-year institution are abysmal: 70% of students seeking
degrees or wanting to transfer to a four-year college failed to do so (Rivera, 2010). In
fact, rates were even worse for minority students of color: only 26% Black students and
22% Latino students successfully transferred to a four-year school compared to 37%
Whites and 35% Asian. The disparity in transfer and success rates for specific student
subgroups underscores the importance of addressing the two-year to four-year college
pathway between GUSD and GCC.
In order to maximize the success for community college transfer rates to four-year
institutions and colleges, an innovative program is needed in which a K-12 school district
works collaboratively with a local community college by monitoring student progress and
achievement. The foundation of this relationship can be established through an
articulation between K-12 and two-year colleges, and the effective use of data to identify
and monitor student postsecondary success. A collaborative relationship between K-12
113
public schools and two-year community colleges will ultimately result in a more seamless
transition for high school students and lead to improved transfer rates to four-year
institutions.
Improving Vertical K-16 Articulation
Research demonstrates that a lack of articulation between K-12 and higher
education institutions undoubtedly affects minority students’ transition from high school
to college (Gandara, 2002). In fact, greater coherence in content, knowledge and skills,
and assessments between K-12 school districts and institutions of higher education is
needed in order to see student success in postsecondary education. Unfortunately, once
students are accepted into college- two- or four-year institutions- far too many students
are not prepared for the advanced work required of them. Almost half of all incoming
college freshmen take at lease one remedial course (Haycock et al., 1999), which results
in a large percentage of students prolonging their start to core general education courses,
and potentially stunting their prospects for transferring to a four-year institution. In
essence, students’ inadequate preparation for college contributes to a high percentage of
dropouts: a full one third of freshmen in four-year colleges won’t make it to their
sophomore year, while nearly half at community colleges will not return for their
sophomore year (Haycock, et al., 1999; Haycock & Huang, 2001; Carey, 2004).
Martinez and Klopott (2005) highlight several programs that address K-12 and
postsecondary curricular alignment, and provide students the best opportunity for
postsecondary preparation and success. Dual enrollment offers high school students the
opportunity to concurrently enroll in college courses. Students enrolled in dual credit
114
courses are exposed to rigorous college curricula that serve as a continuum between high
school and college level coursework. Dual enrollment programs can be advantageous for
students because college credits can be earned without passing an examination, as
required by Advanced Placement courses (Dowd, 2003). Studies show students who
participated in dual enrollment programs have, on average, a higher GPA, higher
postsecondary aspirations, higher participation in postsecondary education, as well as
higher retention rates in postsecondary education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Dual
enrollment programs offer the least threatening (to school systems) path to providing
opportunities for students to learn (Adelman, 2002). Schools use dual enrollment
programs to encourage college preparedness and to help reduce the cost of remedial
courses in higher education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). The dual enrollment programs
with the community colleges will provide valuable skills and knowledge to students prior
to their enrollment in college. Furthermore, it provides the students with a seamless
transition from high school to college.
Another program that benefits the K-16 vertical pipeline is Tech Prep 2+2
Articulation, which awards college credit to students enrolled in a high school course that
contains the same agreed upon course content with an equivalent college course. Studies
indicate that underrepresented students involved in Tech Prep are more apt to benefit
because the academic program is tied to real-world learning experiences (Martinez &
Klopott, 2005). A third program – GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Programs) – is a federally funded intervention program that helps
increase the number of low-income minority students entering a postsecondary
115
institution. The uniqueness of this program is found in its early outreach: students in the
middle grades are targeted for support and provided mentoring, tutoring and guidance
opportunities.
In addition to programmatic concepts that seek to best prepare high school
students for college, a partnership between K-12 and two-year institutions are needed to
help facilitate this outcome. In 2003, the California State University (CSU) Board of
Trustees launched the Campus Actions to Facilitate Graduation initiative in order to
improve the transfer process for students from the California Community Colleges
(CCC), and provide a way to help students complete their bachelor’s degree (Engle &
Lynch, 2009). As part of the process, a memorandum of understanding was established
between CSU and CCC that all CSU institutions will accept courses completed at the
CCC within the Lower Division Transfer Pattern (LDTP): courses which clearly
delineated statewide and campus-specific requirements (Engle & Lynch, 2009). This type
of program between the CCC and CSU provides a rich model for school districts and
community colleges to follow: a memorandum of understanding between two institutions
who share common students with the common goal of successfully transferring students
out – a secondary to two-year to four-year college pathway. Top leadership within both
institutions could come to the table and discuss how a partnership between both
institutions could mutually benefit their stakeholders. For one, the school district could
see a greater number of their students better prepared for the community college setting,
and more “transfer-ready” to a four-year school. Likewise, the community college stands
to gain by receiving better-prepared students that need less remediation in their first year.
116
Across the nation, states and colleges are working together to develop a coherent
system of expectation and transfer for all high school students. For example, in
Massachusetts, two- and four-year colleges are using the English Language Arts section
of the state high school graduation assessment in place of writing placement exams
(Haycock et al., 1999). This practice can certainly be implemented in California. As an
example, while the California High School Exit Exam may have minimal cut scores for
high school graduation, two-year colleges can require a higher cut score for both the
English Language Arts and Mathematics sections to meet college entrance requirements
for non-remedial or credit bearing courses.
Create Learning and Data Systems to Improve Student Transfer Rates to

Four-Year Institutions

One of the driving forces behind No Child Left Behind was the need for states to develop
a comprehensive data system to track student performance across grade levels. The use
of data has been successful in identifying specific areas of need for different subgroups,
and to identify overall school and district performance in meeting a set of achievement
criteria. The use of data systems has helped schools and districts to better identify the
needs of individual students and subgroups. Similarly, colleges and universities need to
know where they stand, where they are going, and how to measure progress along the
way to produce a better educated and more diverse work force- work that can be
accomplished through the gathering and analysis of data (Engle & Lynch, 2009).
The 2009 Digest of Educational Statistics, produced by the National Center for
Educational Research (2010), offers a limited purview on retention and transfer rates of
117
students by publishing only the number of students who have obtained an Associate’s
Degree from community colleges. This lack of information provides little insight on the
level of success underrepresented minority students (African Americans, Hispanics and
American Indians) may or may not be finding at the community college level.
Furthermore, while colleges and universities are improving their assessment of progress
using data, most of the data published by government agencies and higher education
institutions report on progress made in college access, and not necessarily on student
transfer success rates. Budgetary constraints and general resource issues has made it
even more difficult for community colleges to have institutional researchers who can
gather and analyze the effects of their programs and their policies. The only data
community colleges have available to them are those collected from K-12 institutions or
from neighboring four-year institutions (Venezia et al., 2003).
A recent publication by the Institute for High Education Leadership and Policy
exhorted the State of California to adopt data systems as a means to understand student
success/failure rates at the community college level and application of that knowledge
towards institutional change and responsiveness (Moore & Shulock, 2010). To that end,
data systems that will track graduates’ progress in transferring to four-year universities,
and assess current and future institutional practice need to be created so that information
is available to make strategic decisions that will produce positive results for students.
Of course, data use needs to be grounded in institutional learning that effectively
frames diversity and equity outcomes. Despite increased focus on educational
accountability and diversity, there has historically been a lack of attention on procuring
118
equitable outcomes for traditionally underrepresented students of color. The University
of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE) has focused on shaping
institutional learning and data systems to confront and change the “educational outcomes
for students with a history of exclusion, discrimination, and disenfranchisement (i.e.
African Americans and Latins/os)” (Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, & Harris III, 2007, p. 4).
CUE’s Equity for All theory-based model assists institutions in framing inequitable
outcomes that undoubtedly exist, and helps shape organizational learning in closing
disparities and improving outcomes for underrepresented students of color (Bensimon et
al, 2007). Altogether, the Equity for All model provides an effective lens by which to
make sense of and use data for maximizing college outcomes for students of color.
By viewing outcomes with an equity lens, the creation and implementation of a
Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004) can be a valuable data analysis tool used to
address issues of college access and success. K-12 and community colleges can identify
quantifiable data that will be used as metrics of excellence in seeing more students
successfully transfer to four-year institutions. The diversity scorecard was developed out
of CUE and used by higher education institutions to measure the level of equity in
educational outcomes for underrepresented students of color (Bensimon, 2004).
The scorecard helps measure equity around four areas: access, retention,
institutional receptivity and excellence. For example, the access perspective was used to
determine the extent to which underrepresented students had access to an institution’s
programs and resources (Bensimon, 2004). The diversity scorecard has three
119
measurements: current baseline data, an improvement target, and an equity mark to
determine the point at which it is attained.
The diversity scorecard serves as a useful framework for K-12 and community
colleges systems to use in measuring the level of achievement and successful transfer
rates for minority students. Leaders from both institutions can determine together the
data to measure in hopes of closing gaps in student access and transfer rates. As an
example, the retention perspective can be used to measure the current level of
underrepresented students’ participation/retention in rigorous programs, such as math and
engineering (i.e. retain only 20 out of 100 students), and place an improvement target to
see growth of underrepresented students in this area (i.e. improve retention to 40 out of
100 students). Finally, the equity point could be represented as a percentage of
underrepresented students who are successfully retained in the program proportionate to
their population both in the program and school-wide.
Altogether, the diversity scorecard will create opportunities between a community
college and K-12 school district to utilize existing data into actionable knowledge that
will mutually benefit both institutions’ students. For our purposes, this framework allows
institutional leaders at GUSD and GCC to develop evidence-based practice to evaluate
the condition of GUSD students’ matriculation into GCC and to provide concrete data on
specific areas of improvement to enhance student success at GCC and beyond.

120
CHAPTER 3B: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SUMMARY
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Glendale Unified School District is a high-achieving educational institution that
exists to serve the students of the greater Glendale community. The District’s simple, yet
powerful, mission of student achievement for all resonates across schools sites and
affects classroom practices, decision-making, allocation of material and human resources,
and professional development. GUSD’s culture of high achievement, as evidenced by its
recent 842 Growth API (2010), should be praised and considered a model for neighboring
urban school districts.
Our three-member project team took on this project to offer support to an issue
that faces all urban school districts- improving college access for all students, particularly
to four-year universities. Currently, GUSD affords their students a multitude of
postsecondary opportunities, including access to trade schools, community colleges, and
four-year universities. Based on existing data, graduates from GUSD are entering two-
year colleges at a strong rate (52%). Although, GUSD graduates are entering four-year
universities at a comparably higher rate (~23%) against State averages (~19%), the
overall need for witnessing more GUSD graduates matriculating into four-year colleges
is important, particularly for underrepresented minorities.
Based on extensive interviews with various GUSD agents- district and school
administrators, teachers, counselors- our project team found three emerging themes that
presented gaps to more students accessing four-year colleges:
1. A need for explicit goals related to four- year university education.
121
2. Persisting barriers preventing specific student subgroups from accessing four-year
universities.
3. Improving the two-year community college to four-year university pathway for
GUSD students.
Our project team offers the following set of solutions that aim to close gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture preventing all GUSD student
subgroups from realizing four-year college success. Each set of solutions is organized
around specific themes and are substantiated by research and current best practices. Our
solutions are best captured by this graphic:
Table 6: Solutions Matrix

122
Thematic Solution 1: Create and Communicate Explicit Goals
Solution: Create SMART organizational goals related to four-year college participation,
which will lead to improved alignment with work processes.
Through extensive interviews with Glendale Unified School District agents, it
became evident that explicit goals pertaining to students’ four-year university access and
participation did not exist. District and school site administrators gave varying
perspectives about both the benefit of emphasizing a four-year college-going goal, and
the abilities of all students to actually achieve it. In effect, the college and career
readiness mantra appeared to be defined differently for different people: while some
advocated for preparation of all students for a variety of postsecondary pathways (i.e.
workforce, two-year college, four-year college), others argued that the four-year college
pipeline was inexplicably narrow for certain student subgroups and needed increased
attention to close participation gaps.
Altogether, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) either lacks specific
organizational goals that address four-year university participation and access, or have
not thoroughly and explicitly communicated extant goals, which has misaligned certain
practices and communicated unclear expectations across the four comprehensive high
school sites. This was evident in interviews with teachers and counselors: while some
were committed to seeing more students reach four-year eligibility goals, others were of
the opinion that some students were not fit for the four-year college route. When asked
about the existence of college-going cultures at their school sites, administrators,
123
teachers, and counselors held varying beliefs about whether it existed on their respective
campuses. It was evident that a college-going culture was not established district-wide.
In order to align work processes and hold expectations for all students, it is
recommended that GUSD create and communicate explicit goals to improve the overall
number of students pursuing and matriculating into a four-year college. By establishing
district-wide goals, schools sites and their agents will have a common base and hear a
common message regarding their work to increase access and create college-going
cultures. In effect, there will be greater clarity regarding the importance of and
improving four-year college pathway.
The research on Professional Learning Communities indicate that effective goals
are results-oriented, help clarify priorities, establish indicators of progress and embed
continuous improvement throughout the organization (Dufour et al., 2006). Clear and
compelling organizational goals cascade down to work processes and clarify the tasks
and objectives that employees must set out to accomplish. When organizational goals are
undefined or unaligned with work processes, gaps in performance can occur and stunt
achievement of organizational goals.
Effective performance goals are concrete, challenging and current, and support
achievement of organizational goals. In fact, workplace performance is more effective
when goals are well understood and individuals can determine the cause of gaps between
current and desired performance (Clark & Estes, 2002). Based on extensive interviews,
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) lacks clearly defined goals or targets as it
relates to graduating students’ postsecondary educational aspirations, particularly
124
advancement towards a four-year university education. In addition to GUSD’s powerful
goals related to student achievement via the Focus on Results initiative, it is
recommended that powerful goals be created to raise eligibility, participation, and
success rates to four-year universities.
This can be accomplished through the production of SMART goals, which will
contribute to greater clarity in defining and understanding organizational four-year
college goals (Dufour et al, 2006). SMART goals follow a simple acronym: Strategic
and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and Time bound. Altogether,
effective SMART goals that address four-year college access will create greater clarity
across the organization concerning increasing postsecondary access for their students. In
effect, work processes (i.e. counseling services, enrollment in rigorous coursework,
outreach programs, etc.) stand to take priority and improve when school agents have a
clear mandate to follow as to who and how many graduating students are expected to
enter four-year universities.
A well-designed SMART goal that addresses four-year college participation can
juxtapose GUSD’s current reality against goals for closing four-year college gaps. Below
are two examples of specific SMART goals to address college participation:
Reality: In the 2008-2009 school year (based on SARC data), 47% of GUSD
graduating students met UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements.
GUSD Goal: In the next three years, GUSD will increase the percentage of
students meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements to 75%.

Reality: In the 2008-2009 school year, 23% of GUSD students matriculated to
UC/CSU out of a total 47% graduating students who met eligibility requirements.
GUSD goal: This year, GUSD will close the eligibility-matriculation gap (the gap
between those students meeting UC eligibility and those students who
successfully matriculating into UC) by 5%.
125

Solution: Create and utilize scorecards or dashboards to monitor and set growth targets
for college readiness indicators.
In addition to explicit goals, it is recommended that Glendale Unified School
District closely examine and monitor overall college readiness factors through the
development of college readiness scorecards or dashboards. The scorecard and
dashboard concepts derive from research on quality control and institutional
accountability (O’Neil et al., 1999). This innovation will provide district leaders “metrics
of excellence” (O’Neil et al., 1999, p. 34) to determine, monitor and set growth targets
for specific factors that improve four-year college participation. Examples of college
readiness factors include:
• Graduation rate
• Enrollment and grades in higher-level coursework (i.e. Honors, AP, IB)
• Number of Advanced Placement enrollees and exams taken
• Percentage of Advanced Placement exams passed (scoring 3+)
• SAT number tested and total score > 1,500
• ACT number tested and total score > 21
• Percentage of graduates completing UC ‘a-g’ courses
A college readiness scorecard or dashboard provides visual graphics focusing on
those metrics that support college-going behavior. The following are examples of
college-readiness dashboards:

126
Table 7: College Readiness Dashboard Samples

GUSD UC ‘a-g’ eligibility SAT participation

Each dashboard above represents an indictor of four-year college participation. The red
arrow represents current performance, while the green arrow represents desired
performance. For example, currently 47% of GUSD students meet UC ‘a-g’ course
eligibility requirements. The district could then map a goal of 75% of its students
meeting those requirements over a specific period of time. Similarly, SAT participation
stands at 46% with a target dash pointed at 80%.
In addition to a baseline college-readiness scorecard or dashboard, the use of
diversity measurements will help ensure that GUSD’s organizational goals are intentional
and strategic in closing achievement and opportunity gaps for minority students of color.
The diversity scorecard was developed with the purpose of raising “increased recognition
of the existence and scope of inequities for students of color among faculty members,
administrators, and counselors…[to] remove the conditions that deny or impede equitable
outcomes for all students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45, 46)
The diversity scorecard presents a powerful opportunity for GUSD to identify and
target current and expected performance on a variety of college-readiness metrics

10%
30%
50%
75%
100%
20%
60%
80%
40%
127
disaggregated by subgroup. The following example looks at Advanced Placement
enrollment and pass rates overall at GUSD with a diversity component:
Table 8: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample (NOT based on actual percentages)

In the example above, the Yellow bar indicates the Baseline, or current percentage of
students enrolled in Advanced Placement. The Green bar indicates the Target, or
expected growth for the subgroup. Once targets have been reached, notice that the level
of Yellow and Green bars combined per subgroup creates a more equitable situation
across the site. Meaning, gaps in opportunity closed from a high of 30% (between Asians
and Hispanics) to a more equitable gap of 15%.
Diversity scorecards provide school and district officials an opportunity to
measure those college-readiness metrics with a diversity lens. This approach will reveal
those equity gaps that prevent all subgroups from successfully accessing four-year
universities. As well, diversity scorecards will help GUSD school or district officials
target and apply resources that will improve educational outcomes for underrepresented
student populations (Bensimon, 2004).
128
Thematic Solution 2: Close Persisting Barriers and Increase Four-Year College
Access for All GUSD Students
One of the most significant predictors of academic achievement and college
success is a strong academic program in high school and a variety of social support
offered by the school (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Glendale Unified high schools have
worked hard in closing some achievement gaps, and made significant strides in aligning
coursework so that students will be eligible for a four-year university education, while
ensuring that students are supported and aware of college admissions requirements.
However, the persistence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps continue to
prevent certain groups of students (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic) from accessing a four-year
university education. To a great extent, these underrepresented students lack the social
capital to effectively navigate through traditional educational systems and structures. The
following are a set of solutions to increase access to four-year colleges for all GUSD
students, particularly underrepresented minorities.
Solution: Increase preparation and number of four-year university eligible students.
Academic rigor in high school is the strongest indicator of a student’s academic
achievement and greatly determines whether a student will advance towards
postsecondary studies (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). A challenging core curriculum
required of all students provides access to the same educational opportunities, high
standards, and potentially leads to the highest level of academic achievement (Martinez
& Klopott, 2005). Moreover, by closely aligning these core curricula with college
admissions criteria will lead to improved rates of student eligibility for four-year
129
university enrollment. Some ways in which core curricula can be established and
evaluated to ensure rigorous preparation and improved eligibility is:
1. Evaluate established curriculum and determine its content and rigor
2. In lower level courses, significantly increase academic content and rigor, or
eliminate the course
3. Strengthen all core programs: offer more challenging coursework, increase
number of Advanced Placement courses offered
4. Modify graduation requirements to reflect expectations that all students complete
a rigorous core curriculum and are eligible for college admission
5. Incorporate higher level thinking skills in all courses
6. Encourage student enrollment in challenging coursework
7. In career/vocational tracks increase course content rigor and connect academic
and work-related skills
8. Increase number of college courses offered on high school campuses in
partnership with local community colleges
9. Prepare and encourage students to take algebra II or higher
Solution: Hold high expectations for all students across all school sites, and increase
underrepresented minority students’ social capital.
During the interview process with GUSD administrators and school site officials,
it became clear that high expectations for schools and students were held in two of the
four high schools. In fact, one school was touted for it’s college-going mantra of getting
all students on the “UC ‘a-g’ bus.” In effect, this particular school site held strong
130
expectations for students to pursue four-year colleges. However, the perceptions about
the ability of other school sites and their students from creating the same type of college-
going culture were not as confident. In order to increase the college-going culture within
the district, it is necessary to have high expectations for all four high schools and to
ensure that all four schools have access to the resources that would help create and
maintain a college-going culture.
Studies show that increasing the participation of minorities in higher education is
crucial to ensuring their full economic and social participation in society (Goldrick-Rab
& Shaw, 2005). Strong predictors of college attendance and completion are: academic
preparation; social support; access to information; parental involvement and knowledge
about college; and, access to financial aid (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Schools can help
encourage student growth and achievement, while holding high expectations for all, by
developing each student’s social capital. Some ways in which to set high expectations
and help increase student social capital include:
1. Increase student social capital by integrating students from different
socioeconomic status, ethnicities, and academic background into peer mentoring
groups
2. Create faculty mentoring groups to augment mentoring/counseling offered by
school counselors
3. Create workshops that are focused on filling out college applications and FAFSA
forms
131
4. Create networking opportunities for students with college admissions counselors
and adult professional mentors
5. Utilize college model for grade rank (magna cum laude, summa cum laude, cum
laude) as opposed to class rank
6. Require all students to take the SAT/ACT as a graduation requirement
7. Upon entry into high school, counselors create a learning plan to help students
meet college admissions requirements
Solution: Provide strategic intervention for underrepresented minority subgroups.

Although it is the practice of counselors, teachers, and administrators to talk to
students about college and college requirements, many low SES, minority, and immigrant
students are not college familiar and are not likely to have participated in activities that
would get them college ready (Hagedorn & Fogel, 2002). It is recommended that GUSD
create strategic opportunities so that underrepresented minority students can continue to
grow academically, intellectually, and personally, leading towards improved college
access. Some ways in which schools can help are:
1. Conduct a needs assessment early in 9
th
grade to ascertain student strengths and
weaknesses
2. Create or restructure existing parent nights to thoroughly address high school
graduation requirements and college admissions requirements
3. Offer outreach opportunities (i.e. parent nights, college fairs, etc.) with native
language speakers, or have college graduates of the same race/ethnicity (i.e.
132
Armenian, Hispanic graduate) present and serve as an effective role model for
parents and students
4. Create a summer bridge program for incoming Freshmen who are below grade
level standards
5. Students receive instruction in study skills
6. Creation of teacher teams that support and help students entering high school
continue to improve skills learned in the summer bridge program
Thematic Solution 3: Maximize Success for Community College Transfer Students
In order to effectively address the issue of college access for all students, high
school reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence student’s
preparedness or college readiness. To that end, K-12 public schools and two-year
community colleges need to develop relationships that will lead to a more seamless
transition for high school students, which will ultimately lead towards improved transfer
rates to four-year institutions.
Solution: Improve vertical K-16 alignment and articulation.
Student course completion has a decisive impact for their future. In fact, one of
the most important factors of college success is the quality and intensity of the high
school curriculum (Haycock et al, 1999). At the same time, there should be coherence in
content, knowledge and skills, and assessments between K-12 and institutions of higher
education. Once students are accepted into college- two-year or four-year institutions-
far too many students are not prepared for the advanced work required of them. Almost
133
half of all incoming college freshmen take at lease one remedial course (Haycock et al,
1999).
While we recognize the high percentage of Glendale Unified School District’s
enrollment at Glendale Community College (GCC), research shows that incoming
freshmen are often unprepared for college course work. In order to maximize the success
for GCC transfer rates to four-year institutions and colleges, GUSD is in a position to
develop collaborative relationships with GCC to ensure success on behalf of GUSD
students. When secondary faculty dialogue with their postsecondary counterparts on
course alignment and rigor, GUSD students will have access to the best academic
curriculum, and be taught the appropriate knowledge and skills necessary to eventually
succeed in a four-year college.
There currently exists in GUSD a program for English Language Arts courses to
articulate credits with GCC. Students who take a particular GCC-approved English
Language Arts course offered at GUSD and successfully meet course requirements are
not required to take remedial English courses when they matriculate to GCC. This
practice is a powerful model for aligning course content and coherence across the K-16
spectrum. GUSD should consider solidifying and expanding these types of practices
through a memorandum of understanding between the two institutions, or with other local
community colleges. This program could be expanded to other core subject areas as well,
including mathematics, science and social studies.

134
Solution: Create data systems to review and improve student transfer rates to four-year
institutions.
One of the driving forces behind No Child Left Behind is the need for states to
develop a comprehensive data system to track student performance across grade levels.
The use of data has been successful in identifying specific areas of need for different
subgroups, and to identify overall school and district performance in meeting a set of
achievement criteria. While colleges and universities are improving their assessment of
progress using data, most data published by higher education institutions report progress
on college access, and not on transfer rates. To that end, it is recommended that GUSD
partner with GCC in creating data systems that will track GUSD graduates’ progress in
transferring to four-year universities. By using data to assess current and future practice,
and measuring progress along the way, GUSD and GCC will witness the greater
likelihood of a better-educated and more diverse work force (Engle & Lynch, 2009).
District-wide, GUSD is very knowledgeable and skilled at using data to drive
student learning and achievement. It is recommended that GUSD share their student
information with the local community colleges to demonstrate students’ ability and to
facilitate student placement in appropriate colleges-level courses. As well, GUSD can
collaborate with GCC to create a data system that tracks the retention and transfer rates of
GUSD graduates, and ensure students do transfer from the community college to public
or private four-year institutions, as the students had originally intended.
To further expand the relationship between GUSD and GCC, both institutions can
join forces to develop a “Diversity Scorecard” as it relates to the following equity
135
measures in educational outcomes for higher educations: access, retention, institutional
receptivity and excellence for GUSD students at GCC (Bensimon, 2004). The Diversity
Scorecard will allow opportunities for both GUSD and GCC to apply the existing data
into actionable knowledge that will better assist GUSD student success at GCC. Both
institutions can be engaged in a collaborative inquiry into the state of equity and access of
GUSD students at GCC. This will allow both institutional leaders to develop evidence-
based practice to evaluate the condition of GUSD matriculation into GCC and to provide
concrete data on specific areas of improvement to enhance student success at GCC and
beyond.
Solution: Partner with California Community Colleges to create bridge programs to
four-year institutions.
GUSD is in a position to take a step further and see how they can partner with
local community colleges in creating a targeted bridge program that focuses on a
secondary to two-year to a four-year pipeline. In effect, GUSD can develop a bridge
program to improve GUSD student transfer rates to four-year institutions and eventual
degree attainment.
Currently, a variety of bridge programs exist that supports secondary to two-year
matriculation, as well as two-year to four-year matriculation. These include dual
enrollment and credits programs. It is recommended that GUSD expand the current dual
enrollment program for students. Dual enrollment programs offer the least threatening (to
school systems) path to providing opportunities for students to learn (Adelman, 2002).
Schools use dual enrollment programs to encourage college preparedness and to help
136
reduce the cost of remedial courses in higher education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). The
dual enrollment programs with GCC will provide valuable skills and knowledge to
students prior to their enrollment in college. Furthermore, it provides the students with a
seamless transition from high school to college.
A step beyond the current bridge program is to create a partnership between
GUSD and GCC whereby GUSD identifies and targets students choosing the two-year
college route, creates a GUSD-to-GCC-to-Four Year pathway contract, and outreaches to
those students to ensure they successfully reach their goals. These types of targeted
interventions stand to improve the overall level of preparation for students and helps
school agents create support systems for those identified students that aim to eventually
continue their postsecondary studies at a four-year university. Some components of these
types of bridge programs could include:
1. Reviewing students’ secondary four-year plans to identify students targeted
for two-year college enrollment.
2. Ensuring students successfully complete their secondary studies while
preparing for postsecondary studies at the two-year college.
3. Targeted counseling, exposure to, and networking with community college
agents during their 12
th
grade year in preparation for successful matriculation
to the two-year college.
4. By utilizing a K-16 data system, monitor the progress and make necessary
adjustments to ensure the most amount of students are successfully
transferring to a four-year university.
137
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2002). The Relationship between Urbanicity and Educational Outcomes.
In W. Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing Access to College: Extending
Possibilities for all Students (pp. 35-64). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Alliance for Excellence in Education. (July 2009). Understanding High School
Graduation Rates. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/National_wc.pdf

American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That
Counts. Washington, D.C.: Achieve Inc.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.

Bailey, D. & Palsha, S. (1992). Qualities of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire and
Implications for Educational Innovations. The Journal of Educational Research,
85 (4), 226-232.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., Pastorelli, C., (1996). Multifaceted Impact of
Self-Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning. Child Development, 67 (3),
1206-1222.

Bennett, C. I. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The Diversity Scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 36(1) 45-52.

Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the Achievement Gap In Higher Education: An
Organizational Learning Perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131,
99-111.

Bensimon, E. M., Rueda R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity,
and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan, 18(3), 28-45.)

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Foundation Fact Sheet. Access from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx
138
Bohon, S., Johnson, M., & Gorman, B. (2006). College Aspirations and Expectations
among Latino adolescents in the United States. Social Problems, 53 (2), 207-225.

Blossfeld, H. & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting barriers. In Y. Shavit & H. Blossfeld
(Eds.), Persistent Inequality. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive School Reform
and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2).
125-230.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood Press.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2009). Academic Performance Index:
Information Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.aspe.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp

California Department of Education. (2011). California law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M., Usdan, M. & Venezia, A. (2006). Claiming
Common Ground, State Policymaking for Improving College Readiness and
Success. Boston, MA: The Institute for Educational Leadership, The National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education & The Stanford Institute for
Higher Education Research.

Carey, K. (2004). A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year
Colleges and Universities. Washington DC: The Education Trust.

Clark, D. (2009). Gap Analysis. Center for Cognitive Technology, Rossier School of
Education. Class lecture. University of Southern California.

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the
Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Codding, J. & Rothman, J. (1999). Just Passing Through: The Life of an American High
School. In D. Marsh and J. Codding (Eds.), The New American High School (pp.
3-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

College Board. (2000). Equity 2000: A summary report. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/association/equity/EquityHi
storicalReport.pdf
139
Cunningham, A. (2007). The Broader Social Benefits of Higher Education. Solutions for
Our Future Project. Retrieved from
http://www.solutionsforourfuture.org/site/DocServer/07.Social-
Benefits.pdf?docID=102

Datnow, A., Borman, G., Stringfield, S., Overman, L., & Castellano, M. (2003).
Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts:
Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis. 25 (2), 143-170.

Desimone, L. (2002). What makes comprehensive school reform successful? Review of
Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.

Dika, S. L. & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A
critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.

Dodge, L. & Kendall, M. (2004). Learning Communities. College Teaching, 52(4), 150-
155.

Dowd, A. (2003). From Access to Outcome Equity: Revitalizing the Democratic Mission
of the Community College. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 586 (March), 92-119.

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2006) Learning by Doing – A Handbook
for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Indiana: Solution Tree.

Duncan, Arne (2010, July 15). The Three Myths of High School Reform: Secretary Arne
Duncan’s Remarks at the College Board AP Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/three-myths-high-school-reform-secretary-
arne-duncans-remarks-college-board-ap-confere

EdSource. (2005). School Accountability Under NCLB: Ambitious Goals and
Competing Systems. http://www.edsource.org/pdf/NCLB_805.pdf

EdSource. (2010). Middle Grades: Practices that work. Sacramento, CA: Leadership.

Edwards, B., Leichty, J., Wilson, K., et al. (2008). English Learners in California: What
the Numbers Say. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org.

Engle, J, and Lynch, M. (2009). Access to Success: Charting a Necessary Path, The
Baseline Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success
Initiative. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

140
Eurich, Neil (1982). Remembering Conant’s The American High School Today.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/40177469

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

Gandara, P. (Ed.). (2002). Meeting common goals: linking K-12 and college
interventions. New York City, NY: State University of New York Press.

Goldrick-Rab, S. & Shaw, K. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in the impact of work
first policies on college access. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27
(4), 291-307.

Hagedorn, L. S. & Fogel, S. (2002). Making School to College Programs Work:
Academics, Goals, and Aspirations. In W. Tierney and L. Hagedorn (Eds.),
Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities for All Students (pp. 169-
194). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Haller, A., & Portes, A. (1973). Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education 46
(1), 51-91.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and
Statehouses: Solving the Funding-Achievement Puzzle in America’s Public
Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Haycock, K., Barth, P., Mitchell, R., Wilkins, A., & Somerville of National Association
of System Heads. (1999). Thinking K-16. Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between
Leaving High School and Entering College and High-Performance Jobs.
Washington DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.edtrust.org/dc/resources/publications

Haycock, K. (2006). Promise Abandoned: How Policy Choices and Institutional
Practices Restrict College Opportunities. Washington DC: The Education Trust.
Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/dc/resources/publications

Haycock, K. & Huang, S. (2001). Thinking K-16. Are Today’s High School Graduates
Ready? Washington DC: The Education Trust.

Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping pathways to
higher education. Educational Researcher 31 (2), 3-11.

141
Jun, A. & Colyar, J. (2002). Parental Guidance Suggested: Family Involvement in
College Preparation Programs. In W. Tierney and L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing
Access to College: Extending Possibilities for All Students (pp. 195-216).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Karakowshky, L., & Mann, S. (2008). Setting goals and taking ownership understanding
the implications of participatively set goals from a causal attribution perspective.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(3), 260-270.

Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child
Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher,
34(8), 3-13.

Lamont, M. & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandoes in
Recent Theoretical Developments. Sociology Theory, 6 (2), 153-168.

Lee, V. & Ready, D. (2009). U.S. High School Curriculum: Three Phases of
Contemporary Research and Reform. The Future of Children, 19 (1), pp. 135-
156.

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.

Malloy, W. (1997). Struggling to become an essential school: A qualitative study. The
High School Journal, 80 (2), 125-138.

Margolis, H. & McCabe, P. (2004). Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation of
struggling learners. The Clearing House, 77 (6), 241-249.

Marsh, D., & Codding, J. (1999). The New American High School. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.

Martinez, M. & Klopott, S. (2005). The Link between High School Reform and College
Access and Success for Low-Income and Minority Youth. Washington DC:
American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.

May, H. & Supovitz, J. (2006). Capturing the Cumulative Effects of School Reform: An
11-Year Study of the Impacts of America’s Choice on Student Achievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 231-257.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction(2
nd
.ed.) Pearson: Upper Saddle River: NJ

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure
Opportunity. State University of New York Press, Albany.
142
McDonough, Patricia M. (1997). Counseling Matters: Knowledge, Assistance, and
Organizational Commitment in College Preparation. In W. Tierney and L.
Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities for All
Students (pp. 69-88). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McKinsey & Company (2009). The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in
America’s Schools, pp. 1-23.

Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided We Fail: Improving Completion and Closing
Racial Gaps in California’s Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

Nation at Risk (1983). Presidential Commission for Excellence in Education. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Condition of Education Report 2010.
Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). Policy Alerts. The
Educational Pipeline: Big Investment, Big Returns. Retrieved from
highereducation.org.

Nora, A. (2002). A Theoretical and Practical View of Student Adjustment and Academic
Achievement. In W. Tierney and L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing Access to
College: Extending Possibilities for All Students (pp. 65-77). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

O’Neil, H. F., Bensimon, E. M., Diamond, M. A., & Moore, M. R. (1999). Designing and
implementing an academic scorecard. Change, 31(6), 32-40.

Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping Track, Part 1: The Policy and Practice of Curriculum
Inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 12-17.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Perna, L.W. (2005). The Key to College Access: Rigorous Academic Preparation. In
W. G. Tierney, Z.B. Corwin, and J. E. Colyar (Eds.). Preparing for College: Nine
Elements of Effective Outreach.

Pollock, M. (2001). How the Question We Ask Most About Race in Education Is the
Very Question We Most Suppress. Educational Research, 30(9), 2-12.

143
Porter, K. (2002). The Value of a College Education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/value.htm

Rivera, C. (2010). Community colleges not preparing California's future workforce, study
says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-1020-community-colleges-
20101020

Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative
analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Culture, Motivation, and
Achievement (Vol. 9). (pp. 255-289). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Ruppert, S. (2003). Closing the College Participation Gap: A National Summary. Center
for Community College Policy.

Schein, E. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.

Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research and Applications. (3
rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shear, L., Means, B., Mitchell, K., House, A., Georges, T., Joshi, A., … Shkolnik, J.
(2008). Contrasting Paths to Small-School Reform: Results of a 5-year
Evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s National High Schools
Initiative. Teachers College Record, 110 (9), 1986-2039.

Sizer, T. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the coalition of essential schools. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 68 (1). pp 38-42.

Smelser, N. J., Wilson, W. J., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.). (2001). America Becoming: Racial
Trends and Their Consequences. Rand Policy Brief, (Vol.I). Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5050/index1.html

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

Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/

Swail, W.S., & Perna, L. W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national
perspective. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to
college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 15-34). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
144

Tierney, W. & Hagedorn, S. (2002). Increasing Access to College; Extending
Possibilities for all Students. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Current Population Reports, series p. 60-235. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/macro/032008/perinc/new04_000.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Paige Blasts “Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations”
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/03/03122003.html

U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Overview of the Comprehensive School Reform
Program (CSR). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/print/programs/compreform/2pager.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S.
History Education. Washington, D.C.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the College Dream: How
Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student
Aspirations. The Bridge Project: Stanford University.

Villalpando, O. & Solorano, D. (2005). The Role of Culture in College Preparation
Programs: A Review of the Research Literature. In W. G. Tierney, Z.B. Corwin,
and J. E. Colyar (Eds.). Preparing for College: Nine Elements of Effective
Outreach.

Williams, J. (2007, June 29). Don’t Mourn Brown v. Board of Education. The New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/opinion/29williams.html

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar Students, Different Results:
Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2007). Similar English Learner Students,
Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.

Wirt, F. M. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The Political Dynamics of American Education (3rd
ed.) Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Wood, G. (2004). A View from the Field: NCLB’s Effects on Classroom and Schools. In
D. Meier and G. Wood (Eds.). Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left
Behind Act is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. pp. 33 - 52. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
145
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S., & Espenshade, T. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46 (6), 677-706.

Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-Motivation for
Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal
Setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (3), 663-676.

146
APPENDIX A
Scanning Interview

Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:

GUSD College Participation Project
Scanning Interview

Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’ve been asked by the district to look
at college participation and access for GUSD graduating seniors. Your comments will be
helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to
anyone outside the USC team.

1. Please give me an overview of college participation and success for GUSD
students?
• What is the current situation?
• What is being done about it?
• Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense?

2. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
• Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding college
participation?
• Has the district tried to address college participation in specific ways?
Please describe.
• Was there any success with these efforts?
• Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?

3. Regarding college participation, are there any formal or informal goals for
what you or the district are trying to accomplish?
• What is the goal(s) of this effort?
• What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
• How will you/the district know if it is successful?
• Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get
details)
• How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire
to be?

147

4. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the
district from achieving perfect success in college participation? Is the
problem linked to many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of
knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of politics or what?
• Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational
culture/structure
• Probe by role group

5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to
better understand the college participation and success here in the district—
any suggestions?

148
APPENDIX B
Stages of Concern

Client’s Name: __________________________Role in District: __________________

Date & Time: __________________________Interviewer: _____________________

Stages of Concern

1). Based on your experience, what would you say the school or district has done to
improve access to four-year universities for your students?

a. If the client gives a response, ask: What was your role in this?
b. If the client does not give a response, ask: What do you think the school
should do to address this? What would your role be in this?

149
APPENDIX C
Email

Good afternoon High School staff members. I am working with a team of three doctoral
students at USC partnering with Glendale Unified to learn more about improving student
access and participation in four-year universities. We've had an opportunity to meet with
some of your staff members to help us make sense of this topic as it relates to your
students. We would like your opinion on one question. Your responses will be
extremely helpful for us and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute
your comments to anyone outside the USC team. Please help us by responding directly
to @usc.edu to the following question:

“In your opinion, what are the factors that are preventing “X” High School students from
entering four-year universities?"

150
APPENDIX D
Executive Summary of Findings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Closing Gaps to College Participation:
An Application of the Gap Analysis Model
Presented to Glendale Unified School District

Danny Kim, Dawn Cassidy, Zim Hoang
University of Southern California
August 2010
151
Background
A highly educated society leads to a stronger economy and higher standard of
living, demonstrating the importance of raising intellectual capital for competing in
today’s high-tech, global economy. It also contributes to what we hold dear as a nation:
democratic participation, social accord, family cohesion and healthy behavior (Engle &
Lynch, 2009). The collective education of individuals will result in improved outcomes
for our nation, including higher rates of invention, improved productivity, and the
development of new products and technologies (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Our
nation stands to gain economically by increasing the educational attainment for our
citizenry, particularly education and training beyond high school (Ruppert, 2003).
Failure to engage in America’s youth today and to provide them with the education they
need to live a fulfilling life will be harmful not only to them, but to the nation as a whole
(Codding, J. & Rothman, 1999).
Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate with
varying rates between subgroups: White 76%, Asian 79%, Hispanic 55%, African
American 51%, and Native American 50% (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009).
Of those students who graduate from high school in four years, only 57% of graduates
continue their education in college (Ruppert, 2003). In California, graduation rates are
similar to national averages, yet only 48% of CA high school graduates go on to college.
This gap in college participation is particularly alarming for minority Hispanic and Black
subgroups who historically participate less than their white, non-Hispanic counterparts
152
(Ruppert, 2003). The continued persistence of this college participation gap poses
significant problems for the social and economic outlook of individuals and our nation.
Just as America has an achievement gap, it also has an income gap. Education is
vital in breaking the cycle of poverty. For individuals, a strong relationship exists
between a person’s educational attainment and his economic status: 21% of adults with
less than a high school education live under the poverty level compared to 4% of adults
with a college degree (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). A person’s lifetime earnings
increase dramatically with a postsecondary degree, making nearly twice as much in a
lifetime than a high school graduate. In addition to the economic advantages of a college
education, an individual stands to gain socially in a variety of ways, including better
outcomes for children, more leisure time, a more optimistic outlook on the future, and an
improved quality of life (Cunningham, 2007; Porter, 2002). Although a postsecondary
education presents a clear pathway to a more prosperous and productive life, there are
signs that a gap in college participation continues to persist.
Purpose of the Project
The percentage of students matriculating to four-year universities is a concern in
America’s ability to compete in the global market. According to the Census Bureau, the
earning differential for degree attainment can be over $900,000 for bachelor degree
holders over high school graduates; and a difference of $400,000 for associate’s degree
holders (Porter, 2002). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) offer a compelling argument for
college attendance and frames the consequences of declining college attendance from
individual to national consequences. Specifically, they assert that the continuing decline
153
of non-college attendance will result in a deteriorating American presence in the
international marketplace, decreased economic achievement for non-college participating
individuals, and continued economic and social stratification between races.
The purpose of this project is to use the gap analysis model to assist Glendale
Unified School District to increase their student participation in four-year university
institutions. This project will apply Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework to
determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
barriers that prevent the district’s students from participating in four-year universities.
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals
achieved when these causes are properly addressed.
The Gap Analysis
The purpose of the gap analysis is to identify whether all employees have
sufficient knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to achieve the desired
organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model have
been applied to a variety of business industries, and offers a framework for school district
leaders to solve their organizational problems and to select the right solutions for closing
performance gaps. The gap analysis model helps organizations clarify goals, identify and
analyze performance gaps in attaining goals, and determine which strategies; products or
services are needed to close gaps between existing performance and desired outcomes.

154
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process:
1. Identify key organization goals and individual performance goals: determine if goals
at all levels – global, intermediate, and performance – are compatible, aligned and
support the larger organizational goals
2. Determine performance gaps: the distance between the current performance levels
and the desired goals to be reached
3. Analyze gaps to determine causes: the root causes may be based on knowledge/skills,
motivation, organizational barriers
4. Identify solutions based on: knowledge/skills, motivation, organizational process and
materials solution
5. Evaluate results, tune system and revise goals: evaluate the changes made and
determine if changes were worthwhile
Methodology
Project Timeline:
Fall
2009
• Meet with GUSD leaders to determine the performance goal: college access
for all students
• Data collection on the school district and recent research on college access
and multiple pathways
Spring
2010
• Qualifying exams
• Conduct first and second round of interviews with key district personnel
• Complete Draft of Chapter 2 and address possible findings
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer
2010
• Complete data collection
• Complete Chapter 2 and provide draft of Chapter 1
• Provide District with Executive Summary
Fall
2010
• Complete Chapter 3 and Present findings to District stakeholders
• Evaluate District’s response to findings and solutions
• Finish Capstone Project
Spring
2011
• Defend Dissertation
• Graduation
155
Data Collection Methods
The initial data collection was conducted through informal interviews with district
personnel to survey opinions on beliefs about the performance gaps. The purpose of the
interviews was to identify the individuals who were in the front line and to assess their
views and opinions on what the current status was and what they view as the causes of
the problem. An interview protocol was used for each of the interviews. The five
questions were based on gleaning an overview of the topic, the historical perspective on
the situation, identifying formal or informal goals, the interviewee’s perception of the
performance gap and suggestions on improving our project.
The team of three graduate students interviewed teachers, counselors, site and
district administrators at each of the District’s four comprehensive high schools to
determine the district’s college going rate. The initial rounds of interviews were
conducted in early spring with district administrators to determine the specific
performance goal the district was interested in examining. The next rounds of interviews
were conducted with school site administrators, counselors and key lead teachers. For
the Scanning Interviews (See Appendix A), the five-question survey was used as a data
collection instrument. Once the initial rounds of interviews were completed at the
school sites, it was determined that to better assist the District in improving it’s college
going rate, the project would be better served if the performance goal was streamlined to
examine GUSD students’ ability to matriculate into four-year institutions of higher
education.
156
Once the decision was made, the follow up innovation configuration model
interview (See Appendix B) reflected the focus on four-year institutions. The innovation
configuration interview was used to determine the level of implementation and awareness
of college improvement strategies taken on in each of the comprehensive high schools.
Each interviewee was asked one question and follow-up probing questions to determine
their viewpoints on what has been undertaken to address the college participation gap, as
well as capture their personal level of concern to this problem.
In order to obtain final opinions and perceptions on the factors that prevent GUSD
students from accessing four-year institutions, an email was sent out to school site
officials throughout the district (See Appendix C). The email question explicitly asked
respondents to cite their personal explanations as to the factors that prevented GUSD
high school students from entering four-year universities.
The Sample
All four comprehensive high schools in the district participated in the project. All
four schools were chosen because although the district is considered “ high performing”
district according to state and federal accountability systems, there still remain an
achievement gap for all students in accessing four-year institutions in the district. Some
schools may perform better than others in the district, however, in terms of access to
four-year institutions, not all minority, low social economic status or linguistically
challenge students perform at the same rate at their white, high SES or English only
counterparts. The team interviewed 3 district level personnel, 7 site administrators, 7
counselors and 21 teachers.
157

Findings
Based on our interviews of Glendale Unified district and school-site
administrators, teachers, and counselors, our three-member team has concluded that the
college participation gap that prevents all students from accessing a four-year university
education is attributed to the following three themes (For specific findings, see Appendix
D). These themes are applicable across all four comprehensive high schools in Glendale
Unified, and serve as areas to focus on in order to close Glendale Unified School
District’s college participation gap.
Emergent Theme #1: CLOSING PERSISTENT BARRIERS TO COLLEGE FOR
SPECIFIC STUDENT SUBGROUPS.
Glendale Unified comprehensive high schools have made significant steps in aligning
coursework to meet four-year university eligibility, and improved knowledge gaps
concerning college entrance requirements. However, knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps continue to persist presenting barriers for specific subgroups of
students (i.e. Hispanic, Armenian) in pursuing a four-year university education.
Glendale Unified is a large urban school district that services a diverse student
demographic population. The differences are evident in the linguistic, cultural, racial, as
well as economically diverse student population. The majority of GUSD students are
White (56%; many of Armenian ethnicity), 22% Hispanic/Latino, 13% Asian and 7%
Filipino. The district has over 26% of its students identified as English Learners, and
31% students identified as Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient students. Throughout
158
the district at least 43% of students come from low-income families based on National
School Lunch Program participation. Four-year university eligibility (based on meeting
rigorous UC ‘a-g’ course requirements) and participation rates differ between Glendale
Unified high schools, as demonstrated in the following chart:
UC ‘a-g’
eligibility
Students
attending UC
Students
attending CSU
Students
attending
Community
College
State 36% 9% 13% 32%
County 34% 8% 13% 35%
GUSD 47% 11% 12% 52%
Clark Magnet 64% 16% 12% 57%
Hoover 30% 7% 6% 55%
Glendale 31% 8% 10% 57%
Crescenta
Valley
63% 13% 19% 39%

On average, GUSD graduating students’ four-year university participation stands
at 23% percent (UC/CSU) of its graduating class. This varies significantly from those
that choose a community college (52%) or other postsecondary route. In all GUSD high
schools, school counselors and teachers communicate to students about the importance of
‘a-g’ requirements for college admission. Counselors make classroom visits to talk about
college admissions, distribute handouts that explicitly communicate college admission
and University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, host college nights, and meet with
parents and students to discuss student progress. Counselors meet with individual
students annually to review course selections and graduation requirements, and to make
sure that students are on track in their college admission requirements.
159
At several GUSD high schools, posters delineating UC ‘a-g’ requirements and the
difference in income between students who have a college degree and students who have
a high school diploma are displayed in hallways and classrooms. It was observed at
GUSD high schools that all students were encouraged to meet admission requirements for
a four-year university, or enter a community college so they could later matriculate to a
university. In addition, all faculty and staff are dedicated to providing students with
information, support, and guidance so they can incorporate the “dream of college” into
their post-high school goals.
Although efforts have been made to close the college admission knowledge gap,
there are still barriers that prevent certain student subgroups from accessing four-year
universities upon graduation. Many administrators, counselors and teachers attribute the
low four-year university participation rate to students and parents’ lack of understanding
of the American educational system. This is affirmed by a veteran teacher’s statement,
“Some students lack modeling at home because they are first generation. Students lack
knowledge about requirements for college and do not know how to get the information.”
Many attribute certain groups’ cultural beliefs and values as the reasons for the lack of
interest or knowledge in navigating through the difficult college application process.
Unfortunately, these very students require concrete support systems to help them
negotiate through the myriad hoops needed to understand and meet requirements. In an
interview with a counselor in regards to parent groups and the equitable distribution of
information on college access to parents, a statement was made that certain subgroup
populations “must motivate and empower themselves” and seek out college information.
160
A teacher echoed these sentiments: “The onus is on the parents, not the school.” Of
course, placing the primary responsibility of understanding the complicated American
system of higher education on underrepresented students and their families alone is a
strong predictor of those very students will be severely handicapped in reaching their
postsecondary higher education goals.
To be sure, GUSD students’ motivation to pursue a four-year university education
is stunted by a variety of cultural factors, including parental value, consent, and goal
orientation. Some students fail to actively choose or persist in college preparatory high
school coursework because parents have dictated their pathways for them. Several
interviewees pointed out that some students fail to find value or lack engagement in the
academic work because they are resigned to attending a two-year college upon high
school graduation.
Armenian and Armenian-American students who have met rigorous college
preparatory coursework and have been accepted to a four-year university face roadblocks
due to parental demands or concerns. These students have met UC ‘a-g’ requirements,
completed the SAT or ACT testing requirement, and enrolled in rigorous Advanced
Placement courses. For all purposes, they have met secondary educational goals in
preparation for a four-year university education. However, many parents discourage their
student’s motivation to advance. For these students, college-going access is ultimately
attributed to parental consent and not on their efforts.
Despite the work involved in communicating college entrance requirements, some
students face challenges in meeting these requirements. This lack of awareness is
161
demonstrated countless times during a student’s high school career in their choice of
academic coursework. Subsequently, many students have limited their postsecondary
options, thus giving them fewer opportunities to apply to a four-year institution. Some
students self-select themselves out of challenging coursework. When asked why, one
counselor stated: “These students cannot see themselves in school, because no one in
their family has gone.”
Students’ self-selection out of a four-year university pathway can be attributed to
a lack of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s abilities to accomplish a
particular task. When students lack self-efficacy in their ability to attain a four-year
university education, it can impair their motivation to pursue this goal. One administrator
at a GUSD high school pointed to the fact that students are given the curricular
opportunities, including meeting University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, yet some
students seem to lack the beliefs to actually realize this curricular goal. Although
students are given full opportunity to pursue the ‘a-g’ college preparatory track, students
are self-selecting themselves out of this academic pathway. As one high school
administrator pointed out:
“We’re going to provide access to kids. I want kids to be prepared to go straight
into a four-year. Go to Harvard if they so desire, go to Glendale Community
College, go to trade tech, go to Cal Tech. Wherever their interests lie. What I
struggle with is that kids make that decision in 9
th
grade. We’ve got to work
harder to help kids keep their options open longer so in the end you can do
whatever you want… ‘a-g’ gives you the most options.”

Students’ lack of self-efficacy about college appears to be a shared belief by some
high school teachers and staff members. One administrator indicated that that not all
students were capable of or ready for a four-year university education. One teacher
162
referred to this as a “realistic” view that students will have different destinations and that
some are not capable of attending a four-year college. Still, another district administrator
pondered whether all school agents held the same expectations for all students to
continue on to a four-year university.
Some GUSD students fail to actively choose the goal of a four-year university
education. These students lack the motivation despite the organizational changes made
within schools sites to push more students to meet minimum eligibility requirements. For
example, one high school has created a movement to raise overall UC ‘a-g’ requirements
for their student body. Although many barriers have been removed to create better
access, there are still students who do not actively choose this pathway. One principal
described these types of students as “capable underachievers.” Another principal
indicated that:
“We have a high failure rate in certain areas. So, I’ll ask the teachers, ‘Why are
these kids failing?...Is it [a lack of] skill or motivation?’ And, 99% will say it’s
motivation; it’s a lack of work ethic. It’s not that they can’t do the work, but they
choose not to.”

Finally, many GUSD students attribute their inability to enter a four-year
university to causes outside their locus of control. For example, instead of hard work and
rigorous preparation leading to successful matriculation into a university, students hold to
a variety of uncontrollable causes that will inhibit their chances. These causes could
amount to lack of financial support, familial desires to stay closer to home, or ease of
access to GCC.
163
Emergent Theme #2: EXTENDING STUDENTS’ POSTSECONDARY COLLEGE
PATHWAYS BEYOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
Although Glendale Community College presents a viable postsecondary option for
graduating Glendale Unified students, this postsecondary pathway has become
commonplace, comfortable and/or dictated for many GUSD students, thus creating gaps
in students’ pursuit of a four-year university education.
In Glendale Unified high schools, an inordinate number of students choose to
attend two-year community colleges upon graduation. Many GUSD students are fixated
on following this community college track, particularly continuing their studies at
Glendale Community College (GCC). Student interest in four-year universities is
tempered by the reality of this easy and reliable track that has been accessed by previous
GUSD graduates. In fact, one high school principal recounted the tale of a graduating
student that was accepted to the University of California, Riverside yet ultimately
enrolled in Glendale Community College.
The large Armenian population that resides in the greater Glendale area holds
strong cultural and gender expectations for their children. Part of these expectations
includes a strong attachment to the family unit and living within close proximity to
parents. One counselor, who also happens to be an Armenian immigrant herself, shared
that parents expect young Armenian females not to go away to college. The counselor
explained an experience with one particular counselee:
“I actually had a student, that really wanted to go to UCI [University of
California, Irvine] and she got into like 4 UC’s and the parents said the only way
I’m going to let you go to UCI is to commute day in and day out. And that’s what
164
the student was doing. I had a meeting with the parents explaining the danger of
just being on the road versus staying there.”

These cultural experiences and expectations create a community college vacuum for
many immigrant children: since Glendale Community College lies close to home and
provides an affordable college opportunity, students are relegated to follow this particular
postsecondary pathway. One teacher recounted a story about one of her former students
who had been accepted to the University of Southern California:
“One of my former students was accepted to USC, but her parents didn’t want her
to go. She’s a girl, so they (parents) want her home everyday. The only way she
could go to USC was to commute. Otherwise they would’ve made her go to
Glendale Community College.”

Students who enter community colleges with the intent of transferring to a four-
year university face an uphill climb in actually transferring. The percentage of students
who do transfer to a four-year university is low. Despite this reality, GUSD students
choose to enter the community college setting. One counselor described the Glendale
Community College corridor as having evolved into a “way of life” for many GUSD
students, particularly Armenian and Armenian-American students.
The community college pathway affects students’ motivational choice to
participate in rigorous high school curricular work. For example, some students who
were eligible to take rigorous Advanced Placement course choose not to because it was
not a required course for entrance to Glendale Community College. One disgruntled
counselor described her feelings about this situation:
“When I see there are some very capable students that have good GPAs, they
have taken the higher level rigorous classes and they end up going to a
community college, not that I have anything against community college. But one
of the things that I think that they miss most is being part of that culture.”
165

For some other GUSD students, the motivation to persist through a rigorous
academic coursework is halted at a certain point in their high school career. One
counselor indicated that some students will enroll in challenging courses up until a
certain point whereby they revert to less challenging courses that will meet minimum
graduation requirements. When pressed why this occurs, the counselor stated: “Because
they do not see themselves in college.”
Still, other students enter Glendale Community College because they limit their
choice of potential four-year universities to attend. For many Armenians in the Glendale
area, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is the sole attractive destination
for postsecondary studies. Unfortunately, denied entrance to UCLA amounts to
community college matriculation with the rationale that the student will eventually be
able to transfer to UCLA. Altogether, GCC has become the “default destination” for
many GUSD students.
The challenge that modern secondary schools have is the perception that
attendance at a two-year college automatically means that a student will persist and
matriculate to a four-year institution. The common perception of students, parents,
teachers, and counselors in GUSD is that students who attend Glendale Community
College will transfer to a four-year school. This perception is tempered by the reality that
many will not transfer. As one counselor pointed out: “The attrition is high and the
matriculation rate is less than 35%.” Although a community college pathway is meant to
give students another option for postsecondary education, it can serve to undervalue
student’s long-term aspirations and lifetime earnings prospects.
166
Another rationale for entering the community college route is the reasonableness
of cost compared to four-year universities. Despite the difference in cost, many students
do not recognize that course availability and lack of qualified instructors has become a
concern in recent years as a result of education cuts in the California budget. Still, other
students and their families choose the community college path due to a lack of knowledge
of the four-year university financial aid process, along with the pressures of taking on
such financial responsibilities. Altogether, these challenges cause many students and
parents to focus solely on community college as the only viable option for postsecondary
education.
Emergent Theme #3: SETTING EXPLICIT GOALS FOR FOUR- YEAR
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
Academic achievement at Glendale Unified School District has steadily improved over
the years. However, district-wide achievement goals, and professional development
related to those goals, do not include explicit goals pertaining to student four-year
university education. In fact, variance in defining college success for GUSD students
exists amongst district and school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. This
lack of clarity in student postsecondary education goals creates misaligned work
processes, varied expectations, and perception issues regarding the college-going
success rates at each comprehensive high school.
In order to improve overall student success, GUSD implemented a district wide
program called Focus on Results- a nationwide intervention program designed to help
schools and districts facilitate student achievement. School or district teams work with a
167
consultant who helps design an individualized plan for student success. These
consultants offer training and assistance for the team so that they can take the information
back to their site. The overall goal is to improve student achievement across the
curriculum. This intervention is designed to improve student academic achievement
throughout the district.
Although this intervention encourages the utilization of research-based best
practices and peer-reviewed journals by school site teams, it is not designed to
specifically address the college participation gap within GUSD. In fact, no district level
goals or direction has emerged from Focus on Results to enable students to meet ‘a-g’
requirements or qualify for college admission. When asked about district-wide goals
related to college participation, several school site officials responded that nothing
explicit existed.
In fact, district and school site officials hold varying expectations for students in
regards to academic achievement and college participation. In fact, one high level district
administrator pointed out that a consistent message of high academic achievement for all
is not found at all four comprehensive high schools. Although some schools have pushed
students towards meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements, there has not been increased
pressure from all school sites and for each individual student. In fact, school officials are
resigned to the fact that some students are not cut out for college. One school site
administrator commented:
“We don’t think that every student is ready for college. We have a realistic view
about kids. Across the board, there is a belief that not all students will attend
college. During our WASC visit, we came to the conclusion that students will
have different destinations.”
168

The absence of clearly defined formal goals related to four-year university
participation translates to varying beliefs held by school and district officials regarding a
four-year university education. While a high-ranking district administrator claimed the
goal of Glendale Unified was to promote all students to enter a four-year university,
either directly or via community college, another district administrator believed that
certain students were better prepared for direct entrance to the workplace. School site
officials also presented conflicted beliefs regarding student ability to enter college: some
pushed and advocated for all students to meet UC ‘a-g’ requirements, while others were
resigned to the belief that some students, particularly those not enrolled in college
preparatory courses, were not able to achieve at a college ready level.
While GUSD implicitly seeks to increase the college participation rate for their
students, the work processes do not communicate that same message. According to more
than one administrator, there are no formal goals on developing a college going culture
from the district. School sites have their own plans, but there is no formal goal or
message that is communicated from the district level. This is further evidenced by the
lack of discussion at district level meetings on improving college-going outcomes and the
lack of professional development provided to increase college participation rates.
According to one administrator, “I don’t feel we get the message from the board or the
superintendent [that the goal is] the college going culture, only the achievement gap and
reducing the gaps through CAHSEE and STAR results…those are the goals set for the
schools, not college going culture.”
169
At the site level, each school communicates the importance of students continuing
their education after high school. However, not all the high schools hold expectations
that students will attend a four-year university. Several of the high schools have taken
the position that “students have different directions” and that the high school has to
accept that not all students are suited for college, although they will continue to offer the
students information. One high school administrator said: “We do not have a college-
going culture for all students. We see it in certain groups, but a great percentage of them
won’t access resources.” Still another high school administrator shared: “We are hesitant
to use the term ‘college-going’ culture because some groups might find it offensive and
we want to be sensitive to the cultures that exist within the school.”
Teachers’ perceptions about the ability of students also varied. One teacher
expressed a strong belief that certain students were on the college track- Advanced
Placement students- and those that were not enrolled in such classes were often described
as “regular” kids. Of course, the rigor and approach taken in non-honors classes is vastly
different from the advanced studies and preparation for college presented in Advanced
Placement classes. The “regular” students typically faced a less rigorous instructional
program with the end goal being high school graduation and receipt of a diploma.
Another teacher who worked primarily with English Language Learners was not as
resigned about the inability of certain students to achieve at a college-ready level. In fact,
this teacher felt strongly that students in her English Language Development program did
have the academic ability to achieve yet faced roadblocks to advancement because of
language barriers or inability to access certain coursework.
170
District and school priority on improving four-year university access and
participation have faced stiff challenges with recent budget reductions. Of course, the
allocation of material, financial and human resources is an indicator of district priorities.
The reduction of counselors at each of the four comprehensive high schools in GUSD
creates a challenge for many of the students to receive the kind of services needed for
college information or assistance in the college application process. In the last year, ten
counselors were cut from the district, thereby distributing much of the responsibilities
and workload to the remaining counselors. In all of the schools, student-to-counselor
ratio increased and some services that were previously provided by the counselors were
eliminated. For example, due to increased caseload sizes, some counselors are only able
to meet with students to discuss course requirements and provide minimal college
information, whereas before, counselors met with students and their parents at least once
a year, if not more, to thoroughly plan, schedule and counsel student about their
postsecondary choices. To compound this problem, certain high school counselors must
split their hours between two school sites.
Counselors play a critical role in developing the school’s response to college
planning and creating an organizational worldview of different options of college
choices. Through their increased workload, counselors are unable to effectively provide
the kind of support needed to ensure students are on the right path to four-year
institutions. As the only certificated staff to receive dismissal notices, counselors
questioned their value and the importance of their role in GUSD in promoting a college-
going culture. As one of the counselors indicated: “Counseling is not perceived as
171
important or a priority. Counselors work hard, however, the perception is that it’s an
easy job.”
Conclusion
Glendale Unified School District’s strong focus on improving student
achievement has resulted in a culture of continuous improvement. It is in this context
that the district sought the assistance of our project team to make sense of the four-year
university participation gap that currently exists within the district. Our project team
found three emergent themes that prevented all GUSD students from accessing four-year
universities: persisting knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers for specific
student subgroups; the commonplace, comfortable and/or dictated practice of entering the
community college path; and, the lack of explicit district-wide goals as it relates to
improving four-year university education rates and opportunities. In the ensuing months,
our project team intends to provide effective research-based solutions to close these gaps
to college participation and provide support to Glendale Unified School District.

172
Appendix D – 1

Scanning Interview

Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:

GUSD College Participation Project
Scanning Interview

Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’ve been asked by the district to look
at college participation and access for GUSD graduating seniors. Your comments will be
helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to
anyone outside the USC team.

6. Please give me an overview of college participation and success for GUSD
students?
• What is the current situation?
• What is being done about it?
• Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense?

7. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
• Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding college
participation?
• Has the district tried to address college participation in specific ways?
Please describe.
• Was there any success with these efforts?
• Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?

8. Regarding college participation, are there any formal or informal goals for
what you or the district are trying to accomplish?
• What is the goal(s) of this effort?
• What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
• How will you/the district know if it is successful?
• Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get
details)
• How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire
to be?

173
9. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the
district from achieving perfect success in college participation? Is the
problem linked to many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of
knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of politics or what?
• Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational
culture/structure
• Probe by role group

10. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to
better understand the college participation and success here in the district—
any suggestions?

174
Appendix D – 2

Stages of Concern

Client’s Name: __________________________Role in District: __________________

Date & Time: __________________________Interviewer: _____________________

Stages of Concern

1). Based on your experience, what would you say the school or district has done to
improve access to four-year universities for your students?

c. If the client gives a response, ask: What was your role in this?
d. If the client does not give a response, ask: What do you think the school
should do to address this? What would your role be in this?

175
Appendix D – 3

Email

Good afternoon High School staff members. I am working with a team of three doctoral
students at USC partnering with Glendale Unified to learn more about improving student
access and participation in four-year universities. We've had an opportunity to meet with
some of your staff members to help us make sense of this topic as it relates to your
students. We would like your opinion on one question. Your responses will be
extremely helpful for us and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute
your comments to anyone outside the USC team. Please help us by responding directly
to @usc.edu to the following question:

“In your opinion, what are the factors that are preventing “X” High School students from
entering four-year universities?"

176
Appendix D – 4

Findings

Knowledge Gaps:
Finding #1: Students lack knowledge about the American system of education, and
college admission requirements causes students from underrepresented groups to be
ineligible for college admission.
Finding #2: Students, parents, teachers, and counselors perceive that the community
college pathway is a better alternative, financially and academically thus limiting student
options after high school.
Finding #3: Students lack the knowledge of the college admission requirements or
University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, which limits their postsecondary
opportunities.
Finding #4: Teachers lack knowledge of college admission requirements as well as
knowledge about the sequence of courses within their discipline and the requirements of
those courses, which leaves students unprepared for advancement.
Finding #5: A lack of district leadership direction and support on college-going goals
creates a lack of comprehensive knowledge and strategies to improve students’ college
eligibility.

Motivation Gaps:
Finding #6: School officials lack of motivation to raise college eligibility levels for
underrepresented groups of students due to beliefs about those students’ ability to
achieve.
Finding #7: Students’ familial and cultural framework creates motivation gaps in
pursuing a four-year university education.
Finding #8: GUSD students’ lack of interest and self-efficacy result in a failure to
actively choose a four-year university educational route.
Finding #9: Student motivation to pursue a four-year university and school officials’
willingness to support this pursuit is stunted by the common and comfortable practice of
entering Glendale Community College.
Finding #10: Some GUSD students’ goal orientations and how they attribute failure has
negatively affected their prospects of entering a four-year university.

Organizational Gaps:
Finding #11: Organizational resources that promote college access have been cut,
including counseling positions and hours, and financial grants, such as GEAR UP.
Finding #12: There are no explicit district or school wide goals that address four-year
university access, thus creating a misalignment of work processes.
Finding #13: GUSD school officials do not reach out to various cultures despite
knowledge that other cultures lack the social capital to access the American Higher
Educational System, thus further exacerbating the gap in college participation.
177
Finding #14: Inability to raise the academic rigor and achievement level of ALL
students.
Finding #15: The design of GUSD comprehensive high schools and continued school-
wide tracking limits underrepresented students’ access to four-year universities.
Finding #16: District leadership perception of each comprehensive high school creates
expectation gaps between each of the four schools.

178
APPENDIX E
Solutions PowerPoint Presentation

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this project was to apply the Clark and Estes gap analysis model to improve the college participation rate for all students at Glendale Unified School District (GUSD), especially minorities, low socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and English Language Learners. GUSD is a high achieving district in terms of state and federal accountability systems, and like many large urban school districts, it faces the challenge of closing the achievement gap for all students. A team of USC graduate students examined the different role groups that impact the district’s student college admissions through the lenses of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational root causes of the problems.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources

PDF

The use of gap analysis to increase student completion rates at Travelor Adult School

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

Closing academic achievement gap between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students: an improvement study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Hoang, Zim Law (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/02/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag closing the achievement gap,college admission,English language learners,gap analysis model,increasing college participation rate,low socioeconomically disadvantaged students,minorities,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational root causes

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

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email zhoang@usc.edu,zzimmer@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3834

Unique identifier UC1180080

Identifier etd-Hoang-4430 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-459052 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3834 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hoang-4430.pdf

Dmrecord 459052

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hoang, Zim Law

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