University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PERCEPTIONS OF HAWAI`I TRIO TALENT SEARCH STAFF AND TARGET
HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS OF COLLEGE ACCESS FACTORS AND
PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS

by

Chase Ken Mitsuda
__________________________________________________________

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 2010

Copyright 2010 Chase Ken Mitsuda
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends for their love and
support throughout my education. It is also dedicated to all of the teachers who have
positively influenced me and provided me with the catalyst that has grown to an
insatiable thirst for learning. Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to Jiji for picking me
up from school and taking me to the library. Now something I have written will be
among those books.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my wife, Sandy, for being my constant strength
and the love of my life. I would also like to thank my parents, Abe Mitsuda and
Kathleen Hirao Mitsuda, for sacrificing so much so that I could receive the best
education in and out of the classroom. My brothers, Brandon and Lars, also deserve
thanks, for believing in me and unknowingly helping me. I am so appreciative of my
friends for their understanding during all those hours that I spent studying instead of
enjoying their company. My dissertation committee, Dom, Larry, and Melora, are
simply the best professors that I could have ever asked for because of their
willingness and patience to guide me each step of the way. This dissertation would
also not have been possible without the cooperation from the high school
administrators, and Talent Search staff, so to them, I am truly grateful. Finally, I
would like to thank my USC cohort classmates. Beyond the theoretical frameworks,
gap analyses, and arduous research, I will always hold the laughter and our bond of
friendships close to my heart. The only way I can ever repay all of these people who
have helped me is to pay it forward to my future students and my future children.
May their lives be touched, as mine has.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Importance of the Study 16
Limitations and Delimitations 17
Definition of Terms 18

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 25
College Access Gap 25
Factors Affecting College Access 27
Conceptual Framework 28
Factors of College Access 34
Background of Talent Search Program 50
Previous Research on Talent Search Projects 56
Conclusions of Literature Review 76

Chapter Three: Methodology 78
Research Questions 78
Research Design 79
Sample and Population 80
Instrumentation 81
Data Collection 92
Data Analyses 95

Chapter Four: Results 98
Research Question One Findings 101
Research Question Two Findings 121
Summary of Chapter Four 157
v
Chapter Five: Discussion and Analysis 161
Summary of Findings 162
Implications for Practice 162
Implications for Research 168
Limitations 170
Conclusion 172

References 175

Appendices 186
Appendix A: Pre-Interview Questionnaire 186
Appendix B: Talent Search Director and Staff Interview 188
Appendix C: Talent Search Principal and Vice Principal Interview 192
Appendix D: Revised Pre-Interview Questionnaire for Principals 196
and Vice Principals
Appendix E: Demographics of Talent Search Schools 201
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Talent Search Summary Statistics: 1967-2000 52

Table 2. Number of Projects, Average Grant Funds, and Number of 54
Participants by Type of Host Institution: 1999-2000

Table 3. Number of Talent Search Projects, Participants, and Comparison 59
Students by State

Table 4. Table Used In Pre-Interview Question Six 84

Table 5. Services Listed in the Pre-Interview Questionnaire Categorized 85
by Factor that Affects College Access

Table 6. Type of Participants, Number of Questions, and Time Required 88
for Questions in Interview Organized by Theme

Table 7. Questions in Interview Organized by Theme and Interviewee 89

Table 8. Articulation of the Ranking of Perceptions that Contribute and 117
Inhibit Postsecondary Access for Low-income and
First-generation Participants at School G

Table 9. Articulation of the Ranking of Perceptions that Contribute and 120
Inhibit Postsecondary Access for Low-income and
First-generation Participants at School A

Table 10. 2008 Postsecondary Enrollment and HSA Scores of Talent 201
Search High Schools based on the CCRI

Table 11. 2000 Community Profiles for Hawaii Talent Search High 201
Schools and State based on SSIR

Table 12. 2008 Student Profiles for Hawaii Talent Search High Schools 202
based on SSIR

Table 13. 2008 Student Ethnicity Profile for Talent Search Schools based 202
on SSIR
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Number of 100 Ninth Graders Remaining at Each Level of 8
the Educational Pipeline, Comparing Best Performing State,
National Average, and Hawai`i

Figure 2. Student Knowledge of Tuition by Type of Institution 35

Figure 3. Percentage of Students Who Knew At Least Three Course 36
Requirements at More-selective Universities by Socioeconomic
Status

Figure 4. Percentage of Talent Search Participants Who Apply for 42
Financial Assistance to Attend College by Year, 2000-2007

Figure 5. Talent Search Participants and Comparison Students Who 60
Were First-time Applicants for Federal Financial Aid,
1999-2000, by State

Figure 6. Talent Search Participants and Comparison Students Who 61
Enrolled in a Public Postsecondary Institution, 1999-2000,
by State

Figure 7. Talent Search Participants and Comparison Students Who 62
Enrolled in a Public Two-year or Four-year Institution,
1999-2000, by State

Figure 8. National Inputs vs Oahu's Talent Search Student Inputs 65

Figure 9. Percentage of College Enrollment of Oahu's Talent Search 67
Participants by District vs National Averages

Figure 10. Percentage of Talent Search Participants Who Enrolled in 68
Two and Four Year Colleges

Figure 11. Percentage of Oahu's Talent Search Participants vs 69
Non-participants in Other States who Enrolled in Two
and Four Year Colleges

Figure 12. Percentage of Weighted Ranking of Influence of College 102
Access Factors by Participant Group

viii
Figure 13. Weighted Percentages of Activities According to 111
Associated College Access Factor that were Deemed
Important by Participant Group

Figure 14. Number of Times Service was Ranked in the Top Four in 112
Importance by Participant Group

Figure 15. Weighted Percentages of Activities According to Associated 121
College Access Factor that were Deemed Effective by
Participant Group.

Figure 16. Number of Times Service was Ranked in the Top Four in 123
Effectiveness by Group
ix
ABSTRACT
Despite an overall increase in college enrollment over the past 50 years, low-
income and first-generation students have not achieved the same success. In fact, the
gap between low-income and high-income enrollments has increased during the
same time period of apparent gains. Educational Talent Search, is a federally funded
outreach program that provides services that target low-income and first-generation
students, and is attempting to narrow the achievement gap nationally and on the
island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii. The purpose of this study was to describe the
perceptions of two Talent Search directors, six Talent Search staff members, and
seven target high school principals or vice principals regarding factors that contribute
to college access, and program effectiveness. The results showed that social support
and cultural capital, along with academic preparation were perceived as the most
influential access factors in terms of promoting college access. Help with financial
aid applications were perceived as important and effective. Three themes emerged
from the research. The first was that cooperation of the school was perceived to
increase program effectiveness. The second theme was that immediate
postsecondary access was perceived as the ideal goal, but there were external factors
that inhibited access. The third theme was that qualitative formative evaluation is
perceived as effective and has the potential for improvement.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your
knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity -- it
is a prerequisite. Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing
occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half
of our citizens have that level of education…This is a prescription for
economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will
out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this
administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and
competitive education -- from the day they are born to the day they begin a
career. That is a promise we have to make to the children of
America…That's why we will support -- we will provide the support
necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal:
By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college
graduates in the world. That's a goal we can meet (Obama, 2009, February).

President Obama’s words resonate within a broader context of the publicized
impact of globalization on business and the nature of employment in the United
States over the last three decades (Friedman, 2005; Wagner, 2009; Achieve, 2009).
Although the island of Oahu, of the state of Hawai`i, seems secluded, it is not
isolated from globalization. Maximizing the number of students graduating from
postsecondary education in the state is therefore a critical policy objective. This
study focuses on how Hawai`i is facilitating access to college for low-income and
first-generation students by exploring the perceptions of those involved in the
transition from high school to college. Specifically, the staff of three Educational
Talent Search projects on Oahu and principals or vice principals at the high schools
they service will illuminate perceptions about access factors and Talent Search
project effectiveness. The findings could provide information that will aid in how
2
Talent Search operates within a school, which may in turn increase the effectiveness
of the projects and ultimately raise college access for underrepresented students in
the state of Hawai`i.
Background of the Problem
In 1973, one-third of jobs required less than a high school diploma, but that
proportion shrunk to only 9% by 2001 (Achieve, 2008). In stark contrast, the
proportion of jobs requiring a college education doubled during the same period,
increasing to 60% of the labor market in 2001 (Achieve, 2008; Carnevale &
Desrochers, 2003). It is projected that by 2010, nearly two-thirds of all jobs and 70%
of new jobs in the United States will require at least some postsecondary education
(Carnevale & Desrochers, 2002). The national awareness of the importance of
education is mirrored locally, as one-third of projected categories of job openings
from 2006-2016 will require postsecondary education or training and those jobs pay
an average salary twice as much as those that do not require postsecondary education
($50,000 vs. $25,000) (State of Hawai`i Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations Research and Statistics Office, 2008). To further show the relevance of a
college degree, nearly 50% of “Hawai‘i’s Hot 50 Demand Occupations” require
postsecondary education (Hawai‘i Workforce Informer, November 2007).
While the labor market is demanding higher levels of educational credentials
and requisite skills and knowledge, American educational productivity is declining
relative to other countries. Among 27 Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries, the U.S. ranked 21
st
in high school completion rates
3
and dropped from second to 14th in college graduation rates in the last decade
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007). America’s
lowered standing is a result of its own stagnation and other countries’ rapid gains in
earned credentials (Achieve, 2009). The global comparison is significant because
the capacity for the United States to compete in the world depends upon the public
benefits of societal educational attainment. A direct result of the increase in earnings
related to higher educational attainment is higher tax revenue at the national and state
levels.
Furthermore, Hanushek and Woessman (2008) found that increases in a
country’s educational attainment also leads to “substantial gains” in national
economic productivity. At the state level, the educational level of a region’s
population is the single most important factor in determining a community’s
economic growth (Gottlieb, P & Fogarty, M., 2003). Business and government
leaders rate an educated workforce 6th among 21 factors that affect businesses’
decisions about where to locate their companies (Montague, 1987). To additionally
support the argument of education’s positive effect, Hanushek and Woessmann
(2008) found that higher educational attainment leads to a more equitable
distribution of income within a country.
Along with national prosperity and competitiveness, educational attainment
has also been linked to individual benefits, as supported by data that show that four-
year college graduates will earn nearly $1 million more over their working lives than
will those who only receive a high school diploma, and nearly $500,000 more than
4
those who attend some college and/or earn a two-year degree (U.S. Census Bureau,
2002, College Board, 2007). In 2003, the median salary for high school diploma
recipients was $31,000 vs. $50,000 for those with four year college degrees (Institute
for Higher Education, 2005). Jobs that do not require a postsecondary education
versus those that do show a difference of $23,000 vs. $53,000, which is a 230%
difference and one that reflects a larger disparity compared to the national statistic
(Hawai‘i Workforce Informer, November 2007). In terms of the benefits to
intermediate educational attainment, an associate’s degree is associated with earning
a wage that sustains a family of one adult and two school age children in Hawai`i
(Institute for Higher Education, 2005; Aloha United Way, 2005).
In conjunction with the monetary benefits, those who attend college also are
more likely to have health insurance, less likely to be on government assistance
programs such as welfare, more likely involved in leisure activities, and also are
more likely to participate in civic responsibilities (Perna, 2004). Along with civic
engagement (i.e., voting, charitable giving), and avoidance of public assistance,
unemployment, incarceration, higher levels of education are also associated with
individuals’ health and well-being (Gottfredson, 1985; Farrington et al., 1986; Witte
& Tauchen, 1994; Institute for Higher Education, 2005; Lochner, 2008).
In Hawai`i, educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree has grown 4% from
1990 to 2000 (23% to 27%), while the national attainment has grown 5% (23% to
28%) (Achieve, 2008). However, Hawai`i enrollment rates have not displayed the
same success. Hawai`i has dropped 6% in college enrollment immediately following
5
high school from 1992-2002 (56% to 50%) while the nation has shown an
improvement of 3% in the same time frame (54% to 57%) (Achieve, 2009).
The decline in postsecondary enrollment emerges despite efforts in the mid
nineties to improve students’ transition from high school to college, “a policy agenda
usually termed K-16” or the educational pipeline (Ewell, Jones & Kelly, 2003).
Instead of simplifying the educational system as a production function of inputs and
outputs of a K-12 or higher education system, the educational pipeline considers
input at an earlier stage, such as high school or even elementary school, and
considers high school graduation and college going to be throughputs towards
college completion as the pipeline’s output (Ewell, Jones & Kelly, 2003). The
success of each step of the pipeline is dependent upon the steps that preceded them.
This concept represents a shift over the last decade from a focus on K-12 and higher
education as independent to inter-dependent systems. In 2007, Education Week
titled their annual report, “From Cradle to the Career, Connecting American
Education from Birth through Adulthood” and noted that they considered it to be a
“transitional document as the nation moves from an exclusive focus on K-12
education to a broader perspective on the connections between K-12 education and
other systems with which it intersects” (Education Week, January 2007, p. 1).
Since 2000, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education has
published a biennial report on the student “flow” through the education pipeline,
highlighting data at “four key transition points”: (1) high school graduation within
four years of entering high school; (2) enrollment in college the fall semester after
6
receiving a high school diploma; (3) return for the second year of college; and
(4) completion of an associate’s degree within three years or a bachelor’s degree
within six years of enrolling in college (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2004).
As opposed to strictly looking at graduation rates, pipeline analysis takes a
deeper look into where students are “leaking” out of the educational system (Ewell,
Jones & Kelly, 2003). Over the past three reporting periods, national pipeline data
have shown consistency in the numbers of students who are leaking out of the
educational system. For every 100 students in the United States during the year
2000 who enter ninth grade, 67 complete high school in four years, 38 go to college,
and only 18 earn associate’s degrees within three years or bachelor’s degrees in six
years (Mortenson, 2000). Out of 100 students in the United States during 2002, 68
ninth graders graduated from high school, 40 immediately entered college upon
graduation, 27 returned for their second year, and 18 graduated college within six
years of postsecondary education (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2004).
The national pipeline data have remained consistent over recent years, but
comparing states’ pipelines reveal variation in college completion rates and
intermediate outcomes along the pipeline. Data collection that was completed in the
year 2000 showed that for every 100 students in the United States who entered ninth
grade, 67 complete high school in four years, 38 go to college, and only 18 earn
associate’s degrees within three years or bachelor’s degrees in six years (Mortenson,
7
2000). The 2002 data displayed that out of 100 students in the United States, 68
ninth graders graduated from high school, 40 immediately entered college upon
graduation, 27 returned for their second year, and 18 graduated college within six
years of postsecondary education (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2004).
The Hawai`i data from 2002 shows that for every 100 ninth graders, 65
graduated from high school, 34 immediately entered college upon graduation, 22
returned for their second year, and 12 graduated college within six years of
postsecondary education (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
2004). Data collected in 2006 showed that for every 100 ninth graders in the year
2006, 68 ninth graders graduated from high school, 42 immediately entered college
upon graduation, 28 returned for their second year, and 19 graduated college within
six years of postsecondary education (National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 2009). Hawai`i’s statistics for 2006 reveal that out of 100
ninth graders, 67 ninth graders graduated from high school, 40 immediately entered
college upon graduation, 23 returned for their second year, and 12 graduated college
within six years of postsecondary education (National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 2009). Hawai`i’s ranking compared to other states in terms
of ninth graders who graduated from high school dropped from 45
th
in 2004 to 48
th
in
2006 (National Center for Higher Education Management systems, 2009).
Pipeline data illustrates the interdependent working parts of educational
attainment as being high school graduation, college access, college persistence, and
8
college graduation. Figure 1 provides a powerful visual of 2006 pipeline data that
compares Hawai`i, versus the nation, and the best performing state. Hawai`i is
below the national average and well below the best performing state at each of the
stages of the pipeline.

Figure 1. Number of 100 Ninth Graders Remaining at Each Level of the Educational
Pipeline, Comparing Best Performing State, National Average, and Hawai`i

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

The educational pipeline is an enormous passageway that many institutions
and individuals are a part of. Studying each transition point in the pipeline with a
single study would be a time-consuming and costly undertaking. Although each
9
point of departure from the pipeline provides additional research around transition
points, this study will fall under the “leak” that exists in the transition point from
high school to entering college immediately after graduation. Specifically, the study
will target the population of low-income and first-generation students with respect to
college access. While the rate of students immediately enrolling in two or four year
colleges has increased from 49% in 1976 to 66% in 2006, there is a gap between low
and high income students (NCES, 2008). The gap between students in the bottom
20% family income range and those in the top 20% family income range was 23.8%
in 1976 and 29.8% in 2006 (NCES, 2008). Researchers argue factors such as
inadequate information, course credit constraints, poor primary and secondary school
quality, differences in expected returns, and a disparity between occupational
aspirations of low and high-income students are possible explanations for the
persisting gap (Rouse, 2004). Hagedorn and Tierney (2002) state that “those who
would most directly benefit from a postsecondary education—low-income and
minority youth are not receiving appropriate service…. if fundamental changes for
all school children cannot be realized immediately, then college preparation
programs might serve as demonstrations to point out ways to succeed, and in doing
so, also help some children who otherwise would not have gone to college” (p. 1-2).
First-generation status often coincides with low-income status and
contributes to the gap. Adelman (2006) finds that out of seven independent variables
that included race, gender, and family income, the most significant was first-
generation college status. The probability of completing a bachelor’s degree is
10
reduced by roughly 21% for first-generation students. In a 2001 study conducted by
the United States Department of Education, potential first-generation college
students were less likely to enroll in college when compared to those students whose
parents had college experience.
Within the “leak” of postsecondary access for underrepresented students,
there is a multitude of components that are in need of research. One component is
outreach programs that have made a concerted effort to promote more equitable
access to postsecondary education by encouraging underrepresented and
disadvantaged students to attend college. Outreach programs stem from federal
government initiatives, postsecondary institutions, the community, and occasionally
from within the secondary school system itself, and provide services for
underrepresented students to gain college access (Swail, 2001). These programs are
designed to provide students with personal guidance and information essential to
prepare for, and succeed in college. According to Rainwater and Venezia (2003), the
most successful programs share key components, including a focus on the individual,
engagement of young people in the context of their own culture, access to
information that emphasizes the importance and attainability of postsecondary
education, information on the academic standards required at each step of the
process, and high-quality teaching and coaching throughout.
As one of the originators of college outreach, the U.S. Department of
Education’s TRIO programs “exist to help economically disadvantaged students by
facilitating high school completion, entry, retention, and completion of
11
postsecondary education, and entry into graduate study” (NCES, 1995). One of the
original three TRIO programs, Educational Talent Search, specifically aims to
increase college enrollment of low-income high school and middle school students
who would be first-generation college graduates (Silva & Kim, 1999). Project
services vary within Talent Search, but include career exploration and aptitude
assessment, tutorial services, information on postsecondary education, exposure to
college campuses, counseling, academic advising, information on financial aid, help
with completing college admissions and financial aid applications, assistance in
preparing for college entrance exams, mentoring programs, and workshops for
participants’ families (IES, 2006). This study addresses the educational pipeline by
focusing on improving the information available to Talent Search programs on the
island of Oahu, within the state of Hawai`i, and the school administration they
service, which could in turn better assist underrepresented students from achieving
postsecondary access.
Statement of the Problem
Hawai`i’s overall pipeline ranking was above the national average in 2000
and has since declined to below the national average in 2002, 2004, and 2006 (Ewell,
Jones, & Kelly, 2003, GEAR UP Hawai`i, 2007, National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 2009). The 2006 data show that Hawai`i’s college
enrollment rate immediately following high school of 59.8% ranks 32
nd
in the nation
(National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 2009). The 2008
Measuring Up report card gave Hawai`i a grade of “D” for participation in
12
postsecondary education because “the likelihood of enrolling in college by age 19 is
fairly low,” at 40%, which was a 4% decrease from data collected in the early 1990s
(National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008). This participation
in postsecondary education is low when compared to the nation’s top states, as their
achievement on the same indicator was at 57% (National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, 2008). Although the data presented above were not
disaggregated by either socioeconomic status, or first-generation status, one could
assume that Hawai`i mirrors the nation in terms of how these two subpopulations are
underrepresented.
The state of Hawai`i has the following initiatives in the planning or in
progress phase to strengthen their educational pipeline: align high school graduation
requirements with college and career-ready expectations, develop college and career-
ready assessment systems, and develop P-20 longitudinal data systems (Achieve,
2009). In addition, Hawai`i anticipates aligning high school standards with
expectations of college and the workplace by 2010 (Achieve, 2009). Federal
outreach programs such as Educational Talent Search are also in place in Hawai`i
and are attempting to better the state’s pipeline ranking in terms of students entering
postsecondary education immediately following graduation by providing services
that target low-income and first-generation students. There are several national
reports on the effectiveness of TRIO Talent Search in terms of the statistics of
underrepresented youth who gain access to college (Cahalan et al., 2004, Constantine
et al., 2006, U.S. Department of Education, 2006). There is also promising data
13
emerging from the Hawai`i Talent Search projects’ Annual Performance Reports in
terms of increasing college access for underrepresented students (Hashimoto, 2008a;
Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008).
The Pathways to College Network, an alliance of 38 national organizations
and financial supporters committed to advancing college access and success for
underserved students state that for outreach programs to have long-term and systemic
effects, they should be incorporated into school and system plans to provide all
students with clear pathways to postsecondary success (Pathways to College
Network, 2004). The Pathways to College Network (2004) published a report that
reviewed over 650 studies with the goal of recommending best practices and policies
for those interested in promoting college access for underrepresented students.
Among the recommendation for outreach programs was that program practices and
interventions be rigorously evaluated in order to better understand their impact on
student achievement. The specific questions that should be asked are: If schools
focus on preparing all students for college, what is the best role for outreach
programs? What components of outreach programs have the most significant effect
on students’ college preparation, enrollment, and achievement? What is credible
evidence of outreach program impact? What indicators promote, rather than impede,
cooperation between schools and outreach programs? and How can collaboration be
strengthened? (Pathways to College Network, 2004). These questions are often left
unanswered and outreach programs like Talent Search continue to provide a service
14
without qualitative analysis that would study the reasons behind program
effectiveness, and what parts contribute to its effectiveness.
Although research exists on what factors affect college access, little is known
about how those who are involved in Talent Search’s outreach efforts are perceive
those factors. Collaboration between outreach programs like TRIO Talent Search
and target schools should be an integral aspect of program success, and yet there is a
void in the studies that examine whether the perceptions of the outreach staff align
with those of the administration they service. There is also a lack of research in
whether or not the perceptions of either group align with what the literature has
found to be the factors affecting college access.
Purpose of the Study
The “leak” in the pipeline could be studied from either an institutional or
individual perspective. The individual perspective would focus on students and their
perceptions and actions in regards to facilitating or inhibiting progression through the
pipeline, while the institutional perspective would focus on what schools and
programs perceive and are doing about improving the educational pipeline. This
study takes an institutional approach and examines how Talent Search effectiveness
depends on the behaviors of staff members and target school administration, who are
guided by their perceptions on what matters in terms of college access.
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Talent Search
staff, directors, and target high school principals or vice principals regarding factors
that contribute to college access, and program effectiveness. The perceptions of the
15
individuals and the groups of individuals were described and analyzed in order to
determine if potential discrepancies and agreements in perceptions are present. By
providing the information to make transparency of perceptions possible, Talent
Search staff, directors, and target school administration may be able to serve Talent
Search participants more effectively. The ultimate and intended beneficiaries of this
study will therefore be the students that will be served by both Talent Search staff
and target school principals or vice principals.
Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to factors that affect
postsecondary access for underrepresented students?
• Sub-question for analysis: How do these perceptions articulate among
the participants of the study and accord with current research?
2. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to Talent Search's
effectiveness in facilitating underrepresented college access?
• Sub-question for analysis: What barriers do participants perceive as
being inhibitory to the success of the program and what steps can be
taken to improve the program?
16
Importance of the Study
America’s high school students have higher educational aspirations than ever
before, as 88% of eighth graders expect to participate in some form of postsecondary
education, and approximately 70% of high school graduates actually do go to college
within two years of graduation (Venezia, 2003). College going rates decrease with
socioeconomic status, as 50% of low-income high school graduates enrolled in
college compared to 77% of high income graduates. First-generation students are
also at a significant disadvantage in attending college due to the lack of information
and guidance they receive in their homes. Ewell et al. (2003) ranked Hawai`i 40
th
in
the nation in terms of pipeline ranking that takes into account the 26% of high school
graduates that do not enroll in college. Kirst and Bracco (1996) state that better
knowledge about what is required for college success is needed, not just by students,
but everyone involved in the effort to promote college access. They go on to say that
this knowledge is particularly important for those working with low-income students
and first-generation college students, all of whom do not traditionally have the same
access to college as others. This study aims to improve the pipeline ranking,
specifically targeting the low-income and first-generation students who are in the
greatest need of assistance. Through interviewing Talent Search directors and staff,
along with target school principals or vice principals, the perceived factors affecting
college access as well as perceptions of program effectiveness will be made more
transparent. In doing so, this study could provide a potential avenue to increase the
effectiveness of Talent Search efforts through the articulation of perceptions
17
regarding both general college access factors for underrepresented students and more
specific program aspects that could be improved.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of the study is that it investigates only one of the parts of the
pipeline, as it focuses on the transition from high school to college. Although the
transition to college is often highlighted, other pipeline issues such as promotion per
secondary grade level, graduation from high school, and persistence throughout
college could also be examined as areas for improvement as well. A second
limitation is that this study does not take into account the perceptions of the
individual students within the pipeline, and instead focuses on how important
institutional members of secondary target school principals or vice principals and
Talent Search staff perceive college access and program effectiveness. A third
limitation is that Talent Search projects have various goals that include high school
promotion and graduation, which are important, but not the focus of this study on
postsecondary access. A fourth limitation is that although there are requirements of
socioeconomic and first-generation status for Talent Search applicants, they are self-
selected and therefore the services of the outreach are limited in its population.
A fifth limitation in terms of external validity with other outreach programs
or even other Talent Search projects echoes the observation of Silva and Kim’s
(1999) literature review of Talent Search projects that states that the “projects are
highly diverse and complex, serving a large and diverse group of clients from many
different schools, establishing different performance objectives, and providing a
18
wide variety of services [so] adequately capturing this diversity and complexity
could be a challenge for national evaluation” (p. xi). Due to the different cultural
factors that depend upon region, there could possibly be great variation between the
projects. When comparing perceptions, it’s imperative to realize that staff and
Target school principals or vice principals will vary between sites as well. The
location and uniqueness of the region and the staff increases the threats to external
validity of the study and is therefore a limitation of the study. Lastly, Swail (2001)
states that outreach programs are, “for lack of a better term, the “finger in the dike”
component of our educational system…they fill the holes where students of need flow
out of the system” (p. x). To continue the metaphor, Talent Search is the “finger in the
pipeline” and should not be viewed as the remedy for larger societal and systemic issues.
These issues are beyond the scope of this study, but should nevertheless be recognized.
Definition of Terms
Annual Performance Reports (APRs) are submitted annually to TRIO by each
project. The Talent Search APRs provide data on the participants, activities and
outcomes for the funded projects (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) is a college-readiness
program designed to increase the enrollment of academically average students in
four-year colleges through providing focused support.
College and Career Readiness Indicators Report (CCRI) for the class of 2008
is a report where National Student Clearinghouse data on postsecondary enrollment
of students is matched with Hawai`i DOE graduates to produce data that provides
19
insight to the percentage of postsecondary enrollment at two and four year
institutions of each of the local high schools.
College Preparation Programs are defined as enhancement programs that
supplement a school’s regular activities and are aimed at low-income youth who
otherwise might not be able to attend college (Hagedorn and Tierney, 2002).
College-ready participants are defined in the instructions for the Talent
Search APRs as 12th-grade high school students and high school (and high school
equivalency) graduates (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Educational partnerships connect schools to community and social service
agencies, cultural institutions, businesses, industry, and institutions of higher
education to pursue joint activities and should be developed if there is a shared
concern about a real problem that can best be addressed by organizations from
different sectors working together (Tushnet, 1993).
Educational Pipeline, rather than viewing K–12 schooling and postsecondary
education as separate entities, estimates the state-by-state patterns of student progress
from the 9th grade through four key transition points: (1) high school graduation
within four years of entering high school; (2) enrollment in college the fall semester
after receiving a high school diploma; (3) return for the second year of college; and
(4) completion of an associate’s degree within three years or a bachelor’s degree
within six years of enrolling in college (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2004).
20
First-generation college student is an individual neither of whose natural or
adoptive parents received a baccalaureate degree, or a student who, prior to the age
of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one natural or adoptive
parent and whose supporting parent did not receive a baccalaureate degree (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006).
Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) is part of the No Child Left Behind act’s
accountability measures for reading and math. In 2008, the HSA proficiency level in
reading was 58% and in math was 46%.
Leeward refers to a region of the island of Oahu’s west side.
Low-income individual is an individual whose family’s taxable income did
not exceed 150% of the poverty level amount in the calendar year preceding the year
in which the individual initially participates in the project. The poverty level amount
is determined by using criteria established by the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006).
Outreach Programs focus on providing additional or supplementary support
services to needy students with the intention of filling in the gaps where the system
needs assistance. These programs, emanating from colleges and universities, the
community, and occasionally from within the school system itself, provide a wide
array of services for needy students, including tutoring, mentoring, test-taking skill
development, study and time-keeping skills, college awareness, financial planning
and a host of other strategies aimed at increasing college access (Swail, 2001).
21
Participant status indicates involvement in the Talent Search Program for
each student in the reporting year. A new participant is an individual who
participated in the Talent Search Program for the first time in the current reporting
period. A continuing participant is an individual who participated in the Talent
Search Program in both the current reporting period and in a previous reporting
period. All participants include new and continuing participants reported by each
project (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Participants funded to serve refers to the project’s planned level of service, in
terms of numbers of students, as agreed to by the TRIO national office before the
beginning of the funding year (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Postsecondary admission refers to participants who are high school
graduates, or who have completed the requirements to obtain a high school
equivalency degree and other eligible individuals who have enrolled in programs of
postsecondary education for the first time during this reporting period or have been
admitted for the next academic term (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
School Status and Improvement Report (SSIR) is a report that is developed by
The Accountability Resource Center Hawai`i (ARCH) and is published by the State
of Hawai`i Department of Education Systems Accountability Office. Within the
reports is publicly available demographic information for all of the public schools in
Hawai`i including information about community educational attainment and
socioeconomic status, enrollment, ethnicities, and free and reduced lunch statistics.
22
Student Support Services (SSS) is a program provides opportunities for
academic development, assists students with basic college requirements, serves to
motivate students toward the successful completion of their postsecondary education,
and also may provide grant aid to current participants who are receiving Federal Pell
Grants. The goal of SSS is to increase the college retention and graduation rates of
its participants and help students make the transition from one level of higher
education to the next (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Talent Search directors are responsible for Talent Search programs and the
projects within that program. In the case of this study, they are the supervisors to
staff members that work at each target high school. They also administer Talent
Search services at each of the target high schools.
Talent Search program identifies and assists individuals from disadvantaged
backgrounds who have the potential to succeed in higher education by providing
academic, career, and financial counseling to its participants and encourages them to
graduate from high school and continue on to the postsecondary institution of their
choice. Talent Search also serves high school dropouts by encouraging them to
reenter the education system and complete their education. The goal of Talent Search
is to increase the number of youths from disadvantaged backgrounds who complete
high school and enroll in postsecondary education institutions of their choice (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009).
Talent Search Projects, housed at two- or four-year colleges and universities
and public or private agencies or organizations, receive funds from the Talent Search
23
Program to identify and assist at least 600 sixth to 12th-grade students from
disadvantaged backgrounds in completing high school and enrolling in higher
education, and encourage middle school, high school and postsecondary dropouts to
complete their education (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Talent Search sites are the places that the Talent Search projects physically
housed and include two- or four-year colleges and universities and public or private
agencies or organizations. Each site can house more than one Talent Search project
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Talent Search staff members are responsible for administering Talent Search
activities for participants at each high school. In the case of this study, most Talent
Search staff members were responsible for one high school, but there are two that
were responsible for more. Their supervisor is the Talent Search director and they
work in conjunction with the staff and faculty of each target high school.
Target school refers to a middle or high school designated by a Talent Search
project as a focus of project services (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Target school administrator for the purposes of this study can be defined as
either the principal or vice principal at the target high schools.
TRIO is not an acronym, but refers to the “three” original federally funded
outreach programs of Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services
(U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Upward Bound provides fundamental support to participants in their
preparation for college entrance by providing opportunities for participants to
24
succeed in their precollege performance and ultimately in their higher education
pursuits. Upward Bound serves high school students from low-income families; and
high school students from families in which neither parent holds a bachelor's degree.
The goal of Upward Bound is to increase the rate at which participants complete
secondary education and enroll in and graduate from institutions of postsecondary
education (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Windward refers to a region of the island of Oahu’s east side.
25
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to provide background on the macro
issues of college access that pertain to the specific issues of Educational Talent
Search in Hawai`i. The progression of the information will be presented as follows:
1. A review of research on the college access gap for underrepresented
students and the factors that contribute to that gap
2. A review of evidence on national and local Talent Search characteristics
and effectiveness
3. A review of the role of perceptions about college access factors and
program effectiveness
College Access Gap
Despite the economic, societal, and personal benefits, low-income students
who have the most to gain financially from higher education are underrepresented in
terms of college completion. According to Mortenson (2001a), a child from a family
whose earnings are in the top income quartile is five times more likely to earn a
bachelor’s degree by age 24 than a child from the bottom income quartile. Students
from low-income families are disproportionately represented in the group of students
who do not attend college. In the year 2000, 82% of high school graduates from the
top income quartile enrolled in college, while only 57% of students from the bottom
income quartile did so, a gap of 25% (Mortenson, 2001b).
26
The access gap has remained stagnant since the early 1970s. Improvement in
the decade before is likely the result of government action in the mid-1960s, when
civil rights and anti-poverty legislation was authored along with Congress passing
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act,
authorizing the first federal support to improve education for large numbers of low-
income students (Pathways to College Network, 2004). In 1965, Congress
established the Talent Search Program as one of the original federal TRIO programs,
which also has been attributed to increased college-going rates of low-income
students (IES, 2006). The initial enhancement during the 1960s has not been
improved upon since then, and when contrasted with the increases in overall college
access, the inequity persists among low-income students despite the progress of the
United States population as a whole.
First-generation students also exhibit different college enrollment behaviors
than their counterparts whose parents have more education (Levine & Nidiffer, 1996;
Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Terenzini et al., 1996). A recent analysis of data
from the Third Follow-up of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
(NELS:88/94) supports the gap by showing that less first-generation students met the
minimum qualifications for college application, and that first-generation students
were less likely than non-first-generation students to enroll in four year institutions
(Horn & Nuñez 2000). The rationale for studying both low-income and first-
generation students is that they are the targeted populations of the Talent Search
27
program for the reason that both groups do not achieve postsecondary access at
levels comparable to their peers.
Factors Affecting College Access
There are five major factors that affect college access, and each applies in
particular to low-income students: access to information, parental or adult mentor
involvement and knowledge about college, social support and cultural capital,
academic preparation, and financial aid (Martinez, 2005). The Pathways Project has
identified several factors that explain why low-income students are less likely to
enroll in college: less demanding high school curricula, less likelihood of being in a
college-preparatory or accelerated track, fewer financial resources, a lack of college
financial aid to sufficiently address need, less qualified high school teachers and
counselors, lack of access to college planning information because of social or
linguistic barriers, and less exposure to information regarding college access
opportunities (Pathways to College Network, 2004a). To simplify the framework for
this study, parental or adult mentor involvement and knowledge about college, will
be merged with social support and cultural capital. Therefore, the following four
categories will serve as key reference points for this study:
1. Access to information
2. Social Support and Cultural Capital
3. Academic Preparation
4. Financial Aid
28
The following sections of the literature review will substantiate three of the
four factors with a theoretical framework and previous research. The factors of
access to information, social support and cultural capital, and academic preparation
are factors that outreach programs and their target schools have some influence over.
The rationale for not covering financial aid directly is that it is beyond the scope of
outreach programs and their target schools. Instead, financial aid is covered within
the access to information factor because outreach programs can increase the
information about financial aid, which may increase the number of applications and
therefore the amounts awarded. Lingenfelter (2007) has conducted a synthesis of the
research on outreach programs and found a variety of successful early outreach
programs advance the four factors of information, parental or adult mentor
involvement, social support, and academic preparation to some degree. The
following section will provide a theoretical basis for studying the college access
factors.
Conceptual Framework
The first factor of exposure to information about college is framed by the
social integration and student involvement theories. Most outreach programs are
currently relying heavily on the framework of social integration outlined by Tinto’s
(2006) research that focuses on assisting student transition to higher education by
focusing on how the student can adapt to the existing higher education system. In
order to link Tinto’s model to outreach programs, anticipatory socialization is a
concept that would fit into what outreach programs are attempting to accomplish.
29
Although outreach programs have not been studied through this anticipatory lens,
Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfe (1986) used Tinto’s model to study the
effectiveness of orientation programs in increasing social integration. The results
were positive, as social integration and commitment to the institution were correlated
to the orientation program’s participation. Tinto’s (1989) landmark content analysis
primarily focused on student departure from college, but has implications for student
access as well because it implies that students have difficulty integrating into a new
environment, particularly in their first year. Utilizing Tinto’s framework, outreach
programs are suggested to focus on assisting low-income students by familiarizing
them with the college environment.
Astin’s (1975) theory of student involvement defines involvement as the
amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the
academic experience” and states that the amount of involvement increases learning
and personal development (p. 518). Holland and Astin (1979) later revisited his
work to include what he describes as “talent development” or the growth of what the
individual student values in both self and society. Although the “talent
development” perspective is an integral first step at addressing student needs, Moore,
Lovell, McGann, and Wyrick (1998) show that involvement promotes student
development ethnocentrically and that the issue of diversity has not been adequately
incorporated into college student involvement. Student involvement theory relates to
college outreach programs because outreach asks for involvement prior to
enrollment. If the same ethnocentric view is portrayed in outreach programs
30
however, the institution is perpetuating a lack of cultural awareness that has already
been critiqued as problematic.
In 2006, Tinto revisited his landmark analysis with a second article that
ended with a focus on low-income students. He recognized that Pell Grant enrollees
diminished by 28% from 1973 to 2002, and that difference is attributed to a lack of
academic preparation of low-income students. Tinto suggests course remediation
and transfer as key components to helping the low-income student integrate into
college. This leads into the primary caveat with Tinto’s framework that assumes
students, without taking into account the diversity each individual brings, are the
ones that need to change to what colleges deem to be important.
Tierney (1992) has argued that although Tinto incorporates factors such as
family income and student background, he has used the information to develop
general theories that do not focus on individual circumstances and needs. Although
many programs have responded to the needs of students, the higher education system
should move to a more student-centered position. Tucker (2000) portrays another
critique of Tinto’s work as he notes two key factors of effective college transition,
vision and sense of community that differ from social integration. Tucker defines
vision as a student’s ability to visualize participating in activities on a clear career
path, while sense of community refers to a sense of belonging facilitated by peers
and the institution. How these two factors relate to outreach programs is that while
the vision component is evident, the sense of community aspect is currently
31
unfulfilled in that students are asked to assimilate to an existing school culture that is
different from their own background.
The next factor of social support and cultural capital is more closely aligned
with the framework of social construction. Tierney (1992) has incorporated this
framework in a cultural approach that analyzes student participation in college.
Tierney states “to assume that colleges and universities do not reflect the culture of
mainstream society is to overlook the crucial importance of the sociocultural
contexts surrounding postsecondary institutions” that were designed to “educate a
clientele that was overwhelmingly composed of white males who came from the
middle and upper classes” (p. 608). He then argues that conforming to the
postsecondary design is the responsibility of the individual, whose success depends
on how well he or she can integrate to the existing college culture. Tierney goes on
to emphasize that college culture is not one and all encompassing, but rather a
collection of many cultural groups that are often left unidentified as individual
entities. The theory of social construction therefore does not simply state that there
is one mainstream culture in which students should assimilate to, but rather that the
college culture is a construction of the students who enroll. Underrepresented
students face not only the challenge of assimilating to a college culture that is foreign
to them, but also are challenged with cultivating their own cultural identity within
that existing culture. Underrepresented students should be equipped with the support
in order to take on this challenge of navigating through college, while simultaneously
maintaining their own cultural integrity.
32
The third factor of academic preparation incorporates all three conceptual
frameworks as target schools are encouraged to emphasize social integration, student
involvement, and social construction frameworks in their settings. Students aspiring
to attend college should be prepared academically for the work that will be expected
as they are asked to integrate into the college setting. Students will also have to
prepare for the level of involvement that will be asked of them in order for them to
succeed academically. In addition, they should also be empowered to traverse
through the existing college system, while adding to the culture of the school through
developing their own culture.
The purpose of outreach programs like TRIO Talent Search aligns well with
Tinto’s (2006) social integrationist theory that promotes student integration between
student and institution. Astin (2006) also writes about student involvement, and the
role that institutions play in facilitating the interaction time between student and
university related activities and specify that students who are less prepared for
college should be more of a focus of institutional responsibility. While both of these
theories are well suited for adapting the student to an existing higher education
system, theorists like Tucker (2000) would argue that an emphasis on developing
student vision and sense of community would also have an impact on a successful
transition to college. Tierney (1992) contributes a cultural perspective informed by
critical theory to the argument for a student-centered approach assisting student
transition between high school and college. Tierney argues that alternative strategies
for developing multicultural environments will de-emphasize students’ need to adapt
33
to a college structure, and focus instead on empowering students by incorporating
their own cultural identities into making a successful college transition. Talent
Search and target schools have the ability to take both the student’s culture and the
college culture into consideration when facilitating college access.
While the above frameworks provide the theoretical basis for each of the
factors, the practical method of implementation and delivery has a theoretical
justification as well. Outreach programs like Talent Search rely on what Kirst and
Bracco (1996) refer to as signaling theory that suggests that streamlined and aligned
high-quality and appropriate content messages have a positive impact on students’
learning and achievement, while mixed signals have the opposite effect. Crucial
aspects of appropriate signals are simplicity, clarity, and consistency of the message.
Talent Search could therefore provide these simple, clear, and consistent messages
that promote information, social and cultural capital, and secondary school support.
Effectiveness of Talent Search would likely increase if the messages match those of
the target institution, as they work in partnership to increase college access for
underrepresented students. This study will help to streamline the signals by
providing both Talent Search staff and target school principals or vice principals
with each other’s perceptions of what factors are influential to promoting college
access.
34
Factors of College Access
Access to Information
The Stanford Bridge project reported on six years of field research, literature
review, and data analysis (Venezia et al., 2003). The overarching purpose of the
Bridge Project is to support the development of policies that improve opportunities
for all students to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. This project
examined the relationships between K-12 and postsecondary education as they relate
to student transitions from secondary to postsecondary education, and high school
student, parent, and educator understandings of policies at the high school graduation
and college entrance level. The project found that there were many misconceptions
about information that is useful when trying to gain access to college, including
curricular requirements, timing and level of academic achievement, placement test
requirements, tuition costs, financial aid opportunities, and state transitional policies
from high school to college. While students overestimated tuition regardless of the
selectiveness of the institution, they tended to have greater overestimations of tuition
at less-selective institutions. Figure 2 displays the lack of information regarding the
cost of tuition by different states.
There also exists a noteworthy percentage of low-income students who
lacked knowledge of course requirements. According to Venezia et al. (2003), a
greater percentage of high-SES students knew at least three course requirements for
admission at the following colleges, which represented the more-selective
universities studied as evidenced by Figure 3.
35

Figure 2. Student Knowledge of Tuition by Type of Institution

Source: Venezia et al. (2003)
36

Figure 3. Percentage of Students Who Knew At Least Three Course Requirements
at More-selective Universities by Socioeconomic Status

Source: Venezia et al. (2003)
37
The disconnect that exists between low-income students in terms of
information is a possible reason why students with high aspirations are not enrolling
in college.
Plank and Jordan (2001) show that there is a strong relationship between
socioeconomic background and postsecondary trajectories. Their suggestion for
weakening this relationship is to provide low-income families with the same quantity
and quality of information and guidance that is received by those in an upper
socioeconomic class. They concluded that individuals who come from strong
schools and strong families had the strongest probability of attending college. Strong
schools provided information to parents about college, provided information about
the SAT/ACT to the student, and had the student visit at least one college. Strong
families had parents who participated in discussions with school and other parents
about college, discussed college with the student, and encouraged students to prepare
for the SAT/ACT. They also found that family had stronger effects on
postsecondary enrollment than the school in terms of providing information and
guidance.
Perna (2006) states that inadequate knowledge of college prices and financial
aid may be one cause of persisting gaps in college enrollment across socioeconomic
groups. The lack of information has also been associated with other behaviors,
including the failure of some students to apply for financial aid and the decision for
other students to decline loans that they are eligible to receive. Although there was
no causation established between inadequate information and college enrollment,
38
there was a correlation with the perception of financial resources and academic
achievement and preparation during high school that subsequently leads towards
college enrollment.
Rouse (2004) found that the income expectations of low-income high school
students are no less than their peers, and yet they are 20% less likely to attend
college. In other words, low-income students expect the return if they finish, but do
not have the same expectation to realize that goal. The information that is provided
to the students may therefore need to go beyond what the facts are, and provide them
with the belief that they can succeed in accomplishing rigorous coursework and
obtaining the higher levels of income that they perceive to exist.
Low-income students are often unfamiliar with how the education system
works and do not have access to social networks that can provide this information
(Lareau, 1987; Steinberg, 1996). Low-income students are also not well informed
about the college admission process (Orfield & Paul, 1993). Guidance counselors
for low-income students are often less experienced in college counseling when
compared to students from high-income areas as well (McDonough, 2001). Low-
income students are less likely than other students to explore a variety of college
options, to take college admission tests, or to complete admission procedures despite
being academically qualified to attend college (Hossler, Schmit, J., & Vesper, 1999;
Orfield & Paul, 1993; Berkner, & Chavez, 1997). To compound the problem, low-
income students also have less access to technology when compared to their peers,
39
which limits low-income students’ ability to explore college opportunities using the
internet and other databases (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000; Norfles, 2001).
The lack of information regarding the type of financial aid is essential to
highlight because it is specifically relevant to underrepresented populations.
Although the overestimation of cost of tuition by students was shown earlier in this
section, it is important to note that other sources substantiate this by stating that
students typically overestimate three times the mean tuition for two-year colleges,
and twice the mean of four-year colleges (Long 2004; Horn, Chen, and Chapman
2003). Low-income and minority parents also tend to overestimate the costs of
attending college and are more likely to have inaccurate knowledge of what college
actually costs (Grodsky & Jones 2004; Horn, Chen, & Chapman, 2003).
Not only do underrepresented students and parents lack information
regarding college cost, they also lack information about financial aid. Those who are
eligible for aid are the least likely to know about it, as nearly three-fourths of parents
with incomes under $25,000 cannot identify scholarships, grants or loans as sources
of financial aid (Sallie Mae Fund & Harris Interactive, 2003). In addition to parent
misconceptions, many low-income students who do not apply for financial aid
believe that they do not need it, as 29% of low-income dependent students and 39%
of low-income independent students say they did not file a Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) because they believed they could afford to pay for
college without government assistance (American Council on Education [ACE],
2004). First-generation status also affects information about financial aid, as
40
students whose parents earned a bachelor’s degree are more aware and likely to pay
for college costs (Lippman et al., 2008). McSwain (2008) also found that Pell Grant
recipients, many of whom are first-generation college students, lack financial aid
information.
Along with information regarding financial aid eligibility, another barrier
exists in the procedural knowledge, or the “how to” of applying for aid. Meeting
deadlines is a specific barrier, as one fourth of low-income dependent students say
that they didn’t apply because they missed the deadline, and 55% that do apply did
so in March or later, which means missing other state aid program deadlines (ACE,
2004). Dynarski and Scott-Clayton (2006) state that low-income students are most
likely to be deterred by the aid application process, as evidenced by their
examination of the FAFSA application process.
The lack of information regarding financial aid is an important factor in
limiting college access because a student’s expectations pertaining to financial aid
eligibility influences whether they apply and attend college. King (1996)
specifically found that the expectation of financial aid eligibility was correlated with
college going aspirations for a study conducted on 300 low-income students who
took the SATs. Terenzini, Cabrera, and Bernal (2001) later conducted a literature
review, which helps to substantiate King’s claim that a link between financial aid
knowledge and college access exists.
Bettinger et al. (2009) conducted a randomized trial on 22,550 students from
low to moderate income levels and found that individuals who received assistance
41
with the FAFSA and information about aid were substantially more likely to submit
the aid application, enroll in college the following fall, and receive more financial aid
than those who were not provided with the intervention. Additionally, a smaller
group of 1,654 that was just given the information and not provided with assistance
with the form itself had no significant effect on FAFSA submission rates. This
randomized test reinforces the importance of financial aid knowledge, and
emphasizes the importance of help with filling out the form itself.
Parents’ understanding of college costs and financial aid eligibility affects
students’ decisions as well, as Grodsky and Jones (2004) found that parents who
don’t think that they can afford college may discourage their children from applying.
Therefore, information for parents and prospective students about college costs,
financial aid eligibility, and the application process are essential in promoting
college access. Talent Search’s primary goal is to increase the postsecondary
enrollment rate of participating students, and its secondary long-term goal is to
increase the percentage of participants applying for financial aid. Figure 4 shows the
percentage of participants who apply for financial assistance to attend college (U.S.
Office of Management and Budget and Federal Agencies, 2008).
42

Figure 4. Percentage of Talent Search Participants Who Apply for Financial
Assistance to Attend College by Year, 2000-2007

Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal Agencies (2008)
43
Social Support and Cultural Capital
Corwin et al. (2005) states that family engagement is critical in college
preparation programs and an integral part of a social support network that will help
students gain college access. In a 1999 survey that involved 1,110 college
preparation programs nationwide, 69% of all programs involved parents and 22% of
all programs mandate parental involvement (Swail & Perna, 2002). Of those
programs that involve parents, 58% provide information to the parents that reinforces
that college is possible for their child and 51% of the programs request that parents
participate in activities with the student. It was also noted that 27% of all programs
found that coordinating with parents was at least somewhat of a problem or an area
requiring additional resources. The survey shows that parental involvement is a
common theme in over half of the programs surveyed, but it does not inform if
stakeholders perceived parental involvement to be helpful, nor does it show what the
specific problems with involving parents were.
McDonough (2003) states that college access is highly influenced by the
expectation of family members and that parents and/or other family members should
become informed partners in the process of building a college culture. They should
be provided with opportunities to gain knowledge about the college planning process
as well as be made aware that their children are potential candidates for college.
Swail (2001) reinforces the notion of the impact of a family’s commitment to
education as a life goal on college access, but also recognizes that other influences
like one’s surroundings, peer relationships, and experiences. Sometimes support and
44
guidance come from a family member, and other times through devoted teachers and
mentors.
Rainwater and Venezia (2003) state that importance of cultural awareness of
students' background and establishing cultural connections with students may be due,
in part, to staff background and experience. Although studies are not clear in exactly
who, providing a key person who monitors and guides the student over a long period
of time—a “mentor,” program director, faculty member, or guidance counselor, has
been found to be an effective component of outreach programs (Gandara & Bial,
2001). Providing a peer group that supports students’ academic aspirations as well
as giving them social and emotional support was also found to be effective in a
national review of effective practices of outreach programs (Gandara & Bial, 2001).
Along with the social support network, outreach programs are suggested to also pay
attention to the cultural background of students. Many outreach programs reported
having greater success with one group of students than another; something that was
likely attributed to the background and expertise of the staff and directors who
helped them create cultural connections with students (Gandara & Bial, 2001).
Talent Search projects, especially the three on the island of Oahu, are faced
with tremendous cultural diversity. The participants at the project with target
schools on the Windward district (a region of Oahu’s east side) are 47% native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, with an additional 30% identifying with more
than one race. The participants in the Honolulu district are 60% Asian and 20%
native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The participants in the Leeward district (a
45
region of Oahu’s west side) schools, were 76% native Hawaiians and 92% non-
White. In all three cases, the percentage of whites was under 8%. Along with racial
minority, it should be emphasized that over two-thirds of all three project
participants are low-income and first-generation, both of which have cultural
backgrounds that are not of the affluent or those familiar with the college experience
(Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008). It is not surprising then
that addressing culture as a factor for gaining college access is considered key by
many authors.
Like race, socioeconomic status is a factor that influences college access. In
a study by Ostrove and Long (2007), 324 students at a small liberal arts college were
asked to identify their social class subjectively and denote objectively their family
income. Students were also asked, on a five point scale, the amount of access they
had to “a good education, travel, lessons, a safe neighborhood, and basic food and
shelter” (Ostrove & Long, 2007, p. 9). A correlational study was then conducted to
examine the relationship between the students’ social status and their feelings on
college access, by asking them how applicable statements on the Student Adjustment
to College Questionnaire (SACQ) like “I feel that I fit in the college environment.”
Ostrove and Long also created their own item that asked “Overall, to what extent do
you feel you belong at [College X],” which was answered using a five-point scale
from “not at all” to “a great deal.” The study found that there was a negative
correlation between those who subjectively and objectively identified with a lower
socioeconomic class and the degree of belonging at the institution.
46
Although institutions cannot change the socioeconomic class or race of
incoming students, realizing that those students feel less a part of the institution
advocates the use of outreach programs that welcome students of this at-risk
demographic. Using the social constructionist framework as a lens, instead of asking
students of underrepresented groups to change or abandon their backgrounds and
experiences, institutions of higher education are encouraged to embrace the cultural
differences that low-income students bring before they step foot on campus.
Effective outreach programs are framed within the appropriate social and
cultural contexts of the students served. Hagedorn and Tierney (2002) state that
special programs and policies have assumed a deficit model, where the students have
to overcome insufficient funds to pay for college, insufficient academic preparation,
and insufficient understanding of the world of higher education in order to succeed.
They discuss the idea of “cultural capital” and how equipping students with capital is
essential for special programs to succeed. They also examine “cultural integrity”
that is away from assimilation, and taking into account individual cultures.
Villalpando and Solorzano (2005) found that college preparation programs framed
by a focus on cultural wealth and academic skills development could have a
substantial impact on college enrollment rates of underrepresented students. They
recommend that programs should be tailored to students’ needs and provide a diverse
array of components to meet those needs.
Tanaka (2002) takes an intercultural approach to student development that is
applicable to facilitating Talent Search’s ability to serve the low-income student. He
47
defines intersubjectivity as the cornerstone of his approach as he believes in studying
the tensions between stakeholders like students, faculty, and the dominant cultures of
the institution to eventually gain an understanding that will lead towards breaking
down barriers to student success. Student success, as far as college preparation
programs like Talent Search is concerned equates to increasing the access to higher
education for underrepresented groups. The following are two examples that display
the promise of outreach programs in promoting college access for underrepresented
students.
Timar, Ogawa, and Orillian (2004) studied the University of California
system and how the elimination of race based admissions led to the promotion of
outreach programs and university-to-secondary school partnerships. Although
university outreach efforts have increased since 1997, both in monetary allocation
and in number of programs, there was no indication that access or achievement
improved as a result. Although the causation of student success because of outreach
programs is debatable, one program, California’s Puente Project, which operates in
cooperation with both high schools and community colleges throughout the state, has
shown significant progress in terms of increasing the numbers of educationally
disadvantaged students in California who enroll in four-year colleges and earn
degrees. Along with instructional support and counseling within the high school,
students are matched with mentors from similar cultural and social backgrounds who
are successful professionals. Due to the program’s assistance, Puente high school
graduates enroll in four-year colleges at twice the rate of students with comparable
48
backgrounds and 47% of Puente community college students transfer to four-year
colleges, compared to 27% of their non-Puente peers (Pathways to College Network,
2004b).
Tierney and Jun (2001) examined the Neighborhood Academic Initiative
(NAI) that began in 1990. Each year, the NAI program helps 40 students from
communities where college attendance is underrepresented and provides them and
their families extensive counseling and support. NAI is unique in that it promotes
cultural integrity, which is defined by the program as using the cultural backgrounds
of the students to inform pedagogy, while approaching that background as an asset as
opposed to a detriment to success. Although the sample sizes are small, 60% of
students complete the program, and 90% of those students go on to postsecondary
education.
Academic Preparation
Hagedorn and Tierney (2002) state that schools are failing to adequately
prepare students for college. Venezia and Kirst (2003) recommend as one of their
suggestions to increase college access to provide all students, their parents, and
educators with accurate, high quality information about, and access to, courses that
will help prepare students for college-level standards. Corwin et al. (2005)
synthesize the literature and state that access to a college level curriculum is a critical
component to outreach efforts. Rainwater and Venezia (2003) found that good
instruction coupled with a challenging curriculum that is carefully tailored to
students' learning needs is an essential component of successful outreach programs.
49
The results of a study conducted by the United States Department of Education
(2001) indicates that providing first-generation students the opportunity to take
rigorous coursework in high school will increase their chances of succeeding in
college. Gandara and Bial (2001) in their review of intervention programs state that
outreach programs that provide high-quality instruction through access to the most
challenging courses offered by the school through special coursework that supports
the regular curriculum or by restructuring the curriculum to better address the
learning needs of the students have found success in terms of increasing college
access.
National data were collected by Achieve (2009) on all 50 states show that 19
states report that their high school standards are aligned with postsecondary
expectations, eight more than a year ago; 26 additional states report that they are in
the process of aligning their standards or plan to do so; 18 states and the District of
Columbia require all students to complete a college- and career-ready curriculum to
earn a diploma, six more than Achieve reported a year ago, and twelve other states
report plans to adopt similar requirements; Nine states administer college readiness
tests to all high school students as part of their statewide assessment systems, one
more than last year, twenty-three other states report plans to do so in the future. The
state of Hawai`i was not among the states who reported procedural changes in any of
the mentioned categories. If the secondary schools in Hawai`i are not yet aligned
with standards, do not have college and career curriculum in place, and are not
50
assessing if their students are college ready, the factor of school climate is an issue
that may be better addressed with college preparation programs like Talent Search.
Summary of College Access Factors
The literature suggests three factors-- access to information, social support
and cultural capital, and academic preparation – are most important to college
access. Each factor is important in understanding the underpinnings of college
outreach programs such as Talent Search. The following section will provide
additional background of how Talent Search has attempted to narrow the access gap
for underrepresented students, previous research of Talent Search, and a presentation
of data from the Talent Search projects on the island of Oahu.
Background of Talent Search Program
Outreach programs appeared in response to a national push to increase
college attendance for underserved groups. In 1964, Upward Bound was established
to help low-income students prepare for college by providing assistance in specified
instruction, tutoring, mentoring, and counseling. In 1972, congress created Basic
Educational Opportunity Grants, known today as Pell Grants, which was the first
federal grant program to award financial aid directly to low-income students. These
federal initiatives that promoted the expansion of college access for low-income and
minority populations encouraged states, higher education institutions, non-profit
organizations, and foundations to development their own outreach and persistence
programs (Pathways to College Network, 2004). Among these programs is TRIO
Educational Talent Search.
51
Talent Search assumptions have remained consistent since its inception and
include the assumption that small amounts of service at key points can make a
difference in student decisions and actions regarding college attendance, that the
projects should target public schools that serve large numbers of disadvantaged
students, target those with college potential, and that the project can increase the
chances of college going by providing information, motivation, and exposure to
college. Project features have also remained stable and include career exploration,
aptitude assessment, tutorial services, information on postsecondary education,
exposure to college campuses, counseling, academic advising, information on
financial aid, help with completing college admissions, help with financial aid
applications, assistance in preparing for college entrance exams, mentoring
programs, and workshops for participants’ families (Cahalan et al., 2004; IES, 2006).
Project operations have evolved in response to the changing economic and
cultural climate and generally include increased targeting of “middle achievement”
students, increase in the use of technology, increased focus on retention from year to
year and from middle to high school, increased emphasis on academic support
services, increased emphasis on parental involvement, increased sponsorship of
summer programs, increased focus on high-stakes test preparation, increased
provision of mentoring services, increased emphasis on records and participant
tracking, and increased focus on developing individual service plans for participants.
Cahalan et al. (2004) provides a brief history of TRIO Talent Search that
begins with the Higher Education Act of 1965, which created the outreach program.
52
The intent of the Talent Search projects was to encourage and assist disadvantaged
youth (ages 11-27) in utilizing the Education Opportunity Grants to attain a college
education. Table 1 was presented as part of Cahalan et al. (2004) report and shows
the growth of the Talent Search outreach program over time. Of particular note is
that over ten times more has been spent in constant 2000 dollars to fund over seven
times as many projects servicing over six times as many students in 2000 when
compared to 1965. Of these statistics, the 320,854 students served in 2000 compared
to the 50,000 served in 1965 is the indicator relating to the possible impact of the
program in increasing college access for underrepresented youth.

Table 1. Talent Search Summary Statistics: 1967-2000

Year
Funding in
millions
(current
dollars)
Funding in
millions
(constant
2000 dollars)
Number of
Talent
Search
Projects
Average
grant amount
(current
dollars)
Average
grant amount
(2000
dollars)
Total
number of
students
served
Average
number of
students
served per
project
1967 $2.0 $9.5 45 $44,444 $210,637 50,000 1,111
1970 4.0 16.7 85 47,059 196,078 100,000 1,176
1975 6.0 18.4 114 52,632 161,447 110,975 973
1980 15.3 32.0 167 91,617 191,667 198,817 1,191
1985 17.8 28.5 164 108,537 173,659 185,560 1,031
1990 26.2 34.5 207 126,570 166,759 199,420 963
1992 59.6 73.1 294 202,721 248,738 303,000 1,031
1997 78.4 84.1 319 245,768 263,700 298,147 935
1999 98.5 101.8 364 270,604 279,550 323,541 889
2000 100.5 100.5 360 279,291 279,291 320,854 891

Source: Calculated from information from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Federal TRIO Programs; the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE); and U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor statistics, Consumer Price Index, various years
(historical information can be found at www.bls.gov/cpi/) (Cahalan, 2004)
53
Although Talent Search has had larger participant percentage increases in
recent years when compared to the other two of the original TRIO outreach
programs, Upward Bound and Student Support Services, it remains the lowest-
funded of the three outreach programs. Talent Search’s $100.5 million budget is less
than half of Upward Bound’s $249.7 million and significantly less than Student
Support Services’ $183.3 million.
The individual Talent Search projects are required to service at least 600
participants per year. Table 1 shows that in the year 2000, projects averaged 891
participants nationally. The reason why the number of participants per project
decreased in the 1990s is because a greater priority was placed on increasing the
amount of resources spent per participant without increasing the overall funding of
the projects. The average of $313 spent per participant in 2000 is nearly double the
$173 average in 1990. These expenditures are low when compared to the national
average expenditure per pupil in the 1995 fiscal year of $7,315 and the 2006 fiscal
year expenditure of $9,154 per pupil (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
Table 2 shows that the majority of the 361 projects in 2000 were at public
four-year and two-year postsecondary institutions. Despite their large number of
projects, two-year institutions on average served less students per project than the
others. With this statistic stated however, the amount of funding per project is less
for two-year projects than the others, especially when compared to community
organizations that serve the highest number of students per project.
54
Table 2. Number of Projects, Average Grant Funds, and Number of Participants by
Type of Host Institution: 1999-2000

Host Institution

All projects Public
4-year
Private
4-year
2-year Community
Organization
Number of projects 361 121 48 124 68
Average grant funds $279,291 $274,983 $242,239 $241,079 $307,759
Total number funded 320,854 109,090 38,502 93,048 80,214
Average number served 891 902 802 750 1,180

Source: National Survey of Talent Search Projects, 1999-2000; analysis of data from Talent
Search Performance Reports, 1998-99 (Cahalan, 2004)

Before October 1981, Talent Search was described legislatively as an
outreach program that identified those students with exceptional talent and potential,
and assisted them in gaining access to college. Since then, officials decided to
broaden the scope to students who requested services and not those who were
intentionally recruited upon ability. The minimum age of students also changed
from 14 to 11, as officials believed that earlier intervention would aid in successful
outcomes.
Talent Search eligibility guidelines follow legislation in 1980 that made
criteria more uniform across the TRIO outreach programs. Two-thirds of
participants need to be both low-income individuals (defined as 150% of federal
poverty level) and potential first-generation college students (neither parent nor
guardian held a bachelor’s degree). The requirement for the remaining one-third of
55
Talent Search participants differ from the other TRIO outreach programs in that they
do not have to be either low-income or first-generation.
In 1992, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 increased
the duration of TRIO grants from three to four years, with the top 10% of grant
applicants awarded five year grants. The top-performing Talent Search outreach
programs are therefore rewarded for their performance outcomes, which is an
incentive for them to produce results. The minimum grant award is $180,000 and is
awarded based upon the following point system: the need for the project (24 points),
objectives (8 points), plan of operation (30 points), how the participants reflect the
background of the community (16 points), quality of personnel (9 points), evaluation
plan (8 points), and budget (5 points). In an effort to promote the continuity of
existing outreach programs, 15 extra points are awarded for prior experience based
upon achieving agreed upon objectives.
There are also assurances that should be met by each host-institution that
include participants not receiving services from another Talent Search project or
from an Educational Opportunity Center that provides similar outreach services. The
project and its services should also be accessible to all participants, and the grantees
that are higher education institutions cannot use Talent Search as a part of their
recruitment process. These assurances attempt to increase efficiency, equity, and to
maintain the goal of assisting participants in pursuing higher education in general as
opposed to a particular institution.
56
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 has resulted
in an emphasis on project outcome tracking, performance reporting, and record
keeping in order to increase accountability in the spending of public funds, improve
service delivery, and enhance customer satisfaction. That accountability is closely
linked with aforementioned grant renewal.
The General Education Provisions Act of 1994 affected Talent Search by
requiring projects to specify actions they are taking to ensure access to federal
services for underrepresented groups. The Talent Search application provides
examples on how applicants can overcome access barriers by utilizing recruitment
materials that address the concerns of underrepresented participants and take
advantage of technology to provide instructional materials for disabled participants.
Talent Search also proposes to serve geographic areas that have been traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary access.
Previous Research on Talent Search Projects
Cahalan et al. (2004) conducted a survey of all the Talent Search outreach
programs in the 1998-1999 program year, with a 93% response rate. Case studies of
14 projects were also performed. Their findings show that three-fourths of Talent
Search participants were reported to be both from low-income families and potential
first-generation college students, 14% were potential first-generation college students
only, and seven% were considered low-income only. About 95% of students were
either low-income, first-generation, or both. Cahalan et al. (2004) also outlined the
goals of the Talent Search outreach program as follows: 88% of high school seniors
57
and equivalency students would graduate or receive an equivalency certificate; 75%
of graduates and equivalency recipients would enroll in a postsecondary institution.
Averaging across projects, 89% of seniors and equivalency students graduated or
received an equivalency certificate, and 71% of graduates and equivalency recipients
reportedly enrolled in a postsecondary institution. Eighty-seven percent of projects
met their goal for secondary school graduation rates, but only 53% met their goal for
postsecondary admissions. This implies that Talent Search has done a better job at
meeting graduation benchmarks when compared to meeting their goal of facilitating
college access. The reasons for the higher achievement in graduation rate when
compared with postsecondary enrollment are unclear, and the amount of growth that
each benchmark has achieved has not been documented, which reveals a need for
more qualitative research.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal Agencies (2008) tracked
enrollment of Talent Search participants nationwide and collected data from 2000
through 2004. Although between 85 and 88% of college-ready participants received
assistance in applying for admission and financial aid, between 73 and 79% of all
participants achieved college enrollment. The gap between those receiving the
intervention and those achieving postsecondary access illuminates an issue that
requires further qualitative study.
Although the above studies provide insight into the effectiveness of Talent
Search, they were not peer-reviewed. On the other hand, the study by Constantine et
al. (2006) on postsecondary enrollments (both two year and four year colleges) met
58
the standards of academic rigor set forth by the What Works Clearinghouse (Institute
of Educational Sciences, 2006). The Constantine et al. (2006) study focused on
students who were ninth graders in the fall of the 1995-1996 school year. The
Florida study involved five Talent Search projects, each serving a range of 10–20
high schools. A total of 900 Talent Search participants were compared with 42,514
non-participants from the same high schools based on propensity scoring methods
that matched students on 13 demographic, socioeconomic, and academic
characteristics that included gender, race, home language, United States citizenship,
age, age in ninth grade above 15.3 by September 1, 1995, enrollment in a gifted
program, enrollment in dropout prevention programs, economically disadvantaged,
learning disabled, and emotionally and physically disabled. The Texas study
involved 10 Talent Search projects, each serving a range of 10–20 high schools. A
total of 4,027 participants were matched to 30,842 non-participants from the same
high schools based on propensity scoring methods that matched students on 18
demographic, socioeconomic, and academic characteristics that included gender,
race, home language, age, age in ninth grade above 15.3 by September 1, 1995,
enrollment in a gifted and talented program, at risk of dropping out of school,
economically disadvantaged, limited English proficiency, special education services,
and enrollment in a vocational or technical course or educational program.
For both the Texas and Florida samples, statistical tests found that treatment
and comparison group samples were not statistically different at the 0.05 level on
any of the demographic or academic measures used in the matching procedures.
59
Constantine et al. (2006) study used secondary school records, Talent Search Project
Records, Federal Financial Aid Application Records, and Postsecondary School
Records. The outcomes that were measured were high school completion,
application for financial aid, postsecondary enrollment, and persistence in college as
defined by either two consecutive years of enrollment or credits earned in a two and
four-year span. These results are presented in table 3.

Table 3. Number of Talent Search Projects, Participants, and Comparison Students
by State

State
Total Number of
Talent Search
Projects Operating in
1995-96
Number of
Projects
Providing Data
Number of Talent
Search Participants in
Study Cohort
Number of Matched
Comparison Students
in Study Cohort
Florida 7 5 908 13,843
Indiana 8 7 1,166 9,844
Texas 16 10 4,112 30,842

Source: Constantine et al. (2006)

The largest statistically significant finding was in the application for federal
financial aid because Talent Search participants were far more likely than
comparison students to be first-time applicants for financial aid in the 1999–2000
school year. The gap in financial aid application for Talent Search participants and
comparison students was 17 and 28 percentage points, respectively, Florida, and
60
Texas. Figure 5 shows financial aid application statistics comparing Talent Search
participants and non-Talent Search Participants:

Figure 5. Talent Search Participants and Comparison Students Who Were First-time
Applicants for Federal Financial Aid, 1999-2000, by State

Source: Constantine et al. (2006)

Talent Search participants were also more likely than comparison students to
enroll in a public college or university in their state by the 1999–2000 school year.
Initial enrollment in a postsecondary institution was higher by 14, and 18 percentage
61
points, respectively, for Florida and Texas. Figure 6 shows the college enrollment
rates of participants versus non-participants by state.

Figure 6. Talent Search Participants and Comparison Students Who Enrolled in a
Public Postsecondary Institution, 1999-2000, by State

Source: Constantine et al. (2006)

A deeper look into the type of institution enrolled reveals that there was a
greater difference between enrollments at two-year institutions when compared to
62
four-year institutions. Figure 7 shows the difference in enrollment rates by
institutional type.

Figure 7. Talent Search Participants and Comparison Students Who Enrolled in a
Public Two-year or Four-year Institution, 1999-2000, by State

Source: Constantine et al. (2006)

Both the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal Agencies
(2008) and Constantine et al. (2006) found that there seems to be a relationship
between the type of institution facilitating the State of Hawai`i Department of
Education Systems Accountability Office (2008) Talent Search project and the
63
college choice of the participants. This finding occurs despite the regulation that
Talent Search project sites are not allowed to specifically recruit for their
institutional type. The goal of Talent Search is to facilitate postsecondary access in
general and this relationship between institutional type of the Talent Search site and
the enrollment of the participants poses the need for further study.
The Constantine et al. (2006) study shows that there is a relationship between
Talent Search participants and positive outcomes such as application for financial aid
and postsecondary enrollment, and yet there is a lack of qualitative analysis to
determine what the different states and projects were doing differently to accomplish
varying degrees of success. Gullatt and Jan (2003) in their synthesis of the outreach
literature states that qualitative evaluations have yet to define how and why the
interventions work. McDonough (2003) state that there are several reasons for the
lack of research evidence documenting the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of college
access intervention programs thus far. Among them are limitations of research
methodology, lack of data, lack of resources, volatility of staff, no research design
template, and a variability of program features (McDonough, 2003). This study
attempts to partially fill this gap in the research literature.
Oahu Talent Search Projects
Oahu’s Talent Search Projects produced an Annual Performance Report
(APR) in 2008 as part of their internal evaluation procedures. There were three
reports, one for each project that was funded through grants. Two of the three were
hosted by a community college (CC). One of the projects serviced the Windward (a
64
region of Oahu’s east side) district and the other serviced the Honolulu district. The
third project was hosted by a four-year public university and serviced the Leeward (a
region of Oahu’s west side) district.
The Talent Search project that serviced the Windward district had 606 total
participants, which is six more than the 600 that they were budgeted to service. Out
of the total, about 92% (559 students) were either low-income or first-generation
college students, 67% (405 students) were both, 15% were first-generation only (93
students), 10% (61 students) were low-income only, and 8% were neither (47
students) (Hashimoto, 2008a). The community college’s Talent Search project that
serviced the Honolulu district had 606 total participants, which is six more than the
600 that they were budgeted to service. Out of the total, about 94% (568 students)
were either low-income or first-generation college students, 70% (426 students) were
both, 17% were first-generation only (101 students), 7% (41 students) were low-
income only, and 6% were neither (38 students) (Hashimoto, 2008b).
The Talent Search project hosted by the four-year college that serviced the Leeward
district had 614 total participants, which is 14 more than the 600 that they were
budgeted to service. Out of the total, about 98% (599 students) were either low-
income or first-generation college students, 65% (401 students) were both, 32% were
first-generation only (195 students), less than half a percent (3 students) were low-
income only, and 2% were neither (15 students) (Richards, 2008). Figure 8
compares national data to Oahu’s data on Talent Search participant income and
generation for the year 2007.
65

Figure 8. National Inputs vs Oahu's Talent Search Student Inputs

Sources: Hashimoto (2008a); Hashimoto (2008b); Richards (2008)

The community college’s Talent Search projects had postsecondary
enrollment data beginning in 2002-2003 with 50% enrollment and increased to 81%
enrollment for the Windward district and 97% for the Honolulu district for the 2007-
2008 fiscal year. The community college’s 2007-2008 scores showed that 33% of
Windward district students and 39% of Honolulu district students enrolled in two-
year colleges after graduation. Also, 29% of Windward district participants and 35%
of Honolulu district participants enrolled in four-year colleges. The university’s
66
Talent Search project reported postsecondary enrollment data of 35% for 2008 that
was well below national and the community college’s projects. Also, 20% of
Leeward district participants enrolled in four-year colleges. Although the
quantitative data out of the community college is promising and there appears to be a
discrepancy with the figures out of the university, experimental design with a control
group was not utilized, therefore it is difficult to know if there is effectiveness with
fidelity. Additionally, like the national studies, there has not been a qualitative
analysis on why the project is successful in reaching their goals.
Figure 9 indicates that the students who participated in the community
college’s Talent Search from the Honolulu district outperformed their peers in terms
of enrolling in college in four out of the six years. It also shows that the community
college’s Talent Search projects from the Windward district had significant gains in
college enrollment from 2003. The fluctuation of the community college’s Talent
Search scores compared to a stable national statistics is an area of concern that may
require further research. The fact that the 2008 data for the community college’s
Talent Search projects from both districts outperformed the national trend is a
promising sign.
67

Figure 9. Percentage of College Enrollment of Oahu's Talent Search Participants by
District vs National Averages

Note. Windward 2003 data is based on one out of two students enrolling in postsecondary
education. National data not yet reported for 2007 or 2008

Source: U.S. Department of Education. (2006); Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto, 2008b;
Richards, 2008
68
Figure 9 indicates that the 2008 community college’s Talent Search projects
achieved postsecondary college going rates at a level that was comparable to other
states’ projects. Specifically, The community college’s Talent Search projects
outperformed Indiana in two-year enrollees and Florida in four year enrollees by
more than double. Figure 10 compares Oahu’s Talent Search Participants in
Honolulu, Windward, and Leeward compared to non-participants in Indiana, Florida,
and Texas.

Figure 10. Percentage of Talent Search Participants Who Enrolled in Two and Four
Year Colleges

Note. Honolulu, Windward, and Leeward data are from 2008. Indiana data are from 1999 or
2000. Florida data are from 1999. Texas data are from 1999, 2000, and 2001

Source: Constantine et al. (2006); Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008
69
Figure 11 indicates that the 2008 community college’s Talent Search
achieved postsecondary college going rates at a level that were comparable to those
who did not participate in a Talent Search project in other states.

Figure 11. Percentage of Oahu's Talent Search Participants vs Non-participants in
Other States who Enrolled in Two and Four Year Colleges

Note. Honolulu, Windward, and Leeward data are from 2008. Indiana data are from 1999 or
2000. Florida data are from 1999. Texas data are fromƒ 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Source: Constantine et al. (2006); Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008
70
Both districts of the community college’s Talent Search outperformed
Indiana’s two-year going rate by over double, and Florida’s going rate by over triple.
The university’s Talent Search underperformed all projects however, as only 31
students, or 35% entered a two or four year institution. As noted earlier, caution
should be exercised when interpreting the data because each state had multiple
projects with varying numbers, and are recorded for varying years. The community
college’s Talent Search is performing comparably to projects of other areas, as well
as producing higher percentages of postsecondary enrollment for those who
participate in the project versus those who do not. The trend of the community
college’s participants outperforming non-participants is also reflected when
comparing Florida, Indiana, and Texas data. The university’s participants have not
shown the same level of success.
Summary of Talent Search Literature
Since Talent Search’s creation in 1965, hundreds of millions of dollars have
been poured into projects that have serviced thousands of students with the goal of
postsecondary enrollment (Cahalan, 2004). Both the amount of money and number
of Talent Search participants have been increasing over time (Cahalan, 2004). In
2008, Talent Search’s annual budget is over $142 million and services approximately
363,300 students, most of whom are either first-generation and/or low-income
students (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The results of research have shown
that Talent Search has achieved success in the outcome measures of applying for
financial aid and access to postsecondary institutions (Constantine et al., 2006).
71
On the island of Oahu in the state of Hawai`i, Talent Search projects in the
Windward and Honolulu districts have shown success in promoting college access
for its participants when compared to national data of Talent Search participants
(82% and 97%, respectively, of eligible participants versus the 2006 national average
of 77.8%) (Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008). The Leeward
district Talent Search project however, is performing lower than the state’s and
nation’s counterparts (35% of eligible Leeward participants) (Hashimoto, 2008a;
Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008). In order to facilitate improvement in all three
projects, Talent Search staff and target high school principals or vice principals will
be studied in terms of their perceptions regarding college access factors and Talent
Search project effectiveness. The following section will explain the importance of
staff and principal or vice principal perceptions and its contribution to alignment
between project and school to better serve Talent Search participants.
Importance of Director, Staff, and Target School Administration Perceptions
Only two Talent Search studies have conducted interviews with Talent
Search directors and asked what services and activities they perceived to be key to
project success. The responses of 19 directors in the first, by Coles (1992), covered
a broader range of topics due to the nature of the questions that asked about
workshops on career exploration, college selection, financial aid, life skills, SAT
preparation, and study skills; one-on-one counseling and academic advising; campus
visits; and linking participants to community resources. Directors were less
concerned with the college access issue directly and emphasized improving self-
72
awareness and self-esteem, developing decision-making skills, and encouraging
students to take more responsibility for themselves. One may consider the directors’
focus on a means to an end as losing sight of the end goal, which is college access.
Directors also emphasized aspects of the project that builds relationships with
participants and their families, such as acting as advocates to resolve students’
problems, serving as role models, and encouraging parental involvement in their
children’s education. In the second study, Lee and Clery (1993), 211 directors
ranked specific services in order, from most to least important: financial aid
counseling, career counseling, college access/admissions, tutoring, college visits,
advice on courses, study skills, personal counseling, college entrance exams, parental
activities.
Although both studies sought the perceptions of Talent Search directors,
several salient factors were omitted including a research-based framework for the
methodology. This study will use the factors of access to information, social support
and cultural capital, and academic preparation as the basis for the questions, thus
using a literature based approach to the inquiry. This study also found it imperative
to ask the principals or vice principals what their perceptions are based upon the
established college access factors to increase the articulation between Talent Search
projects and their target schools.
Improving Talent Search Project Effectiveness through Educational Partnership
The literature presented on the apparent effectiveness of Talent Search
projects serve as a rationale for its continued funding and existence. The historic
73
funding of the program since its inception in 1965, coupled by the 2008 funding
allocation of $142,743,840 that services 466 projects and 363,300 participants, is
reasonable evidence that Talent Search will be around for the foreseeable future
(U.S. Department of Education, 2008). A deeper understanding of Talent Search
projects is therefore paramount for improving effectiveness of a project. Talent
Search effectiveness depends upon the behaviors of the actors involved in the
multiple institutional settings that are part of the project. Affecting the behaviors of
these key players are their perceptions of factors that limit college access and
mechanisms of project effectiveness. Rainwater and Venezia (2003) state that there
are educational inequities that result from different perceptions about who should go
to college, who is prepared for college, what it means to be college-ready, and
whether college is affordable. Based on the literature, this study operated under the
assumption that perceptions are aligned with what participants value, which in turn
drives their decisions on how they administer services. Therefore, Talent Search
effectiveness could be affected by the perceptions of staff members and target school
principals or vice principals.
In addition, Rainwater and Venezia (2003) state that the current early
childhood, K-12, and postsecondary systems are disjointed and often connected only
by policies and programs that are confusing for students and their parents. Swail
(2001) agrees and suggests that if outreach programs do not work closely and as a
partner with schools, they won’t become part of the long-term solution to
postsecondary access issues. By communicating and working toward the same
74
goals, schools can partner effectively with outreach programs to increase positive
outcomes (Swail, 2001). McDonough (2001) adds that the evidence is mounting that
our intervention efforts are insufficient without core academic services from K-12
schools, and links need to be established and maintained. Gandara and Bial (2001)
concluded that intervention programs will continue to only have a limited impact on
improving college access without focused and committed engagement by the schools
an they fundamentally call for schools to adopt the practices of early intervention
programs and to link programs and services within schools and involve all elements
of the schools in a concerted effort to serve all students. The most important
observation about early outreach programs that was found by Lingenfelter (2007) is
that the key components of effective programs need to be completely embedded in
the educational system and not simply added on to an existing school structure.
Tushnet (1993) describes that “educational partnerships connect schools to
community and social service agencies, cultural institutions, businesses, industry,
and institutions of higher education to pursue joint activities” (p. 7). Educational
partnerships should be developed if there is a “shared concern about a real problem
that can best be addressed by organizations from different sectors working together”
(Tushnet, 1993, p. 9) Educational Talent Search is a federally funded program that
seeks to create educational partnerships among the secondary schools, institutions of
higher education, and the program itself for the purpose of tackling the “real
problem” of underrepresentation of low-income and first-generation students gaining
college access. In order for the partnership to be successful however, collaboration
75
should be at its center. Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) describe collaboration as a
process that “demonstrates the potential to reenergize and reconnect fragmented
systems and to empower participating actors (p. 1). In this study, the participants
that will be empowered will be Talent Search staff and target principals or vice
principals, which will then lead to connections among the program, higher education,
and the high schools.
Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) points out that evaluation is an essential aspect of
collaboration as it is “a process to systematically collect, analyze and interpret
information in response to critical questions to inform program and/or organizational
decision making, judgments, and learning” (p. 2). This study serves as an evaluation
of the Talent Search program on the island of Oahu that will aid in the understanding
of perceptions that are aimed at increasing collaboration. Taylor-Powell et al. (1998)
further states that evaluation is “a shared process among collaborative member and
other key stakeholders that helps guide decisions and enhances communication (p.
2). Tushnet (1993) also states that beginning a successful partnership requires
communication among participants about the nature of the concerns that led to the
development of the partnership, the organization of the partnership in achieving its
goals, the responsibilities of the partners, and the content and focus of the partnership
activities. This study seeks to increase the understanding of perceptions among
Talent Search staff members, ultimately to better service underrepresented students
in their quest for postsecondary access.
76
The literature therefore reinforces that there is a need for articulation between
the perceptions of project staff and the target school principal or vice principal in
order for the program to achieve a successful partnership. The administration at the
target school should be on the same page as the Talent Search project staff that is
servicing the institution, which means that alignment of the factors that is believed to
enhance college access is an integral part of this communication. Talent Search staff
should, in turn, communicate and work to align their perceptions to provide a more
unified mission of servicing underrepresented students.
Conclusions of Literature Review
The college access gap has remained stagnant for low-income and first-
generation students (Mortenson, 2001a; Horn and Nuñez, 2000). The factors that
contribute to this gap include access to information, social support and cultural
capital, academic preparation, and financial aid (Martinez, 2005). Outreach
programs that focus on postsecondary access target the first three directly, and
indirectly address financial aid through the access to information. Talent Search
projects, both nationally and in the state of Hawai`i have shown signs of success in
increasing postsecondary access, but there is a limited understanding of why this
success is occurring (Constantine et al., 2006; Hashimoto, 2008a; Hashimoto, 2008b;
Richards, 2008). This study examines the perceptions of Talent Search staff and
target high school principals or vice principals regarding the college access factors
and Talent Search project effectiveness will be studied to better the partnerships
77
between projects and schools, with the intent of increasing underrepresented
students’ access to postsecondary education.
78
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Talent Search
staff, directors, and target high school principals or vice principals regarding factors
that contribute to college access, and program effectiveness. The perceptions of the
individuals and the groups of individuals were described and analyzed in order to
determine if potential discrepancies and agreements in perceptions are present. By
providing the information to make transparency of perceptions possible, Talent
Search staff, directors, and target school principals or vice principals may be able to
serve Talent Search participants more effectively. The ultimate and intended
beneficiaries of this study will therefore be the students that will be served by both
Talent Search staff and target school principals or vice principals. This chapter
describes sampling procedure, population, instrumentation, and procedures for data
collection and analysis.
Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to factors that affect
postsecondary access for underrepresented students?
• Sub-question for analysis: How do these perceptions articulate among
the participants of the study and accord with current research?
79
2. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to Talent Search's
effectiveness in facilitating underrepresented college access?
• Sub-question for analysis: What barriers do participants perceive as
being inhibitory to the success of the program and what steps can be
taken to improve the program?
Research Design
Conducting a study of the Talent Search projects on the island of Oahu was
thought to help determine if perceptions of factors affecting college access and
program effectiveness are aligned among and within each group of research
participants. Patton (2002) states that “formative evaluations…serve the purpose of
improving a specific program, policy, group of staff, or product” and that “formative
evaluations rely heavily, even primarily, on qualitative methods” (p. 220). This
study was designed as a descriptive case study of the perceptions of three federally
funded Talent Search projects through a qualitative design method. A qualitative
design was chosen for this study because of the desired formative evaluation of the
selected Talent Search projects. Patton (2002) states that “detailed case studies can
tell the stories behind the numbers…” because “to simply know that a targeted
indicator has been met (or not met) provides little information for program
improvement” (p. 152). The Talent Search projects produced an Annual
Performance Report (APR) each year that monitors the postsecondary enrollment by
their participants. The purpose of this study was to begin to dig deeper than what
80
this data shows, and possibly uncover information that will aid in program
improvement of college access for low-income and first-generation students.
The first step of collecting data was to select the sample of Talent Search
staff and target school principals or vice principals. Then, the instruments of a pre-
interview questionnaire and interview were developed utilizing researcher-selected
questions that are based upon the literature provided in chapter two. A pilot study
was then conducted, after which any unanticipated problems with the instrument,
instructions, timing, or data collection procedure will be taken into consideration,
and any adjustments in the instrument or design will be implemented accordingly.
During this time, APRs for each project, as well as information from the documents
Accountability Resource Center Hawai`i and Hawaii Department of Education were
also collected. The finalized instruments were then used to collect data that was
coded, analyzed, and reported.
Sample and Population
This qualitative study utilized purposeful sampling and focused on two
Talent Search outreach programs on the island of Oahu, which had three projects that
service two districts of the public school system. One program was based at a
community college and serves two projects in two districts. The second program
was based at a four-year college and serves one project in a single district. Criterion
sampling is described by Patton (2002) as a study of “all cases that meet some sort of
predetermined criterion of importance” (p. 238). Criterion sampling was chosen for
this study because the participants have to meet the criteria of Talent Search staff,
81
Talent Search director, or Talent Search target school principal or vice principal on
the island of Oahu. Individuals who meet the criteria were potential candidates for
the study. An additional criterion was that project directors and all staff that have
direct contact with participants were chosen. The two Talent Search directors, four
staff members at the community college, and two staff members at the four-year
college were the intended participants.
Criterion sampling was used again to select target high school principals or
vice principals from each of the corresponding districts on the island of Oahu. This
list included a total of five principals and two vice principals with at least one
administrator in each of the three districts. Principals were contacted first, but if they
were unable to be a part of the study, vice principals were then contacted. The
number of Talent Search directors and staff plus the number of principals or vice
principals totaled 15. The participants for the pilot study was one target school
principal and the Talent Search staff member associated with the school, and was
included in the 15 participants involved in the actual study.
Due to the varying nature of implementation and demographics within Talent
Search projects nationwide, coupled with the small number of participants, the
findings of this study were not considered generalizable to larger populations such as
other Talent Search projects or target school principals or vice principals.
Instrumentation
There were two researcher-designed instruments for this study, a pre-
interview questionnaire and the interview. Additionally, a document analysis
82
utilized the Annual Performance Report for each Talent Search project, the College
and Career Readiness Indicators Report (CCRI), and the School Status and
Improvement Report (SSIR) for each school. The following section describes each
instrument and the documents to be used for analysis.
A pre-interview questionnaire and two versions of the interview protocol
were developed. The Talent Search staff, including the directors received one
version, and the target school principals or vice principals received the other. The
versions differed slightly based upon its targeted participant. For example, the
principal and vice principal interview included the question: “How often do you
meet with Talent Search staff?” and the Talent Search staff interview asked: “How
often do you meet with target high school principals?” The rationale behind creating
the instrument format was that the items be easily comparable among participants
and groups. The Pre-Interview Questionnaire can be found in Appendix A, the
Talent Search Staff Interview can be found in Appendix B, and the Target School
Principal and Vice Principal Interview can be found in Appendix C. Due to the
difficulty of contacting principals and vice principals, along with difficulty
scheduling an interview, the pre-interview questionnaire was modified to include
some of the interview questions. This pre-interview questionnaire can be found in
appendix D.
Pre-interview questionnaire. The pre-interview questionnaire was separated
into two sections. The first asked for demographic information and section two was
table four above. In the second section, participants were asked to complete a table
83
that will be identical for both groups (see Table 4). The directions provided were for
the participants to first check off the services that are provided to high school
participants at the target high schools in their project and add any that were not
listed. Second, of the services offered at their project, they were to write a Y next to
items that they felt were effective at promoting college access for Talent Search high
school participants that were either low-income, and/or first-generation, and N next
to items that they feel were not. Third, in the last column, participants were asked to
rank the top four services from most effective in promoting college access to the
least effective with 1 being the most effective.
The pre-interview questionnaire was developed utilizing information
gathered from this study’s literature review that showed that access to information,
social support and cultural capital, academic preparation, and financial aid were the
primary factors that affect college access (Martinez, 2005). The services listed in
Table 4 can also be categorized by factor that affects college access. Table 5 lists the
services by factor. Eighteen services can be categorized in three groups of factors.
This aided in operationalizing the factors of college access and will make data more
comparable in data analysis.
84
Table 4. Table Used In Pre-Interview Question Six

Service
Offered
(check)
Effective
(Y)es or (N)o
Rank top four (1
most to 4 least) in
order of
effectiveness
Rank top four (1
most to 4 least)
in order of
importance
career exploration
information on
postsecondary education

information on financial aid
academic advising
help with completing college
admissions

help with financial aid
applications

aptitude assessment
tutorial services
assistance in preparing for
college entrance exams

test taking development
Study skills development
assisted computer labs
exposure to college
campuses

counseling
mentoring programs
workshops for participants’
families

cultural activities
one-on-one guidance with
parents

other (please list):
other (please list):
other (please list):
85
Table 5. Services Listed in the Pre-Interview Questionnaire Categorized by Factor
that Affects College Access

Factor
Affecting
College
Access: Access to Information Academic Preparation
Social Support and
Cultural Capital
Services: 1. career exploration
2. information on
postsecondary
education
3. information on
financial aid
4. academic advising
5. help with
completing college
admissions
6. help with financial
aid applications
1. aptitude assessment
2. tutorial services
3. assistance in
preparing for
college entrance
exams
4. test taking
development
5. study skills
development
6. Assisted Computer
Labs
1. exposure to
college campuses
2. counseling
3. mentoring
programs
4. workshops for
participants’
families
5. cultural activities
6. One-on-one
guidance with
parents

The literature review also showed the most common services offered by
Talent Search projects, and this list was utilized to help answer the second research
question, which is the evaluation of the perceptions of Talent Search effectiveness.
The list included career exploration, aptitude assessment, tutorial services,
information on postsecondary education, exposure to college campuses, counseling,
academic advising, information on financial aid, help with completing college
admissions, help with financial aid applications, assistance in preparing for college
entrance exams, mentoring programs, and workshops for participants’ families
(Cahalan et al., 2004; IES, 2006).
The pre-interview questionnaire utilized table 4 to ask participants to review
the list of services, state whether the service is effective or not, and finally, rank the
86
effectiveness of the top four services to obtain their perceptions of program
effectiveness. This instrument was chosen to operationalize the perception of
effectiveness in terms of the services that Talent Search provides. Appendix A
shows the complete questionnaire. As noted earlier, the pre-interview questionnaire
was modified once during the study, when contacting school principals and vice
principals became problematic. The revised pre-interview questionnaire can be
found in appendix D, and asks the same questions as the original, with the addition
of some of the interview questions.
Interview. The interviews took a standardized open-ended approach where
the “exact wording and sequence of questions are determined in advance…[and all]
interviewees are asked the same basic question in the same order” (Patton, 2002, p.
349). The limitations to the standardized open-ended interview are in flexibility of
customizing interview questions to individuals and circumstances, and the
constraints of naturalness in dialogue (Patton, 2002). Despite these limitations, the
standardized open-ended interview was chosen because the consistency of questions
reduces interviewer effects and bias, while facilitating organization and analysis of
the data (Patton, 2002). There were also identical statements that all participants,
regardless of version, had to respond to using a seven-response item Likert scale of
agreement. An example of a statement that both staff and principals or vice
principals responded to was: “The Talent Search project that I am a part of is
effective in promoting postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation
participants.”
87
The literature review of this study was the basis for several interview
questions that were specific to factors that affect college access and questions about
Talent Search effectiveness at increasing postsecondary access for underrepresented
students. For example, questions like “What is contributing to Talent Search project
effectiveness in the desired outcome of postsecondary access?” and “What could be
improved to increase the effectiveness in the desired outcome of postsecondary
access?” were asked. Table 6 shows the number of questions dedicated to each
purpose, along with estimated time that the questions will take. Table 7 identifies
the purpose of each individual question and who the question will be directed
towards. The purpose for both of these tables is to show that the questions were
aligned with the purpose of answering the research questions. Appendices B and C
contain the complete list of questions.
88

Table 6. Type of Participants, Number of Questions, and Time Required for
Questions in Interview Organized by Theme

Organizing
Theme Purpose
Suggested
Interviewee(s)
Number of
Questions
Time
Required
Overview Explores the context of the
school, TS program, and
relationships with TS staff, TS
directors, and target principals or
vice principals
TS Staff
TS Directors
Target Principals
or Vice
Principals
12 25
minutes
Program
Evaluation
Explores how the TS program is
evaluated in regards to the
outcome of postsecondary access
TS Staff
TS Directors
Target Principals
or Vice
Principals
5 15
minutes
College
Access Factors
Explores perceptions of college
access factors and how they
relate to postsecondary access
TS Staff
TS Directors
Target Principals
or Vice
Principals
8 15
minutes
Program
Effectiveness
Explores TS program
effectiveness on the outcome of
postsecondary access
TS Staff
TS Directors
Target Principals
or Vice
Principals
11 20
minutes
89
Table 7. Questions in Interview Organized by Theme and Interviewee

Questions in Interview Theme Administration Staff Director
How many times a month do you formally meet with target
high school principals to conduct Talent Search business?
Overview X X
How many times a month do you formally meet with the
Talent Search director to conduct Talent Search business?
Overview X
How would you describe your interactions related to Talent
Search with principals at the target high schools?
Overview X X
How would you describe your interactions related to Talent
Search with the Talent Search director?
Overview X
How many hours of interactions with Talent Search staff do
you have per week?
Overview X
How would you describe your interactions related to Talent
Search with the Talent Search staff?
Overview X
How many hours of interactions with high school participants
do you have per week?
Overview X X X
How many hours of interactions with high school participants
do you have per week?
Overview X X X
How would you describe your interactions with high school
participants when promoting postsecondary access?
Overview X X X
How would you describe your interactions with your Talent
Search colleagues regarding postsecondary access for
participants?
Overview X X
Do low-income and first-generation participants have different
needs from other program participants? If so, please describe
how those needs are different.
Overview X X X
Does working with low-income and first-generation
participants change your approach to administering services?
How would you elaborate on your answer?
Overview X X
Do the facilities for Talent Search at the target high schools
need any improvements? If so, what would they be?
Overview X X X
How would you describe the formal training you received as a
Talent Search director/staff member?
Overview X X
How would you describe the formal training you received as a
target school principal for Talent Search?
Overview X
How would you describe what types of training you would like
to receive?
Overview X X X
90
Table 7, Continued

Questions in Interview Theme Administration Staff Director
Has the Talent Search project changed over time in how it
promotes postsecondary access? If so, in what ways?
Overview X X X
The way that Talent Search effectiveness is evaluated currently
is adequate.
Program
Evaluation
X X X
There are ways to improve the way that Talent Search
effectiveness is currently evaluated.
Program
Evaluation
X X X
Are there ways of measuring project effectiveness other than
the Annual Performance Report that are currently utilized by
the program? If so, what are they? If not, what ideas do you
have on how project effectiveness can be evaluated beyond the
information provided in the APR?
Program
Evaluation
X X X
How would you describe your contribution to the evaluation
process of Talent Search?
Program
Evaluation
X X X
How could or would you like to be more involved in the
evaluation process of Talent Search?
Program
Evaluation
X X X
Access to information about college admission increases
postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-generation
participants.
College
Access
Factors
X X X
Access to information about financial aid increases
postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-generation
participants.
College
Access
Factors
X X X
Academic preparation at the high school level increases
postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-generation
participants.
College
Access
Factors
X X X
Social support increases postsecondary enrollment of low-
income and first-generation participants.
College
Access
Factors
X X X
Working with low-income and first-generation participants’
culture increases their postsecondary enrollment.
College
Access
Factors
X X X
Financial aid increases postsecondary enrollment of low-
income and first-generation participants.
College
Access
Factors
X X X
How would you rank the following factors that contribute and
inhibit postsecondary access for low-income and first-
generation participants?
College
Access
Factors
X X X
91
Table 7, Continued

Questions in Interview Theme Administration Staff Director
What is the basis for your ranking of the factors? College
Access
Factors
X X X
Please describe the services offered to the high school
participants of Talent Search from question six of the pre-
interview questionnaire.
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What is the basis of your ranking on number six of the pre-
interview questionnaire of the services that affect college
access?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What are the specific concerns and best-practices at each of the
target high schools for promoting postsecondary access for
low-income and first-generation participants?
Program
Effectiveness
X X
What are the specific concerns and best-practices at your
school for promoting postsecondary access for low-income and
first-generation participants?
Program
Effectiveness
X
The Talent Search project that I am a part of is effective in
promoting postsecondary access of low-income and first-
generation participants.
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What is impeding Talent Search project effectiveness in the
desired outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and
first-generation participants?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What is contributing to Talent Search project effectiveness in
the desired outcome of postsecondary access for low-income
and first-generation participants?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What could be improved to increase the effectiveness in the
desired outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and
first-generation participants in the Talent Search program?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
I am effective in promoting postsecondary access for low-
income and first-generation participants.
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What is impeding your effectiveness in promoting the desired
outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and first-
generation participants?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What is contributing to your effectiveness in promoting the
desired outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and
first-generation participants?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
What could you do to increase the effectiveness in the desired
outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and first-
generation participants in the Talent Search program?
Program
Effectiveness
X X X
92
Data Collection
The 2008 Annual Performance Reports (APR) of each Talent Search project
was collected for document analysis. Results of the APRs were matched with the
corresponding responses of the staff and target high school principals or vice
principals that work with that project. For example, demographic information such
as socioeconomic status, first-generation status, and ethnicity of Talent Search
participants was compared with the responses of the staff, directors, and principals or
vice principals of each district. The outcomes of postsecondary enrollment of Talent
Search participants were also recorded.
Although the APR produced Talent Search project data, it did not isolate each
individual school data of postsecondary enrollment. The Hawai`i P-20 partnership,
the Hawai`i Department of Education, and the University of Hawai`i (2008)
produced a College and Career Readiness Indicators Report (CCRI) for the class of
2008. In this report, the National Student Clearinghouse data on postsecondary
enrollment of students is matched with Hawai`i DOE graduates to produce data that
provides insight to the percentage of postsecondary enrollment at two and four year
institutions of each of the local high schools. The target school high schools were
then selected from the list, and compared to the state average in table 10 found in
appendix E. Although the data did not isolate Talent Search participants, it provided
a general sense of the postsecondary enrollment rate of each of the target schools.
The Accountability Resource Center Hawai`i (ARCH) website published by
the State of Hawai`i Department of Education Systems Accountability Office (2008)
93
contained publicly available demographic information through the School Status and
Improvement Report (SSIR) for all of the public schools in Hawai`i. Using the
SSIR, information about enrollment, ethnicities, free and reduced lunch statistics,
family household income status, and community educational attainment were
documented. Statewide statistics were also documented for later comparative
analysis. The tables corresponding to the reports of the schools can be found in
appendix E.
A pilot study was conducted before the actual data collection so that the
instrument could be revised as needed. Prior to the pilot study, a panel of three
University of Southern California professors in the Rossier School of Education
reviewed the pilot study instruments. Following revisions based upon their
recommendations, the pilot study instruments were established. Merriam (1998)
states that pilot studies are an important part of the data collection because they not
only allow the researcher to practice implementing the instrument, but also provides
feedback on what questions are “confusing and need rewording, which questions
yield useless data, and which questions, suggested by your respondents, you should
have though to include in the first place” (p. 76). Janesick (2004) adds that the
information gathered in pilot studies can add “confidence, clarity of thinking, and the
knowledge-base” that will aid in re-crafting questions (p. 119). Merriam (1998) and
Janesick (2004) therefore assisted in providing the rationale for conducting a pilot
study for this research study.
94
The pilot study consisted of delivering a pre-interview questionnaire at least
one week before the actual interview, and a follow up interview of one Talent Search
staff member and one target school principal. The participants were contacted
through e-mail or the telephone, and the pre-interview questionnaire was mailed
directly to them. The pre-interview questionnaire was collected at the time of the
interview. Any difficulties that occurred during the pilot phase of the study guided
how the pre-interview and the interview was administered. The pilot study changed
the methodology of gathering data from the target school administrators. Due to the
difficulty in contacting school administrators, a different pre-interview questionnaire
was produced that included several of the interview questions. The reasoning behind
this was that surveys were not being returned and communication had not been
established despite several attempts. In order to get more immediate results, and to
shorten the interview, interview questions were moved to the pre-interview
questionnaire. This revised questionnaire was filled out by five of the target
administrators in the study and can be found in appendix D.
Talent Search staff, directors, and target school principals or vice principals
were contacted via phone or e-mail to ask for their participation in the study, notify
them that the pre-interview questionnaire will be delivered, and set up a time to
conduct the interview. To accommodate time constraints of the Talent Search staff
and target school principals or vice principals, the data collection interview
instrument was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved a pre-interview
questionnaire of semi-structured and structured questions that were mailed or e-
95
mailed to each participant at least one week prior to the second phase of the data
collection, which involved face-to-face interviews. The pre-interview questionnaire
was collected at the time of the interview or mailed back to the researcher. The time
period for data collection was June of 2009 to February of 2010. During this time
period, interviews were transcribed verbatim from audio recordings and the pre-
interview questionnaire, audiotapes, researcher notes, were collected.
Data Analyses
Following data collection, the data were reviewed and organized for analysis.
The data were coded according to response categories for common themes regarding
perceptions of factors that affect college access and perceptions of Talent Search
effectiveness. The themes helped illuminate if perceptions were articulated and
aligned among Talent Search directors, Talent Search staff, and target high school
principals or vice principals, as well as show if any discrepancies exist.
Patton (2002) states that triangulation, or the combining of methods or data,
strengthens a study by providing multiple reference points. The data analysis
utilized the pre-interview questionnaires and the interviews, as well as the
documentation in each project’s Annual Performance Report along with the
information from each school’s SSIR and the CCRI, in order to triangulate the data
to provide a more comprehensive view. Additionally, the collection of data from the
three different groups of Talent Search directors, Talent Search staff, and target
school principals or vice principals also strengthened the triangulation of the results
96
by providing perspectives from different members of those involved in college
outreach.
The analyses of the perceptions of Talent Search staff, directors, and target
principals or vice principals, allowed the researcher to determine what consistencies
and discrepancies exist among and between the different groups. The APRs, SSIRs,
and CCRI were analyzed in comparison to the results of the interviews and helped in
understanding how perceptions may have a relationship with the number of
participants who achieve postsecondary enrollment. The SSIR was utilized in
analysis to compare demographic data of the target school, the school district, and
the surrounding community with the demographics in the APR and the perceptions
of the directors, staff, and principals or vice principals. The CCRI was used to
compare target school postsecondary enrollment with the enrollment of Talent
Search participants noted in the APRs, and how they can relate to the perceptions of
directors, staff, and principals or vice principals. Potential discrepancies of
perceived program effectiveness could also serve as formative feedback for those
involved in the program, and facilitate program improvement.
Ethical considerations were of utmost importance. Participation in the study
was completely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained for participation. All
participants and their affiliated institutions included in the data analyses were kept
anonymous in the reporting process to ensure confidentiality. All documents,
audiotapes, and transcriptions were kept private in a password protected electronic
file. All guidelines of University of Southern California’s, University of Hawai`i’s,
97
and Hawai`i Department of Education’s Internal Review Board were followed to
ensure that ethical practices were maintained throughout the study.
98
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Talent Search
staff, directors, and target high school principals regarding factors that contribute to
college access, and program effectiveness. The perceptions of the individuals and
the groups of individuals were described and analyzed in order to determine if
potential discrepancies and agreements in perceptions were present. Chapter four
presents the findings for the following research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to factors that affect
postsecondary access for underrepresented students?
• Sub-question for analysis: How do these perceptions articulate among
the participants of the study and accord with current research?
2. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to Talent Search's
effectiveness in facilitating underrepresented college access?
• Sub-question for analysis: What barriers do participants perceive as
being inhibitory to the success of the program and what steps can be
taken to improve the program?
This chapter will report the findings relevant to answering the research
questions. These findings will be organized by research question, and emergent
themes will be categorized and explained in sections. In response to question one,
99
the findings showed that the factor of social support and cultural capital, as well as
academic preparation were perceived as the most influential access factors across the
three groups of participants. The second finding was that activities associated with
the factor of access to information were perceived as being important in helping
students gain postsecondary access. These first two findings suggest that although
participants perceive social support and academic preparation to be the most
influential factor, the activities that they perceive as important can be categorized in
the factor of access to information. The data also revealed one example of strong
articulation of the perceptions of college access factors among the director, staff
member, and principal or vice principal associated with one school. Although no
correlation can be made from this single instance, there is no relationship with the
articulation and the success of performance objectives such as a high postsecondary
enrollment immediately following high school. The articulation between all three
participants may suggest that the alignment of perceptions does not have a
relationship with the Talent Search program’s success at that school.
In response to question two, the findings showed that access to information
activities were perceived as being effective among staff members, directors, and
principals or vice principals. As shown in the findings related to question one, social
support and cultural capital was perceived as the most influential factor in increasing
postsecondary access, and yet access to information activities are perceived as the
most important. The finding that the perception of access to information activities
also being the most effective is in line with the perception that they are important,
100
and at odds with the perceived influential factor of social support and cultural
capital.
The findings related to chapter two also showed dimensions of Talent Search
that are perceived as both effective and inhibitory in assisting students in achieving
postsecondary access. The first theme to emerge is that Talent Search programs are
perceived more effective if they have cooperation from schools. This cooperation is
sometimes seen as a challenge however, because the mandates associated with
NCLB have asked schools to focus on performance objectives that include passing of
the HSA, and excluded postsecondary access. The second theme to emerge was that
immediate postsecondary access was perceived as ideal, but was sometimes difficult
to achieve due to external factors such as parental compliance, religious obligations,
and the need for employment. The third theme is that although Talent Search is
formally assessed based upon the summative measurement of the APR, participants
felt that formative evaluation of Talent Search that went beyond benchmarking, and
instead gathered feedback from students and parents were also an effective
assessment that helped guide the activities of the program.
The perceptions of the participants were based primarily based upon their
prior experience working with the population of underrepresented students, and it is
unknown whether or not they are abreast with the associated current literature. Parts
of the literature review will be referenced in conjunction with the findings, as to add
richness to the perception, but it is unclear what influence, if any, the research has on
how they responded in the survey and the interview.
101
Research Question One Findings
All respondents from each of the three groups of principals or vice principals,
staff, and directors agreed or strongly agreed with the statements that each of the
college access factors of access to information, social support and cultural capital,
academic preparation, and financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment of
low-income and first-generation participants. To elaborate on this finding, the
specific question that asked the respondents to rank the college access factors was
written as follows:
How would you rank the following factors that contribute and inhibit
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?
1 = most to 4 = least
_____Access to information
_____Social support and cultural capital
_____Academic preparation
_____Financial Aid
Each college access factor was weighted in terms of participant ranking. If
the college access factor was ranked first, it would receive a weight of four. If
ranked second, it would be weighted a three. If ranked third, it would be rated a two.
If ranked fourth, it would be rated a one. The scores would then be added up
according to participant group and then ranked within each group. The following
figure generalizes their responses by group:
102

Figure 12. Percentage of Weighted Ranking of Influence of College Access Factors
by Participant Group

Social Support and Cultural Capital and Academic Preparation Perceived as
Influential Access Factors
Social support and cultural capital was ranked in the top two of each of the
three groups and Financial Aid was ranked in the bottom two of each of the three
groups. The questions in the interview that expanded on the rationale of the
respondents’ ratings were written as follows: What is the basis of your ranking of the
factors?
103
The finding that family support is influential in college going rates was
consistent with the research conducted by Corwin et al. (2005) and McDonough
(2003) covered in chapter two. The importance of peer influence is also supported
by the literature review as Swail (2001), along with Gandara and Bial (2001) both
support its importance. When speaking about social support and cultural capital,
Talent Search staff members that rated this factor high provided various explanations
for their ranking. A staff member for a school within a community where half of its
students enroll in college, stated that peer and family influence seems to have a
positive effect on college interest and motivation to attend:
Social support because when you are working with that secondary level, there
is a lot of peer influence. There are instances if a friend finds out that another
friend is interested in college, they will be interested too. If they have
brothers and sisters who are attending and they talk about their experiences,
they get interested. It triggers that motivation, the social support. And of
course with their parents pushing them towards as well.

Talent Search staff member who worked with the school with the highest level of
postsecondary enrollment talked about the potential negative outcomes of a lack of
social support and cultural capital:
[Social support] can contribute and inhibit because socially if your friends or
your family talk about college or going to college it can help a lot. But also,
at the same time, if none of them are going to college or none of them went to
college it really inhibits them from going to a post secondary education. And
culturally, it’s the same thing as the support.

A different Talent Search staff member who worked at two schools where
about half of the students enrolled in college reinforced the potential negative
outcomes of a lack of social support with the statement, “If nobody tells them that
104
it’s important, if their friends are not going, they’re not going to go.” Later in the
interview, the staff member added the importance of family, peers, and the Talent
Search staff in terms of providing social support and cultural capital, “They have to
have people who are encouraging them to go, and the primary would be their family,
their friends, and then people who are close to them, and hopefully [Talent Search]
would be part of that system of support if they are not getting that from their family
and their friends.”
Talent Search staff member at the school with the lowest percentage of
postsecondary access emphasized how Talent Search could assist in the social
support aspect, especially when it is lacking from other groups such as family and
peers, “They’re so used to people around them not attending in their immediate
family and then in their neighborhood and that has a strong influence. And [the
Talent Search staff members are] breaking the cycle. They may feel like they’re
leaving these friends and these families, and might be alienating socially and some
do not want to do that or are in fear of it.”
Culture was also mentioned as influential on postsecondary access and is
related to the literature of Rainwater and Venezia (2003), who noted that importance
of cultural awareness of students' background and establishing cultural connections
with students may be due, in part, to staff background and experience. A Talent
Search staff member at a school where the majority of students are traditionally
Hawaiian, stated that “I see a lot of kids, they are Hawaiian and they are
disconnected, so they don’t know where they come from and knowing their culture
105
gives them a sense of pride and a better sense to move forward.” The staff member
went on to state that, “They need the back-up from their parents, their peers, [that’s]
why this is important.”
Also connected to the literature of Plank and Jordan (2001), is the
participants’ perception that the message that encourages postsecondary enrollment
from the school, must also be supported by the family. A Talent Search director that
serviced the schools within communities of postsecondary enrollment above 40%,
noted specifically the importance of peer social support with the statement, “The
kids who are going to ask for the [SAT] waivers, it’s because their friends asked.”
The other Talent Search director, who serviced the two schools with the lowest
postsecondary enrollment, added that not only peers and family are part of the social
support and cultural capital factor through the statement, “A lot of them believe that
they understand what their culture is about, but they tend to navigate to what they see
on TV.” In response on how to combat the media with a more proactive message the
director followed by with the statement, “The community has to come forward to set
the example, try to encourage students to strengthen their cultural identity.”
A principal at a target school that exceeded the state’s average of college
enrollment stated the importance of social support:
When you look at the students we have here…for many of them if you look
at our demographics a lot of them don’t go on to college, so it’s a social
thing. We went on to school and part of the reason why we did was because
our parents were there to support us or encourage us or we had family
members that were there that had gone throughout hat college experience,
with a lot of our kids we don’t have that. And it’s a cultural thing, we have a
high number of Micronesian kids, just the fact that they come to school is a
106
cultural challenge…A lot of it has to do with family. If anything in our area,
family is very important. The kinds of students that we have very tight
family ties and that has a strong influence on the kids.

A principal of a target school that is below the state average in postsecondary
enrollment, stated that “I know [Talent Search] floods the information, but it goes
back to ‘Okay I got the information and this is my situation in the home right now.’”
A vice principal who works at a school with the lowest percentage of students
who gain college access among target schools states the rationale behind ranking
social support as the most influential factor:
A lot of the kids have the social emotional baggage that gets in the way...of
them being able to have a sense of focus. So, I think it's very important that
we build the individual and then from there help them with the actual
process, but if they don't believe in themselves first even if they go through
the process, it's almost like how many of us do things on the compliance
level…I think [social support] should come from a partnership between
school, parents, and community. For every kid that I work with…the better
the relationships are between school and home and the more consistent the
supports are and the reinforcements, the kids have a greater sense of stability.

A Talent Search staff member at a school that was ranked in the middle of
Talent Search schools in terms of postsecondary enrollment, who marked that social
support and cultural capital was the most influential factor, stated the reason why
access to information was marked as the least influential:
Preparing involves knowing what you got to do, so the awareness. It
involves actually doing it, and taking the necessary steps to get
prepared…The last is access, because you can give students all the access in
the whole wide world, and just because they have access doesn’t meant that
they are going to take advantage of it. You kind of have to force them, unless
they have that number one most influential social support that is pushing
them to do it.

107
The idea that the social networks in place for low-income students are the
precursors to students gaining the necessary information for postsecondary access is
consistent with the research of both Lareau (1987) and Steinberg (1996). Without
adequate support systems, the information alone will not succeed in helping students
gain access to college.
Interestingly, one Vice Principal provided the case about why access to
information precedes social support and cultural capital in its influence on college
access. This vice principal works at a target school where college enrollment is
higher than the state’s average, while being situated in a community with the lowest
median family income. This vice principal perceives that access to information is
the precursor to social support, which is contradictory to the majority of findings
from other study participants who perceived that social support must coexist with the
information to be influential. The vice principal states:
Social support to me is important, but to me, that will actually come after the
student takes the information and does something with it. That’s when they
learn that, “OK, wait a minute, my support systems have to evolve along the
way,” because that’s when they learn that they have to subscribe to those
important people and have them to be a part of their support system…For
these kids it’s very important that they learn the difference between people
that support them in reference to…jobs versus those people that have careers.
Two different worlds, one that they’re most familiar with, and one they thirst
for.

This vice principal, who talked about the struggles of growing up in poverty
and being a first-generation and low-income college student, implied that the
information is what opens up different social networks that would previously have
been inaccessible to those without that information.
108
The majority of administrators and directors highly ranked academic
preparation as an influential college access factor. This finding is in line with the
literature from chapter two that states the importance of a college curriculum,
especially for underrepresented students (Gandara and Bial, 2001; United States
Department of Education, 2001; Rainwater and Venezia, 2003; Venezia and Kirst,
2003; Corwin et al., 2005).
A principal who works at the school with the highest college access rate out
of the target schools speaks about the influential factor of academic preparation in
relation to rigorous coursework:
They need to have that rigor in their academic courses and their college prep
classes. A lot of the kids right now just take the bare minimum. We are a
school that [has] seven periods, so at the end of four years you could’ve taken
anywhere up to 26 to 28 credits. Up until the past couple years when we
went into the 24 credits, they only needed the 22, so they were going to take
barely the 22 just to get by…So come senior year, ‘eh I got my 22 credits so
I’m going to go part time and I’m going to go [to] work’ and yet not take the
more challenging classes so that they might be prepared for college.

The principal implies that if expectations for students to take challenging coursework
is low, then students will not achieve the academic preparation necessary to enroll
and succeed in college.
The director that services the above school, ranked academic preparation as
the most influential factor because it is serves a gatekeeper role for students, as
mentioned in the following statement, “One is academic preparation, definitely
because…without that math and science piece they get shut out of SATs so they end
up at a community college, and then they get shut out of certain classes if they don’t
109
pass Compass (which is the placement test for community college classes).” Here
the academic preparation is closely linked with testing, and how students will be able
to perform on important assessments that will open the opportunity of college.
A principal in a high poverty area, with low HSA scores, and low college
enrollment, stated the rationale for rating academic preparation as the number one
most influential college access factor and how the school is trying to support a more
rigorous curriculum:
I think at our school, since coming back two years ago, to not have honors
classes because the belief that our kids can’t do the rigorous work. Not
having more than one AP class on our campus because the belief that our
kids cannot do, really makes me rank this one pretty high because the belief
is, and I think what I’m going through right now as far as the school and the
community is that, more with the community, is that ‘challenge our kids, it’s
not challenging enough at our school, you can just show up to class and you
can pass the class.’ That’s hard to swallow, so now the charge is…we’re
offering more honors classes at the lower grades in preparation for AP classes
at the upper grades. We’ve expanded our AP offerings. We just don’t have
enough that we can create a class, but we can offer it either through online or
closed circuit. So, the honors now, there is a dedicated period that each of
the departments have created where it’s honors for all who want the
challenge, not just the select few who we think should be challenged…with
the understanding that once you commit, you commit, and we provide the
support along the way.

The Talent Search director at this school ranked academic preparation the
second most influential factor behind social support, and explains that the academic
rigor begins before high school, and that there are varying levels of preparation out
of the two middle schools that feed into the high school. The director states, “We
see a difference in their level of preparation, one is in reading, one is higher than the
110
other…the other one was math, one has really good math skills, and one
[doesn’t]…We had seniors that had fifth, sixth grade reading [levels].”
The other Talent Search director is also in agreement in that academic
preparation is linked to test scores, which is then linked to college access. The
following statement shows the perception of the importance of academic preparation:
We took [the students] to an ACT and SAT practice test, and we gave them
the strategies of test taking, and [the parents] wanted them to further them
furthermore [sic], but it’s not the test taking strategies, it’s the academic part
that they need. They need to understand algebraic expressions, just simple
math: division, multiplication, and they had a hard time.

The perception that academic preparation is influential is also tied into this director’s
most influential factor, social support and cultural capital because, “[Along] with
[academic preparation], which ties in with the social support, we are more than
happy to tutor them, but the parents say that they have to go to sports practice, that
kind of thing. We still invite them, and we’re there, but they have to make the
choice.”
Access to Information Activities Perceived as Being Important
The pre-interview questionnaire was developed utilizing information
gathered from this study’s literature review that showed that access to information,
social support and cultural capital, academic preparation, and financial aid were the
primary factors that affect college access (Martinez, 2005). As evidenced in Table 5,
from chapter three, the answers on the questionnaire had a theoretical base and each
activity could be categorized by factor. The results of the questionnaire were
generalized by weighting the ranking of activities by participants by placing them
111
into the three college access factors of access to information, academic preparation,
and social support and cultural capital. If the activity was ranked as most important,
then a numerical score of four would be attached to its associated college access
factor. If the activity was ranked second, its college access factor would receive a
three. If the activity was ranked third, then it would receive a two, and fourth would
receive a one. The scores would then be added up according to participant group and
then ranked within each group. The following is a table that displays the results of
participants’ rankings of activities by category of college access factor.

Figure 13. Weighted Percentages of Activities According to Associated College
Access Factor that were Deemed Important by Participant Group
112

Figure 14. Number of Times Service was Ranked in the Top Four in Importance by
Participant Group
113
As mentioned in finding one, social support and cultural capital was ranked
in the top two of each of the three groups. When respondents were asked to rank the
importance of the activities however, these activities predominantly reflected the
highest ranked factor as access to information. When asked “What is the basis or
your ranking on number six of the pre-interview questionnaire?” Talent Search staff
talked about the access to information activities in a variety of ways. One Talent
Search staff member who worked in a traditionally high poverty area stated that there
is a lack of information regarding testing, financial aid, and college choice:
A lot of time they don’t know how the process works. When to take the test,
what requirements like ACT or SAT, they don’t know about what classes
they should take, the importance of deadlines, they don’t know about the
FAFSA, they don’t know the timeline with the FAFSA, they get the
maximum, they don’t know about maybe if they want to go to the mainland,
why they should choose a particular college, it might be one that a relative
went to, but it might not be the best one for them, it may not fit their needs of
what they want to have…If they don’t realize how much they have available
to them, they hear the cost of college, but they don’t realize that they don’t
have to be indebted that amount. There are ways to have [the costs] be low.

Another staff member at a traditionally low-poverty area, who rated access to
information activities high, implied that the information is the starting point for
students, and that it is important for students to retain the information for future use:
And I ranked the top four of importance of the services and number one I
ranked help with completing college admissions because if we can help them
complete it then the other steps leading up to them wouldn’t be relevant or be
as important. And to help with financial aid is second because as long as
they completed college admissions then the next thing important is, of course,
doing financial aid. You need to apply to college before you can do financial
aid….[I ranked] information and financial aid because we can help them do
financial aid applications but after the first year they’re going to be on their
own in college and they need to continue on doing financial aid on their own
or with their parents.
114
The idea of access to information activities being an important first step in the
college access process is noteworthy, because it seems like there was a procedural
awareness and sequential understanding of what could and should be done initially to
create a domino effect towards enrollment.
A Talent Search director who serviced six out of the eight Talent Search
schools commented on why access to information is so important because the
program is focused on sharing information in a limited amount of time:
In order of importance I have information on postsecondary education
because as much as I hate saying this, but I have to, because we are an
information sharing program that is the most important thing to me that our
counselors go out and at least share that there is college available and you can
fill out financial aid. So if that’s the basic thing that we do, and that’s the one
contact we get the whole year, then I’m happy with that.

The reiteration of access to information being so important in starting the process, is
evident in the previous comment. Also evident is an undertone of how information
sharing is indeed just the beginning, and the other factors must also play a role in
facilitating access. Unfortunately, the number of meetings with each student (in
some cases only one) prevents a more holistic approach to administering services.
The director of the other Talent Search program that services two schools,
reinforced the importance of access to information with the statement: “Because a lot
of them hear by word of mouth they never did hear or read anything, so by providing
them with the actual materials and actually walking it through with them…they were
able to make a better decision.”
115
The finding that Talent Search staff supported the importance of access to
information, with an emphasis on helping with admissions and financial aid
applications coincides with the research finding by the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget and Federal Agencies (2008), reviewed in chapter two, that a high
percentage of Talent Search participants nationwide received help with financial aid
and admissions. One Talent Search staff member that worked within a community
that traditionally has 6% of its population graduate college, stated: “I think people
are intimidated to fill out an application, especially if they are first-generation and
low-income, they have never done this before…and they don’t realize how easy it
is.” Another Talent Search Staff member that services schools within communities
where around 20% of its population are college graduates, stated that, “If they need
to, If they need help, I sit down with them, I make an appointment with them, and we
go through the whole thing together. Once they go step by step and we answer each
question, ‘oh this is not so hard,’ and I go ‘it’s not’.” Specific to financial aid
applications, another Talent Search staff member that worked within a community
where 9% of its population are college graduates stated, “Assisting with the financial
aid applications, it can seem intimidating, but everything is always easier with
someone assisting you.” This idea of helping with filling out the financial aid forms
coincides directly with the findings from Bettinger et al. (2009) where students who
received assistance with their financial aid forms were substantially more likely to
submit the aid application, enroll in college the following fall, and receive more
financial aid.
116
The activity that received the most votes in the social support and cultural
capital category was exposure to college campuses. One Talent Search staff member
that worked within a community where the majority of its population has not
attended college stated that “The reason why exposure to college campuses is
[important] is because you have to see yourself there, you have to dream about it and
so to see it helps them believe it’s tangible for them.” The staff member then
described how specifically the visit was important to Talent Search participants who
were preparing for college entrance exams:
We brought a bus load from our school [down to UH], it was a day when they
had a lot of different schools there and they had the students could practice, it
was like the real thing, sitting down and just being there, two to three hours
taking a standardized test…Simple stuff like the room being cold, you need
to bring a sweater, if you didn’t eat before because some parents went in and
were like my kid didn’t eat before, maybe they are the type of person who
doesn’t eat for two to three hours.

Articulation Among Director, Staff, and Administration on Perceptions of College
Access Factors Evident, but not related to Performance Objectives
Only one cluster of director, staff and target school administrator out of the
seven showed close articulation on perceived college access factors within the three
groups of participants. The closest articulation among a specific school was
indicated when the director, staff member, and principal of School G placed similar
rankings on the perceptions as depicted by the following table.
117
Table 8. Articulation of the Ranking of Perceptions that Contribute and Inhibit
Postsecondary Access for Low-income and First-generation Participants at School G

School G Principal Staff Member Director
Access to Information 4 3 4
Social Support and Cultural Capital 2 2 1
Academic Preparation 1 1 2
Financial Aid 3 4 3

The factors of academic preparation and social support and cultural capital
are the top two of the principal, staff member, and director. On the other end, access
to information and financial aid were the two factors that were ranked either three or
four. These findings do not imply that access to information or financial aid are
unimportant, as the comments shared by the participants emphasized the influence of
all of the factors, but rather emphasized that academic preparation, and social
support and cultural capital were the most influential.
Despite the perception of the importance of articulation, it is important to
note that School G does not perform well on the performance objectives of
postsecondary enrollment, nor does it do well on the HSA. School G also had a
postsecondary enrollment rate of 33%, which was the second lowest of target
schools. The APR showed that 35% of Talent Search participants associated with
the project of that region enrolled in college, which is comparable to the overall
going rate of the school. Additionally, it must be pointed out that School G also had
118
the lowest HSA scores in both reading and math. This is an instance where
articulation between the principal, staff, and director seems to be in alignment, and
yet the success in terms of performance objectives have yet to be achieved. The
demographic information is useful, as it may suggest that there are other factors
affecting success that annulled the importance of articulation of the three groups.
The following findings were prefaced with related demographic information to
provide background to the statements.
The staff member assigned to School G ranked academic preparation high
and noted that an emphasis on academics readies students with communication
skills, and stated:
Just getting them ready to do college work, so we had this college workshop,
reading workshop, and they said that reading is important, and it really is
because how you talk is how you write and being from Hawaii everybody
talks Pidgin (English Creole) and nobody realizes that when they’re writing,
they’re writing in Pidgin too. So, the academic preparation, reading, and
knowing when to turn off your Pidgin and be able to speak [professionally],
learning how to study, learning why it is important to study, and knowing that
if you want to do this, you have to go to school to get this degree. So, in that
sense academic preparation is number one.

In chapter two, it was noted that Venezia and Kirst (2003) recommended providing
all students, their parents, and educators with accurate, high quality information
about, and access to, courses that will help prepare students for college-level
standards. The above statement reiterates the idea from the literature review and
emphasizes the importance of the acquisition of college level language.
With over 70% of School G’s population being at least part-Hawaiian, the
staff member stated that positive guidance is crucial in social support:
119
Social and cultural support, like I said, this connection with Hawaiians
because it’s in the homestead. Support from their parents and their
family,…social support…you don’t want to get drawn in from the guy who is
drinking on the side of your house. So just social support to keep kids the
away from those things, and push them towards school…Because it’s such a
small community, everyone knows each other, and everyone wants to help
each other…the parents come out, and it’s hit or miss in any community, but
a lot of parents want to get involved, and they want their kids to do this…and
they want to get their kids moving forward.

When speaking about access to information, the staff member commented
that because there is so much information regarding college access, “it’s really
important that [those involved in Talent Search] to stay together as a team, so that we
are all giving the same information and we are consistent.”
The principal and director of School G noted that socioeconomic factors of
the community play a role in the lack of postsecondary enrollment. The idea that
students must take into account the financial costs of college is supported by the
school community’s higher poverty levels when compared with other talent search
schools. Over half the students are receiving free or reduced lunch. Another
possible explanation to the lack of postsecondary enrollment despite articulation is
that 6% of the community are college graduates, which would indicate that there are
many first-generation students who lack experienced social support. The existence
of poverty and how that may coincide with a decrease in college access relates back
to chapter two’s literature that found a link between income levels and college
enrollment (Kirst & Bracco,1996; Mortenson, 2001a; Mortenson, 2001b).
120
In a comparison to a school with limited articulation of perceptions, the
following data table further suggests the possibility that demographics has a larger
impact on performance outcomes.

Table 9. Articulation of the Ranking of Perceptions that Contribute and Inhibit
Postsecondary Access for Low-income and First-generation Participants at School A

School A Principal Staff Member Director
Access to Information 2 2 4
Social Support and Cultural Capital 1 3 3
Academic Preparation 3 4 1
Financial Aid 4 1 2

Although there seems to be no clear articulation between the principal, staff,
and director at School A, and the evaluation of Talent Search is not communicated
with the principal, School A is part of the Talent Search project that had 97% of its
participants enroll in college. School A also has the highest percentage of
postsecondary enrollment (53%) among target schools, and was above the state
average (50%). Its two-year enrollment was also the highest of the target schools at
38%. The majority of the community’s population (57.9%) have attended at least
some college. The Free and Reduced Lunch percentage is the lowest of all target
schools at 43.7%, and the percentage of households with public assistance income is
the lowest among target schools at 5%. This is an instance where college going rates
121
are competitive despite a lack of articulation and communication. One possible
inference is that the demographics play a larger role in affecting the desired
outcomes.
Research Question Two Findings
Access to Information Activities Perceived as Being Effective
The same methodology for the classification of activities into college access
factors in terms of importance in the previous section were utilized in displaying the
results of the rankings of Talent Search activities in terms of effectiveness. The
following figure shows the ranking of factors that are associated with activities based
upon their effectiveness.

Figure 15. Weighted Percentages of Activities According to Associated College
Access Factor that were Deemed Effective by Participant Group.
122
As shown in the findings of question one, social support and cultural capital
was considered to be the most influential of the college access factors, but according
to the findings on activities that are effective, access to information is shown to be
the top factor in terms of effectiveness. As mentioned in the results to research
question one, principals, directors, and staff members all ranked activities that
pertain to access to information as being the most important. Activities ranked
within the factor of access to information were also perceived to be the most
effective as well among the three groups. Figure 16 depicts participants’ responses
to activities that were perceived effective. Notice that the top four activities fall
under the access to information category.
A Talent Search staff member at a school with the highest postsecondary
enrollment rate out of the target schools stated the following when explaining the
reasons for the high ranking of access to information activities:
So for effectiveness I chose information on financial aid because you can
give information to everyone and most people would take that into account
someway or even if they don’t actually apply at least they know about it.
Number two, I put counseling because I find that it is really important to get
to know the student and be able to relate to them so they see you as someone
that can help them with their decisions on things they’re confused about or
want to do. Three, we help with completing college admissions because if
you help them do it then it’s done with and all they have to do is turn it in.
And four, help with financial aid applications because the same thing.

Although three of the staff member’s top four were access to information
activities, it is important to note that number two, the activity of counseling, would
fall under social support and cultural capital.
123

Figure 16. Number of Times Service was Ranked in the Top Four in Effectiveness
by Group
124
A different staff member whose school’s postsecondary enrollment are
average when compared to target schools, and below the state average, agreed with
the effectiveness of assisting with college admissions with the statement: “Help with
completing college admissions, this is what I meant about the preparation, this is part
of the preparation, they are actually doing it. They are actually completing an
application, we take it and make sure that it gets turned in.” As noted in chapter two,
Orfield and Paul (1993) found that low-income students are not well informed about
the college admission process, which relates to why the assistance with applications
are perceived to be so effective. The effectiveness of assisting students who are in
the Talent Search program is in line with helping to remedy the problem that low-
income students are less likely than other students to explore a variety of college
options, to take college admissions tests, or to complete admission procedures
despite being academically qualified to attend college (Hossler, Schmit, J., &
Vesper, 1999; Orfield & Paul, 1993; Berkner, & Chavez, 1997).
Another staff member who services one school that scores above the state
average in postsecondary enrollment, and one below, made the following comment
regarding the effectiveness of assisting students with accessing information
specifically about financial aid:
It helps them finish, sometimes they don’t even get started and it’s good to
see at the end ‘oh yeah, they did complete it’ but sometimes I don’t always
know. But it’s that little push ‘Ok did you do your PIN? Have you done your
FAFSA? Did you turn it in?’

125
An additional staff member that works with the school that had the lowest
postsecondary enrollment rate of all target schools, stated that “[The FAFSA] can be
really confusing and it’s kind of long…So many rules change every year, so it really
helps having someone help you.”
As mentioned in chapter two, citing the Sallie Mae Fund & Harris Interactive
(2003), those who are eligible for aid are the least likely to know about the sources of
assistance, which supports the perception that students need help in acquiring
information about the application process. Dynarski and Scott-Clayton (2006) also
noted that low-income students are more likely to be deterred by the application
process, which supports the perception that students will not only need the
information to get started, but also the support to persist through the challenging
process of financial aid application. The findings also suggest that staff members at
schools with varying postsecondary enrollment rates have similar perceptions of the
effectiveness of activities relating to access to information.
A Talent Search director that serviced six out of the eight target schools
stated that, “We don’t do as much cultural, ethnic, nationality, culture with them.”
Not having an emphasis on cultural activities within Talent Search was the basis for
her ranking of activities that were in line with access to information. The director
explained the rankings of activities as follows:
Information on postsecondary education, I ranked effective because we put
more lessons and time to that because it is our performance objectives, it is
making sure that students have access to financial aid and college
information…I ranked that because it was the umbrella thing… Information
on financial aid was number two because I know it is the most effective
126
because we get more than 70 percent of students who do complete a financial
aid application and I have data to show that.

That same director explained the ranking of the activities that were in the
access to information category, and in doing so began to focus on help with
completing college admissions as being effective:
Help with completing college admissions I have three because I know
that…even though we don’t sit with them to do it, they do it because it is a
much easier one [than financial aid applications]. So I said we were more
effective on that because just sharing information helps them…to complete
the process…I put number four, help with financial aid, because even though
we share that [it is not as effective].

The director went on to state that assisting with financial aid applications was more
challenging than helping with the college application:
A lot of times they are still unclear or unsure about the process and even if
we give them access, financial aid is the piece we have to hold their hand
for…Financial aid when you fill out an application there is so much more to
follow up on…I can see that their financial aid was awarded, but they haven’t
accepted it, and I have to tell them to fill out the paperwork to accept it…it’s
not as effective unless we really sit down and help them. I’m seeing that we
have to help them, we have to hold their hand, and we have to call them even
now and tell them you didn’t do your application even though that you think
they did…The specific concern is them actually completing the process. I
feel that we do a very effective job in sharing the information and getting
them to access the information and getting them to the point of having the
application in hand, having all of the information that they know that they
need, but they don’t get to step three where they actually complete it…So we
found that our best practice was that we had to like literally set it up, have the
computers ready, have the documents ready for them, because giving it to
them, they are not going to do it. They are not going to finish it.

This quote is in direct alignment with the study by Bettinger et al. (2009), which
found that helping with financial aid documents along with providing information
was effective in promoting application and enrollment.
127
A vice principal at a school where college going rate is low, ranked access to
information activities to be two of the most effective and important, but ranked the
social support activity of mentoring in the top four of importance and not
effectiveness. The explanation for ranking access to information activities as
effective and important, and a social support and cultural capital activity as
important, and not as effective, was the perceived practicality of administering the
effective service over the important one. The following statement illustrates this
idea:
I think number one [in terms of effectiveness] is career exploration. I really
believe that kids got to start setting short term and long term goals. I would
like to see that happen prior to ninth grade…I would say the mentoring
programs, that’s difficult [in terms of effectiveness] because if it’s someone
on staff, it requires them to do something in addition to their heavy workload.
And then especially in our community it is difficult to get volunteers for
mentors.

The community that this vice principal is referring to is among the highest in poverty
rates among target schools.
Five individuals also deemed exposure to college campuses, which was a
cultural capital activity that was also ranked as important, effective. To elaborate on
the choosing of this activity, one Talent Search staff member who serviced a school
with a postsecondary enrollment rate above the state average stated:
We can give them all of the information that we want inside a classroom one-
to-one, but if they don’t actually do something or see something then it is not
as meaningful to them. When they actually are at a college campus and they
experience what it’s like to be in a different environment from what they’re
used to and see what their opportunities are, I think it’s very effective and
they get more excited seeing something different and seeing what they can
actually do. And it’s doable, you make them believe that you could be here,
128
you could be going to school here, and I think that it’s the most
effective…We went to all of [the colleges, UH], all of the community
colleges, HPU, BYU, Chaminade.

Another staff member at a school whose postsecondary enrollment rate was below
the state average stated that exposure to college campuses were also effective
because it was easy to collaborate with the partnering school: “Being able to plan
field trips that are free, we don’t have to collect money. It usually gets approved [by
the principal] because the school is supportive of activities that they don’t pay for.”
The idea that partnership with schools are linked to incentives that Talent Search
offers is an idea that could be further explored.
Aspects that are Aiding and Inhibiting Talent Search Effectiveness
This section showcases three dichotomies, each with a problem and a
promising practice. These dichotomies will be represented as themes of the research.
The first theme is that the perception that Talent Search was more effective if there
was support and cooperation from the school that it serviced, however this support of
the program was difficult among the growing demands of NCLB. The second theme
was that there were many factors that influence the decision of a student to
immediately enroll in postsecondary education after high school that involved the
family and surrounding community, and Talent Search attempted to educate these
social support systems so that postsecondary education became a viable option.
Lastly, the way that Talent Search is evaluated by the federal government is
summative and quantitative, but those involved in Talent Search found formative
129
evaluations that were qualitative in nature were beneficial assessment tools as well as
a way of informing their practice to achieve those APR results.
Talent Search Programs are Perceived More Effective if they have Cooperation from
Cchools, Especially with the Challenges of NCLB
Tushnet (1993) and Powell et al. (1998), as part of the literature review for
chapter two, both claim that educational partnerships and collaboration are helpful in
achieving success for students seeking postsecondary enrollment. The following
findings show how partnerships and the collaboration that accompanies it could
assist in helping Talent Search participants achieve postsecondary access, but has yet
to be fully realized in all schools.
A perceived barrier to program effectiveness was the amount of contact time
that students received with the Talent Search staff. Several Talent Search staff
members noted that there was some resistance at times to pull students out of their
classes. Some of that resistance came from teachers who refused to have their
students lose instructional time. Another factor that affected this was that the
principals mandated that pull-outs only occurred during electives and not during the
core academic subjects.
As a way to deal with the Department of Education’s $473.7 million budget
cut over two years (school years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011) 17 furlough days were
implemented to reduce labor costs (Hawai`i Department of Education, 2009). With
the addition of these furlough days that started on October 23, 2009 and are planned
to continue through the 2010-2011 school year, Talent Search staff members have
130
noted greater resistance to having their students miss class. One of the ways that the
Talent Search staff members were dealing with this barrier is building rapport with
the teachers, school staff, and administration so that there was a greater
understanding of what the students were doing when with the Talent Search staff
members. Talent Search staff and directors also noted that they do not have as much
participation when students were asked to come outside of instructional hours, such
as at lunch, recess, or after school.
Before delving into the findings, a background of the structure of how
schools interact with Talent Search should be explained. Each of the high schools
involved in this study employs a postsecondary counselor and are typically called
College and Career counselors. These counselors are usually the contact point for
Talent Search staff to interact with. There are some exceptions where a grade level
counselor may be the liaison to the Talent Search program. With this stated, there is
an obvious separation of the Talent Search program from the school, where as the
guidance from the College and Career counselors at the schools are integrated into
the existing school structure. The findings suggest that this separation is one of the
challenges that inhibit partnerships of Talent Search and the target schools.
Only one target school met both HSA proficiency levels in reading and math,
with five of the eight meeting the reading proficiency level. A Talent Search director
that services all of the schools who have met at least one HSA performance
objective, stated that “Once the No Child Left Behind act happened, we could only
pull students out of elective courses and that’s if the teachers allow them to…If a
131
teacher says no, then they cannot come.” The director added that “Our interaction
time is at most ten minutes with them” and that “We’d have to call students out
during lunch time…In some schools we have to meet with them after school, and
that makes the time shorter, and it also makes their interaction different because the
student…mindset is different after school.” As a result the director stated “It has
shortened our time, it’s caused us to relook at the way that we deliver curriculum
because it’s now more quick information like here’s a brochure rather than you doing
an activity.” The other director who serviced the schools who have not met either
HSA proficiency in reading or math, reinforces the sentiment of navigating through
the time of NCLB, by stating: “With No Child left behind, [most of the schools
associated with Talent Search] all haven’t passed…and supposedly they’re under
restructuring, so I feel for the administration because they’re trying their best.”
A Talent Search staff member who serviced one school that met both
proficiency indicators, and one that met neither, echoed the director’s statement by
saying: “The high school principals that I have are principals of very big schools and
so they have a lot of other responsibilities.” Another staff member who serviced two
schools that both met the indicator in reading, and did not meet the math indicator
provides additional information on the pressure of NCLB: “After meeting with the
principal not too long ago, because they are under restructuring, they weren’t really
allowed to do the pull-outs and their teachers were kind of afraid to let them out of
class I think. I think it has a lot to do with the teachers to tell you the truth on why
they don’t come out.”
132
A principal of a target high school that did not meet proficiency in either
reading or math stated that the pressure is mounting because of NCLB:
We are one of 90 schools that are identified as a restructured school, so just
as recent as a week and a half ago the superintendent made the statement
again that she wants the autonomy to shut down the schools and reopen them.
To a certain degree it has an effect, for me, as far as, should I continue, or
should I just give in. For me, I’m going to do [sic] until something happens,
and I am going to do what’s best for the kids.

The following statement shows the importance of school cooperation in
promoting Talent Search effectiveness and is in concert with the literature review in
that Swail (2001) suggests the importance of outreach programs working closely as a
partner with schools in order to be a part of the long-term solution to postsecondary
access issues. A Talent Search director who serviced the five schools who are
having some success in meeting HSA proficiency, provided insight into working
within the constraints that NCLB imposes by gaining support from the school, and
stated:
Even though the principal says to us ‘If you’re not going to improve test
scores, then I don’t want you’…Our [college and career] counselor there
because she knows how effective our program is, goes to bat for us all the
time…even though the principal is like ‘Whatever you do your own thing,’
we’re there two days a week, and in the rest of our schools we are only there
once…and I think it’s because the counselor sees that we are supplementing
her job more so.

A Talent Search staff member who worked at a school that met the
proficiency in reading, but not in math, responded to how effectiveness is linked to
school cooperation: “Having that positive working relationship with school staff, so
that they become more supportive. I think that contributed a lot to how effective it is
133
there, having that relationship with the staff…counselors and teachers.” The staff
member also commented that “Some teachers are very supportive; they love the
whole idea that we’re providing these services to get them to college. Others take it
more personal and they don’t want their students to miss their instruction.”
Another Talent Search staff member who services two schools, stated that
there are different levels of perceived cooperation depending on the school, as
evident by the following statement: “[At one school it] really feels like I’m an
integral part of the work that they do, and the other…sometimes I feel like it doesn’t
matter if I’m there or not and I have to really ask for what I need. It doesn’t get
offered, where as the other one I am a part of the team.”
When asked what could be improved to increase the effectiveness of the
program, another Talent Search staff member that worked with the target school with
the smallest enrollment stated that:
I would probably need to work more closely with the College and Career
Center teacher because if we can collaborate more, it’s been a challenge
because sometimes I still feel like a visitor there even though they are very
nice and polite. Sometimes I get the impression, ‘Well, you are providing
these services for free, I’m getting paid to do this.’ Small…conflict of interest
where they might feel [threatened] just a little bit…In that way if I worked
more closely with them to…just make them realize that we’re just
supplemental to what they are already doing and if we could collaborate, we
could do a lot more together, if we worked together. Especially with
planning field trips, we have the funding for that…because for their field trips
that they plan, their funding comes out of the school, so if we could split the
costs for field trips that would save them a lot of money and we both would
be meeting our goals.

A Talent Search director who serviced two schools where postsecondary
enrollment were over 10% below the state average, indicated that school cooperation
134
helps with the recruitment of participants: “To make it much more effective is to try
to get the [staff member] to build more relationships with the teachers, to make them
become the advocates for the program, so that they would go ahead and
automatically refer.” The director added that there are barriers, as mentioned
previously by Talent Search staff, in regards to effectiveness that can be created if
those cooperative relationships do not exist: “We need to try to build relationships
with the College and Career Counselor, because ever since we came on campus she
saw us as a threat. Like taking away her job kind of thing, ‘I’ve been doing it for 40
years, why are you here all of a sudden?’
The other director, who serviced the remaining six schools, emphasized the
importance of a strong relationship between Talent Search and the college and career
counselors as well with the following statement:
The biggest, biggest contributing factor for us and the reason why we do so
well is the support from our [college and career] counselors. I mean if we
had not had that support, then I don’t know because they keep us informed in
what is happening in school, they let us partner with them. They tell us what
they need, we are able to shift our needs on what the student needs because of
it…So it really is the support of our schools…We are not competing with
them, or anything like that. We’re really there to kind of extend out with
them on how we can help.

The Talent Search director, whose site is at a four year university, stated a
perceived link between target school staff that had ties to the University of Hawaii.
The University of Hawaii alumni were promoting access to a specific institution,
which is different from promoting postsecondary enrollment in general. This finding
is consistent with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal Agencies
135
(2008) and Constantine et al. (2006), in that they both found that there seems to be a
relationship between the type of institution facilitating the Talent Search project and
the college choice of the participants, as evidenced by the following quote:
The advocates are the teachers who are alumni of UH and those staff there.
For some reason they see some connectivity with us being with UH Manoa.
And although we are not supposed to recruit from Manoa, we’re supposed to
for every place, but these teachers…set up the meetings, they bring in the
kids and says ‘I want you to help this one, I want you to help this one.’ The
vice principals and those principals that graduated from UH, they’re making
the referrals, ‘I want you to help these kids.’

It was suggested by the director that the link to UH was perceived as a positive
occurrence, because the connection encouraged partnership with the Talent Search
program and school staff.
A Talent Search staff member at schools that have both met proficiency in
reading, but not in math, and do not share the same level of postsecondary
enrollment, made an additional suggestion of increased involvement of the school
via the principal:
It depends though, I don’t have contact with all of the teachers. The main
ones I do, and those are the ones that I try to target… I think really getting
support of the whole school whether it be trying to meet with the principal a
little bit more. I think because there are a lot of times even with [one school],
I still haven’t formally met her. I know the VPs and stuff like that, but to get
more support of the principal. If you get more support of the principal I think
the better our program can be effective too. Just to let them know what we’re
doing and what we can offer.

A principal that displayed articulation in the perceptions of college access
factors with both the school’s director and staff member, specifically talked about the
importance of a cooperative and communicative relationship between Talent Search
136
staff and the school counselors, by stating: “I think just the coordination of our
counseling program with [Talent Search is important] so that there isn’t an overlap of
services.” In addition to the counselors being informed there was a shared
perception in the importance of informing other college access advocates as well.
The idea that the link between core academic services such as counseling and
intervention programs is supported by the literature review because McDonough
(2001) advocates that such partnerships need to be established and maintained in
order for outreach to be successful.
The program known as AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination)
is a college-readiness program designed to increase the enrollment of academically
average students in four-year colleges through providing focused support. Two
Talent Search staff members, a director, and a principal each individually mentioned
AVID in their interviews and highlighted the potential of a partnerships between
AVID and Talent Search. A staff member from a school where AVID coexisted
with Talent Search stated, “With AVID too, sometimes I felt like we are going to
that college visit too, so why don’t we just go together? But it’s just been a challenge
meeting with them because I’m only there once a week and I’ve been prioritizing
meeting with my students first.” Another staff member who works with multiple
schools with AVID stated:
Yeah, because they get called out of class. I think it has a lot to do with the
teachers…With some teachers [the rapport is] really good. Especially out in
[the school that] they have AVID out there. I try to collaborate with them on
what we are doing. I think the more information a kid has about school, the
better they are going to be.
137
A director who is aware of the possible partnership with AVID stated that,
“We’ve always offered to be part of AVID programs, and in certain high schools
they are okay with us partnering and other schools are not… When they partner,
they are allowed to do more than pull-out…We never have been able to become a
class in a high school although every year we ask.” The principal who was aware
that both AVID and Talent Search were present at the school stated that: “I think
they compliment each other basically because it is creating that, it is fostering that
college going mentality with the kids.” The idea that intervention programs like
AVID and Talent Search should be well articulated is consistent with Gandara and
Bial (2001), from chapter two, in which they concluded that intervention programs
should be linked to promote greater effectiveness in achieving postsecondary access.
With the pressures of NCLB and the existence of other programs like AVID,
the limitation of contact time was a perceived inhibitor to the effectiveness of
providing services. Adding to these factors was the number of students that Talent
Search serviced at each school. One Talent Search staff member who works with
two schools and meets with 21-30 participants per week stated that, “ I would like to
meet with the kids a little more. I basically work on a pull-out system. I don’t get
that much time with the kids and I have so much [sic] kids there. So I think it’s kind
of hard. So that’s my main concern is being able to meet with all of the kids and
being effective at it. It’s kind of hard meeting with over 300 kids.” Another staff
member who also works with two schools and meets with 21-30 students per week
added: “I wish we didn’t have to work with so many students, and that we could
138
meet with them more often.” The staff member went on to say: “If I’m focusing all
my time on Juniors and Seniors, which is important because that’s where our
effectiveness rates are then that means less time…for the ninth and tenth graders. I
would like to spend more time with the ninth graders,…because that’s such a
challenging year.” Both of the staff members that emphasized contact time with
students were the only two who serviced more than one school.
Another staff member who worked with one school, which had the lowest fall
enrollment of all target schools, stated, “My specific concerns would be access to
students. We are already limited to so much time with them.” This staff member
made the following suggestion in regards to increasing contact time with the
students, “We need curricular time during school and making it mandatory, kind of
how AVID is, they have to go, it’s like a class.” The staff member supported the
argument by stating, “It’s their choice. They don’t have to show up if they don’t
want to, and there is [sic] no consequences. That’s impeding our program, like they
don’t have any [consequences].” Lingenfelter (2007) suggested that an intervention
program should be completely embedded into the school and not be seen as an
addition to the existing structure. The following comment made by a Talent Search
staff member who worked with a school whose postsecondary enrollment was at
49% is in accordance with this idea as it suggests that in order to help increase the
accountability of the students, Talent Search should be tied into a mandatory
component of schooling that is tied to graduation:
139
I think one suggestion I would make would try to collaborate with the school
to make Talent Search part of their exploratory wheel, where it is a
mandatory class, or…have me as an advisor as part of their PTP (Personal
Transition Plan) schedule where I’m assigned Talent Search students. They
have PTP every Thursday, they have the same group throughout twelfth
grade and they meet every week and they do study skill activities, really short
activities. That would be a perfect opportunity for our program because I
could be assigned a set amount of students and they would have to
come…and I could do activities with them every week…They could give me
one grade level every year,…if it rotates where I’m working with [students]
and they transition through me then at least I get more [exposure] that way.

At the time of the interview, the only consequence, as described by the Talent Search
staff member who made the previous statement, that was imposed was, “If they
haven’t come the whole year, we can terminate them, but we would have to notify
them.” The problem with this annual check is that the time and resources of the
entire year could have been better spent on a student who was actively involved in
the program.
The recurring statement of a lack of contact time with Talent Search
participants emerged from the research. One staff member at a school with a fall
enrollment of over 1,700 students, stated that, “I think only one school is impeding
my effectiveness…Whether it’s being able to meet with all the kids or not. It’s just a
big, large clientele so it’s hard sometimes. I think that’s kind of affecting me a little
bit.” The staff member elaborated by saying, “Well, now I have 70-something 7
th

graders. This coming year there’s 90 incoming 7
th
graders. And from there I have
maybe close to 30 kids at each grade level. So it’s a big task, I think. I’m there two
days, and like I said, not all the kids come out all the time, so it’s kind of hard I
think.”
140
The director that the staff member worked under independently agreed and
stated, “I wish we could have more time with them. I feel like I don’t know how
well we are doing because we have ten minutes with them…Just two years ago we
had much more time with them, so I’d like to see when these kids actually graduate,
really did we have that much of an effect because our time was shortened.” The
director then went on to provide the suggestion, “I think what would help us much
more effectively is to have the parents much more involved, much much more
involved…As much as we have tried every different thing, it’s like the structure and
the way we have Talent Search because we only go into the schools, doesn’t help.
So we also talked about like doing again less time in schools, but more of the
Saturday academies and having the parents come.” This involvement outside of
regular school hours would increase contact time, and thus has the perception to
increase program effectiveness.
Immediate Postsecondary Access is Perceived Ideal, but Difficult Due to the
Presence of External Factors
Several external factors were perceived to be a barrier to program
effectiveness in achieving the performance objective of immediate enrollment in
college. In accordance with the findings of the American Council on Education
[ACE] (2004), the meeting of financial aid deadlines seemed to be a specific
problem. The parents or guardians of the Talent Search participants were perceived
as an external factor that impeded the making of application deadlines, both financial
141
aid and admissions, because both processes are heavily dependent on the parent or
guardian input.
As noted in the literature in chapter two, family has more influence on
college access than the school itself, which is mirrored in the findings of this study
(Plank & Jordan, 2001). One Talent Search staff member, who worked in
communities where the majority of the population traditionally did not attend college
stated, “The problem is just getting them through the process of getting them through
the FAFSA…The tax part is the hardest because their parents have to get their taxes
together. They may want to do it, but their parents are like…If the parents want to
get them that help, then they would do their part, but they drag.” Another Talent
Search staff member, who worked in communities where the majority of the
population traditionally do attend at least some college, stated through way of
suggestion on how to improve the effectiveness of the program, “Trying to get to the
parents a little bit more. If somehow or someway try to get to the parents. Whether
it be trying to set up just a thing for the parents over here about financial aid just with
our group of kids. I think that would be the best thing. I think the program would be
more effective in that sense.” The staff member went on to explain that the reason
why parental involvement was so crucial is, “First of all, I don’t think [students]
know that the money is out there. They don’t have enough information to do that.
The family doesn’t do taxes, or someone isn’t working, so they can’t do the
FAFSA.” The staff member then goes on to admit that, “Lot of the times even if you
sit down with the parent they’re not going to have their tax information, but as far as
142
getting them started, you can always get them started but actually them finishing it is
kind of hard too.”
A different staff member who worked at a school where 60% of the
community’s population traditionally attended college, made the suggestion that
increased parental involvement would help, “For them…to increase the
effectiveness, I guess things [sic] we could do is more of a parent involvement like
having meetings with the parents or maybe not necessarily one-on-one meetings.
But I think the parents can go to see what we’re doing, and they themselves can ask
us questions. And when the parents’ questions are answered maybe they’ll feel more
comfortable talking to the student about post secondary access.”
A target school principal of a school that had the highest college going rate
among target schools, also noticed that postsecondary access for students are
dependent on parents:
When you look at applications, when you look at financial aid, it’s very
dependent on the parents. You got to have their income statements in order
to do the FAFSA. In order for them to go to UH, you got to do residency
forms, and it’s all dependent. If life was such that all you had to do was work
with the child in the class, in the school, and get the application filled, wow,
we could get a lot out. But when you have to have the parents come in, many
of them have language barriers and they won’t understand. Many of them are
working two to three jobs, you know that isn’t the priority, and yet there are
deadlines where these things have to be done.

A Talent Search director who serviced the school mentioned above shared the
urgency of parent involvement through the ranking of activities, while also
understanding that the parents or guardians don’t always fulfill their responsibilities:
143
For number four [in terms of importance] I have workshops for participants
families because…I’m noticing that if we don’t educate the parents then the
application for college is not going to happen till later in the year and the
financial aid application takes longer. The reason why we hold the
workshops in November and December is to bombard them and tell [parents]
that they have to do their taxes in January and you have to submit
applications…in November…This past year we implemented strictly FAFSA
workshops…We sent out notices to the kids and we’re going to be here on
this day, we’re going to bring the computers, and we want you to come with
your taxes completed and we will complete a FAFSA. I can’t tell you how
many students came to that sessions and they weren’t prepared, and they
weren’t prepared because their parents didn’t file their taxes. We couldn’t do
anything with them except do PINs and the basic information, so even though
they are going home and telling their parents they need this information, [the
parents] are not understanding how crucial it is that the students need it.

The director then shed some light on the situation by providing a possible
explanation of what seemed like parental neglect and admitted that getting started
with a PIN is an important first step in completing the FAFSA, “I mean I wouldn’t
want to give my child my taxes and they go to school on a Friday and you don’t
know what’s going to happen to it. So what we do want to share [the parents] is that
even if they don’t bring it that the parent can go back into the website later and put
into their own information. They don’t have to bring it in and have us actually see
it.”
The other director who worked with the schools within communities with the
lowest college going rates, and with under 10% of both populations achieving a
college degree, added a deeper insight into the lack of reporting of parents’ tax
information, “There are a significant amount of parents or legal guardians feel like if
they give out their financial information that they may not qualify for EBT or these
144
other things, so they feel like it is a threat.” A principal who worked in a high
poverty area also noted a similar perception,
I think one of the things that our families need to understand is that because
they ask a lot of information about your current wages and everything that by
exposing themselves they going to lose what they currently have in terms of
any kind of assistance because they have to report this out to the federal
government, so they don’t want to take the risk…A lot of them don’t pursue
this for the fear of getting caught…Some of these kids can get education for
free, I mean free, based on some of the situations that these families are in,
but a lot of them there is that fear of being exposed.

Although the idea that parents are heavily influential in encouraging and
discouraging financial aid application is supported from the findings of both
Lippman et al. (2008) and Grodsky and Jones (2004), parents specifically being
afraid of relinquishing financial information was not given as a reason for parents not
completing financial aid documents.
Fear of exposure is not the only reason why students don’t complete a
FAFSA. As reviewed in chapter two, the research conducted by ACE (2004) and
Perna (2006) are consistent with the idea of students not applying or accepting
financial aid that they are eligible for due to a lack of information. The director who
worked with five out of six schools that had communities below the state average in
terms of poverty, stated that students who have family members that are willing to
pay the tuition believe that applying for government-based aid is unnecessary:
Interestingly, we have so many low-income first-generation students that say
‘Oh, my grandma is going to pay for me to go to school so they don’t do
financial aid…They’re so humble, that grandma is going to pay for it, they
don’t want to ask anyone else. They feel like they are asking someone for
something, and they don’t realize that it’s something that so many people
went before Congress and said ‘Yes, please give this child a Pell grant.’ But
145
they feel like it’s not something they should be accessing….And I like that
attitude, but yet I also want them to be able to not feel like disrespectful by
taking it. We’re telling them they should apply for financial aid.

Although there may be no way of circumventing parental responsibility on
financial aid applications, a Talent Search staff member who worked at a school
where postsecondary access was at 49%, described how an admissions application
with less parental involvement contributed to students applying:
What is contributing…this past year we had them fill out applications on the
spot and the parents didn’t have to sign it, so we could collect it right there
and then so we could get that they actually completed it. That was effective
as far as meeting our objective for the program…There is a special
application for the community colleges, the UH community colleges, it’s
called a Kama`aina application and they don’t need a parent signature for
that…and that’s to help increase enrollment at the community colleges…It
was a pilot last year so they’re going to continue it this year, so we’re going
to have all of our students do it this year. And actually a large percentage
actually enrolled in community colleges.

The emphasis that Talent Search puts on the assistance with applications is
consistent with the research mentioned in chapter two, conducted by Constantine et
al. (2006), that shows that there is a relationship between Talent Search participants
and positive outcomes such as application for financial aid and postsecondary
enrollment when compared to non-participants.
Qualifying for financial aid and completing applications were not the only
barriers that students face as they sought postsecondary education, as the interviews
revealed that there is a perception that religious obligations, work, and the military
were alternatives to college going, and were therefore impeding Talent Search
effectiveness in the objective of immediate enrollment. Part of the evaluation of a
146
Talent Search program that was represented on the APR showed how many students
immediately enroll in college directly following high school. The external factors
may or may not permanently inhibit the success of the student, but even delaying
enrollment did not count in terms of program effectiveness. One of the target
schools was situated in a community with a very strong Mormon influence. The
implication for Talent Search is that many students decide to go on their missions
instead of pursue postsecondary education. When asked about barriers to program
effectiveness, a Talent Search staff member who worked at a school where
postsecondary access was below the average for the state, and below the average for
target schools, responded, “Especially with [one of our] schools with a big Mormon
population out there, so there’s a lot of other things going on like a mission right
away afterwards, after school. So sometimes it’s kind of tough too, but at least they
know there are options, give them sources for what they can do afterwards.” The
document analysis of the demographics also showed that this particular school had a
disproportionately greater percentage of Samoans and Caucasians in enrollment,
which may be significant because the Mormon faith is common within these two
ethnicities.
The director of the Talent Search program associated with that particular
school also mentioned that, “Culture in this sense is more so the religion part of it,
that so many of them do not enroll in their first year [of college] because they go on
their mission.” This independent awareness of the cultural issue at that particular
school suggests that there is articulation between staff member and director on the
147
external factor of religious obligations affecting postsecondary access. Although this
school has the largest percentage of students completing some college at 31%, it also
has the second lowest college enrollment percentage at 41%. The lack of enrollment
could possibly have stemmed from the Mormon missions that are taking priority
over initial college enrollment.
Another external factor that was perceived to impede immediate enrollment
in postsecondary education was the desire or need to work. A Talent Search staff
member who worked at one school within a community with a poverty level below
the state average, and at school where the poverty level was above the state average
stated, “Yeah, that, and a lot of times from what I see too is the parents are kind of
encourage [sic] the kids too, like ‘hey you need to help out our family too,’ so the
kids won’t have the opportunity to go to college where after school they want to
work right away so they can help provide for the family too. I ran into that a lot
too.” The Talent Search director that oversaw this staff member and school seemed
to agree by saying that, “We see so many of them who say I have to go work this
semester because I have to go and help my family, or I have to contribute to what is
happening at home and they delay entrance because of that.”
A Talent Search staff member who worked within communities where the
poverty levels for families with children were nearly double the state average, found
times when students feel the need to work, but don’t realize that college could help
them in future employment and states, “I had one student who said to me that ‘I
don’t know if I’m going to go to college because my father needs me in his business,
148
landscaping business.’ And I said that’s really good, but did you know that
community college can give you information on how to work with plants? And he
goes ‘Oh yeah, maybe.' It gave him something to think about. Nobody ever shared
that with him.”
The desire to work may be motivated in part to the demographics of the
school community. The principal of the following school has the second highest
percentage of students on Free and Reduced Lunch at 53.6% among target schools.
Its community has the second highest percentage on public assistance income at
22.5%. and was one of only three target schools with a percentage of families with
children that lived in poverty of over 20%. The principal at this target school noted
that, “A lot of [the students] see work [after high school], which is not bad” because
“that’s the reality sometimes, it makes you take a step back and respect that,
especially for our families” as the implication was made that many of the students
have financial obligations that are impeding their immediate enrollment. The
principal goes on to say that, “The hope is that you keep them to that standard for
going to college, but the reality is most of them are not going to go.” The principal
adds that “There’s just a lot of social factors that we don’t have control of that plays
a big part in some of the decisions that these kids make once they leave high school.”
The principal works within a community where 6% of the community
population graduated from college, which is the lowest among target schools and
20% lower than the state average. The perception of this principal is not that the
students will never go, but instead will later realize that not having a postsecondary
149
degree will limit their opportunities and later will seek college as an option. The
principal also stated that, “When I go to these conferences and they talk about we got
to prep the kids for college, college is the standard, but sometimes you have to take
that step back and say you know you have to be realistic at the same time. You want
to keep that as a standard, because if they decide not to go at the time, then when
they do decide to go, at least you know they’re ready.” The principal went on to
expand on how the goal may be immediate enrollment in college, but for many
students it takes time for students to realize the importance of higher education, “For
us, we base everything on once you finish high school and start school, that’s success
going to school right after high school, but for most cases on our end, they have to
wait a few years and then they realize, ok, now that they got to go back school.”
As mentioned before, Talent Search programs are evaluated based upon
immediate enrollment in college, which means that eventual enrollment is not
measured or counted. A principal suggested having a more longitudinal data
collection system that shows how many students eventually attend college, even
though it is not directly following high school. The principal of a school with the
second lowest immediate postsecondary enrollment rate stated, “I get [sic] some kids
right now three to five years out and actually even longer than that and they say
“Now I understand what you guys are trying to say” and they are going back to
school, which is good and that’s success. But we are so tied down to the immediate,
that sometimes those unreported, those stories go unreported and there is no way of
150
reporting that in any kind of report unless you track the kids and make your own
report.”
In line with the principal above, a vice principal, who works at a school that
is low-income and above the state average in college enrollment, agrees with the
perception that students who have the information, will eventually enroll in college:
If somebody were to…perform a study on [students that eventually go to
college], that number is very high…How do they go and where they get the
new information for them to get there is…they use what they have and they
make the best of it and gain additional information along the way…That’s the
downfall of [the assessment now], because many of them know they don’t
have things in place to go right now. They already know that…Not that they
can’t go, just emotionally and mentally many of them are just not there yet.

This perception is broader than religion or work, in the sense that it’s displaying that
there is a mindset of college going that precedes a student’s decision to apply and
enroll. Currently there is no such longitudinal study on the educational outcomes of
Talent Search, so the previous perceptions that student do eventually attend college
is neither supported or refuted, and is therefore unsubstantiated by the literature.
One Talent Search staff member mentioned that military also may be an
external factor that inhibits immediate enrollment. The staff member that worked
within school communities with poverty rates double of the state average stated, “In
other families they say ‘College is important, but in order to afford college I have to
go into the military…Sometimes when they go to the military, they sidestep college
and end up not going because other things get in the way, so I try to encourage them
to do military as a back-up.”
151
Formative Evaluation in Nature of Talent Search that are Qualitative was Perceived
Effective, although the Summative APR is what is Formally Measured
As mentioned in chapter two, Gullatt and Jan (2003) and McDonough (2003),
both called for the need for more qualitative evaluations of outreach programs.
Those involved in Hawaii’s Talent Search projects seem to agree with their
suggestion. A Talent Search director of the projects that met their APR objectives
for postsecondary enrollment stated, “We are evaluating based upon what our
proposal says we are going to do, so our evaluation was based on our APR…We’re
doing what we’re supposed to be doing, …there is so much more that we can do.”
One way that was mentioned was an “Evaluation based on having the [high school]
counselors and the students evaluate the program.”
The other Talent Search director, whose project did not make the APR
objective for postsecondary enrollment also stated that “I would implement some
sort of survey within each school on two bases, one on the students and the other on
the parents or do a focus group, so that they could be able to see where the strengths
are of the program and what areas there are to improve.” The director later
responded to how the evaluation process of Talent Search could be improved, “The
APR is very quantitative, it’s very number driven…I would say…to try to develop a
qualitative side to it, by a focus [group] or survey.” Specifically, the director had the
idea that, “[The students and the parents] could come in any time and do an online
survey,…and it could randomly be done throughout the year and not at the end of the
152
year, so that way, [evaluators] could see, if they wanted to, a change in the behavior
over time, rather than just one snapshot.”
Talent Search staff members from several schools that span from above to
below the state average in successful postsecondary enrollment, also advocated for
formative assessments, as one that worked with a couple of schools stated that, “If
we gave the kids a survey so that they could rate our effectiveness in certain areas of
what they’ve done, if they had any career change throughout the year…how were
these field trips…” Another Talent Search staff member who worked at two
different schools also suggested that “It could be good to look at attendance, or have
some sort of feedback from the students on how much they think they have gained
from the program…what the students think we can improve on, whether the field
trips [sic] effective, if they wanted more, or what type, or what they would like to do
in the classroom.” Another staff member stated that, “Maybe even an evaluation
from teachers, getting their perspective, how do they perceive what’s going on with
our students. I would appreciate their feedback because we want to be collaborative
rather than create this separation ‘You’re taking my kids out of class.’” The
suggestion, ties back to the desire to have school collaboration and increasing
communication between the school and the Talent Search staff.
Both Talent Search projects began informal formative assessments, the
director of the project that did not meet the APR objective of postsecondary
enrollment, had three evaluations in place. Campus tours, test preparation activities,
153
and an overall evaluation of the program were discussed in the interview. Here is the
director’s statement regarding campus tours,
To measure the students’ perceptions of…for example…a college campus
tour, were they familiar with their surroundings, what did they expect, are
there any expectations that they do have. So we wanted to match up a pre,
how they felt before, and then the post, which would mean after they have
completed the excursion, the tour, or the workshop, was there a gain of
knowledge and increase in understanding and appreciation for. Or if there
was anything that they needed to prepare for the next time, what are those
areas…and if so then what we do is we can go ahead and use that information
in preparing the next time we do it…One…feedback we got was that we had
one college campus tour, which included parents and the parents came with
the kids, which were ok, but when the parents were walking with the kids, the
parents started getting on the kids so much, that the kids were upset, they
were frustrated. So, what we learned from the first time is that we separated
both of them. We put the kids on one tour and we put the parents on a
separate [one]. Then that way the kids didn’t get the nagging, the pushing,
and all of the pressure.

The following was stated by the director about the evaluation of test
preparation workshops, “So what we’ve done is that prior to that test we did
workshops, so we were doing the preparation, so this [evaluation] was just to see
were [the students] adequately prepared for [the test], and then if so then we know
where we need to strengthen in the pre-workshops, or the workshops prior to the
testing.”
As for the overall, more qualitative evaluation, it is described as a
compilation of all of the formative evaluations previously mentioned. The director
stated, “We compile the data and what we do after a full year as we get ready for our
APR, we go ahead and present the tours, and all we’ve done, the results of the
surveys, and then we present them to the advisory board.” The advisory board was
154
described as followed, “The advisory board are made up of two University of Hawaii
employees, preferably someone within our department, meaning our unit: the Office
of student affairs and SEEDS, the Student Equity Excellence and Diversity…We
have a community person…we have the Vice Principals…and then…the director for
the College Career Center…and the principals…are invited to sit on the board, but
they send a representative.” The purpose of the board was then elaborated on, “The
purpose of the board is just to give us advice, recommendations, comments. We
report to them and tell them what we’ve done in the activities for the past year.
What we plan to do for the activities for the upcoming year and if they have any
suggestions or recommendations that they want us to pursue.”
The director went on to say that formative evaluations have the potential to
be expanded and better implemented, “[The overall evaluation] will help us rank our
performance, the way we offer our services…Although that does help at the end of
the year, it doesn’t really help us during the year. So, what I was thinking of trying
to do, was randomly selecting students that experienced [services] and give them a
survey and rank the services that they received.”
One of the staff members who works under the director and at the school
with the lowest postsecondary enrollment percentage of all target schools, also
mentioned the effectiveness of evaluations in the interview, “[The evaluations are]
good because we get feedback from the kids…because you wouldn’t want to keep
doing something that the kid doesn’t like, you don’t want to keep taking them here if
they aren’t getting anything out of it, you want to keep them in to something they are
155
in to.” The staff member also recommended that an evaluation of the actual staff
members by the students would be beneficial as stated in the following
recommendation, “[A staff] evaluation, so that we would know if how we’re
approaching kids is a good way, or if we should change the way that we approach
kids.”
One of the staff members in the other Talent Search project decided to create
a formative evaluation, and described it as follows:
Last year I created a student evaluation to get feedback on how our activities
have been throughout the year…They gave suggestions for field trips. The
evaluation was based on what they liked best about the program, what type of
activities they liked best, give suggestions for different field trips, we give
them educational tools, so I wanted suggestions for that too. We’re at the
point where we are giving them the same things every year, so I wanted
feedback on that. And then “Do you want to meet just once a week or do you
think you need more time per week to meet. Actually the majority of them
wanted to meet more than once a week.

The preliminary finding of students wanting to meet more often is in concert with the
participants’ perception in this study where contact time was inadequate.
Taylor-Powell et al. (1998), from chapter two, states that evaluation should
be shared with all stakeholders, and in the instance with the following principal, a
key member seems to be out of the loop. The principal at the school with
postsecondary enrollment above the state average of 50% stated that, “Well, I would
like to see the number of students that…have been serviced and what has happened
to these kids, and probably you would want to see…student feedback from the
services that have been provided and how effective and how it’s helped them…I
haven’t had the opportunity to look at any written evaluations, so that may be
156
something so that you can see more longitudinal kinds of things that are going on,
but that’s not to say that they don’t have it.”
When asked what kinds of longitudinal data the principal was interested in
seeing, the following statement was given, “With all the data that has come up, it is a
concern, because when we look at the kids that exit us and go on to two year
[colleges]. I think if you really look deeper in how many stay, and complete two
years, it probably drops from actual amount of kids who actually go because their
idea is ‘I’m going to a two year college,’ and then they find out they are remedial,
and if they are in remedial then they have to take another year of that class, right? So
it’s very discouraging.” Currently the APR does not evaluate the retention of
students in college, and instead focuses on the immediate enrollment in college. This
is an additional portion of the pipeline that could be explored with longitudinal data.
The director of the Talent Search program that serviced the aforementioned
principal was in agreement of an evaluation that measured effectiveness
longitudinally. “What I would really like to see happen is more so taking the students
that…started with us in 2002 in middle school, this year is the year they are going to
graduate, and finding did they graduate, what schools they went to, did they choose
four year or two year colleges, did they apply for financial aid…We don’t say that
we are going to do this in our proposal, but that is the true measurement of
effectiveness, did we make a difference with these kids…I want to call these kids up
and their families and did we make a difference.” In this instance, the evaluations
157
reach beyond the APR numbers and have the potential to show the lasting impact of
Talent Search.
A vice principal at a school, who coincidentally was also a previous recipient
of TRIO services in the form of Upward Bound, mentioned that the longitudinal data
would also provide opportunities for previous beneficiaries of Talent Search to return
to schools to deliver services to students:
If [Talent Search takes] and follows those recipients that go off to school and
find ways to recycle them back in, and come up with a mentor program and
use those who would have benefited from the program and use them to be a
mouthpiece, a testimony piece, for those who are at the high school level and
come up with that type of mentor program for the high schools, and when
those kids are at home during breaks [from college], [Talent Search should]
have some workshops for the high schools and those young adults…and try
to have them commit to a two or four year mentorship so that they can follow
high school students all the way through. I think that would be beneficial and
to use that data to bridge the gap…If anyone is going to benefit from Talent
Search and go off into the blue-wide yonder and become successful, then if
they’re not followed and recycled back in, then those are missed benefits for
the program, for the students that are in the program, for communities.

This idea of a way of using the longitudinal data to not only assess whether Talent
Search is making a lasting difference, but also connect previous recipients to current
participants is a suggestion that has the potential to increase all of the college access
factors through a meaningful partnership.
Summary of Chapter Four
Chapter four presented emergent themes from data collection. Social support
and cultural capital, along with academic preparation were perceived as the most
influential access factors in terms of promoting college access. Family, peers, the
school, and Talent Search play important roles in providing the support and culture
158
necessary for postsecondary access. The schools were perceived as the primary
source of academic preparation, and Talent Search would supplement their efforts.
Despite this perception of social support and cultural capital and academic
preparation being the most influential, the activities associated with access to
information were perceived as being the most important and the most effective. The
most important and effective activity, as noted by the votes of the participants was
‘help with financial aid applications.’
There was close articulation of influential college factors as perceived at one
school among director, staff, and principal. Academic preparation and social support
and cultural capital were the most influential factors for the staff associated with this
school. Despite the articulation, the school is not performing well in terms of
achieving postsecondary access for its students, nor are the students performing well
on the HSA. A possible contributor to this finding was that the school was situated
in a low-income area. To further the inference of demographics playing a role in
student success, another school that lacked articulation within a different community,
achieved relatively high postsecondary success.
Although there were perceived aspects that were aiding Talent Search
effectiveness in promoting postsecondary access, there were barriers in place. The
first facilitator to program effectiveness was the cooperation of the school, so that
sufficient contact time with students can be achieved through the existing pull-out
system. This was difficult however, as schools were struggling with NCLB, and
schools are hesitant to compromise instructional time. The state of Hawaii is also in
159
a unique predicament with 17 furlough days that limit classroom time with the
students, which may also be adding to the reluctance for the schools to devote time
to additional activities. The presence and possible collaboration with the AVID
program also was mentioned as a possibility in enhancing program effectiveness.
The second theme to emerge was that immediate postsecondary access is
perceived as the ideal goal, but there were external factors such as the need for
parents to submit important documentation, religious obligations, and the desire for
students to work or join the military. Although all of these external factors could
take place anywhere in the country, the influence of religious missions seemed to be
concentrated to one specific school community.
The third theme was that evaluation is perceived as effective and has the
potential for improvement. The formative evaluation of Talent Search is perceived
effective, although summative is what is formally measured in the APR. Principals,
staff members, and directors all mentioned how evaluations by students, parents, and
school staff would provide feedback that would help better the program’s
effectiveness in increasing postsecondary access for its participants. The participants
understood the importance of the APR as an external summative evaluation, but also
thought that internal formative evaluations would be a beneficial assessment that
could be an additional tool to guide practice. Longitudinal evaluation of Talent
Search was also seen as potentially beneficial, even though it is not currently
implemented. The perception existed that longitudinal data would reveal Talent
Search’s lasting impact on students, and that such data could also be a starting point
160
for involving previous program participants that gained college access with current
high school participants.
161
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of Talent Search
staff, directors, and target high school principals regarding factors that contribute to
college access, and program effectiveness. The perceptions of the individuals and
the groups of individuals were described and analyzed in order to determine if
potential discrepancies and agreements in perceptions were present. Chapter four
presented the findings for the following research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to factors that affect
postsecondary access for underrepresented students?
• Sub-question for analysis: How do these perceptions articulate among
the participants of the study and accord with current research?
2. What are the perceptions of TRIO Talent Search Staff Members and the
principals or vice principals they serve in regards to Talent Search's
effectiveness in facilitating underrepresented college access?
• Sub-question for analysis: What barriers do participants perceive as
being inhibitory to the success of the program and what steps can be
taken to improve the program?
Chapter five will briefly summarize the findings, suggest implications for
practice and research, discuss the limitations of the study, and provide the conclusion
of the dissertation.
162
Summary of Findings
In response to question one, the findings were as follows:
• Social support and cultural capital, and academic preparation were
articulated as the perceived the most influential access factors
• Access to information activities perceived as being most important
• One example of articulation among director, staff, and target school
administrator perceptions of college access factors were evident
In response to question two, the findings were as follows:
• Access to information activities perceived as being most effective
• Aspects that are perceived as aiding Talent Search effectiveness have
barriers
There were three barriers to Talent Search effectiveness that emerged from
the research. The first barrier is that Talent Search programs were perceived more
effective if they had cooperation from schools in time of NCLB. The second was
that immediate postsecondary access was perceived to be ideal, but was difficult to
accomplish due to external factors such as religious obligations, employment, or
military service. The final barrier was that qualitative formative evaluation of Talent
Search, which is perceived effective, is an area that could be improved upon to
ultimately increase the indicators that were formally measured in the APR.
Implications for Practice
The findings revealed several implications for practice, because the
perceptions of the participants shared commonalities that provided insight in ways of
163
increasing the effectiveness of the Talent Search program in promoting
postsecondary access. The implications have two foci, one on the Talent Search
program itself, and the other on a broader policies that govern, surround, and
indirectly impact program effectiveness. The first implication was that access to
information activities could be continued because they were perceived as both
important and effective. This coincides with the literature of chapter two, where
postsecondary access was found to be considered an influential factor in promoting
college access (Lareau, 1987; Steinberg, 1996; Plank & Jordan, 2001). Within the
access to information category, the activities that promoted access to information
specifically about financial aid received the greatest number of votes in both
importance and effectiveness. This emphasis on financial aid information was also
consistent with the literature review from chapter two (Sallie Mae Fund & Harris
Interactive, 2003; Perna, 2006; American Council on Education [ACE], 2004;
McSwain, 2008; Grodsky & Jones 2004; Horn, Chen, & Chapman, 2003; Dynarski
& Scott-Clayton, 2006; King, 1996; Terenzini, Cabrera, and Bernal, 2001; Grodsky
& Jones, 2004). Information on college admissions also ranked high, and was also
validated by the review in chapter two as an influential activity in promoting college
access (Orfield & Paul, 1993; Hossler, Schmit, J., & Vesper, 1999; Orfield & Paul,
1993; Berkner, & Chavez, 1997).
Even more specifically relevant to the research from chapter two is the
perception of participants that assistance on financial aid forms increases application
and enrollment, which is directly linked to the study by Bettinger et al. (2009). The
164
implication for the Talent Search program is to emphasize financial aid application
assistance. At the government policy level, tax submission deadlines could coincide
with FAFSA submission deadlines to greater facilitate compliance with parents
having all the necessary information to complete the application forms. There could
also be a way of presorting and pre-populating essential information for potential
financial aid applicants. By saving applicants and their families a step, they will be
one step closer to applying for and receiving aid.
A second implication is that Talent Search programs could consciously work
on building strong relationships with the schools that they service, because there is a
perception that doing so will increase the effectiveness in implementing services that
aid in postsecondary access. The literature supports educational partnerships and
specifically notes the importance between outreach programs and the schools they
service (Tushnet, 1993; Taylor-Powell et al., 1998; Swail, 2001; McDonough, 2001;
Gándara & Bial, 2001; Lingenfelter, 2007). Coordination through communicating or
meeting with target school administrators and Talent Search staff before school and
services begin is a possible way of increasing these partnerships. To add on to the
idea of coordination between these two groups, target school staff and other
programs that promote college access should enter in collaboration early and often
throughout the year with Talent Search staff in order to promote a common
understanding of how services can best be delivered.
NCLB has brought an emphasis of objectives that focus on the passing of the
HSA and meeting AYP, so schools often place college access as a secondary
165
priority. Talent Search effectiveness, because of the nature of its pull-out system that
requires teacher and administration approval, is dependent upon the cooperation and
partnership of the school that it services. Without the ‘buy-in’ from the school,
participation in the program may be limited. Talent Search needs to establish itself
as part of the institution that functions in conjunction and not in competition with the
rest of the school and its other programs.
The difficulty behind the ‘buy in’ from the school may be beyond the
school’s control however, as NCLB does not recognize college going as an indicator
of school success. As long as NCLB and its systemic influence exists, the
administrators of the school will focus more on the HSA test score indicators than an
indicator like college going. Although college going is perceived as important by
schools, as long as it remains formally unmeasured, the schools will focus on the
assessments that “matter.”
Although the meeting of AYP through success on the HSA may seem like
schools are academically preparing students for college, the academic preparation
that is perceived as being important for the directors of Talent Search is the skills
needed to take college entrance exams. The high school curriculum is currently
based upon the standards outlined by the HSA, and is not necessarily based on
college preparation. This is another example of how different expectations for
students could lead to a decrease in postsecondary access, especially to those
students who can graduate from high school without going through a college
preparatory curriculum.
166
NCLB with its intentions of increasing student achievement is primarily
focused on the first stage of the educational pipeline, high school graduation. As
mentioned in the literature, the success of each step is dependent upon the steps that
preceded them, but success at each level does not guarantee promotion to the next
phase (Ewell, Jones & Kelly, 2003; Education Week, January 2007; National Center
for Public Policy & Higher Education, 2004). At the time of this study, the state of
Hawai`i was in the planning stages of aligning high school graduation requirements
with college and career-ready expectations, developing college and career-ready
assessment systems, and developing P-20 longitudinal data systems high school
standards with expectations of college and the workplace by 2010 (Achieve, 2009).
Without the implementation of such initiatives, the existing K-12 system will
inadvertently stifle postsecondary efforts due to seemingly worthy goals of passing
the HSA and graduation.
Since Talent Search seems to be up against a systemic mindset that places
college going as less of a priority, the partnership between schools and Talent Search
could therefore offer incentives that are linked to NCLB as well as college going.
Along with assisting the school in making AYP, there may be a way for Talent
Search to financially benefit the school as well. By utilizing Talent Search funding
to supplement school funding, the offering of activities could benefit both school and
program.
A third implication is that Talent Search programs could work more closely
with parents to promote their involvement, as well as educating them on the college
167
process so that they can make informed decisions as gatekeepers of their children’s
future. The implication of strengthening family support is consistent with the
literature in chapter two (Corwin et al, 2005; Swail & Perna, 2002; McDonough,
2003; Swail, 2001). Although a college application that does not require parental
involvement might appear at odds with the suggestion of greater parental
involvement, the Kama`aina application to Hawaii public colleges, which does not
require a parent signature simply limits a barrier to the college going process and
could be utilized to decrease dependency on parents and limit a possible external
barrier to admission and enrollment. Another way of possibly increasing parental
involvement is by offering incentives for parents to participate in the program with
their children.
The fourth implication is that formative evaluation could be conducted to
inform the practice of the Talent Search program, because it is perceived that the
assessment will help guide the effective practice of the program and increase APR
numbers on the summative evaluation. Both the community college and the four-
year college projects had qualitative formative evaluations in place, but they seem to
be different from each other, and not implemented consistently across all schools.
The sharing of the different formative assessments and the data collected from them
could be utilized to help the effectiveness of both Talent Search projects. The results
of the formative evaluations could also be analyzed against the summative APR from
each year, to see if the measurement is a valid indicator of improvement. At the
policy level, if those qualitative formative assessments played a role in the renewal
168
of funding for the program, just as the summative APR does, the Talent Search
projects may be more likely to place more emphasis on these evaluations.
Implications for Research
The findings also raised possible research topics, and those are highlighted in
this section. The first area of potential future research is the examination of activities
that promote what the research and the participants’ perceptions point to as
influential college access factors. Social support and cultural capital, and academic
preparation could guide the formation of activities that will promote what
participants feel are the most influential factors of college access. Social support and
cultural capital was found to promote postsecondary access, as evidenced by chapter
two (Corwin et al., 2005; Swail & Perna, 2002; McDonough, 2003; Swail, 2001;
Rainwater and Venezia, 2003; Gandara & Bial, 2001; Villalpando & Solorzano,
2005; Tierney and Jun, 2001). Academic preparation was also found to promote
college access (Gandara and Bial, 2001; United States Department of Education,
2001; Rainwater and Venezia, 2003; Venezia and Kirst, 2003; Corwin et al., 2005).
Based on the direction of the literature, accompanied by the findings that these two
factors are the most influential based on the perceptions of the participants, the area
of research that could promote postsecondary access could be more focused on the
effectiveness of activities related to these factors.
The findings also suggest that there are aspects that prevent social support
and cultural capital from being effectively implemented within activities. Due to the
limited contact time with each Talent Search participant, those working with these
169
students are making the conscious effort to provide access to information over social
support and cultural capital or academic preparation. Information seems to be a
more immediate and practical way of providing assistance, while social support and
cultural capital, as well as academic preparation takes more contact time and
additional resources to develop. This may explain why the majority of the
participants of the study perceived social support and cultural capital or academic
preparation to be the most influential factors, and access to information activities to
be the most important and effective.
Throughout the interviews, the idea that the providing of information was
more a part of what the participants had control over, while the social support and
cultural capital piece seemed to be more the responsibility of the family, peers, and
community was evident. The academic preparation part also seemed to be less a part
of Talent Search’s responsibility and more so fell on the schools themselves. Given
the dilemma of limited contact time, research could be conducted that would help
determine if the delivering of services to individuals one at a time is more or less
effective than delivering them to a group. Variables within the comparison, such as
the time it takes to effectively deliver services and the number of participants that
could effectively be serviced at one time could also be studied.
A second indication of the possibility of future research is that the
preliminary findings show no relationship between the articulation of director, staff,
and principal or vice principal in increasing the effectiveness of the program. More
research could be conducted to find if there is any correlation that exists between the
170
articulation of college access factors and the effectiveness of the program in a more
generalizable study that takes a look at more schools across the nation.
A third area of possible inquiry is to explore the effects of external factors on
college enrollment of Talent Search participants. External factors are perceived as
being reasons why students do not achieve immediate postsecondary enrollment, and
more research could be conducted in order to examine if this is a valid perception,
and if so, what can be done to limit the effect of these factors on enrollment. One
possible area of research within the study of external factors, is examining how
developmental status plays a role in when and what services are administered.
Interventions could then be better timed, so that a student who is developmentally
prepared to receive services is receiving them at the appropriate time.
Fourth, once the formative evaluations are conducted, data analysis could
occur to find ways to improve program effectiveness. Currently, the formative
evaluations are not systematically evaluated and communicated within and between
the two Talent Search programs. Future research on how the activities are affecting
participants, could guide practice for not only Hawaii participants, but for programs
across the country.
Limitations
There are several limitations that were revealed throughout the study, that
were not anticipated in chapter one. Many limitations of the study occurred because
of the target group of high school principals. Some principals did not participate in
the study due to lack of availability, which caused the study to be open to vice
171
principals as well. These two different positions were treated as one high school
administrator group in the attempt to obtain data from at least one administrator from
each target high school. With the roles being different, the nature of their positions
make the responses that they give difficult to compare. One of the target school’s
principal and vice principals did not respond to multiple requests to be a part of the
study, which is a limitation of the comprehensiveness of the data.
Principals and vice principals are also only a couple of connections that the
Talent Search program has with their Target Schools, and the study did not explore
articulation with other members of the school, specifically counselors and teachers.
From speaking with the participants of the study, the college and career counselors
are usually the ones who serve as liaisons to Talent Search, and their perceptions
would have added to the richness of the data. Teachers also seemed to play an
important role in the success of Talent Search in terms of allowing the students to be
pulled out of class, so their contribution to the data would have also added to its
overall richness.
The limitation from chapter one that projected that the location and
uniqueness of the region and the staff potentially increases the threats to external
validity of the study proved to be strongly evident in the findings. Specifically,
certain regions had unique barriers to effectiveness. The Talent Search staff in one
project had spent less than six months at their positions, while every staff member at
the other project had staff members who had at least one year of experience. This
172
could have affected the results of the study because the disparity of experience
possibly affected responses.
Conclusion
The college access gap has remained stagnant for low-income and first-
generation students (Mortenson, 2001a; Horn and Nuñez 2000). As the 2006 data
showed that Hawai`i’s enrollment rate immediately following high school of 59.8%
ranks 32
nd
in the nation, there is a strong sense of urgency in improving the
educational outcomes for students (National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 2009). The factors that contribute to this gap, and therefore
focused on in this study include access to information, social support and cultural
capital, academic preparation, and financial aid (Martinez, 2005). The findings of
this research study, which are summarized here, illuminate themes about the
perceptions of the college access factors, and how to improve the implementation of
the Talent Search program.
NCLB has placed college access as a secondary priority behind the passing of
the HSA and meeting AYP. The focus on meeting standards has had a direct effect
on how Talent Search services are administered, because the activities have to work
around the emphasis on NCLB mandates. AYP through success on the HSA also
could be perceived as an aspect that is diminishing college readiness, because the
high school curriculum is currently based upon the standards outlined by the HSA,
and is not necessarily based on college preparation (Achieve, 2009). NCLB and its
influence seems to be the driving force behind decision making in schools, and
173
Talent Search should find ways to navigate within this systemic focus to accomplish
its own objectives. By utilizing Talent Search funding to supplement school funding
that are linked to meeting NCLB, the offering of activities could benefit both school
and program.
By being more a part of the existing school system, Talent Search could
possibly increase the contact time allotted to their participants. In doing so, the
factors of social support and cultural capital, as well as academic preparation, which
was perceived by the participants of the study as being the most influential to the
program’s effectiveness in promoting postsecondary access, can be implemented
with greater fidelity. The activities that were perceived to be important and effective
were in the category of access to information, and those activities can be continued
along with strengthening the social support and cultural capital activities that take
longer and more coordination to implement. Academic preparation could be
supplemented through Talent Search activities, through offering coordinated services
that will help students complete a college level curriculum in the target high schools.
External factors such as religious obligations, employment, or military
service all serve as barriers to immediate enrollment in college. Although all are
paths that positively contribute to society, the objective of postsecondary access
immediately following high school is what is currently measured, and therefore is the
standard outcome that matters. The perception that participants of Talent Search
eventually go to college is unsubstantiated by the lack of research, which leads to the
desire for longitudinal data collection of the postsecondary success of participants.
174
Along with longitudinal data collection, the recurring suggestion of formative
evaluation as a means of monitoring and improving Talent Search emerged in the
findings. There was evidence of some formative evaluation and the use of the results
in guiding practice within each project, but there seemed to be a desire to expand the
depth and breadth of such evaluations to better the program.
Effectiveness of Talent Search programs in achieving postsecondary access
for underrepresented students have been documented in both national and local
literature via quantitative methods (Cahalan et al, 2004; U.S. Office of Management
and Budget and Federal Agencies, 2008; Constantine et al., 2006; Hashimoto, 2008a;
Hashimoto, 2008b; Richards, 2008). Qualitative research however was missing from
the literature review, and the absence of the data were due to the limitations of
research methodology, lack of data, lack of resources, volatility of staff, no research
design template, and a variability of program features (McDonough, 2003). The
findings and implications of this study attempted to partially fill this gap in the
research literature, as well as served as a launching point for practical applications,
and further meaningful research. By answering the research questions, this
dissertation provides qualitative data that could be utilized to improve Talent Search
with the possibility of greater positive ramifications in improving underrepresented
student enrollment in postsecondary education. In doing so, this study could play a
role in ultimately improving the overall educational pipeline, by increasing the
number of students that are “leaked” out at the critical transition point of enrollment
into college.
175
REFERENCES
Achieve (2009). Closing the expectations gap. Retrieved February 14, 2009 from
http://www.achieve.org/files/50-state-2009.pdf

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

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

Aloha United Way. (2005). Economic well-being in Hawai`i: family and individual
self-sufficiency. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://uhfamily.Hawai`i.edu/publications/brochures/EconomicWellBeing200
7.pdf

American Council on Education (ACE). (2004). Missed opportunities: students who
do not apply for financial aid. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education.

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

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

Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the 1992
high school graduates (NCES Publication No. 98105). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

Bettinger, E.P., Long, B.T., Oreopoulos, P. & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2009). The Role of
Simplification and Information in College Decisions: Results from the H&R
Block FAFSA Experiment. [Electronic version]. (NBER Working Paper
15361). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

176
Cahalan, M., Silva, T., Thomas, M., & Cunningham K. (2004). Implementation of
the Talent Search program, past and present: final report from phase I of the
national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved November 14, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/talentsearch/talentreport.pdf

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

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

Coles, A. (1992). Perspectives on an evaluation of Talent Search: interviews with
Talent Search staff. Paper prepared for the Design Conference for the
Evaluation of the Talent Search Program, hosted by the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Policy and Planning, September 30, 1992.

College Board. (2007). Education pays 2007: the benefits of higher education for
individuals and society. New York.

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

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

177
Dynarski, S.M., & Scott-Clayton, J.E. (2006). The cost of complexity in federal
student aid: lessons from optimal tax theory and behavioral economics.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

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

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

Farrington, D., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St. Ledger, R., and West, D. (1986).
Unemployment,school leaving and crime. British journal of criminology 26,
335-56.

Gottfredson, M. (1985). Youth employment, crime, and schooling. Developmental
psychology. 21, 419-32.

Gandara, P, & Bial, D. (2001) U.S. Department of education, National Center for
Education Statistics. paving the way to postsecondary education: k-12
intervention programs for underrepresented youth, NCES 2001-205, prepared
for the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Access Working
Group. Washington DC.

GEAR UP Hawai`i (2007, February). Inspiring hope and improving futures.
Retrieved September 29, 2008, from the University of Hawai`i GEAR UP
Web
site:http://gearup.Hawai`i.edu/sites/all/themes/gearup/documents/webstorybo
ok-sm.pdf

Gottlieb, P. D., & Fogarty, M. (2003). Educational attainment and metropolitan
growth. Economic development quarterly, 17(4), pp. 325-336.

Grodsky, E., & Jones, M.T. (2004). Real and imagined barriers to college entry:
perceptions of cost. Social science research 36:745–766.

Gullatt, Y., & Jan, W. (2003) How do pre-college academic outreach programs
impact college-going among underrepresented students. Retrieved February
15, 2009, from Pathways to College Network website:
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/PrecollegiateOutreachPrograms.pdf
178
Hagedorn, L.S., & Tierney, W.G. (2002). Cultural capital and the struggle for
educational equity. In L.S. Hagedorn & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Increasing
access to college (pp. 1-11). New York: State University of New York Press.

Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic
development. Journal of economic literature 46(3), pp. 607-668.

Hawai`i Department of Education (2009). Furloughs and Hawai`i’s Public Schools.
Retrieved January 31, 2010 from
http://doe.k12.hi.us/news/furlough/index.htm

Hawai`i P-20, Hawai`i Department of Education, and University of Hawai`i (2008).
College and Career Readiness Indicators Report Class of 2008.

Hawai‘i Workforce Informer (2007, November). Hawai‘i’s hot 50 jobs. Honolulu:
HI: State of Hawai‘i Department of Labor & Industrial Relations. Retrieved
March 16, 2009 from
http://www.hiwi.org/admin/uploadedPublications/1486_Hot_50_4pgs_2008_
Revised.pdf

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

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

Horn, L., Chen, X., & Chapman, C. (2003). Getting ready to pay for college: what
students and their parents know about the cost of college tuition and what
they are doing to find out. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: how social,
economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Holland J., & Astin, A. W. (1979) The need for redefining "talent" and "talent loss":
a plan for practical action and research. Journal of higher education, 50(4),
422-428. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1980953
179
Horn, L., & Nuñez, A.M. (2000). Mapping the road to college: first-generation
students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support (NCES
2000–153). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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

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

Janesick, V.J. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers. (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

King, J.E. (1996). The Decision to Go to College: Attitudes and Experiences
Associated with College Attendance Among Low-income Students.
Washington, D.C.: The College Board.

Kirst, M. & Bracco, K. (1996). Bridging the great divide. how the k-12 and
postsecondary split hurts students, and what can be done about it. In Kirst,
M. & Venezia, A., From high school to college. improving opportunities for
success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology in Education, 60(2), 73-85.

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

Lee, J.B., & Clery, S.B. (1993). Pre-college intervention programs: a descriptive
study of Talent Search” (Report No. 93-1). Washington, DC: National
Council of Educational Opportunity Associations, Center for the Study of
Opportunity in Higher Education, 1993.

Lingenfelter, P. (2007). More student success: a systemic solution. Retrieved March
16, 2009 from http://www.sheeo.org/k16/studsucc2.pdf

180
Lippman, L., Guzman, L., Julie Dombrowski Keith, J., Kinukawa, A., Shwalb, R., &
Tice, P. (2008). Parent expectations and planning for college (NCES 2008-
079). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Lochner, L. (2008) Education and crime. International encyclopedia of education,
(3rd ed). University of Western Ontario.

Long, B.T. (2004). The role of perceptions and information in college access: an
exploratory review of the literature and possible data sources. The Education
Resources Institute (TERI). Retrieved on April 10, 2009, from
http://teri.org/pdf/research-studies/ReseachReport_Long.pdf.

McDonough, P. M. (2001). A technical report on family involvement for the
University of California.

McDonough, P.M. (2003). College access maximization: essential needs,
intervention programs, or school reform. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from
Pathways to College Network website:
http://administration.uco.edu/good2great/pdf/Scans/wp003Reader.pdf

McSwain, C. (2008). Window of opportunity: targeting federal grant aid to students
with the lowest incomes. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass.

Moore, Lovell, McGann, & Wyrick (1998) Why involvement maters: a review of
research on student involvement in the collegiate setting. College student
affairs journal, 17(2), 4-17.

Montague, W. (1987, September). School rated a key factor in business-site
decisions. Education week: pp. 1, 14.

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

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

181
Mortenson, T. (2001b, October). Graph titled: college continuation rates by family
income quartiles for dependent 18-24 year-old high school graduates.
Postsecondary education opportunity.

National Center for Education Statistics (1995). Programs at higher education
institutions for disadvantaged precollege students. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Retrieved October 30, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=96230

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

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

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

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008). Measuring up 2008:
the state report card on higher education Hawai`i. Retrieved April 2, 2009
from
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/HI.pdf

Norfles, N. (2001). Closing the divide: technology use in TRIO Upward Bound.
Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education,
National TRIO Clearinghouse.

Nuñez, A.M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students:
undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education
(NCES 98–082). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Obama, B. (2009, February). Transcript: obama’s speech to congress. Retrieved
February 28, 2009 from
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/24/politics/main4826494.shtml
182
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006:
science competencies for tomorrow’s world: OECD briefing note for the
United States. Paris, France.

Orfield, G., & Paul, F.G. (1993). High hopes, long odds: A major report on Hoosier
teens and the American dream. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Youth Institute.

Ostrove, J., & Long, S. (2007). Social class and belonging: implications for college
adjustment. Review of higher education, 30(4), 363-373,375-376,378-
379,381-389. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from Education Module
database. (Document ID: 1301634411).

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

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

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

Perna, L.W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: sex, racial/ethnic, and
socioeconomic group differences. Review of higher education, 29(1), 23-0_5.
Retrieved September 29, 2008, from Education Module database. (Document
ID: 908818651).

Perna, L.W. (2006). Understanding the relationship between information about
college prices and financial aid and students' college-related behaviors. The
American behavioral scientist, 49(12), 1620-1635. Retrieved September 29,
2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1082437371).

Plank, S.B., & Jordon, W.J. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions on
postsecondary destinations: a study of talent loss. American educational
research journal, 38(4), 947-979.

Rainwater, T., & Venezia, A. (2003). Early outreach. Student success: statewide P-
16 systems. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from Pathways to College
Network:
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/StudentSuccess_EarlyOutreach.pdf
183
Richards, P. (2008). Talent Search annual performance report for leeward district.
Honolulu, Hawai`i: University of Hawai`i at Manoa.

Rouse, C.E. (2004). Low-income students and college attendance: an exploration of
income expectations. Social science quarterly, 85(5), 1299- 1317. Retrieved
September 27, 2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document ID:
780612391).

Sallie Mae Fund and Harris Interactive. (2003). Financial aid: the information
divide. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from
http://www.thesalliemaefund.org/smfnew/news/2003/news_nr184b.html.

Silva, T., & Kim. J. (1999). The federal Talent Search program: a synthesis of
information from research literature and grant applications. Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.
Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 1999.

State of Hawai`i Department of Education Systems Accountability Office (2008)
Accountability Resource Center Hawai`i: School Status and Improvement
Report (SSIR). Retrieved May 9, 2009 from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/ssir/ssir.html#

State of Hawai`i Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Research and
Statistics Office (2008). Hawai`i hot 50. Retrieved May 23, 2009 from
http://www.hiwi.org/admin/uploadedPublications/1486_Hot_50_4pgs_2008_
Revised.pdf

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

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

Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education's self-reflexive turn: toward an intercultural
theory of student development. The journal of higher education, 73(2), 263-
296. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from Research Library Core database.
(Document ID: 110103052).

184
Taylor-Powell E., Rossing, B., & Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating collaboratives:
reaching the potential. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from University of
Wisconsin-Extension-Cooperative Extension, Program Development and
Evaluation Unit Web site:
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evaldocs.html.

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

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

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

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

Timar, T., Ogawa, R., & Orillion., M. (2004). Expanding the University of
California's outreach mission. Review of higher education, 27(2), 187.
Retrieved September 27, 2008, from Education Module database. (Document
ID: 522820151).

Tinto, V. (1989). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

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

Tucker, J.E. (2000). Tinto's model and successful college transitions. Journal of
college student retention, 1(2), 163-175. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from
Education Module database. (Document ID: 609464811).

Tushnet, N. (1993). A guide to developing educational partnerships. Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved May 21, 2009 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/13/22/82.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). The big payoff: educational attainment and synthetic
estimates of work-life earnings. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
185
U.S. Department of Commerce (2000, October). Falling through the net: toward
digital inclusion, a report on Americans’ access to technology tools.
Washington DC.

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

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008).
Revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary Education,
NCES 2008328, by Lei Zhou. Washington, DC: 2008.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). An interim report on the Talent Search
program: 2002–03 and 2003–04, with select data From 2000–02. Retrieved
November 20, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/triotalent/tsinterimreport2002-04.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Talent Search program funding status.
Retrieved April 11, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/triotalent/funding.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). TRIO home page. Retrieved June 3, 2009,
from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html

U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Federal Agencies. (2008). Detailed
information on the TRIO Talent Search assessment. Retrieved November 20,
2008, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001036.2005.html

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

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

Witte, A.D., & Tauchen, H. (1994). Work and crime: an exploration using panel
data. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4794.
186
APPENDIX A
PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Section I - Demographics
Please fill in the following information:
1. Please list your educational background
College/University/Institution Degrees/Certificates Earned Major

2. Please list all prior relevant work experience:
Job Title Location Duration in Years

3. What is your current job title?
4. Could you describe the responsibilities and duties of your position as it
specifically relates to Talent Search?

5. How many years have you served in your current position?

Section II - Program Operation and Effectiveness
6. First, of the following Talent Search services, check off items that are provided
to high school participants at the high schools in your project and add any that
are not listed. Second, of the services offered at your project, please write Y next
to items that you feel are effective at promoting college access for Talent Search
high school participants that are either low-income, and/or first-generation, and
N next to items those that you feel are not. Third, please rank the top four
services from most effective in promoting college access to the least effective,
with 1 being most effective. Fourth, in the last column, please also rank the top
four services from most important in promoting college access to the least
important, with 1 being most important.
187

Service
Offered
(check)
Effective
(Y)es or (N)o
Rank top four (1
most to 4 least)
in order of
effectiveness
Rank top four
(1 most to 4
least) in order
of importance
career exploration
information on postsecondary
education

information on financial aid
academic advising
help with completing college
admissions

help with financial aid
applications

aptitude assessment
tutorial services
assistance in preparing for
college entrance exams

test taking development
study skills development
assisted computer labs
exposure to college campuses
counseling
mentoring programs
workshops for participants’
families

cultural activities
one-on-one guidance with
parents

other (please list):
other (please list):
188
APPENDIX B
TALENT SEARCH DIRECTOR AND STAFF INTERVIEW
1. How many times a month do you formally meet with target high school
principals to conduct Talent Search business?

(a) none (b) 1-2 (c) 3-4 (d) 4 or more
2. How would you describe your interactions related to Talent Search with
principals at the target high schools?

3. How many hours of interactions with high school participants do you have per
week?

(a) 0-5 (b) 6-10 (c) 11-15 (d) 16-20 (e) 20 or above
4. How many high school participants do you interact with per week?
(a) 0-10 (b) 11-20 (c) 21-30 (d) 31-40 (e) 41 or more
5. How would you describe your interactions with high school participants when
promoting postsecondary access?

6. How would you describe your interactions with your Talent Search colleagues
regarding postsecondary access for participants?

7. Do low-income and first-generation participants have different needs from other
program participants? If so, please describe how those needs are different.

8. Does working with low-income and first-generation participants change your
approach to administering services? How would you elaborate on your answer?

9. Do the facilities for Talent Search at the target high schools need any
improvements? If so, what would they be?

10. How would you describe the formal training you received as a Talent Search
director/staff member?

11. How would you describe what types of training you would like to receive?
12. Has the Talent Search project changed over time in how it promotes
postsecondary access? If so, in what ways?
189
13. The way that Talent Search effectiveness is evaluated currently is adequate.
(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

14. There are ways to improve the way that Talent Search effectiveness is currently
evaluated.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

15. Are there ways of measuring project effectiveness other than the Annual
Performance Report that are currently utilized by the program? If so, what are
they? If not, what ideas do you have on how project effectiveness can be
evaluated beyond the information provided in the APR?

16. How would you describe your contribution to the evaluation process of Talent
Search?

17. How could or would you like to be more involved in the evaluation process of
Talent Search?

18. Access to information about college admission can increase postsecondary
enrollment of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

19. Access to information about financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment
of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree
190

20. Academic preparation at the high school level can increase postsecondary
enrollment of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

21. Social support can increase postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

22. Working with low-income and first-generation participants’ culture can increase
their postsecondary enrollment.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

23. Financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

24. How would you rank the following factors that contribute and inhibit
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

1=most to 4=least
_____ Access to information
_____ Social support and cultural capital
_____ Academic preparation
_____ Financial Aid
25. What is the basis for your ranking of the factors?
26. Please describe the services offered to the high school participants of Talent
Search from question six of the pre-interview questionnaire.
191

27. What is the basis of your ranking on number six of the pre-interview
questionnaire of the services that affect college access?

28. What are the specific concerns and best-practices at each of the target high
schools for promoting postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation
participants?

29. The Talent Search project that I am a part of is effective in promoting
postsecondary access of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

30. What is impeding Talent Search project effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

31. What is contributing to Talent Search project effectiveness in the desired
outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation
participants?

32. What could be improved to increase the effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants in the
Talent Search program?

33. I am effective in promoting postsecondary access for low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

34. What is impeding your effectiveness in promoting the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

35. What is contributing to your effectiveness in promoting the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

36. What could you do to increase the effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants in the
Talent Search program?
192
APPENDIX C
TALENT SEARCH PRINCIPAL AND VICE PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW
1. How many times a month do you formally meet with the Talent Search director
to conduct Talent Search business?

(a) none (b) 1-2 (c) 3-4 (d) 4 or more

2. How would you describe your interactions related to Talent Search with the
Talent Search director?

3. How many hours of interactions with Talent Search staff do you have per week?

(a) 0-5 (b) 6-10 (c) 11-15 (d) 16-20 (e) 20 or above

4. How would you describe your interactions related to Talent Search with the
Talent Search staff?

5. How many hours of interactions with high school Talent Search participants do
you have per week?

(a) 0-5 (b) 6-10 (c) 11-15 (d) 16-20 (e) 20 or above

6. How many high school Talent Search participants do you interact with per week?

(a) 0-10 (b) 11-20 (c) 21-30 (d) 31-40 (e) 41 or more

7. How would you describe your interactions with Talent Search participants when
promoting postsecondary access?

8. Do low-income and first-generation participants have different needs from other
program participants in regards to gaining postsecondary access? If so, please
describe how those needs are different.

9. Do the facilities for Talent Search at the target high schools need any
improvements? If so, what would they be?

10. How would you describe the formal training you received as a target school
principal for Talent Search?

11. How would you describe what types of training you would like to receive?
193
12. Has the Talent Search project changed over time in how it promotes
postsecondary access? If so, in what ways?

13. The way that Talent Search effectiveness is evaluated currently is adequate.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

14. There are ways to improve the way that Talent Search effectiveness is currently
evaluated.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

15. Are there ways of measuring project effectiveness other than the Annual
Performance Reports that are currently utilized by the program? If so, what are
they? If not, what ideas do you have on how project effectiveness can be
evaluated beyond the information provided in the APR?

16. How would you describe your contribution to the evaluation process of Talent
Search?

17. How could or would you like to be more involved in the evaluation process of
Talent Search?

18. Access to information about college admission can increase postsecondary
enrollment of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

19. Access to information about financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment
of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree
194

20. Academic preparation at the high school level can increase postsecondary
enrollment of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

21. Social support can increase postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

22. Working with low-income and first-generation participants’ culture can increase
their postsecondary enrollment.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

23. Financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

24. How would you rank the following factors that contribute and inhibit
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

1=most to 4=least

_____ Access to information
_____ Social support and cultural capital
_____ Academic preparation
_____ Financial Aid

25. What is the basis for your ranking of the factors?

26. Please describe the services offered to the high school participants of Talent
Search from question six of the pre-interview questionnaire.
195

27. What is the basis of your ranking on number six of the pre-interview
questionnaire of the services that affect college access?

28. What are the specific concerns and best-practices at your school for promoting
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

29. The Talent Search project at my school is effective in promoting postsecondary
access of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

30. What is impeding Talent Search project effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

31. What is contributing to Talent Search project effectiveness in the desired
outcome of postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation
participants?

32. What could be improved to increase the effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants in the
Talent Search program?

33. I am effective in promoting postsecondary access for low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

34. What is impeding your effectiveness in promoting the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

35. What is contributing to your effectiveness in promoting the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

36. What could you do to increase the effectiveness in the desired outcome of
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants in the
Talent Search program?
196
APPENDIX D
REVISED PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRINCIPALS
AND VICE PRINCIPALS
Section I - Demographics
Please fill in the following information:
1. Please list your educational background
College/University/Institution Degrees/Certificates Earned Major

2. Please list all prior relevant work experience:
Job Title Location Duration in Years

3. What is your current job title?
4. Could you describe the responsibilities and duties of your position as it
specifically relates to Talent Search?

5. How many years have you served in your current position?

Section II - Program Operation and Effectiveness
6. First, of the following Talent Search services, check off items that are provided
to high school participants at the high schools in your project and add any that
are not listed. Second, of the services offered at your project, please write Y next
to items that you feel are effective at promoting college access for Talent Search
high school participants that are either low-income, and/or first-generation, and
N next to items those that you feel are not. Third, please rank the top four
services from most effective in promoting college access to the least effective,
with 1 being most effective. Fourth, in the last column, please also rank the top
four services from most important in promoting college access to the least
important, with 1 being most important.
197

Service
Offered
(check)
Effective
(Y)es or
(N)o
Rank top four (1
most to 4 least)
in order of
effectiveness
Rank top four
(1 most to 4
least) in order
of importance
career exploration
information on postsecondary
education

information on financial aid
academic advising
help with completing college
admissions

help with financial aid applications
aptitude assessment
tutorial services
assistance in preparing for college
entrance exams

test taking development
study skills development
assisted computer labs
exposure to college campuses
counseling
mentoring programs
workshops for participants’
families

cultural activities
one-on-one guidance with parents
other (please list):
other (please list):
198
Please circle your answers for questions 7-18 and 20-21:
7. How many times a month do you formally meet with the Talent Search director
to conduct Talent Search business?

(a) none (b) 1-2 (c) 3-4 (d) 4 or more
8. How many hours of interactions with Talent Search staff do you have per week?

(a) 0-5 (b) 6-10 (c) 11-15 (d) 16-20 (e) 20 or above
9. How many hours of interactions with high school Talent Search participants do
you have per week?

(a) 0-5 (b) 6-10 (c) 11-15 (d) 16-20 (e) 20 or above
10. How many high school Talent Search participants do you interact with per week?

(a) 0-10 (b) 11-20 (c) 21-30 (d) 31-40 (e) 41 or more
11. The way that Talent Search effectiveness is evaluated currently is adequate.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

12. There are ways to improve the way that Talent Search effectiveness is currently
evaluated.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

13. Access to information about college admission can increase postsecondary
enrollment of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree
199

14. Access to information about financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment
of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

15. Academic preparation at the high school level can increase postsecondary
enrollment of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

16. Social support can increase postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

17. Working with low-income and first-generation participants’ culture can increase
their postsecondary enrollment.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

18. Financial aid can increase postsecondary enrollment of low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree
200

19. How would you rank the following factors that contribute and inhibit
postsecondary access for low-income and first-generation participants?

1=most to 4=least

_____ Access to information
_____ Social support and cultural capital
_____ Academic preparation
_____ Financial Aid

20. The Talent Search project at my school is effective in promoting postsecondary
access of low-income and first-generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agree

21. I am effective in promoting postsecondary access for low-income and first-
generation participants.

(1) strongly disagree (2) disagree (3) somewhat disagree
(4) undecided (5) somewhat agree (6) agree
(7) strongly agre
201
APPENDIX E
DEMOGRAPHICS OF TALENT SEARCH SCHOOLS
Table 10. 2008 Postsecondary Enrollment and HSA Scores of Talent Search High
Schools based on the CCRI

School NSC tot
Total college
enrolled
% college
enrolled
% 2yr
pub
% 2 yr
priv
% 4yr
pub
% 4yr
priv
% HSA
reading
% HSA
math
School A 218 116 53% 38% 1% 11% 3% 68% 41%
School B 385 198 51% 31% 2% 13% 6% 69% 48%
School C 210 106 50% 29% 1% 11% 10% 68% 36%
School D 106 52 49% 27% 3% 13% 6% 67% 35%
School E 479 225 47% 33% 4% 8% 3% 54% 24%
School F 256 106 41% 14% 1% 14% 12% 63% 25%
School G 134 44 33% 21% 1% 9% 1% 40% 12%
School H 440 133 30% 21% 1% 6% 3% 55% 14%
Talent Search
Schools
2228 980 44% 27% 2% 10% 5% 61% 29%
Statewide
Schools
11509 5794 50% 29% 1% 15% 5% 62% 43%

Note: HSA proficiency in Reading is 58% and proficiency in Math is 46%
Source: Hawai`i P-20, Hawai`i Department of Education, and University of Hawai`i (2008)

Table 11. 2000 Community Profiles for Hawaii Talent Search High Schools and
State based on SSIR

School
Median
household
income
% of households with
public assistance
income
% of families with
children living in
poverty
College
graduate
Some
college
High
school
Less than
high
school
School A 40,122 5 15.4 29.8 28.1 27.2 14.9
School B 34,350 8.4 19.1 24.9 23.1 27.1 25
School C 75,211 5.4 5.5 32.5 25.8 30.6 11.1
School D 48,051 9.2 15 19.9 29.3 30.9 19.9
School E 44,822 17.1 22.8 12.3 22.6 33.9 31.3
School F 46,167 10.2 15.9 27.5 31 25.9 15.6
School G 44,457 22.5 20.7 6 20.4 50 23.5
School H 41,679 26.4 25.7 9 25.8 43.6 21.6
State
Average
49,820 7.6 11.2 26.2 29.9 28.5 15.4

Source: State of Hawai`i Department of Education Systems Accountability Office (2008)
202
Table 12. 2008 Student Profiles for Hawaii Talent Search High Schools based on
SSIR

School Fall enrollment
% on Free and reduced
lunch
% with limited English
proficiency
School A 1203 43.7 18.3
School B 1857 48.2 21
School C 988 45.5 2.9
School D 649 44.4 7.4
School E 2530 55.6 23.6
School F 1736 45 3.3
School G 1056 53.6 4
School H 2113 46.3 4.7
State Average 28.9 3.6

Source: State of Hawai`i Department of Education Systems Accountability Office (2008)

Table 13. 2008 Student Ethnicity Profile for Talent Search Schools based on SSIR

School Chinese Filipino Hawaiian Part-Hawaiian Japanese Samoan White Other
School A 7.6 8.1 2.4 14.1 13.6 5.7 6.1 29.7
School B 24 18.3 1.8 8.2 9.5 4.1 2.8 16
School C 1.4 10.3 7.5 47.7 10.3 2.3 7.1 7.7
School D 1.4 37.6 2.7 24.1 4.4 0.8 16 6.8
School E 0.8 59.8 2.1 8.3 1.6 13 0.9 10.2
School F 1.3 5.8 3.4 36 1.9 13.3 20.8 13.2
School G 0.1 7.4 18 53.5 1 9.7 1.9 4
School H 0.9 12.8 12.3 44.5 2 6.7 4.8 8.3
State Average 3.2 20.5 27.6 9.2 5.7 3.4 13.9 3.2

Source: State of Hawai`i Department of Education Systems Accountability Office (2008)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite an overall increase in college enrollment over the past 50 years, low-income and first-generation students have not achieved the same success. In fact, the gap between low-income and high-income enrollments has increased during the same time period of apparent gains. Educational Talent Search, is a federally funded outreach program that provides services that target low-income and first-generation students, and is attempting to narrow the achievement gap nationally and on the island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of two Talent Search directors, six Talent Search staff members, and seven target high school principals or vice principals regarding factors that contribute to college access, and program effectiveness. The results showed that social support and cultural capital, along with academic preparation were perceived as the most influential access factors in terms of promoting college access. Help with financial aid applications were perceived as important and effective. Three themes emerged from the research. The first was that cooperation of the school was perceived to increase program effectiveness. The second theme was that immediate postsecondary access was perceived as the ideal goal, but there were external factors that inhibited access. The third theme was that qualitative formative evaluation is perceived as effective and has the potential for improvement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

PDF

The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

Diversity and talent: how to identify and recruit classical music students from among underrepresented populations

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Ensuring faculty success in effective online instruction

PDF

The perception of innovation in the delivery of services for Hawaiian students

PDF

University ready: examining the relationships between social capital and an online college access program

Asset Metadata

Creator Mitsuda, Chase Ken (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2010-05

Publication Date 04/27/2010

Defense Date 03/07/2010

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

Tag Hawaii,OAI-PMH Harvest,pipeline,Talent Search,TRIO

Place Name Hawaii (states), islands: Oahu (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email chasemitsuda@gmail.com,chasemitsuda@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2961

Unique identifier UC1187372

Identifier etd-Mitsuda-3571 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-317241 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2961 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mitsuda-3571.pdf

Dmrecord 317241

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mitsuda, Chase Ken

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