University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of judicial decisions on access and equity: a case study of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000)

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of judicial decisions on access and equity: a case study of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000)

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON ACCESS AND EQUITY: A CASE
STUDY OF DANIEL V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1999) AND THE AP
CHALLENGE GRANT, SENATE BILL 1689 (2000)

by

Madelynn S. Haddix
__________________________________________________________

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Madelynn S. Haddix

ii
DEDICATION
For my husband, Kenneth Lance Haddix
and our son, Buck Nathan Haddix

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my chairperson, Guilbert C. Hentschke, Ph.D.; my dissertation committee
members, Dominic J. Brewer, Ph.D. and Nomi M. Stolzenberg, J.D.; my guidance
committee members, Estela M. Bensimon, Ed.D. and Priscilla Wohlstetter, Ph.D.;
Dennis Hocevar, Ph.D.; Chris Granado (LAUSD School Information Branch,
Planning and Assessment Division), Marjorie McConnell (California Department of
Education), Mike McLinn (Central Cities Gifted Children’s Association), Penny
Sommers (College Board), Laurie Wiebold, Ed.D. (AVID); my husband, our son,
family, and all who participated in this study; I give my gratitude and heartfelt
appreciation for your support, guidance, and time through these many years.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER 1: THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON ACCESS 1
AND EQUITY: A CASE STUDY OF DANIEL V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(1999) AND THE AP CHALLENGE GRANT, SENATE BILL 1689 (2000)
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Question 16
Significance of the Problem 17
Methodology 19
Interview Guide 24
Assumptions 28
Limitations 28
Delimitations 29
Definition of Terms 29
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 31
Federal Court Decisions 33
State Court Decisions 38
Local Remedies 46
Examining the Court’s Role in Effecting Social Change 57
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 63
Research Question 63
Research Design 63
Research Population and Sample 68
Instrumentation 70
Interview Guide 72
Data Collection 74
Data Analysis 75
Validity and Reliability 78

v
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 81
Preliminary Quantitative Analysis 82
AP Participation: Percentage of AP Exams Taken (1999-2006) 83
AP Performance: Percentage of AP Exams Passed (1999-2006) 84
Practical Significance of Participation Changes by Effect Size 86
(1999-2006)
Practical Significance of Performance Changes by Effect Size 88
(1999-2006)
Practical Significance Measured by Percentage Gain in AP Exam 89
Participation (1999-2006)
Practical Significance Measured by Percentage Gain in AP Exam 90
Performance (1999-2006)
Comparison between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams 93
Taken Before and After Treatment (1999-2006)
Before the Treatment 93
After the Treatment 94
Comparison between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams 96
Passed Before and After Treatment (1999-2006)
Before the Treatment 96
After the Treatment 97
Schools With Ethnicities Showing Significant Improvement and 98
Significant Decline in Percentage of AP Exam Participation
(1999-2006)
Significant Improvement 99
Significant Decline 100
Schools With Ethnicities Showing Significant Improvement and 102
Significant Decline in Percentage of AP Exam Performance
(1999-2006)
Significant Improvement 102
Significant Decline 104
Qualitative Data Analysis 107
Figure 1. Factors Effecting Social Change After Judicial 108
Decisions and Legislative Remediation: Access and Equity
Motivation 111
Judicial/Legislative and Stakeholder Commitment 111
Knowledge 133
Judicial/Legislative Knowledge and Stakeholder Knowledge 134
of the AP Program
Accountability 151
Judicial/Legislative and Stakeholder Accountability 151
Consequences 173

vi
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 191
Quantitative Discussion 191
AP Exam Participation and Performance for LAUSD-AP 197
African-American and Hispanic Students Before and After
the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
Schools Showing Significant Improvement and Significant 208
Decline in Percentage of AP Exam Participation and
Performance, Before and After the AP Challenge Grant
(1999-2006)
Qualitative Discussion 211
Schools Showing a Significant Increase and a Significant 220
Decline in Percentage of AP Exam Participation, Before and
After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative Interview Respondents 221
as Showing a Significant Increase in the Percentage of AP
Exams Taken and in the Percentage of AP Exams Passed
Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative Interview Respondents 223
as Showing a Significant Decline in the Percentage of AP
Exams Taken and in the Percentage of AP Exams Passed
Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
Conclusions 233
Recommendations 233
Recommendations for Future Research 236
Limitations 237
Delimitations 238
REFERENCES 239
APPENDIX A: MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED 246
PLACEMENT EXAMS TAKEN BY AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS
BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

APPENDIX B: MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED 247
PLACEMENT EXAMS TAKEN BY HISPANIC STUDENTS BEFORE
AND AFTER TREATMENT

APPENDIX C: MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED 248
PLACEMENT EXAMS TAKEN BY WHITE/ASIAN STUDENTS
BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

vii
APPENDIX D: MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED 249
PLACEMENT EXAMS PASSED BY AFRICAN AMERICAN
STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

APPENDIX E: MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED 250
PLACEMENT EXAMS PASSED BY HISPANIC STUDENTS BEFORE
AND AFTER TREATMENT

APPENDIX F: MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED 251
PLACEMENT EXAMS PASSED BY WHITE/ASIAN STUDENTS
BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

APPENDIX G: CROSS-TAB FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) 252
EXAMS TAKEN

APPENDIX H: CROSS-TAB FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) 257
EXAMS PASSED

APPENDIX I: SELECTIVE CODING CHART FOR MOTIVATION 262
FACTOR

APPENDIX J: SELECTIVE CODING CHART FOR KNOWLEDGE 264
FACTOR

APPENDIX K: SELECTIVE CODING CHART FOR ACCOUNTABILITY 266
FACTOR

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Percent of Students Enrolled at All 57 High Schools Before and 69
After the Treatment

Table 2. Results of Dependent t-test Comparisons--Before and After the Grant 85
for African American, Hispanic, and White/Asian Groups in AP Participation
(1999-2006)

Table 3. Results of Dependent t-test Comparisons--Before and After the Grant 86
for African American, Hispanic, and White/Asian Groups in AP Performance
(1999-2006)

Table 4. Practical Significance of AP Exam Participation Changes by Effect 87
Size (1999-2006)

Table 5. Practical Significance of AP Exam Performance Changes by Effect 89
Size (1999-2006)

Table 6. Percentage Gain of Educational Change of Exam Participation by 92
Ethnicity (1999-2006)

Table 7. Percentage Gain of Educational Change of Exam Performance by 92
Ethnicity (1999-2006)

Table 8. Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams 94
Taken Before Treatment

Table 9. Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams 95
Taken After Treatment

Table 10. Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams 97
Passed Before Treatment

Table 11. Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage (%) of AP 98
Exams Passed After Treatment

Table 12. 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP 100
Exams Taken (1999-2006): 10% or Better Improvement

Table 13. 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP 101
Exams Taken (1999-2006): -10% or More Decline

ix
Table 14. 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP 103
Exams Passed (1999-2006): 10% or Better Improvement

Table 15. 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP 105
Exams Passed (1999-2006): -10% or More Decline

Table 16. Cross-Tab Results for Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative 222
Interview Respondents as Showing a Significant Increase in the Percentage
of AP Exams Taken and in the Percentage of AP Exams Passed Before and
After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)

Table 17. Cross-Tab Results for Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative 224
Interview Respondents as Showing a Significant Decline in the Percentage
of AP Exams Taken and in the Percentage of AP Exams Passed Before and
After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)

x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine factors that show significant
effect upon social change, following judicial decisions, as exemplified in the
California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the
ensuing Advanced Placement (AP) Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000), to
remedy problems of educational access and equity. Legal theory was paired with
education theory, taking into account social policy in practice, to find factors that
effect the achievement of social change, as evidenced in educational change, over
time. This study was one of mixed methodology.
The original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools, served as the
quantitative study sample, disaggregated by ethnicity for African-American and
Hispanic LAUSD-AP students, the targeted populations of Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant (2000-2003). A White/Asian
comparison group was used to assess the treatment as effecting change for a non-
targeted ethnic group. The achievement of social change was evidenced by
educational change in the percentage of AP exams taken and passed from before and
after the AP Challenge Grant, (1999-2006), by the African-American, Hispanic and
White/Asian, comparison group, students within the LAUSD-AP program.
A quasi-experimental, dependent group interrupted time series was utilized to
assess change before and after the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) treatment.
Measures for statistical and practical significance, including ethnic disaggregation
for a cross-tab analysis of the original 57 AP Challenge Grant schools, indicated that

xi
the Hispanic students showed one measure of positive change in AP exams taken,
and two measures of decline in AP exams passed, 1999-2006. The White/Asian,
comparison group, showed one measure of decline in AP exams taken, from before
and after the Grant. No significant changes as a result of the Grant treatment were
indicated for the African-American students. When the ethnic groups were
compared, the Hispanic student participation and performance was greater than the
White/Asian group, and both surpassed the African-American students in AP exams
taken and passed, before and after the AP Challenge Grant. Therefore, the results of
the quantitative analysis indicated that the judicial decision, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant, (SB 1689, 2000) had little or
no effect on social change for the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic
students of its intended remediation, nor the non-targeted White/Asian comparison
group.
The qualitative research design assessed factors of effect for the quantitative
results of this study in a Grounded Theory approach. Four state and local education
administrators, with relevant experience in the LAUSD-AP program, before and
after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006), were the participants in a twelve-question
open-ended interview format that defined the qualitative instrument in three
categories: adjudication, implementation and monitoring. The Grounded Theory that
emerged after coding found three factors that effected social change: motivation,
knowledge and accountability. Results of the qualitative analysis indicated that the

xii
goal of social change was not achieved as indicated by AP exams taken and passed
by African-American and Hispanic students of the LAUSD.

1
CHAPTER 1
THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON ACCESS AND EQUITY: A CASE
STUDY OF DANIEL V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1999) AND THE AP
CHALLENGE GRANT, SENATE BILL 1689 (2000)

During the Los Angeles summer of 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit in State Superior Court on
behalf of a group of urban public school students, Daniel v. State of California
(1999). The claim asserted that high school students within the Inglewood Unified
School District were being denied access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses
(ACLU, 1999); a direct violation of the Equal Protection Opportunities Act, 1974,
and the Education Clause of the California Constitution (ACLU, 1999). The College
Board AP courses at the high school level provide the opportunity of a rigorous
curriculum that increases the student GPA by one point of successful class
completion, with the potential of accruing college credit for defined end-of-term
academic results (The College Board, 2001). The 1999 ACLU lawsuit raised
questions not only of educational access, but also of AP program quality in the
preparation of urban students for the rigors of college academics (Fincher-Ford,
1997).
When Daniel v. State of California was filed, attorneys for the plaintiffs were
optimistic that the lawsuit would be settled, and that a plan of action that ensued
would serve as a model for other states. Moreover, the ACLU attorneys for the

2
plaintiffs hoped that this equal protection case on behalf of low-income and minority
AP students would go beyond its parochial scope, and set precedence for improving
the quality of education to all California high school students (Cordoba, 2003).
The measurement of social change following decades of implemented court
ordered desegregation requires to attending not only to the decisions, as catalysts for
change, but to the legislative action taken to implement court mandates; thus the
implementation required by federal and state legislation, e.g. The Equal Protection
Opportunities Act, 1974, and the monitoring of those implementations (Rodriguez v.
LAUSD (2003), State of California Senate Bill 1689 (2000)-AP Challenge Grant in
response to Daniel v. State of California, 1999), and the mutual resolution by the
parties, including the role of school finance adjudications, whereby legislative
remediation through settlement agreement was deemed the first opportunity of
reform (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State (N.Y.), App.Div 1
st
Dept., 2002), to
ensure educational access and equity.
In order to assess the role of court mandated implementations to achieve
social change (Sunstein, 1993), as evidenced in educational change, it is necessary to
quantitively evaluate the extent (if any) of change-over-time following the court
adjudications and remediative legislation, and qualitatively examine causation for the
extent (if any) of that social change.
Background of the Problem
A growing body of legal scholarship examines the role of American courts in
shaping social reform, particularly for disadvantaged minority groups. Over time,

3
this literature has shifted from praise (1950’s to mid 1970’s) for early civil rights
judicial victories (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education, 1953, 1954) to critiques through
the early 1980’s. Questions arose concerning the actual social transformation courts
accomplished in contrast to their significant victories in the name of civil liberties
(McCann, 1993).
Although courts may adjudicate in the name of access and equity, they are
not the sole factors in a complex interaction of legal norms, political institutions and
economic realities that monitor the implementation of court ordered mandates
(McCann, 1996). During oral arguments of the Brown case, members of the Court
expressed concern that the implementation and oversight of the decree left to school
boards and district courts would be questionable, depending on community
acceptance. “While Brown gave us access to equal educational opportunity, it did
little to transform an educational system that expected less from black and brown
students than from whites and that disproportionately tracked black and brown
students in courses that failed to prepare them for college” (Ogletree, Jr., 2005). For
example, in the decades following the Brown decision, Sylvia Rimm
(Underachievement Syndrome of Gifted Students, 1995) cites A Nation at Risk: The
National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984, stating that one-half of
gifted children did not perform to their tested abilities. Additionally, her own studies
find that ten to twenty percent of high school dropouts are in the gifted range and
that forty percent of the top five percent of U.S. high school graduates never
complete college (Rimm, 1995). Minority students, shown to drop out of high

4
schools in disproportionately high numbers (Orfield, Losen & Wald, 2004), gives
credence to the opinion that there is a current disillusionment with litigation as the
purveyor of self-implementing social change, without consideration to political,
organizational and financial factors, especially for disadvantaged minority groups
(McCann, 2003).
Legal scholars have offered conditions under which courts have uniquely
attempted to achieve social transformation. Social transformation in this context,
examines the outcomes of court ordered remediation for infringements of
Constitutional law (Federal and State), apart from other social, political, and
economic factors (Rosenberg, 1991). In addition, researchers have classified courts
by using two models to view the role that courts play in achieving social change; the
activist Dynamic Court, as opposed to the weak and ineffectual Constrained Court
(Rosenberg, 1991). The Dynamic Court model is exemplified by the school
desegregation court decisions of 1968-1972, whereby racial school segregation was
accomplished free from the lack of incentive for executive or legislative institutions
to fulfill the court mandate; judicial decisions in remediation of equal protection
infringements, accomplished solely as dictated by the court in a top-down procedure
(McCann, 1993). The Constrained Court model offers three significant limitations on
the achievement of social change: 1. plaintiffs must argue convincingly that their
cause is supported by statutory or constitutional language; 2. courts may be adversely
affected by political pressure to mandate social reform; and 3. courts may not have

5
the necessary tools to develop appropriate policies and force implementation of their
decisions in favor of significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991).
The AP Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000), as the legislative mandate
to the Daniel v. State of California (1999) ruling to remedy infringements of equal
protection, was an example of a risk management approach to putting strategies and
programs in place in order to diffuse inequities (Sunstein, 1993). In the 20th and 21st
centuries, the traditional role of compensatory justice, where harm to the injured
party is caused by one clear and uniquely connected event, as opposed to a shared
collective risk, has been adapted and replaced by a risk management approach. This
approach is best served whereby courts find that causation is complex, and that when
the court’s goal is social ordering, restructuring participant incentives and
remediating to lessen and manage risks, rather than to compensate for individual
harm, is best met through legislative and administrative agencies. The risk
management approach to jurisprudence developed as a response to the “rights
revolution” of the 1960’s and 1970’s whereby, legislative action and the
establishment of administrative agency initiatives offered protection against
discrimination (Sunstein, 1993, p. 320). The AP Challenge Grant allowed for a
legislative and administrative agency collaboration, providing a progression of
coordinated budgetary incentives to remedy infringements of equal protection, and
bring about policy-supported social change (California Department of Education,
2002). The approach was utilized to cooperatively manage the risk that continued
denial of access to and equity within a rigorous college preparatory program brings;

6
not only as an infringement of equal protection, non-compliance with the intent of
the court, but in the inhibiting of the intellectual, scientific and moral growth of
minority students (California Constitution, Article IX, Section I), hindering their
ability to compete for placement within institutions of higher learning; the
management of such risk as incentive for college admission and retention (Astin,
1993).
To comply with the intent of the court order (Daniel v. State of California,
1999) and the legislative mandate (SB 1689, 2000), a four year $41,250,000.00
program of fiscal incentives was established in which funding allocation was
discretionary within programs; AP Challenge high schools were to increase the
number of AP courses offered, establish AP professional development, create a
system of vertical teaming, support teachers/class set-up, institute on-site AVID
(Advancement for Individual Determination) national college preparatory programs,
and be required to establish mentoring services (California Department of Education,
2002).
State budget cuts (2003) halting the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000)
mandated to address the deficiencies of access and availability to quality programs
for minority and low income students, and the AP Exam Fee Waiver (AB 2216,
Escutia), providing grants to school districts for financial assistance to low-income
students desirous of taking the AP exam, after its third of a four year implementation
plan, allowed for a narrow assessment of the legislative remedy. A three-fold
increase (2000-2003) in the number of low and minority students taking the AP

7
exam was indicated. However, reports continued to show a decrease in scores as
student participation increased (LAUSD Memorandum BP-23, 2001). The College
Board offered that the emphasis for equitably expanding AP access was paramount
to increasing AP exam rates; increased access and exposure to the rigorous AP
program fulfilled the remediation requirement of the court, and met a short term goal
that would lead to increased AP exam passage rates over the long-term (Heinrich,
2004). Findings from Access to Excellence: A Report of the Commission on the
Future of the Advanced Placement Program, indicate that lack of standard quality
program control, discretionary funding, and rapid expansion of student participation,
add to the concern that political and legal pressure to increase educational access,
contribute causation for urban schools failing to balance issues of equity and quality;
there is no true equity without quality (College Entrance Examination Board, 2001).
The question of equity without quality has been repeatedly raised post Brown
v. Board of Education (1953, 1954) (Rosenberg, 1991). In fact, some contemporary
scholars assert that after Martin Luther King’s untimely death in 1968, Blacks failed
to develop new strategies of vigilantly monitoring implementation of existing anti-
discrimination law, through economic and political means, to combat both a
conservative Supreme Court, and a cultural affirmative action backlash; causing the
courts to retreat from their focus on equal protection, linked to quality of service
(Baldwin, et al., 2002). As indicated in Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the
AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), it is up to the community and their

8
institutions, in conjunction with a strong court, to learn from Brown v. Board of
Education (1953, 1954), and vigilantly monitor the remedies (Baldwin, et al., 2002).
Statement of the Problem
We do not know what factors effect the role of judicial decisions, as
exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of California,
(1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy problems of
educational access and equity, in showing significant change, as indicated in
educational changes of African-American and Hispanic student participation and
performance, and evidenced in the percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams
passed over time.
The plaintiffs in the ACLU case, Daniel v. State of California (1999),
contended that as students within the Inglewood Unified School District, they were
desirous and academically qualified to enroll in The College Board AP courses, but
were denied participation; only three AP courses were offered and core advanced
courses of math and science were not available. In addition, after affirmative action
programs were discontinued with the passage of California’s Proposition 209,
educational inequalities for students in public schools that serve predominantly poor,
as well as Black and Latino students, were perpetuated by the state (ACLU, 1999).
Low income and minority students were not receiving equitable access to quality AP
programs as their peers in high schools populated by students of higher socio-
economic statuses and with larger white student populations (ACLU, 1999).

9
The College Board instituted the Advanced Placement (AP) Program in 1955,
in order to provide motivated high school students the opportunity to take college
level courses (gaining college level skills and possibly college credit) in a
cooperative linking of high school, colleges and universities (AP Central, 2008).
Historically, the AP program was initiated as an elite program for students who
needed more challenge before entering Ivy League colleges (Heinrich, 2004). Today,
the AP website posits (K-12 Services): “Through college level AP courses you enter
a universe of knowledge that may otherwise remain unexplored in high school,
through AP exams, you have the opportunity to earn college credit or advanced
standing at most of the nation’s colleges and universities” (College Board, 2008). In
addition, the choice to take college level courses, as an incentive to college
admission, is a form of “choice architecture” that not only guides parents and
students in making good choices through the college preparation process, but verifies
their good choices by offering rewards in the form of successful acceptance and
retention within institutions of higher learning, while neutralizing incentive
disparities between varied racial and socio-economic groups (Thaler & Sunstein,
2008).
Over 90% of U.S. colleges and universities grant AP credit to those students
who qualify with a score of 3 or above on a 1-5 scale on an academic AP exam,
administered following the year’s coursework (AP Central, 2008); a distinct financial
advantage for the incoming freshman. “The focus is on exposure to a rigorous
college prep class, and the number of AP courses a student takes is most

10
valuable…it’s a learning opportunity to take a college level course prior to college”
(Heinrich, 2004). In reference to advanced placement coursework, research suggests
that there is “an effect of placement on measured achievement” (Lucas, 1999). In
addition, there is an attribution of upgraded academic standards throughout the total
school populations where AP participating schools offer strong programs (College
Board, 2001).
Dual credit courses have been touted as linking high school, community
colleges, private and public institutions of high learning and research universities, in
models of educational partnership. The advanced placement concept provides
acceleration into more advanced and rigorous course work and an opportunity for
students of high ability to enter an early admission program in the world of high
education (Fincher-Ford, 1997). Disputes have arisen involving admissions formulas
at selective colleges after affirmative action policies have been challenged, but those
admission formulas have been calculated from pre-college attainment i.e. grades/test
scores, but no considerations made to the rigor of the high school curriculum, and the
role that plays in the majority of minority student degree completion (Department of
Education, 1999). It is of paramount importance that the coursework deemed
academically accelerated be true to the intent of promoting rigor in the high school
experience, i.e. that the quality of the programs be more rigorous than the traditional
high school course and the standards for the program be consistent and continually
monitored by the stakeholders (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002).

11
In addition to the monitoring of college preparation courses for increased
standards and effectiveness (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002), monitoring of the
advanced dual credit programs should also take into consideration issues of equity in
minority student program participation. The highest level of mathematics attained at
the secondary level, is the strongest indicator of bachelor degree completion.
Entering institutions of higher learning, following the completion of a course beyond
Algebra 2 (i.e. trigonometry or pre-calculus) more than doubles the chances for
successful degree completion. In issues of access to higher education, taking AP
courses has a stronger correlation to a four-year college degree completion, than it
does to access (Department of Education, 1999). In consideration of monitoring
programs for equity in minority student program participation, as well as program
effectiveness (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002), African-American and Hispanic students
identified as gifted, enrolled in high level calculus, algebra trigonometry and
geometry classes are more likely to have less years of study in those areas than their
white counterparts (Ford, 1996). Therefore, at the college level, it can be seen that
African-American and Hispanic students are underrepresented in the “vast majority”
of degree areas, specifically math and science domains (College Board, 1985). The
student who achieves in math has a 30% advantage in enrolling in a college prep
math course (Lucas, 1999). Not withstanding that minority student access to AP
courses is a constitutional and California state court mandate (Daniel v. State of
California, 1999), significant enrollment disadvantages exist (College Board, 2008).
However, once “aspirations, requirements, and achievement (are) controlled”, there

12
was found an enrollment advantage for African-Americans, and the disappearance of
a disadvantage for Hispanics in relation to whites (Lucas, 1999).
The education theory that drives efforts to increase AP coursework provides
the foundation upon which legal theory prevails. The California State Constitution,
Article IX, Section 1, recognizes that “ a general diffusion of knowledge and
intelligence (is) essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people”,
and under this cause of action, the plaintiffs argued that they were denied uniform
progression through the State’s public schools and were not “afforded equal or
adequate opportunities for their intellectual or scientific development” (ACLU
Complaint, 1999). The ACLU lawsuit asserted that minority urban high school
students were systematically denied the ability to compete for placement in college
degree programs (especially, California’s elite universities) without equal access to
AP courses (ACLU, 1999).
The court found a definitive example of denial of equal educational
opportunities to minority and low-income students, especially in the aftermath of
Proposition 209 (Oakes & Rogers, 2000). As evidenced by a significant decline
reported in African-American and Hispanic college admissions and public
employment in the aftermath of Proposition 209 (Lurie, 2003), a greater emphasis on
academically rigorous college preparation programs was indicated for students of
low socio-economic backgrounds (Oakes & Rogers, 2000). Therefore, increased
access to AP coursework will enhance the minority student’s chances for success in
more varied academic domains. As in the case of the higher education experience,

13
when academic development and social engagement are integrated in a diverse
campus climate (i.e. increased access to AP courses for African-American and
Hispanic students), school satisfaction and retention may be positively predicted
(Astin, 1993) for the AP student, providing a successful model for the college and
university experience (Nora & Cabrera, 1996).
In response to the filing, the defendants in the lawsuit sought a mutual
resolution of the ACLU claims by agreeing to hold committee meetings with
educational experts and state officials (California Department of Education) to
address constitutional issues arising from questions of equal and adequate access to
AP courses. Dr. Jeannie Oakes, UCLA Associate Dean of the Graduate School of
Education and Information Services, led a team of experts in proposing a plan to
resolve the case by drafting and enacting legislation (Oakes & Rogers, 2000). In
June 2000, a final bill (SB 1689, 2000) was passed, establishing the statewide AP
Challenge Grant Program, to address the findings of the advisory committee in
remediating the deficiencies of access and availability to quality AP programs for
minority and low-income public high school students.
Sharron Heinrich, Educational Manager K-12 Services, AP Challenge Grant
Director, Western Regional Office, The College Board, stated, that in order to break
down barriers (admission of more minority participants) all students who have the
motivation and desire to take AP courses should be able to do so. However, the
problem remains that students must be able to make an informed choice, and be
prepared for rigorous academics. In essence, educators can say that everybody can

14
come into AP, but if students don’t have the foundation, the results are not positive
(Heinrich, 2004).
Although, the focus is on exposure to college preparatory classes, with the
value of the number of AP courses a student takes, as a learning opportunity to
experience college level courses prior to college study (Heinrich, 2004), the result of
this assertion may be evidenced in a report showing that at one of the LAUSD
District G high schools, the numbers (of minority students enrolled in classes) went
up, but the number of students who scored 3, 4, or 5 (on a scale of 1-5) on the AP
final exam, dropped. Following publication of these results, the school was
reprimanded by the district (McLinn, 2004).
Nearly 60% of this country’s high schools participate in the AP program with
the stipulation that at least one college level equivalent course be organized and
supported (AP Central, 2002). Yet, Michael McLinn, former Coordinator of
Instructional Services, LAUSD-Local District G, observed that AP teachers were not
qualified, and the students were not prepared; Access to Excellence: A Report of the
Commission on the Future of the Advanced Placement Program, recommended that
access to AP courses be ensured by tracking students toward advanced coursework
during middle school years; in order that they have sufficient academic preparation
to participate in the advanced college preparation program (College Board, 2001).
He suggested that the district needed strategies to address instructional goals
(McLinn, 2004). Penny Sommers, Senior Educational Manager, K-12 Services, The
College Board, reported that “We’re seeing a lot more students enrolling in AP

15
courses (since the AP Challenge Grant), and districts are looking at AP enrollment as
students being exposed to rigorous courses and strong college preparation. However,
in general the AP exam pass rates remain the same, even with more course
participation (Sommers, 2007). Although we schedule Advanced Placement (AP)
professional development (The College Board website includes workshop course
descriptions), we don’t certify teachers (sic) as qualified to teach AP courses”
(Sommers, 2007). Not withstanding the recommendations for curriculum and
instructional improvement, in their study, Minority Student Success: The Role of
Teachers in Advanced Placement, 2002, the Advanced Placement Research
Committee concluded that even for schools with a high percentage of African
American and Hispanic students, the percentages of those students enrolled in AP
classes was much lower than their school percentages would indicate. The parallel to
effective reading of socio-economic status and minority representation statistics
prior to and including reform implementation, when assessing progress of court
orders, is important (Rosenberg, 1991). Clearly, the Advanced Placement Research
Committee Report, indicated that there was much work to be done to increase access
to AP courses post the ACLU lawsuit settlement agreement.
The AP Challenge Grant having been concluded in 2003, it is important to
assess the achievement of social change; social change for the purposes of this study
is defined as the outcome of social reform litigation, and the legislation from which it
stemmed, to uniquely remedy infringements of constitutional law (Rosenberg, 1991).
Social change is indicated by educational change as evidenced by an increase (if any)

16
of AP exams taken (participation) and AP exams passed (performance) over time by
African-American and Hispanic students within schools served under the AP
Challenge Grant.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine what factors effect the ability of
judicial decisions, as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel
v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000),
to remedy problems of educational access and equity, in having significant effect
upon social change, as indicated in educational changes of African-American and
Hispanic student participation and performance, evidenced in the percentage of AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time.
Research Question
1. What are the factors that effect social change, following judicial decisions,
as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to remedy
problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational change in AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and Hispanic
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
One important reason for this study is to determine the factors that effect the
role of the courts in producing significant social change on the basis of anti-
discrimination law and the doctrine of equal access in education, as indicated by the
court mandated, legislative equal protection infringement remedy, AP Challenge

17
Grant, on African-American and Hispanic student participation and performance
over time; evidenced in the percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams passed, and
addressing phases of adjudication, implementation and monitoring.
Significance of the Problem
Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954), historical
perspective allows an evaluation of the legacy of court ordered desegregation, and
the impact of judicial decisions at the federal, state and local levels (Rosenberg,
1991) in matters of resolving issues of access and equity to quality education.
Questions of judicial efficacy in remediating violations of federal and state Equal
Protection law clearly indicate that responsibility for implementing reform has been
shifted to federal and state legislative branches (Rosenberg, 1991). The study of the
percentage of difference in the Advanced Placement (AP) exams taken and AP
exams passed over time as an indication of the efficacy of the AP Challenge Grant,
(SB 1689, 2000), imposed to remedy equal protection violations within the
Inglewood, California School District in Daniel v. State of California (1999), can be
examined in comparison to the Civil Rights Act, 1964, in the implementation of
Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954).
Significantly, as Brown was unanimously upheld, the court ultimately did not
order the states to immediately end segregation, but decreed that the lower federal
courts were to enter orders of the opinion to admit children to the public schools on a
non-discriminatory basis with “all deliberate speed” (Ogletree, 2004). It was not until
Congress took statutory action with the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964) were

18
public school desegregation rates increased. The legislative remediation (SB 1689)
for the rulings as decreed by California State Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mahr,
was intended to precipitate the implementation of reform to remedy educational
equal protection infringements, as ordered in Daniel v. State of California (1999).
Federal, state and local officials must be held accountable for the
implementation of court ordered remediations, and for the promotion of increased
test score performance, not only test taking availability, as an indicator of social
achievement through access to quality educational programs (Heinrich, 2004); the
AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) required only increased end-of year AP exam
participation (California Department of Education, 2002). Policy development in the
fields of teacher education and certification, particularly as applied to the AP
program, must be considered by educational researchers and practitioners, as well as
national and state education officials. Issues of wealth classification and arbitrary
distribution of remediating funds must be considered by state courts and legislatures
(Kahlenberg, 2001), and include state and local school officials in the monitoring of
that fund distribution (Buzuvis, 2001).
Therefore, the significance of this study to national, state and local
stakeholders is one as fundamental as an assessment of the legacy of Brown v. Board
of Education (1953, 1954), the possibility that American public education may be
experiencing a period of re-segregation (Orfield, Losen, & Wald, 2004), and an
assessment of whether the courts have been able to achieve social change.

19
Methodology
This research study used a mixed-method design to answer the research
question:
1. What are the factors that effect social change, following judicial decisions,
as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to remedy
problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational change in AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and Hispanic
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)? The mixed
methodology of this study integrated both quantitative and qualitative findings in a
joint effort that utilized the corroboration of dual method inferences to best
understand the findings elicited by the research question (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
1998). The study combined a quantitative, quasi-experimental interrupted time
series approach (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002) to the evaluation of educational
change (if any) over time of AP exams taken and AP exams passed (3 or above on a
1-5 scale) by African-American and Hispanic student participants, White/Asian
students utilized as a comparison group, in the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant (1999-
2006), with a qualitative evaluation of state and local educators; using a researcher-
designed interview in a Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) inductive
approach, to finding patterns elicited from factors of effect, and developed theory
grounded and based on the quantitative results of the study.

20
The quasi-experimental interrupted time series method quantitatively
assessed the participation (AP exams taken) and performance (AP exams passed) of
African-American and Hispanic students, White/Asian students indicated as a
comparison group, of LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools over time (1999-
2006); before the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2000) and after the AP Challenge Grant
(2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006). The legislative implementation of the AP
Challenge Grant (2000-2003) to remedy infringements of equal protection for
African-American and Hispanic students within the LAUSD-AP programs, served as
the intervention/treatment within the time series (1999-2006) from which
observations of educational changes of dependent variables, before and after
treatment, were made.
The variables of this study included: Ethnicity (IV), causation for educational
change (if any) in participation and performance in the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
program over time, with three levels of ethnicity indicated as African-American,
Hispanic and White/Asian; and Dependent Variables (DVs) percentage of AP exams
taken and percentage of AP exams passed.
The time series of this study allowed for observations of dependent variables
over time, whereby bar graphs represented differing levels of participation and
performance, indicating educational changes before and after treatment (Shadish,
Cook & Campbell, 2002).
Pre-post dependent group t-tests (Best & Kahn, 1998) performed in the
SPSS-16 program, were used to assess if the mean differences of the African-

21
American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant participation and performance
data, between before and after the legislative (SB 1689, 2000) intervention
(White/Asian student data utilized as a comparison group), were significant over
time (p < .05). The LAUSD District Memoranda on Student Achievement on the
Advanced Placement Examination, 2000-2008, and data regarding District totals of
Los Angeles Unified School District Number of Advanced Placement Examinations
and Mean Scores by Ethnicity (1999-2006), within the Memoranda, were used as
visual comparison data in the analysis of this study. Indices of practical significance
were shown as the simple percentage gain of Participation and Performance (DVs)
data (NCLB indicates significant improvement as 10%), and by Cohen’s d, the
traditional index of effect size (d > .30).
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the mean differences of the
three ethnic groups, African-American, Hispanic and White/Asian (utilized as a
comparison group), on the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant participation and
performance data, before and after the legislative (SB 1689, 2000) intervention.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests were conducted to present the variance between those
groups; which group’s mean differed from each of the other, before and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006).
Cross-tab procedures were completed on the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
schools, disaggregated by ethnicity for African-American, Hispanic and
White/Asian, comparison group, students, to compare participation and performance
in the AP Challenge Grant, (Appendices G & H) as expressed by bar graph

22
representations of mean gain/loss of the percentage of AP exams taken and
percentage of AP exams passed (y axis), disaggregated by ethnicity for the original
57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools (x-axis), 1999-2006 (Appendices A-
F).
The original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools, served as the
quantitative study sample, as indicated within the LAUSD-AP population. The
sample was disaggregated by ethnicity for African-American and Hispanic student
data, as well as disaggregation for student data from a White/Asian comparison
group. Data were gathered from the Advanced Placement (AP) archival records,
1999-2006, of the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and Assessment
Division.
The qualitative research design assessed factors of effect for the quantitative
results of this study in a Grounded Theory approach to finding patterns in narrative
responses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). State and local administrators and educators
with relevant experience in the LAUSD-AP program, before and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006) were the participants in a twelve-question open-ended
interview format that defined the qualitative instrument in addressing the research
question: 1. What are the factors that effect social change, following judicial
decisions, as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State
of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to
remedy problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational
change in AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and

23
Hispanic students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)? The twelve
interview questions were divided into three categories as they related to the research
question: adjudication, implementation and monitoring (Viadero, 1999); used as a
guide to ensure all relevant topics are covered (Patton, 2002).
Therefore, in accordance with this approach, data were systematically
gathered, synthesized, analyzed and conceptualized from participant question
responses, related to and in support of the central question of this study (Smith,
2003).
Researcher-designed questions to elicit open-ended responses from
participants as to their experiences of participation in and knowledge of the AP
Challenge Grant Program were used. The theory that was generated from this
inductive inquiry procedure was based or “grounded” in the study; i.e. Grounded
Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Interviews were transcribed and organized, reviewed for a sense of
informational content, and responses evaluated and analyzed for patterns of
response; open, axial and selective coding were used (Merriam & Associates, 2002).
Open coding grouped concepts elicited from the interviews into categories or chunks
(Creswell 2003) as described in code words; axial coding connected categories and
subcategories to create several main categories; and selective coding created a theory
from the integration of categories. Continual coding and analysis led to the
identification of a core category. In the selective coding process, remaining
categories were related to the conditions that brought upon the phenomenon and the

24
phases that caused them to occur (Merriman & Associates, 2002). The themes were
identified as applying to the qualitative narrative, and an interpretation of the data
was completed (Creswell, 2003).
The Research Population and Sample included voluntary participants from
the California State Department of Education, the Los Angeles County Office of
Education-AVID, the College Board, as well as an LAUSD-Local District G
Gifted/Talented Programs (GATE) Coordinator (retired); all participants having
relevant experience with the 57 original LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools before
and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006), and with knowledge of participating
schools showing significant achievement during the time series, before and after the
AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006) and schools showing no significant achievement
during the time series, before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006).
The instrumentation of this qualitative study was in a twelve-question open-
ended response format relating to the research question, and divided into three
content categories, adjudication implementation and monitoring (Viadero, 1999);
content divisions were used as a guide to ensure that all relevant topics were covered
(Patton, 2002).
Interview Guide
1. What do you know of conditions that led to the lawsuit, Daniel v. State of
California (1999), and the subsequent AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689,
2000) and AP Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia)? (adjudication)

25
2. What factors do you feel may have led to problems of access and equity
issues for African-American and Hispanic students within the AP
program? (adjudication)
3. Of what changes in the participation and performance of LAUSD-AP
high school students by ethnic group, as evidenced by AP exams taken
and AP exams passed, were you aware before, during and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006)? (adjudication)
4. What is your opinion of court rulings (e.g. Daniel v. State of California,
1999) and legislative policies such as the AP Challenge Grant to remedy
problems of educational equity for African-American and Hispanic public
school students? (adjudication)
5. What factors contributed to a change in the availability of instructional
opportunities and distribution of material resources to the AP program
serving African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP high school
students at the state, district, school or community levels before, during
and after the AP Challenge Grant? (implementation)
6. What AP professional development have you observed to reflect
educational changes in the participation and performance of African-
American and Hispanic students at the state, district, school or
community levels before, during and after the AP Challenge Grant?
(implementation)

26
7. What factors can you name as evidence that your community,
administration, staff, parents and students did or did not see the access
and equity problems a priority to address, rather than state monies being
directed elsewhere in the district or school? (implementation)
8. Of what factors were you aware that contributed to or prevented the
implementation of the AP Challenge Grant at the state, district, school or
community levels, as intended remediation-outcomes for problems of
equity and access to AP programming? (implementation)
9. What evidence of monitoring the AP Challenge Grant (2000-2003) at the
state, district, school or community levels were you aware? (monitoring)
10. What evidence did you observe of the monitoring of the AP program
following the AP Challenge Grant (2004-2006) at the state, district,
school and community levels to continue compliance with the intended
outcomes of the court order and the AP Challenge Grant? (monitoring)
11. What were factors of commitment, impediments or resistance by state,
district, school and community to monitor the AP program before, during
and after the AP Challenge Grant for compliance in matters of access and
equity as ordered by the court and legislature? (monitoring)
12. What incentives or rewards may prove valuable at the state, district,
school and community levels (including parents and students) to bring the
intended outcomes of court and legislative equal protection remediation

27
for African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP high school students?
(monitoring)
The questions evolved from a review of the literature and Socratic
conversations with educational and legal experts, and revisions from those dialogues.
The questions examined the knowledge of the Grant, as legislative remediation for
infringements of equal protection law, and an assessment of factors effecting the
degree of educational change stemming from the implementation and monitoring of
that legislation, at the state, district and school-site levels. The interview guide
(Merriman & Associates, 2002) was used to explore, probe, and elicit further
responses to follow-up questions, generated from the conversational format and for
the purpose of illuminating key subject areas as defined in the literature review: the
adjudication, implementation and monitoring of the AP Challenge Grant over time
(1999-2006). Interviews were conducted during the duration of approximately two
hour, tape recorded sessions, and transcribed for content.
Data Collection
Data were gathered from Advanced Placement (AP) archival records of the
LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and Assessment Division, 1999-2006.
Validity and reliability were ensured through member checks, peer review and an
audit trail. Responses fit the data as reflected in the quantitative study; the finding of
theory was closely related to the findings of the quantitative study (Merriman &
Associates, 2002). Generalizability was evidenced in the opposing databases that

28
maximized variation in the rich description of the narratives; accounting for ever-
changing daily experiences (Merriman & Associates, 2002).
Assumptions
For this study the following assumptions are made:
1. The constructs studied were measured by reliable and valid indicators.
2. The accuracy of recording and analyzing data was ensured.
3. The subjects endeavored to give responses reflective of their best efforts.
4. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied had a
degree of applicability and generalizability to State of California AP
Challenge Grant high schools outside LAUSD.
5. The research, data gathering, and findings and conclusions of the study
represented “good research.”
Limitations
1. This study was limited in its duration (1999-2006) before and after the
AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) program.
2. This study was limited to one year before the AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000) because the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD),
School Information Branch, Planning and Assessment Division collected
no AP exam data, disaggregated by ethnicity and school, prior to 1999.
3. This study was limited because the LAUSD School Information Branch,
Planning and Assessment Division, did not assign collected data on the
number of exams taken to each individual student.

29
4. The findings of this study were limited because AP instruction was not
monitored.
5. This study’s findings were limited because AP certification was not
mandated.
6. The fact that AP Challenge Grant state funds were distributed to the
LAUSD with district discretion for distribution was a limitation.
7. This study was limited because the LAUSD’s local districts had approval
over school site discretionary budget distributions.
8. The reliability of instruments used posed limitations on this study’s
validity.
9. This study did not take into account all social, economic and political
factors that may effect the role of judicial remediation for educational
equal protection infringements, for specified, underserved ethnic groups.
Delimitations
1. The study confined itself to the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
high schools in California.
Definition of Terms
Advanced Placement (AP) - The College Board instituted the Advanced
Placement program in 1955, to provide interested high school students the
opportunity to take academically rigorous college level courses for skill development
and possible college credit (AP Central, 2002).

30
AP Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000) - Legislative remedy to address
equal protection infractions, Daniel v. State of California (1999). Four-year remedy,
halted by state budget cuts after the third year of implementation (2003).
Advanced Placement (AP) Pass Rate - AP subject area tests ranked on a scale
of 1-5, with passing scores of 3, 4, and 5. College credit may be given for scores of
4-5 (AP Central, 2002).
Daniel v. State of California (1999) - ACLU of Southern California class
action lawsuit on behalf of Inglewood School District students, claiming
infringement of equal protection laws by being denied access to Advanced
Placement courses (ACLU, 1999).
The College Board - a national, non-profit educational organization; the AP
program is administered by the Educational Testing Service (Education Week on the
Web, 1999).

31
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Judicial decisions promoting educational access to and equity within our
public schools have been at the forefront of the fifty-year American civil rights
movement. Federal, state, and local court decisions have stemmed from the seminal
Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954) (McCann, 1993). Indications of social
change derived from court ordered desegregation rulings (federal and state citations)
were not apparent until the mandate of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whereby Congress
took measures that increased desegregation rates at public schools (Rosenberg,
2001). The Equal Education Opportunities Act (1974) provided additional statutory
support in declaring that no state shall deny equal opportunity to an individual on
account of his/her race, color sex or national origin (Hogan, 1974).
Today, the role of the federal government has been greatly diminished, with
an emphasis on state responsibility for education. Local and state implementation of
the original equal protection cases stemming from judicial desegregation decisions,
were further mandated through school finance adjudications that dictated adequate
monetary support throughout all school districts (Serrano v. Priest, 1977), and as
exemplified in state ordered remedies for unequal distribution of Basic Norm
Resources (BNR) in school districts serving high percentages of low-income and
minority students (Rodriguez v. LAUSD, 2003). In fact, the greatest genesis of the
state responsibility movement came in school finance legal decision of the 1970’s

32
(Olson, 1999). With monitoring of program implementation, a state and local
responsibility, the degree of social change derived from judicial decisions has a
multifaceted causation including, but not limited to, issues of race, ethnicity, socio-
economic status, district wealth classifications, and special needs (Rubenstein, R.,
Schwartz, A. & Steifel, L., 2006).
The courts have articulated their duties in response to public school access
and equity infringements by addressing phases of adjudication, implementation and
monitoring (Viadero, 1999). The degree of social change vis-à-vis desegregation of
the American public school system is subject to study from constitutional and
statutory law, as well as federal law and state decisions (Daniel v. State of
California, 1999), in order that the remediation of equal protection infractions may
be evaluated for satisfaction of judicial intent; thus, implementation required by
federal and state legislation, e.g., The Equal Protection Opportunities Act, 1974, and
the monitoring of those implementations (Rodriguez v. LAUSD, 2003; State of
California Senate Bill 1689 (2000)-AP Challenge Grant). In addition, the statistical
references to outcomes of the mandates (in relation to intended judicial rulings), and
the role of school finance to assure access and equity to quality public education, are
to be considered (Fincher-Ford, 1997). The purpose of this literature review is to
examine the degree to which the judicial decisions of educational access and equity
uniquely achieved social change, as exemplified in the case study, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). This

33
literature review will examine the impact of judicial decisions at the federal, state,
and local levels.
Federal Court Decisions
Legal scholarship has increasingly been devoted to examining the role of the
American court system in shaping social reform, particularly for disadvantaged
minority groups. The attention to the role of the courts in producing social change,
shifted between praise (1950’s to mid-1970’s) for early civil rights judicial victories
(ex. Brown v. Board of Education, 1953, 1954) to critiques through the early 1980’s.
Questions arose concerning the actual social transformation courts had accomplished
in contrast to their significant victories in the name of civil liberties (McCann, 1993).
In addition, legal scholars, such as Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope, have
attempted to clarify under what conditions courts can produce social change, and
differentiate between courts that are activist (“The Dynamic Court”) as opposed to
weak and ineffectual (“The Constrained Court”). Questions of implementation of
positive constitutional court orders, and the real effects of justice that is
compensatory, designed to remedy the initial claim by restoring, not changing, the
status quo (Sunstein, 1993, p. 320), have been assessed with regard to a risk
management approach of putting strategies and programs in place to diffuse
inequalities. The risk management approach is applied when legislative and
administrative agencies are deemed better agents to manage and restructure
stakeholder incentives, where causes are complex and social ordering is the court’s
goal; as opposed to cases of compensation for individual harm (Sunstein, 1993). The

34
future elaboration of this principle, whereby congress works in conjunction with
administrative agencies to produce social change, signifies a shift from judge-led
reform to legislative and executive action and “might well rival the New Deal
reformation itself in scope and importance…changing the status quo by changing
incentives” (Sunstein, 1993, p. 334).
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14
th
Amendment was used as the basis to
end legal segregation in the public schools, through adjudication in Brown. In issuing
his opinion in the case, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote on behalf of a unanimous
court, “it is doubtful that any child can be reasonably expected to succeed in life if he
is denied the opportunity of an education.” Addressing the import of Brown v. Board
of Education, and its role in determining that public education be the appropriate
venue to guarantee equal protection across American society, Warren stipulated that
“education was perhaps the most important function of state and local governments”;
the import of education to our democratic society as evidenced by compulsory
school attendance laws and significant budgetary allotments for public education
(Ogletree, 2004). The right to an education devoid of a segregated setting, has been
the cornerstone of legal claims of citizenship for blacks in this country (Bell, Jr.,
1973). In fact, the decision to end legalized racial segregation at the level of public
education has been manifested in attempts to end the broader implications of socio-
economic segregation (Buzuvis, 2001), inclusive of “promoting cohesion among
heterogeneous democratic peoples” (Serrano v. Priest, 1971); thereby crystallizing
the duties of access and equity in the public schools.

35
Although the Supreme Court has deemed that education is not a fundamental
interest of the federal government, in regard to the 14th Amendment (Equal
Protection) as it applies to education, the burden of proof lies with the school district
if an infringement of equal protection is alleged (San Antonio Independent School
District v. Rodriguez, 1973). Furthermore, states such as California, have
characterized education as a distinct, fundamental interest of state and local
governments (Hogan, 1974).
In a seminal study concerning the ability of U.S. courts to bring about
significant social change, Gerald N. Rosenberg (1991) suggests two views of court
effectiveness: the Dynamic Court and the Constrained Court. He questions what he
sees as the Dynamic Court view Americans adopt when looking at four decades of
court victories, particularly in the area of civil rights litigation. Winning cases and
activist lawyer enthusiasm in the litigation game do not guarantee political and social
reform. Rosenberg’s Dynamic Court posits the interpretation that courts can actively
affect political and social reform. In this top down procedure, the “relative
insularity” of appointed judges, the moral authority that courts convey and the
recognized problem solving abilities of the courts, make them the logical purveyors
of social change (McCann, 1993). Rosenberg (1991) finds fault with this designation
in its omission of the importance of limited judicial capacity, individual case
differences and conditions that contribute to effecting change. This complexity of
causation on the ability of the courts to affect change on parties engaged in social
conflict, is further explained as a “myth of rights”, the false perception that victims’

36
rights will be upheld by a self-implementing judiciary, unaffected by political
influence; especially in the cases of the historically disadvantaged and
disenfranchised (Scheingold, 1974). Moreover, a reliance on the courts for social
reform, may compromise values of citizenship, including political mobilization and
democratic venues of community involvement; i.e. it may be argued that the civil
rights mobilization led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had more to do with changing
race relations than did the Warren Court (Sunstein, 1993). Yet, however strongly Dr.
King warned of leaving the civil rights fight to lawyers, he argued that the movement
needed judiciary support; in the case of Brown, because it was morally right
(McCann, 1993).
The Constrained Court position is explained by categorizing three constraints
that prevent courts from becoming effective social reformers. In Rosenberg’s
offerings of the Constrained Court view, he postulates that significant court orders to
enact social change will occur only when the above-mentioned constraints are
overcome; the court is not a lone actor in creating social change. The limitations of
both the Dynamic and Constrained Court models, clearly indicate Rosenberg’s
positivist approach to a cause and effect relationship in desired outcomes of judicial
decision-making. Constraint I: The scope of constitutional rights limits courts to hear
and effectively act on matters of social change, preventing much of what would be
considered popular mobilization (Rosenberg, 1991). Support from educational
institutions, state officials, and the general populace have, in good faith, supported
this constitutional challenge through the AP Challenge Grant Program. Constraint

37
II: Significant social reform cannot be implemented by the courts because of lack of
independence from the other branches of government. As evidenced by legislative
support, in the passage of SB 1689, June 2000, the statewide AP Challenge Grant
program was instituted, with a four-year monitoring program in place, to address the
findings of deficiencies in access and quality of AP programs to urban, minority
students. Constraint III: Without the necessary tools needed to develop policy, the
courts are unable to implement decisions that would order social change. This case
study of Daniel v. State of California focuses on Constraint III and the inability of
the courts to fully implement and effectively monitor their decisions in order to
effect significant social reform. For example, Brown v. Board of Education, rather
than being an example of a socially-transformative court, has been categorized as a
victim of judicial constraints that created a weakened court model; Congress and the
executive branch were forced to intercede to comply with the equal protection
remedy of widespread desegregation (Sunstein, 1993). There are parallels in the
Rosenberg analysis of Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954) with the public
education equal protection case of this study (Haddix, 2003).
Significant change in the implementation of the Brown decisions did not
occur until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Congress took
measures that, in subsequent years, significantly increased the rate of desegregation
in the nation’s public schools. Rosenberg does, however, attribute the rate of
desegregation in the years 1968-1972 to court efficacy in civil rights, as lesser
degrees of segregation appeared under HEW enforcement, than in both 1968 and

38
1970 court ordered districts (Giles, 1975). Therefore, Rosenberg comes to a middle
of the road view (pre-1964 vs. post 1964) as to his Dynamic Court/Constrained
Court models. Rather than being ambivalent, (McCann, 1993), Rosenberg has
clearly identified dynamics in implementation that must be addressed, as well as the
consideration of higher desegregation statistics in HEW districts more segregated
prior to Brown than those under court ordered mandate. Recent evaluation of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal legislation indicates that deliberate failure to
disaggregate high school graduation rates by minority and gender, produces
misleading, inflated statistics, negating state and federal accountability, and masking
a severe educational crisis and its racial dimensions (Orfield, Losen, & Wald, 2004).
Similar considerations should be made from the presentation of results of
implementation of court ordered changes to Advanced Placement programs as a
result of the 1999 case study, Daniel v. State of California, and the ensuing AP
course offerings, exam taking and pass-rates of urban minority populated public
schools.
State Court Decisions
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a class
action lawsuit in State Superior Court (July 27, 1999) on behalf of public school
students who were being denied access to advanced placement courses (ACLU,
1999). The plaintiffs contended that as students within the Inglewood Unified School
District, they were desirous and academically qualified to enroll in The College
Board AP courses, but were denied participation because Inglewood High offered

39
only three AP courses (ACLU, 1999). In addition, the ACLU claimed that the
intentional denial of equal educational opportunities to minority and low income
students on the basis of both race and wealth (California Constitution, Art. 1. Sec.
7(a) & (b), Art. IV, Sec. 16(a), Equal Protection of the Law, Discrimination Based
on Suspect Classification) was especially egregious in the aftermath of Proposition
209, effectively dismantling California’s Affirmative Action programs, and
perpetuating educational inequalities for predominantly poor, Black and Latino
students within the public schools (ACLU, 1999).
The complaint filed on behalf of the plaintiffs charged that the students were
denied uniform progression through the State’s public schools (California
Constitution, Article IX, Section I), and that the defendants had unjustly inhibited the
intellectual, scientific and moral development of the plaintiffs through both policy
and practice (ACLU Complaint, 1999). The Complaint offered a Statutory
Framework with the right to an equal, adequate and free education as guaranteed by
the California Constitution, and noted Five Causes of Action.
A complete accounting of the Five Causes of Action follows: 1. California
Constitution, Art. I, Sec.7(a) & (b); Art. IV, Sec.16(a) Equal Protection of the Laws:
Fundamental Right to Education--the intentional and discriminatory denial of equal
and adequate number of course offerings to the plaintiffs in relation to other
California public high schools was a violation of their rights to a public education; 2.
California Constitution, Art. IX, Sec.5, Denial of Free School Guarantee and
Common School System—by withholding an adequate and sufficient AP program,

40
the schools failed to abide by their Constitutional and Statutory obligations, did not
prepare students for progression through the entirety of the public school career, and
plaintiffs were less likely to be competitive for selective colleges or universities,
including the University of California, without equal access, as had their peers, in the
AP program; 3. California Constitution, Art. I, Sec.7(a) & (b), Art. IV, Sec.16(a),
Equal Protection of the Law, Discrimination Based on Suspect Classification—the
intentional, discriminatory denial of equal access to public education (AP courses)
on the basis of both race and wealth—the continued violation of the California
Constitution’s equal protection laws; 4. California Constitution, Art. IX, Sec.1,
Denial of the encouragement of Education—denial of adequate and sufficient
number of AP courses, which afford greater academic stimulation than is offered in
regular or honors-level courses, deny students’ rights to further develop their
intellects; 5. California Education Code, Sec.52240, Sec.52241, Denial of Advanced
Placement Fee Payment Program—by denying financial assistance (fee waivers) to
economically disadvantaged students, defendants have denied plaintiffs post-
secondary educational opportunities (ACLU Complaint, 1999).
At the time of the filing, AP courses had become part of a standard high
school curriculum over a wide segment of California public high schools. In an
example of the severe inequity in the statewide allocation of AP courses, Beverly
Hills High School 76.6 percent white student body), offered (1999 figures) 14
different AP subjects with 45 AP classes, as compared to Arvin High School (93.2
percent African-American and Latino student body population) providing only two

41
AP courses. (ACLU Freedom Network, 1999). The College Board is a national,
non-profit educational organization; the AP program is administered by the
Educational Testing Service (ETS). Successful completion of each AP course offers
the student an additional point toward their GPA (Education Week on the Web,
1999). Should the student take the final AP exam and score 3 or above (on a 1-5
scale) he/she qualifies for college credit (a distinct financial advantage for the
incoming freshman). As an example of the advantage access to AP courses holds, the
University of California, Berkeley (1998) denied undergraduate admission to 8,000
applicants whose GPA’s were 4.0, in favor of other high school seniors whose
GPA’s were higher due to AP courses.
The ACLU lawsuit claimed a systematic denial of the ability of minority
urban high school students to compete for placement in college degree programs
(especially California’s elite universities) without equal access to AP courses
(ACLU, 1999). The court found the denial of equal educational opportunities to
minority and low income students as compelling, especially in the aftermath of
Proposition 209 (Oakes & Rogers, 2000). In response to the filing, the defendants in
the lawsuit sought a mutual resolution of the ACLU claims by agreeing to hold
committee meetings with educational experts and state officials (California
Department of Education) to address constitutional issues arising from questions of
equal and adequate access to AP courses. The objective of these meetings was to
draft and enact legislation that would ensure relief as set forth in the complaint. In
this regard, Dr. Jeannie Oakes, UCLA Associate Dean of the Graduate School of

42
Education and Information Services, led a team of experts in proposing a plan to
resolve the case (Oakes & Rogers, 2000). The statewide AP Challenge Grant
Program, to address remediation for infringements of equal access to quality AP
programs for minority and low-income public school students, and the companion
Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia) to provide school district financial assistance
grants to low-income students, desirous of taking the AP exam, was established by
the California State Legislature-SB 1689 (ACLU Docket and Report of Council,
2002) as a four year, discretionary allocated, $41,250,000 plan with an additional
$1.5 million allocation for AB 2216 (Escutia). The settlement agreement, based on
legislative remediation for infractions of equal protection, brought an end to the case,
“No brief was filed for this case…there was never a published court decision…all
that happened was the legislation…and the case was dismissed (Eliasberg, 2008).
The plaintiffs in the case charged themselves with the task of a continued
four-year program of monitoring (independent evaluation and reporting) of the
implementation recommendation. A status date was held for conference, June 2002,
before Judge Anthony J. Mahr (Los Angeles Superior Court), where a stay of
proceedings was ordered pending settlement negotiations. A late-year 2002
evaluation meeting with all stakeholders present was held for further evaluation of
the AP Challenge Grant Program (ACLU Docket and Report of Council, 2002).
State of California budget cuts, 2003, ended the AP Challenge Grant after its third
year of inception.

43
Rosenberg’s Constraint III stipulates that courts often lack the tools
(implementation often requires the restructuring of increasingly complicated
institutions and bureaucracies) to effect social change (Rosenberg, 1991).
The California Department of Education was a participant in the court
ordered committee meetings held under the mutual agreement with education experts
and state officials to address constitutional issues arising from questions of equal and
adequate access to AP courses (Oakes & Rogers, 2000). In a recent interview,
Marjorie McConnell, Education Program Coordinator, California Department of
Education stated, “It was a very good program, but the governor stopped it in 2003
after three years. We have no more information on the AP Challenge Grant after the
cancellation. No follow-up study was done because there was no authorization of
funding to monitor or evaluate after the program was discontinued. It was a very
good program, but three years was not sufficient to get much done (McConnell,
2008). LaRoyce Bell, District Coordinator, LAUSD Gifted/Talented Programs,
addressed the post AP Challenge Grant in reference to the scheduled LAUSD
Advanced Placement Summit, 2007, traditionally serving education specialists,
parents and students, “cancelled due to lack of interest” (Bell, 2008).
Today, the role of the federal government has been greatly diminished, with
an emphasis on state responsibility for education. Local and state implementation of
the original equal protection cases, stemming from the judicial desegregation
decisions, were further mandated through school finance adjudications that dictated
adequate monetary support throughout school districts (Serrano v. Priest, 1977).

44
The following two case studies are state court models that serve in support of
Daniel v. State of California (1999), for the use of legislative action, as ordered by
the courts to remedy equal protection violations in the public schools:
• Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State (N.Y.) (App.Div.1
st
Dept., 2002),
1995. The legislature is given the first opportunity for public school
reform. Settlement agreement based on legislative remediation.
• Rodriguez v. LAUSD (2003). A consent decree settlement with legislative
remediation was reached with formulas for equalization of funding and
provisions for the improvement of qualified teacher resources to remedy
problems of inequities in the distribution of Basic Norm resources (BNR)
to school districts with predominantly low-income and minority student
populations. The stipulation carried mandated monitoring of
implementation decrees by plaintiffs attorneys.
Additional statutory and case law in support of Daniel v. State of California,
(1999):
• Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State (N.Y.) (1995). Allegation that state’s
educational funding scheme had disparate impact on African-Americans
and other minority students did not require heightened
scrutiny…Intentional discrimination on the suspect class must be proven
to deny equal protection. Intentional discrimination based on race and
wealth denied equal protection to Plaintiffs.

45
• Civil Rights Act (1964). Congress took measures that increased
desegregation rate at public schools. Plaintiffs denied equal access to
educational opportunities due to race and wealth. Schools with high
percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics were underserved in the
AP program.
• Equal Education Opportunities Act (1974). Provides that no state shall
deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or
her race, color, sex or national origin (includes all school systems without
regard to histories of segregated dual systems). Plaintiffs denied access to
AP based on race.
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).
The burden of proof lies within the school district if an infringement of
equal protection is alleged. District fails to refute equal protection
allegations, acknowledges disparities in AP programs between schools
with varying percentages of minority students, and seeks mutual
resolution for relief of infringements.
• Serrano v. Priest I & II (1971) & (1977). Education is a fundamental
right in California. California Supreme Court found that principles of
student expenditures based on district wealth was unconstitutional;
adequate funding, not absolute equality is required. Plaintiffs were
denied equitable distribution of funds to support an adequate and

46
sufficient number of AP courses, qualified teachers, and instructional
materials in comparison with both inter-district and intra-district schools.
The following section of this review will address the fundamentals of the AP
Challenge Grant, and take a close look at how the grant was implemented in LAUSD
(as a remedy for inequities in the AP program specified by the court) and specifically
in relation to Constraint III, as posited in the Constrained Court Model (Rosenberg,
1991).
Local Remedies
The Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Gifted/Talented
Programs (GATE) oversees the implementation and monitoring of AP courses under
its jurisdiction. It is an educational collaboration between secondary schools,
colleges, and The College Board. Thirty-two college-level courses are offered in 19
academic disciplines for able high school students (LAUSD, 2002). AP courses are
programmed in all high schools, magnet centers and selected LAUSD middle
schools. In addition to the adoption of the AP Fee Reduction Program (AB 2216,
Escutia), removing financial barriers that may have prevented AP participation,
legislation created the Advanced Placement Teacher Training Grant (14 high
schools) providing professional development training in selected high schools for
teachers of AP.
In addition, The AP Challenge Grant Program had been instituted in 57
LAUSD high schools, providing equal access to college-level courses in virtually
every public California comprehensive high school; five hundred fifty schools

47
(McConnell, M., 2008). The AP Challenge Grant was to ensure that all students had
a reasonable opportunity to become competitive for admission to any state public
institution of higher learning (LAUSD, 2002). LAUSD literature emphasized the
goal of our state schools to increase both the availability (access) to AP courses, and
the rate of successful participation in these classes by minority and economically
disadvantaged students.
Legislation relating to the AP Challenge Grant provided that a mentoring,
college prep/study skills program, such as AVID (Advancement Via Individual
Determination) be in place to offer tutorials and support for minority high school
students who are potential first generation college hopefuls (mid-class academic
standing) for entering and completing a four year program of higher education.
AVID was a collaborating partner in the AP Challenge Grant, with the California
Department of Education, the College Board and the University of California
College Prep Initiative, offering on-line AP course services to high schools that
would not otherwise have course availability (Heinrich, 2004). The legislation
required more student participation in the end-of-year AP exams. In addition, the AP
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) required participating schools to offer a minimum
of four AP courses in core academic subject areas, specifically one each in Math and
Science, and the use of technology to enhance AP course offerings. The legislation
called for parents and students to be informed by both the district and the schools,
regarding the AP program, and the importance of rigorous coursework for college

48
and career preparation and advancement (California Department of Education,
2002).
Schools designated as eligible to apply for the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689,
2000) met one or more of the following four ordered criteria and priorities.
(California Department of Education, 2002):
1. Schools with three or fewer AP courses;
2. Schools with no AP mathematics or science courses (select schools may
have been deemed eligible under this criteria, due to on-site honors-level
curricula);
3. Schools with low college going rates;
4. Schools with a majority of students who were economically
disadvantaged.
The following paragraphs will give examples of three commission reports
(LAUSD-Local District G, The College Board’s Access to Excellence, and a
Washington, D.C. forum discussing the expansion of AP access and quality of
programming for all participants). The findings of all three reports are remarkably
the same.
The Local District G Advanced Placement Summit: Report to the
Superintendent, January 2002, states that LAUSD-Local District G schools (2000-
2001) were selected to participate in the AP Challenge Grant, funded by the
California Department of Education, due to below average achievement and lack of
sufficient number of available AP classes. Local District G high schools participating

49
in the AP Challenge Grant include: Crenshaw, Dorsey, Manual Arts, and
Washington. The school wide percentage of students taking the AP exams (year
2000) with a score of 3, 4 or 5 are listed as follows: Manual Arts (37.6%), Foshay
Learning Center (31.3%) Washington (29%), LAUSD/USC Math/Art/Sci.Tech.
(21.4%). The summit was called in order for greater articulation to begin between
middle schools and high schools; to better address the lack of achievement in Local
District G advanced placement programs. Recommendations for improving quality
and access to Local District G programs centered on increased teacher professional
development (and unconditional support for teacher in AP preparation), stronger
vertical teaming for pre-AP training, and a recruiting and teacher training program in
place for potential AP instructors.
Access to Excellence: A Report of the Commission on the Future of the
Advanced Placement Program, 2001, was prepared by The College Entrance
Examination Board, to address the status of AP programs nationwide and present
recommendations to comply with court-ordered quality and equity implementations
in response to the 1999 ACLU equal protection lawsuit filed against the AP
Programs (Haddix, 2003). To meet the challenge of the equity and quality of
programming issues for minority and low-income students, the commission noted the
following support measures to be in place for evidence of successful remediation and
implementation (as mandated by the court): heightened teacher professional
development; greater instructional resources, and adequate student skill preparation
to succeed at the advanced placement level; development and dissemination of AP

50
quality standards and increased rigorous research efforts to validate AP; and the
creation of explicit guidelines about the appropriate use of AP and AP examination
results (College Board, 2001).
A Forum to Expand Advanced Placement Opportunities: Increasing Access
and Improving Preparation in High Schools. A Pipeline for School Reform: Pre-AP
Models (Wa., D.C., 2001), similarly reported participant conclusions that
improvement of quality of programming and equity in access, could only be seen as
a result of greater teacher professional development and pre-AP (or greater adequacy
of skill preparation) at the lower grades, to ensure individual success within the
nationwide program. Vertical teaming (middle school and high schools) was also
highly valued at this conference as a way to implement a smooth transition to college
preparatory rigor. In this manner, the likelihood of successfully completing course
work and the probability that the final test score will ensure college credit, will
improve the success of the AP program in meeting its mandate.
Two of the above-mentioned reports ended on similar cautionary notes. The
Local District G Advanced Placement Summit: Report to the Superintendent,
January 2001, noted that a major concern was the expansion of access to under-
served schools without erosion of program quality. The Access to Excellence
Commission report states that increased political and legal pressures for rapid
expansion of program access can cause school failure in providing these supports
(College Entrance Examination Board, 2001); indicating social contexts in which

51
human agents act as factors for Rosenberg, and his cause and effect, positivist
approach, to be held accountable (McCann, 1993).
In addition, LAUSD reports that as a result of the California Department of
Education Fee Waivers (AB 2216, Escutia) and additional fee waivers offered by the
College Board to qualifying students, the number of minority/low-income students
taking the AP examinations significantly increased from 1999-2000 (2,430 more
students taking the test in 2000 than in 1999). District-wide, the increases continue a
steady pattern of a rising number of students taking the AP exams (1996-2000). At
the halt of the AP Challenge Grant, 2003, there was a three-fold increase (2000-
2003) in the number of low income and minority students taking the AP exam, and
the College Board reported that the emphasis was not on the pass rate, but on
increased student participation (Heinrich, 2004). In general, however, increased
student examination numbers resulted in a decrease in student scores (LAUSD
Memorandum BP-23, 2001).
The State expenditures for the AP Challenge Grant Program (SB 1689, 2000)
totaled $41,250,000, to be disbursed over a four year period, with major allocations
in the first two years; initial funding for AB 2216 (Escutia), AP Exam Fee Waiver,
was $1.5 million.
Year 1: $16.5 million ($30,000 per recipient school)
Year 2: $12,375,000 ($22,500 per recipient school)
Year 3: $8,250,000 ($15,000 per recipient school)
Year 4: $4,125,000 ($7,500 per recipient school)

52
The implementation of the legislative remedy (SB 1689, 2000) called for
funding allocations to be discretionary within programs in a progression of budgetary
incentives, not only to remedy the equal protection violations, but also to bring about
policy-supported social change. To comply with the intent of the court order and the
legislative mandate, the AP Challenge Grant high schools were to increase the
number of AP courses offered, establish AP professional development, create a
system of vertical teaming, support teachers/class set-up, institute on site AVID
(Advancement Via Individual Determination) national college preparatory programs,
and be required to establish mentoring services (California Department of Education,
2002). In this manner, the risk of a continuation of equal protection violations, within
a rigorous dual-credit, college preparatory program, would be managed by a
collaborative effort of the legislature and administrative agencies (Sunstein, 1993) to
ensure the rights of minority students to access and equity within the AP program,
and as an incentive to competitively compete for admission and retention within
institutions of higher education (Astin, 1993).
State budget cuts (2003) halted the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) and
the AP Exam Fee Waiver, AB 2216 (Escutia) after the third of the four-year
implementation plan, allowing for an aborted assessment of the legislative remedy.
California State Department of Education officials responded, that the intent of the
legislative remediation was to increase student participation, and that the issues of
access and equity were primarily addressed, and expenditures met, in the first two
years of the program implementation plan (McConnell, M., 2008).

53
The California Department of Education, Intersegmental Relations Office,
prepared The Advanced Placement Challenge Grant Program: A Preliminary Report
on the First Two Years of Implementation (California Department of Education,
August, 2002). The report concluded that two years was insufficient to make a
meaningful measurement of the effectiveness of the AP Challenge Grant program. In
addition, it noted that any systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the program
to remedy problems of access and equity for the underserved students, consistently
supported by researchers, was stymied by the fact that no funds were appropriated
for statewide operations or for independent evaluation of the implementation plan.
The report did find that post the inception of the AP Challenge Grant
program, as evidenced by on-site visits and limited administration documentation,
some change appeared to occur in high schools throughout the state; an increase in
both the availability of AP courses and in the number of low-income students taking
the AP tests as a result of the AP Fee Waver Bill-AB 2216 (California Department of
Education, 2002). At the two-year stage of beginning to address the inequities within
the program, the report found problems remaining: lack of school facilitites,
equipment and materials to effect meaningful instruction; virtually non-existent
course collaboration and vertical teaming between middle schools and high schools;
and inadequate, quality professional development for teachers, counselors and
administrators, especially in areas of pedagogy and counseling techniques intended
to reach diverse student populations. The Preliminary Report on the First Two Years
of Implementation acknowledged that the AP Challenge Grant program, (SB 1689,

54
2000) had sparked the process of change, but that an holistic approach to remedying
infringements of access and equity to the AP program was necessary and must
include effective outreach and positive support to our underrepresented students, as
well as quality on-site programming (California Department of Education, 2002).
Increased access for minority and low-income students, creating rapid growth
of the AP program, with discretionary allocation and program monitoring, question
whether there can be equity without quality programming. Funding disparities for
poor and minority students are addressed in SB 687 (2005), which calls for
disaggregated accounting of all school expenditures, preventing local districts from
disproportionately handicapping urban schools in areas such as teacher salary
allocation (EdVoice, 2005). For example, the Education Trust-West (2005) study of
California’s 50 largest districts found relatively little variation in average class sizes
across schools, but large differences in teacher qualifications, as measured by
experience, education and credentialing. This was especially true for out-of-field
teaching information (SB 687, 2005). Remedies post Brown v. Board of Education
(1953, 1954), raised similar concerns (Rosenberg, 1991).
The U.S. educational system appears to be returning to philosophical beliefs
of strong local control for adjudication, implementation and monitoring (Viadero, D.,
1999). In addition, choice movements involving the issue of tax credits, school
vouchers, the charter schools, and inter-district school enrollment have shown the
American competitive spirit disavowing failing school government traditions, and
propelling educational reform. Borrowing incentive principles from the rule book of

55
private industry, choice architecture within a risk management approach to social
change has been suggested, whereby the courts, legislatures and local bureaucracies
work in consort with parents and communities to formulate culturally relevant
incentives toward earned rewards of a quality education; establishing concrete means
to recognizable outcomes of school reform (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), as posited in
greater AP instructional preparation, leading to increased AP test passage rates, and
culminating in higher college acceptances and retention. Whether this competitive
movement, emphasizing the empowerment and political play of parent and
community involvement for monitoring implementations of federal, statutory and
state law (Lutz, F.W. & Merz, C., 1992), will be an impetus for improving the
quality of American public education or an additional opportunity for flight to
education alternatives (reducing the tax base from predominantly urban areas)
remains to be seen.
Additionally, recent case law suggests that there may be a shift in court
interpretation of Equal Protection and Free Speech. The Supreme Court in Zelman v.
Harris (2002), ruled that the Cleveland, Ohio voucher program did not violate the
Establishment Clause of the Constitution in the inclusion of religious schools in its
voucher program (Boyd, W.L., 2000). This ruling appears symptomatic of a twenty-
year trend of dissatisfaction with a public school system that is increasingly being
held accountable for the outcome of its services; a belief that through tuition tax
credits and voucher plans, freedom of choice to abandon a troubled public school
system for a government sanctioned educational option, is also a right of both Equal

56
Protection and Free Speech (Boyd, W.L., 2000). The courts may be held accountable
for the crisis in performance and accountability of the public schools, as noted by
Harold Rosenberg in The Hollow Hope, 1991, as he identified the impotence of a
constrained court to implement decisions and foster social change; a culpable player
in contributing to this apparent paradigm switch in the ideology of public education.
Representative case studies such as Butt v. State of California (1992), alleging equal
protection violations caused by state budgetary shortfalls and ensuing plans to close
the district prior to semester’s end, Daniel v. State of California (1999) and Williams
v. State of California (2000), equity violations alleging sub-standard California
schools, exemplify state court adjudications on behalf of access and equity to public
education, constitutionally guaranteed at federal and state levels, by statutes such as
the 1964 and 1974 Civil Rights Acts, and remediated by legislative action; therefore,
implementation of orders through legislative means, with ordered monitoring by
local and state government and education officials. In matters of equal protection, the
state courts have assumed the sole role of adjudication. Thereby, a failure of the
courts to fully implement and effectively monitor their decisions in order to effect
significant social reform, a focus on legislative inputs rather than outcome measures
(Metzler, 2002), the public’s growing rejection of the public school system as a
societal equalizer, and an emphasis on shifting socio-economic and multicultural
trends, appears resultant in the reality of the re-segregation of our schools and
communities (Ogletree, C, 2004).

57
Anti-discrimination law continues to evolve, as particular duties of access
and equity are crystallized in the public schools, but with fresh interpretations that
may differ from that of “promoting cohesion among heterogeneous democratic
peoples” (Serrano v. Priest, 1971); interpretations of law that will impact American
society for generations to come. The re-segregation of the American public
education system (Orfield & Lee, 2004) is upon us, and must be acknowledged
before we can celebrate the fifty-year legacy of Brown v. Board of Education.
Examining the Court’s Role in Effecting Social Change
Although Daniel v. State of California (1999) was settled and never litigated,
statutory and case law supports the legal theory that all students have the right to an
equal adequate and free education as guaranteed by the California Constitution.
Education being a fundamental right under the State Constitution, the state is
obligated to correct basic disparities in its system of common schools. The court
upheld the plaintiff’s complaint that African-American and Hispanic AP students in
the Inglewood Unified School District were systematically denied their rights under
the Equal Protection Clause and the Education Clause of the California Constitution
(ACLU Complaint, 1999).
The role of the Constrained Court Model can be exemplified in the degree of
social change (if any) attributed to the implementation of remedies to resolve Daniel
v. State of California; i.e. The AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) and the
companion Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia). The 1999 ACLU equal protection
lawsuit, Daniel v. State of California, filed on behalf of the Inglewood Unified

58
School District, asserting violation of constitutional rights of urban minority
students’ access to AP courses, has drawn more national attention to our country’s
continuing struggle with the specter of separate but equal than we’ve experienced
since Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954).
With the advent of the original AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000)
paralleling the partnership of the court and the legislature to implement changes, as
had the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in the service of desegregation, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) held the promise to carry the legacy of Brown forward. In
assessing the immediate impact that Daniel had as a model for court and legislative
action to remedy infractions of equal protection law in public education, in
accordance with aspirations of the ACLU attorneys (Cordoba, 2003), Williams v.
State of California (2000), provides an example of Daniel’s legitimate heir. The case
was filed, May 2000, five months after Daniel v. State of California (1999), and one
month prior to its legislative settlement (AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), by
the ACLU, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense Fund), Public Advocates,
Inc. and many of the same consortium of civil rights and public advocacy groups,
using the same causes of action and supportive statutory precedent and case studies
as in the Daniel Complaint. Plaintiffs joined in alleging that the State was not
fulfilling its duty to ensure the fundamental rights of students to equal learning
opportunities (Williams Complaint, 2000). After years of litigation, Williams
reached a settlement agreement, August, 2004, that provided for a three year
legislative package proposal (nearly three times the monetary value allotted to the

59
AP Challenge Grant) that ensured textbook availability, clean/safe school
environments, instructional materials and the High Priority Schools grant program
(ACLU-Williams, 2005). The Williams settlement received grand press coverage,
“Schwarzennegger Signs Landmark Education Reforms Into Law”, as the legislation
was signed into law, September 2005, and heralded as the legacy of Brown v. Board
of Education (ACLU-Williams, 2005). The interaction of the political, social and
economic players vis-à-vis Daniel as opposed to Williams, may determine the degree
of court ordered social reform over time (Sunstein, 1993), and determine if history
will prove Daniel more than a test case for Williams v. State of California (2000), but
a precedent-setting, catalyst for social change.
In examining Daniel v. State of California (1999), in light of Rosenberg’s
Dynamic and Constrained Court models (Rosenberg, 1991), the researcher joins Mr.
Rosenberg in questioning whether courts can effect social change and under what
conditions that reform occurs. Social transformation in this context, examines the
outcomes of court ordered remediation for infringements of Constitutional law
(Federal and State), apart from other social, political, and economic factors.
Significant social change is defined as evidence of statistical measures of policy
change compliance (Rosenberg, 1991). Rosenberg’s categorization of the Dynamic
Court as being a top-down activist approach to problem solving conforms to his
positivist notion of jurisprudence. This Dynamic Court may also be defined as
having a status quo approach to jurisprudence, where the principle of neutrality and
compensatory justice is applied to legal contests. The principle of compensatory

60
justice maintains that the role of the court is to restore the status quo; “not…to
change anything“ (Sunstein, 1993, p. 320). Departures from this model originate in
the “rights revolution” of the 1960’s and 1970’s when equal protection law was
replaced with the rise of legislative action and new bureaucratic institutions; whereby
the idea of neutrality and compensation for infringements of institutions, moved the
premise of adjudication to administration (Sunstein, 1993). Rosenberg’s caveat
affirming that judicial capacity is often limited by individual case differences and
conditions that contribute to social change, contribute to McCann’s argument of
contextualized rationales for human interactions that confound the judiciaries’ ability
to bring about social change. The humanness of the individual creates a scenario
where individuals are best suited to design conditions of social reform according to
their own needs and those of their communities (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Rosenberg views interactions of institutions influencing change. However,
institutions viewed as a network of individuals in the human context mode of
McCann, advances the conclusion that there is not as strong a disparity between their
two positions concerning courts effecting social change. Therefore, one should not
interpret Rosenberg as having an unapologetic positivist approach (McCann, 1996).
As good an example that Daniel v. State of California provides to
Rosenberg’s Constrained Court model (the first two constraints overcome, the case
decided favorably, and Constraint III, implementation, to be addressed in order for
social change), problems inherent with implementation (human social conditions and
historical constraints, as described in this case study) may ultimately cause judicial

61
monitoring to become judicial control; a return to the Dynamic Court concept of
jurisprudence (Rosenberg, 1991). Insulated from political pressures, the Dynamic
Court model has the capacity to effect social change as seen in public policy shifts
inspired by social protest movements (Neier, 1982). The forcing of social
transformation, stalemated by self-perpetuating institutional power and lack of
bureaucratic incentives to effect policy change, may be best achieved through the
courts, effectively insulated from electoral concerns, and charged with upholding the
constitution (Yannaconne, 1970). Dynamic Court proponents argue that civil rights
victories, such as Brown v. Board of Education, the reduction of racial isolation in
the public schools, and the forcing of legislative district re-apportionment, could not
have occurred without a court system that is free from obstacles that prevent
executive and legislative agencies to act in a legally, positive manner (Hochschild,
1984). If monitoring commissions do not bring about the intent of the court decision,
the judiciary assumes the top-down approach and the specter of the Dynamic Court
emerges.
The final interpretation of implementing Daniel v. State of California will
take more than the truncated three-year process, and most certainly longer that the
proscribed four years of the original implementation plan. Problems noted in this
review that are endemic to the socio-economic and historic disadvantages of the
urban minority public school population, may confound AP access and program
quality parity under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, ensuring
individual’s rights from state infringement of equal protection (Stephan & Feagin

62
1980). The Dynamic Court model may have to come to the forefront and the
judiciary intervene with state agencies; issues such as the formal recruitment and
certification of AP teachers, standardization of courses, and sanctions for school
district officials who curtail access to courses to improve percentages of AP test pass
rates. Therefore, it may be concluded that Rosenberg’s two dimensional court model
be more valid as a greater model plan, converging the aspects of the Dynamic and
Constrained Models of the Court to bring about social change. In the case of Daniel
v. State of California, consider a Constrained/Dynamic approach.
When legislative implementation tools do not ensure court intended remedies
for equal protection infringements, the court may best return to a top-down, activist
approach and bring about social change by insisting that unconstitutional issues be
remedied, unencumbered by political and social pressures, and void of great
consideration to financial cost (Rhodes v. Chapman 1981, 359). Legislation can
mandate change, but it is up to the community and their institutions, in conjunction
with a strong court, to learn from Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954). Based
on an analysis of the literature, there is no equity without access to quality
programming. In the words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the “right to a
good education”, although not a constitutional right, is fundamental in sustaining a
secure, modern democracy (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Transparency, rewards,
funding and accountability (McCain, 2008) through the vigilant monitoring of
implementation, are keys to the courts effecting social change.

63
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The following chapter explains the processes by which data were gathered
and analyzed during this study; how the sample was selected, the data collected,
methods used in the analyses, and conduct of evaluation.
Research Question
1. What are the factors that effect social change, following judicial decisions,
as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to remedy
problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational change in AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and Hispanic
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
Research Design
The research design of this study used a mixed methodology. The joining of
quantitative and qualitative approaches in answering the research question of this
study gave a more complete understanding of the inferences to be found in each
respective approach, and offered credibility to the findings by effectively combining
those inferences from the quantitative to the qualitative (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
1998). The quantitative study was a quasi-experimental assessment of educational
change over time (if any) in participation and performance of LAUSD African-
American and Hispanic students, White/Asian student data utilized as a comparison

64
group, 1999-2006, before and after the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). The
change (if any) was evidenced in the percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams
passed (scores of 3 or above on a 1-5 scale) before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(1999-2006), by African-American and Hispanic students, White/Asian student data
utilized as a comparison group, within the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high
schools.
A quasi-experimental interrupted time series approach (Shadish, Cook &
Campbell, 2002) was used in the quantitative portion of this mixed methods study.
The populations of African-American and Hispanic AP-Challenge Grant high school
students, White/Asian student data as a comparison group, were observed as to their
participation and performance in AP exams taken (participation) and AP exams
passed, 3 or above on a 1-5 scale, (performance), from 1999-2006; before (1999-
2000) and after (2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006) the time period of the AP
Challenge Grant (2000-2003). The time series approach showed observation of
variables over time and pinpointed an intervention/treatment for the impact of that
treatment on the variables (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002). The design showing
educational change from 1999-2006, and treatment (AP Challenge Grant, 2000-
2003) is shown in the following diagram (O = observations, X = treatment):

1999-2000 (O1) 2000-2003 (X), 2003-2004 (O2), 2004-2005 (O3), 2005-2006 (O4)

65
For the quantitative study, dependent group t-tests (Best & Kahn, 1998) were
performed, before and after the legislative remediation (2000-2003), to determine if
the mean results of the data showed educational changes (if any) of participation and
performance of African-American and Hispanic high school students, White/Asian
student data utilized as a comparison group, of the LAUSD-AP program over time.
The SPSS 16 program was used. The LAUSD District Memoranda on Student
Achievement on the Advanced Placement Examinations, 2000-2008, and data
regarding District totals of the Los Angeles Unified School District Number of
Advanced Placement Examinations and Mean Scores by Ethnicity (1999-2006),
within the Memoranda, were used as visual comparison data in the analysis of this
study.
Practical significance (Best & Kahn, 1998) to determine results of
participation and performance was assessed by Cohen’s d, the traditional index of
effect size- (practical significance criterion shown as d > .30) and simple percentage
gain (NCLB indicated significant improvement as 10%). Cohen’s d is the mean
difference between pre and post-tests divided by one, either pre-treatment or post
treatment of standard deviations of the data, d = l M
1
- M
2
l / s. In calculating
Cohen's d, in this study, the standard deviation of the pre-treatment group was used.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to find whether there were any
significant mean differences between the three ethnic groups, African-American,
Hispanic and White/Asian (utilized as a comparison group), on the LAUSD-AP

66
Challenge Grant participation and performance data, before and after the legislative
(SB 1689, 2000) intervention.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests were performed following the results of the one-way
ANOVA, to determine the variance of mean performance, and participation between
the individual three ethnic groups, regarding percentage of AP exams taken and
percentage of AP exams passed, 1999-2006.
In order to conduct follow-up interviews for the qualitative portion of this
mixed methods study, a preliminary analysis was performed to examine which
particular schools indicated a significant change over time, before and after the AP
Challenge Grant, of the percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams passed (scores
of 3, 4, 5 on a 1-5 scale) by African-American and Hispanic high school students,
White/Asian high school students, utilized as a comparison group, within the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The implementation of the AP Challenge
Grant (2000-2003), as legislative remediation for infringements of equal protection
within the LAUSD-AP programs (Daniel v. State of California, 1999), served as the
treatment during the time series (1999-2006) upon which any changes or
interruptions in participation and performance of the research populations were seen
in differing levels of bar graph representation of data from which observations before
and after treatment can be made. Bar graphs were presented, disaggregated by ethnic
groups, in AP exams taken and AP exams passed (Appendices A-F). Cross-tab
procedures were also completed on the 57 original AP Challenge Grant schools,
disaggregated by ethnicity for African-American, Hispanic and White/Asian,

67
comparison group, students, to compare participation and performance in the AP
Challenge Grant, as expressed by the mean gain/loss in the percentage of AP exams
taken and percentage of AP exams passed, 1999-2006 (Appendices G & H). The
cross-tab results indicated which schools and ethnic groups made significant changes
in AP participation and performance. The results helped to gather interview data
specifically for those schools which did and did not make significant changes in AP
participation and AP performance of African-American and Hispanic students.
To assess factors effecting the quantitative results, as they applied to the
central question of the study, a method of inductive inquiry, grounded in the study,
was used to find patterns in narrative responses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and
provided the basis for the qualitative research design. State, district and local
administrators and educators, were the participants in a twelve-question open-ended
interview format that defined the qualitative instrument in addressing the research
question: 1. What are the factors that effect social change, following judicial
decisions, as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State
of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to
remedy problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational
change in AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and
Hispanic students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)? The twelve
interview questions were divided into three categories as they related to the research
question: adjudication, implementation and monitoring (Viadero, 1999).

68
Therefore, in accordance with this approach, data were systematically
gathered, synthesized, analyzed and conceptualized from participant question
responses, related to and in support of the central question of this study (Smith,
2003).
Research Population and Sample
Archival records from the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and
Assessment Division, provided data for the 57 original LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
high schools, disaggregated by ethnicity, that served as the quantitative study
sample; as indicated within the LAUSD-AP program population. Table 1 shows the
percentage of students enrolled at the 57 original LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
schools disaggregated by ethnicities, before and after the AP Challenge Grant, 1999-
2006. The data indicated that the dominant student population in this research
sample was Hispanic, followed by the White/Asian, comparison group, and the
African-American group. The Hispanic student population more than doubled the
African-American and White/Asian groups combined, before and after the Grant
treatment. As the Hispanic population grew within the LAUSD from 1999-2006, the
White/Asian, comparison group, and the African-American population decreased;
other ethnicities showed no change. There was no statistical significance regarding
the student population percentage changes of the Hispanic (5%) increase,
White/Asian, comparison group (3% decrease), nor the African-Americans (1%
decrease), before and after the AP Challenge Grant, 1999-2006; NCLB-No Child

69
Left Behind designated 10% as a significant gain and this study also utilized -10% as
an indication of significant loss.

Table 1
Percent of Students Enrolled at All 57 High Schools Before and After the Treatment
Ethnicity Before Treatment After Treatment
African American 14% 13%
Hispanic 65% 70%
White/Asian 17% 14%
Others 3% 3%

The sample of LAUSD-AP students within the original 57 AP-Challenge
Grant schools, in reference to the percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams
passed, was solely used as disaggregated by ethnicity for African-American and
Hispanic student data, White/Asian student data used as a comparison group, for the
purposes of this study.
Serving as the research sample for the qualitative portion of this mixed
method study were voluntary participants from the California State Department of
Education, the Los Angeles County Office of Education-AVID, and the College
Board, as well an LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired). All
participants had relevant experience with the 57 original LAUSD-AP Challenge
Grant schools before and after the Grant (1999-2006), and specifically, knowledge of
schools that showed significant achievement following the AP Challenge Grant

70
(2000-2003) and those schools that showed no significant achievement after the AP
Challenge Grant (2000-2003). Narrative accounts were taken from open-ended
researcher designed interview questions from the following participants: 1. AP
Education Programs Consultant, California State Department of Education; 2. Senior
Project Director, AVID, Curriculum Instructional Services, Los Angeles County
Office of Education; 3. Senior Educational Manager, College Board; and 4. Local
District G Gifted/Talented Programs (GATE) Coordinator, the LAUSD (retired).
Instrumentation
The quantitative instrument of this mixed method study was constructed from
a quasi-experimental interrupted time series approach (Shadish, Cook & Campbell,
2002) to determine the educational changes of participation and performance in the
AP Challenge Grant program of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
by African-American and Hispanic high school students, White/Asian student data
utilized as a comparison group, over time. The study’s participants were the
LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools studied before, during and after the AP
Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000). Bar graph representations were used to
show data results from the mean gain/loss in the percentage of AP exams given and
passed (y-axis) by African-American and Hispanic high school students,
White/Asian student data used as a comparison group, within the LAUSD-AP
Challenge Grant program (x-axis, original 57 LAUSD-AP schools) over time, 1999-
2006 (Appendices A-F).

71
The Independent Variable (IV) of the quantitative instrument was as follows:
1. Ethnicity; causation for educational change (if any) in participation and
performance in the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant program over time;
three (3) levels of ethnicity indicated as African-American, Hispanic and
White/Asian.
The Dependent Variables (DVs) of the quantitative instrument were as follows:
1. Percentage of AP exams taken;
2. Percentage of AP exams passed.
The instrumentation of the qualitative portion of this study was in a twelve-
question open-ended response format relating to the research question, and divided
into three content categories as indicated in the literature review of this study:
adjudication, implementation and monitoring (Viadero, 1999). With questions
designed to take each respondent through the same worded sequences, and in line
with the three content divisions used as a guide to ensuring that all relevant topics
were covered, the approach minimizes question variation (Patton, 2002). The
questions evolved from a review of the literature and Socratic conversations with
educational and legal experts, and revisions from those dialogues. They addressed
participants’ views, attitudes, trade-offs, aspirations and impediments regarding the
factors, attitudinal and bureaucratic, that effect social change following the judicial
decision, Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant,
(SB 1689, 2000). The inquiries examined the knowledge of the Grant, as legislative
remediation for infringements of equal protection law, adjudication, and factors

72
effecting the degree of educational change, stemming from the implementation and
monitoring of that legislation, at the state, district and school-site levels.
Interview Guide
1. What do you know of conditions that led to the lawsuit, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the subsequent AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689,
2000) and AP Fee Waiver Bill, AB 2216 (Escutia)? (adjudication)
2. What factors do you feel may have led to problems of access and equity
issues for African-American and Hispanic students within the AP
program? (adjudication)
3. Of what changes in the participation and performance of LAUSD-AP
high school students by ethnic group, as evidenced by AP exams taken
and AP exams passed, were you aware before, during and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006)? (adjudication)
4. What is your opinion of court rulings (e.g. Daniel v. State of California,
1999) and legislative policies such as the AP Challenge Grant to remedy
problems of educational equity for African-American and Hispanic public
school students? (adjudication)
5. What factors contributed to a change in the availability of instructional
opportunities and distribution of material resources to the AP program
serving African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP high school students
at the state, district, school or community levels before, during and after
the AP Challenge Grant? (implementation)

73
6. What AP professional development have you observed to reflect
educational changes in the participation and performance of African-
American and Hispanic students at the state, district, school or
community levels before, during and after the AP Challenge Grant?
(implementation)
7. What factors can you name as evidence that your community,
administration, staff, parents and students did or did not see the access
and equity problems a priority to address, rather than state monies being
directed elsewhere in the district or school? (implementation)
8. Of what factors were you aware that contributed to or prevented the
implementation of the AP Challenge Grant at the state, district, school or
community levels, as intended remediation-outcomes for problems of
equity and access to AP programming? (implementation)
9. What evidence of monitoring the AP Challenge Grant (2000-2003) at the
state, district, school or community levels were you aware? (monitoring)
10. What evidence did you observe of the monitoring of the AP program
following the AP Challenge Grant (2004-2006) at the state, district,
school and community levels to continue compliance with the intended
outcomes of the court order and the AP Challenge Grant? (monitoring)
11. What were factors of commitment, impediments or resistance by state,
district, school and community to monitor the AP program before, during

74
and after the AP Challenge Grant for compliance in matters of access and
equity as ordered by the court and legislature? (monitoring)
12. What incentives or rewards may prove valuable at the state, district,
school and community levels (including parents and students) to bring the
intended outcomes of court and legislative equal protection remediation
for African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP high school students?
(monitoring)
The researcher used the interview guide (Merriman & Associates, 2002) to
explore, probe, and elicit further responses to follow-up questions, generated from a
conversational format and for the purpose of illuminating subject areas of
adjudication, implementation and monitoring of the AP Challenge Grant over time
(1999-2006), as indicated in the literature review of this study. Interviews were held
for a duration of approximately two hours, tape-recorded and transcribed.
Data Collection
Data for the quantitative portion of this mixed method study were gathered
from archival records of the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and
Assessment Division, supplied for the original 57 AP-Challenge Grant high schools,
disaggregated by ethnicity, 1999-2006; as indicated within the LAUSD-AP
population.
Data for the qualitative portion of this mixed method study were gathered
from interviews with voluntary participants from the California State Department of
Education, the College Board and AVID, as well as a retired local LAUSD District

75
GATE Coordinator; all participants having relevant experience and knowledge of the
LAUSD-AP program (1999-2006) and the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000).
Interviews were conducted in Downey, Los Angeles and Sacramento, California,
tape-recorded and transcribed.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for the quantitative portion of this mixed-method study will be
assessed from the educational changes (if any) of participation and performance of
African-American and Hispanic students, White/Asian student data utilized as a
comparison group, as evidenced in the percentage of the AP exams taken and AP
exams passed over time, 1999-2006. Results of the percentage of AP exams taken
and AP exams passed over time by African-American and Hispanic students, within
the high schools of the LAUSD-AP program, White/Asian student data utilized as a
comparison group, were presented in bar graph form, whereby changes of
participation and performance of the research populations was evidenced in differing
levels of graphic representation. Observations of the representations were made and
analyzed for the effect of the treatment/intervention, the AP-Challenge Grant, 2000-
2003 (see Research Design Diagram), upon the variables (Shadish, Cook &
Campbell 2002).
The data analysis was based on a statistical, pre-post dependent group design
performed in the SPSS-16 program: (1) dependent group t-tests were performed to
determine whether the mean differences between before and after the legislative
remediation (2000-2003), indicated educational changes (if any) of participation and

76
performance of African-American, Hispanic and White/Asian (comparison group)
students: statistical significance of the change as indicated p < .05; (2) practical
significance of educational changes (if any) of participation and performance of
African-American and Hispanic students of the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
program high schools over time was assessed as Cohen’s d, the traditional index of
effect size (d > .30 criterion for practical significance); (3) practical significance was
shown as percentage gain (NCLB indicates significant improvement as 10% ) of
educational change in participation and performance of African-American and
Hispanic students, White/Asian student data as a comparison group, of the LAUSD-
AP Challenge Grant program high schools over time.; (4) a one-way ANOVA was
used to analyze whether there were mean differences of the three ethnic groups,
African-American, Hispanic and White/Asian (utilized as a comparison group), on
the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant participation and performance data, before and
after the legislative (SB 1689) intervention; (5) Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests were
conducted to identify which ethnic group (if any) showed a significant difference
from each of the other in participation and performance, before and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006); and (6) cross-tab procedures (Appendix G & H) were
completed on the 57 original AP Challenge Grant schools (y axis of the graphic
representation), disaggregated by ethnicity for African-American, Hispanic and
White/Asian, comparison group, students, to compare participation and performance
in the AP Challenge Grant, as expressed by a mean gain/loss in the percentage of AP

77
exams taken and percentage of AP exams passed (x axis of the graphic
representation), 1999-2006 (Appendices A-F).
High reliability was indicated in the close measurement of the independent
variables. Concluding validity arguments, and conclusions of data analysis were
presented.
Data analysis for the qualitative portion of this mixed-method study was
conducted using the Grounded Theory, generated-narratives approach, and analyzed
for patterns of interview response. The inquiry process was inductive and grounded
in the study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Interviews were transcribed as preparation for
analysis, data reviewed for a general sense of the information/meaning, and
evaluated and analyzed for patterns of response (Creswell, 2003); open, axial and
selective coding was used (Merriam & Associates, 2002). Open coding grouped
concepts elicited from the interviews into categories as described in code words;
axial coding connected categories and subcategories to create several main
categories; and selective coding created a theory from the integration of categories.
Continual coding and analysis led to the identification of a core category. In the
selective coding process, remaining categories were related to the conditions that
brought upon the phenomenon and the phases that caused them to occur (Merriman
& Associates, 2002). An interpretation of the meaning of the data was formed
(Creswell, 2003).
A delimitation of this study was suggested, as it confines itself to the original
57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools in California.

78
Validity and Reliability
Measures of evaluating this model for validity and reliability included: the
administration of dependent groups t-tests before and after (1999-2006) the
introduction of the treatment; the AP-Challenge Grant (2000-2003) as legislative
remediation for infringements of access and equity to the LAUSD-AP program
(Daniel v. State of California, 1999), to examine the mean changes of the treatment
upon the variables over time; the graphic representation of educational change (if
any), as represented by percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams passed by
African-American and Hispanic students, White/Asian student data used as a
comparison group, of the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools over time
(1999-2006), before and after the AP Challenge Grant program, as well as measures
to test practical significance; Cohen’s d--traditional index of effect size, and simple
percentage gain. High reliability was indicated by the close measurements of the
independent variables.
The validity of the instruments was supported by their conduction within the
LAUSD high schools under legislative mandate (SB 1689) to remedy problems of
equity and access to underrepresented minority students (i.e. African-American and
Hispanic students). The educational changes of participation and performance in the
LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant program over time as indicated in the research
questions, was concurrent with the intent of the settlement agreement of the court
order, establishing the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy the

79
infringements of access and equity for African-American and Hispanic students
within the LAUSD-AP programs.
The use of percentage in AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time by
African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP high school students showed practical
significance in evidence of educational changes (if any) of participation and
performance in the LAUSD-AP program, before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(1999-2006). Dependent Variables indicating African-American and Hispanic,
White/Asian as a comparison group, student participation and performance in the
LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant program (1999-2006) were reflective of the LAUSD-
AP high school population and to the intended target population of SB 1689.
Validity and reliability of the qualitative portion of this mixed-method study
was ensured through member checks, peer review and an audit trail. Four
assessments were used as theory criteria: responses fit the data as reflected in the
quantitative portion of this study, theory was presented in an understandable form
from which laypersons benefit from conclusions, generality was provided in
establishing a theory that adaptable to daily situations, and the theory had clear
category classifications that showed application to real-life (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Generalizability was evidenced in the opposing databases that maximized variation
in the rich description of the narratives (Merriman & Associates, 2002). In this
mixed methods study, inference transferability was assessed as it incorporated the
above generalizability by combining the qualitative and quantitative concepts of
transferability and external validity, respectively (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The

80
sample of participants represented, having relevant knowledge and experience with a
population of students falling under the AP Challenge Grant remediation, and the
ethnic composition of its intent.
Following conclusions drawn from this study, generalizability to a target
population of California AP Challenge Grant high schools, outside LAUSD, was
assessed. The reliability of the instruments used, may limit the validity of this study.
The small number of students measured and the nature of the narrative-interview
format (open to interpretation) were limitations of this mixed-method study. Data
analysis was also limited by the three-year time constraint of the AP Challenge Grant
(SB 1689, 2000), limiting an extended observation of the compounded effects of the
judicial remediation, the lack of AP teacher certification requirements and the
discretionary allocation of school site funds, not allowing for standardized quality
control of both instructional delivery and distribution of monies directed to improve
the participation and performance of students under the judicial remediation
mandate, also provided limitations of this study. In addition, data collection did not
take into account all social, economic and political factors that may effect the role of
judicial remediation for educational equal protection infringements, for specified,
underserved ethnic groups.
A delimitation of this study can be suggested, as it confines itself to the
original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools in California.

81
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

This chapter presents the quantitative and qualitative outcomes for the
research question as indicated below.
1. What are the factors that effect social change, following judicial decisions,
as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to remedy
problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational change in AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and Hispanic
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)?
The AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) as set forth in Daniel v. State of
California (1999), specified implementations to remediate infringements of access
and equity within the AP program for African-American and Hispanic students. The
quantitative assessment examined the promotion of increased AP exam participation
(AP exams taken) as indicative of educational achievement through access to quality
AP instructional programs stipulated in the Grant. This study maintained that state
and local accountability through legislative/bureaucratic agency collaboration, as
ordered in the remediation ruling and in contrast to judge-led reform, also include the
promotion of educational achievement as defined by AP exam performance (AP
exams passed).

82
Measures for statistical and practical significance, including ethnic
disaggregation for a cross-tab analysis of the original 57 AP Challenge Grant
schools, indicated that the Hispanic students showed one measure of positive change
in AP exams taken, and two measures of decline in AP exams passed, 1999-2006.
The White/Asian, comparison group, showed one measure of decline in AP exams
taken, from before and after the Grant. No significant changes as a result of the Grant
treatment were indicated for the African-American students. When the ethnic groups
were compared, the Hispanic student participation and performance was greater than
the White/Asian group, and both surpassed the African-American students in AP
exams taken and passed, before and after the AP Challenge Grant. Therefore, the
results of the quantitative analysis indicated that the judicial decision, Daniel v. State
of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) had little
or no effect on social change for the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic
students of its intended remediation, or the non-targeted White/Asian comparison
group. The findings of the quantitative analysis follow as indicated.
Preliminary Quantitative Analysis
The data of the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High schools
included: 1. number of AP exams taken; 2. number of AP exams passed; 3.
percentage of AP exams taken; and 4. percentage of AP exams passed. The data
were disaggregated by ethnicities for the 57 schools. The number of AP exams taken
indicated the total frequency of exams taken by each student at the school-site
location. The LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and Assessment

83
Division, did not assign collected data on the number of exams taken to each
individual student. Therefore, if a student took three AP exams, the taking of three
exams would be tallied for this measure as number of AP exams taken. The number
of AP exams passed was the total frequency of exams passed by each student. The
percentage of AP Exams taken was the number of AP exams taken by students of the
given ethnicity and school, divided by the total number of exams taken by all
students within that school. The percentage of AP exams passed was the number of
AP exams passed by students of the given ethnicity and school, divided by the total
number of exams passed by all students within that school.
AP Participation: Percentage of AP Exams Taken (1999-2006)
Pre-post dependent group t-tests were used to determine whether the mean
results of the participation of LAUSD-AP high school students, disaggregated by
ethnicity, African-American, Hispanic, and White/Asian, comparison group, within
the original fifty-seven AP Challenge Grant high schools, showed significant
changes of participation as indicated by percentage of AP exams taken, 1999-2006.
The means, standard deviations, the t-values, and probability levels of the dependent
variables, percentage of AP exams taken before and after treatment, and the mean
difference before and after treatment are presented in Table 2. Results for the
LAUSD-AP African-American students indicated no significant mean difference in
percentage of AP exams taken, before and after the Grant, t (55) = 1.660, p =.103.
This suggests that there was no significant change in the participation of the African-
American LAUSD-AP students as a result of the AP Challenge Grant (2000-2003)

84
over time, 1999-2006. A dependent group t-test indicated the mean difference was
significant for the LAUSD-AP, Hispanic students, before and after the Grant; mean
difference was t (56) = 6.071, p < .001. Therefore, a greater percentage of Hispanic
students took AP exams after the Grant than before. The LAUSD-AP White/Asian,
comparison group, also presented a significant mean change after the Grant; t (56) =
5.485, p < .001. However, as opposed to the Hispanic group, the results of mean
difference in the percentage of AP exams taken by the White/Asian comparison
group, significantly decreased after the Grant.
AP Performance: Percentage of AP Exams Passed (1999-2006)
Dependent group t-tests were conducted to determine whether the mean
results of the African-American, Hispanic, and White/Asian, comparison group,
presented significant changes of performance for the three LAUSD-AP student
ethnic groups within the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high schools. The means,
standard deviations, the t-values, probability levels of the dependent variables,
percentages of AP exams passed before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(treatment), and the mean differences, before and after treatment, are presented in
Table 3. Results for the LAUSD-AP African-American students, indicated the mean
differences in the percentage of AP exams passed, before and after the Grant, as not
significant, t (53) = .339, p = .736. This suggests that there was no significant
change in the performance of LAUSD-AP African-American students as a result of
the AP Challenge Grant (2000-2003) over time (1999-2006), as indicated in the
difference in percentage of AP exams passed. Conversely, the LAUSD-AP Hispanic

85
student group showed significant mean difference, before and after the Grant; t (56)
= 5.965, p < .001. The mean of the percentage of AP exams passed, decreased over
time after the Grant. Therefore, the percentage of Hispanic students passing the AP
exam was less than before the AP Challenge Grant (treatment). The White/Asian
comparison group did not show a statistically significant mean difference after the
Grant; t (51) = .511, p = .612, indicating that there was no significant change for
this group in the percentage of AP exams passed as a result of the AP Challenge
Grant (2000-2003) over time, before and after the Grant (1999-2006).

Table 2
Results of Dependent t-test Comparisons--Before and After the Grant for African
American, Hispanic, and White/Asian Groups in AP Participation (1999-2006)
Group
Mean AP
Exams
Taken
Before
Treatment
SD
Mean AP
Exams
Taken After
Treatment
SD
Mean difference
(Gain/Loss)
between Before
& After
Treatment
t p
African
American
.1011 .1740 .0870 .1364 -.0140 1.660 .103
Hispanic .4821 .3071 .5526 .2922 .0705 6.071 .000**
White/Asian .3688 .3035 .3115 .2786 -.0572 5.485 .000**
Note. ** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level

86
Table 3
Results of Dependent t-test Comparisons--Before and After the Grant for African
American, Hispanic, and White/Asian Groups in AP Performance (1999-2006)
Group
Mean AP
Exams
Passed
Before
Treatment
SD
Mean AP
Exams
Passed After
Treatment
SD
Mean difference
(Gain/Loss)
between Before
& After
Treatment
t p
African
American
.2793 .2387 .2675 .2170 -.0118 .339 .736
Hispanic .5158 .1637 .4276 .1278 -.0882 5.965 .000**
White/Asian .4222 .2311 .4107 .2135 -.0114 .511 .612
Note. ** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level

Practical Significance of Participation Changes by Effect Size (1999-2006)
Cohen’s d was used in this study as the traditional index of effect size (d >
.30 for practical significance criteria). For the purposes of this study’s data analysis,
the percentage AP exams taken as indicated in the raw data, was converted into
decimal notation. The mean difference of the percentage of AP exams taken, before
and after the treatment, the standard deviations, and effect sizes, disaggregated by
ethnicity, are presented in Table 4.
The LAUSD-AP African American students showed a .1740 standard
deviation in pre-treatment percentage of AP exams taken over the course of the
Grant (2000-2003). The mean difference (gain/loss) between before and after the
Grant was -.0140. Therefore, there was a 1.4% loss in the effect of the treatment
(after the Grant), not practically significant as shown in the small effect size of .080.

87
On average, the LAUSD-AP Hispanic group showed .3071 standard
deviations of pre-treatment percentage of AP exams taken over the course of the
Grant.) The mean difference (gain/loss) before and after the Grant is indicated as
.0704. Therefore, there is a 7.04% gain after the Grant treatment; however, this is not
shown to be practically significant as indicated in the small effect size of .229.
The LAUSD-AP White /Asian, comparison group showed .3035 standard
deviation of pre-treatment in the percentage of AP exams taken over the course of
the AP Challenge Grant (2000-2003). The mean difference (gain/loss) between
before and after the Grant of -.0572; representing a 5.72% loss after the Grant
treatment was not shown to be practically significant as indicated in the small effect
size of .188.

Table 4
Practical Significance of AP Exam Participation Changes by Effect Size (1999-2006)
Ethnicity
Mean Difference
(Gain/Loss) Before and
After the Treatment
SD d
Practical
Significance
African
American
-.0140 .1740 .080 No
Hispanic .0704 .3071 .229 No
White/Asian -.0572 .3035 .188 No
Note. SD = Standard Deviation Before Treatment; d = Effect Size

88
Practical Significance of Performance Changes by Effect Size (1999-2006)
For the data analysis, the percentage of AP exams passed in the raw data was
converted into decimal notation. The mean difference of the percentage of AP exams
passed before and after the treatment, the standard deviation, and effect size,
disaggregated by ethnicity, is presented in Table 5.
The LAUSD-AP African-American group showed .2387 standard deviation
in pre-treatment percentage of AP exams passed, over the course of the Grant (2000-
2003). The mean difference (gain/loss) between before and after the Grant was -
.0117. Therefore, a 1.2% (rounded) loss after the Grant treatment was not practically
significant, as shown in the small effect size of .049. The results indicate that the
decrease in the percentage of AP exams passed by African-American students, was
not evidence of significant change, following the Grant (treatment).
The LAUSD-AP Hispanic students showed .1637 in standard deviation of
pre-treatment percentage of AP exams passed, over the course of the AP Challenge
Grant (2000-2003). Considering that the mean difference (gain/loss) was recorded as
-.0882, the 8.82% loss after the Grant (treatment) was practically significant, as
indicated in the large effect size of .538. The results indicated that there was a
significant decrease in the percentage of AP exams passed by Hispanic students over
the course of the Grant (2000-2003); evidence of a significant negative change as an
effect of the Grant.
The LAUSD-AP White /Asian, comparison group, showed .2311 in standard
deviation of pre-treatment percentage of AP exams passed over the course of the

89
Grant (2000-2003). The mean difference (gain/loss) between before and after the
Grant of -.0114, and its corresponding 1.14% loss, was not practically significant, as
indicated in the small effect size of .049. The results suggested that there was not a
significant change/loss in the percentage of AP exams passed before and after the AP
Challenge Grant, and therefore no significant effect of the treatment on the
White/Asian students, comparison group.

Table 5
Practical Significance of AP Exam Performance Changes by Effect Size (1999-2006)
Ethnicity
Mean Difference in
Before and After the
Treatment
SD d
Practical
Significance
African
American
-.0117 .2387 .049 No
Hispanic -.0882 .1637 .538 Yes
White/Asian -.0114 .2311 .049 No
Note. SD = Standard Deviation of Before Treatment; d = Effect Size

Practical Significance Measured by Percentage Gain in AP Exam Participation
(1999-2006)
The percentage gain of educational change in participation by African-
American, Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison group, students within the
LAUSD-AP program over time, 1999-2006, is presented in Table 6. Results of
practical significance, as indicated by percentage gain, of the percentage of AP
exams taken by the Hispanic group, measured within the original 57 LAUSD-AP

90
Challenge Grant schools, showed 7.05% gain in AP exams taken after the Grant
(treatment). According to NCLB (No Child Left Behind), 10% improvement is an
indicator of a significant change after an intervention. This study indicated that -10%
loss was also an indicator of significant change after an intervention. Although the
Hispanic group, within the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools, showed
a 7.05% gain in the percentage of AP exams taken over time, this is interpreted as
not a significant improvement (NCLB). Conversely, the percentage of the AP
exams taken over time, of the African-American group, decreased by 1.4% after the
Grant treatment. The White /Asian comparison group, within the 57 original
LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools, also showed a decrease by 5.72% of the
percentage in AP exams taken. This outcome indicated that for all three ethnicities of
our study, the two ethnic group subjects of the AP Challenge Grant, African-
American and Hispanic, as well as the comparison group, White/Asian, there was no
significant increase in the percentage of AP exams taken over time, before and after
the AP Challenge Grant (treatment), 1999-2006.
Practical Significance Measured by Percentage Gain in AP Exam Performance
(1999-2006)
Percentage gain of educational change of performance is presented,
disaggregated by ethnicity, in Table 7. This study used the NCLB (No Child Left
Behind) determination that 10% improvement was an indicator of significant change
after an intervention; -10% loss was deemed here as indicative of significant change
after an intervention. All three ethnic groups, African-American, Hispanic and

91
White/Asian, comparison group, showed percentage losses after the AP Challenge
Grant (treatment), but the losses did not result in a significant change following the
Grant intervention.
The LAUSD-AP Hispanic group, within the original 57 AP Challenge Grant
schools, indicated the greatest loss in percentage of AP exams passed after the
treatment; 8.82%. Although, the percentage of AP exams taken increased after the
treatment, the percentage of AP exams passed decreased after the treatment, and was
higher than that percentage gained in the percentage of AP exams taken. The
aforementioned results indicated that as Hispanic student AP test taking showed an
increase over time, before and after the AP Challenge Grant the increase was below
the NCLB standard, and the standard used in this study, of 10% improvement as
significant. The AP exam pass rate declined with more students having access to and
participating in test taking (Heinrich, 2004). The African-American group, measured
with 54 schools, also lost 1.18% in AP exams passed after the Grant. Similarly, in
the case of the White/Asian, comparison group measured with 57 schools, the
percentage of performance, indicated by AP exams passed, decreased by 1.14%.
Again, these results suggested that for all ethnic groups of this study, the AP
Challenge Grant (treatment) resulted in a decrease in AP exams passed over time
(1999-2006). However, the decrease was not practically significant.

92
Table 6
Percentage Gain of Educational Change of Exam Participation by Ethnicity (1999-
2006)
Group
Number of
Participating
Schools
Mean
Exams
Taken
Before
Treatment
Mean
Exams
Taken After
Treatment
Mean
difference
between
Before &
After
treatment
Percentage
Gain
African
American
56 .1011 .0870 -.0140 1.4 % loss
Hispanic 57 .4821 .5526 .0705 7.05% gain
White/Asian 57 .3688 .3115 -.0572 5.72% loss

Table 7
Percentage Gain of Educational Change of Exam Performance by Ethnicity (1999-
2006)
Group
Number of
Participating
Schools
Mean AP
Passed Pre-
Treatment
Mean AP
Passed
After
Treatment
Mean
difference
between
Before &
After
Treatment
Percentage
Gain
African
American
54 .2793 .2675 -.0118 1.18% loss
Hispanic 57 .5158 .4276 -.0882 8.82% loss
White/Asian 52 .4222 .4107 -.0114 1.14% loss

93
Comparison between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams Taken Before and
After Treatment (1999-2006)
Before the Treatment. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to examine the differences (if any) between the LAUSD-AP African
American, Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison group, students in the percentage
of AP exams taken, before and after, the AP Challenge Grant (treatment). The
percentage of AP Exams Taken and percentage of AP Exams Passed served as the
Dependent Variables (DVs) and Ethnicity, with three levels, African-American,
Hispanic and White/Asian, as the Independent Variable (IV). The results were
examined to determine the mean differences of the ethnic groups in the percentage of
AP exams taken, both before and after the Grant. A significant difference was
indicated in the means of the LAUSD-AP African-American, Hispanic, and
White/Asian students in the percentage of AP exams taken before the treatment; F
(2, 167) = 29.781, p < .001.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests indicated which ethnic group’s mean was different
from another. African-American students and Hispanic students showed a significant
mean difference in percentage of AP exams taken, p < .001. Before the Grant
treatment, 38.10% more Hispanic students took the AP exams than did African-
American students. African American students and White/Asian students,
comparison group, also presented a significant mean difference, p < .001. Before
the Grant treatment, 26.77 % more White/Asian students took the AP exams than
African- American students. Conversely, the Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison

94
group, students did not show a significant mean difference, p = .066; although,
11.34% more Hispanic students took the AP exams than White/Asian students.
Table 8 is a summary of the mean difference between groups, percentage difference,
more participation group (the group indicative of a higher participation rate than its
comparison), and p-value.

Table 8
Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams Taken Before
Treatment
Ethnicity
Mean
Difference
Percentage
Difference
More
Participation
p-
Value
African American -
Hispanic
-.381040 38.10% Hispanic .000**
African American -
White/Asian
-.267670 26.77% White/Asian .000**
Hispanic - White/Asian .113370 11.34% .066
Note. ** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

After the Treatment. The results showed that there was a significant
difference in the means of the three ethnic groups in percentage of AP exams taken
after the treatment; F (2, 167) = 50.383, p < .001.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests showed that the mean of each group was
significantly different from that of its counterpart. African-American and Hispanic
students presented a significant mean difference, p < .001 and 46.55%; more
Hispanic students took AP exams than African-American students. African-

95
American students and the White/Asian, comparison group, also showed a
significant mean difference, p < .001 and 22.45% more of White/Asian students
took the AP exams than African- American students after the Grant treatment. The
LAUSD-AP Hispanic group and the White/Asian, comparison group, also presented
a significant mean difference, p < .001. Additionally, 24.11% more Hispanic
students took AP exams than White/Asian, comparison group, after the Grant
treatment. Table 9 is a summary of the mean difference between groups, percentage
difference, more participation group (the group indicative of a higher performance
rate than its comparison) and p-value after the Grant.

Table 9
Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams Taken After
Treatment
Ethnicity
Mean
Difference
Percentage
Difference
More
Participation
p-Value
African
American -
Hispanic
-.46552 46.55% Hispanic .000**
African
American -
White/Asian
-.22446 22.47% White/Asian .000**
Hispanic -
White/Asian
.24107 24.11% Hispanic .000**
Note. ** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level.

96
Comparison between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams Passed Before and
After Treatment (1999-2006)
Before the Treatment. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to examine the difference (if any) between African-American, Hispanic
and White/Asian, comparison group, students in the percentage of AP exams passed
due to the Grant. The results indicated the mean differences of the three ethnic
groups in percentage of AP exams passed, both before and after the treatment. A
significant difference between ethnic groups was found in the mean of the
percentage of AP exams passed before the Grant; F (2, 162) = 16.579, p < .001.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests were conducted to determine which group’s mean
differed from another. African-American students and Hispanic students had a
significant mean difference in percentage of AP exams passed, p < .001.
Additionally, 23.65% more Hispanic students passed AP exams than African
American students. African-American students and White/Asian, comparison group,
students also showed significant mean difference, p < .05; 12.73% more
White/Asian, comparison group, students passed AP exams than did African-
American students. Hispanic students and White/Asian, comparison group, students
also presented a significant mean difference, p < .05; 10.93 % more Hispanic
students passed the AP exams than White/Asian, comparison group, students.
Table 10 presents a summary of the mean difference between groups, percentage
difference, more participation group (the group indicative of a higher performance
rate than its comparison) and p-value.

97
Table 10
Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage of AP Exams Passed Before
Treatment
Ethnicity
Mean
Difference
Percentage
Difference
Better
Performance
p-
Value
African American -
Hispanic
-.2365 23.65% Hispanic .000**
African American -
White/Asian
-.1273 12.73% White/Asian .007*
Hispanic - White/Asian .1093 10.93% Hispanic .023*
Note. ** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level;
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

After the Treatment. After the Grant, a significant mean difference between
groups was also indicated in the percentage of AP exams passed; F (2, 163) =
10.928, p < .001.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Tests were conducted to designate the mean differences
between groups. The LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic groups presented
a significant mean difference, p < .001; 16.00% more Hispanic students passed the
AP exams than African-American students. The results of the comparison between
African-American students and White/Asian students, showed significant differences
in the mean of the percentage of AP exams passed, p < .05; 13.00 % more of
White/Asian students passed AP exams than African American students.
Conversely, there was no significant mean difference between Hispanic students and
White/Asian students in AP exams passed after the treatment, p = .688. Table 11

98
presents a summary of the mean difference between groups, percentage difference,
better participation group (the group indicative of a higher performance rate than its
comparison) and p-value.

Table 11
Comparison Between Ethnic Groups in Percentage (%) of AP Exams Passed After
Treatment
Ethnicity
Mean
Difference
Percentage
Difference
Better
Performance
p-
Value
African American -
Hispanic
-.1600 16.00% Hispanic .000**
African American -
White/Asian
-.1300 13.00% White/Asian .002*
Hispanic - White/Asian .0300 3.00% .688
Note. ** The mean difference is significant at the .001 level;
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Schools With Ethnicities Showing Significant Improvement and Significant Decline
in Percentage of AP Exam Participation (1999-2006)
Cross-tab procedures were conducted on the original 57 AP-Challenge Grant
high schools to determine both the schools with ethnicities showing a statistically
significant improvement and the schools with ethnicities showing statistically
significant decline in AP exam participation before and after (1999-2006) the AP
Challenge Grant treatment (2000-2003).

99
According to NCLB (No Child Left Behind), 10% improvement is an
indicator of a significant change after an intervention. This study used a 10%
improvement or better to indicate statistically significant improvement and -10% or
more to indicate statistically significant decline in AP exam participation after the
Grant intervention. The findings were used to illuminate the qualitative portion of the
study.
Significant Improvement. Table 12 shows that 17 of the original 57 LAUSD-
AP Challenge Grant schools indicated 10% or better improvement in participation as
indicated by AP exams taken, 1999-2006 (Appendix A-C & G). Granada Hills
Senior High School was listed twice as showing statistically significant changes in
AP participation for both African-American and Hispanic students. Findings
indicated that Hispanic students showed statistically significant improvement (95%)
in all of the 17 schools, and African-American students showed significant
improvement in 1 (5%) of the 17 schools indicated. There were no indications that
the White/Asian comparison group showed any significant improvement in AP exam
participation.

100
Table 12
57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP Exams Taken
(1999-2006): 10% or Better Improvement
Schools Percentage Ethnicity
Banning Senior High School 11% Hispanic
Belmont Senior High School 14% Hispanic
Francisco Bravo Magnet 17% Hispanic
Canoga Park Senior High School 16% Hispanic
Dorsey High School 31% Hispanic
Downtown Business Magnet 23% Hispanic
Eagle Rock Senior High School 13% Hispanic
Fairfax Senior High School 18% Hispanic
Granada Hills High School 16% African-American
Granada Hills High School 14% Hispanic
Grant Senior High School 15% Hispanic
Hollywood Senior High School 15% Hispanic
J.F.K. Senior High School 15% Hispanic
King-Drew Medical Magnet 26% Hispanic
LAUSD/USC High School 26% Hispanic
Los Angeles Senior High School 12% Hispanic
Narbonne Senior High School 12% Hispanic
San Pedro Senior High School 18% Hispanic

Significant Decline. Table 13 shows that 21 of the 57 original LAUSD-AP
Challenge Grant high schools indicated statistically significant decline of -10% or
more in participation, as indicated by AP exams taken, 1999-2006. The White/Asian
comparison group students showed a statistically significant decline (75%) in 16 of
the 21 schools, and African-American students showed a statistically significant

101
decline (25%) in 5 of the 21 schools indicated. There were no indications that
Hispanic students showed any statistically significant decline in AP exam
participation during the time series, before and after the Grant intervention, 1999-
2006 (Appendices A-C & G).

Table 13
57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP Exams Taken
(1999-2006): -10% or More Decline
Schools Percentage Ethnicity
Banning Senior High School -10% African-American
Belmont Senior High School -11% White/Asian
Francisco Bravo Magnet -10% White/Asian
Canoga Park Senior High School -15% White/Asian
Dorsey Senior High School -30% African-American
Downtown Business Magnet -23% White/Asian
Eagle Rick Senior High School -16% White/Asian
Fairfax Senior High School -19% White/Asian
Gardena Senor High School -22% White/Asian
Granada Hills Senior High School -34% White/Asian
Grant Senior High School -17% White/Asian
Hollywood Senior High School -21% White/Asian
J.F.K. Senior High School -14% White/Asian
King-Drew Medical Magnet -19% African-American
LAUSD-USC High School -18% African-American
Los Angeles Senior High School -10% African-American
Monroe Senior High School -10% White/Asian
Narbonne Senior High School -14% White/Asian
San Pedro Senior High School -15% White/Asian
University Senior High School -10% White/Asian
Van Nuys Senior High School -10% White/Asian

102
Schools With Ethnicities Showing Significant Improvement and Significant Decline
in Percentage of AP Exam Performance (1999-2006)
Cross-tab procedures were conducted on the 57 original LAUSD-AP-
Challenge Grant high schools to determine both the schools with ethnicities showing
significant improvement and schools with ethnicities showing statistically significant
decline in AP Exam Performance after the AP Challenge Grant treatment, 2000-2003
(Appendices A-H). According to NCLB (No Child Left Behind), 10% improvement
is an indicator of a statistically significant change after an intervention. This study
used a 10% improvement or better to indicate statistically significant improvement,
and a decline of -10% or more to indicate statistically significant decline in AP exam
participation, The findings were used to illuminate the qualitative portion of this
study.
Significant Improvement. Table 14 shows that 22 of the original 57 LAUSD-
AP Challenge Grant schools indicated 10% or better improvement in performance as
indicated by AP exams passed, 1999-2006. J.F.K. Senior High School and Verdugo
Hills Senior High School were listed twice as showing statistically significant
changes in AP performance for both African-American and Hispanic students (J.F.K.
Senior High School), and for both Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison group,
students (Verdugo Hills Senior High School). Findings indicated that African-
American students showed statistically significant improvement (60%) at 12 of the
22 schools specified; Hispanic students showed statistically significant improvement
(9%) at 4 of the 22 schools specified; and the White/Asian comparison group showed

103
statistically significant improvement (31%) at 8 of the 22 schools specified
(Appendices D-F & H).

Table 14
57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP Exams Passed
(1999-2006): 10% or Better Improvement
Schools Percentage Ethnicity
Banning Senior High School 25% African-American
Belmont Senior High School 33% African-American
Canoga Park Senior High School 18% White/Asian
Crenshaw Senior High School 58% White/Asian
Eagle Rock Senior High School 10% White/Asian
Elizabeth Learning Center 50% African-American
Fairfax Senior High School 18% African-American
Garfield Senior High School 50% African-American
Jordan Senior High School 10% African-American
J.F.K. Senior High School 13% African-American
J.F.K. Senior High School 13% Hispanic
King-Drew Medical Magnet 33% White/Asian
John Marshall Senior High School 31% African-American
Palisades Charter 19% African-American
Francis Polytechnic 11% African-American
Roosevelt Senior High School 100% African-American
San Fernando Senior High School 34% White/Asian
San Pedro Senior High School 11% Hispanic
Van Nuys Senior High School 13% African-American
Venice Senior High School 15% White/Asian
Verdugo Hills Senior High School 23% Hispanic
Verdugo Hills Senior High School 13% White/Asian
Westchester Senior High School 12% Hispanic
Woodrow Wilson Senior H.S. 11% White/Asian

104
Significant Decline. Table 15 shows that 38 of the original 57 LAUSD-AP
Challenge Grant schools indicated a decline of -10% or more in performance as
indicated by AP exams passed, 1999-2006. Fourteen of the schools listed more than
one ethnicity with a statistically significant decline in the percentage of AP exams
passed, before and after the Grant (Appendices D-F & H): Birmingham Senior High
School, Downtown Business Magnet, Foshay Learning Center, Granada Hills Senior
High School, Grant Senior High School, Huntington Park Senior High School, Los
Angeles Senior High School, James Monroe Senior High School, Narbonne Senior
High School, Roosevelt Senior High School, Sherman Oakes Center, South Gate
Senior High School, University Senior High School, and Washington Preparatory
High School. Four schools listed African-American and Hispanic students as
indicating a statistically significant decline in AP performance, before and after the
Grant: Granada Hills Senior High School, Los Angeles Senior High School, South
Gate Senior High School, and Washington Preparatory High School. One school
listed a statistically significant decline in AP performance for African-American and
the White/Asian comparison group, before and after the Grant: Sherman Oakes
Center. Six schools listed a statistically significant decline in AP performance for
Hispanic and the White/Asian comparison group, before and after the Grant:
Birmingham Senior High School, Foshay Learning Center, Grant Senior High
School, Huntington Park Senior High School, Narbonne Senior High School, and
Roosevelt Senior High School. Three schools listed African-American, Hispanic and
the White-Asian, comparison group, with a significant decline in AP performance,

105
before and after the Grant: Downtown Business Magnet, James Monroe Senior High
School, and University Senior High School.
Findings indicated that African-American students showed a statistically
significant decline (37%) in AP performance at 15 of the 38 schools specified;
Hispanic students showed a statistically significant decline (43%) in AP performance
at 27 of the schools 38 schools specified; and the White/Asian comparison group
showed a statistically significant decline (20%) in AP performance at thirteen 13 of
the 38 schools specified (Appendices D-F & H).

Table 15
57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant High Schools Percentage of AP Exams Passed
(1999-2006): -10% or More Decline
Schools Percentage Ethnicity
Banning Senior High School -12% White/Asian
Belmont Senior High School -20% Hispanic
Bell Senior High School -21% White/Asian
Birmingham Senior High School -13% Hispanic
Birmingham Senior High School -18% White/Asian
Francisco Bravo Magnet -15% African-American
Canoga Park Senior High School -45% African-American
Carson Senior High School -13% Hispanic
Chatsworth Senior High School -14% Hispanic
Downtown Business Magnet -14% African-American
Downtown Business Magnet -17% Hispanic
Downtown Business Magnet -13% White/Asian
El Camino Real Senior H.S. -28% Hispanic
Foshay Learning Center -10% Hispanic
Foshay Learning Center -58% White/Asian
Garfield Senior High School -11% White/Asian
Granada Hills Senior High School -60% African-American

106
Table 15, continued
Granada Hills Senior High School -37% Hispanic
Grant Senior High School -12% Hispanic
Grant Senior High School -12% White/Asian
Hamilton Senior High School -21% Hispanic
Huntington Park Senior H.S. -13% Hispanic
Huntington Park Senior H.S. -13% White/Asian
King-Drew Medical Magnet -12% Hispanic
Abraham Lincoln Senior H.S. -19% Hispanic
LAUSD/USC High School -10% African-American
Los Angeles Senior High School -15% African-American
Los Angeles Senior High School -13% Hispanic
Los Angeles Center -14% Hispanic
Manual Arts Senior High School -14% Hispanic
James Monroe Senior High School -36% African-American
James Monroe Senior High School -21% Hispanic
James Monroe Senior High School -11% White/Asian
Narbonne Senior High School -28% Hispanic
Narbonne Senior High School -13% White/Asian
North Hollywood High School -16% Hispanic
Palisades Charter -12% Hispanic
Roosevelt Senior High School -16% Hispanic
Roosevelt Senior High School -24% White/Asian
San Fernando Senior High School -18% Hispanic
San Pedro Senior High School -24% African-American
Sherman Oaks Center -32% African-American
Sherman Oakes Center -12% White/Asian
South Gate Senior High School -49% African-American
South Gate Senior High School -12% Hispanic
Sylmar Senior High School -22% African-American
University Senior High School -38% African-American
University Senior High School -28% Hispanic
University Senior High School -11% White/Asian
Van Nuys Senior High School -19% Hispanic
Verdugo Hills Senior High School -28% African-American
Washington Preparatory H.S. -11% African-American
Washington Preparatory H.S. -18% Hispanic
Westchester Senior High School -10% African-American
Woodrow Wilson Senior H.S. -16% Hispanic

107
Qualitative Data Analysis
The Interview Guide participant responses of this study were utilized to draw
upon the wisdom of a representative group of individuals whose participation, 1999-
2006, in implementing and monitoring the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant spanned
educational experience from the state, District, and private college preparation
industries: the California Department of Education (CDE), the LAUSD Local
District G Gifted and Talented Programs (GATE) administration (retired), the
College Board and Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID).
In order that all relevant topics were covered (Patton, 2002) the interview
questions and responses were categorized as adjudication, implementation and
monitoring (Viadero, 1999). Following the coding of the interview responses (Tables
16-18), the grounded theory that emerged described the factors that effected the
achievement of social change, indicated by educational change, as a result of judicial
decisions of access and equity as exemplified in Daniel v. State of California (1999)
and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). The three factors were
evidenced as: motivation, knowledge and accountability (Figure 1). Consequences of
the effect of the factors on social change were described.
The court did not act alone in the remediation of equal protection
infringements, as presented in Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing
AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). Although the court adjudicated in the name of
access and equity in order to change the status quo, the collaborative effort of
legislative and bureaucratic agency action to facilitate the implementation and

108
monitoring of those rulings was critical in the coordination of the interaction of legal
norms, political institutions and economic realities to manifest that change.

Figure 1.
Factors Effecting Social Change After Judicial Decisions and Legislative
Remediation: Access and Equity

In the analysis of Daniel and the achievement of the intended outcome of
court ordered remediation for infringements of equal protection, the case followed
the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954). In spite of the historic
victory of the unanimously upheld Brown, the court ultimately did not order the
states to immediately end segregation. The question remained as to how much social
transformation occurred as a result of the court ruling. It was not until Congress took
statutory action with the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964) were public school
desegregation rates increased. The legislative remediation (SB 1689) as decreed by

109
California State Superior Court, was intended to precipitate the implementation of
reform to remedy educational equal protection infringements, as ordered in Daniel v.
State of California (1999), supported by the legislative/bureaucratic action, risk
management approach to achieving the court’s intent. Oral arguments within Brown
v. Board of Education (1953, 1954), evidenced misgivings that the implementation
and oversight of the decree would be questionable when left to school boards and
district courts, depending on community acceptance, and that the high expectations
of the decision would be diluted.
The case of this study, Daniel v. State of California (1999), was offered to
examine the appropriateness of those concerns in the aftermath of fifty years of equal
protection litigation, The executive driven legislative and stakeholder collaborative,
risk management approach to social reform, exemplified in Daniel, was dependent
on a system of incentives to effect the social transformation as dictated by the court’s
ruling, and carried out by the state legislature in conjunction with local stakeholders;
therefore, dependent on community acceptance. A failure of the court to provide
relevant incentives to that end, evidenced a weakness in the management model.
Importantly, the findings of the qualitative study addressed the dependency of
the courts on the action of stakeholders in the delineation of the three factors,
motivation, knowledge and accountability, that effected social change, signified by
educational change, from the duality of judicial/legislative and stakeholder
perspectives, Consideration was made to the incentives offered to support the
intended outcome of the court in the restructuring of the status quo.

110
The AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) established a four-year
$41,250,000.00 program of fiscal incentives, in which funding allocation was
discretionary within programs. In order to comply with the court order, AP
Challenge Grant high schools were to increase the number of AP courses offered,
establish AP professional development, create a system of vertical teaming, support
teachers/class set-up, and institute on-site AVID (Advancement for Individual
Determination) national college preparatory programs; all to establish services to
increase access to a quality, academically accelerated, rigorous AP instructional
program for the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic student-subjects of the
court’s intent.. Therefore, the court stipulated that there would be no achievement of
equity without quality AP programming to remediate for infringements of equal
protection.
The Interview Guide categories of adjudication, implementation and
monitoring were utilized for respondents to address the intent of the court as
delineated in the institutional restructuring necessary for compliance with equal
protection orders and the ensuing change in the status quo. In so doing, emerged the
three factors of effect on social change. The findings that follow are presented by
response category and corresponding Interview Guide question.
With respect to the legislative/bureaucratic agency collaborative remediation
effort of the judicial decision, the factor of motivation was presented in relation to
judicial/legislative and stakeholder commitment; the factor of knowledge as to
judicial/legislative knowledge and stakeholder knowledge of the AP Program; and

111
the factor of accountability with regard to judicial/legislative and stakeholder
accountability.
Findings indicated that social change, evidenced by educational change, was
not achieved by the judicial decision and legislative remediation of Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). Analyses of the
findings as to the achievement of social change, evidenced by educational change, as
the intended outcome of the court ordered remediation, were posited in each factor
summary of this study, followed by the consequences of those findings.
Motivation
The factor of motivation was evaluated from the responses of stakeholders,
the educational experts and state officials who constructed the AP Challenge Grant
(SB 1689, 2000), and the local district coordinator and representatives from
educational college preparatory institutions who participated in its school-site
implementation, in relation to judicial/legislative and stakeholder commitment.
Judicial/Legislative and Stakeholder Commitment (Appendix I).
Commitment as an aspect of motivation was connected to the belief systems of
stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2002), who from the moment of the Daniel adjudication
and the mandate of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) under the mutual
consent decree, became essential players in the implementation and monitoring of
the judicial decision and legislative remediation. The judicial/legislative commitment
was assessed from the actions of the court and legislature, before and after the AP
Challenge Grant. This portion of the study examined both the judicial/legislative and

112
stakeholder commitment to achieving social change, utilizing the belief systems of
the participants, to determine the factors that effected that achievement. Examined
within the interview query (Interview Guide Question #4), in relation to factors of
implementation that might either contribute or impede the availability and
distribution of material resources intended by the court and legislative remediation,
the California Department of Education, Education AP Program Consultant, gave the
following account of stakeholder commitment in reference to collaborative team
efforts (Interview Guide Question #5):
At the time of the grant, we had a team approach and when we did our
school site visits….all the agencies were represented. There was a CDE
representative, there was someone from AVID, either the center or
regional office that worked with that particular school or if they didn’t,
they were still involved. There was a UCCP team, the University of
California College Prep Program that was offering the on-line courses
and College Board. So as a team, we could go out, find out what was
happening, what was or was not working for a particular school and then
one of those institutions, the College Board or UCCP or AVID would
then, if there was something specific, they would then work with that
school. They would come back and work, do trainings with the staff or
help them get their online system going or whatever was needed. So
that’s kind of how we addressed (the issue)…

The California Department of Education participant added that the ultimate
efficacy of the team approach to implementing the AP Challenge Grant at local
school sites was determined by the commitment of the site administrator to
alleviating infringements of access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American
and Hispanic students. The following describes a belief system, or lack of “buy-in”
from administrators, whose low student expectations impeded the purposeful use of

113
material and instructional resources made available by Grant funding; an example of
Stakeholder Resistance to its implementation (Interview Guide Question #5):
…if leadership at a school wanted to see that happen (the use of resources
made possible by the Grant to improve the delivery of rigorous, college
preparatory instruction for minority students), it generally happened. If
they really didn’t buy-into it then it didn’t happen…I was surprised at the
number of school administrators that did represent minority
populations… for whatever reason(s)…did not seem to think that this was
important for our students.

In the drafting of the settlement agreement that formed the basis for the AP
Challenge Grant, neither the stakeholder-committee member participants, nor the
agency of the legislature, included a policy mandate for the implementation of the
remediation.
The implementation of the Grant was left to the discretion of the LAUSD
central office, with control over the Local Districts. As the LAUSD Local District G
GATE coordinator (retired) remarked, there was “no direction from the state…the
legislature left the implementation to the districts.” Therefore, motivation to carry-
out the intent of the remediation was hampered by lack of direction from the state.
More to the point was the comment from the California Department of Education
(CDE) AP Program Consultant who noted that “schools were just handed money and
the CDE hoped they were complying with the legislation;” both participants
responded to a researcher query as to an opinion of court adjudications to alleviate
problems of educational access and equity (Interview Guide Question #4).
This approach to jurisprudence whereby the courts, legislature and
administrative agencies, jointly endeavor to comply with judicial intent, are factors

114
of judicial/legislative commitment and effect the achievement of social change, as
described above, as well as effecting all implementation and monitoring
considerations attributed in this study as stakeholder commitment.
In response to an interview question (Interview Guide Question #11)
regarding evidence of community, administrative or parent/student resistance to
implementing the Grant as a priority to address, one participant spoke of agency
stakeholders engaged by the LAUSD GATE office to introduce AP professional
development, but never welcomed as joint collaborators in the creation of a more
rigorous school site academic program. AVID (Advancement for Individual
Determination) Senior Project Director remarked on the role of beliefs as an aspect
of motivation: “…we presented our belief system as to how you could create a
stronger AP program, but schools didn’t really invite us to be part of the
conversation…they would have had to have (had) tremendous trust in us…and I
think it could have happened, but in that time period, it couldn’t.” The AVID
participant added that school-site administrative and teacher commitment to
collaboration was tenuous during the Grant, because “schools thought they could
create their own rigorous program”. The AP Challenge Grant impetus to create
rigorous curriculum stopped after the AP Challenge Grant ended.
During the researcher’s interview session, a follow-up question regarding
inclusion (if any) of the community in support of the AP Challenge Grant program
before, during and after the Grant (Interview Guide Question #12) was posed. The
belief that the limited three-year AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) prevented

115
stakeholder buy-in (therefore, little or no community outreach) and proving a barrier
to moving forward, was voiced by the retired LAUSD Local District G GATE
Coordinator, “the money was cut after taking a long time to figure out what to do.”
The lack of motivation for a commitment to continuing the school-site work
begun by the AP Challenge Grant stakeholder team, after the Grant was halted, was
also expressed by the AVID participant who, when asked by the researcher of what
monitoring evidence was observed after the Grant (Interview Guide Question #10),
the following was said: “When the AP Challenge Grant went away and some schools
didn’t have to do AVID anymore, there were people who chose to quit at that
time…”
A notable exception was Manual Arts Senior High School, as perceived by
the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired), who had jurisdiction over
AP and was a key player in local district formulation, implementation and
monitoring of the AP Challenge Grant. The participant responded to the query
regarding changes in the participation and performance of the LAUSD-AP high
school students by ethnic group, as evidenced by AP exams taken and passed before,
during and after the Grant (Interview Guide Question #3).
The retired GATE coordinator perceived that Manual Arts was not only a
committed and active leader in AVID implementation but also a leader in the
scheduling of a rigorous AP curriculum, as evidenced when the school hosted the
first Local District G-AP Symposium on-site, during the AP Challenge Grant; “It
was just outstanding!” In addition, the participant viewed Manual Arts as a leader in

116
middle school vertical teaming, in order that students would successfully be prepared
for AP course rigor when entering high school.
In responding to the researcher’s interview guide query as to what factors the
participant was aware that contributed to or prevented the implementation of the AP
Challenge Grant at the state, district, school or community level, as intended
remediation for the problems of access and equity to AP programming, the AVID
respondent answered as to the beliefs that were at the core of resistance to
commitment (Interview Guide Question #8):
I think (the central office, LAUSD District GATE Coordinator) wrote…
(the AP Grant for the LAUSD)…I don’t even know if she asked the sites
if they wanted to be included….I think she just wrote it, because I do
think some schools were included that never would have chosen to be
included, is the memory that I think I have…schools did not have to do
AVID (they) volunteered to come to the training… so the resistance is
always in the process not in the thing itself and so the resistance was
about the communication that happened upfront and the decision-making
process about how they became involved in the grant… and that just kind
of stayed with some people and overshadowed the work…

The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired), as stakeholder,
had a more collaborative interpretation as to central District control over the AP
Challenge Grant, which supported the participant’s motivation regarding its
implementation. Confirming that the ultimate AP Challenge Grant responsibility
was under the auspices of the LAUSD central GATE office, the retired coordinator’s
commitment was linked to a belief in ownership of the process. In response to a
follow-up question regarding opinions of the adjudication, the court ruling, Daniel v.
State of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to

117
remedy problems of educational access and equity for African-American and
Hispanic students (Interview Guide Question #4), the participant clarified the order
in which the LAUSD central GATE office and local districts entered the
implementation and monitoring phases: “The local district did it. I was the one that
would pass on, you know, all of the grants (the school-site Grant proposals) because
the grants came to me and I was the one who approved them and then I sent them on
to (the central office, LAUSD GATE Coordinator). And every other coordinator did
the same thing.” To further the participant’s response to the interview query
regarding factors that effected the role of judicial decisions and legislation to remedy
problems of access and equity for minority students in the AP program (Interview
Guide Question #4), the retired LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator offered
a reference to judicial/legislative commitment:
…what we have learned from legislatures is that once the ruling goes out,
they have other things to deal with and they will let whomever that the
rule is intended for to carry on. In other words, once we got the ruling
out, we got the legislation passed, it’s up to individual school districts or
whomever to follow-through…everything stops at the District.

The AVID Senior Project Director also spoke to judicial/legislative
commitment in relation to the role that the LAUSD played in carrying out the
mandate of the court order (Daniel) and subsequent AP Challenge Grant legislation,
and the stakeholder commitment it engendered (Interview Guide Question #4). The
participant’s response followed:
I think it (AP Challenge Grant) needed to be much longer…and if you
ended up with district equity policies then that would have left something
in place that had been created because there was a lot of conversation and

118
reflection within each community about what that looked like. Those are
not easy policies to put in place at sites or at districts. So, if the
legislation had mandated that, I believe that that alone could have made a
significant difference. …Board approved…(so that) you have a district
expectation about equity and then it cannot be decided by individual
counselors and teachers. Decided by the community.

Commitment to the achievement of social change through the AP Challenge
Grant (SB 1689) was interconnected with stakeholder beliefs regarding minority
participation in the AP program. When asked by the researcher what factors the
participant felt have led to the problems of access and equity for LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students (Interview Guide Question #2), the College
Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, stated the following:
I think it all goes to beliefs and what teachers, administrators, counselors
believe students can accomplish, can achieve. And, I think there’s just
some deep-rooted beliefs that um kids coming from poverty have so few
experiences that they may not be capable of handling this level of
curriculum….as I would visit classes, I would see kids wandering the
halls and I would walk them back to their class and I remember this
teacher saying, “well I felt so sorry for her because of her background
that I let her just go ahead and walk around… It was just like somebody
slapped me in the face. You know, I had never experienced that kind of
belief stated so blatantly…it made me much more sensitive to what
people are stating and what they are not stating as their beliefs.

The California Department of Education AP Program Consultant offered the
following in response to the researcher query regarding factors that may have led to
access and equity problems for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students
(Interview Guide Question #2):
…in my experience, the AP teacher is um, okay, narcissistic, is a bit
strong, you know have very strong egos and they know they’re working
harder and they are very self-confident, that they know they are very good
teachers and if they’re going to do AP, then they want to run AP the way

119
they want to run AP. …you know there’s a very different degree of
access to AP classes depending on the teacher’s philosophy.

Motivation of the stakeholders as administrators, counselors, teachers,
parents and students were factors in the effect of the judicial decision and
remediating legislation on achieving significant social change for LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students. The human element of stakeholder
commitment was expressed by the AVID participant when asked in the interview
questioning about incentives or rewards that may prove valuable at the state, district,
school and community levels to bring about the intended outcomes of the court and
legislative equal protection remediation for LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students (Interview Guide Question #12): “Belief systems trump incentives
or rewards.”
Motivation for students was viewed in relation to the belief system disparities
found between African-American and Hispanic students. Therefore, it is reasonable
that the outcomes of AP exam participation and performance were related to student
commitment.
With regard to LAUSD-AP African-American students, the LAUSD Local
District G GATE Coordinator (retired) responded as follows to the interview query
(Interview Guide Question #7) referring to awareness of any factors as evidence that
the community, administration, parents and students did or did not see that access
and equity were a priority to address before, during and after the AP Challenge Grant
LAUSD-AP by stating:

120
There is a pervasive attitude about, and we’ve seen all the data, that if you
show you’re intelligent, than you’re acting white…I was talking to Donna
Ford at Vanderbilt University about her recent data and research and
we’ve been talking for twenty years and nothing has changed.

The retired Local District G GATE Coordinator further expressed frustration
with the lack of stakeholder commitment, over time, in the remediating of access and
equity problems, as evidenced in negative outcomes for African-American students.
We cannot understand what is happening or what is not happening. And
I’ve read studies and in fact, I’ve just pulled fifteen studies about lack of
achievement for African-Americans and these are people from all
universities from all over the country and they are coming up with the
same conclusion…I’m so frustrated with the – it just doesn’t make sense.
University of Chicago, NYU, just you name it, it’s the same thing, lack of
achievement in elementary, lack of achievement in middle, lack of
achievement in college, lack of students, lack of this, more kids in prison,
it just doesn’t make sense.

The AVID Senior Project Director responded to the perceived lack of
achievement for LAUSD-AP African-American students, while addressing factors
that may be evidence that the community does not see access and equity as a priority
to address (Interview Guide Question #7):
…we’re helping people to think about (how) you need to outreach to
guys. We’re under-serving the African-American population in LA
County and so you need to think about how you want to outreach to those
populations at your school, and service them better… and that might
mean that you’re going to not necessarily overlook those things but find
out about them. You know, so if a student is absent and it’s because his
mother’s been ill, then you need to go further and find that out and bring
him in…

Additionally, in a follow-up question to the participant’s previous response,
that showed concern for the academic and social achievement of African-American
students, the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) was asked if he

121
saw any disparity between how well the Hispanic students participated and
performed as far as AP exams taken and passed vis-à-vis the African-American
students. The researcher asked, “Was there any difference by ethnicity?” The
participant’s response was as follows:
Markedly, It’s been a continual progression of Latino students taking the
higher academic classes and the Advanced Placement classes. A
substantial decline in African-American. We were even discussing this
when we were talking about scholarships and how the Latinos are just
taking over the National Merit Scholars and they have a Latino or
Hispanic National Merit Scholar and that numbers up and they have a
special one for the African-American Scholar and that has just gone
down…

The California Department of Education participant responded to similar
beliefs concerning the LAUSD-AP Hispanic students’ participation and performance
in the AP program and particularly in AP exams taken and passed, as evidenced in
the programming incentives that led to motivated LAUSD-AP Hispanic students to
take more AP classes. In addition, the College Board Senior Education Manager, K-
12 Services, remarked:
(At) Fremont, we started increasing the sections of AP English Language
and then building those kids to go on to take the AP English Literature.
And from there, you know, if you can do it in this course, you can do it in
other courses.

As a point of clarification, the researcher asked the College Board participant
if that encouragement for taking more AP courses came from an entry point of AP
English, and the participant responded as follows:
(No.) Spanish Language. That was the one… we built on Spanish
language, because the kids came in fluent in Spanish, not necessarily
academic Spanish. You know, they would know how to speak it and

122
understand it and read it, but they didn’t know the grammar, the literature,
but it was one where we could build on their strength already…

The California Department of Education participant replied to the researcher
query as to incentives for performance and/or participation in the AP program
offered for African-American students (Interview Guide Question #12), and the
respondent stated that, “…there wasn’t anything specifically identified for the
African-American population.”
In addition, the researcher asked the CDE participant to clarify a response
that noted that AP Challenge Grant schools were heavily Hispanic, in relation to
African-Americans. The respondent added that…”(there was an encouragement of
students to come through AP) …and also AVID would tend,…you find more Latino
students in AVID classrooms…I mean this persists today, you still see when you
look at the AP data, more Latino students taking the (AP) courses and the exams
than African-American….I think it represents a larger population than our African-
American population.”
In relation to the demographic disparity between AP school populations of
African-American and Hispanic students, there was evidence in the interview
findings of LAUSD-AP African-American students leaving the AP program during
and after the AP Challenge Grant, either “dropping out” or enrolling in private,
parochial and charter schools in and out-of-state. The belief of the respondent, for the
motivation behind this “flight” followed a discussion that described African-
American student motivation to leave the LAUSD-AP program because they did not

123
feel comfortable in a changing school population; predominantly Hispanic. The
LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator responded to a query about factors that
were evidence that the community, the administration, staff, parents and students did
or did not see the equity and access problems were a priority to address, rather than
state monies being directed elsewhere in the district or the school (Interview Guide
Question #7):
…we have two factors going on. We have a large drop-out rate, even for
the advanced kids. We have a definite issue with, you know, the very
bright kids dropping out or moving out. Um, and this is something that
is, that was starting then but is more so now. Our study is that a lot of
African-American kids are getting outnumbered at certain schools so they
are moving out. They are moving out to different parts of Los Angeles
County and beyond. Or they are moving back to the South. The charter
schools are just loaded with our very bright students…

The California Department of Education, Education Programs Consultant for
AP, calculated the drop-out percentage for all minorities at 25%.
In addressing the growing Hispanic population and issues that may cause
African-American students the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator
(retired), responded with beliefs about race that impacted AP exam participation and
performance motivation:
Well the racial issues. You know, we saw a lot of clashes, uh, you know,
with African-American and Latino kids um for no reason whatsoever. Or
for cultural reasons, you know, you speak too much Spanish, speak
English. You know, that kind of thing. Uh and that’s with all, all kids. It
wasn’t just the low-achieving, it was with all kids. Um, I mean like I’d
go down to certain area schools and give examples but it was just
something that was getting out of control…

124
When the researcher asked a follow-up question regarding the naming of
school(s) with racial conflict during before and after the AP Challenge Grant, the
retired coordinator responded:
Jordan…and the reason is (that)… I saw Jordan, back in the day, (as)
classified as a “blacks” high school. And during this time (before and
after the Grant) Latinos took over Watts…you know there were more
Hispanics than blacks and the kids were outnumbered, so they began to
have different clashes.

A re-segregation within the LAUSD magnet schools was indicated by the
College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, in response to a research
query regarding changes in the participation and performance of students by ethnic
group, as evidenced by AP exams taken and AP exams passed, before, during and
after the Grant (Interview Guide Question #3). The following discourse underscored
the role of personal belief systems determining levels of motivation that lead to
stakeholder commitment:
King-Drew Medical Magnet is an interesting school because it was the
only one, at least at that time when I was there…that had more African-
American students than Hispanic…Bravo was heavily Hispanic/Latino,
King-Drew similar programs, you know, with a focus towards medicine,
it was heavily African-American. Um, and part of that is where they’re
placed but there’s also again that expectation….These were both magnet
schools and, you know, there are overt and covert, and I think the convert
message was if you are African-American you go to King-Drew, if you’re
Hispanic, you’re Bravo. You will never find that written anyplace but
when you look at the population, why would there be so many students of
one ethnicity at each of those schools?

The researcher asked a follow-up question as to the changes in AP exams
taken and AP exams passed before, during and after the AP Challenge Grant with

125
regard to the magnet schools. The College Board participant answered in this
manner:
What happened (at King-Drew) was that we started increasing the
number of AP courses. So the Science Department…teacher… was very
much into looking at the way the curriculum was structured and he
wanted to try having…an experiential Physics class in ninth grade, and
usually it’s structured Biology, Chemistry, Physics…so we, we worked it
out so we could have one of those classes, that hadn’t been done
before.…We were new enough and small enough that we could allow
these discussions and really give teachers the freedom to design AP. So
in that sense, you know there was also that feeling of building the
Advanced Placement Program. That these kids were capable, even
though intelligence wasn’t the criteria for getting into the magnet school,
it was that expectation that permeated everything.

It was the perception of the College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12
Services, that from 1999-2006 (before and after the AP Challenge Grant) that
African-American students at King-Drew Medical Magnet increased their AP exams
taken and AP exams passed.
As high expectations for participation and performance of LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students were evidenced in the previous discussion,
examples of low expectations, viewed as a product of beliefs and a factor in
motivation for both the school-site professionals and the LAUSD-AP minority
students, were expressed by the California Department of Education, AP Education
Programs Consultant. Follow-up questions are referenced as to the factors that may
have led to problems of access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students, and the resultant judicial decision and legislative remediation
(Interview Guide Question #2):

126
In many of our schools, people cited the reasons for students not
participating in that they didn’t have the reading, writing, math or science
skills necessary to be successful in class There’s a lot of gate-keeping at
some schools, in which counselors or teachers set up rules or
requirements that will prevent students from taking the classes…
Sometimes an English teacher will give a list of books that students have
to read and do work on over the summer and if they don’t complete all
that, they cannot enter the AP English class. So that’s a way to restrict
your class to just a select few. That can create a problem if a student who
transfers in wasn’t there to get the assignments……but it also puts up a
barrier for students who want the challenge but maybe couldn’t keep up
or had other circumstances that occurred that they couldn’t do that type of
work…

When the researcher asked the participant how gate-keeping applied to the
original 57 AP Challenge Grant schools, predominantly populated with minority
students, the California Department of Education official stated:
…one of the teams called (the participating AP students) “the terminally
gifted”, so that those students who were already excelling in academics
were just given more opportunities to excel.

In response to the researcher’s follow-up question regarding factors of
commitment, impediment or resistance observed to monitor the AP Challenge Grant
program before and after the Grant (Interview Guide Question #11) the California
Department of Education official also remarked that the belief system that prevented
African-American and Hispanic students to enter the AP Challenge Grant program
was fostered by GATE teachers and parents, “in some instances they were the gate-
keepers that kept minority youth out of AP classes.”
However, there was a discernable “white flight” from the original 57
LAUSD-AP Schools, before and after the AP Challenge Grant. The College Board
participant reflected on a researcher query about factors that may have led to

127
problems of access and equity issues for African-American and Hispanic students
(Interview Guide Question #2). The participant indicated that at one LAUSD-AP
Challenge Grant high school, Hamilton High School, the white and Asian
populations were leaving for other academic venues and residential neighborhoods in
discernable numbers; evidenced in “the flight of wealthier white students away from
the school…changing addresses to be able to move to another school rather than
come to Hamilton…in spite of the fact that whites were disproportionately placed in
AP classes in relation to their population at the school.” Hamilton’s response was to
form a series of magnets, under its auspices, to draw more white and Asian students
back to the facility.
In relation to Hamilton and the other original AP Challenge Grant schools,
the College Board participant’s perception was that from before and after the AP
Challenge Grant, the AP exam participation and performance numbers improved; “I
think that everybody went up in all ethnic groups”…and that “white and Asian
students generally outperformed African-American and Hispanic students”.
However, the participant’s belief was tempered by adding that taking into
consideration that the schools within the AP Challenge Grant network were generally
Title I schools, “performance is often linked to income level… poverty and family
background…and could account for a drop in AP exams taken and passed (by white
and Asian students)”, as well.
The California Department of Education AP Program Consultant, when
asked if professional development before, during and after the AP Challenge Grant

128
changed participation and performance of the African-American and Hispanic
students (Interview Guide Question #6) stated, “I believe we have an achievement
gap across the board. I know it is higher for minority youth, but it is across the
board”.
When asked by the researcher the information the College Board Senior
Education Manager, K-12 Services had of conditions leading to the lawsuit, Daniel
v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000)
(Interview Guide Question #1), the participant responded with the following beliefs
regarding ethnic “gaps” that existed in AP participation and enrollment and the
commitment that stakeholders have in providing support systems for minorities,
under court remediation due to infringements of access and equity.
I know everybody talks usually about access and equity, but I really look
at it as access is just one part of it, so access is two kids have the
opportunity to take the more rigorous courses and that’s not to say the
courses are offered at the schools, but are they encouraged to enroll, its
there support systems, you know, do they see themselves as part of that
rigorous course, do kids see themselves as having the ability to go into
those courses? And then attainment would be are they doing, are they
able to perform in the classes? Are they getting the support that they
need in the class and support outside the class? And then achievement
would be, obviously, are they getting good grades? Are they learning?
And are they performing well on the assessments?

The College Board participant referred to percentages of ethnic minorities in
AP classes in disproportionate numbers in relation to school-wide demographics, and
an inverse AP Program representation for whites, as indicative of a belief system of
“ethnic gaps” resultant in the outcome of access and equity infringements for

129
African-American and Hispanic students, before and after Daniel, and the AP
Challenge Grant:
…we don’t see students in the Hispanic/Latino background, African-
American background enrolled in and achieving at the same rate as their
population within a school. Take for example, a school in Los Angeles,
(in) most schools, Hispanic/Latino students are about 75% of the
population but they might be only 35% up to 50% of those students
enrolled in Advanced Placement courses, whereas the white kids might be
10% but they’re enrolled at 80%. So, they’re not reflecting their general
enrollment population.

In addition, commitment to the rigorous academic AP program involved the
participation and performance in AP exams taken and passed. The belief system and
therefore, the motivation to encourage the intent of the AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000) to remediate problems of educational access and equity for LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students was featured in the remarks of the
California Department of Education AP Program Consultant, in responding to a
researcher’s query concerning factors of commitment, impediments or resistance by
stakeholders to monitor the AP program for matters of access and equity compliance
(Interview Guide #11):
…we also do a real disservice when students have taken an AP class and
they’re told not to take the exam because they won’t “pass” the
exam…(also) at the time we did know that students did take the courses
but they didn’t want to hurt their GPA’s so they didn’t take the AP
exams. Head counselors tell them that too (head counselors advise AP
students not to take the AP exam).

The CDE participant followed with further findings that indicated problems
of stakeholder commitment to monitoring the AP program when the human factors
that impeded judicial decisions got lost in the interaction of individuals:

130
At the time, we had a very strong commitment both from the College
Board, Western Regional Office, and this department and we continue to
say this, that it s not pass/fail; it is an indicator of student performance at
a particular point in time. And there are factors that can occur that would
cause a student a 2 instead of a 3 on an exam. Maybe they were just made
homeless, there was a drive-by shooting…(outside factors)

The AP Fee Waiver (AB 2216, Escutia) as a state and federal commitment
(judicial/legislative commitment), provided motivation for the LAUSD-AP African-
American and Hispanic students to taken the AP exam was cited as a positive
incentive that resulted in the perception that more students participating in the exam.
The California Department of Education participant in response to a researcher query
regarding the incentives or rewards that proved valuable at the state, district, school
and community levels to bring about the intended outcomes of the court order and
subsequent legislation, the response was as follows (Interview Guide Question #12):
…through 2006 because of the Fee Waiver bill, more students took the
exam because the monies were there. When the funds were cut, the
government, the Federal government stepped-in and took care of some
the state wasn’t able to do….

Incentives for motivating students through the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689,
2000), came through the support of administrative agencies that worked in consort
with the court and legislature to bring about social change. Those agencies included
AVID and the College Board in its administration of the AP program. In response to
a researcher query concerning incentives or rewards that may have proven valuable
in carrying out the court ordered legislative remediation (Interview Guide Question
#12), the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) responded in
defining incentives as motivation, in the following manner:

131
(The incentive for the teacher is) emotion… appreciation of the student,
you know, for his or her academic achievements. In other words to make,
to have the educator feel like he or she has done a good job in getting
their child into a college…that’s what makes teachers teach, is to know
that they’ve done a great job and this student has been given more of an
insurance, down-payment, so to speak, to carry on in a college setting
because that’s what Advanced Placement is.

The retired coordinator further described the abrupt halt of the AP Challenge
Grant as a factor of motivation, a lost incentive, to carry-out the promises that the
Grant had for a comprehensive, rigorous academic structure for LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students; targeted minorities of the Grant:
If the program had been longer, the incentive would be that students
would be under an umbrella of a Grant from middle school let’s say all
the way to high school… (after the AP Challenge Grant) I doubt it there
were as many Advanced Placement classes, I doubt if there were as many
AP classes and preparatory classes as during and in the last stages of the
grant (than after). Because a lot of those classes were knocked out, you
know, because of the basic Ed, other school-wide things, and a lot of the
Advanced Placement classes were knocked out because they had so many
kids that needed the basic math, and the Basic English classes and we
know that for a fact.

Motivation for court action regarding educational access and equity in the
achievement of social change, comes from the community, according to the retired
coordinator. In an example of judicial/legislative commitment, whereby public
advocacy moves the judiciary, the participant responded to the researcher’s query as
to an opinion of court rulings (e.g. Daniel v. State of California, 1999) and
legislative policies, such as the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy
problems of educational access and equity for African-American and Hispanic
students (Interview Guide Question #4).

132
…first you have to get people’s attention and just like with the court case
with the integration. It was never going to happen until the courts decreed
that Los Angeles Unified was desegregated and that was the only way to
get kids integrated. Nobody was going to do it on their own. And I feel
with this same thing, you have to get somebody’s attention. Then things
begin to work. You know, you formulate whatever to move that
legislation or move that court ruling.

In a follow-up question, the researcher asked the LAUSD Local District G
GATE Coordinator (retired) if the three-year program was resultant in any
significant social change, as exemplified by educational change. The participant
responded with an explanation of respect as a motivating force; in conjunction with
public action arising from public advocacy, and providing another example of
judicial/legislative commitment:
Oh yes. I would say that, simply because the kids from the so-called
“minority schools” were given their respect. That’s saying that, you won
this case, therefore you know we will provide services and whatever for
kids that are willing to take on the challenge and I think for that particular
time, it did work. I feel very confident about that. What happened
afterwards, it’s just like any other legislation, when the money and time is
up, it’s up. Um, there needs to be more advocates to speak for kids, to
talk to legislators and so forth and the last time we were in Sacramento,
we got a inkling of things to come and I am sorry to say, it’s like don’t
bother me, we’ve got other things to work with. And I just don’t see the
focus on education like it should be. That bothers me.

In summary, motivation was found as a factor of three (motivation,
knowledge and accountability) that determined the effect of judicial/legislative and
stakeholder commitments on the achievement of social change (Figure 1).
Commitment, an aspect of motivation, was dependent on the belief system of
stakeholders. From the point of the framing of the settlement agreement in consort
with the stakeholder committee of educational experts, the subsequent legislative

133
action, and the implementation and monitoring of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689,
2000) fell to the LAUSD local districts to design and carry-out, there was
stakeholder resistance, stemming from a perceived lack of judicial/legislative
commitment to a process over which they had no choice.
The stakeholder resistance to change ranged from lack of voluntary support
for outside AP professional development, to the continuation of gate-keeping
endeavors perpetrated by counselors and teachers, restricting access to the AP
classes for the very minority students for which the remediation was intended. In
addition, there was a widespread belief, evidenced in class demographics and AP
exams taken and passed, that the larger Hispanic AP community received greater
instructional support and preferential access to the AP program in relation to the
African-American students. In addition, there remained a perception that white and
Asian students far outnumbered their representative percentage of total school
populations within the AP programs, and that AP was reserved for the “terminally
gifted”. Meanwhile, the parent stakeholders of high ability students of all ethnicities
were removing their children from the LAUSD-AP program for enrollment in
private, parochial and charter schools, in and out-of-state. When the Grant ended,
dedicated and committed stakeholders were frustrated.
Knowledge
The factor of knowledge (Figure 1), was evaluated from the responses of
stakeholders, respectively from the California Department of Education (CDE), the
College Board, AVID and a retired LAUSD participant, all having relevant

134
experience with the AP Challenge Grant, before and after the Grant (1999-2006),
and in relation to judicial/legislative knowledge and stakeholder knowledge of the
AP program.
Judicial/Legislative Knowledge and Stakeholder Knowledge of the AP
Program (Appendix J). Stakeholders as partners in the judicial process of
remediating infringements of educational access and equity by legislative action and
with a consortium of bureaucratic institutions, pre-supposed knowledge of the
program under remediation. The following examination will utilize participant
interview responses that address judical/legislative and stakeholder knowledge of the
AP program.
The Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, College Board, was asked by
the researcher to describe conditions of which the participant was aware that led to
the lawsuit, Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the subsequent AP Challenge
Grant (Interview Guide Question #1).
I don’t know about the lawsuit that led to it, I just know of the Challenge
Grant and um how that affected and played out at schools and districts.
So, I don’t know the history of it.

In answer to a researcher follow-up question regarding whether the College
Board participant knew about the AP Challenge Grant, the answer was in the
affirmative. When asked what information the participant had about why the Grant
was instituted, the reply was: “Well, because of the gap in access, in attainment and
in achievement in Advancement Placement.”

135
Other participants responded to a researcher query regarding the information
that they had as to Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant
(Interview Guide Question #1). The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator
(retired) remarked:
As I understand it… the AP Challenge Grant…was a plan to maintain
Advanced Placement classes in schools, particularly with, schools with
diverse populations to ensure that they would get equal opportunity as
well as the other schools. Um, to put it bluntly, is there was a
discriminatory type of situation where, to be very, very truthful, a lot of
the schools thought that the kids just weren’t capable of achieving at the
Advanced Placement level so they just kind of bypassed it.

The AVID Senior Project Director replied to the participant’s knowledge of
Daniel and the Grant, as well as to the AP Challenge Grant’s companion Fee Waiver
Bill (AB 2216, Escutia) and made reference to the Advanced Placement Advisory
Committee Member, Jeannie Oakes, Director /Professor, Institute for Democracy,
Education, and Access (IDEA), University of California, Los Angeles:
…you know I was affiliated with UCLA so I also knew that Jeannie
Oaks, you know, testified at the trial and was doing a lot of thinking and
work around those issues obviously and this trial. Um, I know that as a
result of that legal action that the AP Challenge Grant came to be and I
wasn’t aware that the AP Fee Waiver Grant came from that though. I
mean I know about that program but I didn’t know they were connected.

Additionally, The California Department of Education AP Program
Consultant responded to the researcher question regarding knowledge of the lawsuit
and the Grant as follows:
What I know is that the students in some schools in LA were denied
access to AP classes and so they took it upon themselves to file a lawsuit
against their district, the Governor, and the Department to have access to
those classes and as a result, the AP Challenge Grant was, came into play

136
uh, we funded schools then to establish a strong foundation so that more
students could participate in AP classes.

When the researcher queried the California Department of Education AP
Program Consultant as to an opinion on court rulings, such as Daniel, and the
subsequent AP Challenge Grant legislation to remedy access and equity problems for
LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students (Interview Guide Question
#4), the response was: “I’m not familiar with those rulings, specifically.”
In further questioning of the CDE participant, the researcher queried about
changes of participation and performance of LAUSD-AP high school students by
ethnic group, the participant was aware, as evidenced in AP exams taken and AP
exams passed before and after the Grant (Interview Guide Question #3). The
response follows:
I really can’t answer to that. I um, I don’t even think I have the
information from those schools right now. Every year the College Board
will give us information about schools and the number of students or the
number of exams taken, the number of students and then what they will
do is identify the number that “passed” with a 3, 4 or 5. But right now I
don’t have that.…while I have the institutional knowledge of …some
things I never did have or had full control of.

In addressing the lack of District support for the AP Challenge Grant, the
California Department of Education participant offered that a lack of information
disseminated to the District and a lack of direction at the District level to the schools,
including its use of discretionary funds, may have negatively impacted its ability to
remediate equal protection infringements (Interview Guide Question #4). The

137
following is indicative of both stakeholder commitment and judicial/legislative
knowledge:
… In some cases we had schools that wanted to do it but maybe didn’t
have the district support (on the other hand) we had schools that took the
funds only to continue to support the more advanced students already in
the courses and had no intention at all of opening access to other students.

The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) was responsible
for leading a team of educators to monitor the AP Challenge Grant schools, within
that local district, for compliance with the intent of the Grant.
Observations of LAUSD-AP teachers at school sites follow as the retired
coordinator answered a follow-up question from the researcher regarding the
monitoring process at school-sites to assess AP teacher preparation: “ (so) when you
came in to monitor, you were checking to see that the teachers that were teaching AP
were, either certified ahead of time or they were in continual professional
development to be able to teach those classes (Interview Guide Question #9)?
Right. We call it qualified. We weren’t allowed to use the word,
certified…(the central office LAUSD GATE Coordinator) felt that it
wasn’t the right term to use. It would be in conflict with something so we
were to talk about qualify…there was no AP teacher certification.

The College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, responded to a
research query regarding AP professional development that reflected educational
changes in the participation and performance of African-American and Hispanic
students at the state, district or community levels (Interview Guide Question #6),
which related to the previous participant’s comments regarding AP teacher
qualifications:

138
Now, some schools, for example, I think there are some private schools
that say, if you’re going to teach an AP course, you must continue in
professional development, whether it’s something like Saturday program
or Summer Institute but the public schools they can encourage it, they can
says it’s part of your obligation as an AP teacher but there’s so many
union rules about who gets placed in what courses that some of the things
can’t be mandated.

The researcher asked the retired LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator
if the participant thought it was important that teachers become qualified…and so,
have an ongoing professional development at the local district…but not as a
requirement to teach AP. In responding, the participant also explained the effort to
monitor and re-locate unqualified AP teachers, this with the knowledge of the AP
Challenge Grant’s intent to serve underrepresented minorities.
No. It’s like what Local District G did, I’m not sure about the other
districts but we had to make that so that anybody, a friend of a friend,
couldn’t come in and teach AP English without having any qualifications.
And we knew that. We knew that there were some people that were
teaching it, that had no business so this was a way to begin to use it as a
filter and to move teachers back to their regular classes rather than the
advanced class.

In reference to how lack of stakeholder AP program knowledge impacted the
AP student, and in conjunction with the factor of commitment linked to stakeholder
beliefs, the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) made the next
observation in a follow-up query regarding monitoring at school-sites (Interview
Guide Question #9).
The smart kids were always the big problem kids….the ones that were
challenging teachers, who were asking questions, why aren’t we learning
this, can’t we learn a little bit more. Can we go into more research? I’ve
seen this when monitoring the classrooms. I’ve heard kids say that. One
girl, in particular, at Washington said, why are we doing this, we’ve done

139
this in the 8
th
grade. She was very outspoken, she got in trouble because
she was so outspoken. I can learn this, can’t we do more work? …but
generally speaking, there was this feeling of what are we going to do with
these kids.

When asked what factors led to the problems of access and equity issues for
African-American and Hispanic students within the AP program (Interview Guide
Question #2), the retired coordinator responded with examples of AP Challenge
Grant schools (1999-2006) and how teacher AP professional development impacted
the acquisition of AP program and AP Challenge Grant stakeholder knowledge:
think (at) the district level, from my experience, that we were pushing to
have more classes available to more students and that’s why there was an
AP Workshop set up...the first, in a long time, the professional
development for Advanced Placement teachers. So they were able to pull
those experts from the achieving schools and provide opportunities for
those who were from up and coming schools… Those, those schools that
were, we say scoring 4’s and 5’s (on the AP exams).

The researcher followed by asking the retired LAUSD Local District G
GATE Coordinator (retired) to name some of the schools perceived as achieving the
goals of the Grant and some perceived as not achieving the goals of the Grant;
signifying stakeholder knowledge. The retired coordinator first recounted the schools
perceived as achieving the goals of the Grant:
Oh, sure. That I can remember…(the achieving schools) University,
Cleveland, El Camino, Taft, Granada Hills, Venice High School was one
that they did something that was outstanding, Fairfax. Those were the
ones that were experienced and had, oh, Pacific Palisades, Pali High,
those were the ones that had the experienced teachers who were involved
in reading essays, you know, just getting involved in the whole process…

Next, the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) recounted the
schools perceived not to have achieved the goals of the Grant:

140
…(the schools that were not achieving) Manual, Washington, Crenshaw,
um, Dorsey, schools in that area. Roosevelt, Lincoln was doing well in a
couple of subjects that we all knew of – the Math areas but the other
areas, they were not doing so well. Most schools were doing well in the
Spanish language but the other areas, uh, not so well.

The participant was asked why “most schools were doing well in the Spanish
Language (AP classes).” The retired coordinator responded “that (it was due to) the
preponderance of Latino students at that time. There were the East LA schools,
Garfield, as I said, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson.”
In reference to the schools serving high populations of African-American
students, the California Department of Education participant indicated (Interview
Guide Question #12) that there were no District-wide teacher training incentives to
incorporate multi-cultural and diverse learning style instructional methodologies into
a curriculum serving African-American students, to achieve a positive academic
outcome, as achieved by utilizing the cultural link to successful AP course
completion for Hispanic students through AP Spanish courses:
…there wasn’t anything specifically identified for the African-American
student population…no technical support… Again, depending on the
school leadership or something they would or would not be encouraged
and or supported.

Responding to a researcher query regarding the factors that contributed to a
change in the availability of instructional opportunities for students and the
distribution of material resources before, during and after the Grant (Interview Guide
Question #5), the College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, spoke of
how stakeholder information regarding the import of the AP program and the AP

141
Challenge Grant, did or did not effect priorities addressed by the central LAUSD
offices:
…well there was always an AP initiative, you know, to increase the
number of students who are enrolling in and taking AP courses. That’s
always been an initiative within the district. There also came a shift to
looking at schools that were, however they are identified, “failing
schools”. Fremont was one of those schools…when that happens, instead
of looking at, all the students, you are looking at how can we move these
kids up so we can get off the “failing schools” list, whatever it might be
called, The Worst 100…now it’s called the AYP and API scores. You
know, whatever the definition or how they are defining failing schools.
So that the goals then become, let’s get off that list rather than the whole
look at the school.

As a point of clarification, the researcher asked if the impetus to get schools
“off the list” meant encouragement for the AP program. The College Board
participant’s response followed:
Usually they’re focusing on the lowest kids to move them up so that our
scores would increase. They (the highest performing students) kind of
continue to exist but there might not be that effort to grow them? You
know, I would like to think that if I was the principal, I would have
moved that because I always talked about AP as the suck-up program.
You know, start here and it pulls everybody up. Um, but I don’ t know if
could have done it, I would like to think that I would, but I don’t know.

Dorsey Senior high school was listed by the LAUSD Local District G GATE
Coordinator (retired) as a non-achieving AP Challenge Grant school, and the
researcher asked for clarification as to why Dorsey was perceived as low performing.
Within that explanation was information regarding efforts by the local district to
increase the knowledge of stakeholders as to the AP Challenge Grant; the program,
“Step Ahead to the Challenge Grant”. When addressing a follow-up question to the
response, reference was also made to the link between the acquisition of stakeholder

142
knowledge, as a factor of achieving social change, and the factor of stakeholder
motivation. The participant’s response followed:
Dorsey was an anomaly. For the fact that these students were coming
from middle class areas, middle class neighborhoods, the Baldwin Hills,
primarily, you know but we had kids from others, but primarily second-
class and their scores and the number of classes offered were low. I think
it’s still like that, I’m sorry to say, I think it’s still or has reverted back to
that. That there has just been no will for these kids to achieve, for them
to be challenged, that’s just something that we just can’t explain even
though I work with Dorsey, we’ve tried many ways but when we
formulated you know, the Step Ahead to the Challenge Grant at other
schools that were very eager but there was just something, a lack of fire
from Dorsey.

When asked by the researcher to clarify ”lack of fire”, the LAUSD Local
District G GATE Coordinator (retired) responded:
…it comes, everything comes from the principal, you know, the principal
is the quarterback for the team and if you don’t get the information and
motivation from the principal, then there, we have a problem, And we
felt that that was a problem. Um, I know there are other factors but we
just don’t know.

When addressing the subject of the acquisition of AP program knowledge
(Interview Guide Question #6), the College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12
Services, spoke of the role of the school-site principal to clarify expectations of
academic rigor not only for the AP student, but also for the AP administrators and
instructors:
Within LAUSD, there was a drop in professional development at the
District Office (after the AP Challenge Grant). I really like to make that
known. Principals just don’t take advantage, you now maybe they are
teaching summer schools, they have family obligations, who knows what.
It is available for teachers, so there are resources out there.

143
The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) was asked about
factors of commitment or impediments to the implementation of the Grant (Interview
Guide Question #8), and the examples of the significance of the counselor’s role
were described. Again, a link was found between the factors of stakeholder
knowledge and motivation as seen through the lens of teacher commitment in
conjunction with their expectations for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic
students:
We had kids who were programmed into the wrong classes who were part
of the Gifted track or high achievement track kids. Once the counselors
found out or knew, what was actually happening…what was a true
Honors class…it would have been wonderful (if the AP placement
problems had been handled well). But there was this thing, going back to
what we said before, that a lot of these counselors didn’t think, without
looking at their records, that these kids were able to do high level, high
school, pre-college work.

The retired LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator followed with
specific examples of the counselor’s role within AP Challenge Grant schools,
regarding the factors of stakeholder knowledge and motivation.
(At) Crenshaw…we found out that the head counselor was programming
kids incorrectly and that was a shock. We had to go back and tell her that
what makes up like an Honors English versus a non-Honors English and
so that these kids would be not tracked but yes, tracked right to an
Advanced Placement class through the Challenge Grant. It was
astonishing. We were working (to inform the schools on proper AP
placement) with Fremont and Washington. Foshay worked very well.
Foshay, it was no problem.

The researcher asked for clarification on AP Challenge Grant schools that
were perceived to be improving and moving toward meeting the intent of the AP
Challenge Grant. The link between the two factors of stakeholder knowledge and

144
stakeholder commitment (motivation) was indicated. The retired coordinator
answered as follows:
…those schools where we formulated our team, you know we had the AP
Challenge Grant but those schools…Manual took it very seriously.
Washington was very serious about improving their program. They had
strong coordinators which really helped…we had very committed people.

The AVID Senior Project Director responded to the researcher’s query as to
factors that either contributed to or prevented the implementation of the AP
Challenge Grant (Interview Guide Question #8). The participant stated that AVID
training was voluntary and as an agency stakeholder in the Grant, classroom
instruction, professional development monitoring and on-site student mentoring and
coaching were structured within a 2-year certification process. The AVID team
members representing the administration, counselors, coordinators and teachers
worked in collaboration toward successful student high school graduation and
college acceptance and retention in 4-year institutions of high learning.
Stakeholder knowledge of the AP program’s rigorous curriculum and
expectations for access and equity to be achieved through a pairing of the AP
program, the Grant and AVID was readily available to be acquired if the school
administration and personnel chose to become active participants. In addition, the
structured program offered AP administrator and teacher workshops that provided
researched instructional methodologies that were designed for the AP program.
Taking into consideration that there was only a 3-year time frame for the AP
Challenge Grant, and the AVID certification, a 2-year process, schools could choose

145
to continue the program following the end of the Grant. Few did. The AVID
Program Director stated, "They (the stakeholders) volunteered to come to the
training and so the people that came philosophically wanted to do the work. But you
know, few came from the LAUSD.”
The AVID participant offered the following findings as indicated:
…part of that was that the Vertical Team Training was fairly new from
College Board at that time, they just did trainer of trainers because of this
grant because they needed more trainers to do the vertical team
training…so, you know LAUSD had a strong partnership with the
College Board so I think that there was vertical team training happening
through College Board in LAUSD perhaps in different ways but they
didn’t necessarily take advantage of that when we offered it that to any
grade … obviously because of the culture of LAUSD, they would have
always taken it in-house rather than come and do it with LA County.

The California Department of Education, AP Program Consultant replied to
the same researcher query, as follows:
Students were not prepared for high school from the middle schools... I
know the AVID regional people would also work with the schools to
provide professional development especially on the vertical team and
articulation so that it wasn’t just at a grade level but they were looking
across their subject area but also down or up through the grade levels and
some schools did very well at working down with their middle schools so
that those student left middle school with the skill set ready to enter into
the more advanced courses…but there was very little teaming with
(either) middle schools or colleges…

Judicial/legislative knowledge and stakeholder knowledge of the AP program
applies most importantly to the parents of the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant’s
African-American and Hispanic students, as well as the White/Asian comparison
group of this study.

146
The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) in response to a
researcher query about incentives or rewards that may prove valuable to bring about
the intended outcome of the court and legislative remediation for infringements of
access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students
(Interview Guide Question #12), spoke about the dissemination of AP program and
AP Challenge Grant information to parents. The participant voiced that there was
never a LAUSD-wide approach to parent meetings or parent workshops in regard to
the AP program or the AP Challenge Grant.
When asked if parents were aware of the AP program and the Grant, the
retired coordinator answered in the affirmative, citing “we published our little
newsletter so we did have articles about that but… I think we had meetings or
something but we had all of these general meetings. Some schools did that, but
generally speaking, I did not see anything that was, that big a movement in that short
a time. When asked by the researcher, in a follow-up question, if there was any
deliberate effort to include parents in AP program planning or implementation, or for
informational purposes, the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired)
answered in the negative…(again) ”the Grant was too short a time.”
Stakeholder knowledge in reference to parents as stakeholders, was further
discussed with the College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, in
response to examining incentives or rewards that may facilitate the intended
outcomes of the court and legislative remediation (Interview Guide Question #12).
The participant responded as follows:

147
…an amazing thing that happened, um, and something inspired me, I
can’t remember what the trigger was but I held these meetings and they
were called For Parents Only and it was um, we had one for African-
American families, parents, we had one for Korean, no actually it was
Asian American, the Korean parents had a translator, the other ethnicities
within Asian didn’t need it, they were mostly English speaking and then
we had an evening for parents only, Hispanics…most of that was done in
Spanish…and the universal thing that came out of every single parent
group, every night was... and they would say this almost exactly the same
way… we don’t want “Mickey Mouse” courses… those were the most
rewarding events of my career. You know, to sit and listen to parents
pour out these concerns.

The College Board participant further responded to the value of incentives for
parent participation, particularly for those without foundational knowledge in college
preparation, for the achievement of court ordered equal protection remediation as
evidenced within the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000):
…parents who hadn’t been to college didn’t know the process and it came
as a revelation that their kids could graduate from high school and not be
eligible to go on to college if they hadn’t taken the right courses. And
that was more their education background rather than ethnicity although it
did fall mostly to Hispanic and African-American and um, um,
Vietnamese…

The AVID Senior Project Director, in responding to the researcher question
regarding incentives or rewards that may be valuable in bringing about the intended
outcomes of the court ordered remediation, AP Challenge Grant (Interview Guide
Question #12) answered in reference to AVID:
Parent involvement is mandatory in the AVID program. It’s an
expectation. And there is curriculum provided. Family curriculum.
(Parent) meetings are often times at the high school level, grade level
because…part of the conversation is, we have to talk about financial aid,
and at the middle schools, because we have to start the belief system with
the parents as soon as possible…

148
The AVID participant offered findings that indicated the cultural components
of stakeholder knowledge that played a role in the outcome of achieving the intended
remediation of the AP Challenge Grant:
…there’s (other issues) you know, the coordinators are often heart-broken
because their Latino girls will work so hard and get accepted and then at
the last minute their parents aren’t letting them go live away at college.
So there’s a lot of cultural issues that can be addressed that really end up
helping the student. So there’s a lot of …issues that happen at parent
meetings that are often times pretty specific to the school and to the grade
level and to the population at the school.

Finally, the AVID Senior Project Director recounted a failure of the factor of
legislative and stakeholder knowledge, when describing the lack of information
within the AP Challenge Grant schools, as to the designated budgetary incentives,
regarding parent involvement, stipulated in the remediation:
We try to get people to do meetings four times a year, so parent education
is very important and I’ve witnessed, you know, a lot of those parent
meetings. Um, I didn’t witness anything that happened in particular
because of the AP Challenge Grant.

In summary, knowledge as a factor that effected the achievement of social
change (Figure 1), categorized for this study as judicial/legislative and stakeholder
knowledge of the AP Program, was the foundation upon which the court ordered
remediation for infringement of access and equity was implemented, and
achievement of social change assessed for LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students, as evidenced in AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time.
Participants in this study indicated varied degrees of knowledge ranging from
“no knowledge” to limited information on the background of Daniel v. State of

149
California (1999), to remediate for infringements of access and equity within the
Inglewood Unified District’s AP program for African-American and Hispanic
students. Participants exhibited more knowledge of the AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000), mandated by legislative remediation, and its implementation within the
LAUSD. Although, all participants showed knowledge of and approval for the Fee
Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia), as an incentive for LAUSD-AP African-American
and Hispanic students to have greater access to AP exam participation, there
appeared some confusion as to its status as a companion bill to the AP Challenge
Grant. Participants observed that the number of AP exams taken increased because
of the Fee Waiver. LAUSD-AP Hispanic students were observed to take AP exams
in greater numbers as a result of having more exposure to the goals of the AP
program from greater AP class participation, with AP Spanish as an entry point.
The four participants were knowledgeable about the AP program before,
during and after the AP Challenge Grant, and all participated in on-site monitoring
visits to the AP Challenge Grant high schools and/or participated in teacher training
and evaluations at those schools. Results of the interviews and subsequent coding
found the following problems with the implementation of the AP Challenge Grant
(Appendix J).
Administrators, counselors and teachers lacked information on the criteria of
AP program placement, structure and implementation, and limited knowledge of the
AP Challenge Grant. The LAUSD GATE central office control over the program and
the Grant was largely as an administrative agency that applied for the AP Challenge

150
Grant, and once received, delegated the work of disseminating program information,
in conjunction with the goals of the AP Challenge Grant, to local districts, for
implementation and monitoring at school-sites.
Lack of both AP teacher certification and the LAUSD-AP teacher
participation in stakeholder professional development through AVID and the College
Board, added to the academic skill deficit of the LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students. The truncated three-year term of the Grant was cited as the reason
for lack of academic skill development, and greater performance results from before
and after the Grant; i.e. AP exams passed. The College Board’s voluntary teacher
training for vertical teaming across grade levels and between middle schools and
colleges was rarely utilized at the LAUSD. Researched instructional methods such as
multiple learning-style and multi-cultural techniques to connect instruction to real-
world application were not adapted uniformly across the District; particularly in
support of African-American students.
Knowledge of the AP Challenge Grant was limited to a small staff at the
California Department of Education (CDE), an administrative stakeholder,
eventually declining to one participant. Parents, as stakeholders, were not uniformly
given information on the AP Challenge Grant or the goals of the program to aid their
LAUSD-AP students to successful outcomes in high school and as an incentive to
future academic achievement in higher education.

151
Accountability
The factor of accountability was the third of three factors that effected the
achievement of social change as evidenced by AP exams taken and passed by
African-American and Hispanic students of the 57 original LAUSD-AP Challenge
Grant schools, from before and after the Grant (1999-2006). The factor was
evaluated from the responses of stakeholders, respectively from the California
Department of Education (CDE), the College Board, AVID and a retired LAUSD
participant, all having relevant experience with the AP Challenge Grant, before and
after the Grant (1999-2006), and in relation to judicial/legislative and stakeholder
accountability.
Judicial/Legislative and Stakeholder Accountability (Appendix K). The AP
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) called for an advisory committee that monitored
the progress of the Grant from a school-site vantage point. The California
Department of Education AP Consultant, participant of this study, was a member of
that group. The participant’s response to the researcher query as to the nature of
monitoring at school sites during the duration of the Grant (Interview Guide
Question #9) was as follows, with findings of limited judicial/legislative
accountability and stakeholder accountability.
I know that I headed up several of the teams that went out. Over the
course of two years during the school site visits I think I was in at least a
hundred, maybe a few more and some of those I did follow-up visits later
on… so that I did evidence some monitoring. Schools would initially be
fearful that we were there to take the money away but once they
understood that we were really there to find out what was and wasn’t

152
working and how we could help them, they relaxed considerably and it
usually turned to do a very positive visit.

The California Department of Education participant described the process of
judicial and stakeholder accountability of the AP Challenge Grant monitoring team,
during the time frame of the Grant:
The school visits were generally…several times a year…. the team, the
advisory group would actually talk about the schools and look at the
reports that they submitted, their annual reports and based on those
reports and the information they gave us or on an AVID regional report,
we would then target a school and say it sounds like we need to go visit
the school…so that’s kind of like I said, we wanted to see a variety –
good, bad, and otherwise.

The CDE representative provided findings for judicial and stakeholder
accountability, after the AP Challenge Grant came to an end, as indicated:
When the budget was cut then we had to actually come up with a
justification to do visits one more time because we were in a budget
(crunch).

The researcher asked if the Department of Education had to approach the
state for additional team monitoring funds to address their former AP Challenge
Grant responsibilities, and the CDE participant replied as follows. The link between
stakeholder motivation (commitment) and stakeholder accountability was indicated.
We didn’t have to, it was done internally. We needed money to travel.
We were a committed team.

When the participant was asked by the researcher regarding an opinion on the
court rulings (Daniel v. State of California, 1999 and the subsequent AP Challenge
Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy problems of equity and access for African-
American and Hispanic students (Interview Guide Question #4), the California

153
Department of Education participant answered in this manner to address both
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability:
…the money should have been, really was designed to set up a foundation
– training teachers, changing the culture, the ideas of people, opening,
you know, the mindset so that students could access these classes. Where
in some cases we had a district administration say, “our schools are going
to do this” and schools were really aware of what they were involved in.
In some cases we had schools that wanted to do it but maybe didn’t have
the district support. Or, we had schools that took the funds only to
continue to support the more advanced students already in the courses and
had no intention at all of opening access to other students.

The California Department of Education participant addressed the factors of
judicial/legislative accountability and stakeholder accountability as designated within
the duration of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), in remedying the problems
of access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students, as
followed:
…we usually ended up visiting those (schools) that were targeted as not
fulfilling the intent of the legislation and go see how we could help them
and work with them…

The lack of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability was expressed
by the CDE participant in the recounting of school-site AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000) record keeping, as indicated:
…(generally, the schools did not keep paperwork) these schools were
basically handed the money and we, you know, hoped that they were
moving forward with the intent of the legislation but it didn’t always
happen…I would guess that none of the schools that participated have
any records anymore.

The California Department of Education AP Program Consultant recounted
the problems inherent in the joint legislative/bureaucratic agency collaboration

154
called-for in Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge
Grant (SB 1689, 2000), in providing judicial/legislative and stakeholder
accountability. The findings followed:
There was an advisory group and that consisted of, I mean Jeannie Oaks
was involved with that, from UCLA and we discussed these problems, I
mean, they …where there were real concerns…we didn’t have a lot of
authority to go in and, at least at the time, the administration did not feel
that we had the authority to pull funds from a school that wasn’t
(complying with the intent of the court)…

The CDE participant gave a glimpse as to the workings of judicial/legislative
accountability, in consort with stakeholder accountability from the governor’s office,
and in collaboration with the AP Challenge Grant Advisory Committee. The findings
were as indicated:
…we did have a few schools that returned the funds because they were
not going to play. But, in the initial round, we were to fund 550
comprehensive high schools (in the State of California) and in the initial
round we had about 300 or 400 and the governor said you will go back
out and you will find the 550 schools. So we did a second announcement
and application, we did pull in, at one time we had met that 550, but oh
maybe ten or so schools did drop out.

The College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, answered a
researcher query as to what evidence of AP Challenge Grant monitoring the
participant observed as indicating accountability for the implementation of the court
ordered remediation (Interview Guide Question #9). The response followed: "I think
there were reports that had to be submitted to the GATE office."

155
The researcher asked for an explanation the nature of the reports, and the
College Board participant responded with indications of a link between lack of
stakeholder knowledge and lack of stakeholder accountability:
I couldn’t tell you because, well, see I don’t know if this went to the
GATE office. I can tell you when, cause by that time I was at the Central
Office and I was in High School Programs, I wasn’t in the GATE
office… but some of the things that, and this wasn’t in response to the AP
Challenge Grant, but this was more in response to the District Initiative
saying that we wanted to see more students enrolled in Advanced
Placement particularly African-American and Hispanic/Latino students.
So, we look at the number of sections of courses and the enrollments in
those courses.

The College Board participant indicated a connection between stakeholder
knowledge and stakeholder accountability for a LAUSD program serving AP, but
not as distinguished from the budgetary incentives of the AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000). The findings followed:
At High School Programs we could run those reports and see at each
school which sections of AP were offered and the ethnic breakdown of
enrollment and that’s when, and this came out of High School Programs
not out of the GATE office, but we gave um, we gave incentive money to
schools to lower class size in the science and math courses…for AP.

The researcher asked if the monies described were apart from the auspices of
the AP Challenge Grant. The College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12
Services, responded in the following manner, indicative of a link between
stakeholder knowledge and stakeholder accountability:
You know, I couldn’t tell you whether if it…but I know that’s one of the
things we did through High School Programs.

156
The researcher asked the College Board representative regarding on-site
monitoring observations. The participant responded as follows; indicative of limited
stakeholder accountability:
Well then, through that application process, they had to show where they
were going to grow those two areas, math and science. They were going
to increase the number of sections.

The researcher asked the participant if there was an awareness of monitoring
or follow-up evaluations of the recipients of the monetary incentives. The College
Board representative answered as follows; findings indicative of the lack of
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability: "I don’t know."
The College Board participant answered the researcher’s query regarding
awareness of monitoring of the AP Challenge Grant after the Grant duration, 2004-
2006 (Interview Question Guide #10). The query was answered as indicated, and
showed findings of limited stakeholder accountability:
We continued to offer that incentive to reduce or to increase the number
of teachers, so a school might get, let’s say, an additional section, money
to offer an additional section of AP Calculus or AP Chemistry or
something like that but monitoring?...the monitoring came in when the
request for those funds to increase sections of math and science courses.

The researcher inquired as to the LAUSD department responsible for the
dissemination of the funds, and the College Board participant answered in the
following manner, with an example of the connection between findings that
indicated the lack of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability: "I don’t
know. It might have been you know, general fund money. I’m not sure."

157
The College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, responded to
the researcher query regarding any resistance indicated by administrators or offices
to not comply with equity and access issues (Interview Guide Question #11). The
participant responded as follows; findings indicated both a lack of judicial/legislative
and stakeholder accountability:
To get that money? No, not that I’m aware of. We, you know, they were
late in getting their paperwork done and we’d have to stay on them but I
thing it was just not managing something. It wasn’t an active resistance.
…could be administrative problems…it was just slow.

The College Board participant gave further evidence of administrative
resistance, whether deliberate or due to bureaucratic lethargy, in complying with the
intent of the court’s equal protection, remediative effort. The findings followed:
I mean…the follow-up that we’d need to do at the schools saying, you
want this money, we want to have this extra section, you need to tell us
what section are you going to offer and by whom?

Resistance to the achieved intent of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and
the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy problems of access and equity
for African-American and Hispanic students, came in the lack of state accountability
for the timely distribution of Grant funds to the LAUSD-AP program. The College
Board participant recounted the following findings of judicial/legislative and
stakeholder accountability:
You know another factor was when we would get the allocation of the
money. So, you know how your budget is, even though you’ve got funds
from different sources, you can’t finalize a budget until you know how
much is coming from the state, and so the state was often not letting us
know how much was going to come from them, which would affect the
use of general funds. So, the allocation of state money and how late that

158
information got to the district and then to the schools was a real
impediment.

The participant from the California Department of Education was asked
about having any evidence of monitoring the AP Challenge Grant during the
duration of the Grant (2000-2003), or having any recollection of school-site
accountability for meeting the intent of the Grant. The answer was as follows, an
indication of findings of both judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability: "I
don’t."
The researcher then asked a follow-up question regarding record keeping
before and after the AP Challenge Grant, and if observations of site-team monitoring
visits were kept on-file at the California Department of Education. The CDE
participant responded in the following manner, as findings indicated a lack of
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability in gathering, analysis and
monitoring of data:
I kept my stuff for quite a few years and just recently went through files
and figured that I didn’t need to keep things.

In response to a researcher query regarding stakeholder accountability for
responsible data collection and analysis, the participant was asked about changes in
the participation and performance of the LAUSD-AP high school students by ethnic
group, before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006), as evidenced by AP
exams taken and passed (Interview Guide Question #3). The California Department
of Education participant responded that although the College Board sent annual AP
exam pass-rate information to the CDE, the respondent neither had current access to

159
nor knowledge of the data from before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-
2006). Nor did the participant have information on retrieving that data; findings
indicative of a lack of judicial/legislative data recovery and analysis accountability
and stakeholder knowledge and accountability.
The CDE participant was asked by the researcher if there was an official
regulation stating the duration of time file information was to be kept, especially
regarding legislative mandates. The reply was as follows, with findings indicative of
a lack of both judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability:
Typically, we keep things for five years, for audit purposes and since this
was, the funding ended in 2003, now we’re you know, it’s a space and
then too, the prior administration, a year before he left he went through
and purged a lot of files and some may have been sent to archives. So,
you know—I couldn’t tell you, many files have been tossed.

The researcher followed-up with a query about the state’s responsibility in
monitoring and evaluating the AP Challenge Grant in terms of record keeping;
questioning if it would have aided the participant in recollecting information
regarding the LAUSD school-sites, if the state had taken more responsibility in
monitoring and evaluating the AP Challenge Grant. The California Department of
Education AP Program Consultant responded in the following manner, indicating a
lack of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability:
What they did with their records when they left and what the previous
administrator did with records when he left are out of my control. So,
while I have the institutional knowledge of this, some things I never did
have or had full control of. So, and the other thing is too, that it is the
policy to go through and clean out, like I said, after it’s been six years
after the program was even funded, things would have slowly
disappeared.

160

The participant from the California Department of Education was asked by
the researcher about any observed evidence of the monitoring of the AP program
after the Grant, 2003-2006 (Interview Guide Question #10). The response was as
indicated, as findings showed a breakdown of judicial/legislative and stakeholder
accountability:
(No), the Governor ended the program after year three instead of having it
go through year four. It was not funded for evaluation and, the
administrator (California Department of Education) at that time, did not
do a formal evaluation. We had a report that was written that addressed
the pros and cons and what we had seen during our visits. Um, again,
where schools really bought into the intent of the legislation, they
developed a strong foundation and they kept going and they’ve moved
forward and they kept um building on that.

The CDE participant responded further with findings indicative of a
breakdown of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability at the school-site
level:
The other schools went back to what they were doing, basically. The
instructional focus was on improving California State standardized test
results, high school exit exams and graduation rates…no longer AP
academic rigor and AP exam participation and performance.

Further indications of lack of judicial/legislative accountability were
recounted by the California Department of Education participant, as followed:
They funded what they (had already) authorized…the funding up to
$75,000 per school, but other than that there wasn’t any you know, state
operations money or evaluation money or things like that for us to do that
type of (assessment).

The AVID Senior Project Director responded to a researcher query regarding
any factors of commitment or impediments or resistance by the state, district school

161
or community to monitor the AP Challenge Grant for access and equity compliance
(Interview Guide Question #11). The participant responded as follows, indicating an
example of lack of judicial/legislative accountability and varied stakeholder
accountability.
… it’s difficult. AVID students and there are a lot in the LAUSD area,
because AVID is a big program there, did very well and their AVID
teachers or their AVID coordinators fought to get those students into the
AP classes and typically those are minority students. So, um, the
impediment, I would say again, it was the time factor, um, and that fact
that there wasn’t the funding to do a true evaluation to see really what
was happening and maybe hold schools more accountable.

The California Department of Education AP Consultant offered the following
in relation to impediments found in the compliance of court and legislative directives
to remedy problems of access and equity to LAUSD-AP programs, particularly in the
accountability of professional development and instructional support related to
vertical teaming from the middle school through high school and college, and offered
by the College Board (Interview Guide Question #11). The response was indicative
of inconsistent stakeholder accountability with regard to the LAUSD:
(As to accountability)…depending on district and/or school leadership, if
a school was not unified and you only have high schools, vertical teaming
and bridging that to the middle school for the articulation was
troublesome. The other problem there was if you have several middle
schools that fed into a particular high school. Um, we would encourage
those high schools then to select one, maybe their strongest feeder or
something like that to work with and articulate. There was very little
vertical teaming from high schools to colleges.

When asked the incentives or rewards that may have proven valuable at the
state, district, school and community levels to bring about the intended outcomes of

162
the court action and legislative remediation (Interview Guide #12). The CDE
participant spoke of intrinsic rewards that instill stakeholder accountability, through
service:
…although there’s been many changes (since the AP Challenge Grant),
UCCP (University of California, on-line AP accessibility) is no longer
funded for this, College Board Regional Office is basically a whole new
group of people, um, what was surprising is that there are (were) so many
different agencies involved, that were legislated to be involved and --it
took some time but everybody came together we didn’t have anybody um
outside…I mean, we all, we saw what we were doing, we came together,
we worked to make that happen which I think is very unusual for the, I
mean we had CSU and UC and community colleges and we had the
governor’s office and we had the Office of the Secretary of Education and
then we had the Department, the College Board, AVID, and UCCP, so I
mean we had ten or so different agencies legislated to be involved and
they, we really did come together and overcame barriers that maybe
agencies had had working together.

The CDE participant spoke of incentives or rewards that proved valuable at
the school and community levels. Findings followed which included stakeholder
accountability for the student-stakeholder’s AP academic achievement and future
college and career success:
Also, I think planning, bringing all the players in so that everybody
knows what this really means for students, for the school um not only in
terms of academic success but in supporting students and what it could
possibly mean for, you know, their future beyond high school whether
they go directly into college or to a career.

The California Department of Education participant also spoke of the AP
Challenge Grant’s companion AP Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia) as an
incentive for students to take the AP exams, and as an example of judicial/legislative
accountability:

163
These students, most of them minority students, were not in these classes
(before the Fee Waiver Bill was passed), when it was opened up and with
the financial assistance, we started to see that (test taking) increased.

The researcher asked if another agency took over the responsibility of the
state once the AP Challenge Grant monies were cut. The CDE participant replied as
follows, indicating judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability:
The state continued to support…We also applied to the federal
government every year for funds. And their funds are restricted to
students who meet income guidelines for the free and reduced lunch
program. Our state dollars can be used, which is 185% of the federal
poverty guidelines, our state dollars can be used for students, those
students as well as those whose income is at 200% of the federal poverty
guidelines. So we supported a few more students that way…(in reference
to) the state dollars, they took the AP Challenge Grant dollars away but
they left the Fee Waiver money in place.

The California Department of Education participant elaborated on the role of
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability on the outcome of increased AP
exam participation for African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP students, the
targets of the AP Challenge Grant remediation. The findings are indicated as follows:
These students, most of them minority students, were not in these classes,
when it was opened up and with the financial assistance, yes, we started
to see increased (AP) test taking.

The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) was asked about
incentives or rewards that would prove valuable to bring the intended outcomes of
the judicial decision (Daniel v. State of California, 1999) and the AP Challenge
Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy problems of access and equity to the AP program
for minority students (Interview Guide Question #12). In so doing, the participant
described the responsibility of the local district to adhere to the intent of the

164
remediation efforts to achieve social change, as evidenced by educational change in
AP exams taken, as well as AP exams passed by LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students. The retired coordinator’s responses described the student
accountability necessary to achieve recognized measures of AP exam performance,
as followed with indications of varied stakeholder accountability:
(Before the AP Challenge Grant)…a lot of people didn’t know what a 3
meant, what a 1 meant. I know at Crenshaw this would be, before the
(Grant), we, you know, the staff was glad that the kids just got to take the
test. So they didn’t care if they scored a 1 or a 2. And we thought that
was like, wait a minute, you know, you just want the kids to have the
experience of taking the test? You don’t care if they pass or fail? So
there’s no incentive to study. You know, there was no incentive to like,
okay, I’ve taken the test and okay, now moving on. … I really don’t think
that was even discussed, period… within the district, you know, ‘til the
AP Challenge Grant came…and they got it for free… you have them take
the test for a purpose.

The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) was asked in a
follow-up query, regarding an increase in AP exam taking, a result of the AP
Challenge Grant, and if there was any outcome from this increase, other than a
higher rate of participation. The participant response followed as findings of
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability:
Well, there were two things, you know, we had more kids taking the test
and the scores, some kids may have done very well, but more kids, you
know, taking the test for the first time, may have done very poorly. So
the scores may have gone down, averages and so forth.

The incentive for responsibly applying oneself as a student to the rigorous AP
preparatory coursework in order to receive one extra point toward a GPA for each
AP course taken, and the possibility of obtaining college credit for scoring a 3 or

165
above on a 1-5 scale on AP exams, was incentive enough to motivate AVID students
to meet the requirements of entering an AP program. The AVID participant
responded to the utilization of incentives to bring about intended outcomes of court
and legislative remediation efforts for the achievement of social change. The
following responses were examples of the connection between stakeholder
motivation, stakeholder knowledge and stakeholder accountability:
…if the AVID kids were going to have the same kinds of success that
they’d had in the past, they were going to have to start taking AP classes.
There were a lot of AP teachers at that time that weren’t sure that the
AVID kids could even do that even with the support of AVID. So, that
transition was, you know, it’s still happening because you know we tell
the AVID coordinators that they’re AVID kids should be in AP classes.
…and we say at least one, but you know not every AVID kid is in an AP
class…and if they’re not in an AP class, they’re not going to be
competitively eligible so you know this who issue is very engrained into
the terms of why they’re in AVID to start with.

The AVID Senior Project Director elaborated on the middle school-
stakeholder’s role in the achievement of the court ordered equal protection
remediation, by applying the goal of AP program inclusion to the incentive of a
college acceptance and retention outcome. The findings were indicated as followed:
Well, AP is talked about to all AVID students in the middle school or the
high school because that’s a goal that we have for them and you know the
teachers want the kids to know that that’s what they are working toward.
…so, that’s an expectation for every single student.

The AVID Senior Project Director added final thoughts to the researcher’s
query regarding incentives or rewards that might bring about intended outcomes of
the access and equity remediation efforts of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and
the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). The participant offered these thoughts as

166
an assessment of the Grant (Interview Guide Question #12); of which findings for
the lack of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability for continuing to
monitor and evaluate the AP program (before and after) in accord with the intent of
the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) are indicated in the following AVID
participant discourses:
I just think my final thought is that I wish that we had had the money
longer and I think, I mean, I wanted it to be longer. We had every
expectation that when the AP Challenge Grant was finished, it would get
re-funded. Because we knew it was going to be a long haul…So I think
that our AP coaches would say that they were just starting to feel like
some schools were getting the hang of it and were making progress. And
so it was distressing to us when the work concluded at the time that it did
because we expected to be at it a long time…So, the (academic coaching)
structure that I built, if I knew that we were only going to have three
years, I wouldn’t have spent the money that way…I would have just
delivered professional development and let people come and do what they
wanted to do…

The researcher asked as to how many years the AVID participant would like
to have seen as the duration of the AP Challenge Grant. The participant answered as
indicated. The response and those that followed, in the same AVID participant
discourse, were examples of a lack of judicial/legislative and stakeholder
accountability.
Well, we thought that the initial grant was five years; we thought it was
going to be re-funded at another five years. From the beginning that’s
what we thought was going to happen.

As a follow-up question, the researcher asked the AVID participant the origin
of the impression that the AP Challenge Grant was to be a renewable five-year
program. The participant responded in the following manner:

167
…that was the common perception among the people that were doing the
AP Challenge Grant. Um, I don’t know where it came from.

The researcher asked the California Department of Education participant if
there were any policy changes after the AP Challenge Grant or any effort post the
Grant to continue to remediate for infringements of access and equity for the
LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students (Interview Guide Question
#12). The following responses offered evidence of interest to resuscitate a version of
the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), indicative of both judicial/legislative and
varied stakeholder accountability:
I think it depends on individual units and you know, leadership. Um, one
thing I will say is before College Board closed the Sacramento legislative
office, I was working with them, we wanted to try and do this again, the
Challenge Grant, bring it back. And my focus in what I was hoping we
would do would be to focus with middle school because if you’re not
bringing them out at middle school, they really, its very hard for students,
especially in the math and sciences to take those advanced courses.

The CDE participant elaborated on indications of renewed legislative
accountability for the intended outcome of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000),
as followed:
Um, I have heard rumblings that there may be a legislator, right, not that
(he) wants to do something but it would be for his district and I don’t
know how that will look and don’t know what will happen, especially in
the current financial situation. I don’t know if, like I said, it’s been a
rumbling. I don’t know if it’s going to go any place or not, but there are
some legislators out there that are interested in doing more and having
more of their student population participate.

The LAUSD Local District GATE Coordinator (retired) was asked by the
researcher to respond to the possibility of a revisiting of the legislative remediation

168
for infringements of access and equity, in the revival of the truncated three-year AP
Challenge Grant. The researcher asked of there was any influence the LAUSD had
on state legislators to re-institute the Grant. The retired LAUSD Local District G
participant answered in the following manner, indicating a lack of judicial/legislative
accountability:
No., that I haven’t heard, and I don’t expect that with the way that the
budget is going. Um, we’d be lucky if the categorical programs in the
State of California survive.

The researcher asked the retired coordinator if the categorical reference was
to GATE, the program that oversees AP. The response followed:
…GATE and all the other categoricals. What they want is to make them
optional, and put it as an option to each school district…if they wish to
have gifted or utilize gifted funds so be it, if not, so be it. So the
Advanced Placement and all of that is also thrown into some kind of a
mix and we’re just not sure how that’s going to happen.

The researcher questioned the LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator
(retired) as to how much influence the LAUSD had for changing educational policy,
through the GATE office, upon the state. The respondent answered in the following
manner (Interview Guide Question #12), with findings an indicative of lack of
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability:
None. The only way it would have an impact on the state is if LA Unified
mobilized parents to write letters, you know, to write letters, contact their
local legislators but to hear it come from a district, it falls on deaf ears.

To follow-up on the previous response, the researcher asked the retired
coordinator, if in consort with incentives or rewards to correct access and equity
problems for the LAUSD-AP program, consideration might be made to convening

169
parent education programs, drawing upon community accountability, toward the goal
of social change through political action. The retired LAUSD Local District G
GATE Coordinator, answered as follows with findings that reflected lack of
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability for achieving social change:
If you are saying socially and politically, it would best come from an
advocacy group such as Central Cities (Central Cities Gifted Children’s
Association). The district cannot do that, you know, they will talk about
the moral parts but as far as being some kind of an action group, it would
come from parents, interested people…that’s how it all got started with
these students from whatever high school it was…Inglewood. I wasn’t
sure, yeah. And that’s how, that’s how it grew, and so it has to come
from the community and the students…the legislature has the
responsibility to rewrite legislation if the court’s intent isn’t met.

To further clarify the retired coordinator’s previous response, the researcher
asked as to the incentive for community mobilization. The participant responded as
follows, with findings that indicated lack of both legislative/judicial and stakeholder
accountability:
Equity. It would go back to that because if I would look at the data, I
could almost guess how it would look, and it would look like it did so
many years ago.

In summary, accountability, was the third of three factors (motivation,
knowledge and accountability) that effected the achievement of social change,
following the judicial decision of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the
ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remedy infringements of access and
equity for the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students, and as
exemplified by AP exams taken and passed from before and after the AP Challenge
Grant (1999-2006). Accountability was presented in relation to two categories:

170
judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability. The factor of accountability
enjoined with motivation and knowledge as determinants of social change having
been achieved (Figure 1), as evidenced by AP exams taken and passed LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students from before and after the AP Challenge
Grant (1999-2006).
During the duration of the AP Challenge Grant, the educational experts that
comprised the Advanced Placement Advisory Committee as mandated by the
legislation, were found to be accountable for their responsibilities of monitoring and
evaluating the implementation of the court order and legislative remediation. As
evidenced in the interview findings, their dedication to the intent of the AP
Challenge Grant was purposeful, their observational record keeping supportive of
their observations, with collaborative evaluations utilized for meaningful
implementations, designed to meet the needs of the individual school sites.
Once the program got under way, and from the perspective of the four
participants of this study, the stakeholder team delineated a plan of action, devoid of
direction from the state or its legislature, and the collaborative work of the
stakeholder advisory committee appeared to form a management model for the
restructuring of institutions, in order to achieve social change.
The problems inherent in the AP Challenge Grant to achieve social change
came first as a lack of judicial/legislative accountability to develop district policy
mandates that would have created a central blueprint for the district, school sites and
governmental and private agency stakeholders to follow. However, the lack of

171
uniform stakeholder accountability, resulted in discretionary distribution of funds,
and inconsistent instructional and administrative strategies at the school sites, gross
problems of school site, and governmental and private agency record keeping,
seemingly unapologetic lack of data gathering analysis, as well as program self-
monitoring and evaluation of progress for the achievement of social change for the
intended targets of the court’s intent; African-American and Hispanic students.
The strategy was to blame-the-other-guy. The abrupt end of the AP
Challenge Grant and the loss of promised state funds for a formal two-year
evaluation of the program was the cause, according to interview participants, for the
lack of any formal program evaluation being done over the past six years since the
Grant ended. The six-year length of time since the demise of the legislative
remediation effort was also cited in the findings as being the reason why the CDE’s
files (the CDE representative was a site team leader) were “tossed”; the wholesale
purging of records (some “maybe in the archives”). Findings also indicated that
school sites generally did not keep paperwork, even prior to the end of the Grant.
Stakeholder responsibility for any mismanagement was either explained as a
previous agency administrator’s ineptitude and/or departure, or the legislative
breaking of the promised four year trust.
Stakeholder accountability for AP exam participation and performance was
varied and ranged from exposure to test taking as a measure of success, rather than a
focus on the score, and participants who felt that student should be held accountable
for scoring well, with the incentive of gaining an extra GPA point for taking the

172
course as well as possible college credit for passing the exam with a score of 3 or
above on a 1-5 scale. Most participants felt that the AP Challenge Grant was
responsible for an increased awareness of the AP exam fee waiver, the AP exam, and
the importance if scoring well. Most participants showed limited accountability for
recalling the AP exam participation and performance results of AP Challenge Grant
students before and after the Grant. One participant noted that although the AP
exams taken may have increased, the AP exams passed had decreased during before
and after the Grant, but claimed responsibility for educating students during the
Grant of the importance of scoring well.
In addition, the tangled bureaucratic fiscal nature of the LAUSD and the
judicial/legislative and stakeholder lack of accountability left interview participants
unable to account for the specific sources of AP funding and incentives to school-
sites for AP program initiatives, before, during and after the Grant. Lack of
accountability by the state for allocation of funds and late distribution of those
monies were cited as reasons for the use of general funds for AP Challenge Grant
expenditures. Professional development offered by the College Board and AVID
were voluntary and marginally attended by the LAUSD personnel. Therefore, AP
instructional accountability was low, and unevenly monitored, depending on the
local school district. Local District G was the only district cited for establishing an
AP Teacher Workshop and actively encouraging AVID and vertical teaming, as well
as a system of accountable AP Professional Development. Stakeholder interview
findings showed that two of the four participants had the impression the Grant would

173
be renewable and scheduled for a longer period, perhaps five years. Neither of those
participants could cite their source for this information. Findings from two of the
four interview participants mentioned the possibility of a rejuvenated AP Challenge
Grant; one possibly introduced by a legislator for his district. One interview
participant stated that it was the legislature’s responsibility to rewrite legislation that
did not fulfill its intent. The interview participant suggested a letter writing
campaign, whereby public mobilization would once again move the legislature to
action.
Consequences
The findings for the factors of motivation, knowledge and accountability
effecting social change, following the judicial decision, Daniel v. State of California
(1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to remedy problems of
access and equity for African-American and Hispanic students within the LAUSD-
AP programs over time, indicated by educational change in AP exams taken and
passed over time, showed that no social change had occurred.
The consequence of social change not having been achieved following court
ordered equal protection remediation, as defined in Daniel and the AP Challenge
Grant, generated from the three factors of this study, motivation, knowledge and
accountability; often exhibited as interconnected. The problem of courts effecting
significant social change within complex bureaucratic structures is the product of
human interactions, manifested as issues that become systemic. If institutional
restructuring, in the form of a judicial approach of legislative/bureaucratic

174
collaboration, is at the core of achieving social change, stakeholder resistance,
inclusive of the legislative agency charged with the implementation and monitoring
of the judicial decision, would be meliorated by relevant and meaningful incentives.
The absence of legislative initiated, District mandates, offering stakeholders a
blueprint for implementation and monitoring, lack of judicial/legislative oversight of
the Grant, and the absence of commitment to the evaluation of the equal protection
remediation after the Grant’s budget-cut induced, premature end, evidenced
judicial/legislative culpability for the consequence of the intent of the court not
having been met.
The relevant incentive for elected officials was the support of their
constituents. Therefore, when the intent of the court order was not achieved, it was
the responsibility of the electorate to demand a judicial/legislative rewrite, which
would include relevant stakeholder incentives for carrying-out the legislative
mandate. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the AP Challenge Grant stakeholders
to hold their elected representatives accountable.
The budgetary incentives provided in the AP Challenge Grant failed to
overcome prevailing individual belief systems and therefore, lack of stakeholder
motivation and accountability for the implementation of the remediation effort.
Knowledge of the Grant was not disseminated with a purposeful connection to the
intent of the court, as benefiting both stakeholder subjects of the equal protection
remediation, and the community stakeholders-at-large. Therefore, the human element
of resistance, both active and passive, magnified a systemic problem within the

175
complex institutional structure of the LAUSD-AP program. The failure of the courts
to successfully restructure incentives prevented the scope and importance of Daniel
v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to be
realized.
The following observations were made regarding the role of stakeholders in
implementing the AP Challenge Grant and in reference to the three factors of this
study. The findings clearly indicated the dependency of the courts on the action of
stakeholders. In application of the legislative/bureaucratic agency, risk management
approach to remediating equal protection infringements within complex structures,
such as the public school system. The AP Challenge Grant utilized this approach to
lessen and manage the risk of non-compliance with the AP equal protection judicial
decision, hindering African-American and Hispanic students’ ability to compete for
placement within institutions of higher learning and therefore, inhibiting the
intellectual, scientific and moral growth of minority students (California
Constitution, Article IX, Section I).
The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) related the
problems inherent with the lack of legislative oversight after the AP Challenge Grant
(SB 1689, 2000) was initiated within the LAUSD-programs. The response indicated
a frustration with the legislature’s approach to remediating the equal protection
infringements, as stipulated by the court, in a settlement agreement to be carried-out
by stakeholders; therefore, the problems inherent when the intransigence of some
may prevent the positive consequence of the social change goal, for all (California

176
Department of Education, 2002). In addition, the response indicated the belief that
the legislature was not forthright in its dedication to follow-through in the fulfillment
of the court’s intent.
The findings below reflected the factor of motivation, and the consequence of
social change not being achieved, as a result of the judicial decision and legislative
remediation to remedy equal protection infringements for LAUSD-AP African-
American and Hispanic students, over time. The retired coordinator responded as
follows:
…what we have learned from legislatures is that once the ruling goes out,
they have other things to deal with and they will let whomever that the
rule is intended for to carry on. In other words, once we got the ruling
out, we got the legislation passed, it’s up to individual school districts or
whomever to follow-through…everything stops at the District. …What
happened afterwards, it’s just like any other legislation, when the money
and time is up, it’s up… I just don’t see the focus on education like it
should be.

The AVID Senior Project Director described problems inherent in the
truncated three-year duration of the four-year Grant; a limitation placed by the state
as stakeholder, and the consequences of that limitation to the full assemblage of
stakeholders in the development of the remediation, as intended by the court.
In addition, the AVID participant reflected on the consequences of the
legislature (judicial/legislative commitment) not to have adopted district equity
policies to eliminate implementation problems, matching the court’s intent; and
differences in stakeholder commitment, preventing issues of access and equity to be
handled uniformly for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students. The

177
following findings were examples of the consequences that effected the achievement
of social change:
I think it (AP Challenge Grant) needed to be much longer…and if you
ended up with district equity policies then that would have left something
in place that had been created because there was a lot of conversation and
reflection within each community about what that looked like. Those are
not easy policies to put in place at sites or at districts. So, if the
legislation had mandated that, I believe that that alone could have made a
significant difference…Board approved…(so that) you have a district
expectation about equity and then it cannot be decided by individual
counselors and teachers. Decided by the community.

The consequences of the belief systems of varying expectations for LAUSD-
AP students, based on ethnicity, by the stakeholders within the educational system
and by the student and parent stakeholders, effected the lack of social change in the
aftermath of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). The College Board Senior
Education Manager, K-12 Services, offered this consequential finding:
I think it all goes to beliefs and what teachers, administrators, counselors
believe students can accomplish, can achieve. And, I think there’s just
some deep-rooted beliefs that um kids coming from poverty have so few
experiences that they may not be capable of handling this level of
curriculum.

The California Department of Education AP Consultant offered the following
as evidence of how the beliefs of stakeholders regarding service to minorities, and
lack of support from the very agency (LAUSD) deemed by the legislature to
implement and monitor the AP Challenge Grant, influence the delivery of
educational resources, and therefore, acquisition of knowledge. The consequence of
access and equity issues existing after legislative remediation, was a matter of
stakeholder accountability. The following was an example of the consequence of

178
social change not being achieved, related to the three factors of motivation,
knowledge and accountability. The consequential findings also questioned the
efficacy of the legislative/bureaucratic agency collaborative approach to remediating
infringements of equal protection, when the mitigating factors were considered.
Additionally, the CDE participant’s comments that follow indicated that the
budgetary incentives set-forth in the legislative remediation of the AP Challenge
Grant (SB 1689, 2000) were misapplied; an indication that the court failed to give
sufficient attention to the appropriation, implementation and monitoring of those
incentives:
…the money should have been, really was designed to set up a
foundation…training teachers, changing the culture, the ideas of people,
opening, you know, the mindset so that students could access these
classes. Where in some cases we had a district administration say, “our
schools are going to do this” and schools were really aware of what they
were involved in. In some cases we had schools that wanted to do it but
maybe didn’t have the district support. Or, we had schools that took the
funds only to continue to support the more advanced students already in
the courses and had no intention at all of opening access to other students.

The AVID participant related the following finding for the factor of
motivation, and used an example of stakeholder resistance, District authority, as
indication of the consequence of social change not being achieved:
I think (the central office, LAUSD District GATE Coordinator) wrote…
(the AP Grant for the LAUSD)…I don’t even know if she asked the sites
if they wanted to be included….I think she just wrote it, because I do
think some schools were included that never would have chosen to be
included… so the resistance is always in the process not in the thing itself
and so the resistance was about the communication that happened upfront
and the decision-making process about how they became involved in the
grant… and that just kind of stayed with some people and overshadowed
the work…

179

The LAUSD Local District GATE Coordinator (retired) recounted the
research findings of Donna Ford, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University, on the personal
expectations of academic achievement held by many African-American students, and
reflective of a system of beliefs, the consequence of which is the lack of social
change to be achieved:
There is a pervasive attitude about, and we’ve seen all the data, that if you
show you’re intelligent, than you’re acting white…I was talking to Donna
Ford at Vanderbilt University about her recent data and research and
we’ve been talking for twenty years and nothing has changed.

The consequence of the failure of social change to be achieved, can also be
found in the lack of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to highlight parent
articulation and dissemination of information to families, regarding the AP
program’s purpose as a dual credit college preparatory program, and student
expectations in accordance with that design: rigorous academic curriculum, AP exam
participation and performance, and college awareness as an incentive to acceptance
and retention in institutions of higher learning, i.e. future academic and career
success. The Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) offered this explanation of
parent outreach, during the AP Challenge Grant. The following finding represented
the factor of knowledge, and suggested a lack of purposeful inclusion of parents as
stakeholders in the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) remediation, with lack of
social change as a consequence:

180
…we published our little newsletter…I think we had meetings or
something but we had all of these general meetings. Some schools did
that, but generally speaking, I did not see anything that was, that big a
movement in that short a time.

The College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, also offered
findings based on the factor of knowledge, that indicated lack of social change for
remediating infringements of access and equity for LAUSD-AP minority students.
The findings addressed the consequences that occurred when parents were not
purposefully engaged in the AP Challenge Grant program:
…parents who hadn’t been to college didn’t know the process and it came
as a revelation that their kids could graduate from high school and not be
eligible to go on to college if they hadn’t taken the right courses. And
that was more their education background rather than ethnicity although it
did fall mostly to Hispanic and African-American and um, um,
Vietnamese…

Positive consequences from the AP Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia),
companion bill to the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), were discussed by the
interview participants of this study. In general, the perception was that greater AP
exam participation (AP exams taken) and a greater number of students passing the
AP exam with a score of 3 or above on a 1-5 scale, from before and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006), indicated a successful legislative remediation effort
for African-American and Hispanic students, regarding access and equity issues.
However, there were varying views on the nature of the AP exam taking
increase and the perceived AP exam passage rate for the LAUSD-AP minority
students. The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) participant
addressed the positive consequences of the AP Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia)

181
on LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic student AP exam participation,
while offering a rationale for the perceived lower AP exam performance rate. In the
following interview responses, the retired coordinator suggested that the lack of
stakeholder accountability for the goal of purposeful AP exam outcomes, provided
the consequential findings that social change was not achieved.
(Before the AP Challenge Grant)…a lot of people didn’t know what a 3
meant, what a 1 meant. I know at Crenshaw this would be, before the
(Grant), we, you know, the staff was glad that the kids just got to take the
test. So they didn’t care if they scored a 1 or a 2. And we thought that
was like, wait a minute, you know, you just want the kids to have the
experience of taking the test? You don’t care if they pass or fail? So
there’s no incentive to study. You know, there was no incentive to like,
okay, I’ve taken the test and okay, now moving on… I really don’t think
that was even discussed, period… within the district, you know, ‘til the
AP Challenge Grant came…and they got it for free… you have them take
the test for a purpose.

The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) further spoke to
the factor of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability, and its effect on the
increase in AP exam taking and a decrease in AP exams passed over time, as a result
of the AP Challenge Grant. Additional findings of the effect of accountability on the
consequence of social change not having been achieved were indicated as follows:
Well, there were two things, you know, we had more kids taking the test
and the scores, some kids may have done very well, but more kids, you
know, taking the test for the first time, may have done very poorly. So
the scores may have gone down, averages and so forth.

The California Department of Education, AP Educational Program
Consultant, showed findings that effected the consequence that social change was

182
not demonstrated through AP exams taken and passed, over time, by LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students.
The findings that AP exam participation and performance were deliberately
discouraged, negates the perceptions of stakeholders as to the social change achieved
by the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students from before and after
the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006). In general, stakeholders perceived an increase
in AP exams taken over time as a result of the Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia), a
positive example of a purposeful incentive, and a decrease in AP exams passed. The
following findings, as indicated from the CDE participant’s response, was evidence
that active resistance within the factor of motivation, resulted in the lack of the
achievement of social change:
…we also do a real disservice when students have taken an AP class and
they’re told not to take the exam because they won’t “pass” the
exam…(also) at the time we did know that students did take the courses
but they didn’t want to hurt their GPA’s so they didn’t take the AP exams.
Head counselors tell them that too (head counselors advise AP students
not to take the AP exam).

The California Department of Education participant elaborated on the
position that as a consequence of the factor of motivation, social change had not been
achieved:
At the time, we had a very strong commitment both from the College
Board, Western Regional Office, and this department and we continue to
say this, that it’s not pass/fail; it is an indicator of student performance at
a particular point in time. And there are factors that can occur that would
cause a student a 2 instead of a 3 on an exam. Maybe they were just made
homeless, there was a drive-by shooting…(outside factors)

183
The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator (retired) addressed the
consequence of a failure to effect social change by the judicial decision Daniel v.
State of California (1999) and the legislative remediation, AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000); the inability of the court to provide sufficient knowledge of the intent of
the Grant, and incentives that would link purpose of the remediation to relevant
benefits for both individual and community stakeholders. The remolding of belief
systems in support of the institutional restructuring that would remediate for
infringements of access and equity did not occur for the African-American and
Hispanic LAUSD-AP students of the court’s intent. Consequently, social change did
not occur and stakeholder faith in the system deteriorated,
…we have two factors going on. We have a large drop-out rate, even for
the advanced kids. We have a definite issue with, you know, the very
bright kids dropping out or moving out. Um, and this is something that
is, that was starting then but is more so now. Our study is that a lot of
African-American kids are getting outnumbered at certain schools so they
are moving out. They are moving out to different parts of Los Angeles
County and beyond. Or they are moving back to the South. The charter
schools are just loaded with our very bright students…

The findings indicated that there was a discernable flight from white and
Asian ethnicities from the LAUSD-AP program, as the College Board participant
spoke to the factor of motivation as having effected the lack of achievement of social
change, in relating a finding on the flight of white and Asian students from the
original 57 LAUSD-AP schools. Hamilton Senior High School was given as an
example, whereby there was evidence of “the flight of wealthier white students away
from the school…changing addresses to be able to move to another school rather

184
than come to Hamilton…in spite of the fact that whites were disproportionately
placed in AP classes in relation to their population at the school.” When the AP
Challenge Grant failed to produce social change for the targeted minorities of the
remediation effort, it failed to produce a quality product for all students of the
LAUSD-AP program, as a consequence.
The California Department of Education participant’s findings on the
disparity between the LAUSD-AP African-American vs. Hispanic program
demographics is a consequence of access and equity infringements not having been
addressed by the AP Challenge Grant. The participant responded to a researcher
query about AP Spanish language classes offered as incentive for Hispanic students
to increase AP Class enrollment and an inquiry as to what incentives were in place
for African-American students: “…there wasn’t anything specifically identified for
the African-American population… there was an encouragement of (Hispanic)
students to come through AP…and also AVID would tend,…you find more Latino
students in AVID classrooms…I mean this persists today, you still see when you
look at the AP data, more Latino students taking the (AP) courses and the exams
than African-American….I think it represents a larger population than our African-
American population.”
In addressing the consequence of re-segregation of the LAUSD-AP program
the College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services offered the following
findings as evidence of this re-segregation within the LAUSD magnet schools; both
of the schools mentioned were of the original 57 AP Challenge Grant high schools:

185
King-Drew Medical Magnet is an interesting school because it was the
only one, at least at that time when I was there…that had more African-
American students than Hispanic…at that time…Bravo was heavily
Hispanic/Latino, King-Drew similar programs, you know, with a focus
towards medicine, it was heavily African-American. Um, and part of that
is where they’re placed but there’s also again that expectation….These
were both magnet schools and, you know, there are overt and covert, and
I think the convert message was if you are African-American you go to
King-Drew, if you’re Hispanic, you’re Bravo. You will never find that
written anyplace but when you look at the population, why would there
be so many students of one ethnicity at each of those schools?

Consequences for the legislature to not have a mandated policy for
monitoring and accountability, as to disbursement of funds, record keeping and
program oversight, led to the failure of the AP Challenge Grant to achieve social
change; especially in the aborted three-year time frame, which negated promised
funds for an independent evaluation of the program, after two years of
implementation. Findings in this study addressed the breakdown of the model of
judicial reform that featured a restructuring of institutions through administrative
agency collaboration, in consort with the legislature to achieve social change.
The College Board Senior Education Manager, K-12, shared recollections of
AP Challenge Grant monitoring and knowledge of the appropriate LAUSD offices
for data collection and analysis. The response indicated that failure of the
achievement of social change, in part a consequence of a legislative and
bureaucratic, stakeholder confusion of fund appropriation, also involved the
consequences of overlapping department authority and responsibilities for the AP
program before, during and after the AP Challenge Grant.

186
In cases as the one described below, the consequences of not monitoring the
implementation of funds and services led to a skewed assessment of the effect of the
AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to solely remediate for infringements of access
and equity as ordered by the court. The report of monetary incentives given to
LAUSD-AP schools for achievement in math and science class size reductions may
have generated some positive achievement within the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant
period, but was not attributable to achievement generated by the budgetary
incentives of the Grant. The following finding, as indicated by the College Board
participant, was an example of the factor of accountability, the consequence of which
was lack of achievement of social change.
I think those reports were submitted to the GATE office…I couldn’t tell
you (where the reports went) …I don’t know if this went to the GATE
office…by that time I was at the Central Office and I was in High School
Programs… but some of the things (were) more in response to the District
Initiative saying that we wanted to see more students enrolled in
Advanced Placement particularly African-American and Hispanic/Latino
students. So, we look at the number of sections of courses and the
enrollments in those courses… this came out of High School Programs
not out of the GATE office…we gave incentive money to schools to
lower class size in the science and math courses…for AP.

Consequences of the lack of judicial/legislative accountability for oversight
and lack of stakeholder knowledge and accountability of the monitoring and
evaluation of the program, were evidenced in the following findings from the
responses of the College Board stakeholder/participant, who had little recollection of
monitoring or follow up on monies offered as incentives for AP course improvement,
stating, “…the monitoring came in when the request for those funds to increase

187
sections of math and science courses (came in)….but monitoring?” The participant
had no recollection of the LAUSD department responsible for the distribution of
those AP funds; “…I don’t know. It might have been you know, general fund
money. I’m not sure.”
The consequence of the abrupt halt to the AP Challenge Grant and the
promised independent evaluation after the first two years of implementation, was the
inability of the court and legislature to achieve social change. The following were
examples of the factor of accountability that hindered the remediation for
infringements of equal protection within the LAUSD-AP program and for African-
American and Hispanic students. The findings were from the interview responses of
the California Department of Education participant. The consequential findings
reflected the effect of the factor of accountability on the achievement of social
change:
…the Governor ended the program after year three instead of having it go
through year four. It was not funded for evaluation and, the administrator
(California Department of Education) at that time, did not do a formal
evaluation. We had a report that was written that addressed the pros and
cons and what we had seen during our visits. Um, again, where schools
really bought into the intent of the legislation, they developed a strong
foundation and they kept going and they’ve moved forward and they kept
um building on that…The other schools went back to what they were
doing, basically. The instructional focus was on improving California
State standardized test results, high school exit exams and graduation
rates…no longer AP academic rigor and AP exam participation and
performance.

Lack of judicial/legislative accountability in the failure of the legislature to
follow-through with the funding of a promised independent evaluation of the AP

188
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), after the Grant fell victim to state budget cuts, was
noted by the California Education Department participant as followed:
They funded what they (had already) authorized…the funding up to
$75,000 per school, but other than that there wasn’t any you know, state
operations money or evaluation money or things like that for us to do that
type of (assessment).

The California Department of Education AP Education Program Consultant
further indicated a lack of judicial/legislative and stakeholder accountability in
reference to a query regarding the absence of monitoring records at-hand to
accurately review AP Challenge Grant school-site data from before and after the
Grant (1999-2006). The findings indicated that as a result of the factor of
accountability, the consequence was the failure of social change to be achieved:
What they did with their records when they left and what the previous
administrator did with records when he left are out of my control. So,
while I have the institutional knowledge of this, some things I never did
have or had full control of. So, and the other thing is too, that it is the
policy to go through and clean out, like I said, after it’s been six years
after the program was even funded, things would have slowly
disappeared.

Consequences for social change not having been achieved, as a result of
Daniel v. State of California (1999), and the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000),
to remedy infringements of access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students over time, effected by three factors, motivation, knowledge and
accountability, appeared to have created a stakeholder momentum for a revival of the
AP Challenge Grant. The California Department of Education participant related the
first of two findings as indicated:

189
Um, I have heard rumblings that there may be a legislator, right, not that
(he) wants to do something but it would be for his district and I don’t
know how that will look and don’t know what will happen, especially in
the current financial situation. I don’t know if, like I said, it’s been a
rumbling. I don’t know if it’s going to go any place or not, but there are
some legislators out there that are interested in doing more and having
more of their student population participate.

The LAUSD Local District G GATE Coordinator, based on the consequence
of social change that was not achieved, addressed the issue of a renewed effort to
mobilize for a legislative rewrite of the AP Challenge Grant legislation; changing
incentives to meet local needs, in order to correct the failure of the court intended
remediation.
…it would best come from an advocacy group such as Central Cities
(Central Cities Gifted Children’s Association). The district cannot do
that, you know, they will talk about the moral parts but as far as being
some kind of an action group, it would come from parents, interested
people…that’s how it all got started with these students from whatever
high school it was…Inglewood. I wasn’t sure, yeah. And that’s how,
that’s how it grew, and so it has to come from the community and the
students…the legislature has the responsibility to re-write legislation if
the court’s intent isn’t met.

The Senior Education Manager, K-12 Services, College Board provided the
following finding which accounts for the factor of knowledge effecting the
consequence of social change not to be achieved:
I don’t know about the lawsuit that led to it, I just know of the Challenge
Grant and um how that affected and played out at schools and districts.
So, I don’t know the history of it.

Perhaps, before a mobilization for a rejuvenated AP Challenge Grant begins,
the stakeholders of the original legislative remediation should study the history of the

190
original court case, Daniel v. State of California (1999), and learn how “it all got
started.”
However, the findings suggested that it was a failure of the court and the
legislative/bureaucratic agency risk management approach to achieving social
change, not to have provided a comprehensive dissemination of information and
opportunity for timely stakeholder articulation that would have facilitated the
implementation and monitoring of the Grant, and generated input as to meaningful
and relevant incentives.
Knowing how “it all got started”, the purpose of the remediation, would have
clarified the benefit of stakeholder incentives in-place, and the consequences of
social change not having been achieved through both passive and active stakeholder
resistance. Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing legislative
remediation, AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), did not meet the standards of the
risk management principle in its adaptation of the judicial approach to a
legislative/bureaucratic agency collaboration to diffuse inequities within the
complexities of the LAUSD-AP program. Social change, evidenced as educational
change, was not achieved. Therefore, given the stakeholder dependence of the court,
the court’s failure to stipulate relevant stakeholder incentives, contributed to a
breakdown of its implementation, and therefore, the outcome of the judicial decision;
evidenced by factors of motivation, knowledge and accountability.

191
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Quantitative Discussion
This study determined the factors that effect judicial decisions as exemplified
in the California State Superior Court case Daniel v. State of California (1999) and
the ensuing Advanced Placement (AP) Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to remedy
problems of educational access and equity, as indicated in educational change in AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and Hispanic
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
This study examined the years before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(1999-2006) within the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools to
determine factors that impacted the courts in achieving social change. LAUSD-AP
data were disaggregated by ethnicity to assess the achievement of educational change
of the African-American and Hispanic students, who were primary targets of the
remediation. The AP Challenge Grant was a $41,250,000 program that fell victim to
state budget cuts after three years of a four-year implementation (California
Department of Education, 2002). In order to lesson the enormity of the loss of the
program before it got off the ground, stakeholders reasoned that most of the monies
had been distributed for implementation in the first two years of the Grant (Heinrich,
2004).
The AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) required that districts were to
design a plan that included an increase in the number of students participating in the

192
end-of-year AP exams (California Department of Education, 2002). This study
showed that social change, as exemplified by educational change in the percentage of
AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time, before and after the Grant, was not
achieved as a result of the judicial decisions to remediate for infringements of access
and equity. It was important to study the legislative outcomes of the court order,
Daniel v. State of California (1999), for statistical and practical significant change,
because it highlighted the state court’s failure, as the sole adjudicator in matters of
equal protection, to oversee the legislative implementation and monitoring of its
decision by local and state government officials; therefore, to effect significant social
change (Metzler, 2002).
Although, a brief was never filed and there was never a published court
decision (Eliasberg, 2008), this study was also of import, because the settlement
agreement by mutual resolution and the subsequent legislation appeared to have been
a model for later court decisions, as the ACLU lawyers had hoped when they filed
the case (ACLU, 1999).
As subsequent judicial decisions have indicated, since Daniel, the courts have
had a propensity for handling infringements of educational access and equity by
settlement agreement followed by legislative remediation (Williams v. State of
California, 2000; Campaign for Fiscal Equity v, State (N.Y) (App.Div 1
st
, Dept.,
2002); Rodriguez v. LAUSD (2003). It was, therefore, of importance to assess the
outcomes of Daniel and the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), as evidenced in
the quantitative evaluation of the percentage of AP exams taken and passed, before

193
and after the Grant (treatment) by LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic
students, the subjects of the remediative effort. It was additionally important to
analyze the findings as applied to the White/Asian, comparison group, to observe
whether or not the AP Challenge Grant had the same outcomes for students within
the LAUSD-AP program, but not of the targeted ethnicity.
When the Grant ceased to exist, there were neither stakeholder commitments
to a vigilant monitoring of court orders (California Department of Education, 2002),
nor efforts to develop creative strategies to carry out the intent of the Grant.
Moreover, there was no political movement or apparent will to advocate for judicial
and legislative accountability, as to the remediative mandates that were never
fulfilled. This reality was particularly grievous for the LAUSD-AP African-
American students, for whom the promise of change seemed to have ended in the
years following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr, when a fragmented African-
American political leadership fell short of monitoring existing anti-discrimination
law (Baldwin et al., 2002). Results of the quantitative study showed no evidence of
change in the participation and performance of LAUSD-AP African-American
students, as evidenced by the percentage of AP exams taken and passed, and as a
result of the remediative equal protection efforts of the court and legislature. When
the participation and performance of African-American students was compared with
both the Hispanic group and the White/Asian, comparison group, the African-
Americans fell below both, as applied to the percentage of AP exams taken and
passed before and after the Grant remediation, 1999-2006.

194
With the machinations of change halted, and the remediation never taking
hold, the outcome of a failed policy and the lack of judicial potency to deliver social
change, contributed to a high-ability student flight from the LAUSD-AP program
(Table 1) and the reality of its ongoing re-segregation (Ogletree, 2005).
It should be noted that the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and
Assessment Division, reported that AP exam data for individual high schools were
not disaggregated by ethnicity prior to 1999, the year that the ACLU of Southern
California filed Daniel v. State of California. Therefore, this study examines before
and after the Grant (1999-2006). The lack of ethnic disagreggation of AP exam data,
not only by whole District, but by individual schools, masks the enormity of equal
protection infringements, and leaves the District open to anti-discrimination lawsuits;
as the LAUSD learned from Daniel v. State of California (1999), when their
neighbors in Inglewood, California, took legal action against the city’s school district
for denial of access and equity within AP programs (ACLU Complaint, 1999).
It was important to study the outcomes of judicial decisions of educational
access and equity to define the reality of social change, more than fifty years after
Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954). The import of the “rights movement” of
the 1960’s and 1970’s and the impact on present day cooperative efforts between the
courts, the legislatures and social, political and economic bureaucracies, to replace
the top-down approach of the civil rights era courts, (Sunstein, 1993, pp. 320-322),
needs to have a fresh assessment. This study indicated that indeed, the LAUSD-AP
program has been in the process of re-segregation, a fear of those who warned that

195
de-segregation would never have occurred without freedom from the obstacles that
prevent the courts and legislatures from exacting social change (Hochschild, 1984).
Moreover, it is the importance of this study that the legal theory, defined and
examined, is inextricably linked to education theory in the implementation and
monitoring programs that serve underrepresented minorities, subject to court ordered
remediation. It is the importance of this study that the impetus to provide a rigorous
and academically dual credit program (Fincher-Ford, 1997) as a competitive
foundation for the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students, be not only
driven by court order, but by researched, instructional pedagogy, that is culturally
relevant, academically accelerated, and monitored to prepare students of high ability
with the necessary skills to be retained and graduated from institutions of higher
learning (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002).
The LAUSD-AP Hispanic students had one statistically significant gain in
the percentage of AP exams taken as a result of the Grant; albeit two changes in
decline in both statistical and practical measures assessing AP exams passed as a
result of the Grant (Tables 3 & 5). LAUSD-AP data supports the belief that
culturally relevant coursework, academically accelerated, has had a positive effect on
Hispanic students, when school-site policies encouraged the sampling of more AP
courses, through AP Spanish language introduction; therefore, an increase in AP
course exams taken (LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003).
In addition, the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and
Assessment Division reported that its data tabulations for AP exams taken were

196
based on raw numbers for exams taken; not numbers of AP exams taken by each
individual student. The data in this study was ethnically disaggregated by school-site.
Therefore, if one Hispanic student took three exams, that number would be tabulated
as three exams for Hispanics taken at the school-site. The percentage of AP exams
taken over time would be inflated or misleading, at best.
It was also the importance of this study to appreciate the cooperative effort it
requires for state education policy makers and officials, district and school-site
coordinators, counselors, and teachers, as well as private institutional college
preparatory agencies and members of the higher education community, to be vigilant
in evaluating significant statistical outcomes of AP exam participation and
performance, for disparities when disaggregated by ethnicity (Orfield & Lee, 2004).
If discovered, those disparities should be addressed with researched and honest
evaluations of the existing expectations and beliefs of all stakeholders, in relation to
the rigors and demands of advanced placement for high ability minority students. In
support of the importance of the achievement of equity through access to a quality
AP program, as defined by its accelerated instructional rigor and college
preparatory/life-skill mentoring, the California State Constitution, Article IX,
Section I, stipulates that it is the right of students for intellectual, scientific and moral
development (ACLU, Complaint, Daniel v. State of California, 1999).

197
AP Exam Participation and Performance for LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic Students Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
This study observed the time series, before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(treatment), to assess the percentage of AP exams taken and the percentage of AP
exams passed (1999-2006) for the LAUSD-AP African-American, Hispanic and
White/Asian, comparison group, students within the original 57 LAUSD-AP
Challenge Grant schools.
Results of the quantitative analysis indicated that percentages of changes over
time, before and after the Grant treatment, analyzed for statistical and practical
significance, were generally limited in scope, both by ethnicity and the degree of
change for those students who did achieve a measure of percentage gain or
percentage loss in either or both of AP exams taken or AP exams passed (Tables 2-
7). This held true for the LAUSD-AP African-American, Hispanic, and
White/Asian, comparison group, students of this study. Hispanic students were
shown to have taken more AP exams as a result of the Grant, but in only one
statistical measure (the mean difference before and after the treatment). Additionally
the Hispanic students passed fewer AP exams after the Grant than before, using the
same measure. The White/Asian comparison group, showed a decrease in the
number of AP exams taken as a result of the Grant, also in only the aforementioned
measure. The Grant treatment was shown to have no statistical or practical
significance for the African-American group, and practical significance for the
Hispanic group alone, when measured for the effect the Grant as a decrease in AP

198
exams passed, and no practical significance of change as a result of the Grant for the
White/Asian, comparison group (Tables 2-7).
Statistical significance was indicated between the ethnic groups, and when
the ethnic groups were compared to each other in participation and performance,
before and after the Grant (Tables 8-11).
Before the Grant, statistically significant results showed that both the
Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison group, took more AP exams than the
African-American students. There was no statistically significant difference between
the Hispanic and White/Asian student groups before the Grant, but after the Grant
more Hispanics took AP exams than did the White/Asian, comparison group.
Before and after the Grant, results indicated a statistical significance in more
Hispanics and White/Asian, comparison group, students passing the AP exams than
did African-Americans. The Hispanic group passed more AP exams than the
White/Asian, comparison group, before the Grant, but there was no statistically
significant difference in their AP pass rate after the Grant. The findings corroborated
those of the other measures.
Cross-tab procedures conducted on the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge
Grant schools showed results of statistically significant improvement or decline as a
result of the Grant (treatment) in participation and performance, evidenced by AP
exams taken and AP exams passed over time, and disaggregated by ethnicity
(Tables12-15; Appendices A-C & G). Results for individual schools corresponded

199
with the significant statistical and practical findings by ethnicity, and in ethnic
comparisons with each other and between groups (Tables 8-11).
The African-American and Hispanic students, the intended targets of the
court ruling and legislative remediation, were also the largest combined beneficiary
group of the AP Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia); companion bill to the AP
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), which provided grants to school districts for
financial assistance to low-income students desirous of taking the AP exam (LAUSD
Memorandum BP-23, 2001). It would then be reasonable to deduce that AP exam
participation (AP exams taken) would rise for African-American and Hispanic
students, and the LAUSD raw numbers for AP exams taken, would increase over the
course of this time series, before and after the AP Challenge Grant, 1999-2006. In
fact, that was precisely the data analysis that LAUSD published. It bears repeating
that the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) required an increase in AP exams for
students, albeit not specifying a statistical increase over time (California Department
of Education, 2002). Although, a lack of increase in AP exams taken for African-
Americans and Puerto Rican students, and decreases in mean scores for AP exams
passed by American-Indian, Asian and Puerto Rican students during this time series
were listed as footnotes in the District documents, the prevailing sense was that as a
result of the Grant and AP fee waivers, the number of AP exams taken increased, as
the AP pass rate went down. In reference to the AP exam outcome, as stated, a
College Board official noted that federal, state and local officials should be held

200
accountable for the promotion of increased AP exam performance, not only AP exam
availability (Heinrich, 2004).
In addition, as a rationale for the findings, stakeholders spoke of their
interpretation of remediative judicial intent, as being an increase in AP class
exposure, again, not the pass rate; a trade off between access and equity, as viewed
as increased performance, However, the only ethnic group described in that scenario,
when statistical significance is the criteria, is the Hispanic group (Heinrich, 2004).
The LAUSD-Gifted/Talented Programs (GATE) oversees AP and published
annual data (1999-2006) on student exam achievement, by school and district, and
reported to the California Department of Education (CDE) and the College Board
(LAUSD Memorandum No. BP-23, 2001, LAUSD Memorandum No. BP-15, 2001,
LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003 & LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-
4009, 2008). As indicated earlier in this discussion, no LAUSD-AP exam data was
disaggregated by ethnicity prior to 1999, the year that the ACLU filed Daniel v. State
of California, claiming that students were being denied access to AP courses in
direct violation of the Equal Protection Opportunities Act, 1974, and the Education
Clause of the California State Constitution (ACLU, 1999) To date, disaggregation by
ethnicity is not published for individual schools of the LAUSD-AP program.
As ten to twenty percent of high school dropouts are in the gifted range and
forty percent of the top five percent of U.S. high school graduates never complete
college (Rimm, 1995), with minority students shown to drop out of high schools in

201
disproportionately high numbers, unless there is attention to ethnically disaggregated
AP exam data, the findings are skewed (Orfield, Losen & Wald, 2004).
The LAUSD data analysis was a simple percentage gain of mean scores with
no criteria for statistical or practical significance. The analysis of the study under
discussion assessed statistical significance of educational change in the participation
and performance of African-American, Hispanic, and White/Asian, comparison
group, students within the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools.
Practical significance was examined as to the effect of the Grant on AP exam
participation and performance, and by a 10% statistically significant percentage gain
(NCLB-No Child Left Behind) and a -10% indication of a statistically significant
decline in AP exam participation and AP exam performance, over time. Therefore,
the LAUSD is reporting results that show a generally positive trend for most
ethnicities, particularly in AP exams taken over time following the Grant treatment
(LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556. Student Achievement on the Advanced
Placement Examinations, 2003 Los Angeles Ca., October 31, 2003).
However, the results of this research study show little or no significant
change as indicated by statistical findings, and as a result of the AP Challenge Grant,
for African-American, Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison group, students over
time (1999-2006). Hispanics were shown only by one measure of assessment to have
experienced a significant increase in the AP exams taken, from before to after the
Grant, and the White/Asian comparison group, was shown, only by one measure, to
have taken a significantly less AP exams, from before to after the Grant. The

202
measure of the mean differences in percentage of AP exams taken and passed, before
and after the Grant (1999-2006) was the measure of this study used in those results.
The LAUSD data analysis reports are predicated on a simple percent increase over
time, without measuring for significance.
The LAUSD’s published reports to the CDE, the College Board, and the
public at-large can be misleading and offer a false sense of progress in achieving
social change in the aftermath of judicial decisions of educational access and equity.
African-American students showed no statistical or practical significant
change in their percentage of AP exams taken and AP exams passed, 1999-2006.
Although, a small loss was indicated as an effect in AP exams taken, a percentage
loss greater than shown for the other ethnicities and greater than the small percentage
gained for African-American students in AP exams taken, there was no significant
change in AP participation or performance indicated as a result of the Grant.
There were three instances of significant change, in the ethnic groups studied,
following the Grant treatment. Two significant findings were for the Hispanic
student population of the LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools. One finding of
significance was for the White/Asian comparison group of this study (Tables 2 & 3).
In examining the Hispanic group’s statistically significant increase in the
percentage of AP exams taken over time, it is interesting to note that the LAUSD
school-site AP programs have utilized the AP Spanish language course as an entrée
for Hispanic students to explore more AP courses offered at the school; participation
by Hispanics in AP Spanish languages courses increased during the period 1999-

203
2006, (LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003). Therefore, the Hispanic
students are motivated toward greater AP participation (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Incentives of this kind are not reported as available to African-American students
(LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003).
The White/Asian, comparison group, showed a significant decline in AP
exams taken over time. The LAUSD memoranda on student AP exam achievement
reported findings that suggested the Asian student exam pass rate decreased during
the time series of this study (LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003). The
results for his study indicated that there was no statistically significant change in the
White/Asian, comparison group, in AP exams passed, before and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006).
Accounting for the decrease in the White/Asian comparison group’s decline
in percentage of AP exams taken over time was the movement of white and Asian
students from the LAUSD to other educational venues, private and public, in and
out-of-state (Ogletree, 2004). It should be noted that although, there was a decline in
the White/Asian group’s student population in the 57 original AP Challenge Grant
schools, 1999-2006, the decline was not deemed statistically significant (Table 1).
Additionally, A Nation at Risk: The National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1984, cited that one-half of gifted children did not perform to their tested
abilities (Rimm, 1985).
As most of the LAUSD-AP sites are Title I schools, addressing the needs of
low-income students, and generally harder to staff and with less qualified teachers,

204
the placement of the White/Asian comparison group within this population sample,
indicates that their statistically significant LAUSD-AP exam taking decline may be
attributable to the same barriers experienced by the low-income ethnic groups that
were targeted for the intended remediation. As it is essential that the quality of the
AP programs be more rigorous than the traditional high school course and the
standards for the program be consistent and continually monitored by the
stakeholders (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2002), all ethnicities in LAUSD-AP programs
without curriculum guidelines and standard teacher qualification requirements, fall
victim to the lack of a quality college preparatory program.
African-American students showed no statistically significant change from
before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006). It should be noted that the
LAUSD report on student achievement indicated a footnote showing that American-
Indian, Asian, African-American and Puerto Rican students had experienced a
decline in AP exam pass rates over time (Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003). The
results of the study under discussion, indicated a small loss in the mean difference of
AP exams passed by the African-American students and the White/Asian
comparison group; however, those findings were not shown to be statistically
significant.
One measure of practical significance indicated a decline in AP exams passed
as an effect of the Grant on Hispanic students, however, there was no practical
significance that indicated educational change as a result of the Grant, by percentage
gain for the same group. Change was not indicated as practically significant by

205
effect size or percentage gain (10% improvement and -10% decline used as criteria
in this study, based on NCLB 10% improvement guide) regarding AP exams taken
or passed for African-American and the White/Asian, comparison group, students
(Tables 4-7).
The California State Constitution, Article IX, Section I, recognizes that “a
general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence (is) essential to the preservation of
the rights and liberties of the people” The attorneys for the plaintiffs for Daniel v.
State of California (1999), argued that the plaintiffs were denied uniform progression
through the state’s public schools and were not “afforded equal or adequate
opportunities for their intellectual or scientific development”: (ACLU Complaint,
1999). Legal theory is intrinsically linked to education theory in matters of
educational access and equity. The student who achieves in math has a 30%
advantage in enrolling in a college prep math course (Lucas, 1999). The AP concept
provides a rigorous and accelerated academic program that not only serves as college
preparation, but offers students of high ability to enter an early college admission
program and gain credit for college courses by passing the AP exam with a score of
3 or above on a 1-5 scale (Fincher-Ford, 1997). As African-American and Hispanic
students are underrepresented in most degree areas, particularly in the math and
science domains (College Board, 1985), it is not surprising that African-American
and Hispanic students, identified as gifted, enrolled in higher level calculus, algebra
and trigonometry courses have less years of preparation than their white counterparts
(Ford, 1996). Math was a targeted academic area for increased AP exam

206
participation and performance. As to changes in the participation and performance
of African-American and Hispanic LAUSD-AP students before and after the Grant,
it was noted that there was an upward trend both in AP-Spanish courses and in AP-
Math courses with some upward movement in AP-Calculus. Although, the AP
Challenge Grant was halted in the third year of its four year implementation, some
positive changes in the AP course availability and in the number of low-income
students taking the AP exam, appeared to occur at some state school sites (California
Department of Education, 2003).
Significantly, non-English speaking students find math as an academic bridge
to building confidence and expanding their AP course participation and performance
(Krashen, 1981). Once the “aspirations, requirements and achievement are
controlled, there is an enrollment advantage for African-Americans, and the
disappearance of a disadvantage for Hispanics in relation to whites” (Lucas, 1999).
Results of the ethnically disaggregated population data for the 57 original
LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools, before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(Table 1), showed that the Hispanic student population more than doubled the
African-American and White/Asian groups combined, before and after the Grant
treatment. As the Hispanic population grew by five percentage points within the
LAUSD from 1999-2006, the African-American student population decreased by
one percentage point and the White/Asian, comparison group, population fell by
three percentage points; the small percentage of other ethnicities (three percent of the
total District population) showed no change.

207
The study under discussion looked to data from the original 57 AP-Challenge
Grant schools, as provided by the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning and
Assessment Division. Research indicates that there are two factors that may account
for the disparity in student population numbers within AP, and have contributed to
the African-American participation and performance in this college preparatory dual
credit program (Fincher-Ford, 1997). In relation to ethnic demographics: The
significant attrition rate of high-ability African-American students moving to private,
parochial and charter schools in and out-of-state (Hochschild, 1984), and the fact that
the LAUSD-AP African-American students felt outnumbered at schools
predominated by an Hispanic student population, heretofore considered by the
community as African-American schools (Orfield, Losen & Wald, 2004). The
movement of African-American public’s growing rejection of the public school
system as a societal equalizer, and an emphasis on shifting socio-economic and
multicultural trends, appears resultant in the reality of the re-segregation of our
schools and communities (Ogletree, C, 2004).
When comparisons were made between the ethnic groups as to the mean
difference of percentage for AP exams taken and passed before and after the Grant,
the results were indicated as to be statistically significant. As the ethnic groups were
compared with each other, the Hispanic group showed greater significant mean
difference results in AP exam taking before and after the Grant, but lost its
significant gain over the White/Asian group in AP exams passed, before and after the
Grant. The African-American group’s decline was statistically significant, and

208
remained below the Hispanic and White/Asian, comparison group, in percentage of
AP exams taken and passed, before and after the AP Challenge Grant. The
White/Asian group fell below the Hispanic students in the percentage of AP exams
taken, but its lower percentage mean difference in comparison to the Hispanic group,
showed no statistical significance in that comparison.
Schools Showing Significant Improvement and Significant Decline in Percentage of
AP Exam Participation and Performance, Before and After the AP Challenge Grant
(1999-2006)
Cross-tab procedures were completed utilizing the 57 original AP Challenge
Grant schools, disaggregated by ethnicity; listed for significant improvement or
significant decline in the percentage of AP exams taken and percentage of AP exams
passed before and after the AP Challenge Grant, 1999-2006 (Tables 12-15).
Statistical significance of findings was based on the NCLB scale of 10% indicating
significant improvement. For this study, 10% indicated significant improvement and
-10% indicated significant decline over time, 1999-2006 (Appendices A-H). When
results from school findings indicating significant improvement (10%) accounted for
same school findings of significant decline (-10%) in the percentage of AP exams
taken and passed, 1999-2006, results corroborated the other measures of statistical
and practical significance in this study. Schools from the quantitative cross-tab
procedure were used to illuminate the qualitative portion of this study.
This research has utilized the case study, Daniel v. State of California (1999),
to show that the era of integrating judicial decisions with legislative remediation, as

209
impacted by administrative agencies (Sunstein, 1993), to achieve social change for
infringements of educational access and equity for minority students, must be
evaluated in the light of statistically significant outcome measures, not raw data
gains and losses as indicated by findings as those published by the LAUSD-GATE
offices (LAUSD Memorandum No. BP-23, 2001, LAUSD Memorandum No. BP-15,
2001, LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556, 2003 & LAUSD Memorandum No.
MEM-4009, 2008).
When this study provided evidence that social change was not achieved for
the African-American and Hispanic students who were targeted for the court ordered
remediation that became the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). Daniel v. State of
California (1999), it contributed to a sobering assessment that dilute the expectations
of those who recalled the glory days of Brown v. Board of Education (1953, 1954),
and the constitutional, statutory, federal and state law that comprised the civil right
victories of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Therefore it is an import of this study to note that as Daniel v. State of
California (1999), was filed in an era of collaborative judicial and state legislative
remediation for infringements of educational access and equity, the constraints of a
weakened and ineffectual court were not overcome (Rosenberg, 1991).
Additionally, this study was not only important in its findings that the
achievement of social change as indicated by the percentage of AP exams taken and
the percentage of AP exams passed, from before and after the AP Challenge Grant
(1999-2006), not only did not occur for the minority groups of its intent, but also did

210
not occur for the White/Asian comparison group that was a party to the conditions of
the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). This finding was particularly interesting
aspect of the study, because it not only shows the significant outcomes of judicial
decisions of educational access and equity for infringements on the targeted minority
groups, but expands its scope to address achievement for ethnic groups that
heretofore, were not judged as in need of equal protection remediation; the general
perception being that white and Asian students outperform African-American and
Hispanic students. This study indicates that being serviced within the original 57
LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant schools, before and after the Grant (1999-2006), the
White/Asian, comparison group, was subject to the same conditions and
subsequently showed the same educational outcomes as indicated for the African-
American and Hispanic students.
In addition, the results of achieving social change for the LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students, was another example of a misleading sense
of security; a sense of security that rests on the belief that the judicial system will
end the disparity in access to and equitable distribution of services for minority
students by a settlement agreement, dropped in the lap of a legislature, and bound by
social and political winds. The crisis facing our minority LAUSD-AP high ability
students is such that, as a community, we cannot wait for court’s to continue the
inference of implementing their orders “with all deliberate speed” (Brown v. Board
of Education, 1953, 1954). There must be timely, monitored accountability that
doesn’t end when the monies are pulled in a state budget crunch.

211
Qualitative Discussion
For purposes of this discussion, the results of the qualitative, inductive
inquiry approach to eliciting narrative participant responses in addressing the
research question of this study are joined with the quantitative results in dual support
of exploring the complexity of factors that determine the role of judicial decisions of
educational access and equity in effecting social change.
The importance of this study is the emergence of those factors from patterns
of response from the narratives of stakeholders representing the administrative
agencies, whose collaboration with the legislature has been deemed the 20
th
and 21
st

century approach to achieving institutional restructuring in the name of social change
(Sunstein, 1993). Examining the factors that effect the achievement of social change,
following judicial decisions and legislative remediation, offers insight to both legal
scholars and educational-researchers and practitioners approaching educational
access and equity issues from the viewpoint of practical application.
The factors that effected social change following judicial decisions, as
exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of California
(1999) and the ensuing AP (Advanced Placement) Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000),
to remedy problems of educational access and equity, as indicated by educational
change in AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time by African-American and
Hispanic students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), emerged
from coded interview findings as motivation, knowledge and accountability. The
effect of the emergent three factors was that social change did not occur following

212
Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to
remediate infringements of access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students.
The four participants of this study were representative stakeholders in the AP
Challenge Grant with relevant experience in the LAUSD-AP program, before and
after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006), and employed by agencies represented on
the Advanced Placement Advisory Committee, set forth by the mutual agreement to
propose a plan to resolve the case by drafting and enacting legislation (Oakes &
Rogers, 2000). Members of the Advanced Placement Advisory Committee were not
only involved with the drafting of the mutual agreement that facilitated the AP
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), but the players on the legislative/bureaucratic
agency team that monitored, and evaluated school districts and sites for actions in
compliance with the intent of the court’s decisions. This approach to court ordered
remediation for infringements of constitutional law is in an attempt to achieve social
change when the judiciary alone does not have the necessary tools to enforce and
monitor its rulings and the causation is complex (Rosenberg, 1991).
In the scenario that applies to the California State Superior Court case, Daniel
v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000),
the court joins with the legislature to engage a social, political and economic
collaboration of bureaucratic agencies for actions that will bring about the
institutional, social restructuring, necessary for the court ordered remediation to
occur.

213
By putting strategies and programs in place to diffuse inequities, the judicial
approach is one termed, risk management (Sunstein, 1993), whereby the AP
Challenge Grant allowed for the legislative/bureaucratic agency collaboration to
provide a progression of coordinated budgetary incentives to remedy infringements
of equal protection, and bring about policy-supported social change (California
Department of Education, 2002). In this manner, the approach was utilized to
cooperatively manage the risk that continued denial of access to and equity within a
rigorous college preparatory program brings (Sunstein, 1993); not only as an
infringement of equal protection, but in the inhibiting of the intellectual, scientific
and moral growth of minority students (California Constitution, Article IX, Section
I), hindering their ability to compete for placement within institutions of higher
learning; the management of such risk as incentive for college admission and
retention (Astin, 1993).
In other words, Judge Mahr, of the California State Superior Court, settled
the case brought by AP students of the Inglewood Unified School District,
Inglewood, California, by mutual agreement of all parties, and engaged the
legislature for implementing his decision through the actions of administrative
agencies. This legislative and stakeholder, administrative agency collaboration,
provided a four-year schedule of budgetary incentives to remedy the access and
equity infringements for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students, and
create policy-supported change (California Department of Education, 2002).

214
The consequences for social change for African-American and Hispanic
students within the LAUSD-AP programs, not having achieved, indicate a
breakdown of the social, political and economic collaboration necessary for
implementing judicial decisions through legislative remediation in consort with the
actions of administrative agencies (Sunstein, 1993). Moreover, with the failure of the
legislative remediation and the collaborative efforts of administrative agencies to
correct infringements of access and equity for minority students, the intent of the
court’s decision was not met and the specter of the re-segregation of the LAUSD-AP
programs becomes a reality (Ogletree, 2005).
The consequences of the failure of social change to be achieved as a result of
mitigating factors that impeded its success, in the case of Daniel v. State of
California (1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), brought
into question the efficacy of the legislative/bureaucratic agency collaboration
approach to the remediation of infringements of access and equity through the
restructuring of social institutions (Sunstein, 1993).
The legislation under the conditions of the settlement agreement (SB 1689,
2000), had called for the California Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
contract an independent evaluation of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), to
be reported to the governor and the legislature no later than August, 2002. No funds
were appropriated for the contracting of that evaluation. So, in compliance with the
letter of the legislation, the California Department of Education (CDE) funded an
evaluation and published, The Advanced Placement Challenge Grant Program: A

215
Preliminary Report on the First Two Years of Implementation, August, 2002. The
report drew upon other relevant research studies, however, at the date of the
publication, no research study had specifically addressed the AP Challenge Grant
(California Department of Education, 2002). The preliminary two-year report was a
carefully crafted, scathing account of the promise of social change from a judicial
decision and legislative remediation that ended too quickly.
The three factors of this study paint a picture of the motivation, knowledge
and accountability that comprised the stakeholder AP evaluation, in the endeavor to
effect the achievement of social change, as directed by the court and in collaboration
with the legislature. No social change was indicated by educational change in AP
exams taken and passed, effected by the three factors of motivation, knowledge and
accountability, following Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge
Grant (SB 1689, 2000).
The factor of motivation determined the effect of judicial legislative and
stakeholder commitment on the achievement of social change; commitment, an
aspect of motivation and dependent on a system of the beliefs of stakeholders. Key to
the achievement of social change was overcoming the personal and institutional
resistance to the implementation and monitoring of the AP Challenge Grant.
In an environment where resistance ranged from “gate-keeping” practices of
teachers and counselors who restricted AP classes to the “terminally gifted”,
effectively limiting exposure to the dual-credit, rigorous instruction of the program
to the very minority students of the court’s intent, integrated with a widespread belief

216
among stakeholders that Hispanic students were given preferential treatment in
comparison to African-American students, in matters of outreach and sensitivity to
culturally relevant AP classes, i.e. AP Spanish language as an entrée to increased AP
course participation; Hispanic AP exam participation perceived by stakeholders to be
higher than that of African-Americans, the rationale expressed was that of the higher
Hispanic population demographics, the commitment to the AP Challenge program
was dependent on the school site. In fact, the quantitative portion of this study found
little or no statistical or practical significance indicating social change for Hispanic
students and no statistical or practical significance indicating social change for
African-American students, as evidenced in AP exams taken and passed before and
after the AP Challenge Grant. Notwithstanding, findings of the qualitative study
indicated that no special incentives were offered for the African-American student
population by the stakeholders.
Although the interactions of institutions influence change, it is the complex
rationales of humans that prevent judiciaries from effecting significant social change
(McCann, 1993). The findings of this study indicate that the motivation for teachers
and counselors to deny access to the AP program for African-American and Hispanic
students, is the stakeholder perception that students from low-income and minority
family backgrounds are not able to relate to the rigors of advanced study.
The legislative model of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) as a
collaborative effort between legislature and administrative agencies to effect social
change (Sunstein, 1993), provides for the use of participant incentives, a choice

217
architecture approach, in a stakeholder union of the courts, legislatures, bureaucratic
agencies, parents and the greater community in designing a plan for culturally
relevant incentives that will reward students with the benefit of a strong academic
foundation for college entrance and career success (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Certainly, the Fee Waiver Bill (AB 2216, Escutia), companion bill to the AP
Challenge Grant, allowing for low income students to take the AP exam, did provide
a positive incentive for African-American and Hispanic students, and was cited in
this study as fostering greater motivation resulting in a discernable increase in AP
exam participation, as a result of the Grant.
If the concept of incentives, such as the one just described, is carried further
by the LAUSD, the reward of increased AP exam pass rates with the possibility of
earned college credit will override the findings of this study which suggest evidence
of head counselors and teachers urging students not to take the AP exam because
they either won’t pass or put their GPA in jeopardy. This finding is significant in that
it skewed the results of the AP exam participation and AP exam pass rate during the
time frame of this study, before and after the AP Challenge Grant, and did not give
an accurate assessment of the social change achieved within the LAUSD-AP
programs as a result of the Grant, as evidenced by AP exams taken and passed by
LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students. The findings of this study
suggest many LAUSD school-site stakeholders resisted following the directives of
the AP Challenge Grant, because they perceived their participation as the result of an
authoritarian decision by the central district GATE office. The legislation provided

218
that the LAUSD design its own plan for implementation and monitoring of the
program with no mandated policy blueprint for guidance (California Department of
Education, 2002).
Moreover, the professional development options provided by the college
preparatory program, AVID (Advancement for Individual Determination) and the
College Board were voluntary and had limited attendance by the LAUSD teachers,
who were not required to maintain AP teacher certification and whose
documentation of proficiency in delivering the rigorous academic instruction
required by the AP Challenge Grant, had little accountability dependent on the local
district and school-site. The AP Challenge Grant stipulated that the District
encourage the rigorous coursework be supported by on-site technology, on-line AP
course options, technology and mentoring/tutoring services as provided by AVID
(California Department of Education, 2002), but findings of this study suggest
otherwise.
The factor of knowledge was categorized for this study a judicial/legislative
and stakeholder knowledge of he AP program. Participants of this study were well
versed on the AP Challenge Grant, and had relevant knowledge of the program from
beginning and after the Grant (1999-2006). All had participated in on-site monitoring
visits and /or teacher professional development and monitoring. The four
participants in this study had limited to no knowledge of Daniel v, State of California
(1999). Significant findings suggested that on-site counselors lacked information on

219
the AP program and AP placement, a crucial aspect of remediating access and equity
infringements.
The local LAUSD districts monitoring of teacher professional development,
varied according to the district. Local District G had a system of in-district AP
teacher certification with standards for professional development hours, in order to
assess the proficiency of the teacher to instruct an AP course. Findings indicated that
the LAUSD central GATE office coordinator with auspices over the AP Challenge
Grant, actively discouraged talk of teacher certification, as not to be discussed, but
rather referred to as teacher qualification; probably a teacher union sore point.
The collaboration between the legislature and action of bureaucratic agencies
stopped at the termination of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000). The
legislature turned all administrative authority to the districts (California Department
of Education, 2002); therefore, the LAUSD central GATE office disseminated all AP
information to the local districts. Alternately, the local districts had the responsibility
for monitoring and evaluating school sites and for distribution of AP informational
materials.
With monitoring of program implementation, a state and local responsibility,
the degree of social change derived from judicial decisions has a multifaceted
causation including, but not limited to, issues of race, ethnicity, socio-economic
status, district wealth classifications, and special needs (Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A.
& Steifel, L., 2006). As evidenced in the findings of this study, once the legislation
was passed, the state left the implementation and monitoring of the AP Challenge

220
Grant to the LAUSD, and the LAUSD central office delegated the responsibility to
the local districts, where most decisions for implementation were made on-site,
depending on local district control; a definite soft spot in the effecting of social
change from what was supposed to be a judiciary model to support a weakened and
Constrained Court (Rosenberg, 1991).
Apparently, most of the LAUSD players at the school site level weren’t
approached with the incentives necessary (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), to overcome
the factors of motivation or knowledge and effect significant social change. Findings
indicated that the judicial approach to effecting social change through institutional
restructuring (Sunstein, 1993) was taking longer than the lifetime of the truncated
three-year aborted Grant.
Findings of interest in the examination of the factor of knowledge overlapped
the factor of motivation. This was most evident when participants in this study
related their perceptions of the 57 original LAUSD–AP high schools
Schools Showing a Significant Increase and a Significant Decline in Percentage of
AP Exam Participation, Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
The 57 original AP Challenge Grant schools were listed as to significant
improvement or significant decline in the percentage of AP exams taken and
percentage of AP exams passed before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-
2006). Statistical significance of findings was based on the NCLB scale of 10%
indicating significant improvement. For this study, 10% indicated significant
improvement and -10% indicated significant decline over time (1999-2006).

221
Schools were chosen from the quantitative cross-tab procedure as evolved
from the inductive interview approach of this qualitative study as perceived as
showing significant improvement as a result of the AP Challenge Grant treatment,
and schools perceived as showing no educational change, or declining participation
and performance in the AP program, as evidenced by percentages of AP exams taken
and passed, before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006).
Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative Interview Respondents as Showing a Significant
Increase in the Percentage of AP Exams Taken and in the Percentage of AP Exams
Passed Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
Cleveland Senior H.S., El Camino Senior H.S., Foshay, Fairfax Senior H.S,
Granada Hills Senior H.S., Hamilton, Senior H.S., King-Drew Medical Magnet,
LAUSD/USC High School, Manual Arts Senior H.S. Pacific Palisades Charter H.S.,
Taft Senior H.S., University Senior H.S., Venice Senior H.S.

222
Table 16.
Cross-Tab Results for Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative Interview Respondents as
Showing a Significant Increase in the Percentage of AP Exams Taken and in the
Percentage of AP Exams Passed Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-
2006)
School AP Exams Taken Outcome
Cleveland H.S. No Change
El Camino H.S. No Change
Foshay No Change
Fairfax H.S. Hispanic Significant Increase 18%
Granada Hills H.S. African-American Significant Increase 16%
Granada Hills H.S. Hispanic Significant Increase 14%
Hamilton H.S. No Change
King-Drew Magnet Hispanic Significant Increase 26%
King Drew Magnet African-American Significant Decline -19%
LAUSD-USC H.S. Hispanic Significant Increase 26%
LAUSD-USC H.S. African-American Significant Decline -18%
Manual Arts H.S. No Change
Pacific Palisades Charter H.S. No Change
Taft Senior H.S. No Change
University Senior H.S. White/Asian Significant Decline -10%
Venice Senior H.S. No Change
School AP Exams Passed Outcome
Cleveland H.S. No Change
El Camino H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -28%
Foshay No Change
Fairfax H.S. African-American Significant Increase 18%
Granada Hills H.S. African-American Significant Decline -60%
Granada Hills H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -37%
Hamilton H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -21%
King-Drew Magnet White/Asian Significant Increase 33%
King Drew Magnet Hispanic Significant Decline -12%
LAUSD-USC H.S. African-American Significant Decline 10%
Manual Arts H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -14%
Pacific Palisades Charter Hispanic Significant Decline -12%
Taft Senior H.S. No Change
University H.S. African-American Significant Decline -38%
University H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -28%
University H.S. White/Asian Significant Decline -11%
Venice H.S. White/Asian Significant Increase 15%

223
Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative Interview Respondents as Showing a Significant
Decline in the Percentage of AP Exams Taken and in the Percentage of AP Exams
Passed Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006)
Banning Senior H.S., Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet, Carson Senior High
tension (African-American and Hispanic students): Banning Senior H.S., Freemont
Senior H.S., Gardena Senior High School, Jefferson Senior H.S., Jordan Senior H.S.,
Locke Senior H.S.
Although, many of the above schools were traditionally considered
predominantly African-American populated schools, the above schools of the
original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant were in transition (1999-2006) to becoming
heavily populated with Hispanic students. The LAUSD Local District G GATE
Coordinator participant in this study expressed that African-American students in
ethnically changing school-settings “feel outnumbered … uncomfortable …
threatened.” The participant had relevant experience with Crenshaw Senior H.S.,
Dorsey Senior H.S., Freemont Senior H.S., Gardena Senior H.S., Jefferson Senior
H.S., Jordan Senior H.S., Abraham Lincoln Senior H.S., Locke Senior H.S., Manual
Arts Senior H.S., John Marshall Senior H.S., and Pacific Palisades Charter H.S.

224
Table 17
Cross-Tab Results for Schools “Perceived” by Qualitative Interview Respondents as
Showing a Significant Decline in the Percentage of AP Exams Taken and in the
Percentage of AP Exams Passed Before and After the AP Challenge Grant (1999-
2006)
School AP Exams Taken Outcome
Banning H.S. Hispanic Significant Increase 11%
Francisco Bravo H.S. Hispanic Significant Increase 17%
Carson H.S. No Change
Crenshaw No Change
Dorsey H.S. Hispanic Significant Increase 31%
Freemont H.S. No Change
Gardena H.S. No Change
Jefferson H.S. No Change
Jordan H.S. No Change
Abraham Lincoln H.S. No Change
Locke H.S. No Change
Manual Arts H.S. No Change
John Marshall H.S. No Change
Pacific Palisades Charter H.S. No Change
School AP Exams Passed Outcome
Banning H.S. African-American Significant Increase 25%
Banning H.S. White/Asian Significant Decline -12%
Francisco Bravo African-American Significant Decline -15%
Carson H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -13%
Crenshaw H.S. White/Asian Significant Increase 58%
Dorsey H.S. No Change
Freemont H.S. No Change
Gardena H.S. No Change
Jefferson H.S. No Change
Jordan H.S. African-American Significant Increase 10%
Abraham Lincoln H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -19%
Locke H.S. No Change
Manual Arts H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -14%
John Marshall H.S. No Change
Pacific Palisades Charter H.S. Hispanic Significant Decline -12%

225
Most of the above schools are also Title I schools serving predominantly low-
income student bodies. The College Board participant in this study indicated that
White and Asian students may have seen a decline in their percentage of AP exams
taken and percentage of AP exams passed due to their economic family backgrounds
and placement in low-income Title I schools. “Title I schools are harder to staff,
have less qualified teachers and limited resources.” Data from these schools is “often
linked to income level”.
Perceptions of the participants of this study as to AP exam participation and
performance of the students within the original 57 AP Challenge Grant schools, from
beginning and after the Grant (1999-2006) did not match the results of the statistical
findings. When cross-tabs were calculated and criteria set for practical significance
at 10% increase as improvement and -10% decline in the percentage of AP exams
taken and passed over time, the results showed that overall, for all ethnic groups the
findings showed no significant social change as a result of the Grant. There were
specific changes for ethnic groups within individual high schools, and further study
regarding the programs that achieved practical success for specific ethnic groups,
should be considered.
In general, participant perception of schools showing significant
improvement in the percentage of AP exams taken and passed before and after the
AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006), showed a 30% accuracy in percentage of AP
exams taken and a 20% accuracy in the percentage of AP exams passed of the
schools that were discussed in the interviews utilized for this study.

226
The findings of participant perception of schools that showed a significant
decline in the percentage of AP exams taken and passed from before and after the AP
Challenge Grant (1999-2006), indicated a 0% accuracy in the percentage of AP
exams taken and a 40% accuracy in the percentage of AP exams passed.
Cross-tabs provided for disaggregation by ethnicity indicated that for schools
showing a 30% significant improvement, over time, in the percentage of AP exams
taken, 80% of findings were for Hispanic students. For the 20% of schools that
showed significant improvement in the percentage of AP exams passed, over time,
33% were African-American, 33% were Hispanic and 33% were of the White/Asian
comparison group of this study. The findings of this approach correspond with the
statistical and practical results of the quantitative portion of this study. The findings
corroborate results of the interview participant responses as to the higher AP exam
participation of Hispanic students, but do not correspond to the perceptions of AP
exam results of the participant respondents for AP exams passed for the African-
American, Hispanic and the White/Asian, comparison group. The perception was
that Hispanic students out-performed African-American students and that the
White/Asian group outperformed both.
Cross-tabs provided for disaggregation by ethnicity indicated that no schools
perceived by our participant respondents as having a significant decline in AP
participation and performance results, indicated that significant decline for African-
American, Hispanic or the White/Asian, comparison, group, for the percentage of AP
exams taken, from before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006). For those

227
schools perceived by our participant respondents as having a significant decline in
AP exam performance, of those schools showing a 40% significant decline in the
percentage of AP exams passed over time, 66% were Hispanic students, 17% were
African-American students and 17% (rounded) were of the White/Asian,
comparison group of this study. Participant respondents perceived that almost half of
the students showed a significant decline in their AP exam pass rate, but their
responses indicated that they did not perceive of the Hispanic group’s decline in AP
pass rates as almost four times greater than either African-American or the
White/Asian comparison group. Although, all participants had the perception that as
AP exam participation increased, the AP exam performance decreased. Commitment
to providing rigorous AP instructional services is an aspect of the factor of
motivation and is connected to the belief system of stakeholders.
Schools that had significant improvement in AP exams taken and particularly
in AP exams passed, as a measure of social achievement, should value the incentives
driven, choice architecture approach (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), and learn from
successful students as to the motivation, knowledge and accountability factors that
effected their achievement.
Of particular interest are schools that were reported as achieving within the
AP Challenge Grant program, with high degrees of administrator, teacher,
coordinator and parent, motivation and knowledge of the program. Manual Arts
Senior High School was noted for its hosting the first Local District G-AP
Symposium, with a large district participation and plans to revive in the near future.

228
The coordinator of the program was also mentioned for bringing AVID to the school
and administering a very successful AP and AVID program for the LAUSD-AP
African-American and Hispanic students, on-site.
The Manual Arts Senior High School cross-tab results indicate that for the
percentage, of AP exams taken before and after the Grant (1999-2006), no
significant change occurred for any of the three ethnicities of this study. For the
results of the percentage of AP exams passed over time, respondents showed varied
perceptions on the outcome; one response indicating the perception of a decline in
AP exam performance was validated, one response indicating the perception of a
significant increase, was disproved, with Hispanic students showing a significant
decline (-14%), over time.
Dorsey Senior High School was reported in the interview findings as being a
school, ridden with difficulties, “an anomaly.” Participant perception was that
Dorsey would show a significant decline in the percentage of AP exams taken over
time, before and after the AP Challenge Grant (1999-2006). In fact, Dorsey’s
Hispanic students showed a significant improvement (31%) in the AP exam
participation over time. Dorsey students indicated no significant change in the
percentage of AP exams passed over time.
The factors of motivation, in regard to belief systems and commitment,
clearly influence the perceptions of the education experts of this study. Without
significant statistical and practical findings, an accurate data collection and analysis,
program monitoring and evaluation, the perception supercedes the facts and the

229
achievement of social change is lost. Moreover, when the LAUSD data on AP exam
results is based on simple percentage gain and not statistically significant results, the
perception of the stakeholders leads to non-productive solutions at best, or a state of
inertia, as was evidenced by the return to business-as-usual (California Department
of Education, 2002), following the aborted end of the AP Challenge Grant. What was
missing from the legislative/administrative agency collaboration of the risk
management approach, utilized by the court in Daniel v. State of California (1999),
were relevant stakeholder incentives, delineated after reflective review of the
budgetary schedule of the Grant, to lesson and manage the risk of another failed
program and the continuation of its de-segregation (Ogletree, 2005). In other words,
incentives based on supporting the three factors that effected the achievement of
social change, following court ordered legislation, in the remediation of
infringements of access and equity for LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic
students (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
The importance of this study is to indicate that with motivation, knowledge,
and accountability as factors, change must be data driven and monitored and
evaluated by a consortium of agencies, some within the institutional collaboration
(Sunstein, 1993), as set-forth by the legislative order, and others independent of the
institutional structure; i.e. outside of the LAUSD. The legislation had mandated that
evaluation; however, state budget cuts put an end to the promised independent
review. Stakeholders rallied and the California Department of Education did put
forth a collaborative effort which resulted in The Advanced Placement Grant

230
Program: A Preliminary Report on the First Two Years of Implementation.
However, since that time, no state, district or private evaluation of the originally
funded $41,250,000 AP Challenge Grant, in assessment of the outcome of the court
ordered remediation as to social change (Metzler, 2002), followed. In fact, this study
has shown that stakeholders, within bureaucratic agencies, at best, have no
knowledge of the archival placement of the AP Challenge Grant records, or at worst,
the records have been destroyed.
The factor of accountability was critical to the implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of the AP Challenge Grant. The accountability of teachers and
students to AP exam outcomes, signified as AP exams passed as the nationally
recognized form of student and program assessment, was not routinely stressed in
conjunction with AP exam participation; the incentives of college credit and
preferential acceptance policies at institutions of higher education (AP Central, 2008)
were not routinely emphasized within the delivery of AP services. In fact, the
findings of this study indicate that counselors and teachers routinely discouraged
students from taking AP courses because it “hurt their GPA”, and participating in the
AP exam, because they “wouldn’t pass”. Knowledge of college acceptance
procedures suggests that many institutions of high education, including the
University of California, give priority admission to students who score a 1 or 2 on
the exam; the AP exam pass requirement is indicated as scoring a 3 or above on a 1-5
scale (AP Central, 2008). Counselors and teachers were not uniformly held

231
accountable for acquisition of AP professional development, prior to AP program
oversight and classroom placement, respectively.
Additionally, within the maze of the LAUSD fiscal structure, the monies
were distributed, but findings of this study suggested that stakeholders were not
accountable for program source information and allocation. When the legislature did
not provide a policy mandate for implementation before handing the responsibility of
monitoring the Grant to the District, it sent a message to stakeholders that once the
bill was signed, the responsibility to protect African-American and Hispanic students
from equal protection violations, was back under the control of the very institutions
that perpetrated the infringements.
This study has indicated that social change, evidenced by educational change,
did not occur as a result of the judicial decision of Daniel v. State of California
(1999) and the ensuing AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) to remediate the
infringements of access and equity for the LAUSD-AP African-American and
Hispanic students, as presented by AP exams taken and AP exams passed over time.
Daniel provided an example of a judicial order whose remediation efforts were
dependent on implementing legislation in conjunction with the actions of
bureaucratic agencies; the Constrained Court (Rosenberg, 1991). This study provides
that the problems inherent with implementation, as evidenced by the human
conditions of motivation, knowledge and accountability, may ultimately cause
judicial monitoring to become judicial control (Neir, 1982), and the Dynamic Court
approach to constitutional jurisprudence resuscitated (Rosenberg, 1991). In the case

232
of Daniel v. State of California (1999), the 20
th
and 21
st
century approach of
correcting equal protection infringements through legislative/bureaucratic agency
collaboration (Sunstein, 1993), monitoring agencies did not bring about the intent of
the court decision.
This study takes into consideration a body of research that indicates that the
forcing of social transformation, stalemated by self-perpetuating institutional power
and lack of bureaucratic incentives (motivation) to effect policy change, may be best
achieved through the courts; courts that are effectively insulated from electoral
concerns, and charged with upholding the constitution (Yannaconne, 1970).
Insulated from political pressures, the Dynamic Court model has the capacity to
effect social change as seen in public policy shifts inspired by social protest
movements (Neier, 1982); as such, a social protest movement has been suggested
earlier in this work. As evident in the civil rights mobilization led by Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., in comparison to the outcome of the Warren court, exercising rights
of citizenship through community activism may have more to do with changing the
status quo than reliance on the courts for social reform (Sunstein, 1993).
In reviewing Daniel and the AP Challenge Grant, it may not be necessary to
completely negate the legislative/bureaucratic implementation approach to court
ordered equal protection remediation, but to look to a new order of social policy,
addressing motivation, knowledge and accountability, that will guide stakeholders in
the facilitation of the social change.

233
Conclusions
The findings of this study indicated that there is public momentum to revive
the AP Challenge Grant. As it is the legislature’s responsibility to re-write legislation
that has not been effective in achieving social change, success of this movement
depends on a critical evaluation of the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), that
begins with revisiting Daniel v. State of California (1999), before edicts of social
policy are drawn.
For, if this case has and will be used as a judicial model for other
legislative/bureaucratic agency collaborations to remedy equal protection violations
(ACLU, 1999), its outcome (Metzler, 2002) must prove to achieve social change;
social change that will only occur through addressing the three factors identified in
this study as motivation, knowledge and accountability, in consort with social,
political and economic collaboration (Sunstein, 1993).
Recommendations
Recommendations for education policy and practice in collaboration with the
judicial and legislative branches of government to effect social change have emerged
from this study. Policy for legislative mandates to be clearly defined at the District
level, in order that the intent of the court is met, is long overdue.
It is recommended that the state would provide the necessary funds to not
only implement the following recommendations, but the sufficient funds to carry-out
a monitoring and evaluation system that ensures that the recommendations culminate
in the achievement of the court’s intent.

234
A system of accountability is recommended that allows for an oversight
committee to have jurisdiction to reprimand Districts for not following the intent of
the remediation policy guidelines. A District AP program certification may be
considered, whereby Districts are held accountable for school-site implementation. It
is essential that access and equity to the AP program for African-American and
Hispanic students be achieved in practice, as well as policy. Therefore, a uniform
District policy for AP counselor and teacher professional development leading to AP
counselor and teacher qualifications is recommended, with both on-site and outside
agency monitoring and evaluation; possibly in conjunction with the College Board
offerings of teacher training.
Uniform standards for instructional rigor, utilizing research-based
methodologies that include multi-cultural application are recommended. Outreach to
the LAUSD-AP African-American and Hispanic students with culturally relevant
incentives that encourage real-life application to AP exam participation and
performance, is recommended, with careful attention to the inclusion of African-
American young men.
Vertical teaming with feeder-middle schools is recommended to be indicated
as a policy directive. Vertical teaming between high schools and institutions of
higher education is also recommended to provide a foundation for college awareness,
culminating in acceptance and retention within institutions of higher education for
the African-American and Hispanic student recipients of the court’s remediative
order.

235
Recommendations would include, but are not limited to, stipulation of
community-relevant incentives, defined by a consortium of stakeholders, with
monitoring and evaluation a function of federal, state and local officials; state finding
would be the foundation for such a budgetary investment over time. The previous
and following recommendations are dependent on that commitment.
The development of monitored and evaluated community and parent outreach
programs in the dissemination of AP program information and goal-oriented college
preparation workshops, emphasizing the parent/student incentives of participation
and performance on the AP exams in relation to four-year college acceptance and
retention, are recommended. Additionally, it is recommended that community/parent
workshops be routinely visited by stakeholders within and outside of the District, and
evaluated for effectiveness against a policy standard of delivery.
Provisions for regular and timely evaluations of the AP program should be
calendared. State funding is recommended for a systematic data collection and
analysis policy to be followed by all stakeholder agencies that have responsibility for
the implementation of the LAUSD-AP program; state and local government and
private agencies. Monitoring and evaluation is recommended to be a joint effort by
the legislature, the California Department Education, the LAUSD, its local districts,
and private agency stakeholders, such as the College Board and AVID.
It is recommended that all AP student data be disaggregated by ethnicity and
that AP exam participation and performance analysis be evaluated for both statistical
and practical significance. Furthermore, it is recommended that data analysis be used

236
to practical advantage in promoting the class-room achievement of African-
American and Hispanic students within the rigorous AP curriculum; not only with
research based-instructional methodologies, but with research-based, culturally
sensitive interventions.
In addition, the positive outcomes of the joint application of AP exam
participation and performance are recommended to be stressed in every AP program
school-site, as directed by District policy.
Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations for future research include a replication of this study
within the State of California AP Challenge Grant high schools.
A further recommendation is made for a parallel research study of the AP
exam participation and performance of other ethnicities, such as the white and Asian
populations, not under court ordered remediation for infringements of equal
protection, within the AP Challenge Grant high schools, from before and after the
Grant.
Recommendations for further research also would include a continuation of
the cross-tab procedures of this study, to examine the factors that effected the
African-American and Hispanic students, under court ordered remediation for
infringements of equal protection, in the achievement of social change. Extended
analysis of the LAUSD-AP high schools that presented student data indicating
significant improvement in AP exam participation and performance, before and after
the AP Challenge Grant for African-American and Hispanic students, to be

237
conducted. From findings of such a study, would emerge practical applications for
AP programs across the State, in regard to culturally relevant incentives for all
stakeholders in the judicial approach to achieving social change through a
collaboration between the legislature and administrative agencies.
In addition, a further recommendation would include research on the
outcomes of court ordered, legislative remediation for infringements of access and
equity, particularly as apply to complex social structures such as the public school
system; i.e. the role of the court to effect the restructuring of institutions, such as the
public school system, through the joint effort of legislation and administrative
agency action with the goal of social change.
Limitations
The limitations of this study are in part reflective of the LAUSD and the AP
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) legislation. This study was limited its duration
(1999-2006) before and after the AP Challenge Grant program. It was limited to one
year before the AP Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000), because the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), School Information Branch, Planning and
Assessment Division collected no AP exam data, disaggregated by ethnicity and
school, prior to 1999.
Additionally, the fact that the LAUSD School Information Branch, Planning
and Assessment Division, did not assign collected data on the number of exams
taken, to each individual student, is a limitation of this study.

238
The findings of this study were limited because AP instruction was not
monitored and AP teacher certification was not mandated.
The fact that AP Challenge Grant state funds were distributed to the LAUSD
with district discretion for distribution was a limitation. Another limitation of this
study was that the LAUSD’s local districts had approval over school site
discretionary budget distributions.
In addition, the reliability of instruments used, posed limitations on this
study’s validity.
Finally, the findings of this study were limited because they did not take into
account all social, economic and political factors that may effect the role of judicial
remediation for educational equal protection infringements, for specified,
underserved ethnic groups.
Delimitations
The study confined itself to the original 57 LAUSD-AP Challenge Grant high
schools in California.

239
REFERENCES
ACLU (1999). In Class-Action Lawsuit. American Civil Liberties Union Freedom
Network. Retrieved April 10, 2008.
http://www.aclu/org/racialjustice/aa/15822prs19990727.html

ACLU (2000). Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco:
First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, August 14,
2000. Williams v. State of California (Los Angeles Superior Court).

ACLU (2002). ACLU Foundation of Southern California Docket and Report of
Counsel, May 2002. Daniel v. State of California (Los Angeles Superior
Court).

ACLU Complaint (1999). Superior Court of the State of California, County for the
County of Los Angeles: Class Action Complaint, July 27, 1999. Daniel v.
State of California.

ACLU-Williams (2005). The Williams v. California Settlement: The First Year of
Implementation. ACLU. Retrieved April 14, 2008. http://www.aclu-
sc.org/attach/w/williams_first_year_report.pdf

AP Central (2008). The Advanced Placement Program. Retrieved April 10, 2008.
The College Board On-Line.
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/program/0,1289,150-0-0-0,00.html

Baldwin, L.V. et al. (2002). The legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.

Bell, D. (1973). Race, racism and American law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.

Bell, L., Jr. (2008). Transcribed Interview, March 31, 2008: LaRoyce Bell, District
Coordinator, LAUSD Gifted/Talented Programs: Los Angeles, CA.

Best, J.W. & Kahn, J.V. (1998). Research in education (8
th
ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyd, W.L. & Miretzky, D. (Eds.) (2003). American Educational Governance on
Trial: Change and Challenges. 102
nd
Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago, IL.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1953, 1954).

240
Butt v. State of California 4 Cal. 4
th
668 (CA SCI.1992).

Buzuvis, E.E. (2001). “A” For Effort: Evaluating Recent State Education Reform in
Response to Judicial Demands for Equity and Adequacy. Cornell Law
Review: 86, 644. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

California Department of Education. (2002). The Advanced Placement Grant
Program: A Preliminary Report on the First Two Years of Implementation.
California Department of Education Intersegmental Relations Office, August,
2002.

Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 162 Misc. 2d493; 616 N.Y.S.
2d851; 1994 N.Y. Misc.

Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 295 A.D.201; 744 N.Y.S, 2d 130;
2002 N.Y. App. Div.

Clark, E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

College Board (2001). Access to Excellence: A Report of the Commission on the
Future of the Advanced Placement Program. College Entrance Examination
Board: College Board Advanced Placement Program.

College Board (2008). Achieving Equity: financial resources for schools teachers
and students. Retrieved April 10, 2008.
www.professionals.collegeboard.com/k-12/assessment/ap/equity

College Entrance Examination Board (2002). Minority Student Success: The Role of
Teachers in Advanced Placement Courses. apcentral.collegeboard.com

Cordoba, R. (2003). In Lurie, T. The AP Gap. Ford Foundation.
www.fordfound.org/publications/ff_report/view_ff_report_detail.cfm?report_
index=226

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Daniel v. State of California 30 Cal (CA SCI 1999).

241
Department of Education (1999). Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and
Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Answers in a Toolbox-Executive Summary
June, 1999. Retrieved April 10, 2008.
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/Exec.html

Education Trust-West (2005). State Schools Chief Jack O’Connell comments on new
study in teacher quality by Ed Trust-West. California Department of
Education News Release, February 15, 2005. Retrieved April 11, 2008.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr05/yr05re/24.asp

Education Week on the Web (1999). ACLU files class action suit. edweek@ed.org

Ed Voice (2005). Shocking funding disparities for poor & minority students.
info@edvoice.org. Retrieved November 15, 2005.

Eliasberg, P.T. (2008). Transcribed Interview. April 08, 2008: Managing Attorney,
Daniel v. State of California (1999), ACLU Southern District: Los Angeles,
CA.

Fincher-Ford, M. (1996). High school students earning college credit. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Ford, D. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868).

Gardner, D.P. et al. (1983). A nation at risk: The importance of educational reform
(Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.

Giles, M.W. (1975). H.E.W. Versus the Federal Courts: A Comparison of School
Desegregation Enforcement. American Politics Quarterly 3, 81-90.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.

Haddix, M. (2003). The Role of Courts to Product Social Change: The Constrained
Court; A Case Study, Daniel v. State of California. Unpublished manuscript.
University of Southern California.

242
Heinrich, S. (2004). Transcribed Interview, December 5, 2004: Associate
Educational Manager K-12 Services; AP Challenge Grant Director-College
Board, Western Regional Office: Los Angeles, CA.

Hochschild, J. (1984). The new American dilemma. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Hogan, J.C. (1974). The schools, the courts, and the public interest. Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath & Co.

Kahlenberg, R.D. (2001). Beyond Brown: The NewWave of Desegregation
Litigation, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 13-19.

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Bilingual Education and Second Language Acquisition
Theory. In California State Department of Education, Schooling and
language minority students: A theoretical framework (1
st
edition), pp. 51-79.
Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Disseminating Assessment Center.

LAUSD (2002). The Local District G Advanced Placement Summit: Report to the
Superintendent. Los Angeles, CA.

LAUSD Memorandum No. BP-23. Student Achievement on the Advanced
Placement Examinations, 2000, Los Angeles, CA, May 16, 2001.

LAUSD Memorandum No. BP-15. Student Achievement on the Advanced
Placement Examinations, 2001, Los Angeles, CA, November 29, 2001.

LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-556. Student Achievement on the Advanced
Placement Examinations, 2003 Los Angeles, CA, October 31, 2003.

LAUSD Memorandum No. MEM-4009.1. Student Achievement on the Advanced
Placement Examinations, 2008. Los Angeles, CA, December 15, 2008.

Lucas, S.R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American
high schools, 58, 134. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia
University.

Lurie, T. (2003). The AP Gap. Ford Foundation.
www.fordfound.org/publications/ff_report/view_ff_report_detail.cfm?report_
index=226

Lutz, F.W. & Merz (Eds.) (1992). The politics of school/community relations. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.

243
McCain, J. (2008). Transcribed Presidential Debate October 15, 2008: Hofstra
University debate ’08-Final Transcript: Republican Presidential Candidate.
http//www.hofstra.edu/home/index.html. Retrieved October 17, 2008.

McCann, M. (1993). Reform Litigation on Trial. American Bar Foundation, 0897-
6546/92/1704-0715, 717.

McCann, M. (1996). Causal versus Constitutive Explanations (or, On the Difficulty
of Being so Positive). American Bar Foundation, 0897-6546/96/2102-0457,
459-460.

McConnell, M. (2008). Transcribed Interview, April 1, 2008: Program Coordinator,
California Department of Education: Sacramento, CA.

McLinn, M. (2004). Transcribed Interview, December 5, 2004: Former Coordinator
of Instructional Services, LAUSD Local District G: Los Angeles, CA.

Merriman, S.B. & Associates (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for
discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Metzler, J. (2002). Inequitable Equilibrium: School Finance in the United States.
Indiana Law Review, 36:56. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.

Neier, A. (1982). Only judgement: The limits of litigation in social change.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Nora, A. & Cabrera, A.P. (1996). The role of Perceptions of Prejudice and
Discrimination on the Adjustment of Minority Students to College. Journal
of Higher Education, 7 (2).

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. & Rodgers, J. (2000). Remedying Unequal Opportunities for Successful
Participation in Advanced Placement Courses in California High Schools, A
Proposal for Action, January 5, 2000. acludocket.

Ogletree, Jr., (2004). All deliberate speed: reflections on the first half-century of
Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 1-40). New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company.

Olsen, L. (1999). Pulling in Many Directions. Education Week, XIX(3).

244
Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King’s Dream or Plessy’s Nightmare?
Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J. et al. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth
are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The
Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

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

Rhodes v. Chapman 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

Rimm, S.B. (1985). Underachievement syndrome of gifted students. In J. Genschaft,
M. Birley, M.C. Hollinger (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students (pp.
173-199). Austin, TX: Pro Ed.

Rodriguez v. LAUSD 41 Cal (CA SCI. 2003).

Rosenberg, G.N. (1991). The hollow hope. Can courts bring about social change?
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rubenstein, R., Schwartz, A.E., & Steifel, L. (2006). Rethinking the Intradistrict
Distribution of School Inputs to Disadvantaged Students. Paper prepared for
the conference, “Rethinking Rodriguez: Education as a Fundamental Right”,
Boalt Hall School of Law. University of California, Berkeley, April 2006.

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (SCI 1973).

SB 1689: Advanced Placement (AP) Challenge Grant (CA 2000).

Scheingold, S.A. (1974). The politics of rights: lawyers, public policy and political
change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Serrano v. Priest 5 Cal.3d 584 (CA SCI.1971).

Serrano v. Priest II 18 Cal.3d 728 (CA SCI.1977).

Shadish, W.R., Cook. T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, J.A. (Ed.) (2003). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research
methods. London: Sage Publications.

245
Sommers, P. (2007). Transcribed Interview, April 3, 2007: Senior Educational
Manager K-12 Services, The College Board: Los Angeles, CA.

Sommers, P. (2009). Transcribed Interview, March 5, 2009: Senior Educational
Manager K-12 Services, The College Board: Los Angeles, CA.

Stephan, W.G. & Feagan, J.R. (Eds.) (1980). School desegregation: Past, present
and future. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Sunstein, S.R. (1993). The partial constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Sunstein, S.R. (1993). The partial constitution (pp. 320-322, 334). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology. Combining qualitative
and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health,
wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tierney, W.G. & Hagedorn, L.S. (Eds.) (2002). Increasing access to college:
extending possibilities for all students. New York, NY: State University of
New York.

Viadero, D. (1999). School Finance: Slowly the Burden Shifts to the States.
Education Week, XIX(12).

Williams v. State of California. No. 312236 (August 14, 2000).

Williams Complaint (2000). First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief, August 14, 2000.

Yannacone, V.J. (1970). Discussion. In Law and the Environment. Malcolm F.
Baldwin and James K. Page, Jr. (Eds.) New York, NY: Walker & Co. for the
Conservation Foundation 67-102.

Zelman v. Harris 536 U.S.639 (2002).

246
APPENDIX A
MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMS
TAKEN BY AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER
TREATMENT

247
APPENDIX B
MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMS
TAKEN BY HISPANIC STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

248
APPENDIX C
MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMS
TAKEN BY WHITE/ASIAN STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

249
APPENDIX D
MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMS
PASSED BY AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER
TREATMENT

Note. Data are missing from three schools: Huntington Park, Abraham Lincoln, and Woodrow Wilson High Schools.

250
APPENDIX E
MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMS
PASSED BY HISPANIC STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

251
APPENDIX F
MEAN PERCENTAGE GAIN OR LOSS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMS
PASSED BY WHITE/ASIAN STUDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT

Note. Data are missing from five schools: Dorsey, Fremont, Jordan, Locke and Washington Preparatory High Schools

252
APPENDIX G
CROSS-TAB FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) EXAMS TAKEN
School
Exams Taken
Before Treatment
Exams Taken
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Taken
% Gain (+) /
Loss (-)
BANNING SENIOR HI
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.1322 0.0331 -0.0991 -10%
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.7491 0.8613 0.1121 11%
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.0712 0.0438 -0.0274 -3%
BELMONT SENIOR HI
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.0169 0.0110 -0.0060 -1%
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.6881 0.8278 0.1397 14%
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.2068 0.0969 -0.1099 -11%
BELL SENIOR HIGH
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.0082 0.0015 -0.0067 -1%
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.9656 0.9829 0.0173 2%
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.018 0.0090 -0.0091 -1%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.0266 0.0346 0.0080 1%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.4183 0.4845 0.0663 7%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.5133 0.4267 -0.0866 -9%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.0629 0.0105 -0.0517 -5%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.3176 0.4880 0.1703 17%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.5211 0.4215 -0.0995 -10%
CANOGA PARK SENIO
CANOGA PARK SENIO 0.0413 0.0287 -0.0126 -1%
CANOGA PARK SENIO 0.4771 0.6327 0.1557 16%
CANOGA PARK SENIO 0.4587 0.3114 -0.1474 -15%
CARSON SENIOR HIG
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.12 0.0925 -0.0175 -2%
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.3734 0.3041 -0.0694 -7%
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.0373 0.0772 0.0398 4%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.0126 0.0250 0.0125 1%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.1993 0.1828 -0.0165 -2%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.7397 0.7229 -0.0168 -2%
CLEVELAND SENIOR
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.0483 0.0325 -0.0158 -2%
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.2033 0.2441 0.0407 4%
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.6950 0.6759 -0.0191 -2%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.6189 0.6211 0.0022 0%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.3217 0.3459 0.0242 2%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.0385 0.0146 -0.0239 -2%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.7500 0.4513 -0.2987 -30%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.2267 0.5331 0.3063 31%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.0000 0.0156 0.0156 2%
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.1194 0.0892 -0.0302 -3%
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.3035 0.5361 0.2326 23%
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.5373 0.3108 -0.2265 -23%

253
School
Exams Taken
Before Treatment
Exams Taken
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Taken
% Gain (+) /
Loss (-)
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.0077 0.0087 0.0010 0%
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.3545 0.4819 0.1274 13%
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.4258 0.2706 -0.1552 -16%
EL CAMINO REAL SE
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.0168 0.0192 0.0025 0%
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.0927 0.1175 0.0248 2%
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.8670 0.8242 -0.0428 -4%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.0110 0.0047 -0.0063 -1%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.9670 0.9693 0.0023 0%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.0220 0.0189 -0.0031 0%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.0513 0.0502 -0.0011 0%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.1905 0.3686 0.1781 18%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.7253 0.5375 -0.1878 -19%
FOSHAY LEARNING C
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.1852 0.1227 -0.0625 -6%
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.8025 0.8649 0.0624 6%
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.0123 0.0095 -0.0028 0%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.0072 0.0089 0.0017 0%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.6869 0.7116 0.0247 2%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.2755 0.2131 -0.0624 -6%
FREMONT SENIOR HI
FREMONT SENIOR HI 0.0186 0.0324 0.0138 1%
FREMONT SENIOR HI 0.9814 0.9665 -0.0149 -1%
FREMONT SENIOR HI 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0%
GARDENA SENIOR HI
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.1929 0.2057 0.0129 1%
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.2714 0.5433 0.2719 27%
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.4071 0.1898 -0.2173 -22%
GARFIELD SENIOR H
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.0027 0.0014 -0.0013 0%
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.9525 0.9750 0.0225 2%
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.0380 0.0198 -0.0182 -2%
GRANADA HILLS HIG
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.0158 0.1778 0.1619 16%
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.1331 0.2778 0.1447 14%
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.8258 0.4889 -0.3369 -34%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.0091 0.0165 0.0074 1%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.1964 0.3463 0.1499 15%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.7600 0.5901 -0.1699 -17%
HAMILTON SENIOR H
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.1214 0.0855 -0.0360 -4%
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.2304 0.2983 0.0680 7%
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.6357 0.6020 -0.0337 -3%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.0379 0.0568 0.0189 2%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.4655 0.6159 0.1504 15%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.4724 0.2576 -0.2148 -21%
HUNTINGTON PARK S

254
School
Exams Taken
Before Treatment
Exams Taken
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Taken
% Gain (+) /
Loss (-)
HUNTINGTON PARK S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0%
HUNTINGTON PARK S 0.9853 0.9891 0.0037 0%
HUNTINGTON PARK S 0.0117 0.0066 -0.0052 -1%
THOMAS JEFFERSON
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.0025 0.0170 0.0145 1%
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.9950 0.9774 -0.0176 -2%
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.0025 0.0056 0.0031 0%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.0497 0.0749 0.0252 3%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.9282 0.9251 -0.0031 0%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.0221 0.0000 -0.0221 -2%
JOHN F KENNEDY SE
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.0597 0.0338 -0.0259 -3%
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.3582 0.5131 0.1549 15%
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.5174 0.3752 -0.1422 -14%
KING-DREW MEDICAL
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.7090 0.5229 -0.1861 -19%
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.1852 0.4426 0.2574 26%
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.0635 0.0254 -0.0381 -4%
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0%
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S 0.4952 0.4371 -0.0581 -6%
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S 0.5048 0.5566 0.0518 5%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.2937 0.1177 -0.1760 -18%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.5105 0.7748 0.2643 26%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.1189 0.0889 -0.0300 -3%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.2169 0.1842 -0.0327 -3%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.7302 0.8146 0.0844 8%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.0423 0.0000 -0.0423 -4%
LOS ANGELES SENIO
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.0526 0.0596 0.0070 1%
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.5226 0.6449 0.1223 12%
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.3571 0.2601 -0.0971 -10%
LOS ANGELES CENTE
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.1615 0.2073 0.0459 5%
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.1387 0.1008 -0.0379 -4%
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.6915 0.6560 -0.0355 -4%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.1540 0.0677 -0.0863 -9%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.8359 0.9199 0.0841 8%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.0025 0.0124 0.0098 1%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.0240 0.0152 -0.0088 -1%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.3539 0.3735 0.0196 2%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.4658 0.4703 0.0046 0%
JAMES MONROE SENI
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.0186 0.0156 -0.0030 0%
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.5860 0.6380 0.0520 5%
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.2953 0.1988 -0.0965 -10%
NARBONNE SENIOR H
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.0349 0.1057 0.0708 7%

255
School
Exams Taken
Before Treatment
Exams Taken
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Taken
% Gain (+) /
Loss (-)
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.1802 0.3051 0.1248 12%
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.5000 0.3584 -0.1416 -14%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.0154 0.0135 -0.0019 0%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.2614 0.3019 0.0406 4%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.6839 0.6615 -0.0224 -2%
PALISADES CHARTER
PALISADES CHARTER 0.0448 0.0531 0.0083 1%
PALISADES CHARTER 0.1422 0.1269 -0.0153 -2%
PALISADES CHARTER 0.8083 0.8078 -0.0005 0%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.0127 0.0101 -0.0026 0%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.8140 0.8441 0.0301 3%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.1036 0.0904 -0.0132 -1%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.0100 0.0263 0.0163 2%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.2662 0.3094 0.0433 4%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.6791 0.5989 -0.0803 -8%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.0015 0.0041 0.0026 0%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.9642 0.9909 0.0267 3%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.0254 0.0039 -0.0214 -2%
SAN FERNANDO SENI
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.0057 0.0028 -0.0029 0%
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.9658 0.9840 0.0182 2%
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.0171 0.0080 -0.0091 -1%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.0737 0.0646 -0.0091 -1%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.2457 0.4209 0.1752 18%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.6437 0.4932 -0.1505 -15%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.0523 0.0331 -0.0192 -2%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.1951 0.2551 0.0600 6%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.7213 0.6729 -0.0483 -5%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 0.0015 0.0079 0.0064 1%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 0.9830 0.9840 0.0009 0%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 0.0154 0.0064 -0.0090 -1%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.0129 0.0209 0.0080 1%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.8742 0.8987 0.0245 2%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.0871 0.0632 -0.0239 -2%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.0141 0.0337 0.0195 2%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.0989 0.0999 0.0010 0%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.8603 0.8273 -0.0330 -3%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.0398 0.0814 0.0416 4%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.2289 0.2722 0.0433 4%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.7313 0.6295 -0.1018 -10%
VAN NUYS SENIOR H
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.0083 0.0189 0.0106 1%
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.0947 0.1703 0.0756 8%

256
School
Exams Taken
Before Treatment
Exams Taken
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Taken
% Gain (+) /
Loss (-)
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.8533 0.7556 -0.0976 -10%
VENICE SENIOR HIG
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.0225 0.0349 0.0124 1%
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.3476 0.3520 0.0043 0%
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.5971 0.5874 -0.0097 -1%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.0196 0.0108 -0.0088 -1%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.3595 0.3226 -0.0369 -4%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.5359 0.5928 0.0568 6%
WASHINGTON PREPAR
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.5311 0.4539 -0.0773 -8%
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.4689 0.5269 0.0580 6%
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.0000 0.0128 0.0128 1%
WESTCHESTER SENIO
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.3935 0.3411 -0.0525 -5%
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.0728 0.1216 0.0489 5%
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.5040 0.5146 0.0106 1%
WOODROW WILSON SE
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.0000 0.0204 0.0204 2%
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.7244 0.6993 -0.0251 -3%
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.2528 0.2672 0.0144 1%

257
APPENDIX H
CROSS-TAB FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) EXAMS PASSED

Exams Passed
Before Treatment
Exams Passed
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Passed
% Gain(+) /
Loss (-)
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.3559 0.4085 0.0526 5%
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.1282 0.3763 0.2481 25%
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.3891 0.4329 0.0438 4%
BANNING SENIOR HI 0.3333 0.2105 -0.1228 -12%
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.5627 0.4349 -0.1279 -13%
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.0000 0.3254 0.3254 33%
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.6404 0.4433 -0.1971 -20%
BELMONT SENIOR HI 0.4754 0.4763 0.0008 0%
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.2897 0.2590 -0.0307 -3%
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.2000 0.0000 -0.2000 -20%
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.2932 0.2619 -0.0313 -3%
BELL SENIOR HIGH 0.2727 0.0667 -0.2061 -21%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.5779 0.4334 -0.1446 -14%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.2143 0.2668 0.0525 5%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.6500 0.5168 -0.1332 -13%
BIRMINGHAM SENIOR 0.5556 0.3709 -0.1846 -18%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.4958 0.5116 0.0158 2%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.2973 0.1508 -0.1465 -15%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.5397 0.5681 0.0284 3%
FRANCISCO BRAVO M 0.5258 0.4795 -0.0463 -5%
CANOGA PARK SENIO 0.4633 0.4906 0.0273 3%
CANOGA PARK SENIO 0.5556 0.1019 -0.4537 -45%
CANOGA PARK SENIO 0.6058 0.5130 -0.0928 -9%
CANOGA PARK SENIOR HIGH 0.3200 0.4993 0.1793 18%
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.2324 0.1415 -0.0909 -9%
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.1132 0.0406 -0.0700 -7%
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.3667 0.2401 -0.1266 -13%
CARSON SENIOR HIG 0.0556 0.0887 0.0331 3%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.6032 0.5347 -0.0686 -7%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.2857 0.1951 -0.0906 -9%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.7297 0.5849 -0.1448 -14%
CHATSWORTH SENIOR 0.5874 0.5404 -0.0470 -5%
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.5967 0.6473 0.0506 5%
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.2759 0.3038 0.0280 3%
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.6148 0.5656 -0.0491 -5%
CLEVELAND SENIOR 0.6307 0.6965 0.0658 7%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.1294 0.1478 0.0184 2%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.0678 0.0755 0.0077 1%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.2717 0.2520 -0.0198 -2%
CRENSHAW SENIOR H 0.0000 0.5833 0.5833 58%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.1395 0.1957 0.0562 6%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.0698 0.0813 0.0115 1%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.3846 0.2968 -0.0878 -9%
DORSEY SENIOR HIG 0.0000
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.3134 0.2096 -0.1038 -10%
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.2917 0.1561 -0.1356 -14%
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.4262 0.2585 -0.1678 -17%
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 0.2778 0.1458 -0.1319 -13%

258

Exams Passed
Before Treatment
Exams Passed
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Passed
% Gain(+) /
Loss (-)
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.3834 0.4143 0.0309 3%
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.2500 0.2639 0.0139 1%
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.5326 0.4418 -0.0908 -9%
EAGLE ROCK SENIOR 0.3756 0.4769 0.1013 10%
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.7810 0.7268 -0.0542 -5%
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.6000 0.6355 0.0355 4%
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.9518 0.6753 -0.2765 -28%
EL CAMINO REAL SE 0.7629 0.7398 -0.0231 -2%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.4396 0.4379 -0.0017 0%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.0000 0.5000 0.5000 50%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.4545 0.4497 -0.0049 0%
ELIZABETH LEARNIN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.5568 0.4984 -0.0584 -6%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.2857 0.4609 0.1752 18%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.5962 0.5299 -0.0662 -7%
FAIRFAX SENIOR HI 0.5707 0.4913 -0.0794 -8%
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.3169 0.2363 -0.0805 -8%
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.1333 0.1117 -0.0216 -2%
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.3538 0.2535 -0.1004 -10%
FOSHAY LEARNING C 0.6667 0.0833 -0.5833 -58%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.3023 0.3133 0.0110 1%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.0000 0.0370 0.0370 4%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.3281 0.3533 0.0252 3%
FRANKLIN SENIOR H 0.2792 0.2426 -0.0367 -4%
FREMONT SENIOR HI 0.4163 0.3421 -0.0741 -7%
FREMONT SENIOR HI 0.0000 0.0175 0.0175 2%
FREMONT SENIOR HI 0.4242 0.3539 -0.0703 -7%
FREMONT SENIOR HI
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.2643 0.2338 -0.0305 -3%
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.0741 0.0664 -0.0076 -1%
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.3947 0.3215 -0.0733 -7%
GARDENA SENIOR HI 0.2807 0.2184 -0.0623 -6%
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.4206 0.3427 -0.0779 -8%
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.0000 0.5000 0.5000 50%
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.4160 0.3398 -0.0762 -8%
GARFIELD SENIOR H 0.6071 0.4940 -0.1131 -11%
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.6146 0.3833 -0.2312 -23%
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.6000 0.0000 -0.6000 -60%
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.7460 0.3750 -0.3710 -37%
GRANADA HILLS HIG 0.5985 0.6250 0.0265 3%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.4491 0.3361 -0.1130 -11%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.2000 0.1688 -0.0312 -3%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.4907 0.3698 -0.1209 -12%
GRANT SENIOR HIGH 0.4450 0.3220 -0.1230 -12%
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.6964 0.6076 -0.0888 -9%
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.4706 0.4134 -0.0572 -6%
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.7597 0.5454 -0.2143 -21%
HAMILTON SENIOR H 0.7219 0.6698 -0.0521 -5%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.2724 0.2755 0.0031 0%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.0909 0.1174 0.0265 3%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.3630 0.3275 -0.0355 -4%
HOLLYWOOD SENIOR 0.2117 0.2362 0.0245 2%
HUNTINGTON PARK S 0.5601 0.4367 -0.1234 -12%

259

Exams Passed
Before Treatment
Exams Passed
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Passed
% Gain(+) /
Loss (-)
HUNTINGTON PARK S
HUNTINGTON PARK S 0.5625 0.4349 -0.1276 -13%
HUNTINGTON PARK S 0.5000 0.3750 -0.1250 -13%
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.3970 0.3118 -0.0853 -9%
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.0000 0.0208 0.0208 2%
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.3990 0.3178 -0.0812 -8%
THOMAS JEFFERSON 0.0000 0.0714 0.0714 7%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.3204 0.2931 -0.0273 -3%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.1111 0.2105 0.0994 10%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.3393 0.3012 -0.0381 -4%
JORDAN SENIOR HIG 0.0000
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.4527 0.4919 0.0392 4%
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.3333 0.4645 0.1311 13%
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.4167 0.5427 0.1261 13%
JOHN F KENNEDY SE 0.5096 0.4559 -0.0538 -5%
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.1640 0.2317 0.0677 7%
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.1119 0.1540 0.0420 4%
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.4286 0.3121 -0.1164 -12%
KING-DREW MEDICAL 0.0000 0.3302 0.3302 33%
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S 0.6172 0.5667 -0.0505 -5%
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S 0.6667 0.4750 -0.1917 -19%
ABRAHAM LINCOLN S 0.5687 0.6368 0.0681 7%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.2168 0.1761 -0.0407 -4%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.0952 0.0000 -0.0952 -10%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.2877 0.1962 -0.0915 -9%
LAUSD/USC HIGH SC 0.2941 0.2037 -0.0904 -9%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.1693 0.2463 0.0769 8%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.0244 0.0046 -0.0198 -2%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.2246 0.3024 0.0777 8%
LOCKE SENIOR HIGH 0.0000
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.5038 0.4058 -0.0980 -10%
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.4286 0.2783 -0.1503 -15%
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.5396 0.4102 -0.1294 -13%
LOS ANGELES SENIO 0.4842 0.4377 -0.0465 -5%
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.5901 0.5351 -0.0549 -5%
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.4487 0.3581 -0.0906 -9%
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.5970 0.4570 -0.1400 -14%
LOS ANGELES CENTE 0.6228 0.5971 -0.0256 -3%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.3737 0.2787 -0.0951 -10%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.0492 0.0573 0.0081 1%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.4381 0.2980 -0.1401 -14%
MANUAL ARTS SENIO 0.0000 0.0333 0.0333 3%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.4098 0.4869 0.0771 8%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.1905 0.5000 0.3095 31%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.4097 0.4682 0.0585 6%
JOHN MARSHALL SEN 0.4608 0.5411 0.0803 8%
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.5023 0.3112 -0.1911 -19%
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.5000 0.1381 -0.3619 -36%
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.5476 0.3386 -0.2090 -21%
JAMES MONROE SENI 0.4567 0.3417 -0.1150 -11%
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.4913 0.3271 -0.1642 -16%
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.1667 0.2261 0.0594 6%

260

Exams Passed
Before Treatment
Exams Passed
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Passed
% Gain(+) /
Loss (-)
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.6452 0.3616 -0.2835 -28%
NARBONNE SENIOR H 0.5116 0.3832 -0.1284 -13%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.6538 0.5835 -0.0703 -7%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.3500 0.3135 -0.0365 -4%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.5929 0.4333 -0.1596 -16%
NORTH HOLLYWOOD S 0.6866 0.6660 -0.0206 -2%
PALISADES CHARTER 0.7496 0.7050 -0.0446 -4%
PALISADES CHARTER 0.4483 0.6394 0.1911 19%
PALISADES CHARTER 0.8043 0.6857 -0.1187 -12%
PALISADES CHARTER 0.7572 0.7135 -0.0436 -4%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.4440 0.3804 -0.0635 -6%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.0000 0.1111 0.1111 11%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.5013 0.4129 -0.0884 -9%
FRANCIS POLYTECHN 0.2245 0.2287 0.0042 0%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.6517 0.5869 -0.0648 -6%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.5000 0.4492 -0.0508 -5%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.6168 0.5444 -0.0724 -7%
RESEDA SENIOR HIG 0.6813 0.6242 -0.0571 -6%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.4716 0.3230 -0.1486 -15%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 100%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.4783 0.3218 -0.1565 -16%
ROOSEVELT SENIOR 0.2353 0.0000 -0.2353 -24%
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.5983 0.4271 -0.1712 -17%
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0%
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.6077 0.4296 -0.1781 -18%
SAN FERNANDO SENI 0.0000 0.3417 0.3417 34%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.4914 0.5301 0.0387 4%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.5000 0.2601 -0.2399 -24%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.4400 0.5525 0.1125 11%
SAN PEDRO SENIOR 0.5115 0.5546 0.0431 4%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.6063 0.5101 -0.0962 -10%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.6667 0.3492 -0.3175 -32%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.4286 0.5093 0.0807 8%
SHERMAN OAKS CENT 0.6473 0.5288 -0.1185 -12%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 0.5293 0.4062 -0.1231 -12%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 1.0000 0.5079 -0.4921 -49%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 0.5322 0.4073 -0.1249 -12%
SOUTH GATE SENIOR 0.3000 0.2698 -0.0302 -3%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.5516 0.5296 -0.0221 -2%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.5000 0.2846 -0.2154 -22%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.5904 0.5545 -0.0359 -4%
SYLMAR SENIOR HIG 0.2593 0.3346 0.0754 8%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.6170 0.6269 0.0100 1%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.4444 0.4554 0.0109 1%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.6508 0.6409 -0.0099 -1%
TAFT SENIOR HIGH 0.6168 0.6349 0.0181 2%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.7662 0.5973 -0.1689 -17%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.7500 0.3661 -0.3839 -38%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.8913 0.6111 -0.2802 -28%
UNIVERSITY SENIOR 0.7279 0.6225 -0.1053 -11%
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.7633 0.6814 -0.0819 -8%
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.5714 0.7053 0.1339 13%
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.8625 0.6682 -0.1943 -19%

261

Exams Passed
Before Treatment
Exams Passed
After Treatment
Difference in
Exams Passed
% Gain(+) /
Loss (-)
VAN NUYS SENIOR H 0.7656 0.6950 -0.0706 -7%
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.6339 0.6998 0.0659 7%
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.5455 0.5746 0.0291 3%
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.6706 0.5963 -0.0743 -7%
VENICE SENIOR HIG 0.6301 0.7763 0.1462 15%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.3333 0.4813 0.1479 15%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.6667 0.3889 -0.2778 -28%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.3636 0.5977 0.2341 23%
VERDUGO HILLS SEN 0.2927 0.4184 0.1257 13%
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.3223 0.1941 -0.1283 -13%
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.2000 0.0895 -0.1105 -11%
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.4609 0.2823 -0.1786 -18%
WASHINGTON PREPAR 0.1111
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.3827 0.3777 -0.0051 -1%
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.2740 0.1737 -0.1003 -10%
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.2593 0.3765 0.1172 12%
WESTCHESTER SENIO 0.4973 0.5129 0.0155 2%
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.3466 0.2646 -0.0820 -8%
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.2708
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.4235 0.2617 -0.1618 -16%
WOODROW WILSON SE 0.1573 0.2721 0.1148 11%

262
APPENDIX I
SELECTIVE CODING CHART FOR MOTIVATION FACTOR
Factors Facets Examples
Motivation
problem of
stakeholders
Low commitment, beliefs
and expectations of
teachers and counselors
• Teachers and counselors beliefs that minority
students could not complete rigorous academic
coursework
• Teacher beliefs that the AP curriculum would
have to be watered-down to serve minorities
• Teachers belief that they were forced to allow
minority students who weren’t qualified into AP
• Deliberate “gate-keeping” to keep minority
students out of AP and a select few (plus the
“terminally gifted” in the program)
• No buy-in to AP from administrators and teachers
• Counselors and teachers advising AP students not
to take the AP exam because they wouldn’t pass it.
• Counselors and teachers advising AP students not
to take the AP exam because it would hurt their
GPA
• Lack of motivation for teachers to engage in
professional development of teachers and
counselors
Low motivation of
African-American
students
• More Hispanics than African-Americans taking
rigorous AP courses
• AVID served more Hispanics than African-
American students
• Outreach to Hispanic students with AP Spanish
as entrée to other AP courses
• No culturally relevant coursework for motivation
for African-American students
• No incentives for African-American students to
succeed (as opposed to incentives for Hispanics)
• Lower expectations for African-American
students than Hispanic students
• No change in improved achievement for African-
Americans
• Students impeded by racial tension as an effect of
the change from traditionally black schools to
Hispanic majority schools-African-American
students feel uncomfortable and threatened
• High drop-out rate for African-American students
“flight”

263
Lack of academic
commitment of Hispanic
students and African-
American students
• High drop-out rate in AP program for all
minorities
• AP Exam Fee Waivers increased AP exams taken
but results in a decrease in AP exams passed
Lack of effort for social
change
• School-site resistance to work collaboratively
with other stakeholders
• School-site resistance to the central District’s
dictate when applying for the Grant
• The resistance in the process over-shadows the
work.
Motivation
problem Judicial/
Legislative
Lack of persistence to
improve AP program
• Once the Grant was over, no motivation /mandate
to order follow-up evaluations
• Social change left to the “people”/stakeholders
once legislation is passed

264
APPENDIX J
SELECTIVE CODING CHART FOR KNOWLEDGE FACTOR
Factors Facets Examples
Knowledge
Problem
Stakeholders
Lack of expertise in the AP
program/ Grant among
administrators, counselors
and teachers
• Many administrators, counselors and teachers
lacked understanding of the AP program.
• Counselors not understanding criteria for AP
student placement
• No AP teacher certification
• Lack of qualified AP teachers
• Lack of teacher preparation for AP instruction
• Participation in voluntary professional
development minimal (College Board/AVID)
• School site professionals lacked cultural
understanding for relevant instruction.
• School-site personnel had incomplete
knowledge of the AP Challenge Grant (SB
1689, 2000) dependent on the site.
• Three-year Grant was not enough time to see
skill development
• Only one California Department of Education
(CDE) official had knowledge of AP Challenge
Grant.
• District’s use of “in- house” Professional
Development, impeded exposure to nationally-
researched methodology.
Lack of parents’
understanding of the AP
program/Grant
• Parents not informed as to expectations of the
AP program
Not considering minorities’
prior experiences/knowledge
• Students lack culturally relevant instructional
materials adapted to learning styles of
minorities
• Students not prepared at the middle school
level to enter the academically rigorous AP
high school curriculum

265
Knowledge
Problem
Judicial/
Legislative
Lack of Judicial Knowledge
of the equal protection
lawsuit
• One out of four stakeholder participants had
no specific knowledge of Daniel v. State of
California (1999); three of four had limited
knowledge of the lawsuit.
• One stakeholder had the perception that the
suit had to do with a gap in AP access and
achievement for minority students.
• Stakeholders had knowledge of the AP
Challenge Grant (SB 1689, 2000) but some
thought it would be a longer (five year) plan
with options to renew.
Lack of Legislative
Knowledge of the AP
Challenge Grant remediation
• Counselors and teachers at specific sites had
varying degrees of knowledge of the legislative
intent of AP programming for African-
American and Hispanic students.

266
APPENDIX K
SELECTIVE CODING CHART FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FACTOR
Factors Facets Examples
Accountability
Problem of
Stakeholders
Lack of information to
monitor the effect of the
Grant on the AP Program
• Focus on California standardized test results,
high school exit exams, and graduation rate
rather than advanced AP programming after the
Grant
• Funding cut before implementation and
monitoring barely got started
• Lack of meaningful data collection and
analysis during Grant
• Monitoring not verified by paperwork
• Stakeholder (CDE) records destroyed after 5
years (no records after 2003)
• No monitoring or evaluation of the AP
Challenge Grant or the AP program, after Grant
ended
• Lack of follow-through with Professional
Development strategies gained through the
Grant
Insufficient regulations
by the state
• Lack of central District oversight
• No authority for Stakeholders (CDE) to pull
funds from schools that were not performing
Problem in delegation of
accountability of federal-
state-local level
• Vertical teaming-College Board; and AVID
participation ceased for most schools.
Accountability
Problem Judicial/
Legislative
Insufficient regulations • Lack of court and legislative oversight
No funding to monitor or
evaluate performance
after Grant
• No state money was issued for monitoring or
evaluation the AP Challenge Grant or the AP
program over time, after the Grant ended.
Lack of valuing rigorous
AP program for
minorities
• Stakeholder collaboration stopped at the end
of the Grant: no monies issued for continued
work.
• After Grant, most schools went back to pre-
Grant instructional focus re: rigorous
curriculum/achievement

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine factors that show significant effect upon social change, following judicial decisions, as exemplified in the California State Superior Court case, Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the ensuing Advanced Placement (AP) Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000), to remedy problems of educational access and equity. Legal theory was paired with education theory, taking into account social policy in practice, to find factors that effect the achievement of social change, as evidenced in educational change, over time. This study was one of mixed methodology.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of social networking sites on high school students' social and academic development

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations

PDF

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation

PDF

Case study: underrepresentation of women in high school principalships and challenges they face in the workplace

PDF

Strategy and college participation: a comparative case study of two early college high schools

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

The impact of Algebra for all policies on tracking, achievement, and opportunity to learn: a longitudinal study of California middle schools

PDF

A study of online project-based learning with Gambassa: crossroads of informal contracting and cloud management systems

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

The 2003-2012 impact of Algebra When Ready on indicators of college readiness across California school districts

PDF

Sun Valley Middle School: a case study analysis of a California state scholastic audit school and the development of a clear conceptual framework to turning around a failing school, doubling stud...

PDF

Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model

Asset Metadata

Creator Haddix, Madelynn S. (author)

Core Title The role of judicial decisions on access and equity: a case study of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Policy, Planning and Administration)

Publication Date 07/09/2009

Defense Date 05/13/2009

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

Tag access,education,equity,judicial decisions,LAUSD-AP high schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,social change

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

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Stolzenberg, Nomi M. (committee member)

Creator Email haddix@usc.edu,haddixbuck@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2339

Unique identifier UC1477376

Identifier etd-Haddix-3054 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-577148 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2339 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Haddix-3054.pdf

Dmrecord 577148

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Haddix, Madelynn S.

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