University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nothing trumps education: Exploring parents' perspectives on the Trump administration's affect on Los Angeles County students' overall learning and motivation

(USC Thesis Other)

Nothing trumps education: Exploring parents' perspectives on the Trump administration's affect on Los Angeles County students' overall learning and motivation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 1

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION: EXPLORING PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S AFFECT ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY STUDENTS’
OVERALL LEARNING AND MOTIVATION

by

Argelis Anibal Ortiz

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Argelis Anibal Ortiz

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 2
Table of Contents
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 8
Significance of the Study 9
Organization of the Study 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review 12
Overview 12
Theoretical Framework 13
Synthesis of the Literature 14
Power and Influence of Government in Education 14
A Blend of Perspectives on Students’ Learning and Motivation 15
Summary 21
Chapter Three: Methods 22
Context 22
Setting 23
Conducting Outreach 24
Participants 25
Data Collection 26
Information Form 26
Focus Group Protocol 27
Data Analysis 29
Limitations and Delimitations 30
Credibility and Trustworthiness 31
Ethics 32
Chapter Four: Findings 33
Presentation of Data 34
Parents–Participants 34
Household and Neighborhood 37
Presentation of the Findings 37
Answering Research Question #1 38
Answering Research Question #2 42
Answering Research Question #3 46
Answering Research Question #4 49
Findings 50
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications 52
Summary 52
Recommendations for Practice 53
Conclusions 54
References 56

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 3
List of Figures
Figure 1. Google map of zip codes surrounding the
University of Southern California–University Park Campus 66
Figure 2. Household zip code/Los Angeles County neighborhood 67
Figure 3. Outreach sites/connections/contacts 68
Figure 4. Age of children and number of children per grade level 69

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 4
List of Tables
Table 1. Parent-Participant Demographics 34
Table 2. Participant Information—No Answer 35
Table 3. Parents’ Highest Education Level 36
Table 4. Household Size 37
Table 5. Ranking of President Trump’s 10 Legislative Measures 45

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 5
List of Appendices

Appendix A: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix 70
Appendix B: Outreach Flyer 71
Appendix C: Information Sheet—English and Spanish 72
Appendix D: Demographic Questions 74
Appendix E: Dialogue Questions 75
Appendix F: Community Dialogue Agenda 76
Appendix G: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 1 77
Appendix H: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 2 78
Appendix I: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 3 79
Appendix J: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 4 80
Appendix K: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 5 81
Appendix L: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 6 82
Appendix M: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 7—English 83
Appendix N: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 7—Spanish 84
Appendix O: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 8 85
Appendix P: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 9 86
Appendix Q: Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 10 87

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 6
Abstract
Background: On November 8, 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United
States of America. Using critical race theory and a decolonial perspective, this research explored
the voices of Los Angeles County parents who discussed the potential impact of the Trump
administration on their children’s learning and motivation.
Methods: On August 26, 2017, the first weekend of the 2017–2018 school year in the Los
Angeles Unified School District, a focus group/community dialogue was conducted at the
University of Southern California with the parents of children in kindergarten through 12
th
grade
residing in Los Angeles County.
Results: The Trump administration’s use of tacticas de miedo” (fear tactics) directly affected the
parents, causing desconfianza (distrust) and thereby perpetuating social anxiety and stress in
their children. The parents–participants identified the following legislative measures by the
Trump administration as directly affecting their children’s education learning and motivation: the
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act and the End Illegal Immigration Act. The parents’ sentiment
was that to progress as a community, they had to continuously educate themselves about the law,
involve themselves more in their children’s education, and find more resources for their families.
Conclusion: Ultimately, the participants–parents concluded they should be more educated about
their rights and their children’s rights to empower themselves and advocate for their children in
their schools and communities.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Today’s political climate, particularly the impacts of President Donald J. Trump’s
administration on disenfranchised communities and families across the United States, has
spurred apparent tensions and a rich general public discourse. The intent of this research was not
to unpack White privilege in the education systems (McIntosh, 1989) but to create a new
narrative on parents’ experiences and knowledge (Bernal, 2002; Fernández, 2002) of the impacts
of these tense politically charged times on their children’s educational success. The focus
group/community dialogue conducted in this research borrowed from the principles of
community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003)
investigating what parents need (e.g., information, knowledge, and resources) for their children
to remain motivated and able to learn at school.
Background of the Problem
Student motivation and learning are highly individualized and complex, and many
internal, external, and environmental factors, including parental involvement, peer relationships,
and learning capacity issues and needs, interact to shape overall student achievement (Anderman,
Maehr, & Midgley, 1996; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Katz, Eilot, & Nevo, 2014). Moreover,
cultural and race dynamics are at play in equality and equity in the education system (Mertens,
2007). Weis and Fine (1993) called these issues “perversions and pleasure of power, privilege
and marginalization” (p. 2). At the intersection of critical race theory (CRT) and education
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), this dissertation took a deeper look at parents’ perceptions of
how the initiatives and legislation power of the federal government, particularly the Trump
administration, have trickled down to the individual student level. A decolonial perspective
(Andreotti, 2011) “challenging [Western privilege] unanimity and consensus” (p. 2) was blended
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 8
with CRT in this research project with the aim to uncover the voice of some Los Angeles County
parents. Parental voices could potentially oppose historically dominant and privileged colonial
voices (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999), including those in the Trump administration. CRT and
decolonial educational perspectives were blended in this research project to document parents’
struggles while identifying “alternative[s] to a current unequal system” and paths of “social
mobility” (Andreotti, 2011, p. 40).
Statement of the Problem
The U.S. federal government provides leadership, guidance, and fiscal support for states
to establish and execute the own education systems as they assess and plan the best way to serve
students (Cox, 2010). However, significant inequalities and injustices occur at every level. The
issue discussed in this research was perceptions on the instability and stressors rattling the nation
today. U.S. schools historically have served as the primary unprejudiced source of education and
reinforcement of American values (Olneck, 2004). However, an unprecedented political climate
has developed as the president has re-instituted and revived unjust traditions and repealed
legislation supporting underserved populations with health and financial resources. The
administration’s production of political stances that perpetuate “a common [American] historical
and cultural heritage in which racism has played and still plays a dominant role” (Lawrence,
1987, p. 138) likely has affected willingness to learn and excel among students of color. The
parental voices in this research project have begun a counter-narrative (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990) to
Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”
Purpose of the Study
This research studied the impact of the Trump administration on Los Angeles County
students’ learning and motivation from the perspective of the parents. It has been more than a
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 9
year and half since Trump was elected, and many anecdotal and mainstream media reports have
recorded the community and individual impacts of this administration. However, it remains
unknown how, if at all, the administration has affected students learning and motivation.
Three research questions were explored in a focus group/community dialogue by
parents–participants facilitated on August 26, 2017, the first weekend of the 2017–2018 school
year:
1. How are parents and the community in Los Angeles County reacting to the Trump
administration regarding their children’ learning and motivation?
2. From parents’ perspective, which specific issues does the Trump administration plan
on addressing that affect their children’s school learning and motivation?
3. What formal or informal supportive systems are parents developing to counteract
concerns the community has?
The fourth research question was of a procedural nature and concerned the recruitment and
outreach for the focus group/community dialogue as influenced by the principles of CBPAR
(Maiter, Simich, Jacobson, & Wise, 2008).
4. What feedback can be gathered during the outreach and recruitment phase for a focus
group/community dialogue on a potential controversial topic, as influenced by the
principles of CBPAR?
Significance of the Study
The perspectives of the parents–participants who attended the focus group/community
dialogue provided a source of the parents’ opinions on their children’s issues and strengths
within this current political climate (Bernal, 2002). There was the opportunity to reflect on and
identify a call to action for the parents to advocate for their children. A research project, such as
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 10
this one, may have the potential to inform an action research model for other large, dominant
areas, such as school districts and state policies.
The primary goal for this study was to conduct an engaging, respectful focus
group/community dialogue in which the participants felt safe, heard, and empowered. Maiter et
al. (2008) discussed how community empowerment can arise from the participants’ expression
and discussion of their life experiences, potentially leading to advocacy activities beyond the
focus group. Furthermore, facilitating this community focus group/community dialogue required
a delicate balance among avoiding introducing any preconceived notions of social injustices,
negating any motivation or learning trends within children, and blaming or judging the parents
for any misunderstandings or misconceptions on how the education system and federal, state,
and local governments operate. An objective related to that primary goal was to identify specific
resources and community-driven solutions the participants and their community used to improve
student learning and motivation.
Organization of the Study
This introduction chapter sets the big picture of how current education problem can be
perceived. Chapter 2 presents a synthesis of the literature on various stakeholders’ perspectives
and the historical and current views on the influences on student learning and motivation. This
chapter has a CRT framework, weaving the themes of power, social injustices, and culture into
the literature synthesis. The summary section in this chapter has a cyclical transformative
research model focusing on three pillars: power issues, social justice, and cultural complexity
(Martens, 2006, 2007). Patel (2015) discussed the decolonial perspective on the larger CRT
argument that White males remain in power in the United States, a reality difficult to ignore
when discussing power issues, social justice, and the complexities of culture.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 11
The focus group/community dialogue is described, along with the research protocol,
participants, setting, and detailed overall methods applied during the primary data collection
stage of this study. Chapter 3 further discusses the data collection, limitations, and delimitations.
The final chapters present direct quotes from the parents in Spanish to discuss and analyze the
research questions. As well, this dissertation includes appendixes, figures, and tables sharing the
actual documents used in the outreach, primary data collection, and the information sheet
distributed to obtain consent.

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
Students’ motivation and learning are influenced by peers, family, and community
(Schunk et al., 2014). This literature review considered a blend of CRT and decolonial
perspectives on students’ motivation and learning and applied the transformative researcher’s
lens to explore historical governmental oppression in education, identify Los Angeles students’
cultural complexities, and contextualize social justice practices and community coping strategies
arising in reaction to the current presidential administration. The purpose of this research project
was to study the community impact of the Trump administration on students’ overall learning
and motivation and to discover the community’s enduring and resisting strategies. The aim of the
focus group/community dialogue was to develop an understanding of Los Angeles community
parents’ perceptions on President Trump’s actions. Furthermore, this literature review explored
the significant role of the broad, diverse Los Angeles communal culture in reactions to the
Trump administration.
This review first examined the literature on students’ motivation and learning,
particularly from the perspectives of parents/guardians, students, and educators. At the
intersection of the political science, sociology, and education literatures, the researcher explored
the power and influence of government in education and referred to major historical instances of
governmental oppression in education. It was important to decode for the reader the unique
cultural complexities of Los Angeles students and their affects on students’ learning and
motivation. Finally, a variety of familial and community coping strategies was explored to
contextualize how people come together to endure and resist contentious times.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 13
Theoretical Framework
At the core of this study’s theoretical framework was a blend of CRT and decolonial
perspectives (Andreotti, 2011) used to examine power dynamics, discuss cultural complexities,
and unearth social justice practices by marginalized populations (Hooks, 1990; Mertens, 2007;
Solórzano & Bernal, 2001). Hooks (1990) discussed the importance of acknowledging the place
and location of marginalized populations and how they “push against oppression ... as a defiant
political gesture” (p. 145). The theoretical framework was also informed by the “cyclical
transformative research model, which provided the framework for examining assumptions
explicitly addressing power issues, social justice, and cultural complexity throughout the
research process“ (Mertens, 2007, p. 212).
CRT represents a movement by activists and scholars interested in the intersecting
relationships of race, gender, racism, and power (Delgado, Stefancic, & Liendo, 2012). The
theory emerged from criticisms of the role race plays in U.S. law and politics (Guinier, 1989).
Harris (1993) argued that through historical, societal, and legal means, White people have
maintained a colonial status quo to perpetuate their knowledge and wealth. Omi and Winant
(1994) contended that the sin of Lani Guinier, President Bill Clinton’s nominee for assistant
general in 1993, was to show to the masses that in the post-civil-rights era, racism still shaped
the U.S. social structure, particularly for Blacks.
As CRT evolved, many critical race theorists, including Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado,
and Mari Matsuda lent their voices to the exploration of the intersection of race and law
(Kennedy, 1989). Delgado et al. (2012) reported that within the past decade, CRT has split into
subgroups (e.g., Latino-Crit, Feminist-Cri, and Queer-Crit) with very specific sets of priorities.
Nonetheless, at the core of all subgroups has remained a focus on the important intersection of
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 14
race and property “through which we can understand social (and, consequently, school) inequity”
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p.125). Critical Race Theory has three major tenets, first
“racism is ordinary, not aberrational,” second, “interest convergence or material determinism,”
and third, “differential racialization” (Delgado, Stefancic & Liendo 2012, p. 8). Facets of the
CRT tenets along with Patel’s (2015) perspective of white males being in power have existed
and continue to persist in the federal government.
Synthesis of the Literature
Power and Influence of Government in Education
Perpetuating colonialism, U.S. school systems have inequitable academic systems and
academic standards for all student populations (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Researchers applying
CRT to assess school curriculum, composition, and beliefs have argued that White colonialism
maintains dominance (Villenas & Deyhle, 1999) by minimizing the worldviews and experiences
of minorities living in the United States (e.g., Latinos, indigenous peoples, and Blacks). For
example, in the 2019 federal budget, Trump proposed:
Cuts of more than $3 billion in the Budget for the Education Department [that] would
totally eliminate the 21
st
Century Community Learning Centers, Title II Teacher Grants
and Promise Neighborhoods, and eliminate or streamline more than 30 other
education programs. Funding for both the Title I Program for Disadvantaged Children
serving children in areas of concentrated poverty and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act program are held about at least year’s levels. (Children’s Defense Fund,
2018)
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 15
Proposed budget cuts to the education are not new in the United States, but President Trump has
“constant[ly] pitt[ed] the rich against those who have much less or very little, the most
vulnerable children, families, senior and other adults” (Children’s Defense Fund, 2018).
The historical oppression and marginalization of minorities by the government is
perpetuated in a new manner, particularly regarding equal education access and overall learning
advancement (Clark & O’Donnell, 1999).
The new racism works through a system of power and privilege operationalized mainly
through systems and institutions (including schools) because they are the key sites where
people learn the attitudes and behaviors they are to live by and the consciousness by
which they make sense of the world. (Cross, 2005, p. 13)
The executive branch’s authority to make unilateral policy decisions often serves as a strategic
tool for new presidents to demonstrate accomplishments in their first hundred days in office
(Shafie, 2013). In California and other states with large populations of Latino and immigrant
students, the education system holds “that the quicker immigrant children adopt the cultural
practices of American society, the more successful, academically, they will be” (Monzó &
Rueda, 2006).
A Blend of Perspectives on Students ’ Learning and Motivation
Vygotsky (1978) affirmed that individual change is rooted in human–environment
interactions. Furthermore, sociocultural theory developed by Vygotsky (1986) explains the
influence on individual learning and instruction from peers, adults, and cultural beliefs and
attitudes. Sociocultural theory incorporates external culture and belief systems to an extent
beyond that accepted by behavioral and cognitive theorists (Piaget, Gruber & Vonèche, 1977).
The research blended the CRT and decolonial perspectives (Andreotti, 2011) so that throughout
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 16
this literature review and study itself, there at times appear multiple viewpoints and cultures that
take White culture as the norm, including Vygotsky’s perspective on individual and
communal/familial learning practices in non-White cultures (Matias, 2016).
Our educational system has been built on a European legacy that to this date returns to a
history that redeems colonial practices and promotes success through notions of
excellence based on Western values such as individually earned merit, which assumes a
level playing field. (Baquedano-López, Alexander, & Hernandez, 2013, p. 151)
The following sections synthesize studies blending CRT and decolonial perspectives on students’
learning and motivation from the viewpoints of students, parents/caregivers, communities, and
educators.
Student perspectives on learning and motivation. Students’ motivational beliefs are
highly susceptible to influences during the transitions from elementary to middle school and
middle school to high school (Anderman et al., 1999). Maehr & Midgley, (1996) studies have
shown in a survey of 278 transitioning from fifth to sixth grade. This particular study found that
students’ motivational beliefs during that middle school transition year had “a greater emphasis
on competition than personal performance goals and personal extrinsic goals after the transition.”
Newman (2000) maintained that help seeking should be viewed as a strength that students of any
age can exercise, and those who do display positive self-regulation and monitoring with the aim
of doing their best at school.
Parent/caregiver perspectives on learning and motivation. It is no secret that
parent/caregivers view students’ motivation and learning as going hand in hand and want to be
kept informed of their children’s milestones and setbacks throughout their educational careers
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Katz et al., 2014). Katz et al. (2014) recently
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 17
conducted a study with 71 fifth-grade students on their motivation to complete their homework.
Furthermore, they found that being supported and incorporating a more autonomous kind of
motivation increased the students’ motivation to complete their homework. Grolnick and Ryan
(1989) interviewed 114 parents (64 mothers, 50 fathers) of students in third to sixth grades on
their parenting style, autonomy support, and schoolwork involvement. Also, they found that
support for autonomy correlated with better student self-regulation, competence, and flexibility,
“as measured by standardized tests and grades.” Baquedano-López et al. (2013) shed light from a
decolonial perspective that parent involvement was crucial.
Regarding parent involvement in students’ learning, Newman (2000) believed that
strategies, such as help-seeking starting at home are reinforced at school. Furthermore, the study
indicated that parents’ support for their children as self-regulated learners capable of seeking
help carries over into the classroom through social confidence and monitoring of academic
performance. There is an added layer if the family has specific needs or non-average
determinants (e.g., special education, immigration status, and foster youth). In phone interviews
with 234 parents of elementary-school children on the importance of helping their children with
reading, math, homework, and an overall interest in learning, the participation of parents was
mixed, but the parent’s value of education was relatively high compared to the time spent
supporting learning (Drummond & Stipek, 2004). The latter article also maintained that it is
difficult to determine whether the children of more involved parents perform better in school, or
it is easier and “more pleasant to become involved in children’s learning when they are
performing well.”
Gonida and Vauras (2014) affirmed that parental involvement “significantly contributes
to [student] academic achievement.” A meta-analysis by Fan and Chen (2001) identified various
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 18
constructs related to the level of parental involvement in children’s schooling, such as parental
beliefs, understanding, attitudes, and expectations for student achievement. Parental behaviors,
such as volunteering at school functions, assisting students with homework, and passing on
beliefs and expectations about the value of education, look different at home and at school for
the student (Fan & Chen, 2001; Epstein, 1996; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Don Hobeing,
2005; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001).
To decolonize educational systems and increase parental involvement in education, the
school “must point out and end all forms of epistemic, psychological, and physical violence as
are experienced through silencing, linguicism, segregation, tracking, and the dehumanizing
effects of the stunted academic potentials of youth of color” (Baquedano-López et al., 2013, p.
150). By acknowledging and recognizing the injustices schools perpetuate, administrators and
parents might be able to identify ways to move past the dominant educational culture (Delgado-
Gaitan, 1990).
Community perspectives on learning. Monzó (2003) conducted an ethnography of
eight Latino immigrant families, visiting them more than 200 times to observe, converse, and
participate in community outings and even observing a child from each family in school. The
Latino families were from Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador, representing a variety of
cultures and customs within these countries. An important finding with these families was the
inherent disconnect between family needs and schools’ and educator’s recommendations on
child rearing and prioritizing education (Monzó , 2003). There is a culture discrepancy with
immigrant families as “most professionals in child welfare services (teachers, doctors, child
protective service personnel) are generally middle class and non-Latino” and naturally have
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 19
“conflicting beliefs and the sociocultural realities [from] immigrants who live in segregated
communities such as those studied” (Monzó , 2003, p. 80).
Educator perspectives. For educators, it is highly important that students are highly
motivated to learn and equipped with cognitive and social strategies acquired at home and in
previous classes (Newman, 2000; Valdés, 1996; Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995). The toughest task
of educators is that all schools, especially in urban settings, have culturally diverse families and
students, which requires teaching to each individual student (Valdés, 1996). Valencia and Suzuki
(2000) maintained that intelligence testing in schools looks very different for minority and high-
achieving students and does not help instructors evaluate students’ prior knowledge, which is
essential to deploying learning and motivation strategies.
Great examples of learning and motivation strategies are self-regulation and self-
monitoring. Accordingly, Newman (2000) explained that learning occurs best when students can
interact through help-seeking behaviors, which demonstrates personal awareness of difficulty
levels, monitoring of one’s own performance, and confidence in requesting assistance from peers
and teachers alike. Teachers’ instructional capacity can give students positive reinforcement
(e.g., good grades, praise, and privileges), but if students do not have basic self-regulatory and
self-monitoring skills, then it is difficult to move the class together (Stipek, 1996).
Webb et al. (1995) conducted a study on six classes of seventh graders participating in
small groups completing three-week mathematics units (e.g. decimal numbers and fractions).
The hypothesis that students who received constructive feedback and guidance throughout the
activity, even when they answered incorrectly, performed better than the students who only
“received the answers.” (Webb et al., 1995). Countering the dominant education culture and
traditional ways of motivating students, this decolonial approach promotes “cultural
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 20
collaborations that decenter destructive, Western hegemonies, and privilege those subjugated
knowledges that are more conducive to peaceful, non-exploitative co-existence” (Sprecher, 2011,
p. 284).
Community coping strategies. Olivos (2006) highlighted the “powerful critique of
educational institutions and articulating the ‘power of parents’ to become active agents, critics,
and transformers of education and schools” (p. 106). Since the inception of institutionalized
education, language, power, and pedagogical dynamics have always created separation and
ultimately discrimination (Cummins, 1996, 2000). The use of humor and the search for external
emotional support are forms of social coping (Cox, Johnson, & Coyle, 2015) often
misinterpreted as uncaring and defiant. However, some coping strategies tend to confront
difficulties “finding solutions or changing the external situation” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Epstein-Ngo, Maurizi, Bregman, & Ceballo, 2013). Some are more communal in nature, such as
sharing experiences, performing community service, and participating in spirituality and religion
(Cohen & Asgary, 2016). Amid the unprecedented political climate as the United States as a
whole has dealt with national issues and tragedies, people have found solace in their
communities rather than at the national level (Fallows, 2017).
Addressing the gap in the literature. This study analyzed the parents–participants’
contributions in the focus group through a blend of CRT and decolonial perspectives to examine
the impacts of the Trump administration on students’ overall motivation and learning. The
community dialogue should use the parents’ perspectives to contextualize the “critical analysis of
race as an issue in public schools” (Lopez, 2003, p. 68) and identify the current community
coping strategies in this current political climate. Furthermore, according to Iglesias and Valdes
(1998), Lat-Crit educational research often “incorporates four functions: (a) the production of
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 21
knowledge, (b) the advancement of transformation, (c) the expansion and connection of
struggle(s), and (d) the cultivation of community and coalition.” (p. 503) As suggested by
Paperson (2010), for “researchers, and practitioners alike, decolonization involves an open
questioning of practices that are complicit in the perpetuation of a state of ghettoization and
colonization, which works to homogenize through the imposition of dominant knowledge”
(Dewey, 1944/1916, p. 149).
Summary
A polarized topic in a heated political climate must be studied respectfully and creatively
to gain insights from a true community perspective. “We argue that the key element of
participatory research lies not in methods but in the attitudes of researchers, which in turn
determine how, by and for whom research is conceptualized and conducted” (Cornwall &
Jewkes, 1995, p. 1667). In this research, the parents’ perspectives on motivation and learning
differ depending on their ethnicity, cultural background, and children’s age and learning
capacity. However, low-income families commonly place a high value and on education as the
means of “economic and social mobility” (Drummond & Stipek, 2004, p. 197).

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 22
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Nothing should trump education. The Los Angeles community is in disarray and affected
by the news reports is being communicated by the Trump administration. The aim of this
dissertation was to capture the perspectives of Los Angeles parents/community members who
had children in various grades whose schooling was affected, positively or negatively, by the
current political climate. Hochschild and Scovronick (2003) maintained that “Americans expect
schools not only to help students reach their potential as individuals but also to make them good
citizens who will maintain the nation’s values and institutions, help them flourish, and pass them
on to the next generation” (p.26). Through a focus group/community dialogue, the parents’
perspectives, along with potential action steps they would like to pursue, were captured in a
genuine, creative manner. This focus group/community dialogue drew from the CBPAR
framework but did not meet the criteria for a full community-based action research study. The
important objective was to learn from the parents–participants with what they struggled and what
they recommended as potential social justice steps and coping strategies for their peers to
manage their households.
Context
The participants recruited for this study were the parents/guardians older than 18 years
old of children and youth attending school in Los Angeles County. This population was targeted
because its members could share genuine concerns and positive reactions to what they faced in
this political climate. The main goal was to capture their beliefs on how the Trump
administration affected their children’s learning and motivation. To cast a wide net, interested
parent-participants were invited to attend a community dialogue on August 26, 2018, at the
University of Southern California. There was a risk of only attracting parents highly vocal and
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 23
highly involved in their children’s education to attend the focus group/community dialogue.
There was also a risk of attracting those at both ends of the political spectrum, supporting and
opposing the Trump administration. Within the cyclical transformative research model, this
research explored from the parents’ perspective the three pillars of power issues, social justice,
and cultural complexity (Martens, 2006, 2007). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) emphasized that
in the CRT lens, “race continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity in the United
States” (p. 38). As well, the decolonial educational perspective encourages parents to “identify
alternative[s] to a current unequal system” and unite to seek opportunities for “social mobility”
(Andreotti, 2011, p. 40).
Setting
The setting was a focus group/community dialogue on the University of Southern
California campus from 10 a.m. to noon on Saturday, August 26, 2017. The parents–participants
were recruited through distributing leaflets at K–12 schools in the surrounding USC University
Park Campus area and through electronic communication to the researcher’s educational
colleagues that forward an electronic version of the flyer. This focus group/community dialogue
aligned well with the CRT and decolonial research approaches (Andreotti, 2011) and cyclical
transformative research because the answers came from within the affected community—
parents.
The estimated population of Los Angeles County (7/1/2016) is 10,137,915 people, or
approximately 3,263,065 households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). This county is so massive and
spread-out that gaining a truly representative sample of every type of community, family, and
culture would be unmanageable. Consequently, zip codes surrounding the University Park
Campus (90006, 90007, 90011, 90015, 90018, 90037, 90062, 90089 (Figure 1) were targeted.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 24
These areas are centrally located south of Los Angeles and surrounded by predominately Latino
and Black families and communities (Healthycity.org). This setting was suitable for providing a
safe, reputable environment for a rich discussion on the current state of the political climate and
its impacts on children’s education.
Conducting Outreach
During outreach in the weeks before the community dialogue, approximately 1,000 flyers
were distributed before and after school to schools surrounding the University of Southern
California (Figure 3). Overall, the majority of the parents were receptive to the flyers. A few
engaged and provided feedback. For example, the Black mother of elementary-school children
said, “I am a citizen, so the new administration doesn’t really affect me. I do feel bad for the
Latinos, though.” This indicated to the researcher that some people might interpret the Trump
administration as affecting only Latinos and non-citizens. Parents of various ethnicities, ages,
and genders waiting for their children to leave school shared versions of the following statement:
“It is still shocking to know that so many people in the country voted for such a person.”
Many monolingual Spanish-speaking parents did not wish to take the flyer or want more
information about the community dialogue. One monolingual Spanish-speaking mother of
middle-school children made it a point to state, “No es justo que tenemos un presidente que no
nos quiere en este país” (“It is not fair that we have a president that does not want us in this
country”). The participants in the focus group later shared their disappointment and shock.
During the outreach, it appeared that the people who read the flyer and wanted to speak about
this topic confidently indicated their intent to participate. A bilingual (English/Spanish) mother
of elementary-school children confirmed her attendance and asked, “Yes, I’ll be there. Will there
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 25
be school officials there?” This signified that she desired to bring up concerns and ideas directly
to school administrators/officials.
In addition to distributing leaflets and flyers, the researcher made other formal efforts to
connect with educational professionals (e.g., principals and education school colleagues) by
email and social media (e.g., LinkedIn) and to contact extracurricular educational programs (e.g.,
the USC Neighborhood Academic Initiative). The response from the educational professionals
was mixed. They either answered positively and said they would forward the requests to parent
groups or made no response.
Participants
The recruitment goal for the focus group/community dialogue was 12–15 parents with
children of various ages and grade levels in various school districts within Los Angeles. The
participants also had to be comfortable being vocal and listening to varying points of view. This
number was estimated as appropriate to allow for earnest discussion, quickly build rapport, and
enable flexibility to take part in participatory research methodologies (Cornwall & Jewkes,
1995). To reiterate, the primary focus was to capture the parents’ perspectives on the research
questions. According to Krueger and Casey (2014), focus groups such as this one are only as
successful as the recruitment and the topic of interest. Furthermore, focus group participants tend
to be homogenous and share common interests in the topic discussed.
In the outreach flyers and other communication for the community dialogue (Appendix
B), three major incentives were detailed: child care would be provided for the participants, gift
cards would be raffled off to the participants, and simultaneous English-to-Spanish translation
with headset and interpretation would be provided. The setting was conducive for all three main
incentives and was not coercive to the participants in the dialogue or their children. The outreach
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 26
flyers and leaflets informed the potential participants that there would be English-to-Spanish
translation; however, all the actual participants spoke Spanish, so the entire protocol/dialogue
was conducted in Spanish. The translation services were utilized only to enable the bilingual
English/Spanish speakers to be able to communicate to the group thoughts that came to them
more naturally in English.
Data Collection
Information Form
Upon entering the focus group, the participants were given a demographic questionnaire
to complete (Appendix D), which included self-reported questions on age, gender, ethnicity,
marital status, and employment status. The participants were instructed not to put their names
anywhere on the paper, so the information would be anonymous. It was also emphasized that
they should answer as many questions as they felt comfortable in whichever language they felt
more comfortable (English or Spanish). They handed the completed forms to the researcher to
compile all the participants in attendance. The information gathered in the demographic
information form assisted in determining the composition of the participants (Creswell, 2013) in
the community dialogue.
As the participants completed the information form, the researcher facilitated an
introductory monologue to set the stage. The research inquisitively wondered, “It feels like, day
by day, the Trump administration is concocting or putting out new executive orders, and there’s
a hidden agenda that impacts everyone. Do you all feel the same?” The initial questions focused
the community on how the quick-fire administration was affecting the education community in
Los Angeles. Ultimately, the protocol was to 1) facilitate the initial introduction and rapport-
building questions; 2) have the parents/guardians walk around the room to write answers to 5
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 27
questions on large notepads on the wall; and finally 3), after the participants had written their
answers, the researcher asked clarifying questions or sought for the participants to expand on
their answers. Answers were chosen if they had an apparent reoccurring theme or seemed to be
out of the ordinary. The researcher recorded one of the recurring themes and asked clarifying
questions to the group to facilitate a brief group discussion.
The group discussion offered opportunities to dive deeper and ask clarifying and
exploratory questions to “develop a common language within the group” (O’Toole, Aaron, Chin,
Horowitz, & Tyson, 2003). For example, when a mother of Latino heritage stated, “Trump is
Hitler!”, it was important to break down that statement and open discussion of what that meant to
the group. The group had a consistent/consensus answer: “It is apparent he has a preferred race
[White], and he wants everyone else out.” Furthermore, the focus group members discussed how
their children might interpret this opinion and others and whether those perceptions affected their
schooling in any way. This Socratic-style questioning is important to utilize when a facilitator
wants to ensure that participants give purposeful, analytical responses (Paul & Elder, 2008).
Focus Group Protocol
Based on the CBAPR framework that involves the community as a partner in action
against social discrepancies and injustices (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003), the focus
group/community dialogue was conducted with the parents–participants primarily in Spanish. In
the first hour, semi-structured interview questions (Appendix E) were asked, and the parents–
participants were invited to have a dialogue discussion in order to obtain specific perspectives. In
the second hour, the parents–participants walked around the room and answered questions on
large papers posted on the wall (pinned-up questions). The parents–participants could write what
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 28
they felt in their own words and answer the questions they wished to without pressure from other
group members or the focus group facilitator.
In the semi-structured interview questions, the researcher jotted down the parents–
participants’ direct quotations in Spanish. These were used without personal identifiers because
the aim was not to gain the perspectives not of individual parents but the group of parents. CRT
and the cyclical transformative research model focused on the three pillars of power issues,
social justice, and cultural complexity, which were kept in mind as the semi-structured questions
were drafted (Martens, 2006; 2007; O’Toole et al., 2003). The first set of five semi-structured
questions was intended to build trust while putting the participants in a reflective mindset.
For the pinned-up questions (photographs 1 and 2), the participants got up and wrote their
answers to the posted questions, and the researcher walked around to see if there was any need to
clarify a question. The participants were encouraged to write answers to only as many questions
as they felt comfortable. There was no pressure to complete one or all of the questions posted.
The majority of the parents–participants answered all of the pinned-up questions, writing
answers in Spanish and English.

Photograph 1 (August 26, 2017)
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 29

Photograph 2 (August 26, 2017)
The focus group/community dialogue protocol and agenda (Appendix D) was intended to
get the parents/community members to express their current feelings, whether ambivalence or
excitement, on their children returning to school. In particular, on how all the stressors of the
family and children affected their learning and motivation. Anticipating that monolingual
Spanish-speaking parents would attend, an on-site interpreter conducted simultaneous translation
in to headsets. The interpreter had 20 units (headphone sets) available, but they were not utilized
because the focus group was ultimately conducted in only Spanish.
Data Analysis
The participants’ demographic information was analyzed to identify those who attended
the focus group/community dialogue. The purpose of the responses to the demographic
information form were not intended as descriptive statistics (Creswell, 2013), using the
participants’ nominal, ordinal, and interval data used to create relationships between their
answers and participation in the focus group itself. The discussion and note-writing was guided
by grounded-theory procedures, in which probing for clarification, expanding the participants’
answers, and conducting constant comparison analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) challenged any
preconceived notions or theories of the problem studied held by the researcher.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 30
Coding performed using NVIVO (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011), a qualitative research
analysis tool, helped organize the reoccurring themes, different opinion, new ideas, and
anomalies (Lichtman, 2014). The organization of themes was performed through a combination
of constant comparison analysis and keyword-in-context analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011)
of the qualitative notes collected in Spanish. This helped code the unspoken and unexplained
perceptions of the community’s feeling within the current political climate. As expected, the
parents–participants were able to give several-sentence explanations in the writing portion of the
focus group/community dialogue. The answers posted provided an opportunity to conduct axial
coding, pattern coding, and theoretical coding that completed grounded theory (Saldaña, 2015).
The goal of combining these coding methods was to develop a theory (Saldaña, 2015) on the
parents’ perspectives on the Trump’s administration’s impacts on their children’s school
motivation and learning.
Limitations and Delimitations
The delimitation of the study was identifying the University of Southern California as the
center of Los Angeles County. This community dialogue site limited the number of participants
are able to access transportation to and from the site. The time of the focus group/community
dialogue might not have been conducive to public transportation schedules or meal and naptime
for the participants’ children. Another delimitation was the date of the focus group/community
dialogue during the first few weeks of school when parents typically purchase supplies,
uniforms, and books for their children. As stated in the outreach flyer (Appendix A), there was a
focus on recruiting English- and Spanish-speaking parents. Although other languages and
ethnicities could have been targeted, the boundary was set at these two languages because they
are the predominant languages in Los Angeles County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Furthermore,
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 31
a large limitation of this focus group/community dialogue was that all participants were of Latino
heritage, and no other ethnicity was represented.
The limitations of the framework for this focus group/community dialogue risked
attracting only parents who were highly involved in their children’s schooling and did not fear
for repercussions from authorities for publicly stating their opinions. Such participants might
already have strong opinions on action steps and solutions, potentially dominating the
conversation and call to action. There is an overall distrust of open community forums due to the
fear of not knowing who will attend and what actions or statements might be might be used
against the participants. A shortcoming of using this design, although purposeful, was that the
focus group/community dialogue only occurred at one place at one time. However, the intent was
to recruit parents with children entering a new school year (2017–2018) to reflect on the previous
school year (2016–2017).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This community dialogue and the actions derived from it were only as strong and fruitful
as the participants and the researcher facilitating the discussion. In action research and its various
offshoots, the researcher is the primary tool “delving deeply into the mysteries with a solid belief
that discovery must be rich, credible and trustworthy” (Stewart & Gapp, 2017, p. 2). The
community dialogue was respectfully planned and organized to invite as many participants as
possible, with the understanding that their voice and opinions mattered. In the data collection,
every effort was made to provide English and Spanish handouts, resources, and translation
services to encourage participation and not alienate anyone. All the participants shared parts of
their complex stories, issues, strengths, and needs, as in vignettes. It was difficult to assess their
true motives for participation, just as in vignettes, one has to determine how trustworthy and
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 32
reliable a source is to avoid committing narrative fraud (Brauner, 1995; Spalding & Phillips,
2007).
Ethics
The primary safeguard implemented in the protocol was to not obtain any identifiable
information (e.g., names and addresses), honoring informed consent and confidentiality (Pope &
Mays, 1999). The outreach flyers, information forms, semi-structured interview questions, and
pinned-up questions were translated into English and Spanish and approved by the University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board. The principal investigator submitted an
exempt application, Category 2, a request for review for researchers conducting a focus group on
an experience or an opinion towards an institution/program (Public Welfare, 45 C.F.R. part 46,
2009). The informed consent for stated that the participants could choose to not answer any
questions and end their participation at any time. Information sheets in English and Spanish
(Appendix C) and demographic forms (Appendix D) were provided to all the participants, and
they were verbally instructed to not include any identifiable information to ensure their
anonymity.

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 33
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings of the community dialogue held on August 26, 2017, at
the University of Southern California campus with 21 parents–participants. This event occurred
on the first back-to-school weekend after the majority of Los Angeles Unified School District
students returned to school for the 2017–2018 school year (Los Angeles Unified School District,
2017). The intent of having the community dialogue at this time was to capture the parents’
knowledge and emotions surrounding their children returning to school under the new
presidential administration.
The purpose of this research project was to study the community impact from parents’
perspective of the Trump administration on students’ overall learning and motivation and to
discover the community’s enduring and resisting strategies. Appendix A describes the theoretical
framework in which the following three research questions were analyzed:
1. How are parents and the community in Los Angeles County reacting to the Trump
administration regarding their children’s learning and motivation?
2. From parents’ perspective, which specific issues does the Trump administration plan
on addressing that affect their children’s school learning and motivation?
3. What formal or informal supportive systems are parents developing to counteract
concerns the community has?
A fourth procedural research question concerned the recruitment and outreach for the focus
group/community dialogue as influenced by the principles of CBPAR (Maiter et al., 2008).
4. What feedback can be gathered during the outreach and recruitment phase for a focus
group/community dialogue on a potential controversial topic, as influenced by the
principles of CBPAR?
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 34
Presentation of Data
Parents –Participants
Twenty-one parents attended and participated in the community dialogue and completed
the information form. Table 1 presents the parents–participants’ demographics details, including
their self-reported age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and employment status. Demographic
information without full names was captured not to identity and infer patterns from individual
participants (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, & Zoran, 2009) but to describe the group
attending the focus group and to listen to this specific group and account for its experiences. The
average age of the participants was 39 years, with the youngest parent 31 years old and the oldest
56 years old. Of the twenty-one participants, 86% were female (18 mothers), and 14% were male
(3 fathers). According to the participants’ self-reports, 76% identified as Latino/Hispanic, 9% as
Mexican American, and 5% as Mexican, while 10% chose not to answer this question.
Throughout the dialogue, the issue of identifying one’s ethnicity in “school forms” was
raised: “At schools, one doesn’t want to identify the race and ethnicity because one doesn’t know
what they might use it for.” A couple of parents shared this sentiment: “I de n t i fic ar mi raza y
etnicidad es algo nuevo para mi. No había forma como i de n t i fic ar m e. Yo me pongo ‘Native
American’” (“Identifying my race and ethnicity is new for me. I do not find a way to identify
myself, I chose ‘Native American’.”) Here, the parents had an internal struggle to identify their
cultural capital (Yosso, 2005) by affirming that they belonged to an ethnic category listed. There
was also distrust in the promised anonymity of forms collecting ethnic information. From a CRT
Table 1
Parent-Participant Demographics
Age 39 years—average 31 years—youngest 56 years—oldest
Gender 86%—female 14%—male
Ethnicity 76%—Latino/Hispanic
9%—Mexican
American
5% Mexican 10%—no Answer
Marital Status
62% married/domestic
partnership
14%—
separated/divorced
14%—no answer 10%—single
Employment
Status
58%—employed 19%—homemaker 14%—no answer 9%—out of work
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 35
and decolonial perspective (Yosso, 2005), parents might have felt less willing to express answers
not representative of or favorable toward the dominant (White) group.
The participants did not answer questions in several categories. Table 2 presents the four
demographic questions on the participants’ information (información del participante) that they
had the right not to answer. Throughout the dialogue, various participants repeatedly mentioned
that under this presidential administration, there was a sense of “miedo, inseguridad,
discriminación entre nuestra propia gente” (“fear, insecurity, and discrimination between our own
people”). Considering this feeling, the dialogue had to be facilitated respectfully, honestly, and
without too much probing to avoid losing the participants’ trust.
Table 2
Participant Information —No Answer
Demographic Questions Not Answered Participants (%)
Marital status 3%–14%
Employment status 3%–4%
Household zip code 1%–5%
Ethnicity 2%–11%
Highest education level—self 4%–19%

The demographic information included questions about the parents’ highest education
level achieved. Table 3 shows that 4% (1 parent) graduated from college, 28% (6 parents)
attended some college, 10% (2 parents) graduated from high school, 10% (2 parents) completed
some high school, 10% (2 parents) graduated middle school, and 19% (4 parents) attended some
elementary school, while 19% (4 parents) did not answer this question. Regardless of their own
academic achievements, the parents had high hopes and expectations for their children as they
began the school year. A father participant urged that the children should “quiero que se
enfoquen en el estudio sin preocupación alguna” (“focus on their studies without a worry in the
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 36
world”). The parents lit up when sharing their positive expectations for their children in the new
school year, such as, in the words of one mother, “que cumplan todas sus metas escolares”
(“achieving all scholastic goals”). This notion of students meeting all their goals was brought up
to inform their peers that the ultimate goal in school was to learn. Even as the parents in the
group expressed their high expectations for their children’s success, they understood that this
new school year was very different from the recent past.
Table 3
Parents ’ Highest Education Level
Education Level Participants (%)
Some elementary school 4%–19%
Middle school graduate 2%–10%
Some high school 2%–10%
High school graduate 2%–10%
Some college 6 -28%
College graduate 1%–4%
No answer 4%–19%

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 37
Household and Neighborhood
A majority (13) of the parents–participants had a family household composed of 4 or 5
people. As shown in Table 4, the household size varied from two to eight. The children’s ages
also differed tremendously as large households of five or more members more than likely had
older children in high school or college. The parents–participants lived in various geographically
diverse neighborhoods within Los Angeles County, such as Koreatown, Pico Union,
Crenshaw/Baldwin Village, Heights at Ladera, Hollywood, Echo Park/Historic Filipinotown,
Hazard/City Terrace, Duarte, Rancho Cucamonga, and the surrounding USC communities of
University Park, Jefferson Park, and the South Figueroa Corridor (Figure 2).
Table 4
Household Size
# of People in Household # of Families Percentage of Participants
2 1 5%
3 4 19%
4 6 29%
5 7 33%
6 2 9%
8 1 5%

Presentation of the Findings
The theoretical framework alignment matrix (Appendix A) details the connections among
the three research questions, the corresponding theoretical framework, and the dialogue
questions intended to answer the research questions. The headings in this chapter organize the
analysis and present direct quotations from the focus group/community dialogue. The select
quotes were identified “to illuminate or reveal conditions or phenomena that have not yet been
privileged or previously told” (Fortune, Reid, Miller, & Miller, 2013, p. 65).
Answering Research Question #1
Parents and community reactions to the Trump administration. Relevant to the first
research question (How are parents and the community in Los Angeles County reacting to the
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 38
Trump administration regarding their children ’s learning and motivation?), Bernal (2002) states
that “researching within a critical raced-gendered epistemology allows the experiential
knowledge of communities of color to be viewed as strength and an asset” (p. 399). Keeping in
mind the decolonial perspective within systems and institutions, Cross (2005) suggested being
critical of the vast power and influence presidential administrations play in this country and the
world. For this focus group/community dialogue, the parents–participants expressed
desconfianza (distrust) as the reaction that best encompassed the array of experiences and
emotions felt by the parents and the community.
Desconfianza (distrust). The subthemes of emotions and reactions supporting the
overarching theme of desconfiaza (distrust) are: conflictos (conflict), incertidumbre
(uncertainty), and prejuicios (prejudice). The following responses are a combination of
interactions and replies to the semi-structured interview questions 2–5 asking about the
participants’ perceptions of the political climate, their (parents’) and the community’s feeling
and/or attitudes towards the presidential administration, and identifying any differences in their
children’s school learning and motivation since Trump won the presidential election. During the
dialogue, the parents–participants provided examples of the emotions and feelings arising in
them as parents and community members.
Conflictos (conflict). The parents shared the sentiment of conflictos (conflict), or
discomfort at not knowing in whom to confide, even within their own families: “No me gusta
c onfiar en gente. No se quien voto por quien; mejor no hablo. Hasta hay familiares que no hay
c onfianz a” (“I do not like to confide in people. I do not know who voted for whom. I better not
speak; there are even relatives who one cannot trust”). There was a restrictive attitude to
avoiding speaking out in favor or against the presidential administration, mistrusting others’
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 39
motives and fearing retaliation. This conflict arose in this statement “no se quien voto por quien”
(“I do not know who voted for whom”), as if to state that knowing for which candidate a person
might have voted aligned them with any or all of the candidate’s core political and personal
beliefs. The power of having to identify oneself and choose sides caused conflict and uncertainty
within peers and the larger community. For children, it could be difficult to live in homes,
communities, and societies exerting such binary pressures to identify with one political
affiliation or another. Furthermore, the conflict with which the parents, teachers, administrators,
and society struggled spilled over into individuals’ homes and schools.
Incertidumbre (uncertainty). A parent brought up the idea of incertidumbre
(uncertainty) in regard to the overall community’s reaction to the election results, more
specifically, “acompañada de miedo y terror a lo desconocido” (“accompanied by fear and terror
of the unknown”). This fear of the unknown was expressed several times during the focus
group/community dialogue. The sentiment reflected not knowing how many of Trump’s
campaign promises he would actually keep and put into practice. The focus group discussed at
length Trump’s stance on immigration, deportation, and building a wall over the Mexican border
(Qui, 2016) and the nervousness and anxiety this uncertainty made them feel.
A parent–participant shared, “Yo trabajo en la escuela. Ha habido unos padres que me
han preguntado que si me podría ser responsable de sus hijos si ‘algo ’ le pasan a ellos. Es una
gran responsabilidad” (“I work at a school. There have been several parents that have asked me
if I could be responsible for their children if ‘something’ happens to them. That is a great
responsibility.”) This scenario aligned with the parents’ anxiety over the uncertainty due to their
immigration status and compelled them to plan for and imagine worst-case scenarios. In these
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 40
parents–participants’ opinions, now more than ever, they needed to know whom to trust and who
would not judge them.
Prejuicio (prejudice). A very concerned parent shared the following thought, bringing
the focus group to silence: “La comunidad está enojada, desesperada, no se sabe si tiene que
regresar a la escuela. Los padres piensan, “si algo me pasa que va pasar con mis hijos?’” (The
community is angry, desperate, does not know if they [students] should return to school. Parents
worry, ‘What if something happens to me? What will happen to my children?’”). This prejuicio
(prejudice) the focus group discussed was putting the parents on edge. Further research should
explore how this pressure of facing uncertainty due to an administration outspoken on
immigration and other issues affects children from their perspective.
These parents–participants stated that for the first few days and potentially the entire
school year, they chose not to take their children to school due to a fear of deportation. LA
School Report writer Maressa Nicosia (2016) explained
An estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s
643,400-plus students are children of mixed-status families and could be affected by the
deportations, according to CARECEN. The district received an influx of immigrant
children from Central and South America in 2013-14. (p.1)
One can image the impact on the school system, teachers, and individual classrooms if more than
600 thousand students began to have inconsistent attendance.
It was apparent that there was much distrust in what this new presidential administration
would provide or cut for children and families in the United States. The unifying statement on
the distrust theme with the Trump administration was “Lamentablemente se asemeja un ‘circo
montado ’ en donde reina las burlas internacionales hacia un país considerado potencia mundial
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 41
en el pasado” (“Regrettably, it resembles a ‘circus’ in which international mockery reigns in a
country once considered a world power in the past”). The parents–participants were cognizant
that this administration was having impacts on the country, state, family, and international levels.
The following selected statements illustrate the level at which parents tried to understand
and qualify the potential change and disturbance in the status quo this new presidential
administration brought to their daily lives. One parent said, “Todos tenemos derechos pero hay
riesgo. No tenemos consideración. No somos sensibles entre nosotros mismos” (“We all have
rights, but there are risks. We have no consideration. We are not sensitive among ourselves”).
This parent’s statement ties together all three desconfianza (distrust) subthemes—conflictos
(conflict), incertidumbre (uncertainty), and prejuicios (prejudice)—because even among
themselves, the participants were not sensitive to and did not value our own rights.
In the schools, a parent shared, bullying was occurring due to this same desconfianza
(distrust): in “middle schools hay ‘bullying ’ los niños que son de padre inmigrantes/ilegales le
echan la culpa a mi hijo que es ciudadano que el fue que eligio al Presidente Trump. Dicen, por
tu culpa mis papas van a ser deportados” (“In middle schools, there is ‘bullying’ of children
who are immigrants or have illegal parents. They blame my son who is a citizen, that he was the
one that elected President Trump. They say, ‘It is your fault my parents are going to be
deported’”). This distrust created such misunderstanding that children projected the conflict,
uncertainty, and prejudices onto each other—not knowing that they were victimizing each other.
To reiterate, the parents–participants directly shared that the children of families most
negatively impacted by the new presidential administration did not want to attend school because
they were worried about their parents and at times bullied by other students. What was apparent
from this discussion was that as the parents themselves attempted to understand and prepare for
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 42
changes, a collective anxiety (Bartholomew & Victor, 2004) was perpetuated and unknowingly
affecting children’s learning and motivation.
Answering Research Question #2
Specific issues of the Trump administration affecting students. Relative to the second
research question (From the parents ’ perspective, which specific issues does the Trump
administration plan on addressing that affect their children ’s school learning and motivation?),
CRT can be used “as a paradigmatic lens to examine the schooling experiences” (Howard, 2008,
p. 954) and, in this research, elaborate the parent’s perceptions on their children’s experiences. A
decolonial perspective identifying the specific issues through which the Trump administration
affects children might empower “parents from non-dominant backgrounds can be productive
social actors who can shape and influence schools and other social institutions” (Baquedano-
López et al., 2013, p. 150).
Tácticas de miedo (fear tactics). The primary theme the parents–participants discussed
during the focus group/community dialogue was President Trump’s tácticas de miedo (fear
tactics) on U.S. residents and the international community. This theme emerged from recurring
answers, emotions, and perceptions in responses to questions 6–8 in the community dialogue
discussion protocol. The statements of emotions and reactions supporting the theme of tácticas
de miedo (fear tactics) touched upon información incorrecta (misinformation), miedo (fear), and
silencio (silence). An outspoken father stated, “Trump en estos años esta usando el temor, y el
saldo que le manda a nuestros países va estar afectado. Así que la economía aya también va
estar afectado” (“Trump in these years will be using fear against us, and the wages that one
sends back to our home countries will be affected. So, therefore, the economy in those countries
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 43
will also be affected”). The parents–participants discussed concerning perceptions and
uncertainty about his true capabilities as president.
Información incorrecta (misinformation). The partner of the outspoken father stated,
“Es que mucha gente voto por ignorancia. Nosotros no estamos bien informado” (“It’s just that
many people voted out of ignorance. We are not well informed”). Another comment from a
mother further confirmed that this parent focus group felt very misinformed: “Al empezar la
escuela, tuvimos nuestra primera junta. Va haber más cambios en las escuelas. Quieren sacar a
nuestros hijos si ellos no hacen caso. Quiere que firmemos para que puedan pedir más dinero.
No hay forma de uno quejarnos” (“When we started school, we had our first meeting. There will
be more changes in the schools. They want to kick our children out if they do not listen or
misbehave. They want us to sign, so they can request for more money. There’s no way for us to
complain”). This parent connected a district or school policy to a law the federal government had
crafted. There were several more such statements regarding misinformation about legislative
process, the power of executive orders, and differences among the school district, local, state and
federal levels of government.
The misinformation also appeared in the community. For example, a female participant–
parent shared, “En mi trabajo [mercado] los dueños Iranios se pusieron feliz por que votaron
por el [Trump] para que no pagaran muchos taxes. Ahora esos mismos Iranios están molestos
por que ahora ya no pueden viajar por la prohibición de viajar [travel ban] que hay en sus
países” (“At my work [supermarket], the Iranian owners were happy because they voted for him
[Trump] so that their taxes would be lowered. Now those same Iranian bosses are upset because
they cannot travel to the Middle East because of the travel ban”). This statement was made to
acknowledge the fear tactics Trump was utilizing to create mixed messages and advance his
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 44
campaign promises. Furthermore, it was apparent that the parents–participants were unable to
decipher or filter through potential misinformation, and this confusion translated into fear.
Miedo (fear). An older mother declared “Yo no voy a manejar” (“I will no longer drive
my vehicle”) due to her status as an illegal immigrant and her real fear of being caught. Parents
voiced shock at knowing that the president of the United States had made so many hateful and
derogatory statements towards immigrants, primarily Latinos. They parents shared that they
knew that overall, the Trump administration and its supporters “apoyan para que hayan leyes
manipulando a la sociedad” (“They support so that there are laws manipulating society”).
Moreover, the parents–participants shared their concerns about potential cuts to programs and
benefits for children and families: “No hay programas para gente que no tiene dinero” (“There
are no more programs for people that don’t have money”). The fear tactics were perpetuated
through the parents–participants’ peers and colleagues via “miedo, inseguridad, discriminación
entre nuestra propia gente” (“fear, insecurity, [and] discrimination among our own people.”)
This transfer of fear among peers was explored, particularly its possible impacts on children.
Overall, the parents stated that it created an untrusting environment, in which no one knew
whom to trust, and their children observed and learned from their parents how to behave.
Silencio (silence). “Ya tiene uno miedo y precaución. Mejor se queda uno callado”
(“One is already fearful and cautious. It’s best to keep quiet”). Several parents shared this
sentiment that due to fear and uncertainty, it was better to be cautious and be silent. This
silencing (Baquedano-López et al., 2013) confirmed the significant power and influence of the
government on youth and families of color. Some parents shared the view that “mejor no hablar
mucho del tema” (“It’s best if one doesn’t talk about the subject”). Keeping silent and wanting
not to be noticed was a survival mechanism for the entire family (Huber, 2009). When asked
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 45
about how being silent might impact their children, a couple participants stated, “Los niños
tratan de copear y comunicarse con otros niños como miran/escuchan en los medios de
comunicación” (“Children tend to copy and communicate with their peers just like they see in
the media”) Overall, the parents reflected on the notion that their silence was observed by and
modeled for their children. This could become a detriment or a coping mechanism when dealing
with specific legislative measures the Trump administration has strongly pursued.
Table 5
Ranking of President Trump ’s 10 Legislative Measures
Q7. Which of these ten legislative measures by Trump most affect student learning and
motivation most? (Rank them 1–3, with 1 being the highest) (Trump, 2017)
Highest Middle Lowest
i. Middle Class Tax Relief and
Simplification Act
0 1 0
ii. End the Offshoring Act 0 0 1
iii. American Energy and Infrastructure
Act
0 0 0
iv School Choice and Education
Opportunity Act
2 5 1
v. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act 7 1 3
vi. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare
Act
1 4 6
vii. End Illegal Immigration Act 6 0 3
viii. Restoring Community Safety Act 0 1 1
ix. Restoring National Security Act 1 4 1
x. Clean Up Corruption in Washington
Act
0 0 0

Specific legislative measures. President Trump has detailed 10 legislative measures on
which he has based his entire presidential career. The parents–participants were give stickers to
rank the top three measures affecting their children’s learning and motivation. Table 5 presents
the issues the parents–participants felt had direct impacts on their children’s education learning
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 46
and motivation. In the category of highest priority, the Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act was
ranked first, followed by the End Illegal Immigration Act. In the second highest priority, parents
ranked the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act first, followed by the Affordable
Childcare and Eldercare Act and the Restoring National Security Act. In the third-priority
category, the majority of the parents felt that the Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act would
most affect their children’s learning and motivation.
The ranking aligned with the discussion, although there was minimal discussion on
health, school choice, national security, and affordable care for children and elderly. This
indicated that the parents knew that once unbalanced, certain universal variables, such as health,
well-being, and safety, can have tremendous repercussions for children’s learning and
motivation. Above all, Villenas and Deyhle (1999) maintained that parents involved in their
children’s education provide a safe, nurturing environment to make them resilient and successful.
This success however, does not come only from parents’ desire and ability; other support
systems, informal and formal, offer emotional support grounding the family (Bandy, Andrews, &
Moore, 2012).
Answering Research Question #3
Counteracting concerns with supportive systems. Resiliency should be continuously
researched, especially as it pertains to parent and community resiliency that affects children in
schools (Wilkes, 2002). Lat-Crit educational research “incorporates four functions: (a) the
production of knowledge, (b) the advancement of transformation, (c) the expansion and
connection of struggle(s), and (d) the cultivation of community and coalition” (Valdes, 1998, p.
3). For the purpose of this focus group/community dialogue, the focus was on combining options
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 47
C and D to obtain the parents’ views on what they were doing to combat and resist the
desconfianza and tácticas de miedo they shared with the group.
Resistencia (resistance). In response to the third research question (What formal or
informal supportive systems are parents developing to counteract concerns the community has?),
the most significant reoccurring theme was resistencia (resistance) through education and
community involvement. The parents knew discrimination was occurring, and they had a sense
of empowerment and responsibility to resist and become more educated. The themes making up
resistencia (resistance) were apoyo (support), mejor informados (better informed), and aprender
(learn). The parents–participants discussed their interest in being more informed involved in their
children’s educational career because they understood the importance of being part of their
milestones and working with scholastic barriers (Katz et al., 2014).
Apoyo (support). Several parents shared actual resources and programs others could
follow up with later and tactics others could utilize to support their children’s learning and
motivation. One parent who had not shared much for about two-thirds of the focus group stated,
“Por qué no hay fondos en las escuelas, por eso muchos de nosotros buscamos programas como
aquí en USC – Neighborhood Academic Initiative y Kinder 2 College” (“Because there are no
funds in the schools, that’s why many of us look for programs like here at USC–Neighborhood
Academic Initiative and Kinder 2 College.”) Parents unaware of these resources began to
exchange information to gain more formal information about the various programs and
resources. A young mother shared, “Yo lo que hago es que asisto en el Parent Center, como
voluntaria y estoy al tanto de mi hija” (“What I do is that I volunteer at the Parent Center, and at
the same time, I am keeping an eye out of my daughter.”). This supportive technique was also a
great way for parents to become involved in schools and be seen as “parents as partners”
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 48
(Baquedano-López et al., 2013, p. 22). A parent pleaded with the rest of the focus group to help
her “buscar información en centros de apoyo y en mi personal cuidarme a mi familia y tener un
plan” (“find information in support centers for myself and for my family and have a plan.”)
Mejor informados (better informed). A mother in the group shared expressed that
becoming informed is an activity: “Tenemos que involucrarnos más en las escuelas que es
nuestro derecho. Hay que asistir en las clases de padres en las escuelas y tenemos que escuchar
y demandar nuestros derechos” (“We have to get more involved in the schools, which is our
right. We have to attend parent classes at schools, and we have to listen and demand our
rights.”). At this point in the focus group, the parents spoke more openly and freely to each other,
discussing solutions they wanted and needed to implement. To be better informed for the
participants–parents also meant that they had to challenge themselves to become included in the
dominant culture embedded in the school system (Andreotti, 2011). This inclusion would allow
them to become agents of change within their children’s schools (Olivos, 2006). One of the few
fathers in the group stated, “Estoy tratando de decirle a mis hijos y amistades que como Latinos,
hacer las cosas mejores prepararnos mas y c onfiar en Dios” (“I am trying to tell my children
and friends that as Latinos, we can do better to prepare ourselves and trust in God”).
Aprender (learn). The parents’ sharing of resources and lessons learned was powerful
because they could speak each other with respect but without the filter of sensitivity. For
example, a father in the group stated, “Nosotros, la comunidad Latina, somos grande, en el
trabajo, en las escuelas tenemos que hacer el esfuerzo de educarnos un poco más en nuestros
derechos. Hay que dejar la novela, los chismes, todo que no nos deje mejorar” (“We, the Latino
community, are large, but at work and in schools, we have to make the effort to educate
ourselves a little more about our rights. We must leave the novelas, the gossip, and everything
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 49
that does not let us progress”). The parents–participants laughed at his comment but seemed to
agree that parents must continuously learn and not be distracted by rumors, gossips, and
unproductive activities. It was most impressive to witness a group of parents rise together and
empower each other, identifying their struggles and potential solutions: educating themselves
about the law, becoming more involved in their children’s education, and finding more resources
for their family and community to progress.
Answering Research Question #4
The lessons learned informed the fourth research question of what feedback could be
gathered during the outreach and recruitment phase with a focus group/community dialogue on a
potentially controversial topic, as influenced by the principles of CBPAR. This research
approach is an extension of action research (AR), which has five pillars: “emergent
developmental form, human flourishing, practical issues, participation and democracy, and
knowledge in action” (Bradbury & Reason, 2003, p. 11). Throughout the focus group/community
dialogue, the parent-participants appeared to be strikingly ill informed about the power and
jurisdiction of the president and the checks and balances between the federal and state
governments. In future studies, utilizing CBPAR would be “appropriate and applicable” in the
education discipline, where one has to inform “peers and colleagues … that this [CPBAR] is
both methodologically rigorous and that it makes unique contributions not possible using other
means” (O’Toole et al., 2003, p. 1). Furthermore, in CBPAR, the researcher should be able to
clarify and inform the participants that “Congress has manifold opportunities—including powers
of purse, oversight, investigation, and impeachment—to punish presidents or cabinet officers
who do not administer the law to its liking” (Miller, 1987, p. 1296).
Findings
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 50
The primary finding of this research was that the majority of the parents participating in
the focus group were experiencing high levels of distrust and powerlessness and unknowingly
transferring that anxiety and stress on to their children. There remains the larger question of how
many other underrepresented ethnic, minority, or disadvantaged groups were not captured in this
dialogue. One can speculate that other groups in this vast county have also been affected, such as
the LGBTQ2, Asian, religious, Black, state dependents (e.g., foster care and elder care), Middle
Eastern, and many more communities. One could make the argument that most participants in
this community dialogue were primarily Latino, first-generation immigrants who, at the moment,
were most directly affected by the Trump administration. However, as the participants–parents
concluded, parents should be more educated about their rights, student’s rights, and means of
empowerment and advocacy. These lessons are not only for undocumented parents but for all
parents, so they can know what and how to advocate at the school for children. Another
significant finding was the educational impact on students from seeing their parents stressed and
in a state of collective anxiety (Bartholomew & Victor, 2004). Having a strong emotional
support is essential for children’s educational success (Bandy et al., 2012).
Considering the nervousness and the primarily Latino composition of the parents
attending the community dialogue, it was a very engaged and open group. The majority of the
members had never met each other, and many were not guarded and able to dive straight into
sharing their experiences and feelings on the topic. One can only wonder if the openness was
created because it was a dialogue held outside their educational settings, with Spanish translation
available, and at USC, a safe, familiar space promoting higher education learning. The main
factors needed to find a solution and more forward from the current situation were social coping
(Cox et al., 2015) and peer validation.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 51

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 52
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary
As stated in Chapter 1, student motivation and learning can be achieved through an array
of factors: parent involvement, peer relationships, internal and external perceptions, learning
capacity issues and needs, and environmental factors, which all intertwine to accomplish student
achievement (Anderman et al., 1999; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Katz et
al., 2014). That said, the purpose of this research project was to study parents’ perception on the
community impact of the Trump administration on students’ overall learning and motivation and
to identify the community’s enduring and resisting strategies. The three research questions were
as follows:
1. How are parents and the community in Los Angeles County reacting to the Trump
administration regarding their children’s learning and motivation?
2. From parents’ perspective, which specific issues does the Trump administration plan
on addressing that affect their children’s school learning and motivation?
3. What formal or informal supportive systems are being developed by parents to
counteract concerns the communities are having?
The focus group/community dialogue findings reported in Chapter 4 can be summarized as
follows:
1. Parents and the Los Angeles community at large distrusted the Trumps
administration’s legislative motives. The community suffered a collective anxiety
(Bartholomew & Victor, 2004) that was being perpetuated and inadvertently affecting
children’s learning and motivation.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 53
2. The use of fear tactics by the Trump administration has had direct impacts on
children’s school learning and motivation. Furthermore, the parents believed that
revisions of the following legislative measures would continue to harm their
children’s learning and motivation: the Repeal and Replace Obamacare, End Illegal
Immigration, School Choice and Education Opportunity, Affordable Childcare and
Eldercare, and Restoring National Security acts.
3. The parents’ stated that formally educating themselves about the law, involving
themselves more in their children’s education, and finding more community resources
would help them counteract their communities’ concerns with the Trump
administration.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, holding and analyzing this focus group/community dialogue was
influenced by the CBPAR process (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Future steps with this research
could be setting up a collaboration with a large organization, which can assist with organizing a
community, finding actionable steps to reduce distrust in schools, educate parents about the law,
and involve them in advocacy to halt the Trump administration’s efforts to repeal legislative
measures.
Recommendations for Practice
As stated, the community dialogue findings support the following recommendations:
1. Educational institutions at all levels (K–12 and higher education) should hold a series
of community forums for parents to express their perceived understandings of the
Trump administration’s legislative motives.
2. Parents should feel safe and free from retaliation from school officials when sharing
with them any changes they have noticed in their children’s learning and motivation.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 54
3. Educational institutions should partner with advocacy and mental health
organizations to address any collective anxiety (Bartholomew & Victor, 2004) that is
being perpetuated for an array of reasons, including the political climate, and
inadvertently impacting children’s learning and motivation.
4. Parents/caregivers should contact their local, state, and federal representatives to
become more informed, ask for clarification, and advocate on any and all legislative
measures that affect their home life.
5. Local government and state offices should hold town hall meetings to express their
positions on the following legislative measures: the Repeal and Replace Obamacare,
End Illegal Immigration, School Choice and Education Opportunity, Affordable
Childcare and Eldercare, and Restoring National Security acts
6. Legal organizations can host workshops and legal clinics to formally educate parents
and the community about the law.
7. Educational institutions (K–12 and higher education) should incentivize and
troubleshoot with working parents to help them become more involved in their
children’s education.
8. Universities should perform both practical and theoretical research to increase
parental involvement in school settings, build and support community resiliency, and
medicate and reduce collective anxiety.
Conclusions
The researcher agrees with Patel (2015) and Delgado’s (2012) perspective that racism,
material determinism is present in places of power such as the federal government. Furthermore,
it appears from the focus group that the Trump Administration is being more overtly openly
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 55
prejudice and from the parents’ perspective, the mistrust and the fear tactics utilized are affecting
their children.
The solution they identified is long and arduous; civic education and engagement do not
occur over-night and are not met without resistance. However, the motivation for these and many
more parents was to no longer hide in their homes and behind the comfort of their native
language and to become educated and demand their rights. It was empowering to witness that in
only two hours, a collective discourse on the current political climate ended with potential
advocacy-based solutions that do not seem out of reach. A highly passionate, energetic father
tried to rally the parents–participants with his parting words: “Tenemos que involucrarnos más
en las escuelas. que es nuestro derecho. Hay que asistir en las clases de padres en las escuelas y
tenemos que escuchar y demandar nuestros derechos” (“We have to get more involved in the
schools, which is our right. We have to attend parent classes at schools and we have to listen and
demand our rights”).
While parents, caregivers, and community members will do anything for their children to
succeed, especially in school, students also have the ability to organize, educate themselves, and
counteract the current political climate (Cammarota & Fine, 2010). This research study piloted a
focus group/community dialogue at one site only. To be conclusive and successful, this type of
research requires financial and personnel support from higher education and advocacy
institutions to grow parents’ potential to be educated and advocate for their own rights.

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 56
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80. 260-270.
Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition
to middle school: Schools can make a difference. Journal of Research & Development in
Education, 32(3), 131–147.
Andreotti, V. (2011). Actionable postcolonial theory in education. New York, NY: Springer.
Bandy, T., Andrews, K. M., & Moore, K. A. (2012). Disadvantaged families and child
outcomes: The importance of emotional support for mothers. Child Trends Research
Brief. Retrieved February 2012 from http:www.childtrends.org/files/ChildAbuseRB.pdf
Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental and
community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of
Research in Education, 37(1), 149–182.
Bartholomew, R. E., & Victor, J. S. (2004). A social-psychological theory of collective anxiety
attacks: The “mad gasser” reexamined. Sociological Quarterly, 45(2), 229–248.
Beauvais, F. (2006). Changing models of research ethics in prevention research within ethnic
communities. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research
with ethnocultural populations and communities (pp. 241–256). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered
epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge.
Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105–126. http://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800107
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 57
Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Issues and choice points for improving the quality of action
research. In M. Winkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory
research for health (pp. 201–220). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Braun, H. (2005), Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value- added models.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Brauner, C. (1995). The first probe. In R. Stake (Ed.), The art of case study research (p. 130).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Original work published 1974)
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2010). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action
research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/helping-americas-children/ending-child-poverty/
Children’s Defense Fund. (2018). President Trump ’s 2019 budget process to leave the most
vulnerable behind. Retrieved from http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-
news/press-releases/2018/2019-budget-leaves-vulnerable-behind.html
Clark, C. & O’Donnell, J (1999). Becoming and unbecoming White: Owning and disowning a
racial identity. Westport, CN: Bergin and Garvey.
Code of Federal Regulations, TITLE 45, PUBLIC WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, PART 46, PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS (2009)
retrieved July 14, 2017 from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-
policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html
Cohen, S., & Asgary, R. (2016). Community coping strategies in response to hardship and
human rights abuses among Burmese refugees and migrants at the Thai-Burmese border:
A qualitative approach. Family & Community Health, 39(2), 75–81.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 58
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory method: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine,
41(12), 1667–1676.
Cox, C. B., Johnson, J., & Coyle, T. (2015). Coping styles moderate the relationships between
exposure to community violence and work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20(3), 348–358.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0038556
Cox, T. (2010). Race to the top state education systems compete for federal dollars. Tell me
more. National Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=46
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach, 4
th
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, B. E. (2005). New racism, reformed teacher education, and the same ole’
oppression. Educational Studies, 38(3), 263–274.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los
Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire, Vol.
23. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children ’s
education. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Delgado, R., Stefancic, J., & Liendo, E. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2
nd
ed.)
(pp. 113-142). doi:83528025a30d8c34c9e34c9953ca19d.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 59
Dewey, J. (1944/1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press.
Drummond, K., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ beliefs about their role in children’s
academic learning. Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 197–213.
Epstein, J. L. (Ed.). (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family,
and community partnerships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Epstein-Ngo, Q., Maurizi, L. K., Bregman, A., & Ceballo, R. (2013). In response to community
violence: Coping strategies and involuntary stress responses among Latino
adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(1), 38–49.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0029753
Fallows, J. (2017). Despair and hope in Trump’s America. Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/despair-and-hope-in-the-age-of-
trump/508799/
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385
Fernández, L. (2002). Telling stories about school: Using critical race and Latino critical theories
to document Latina/Latino education and resistance. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 45–65.
Fortune, A., Reid, A., Miller, W., & Miller, R. L. (2013). Qualitative research in social work, 2
nd

ed. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Gonida, E. N., & Vauras, M. (2014). The role of parents in children’s school life: Student
motivation and socio ‐emotional functioning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(3), 349–351. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12048
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 60
González-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Doan Holbein, M. F. (2005). Examining the
relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 17, 99–123. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143-154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143
Guinier, L. (1989). Keeping the Faith: Black voters in the post Reagan era. Harvard Civil Rights
Liberties Law Review 24, (Spring, 1989): 393
Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8): 1709–1795.
Hill, N. E., &Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45,
740–763. doi:10.1037/a0015362
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hooks, B. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their
children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.
doi:10.3102/00346543067001003
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiano, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones,
K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195–
209. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3603_5
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 61
Howard, T. C. (2008). Who really cares? The disenfranchisement of African American males in
preK-12 schools: A critical race theory perspective. Teachers College Record, 110(5),
954–985.
Huber, L. P. (2009). Challenging racist nativist framing: Acknowledging the community cultural
wealth of undocumented Chicana college students to reframe the immigration
debate. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 704–730.
Iglesias, E. M., & Valdes, F. (1998). Religion, Gender, Sexuality, Race and Class in Coalitional
Theory: a Critical and Self-critical Analysis of LatCrit Social Justice Agendas. Chicano-
Latino L. Rev., 19, 503.
Katz, I., Eilot, K. and Nevo, N. (2013). “I’ll do it later”: Type of motivation, self-efficacy and
homework procrastination. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), pp.111-119.
Kennedy, R. (1989). Racial critiques of legal academia. Harvard Law Rev. 102:1745-819
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(January 1995), 47–68. http://doi.org/10.1080/10282580701850413
Lawrence, C.R. (1987). The id, the ego, and equal protection: Reckoning with unconscious
racism. Stanford Law Review, 39, 317–388.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer
Publishing Company.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data
analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 62
Lichtman, M. (2014). Drawing meaning from the data. In Qualitative research for the social
sciences. R. Hester (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2017). 2017-18 Instructional calendar. Retrieved July 1,
2017, from https://achieve.lausd.net/Page/12181.
Maehr, M.L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-
based participatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325.
doi:10.1177/1476750307083720
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of
mixed methods research, 1(3), 212-225.
Matias, C. E. (2016). Who You Callin’White?!. In Feeling White (pp. 139-161).
SensePublishers, Rotterdam.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom,
July/August, 10–12. Melinda Gates Foundation.
Miller, G. P. (1987). Government lawyers’ ethics in a system of checks and balances. University
of Chicago Law Review, 54(4), 1293–1299.
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Introduction to community-based participatory research.
In M. W. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Ed.), Community-based participatory research (pp.
3–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Newman, K.S. (2000). No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city. New York,
NY: Sage
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 63
O’Toole, T. P., Aaron, K. F., Chin, M. H., Horowitz, C., & Tyson, F. (2003). Community ‐based
participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(7), 592–594.
Olneck, M.R. (2004). Immigrants and education in the United States. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M.
Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2
nd
ed., pp. 381-403).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative
framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21.
Paperson, L. (2010). The postcolonial ghetto: Seeing her shape and his hand. Berkeley Review of
Education, 1(1), 5–34.
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research. New York, NY: Routledge
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part III. Journal
of Developmental Education, 31(3), 34–35.
Piaget, J., Gruber, H. and Vonè che, J. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1999). Qualitative research in health care. London, UK: BMJ.
Qui, L. (2016). Donald Trump ’s top 10 campaign promises. Retrieved from
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/15/donald-trumps-top-10-
campaign-promises/
Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., & Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of
student test scores to evaluate teachers (Briefing Paper No. 278). Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Boston: Pearson.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 64
Shafie, D.M. (2013). Presidential administration and the environment: Executive leadership in
the age of gridlock. Routledge Studies in Public Administration and Environmental
Sustainability. New York, NY: Routledge
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Spalding, N. J., & Phillips, T. (2007). Exploring the use of vignettes: From validity to
trustworthiness. Qualitative Health Research, 17(7), 954–962.
doi:10.1177/1049732307306187
Sprecher, K. (2011). Decolonial multiculturalism and local-global contexts: a postcritical
feminist bricolage for developing new praxes in education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Stewart, H., & Gapp, R. (2017). Exploring the alchemy of qualitative management research:
Seeking trustworthiness, credibility and rigor through crystallization. Qualitative
Report, 22(1), 1–19.
Trump, D. J. (2017). “Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter.” Retrieved from
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf
United States Census Bureau (2015). QuickFacts: Families & living arrangements: Households,
2011–2015. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
United States Census Bureau (2016). QuickFacts: Populations: Population estimates, July 1,
2016 (V2016). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
Valdés, G. (1996) Con respeto: Briding the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools: an Ethnographic Portrait. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 65
Villenas, S., & Deyhle, D. (1999). Critical race theory and ethnographies challenging the
stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and resistance. Curriculum Inquiry,
29(4), 413–445.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Webb, N.M, Troper, J.D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative
small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.
Weis, L. (1993). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Wilkes, G. (2002). Introduction: A second generation of resilience research. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58(3), 229–232.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 66

Figure 1. Google map of zip codes surrounding the University of Southern California–University
Park Campus.

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 67
Figure 2. Household zip code/Los Angeles County neighborhood.
Zip Code # of Families Neighborhood Name
90004 1 Koreatown
90006 4 Pico Union
90007 2 University Park
90016 1 Crenshaw/Baldwin Village
90018 4 Jefferson Park
90026 1
Echo Park/Historic
Filipinotown
90037 2 South Figueroa Corridor
90038 4 Hollywood
90063 1 Hazard/City Terrace
90302 1 Heights at Ladera
91010 1 Duarte
91730 1 Rancho Cucamonga

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 68
Figure 3. Outreach sites/connections/contacts.

# Name Address
1 Vermont Avenue Elementary School
1435 W 27
th
St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
2 New Designs Charter
2303 Figueroa Way, Los Angeles, CA 90007
3
Dr. Olga Mohan High School
644 W. 17
th
St., Los Angeles, CA 90015
4
Los Angeles Christian Elementary School
1620 W. 20
th
St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
5 32nd St. USC Visual & Performing Arts
Magnet K-5
822 W. 32
nd
St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
6 LAUSD/USC Media Arts & Engineering
Magnet 6-12
822 W. 32
nd
St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
7 James A. Foshay Learning Center
3751 S. Harvard Blvd. LA, CA 90018
8
USC Joint Educational Project Tammy Anderson, director
9
USC Neighborhood Academic Initiative Kim Thomas-Barrios, executive director,
10
Communities in Schools (CIS) Gaudencio Marquez
11
USC Norman Topping Student Aid Fund Christina L. Yokoyama, director
12
USC Local Government Relations
David Galaviz, executive director, local
government relations
13
El Centro Chicano William “Billy” N. Vela, director
14 Ánimo Jackie Robinson Charter High
School
3500 S. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
15 Dr. Theodore T. Alexander Science Center

3737 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
16 John W. Mack Elementary School

3020 S. Catalina St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
17 Dolores Huerta Elementary School
260 E. 31
st
St., Los Angeles, CA 90011
18 Orthopedic Hospital Medical Magnet School
300 W. 23
rd
St., Los Angeles, CA 90007

19 Lenicia B. Weemes Elementary School
1260 W. 36
th
Place, Los Angeles, CA 90007
20 St. Agnes School
1428 W. Adams Blvd., Los Angeles, CA
90007

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 69
Figure 4. Age of children and number of children per grade level.
5
3
5
0
2
5
4
5
1
7
0
2
1
4
1
K-5 6-8 9-12 Higher Ed
Number of Children per Grade
0
7.5
15
22.5
0 10 20 30
Age
Number of Children
Age of Children
Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4
NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 70
Appendix A
Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix

Research Question
Theoretical
Framework
Dialogue Questions
How are parents and the
community in Los Angeles
County reacting to the Trump
administration regarding their
children’s learning and
motivation?

“Researching from within a
critical raced-gendered
epistemology allows the
experiential knowledge of
communities of color to be
viewed as a strength and an
asset.” (Bernal, 2002, p. 399)
Questions 2–5
From parents’ perspective,
which specific issues does the
Trump administration plan on
addressing that affect their
children’s school learning and
motivation?

“Critical race theory as a
paradigmatic lens to examine
the schooling experiences.”
(Howard, 2008, p. 178)
Questions 6–8
What formal or informal
supportive systems are parents
developing to counteract
concerns the community has?

“Children from disadvantaged
backgrounds are more likely to
display social competence and
school engagement when their
mothers have emotional
support.” (Bandy et al., 2012, p.
5)
Questions 1, 9, 10

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 71
Appendix B
Outreach Flyer

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 72
Appendix C
Information Sheet—English

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 73
Appendix C (continued)
Information Sheet—Spanish

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 74
Appendix D
Demographic Questions

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 75
Appendix E
Focus Group and Community Dialogue Questions

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 76
Appendix F
Community Dialogue Agenda

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 77

Appendix G
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 1

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 78
Appendix H
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 2

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 79
Appendix I
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 3

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 80
Appendix J
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 4

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 81
Appendix K
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 5

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 82
Appendix L
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 6

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 83
Appendix M
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 7 – English

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 84
Appendix N
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 7 – Spanish

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 85
Appendix O
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 8

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 86
Appendix P
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 9

NOTHING TRUMPS EDUCATION 87
Appendix Q
Focus Group / Community Dialogue Question 10

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Background: On November 8, 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States of America. Using critical race theory and a decolonial perspective, this research explored the voices of Los Angeles County parents who discussed the potential impact of the Trump administration on their children’s learning and motivation. ❧ Methods: On August 26, 2017, the first weekend of the 2017–2018 school year in the Los Angeles Unified School District, a focus group/community dialogue was conducted at the University of Southern California with the parents of children in kindergarten through 12th grade residing in Los Angeles County. ❧ Results: The Trump administration’s use of tacticas de miedo” (fear tactics) directly affected the parents, causing desconfianza (distrust) and thereby perpetuating social anxiety and stress in their children. The parents–participants identified the following legislative measures by the Trump administration as directly affecting their children’s education learning and motivation: the Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act and the End Illegal Immigration Act. The parents’ sentiment was that to progress as a community, they had to continuously educate themselves about the law, involve themselves more in their children’s education, and find more resources for their families. ❧ Conclusion: Ultimately, the participants–parents concluded they should be more educated about their rights and their children’s rights to empower themselves and advocate for their children in their schools and communities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Expectancy value theory and African American student motivation

PDF

Exploring the personal stories and lived educational experiences of multiethnic Latinas: testimonios of educational success

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective

PDF

Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges

PDF

Examining Latino parents' perspective on parent involvement at the secondary level: why should we care

PDF

How service-learning educators help students learn: master teachers’ perspectives

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Big dreams: a multi-case examination of institutional support for DACA students in California community colleges

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective

PDF

The experiences of successful higher education Latino administrators and educational leaders in selected western United States community colleges

PDF

A decolonial praxis of hip-hop: hip-hop culture's connection to resilient youth's critical consciousness and wellbeing

PDF

Self-evident truth that all men are not perceived equally: examining perspectives of African American male college graduates who have been criminalized

PDF

IEP stakeholder communication and collaboration and its effects on student placement

PDF

An examination of the role of high school counselors in assisting college-bound first-generation Latino/a Students in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles

PDF

Examining parental involvement at the elementary-level: the Chamoru perspective

PDF

Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture

PDF

The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions

Asset Metadata

Creator Ortiz, Argelis Anibal (author)

Core Title Nothing trumps education: Exploring parents' perspectives on the Trump administration's affect on Los Angeles County students' overall learning and motivation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/25/2018

Defense Date 04/11/2018

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

Tag decolonial perspective,education,Los Angeles County education,motivation and learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent perspective,President Donald J. Trump,Trump Administration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Green, Alan (committee member), Rivera, Manuel (committee member)

Creator Email argelis.a.ortiz@gmail.com,argelis.ortiz@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-31012

Unique identifier UC11668808

Identifier etd-OrtizArgel-6468.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-31012 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OrtizArgel-6468.pdf

Dmrecord 31012

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ortiz, Argelis Anibal

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA