| AUTHOR: | Nicole E. Holland; Raquel L. Farmer-Hinton |
| TITLE: | Leave No Schools Behind: The Importance of a College Culture in Urban Public High Schools |
| SOURCE: | The High School Journal 92 no3 24-43 Mr/F 2009 |
| COPYRIGHT: | The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.uncpress.unc.edu/ |
ABSTRACT
Creating a college culture that is available to all K-12 public school students helps prepare individuals for postsecondary academic and career endeavors. Establishing and maintaining a college culture requires structural and organizational arrangements that facilitate students' access to critical human and material resources. These arrangements should create frequent opportunities for students to access school-based social support networks that help them identify necessary academic coursework and appropriately plan for higher education. This study provides a conceptual framework for college culture and uses dis-trictwide data to empirically examine the relationship between school size and high school seniors' self-reports of their involvement with the college culture in urban public high schools.
Long gone are the days when a high school diploma ensured job security and economic self-sufficiency for one's self and family. Although there are several prosperous post-secondary paths one could pursue (e.g. technical and vocational training, apprenticeships, military experience), the purpose of this article is to consider the preparation for enrolling in, and graduating from, four-year colleges and universities. Couturier and Cunningham (2006) state that individuals with bachelor's degrees are more likely than those without college degrees to have higher wages, more employment benefits, better working conditions, more personal and professional opportunities, and an overall improved quality of life. From a societal standpoint, individuals with college degrees are more likely to contribute to the nation's workforce, pay taxes, and engage in more social, civic and charitable activities (Couturier and Cunningham, 2006). According to the United States Department of Education (2006), close to 70 percent of all twelfth graders expected to go on to earn a four-year degree or graduate degree and these aspirations were consistent across gender, race, ethnicity, and class. Yet, many African American and Latino students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds continue to be underprepared for, and underrepresented in, four-year colleges and universities (McDonough, 2004; National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).
While it is important to identify and address the influence of individual characteristics on students' educational aspirations and achievement (see Adelman, 2006; Hossler, Schmidt, & Vesper, 1999; Schneider & Stevenson, 1999), it would be remiss not to also consider the influences of the organizational and structural conditions of the schools they attend. This is especially important for populations that have not been consistently advocated for in post-secondary education because many students from these groups have been found to heavily, if not exclusively, rely upon their high schools to help prepare them for college (Adelman, 2006; McDonough, 2004; Venezia & Kirst, 2005; Wimberly, 2002). Underrepresented students generally rely on their secondary schools for college preparation and guidance because they often have parents who have not completed college and they frequently live in communities where neighboring adults have not completed college (Choy, Horn, Nuñez, & Chen, 2000; Farmer-Hinton, 2008; O'Connor, 2000; Sander, 2006). Without the ability to access resources and guidance from their personal and community networks, students tend to rely upon their school networks to access social capital for college planning and guidance (Ceja, 2000; González, Stone & Jovel, 2003; Noeth & Wimberly, 2002; O'Connor, 2000). Yet, research has found that the schools that these students attend have several organizational and structural conditions that adversely influence students' educational aspirations and achievement (Corwin, Venegas, Oliverez & Colyar, 2004; Freeman, 1997; González, Stone & Jovel, 2003; Holland, 2008; McDonough, 2004). Some of the most notable variations are related to the size and location of the school, the course offerings and academic tracks, and the race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the students enrolled (Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, & Crowley, 2006; Venezia & Kirst, 2005).
Research has repeatedly reported that in very large schools, schools in urban areas, and schools that disproportionately serve African
American and Latino students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, students are less likely to have access to the human and material resources that are critical for college preparation (Cooper & Liou, 2007; Fry, 2005; McDonough, 2004; Roscigno et al., 2006). These students are less likely to be enrolled in academically rigorous courses or college preparatory tracks (Adelman, 2006; Greene & Forster, 2003); and, the schools that many of these students attend have been less likely to provide the students with sufficient opportunities to develop relationships with high school personnel who are solely responsible for guiding students through postsecondary planning activities (Corwin et al., 2004; McDonough, 2004; Noeth & Wimberly, 2002).
In the nation's efforts to leave no children behind, an important component of k-12 education must include preparing all students with a firm foundation for success in postsecondary academic and career endeavors. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has focused the nation's attention on the important goal of raising academic achievement for all students through school improvement and accountability, the preparation and retention of high quality teachers and administrators, and offering academic support and school choice. Yet, an authentic goal of this law, and a true testimony to America's public schools, should be to demonstrate how k-12 education successfully prepares students for postsecondary learning and living. Scholars have argued for k-16 accountability systems that align course-taking patterns in school with course-taking patterns in higher education, as well as the need to develop assessments that align high school exit skills with college entrance requirements (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; McDonough, 2004; Venezia & Kirst, 2005; Wimberly & Noeth, 2005). Nonetheless, research and national statistics reveal that many students who enter two-and four-year higher education institutions are often required to enroll in remedial or development courses (NCES, 2004) which not only has the potential to extend students' time in college, but may also be a financial strain for students and their families.
And while we strongly agree with others (e.g. Cooper & Liou, 2007; McClafferty, McDonough & Nunez, 2002; Wimberly & Noethe, 2005) who indicate that college preparation should begin prior to high school, our current investigation focuses on the structural and organizational conditions of high schools that influence the manner by which students are prepared for college. Specifically, this paper provides a conceptual framework for college culture and uses districtwide data to empirically examine the relationship between school size and high school seniors' self-reports of their involvement with the college culture in urban public high schools.
THE COLLEGE CULTURE IN K-12 ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
What Is A College Culture? Based on the existing literature (e.g. Cooper & Liou, 2007; Corwin & Tierney, 2007; McClafferty et al., 2002) and our own research (e.g., Farmer-Hinton, 2008; Holland, 2007) we offer the following definition of college culture: College culture reflects environments that are accessible to all students and saturated with ever-present information and resources and ongoing formal and informal conversations that help students to understand the various facets of preparing for, enrolling in, and graduating from postsecondary academic institutions as those experiences specifically pertain to the students' current and future lives. In conceptualizing college culture, we extend the work of others (such as Corwin & Tierney, 2007; McClafferty et al., 2002) by focusing exclusively on the school resources and relationships that students of color and low income students tend to use in order to develop their aspirations, create college plans, transition to college, and persist in college (see Farmer-Hinton, 2008; Freeman, 1997; González, et al., 2003; Holland, 2007; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996; Noeth & Wimberly, 2002; O'Connor, 2000; Wolk, 2005). This approach allows us to critique existing theories and practices regarding college preparation that are principally based upon white and affluent students and allows us to reconsider student-and family-initiated actions as the primary means by which students can aspire to attend college, search for possible colleges, and select a college to attend (Hossler, Schmidt, & Vesper, 1999; Schneider & Stevenson, 1999). We believe that the paucity of rigorous educational opportunities and the limited numbers of college-educated adults in many poor communities and communities of color must challenge us to think about the ways schools can help students and families within these communities develop college aspirations, cultivate college searches, and guide college choices.
CREATING AND SUSTAINING A COLLEGE CULTURE: A SOCIAL SUPPORT MODEL
Based on the resources available to schools and districts, the manner by which a college culture is created and sustained may have many forms; nonetheless, one core element in this process that has repeatedly surfaced in the literature is the importance of social support (Cooper & Liou, 2007; Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Noeth & Wimberly, 2002; O'Connor, 2000). Social support is an organizational dynamic that fosters personalized relationships between students and staff so that frequent communication, academic norms, and the sharing of valuable resources exist. This type of support is often exhibited by staff members who understand their students' academic potential and address instances in which their students struggle to meet academic outcomes -- in turn, students are more engaged and committed to achieving their academic goals because of their personal connections to adults in their school. While there is no guaranteed formulaic approach to systematically structuring and benefitting from social support, there is evidence that there are key components of social support models that benefit students' college preparation and planning efforts (See Figure 1). And although we have presented these components in such a way that each component has the potential to yield the subsequent component, we are aware that each component can exist independently, can occur in a different order than the one that is presented here, and/or can be manifested simultaneously with other components.
Small Schools and Small Learning Communities Conversations about school improvement and reform frequently address the issue of school size. Research has found that many students and their families, school faculty and staff, district hoard members and policy makers, and other interested constituencies believe that intentionally small schools and small learning communities provide noteworthy benefits for teaching and learning (e.g., Cotton, 1996; Fine & Sommerville, 1998; Jimerson, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000). Intentionally small schools and small learning communities refer to any school environment, whether a freestanding building or a school-within-a-school arrangement, that has purposely considered reducing and monitoring student enrollment as a facilitating factor in maximizing teaching and learning experiences. Because of the similar foci and outcomes of these environments, small freestanding schools and small learning communities will be considered simultaneously and interchangeably.
Small schools and small learning communities often create, and support, a culture of accessible social networks that enhance the work of students, faculty, and staff. Faculty and staff frequently report a great deal of cohesion among the adults associated with the school community, many opportunities to be involved in school-related decisions, and a first-hand knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the students enrolled (Cassidy & Bates, 2005; Jimerson, 2006; Kahne et al., 2006; Wasley et al., 2000). Further, in comparison to their peers in larger schools, students in small schools are more likely to have higher attendance rates, lower dropout rates, less exposure to violence and disorder; more involvement in extracurricular activities, and higher graduation rates (Gladden, 1998; Kahne et al., 2006; Jimerson, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000). One literature review found that students who attended small schools were generally as prepared for college, if not more so, than their peers who attended large schools (Cotton, 1996).
Although there is no single agreed upon definition of what constitutes a small school, the general categorical trends in the literature and legislative documents suggest that a small high school enrolls somewhere between 500 and 900 students (e.g., Cotton, 1996; Lee & Smith, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). In the instances where small freestanding schools are not available, large high schools can employ strategies such as creating schools-within-schools or even creating cohort or looping models which have been found to produce academic and social benefits that are similar to freestanding models (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Stipek, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000).
Social Capital Small schools and smaller learning communities have the potential to provide the conditions that engender social capital. Social capital has been viewed as the manner by which social networks establish expectations, reinforce norms, and provide opportunities for the exchange of valuable information. For example, when school personnel have consistently high expectations that all students will attend college after high school graduation, teachers and staff will reinforce the norms of school attendance and class participation, encourage appropriate course-taking patterns, and disseminate information about enrollment in and graduation from higher education institutions. In addition to expectations, norms, and the exchange of information, Coleman (1988) indicates that social capital can only exist through networks wherein social relationships provide the information channels through which valuable resources can be shared. Central to this process are institutional agents who often compile and organize the desired information and opportunities, and who have the authority to disseminate resources to, or on behalf of, network members (Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). While members within the network can individually benefit from the resources offered, Bourdieu (1986) reminds us that individuals must be actively engaged in the pursuit of acquiring additional capital through the investment of time and energy in relevant social relationships and network development
Students who have access to, and benefit from, school-based social capital are more likely to be engaged in activities that promote their school involvement and postsecondary options. For instance, Croninger and Lee (2001) found that high school students who were labeled at-risk for school failure were less likely to drop out of school if they reported school-based social capital. Farmer-Hinton and Adams (2006) found evidence of social capital in one small high school that enrolled students who represented populations that were traditionally underrepresented in college. They reported that the faculty and staff of the school created the expectations and norms that all of the students should always be in the process of thinking about and preparing for enrollment in higher education. The efforts of this school community resulted in almost two-thirds of the first graduating class enrolling in postsecondary academic institutions. These findings are especially noteworthy when one considers that upon entering this school, less than 20 percent of the students were reading at or above national norms.
AN ETHIC OF KNOWLEDGE AND CARE
The fundamental elements of social capital can be based in obligation; whereas, a more interpersonal and intimate form of social exchange can be manifested through an ethic of knowledge and care. Scholars have suggested that when members of a school community know one another well, and trust and respect one another, this provides the foundation for caring, supportive, and productive relationships (Cassidy & Bates, 2005; Noddings, 1988; Schussler & Collins, 2006; Stipek, 2006). Researchers have relied upon the notion of care to identify an environment in which individuals understand and act on behalf of the needs and desires of others, and these exchanges occur in such a way that when the care is given it is generally acknowledged and accepted as such (Cassidy & Bates, 2005; Noddings, 1988; Schussler & Collins, 2006). Schussler and Collins (2006) also point out that care is not always demonstrated through Acordial@ interactions. As others have reported (e.g. Stipek, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000) sometimes the method by which care is demonstrated involves providing the necessary levels of pressure and scaffolding to address challenges and overcome obstacles. This could be demonstrated when school personnel strongly encourage students to enroll in classes that the students may consider to be difficult, or require the students to enroll in tutoring when they are struggling with a class. This type of guidance and support may help students to acquire the foundation necessary to succeed in future academic endeavors.
Many students report that they are more engaged and committed to school because of the connections they have to other students and the adults in their school (Cassidy & Bates, 2006; Schussler & Collins, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000). Research shows that when students believe that the adults in their schools care about them, the students are-more likely to work harder on their academics, be more respectful in their social relationships, persist through high school graduation, and pursue postsecondary education (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Schussler & Collins, 2006).
Social support in schools is so important that theoretical perspectives and policy recommendations frequently encourage organizational and structural arrangements that will encourage and facilitate communication between and among the members of school communities (Martinez & Klopott, 2005, 2003; Noddings, 1988; Stipek, 2006). Whether considered individually or collectively, smaller learning communities, social capital, and an ethic of knowledge and care have all been found to positively influence students' academic engagement and achievement These conditions have been especially useful for students who have been labeled at-risk for failure in school and for populations that have been consistently underrepresented in higher education (Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000).
THE COLLEGE CULTURE FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING TRADITIONALLY DISENFRANCHISED POPULATIONS
College preparation in the United States has historical roots in exclusion. For example, college preparation was traditionally exclusive to and reserved for Whites, males, and/or wealthy families (see Armstrong, 1990; Peshkin, 2001; Powell, 1996). In contemporary times, access to college preparation has persistently been stratified by race and socioeconomic status due to school tracking structures, school funding and resource inequities, and private-public school disparities (Corwin, et al., 2004; Holland, 2008; Kozol, 2005, 1991; McDonough, 1997; 2004, Noguera, 2003; Oakes, 1985; Yun & Moreno, 2006). Inequities in access to college preparation have been coined the civil-rights issue of our time (see Boo, 2004, p. 165) and new efforts are underway to improve access to college preparation for students of color and low-income students (see Martinez & Klopott, 2005, for a comprehensive review). For example, one effort is promoting a College For All school culture wherein schools institute micro-level organizational changes such as providing clear expectations that all students will be prepared to attend college and offering college counseling where college expectations guide student advising on both instructional and non-instructional issues (McClafferty et al., 2002). Across the nation, corporate and civic foundations, university-school partnerships, pre-packaged model developers (like AVID), and charter school communities are leading promising efforts to redesign schools so that schools' organization, course offerings, and student-staff ratios are predicated on the idea of making college preparation accessible to all students via college preparatory tasks, activities, and academics (see Achievement First, n.d.; AVIDonline, n.d.; Bailis, Melchior, Sokatch, & Sheinberg, 2000; Boo, 2004; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; McClafferty et al., 2002; Robinson-English, 2006; Watt, Powell, & Mendiola, 2004; Wolk, 2005).
Research has documented that while many African American and Latino students, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, heavily rely upon their secondary institutions to prepare them for postsecondary academic endeavors, these students are often the least likely to be immersed in a school culture that prepares them for enrollment and success in college (Adelman, 2006; Greene &Forster, 2003; McDonough, 2004; Wimberly, 2002). Many of these students attend large, overcrowded and underfunded high schools and high schools with high teacher/counselor-to-student ratios, receive their core academic instruction from professionals teaching out of their fields, and are tracked into the least academically rigorous courses (Adelman, 2006; Fry, 2005; Holland, 2008; NOES, 2004, 2005, 2008; Roscigno et al., 2006). In many instances, schools that serve large numbers of students of color and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds do not offer academically rigorous courses, and when those courses are offered, many students do not benefit because of the academic track to which they have been assigned (Adelman, 2006; Greene & Forster, 2003; McDonough, 2004; Wimberly, 2002). In addition to limiting students' access to challenging academic content such as Advance Placement and Honors courses, schools that engage in the practice of academic tracking also systematically limit, whether intentionally or not, the opportunities that many students have to interact with faculty and staff who encourage academic engagement and achievement and who provide important information about being adequately prepared for postsecondary education (Stipek, 2006; McDonough, 2004; Venezia & Kirst, 2005).
Encouragement from teachers and counselors for students from traditionally disenfranchised populations has been found to be very important in the process of college preparation (Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Wimberly & Noeth, 2004). Yet, in a study that set out to identify the barriers African American high school students perceived when pursuing higher education, students stated that teachers and counselors did not encourage them to pursue postsecondary education, nor did they present postsecondary education as an option (Freeman, 1997). And more recently, Cooper and Liou (2007) reported that in spite of their association with programs that set out to promote students' academic success in one predominately Latino high school, some counselors had low expectations for their students and chose to limit the types of high stakes, college preparatory information that they shared with the students.
It is unfortunate that all public schools, especially those that largely serve students of color and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, do not put the same emphasis on preparing students for enrollment and success in four-year colleges and universities. However, federal legislation like No Child Left Behind, which has an explicit goal to improve the academic achievement of the disadvantaged, could he instrumental in rethinking the role of college planning in all public schools. This could he achieved by requiring college enrollment (with little or no remediation) to he an indicator of public school success. In the meanwhile, several programs exist that address the needs of preparing traditionally underrepre-sented populations for enrollment and success in postsecondary institutions (for a review see Martinez & Klopott, 2005). And although there are many benefits to these types of programs (e.g. focusing college planning efforts on students who have been traditionally marginalized by the process, creating cohorts of students with similar demographics who are supported in postsecondary academic endeavors, etc.), these programs can also be seen as fragile if they are not viewed as integral to the school's programming. Further, in spite of the success of college preparatory programs for traditionally underrepresented populations, these programs often rely on external or additional funding which is frequently threatened (Couturier and Curmingham, 2006). As a result, individual schools and districts must take the initiative in creating opportunities to present all students with academically rigorous K-12 environments that are replete with individuals and information that can help all students, especially those who have traditionally heen marginalized or ignored, prepare for postsecondary success.
THE CURRENT INVESTIGATION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which students became involved with the college culture in the high schools they attended. We were particularly interested in determining if school size played a role in the students' self-reports. Thus, the question guiding this investigation was, what relationship, if any, does school size have on students' self-reported involvement with the college culture in their urban, public high schools? While we believe that all schools have the potential to have a college culture and many schools may present themselves as such, the true testament of such programming is the extent to which students report that they are aware of, and benefit from the college culture in their schools.
METHOD
In order to explore the relationship between school size and students' self-reported involvement with the college culture in their urban public high schools, we analyzed publicly-available districtwide survey data from the Consortium on Chicago School Research's (CCSR) Chicago Postsecondary Transition Project. In Spring 2005, CCSR sent surveys to 82 out of 88 high schools in Chicago (alternative schools and special education students were not included in the survey administration). Survey data were collected from 9,723 out of a possible 16,374 Chicago public high school seniors, which is a response rate of about 60 percent These 9,723 seniors represented 70 of Chicago's high schools. The purpose of the survey was to gather data about seniors and their high school contexts, specifically the factors that were considered to be important in the college preparation process such as: student-staff relationships, classroom experiences, school-based postsecondary planning opportunities and resources, and student and familial postsecondary aspirations and plans. To complement the survey data, we also analyzed data provided by CCSR regarding student demographics and school size, as indicated by student enrollment
VARIABLES AND MEASURES SCHOOL SIZE
School size, as indicated by student enrollment, was central to this investigation. For our analysis, we categorized schools based on the general trends found in the small schools literature and relevant legislative documents (e.g., Cotton, 1996; Lee & Smith, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Therefore, the 2004-05 CCSR high school enrollment counts were recoded into a school size variable with 1 representing schools with 600 students or less, 2 representing schools with 601-1,000 students, 3 representing schools with 1,001-1500 students, and 4 representing schools with more than 1500 students. These data were made available from a publicly-available dataset that does not have school identifiers. Therefore, we were not able to distinguish between the different types of small schools such as freestanding small schools or schools-within-school arrangements; as a result, we solely relied on student enrollment figures to categorize the school size data.
Six measures emerged from the CCSR survey that were relevant to this investigation: College Preparation Activities, College Talk, Teacher Advocacy, Counselor Advocacy, Student-Counselor Interactions, and Hands-on Support. After reading the literature and reviewing the survey items, we created each measure based upon how the literature defined such concepts and how CCSR worded individual survey items. A summary table of survey items in each measure, as well as the range of the possible scores, has been included in the Appendix.
COLLEGE PREPARATION ACTIVITIES
Items from this measure asked students to indicate whether or not they participated in various college preparatory activities during high school such as: attending college fairs, speaking with college representatives, visiting instate and out-of-state college campuses, taking practice ACT/SAT exams, sitting in on a college course, using college guidebooks, obtaining information from college websites, applying for financial aid and scholarships, taking the pre-SAT, and researching career options. Reliability estimates on these survey items yielded an internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) coefficient of .79. The latent construct was conceptualized as college preparation activities because the activities were related to postsecondary planning and preparation efforts in the literature. The data were then recoded into dichotomous outcomes (1 = activity completed, 0 = activity not completed) in order to create a college preparation score for each student These college preparation scores were aggregated to the school level. The measure college preparation activities represents the average college preparation score of surveyed students in each school.
COLLEGE TALK
Items from this measure asked the students to indicate whether or not anyone at their high school discussed college-related topics with them. These topics included: the admissions requirements of four-year versus two-year colleges, the admissions requirements among four-year colleges, the student's likelihood of college acceptances, the ACT/SAT scores needed to attend desired colleges, paying for college, and readiness for college-level work. Students were also asked whether anyone at their high school discussed how to decide on a college to attend, opportunities to attend out-of-state colleges, and types of study skills needed for college. Students were asked to respond to the questions of whether anyone discussed the aforementioned topics by using the following response categories: discussed in-depth, discussed briefly, or not at all discussed. Reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha = .90) indicated that these items represented a single latent construct which, for these analyses, have been conceptualized as college talk as per the literature. Data were recoded dichotomously (1 = discussed in-depth; 0 = discussed briefly and not at all) and then aggregated to the school level. This measure reflects the average college talk items that students in each school reported.
TEACHER ADVOCACY
The CCSR senior survey asked students' perception of teacher encouragement and advice toward college planning. The items in this measure sought to determine if teachers encouraged postsecondary education and provided advice toward postsecondary planning. Students were asked if teachers: helped them select courses to graduate from high school, helped them select relevant courses for work or college, helped them decide on postsecondary plans, encouraged them to take advanced placement or honors courses, encouraged them to continue their education after high school, and discussed colleges suited to their interest and abilities. Students responded to the aforementioned items with the response categories of not at all, a little, some, and a lot Reliability estimates on these survey items yielded an internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) coefficient of .86. We conceptualized the latent construct as teacher advocacy because the items were related to trends in the literature regarding students' receipt of assistance with college related activities from school personnel. After conducting reliability estimates, the data were recoded into dichotomous outcomes (1 = a lot; 0 = not at all, a little, or some) in order to create a score for each student that represented high levels of teach advocacy versus other options. Next, the data were aggregated to the school level. The measure reflects the average teacher advocacy reported by surveyed students in each school.
COUNSELOR ADVOCACY
The CCSR survey asked students if their high school counselors encouraged postsecondary education and provided advice toward postsecondary planning. Students were asked whether counselors helped them select courses to graduate from high school, select relevant courses for work or college, decide on postsecondary plans, enroll in advanced placement or honors courses, decide to continue their education after high school, and/or find colleges suited to their interest and abilities. Students' responses were selected from the following categories: not at all, a little, some, and a lot. Reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha = .91) indicated that a single latent construct existed, which was conceptualized as counselor advocacy per the literature. Data were recoded dichotomously (1 = a lot; 0 = not at all, a little, some) and then aggregated to the school level. The measure reflects the counselor advocacy reported by surveyed students in each school.
HANDS-ON SUPPORT
For the hands-on support measure, the data were analyzed only for the students who indicated firm plans for postsecondary education during the next school year. Students, who indicated on the CCSR survey that they would continue their education after high school, were asked what kinds of school-based support they received. The students were asked to indicate whether their teachers or counselors helped them with completing college applications, finding scholarships for which to apply, deciding which college to attend, planning for how to pay for tuition and fees, and preparing personal statements. Students were also asked if they felt encouraged to apply to several different schools and if staff members talked to them about what to expect in college. Students responded to these items with the response categories of helped a lot, some, a little, or not at all. Reliability estimates on these survey items yielded an internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) coefficient of .93. We conceptualized the latent construct as hands-on support because students were reporting on the assistance they received from staff with their completion of college-related tasks, which was in accord with the literature. Because we planned to aggregate student data to the school level, the data were recoded into dichotomous outcomes (1 = a lot; 0 = not at all, a little, or some) in order to create a hands-on support score for each student. The data were then aggregated to the school level. The hands-on support measure reflects the average hands-on support reported by surveyed students who planned to pursue postsecondary education.
STUDENT-COUNSELOR INTERACTION
Students were also asked to indicate how many times they met with their counselor during the 2004-05 school year; however, the survey item does not differentiate between counselor-initiated or student-initiated meetings. The response options were: none, 1-2 times, 3-4 times, or 5 or more times. Data were recoded dichotomously (1 = 5 or more times; 0 = fewer than 5 times). Next, the data were aggregated to the school level. The outcome of interest reflects the proportion of surveyed students who reported that they met with their counselor five or more times during the 2004-05 school year.
PROCEDURES
Descriptive means of school enrollment size by the college support measures were computed in order to explore whether students' self-reports of involvement with postsecondary preparatory activities varied by school size. Correlation coefficients were also computed in order to measure the association between enrollment size and the college support measures.
RESULTS
The results explore whether school size is associated with students' self-reported involvement with the college culture at their high schools as indicated by their interactions and activities related to postsecondary education. The descriptive analyses, analyses of variance (ANOVA) and correlations of school size and college support measures are presented below.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES AND ANOVAS
Table 1 provides descriptive data of school demographics by school size. Demographically, these schools lend themselves to this investigation of college culture due to the high representation of African American, Latino/a, low income, and first-generation college-bound students in the different-sized schools. The school size categories with the smallest enrollments have higher proportions of African American students than the larger-sized schools and lower proportions of Latino/a students and White students. The finding that small schools have fewer proportions of White and Latino/a students reflects the 1990s Small Schools Movement in Chicago which resulted in the creation of more than 50 new small high schools (3 freestanding small schools and 49 school-within-school arrangements). During this movement activists concentrated their efforts in some of the most academically impoverished and under-resourced communities -- communities that largely serve African American students (for more detail on the Chicago Small Schools Movement see Wasley et al., 2000).
In addition to race, poverty, and achievement demographics, we were also interested in the distribution of students who represent the first generation in their families to attend college because this is also a demographic that would rely heavily on the social networks of their schools due to unequal opportunity structures and spatial isolation of educational attainment (see Table 1). Since the CCSR survey is limited to data on students' reports on mothers' educational levels, we used mothers' educational attainment as a proxy for first generational status. The distribution of students who represent the first generation in their families to get a bachelor's degree or higher is similar across different sized schools except schools with 601-1000 students, which have a slightly larger proportion of students whose mothers have not attained a bachelor's or a master's degree.
Table 1 also provides means of the college support measures by school size categories. The smallest schools engaged students in more college preparatory activities (M= 8.30, SD= 1.09) than the next smallest enrollment category (M = 7.43, SD= 0.53), the moderately large enrollment category (M = 7.15, SD = 0.63), and the largest enrollment category (M = 7.28, SD = 0.93). The ANOVA output in Table 2 shows that the differences between the various categories of school size were statistically significant, F (3, 59) = 5.836, p = .001. These results suggest that students in the smallest learning communities completed more college preparatory activities than students in larger-sized schools. Twelve activities were included in the college preparation activities measure, and these data suggest that the students in the smallest enrollment schools (0-600 students) reported completing an average of about eight of the activities B averaging slightly more than the students in the other sized schools.
Students in the smallest schools also reported engaging in more college talk (M = 3.48, SD = 1.64) than students enrolled in the larger-sized schools. The ANOVA shows that the differences between the categories of school size were statistically significant (Welch ANOVA: F [3, 22.427] = 4.835; p = .010, see Table 3). These findings suggest that, in comparison to students in the larger schools, students in the smallest schools were more inclined to report that an adult had an in-depth conversation with them about college-related topics. Of the nine topics represented in the measure, there appears to be a low level of college preparation and planning discussions across all schools. However, students in the smallest schools reported engaging in close to four of the topics while students in larger schools averaged in-depth discussions on slightly more than two topics.
These descriptive data also indicate that more students in smaller learning communities reported greater teacher advocacy. Students in the smallest schools tended to report more teacher advocacy (M = 1.83, SD = 0.94) than the next smallest enrollment category [M = 1.54, SD = 0.39), the moderately large enrollment category (M = 1.36, SD = 0.23), and the largest enrollment category (M = 1.20, SD -0.22). The ANOVA shows that these differences between the school size categories were statistically significant (Welch ANOVA: F [3, 21.349] = 4.606; p = .012, see Table 3). These findings suggest that in the smallest schools more students reported that their teachers often helped them and/or encouraged them with postsecondary planning. However, of the seven areas for which students could have received a lot of help from their teachers, not much teacher advocacy is being reported across the district. The means indicate that students are only reporting teacher encouragement and/or help with fewer than two of the seven areas. Yet, of the different sized schools, the smallest schools offer environments where more teacher advocacy was reported.
These data also show that more students in smaller learning communities reported greater counselor advocacy. Students from the smallest schools tend to report more counselor advocacy (M = 1.89, SD = 0.86) than students from any other sized school. The analysis of variance in Table 3 shows that the effect of school size on counselor advocacy was significant (Welch ANOVA: F [3, 21.471] = 4.562; p = .013). However, it is important to note that, across all sized schools, the counselor advocacy scores are very low. Although there were six areas that students could have identified as having received a lot of help from their counselors, the highest mean average on this measure was 1.89.
The descriptive data also reveal that more students in the smallest learning communities reported spending greater time meeting with their counselors during the school year. On average, almost 60 percent of students in schools with 600 students or less met with their counselor 5 or more times [M = 0.58, SD = 0.15) during the school year. Slightly fewer proportions of students in schools with between 601 and 1000 students (M= 0.48, SD = 0.18) and schools with between 1001 and 1500 students (M = 0.51, SD = 0.17) met with their counselors 5 or more times during the school year. However, students in largest schools were the least inclined to indicate that they met frequently with their counselors. Only 38 percent of students in schools with more than 1500 students enrolled (M = 0.38, SD = 0.15) reported meeting with their counselors 5 or more times during the school year. The analysis of variance in Table 2 shows that the effect of school size on student-counselor meetings was significant, F (3, 59) = 5.672, p = .002.
Finally, Table 1 shows the students' self-reported means for the hands-on support occurring in the different sized schools. Students who indicated that they would continue their education after high school were asked what kinds of school-based support they received. The students in the smallest schools reported more hands-on support (M = 1.92, SD = 1.06) than the students in the next smallest enrollment category (M = 1.49, SD = 0.70), the moderately large enrollment category (M= 1.22, SD= 0.56), and the largest enrollment category (M = 1.24, SD = 0.44). These findings suggest that students in the smallest schools reported receiving more tangible help from school staff while completing college planning and preparatory activities. Unfortunately the reported means suggest that across all schools, and on average, students engaged in less than two of the seven hands-on support activities with personnel at their schools. Nonetheless, of the hands-on support received, students in the smallest learning communities received more hands-on support than their counterparts in larger schools. The analysis of variance in Table 3 shows that the effect of school size on hands-on support was not statistically significant (Welch ANOVA: F [3, 21.281] = 2.377; p = .098).
These findings suggest that, in comparison to the students in larger schools, the students in the smallest learning communities are the most involved with the college culture at their high schools. These results show that students in the smallest schools are engaged in more college preparatory activities, more college talk, and more student-counselor meetings than students in larger schools. Students in the smallest schools also reported receiving more teacher and counselor advocacy than students in larger schools, albeit the districtwide averages of these measures were alarmingly low.
CORRELATIONS
Table 4 is a correlation matrix of the aggregated college support measures and districtwide school enrollment. The enrollment variable is the actual number of students enrolled in Chicago's public high schools during the 2004-05 school year. The correlation coefficients measure the association between each of the college support measures as well as the association between the college support measures and total districtwide school enrollment.
Critical to this investigation regarding creating a college culture in urban, public high schools, the correlation matrix reveals that, in general, the college support measures are moderately strong to strongly correlated with one another. For example, the correlation between college preparation activities and college talk is moderately strong (r = .74) which indicates that in schools where the staff engaged students in college preparatory activities, the staff also spent time talking to the students about postsecondary academic endeavors. Similarly, college talk is highly correlated with teacher (r = .86) and counselor (r = .82) advocacy which suggests that schools where students reported that the school staff spent a great deal of time discussing college related topics were also institutions in which students received encouragement and advice from their teachers and counselors regarding their college plans. And, as one might expect, the correlation between counselor advocacy and student-counselor interaction is also noteworthy (r = .79). Students who reported receiving encouragement and help from their counselors were also likely to report having frequent interactions with them. Finally, the correlation between college preparation activities and hands-on support is moderately strong (r = .62) which suggests that students received tangible school-based support for postsecondary academic planning.
These correlation coefficients demonstrate relationships between college support as defined by activities, encouragement, guidance, and hands-on support. The data suggest that schools with one or more of these activities are likely to have an overall school culture focused on college planning and preparation in the school building. This college culture is likely to dictate student-staff interactions regarding college planning as well as the presence and utilization of resources and opportunities for students (McClafferty et al., 2002).
The correlations between each of the college support measures and school size are negative, suggesting that as school enrollments increase schools are less likely to be places where students are engaged in college preparation activities or receive college support and guidance from adult staff members. For example, in comparison to schools with smaller enrollments, schools with larger enrollments revealed fewer students who met frequently with their counselors (r = -.50) and fewer students who reported college talk (r = -.49). Negative correlations between school enrollments and college preparatory measures such as counselor advocacy (r = -.45) are not surprising considering the impact of larger student-staff Tatios on the ability to provide students with individualized attention and support (McDonough, 2004).
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
This investigation set out to determine what relationship, if any, school size has on students' self-reports of their involvement with the college culture in their urban, public high schools. These data provide evidence that students in small schools and small learning communities perceive greater access to, and involvement with, the college culture in the schools they attend. Specifically, this study revealed that, in comparison to their peers in larger schools, the students in the smallest schools reported engaging in more school-related college preparatory activities, participating in more in-depth conversations with high school faculty and staff regarding higher education, receiving more encouragement and support for their postsecondary college endeavors from teachers and counselors, engaging in more student-counselor interactions, and participating in more hands-on, school-based, college preparation and planning activities. This is particularly noteworthy because the smallest schools in this investigation primarily enrolled low income, first generation, African American students -- a population that has repeatedly been underrepresented in college planning and enrollment activities (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; McDonough, 2004; Venezia et al., 2003). Further, these data reveal that each of the college planning activities are correlated with one another, which is paramount to having a school-based, college culture rather than having small, isolated and selective enclaves where these opportunities exist Ideally, an overall college culture is preferred because students do not need to take the initiative to seek out college information or be selected to participate in college preparatory activities; on the contrary, those opportunities would be readily available and accessible to all students. This may be particularly important for students who do not self-identify or have not been identified as college bound.
We believe that these results were achieved because small schools and small learning communities provide the structural and organizational arrangements to generate the social support that is necessary to create and sustain a college culture. We believe that the organizational thrust of smaller learning communities promotes more personalized relationships between students and staff than in larger learning communities. As our findings suggest, in smaller learning communities there is frequent communication (i.e., college talk, student-counselor interactions), established academic norms (i.e., counselor and teacher advocacy), and regular exchanges of valuable resources (i.e., college preparation activities, bands-on support). Intentionally small learning communities have been credited with reducing bureaucracy and increasing opportunities for students and their families, faculty, and staff to get to know one another and work together for student success (Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000). This is achieved partly because the adults in intentionally small schools are often responsible for a manageable number of students. Thus, faculty and staff often know what disciplines, programs, and colleges are of interest to which students; and, in which college preparatory activities the students should be engaging. Further, the structural and organizational arrangements of smaller learning communities afford students, faculty and staff the opportunities to see one another frequently and engage in formal and informal conversations.
By virtue of their size, small schools and small learning communities build in the opportunities for social capital to exist. Many smaller learning communities have a school mission, a vision with established norms as to how to achieve the mission, and have the expectations that all members of the community will adhere to those norms (Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Wasley et al, 2000). And, for a variety of reasons, smaller learning environments are less likely to selectively provide resources and information to the members of the school community. As others have noted, it is often the case that when schools selectively provide resources that aid in student success it is often to the disadvantage of the students who require the most assistance (Stipek, 2006; Venezia & Kirst, 2005). However, in smaller learning communities the college planning activities seem to be present and accessible to all students by the mere essence of the school. Therefore students do not have to he identified as being college-bound or be selected to participate in college preparatory activities. This may help to reduce students' anxiety in having to seek information when they are unsure of what steps they should be pursuing for college planning.
Finally, small schools and small learning environments often exhibit a culture of knowledge of, and care for, the members of their communities. When adults within the school community know the students on a more personal level, they are able to recognize when those students are struggling or are falling short of their potential; and, provide the students with the necessary support to forge ahead. Because students know and care for the adults in their schools, the students often accept the prodding and often tackle the obstacles before them (e.g., Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Schussler & Collins, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000). In smaller learning communities, faculty and staff often communicate with one another about students' academic and social progress, and they are more likely to be proactive in addressing those issues with the students. Thus, a counselor may request a meeting with a student to ask why the student is struggling in a class, to applaud the student for doing well on a project, or to remind the student that some relevant college planning activities are quickly approaching. Similarly, a teacher may encourage a student to take a more advanced academic course, to participate in tutoring opportunities, or to submit college applicant materials for the teacher to review.
While these data provide additional support to the benefits of smaller learning communities, and the environments that engage students in college planning activities, we realize that there are three major ways this investigation could have been stronger. First, it would have been useful if the data that were available for this investigation allowed us to distinguish between the different types of small learning communities (freestanding small schools versus schools-within schools). Although the findings from this study consistently indicate that the students in schools with the smallest enrollments reported the greatest participation in college preparatory activities, it would have been interesting to determine if the spatial arrangements of the school influenced students' reports in any ways. Further, while previous research has indicated that intentionally small schools in Chicago have created academically rigorous and caring teaching and learning environments (Wasley et al, 2000), it would have been useful if this study were able to identify if any of the schools created during the 1990s Small Schools Movement were included in this data set; and, if so, what type of college culture existed in them.
Second, these findings were not based on a survey that we created, but were based on analyses of extant data. One of the leading limitations of these findings is due to the lack of data, both quantitative and qualitative, that would provide additional detail about areas with which we were concerned. For instance, these data do not allow us to know if the students were reporting on one crucial relationship with a faculty or staff member or several different relationships. We are also unaware if these interactions to which the students were referring were: scheduled or spontaneous, formal or informal, or faculty/staff or student initiated. We do not know the accuracy of the information presented to the students or the quality of the activities with which the students were engaged. And, we do not know if the students' involvement with the college culture in their high schools resulted in their enrollment in a postsecondary institution that was appropriately suited for them.
Another shortcoming of these data is that we were not able to secure other perspectives regarding the college culture in these schools. We firmly believe that it is necessary to explore students' perspectives regarding the presence of, and access to, college preparatory activities in the schools they attend. Even if schools believe that they have a stellar college planning program in place, it is not successful if few students know of the program's existence or benefit from its services. And while students self-reports are very valuable, it would have been useful to have faculty and staff perspectives as well as our own observations in an effort to triangulate the data. This would have helped us to understand the context in which these data were collected. For instance, what resources did each school have to help students prepare for college? How were the students made aware of each school's resources? Was more college support available, and if so, why did the students fail to access it?
By having more control over the sample, the data collection instrument, and the data collection procedures, similar investigations could address some of the above-mentioned concerns. Nonetheless, we believe that these findings provide a solid foundation for future research. Further this study contributes to and complements existing evidence regarding the importance of creating and sustaining a small, personalized college culture in urban public high schools -- especially for students who have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education.
CONCLUSION
Federal legislation has mandated that K-12 public school systems must demonstrate accountability through student proficiency as indicated by standardized tests scores (United States Department of Education, 2002). Perhaps a more useful plan of accountability would more heavily rely upon preparing students for postsecondary academic and career success. Changing the way that we educate the nation's students and the information to which we hold them accountable could go a long way in reducing the persistent trends of social stratification. All public schools should provide students with access to the human and material resources that will help students develop the skills to excel in school and beyond. One approach to this type of reform would be creating smaller, caring, K-12 learning communities that collaborate with higher education institutions in preparing students for success in postsecondary endeavors. Further, districtwide efforts should support individual schools as they develop a college culture by helping to cultivate collaborative relationships between K-12 and higher education institutions. As others have noted, these types of comprehensive and collaborative efforts will help to provide consistent and relevant information to students and their families regarding postsecondary education and will help to ease the transitions between academic levels and institutions (Cooper & Liou, 2007; Corwin & Tierney, 2007; McDonough, 2004; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003; Wimiberly & Noeth, 2005).
As history has repeatedly demonstrated, all public schools are not created equal. As a matter of fact some schools, whether due to size, location, or students enrolled, have consistently underprepared students for academic and career success. Rethinking the mission of all public schools as vehicles by which students are prepared for postsecondary success may be the fundamental change necessary to start leveling the academic playing field. However, neither the mere presence of college counselors and college preparatory information, nor the creation of smaller learning communities are sufficient to deem a school one with a college culture. Social support and personalized student attention seem to be the most useful conduits through which college planning information is explained and disseminated. Towards that end, we conclude with three recommendations for all public schools: 1) include an accessible college culture that is available to all students; 2) work hard to create small and manageable learning environments as a method of helping students develop their human capital and prepare for postsecondary endeavors; and, 3) provide ample opportunities for faculty and staff to get to know students on individual bases to help the students take the appropriate coursework and engage in the necessary activities to prepare them for postsecondary success.
ADDED MATERIAL
Nicole E. Holland, Ph.D.
Northeastern Illinois University
N-Holland@neiu.edu
Raquel L. Farmer-Hinton, PhD.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
rfarhin@uwm.edu
Table 1. Descriptives of Race, Poverty, and Achievement Variables by School Size Categories
0-600 601-1000 1001-1500 More than
students students students 1500 students
(n = 21) (n = 11) (n = 13) (n = 28)
Demographics
% African American 84.8 86.2 72.4 39.4
% Latino/a 12.8 10.7 20.5 S44
% White 1.1 1.4 3.7 10
% Low Income 88.5 93.4 90.2 83.5
% First-Generation College 88 91.7 86.9 87.3
Average ACT score 15.5 15.2 15.4 16.2
Means of College Support Measures
College Preparation Activities 8.30 (1.09) 7.43 (0.53) 7.15 (0.63) 7.28 (0.93)
College Talk 3.48 (1.64) 2.65 (0.77) 2.09 (0.52) 2.09 (0.56)
Teacher Advocacy 1.83 (0.94) 1.54 (0.39) 1.36 (0.23) 1.20 (0.22)
Counselor Advocacy 1.89 (0.86) 1.27 (0.67) 1.43 (0.44) 1.12 (0.39)
Student-Counselor Interaction .58 (0.15) .48 (0.18) .51 (0.17) .38 (0.15)
Hands-on Support 1.92 (1.06) 1.49 (0.70) 1.22 (0.56) 1.24 (0.44) Table 2. Each Analysis of Variance with College Preparation Activities and Student-Counselor Interaction as the Dependent Variables and School Size as the Independent Variable.
Variable and Source df SS MS F College Preparation Activities Between Groups 3 14.100 4.700 5.836(FN*) Within Groups 59 47.518 0.805 Student-Counselor Interaction Between Groups 3 0.434 0.145 5.672(FN*) Within Groups 59 1.506 0.026
Note: These analyses exclude CPS magnet schools
FOOTNOTES
* p <.05
Table 3. Each Welch Analysis of Variance with College Talk, Counselor Advocacy, Teacher Advocacy, and Hands-on Support as the Dependent Variables and School Size as the Independent Variable.
Source df F Pr> F
College Talk 3 4.835(FN*) .010
Error 22.427
Counselor Advocacy 3 4.562(FN*) .013
Error 21.471
Teacher Advocacy 3 4.606(FN*) .012
Error 21.349
Hands-on Support 3 2.377 .098
Error 21.281FOOTNTES
* p < .05
Table 4. Correlations of College Support Measures by School Size.
College College Teacher Counselor Student- Hands- Total
Preparation Talk Advocacy Advocacy Counselor on Enrollment
Activities Interaction Support
College 1.0
Preparation
Activities
College Talk .74 1.0
Teacher .59 .86 1.0
Advocacy
Counselor .54 .82 .77 1.0
Advocacy
Student- .45 .66 .56 .79 1.0
Counselor
Interaction
Hands-on .62 .50 .30 .54 .40 1.0
Support
Total -.37 -.49 -.41 -.45 -.50 -.36 1.0
Enrollment Note: The total enrollment variable is the total number of students enrolled for the 2004-05 school year. These correlational analyses exclude CPS magnet schools.
Figure 1: Components to Developing and Sustaining a College Culture: A Social Support Model
REFERENCES
Achievement First. (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2006 from wwrw.achievementfirst.org/about. culture
Adehnan, C. (2006). The Toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Armstrong, C. F. (1990). On the making of good men: Character-building in the New England boarding schools. In P. W. Kingston and L.S. Lewis (Eds) The high status track: Studies of elite schools and stratification (pp. 3-24). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Avid. (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2006 from http://www.avidonline.org/info/?ID=550&TabID=2
Bailis, L. N., Melchior, A., Sokatch, A., & Sheinberg, A. (2000). Expanding college access, strengthening schools: Evaluation of the GE fund college bound program. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from www.ge.com/cornmunity/fund/GEFund_CollegeBound.pdf
Boo, K. (2004, October 18). The Factory: At the Pacific Rim charter school, they make scholars. The New Yorker, 80(31), 162-175.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital, in J. G. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp.241-258, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Cassidy, W. & Bates, A. (2005). ADrop-outs@ and Apush-outs@: Finding hope at a school that actualizes the ethic of care. American Journal of Education, 112[1), 66-102.
Ceja, M. (2000, November). Making decisions about college: Understanding the information sources of Chicana students. Paper presented at the Annual ., Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.
Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nunez, A. & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college. In A. F. Cabrera & S. M. La Nasa (Eds.) Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students (pp. 45-63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-120.
Cooper, R. and Liou, D. D. (2007). The Structure and Culture of Information Pathways: Rethinking Opportunity to Learn in Urban High Schools during Ninth Grade Transition. High School Journal (October/November 2007), 91,1, 43-56.
Corwin, Z. B., Venegas, K. M., Oliverez, P. M., & Colyar, J. E. (2004). School counsel: How appropriate guidance affects educational equity. Urban Education, 39(4), 442-457.
Cotton, K. (1996). School size, climate, and student performance. Portland, OR: Northwestern Regional Educational Laboratory.
Couturier. L. K. & Cunningham, A. F. (2006). Convergence: Trends threatening to narrow college opportunity in America. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Croninger, R. G. and Lee, V. E. (2001). Social Capital and Dropping Out of High School: Benefits to At-Risk Students Of Teachers' Support and Guidance. Teachers College Record, 103, 4, 548-81.
Farmer-Hinton, R. L. (2008). Social capital and college planning: Students of color using school networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society, 41[1), 127-157.
Farmer-Hinton, R. L. & Adams, T. L. (2006). Social capital and college preparation: Exploring the role of counselors in a college prep school for Black students. The Negro Educational Review, 57(1-2), 101-116.
Fine, M. & Sommerville, J. (1998). Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban Education Reform
Freeman, K. (1997). Increasing African Americans' participation in higher education: African American high-school students' perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 68[5), 523-550.
Fry, R. (2005). The high schools Hispanics attend: Size and other key characteristics. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Gladden, R. M. (1998). The small school movement: A review of the literature. In M. Fine & J. Somerville (Eds.) Small schools, big imaginations: A creative look at urban public schools. Chicago, JL: Cross City Campaign for Urban Education Reform.
González, K. P., Stone, G, & Jovel, J. E. (2003). Examining the role of social capital in access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(1), 146-170.
Greene, J. P. & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation rates and college readiness in the United States. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute.
Holland, N. E. (2008). 1 "Déjà Vu: Segregation and Inequality in America's Public Schools." The Sophist's Bane, Volume Four, Numbers One and Two, pp.20-29.
Holland, N. E. (2007). "Reflections on Urban High School Students' Post-Secondary Transitions: A Theoretical Capital Perspective." The International Journal of Innovative Higher Education. Volume 20, June 2007, pp 25-33.
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Jimerson, L. (2006). The Hobbitt Effect: Why small works in public schools. Washington, DC: Rural School and Community Trust.
Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S. E., de la Tore, M., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). Small schools on a larger scale: The first 3 years of Chicago high school redesign initiative. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of A Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Crown Publishers, Random House. New York.
Kozol, J (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Lee, V. E., and Smith, J. B. (1997). High School Size: Which Works Best and for Whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 3. 205-227.
Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the odds: How the poor get to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Martinez, M. & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access and success for low income and minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.
Martinez, M. & Klopott, S. (2003). Improving college access for minority, low-income, and first generation students. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.
McClafferty, K. A., McDonough, P. M., & Nunez, A. M. (2002, April). What is a college culture? Facilitating college preparation through organizational change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
McDonough, P. M. (2004). School to college transition: Challenges and prospects. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The Condition of Education 2008. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The Condition of Education 2005. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The Condition of Education 2004. Washington, DC: Author.
Noddings, N. (1988). An Ethic of Caring and Its Implications for Instructional Arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 2, 215-230.
Noeth, R. J. & Wimberly, G. L. (2002). Creating seamless transitions for urban African American and Hispanic students. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
O'Connor, C. (2000). Dreamkeeping in the inner city: Diminishing the divide between aspirations and expectations. In S. Danziger and A. G Lin (Eds.), Coping with poverty: The social contexts of neighborhood, work, and family in the African American community. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Peshkin, A.(2001). Permissible advantage? The moral consequences of elite schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Powell, A. G. (1996). Lessons from privilege: The American prep school tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robinson-English, T. (2006, December). Saving Black boys: Is single sex education the answer. Ebony, 112-117
Roscigno, V. J., Tomaskovic-Devey, D. and Crowley, M. (2006). Education and Inequalities of Place. Social Forces, 84, 4, 2121-2145.
Sander, W. H. (2006). Educational attainment and residential location. Education and Urban Society, 3S(3), 307-326.
Schneider, B. & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America's teenagers motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Schussler, D.L. & Collins, A. (2006). An empirical exploration of the who what, and how of school care. Teachers College Record, 108[7), 1460-1495.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. and Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social Capital and the Reproduction of Inequality: Information Networks Among Mexican-Origin High School Students. Sociology of Education, v. 63, 2, 116-135.
Stipek, D. (2006). Relationships Matter. Educational Leadership, September, 2006, v.64,1, pp46-49.
United States Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 Stat. 1425. Washington, DC.
United States Department of Education (2001). An Overview of Smaller Learning Communities in High Schools. Offico of Elemenary and Secondary Education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Washington, DC.
Venezia, A. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). Inequitable opportunities: How current education systems and policies undermine the chances for student persistence and success in college. Educational Policy, 39(2), 283-307.
Venezia, A, Kirst, M. W., & Antonio, A. L. (2003) Betraying the college dream: How disconnected K-12 and postsecondary systems undermine student aspirations. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Wasley P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, R. M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E. & Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools, great strides: A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.
Wimberly, G. L. (2002). School relationships foster success for African American students. Iowa City, IA: ACT
Wimberly, G. L., & Noeth, R. J. (2005). College Readiness Begins In Middle School. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Wimberly, G. L., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). Schools involving parents in early postsecondary planning. Iowa City, IA:ACT.
Yun, J. T. & Moreno, J. F. (2006). College access, K-12 concentrated disadvantage, and the next 25 years of education research. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 12-19.
Due to unequal variances, a Welch ANOVA was performed on college talk, counselor advocacy, teacher advocacy, and hands-on support (the results of Levene's test for homogeneity of variances are presented in the Appendix A).
Survey Items Included in the College Support Measures
Range Mean SD College Preparation Activities (Cronbach's alpha .79) 4.87 7.56 0.996 Since you started high school, have you: Attended college fairs Spoken with college representatives Visited in-state college campuses Visited out-of-state college campuses Taken practice ACT/SAT exams Sat in on a college-level course Used college guidebooks (online or print) Obtained information from college websites Applied for financial aid Applied for scholarships Taken the pre-SAT Researched career options College Talk (Cronbach's alpha = .90) 7.00 2.56 1.161 Has anyone at your school discussed the following with you: Different admissions requirements for community colleges versus four-year universities Different admissions requirements among four-year colleges How to decide which college to attend Your likelihood of being accepted at different types of schools What ACT/SAT scores you need to get into the colleges you want to attend Opportunities to attend out-of-state schools "Your readiness for college-level work What kind of study skills you will need in college or vocational/technical school How to pay for college Counselor Advocacy (Cronbach's alpha = .91) 4.00 1.42 .674 Throughout high school, my counselors: Helped me select courses that meet my high school's graduation requirements Helped me select courses that I need for work or admission to college Helped me decide what I want to do after I graduate Encouraged me to take AP/honors courses Encouraged me to continue my education after high school Talked to me about colleges/schools that are suited to my interest and abilities Teacher Advocacy (Cronbach's alpha = .86) 4.23 1.45 .600 Throughout high school, my teachers: Helped me select courses that meet my high school's graduation. requirements Helped me select courses that I need for work or admission to college Helped me decide what I want to do after I graduate Encouraged me to take AP/honors courses Encouraged me to continue my education after high school Talked to me about colleges/schools that are suited to my interest and abilities Student-Counselor Interaction 1.00 .475 .177 How many times did you meet with your counselor this year? Hands-on Support (Cronbach's alpha = .93) 6.34 3.19 .956 How much did your teachers or counselors: Encourage you to apply to several different schools Talk to you about what college would be like Help you to fill out applications for colleges or vocational/technical schools Help you find scholarships to apply for Help you to decide which school to attend Help you plan for how to pay tuition and other expenses Help you with your college application essays or personal statements
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variances
Source Levene Statistic df1 df2 Significance
College Preparation Activities 2.754 3 59 .050
College Talk 6.649 3 59 .018(FN*)
Counselor Advocacy 3.604 3 59 .007(FN*)
Teacher Advocacy 4.478 3 59 .675
Student-Counselor Interactions .512 3 59 .037(FN*)
Hands-on Support 3.019 3 59FOOTNOTES
* p <.05