39,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Sprache: Englisch
In this important resource, Dr. Fleming (a noted expert in the field of minority retention) draws on educational evaluations she has developed in the course of her distinguished career. This book analyzes the common factors and the role institutional characteristics play in minority student retention to show what really works in increasing academic performance among minority students and includes models of evaluations that describe successful programs that use statistical methods to verify outcomes.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 654
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
Preface
About the Author
Chapter 1: Overview
Focus on Minority Performance
Retention Theory
Race, Ethnicity, and Retention
Adjustment in Black and White Colleges
Retention in Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Part One: Setting The Stage: As They Enter Higher Education
Chapter 2: Success Factors in the Academic Performance of Inner-City Youth
The Project Forward Leap Program
Background Literature
The Evaluation
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 3: How Perceptions of Racial Climate Affect Academic Adjustment and Learning
Antecedents: Black Students at Eastern University
The Study
The Race Factor in College Adjustment
Critical Issues in Black Student Adjustment
Differences in Perception: Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Part Two: Programs in Math, Science, and Engineering
Chapter 4: What Successful Students in Science Know About Learning
The Study
The Advice Given by Gateway Students
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 5: Problem Solving, Critical Thinking, and Academic Performance
Stress on Analytical Reasoning Model
CSUN Summer Bridge Program
Group Process
Social Programming
Method
Effects of Participation in Summer Bridge
Components of Bridge Performance
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 6: Retaining Students in Engineering at the City College of New York
The Problem of Retention
What Works in Retaining Minority Engineering Students?
Program for the Retention of Engineering Students
Purpose of Evaluation
Method
Effects of Program Participation
The Significance of Study Habits
Faculty Interactions
Academic Performance in Math and Science
Ethnic and Gender Differences
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 7: Enhancing Learning in Science Programs at the City College of New York
National Goals and the Crisis in Education
Minorities in Math and Science
Science Programs at the City College of New York
Implementation Evaluation
Purpose of the Study
Method
Correlates of Stellar Academic Performance
Correlates of Publication Activity
Correlates of Retention
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 8: Preparing Minority Students to Compete at the Cutting Edge
The Problem
The CREST Center
The Study
Method
Minorities in the Science Pipeline
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 9: Who Will Do Math, Science, Engineering, and Technology?
The Scientific Personality
Academic Preparation
The Institutional Welcome
Purpose of the Study
Method
The Correlates of Academic Achievement
Pathways to Academic Achievement
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 10: Doubling the Number of Minority Students in Science, Engineering, and Math
Summer Bridge Programs
Undergraduate Research Opportunities
Scholarships
The Xavier AMP Program
Program Goals
Method
The Best-Laid Plans: Was the Program Planned the Program Implemented?
Accounting for Success: Effectiveness of the Direct Program Strategies
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Part Three: Programs at Minority-Serving Universities
Chapter 11: The 4th Hour Algebra Project
Background
4th Hour Algebra Program Components
Method
Improved Grade Distributions
Improved Summer Grade Distributions
Differential Effectiveness of the 4th Hour Algebra Project
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 12: Why Good Students Drop Out
The Frederick Douglass Honors Program
Purposes of the Study
Method
Why Good Students Drop Out
When Good Students Perform Poorly
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 13: When Underprepared Students Stay in College
Retention Among Developmental Students
The Fast Track Program
The Study
Method
Retention and Performance of Fast Track Students
Needs and Problems Affecting the Retention and Performance of Fast Track Students
Adjustment Factors Affecting the Retention and Performance of Fast Track Students
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 14: Problem-Solving Instruction
Project GRAD
Purpose of the Study
Study I: Problem-Solving Instruction in Verbal and Math Reasoning
Study II: Problem-Solving Instruction in Math-Only Reasoning
Study III: Test Preparation with Instruction in Verbal and Math Problem Solving
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 15: Does Multicultural Content Make a Difference in the Reading Comprehension Performance of African American Students?
Multiculturalism in Education
Project GRAD at Texas Southern University
Method
African American Cultural Relevance and Nonblack Students
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Chapter 16: Multicultural Content and the Mathematics Performance of African American Students at Texas Southern University
The General University Academic Center
Multiculturalism and Mathematics
The Study
Study I: Effects of Multicultural Instructional Exercises on Mathematics Performance
Study II: Effects of Multicultural Pretests and Posttests on Mathematics Performance
Study III: The Effects of Multicultural Instructional and Test Materials on Mathematics Performance
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Summary
Part Four: Conclusion
Chapter 17: Enhancing the Performance of Minorities
Setting the Stage: As They Enter Higher Education
Programs in Math, Science, and Engineering
Programs at Minority-Serving Universities
Enhancing the Performance of Minorities: Collected Wisdom
Skill Sets and Support Systems to Enhance Minority Performance
Summary
Appendices
Chapter 2: Project Forward Leap—Methodological Details
Chapter 3: The Racial Climate at Eastern University—Interview Questions
Chapter 4: Gateway to Higher Education—Methodological Details
Chapter 5: Summer Bridge for Entering Minority Engineering Students at California State University at Northridge—Methodological Details
Chapter 6: Retaining Students in Engineering at the City College of New York—Methodological Details
Chapter 7: Science Programs at the City College of New York—Methodological Details
Chapter 8: The CCNY CREST Center—Methodological Details
Chapter 9: Who Will Do Math, Science, Engineering, and Technology?—Methodological Details
Chapter 10: The Xavier University of Louisiana Alliance for Minority Participation—Methodological Details
Chapter 11: The 4th Hour Algebra Project—Methodological Details
Chapter 12: Retention and Performance of Honors Students at Texas Southern University—Methodological Details
Chapter 13: The Fast Track Program at Texas Southern University—Methodological Details
Chapter 14: Problem-Solving Instruction—Methodological Details
Chapter 15: Does Multicultural Content Make a Difference in the Reading Comprehension Performance of African American Students?—Methodological Details
Chapter 16: Multicultural Content and the Mathematics Performance of African American Students at Texas Southern University—Methodological Details
References
Subject Index
Name Index
Copyright © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by Jossey-Bass
A Wiley Imprint
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594—www.josseybass.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read.
Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If the version of this book that you purchased references media such as CD or DVD that was not included in your purchase, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fleming, Jacqueline, 1947-
Enhancing minority student retention and academic performance : what we can learn from program evaluations / Jacqueline Fleming.—First edition.
pages cm.—(The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-0-7879-5713-1 (hardback)
ISBN 978-1-118-21867-9 (ebk)
ISBN 978-1-118-21869-3 (ebk)
ISBN 978-1-118-21868-6 (ebk)
1. College dropouts—Prevention—Case studies. 2. Minorities—Education (Higher)—United States—Case studies. 3. Educational evaluation—United States—Case studies. I. Title.
LC148.15.F54 2012
378.1′6913—dc23
2011052641
PREFACE
In addition to teaching, research, and administration, I have also lived a parallel life as an evaluator of programs for African American and other minority students in higher education. While I have conducted program evaluations for more years than I care to recall, the fifteen studies in this book span almost two decades of that time. This experience led me to compile this book of evaluation studies for three reasons. First, my clients needed to visualize what their final work product might look like. Although there are many descriptions of programs for minority students, there are not enough examples of the range of small-scale evaluation possibilities. There seems to be little middle ground between the definitive statements produced by RAND or MDRC and the internal document that provides minimal data beyond a program description. This book was compiled primarily to provide examples of the evaluation options available to any program coordinator in need of one. These studies were also intended as exercises in creativity—to turn potentially dry reports into good stories about what works to enhance the performance of minority students in college. From the front lines of designing and executing performance-enhancing retention programs come some surprisingly great and unexpected insights unearthed during the investigative process. The motivations for program assessment come from a number of sources, including the demands of funding agencies, but the needs are basically the same: to document program effectiveness. But within the framework of documentation, there is wide latitude in the approach that can be taken. The studies in the chapters that follow show that effectiveness can be proven from many pathways and many angles, with good rides in between.
Second, college administrators are always on the lookout for programs that might boost their minority retention rates. While I do not say that they need look no further than this book, I do say that this book provides a good start in that direction. It compiles a series of fifteen hitherto unpublished evaluations of programs conducted by institutions of higher education to enhance the performance of minority students. For most, I was an external evaluator. For those at Texas Southern University, I was charged with the responsibility for monitoring and evaluation as part of departmental operations or as a consultant. Four evaluations are collaborations with the coordinators or evaluators of the programs in question: Jason Guo, mathematics instructor at Texas Southern University; the late Carole Morning, Director of the Higher Education Extension Service in New York City; Dawn R. Person, Director of the Center for Research on Educational Access and Leadership at California State University, Fullerton; and J. Rene Torres, professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, Pan American. The knowledge embedded in them as to how to run programs effectively and key elements in encouraging higher performance have been invaluable to me as a researcher, retention coordinator, learning specialist, and administrator of a department that specializes in retention functions and academic support programs.
Who should have an interest in such a book? I have found these studies useful from all of the above points of view. For college administrators, an effective academic support program is an essential retention tool, and institutions with a strategic series of such programs can expect greater retention rates than otherwise. Program evaluations shed light on the many program components possible and feedback on which ones produce the best results for retention, academic performance, or other student goals. It is said that the most effective programs are faculty driven. Whether or not this is true, faculty may have as much interest in program design as administrators do.
Third, I have been pleasantly surprised by the unexpected insights gained from small-scale program evaluation, insights that have guided my efforts and may assist the efforts of other faculty, administrators, and social scientists. Since the purpose of program evaluation is to provide feedback to stakeholders for the purpose of program improvement, such evaluations are not necessarily noteworthy for the new knowledge that they produce. The fifteen studies that follow are exceptional in this regard because they either challenged the preevaluation impressions of stakeholders, provided unexpected insight, or suggested new areas for follow-up research under more controlled conditions. Although evaluation can be a dull enterprise, these studies are creative in employing a wide range of approaches to evaluation, from the straightforward to the highly unusual, from academic performance to advice about academic performance, from mere perception to hard data, from simple comparison to the true experimental design. For social scientists concerned with the conditions and correlates of better academic performance, the results produce a list of often innovative components. Social scientists have complained about the usefulness of program evaluations because of the lack of true experimental designs, but these studies show how much good evidence is contained in them that should not be ignored. I made an attempt to set a standard for evaluation by placing the findings in contexts that offered additional dimensions, such as success factors, the engineering or scientific personality, or the multicultural movement. The last chapter in this book places the results of these evaluations in the context of existing research and generates a list of possible program components that can enhance black student performance singly or in combination. This list should be valuable for all three audiences. Although this book is written for the general academic audience, in-depth technical information is contained in the appendices associated with the chapters and gathered at the back of the book. Additional data are available on request.
There has been considerable controversy over the fruits of educational evaluation, just as there has been over whether true experimental design should be the gold standard of evaluation. If the preferable standard is confidence in the outcomes, I hope these studies will be judged competent to contribute to our knowledge of the antecedents of high performance in minority students. At the very least, they can be considered starting points or proposals for further work. Each one contributes something important to an aggregate wisdom. For better or worse, these studies were not guided by theory or an attempt to validate theory, but by the immediate needs of the program administrators. As such, they were strictly client or program driven. In general, the preexisting program hypotheses were borne out at least in part, but where the chips actually fell permitted administrators to align their philosophies closer to reality. In general, what works for minority students depends on the program goals and whether students were in science or from a general population. Nonetheless in the most general terms, what works is a program that promotes a stronger and more sustained focus on academics. There is a clear implication that all minority students would do well to be schooled before entering college in academic management skills, the realities of covert racism, the art of the problem-solving schedule, problem-solving skill itself, the value of strategic cognitive skills, and the value of knowing one’s cultural past. Then, when offered the opportunity of programmatic support, minority students should jump at the chance to participate fully. This general overview does not, of course, do justice to the richness of the programs, the dedication of the staff, or the many patterns of outcomes and ideas embedded in the findings.
The politics of program evaluation is such that considerable anxiety can be generated over submitting to an external evaluation in the first place and then agreeing to make it public. Therefore I am indebted to those individuals whose efforts and cooperation made this book possible, including Daniel Akins, Melvin R. Allen, Sanders Anderson, Joseph Barba, A. Ramona Brown, Roger DiJulio, Cherry R. Gooden, Elisabeth Iler, Desmond Lewis, Miguel Macias, James R. Sheridan, Morton Slater, Charles Watkins, and others who remain nameless but not forgotten.
Jacqueline Fleming
Pearland, Texas
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jacqueline Fleming is a psychologist, author, and independent researcher based in Pearland, Texas. She received her B.A. from Barnard College, Columbia University, in psychology, her Ph.D. from Harvard University in personality and development, and was a postdoctoral fellow of the Radcliffe Institute. From 1976 to 1996, she was an associate adjunct professor of psychology at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a consulting psychologist in New York City where she was president of the Motivation Research Corporation. From 1996 to 2011, she served in a number of positions at historically black Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas, including visiting associate professor of psychology, associate professor of education, learning specialist, retention officer, associate director of Student Success Services, and director of the General University Academic Center. At Texas Southern, Fleming was responsible for designing and implementing exemplary instructional and support services for freshmen.
Her research activities began with an interest in motivation research. She coauthored the projective scoring system for the motive to avoid success with Matina Horner, and has written reviews of the research and methodologies in this area. She has written numerous articles on fear of success in black women. Her second area of research interest in black student performance led to the seminal research reported in Blacks in College, for which she received three honorary degrees. As a consequence she concentrated on the evaluation and design of programs for minority students in higher education with a particular interest in effective instructional methods. She has conducted research in Nairobi, Kenya, on the role of women in national development.
Fleming has also had extensive experience consulting to major advisory boards, such as the Educational Testing Service, the College Board, the National Institutes of Health, the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, the National Research Council, the Houston Annenberg Challenge, the Evaluation Task Force for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Fleming has also served as consulting psychologist and senior research associate to the United Negro College Fund.
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
This book seeks to elucidate factors critical to the college performance and success of minority students by analyzing a wide range of programs through the lens of evaluation. This chapter provides a brief overview of the relevant literature in order to provide context for the studies that follow. Although minority performance is not well understood, and remedies for underperformance are even more elusive, this book documents methods and outcomes that singly or in combination have the potential to enhance student performance to a significant degree.
Focus on Minority Performance
There is no one coherent theory of minority underperformance, although the fact of underperformance is undeniable, and many relevant factors have been described and isolated (Hale, 2006; Lubienski, 2002; Mandara, Varner, Greene, & Scott, 2009; Myers, Kim, & Mandala, 2004; Paik & Walberg, 2007; Rovai, Gallien, & Stiff-Williams, 2007; Stiefel, Schwartz, & Ellen, 2007). For African American students, underperformance begins early, and the gap continues to widen (Mickelson, 2003, 2006; Mickelson & Heath, 2001; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Perry (2003) reports that minority students score lower on every test from the SAT to the Stanford Nine. Some studies find no race differences in performance before entry into the school system, while others show that African American students fall behind by the end of the first grade or even before kindergarten (Jencks & Phillips, 1998). The United Negro College Fund (1997), using various national databases, reported that black and white students are on grade level until the fourth grade, but thereafter black children begin to perform below white children. Hilliard (1991) described a fourth-grade syndrome where the performance of black males takes a decisive downturn at the age of nine or ten; he argues that this is the age when black boys start to look like black men and so are perceived as threatening. This book (see Chapter Two) documents an achievement downturn after the seventh-grade. Mickelson and Greene (2007) reported that in eighth grade, black boys, but not black girls, begin a test score decline. Their study is one of a growing number that documents greater academic declines for African American males and some of the relevant factors (Garibaldi, 2007; Lundy & Firebaugh, 2005; Madyun & Lee, 2010; Matthews, Kizzie, Rowley, & Cortina, 2010; Rascoe, 2005; Wood, Kurtz-Costes, Rowley, & Okeke-Adeyanju, 2010).
The black-white gap in standardized test performance is approximately one standard deviation, despite recent shifts and narrowing in scores, with debates surrounding the reasons for them (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Dickens & Flynn, 2001, 2006; Flynn, 2007; Lynn, 1998; Nettles & Nettles, 1995, 1999; Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, & Tyler, 2001). This gap is true for the SAT despite the fact that only about 25 percent of black students take the test. Cognitive test score data from the National Center for Education Statistics in reading, math, and science shows that from grades 8 to 12, the gap between black and white performance gradually widens and is greatest in science, with a difference of almost one full standard deviation. Statistics employing grade point averages (GPAs) are far more difficult to find but show the same pattern of minority underperformance (Vars & Bowen, 1998).
In parallel fashion, educational pipeline statistics show persistent racial and ethnic gaps in participation and completion. The college enrollment rate among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old high school graduates was 45.0 percent for white students, 34.0 percent for African American students, and 28.0 percent for Hispanic students (Ryu, 2010). Asian students have the highest five-year college persistence rate, 62.3 percent, followed by 58.0 percent for white students, 42.0 percent for Hispanic students, and 36.4 percent for African American students. The percentage of twenty-five- to twenty-nine-year-old college graduates in 2003 was 34.2 percent for white students, 17.2 percent for African American students, and 10.0 percent for Hispanic students (Harvey & Anderson, 2005). The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (“Black students Show Solid Progress in Graduation Rates,” 2009/2010) reported that the nationwide college graduation rate for black students has improved but still stands at a low 45 percent, a figure 19 percentage points below the 64 percentage rate for white students. Thus, only 19 percent of young black adults hold a four-year college degree compared to 34 percent of young white adults. These differences are compounded throughout the educational pipeline such that the share of these degrees declines with advancing levels for African Americans and Hispanic students. Thus, African Americans earn 8.6 percent of bachelor’s degrees but only 6.7 percent of professional degrees and 5.1 percent of doctoral degrees. Hispanic students earn 6.1 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 4.7 percent of professional degrees, and 3.1 percent of doctorates (Harvey & Anderson, 2005).
Why do minorities underperform? A number of authors point out that this should come as no surprise since underperformance is the result of the same sociohistorical and political patterns that have always been a challenge for disadvantaged minorities (Allen, 1992; Allen, Jewell, Griffin, & Wolf, 2007; Allen, Kimura-Walsh, & Griffin, 2009; Lomotey, 2011). Attempts to prevent the education of blacks were followed by efforts to track them into vocational skills, and then into a castelike system of educational segregation that eased the threat to white supremacy, but also set the stage for continuing disadvantage, stereotypes, and conflicts that feed intellectual threat (Anderson, 1988; Diamond, 2006; Fordham, 1996, 2010; Jewell, 2002; Ogbu, 1990, 2003; Steele, 2003; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Watkins, 2001; White & Lowenthal, 2011). Even in historically black colleges, the curriculum did not depart from an emphasis on the Eurocentric view (W. M. Cole, 2011; Lomotey, 2011). Perry (2003) maintains that segregated communities were deliberately organized to buffer students against the narrative of black intellectual inferiority, but that in the post–civil rights era, such deliberate buffers are few and far between. Today the educational landscape is still marred by hostile educational environments, stereotypical expectations, and a failure to nurture. The fact of minority status has been associated with a predictable degree of lower performance around the globe (Devos & Wagatsuma, 1966; Flynn, 1987, 2007; Van den Bergh, Denessen, Hornstra, Voeten, & Holland, 2010). When minority status is accompanied by stereotypes of intellectual inferiority, stereotype threat is called into play (Steele, 1997, 2003), and minorities perform even below their tested ability levels according to a long series of studies in this genre (Katz, 1967; Watson, 1972; Kane, 1998). According to Vars and Bowen (1998) this underperformance is greatest in the sciences and greatest for the most able minority students whose test scores are in the highest range. Indeed Jencks and Phillips (1998) also found that a race factor appears operative even after controls for social class and ability. In addition, social class factors, cultural factors, and managerial factors play a role and magnify the differences. The absence of cultural relevance in education, along with the exclusion of positive references to minority cultures and their accomplishments in the school curriculum, is alleged to create cultural conflicts that make the development of positive intellectual identity difficulty for minority students (Fordham, 1996, 2010; Lundy & Firebaugh, 2005; Mickelson & Greene, 2007; Ogbu, 1990, 2003; Wiggan, 2007; see also Gusa, 2010). Furthermore, minority students are now taught largely by nonminority teachers (Irvine & Irvine, 2007; Morrell, 2010), but studies of classroom interaction and teacher expectations show that minority students receive less positive attention, less information, more criticism, and less help from their teachers; bright minorities appear to receive the worst treatment (Allen et al., 2009; Casteel, 1998; Ferguson, 2003a, 2003b; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Pringle, Lyons, & Booker, 2010; Rubovits & Maehr, 1977; Suarez-Balcazar, Orellana-Damacela, Portillo, Rowan, & Andrews-Guillen, 2003; Tennenbaum & Ruck, 2007; Trujillo, 1986; Wiggan, 2007). Noguera (2003) finds evidence that black males feel they are not treated fairly by teachers, while Fleming and Morning (1998) found that the higher the SAT score among engineering school–bound minority students, the less support they reported from high school teachers. Pollard (2002) reports a series of similar findings, while Myers, Kim, and Mandala (2004) conclude that much of the test score gap can be attributed to racial differences in treatment. According to Hilliard (2003), there is a belief system in place that supports extreme pessimism regarding minority students when the real problem is a lack of good or effective teaching for such students although innumerable examples of effective teaching abound (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sizemore, Brosard, & Harrigan, 1994). In short, minority overperformance has historically provoked anxiety in the majority, and efforts to quell this anxiety have resulted in the conditions that now describe minority status.
While culture can buffer a group from these effects, as for many Asian groups, the greatest disadvantage accrues to African Americans, whose cultures were effectively undermined or erased. Thus, minority students themselves, conditioned by low expectations, contribute to the problem through lack of effort and lack of organizational skills (Moore, 2007). Scott (1995) found that motivation, effort, and good study habits were key factors in the academic performance of black students and that effort varied directly with GPA. Successful students talked about investing extra study time, using campus resources, studying with peers, and talking to professors, while poor students admitted that academics were not a priority and that they had not spent adequate time on their studies. Noguera (2003) reports that while black students in his study might value education, they do not work hard. Griffin (2006) found that black high achievers overcame academic difficulties largely through increased effort—effort that was born of the belief that problems were controllable. Greene, Marti, and McClenney, (2008) describe an effort-outcome gap for African American students linked to the multiple barriers to academic success that they face. Despite evidence that African Americans do not suffer a lack of motivation (Graham, 1994), Cokley (2003) reports a motivation-effort gap such that strong intrinsic motivation may not result in academic performance. Clark (2002) makes a convincing case that black students underperform because of factors that have little to do with race but much to do with the students’ time-use habits, their parents, and their teachers. Thus, their achievement can be increased by increasing time and engagement with structured learning activities and decreasing time spent on unstructured leisure activities. Other studies suggest that knowing how to manage the college environments is effective. In addition to effort, organizational know-how is necessary. Sedlacek (2004) identified eight noncognitive variables that predict academic success for black students and describe effective managerial strategies (see also Nasim, Roberts, Harrell, & Young, 2005). Jencks and Phillips (1998) contend that culture is key. Differences are due to ways in which blacks and whites are taught to deal with what they do not know and the emphasis put on cognitive skills. Furthermore, the way that parents interact with their children has the greatest impact on performance. Entwistle, Alexander, and Olsen (2004) showed that while disadvantaged children learned at the same rate during school as middle-class children, they lost ground during the summers when affluent children were engaged in camp, lessons, and other mastery activities.
In short, ways in which the racial and ethnic performance gaps can be documented are numerous. The underlying reasons are certainly as complicated as racial history itself, while data-driven theories provide a loose set of cogent factors. However, much of the educational research attention has been devoted to retention rather than to the precise factors that promote enhanced performance of minority students.
Retention Theory
The retention literature helps to explain the dynamics of retention in general and for particular subgroups of students. The literature posits a number of theoretical approaches to college student retention, most of which contribute independently to an understanding of college attrition (Attewell, Heil, & Reizel, 2011). The essential thrust of the dominant theories is that the more students are involved in and connected to the college environment, the more likely it is that they will stay in college and graduate. Astin (1999) offered the general theory that greater student involvement yielded better retention (see also Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Milem & Berger, 1997). Thus, mere membership or enrollment in a program of study was not sufficient; expending time and psychological energy in the academic endeavor provides necessary connective tissue. Tinto’s dramatic and enduring theory of retention argues that dropouts are less integrated into the social and academic fabric of college, such that establishing mechanisms for connectedness is paramount (Tinto, 1993, 1997, 1998, 2005). The growth spurt in knowledge about student retention since then has clarified and extended the basic ideas of how involvement, engagement, and connection operate (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Seidman, 2005a). Thus, more able students are more engaged in academics and less likely to drop out, especially when they matriculate in a college environment with a matching orientation, resulting in greater institutional commitment (Berger, 2000; Kuh & Love, 2000; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005). Social integration into the college environment is predictive of retention in residential colleges, but academic engagement in the classroom is critical to retain students in commuter colleges, where opportunities for social engagement are limited (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Braxton & Lee, 2005; Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Strauss & Volkwein, 2004; Tinto, 2005). Furthermore, the deliberate use of active engagement teaching methods, especially in commuter institutions, contributes to persistence (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Tinto, 1997, 1998, 2005). Financial concerns act to limit participation in college, ambitions, and retention because the effort to hold a job detracts from full engagement in college life (Saunders & Schuh, 2004; Schuh, 2005). Adult learners also tend to be less engaged because of other major commitments (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Tinto, 1993). Student entry characteristics, including cultural characteristics, may limit or enhance retention, just as student commitment to college may do the same (Bean & Eaton, 2000). Virtually any factor that inhibits involvement, engagement, or connectedness to a college environment threatens retention.
Race, Ethnicity, and Retention
Race and ethnicity are logical factors that would decrease retention. Cross and Slater (2001) report that the national graduation rate for blacks in predominantly white institutions is only 38 percent, compared to 57 percent for other students. Although the graduation rates are high and very similar for black and white students at highly selective institutions, they are up to 28 percent lower at other selective institutions and 35 percent lower at some flagship state institutions. These authors report factors that account for the difference in black-white graduation rates and explain the variation in rates at the nation’s colleges, such as availability of financial aid, the racial climate, availability of strong programs, geographical location, percentage of black students, and a heavy math and science curriculum where there is a small black presence as well as conservative or hostile faculty. Seidman (2005b) finds that the commonalities impeding retention among minorities are lack of academic preparation, lack of a critical mass of students, and financial need. Factors that Holmes, Ebbers, Robinson, and Mugenda (2007) identify include alienation, lack of exposure to the majority group on the student side of the equation, and Anglo-European teaching philosophies and lack of role models on the institutional side of the equation. Townsend (1994) interviewed the expert administrators in colleges that successfully retain minority students. For them, the crucial variable in retention is the influence of psychosocial conditions, that is, the issue of climate for students in the classrooms and dorms—the sum of everything that the institution does to maximize meaningful social interaction, with strong minority participation in campus activities, including leadership activities. In short, minority students must feel comfortable and feel that they are part of the university.
The literature on minority student adjustment to college clearly shows that minority students’ adjustment issues are greater than usual and that race/ethnicity usually occasions less friendly treatment (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002; Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000; Hurtado et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rovai, Gallien, & Wighting, 2005; Smith, 2009; Smith & Moore, 2002; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). The degree of social integration, or the extent to which friendships form, has been identified as a critical ingredient in retention in residential colleges (Braxton & Lee, 2005), but minority students almost certainly operate in a narrower social world with a sense of separateness (Bonous-Hammarth, 2006; Hagedorn, Chi, Cepeda, & McLain, 2007; Tinto, 1993). While greater comfort with whites or the university, or both, is associated with better adjustment in white institutions (Gloria, Kurpius, Hamilton, & Wilson, 1999; McDonald & Vrana, 2007), African American students suffer from the negative interpersonal experiences of isolation, alienation, and prejudice (Delphin & Rollock, 1995; Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002; Schwitzer, Griffin, Ancis, & Thomas, 1999). Smith and Moore (2002) find that the campus climate is dominated by racial issues for black students, and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) have documented the deleterious effects of a negative racial climate. Brown, Morning, and Watkins (2005) have shown that the perception of racism is associated with lower graduation rates among engineering students, but Nasim et al. (2005) found that the ability to handle racism was associated with better academic performance. Solórzano et al. (2000) described extreme mundane environmental stress among black students in three predominantly white institutions that reported persistent microagressions: stunning, automatic acts of disregard that issue from feelings of white superiority. Such racialized issues lead to greater reluctance to approach instructors unless they are of the same race and to less involvement in the campus community (Flowers, 2004; Schwitzer et al., 1999). Financial pressures also constitute particular barriers for minority students (Green, 2004; Hurtado, Han, Saenz, Espinosa, Cabrera, & Cerna, 2007; Johnson, 2007; Kim, 2007; Kim & Otts, 2010; St. John, Paulsen, & Carter, 2005).
While the presence of covert and overt prejudice and racism colors the social interactions of minority students, experiences in the classroom are more damaging largely because many nonminority professors and students harbor negative stereotypes about minority students’ academic ability and potential (Ferguson, 2003b; Moore, 2001; Smith & Moore, 2002; Tennenbaum & Ruck, 2007). These stereotypes manifest in instructors’ paying less attention to black students, withholding encouragement, or ignoring them altogether (Jussim & Harber, 2005; Love, 1993; McCown & Weinstein, 2002, 2008; Pringle, Lyons, & Booker, 2010; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2003; Simms, Knight, & Dawes, 1993; Trujillo, 1986). Such teacher-treatment variables have been linked directly to minority-majority achievement gaps (McCown & Weinstein, 2008; Myers et al., 2004; see also Van den Bergh et al., 2010). Stereotype threat intensifies the fears and uncertainties of the person who is being negatively stereotyped (Steele, 2003). Thus, according to Love (1993), black students do not look to white faculty for their leadership; they look to other available blacks—faculty or other students—or develop their own styles and forms of leadership.
Many successful programs at white colleges promote better retention and graduation rates that have informed those described in this book (Armstrong & Thompson, 2003; Cuyjet, 2006; Garret-Ruffin & Martsolf, 2005; Gilmer, 2007; Lang & Ford, 1988, 1992; Maton, Domingo, Stolle-McAllister, Zimmerman, & Hrabowski, 2009; Lam, Srivatsan, Doverspike, Vesalo, & Mawasha, 2005; Lam, Ugweje, Mawasha, & Srivatsan, 2003; Morning & Fleming, 1994; Treisman, 1992). However, Love (1993) maintains that programs focus on fixing students rather than dealing with the major problems of white racism and weak institutional leadership that does not acknowledge the problem of racism. McNairy (1996) agrees that while black students are changing and many are underprepared, the challenge is to refrain from trying to fix the student and instead engage in institutional reform that is committed to educating today’s students. The real problem, according to Braxton and Hirschy (2005), is a need for the celebration of diversity and a critical mass of black students. For Townsend (1994), a curriculum that includes promoting the uniqueness of minority culture and history should supplant a dependence on Eurocentric curricula and points to dramatically higher minority retention rates in colleges that have implemented such a policy.
Adjustment in Black and White Colleges
The literature on black students in white colleges indicates that making a good adjustment to the college environment is a key to minority retention. By this measure, student adjustment in predominantly black and white colleges leans strongly to adjustment advantages for black students in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Indeed, for a number of decades, most studies that compared students from black and white colleges found that black colleges confer greater adjustment and cognitive advantages (Allen, 1992; Bohr, Pascarella, Nora, & Terenzini, 1995; Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Centra, Linn, & Parry, 1970; Cheatham, Slaney, & Coleman, 1990; Davis, 1994; DeSousa & Kuh, 1996; Fleming, 1984; Watson & Kuh, 1996).
More recently, studies have continued to document similar advantages in HBCUs. Berger and Milem (2000) documented comparatively higher self-concept ratings for students in black colleges. Cokley (2000) found that students attending HBCUs reported more positive student-faculty relationships and more positive perceptions about evaluations of black students’ academic performance. Seifert, Drummond, and Pascarella (2006) found that students in black colleges reported more intellectual challenge, faculty-student contact, and peer interaction. Freeman and McDonald (2004) reported that although blacks attending white colleges have better grades than those in HBCUs, those attending HBCUs have higher aspirations to Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees, as well as being more politically and community oriented. Fleming (2002b) reported more evidence of racial identity conflicts among students in white versus black colleges, especially among black males in white colleges, with such conflicts being most acute for high achievers. Fries-Britt and Turner (2002) and Fries-Britt (2004) found that black colleges were more supportive of high-achieving black students, although such students may suffer from isolation in both environments. Fleming (2004) also found that high-achieving black students fared better in black colleges where their talent was more likely to be nurtured and they were less likely to be distracted by racial and psychosocial issues. Although students entering black colleges are further behind than their counterparts in white colleges, Kim (2002) found no differences on critical achievement measures, including three academic abilities. Tobolowsky, Outcalt, and McDonough (2005) found that prospective college students were aware of the adjustment advantages of HBCUs and perceived them as more supportive institutions.
Under such circumstances of institutional inequity, the adjustment and performance advantages appear to be due to the more supportive environment. Note that this race factor in conferring supportive advantages in black environments persists even out of the context of black colleges; it extends to all black versus mixed black and white study sections (Rovai & Gallien, 2005).
Retention in Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Given the theoretical advantages and the evidence of better adjustment, the retention of African American students ought to be better in historically black colleges and universities because of the absence of a race factor that would impede involvement. It is not. Retention is as much a concern in HBCUs as in majority institutions (Hudson, Henderson, & Henderson, 2002; Nettles, Wagener, Millett, & Killenbeck, 1999). Although there is a substantive literature on historically black colleges (Brown & Freeman, 2004; Gasman & Tudico, 2008; Gary, 1997; Hale, 2006; Redd, 1998; Roebuck & Murty, 1993; Willie, Reddick, & Brown, 2005), there is still a lack of data and investigation of factors affecting retention in these schools. According to Gilliam and Kritsonis (2006), HBCUs conduct limited research so that many of the psychosocial and other factors affecting persistence have not been identified.
Cross and Slater (2002) report an average graduation rate of 35.6 percent for fifty-one HBCUs, a rate similar to the national average of 38 percent for African American students, but the range is wide: from 6 percent at the University of the District of Columbia to 76 percent at Spelman College. They cite only six HBCUs that graduate half or more of their students within six years. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (“Student Success at Low-Income Serving Historically Black Colleges,” 2007), historically black colleges made up more than one in five of the four-year institutions identified as low income serving for whom six-year graduation rates were 39 percent in 2004. For sixty-seven low-income-serving HBCUs, the six-year retention rate was 35.8 percent, with virtually no difference between public and private institutions (35.5 and 36.2 percent, respectively). Graduation rates tend to be higher at selective HBCUs with better-prepared students, just as they are at more elite predominantly white institutions. Hess, Schneider, Carey, and Kelly (2009) reported that the average graduation rates at 78 HBCUs ranges from 34.7 to 37.1 percent, depending on the selectivity of the college. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (“Black Students Show Solid Progress in Graduation Rate,” 2009/2010) reported that only six HBCUs had graduation rates of 50 percent or more and that there was an enormous range in rates, from 12 percent to 79 percent.
Berger and Lyon (2005) report that retention rates are better for black students attending black colleges, just as they are for women in women’s institutions, but they do not provide percentages. While Astin, Tsui, and Avalos (1996) do find that African American students are more likely to graduate in HBCUs, they also note that the effect is due to the smaller size of most HBCUs, where perhaps the possibilities for engagement are greater. Wenglinsky (1997) provides indirect evidence on retention. Secondary analysis of the database of the American Association of Universities/Association of Graduate Schools Project for Research on Doctoral Education showed that black students in HBCUs were more likely to aspire to baccalaureate degrees compared to their counterparts in predominantly white colleges, and they were more likely to persist in graduate school than black students who attended predominantly white institutions. The study also found that graduates of HBCUs were more likely to plan on entering programs in science, engineering, and business—fields in which they were most underrepresented and fields conducive to positive labor market outcomes.
The issues affecting retention in historically black colleges seem to be different from those in traditionally white colleges. Whereas adjustment issues are central in white colleges, issues of preparedness and low socioeconomic status are paramount in black colleges. These institutions serve a disproportionate number of low-income, educationally disadvantaged students from low-resource public schools that face reductions in federal grants (Green, 2004; Townsend, 1994). Allen, Jayakumar, Griffin, Korn, and Hurtado (2005) report that higher concentrations of low-income students can now be found at HBCUs compared to majority institutions. Many students at these institutions are from families where neither parent has gone to college, but that the major component of low black student graduation rates is insufficient financial aid, especially for upperclassmen (“Black Students Show Solid Progress in Graduation Rates,” 2009/2010).
Many historically black colleges are open admission institutions or admit substantial numbers of underprepared students. For these institutions, the systemic underpreparation of minority students entering college, along with poor study habits, is one of the most important factors cited for the low graduation rates at HBCUs (DeSousa, 2001; “Black Students Show Solid Progress in Graduation Rates,” 2009/2010). Nonetheless, low graduation rates are associated with poor quality and inadequately funded education. Unequal legislative funding for black colleges, compared to the states’ white public institutions, these authors charge, is responsible for producing a higher dropout rate at black institutions. Successful retention efforts at HBCUs must couple the comfortable campus environment with institution-wide retention programs, a strong institutional commitment, and intensive faculty involvement. Attempts to determine the predictors of retention in black colleges often find them to be academic in nature. McDaniel (2001), for example, found ACT scores, especially Math ACT, to be the best predictor, while Greer (2008) found the SAT to be the best predictor of academic performance. Robinson (1990) and Zea, Reisen, Beil, and Caplan (1997) found the best predictor of retention to be GPA. Despite the issues of underpreparedness in HBCUs, better performance may be the specific key to retention.
The underpreparation of minority students and potential solutions for it are the focus of this book, which seeks to inform thinking on approaches to enhancing the performance of minority students. Chapter Two, an evaluation of a middle school summer program for at-risk students, demonstrates that better school performance is associated with controllable managerial factors such as behaviors and attitudes. Chapter Three presents an interview study of students, faculty, and staff at “Eastern University” that employed a factor-analytic sorting of responses and delineated ways in which covert discrimination undermines the development of academic talent. Chapter Four correlated advice from graduates of their science-oriented high schools program with college performance measures and found that higher achieving students in science advise a proactive managerial approach to college.
Chapter Five evaluates a precollege summer bridge program at California State University, Northbridge, for engineering students and shows that training in the Whimbey and Lochhead (2000) method of problem-solving skills improves mathematics performance, but also that ability and effort are two different things so that both must be focused on academics. Chapter Six, about a minority retention program in engineering at the City College of New York (CCNY), shows that greater program participation or involvement is associated with better study habits, which in turn are associated with significant improvement in every other aspect of college life. Chapter Seven shows, as a result of reviewing programs at CCNY, that money matters: the students in research and collaborative learning programs who received adequate financial support achieved impressive heights of academic performance and research involvement.
Chapter Eight examines an implementation evaluation that describes the challenges and successes of establishing an interdisciplinary research center at CCNY in mesoscopic research; minority students achieved impressive mastery but still face limited job opportunities. Chapter Nine looks at the academic progress of students at seventeen colleges and shows that in the sciences, a subjective sense of comfort was the critical factor in enhanced academic performance and that comfort was twice as important as faculty relationships. Chapter Ten, which presents another implementation evaluation, describes the rocky but ultimately successful road to cooperation among ten historically black institutions in increasing minority student participation in the sciences.
Chapter Eleven shows that a retailoring of teaching methods and increasing time on task at University of Texas, Pan American, has boosted the pass rates for Hispanic students in this gatekeeper course. Chapter Twelve shows that even good students drop out of a historically black university, Texas Southern University, unless they are able or willing to focus on the metacognitive issues of concentration, time management, and long-range planning. Chapter Thirteen finds that establishing learning community conditions can produce remarkable retention rates among the least academically prepared students at Texas Southern University but that enhancing their academic performance is more of a challenge.
Chapter Fourteen demonstrates that training in the Whimbey and Lochhead method of problem solving improves a number of academic performance outcomes; it also demonstrates that group therapy–style classroom management as opposed to traditional teaching results in the best academic outcomes. Chapter Fifteen evaluates the Project GRAD Summer Institute at Texas Southern University and found that introducing culturally relevant content into reading comprehension exercises can produce surprising boosts in test performance of both African American and non–African American students. Chapter Sixteen also shows that there is a way to introduce culturally relevant content into mathematics and that it has the potential to boost performance dramatically. Chapter Seventeen provides a summary of each evaluation and puts them in the context of existing theory and research on minority performance and retention, while emphasizing five student skill sets and five institutional support systems. Note that supplementary material can be found at the end of the book in the appendices.
PART ONE
SETTING THE STAGE: AS THEY ENTER HIGHER EDUCATION
CHAPTER 2
SUCCESS FACTORS IN THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF INNER-CITY YOUTH*
Project Forward Leap
National trends indicate that academic performance for minority students continues to lag behind that of majority and Asian students from as early as the first grade despite recent narrowings in test score gaps (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). The extent and consequences of this disparity have been the subjects of investigation by researchers for a number of years. The United Negro College Fund (1997) reported that black children begin to lag behind by the fourth grade. Mickelson and Greene (2007) reported that black males, but not females, begin a test score decline in eighth grade. Perry (2003) found that minority students scored lower on every test from the Stanford Nine to the SAT. Furthermore, minority students are more likely to drop out of the educational pipeline than majority students. According to Harvey and Anderson (2005), 77.5 percent of African American students finished high school, but only 40.3 percent entered college. For Latino students, 62.6 percent finished high school, but only 31.8 percent entered college. This is compared to 87 percent and 47 percent, respectively, for white students. The high college dropout rates for minority students, which can reach up to 90 percent (“Black Student College Graduation Rates Inch Higher,” 2007), threaten to thin the ranks of the effective college-going population. At the time of this evaluation, local data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education suggested that the high school dropout rate was twice as high for African American and Latino students as for majority students. Although statistics differ on when the performance of minority children diverges, or to what extent, virtually all estimates document lower minority performance in academics (Lubienski, 2002; Myers, Kim, & Mandala, 2004; Paik & Walberg, 2007; Rovai, Gallien, & Stiff-Williams, 2007; Stiefel, Schwartz, & Ellen, 2007). The Forward Leap Program, the focus of this chapter, was an effort designed to counteract trends such as these.
The Project Forward Leap Program
Project Forward Leap, a three-year summer residential program providing an enriched academic environment for middle school students, was designed in response to the disturbing national and local trends in education for minority and low-income youth. Its primary goal was to increase the college-going rate of students by helping them focus on their future education. The program, housed at Millersville University, was initially funded by the Forward Leap Foundation and directed by Melvin R. Allen with James R. Sheridan and project staff.
The evaluation of the program that is the focus of this chapter was designed to unearth critical success factors in academic performance that could be nurtured and used to inoculate at-risk students against declining academic performance. Eighty-three percent of the first cohort of Forward Leap students, who entered in 1989, completed high school in 1996. Data for the school districts from which these students came indicated that only about 40 percent of minority students finished high school on time. Approximately 43 percent of all students from these districts went on for postsecondary education, and the figures for minority students were substantially lower. Among Forward Leap students, 53 percent entered college. This figure exceeds the national college-going rate for minorities of 39 percent at that time.
Target Population
Project Forward Leap served an academically able but at-risk population of middle school students. Although most students showed evidence of academic promise, this did not guarantee their entry into college. An overwhelming percentage of students came from families who received some form of public assistance, lived in low-income communities, subsisted in one-parent homes, and had an incarcerated family member or a family member with a substance abuse problem. Even most of the relatively stable families lacked a significantly educated parent as a role model. Youth from similar circumstances evidenced high vulnerability to poor school performances, increased absenteeism, and increased alienation from the school system. These risks were greatest for young men.
Student Selection
Project Forward Leap students went through an intensive review that included an application process and a family interview. Students were selected on the basis of school performance, test scores, and recommendations from school personnel and community leaders. Evidence of parent involvement was a key requirement. Equal numbers of boys and girls were admitted as a strategy for equalizing opportunities and normalizing peer interaction. Approximately eighty new students each year were selected after the fifth grade. They remained in the program until the summer after the eighth grade. Approximately 240 students were enrolled at the time of the evaluation.
Summer Residential Program
The heart of the Project Forward Leap Program was the five-week residential summer program. All students attended this program in each of the three summers following the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades.
Intensive enrichment was provided in four core areas: mathematics, science, English, and foreign language. Typically students were exposed to algebra, geometry, biology, chemistry, and environmental science long before they studied these subjects in school. In addition, workshops were provided in creative expression, current issues and debate, standardized test taking, and PRIDE, a workshop devoted to building interpersonal skills. The PRIDE workshop was developed by instructor Sandy Brown because the students lacked effective social skills for dealing with each other or the outside world.
Students made several off-campus trips for cultural and social enrichment. In addition, accomplished individuals were invited as guest speakers. Recreational, athletic, artistic, and other activities were provided daily, and weekly religious services were held as well.
The residential summer program was conducted at Millersville University. Under the supervision of the grade team leader, coleader, and their staff of teachers and counselors, the students resided on campus for the five weeks with an assigned roommate. The ratio of residential counselors to students was approximately one to five. Also, a full-time director of housing lived in the dorm. Family members visited students on specified days at specified times.
The summer program was well organized. Students were engaged in constructive activities around the clock and had virtually no unstructured or unsupervised time.
Year-Round Activities
Parents were required to devote fifty hours each year to the program assisting with student selection and chaperoning program events, and a parents’ council worked closely with the staff. During each semester of the normal school year, two project days were devoted to academic workshops and cultural and social activities.
The Project Forward Leap (PFL) staff were confident that students were successful in school while enrolled in the program. The problem, they felt, was that students began to backslide once the three-year program came to an end. The evaluation was charged with identifying critical success factors in academic performance that could be nurtured and used to buffer PFL students against declining academic performance after they left the program. The academic literature on at-risk academic performance was consulted before designing evaluation instruments.
Background Literature
The complex factors that depress academic performance and elevate dropout rates of minority students along the educational pipeline fall into at least four categories: social class factors, cultural factors, discrimination or treatment factors, and management of academic talent factors. (See Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992, and Mickelson, 2003, for similar as well as additional groupings.)
Social Class Factors
Social class refers to parent-related factors and interactions. A series of studies argue for the primacy of the home environment and suggest that social class factors act to increase stress, have a negative effect on the quality of the parent-child relationship and achievement, and limit educational opportunities. According to Easton-Brooks and Davis (2007), both socioeconomic status (SES) and wealth are significantly related to academic achievement, and the relationship is stronger among African Americans. Joe and Davis (2009) cited parent behaviors that encourage achievement such as reading to children and discussing science projects, but SES was negatively related to all three test score indicators. Wu and Qi (2006) found that SES remained the most powerful predictor of children’s academic achievement, while Strayhorn (2009) found SES to be the strongest predictor of aspirations among black males. It is estimated that from 30 to 50 percent of the variance in standardized test scores is due to social class (Ferguson, 2003a; Mickelson, 2006), but Mandara, Varner, Greene, and Scott (2009) have found that SES-related factors accounted for all of the variance in the black-white achievement gap. Mickelson (2006) challenges the validity of test scores for minority students because they lack access to the encouragement, courses, and counseling that precedes. Lower-class children attend low-resourced schools that do not offer challenging courses or academic counseling such that these students do not make the connection between academics and their future opportunities (Griffin & Buford, 2009; Solórzano & Ornelas, 2004). Students from low-SES families take fewer science courses and delay college entry when they do go to college, (Goldrick-Rab & Han, 2011).
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, roughly two-thirds of all African American children come from single-parent families. Coming from a single-parent home has a significant effect on reducing grades and test scores and a dramatic effect on increasing dropout behavior, especially among boys who lose opportunities for male-male bonding (Zimiles & Lee, 1991). A father’s involvement may be more important for both genders than a mother’s, an influence that owes more to education than income (Yeung, 2004). Also, high interaction with poorly educated grandparents undermines the educational development of black, but not white, students (Kalil, Patillo, & Payne, 2004).
Entwistle, Alexander, and Olsen (2004) showed that although disadvantaged children learn at the same rate during school as middle-class children, they lost ground during the summers when affluent children were engaged in camp, lessons, and other mastery activities. Lower-class parents are less likely to support the college ambitions of their children (Griffin & Kimura-Walsh, 2009) or provide concrete guidance and specific information about negotiating the educational process (Allen, Kimura-Walsh, & Griffin, 2009). The combined stresses of poverty, single parenthood, lack of time, and emotional stress create parenting styles that do not provide sufficient support, control, or supervision of a child’s academic pursuits, making them more vulnerable to lack of encouragement from teachers and counselors (Nebbit, Lombe, LaPoint, & Bryant, 2009; Toldson, Harrison, Perine, Carreiro, & Caldwell, 2006; Stylianides & Stylianides, 2011; Wilson, 2009). Nonetheless, the influence of social class has been shown to override the effects of family configuration and parent involvement (Battle & Coates, 2004; Jeynes, 2005).
Cultural Values
