Paving the Way to

Postsecondary Education:

K-12 Intervention Programs

for Underrepresented Youth

Report of the National Postsecondary

Education Cooperative Working Group

on Access to

Postsecondary Education
Paving the Way to

Postsecondary Education:

K-12 Intervention Programs

for Underrepresented Youth

Report of the National Postsecondary

Education Cooperative Working Group

on Access to

Postsecondary Education

Prepared for the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) and its

Working Group on Access by Patricia Gándara with Deborah Bial, under the

sponsorship of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S.

Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Grover J. Whitehurst

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and

reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to

collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United

States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significant of such statistics;

assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistics systems; and review and report on

education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data

to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data

users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety

of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively.

If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear

from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-5574

September 2001

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/index.asp

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Paving the Way to Postsecondary

Education: K-12 Intervention Programs for Underrepresented Youth, NCES 2001-205, prepared by Patricia

Gándara with the assistance of Deborah Bial for the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Access

Working Group. Washington DC: 2001.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

PO Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free: 1-877-4ED-Pubs.

Contact

Nancy Borkow

202-502-7311
iii

FOREWORD

This report is a product of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC). NPEC was authorized

by Congress in 1994 and is supported by the National Center for Education Statistics. NPEC’s overarching

mission is to promote better decisions through better data. This report was undertaken as part of NPEC’s work

in the area of access to postsecondary education.

Fifteen individuals with extensive research and/or experiential backgrounds in the issues surrounding access to

postsecondary education were brought together. They were charged with developing a project that would

explore a relatively uncharted set of concerns in the area of access. After much deliberation, this “working

group” decided there was a critical need for evaluative data and information on the effectiveness of K-12

intervention programs designed specifically to increase access to postsecondary education for underrepresented

youths. The working group also recognized the heavy burden this lack of data placed on policymakers

interested in funding early intervention programs.

While it was clear that program evaluation, per se, was not within the purview of NPEC, it was felt that a study

identifying the data infrastructure necessary for adequately evaluating early intervention programs was within

NPEC’s mandate and operating policies and would also make a significant contribution to policy and practices

in postsecondary education. This report chronicles the results of that study.

The report was reviewed and accepted by the NPEC Steering Committee as meeting NPEC’s standards and

policies. We hope that by making the results of this study available to the postsecondary community, we can

facilitate the work of those involved in early intervention programs and those funding these programs.

Michael McGuire Roslyn Korb

Executive Director Program Director

Office of Planning and Institutional Research Postsecondary Cooperative Systems,

Georgetown University and Analysis, and Dissemination

2001 Chair NPEC Steering Committee National Center for Education Statistics
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The National Postsecondary Education Cooperative would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of

the working group for contributing their time, enthusiasm, insights, and expertise to this project and this report,

especially the chairperson, Sharon Thomas- Parrot. We would also like to thank all those individuals who

reviewed this report. They included members of the NPEC Steering Committee, William Kramer, Vice

President for Planning and Education, Ivy Tech State College, a member of the NPEC Council, Dennis Carroll

of NCES, Denise Glover of Westat, and the following three individuals who were asked to provide an

independent review of the report:

1. Eugene Garcia, Professor and Dean,

Graduate School of Education

University of California, Berkeley

2. Reginald Wilson, Fellow

American Council on Education

Washington, DC

3. Jeannie Oakes, Professor of Education and Associate Dean,

Graduate School of Education and Information Studies

and

Director,

Institute for Democracy, Education & Access (IDEA)

University of California, Los Angeles

Finally, we would like to thank those individuals working with the K-12 programs that were identified in this

study. They shared their work with the authors and provided the information that made this report possible.
v

NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COOPERATIVE

ACCESS WORKING GROUP

Members:

Sharon Thomas-Parrott, Vice President

of Government Relations,

DeVry, Inc., (Chair)1

Cheryl Blanco, Director, Policy and Information,

Western Interstate Commission for Higher

Education2

Donald Brown, Commissioner, Texas Higher

Education Coordinating Board

Edward Blews, Jr., President, Association of

Independent Colleges and Universities of Michigan

Ruth Burgos-Sasscer, Chancellor, Houston

Community College System

Rene Gonzalez, Director, Education Collaboratives,

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities3

Roberto Haro, Professor and Director of Research,

Cesar E. Chavez Institute for Public Policy, San

Francisco State University4

Cheryl Lovell, Associate Professor of Education and

Coordinator of Master's Program in Higher

Education, University of Denver5

Michael Nettles, Professor of Education, School of

Education, University of Michigan

Laura Rendon, Veffie Milstead Jones Endowed

Chair, California State University, Long Beach

Wilma Rosco, Vice President, National Association

for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education

 

1

 Current title is Vice President of Government Relations and

Student Finance

2

 Current title is Director, Policy Analysis and Research

3

 Current department name is Program Collaboratives

4

 Current title is Professor of Ethnic Studies and Director of

Research

5

 Current department name is Higher Education and Adult Studies

Talbert Shaw, President, Shaw University

Watson Scott Swail, Associate Director for Policy

Analysis, The College Board6

Vincent Tinto, Distinguished University

Professor of Education, Syracuse University

Deborah Wilds, Deputy Director, Office of Minorities

in Higher Education, American Council on Education7

Consultant to the Working Group:

Patricia Gándara, Associate Professor,

University of California, Davis

NPEC Staff:

Brenda Albright, Consultant to NPEC

Nancy Borkow, NPEC Project Director,

National Center for Education Statistics

Denise Glover, Contractor to NPEC, Westat

Roslyn Korb, Program Director, Postsecondary

Cooperative Programs and Analysis and

Dissemination Program, National Center for

Education Statistics

Hans L'Orange, Director, SHEEO/NCES

Communication Network, State Higher

Education Executive Officers

Meredith Ludwig, Director, Postsecondary

Statistics Support, Education Statistics Services

Institute8

Robert Wallhaus, Consultant to NPEC

 

6

 Current contact information is Senior Policy Analyst, SRI

International

7

 Current contact information is Program Officer, Education, Bill

and Melinda Gates Foundation

8

 Current contact information is Principal Research Analyst,

American Institutes for Research
vi
vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background to the Study

The United States has changed dramatically in the past three decades. While in 1970, 87.5

percent of the population was classified as white, non-Hispanic, in 1998, 72 percent of Americans fell

into this category, and as a group, they are older than all others. Analyzing population changes and

postsecondary enrollments shows that college-going rates for most minority groups are low. Since the

mid-1970s, modest improvements have occurred for some underrepresented groups, although rates have

not improved for others. For example, while 33.5 percent of black high school graduates between ages 18

and 24 were enrolled in postsecondary institutions (both 2- and 4-year) in 1976, it was not until 1992 that

a similar percentage of black students again enrolled. By 1997, almost 40 percent of blacks in the

traditional college-age group were enrolled in college. On the other hand, in 1997, Hispanics had only

finally returned to a level of enrollment that was equivalent to 1976 (35.8 versus 36.0 percent in 1997),

but the Hispanic population had increased by more than 200 percent during that time (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 2000). By contrast, 45 percent of whites in the same age group enrolled in college in 1997

compared to just 33 percent in 1976 (Wilds, 2000).

Since the mid-70s, college-going rates for white, non-Hispanic students have increased

significantly. In contrast, despite progress in the 1990s, students from historically underrepresented

minority groups have not experienced substantial increases in college-going rates. Improving their

college-going rates is an issue of growing urgency for colleges, universities, and states.

The Challenge

More and more, institutions are turning to special programs designed to better prepare

underrepresented students for college. Although thousands of early intervention programs exist across the

nation, data about whether they work, or for whom and under what circumstances, are generally sparse.

These programs represent a significant beacon of hope for many young people, and having better

information about the programs can be beneficial to all levels of education. This report approaches that

task by:

1. Mapping the field of K-12 postsecondary education bridge program types and features

using a typology to categorize strategies.

2. Identifying and reviewing selected K-12 postsecondary education college access

programs with analytical data that provide information on how programs work and under what conditions

based on needs and problems identified in the literature.

3. Identifying information and data that are needed to evaluate K-12/postsecondary

education bridge programs to inform future analytic efforts.
viii

Effective Program Practices

From a review of evaluation studies of early intervention programs, the most effective

programs appear capable of at least doubling the college-going rate of participants. Students and families

report that these programs open both eyes and doors to postsecondary possibilities. The programs that

appeared to be the most effective had the following elements in common:

• Providing a key person who monitors and guides the student over a long period of

time—a “mentor,” program director, faculty member, or guidance counselor. Studies

are not clear on which of these is most effective.

• Providing high-quality instruction through access to the most challenging courses

offered by the school (“untracking”), through special coursework that supports and

augments the regular curricular offerings (tutoring and specially designed classes), or by

revamping the curriculum to better address the learning needs of the students.

• Making long-term investments in students rather than short-term interventions. The

longer students were in the program, the more likely they were reported to benefit from

it.

• Paying attention to the cultural background of students. Many programs reported having

greater success with one group of students than another; it is likely that background and

expertise of the staff and directors helped them to make cultural connections with

students.

• Providing a peer group that supports students’ academic aspirations as well as giving

them social and emotional support.

• Providing financial assistance and incentives. Financial assistance is important for

access to academic leveling experiences—college visits and SAT preparation courses—

as well as to monetary support to make college a realistic possibility for some students.

Scholarships make the difference between going to college or not for many low-income

students (Thomas, 1998; St. John, 1990).

Program Limitations

Limitations for many of these program efforts included the following:

• Program attrition. Few programs either report or know how many students who begin

their program actually complete it. The authors estimate that between one-third and onehalf of all students who begin programs leave before completion or before high school

graduation. Nonetheless, programs commonly report high percentages of participants

going on to college based on counting only the number of participants in the graduating

class.

• Smaller number of students affected. Because of costs and the labor-intensive nature

of the services provided, few students in any given school are normally included in such

a program. Based on High School and Beyond data, Adelman (2000) estimates that no
ix

more than 11.4 percent of black and 5.3 percent of Hispanic students participate, at any

level, in such programs.

• Participant selection. Few programs were explicit about how students were selected to

participate and about the characteristics of the most successful participants. This kind of

information is critically important in evaluating who can best benefit from the program.

• Participation of males. Boys are seriously underrepresented in these programs.

Generally, only about one-third of participants are males.

• Records on program contact. Few programs keep records on the amount of contact

participants have with the program. Similarly, programs are often vague about what

constitutes completion or retention in the program. Without this information it is

difficult to know if a program can be credited for student outcomes, or if outcomes

should be attributed to other factors.

• Sector approach. Programs are usually nonsystemic. Since most programs serve only

one sector of the K-12 system, services are noncontinuous. Without continuous

intervention, gains made at one level may be lost at the next.

• Academic achievement. While some programs were able to demonstrate that they

doubled college-going rates among their participants (compared to controls), evidence

that programs are effective in raising academic achievement as measured by grades or

test scores is limited.

• Type of postsecondary institution. Because overall measured achievement is not

generally considered, these programs are most effective at increasing college-going to

community colleges and less selective 4-year colleges. They do not appear to have a

major impact on increasing the numbers of students who go on to selective colleges and

universities who would not otherwise have qualified to do so.

• Long-term outcomes. Little is known about long-term outcomes for students. Most

programs do not have data that show if they increase the rates at which participants

obtain college degrees when compared to students who have not participated in the

program.

• Costs. Little is reported about the costs of these programs. This review does not

provide information to discern a relationship between costs and outcomes.

Program Evaluation

Perhaps most troubling was the finding that few programs had engaged in a thorough

evaluation of their activities. Programs commonly operated on the assumption that they were effective,

but data were not available to support that belief. Evaluation may be viewed as a threat to the program

rather than a means to improve it, document its effectiveness, or better understand how it works. Because

of the widespread absence of evaluation, many questions are left unanswered:
x

• How effective are most of these programs at meeting their goals of increasing collegegoing rates when participants are compared to similar students who have not been

enrolled in such a program?

• While careful monitoring and guidance of students is clearly beneficial, who might most

effectively provide this service—teaching staff, counselors, mentors, or specialized

program staff?

• How can programs increase their impact on student achievement?

• How can programs most effectively stem student attrition?

• What happens to graduates of these programs after they matriculate in college? Are

students equipped to succeed in a college environment?

• How can programs maximize their resources? Which features of the programs are most

(cost) effective?

To answer these questions, it is important that programs take the following steps:

• Collect baseline data on program participants and comparisons

− Were there differences between participants and comparison students before the

program intervention?

• Monitor and report program attrition

− How many students are lost along the way?

• Carefully match control groups (assuming random assignment of participants is not

possible) and report differences

• Give attention to measuring the outcomes that the program purports to be affecting

• Attend to program features and outcomes

− What specific features of the program are most responsible for its effects?

− What attracts students to the program and fosters their retention?

Connecting Programs with School Reform Efforts

It should not be surprising that these early intervention programs appear to have little effect

on academic achievement. The programs, whether community based, school district sponsored, or

partnered with postsecondary education, tend to be peripheral to the K-12 schools. They augment and

supplement what schools do, but do not fundamentally change the ways schools interact with students.
xi

Thus, while some successful programs work to emulate the features of prep schools that routinely send

high percentages of their graduating students on to college, they only do it for part of the day, and often

outside of school time. The rest of the time, students are exposed to the same school practices that have

been proven to be unsuccessful for them. Intervention programs tend to help students maximize their

assets, expand their goals, and show evidence of doubling the college-going rate of their participants, but

do not appreciably alter their academic achievement. For changes in academic achievement to occur,

schools should consider adopting many of the practices of the early intervention programs.
xii
xiii

Table of Contents

Section Page

FOREWORD...................................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................. iv

NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COOPERATIVE ACCESS

WORKING GROUP .......................................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ vii

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1

Background and Diversifying the Nation’s Colleges......................................................................... 1

U.S. Demographic Shifts.................................................................................................................... 2

Access to Postsecondary Education ................................................................................................... 2

Why is it Important to Go to College? ............................................................................................... 4

Increasing Minority Participation in Postsecondary Education ......................................................... 5

2. OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN............................................................................................................ 7

Summarizing the Impediments to Opportunity to Learn.................................................................... 8

Early Intervention as a Response ....................................................................................................... 9

3. STUDY METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 11

Step 1: Programs Survey ................................................................................................................... 11

Survey of Published Literature .................................................................................................... 11

State Higher Education Executive Officers and Chief School Officers...................................... 12

Information from Foundations, Government, and Other Agencies and Organizations ............. 12

Personal Networks ....................................................................................................................... 13

Step 2: Gathering Evaluation Studies................................................................................................ 13

Step 3: Analysis of Program Information and Data and Forming Conclusions ................................ 14

4. A TAXONOMY OF INTERVENTION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE THE COLLEGE-GOING

RATES OF UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS ......................................................................... 15

Types of Programs.............................................................................................................................. 17

Private Nonprofit Programs ......................................................................................................... 17

Postsecondary Education-Sponsored Programs or K-16 Partnerships......................................... 18

Government-Sponsored Programs ............................................................................................... 19

Community-Based Programs....................................................................................................... 19

K-12-Sponsored Programs........................................................................................................... 20
xiv

Table of Contents (continued)

Section Page

Program Components ......................................................................................................................... 21

Counseling ................................................................................................................................... 21

Academic Enrichment.................................................................................................................. 22

Parent Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 24

Personal Enrichment and Social Integration................................................................................ 26

Mentoring..................................................................................................................................... 28

Scholarships................................................................................................................................. 29

Summary of Program Features .................................................................................................... 31

Logical Links Between Impediments to Access and Program Strategies .......................................... 32

5. PROMISING PRACTICES................................................................................................................ 35

Summary of Evaluation Findings....................................................................................................... 36

Key Features of Successful Programs.......................................................................................... 36

Impediments to Greater Success for Programs ............................................................................ 37

Issues in Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 38

6. SPECIFIC PROGRAMS WITH EVALUATION DATA.................................................................. 39

High School Programs for Individual Students.................................................................................. 39

Posse ............................................................................................................................................ 39

Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) ................................................................................... 40

A Better Chance (ABC)............................................................................................................... 41

Upward Bound............................................................................................................................. 43

High School Programs That Serve Students by Classroom ............................................................... 44

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) .................................................................. 45

Puente........................................................................................................................................... 46

College Pathways......................................................................................................................... 48

K-12 Programs by Classroom or Community .................................................................................... 49

I Have a Dream (IHAD) .............................................................................................................. 49

K-12 Programs That Serve Students by Schools................................................................................ 51

GE's College Bound Program ...................................................................................................... 51

Project GRAD.............................................................................................................................. 53
xv

Table of Contents (continued)

Section Page

Statewide Programs Serving All (Underrepresented) Students......................................................... 55

Florida’s College Reach Out Program (CROP)........................................................................... 56

Indiana Career and Postsecondary Advancement Center (ICPAC)/21st Century Scholars........ 57

Minnesota’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program (PEOP) ............................................. 60

Issues in Evaluation............................................................................................................................ 61

7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 63

Effective Practices.............................................................................................................................. 63

Program Limitations .................................................................................................................... 64

Program Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 65

Connecting Programs With School Reform Efforts .................................................................... 65

References................................................................................................................................................. 67

List of Appendices

Appendix Page

A: Review of the Literature on Opportunities to Learn...........................................................................A-1

B: List of Programs for Which Information Was Submitted ..................................................................B-1

C: Brief Descriptions of Programs..........................................................................................................C-1

List of Exhibits

Exhibit Page

1 Prototype intervention programs, by program type and targeted students ......................................... 16

2 Counseling services provided, by program ........................................................................................ 22

3 Academic enrichment services provided, by program ....................................................................... 24

4 Parent involvement activities, by program......................................................................................... 26

5 Personal enrichment and social integration (PESI) strategies, by program........................................ 27

6 Mentoring provided by various participants, by program .................................................................. 29

7 Scholarships available from various sources, by program ................................................................. 30

8 Summary of features, by program...................................................................................................... 31

9 Promising programs and their target populations............................................................................... 35
xvi

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Percent of students enrolled in 2-year colleges, by race/ethnicity: 1976 and 1996........................... 3

2 Median annual household income, by educational attainment of the head of household: 1998 ....... 4
1

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This monograph was written in a period of exceptional prosperity in the United States.

Unemployment is currently at its lowest point in decades and per capita income is on the rise. Overall

funding for education, both at the federal and state levels, has been increasing. Despite this prosperity,

about one-fifth of the country’s children live in poverty. Moreover, the United States is a nation in which

opportunity is distributed, to some extent, along color lines, and family background may determine if and

where bright and talented young people go to college. Exacerbating this problem is a widespread belief

that the pathway to postsecondary education has been leveled, and that anyone willing to work hard

enough can “make it.” In reality, the path is well paved for some students by generations of family

members who have preceded them to college, while for others there is no discernable path at all.

Because of dramatic demographic shifts, addressing the persistent and, in some cases,

growing discrepancies in educational opportunity among particular groups of young people is essential

for the social and economic well-being of the United States. The purpose of this report is to review and

synthesize what is known about efforts currently underway in K-12 education to increase the chances that

underrepresented youth will be able to participate successfully in postsecondary education.

Section 1 introduces the challenges in equalizing educational opportunity and suggests why

early intervention programs have been proliferating in recent years. Section 2 introduces the issue of

group differences in educational achievement and attainment and summarizes what is known about the

probable impact of specific program features on particular educational problems. Section 3 summarizes

the methods that were employed in this study, and Section 4 provides a taxonomy of features of

intervention programs. The taxonomy provides the basis for understanding what programs are trying to

accomplish. Section 5 focuses on a review of evaluations conducted on 13 programs with conclusions

about “what works” and, in some cases, under what conditions these strategies are likely to have the

greatest impact. This section also provides an analysis of what is knowable given the limitations of these

evaluation studies. Section 6 is a brief summary of the foregoing with conclusions. Appendix A is a

review of the literature on group difference in education achievement and attainment introduced in

Section 2. Appendix B summarizes some sources of information, and Appendix C provides detail about

the programs that were reviewed for this study.

Background and Diversifying the Nation’s Colleges

After significant progress in increasing the college-going rates for underrepresented youth

and diversifying the nation’s colleges and universities during the 1970s, little progress occurred in the

following two decades. Data suggest that the 1980s represented a period of decline in college-going rates

for underrepresented students (Wilds, 2000). Only in the 1990s did colleges regain lost ground. For

example, while 33.5 percent of black high school graduates between ages 18 and 24 were enrolled in

postsecondary institutions (both 2- and 4-year) in 1976, it was not until 1992 that black students again

enrolled at an equivalent rate. By 1997, almost 40 percent of blacks in the traditional college-age group

were enrolled in college. On the other hand, in 1997 Hispanics had only finally returned to the level of

enrollment that was equivalent to 1976 (35.8 versus 36.0 in 1997), but the Hispanic population had

increased by more than 200 percent since that time (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000).

By contrast, 45 percent of whites in the same age group enrolled in college in 1997

compared to just 33 percent in 1976 (Wilds, 2000). Progress in college enrollment rates for white

students has been substantial, but the same cannot be said for students from historically underrepresented
2

groups. Since 1990 enrollment rates have been improving for underrepresented groups, however, given

the rapid shifts in demographics in the United States, increasing the enrollment rates for traditionally

underrepresented students is a matter of growing urgency.

U.S. Demographic Shifts

The United States has changed dramatically since the early 1970s. While in 1970, 87.5

percent of the population was classified as white, non-Hispanic, in 1998 72 percent of Americans fell into

this category, and as a group they are older than all others, with a median age of 37 years. Nationwide,

the Hispanic population is the fastest growing, accounting for 11.4 percent of all Americans in 1998. The

youthfulness of the group (a medium age of 26 years) and its fertility rate, which is the highest of all

major groups, combined with sustained immigration, means that the Hispanic population will continue to

grow at a disproportionately high rate in the coming years (del Pinal and Singer, 1997). Sometime shortly

after the turn of the millennium, Hispanics will have become the nation’s largest minority group. Asians

have also registered a significant increase in their numbers over the last four decades, from only 0.5

percent of the population in 1960 to 3.7 percent in 1998. Most of this growth can be attributed to

immigration made possible by the liberalization of U.S. immigration law in 1965. Blacks and Native

Americans have maintained a relatively stable proportion of the population, with 12.7 percent and 0.8

percent, respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000).

Nationwide trends are amplified considerably in the states with the highest immigration

rates. For example, in California, which receives about 40 percent of the nation’s immigrants, white

students are a minority among school-age children, representing about 38 percent of public school

students. Hispanics are now the largest single population group in California’s public schools at 41

percent, and Asians are the second largest nonwhite group, with more than 11 percent of the state’s K-12

students. Blacks represent fewer than 9 percent of students (California Department of Education, 1999).

Access to Postsecondary Education

Gaining access to college is important, but it is only part of the story. Where students go to

college is almost equally important. There is considerable difference among ethnic groups in the types of

postsecondary institutions that students attend. Lower income black and especially Hispanic students are

much more likely to go to 2-year colleges than are white and Asian students, and they are much less likely

to actually complete their degrees (Rendon and Garza, 1996; Grubb 1991). Moreover, while a little more

than one-third of all college students attend 2-year institutions, more than half of all Hispanic and Native

American students are found in these institutions (table 1) (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1998).
3

Table 1

Percent of students enrolled in 2-year colleges, by race/ethnicity:

1976 and 1996

Race/ethnicity 1976 1996

White......................... 33.9 36.8

Asian ......................... 39.9 39.4

Black ......................... 41.5 41.5

Hispanic .................... 54.7 56.0

Native American ....... 54.0 51.0

All ............................. 35.3 38.7

SOURCE: Almanac of Higher Education, 1998-99, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1999.

While one primary mission of the community colleges is to provide low-cost, easy, and local

access to postsecondary education for students who might not otherwise be able to attend because of

limited resources or inadequate preparation for a 4-year university, these colleges can also divert students

off the path to an undergraduate degree (Rendón and Garza, 1996). Burton Clark first identified the

“cooling out” function of 2-year institutions, citing the multiple ways in which they can dampen, rather

than encourage, aspirations of low-income youth through organizational, cultural, and curricular features

that may fail to meet the needs and expectations of students (cf. Clark, 1980). It would be unfair,

however, to attribute the problem of incompleted college education solely to the community colleges.

These colleges serve multiple functions and, therefore, their success rests on many different kinds of

outcomes. Many students who enter community colleges do not have the intention of completing a 4-year

degree in the near term, or ever. Many who do articulate such a goal, however, are less well prepared and

less focused in their objectives than students who go to 4-year colleges immediately after high school.

Thus, there is a clear interaction between the goals and preparation of the students and the effectiveness of

the institutions in ensuring the completion of an baccalaureate degree.

Rendón (1994) has also described the critical importance of validation for first-generation

college students. Validation is the integration of the student into the life of the college through

supportive, personal, human connections that send the message “you belong here.” Rendón identified the

lack of such validation as a critical factor in feelings of alienation that result in students dropping out of

both 2-year and 4-year colleges. Because first-generation college-going students are much more likely

than others to need this validation, Rendón concluded that its absence is a major contributing factor to

their failure to persist. Moreover, exposure in the community colleges to a greater number of peers who

lack both personal validation and a clear focus than would be the case in 4-year colleges cannot be

discounted as a factor in the derailing of degree aspirations.

A RAND Corporation study (Krop et al., 1998) uncovered why many low-income and

underrepresented students who are eligible to attend the prestigious University of California (UC) choose

instead to attend state schools and community colleges. Interviewing 113 students from seven California

high schools who, for the most part, were eligible to attend the UC but had chosen not to, the RAND

researchers concluded that the primary reasons that students gave for their decision were the perception

that the university is “not for people like me,” concerns about being underprepared for the high demands

of the institution, and concerns about cost.
4

Gladieux and Swail’s (1998) findings with regard to who goes to college are entirely

consistent with the RAND study. They found that family income level is a powerful predictor of the type

of postsecondary institution students select: in 1992, one-fifth of students in the lowest quintile of income

enrolled in a 4-year institution, while two-thirds of those students in the highest quintile of family income

did so. Thus, concerns about costs and the belief that the university is “not for people like me” appear to

be related to socioeconomic class. Similarly, Gladieux and Swail also found that degree completion is

highly correlated with both race and class. For example, more than 40 percent of the most advantaged

students complete an undergraduate degree within 5 years of beginning college, while only about 6

percent of the least advantaged students do. And, blacks and Hispanics disproportionately compose the

least advantaged group.

Another way to analyze the issue of who has access to postsecondary education is to

consider students “at risk” as a category. Horn and Carroll (1997) defined at-risk students as being from a

single parent home, having an older sibling who is a high school dropout, experiencing excessive

residential mobility, having Cs or lower between grades six and eight, repeating a grade in school, and

being from a low SES home. All of these risk factors are also highly correlated with ethnic minority

status. In comparing at-risk students with those who had no risk factors, Horn and Carroll found that

among students with no risk factors, 58 percent enrolled in a 4-year college, compared to 30 percent of

students who were at risk.

Why is it Important to Go to College?

From the post-World War II years to the present, the gap in incomes between individuals

with and without a college education continues to grow. College graduates in 1975 earned 57 percent

more than high school graduates, and in 1997, they earned 77 percent more (College Board, 1999a).

Moreover, there is a perfect linear correlation between amount of education and income earned across all

education levels (table 2). Clearly, the education of the head of household has implications for the

economic well-being of all persons living in the household.

Table 2

Median annual household income,

by educational attainment of the head of household: 1998

Education Income

Less than 9th grade.............................. $15,541

Less than high school diploma ........... 19,851

High school graduate.......................... 33,779

Some college ...................................... 40,015

Associate’s degree.............................. 45,258

Bachelor’s degree ............................... 59,048

Master’s degree .................................. 68,115

Doctor’s degree .................................. 87,232

Professional degree............................. 92,228

SOURCE: Trends in College Pricing, The College Board, 1999.
5

Access to a college education has clear implications for the country’s economic well-being.

Beyond the pecuniary benefits of a college education are numerous social benefits to increasing the

education levels of underrepresented groups. Persons with higher levels of education are less likely to

burden the social service and criminal justice systems (Karoly et al. 1998), they enjoy better health and

longer lives (Perna and Swail, 1998), and they contribute substantially more to the public coffers through

their taxes (Sorensen, Brewer, and Brighton, 1995). For example, in a RAND study of the economic

returns of increasing the education level of Hispanics, Sorensen, Brewer, and Brighton (1995) concluded

that “Hispanics with a bachelor’s degree will pay more than twice as much in taxes as those with only a

high school diploma, and Hispanics with a professional degree will pay an estimated three times as much

as those with a bachelor’s degree” (pp. 2-3). 

Economic equity and concerns about sustaining a vibrant economy are certainly reasonable

justifications for pursuing policies to equalize educational opportunity, but some would argue that they

are ultimately not the most important reasons for doing so. Jeannie Oakes (2000) maintains that the most

important outcome of school reform should be its role in shaping a more just civil society. Similarly,

Amatai Etizioni (1995) has long advocated that the value of our social institutions should be judged by

their ability to produce a more communitarian society—one that places the establishment of more humane

social structures above other considerations. Nel Noddings (1995) has also cautioned that schools that do

not place an ethos of caring at the center of their pedagogy fail at their most fundamental task—to prepare

youth for happy and productive lives. Bowen and Bok (1998), in their study of the long-term

consequences of affirmative action, found that blacks with college degrees (from very selective

institutions) were more likely to contribute to their communities through volunteer and leadership

activities than were white degree holders from the same institutions. Thus, they made the argument that

the opportunity to gain prestigious college degrees served a much higher purpose than simply providing

these students with economic advantages. In fact, they contend, the whole society was benefited.

Diversity within educational settings has also been shown to confer cognitive advantages on

those students schooled in such settings, especially when it occurs in late adolescence. Thus, not only do

underrepresented students obtain benefit from access to higher education, but their nonminority

classmates can be expected to benefit cognitively as well. For example, Gurin (1999) examined multiinstitutional national data, an extensive survey of students at the University of Michigan, and data drawn

from a specific program at the University of Michigan. Based on these analyses, she concluded that

interaction with peers from diverse racial backgrounds, both in the classroom

and informally, is positively associated with a host of “learning outcomes.”

Students who experienced the most racial and ethnic diversity in classroom

settings and in informal interactions with peers showed the greatest engagement

in active thinking processes, growth in intellectual engagement and motivation,

and growth in intellectual and academic skills (p.100).

Increasing Minority Participation in Postsecondary Education

Recent events may have had an effect on diversification in the nation’s colleges over the last

several years. In 1994, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Podberesky v Kirwan that the

University of Maryland’s Banneker Scholars Program for black students was unconstitutional because

race was the sole determinant of eligibility. In 1995, the regents of the University of California passed

SP-1 and SP-2, two provisions that prohibited the use of race, ethnicity, or sex in hiring, contracting, or

college admissions decisions within the university. California voters followed suit in 1996 with

Proposition 209, which outlawed the consideration of race, ethnicity, or sex for admissions, contracting,
6

or hiring decisions throughout the state. In 1997, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of

Cheryl Hopwood, who had been denied admission to the University of Texas law school. The court’s

decision was interpreted by the attorney general of Texas as outlawing the use of race or ethnicity as a

factor in admission, financial aid, and retention and recruitment programs in all institutions of higher

education within the fifth circuit. Most recently, the state of Washington passed Initiative 200 barring the

consideration of race or ethnicity in college admissions decisions within that state. Similar efforts are

underway in other parts of the country.

University administrators across the country have reflected about the potential consequences

of these decisions. Many predicted that these actions would have a devastating impact on the numbers of

Hispanics and other minorities admitted to the University of California and to the Texas higher education

institutions. In 1998, the year after Proposition 209 took effect, 53 percent fewer Hispanics and 66

percent fewer blacks were admitted to the entering freshman class at UC Berkeley, and 33 percent fewer

Hispanics and 43 percent fewer blacks were admitted to UC Los Angeles. For the two flagship campuses

of the UC system, this translated into a freshman class composed of about 13 percent underrepresented

minorities in a state in which more than 40 percent of the high school graduates in that year were black,

Native American, or Hispanic (California Department of Education, 1999). The university system

rebounded considerably in 1999, admitting nearly as many underrepresented students as in the year prior

to the implementation of Proposition 209; however, because overall almost 5,000 more students were

admitted in 1999 (from 41, 935 in 1997 to 46,921), the student participation percentages still fell below

1997 levels. Moreover, in 1997 the university was concerned that only 17.5 percent of its student body

comprised underrepresented minorities (at the two flagship campuses, the figure was somewhat higher—

19.6 percent), so a return to 1997 admittance levels did not address this problem.

Similarly, the fall 1997 entering freshman class at the University of Texas included 12

percent fewer blacks and 10 percent fewer Hispanics than were in the previous class. And the effect of

Hopwood was even more drastic at the law school, where only 52 percent of the previous year’s number

of Hispanics and 19 percent of the number of blacks were being admitted (Chapa, 1997). With the advent

of the 1998 plan to accept the top 10 percent of students from all high schools in the state to the

University of Texas system, undergraduate admissions have begun to return to pre-Hopwood levels.

Many blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics who aspire to higher education in California

and Texas apply to state-supported schools because their lower family incomes often lead them to

preclude out-of-state or private school options.1

 In 1998, UC Berkeley reported that 800 minority

students with 4.0 GPAs and mean SAT scores of 1,170 were turned away because their relative ranking,

combining GPA and SAT scores, was lower than those of other students (Lee, 1998). UCLA now reports

that its 1999 freshman class has an average GPA of 4.24 and a median SAT score of 1,330. This places

many of the very brightest students from these underrepresented groups outside the reach of admissions

because their schools do not offer the honors and AP courses that confer the extra grade points to enable

accruing averages higher than 4.0 (Chávez and Serna, 1999), and their families are unable to pay the

several hundred dollars to take an SAT preparation class to help boost their test scores to more

competitive levels (Crouse and Trusheim, 1988).

 

1

 It is important to note, however, that “sticker price” can often be deceptive, and many private colleges and universities are able and willing to

provide financial aid to underrepresented students, making the institutions highly competitive with state-supported schools with respect to

pricing.
7

2. OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the disparity in academic achievement among different

groups of students is the multiple ways in which opportunity to learn differs for young people depending

on their ethnicity and their socioeconomic status.2

 The nation has been undergoing an examination of its

K-12 education system for nearly two decades, experimenting with various reform efforts to increase the

achievement of all American students and to reduce the achievement gap. The extent to which these

efforts have been successful is a hotly debated issue (Berliner and Biddle, 1996; Stedman, 1995; Elmore,

1996); however, there remains little doubt that gaps in achievement between underrepresented students

and all others have remained large or increased (Jencks and Phillips, 1998). For example, while the

reading score gap between black and white students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) has narrowed from 1.25 standard deviations to 0.69 over the period between 1971 and 1996

(Jencks and Phillips, 1998), for Hispanics 13 years of age, the gap on the same reading test has widened

from 9.9 percentage points to 12.7 between 1975 and 1996 (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

The persistent gap in achievement indicators between black, Hispanic, and Native American

students on the one hand, and white and Asian students on the other, may be the most important single

factor in the underrepresentation of the former in higher education. Beyond socioeconomic status and risk

characteristics, the kind of education to which students are exposed in the K-12 years may be more

effective at predicting their postsecondary choices than any other variable, including socioeconomic

status. Adelman (1999), for example, argued that no single factor, including test scores and GPA, better

predicts college completion for underrepresented students than the rigor of courses students have taken in

high school. The best proxy of rigorous coursework is the highest math course completed. Across all

ethnic groups, students who take at least one math course beyond algebra 2 in high school are

significantly more likely to complete college (Adelman, 1999). Given the importance of high school

curriculum for long-term postsecondary outcomes, how does pre-college curriculum differ between

students from low-income and minority backgrounds and all others?

If Adelman is correct that rigor of high school courses is the single most important variable

affecting students’ eventual college completion, then it is critically important to know what factors in the

high school and pre-high school years lead to the probability of a student taking rigorous coursework in

secondary school. There are many factors that have a significant impact on K-12 schooling experiences

in addition to policies, practices, and resources within the schools themselves. Among these nonschool

variables are family background, community resources, peer influence, and social-structural factors. Each

variable and its effect on college access and students’ preparation for college is described in the Review

of the Literature, Appendix A.

 

2

 A large body of literature defines “opportunity to learn” by features and conditions in schools. The summary in Appendix A includes most

features identified in the literature.
8

Summarizing the Impediments to Opportunity to Learn

As shown in the body of research presented in Appendix A, there are a number of

impediments to higher education for low-income and underrepresented youth. Each of these has been

shown to contribute to the relatively low college-going rates of low-income black, Hispanic, and Native

American students. A reduction in the salience of each of these impediments would almost certainly

increase, to some extent, the college-going rates for these populations; however, it is likely that to make

significant inroads on the problem of inequality of access, all of the following impediments should

probably be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

1. Inequalities of familial cultural and social capital. That is, poor families and those

from underrepresented groups are much less likely to have sufficient familiarity with the social and

educational systems, and to have access to important information and resource networks, to adequately

represent their children’s interests.

2. Inequality of resources in neighborhoods and communities. Poor communities

have fewer local resources, such as libraries, parks, and museums, and fewer adult role models to support

the academic aspirations of underrepresented youth.

3. Lack of peer support for academic achievement. Black and Hispanic students are

more likely than others to have peers who interpret being a good student as “acting white” and therefore

ostracizing these high performers from important social supports. Peers who shun academic achievement

are common in poor inner-city and rural schools, where students of color feel systematically excluded

from white, middle class society.

4. Racism. Although most Americans no longer believe black and Hispanic students

are innately intellectually inferior, they do attribute these students’ school problems largely to their own

lack of desire to do better, rather than to structural factors that might impede their advancement. Racism

also works to undermine the self-confidence of students of color and can cause them to doubt their

abilities and thus remove themselves from academic competition with mainstream students.

5. Inequalities in K-12 schools, including unequal distribution of well-qualified

teachers. Poor children tend to go to poor schools that are attended largely by other poor children. These

schools, largely in the overcrowded urban centers, have been shown to enjoy fewer resources and lessqualified teachers and to have more disciplinary problems and higher turnover of both students and staff.

They also offer less rigorous coursework and generally have lower aspirations for their students. Students

who attend these schools are more likely to finish school unprepared for postsecondary study than are

students from suburban schools, and they are less likely to be competitive for admission to selective

colleges because their test scores reflect less rigorous preparation.

6. Segregation of black and Hispanic students. Black and Hispanic students are

increasingly likely to be educated in segregated schools that provide fewer opportunities for interracial

contact and the development of personal and social networks that can increase cultural capital and

promote social mobility.

7. Poor high school counseling. Underrepresented students are more likely to attend

crowded, inner-city public schools where the quality of counseling is poor and students are neither

adequately informed of their postsecondary options nor helped to achieve their goals. Inadequate

counseling also contributes significantly to the tracking of underrepresented students into non-collegepreparatory coursework that limits their postsecondary opportunities.
9

8. Low expectations and aspirations. Underrepresented students are provided less

encouragement by teachers who may harbor doubts about their abilities and thereby contribute to a selffulfilling prophecy of underachievement. These students are also more likely than middle class white and

Asian students to have low or unrealistic aspirations for themselves. When aspirations are defined as

what a student plans to do, as opposed to what he or she would like to do, researchers find that

underrepresented students are less likely than others to plan for higher education. This is critically

important because true aspirations are powerful predictors of educational outcomes.

9. High dropout rates. Dropping out is a function of both push and pull factors.

Underrepresented students, and especially Hispanics, are much more likely to drop out of school than

other students, effectively foreclosing postsecondary opportunities for most. However, some portion of

the dropout problem can also be attributed to school practices that act to remove “difficult” students from

school.

10. Limited financial resources. Limited financial resources remains a powerful

impediment to postsecondary education for many low-income, underrepresented students. Low-income

students with high test scores are significantly less likely to pursue higher education than high-income

students with similar test scores. The increasing shift from grants to loans leads to a fear of incurring debt

that cannot be repaid or that places an excessive burden on the family (Thomas, 1998; Latino Eligibility

Study, 1994). Furthermore, concerns about forgoing income that could relieve family financial stresses

during the long years of study can convince some students to reject higher education as an option.

Early Intervention as a Response

Given college participation rates for underrepresented students, and the declining numbers of

underrepresented students who are eligible for admission to some of the nation’s most selective

institutions, many educators and policymakers are placing increased hopes on the potential for early

intervention programs to address this situation. For example, the California Legislature appropriated

$38.5 million to augment university outreach efforts in the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 state budgets with

promises to continue the support into succeeding years if such efforts are successful. Many other states

have already launched comprehensive programs to prepare students, especially low-income and minority

students, to go on to college, and across the nation there are thousands of programs dedicated to this task

(Perna and Swail,1998). In spite of the scale of these activities, data are generally sparse, and for most, it

is difficult to know if they work, or for whom, and under what circumstances. Nonetheless, they

represent a significant beacon of hope for many young people, It is, therefore, critical to have a better

understanding of how these programs work to increase the representation of low-income and minority

youth in postsecondary education.
10
11

3. STUDY METHODS

This study had several goals: (1) to map the field and thereby show the range of program

types that exist and describe their features; (2) to identify programs with evaluation data that would allow

an assessment of the effectiveness of particular models and features; and (3) to assess the extent to which

existing programs address needs and problems identified in the literature. The first step of the study was

to identify what existed across the nation.

There are literally thousands of intervention programs to help underrepresented students get

into college (Swail, 1999). Even if it were possible to gather information on all of them, one would

quickly find an enormous amount of redundancy in the program descriptions. While individual variation

is broad at the level of local implementation, there are a limited number of model types and features that

these programs encompass. Thus, it is possible to select prototype programs that represent particular

types of efforts. While these prototype programs may differ in details, all programs that meet the

prototype criteria share significant commonalities, so it has been possible to set parameters for

comparisons. Nonetheless, the process of identifying the range of models and their features, and most

especially searching out programs with rigorous evaluation data that allow conclusions about whether

they are working and how, has been labor intensive.

Step 1: Programs Survey

Five primary strategies were used to survey the field: a survey of published literature,

including compendia of programs; a survey of all State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)

agencies; a survey of all Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) member agencies; a review of

studies by foundations and government agencies; and a survey of the authors’ personal networks. By

using diverse strategies, a broad view of programs across the 50 states, as well as more intensive efforts at

local sites, was created.

Survey of Published Literature

Few programs actually have published evaluations or studies. Typically, programs can

provide descriptive material in the form of brochures, local press accounts of their activities, or reports to

funding agencies that list the numbers of students served, but these materials are seldom found through

database searches. Rigorous evaluation studies are rare. Much of the published literature actually focuses

on broad reviews of program strategies or analyzes the need for such programs. The exception is the

compendia of programs that have been produced, usually under government contract, by various

independent researchers. The authors consulted the following such publications:

• 1998 Resource Guide and Directory: for Teachers, Counselors, and Other Educators to

Create a Better Tomorrow for Today’s Youth. (1998). The Center for Higher Education

Policy Analysis at the University of Southern California.

• Advancing Minority High Achievement: National Trends and Promising Programs and

Practices. (1998). A report prepared for the National Task Force on Minority High

Achievement. The College Board and Johns Hopkins University Center for Social

Organization of Schools.
12

• Higher Education Outreach Programs: A Synthesis of Evaluations. (1997). G.

Hayward, B. Brandes, M. Kirst, and C. Mazzeo. A report commissioned by the Outreach

Task Force of the University of California, Board of Regents.

• Linking America’s Schools and Colleges: Guide to Partnerships and National Directory.

(1995). Franklin P. Wilbur and Leo M. Lambert. American Association for Higher

Education.

• Campus Practices for Student Success: A Compendium of Model Programs. (1994).

American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

• Sources: Diversity Initiatives in Higher Education. A Directory of Programs, Projects,

and Services for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans in

Higher Education. (1993) Office of Minorities in Higher Education, American Council

on Education.

• Reaching for College. Volume 1: Directory of College-School Partnerships. (1992).

Human Services Group, Westat.

State Higher Education Executive Officers and Chief School Officers

Each state postsecondary higher education and K-12 agency provided the names and

contacts for college preparation programs in their state. Contacts with the State Higher Education

Executive Officers (SHEEOs) were coordinated through the national SHEEO office. Individual email

and phone contacts were made with the Council of Chief State School Officers between February and

April 1999, seeking information about programs in the states. Information was made available from

about half of the states.

• Alaska • Minnesota

• Arkansas • Missouri

• Colorado • Montana

• Connecticut • New Jersey

• Delaware • New Mexico

• Florida • Oklahoma

• Hawaii • Pennsylvania

• Idaho • Rhode Island

• Illinois • South Dakota

• Indiana • Texas

• Kentucky • Virginia

• Maine • Washington

• Michigan • Wisconsin

Information from Foundations, Government, and Other Agencies and Organizations

The following organization, well known for their involvement with K-12 reform activities,

were contacted:
13

• Carnegie Foundation

• College Board

• ConnectED

• DeWitt Wallace Readers’ Digest Foundation

• Ford Foundation

• Lilly Foundation

• Mellon Foundation

• Pew Charitable Trusts

• TERI: The Education Resource Institute

• U.S. Department of Education

Surprisingly, many of the individuals who were contacted could not name programs

supported by their own organizations. Other than the project officer, frequently others within the same

organization are not fully aware of the activities of the agency. Personal contacts, knowledge of the field,

and published compendia of programs were the greatest sources of program information.

Personal Networks

The authors’ personal contacts in California, New York, and Massachusetts, and suggestions

provided by the NPEC Working Group members yielded a considerable number of program nominations

and further contacts.

This process resulted in scores of program descriptions, some comprehensive and others

sketchier, which began to fall into category types that allowed the authors to begin mapping the field. It

is prudent to remind the reader at this juncture that the majority of programs that exist throughout the

country, some at the level of local schools and communities, others more broadly dispersed, were not

captured in the search. Many programs are not included because the information gathered was

insufficient to understand the working of the program, or they were largely redundant with programs

already reviewed.

Step 2: Gathering Evaluation Studies

All materials gathered in the search phase of the study were examined for evidence of an

evaluation study that could yield reliable information about the effectiveness a program or its individual

features. While many programs include descriptive “evaluation” material citing numbers of students

served, numbers going on to college, and the like, or formative studies that attempt to provide feedback to

the program implementers about how the program works, very few actually conduct rigorous outcome

evaluations with comparable comparison or control samples. Thirteen studies with at least some attempt

at comparing program results with other reasonably comparable students, or time-series studies in which

program effects are plotted over time, and/or that provided insight to a particular issue in educational

access, were chosen for the evaluation analyses. Those programs are:

• A Better Chance

• AVID

• College Pathways

• GE College Bound

• I Have a Dream

• Neighborhood Academic Initiative
14

• Posse

• Project GRAD

• Puente

• Upward Bound

• The initiatives of

− Florida

− Indiana

− Minnesota

These program evaluations, then, form the bulk of the research evidence on the effectiveness

of various strategies for increasing college-going among underrepresented youth examined for this report.

There are almost certainly excellent program evaluations that are not included.

Step 3: Analysis of Program Information and Data and Forming Conclusions

Programs were categorized by type, and program features were inventoried. Other

typologies in the literature (Tierney and Jun, 1998; Swail, 1999; Bailis et al. 1995) helped provide

guidance in designing a typology that addresses the strategies that different program types employ, to

build or support theory, and to draw relevant conclusions. In the end, two typologies were devised: one

of program features, divided into five categories of strategies, that serves to describe the programs in

broad terms; and one of programs based on their source of support, their genesis, and the age groups they

target.

The descriptive typology illustrates the range of programs in the field; the evaluation

typology helps them to make sense of how program features interact with students’ movement through

the academic pipeline. Program typologies were based, for the most part, on a review of the documents

the programs provided, and the analyses depend greatly on how programs are described in these

documents. It is recognized that some programs may include features that are not included in their

written documents, and that some program directors might interpret program features differently. Given

these caveats, however, every attempt was made to describe programs as thoroughly and accurately as

possible without conducting actual site visits.
15

4. A TAXONOMY OF INTERVENTION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE

THE COLLEGE-GOING RATES OF UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS

There are many ways to organize a discussion of intervention or “pipeline” programs. Some

researchers have chosen to categorize them by the point in the K-16 pipeline at which the program

intervenes, for example, early intervention programs versus high school bridge programs. Others

organize programs by their major feature(s), for example, scholarship programs versus mentoring

programs. However, there is considerable overlap among programs with respect to their primary features.

The authors have chosen to organize programs by their source of funding or support. Put another way,

the programs have been categorized according to their impetus for being. The rationale has been that

program missions are shaped differently according to who establishes them. For example, when a

community group comes together to sponsor a program, the program is likely to incorporate elements of

community and family support and involvement, and it will probably be directed toward the particular

kinds of students that concern that community. Thus, it is important to understand these programs as

products of different sectors of society and the value systems and beliefs that guide individuals in that

sector.

Particular program features may exist in any of these programs, independent of their impetus

or the category into which they are grouped. Features may be expressed quite differently depending on

the sector from which the program emanates. These differences can be meaningful with respect to

identifying resources for students, as well as in the outcomes that might be expected. For example,

mentoring in a community-based program is more likely to involve mentors who represent that

community than would be the case in a K-12-based program, where school personnel may play a larger

role. Likewise, tutoring in a university-based program is more likely to involve college students than

local parents, who may fill those functions in a school- or community-based program.

Programs are organized into five major categories: private nonprofit, university-based,

government-sponsored, community-based, and K-12. While it is important to organize programs along

some dimension to understand how they work, programs, like other living organisms, do not always fit

neatly into any taxonomy. Many of the programs examined could, in fact, fit into more than one of the

categories. A notable example is summer bridge programs. An entire program may consist of a summer

bridge intervention, but it may be sponsored equally by a nonprofit foundation, a K-12 district, and a

receiving university. Summerbridge is a private nonprofit program inasmuch as its structure is itself a

foundation. Similarly, the Monterey Bay Education Consortium is categorized as a university-based

program on the basis that the administration of the program is housed at one of the University of

California campuses. While acknowledging a certain arbitrariness, the authors have attempted to group

programs according their primary impetus, i.e., who started the program? What has been the source of its

genesis, and who, structurally, is responsible for its management?

Exhibit 1 categorizes programs by type and by targeted population. Whether programs

target individual students, classrooms, or whole schools is an important distinction, since this decision has

implications for the program’s impact institutions as well as individuals. (See Appendix C for detailed

program descriptions.)
16

Exhibit 1

Prototype intervention programs,

by program type and targeted students

Program type Target population

Private nonprofit:

A Better Chance Individual high school students

I Have a Dream (IHAD) 6th –12th graders by class

Prep for Prep Individual high school students

College Bound (GE) Secondary schools

Summerbridge Individual secondary students

Kids to College (K2C) 6th graders by school

College Pathways Secondary students by class

University-based:

BioPrep Individual secondary students

 (grades 8-12)

College Now Individual high school students

Monterey Bay Education Consortium (MBEC) K-12 by school/region

Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) Individual high school students

MN Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program (PEOP) Individual secondary students

Project Step K-12 students

Xavier’s Stress on Analytical Reasoning (SOAR) Individual secondary students

King-Chávez-Parks Initiative Individual secondary students

 (grades 6-11)

TexPrep Individual secondary students

Minorities in Engineering and Sciences (MESA) Individual secondary students

Early Identification Program (EIP) Individual secondary students

 (Virginia and Wisconsin) (grades 8-12)

Government-sponsored:

State

OK Higher Learning Access Program (OHLAP) Individual high school students

College Reach Out Program (CROP) (RL) Individual secondary students

 (grades 6-12)

New Jersey College Bound Individual secondary students

 (grades 6-12)

Illinois Early Outreach Program (EOP) Individual secondary students

 (grades 7-12)

Indiana Career & Postsecondary Advancement

 Center (ICPAC) Individual secondary students

Federal:

Upward Bound Secondary students by class

GEAR UP K-12 student by school
17

Exhibit 1

Prototype intervention programs,

by program type and targeted students (continued)

Program type Target population

Community-based:

College Kids Individual 3-5 grade students

The Posse Program Individual high school students

Puente High school students by class

K-12:

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) Individual high school students

Baltimore College Bound 9th & 10th graders by class

Detroit Area Pre-college Engineering Program

 (DAPCEP) Individual K-12 students

Project GRAD K-12 students by school

Urban Partnerships K-12 students by school

Types of Programs

Private Nonprofit Programs

Private nonprofit programs originate from foundations, agencies, or even corporate entities

with a specific mission or goals related to better preparing students for college. These programs tend to

grow out of a belief that the focused attention of a benefactor outside the system can provide “lighthouse”

demonstrations that may later be picked up and integrated into the educational system. Although the

corporations that sponsor such initiatives are quite obviously for-profit organizations, the program

activity is typically conducted under the auspices of a nonprofit subsidiary or foundation set up for this

purpose, or it is sponsored out of the community relations department of the company. Foundations will

frequently fund such programs for a limited demonstration period with the idea that if they are successful,

they will attract support from other sources.

Sometimes these programs incorporate themselves and become permanent features in the

educational landscape. I Have a Dream (IHAD) is such a program. It began with the good intentions of

one person to inspire one classroom of students in New York City. It has expanded to become a

nationwide nonprofit program at 140 sites across the country, and its components have grown from the

single-minded notion of inspiring students to go to college by providing guaranteed scholarships, to

ensuring that the students in the program receive a host of supplemental services. Nonetheless, each

program site must attract its own benefactor who provides support for the program. Benefactors of IHAD

may be individual communities, agencies, corporations, or foundations. The impetus for the programs,

though, revolves around a notion that people outside the public schools can have an impact on students

inside these schools, and that their status as unfettered outsiders is of particular value in this effort.
18

The College Bound program, which was working with 19 high schools in 1999, was initiated

by the General Electric company. GE gives grants to schools in communities where the company has

plants or offices that agree to double their college-going rate for particular groups of students. GE

embarked on this ambitious experiment nearly a decade ago to test out models of intervention that it

hoped would prove effective, and then to assist schools in adopting these interventions. GE has given

considerable autonomy to its pilot sites to develop program features that work in each unique

environment. GE’s grants have been awarded in amounts up to $1 million to each school, and it has

provided up to 10 years for the reforms to take hold. A recently released evaluation is reviewed later in

this document.

Foundations often provide grants to universities, community-based organizations, or schools

to help them achieve their goals. The foundations vary greatly in their level of involvement in program

development and implementation—from a hands-on approach to simply providing the financial resources

to allow others to experiment. The Urban Partnership Program (UPP) sponsored by the U.S. Department

of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is one such initiative. UPP

provides funding to support partnerships between schools, colleges, parents, and other organizations.

With the ambitious goal to “broaden postsecondary opportunities” for at-risk students, it disseminates

funds to those organizations that can work toward this goal rather than developing its own programming.

Postsecondary Education-Sponsored Programs or K-16 Partnerships

A 1994 survey by the U.S. Department of Education revealed that about one-third of all

colleges and universities offer at least one program designed to increase access for educationally and/or

economically disadvantaged precollegiate students (Perna and Swail, 1998, citing Chaney, Lewis, and

Farris, 1995). Universities become involved in these efforts for multiple reasons. At one level,

universities see themselves as consumers of the products of public schools—high school graduates. To

the extent that these students arrive at the university underprepared for the rigors of college-level work,

the institutions have viewed it to be in their own self-interest to help strengthen the public schools. At

another level, the colleges’ and universities’ involvement results from the taxpayers’ perception that the

university holds some responsibility for the state of American education. At yet another level, faculty

with expertise in learning and education have relished the opportunity to test out their own theories in

model interventions.

Programs can focus on partnerships between colleges and schools, usually high schools, in

an effort to share resources, strengthen the schools, and establish connections between the various

educational communities. The Monterey Bay Education Consortium (MBEC) is such a program. The

Santa Cruz campus of the University of California took the lead in organizing the feeder schools to its

campus from elementary school through middle school, high school, and community college, and joined

with the local campus of the state university to provide integrated informational and support services to

students beginning in the early grades. Students are given a Passport to Education in the fourth grade

(hand-held and on the web), which they are to have stamped every 2 years as they achieve benchmarks

on their pathways toward high academic achievement and college.

Another example of this type of program is Virginia’s Early Identification Program (EIP), a

collaborative program between George Mason University and the Fairfax County public schools. EIP

offers academic programming that takes place on the college campus to selected eighth grade students,

thus exposing students to college life and providing intensive academic preparation.
19

Xavier University runs Stress on Analytical Reasoning (SOAR), an intensive academic

summer program for students considering careers in the health professions. Students attend each summer

of their high school years, focusing on supplementing the math and science curriculum in their schools,

and building their vocabulary and reading skills. By the time these students are ready to enroll at Xavier,

they may have had several summers of supplemental instruction to help prepare them for a rigorous premed science education. The program helps the historically black Catholic college to realize its own

mission of preparing black students for careers in science and medicine, and it helps to provide a cohort

of well-prepared students to fill its freshman classes.

Government-Sponsored Programs

The two major sources of government-sponsored programs are the states and the federal

government. A number of states have taken on statewide initiatives to stimulate college-going. These

large-scale programs often are funded because the state is not preparing enough highly qualified college

graduates to fuel its economy, and it may be losing population as a result. Indiana is one such example.

Or, demographic trends in the state may threaten to create social problems if higher education is not made

more accessible to the increasing portion of the state’s population that is low income and nonwhite. Both

California and Florida are examples of this situation.

Federal initiatives, on the other hand, tend to stem from an evolving philosophy about the

role of the federal government in education. While the provision of education is a state responsibility, the

role of the federal government has increasingly become that of equalizing opportunity across the states by

providing information to students, assistance to schools in accommodating students with special needs,

and financial support for low- (and increasingly for middle-) income students to attend college.

Many government programs focus on providing incentives and increasing access for

underrepresented students to attend postsecondary institutions. Florida’s College Reach Out Program

(CROP) provides funding for enrichment activities, career counseling, and academic programs as a way

to provide support to students who might not normally have considered college. Oklahoma’s Higher

Learning Access Program (OHLAP) offers scholarships and information about financial aid to help

students with financial need attend college. The federal government’s TRIO programs provide

comprehensive services from middle school to college to increase the likelihood that low-income and

underrepresented students might gain access to postsecondary opportunities.

Community-Based Programs

These programs originate from members of a community who see a need among their own

youth and develop a program to address that need. They often focus on supporting students outside of the

school environment. Strategies used by community-based programs are frequently similar to those in

school-based programs, but they can also incorporate elements that are specific to a particular

community, including cultural experiences that help students to develop healthy self-concepts. These

programs typically pull resources from within their own community, such as mentors who represent

similar backgrounds as those of the children whom they serve. The Kids to College Program in

Massachusetts pairs colleges and clusters of local schools to expose sixth graders to postsecondary

education. An important element of the program is making students aware of the opportunities for

postsecondary education within their own communities and connecting students to others from their own

circumstances who are pursuing higher education. Kids to College offers day trips to colleges and

engages students in a special curriculum designed to support academic learning as well as providing

activities that help tie students to their own communities.
20

The Puente program in California, while currently supported by university and state funds,

actually had its impetus as a community-based program, and many of its features continue to reflect that

orientation. Puente focuses on preparing the large population of underachieving Hispanic students in the

state for a college education. It incorporates literature from the students’ own community into a rigorous

2-year college preparatory English curriculum, and it provides both mentors and counselors from the

Hispanic community who can communicate in Spanish with parents and serve as models of educational

accomplishment from within the community.

College Kids, based at three sites in California, is a unique program in that it focuses

intensively on students in grades three to five and helps their communities to gain resources to provide

mentoring, academic enrichment, and parent education. The program draws heavily on local college

students to provide academic enrichment activities twice weekly and incorporates lessons and activities

designed to support the children’s self-concept and identity as persons of color before they enter the

challenging middle school years. Ninety percent of the students are Hispanic, and most of the others are

black.

K-12-Sponsored Programs

Many programs are spearheaded by the public school systems throughout the country. Some

begin as early as grammar school, while others are initiated by high schools. Superintendents of public

schools or individual principals may begin programs. The impetus for the schools is clear. The public is

increasingly demanding that students complete their high school diploma programs and be prepared for

entry into college. K-12 public schools have been under a spotlight of public attention and heavily

criticized for failing at this mission, especially with low-income and nonwhite children, and intervention

programs are an important way for schools to demonstrate their commitment to improving outcomes for

students. Slavin and Fashola (1998) have reviewed some of these programs that they find particularly

successful in raising student achievement.

For this review, K-12 programs that do not have a specific focus on assisting in

postsecondary educational enrollment are not examined. Programs that serve to increase student

achievement can have a powerful effect on the chances that students will enroll in postsecondary schools.

However, including any portion of the programs nationwide that simply purport to raise student

achievement would have rendered this study far too unwieldy and unfocused to have served the question

at hand: What are the most effective strategies currently being employed to increase the college-going

rate of underrepresented students? Early and consistent focus on academic achievement is essential to

achieving any significant increases in the educational attainment levels.

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) was a response by one high school

English teacher in a San Diego school to her frustration with the academic tracking system. Mary

Catherine Swanson decided that a group of mostly low-income minority students who showed academic

promise, but who were underperforming in school, should be placed into college preparatory English and

provided the support to help them succeed. From this bold experiment grew a program whose focus has

been on “untracking” students and providing them with the academic support and encouragement to go on

to college. AVID is now in scores of California schools as well as in several other states.

In Houston, Project GRAD takes a highly systemic approach to its intervention strategy.

Project GRAD is designed to capitalize on the extensive research that exists on increasing student

learning. It incorporates six well-researched programs into a K-12 strategy that includes components to

strengthen students’ learning along the pipeline leading to high school graduation. More than an
21

informational, counseling, or incentive approach, Project GRAD is based on a philosophy that only

reform of the entire education system will allow significant numbers of underrepresented students to

become academically competitive for college.

Program Components

Within each of the five program types there are multiple program components. The most

common program components are counseling, academic enrichment, parental involvement, personal

enrichment and social integration, mentoring, and scholarships. Each of these components can occur

alone or in combination with others in a program type. All 33 programs reviewed employ at least one of

six overall program components. Counseling and academic enrichment define the majority of the

programs, with 28 programs providing some form of counseling and 26 providing an academic

enrichment component. Parental involvement components in some form are found in 18 programs.

Personal integration and social enrichment components are also part of 18 programs. Thirteen of the

programs incorporate a mentoring element, and 10 offer some type of college scholarship.

Counseling

It is not surprising that so many programs would incorporate a counseling component. The

lack of adequate counseling has been identified as a major obstacle to college-going for underrepresented

students (Oakes, 1995; Romo and Falbo, 1996; McDonough, 1997). However, underrepresented

students’ reluctance to use counselors because they are perceived to be ill informed about minority

student issues or because they have a reputation for counseling these students into low-level classes is

also well documented (Atkinson, Jennings, and Livingston, 1990). At least two challenges for

intervention programs that incorporate counseling features are providing enough qualified counseling

help to meet students’ needs and building trust with this population of students and families.

The majority of the pipeline programs discussed in this report invest time and effort in

counseling their student participants. The goal behind the counseling efforts is the same for most

initiatives: to provide students with access to information so that they may attend college. Programs

employ a number of strategies in order to disseminate college information and advising. Some offer

individual consultations with students to help them to better understand the college search and application

process. Others employ peer, staff, or college representatives who speak with groups of students about

college opportunities and campus life in a workshop or classroom setting. Several programs offer

assistance with financial aid forms and college applications. For many students, these forms, which

sometimes seem overwhelming, can become a significant barrier to attending college (Latino Eligibility

Study, 1994). In some cases, programs with specific interests—such as the Illinois Early Outreach

Program—counsel their student participants to enter specific fields, such as science and engineering.

Wisconsin’s Early Identification Program focuses heavily on counseling and advising in order to help

students achieve their career, employment, and college goals.

Nine of the programs that offer counseling address career planning. These programs, often

with specific interests, encourage students to explore their career options. As a part of the career

counseling process, some counselors develop internship programs or partnerships with corporate sponsors

who provide speakers or volunteers from the business sector to work directly with students. Counseling

is different from mentoring, however, in that it offers guidance to students in an informational or

educational way. The focus is usually on the college selection and application process or career

counseling. Exhibit 2 displays the types of counseling services provided by the programs.
22

Exhibit 2

Counseling services provided, by program

Program College and/or

financial advising Career advising

Assistance w/

form and college

application

Personal

A Better Chance x x x

AVID x x

Baltimore College Bound x x

BioPrep x x

College Bound x x

College Kids

College Now

CROP x x x

DAPCEP x

GEAR UP x x x x

I Have a Dream x x

ICPAC x

IL EOP x x x

Kids to College x

King-Chávez-Parks x

MBEC x

NAI x x x

NJ College Bound x x

OHLAP x

Postsecondary EOP

Prep for Prep x x

Project GRAD x

Project Step

Puente x x x

SOAR x

Step to College/Mission x

Summerbridge

TexPrep x

The Posse Program x x x

Upward Bound x x x

Urban Partnership Program x x

Virginia EIP x x

Wisconsin EIP x x x x

Academic Enrichment

While most of the programs provide college counseling, just as many employ an academic

enrichment component of some kind. Academic enrichment addresses the problem of underpreparation

for college and attempts to strengthen students’ college eligibility. When underrepresented students are

being required to compete with more advantaged students for the limited slots in selective institutions,

academic enrichment helps them to compete more effectively, both in admissions and in the classroom.
23

To strengthen students’ academic preparation, some programs provide tutoring (e.g., AVID)

or extensive supplemental courses to augment the schools’ curriculum (e.g., Upward Bound), or they

focus on changing the curriculum and method of delivery (e.g., Project GRAD). All of these strategies

have a strong basis in the literature. Tutoring has been shown to be an effective means of strengthening

students’ core academic skills (Slavin and Karweit, 1985), and additional time on task when instruction is

targeted to particular needs and provided by a skilled teacher also increases achievement (Walberg, 1993;

Carroll, 1963). Some programs also provide students with an opportunity to get a head start on their

college requirements, or to experience college life prior to matriculation. To better prepare students for

the demands of college-level courses, programs offer specific classes, seminars, or workshops to help

students improve their reading, writing, and analytic skills.

Many of these programs make the academic component their core component. Xavier

University’s SOAR program, for example, is heavily focused on improving the academic skills of its

participants. The summer program, which involves daily quizzes, daily homework, an emphasis on

reading and writing, and weekly report cards sent home to parents, hopes to better prepare students for the

realities of college demands. The long-term goal for SOAR—and for many other programs with

academic components—is, in addition to making students eligible for college, to increase their retention

and graduation rates by improving their academic skills. Initiatives like SOAR, TexPrep, and

Summerbridge offer their core academic programs during the summer, but programs vary. Some engage

students in classes taught by university faculty on the college campus in order to expose participants to a

college environment (e.g., SOAR) or to college or high school students who may be trained by the

program (e.g., College Kids). Some are peer-taught (like Summerbridge). BioPrep has developed its own

accelerated curriculum and encourages students to pursue careers in the health and science professions.

In addition to these academic enrichment efforts, many programs offer tutoring to their

participants. Tutors can be college students (e.g., AVID), members of the community (e.g, MBEC), or

school personnel (e.g., Upward Bound). Others, such as College Bound or Virginia’s EIP, offer SAT or

ACT preparation courses or coaching. A few utilize assessment tools to evaluate student levels of

preparation and ability. College Now, at City University in New York, identifies high school students

who are “moderate achievers” and places them in either remedial or college-level courses.

Some programs, like the Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI), offer before- or afterschool and/or Saturday programs, while some form partnerships with local colleges and universities so

that students can take college level courses—sometimes for credit. Minnesota’s Postsecondary

Enrollment Options Program (EOP) offers accredited college-level classes to high school juniors and

seniors enrolled in public schools. The state strategy is focused on challenging students to spur them on

to more “rigorous academic pursuits.” Exhibit 3 displays academic enrichment activities by program.
24

Exhibit 3

Academic enrichment services provided, by program

Program Summer

program Tutoring

College-based or

college-level

courses/programs

High school or

after-school

academic

preparation

program

Assessment SAT/test

preparation

A Better Chance X

AVID x X x

Baltimore College Bound

BioPrep x X

College Bound x X x

College Kids x x

College Now (+remedial) x x

CROP x x

DAPCEP x x

GEAR UP x x x x x

I Have a Dream x x

ICPAC x

IL EOP x x

Kids to College

King-Chávez-Parks

MBEC

NAI x x

NJ College Bound x x

OHLAP

Postsecondary EOP x

Prep for Prep x

Project GRAD x x

Project Step x x

Puente x x

SOAR x x x x x

Step to College

Summerbridge x x x

TexPrep x

The Posse Program x

Upward Bound x x x x

Urban Partnership

Program

Virginia EIP x x x x x

Wisconsin EIP x x x

Parent Involvement

While the education literature touts the advantages of parent involvement for students’

academic achievement, this research has sometimes been misconstrued to suggest that involvement in

students’ schools is a causal factor in their increased performance. Some have been quick to equate
25

attendance at PTA meetings or as school volunteers as the measure of parents’ interest or influence on

their children’s schooling. In fact, it is the parents’ involvement in their children’s education—wherever

that occurs—that is the more critical factor in achievement (Moles, 1982), and it is difficult to measure

this level of involvement, especially for language minority parents and others who have not themselves

had extensive experience with the American schooling system. Many of these parents feel uncomfortable

in the schools and will not come to parent meetings. This does not necessarily mean that they are

uninterested in their children’s education or their schooling, but it does make it more difficult to

communicate important information. A major challenge for some intervention programs is to find ways

to communicate with parents about the goals of the program and the ways that parents can help support

those goals.

Some programs require that parents sign a contract to support their child’s participation in

the program and attend parent information meetings (e.g., Puente). At a minimum, programs that have a

parent involvement component provide informational sessions on college requirements, financial aid, and

other related topics (e.g., King-Chávez-Parks, SOAR, and Upward Bound). A number of programs also

offer training programs on helping students to excel in school. These training sessions may cover

monitoring homework, maintaining communication and discipline with adolescents, issues in adolescent

development, and other related topics. To attract parents, some programs conduct the sessions in their

primary language and add other cultural elements to the activities (e.g., Puente, College Kids).

More than half of the programs reviewed include a component that involves parents in some

way. Most of them offer an orientation so that parents better understand the programs in which their

children are involved. Some engage parents as volunteers. Some develop initiatives specifically designed

for parents. NAI, for example, includes parents in Saturday morning counseling sessions so that parents

can better understand the academic options for their children both in high school and college. Programs

that require a heavy commitment of time from parents may also use this strategy to screen out students

whose parents do not support their children’s academic endeavors, since that may be an important

predictor of long-term success in a program (PEPC, 1998). Several programs involve parents as program

designers, developers, or even staff. California’s Project Step encourages networking among parents,

college faculty, and principals. The Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program (DAPCEP) uses a

parent advisory committee that offers seminars and opportunities for other parents and their children.

Exhibit 4 demonstrates the kinds of parent involvement activities that are employed.
26

Exhibit 4

Parent involvement activities, by program

Program Orientation to

program for parents

Parents as

volunteers Programs for parents

Parents as program

designers,

developers, staff

A Better Chance x

AVID

Baltimore College Bound x

BioPrep

College Bound

College Kids x x x x

College Now

CROP x

DAPCEP

GEAR UP x

I Have a Dream

ICPAC x

IL EOP x

Kids to College

King-Chávez-Parks x

MBEC x

NAI x

NJ College Bound x

OHLAP x

Postsecondary EOP x

Prep for Prep

Project GRAD x

Project Step x

Puente x x x

SOAR x

Step to College/Mission

Summerbridge

TexPrep

The Posse Program x

Upward Bound x x

Urban Partnership Program

Virginia EIP

Wisconsin EIP x

Personal Enrichment and Social Integration

Eighteen of the pipeline initiatives reviewed here describe themselves as offering some kind

of personal enrichment or social integration strategy, including leadership development, goals setting,

confidence building, cross-cultural workshops, community service, connection to the arts, or field trips.

Some programs bring in speakers from colleges and universities or from the workforce to help students
27

broaden their understanding of the opportunities available to them. The goal behind these personal

enrichment activities is to help students build self-esteem, develop confidence, and feel empowered to

achieve and succeed in their academic careers, and ultimately to confer cultural capital, or a knowledge of

how to make the system work. Activities geared toward social integration help students to find a

supportive niche in their environment and provide opportunities to build relationships with others.

California’s Step to College Program works toward creating a “culture of college-going” among

underrepresented junior and high school students. Activities include cultural awareness and social

support from peers. Some students who finish the program return to become tutors and counselors to the

younger students. Exhibit 5 displays the range of personal enrichment and social integration activities.

Exhibit 5

Personal enrichment and social integration (PESI) strategies, by program

Program Leadership

Arts and

cultural

activities

Field trips Speakers Peer

component

A Better Chance

AVID x x x

Baltimore College Bound

BioPrep

College Bound x

College Kids x x x

College Now

CROP

DAPCEP x x

GEAR UP x x x x

I Have a Dream x

ICPAC

IL EOP x

Kids to College x

King-Chávez-Parks x

MBEC

NAI

NJ College Bound

OHLAP

Postsecondary EOP

Prep for Prep x x
28

Exhibit 5

Personal enrichment and social integration (PESI) strategies, by program (continued)

Program Leadership

Arts and

cultural

activities

Field trips Speakers Peer

component

Project GRAD x

Project Step

Puente x x x x x

SOAR x x x x

Step to College/Mission x x

Summerbridge x

TexPrep x x

The Posse Program x x x

Upward Bound

Urban Partnership Program x x

Virginia EIP

Wisconsin EIP

Mentoring

Although only 13 of the 33 programs highlight formal mentoring as one of their main

program components, mentoring is viewed by many as a critical element in increasing student success

rates. However, there is actually very little evidence in the literature to support the notion that mentoring

improves academic performance. Only a couple of studies have shown even modest increases in grades

(Grossman and Tierney, 1998), which could represent a Hawthorne effect—students who are selected for

any kind of program may show some effects from simply being treated specially—or other

methodological problems. Other studies have shown mentoring effects on behavioral indicators such as

reduction in student truancy and drug and alcohol use (Rogers and Taylor, 1997; Grossman and Garry,

1997). One difficulty with this research is the problem of measuring the nature of mentoring relationships

across large groups of students and finding appropriate comparison groups of students against which to

test the effectiveness of the program (Mejorado, 1999).

Programs like The Posse Program train and send students in teams to college so that they can

support one another through the year prior to college and all through college. In addition to the team

component at Posse, a graduate student is assigned to each team to formally mentor each student both

academically and socially. The I Have a Dream program engages mentor-sponsors from the corporate

community. Each mentor-sponsor adopts a sixth grade class and provides encouragement, cultural

enrichment opportunities, and financial support to each student. Mentoring activities that are

incorporated in the programs are shown in exhibit 6.
29

Exhibit 6

Mentoring provided by various participants, by program

Program Peer-based University and/or high

school staff and/or faculty Volunteers Corporate/

professionals

A Better Chance

AVID

Baltimore College Bound

BioPrep

College Bound x x x

College Kids x

College Now

CROP x

DAPCEP x

GEAR UP x

I Have a Dream x x

ICPAC

IL EOP

Kids to College

King-Chávez-Parks

MBEC

NAI x

NJ College Bound x

OHLAP

Postsecondary EOP

Prep for Prep

Project GRAD

Project Step

Puente x x

SOAR x

Step to College/Mission

Summerbridge x

TexPrep

The Posse Program x x

Urban Partnership Program

Upward Bound x x

Virginia EIP

Wisconsin EIP

Scholarships

Ten of the programs include some financial assistance in the form of scholarships. The

scholarships may be solely for the purpose of defraying costs associated with attending college, such as

Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars Program (an addition to the ICPAC portfolio of programs instituted in

1990), or they may be used as encouragement or incentives to attend college, and therefore cover college

costs. Scholarships can also be awarded at different levels, depending on the student’s level of

achievement, or they may be awarded on the basis of college admission. Scholarships offered can take
30

the form of last dollar scholarships (the difference between all other scholarships and aid and the student’s

need), field-focused or career-specific initiatives (such as engineering scholarships), diversity initiatives,

or merit awards. Often a scholarship component is included or made the core component of a program

with the intention of inducing students to work toward and apply to specific colleges or academic foci.

The size of the scholarship and the commitment of the funding agencies are a function of the

size of the program as well. Large-scale initiatives such as statewide programs are unlikely to provide

full-ride scholarships to independent or private schools, though they may provide full tuition scholarships

for public institutions to a targeted group of students. Smaller programs, on the other hand, may provide

full scholarships to either a specific independent college, such as the NAI provides for the University of

Southern California and Posse provides for Vanderbilt University, or for an institution of choice, such as

A Better Chance does. Funding for these types of programs can come from university commitments,

private sponsors, or government initiatives. Indiana’s statewide program to increase college-going among

its students places scholarships at the center of its activities, along with information gathering and

dissemination. On the basis of an extensive study sponsored by the Lilly Foundation, Indiana elected to

invest heavily in scholarships that it awards for different levels of performance. The 21st Century

Scholars program, for example, guarantees that any student who meets the eligibility requirements for one

of the state’s 4-year institutions will be provided sufficient scholarship money to attend. In the last 10

years, Indiana has doubled its commitment to student scholarship support. Baltimore, Maryland’s College

Bound Program helps students apply for financial aid and then offers “last dollar” support to ensure that

they will be able to attend. Exhibit 7 provides information on scholarships.

Exhibit 7

Scholarships available from various sources, by program

Program University Private/corporate Federal/state

A Better Chance x

AVID

Baltimore College Bound x

BioPrep

College Bound

College Kids

College Now

CROP

DAPCEP x

GEAR UP x

I Have a Dream x

ICPAC/21st Century Scholars x x

IL EOP

Kids to College

King-Chávez-Parks

MBEC

NAI x

NJ College Bound x

OHLAP x

Postsecondary EOP x
31

Exhibit 7

Scholarships available from various sources, by program (continued)

Program University Private/corporate Federal/state

Prep for Prep

Project GRAD x

Project Step

Puente

SOAR

Step to College/Mission

Summerbridge

TexPrep

The Posse Program x

Upward Bound

Urban Partnership Program

VA EIP

WI EIP

Summary of Program Features

Based on the review of the literature, there were 10 major impediments to educational

mobility for underrepresented students. The programs reviewed attempt to ameliorate them through their

various programmatic strategies. Each program takes a somewhat different focus both with respect to the

barriers it attempts to reduce and to the point in the educational pipeline that it targets (e.g., elementary,

middle, or high school). Exhibit 8 summarizes the program features incorporated by program and

population target.

Exhibit 8

Summary of features, by program

Program Counseling Academic

enrichment

Parental

involvement

Personal

and social

enrichment

Mentoring Scholarships Target audience

A Better Chance X x x Ind. H.S. students

AVID X x x Ind. H.S. students

Baltimore

College Bound

Xx x H.S. students by

class (9th & 10th)

BioPrep X x Ind. secondary (8-12)

College Bound X x x x Secondary schools

College Kids x x x x Ind. K-12

College Now x Ind. H.S. students

CROP x x x x Ind. secondary (6-12)

DAPCEP x x x x x Ind. K-12

GEAR UP x x x x x x K-12 students by

school

Ind. = individual
32

Exhibit 8

Summary of features, by program (continued)

Program Counsel

-ing

Academic

enrichment

Parental

involvement

Personal

and social

enrichment

MentoringScholar

-ships Target audience

I Have a Dream x x x x x 6-12 students by class

ICPAC x x x x Ind. secondary

students

IL EOP x x x x Ind. secondary (7-12)

Kids to College x x 6th graders by school

King-Chávez-Parks x x x Ind. secondary (6-12)

MBEC x x K-12 studs by school

NAI x x x x Ind. H.S. students

NJ College Bound x x x x Ind. secondary (6-12)

OHLAP x x x Ind. H.S. students

Postsecondary EOP x x x Ind. secondary

students

Prep for Prep x x x Ind. H.S. students

Project GRAD x x x x x K-12 students by school

Project Step x x

Puente x x x x x H.S. students by class

SOAR x x x x x Ind. secondary students

Step to

College/Mission

x x

Summerbridge x x x Ind. Secondary students

TexPrep x x x Ind. secondary students

The Posse Program x x x x x x Ind. H.S. students

Upward Bound x x x x Secondary students by

class

Urban Partnership

Program

x x K-12 students by school

Virginia EIP x x Ind. secondary (8-12)

Wisconsin EIP x x x Ind. secondary students

Ind. = individual.

While few programs are actually explicit about the relationship between what they do, the

kinds of problems they are attempting to ameliorate, or how the program elements relate to impediments

identified in the literature, it is possible, nonetheless, to create these logical links by matching known

impediments with the strategies that the programs incorporate.

Logical Links Between Impediments to Access and Program Strategies

Inequalities in familial cultural and social capital. These inequalities are addressed by

parent involvement programs that provide parents with critical information about educational

opportunities and teach skills to help parents monitor their children’s educational progress. Eighteen

programs offered this kind of support for parents. Notable examples of informational programs are

Indiana’s ICPAC program and Florida’s CROP program. Both have invested substantial resources in

developing extensive data and information delivery systems so that parents of first-generation college
33

students can easily access the information they need, including students’ records and college

requirements, to help support their children’s pathway to college. Mentoring is also a strategy that

supports the goals of increasing cultural and social capital to students, and sometimes to parents. A

primary role of the mentor is to share knowledge and experience gained from having successfully

navigated at least some portion of the educational system.

Inequality of neighborhood resources. Most programs do not address this problem, but

programs that are rooted in the community and provide some programming related to community

experiences, such as College Kids, do attempt to strengthen neighborhood support of youth. Programs

that draw their mentors from the neighboring community, such as Puente, also tap community resources

and build a cadre of role models accessible to students within their neighborhoods or local communities.

Finally, programs such as A Better Chance and Prep for Prep take the opposite approach—they transfer

students into educational settings where high levels of community resources already exist.

Lack of peer support. Programs like AVID and Posse work directly to develop and nurture

peer groups from the same backgrounds and communities who mutually support high academic goals.

Through joint activities, field trips, and course-taking, students in AVID come to build supportive

friendships; Posse builds strong peer groups through joint activities and workshops during high school,

then sends the group together to college, where they support each other during the critical first year away

from home. These kinds of activities generally fall under the rubric of social integration. Many programs

provide some kind of integrating function for students, but most do not attend specifically to their peer

groups and the issues that students face when they choose to excel in a peer culture that is not supportive

of academic accomplishment.

Racism. Few programs attempt to deal directly with the problem of racism, perhaps in part

because most reviewed programs catered to a broad mix of students, including low-income and firstgeneration college-going white students for whom racism is not a major issue. However, programs like

College Kids, SOAR, or Puente, which either consciously recruit from particular communities or draw

students of color almost exclusively, implicitly deal with racism in some of the activities they provide to

strengthen students’ self-concepts and increase their pride in their communities of origin. For example,

Puente’s integration of Hispanic literature into the core college-preparatory English class is an attempt to

counter stereotypes that Hispanics do not excel academically.

Inequalities in K-12 schools. Most programs offer some kind of academic enrichment

designed to make up for the inequalities in the schools. Upward Bound, Neighborhood Academic

Initiative, and the Detroit Area Pre-college Engineering program, for example, all provide extensive

academic coursework to augment the public school curriculum. Only Project GRAD, however,

specifically targets the educational system across segments to help strengthen all students’ academic

experience. Project GRAD fundamentally alters the existing curriculum in the schools, though its

curricular focus does not extend into the high schools where tracking continues to be a problem.

Segregation. Most programs do not address the problem of segregation by class or

ethnicity. However, some programs segregate students for some portion of the day or in some activities

in order to build a group of ethnically similar peers to support each other. This is sometimes referred to as

creating “safe places” for students to retreat when the pressures of stereotype can become stressful and

place students at risk (Steele, 1997). On the other hand, Prep for Prep, A Better Chance, Posse, and NAI

incorporate low-income and underrepresented students into schools that serve largely privileged, white

students. In this way, they provide a desegregated schooling experience for some students.

Ineffective counseling. Most (26) of the programs reviewed offer extensive counseling.

While educational preparation has been shown to be a powerful predictor of postsecondary choices, there
34

is also abundant evidence that counseling that tracks students into low-level courses is responsible, in

part, for under preparation. Hence, to address this problem, counseling for underrepresented students

must be improved. The Monterey Bay Education Consortium has introduced a unique approach to

comprehensive college counseling. Through its Passport to Education program, MBEC begins the college

counseling process at grade four and continues meeting with students at intervals to document their

progress on the pathway to college. Each time a benchmark is achieved, the student receives a stamp in

his or her passport. In this way, students are kept constantly aware of the requirements for college, and

are aware that others expect them to go to college.

Low expectations and aspirations. The personal enrichment and social integration feature

that 18 of the programs includes often incorporates activities designed to strengthen students’ selfconcepts and to raise their aspirations. Programs such as Upward Bound and AVID regularly offer

motivational speakers, often from the students’ communities, who act as role models and provide

encouragement to students that they, too, can make it to college and beyond.

Financial aid. Having limited financial resources is a major barrier to attending 4-year

colleges for low-income students, yet most intervention programs do not directly provide financial

support. Many offer information about scholarships that are available and encourage students to seek

these scholarships. However, provision of financial support is not a core aspect of most of these

programs. Indiana and Florida, however, have made large-scale commitments to provide adequate

support for all their qualified low-income students. I Have a Dream is a private nonprofit program with

the objective of ensuring that all children in the program who qualify for college will receive scholarships

sufficient to cover their costs. Since its inception, IHAD has expanded its activities to include an array of

strategies to help increase the probability that students will succeed in school and become eligible for the

scholarships.
35

5. PROMISING PRACTICES

In the review of the literature on opportunities to learn (Appendix A and in section 2) 10

major impediments to access were summarized. In Section 4, a taxonomy of programs was developed,

and the program features and strategies were reviewed. The logical links between impediments and

program strategies were discussed; however, most programs do not provide evidence of empirical links

between program features and student outcomes. Most do report increases in student achievement or

access as a result of the program, but because these findings are rarely tied to outcomes for comparable

control groups, it is very difficult to know if the outcomes are the result of the program intervention, the

selection of students into the program, or something else. Bailis et al. (1995) observe that,

Several barriers have been particularly powerful in preventing the

development of definitive estimates of program impact. . . studies

typically lack comparison groups of similar students who did not receive

program benefits, and this makes it impossible to be sure how much the

outcomes can be attributed to the programs. . . .Coupled with this is the

paucity of data collected by most college access programs. Without

information about students prior to participation in the program, it is

again difficult to ascertain whether the programs actually made a

difference (p.6).

Thirteen programs that have undertaken evaluations of varying rigor and whose findings

illuminate important issues in college access have been identified. Most are not designed to test which

features of the program are most effective, but some inferences can be drawn. The 13 programs and the

students they target for intervention are shown in exhibit 9.

Exhibit 9

Promising programs and their target populations

Program Target

Posse Individual high school students

NAI Individual high school students

A Better Chance Individual high school students

Upward Bound Individual high school students

AVID High School --Classrooms

Puente High School --Classrooms

College Pathways High School --Classrooms

GE College Bound* Entire high schools

I Have a Dream K- 12 classroom or community

Project GRAD K-12 feeder schools

Florida (CPOP) High schools statewide

Indiana (ICPAC) High schools statewide

Minnesota (PEOP) High schools statewide

*Some College Bound programs reach into the middle school, and some target only one group within a

school; however, most programs target whole high school student bodies through school reform.
36

Most programs are anchored in the high schools and serve either individual students or

classroom groupings of students. Although most of the programs are tied in some kind of partnership

with at least one university, it is uncommon for programs to continue services or monitoring of students

after high school graduation. While A Better Chance and NAI do provide some monitoring at the college

level, Posse is unique among the programs in its almost equal provision of services both before and after

college matriculation. The focus among these programs on individual students or individual classrooms

of students also means that the impact of the program will remain relatively isolated from the rest of the

school. Program effects may carry over to other aspects of school or personal life for the students in the

program, but they are unlikely to have a major impact on students in the same school who are not in the

program. The next section is a summary of the overall findings of our review of these evaluations,

followed by a discussion of each of the programs and findings.

Summary of Evaluation Findings

While not all of the programs provided a rigorous evaluation, some did, and the convergence of

conclusions around certain issues follows.

Key Features of Successful Programs

1. Across programs, the single most important feature of those that purported to be

successful with individual students was a close, caring relationship with a knowledgeable adult who

monitors the student’s progress. Many programs have been quick to adopt mentors for this purpose, but

the research is not yet clear on the overall effectiveness of this approach. I Have a Dream employs many

adults in the program as sponsors, mentors, and staff persons; however, the evaluation suggests that for

most students, it was the years-long relationship with the program director that was key to success.

Sponsors and mentors were not always as consistent in their lives. For Puente students, the counselor

who stayed with them for 4 years of high school was reported to be a very influential person in their lives

and in helping them to make the decision to go to college.

2. Effective program provided high-quality instruction either through access to the most

challenging courses offered by the school (“untracking”), through special coursework that supports and

augments the regular curricular offerings (tutoring and specially designed classes), or by revamping the

curriculum to better address the learning needs of the students.

3. These programs made long-term investments in students rather than short-term

interventions. The longer students were in a program, the more they were reported to benefit from it.

4. Most of the effective programs paid attention to the students’ cultural background and

attempted to incorporate this both in the structure and the content of the program. If Rendón (1994) is

correct about the need for validation that many of these students have, then the cultural component may

be a core feature of success.

5. A number of programs attributed some of their effectiveness to the formation of

supportive peer groups, yet there is little extensive study of this phenomenon and little evidence of

effective strategies to create and sustain these groups being replicated across programs. This area is

probably worthy of much more study and attention.

6. Scholarship assistance has been shown to be very important in helping students to go to

college, but most programs do not provide significant scholarship support. Given the documented
37

evidence that income has independent effects on college-going, both whether a student goes, and to what

kind of institution, it is troubling that more emphasis is not placed on this need.

Impediments to Greater Success for Programs

1. Attrition from programs is a major—often unattended—problem. Many programs

provide no or very sketchy data on their attrition over time, and those that do commonly show only about

one-third to one-half of the original participants completing the program. Of course, the longer the

intervention, the more the risk of attrition exists. But many programs reported evidence that the longer

the students were in the program, the greater the impact on outcomes. Thus, it would appear that in order

to maximize the effects of these programs, it is critical to stem attrition.

A major factor in attrition is the ease with which students may enter and exit purely

voluntary programs. Strategies used by some programs were shown to be very effective in holding

students. Puente’s strategy of enrolling students into a class that met graduation requirements and was

part of their regular high school program of study seemed to be an effective method.

2. It is uncommon to find programs reporting actual academic gains in the form of increased

GPA or even test scores for individual students. Most programs appear to begin too late (in high school),

do not last long enough, and are not intensive and extensive enough to have a real impact on measured

academic achievement. The best that most of the programs appear to do is to level the playing field for

these underrepresented students as a group, but little evidence exists that the programs they reviewed

were actually creating high performing students. Some programs did, however, help students to exploit

their potential much more effectively, sending much higher percentages of students on to college.

However, without a more systemic approach, it does not appear that these programs can have a truly large

effect on measured achievement.

3. Most programs focus on affecting outcomes for individual students. That is, the

intervention is based on selected individuals, even though the evaluation studies often are not.

Nonetheless, such an approach, while potentially very effective for individual students, leaves the schools

and the environments that surround underachievement untouched. Project GRAD was alone in its

emphasis on changing the structures of the education system in order to have an impact on the fortunes of

individual students. It is too early to know yet how successful Project GRAD will be, but early returns on

the experiment are positive.

4. None of the programs reviewed was truly systemic in the sense that it linked program

components across the K-12 and postsecondary education. Project GRAD covers the longest period of

education—from kindergarten into high school. However, it assumes that students will be sufficiently

equipped at the high school level to succeed without additional intensive intervention. While that may

prove to be true, the research suggests caution in this regard. Moreover, of all the programs that

purported to be aiming at getting more students successfully into and through college, only Posse actually

had an intensive program component at the college level. Most programs based their success on whether

students matriculated into college. Beyond that, students’ fates are unknown. Posse helps us to

understand why students falter in college: the students can feel isolated and alone in what for many may

be perceived as an alien environment, with few other students like themselves to provide support.
38

Issues in Evaluation

1. Very few evaluations were longitudinal in nature. Therefore, it was necessary to make a

number of untested assumptions about the effectiveness of the program and the sources of its impact.

Moreover, few evaluations actually used comparisons or controls to test their outcomes that would meet

even minimum standards of rigor. Thus, a number of conclusions from the studies must remain tentative.

2. There was wide variation in cost of programs, and many programs report that they do not

really know how much they cost. Even more surprising, however, was the absence of any form of costbenefit analysis of the program components. How does one explain no difference, or only minor

differences, in outcomes for programs that cost $500 per student and those that cost $4,000 per student?

More careful, and longer term, evaluation might well yield outcomes that have not been measured or even

considered.

3. While there is considerable evidence that scholarships are an important and effective

strategy, few scholarship programs report data on student persistence. Thus, the long-term effects of this

strategy when coupled with an early intervention program are unknown.
39

6. SPECIFIC PROGRAM WITH EVALUATION DATA

High School Programs for Individual Students

Posse

Program description

Posse was begun in New York City as a response to the founders’ observation that lowincome and underrepresented students with whom they had worked in another youth program would go

off to college but did not often succeed there. The students reported that they felt isolated and had no

where to turn; they needed their “posse” with them to succeed. Between 1990 and 1997 the program,

which is run by the Posse Foundation and funded by individual, corporate, government, and foundation

grants, had placed 109 students at such prestigious universities as Vanderbilt, Rice, DePauw, and Lehigh.

The program has three major objectives: (1) to provide college access and success for underrepresented

students from the New York City area who probably would not otherwise attend college, and almost

certainly would not be considered for highly selective colleges; (2) to help selective colleges and

universities work toward improving the climate of diversity on their campuses; and (3) to graduate more

students of diverse backgrounds from selective universities so that they may take on leadership positions

in society and the workforce. The program has also been a site for experimentation with the Dynamic

Assessment Process that focuses on identifying nontraditional high school students with strong leadership

ability and potential for success.

Four principles undergird the program:

1. Educational progress, personal development, and academic achievement are advanced by

cooperative and supportive conditions of learning.

2. Purposive involvement in social and political action designed to change the social context

of one’s learning contributes to a sense of polity that aids personal and academic

development.

3. Cultural, political, and social intelligences, as complements to traditional criteria, are

useful variables for consideration in selection of students for selective colleges.

4. Cultural, political, and social leadership are viable as categories of talents, and

comparable to artistic, athletic, and scholastic abilities for the assignment of merit-based

college scholarships.

There are four major components to the Posse program:

1. Recruitment and selection of students, which is a lengthy process of interview and group

activities to assess skills like negotiation, intergroup relations, problem solving, listening,

and presentation.
40

2. A 34-week training program consisting of skill-building workshops that occur weekly

from January through August of the senior year and include team development,

leadership and diversity training, time and financial management, and academic skills, as

well as the Posse retreat and “test of fire,” a secret set of activities designed as a

culminating experience for the group from which “they leave understanding some very

basic tenets of the relationship between individuals and their culture” (Bowman and

Gordon, 1998, p. 34).

3. A full-tuition scholarship provided by the university partners.

4. An on-campus program, which includes a graduate student mentor assigned to each

Posse; a PossePlus retreat, which involves up to 100 students from the larger student

body each year; and ongoing weekly workshops. The program culminates with a Posse

graduation that complements the university graduation.

Evaluation outcomes

The evaluation of Posse (Bowman and Gordon, 1998) consisted of comparing the 41 Posse

members at Vanderbilt University in 1997 with 41 randomly selected athletes at the college, and 41

randomly selected students with similar SAT scores. The mean SAT score for the group of athletes was

about 142 points higher than for the Posse group (1042 vs. 900), however the difference between their

mean GPAs was just 3.17 versus 2.93 for the Posse students. Compared to the randomly selected nonathletes, neither their SAT scores (922 vs. 900) nor their GPAs (2.97 vs. 2.93 for Posse) were

significantly different. Thus, the Posse students, while not performing at exceptionally high levels, were

performing comparably to other students at Vanderbilt whose backgrounds approximated their own, and

importantly, they were persisting at a very selective institution. The persistence rate for the 41 students

was 92.7 percent compared to approximately 85 percent for other non-Posse comparison students. It

should be noted that the Posse students were selected using very different criteria than those normally

employed by the university, so the students’ persistence and survival at the university were a testament to

the viability of the Dynamic Assessment Process.

The program directors consider the peer support provided through team-building and the

support of the mentor in the early years of college to be the key features of the program that contribute to

students’ success once they have been selected. The preparatory activities during the senior year are an

important part of the program, but there has been no independent evaluation of their contribution to the

success of the program. While directors were unable to provide an estimate of the per-student costs of the

program, citing a number of idiosyncratic expenses and funding relationships, however, this is clearly a

“high end” program that can only afford to serve a small number of students.

Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI)

Program description

The Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) program began in 1990 by the University of

Southern California (USC) in an attempt to have a direct impact on access to higher education in its own

community. The program is limited to the area surrounding USC. Located in the central part of Los

Angeles, this area is largely low income and most residents are either black or Hispanic. “Average”

seventh grade students (mostly Bs and Cs) are selected into the program from one school in the
41

surrounding area based on two criteria: their stated willingness to learn; and a parent or guardian’s

willingness to support the “scholar” by attending classes and meetings and ensuring that the student can

attend all required activities. The program lasts the 6 years from 7th to 12th grades, and it is intensive.

Students are bused every morning for 2 hours of math and English enrichment classes at USC, and both

students and parents meet on Saturdays for 4 hours of workshops. Students also receive tutoring twice a

week for an hour and a half, and have a counseling session on Friday mornings that deals both with

college preparation activities and socioemotional issues. During the summer, students are enrolled in

additional classes. If they persist through the program, graduate, and meet minimum eligibility criteria,

they are awarded a full-ride scholarship to the university, a selective, independent school whose tuition is

about $20,000 per year.

NAI’s mission statement includes the following language: “NAI provides multiple

educational opportunities for students and parents to gain an understanding of themselves, and to obtain

the skills that will enable them to assume a measure of control over the direction and quality of their lives.

Students and parents are taught to believe in their limitless capacity to learn, to acquire the skills

necessary to function in society. . . . .”(CHEPA, 1998, p.20). While the objective of the program

ostensibly is to support underrepresented students in gaining access to a 4-year college education, the

underlying principles of the program focus much more directly on community empowerment. There is a

strong attempt in the program to draw faculty and staff from the local area and to integrate the local

community into the program. Bringing the community into the classroom is considered important in

helping students to develop strong identities in order to weather the challenges ahead.

Evaluation outcomes

To date, two cohorts of students have completed the program, having begun in the 7th grade.

Of these entering students, 64 percent persisted through 6 years to graduation. Of those who graduated,

over 60 percent went on to a 4-year research university—52 percent to USC—and 96 percent to some

form of postsecondary education. In Tierney and Jun’s (1998) evaluation of the NAI, no comparison data

are provided, but in the high-risk neighborhoods and schools from which these students come, very few

students go on to 4-year universities. Even without these data, it would seem that the NAI students are

performing far above their peers in their own and similar neighborhoods. The evaluation does not report

on how these students fare once they are in the university.

NAI serves between 40 and 50 new students per year, with a total enrollment in the program

of about 360 students. Not counting the scholarships, the program costs about $2,000 per student

annually, which is covered by the university and private foundation grants. Combined with the cost of

scholarships, NAI is both labor intensive and expensive and, as such, serves a relatively small number of

students. In fact, the program is so rigorous, requiring that students rise early and attend extra classes

every day, including Saturday, over a period of years, that one might conclude that the persistence

demonstrated in staying in such a program may be the most critical factor in student success.

A Better Chance (ABC)

Program description

A Better Chance is the oldest of the college access programs reviewed. It began in 1963 to

give talented “minority” students a chance at a first-rate high school education outside of their own

environs. Most students in the early days of the program were placed in boarding schools and thereby
42

were separated not only from their local schools, but also from their families and local communities.

Implicit in the design of the program is the notion that bright students from low-income communities will

fare better when removed from their own settings and placed into highly enriched schools and

communities. Over the years, more students have attended day schools and a few excellent public schools

(where students typically live in a nearby ABC house with a resident supervisor), but evaluators have

concluded that students did do better in private school settings (Griffin, 1990).

ABC is an independent nonprofit organization that has enjoyed financial support from many

of the major philanthropic organizations in the country, including the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller

Foundation, the DeWitt Wallace Foundation, and the Sloan Foundation, in addition to federal support in

its early years. Headquartered in Boston, it sends many of its students to prep schools in the Northeast.

The 160 member schools that take ABC students typically accept about 300 students per year in the

program.

ABC’s primary function is identifying talented students of color, usually from poor

communities throughout the nation, who, once nominated by someone in their schools or by a member of

the clergy, undergo a rigorous selection process including a battery of tests and extensive interview. The

program also accepts students who do not test well if they can demonstrate strong ability in math, science,

and English through other means, and if they demonstrate a strong desire to achieve. Once identified and

accepted into the program, ABC matches students to member high schools that assume the costs of the

students’ education. ABC provides a liaison at the schools, but it does not offer other supportive services.

Although in the early years of the program a summer session was provided, there are now no special ABC

counselors, tutors, or mentors. Students are expected to make it on their own after a 3-day orientation,

and the selection process takes into account that students will need to exhibit considerable self-confidence

and independence.

Evaluation outcomes

ABC has been evaluated several times over the years (Griffin, 1990; Perry and Kopperman,

1973; Johnson and Prom, 1983), but evaluations have consisted largely of surveying alumni about their

experiences and their success in postsecondary education. One of the few that have been done compares

the rate of college graduation for ABC students to that of all black students. Of course, ABC students are

not typical, and so a comparison to other, typical students adds little to our understanding of whether, and

how, the program works to achieve its goals. Data on persistence rates of students in the program, that is,

how many students who began the program as freshmen actually graduated with their class 4 years later,

were not available. All evaluations, however, show that of those students who do graduate from

secondary school, at least 96 percent go on to college, and of those, approximately 20 percent go to Ivy

League schools. Thus, for students at an ABC school, the academic future looks bright.

The latest evaluation of the program was conducted in 1990 by DMP Associates in Detroit,

Michigan. Surveys were sent to 210 alumni who had previously agreed to participate in the study, and

118 (56 percent) responded. A separate survey asking many of the same questions was sent to 1,114

current students, 184 (16 percent) of whom responded. Notably, most respondents to both surveys were

female. Their responses show that these respondents viewed the program as very effective in preparing

them academically for college. Virtually all of the respondents either had gone to college and received a

degree or were intending to do so. However, among both alumni and current students, more than half

reported feelings of isolation and/or depression, and 42 percent of current students reported that they did

not like their school. On the other hand, almost all current students reported that they were engaged in

many activities at school and that they did not have grades below C.
43

The picture that emerges from the survey data—albeit based on small samples of students—

is that students emerge from these schools equipped to go on to college and to at least survive that

experience (most respondents reported that they had Bs in college). The alumni reported feeling grateful

for the opportunity, and 98 percent said they would recommend it to a friend. But the majority of the

students expressed feelings of isolation and depression and worry about meeting the standards of the

schools (reported by 71 percent of respondents). It is difficult to know how different these students’

feelings were from those of other adolescents striving to do well in school since no comparisons were

provided.

It is also worth emphasizing that ABC attempts to affect the life course of individual

students selected to participate, not the schools or communities from which they come. Its cost is high on

a per-student basis, and in terms of numbers of students affected, its impact is small, although no doubt

profound for those individuals selected to participate.

Upward Bound

Program description

Upward Bound is a member of the TRIO family of programs supported by the U.S.

Department of Education with the objective of increasing college-going rates of underrepresented

students. It targets students who have completed the eighth grade, whose family incomes are below 150

percent of the poverty line, and/or who are potentially the first in their families to go to college. Students

are usually recommended into the program by a counselor, and they are generally screened to exclude

those with behavioral problems. Thus, most Upward Bound students are low-income minority students

who have expressed a desire to go to college, but who lack the resources in their own homes and

communities to support those aspirations.

Students may participate in Upward Bound for up to 4 years, through high school

graduation, but they can also quit the program at any time. Attrition is a major problem. Approximately

one-third of the students who begin the program quit by the end of their first year, and only about onethird of students actually complete the program (that is, they are still enrolled in the program in May of

their senior year). The primary reason that students give for not completing is that they have taken a job.

Not surprisingly, students who stay in the program to completion are much more likely to go on to college

(85 percent).

Upward Bound provides a host of services to the 42,000 students it serves in 566 programs

across the nation. A key aspect of the program is the 6-week summer program hosted by a college

campus where students receive intensive pre-college academic preparation. Ninety percent of the Upward

Bound programs include a residential component to the summer program designed to simulate an actual

college experience. Extra academic support is also provided in the form of tutoring and academic courses

usually held on Saturdays or after school to supplement the school’s academic program, and academic,

personal, and career/college counseling services are also provided. Most programs also expose students

to cultural events, and financial aid counseling is offered. While there is considerable variability in

implementation of programs, all are expected to offer the key components.
44

Evaluation outcomes

Upward Bound has been evaluated several times (Burkheimer et al., 1976; Burkheimer,

Riccobono, and Wisenbaker, 1979; Myers and Schirm, 1997, 1999). Earlier evaluations compared

Upward Bound students to other, similar students in their schools and focused on high school retention

and the program’s effectiveness in increasing college-going rates. In both of their studies, Burkheimer

and colleagues found that while Upward Bound students were retained in high school at higher rates than

their comparisons in the 10th and 11th grades, there was no significant difference by 12th grade. The

Upward Bound students, however, were significantly more likely to enroll in college. An additional

important finding was that the longer students remained in the program, the more likely they were to

benefit from it and to go on to college.

The most recent evaluation of Upward Bound conducted by Myers and Schirm (1999) was

much more sophisticated than earlier studies, and compared almost 1,500 Upward Bound students with

about 1,200 randomly selected control students from 67 programs across the country. The evaluation also

tracked students’ length of tenure in the program. While program attrition remained a major problem,

Myers and Schirm also found that the longer a student stayed in the program, the more likely the student

was to show significant benefits, including going on to college. The primary immediate impact of

Upward Bound was on increased numbers of social science and math credits earned in high school. It did

not have a significant impact on in-school activities, participation in extracurricular activities, GPA, high

school graduation, or college attendance. The researchers found some tentative evidence that the program

may have an impact on college performance, with a small portion of the sample earning more credits in 4-

year colleges, but the sample was too small and the students’ duration in the program too short to draw

firm conclusions. An important additional finding was that whites, Hispanics, males, and lower

performing students with initially lower aspirations were more likely to benefit from the program than

blacks, females, higher performing students, and those with higher initial aspirations. Myers and Schirm

estimate that the per-student annual cost of Upward Bound is about $4,200.

Evaluators concluded that two important ways to improve the program would be to stem

attrition and to enroll more high-risk students of the kind who seem to benefit most from the program.

The latter recommendation seems reasonable; however, one cannot assume that the program dynamics

would be the same if the mix of students were to change significantly. One might find that the presence

of a significant number of lower risk students in the program is an important element in its effectiveness

since these students provide important role models and probably are less labor intensive, freeing up time

for program staff to devote to higher risk students.

High School Programs That Serve Students by Classroom

Three high school programs, AVID, Puente, and College Pathways, provide the services in

the context of a classroom cohort. Students are selected to enter into a special class where the core of the

program is administered and a part of the intervention is the interaction of students within this classroom

context. AVID and Puente offer a daily class, beginning in the freshman year, where students form a

cohort for at least 2 years. College Pathways goes into English classrooms in the sophomore year and

recruits participants who will meet as a class on a weekly basis. An important difference between the

classroom-based programs and the individual programs is that in the former there is more of an emphasis

in working with the whole group, and the group is viewed as the target of intervention. In two of the

programs, special attention is paid to group dynamics both in and outside the classroom.
45

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID)

Program description

In some ways the Advancement via Individual Determination program is misnamed. The

use of the word “individual” in the program title is at odds with its philosophy, which emphasizes “social

scaffolding,” defined by its authors as “the engineering of instructional tasks so that students develop

their own competencies through their interactions with more capable peers or experts” (Mehan et al.,

1996, p. 78), and the building of a community of peers to support students’ aspirations. The program

began in 1980 in one school in San Diego, California, and since that time has grown to more than 500

sites in eight states and abroad. Students eligible for AVID are high school students from low-income,

ethnic, or linguistic minorities who have average to high achievement test scores, but C average grades.

Students are selected by program coordinators, usually on the recommendation of counselors, and parents

must sign a contract and agree to support their child in the program.

The key feature of the AVID program is what it refers to as “untracking,” or placing

underachieving students who would otherwise be in the general or vocational track into college

preparatory classes. In addition, the students are provided with extensive support services. They meet

daily in an AVID class with a trained AVID teacher who oversees a specific curriculum. Two days a

week, students meet in small groups for academic tutoring. Two other days are devoted to writing

development, note-taking, test-taking, and study strategies. Finally, 1 day a week is set aside for guest

speakers, field trips, and other motivational activities. Sometimes speakers focus on information

necessary to prepare for college. AVID also provides “public markers” for the students so that they

identify with the program and each other—AVID students carry special notebooks with the AVID logo,

eat lunch and socialize in the AVID room, and participate in a host of AVID-only activities.

Evaluation outcomes

The AVID program evaluation in 1996 (Mehan et al.) focused on 248 of 1,053 students who

participated in the program for 3 years and 146 of 288 students who had participated for 1 year or less at

eight San Diego high schools between 1990 and 1992. Selection of students was a function of who could

be located at the time of the study. It is not known to what extent there were biases in the samples. It is

also important to note that AVID does not keep track of the number of students who complete the

program compared to those who begin it, and thus, no overall attrition data are reported.

Of the 248 students who completed the AVID program and were in the study sample, 48

percent reported attending a 4-year college immediately after high school, 40 percent attended a 2-year

college, and 12 percent “were doing other things.” The researchers note that these figures compare

favorably with the data for San Diego public schools as whole, where 37 percent of students in the district

went on to 4-year colleges. They also found that the AVID completers compared favorably to the

students who only participated for 1 year or less; 34 percent of these students went on to 4-year colleges.

AVID appeared to be particularly effective with Hispanic and black students. For example,

whereas only 25 percent of Hispanic students in the San Diego schools went on to 4-year colleges in

1992, 43 percent of AVID completers did so. Among black students, 55 percent of AVID students

enrolled in 4-year colleges versus 38 percent for all other black students in the district. As with other

studies reported here, evaluators found that the longer students stayed in the program, the better their

outcomes. Importantly, the researchers also found that students from the lowest income stratum (less than
46

$20,000 annual income) enrolled in 4-year colleges at equal or higher rates than students from higher

income strata (between $20,000 and $65,000), and AVID students from homes where neither parent had a

college education were actually more likely to enroll in a 4-year college than those AVID students whose

parents were college graduates. Thus, like Upward Bound, AVID appears to have its greatest effects on

the most at-risk students.

Mehan et al. (1996) also attempted to interview students 1 and 2 years into college in order

to determine if the program had an effect on college persistence. The researchers cautioned that their

samples were too small to draw firm conclusions, but their findings did raise concerns. Interviewing 168

students who had been out of high school for 1 year and 46 who had been out for 2 years, they found very

little upward mobility. That is, few students transferred from 2-year to 4-year colleges or began college

during this period. About 7 percent transferred from 4-year to 2-year colleges, and 11 percent of these

students who had enrolled in 4-year colleges in 1992 had dropped out.

While the AVID study provides tentative evidence that underachieving students with

average or above average achievement test scores can be helped to go on to college at much higher rates,

the lack of true controls and factors associated with the selection of AVID students suggest that it is

important to exercise caution in interpretation of the data (Slavin and Fashola, 1998). Moreover,

achievement data including GPAs are not reported, so it is difficult to know to what extent students’

actual achievement had been improved by the program. On the other hand, AVID reports that the annual

costs per student are only about $625, a relatively modest sum for the array of services provided. The

researchers attributed much of the impact of the program to the transmission of “cultural capital” that it

provided and the supportive networks of faculty and peers who helped students to redefine themselves as

achievers.

Puente

Program description

The high school Puente project was an outgrowth of a highly successful community college

program that served 38 California colleges, which was expanded in 1993 and adapted to 18 high schools.

Puente serves a largely Hispanic clientele and has three major components: a 2-year college preparatory

English class, a Puente counselor, and a mentoring program. The English class, taught by a Puentetrained English teacher, integrates community-based writing, portfolio assessment, and Hispanic-authored

literature into the core college preparatory curriculum. The Puente counselor works closely with students

and parents to ensure that students are enrolled in college preparatory courses, that they are making good

progress, and that parents have the information they need to support their children’s academic success. A

Community Mentor Liaison (CML) recruits and trains successful, college-educated mentors from the

community. Both the Puente counselor and the mentor are usually Hispanic, which is seen as important

because these individuals are to serve as models of accomplishment as well as to share common

experiences with students and families in both English and Spanish as necessary.

Puente accepts ninth grade students along a wide continuum of achievement. Students are

usually selected based on recommendations of eighth grade counselors or teachers, and the most

important criterion for acceptance is a desire to improve one’s academic standing and go on to college. A

typical class of 30 Puente students is composed of equal proportions of low achievers (1.4 to 2.2 GPA),

moderate achievers (2.3 to 2.9 and 3.0 to 3.5 GPA), and high achievers (above 3.5 GPA). Students

should not test lower than 2 years below grade level in reading in order to be able to succeed in a rigorous

college preparatory curriculum. Parents are interviewed as a part of the selection process, and they must
47

agree to support their children in the program and to attend workshops and functions designed to include

them in their children’s education. Because the Puente class substitutes for the students’ regular English

class and thus students are programmed into it, attrition from Puente is quite low: approximately 88

percent of Puente students are still in the program at the point of graduation. Most attrition from the

program occurs when students move away or drop out of school altogether.

Evaluation outcomes

The Puente program was evaluated in 1998 by Gándara et al. using several samples of

students. Data were collected on more than 900 Puente students and 900 non-Puente students over 4

years in all four grades of high school on aspirations, attitudes toward school and achievement, and

preparation for college, and on 75 Puente students from three schools who were matched with 75 nonPuente students from the same schools on age, ethnicity, sex, eighth grade GPA, and reading scores. This

sample was followed longitudinally for the 4 years of high school and used to test for differences in high

school GPA, college preparatory course-taking, and college matriculation that could be attributed to

participation in the program. Additionally, ethnographies were conducted on a sample of 27 students in

three high schools to help interpret the quantitative data.

Evaluators found that Puente students were significantly better prepared to enter college than

their non-Puente peers with respect to students’ own assessment of their knowledge of what was needed

to apply successfully to college and their record of admissions test-taking. Puente students were also

significantly more likely to place a high value on going to college and to be willing to give up other

important things in their lives in order to achieve this goal. They were also more likely to want to be

known as a “good student” by others, a finding that was heartening in that it combated the problem of

peer pressure to not “act white” by excelling in school. While the pattern of attitudinal measures was

heavily weighted in favor of Puente participants both cross-sectionally and longitudinally over the 4

years, because pre-test data were not collected on the samples, it is impossible to know to what extent

selection factors may have had a role in producing these differences. However, longitudinal data suggest

that selection was almost certainly not a factor in measures of college preparation.

With respect to academic measures, there were no significant differences between Puente

students and their non-Puente controls on high school retention, GPA, or course-taking by the end of 12th

grade. However, there were some differences in college matriculation. Forty-three percent of Puente

students went on to 4-year colleges, compared to just 24 percent of the controls, and 41 percent of Puente

students went to 2-year colleges, compared to 51 percent of non-Puente controls. Thus, a total of 84

percent of Puente students went to either a 2- or 4-year college compared to 75 percent of non-Puente

students. Because the evaluation study ended in the same year that the students entered college, the

evaluators did not collect data on students’ persistence in college and longer term outcomes remain

unknown.

The Puente evaluators concluded that the program had a real impact on students’ attitudes,

aspirations, and preparation for going to college, as well as their rate of college enrollment. Noting that

non-Puente students with the same academic profiles did not apply to or gain acceptance to colleges in

nearly equivalent numbers, the Puente evaluators concluded that the program helped students to better

exploit their potential. They attributed this in large part to the network of supportive adults and peers in

the students’ lives, and especially to their counselors. Fifty-eight percent of the more than 900 Puente

students reported that their counselors influenced their decision making about going to college compared

to just 15 percent of a similar number of non-Puente classmates. Survey responses from high school

principals indicate that parent involvement in the Puente program is very high, and Puente students

themselves report significantly higher involvement in their schooling by their parents than non-Puente
48

Hispanics, white, and Asian students. This is particularly significant given the widespread finding in the

literature that Hispanic parents tend to be less overtly involved in their children’s schooling than

nonminority parents. Evaluators speculated that the high level of parental involvement was related to the

fact that the program actively sought to incorporate the parents’ culture and language into all parent

functions, and that counselors and mentors were able to communicate with parents in their own language

and encourage them to become involved in their children’s schooling.

The Puente program reports its annual per student costs to be about $500, making it one of

the lowest cost programs reviewed.

College Pathways

Program description

The College Pathways program is a project of the Fulfillment Fund that was incorporated in

Los Angeles, California, to work with disadvantaged youth within the school district in 1977. It serves

students in seven Los Angeles Unified School District high schools. The program is based on five goals:

love of learning, increased self-expectation, realized achievement, college matriculation, and community

service. The program targets historically underrepresented students who are potentially the first in their

families to attend college. Students are selected into the College Pathways class based on a belief that

they can profit from the program and are neither “good” nor “bad” enough to warrant special attention

from other sources. Parents are not required to support their children in the program in order for them to

be admitted. Some of the students in the program would otherwise be eligible for higher education but

might not go because of lack of information and appropriate preparation.

Students in the College Pathways 10th grade English classes are visited each week by

program staff or volunteers, who follow a curriculum that involves academic support in reading, writing,

public speaking, and critical thinking. Information is provided about college admissions, financial aid,

and career exploration, and students are required to visit at least two colleges each year. College visits,

including an occasional overnight, are included in the program. Similar activities are provided in the

junior and senior years, but students meet only once every 2 weeks at this point, and they are called out of

regular classes to attend the College Pathways meetings. According to the evaluators of the program,

many students do not attend these meetings. A separate mentoring program is also attached to the

program; however, little information was available on how this operated.

An advantage of the program at the 10th grade level is that it takes place in the students’

regular classrooms, thereby reducing the problem of attrition at this grade level. However, since

attendance is voluntary in the 11th and 12th grades, there is a problem of attrition at this point.

Evaluation outcomes

While the program has not been formally evaluated, it has been studied by the Center for

Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). CHEPA (1998) investigated the claims that College

Pathways students attended 4-year colleges in substantially higher percentages than other similar students

in the district and the state (about 30 percent versus 18 percent and 14 percent, respectively), but found

difficulty confirming the findings because of an inadequate record-keeping system. Nonetheless, it was

clear that the program was having an impact on students’ aspirations for postsecondary education. The
49

primary difficulty with the program, however, appeared to be a significant drop-off in program attendance

after the 10th grade such that only between 29 percent and 44 percent of original participants appeared to

be in the program at the point of graduation. However, of those retained, all were reported to go on to

college. Moreover, classroom observations did suggest that students were being exposed to material and

opportunities that would not have been available to them under ordinary circumstances, and this almost

certainly had an impact on some students’ decisions to pursue postsecondary education. The program

costs of about $980 per student annually place it at the lower end of the student-centered programs.

K-12 Programs by Classroom or Community

While most college preparation programs reviewed focused on the secondary school years,

and especially high school, a few began earlier. I Have a Dream was one such program.

I Have a Dream (IHAD)

Program description

The I Have a Dream Foundation was established in 1986 to launch local programs based on

the experience of Public School 121 in New York City, where Eugene Lang challenged the sixth graders

in 1981 to complete high school with the promise that he would give each graduate a scholarship to

college. Today there are more than 160 programs serving 12,000 student in 60 cities, and a great deal has

been written about the program. The personal and financial commitment to see students through the

difficult years of middle school and high school, combined with the promise of a tangible means for

getting to college if they successfully navigate that system, has captured the public’s imagination and led

some to conclude it is “the most exciting program” around (Levine and Nidiffer, 1996). Each program

must follow guidelines set out by the foundation, but there is considerable latitude to vary by site.

Sponsors may be individuals, groups, or corporations, and the project site can be at a school or in the

community. Particular elements of the program, however, must be present, that is, college scholarships,

counseling, mentoring, and tutoring. Students are to be adopted as a class or group, preferably in the 3rd

grade, or when they are 8 or 9 years old, but it can be at any point in elementary school, and the sponsors

are to maintain the commitment to continue working with the students through 12th grade. Thus, IHAD

is one of the few programs that monitors students through several school transitions. It is also one of the

few programs that directly address the costs of a college education.

Evaluation outcomes

While a great deal has been written in the popular press about the IHAD program, few

attempts have been made to carefully evaluate it. In one, Kahne and Bailey (1997), conducted an

extremely careful and thoughtful study of two Chicago area IHAD sites. They studied two classes for 2 1⁄2

years, beginning when the students were in the 11th grade and following them through high school

graduation. The classes were located in very low-income, high-risk neighborhoods, and the students had

begun the program when they were in the sixth grade. Almost all students were black or Hispanic. The

two sites were selected because they were “models” with respect to implementation and record-keeping.

They were models in other ways as well. Unlike all other sites in the Chicago area, only these two had

maintained the same project director for the entire duration of the program, and each had also benefited

from extensive additional staff, including Americorps volunteers and Princeton Project 55 program

interns. Thus, they had enjoyed almost unparalleled stability and extraordinary staff resources.
50

Evaluators selected the classes immediately preceding these classes in each of the two

schools as controls, so that the control students came from the same neighborhoods and schools and

differed in age only by 1 year. The high school graduation rates of the IHAD participants was 76 percent

at one of the sites and 69 percent at the other, more than twice the graduation rates for the control schools

(37 percent and 34 percent, respectively) (Kahne and Bailey, 1997). It was difficult to make comparisons

for college enrollment because detailed followup data were not available for the controls. The evaluators

compared the college-going rates of the IHAD students with the averages for all black and Hispanic

students in the Chicago Public Schools. Given the extremely low socioeconomic profiles of the IHAD

schools, it is likely that these comparisons would have been biased in favor of the comparison students.

Nonetheless, the overall college enrollment rate for IHAD participants was roughly three times that of the

comparisons. (Data were not provided on college persistence.) Clearly, these programs were extremely

successful in meeting their goals of high school graduation and college enrollment. The evaluators sought

to understand what elements of the program appeared to be responsible for this success, and which could

be successfully replicated for policy development purposes.

Kahne and Bailey found that the essential element that had contributed to the successful

outcomes in the IHAD program as it was implemented in these two sites was the development of strong

trusting relationships among the Project Coordinator (PC), staff, sponsors, and the students. These

relationships allowed for the transmission of social capital that aided the students in understanding their

options, increasing their aspirations, and achieving their goals. Because the role of the PC is critical to

the success of the enterprise, these two sites were at a significant advantage by having highly competent,

long-term PCs. Such continuity was seen as an important factor in students’ maintaining contact with the

program and even influencing them to return when they had taken a leave for a period of time.

Kahne and Bailey also noted, however, that the relationships were not universally successful

and depended to some extent on the match of personality, interests, sex, and ethnicity. For example,

sometimes white sponsors, with little personal understanding of the students’ circumstances, found it

difficult to create a meaningful relationship and maintained their distance from the students while

continuing to provide financial support. In contrast, the Princeton interns and Americorps volunteers

were sometimes able to form relationships with students with whom the PC had been unsuccessful.

Importantly, more than half of the student participants had been placed in parochial schools

as part of the IHAD program. Recognizing the limited ability of the Chicago public schools to provide

consistent monitoring and personal relationships with students, the program worked with families to

remove the most challenging students from the public schools. In a review of other Chicago area sites,

the evaluators found that although this is one strategy used by IHAD programs, it was not nearly as

prevalent a practice in other Chicago area programs. It is thus difficult to separate the independent effects

of IHAD activities from those of the parochial schools in which the students were enrolled. It was

notable, however, that 4-year versus 2-year college attendance was up to more than four times higher for

students attending parochial schools compared to those who had stayed in the Chicago public schools.

IHAD does not have a particular role for parents, because one philosophy of the program is

that students should not be excluded because their parents are unwilling to participate. While no

particular demands are placed on parents, neither is there a strong attempt to involve parents or to seek

their advice. The evaluators worried that the lack of contact with parents could also undermine their role,

sending the unintentional message that parental opinions, knowledge, and values were not important. The

evaluators did not uncover evidence from students that their relationship with their parents had been

eroded, but some students raised questions about the program’s failure to respect parents’ values in

sensitive issues such as birth control.
51

A typical IHAD program may cost between $1,000 and $3,000 per year per student, not

counting the cost of college scholarships. Costs vary depending on the extent to which students are

rerouted into private or parochial schools. (Both private schools and parents also made substantial

contributions to the private schooling costs, which are not considered in these figures.) It is also

important to note that the other Chicago IHAD programs had neither the same level of resources as the

programs studied, including the additional personnel, nor could they boast the impressive outcomes for

these programs.

Kahne and Bailey (1997) conclude that IHAD has the potential to create exceptional

outcomes for students at high risk for school failure, largely due to the profound relationships of trust that

can be developed within the context of the program over a long period of time. However, staff turnover

was common in most programs, with PCs averaging 2 years in this very demanding position. The PC’s

critical role in developing relationships with the students, the unique set of skills required of the PC, and

the huge demands of the job (students described contacting the PCs at all hours of the night to have them

intervene in family and personal crises), can be a weakness in the program. The evaluators also

acknowledge that by seeking school placements outside of the public schools, and relying to a large

extent on Catholic schools to help provide the social capital to support the program’s students, the

structures of public schooling are left untouched. Thus, the program can be extremely effective for small

numbers of students, but may not be capable of creating change in the structures and environments that

place students at risk in the first place, or that fail to aid them to overcome their disadvantages.

Kahne and Bailey report that it may be best to view the expansion of efforts such as IHAD

as “scaling down” from large bureaucratic programs that exist in schools rather than “scaling up,” which

means that relatively few students can be touched by such a program. It is the personal, consistent contact

with a caring and knowledgeable adult who is skillful in connecting with the student that appears to be at

the heart of the program’s success—an element that depends to a great extent on locating and retaining a

relatively unique individual in the role of PC—and one that by its nature, cannot be created on a large

scale. Unfortunately, success may also depend on removing students from the schools and environments

that the program cannot fix.

K-12 Programs That Serve Students by Schools

Very few programs took a systemic approach to stimulating college enrollment among

underrepresented students. As the exhibits show, most target individual students at the secondary or high

school level; a few reach down into the lower grades, but the focus remains mostly on individuals or

small groups of students. Two of the programs studied, GE College Bound and Project GRAD, have

attempted whole-school or systemwide reform.

GE's College Bound Program

Program description

The College Bound program was launched in 1989 by the GE Fund as an ambitious, 10-year,

$20 million effort to double or significantly increase the college-going rate in selected high schools. The

program, targeted to low-income and inner-city communities, has made 5-year grants of between

$250,000 and $1 million to 19 high schools in 17 communities. The College Bound approach is to allow

schools and communities to devise strategies that work best for them, but that are geared toward doubling

(or significantly increasing) the college-going rate for the whole school or for a substantial targeted
52

population within the school. The major requirements for the competitive grants are that the schools

agree to make necessary changes in curriculum and practice that will operate to raise the achievement of

students in the schools, and that they involve GE personnel in the design of the program and, to the extent

possible, as volunteers working within it. Additionally, schools must propose plans for professional

development, curricular modification, proposed structural changes (e.g., block scheduling), and student

enrichment activities. Local communities are given a great deal of flexibility to design a reform strategy.

Most programs work entirely within the targeted high school, but some involve feeder

middle and elementary schools as well. Some program components are found at nearly all the sites, such

as field trips to colleges and cultural sites, SAT preparation courses, homework assistance, college

counseling, and summer academic enrichment programs. However, each school has developed its own

approach and emphases, and different schools serve quite distinct populations. Most program sites are

east of Mississippi, but one is in New Mexico and one is in Texas.

Evaluation outcomes

The GE College Bound program has been recently evaluated by Bailis et al. (1999). The

evaluators had to base their analyses on data that had been collected by each school in the program, and

these data were not always consistent or adequate. They also found it impossible to identify appropriate

control schools or groups of students for each of the varied experiments, and for comparison, they chose

the schools' baseline college-going rates and national samples. Given these limitations, the findings for

the study are promising.

Four factors contributed to sustainability of programs over time: taking a whole-school

(versus a targeted population) approach; the presence of one or more strong program champions (often

offseting the high turnover of school administrators); ongoing relationships with the local GE partner; and

supplemental grants from GE (which helped to deepen the school's investment in the program). The

researchers report that college-going was increased significantly at 7 of the 10 programs for which there

were sufficient data to draw conclusions, and the effects were greatest for those schools where the initial

college-going rate was lowest. College-going rates more than doubled at four of the five sites with initial

rates below 50 percent. In fact, College Bound graduates were more likely to attend college than

comparable students nationally (76 percent of College Bound graduates versus 71 percent of all students

nationally). The differences in college-going rates were greatest for those students whose parents had

little or no college education.

The study by Bailis et al. was unique among those reviewed in that it attempted to answer

the question of whether the program had longer term effects on college retention and completion. The

evaluators interviewed 361 graduates from two different program cohorts by telephone and found that 87

percent of College Bound students completed their first year of college, compared to just 70 percent

nationally. Moreover, only 28 percent of College Bound students had dropped out of college without a

degree, compared to 37 percent nationally. It is not clear, however, which program features might have

led to these outcomes, nor how comparable these students were with the national sample.

While the GE evaluation was challenged in some ways by the diversity of program types and

sites that it attempted to study, it also had a unique advantage in that it was able to look somewhat

dispassionately at different program features across sites because there was no particular program model

to which all participants were wedded. That allowed the evaluators to observe the factors that operated to

sustain healthy programs.
53

Program evaluators chose not to cite per-pupil costs associated with the program because of

the difficulty in specifying who was a participant in what were largely whole-school initiatives. It is

important to note, however, that while the investment in the schools was large, it was spread over many

years and many students.

In sum, the GE evaluation appears to point to several particularly important findings: (1)

schools can improve the preparation they provide for underrepresented students if given sufficient and

sustained resources and support; (2) allowing schools to adopt strategies, within a common broad

framework, that work for their local context is a viable approach to improving college access; (3)

students who come from homes with the lowest educational levels may be the most advantaged by these

programs; (4) effective college access programs may have longer term effects on college retention and

graduation; and (5) utilizing volunteers for the purpose of mentoring is a complex and difficult

undertaking.

Project GRAD

Program description

Project GRAD assumes that significant numbers of students cannot be moved toward high

school graduation and college enrollment unless the schools that educate them are changed, starting at the

earliest grades. Project GRAD was first initiated in 1993-94 in the Houston Independent School District

to improve the instructional culture and effectiveness of the school system in dealing with at-risk students.

It began with one nine-school feeder system and has subsequently been installed in two more feeder

systems. The program grew out of the Tenneco Presidential Scholarship Program that provided college

scholarships for Davis High School graduates. Recognizing that challenging students in high school to

graduate and go on to college was too late to change the fortunes of many at-risk youth, the Houston

district, together with a retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company and other individuals, agencies, and

businesses, set out to rethink the education that these children were receiving from the time they first

entered the system.

Project GRAD’s philosophy is that educational failure can be prevented through a strong

primary curriculum that builds students’ self-discipline and confidence while stimulating a love for

learning. By working with a feeder pattern of schools, some of the problems of student mobility are

addressed as well. Even if students change schools, as long as they remain in the same cluster of high

school feeder schools (which research shows that many do), they will continue to be monitored in the

program. What is unique about the Project GRAD program is that it is systemic, following students from

their first days in school into high school, and that the program developers sought out the best researched

models they could find and wove them into a total reform package designed to meets the needs of the

Houston schools.

The four areas that the program targets for reform are math, reading, instructional

environment, and parent involvement. Thus, MOVE IT Math and the University of Chicago School Math

Program (UCSMP) address mathematics instruction from the first years through high school; Success for

All (SFA) and Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC) are focused on reading and

writing development from kindergarten or first grade through middle school; Consistency Management &

Cooperative Discipline (CMCD) is a classroom management and self-discipline program that is

implemented throughout the grades, including high school, to address issues of classroom learning

environment and school climate; and the Communities in Schools (CIS) program provides for the social
54

service needs of pupils and their families throughout the grades, and organizes parent involvement

activities. Finally, the Scholarship program is designed to attack motivational issues and make it possible

for all students who qualify to go on to college. Each of these programs has a considerable body of

literature behind it and uses research-based methods.

Another important aspect of the program has been the extensive staff development provided

by a number of the program developers (SFA, CIRC, CMCD) that also entails up to six followup sessions

during the school year. Teachers expressed a great deal of satisfaction with staff development, and

requested more. A critique of Project GRAD made by some researchers, however, is that the program

does not incorporate a community voice sufficiently into its plan, and thus it may lack sensitivity to some

cultural features of the communities it serves.

Evaluation outcomes

Project GRAD pays a great deal of attention to school climate as a precursor to student

achievement. In the evaluation conducted by Opuni (1998), the Comprehensive Assessment of School

Environments (CASE) instrument was used to measure and monitor a number of factors that contribute to

positive or negative learning environments in schools, including community relations, school

administration, and student-student and student-teacher relations. Opuni found that in both 1995-96 and

1997-98, all schools fell into the normal range on these dimensions, considered to be quite a feat in itself

because that is atypical for schools serving at-risk urban youngsters. Unfortunately, pre-Project GRAD

data had not been collected, so it is not possible to know to what extent the program was responsible for

these fairly positive outcomes. Both pre-test and post-test data were collected, however, on teachers’

perceptions of similar factors in a survey of project impact on the schools. With 93 percent of teachers

responding in the first cluster of feeder schools, the findings suggest that there has been significant

improvement across all dimensions of school climate, including teachers’ expectations of students.

Moreover, the increased level of satisfaction among teachers bodes well for a decrease in teacher

mobility.

With respect to student discipline, referrals to the principal’s office across the feeder

elementary schools declined by 74 percent since the inception of the program in 1994-95. Student

achievement is also on the upswing. Across all cohorts of students in the original feeder elementary

school cluster, as well as in the 10th grade at the high school, Project GRAD students are outperforming

their peers in comparison schools in math and, in some cases, in reading on the Texas Assessment of

Academic Skills (TAAS) test.

Project GRAD has found that the longer the students stay in the program, the higher they

achieve above grade-level expectations. Thus, intensity of exposure to the program appears to have an

effect on outcomes. However, Project GRAD schools have a serious problem of both student and teacher

mobility, such that it was impossible to draw conclusions from some reading tests administered because

not enough students remained in the same schools to allow for sufficient sample sizes. At the high school

level, the numbers of graduating seniors has almost doubled, and four times as many students now go on

to college compared to the pre-1988 graduates (the year that the $1,000 annual scholarship became

available).

Project GRAD is a large-scale effort to reform Houston’s schools and to provide every

student with a greater opportunity to learn. It involves research-based instructional reforms and addresses

many of the shortcomings of low-income, inner-city schools. Although it is relatively new, it appears to

be creating important changes in school climate and some student achievement indicators. Nonetheless,

there are still many problems to confront. Student mobility is high, and no program can have a significant
55

impact when students are not exposed to it consistently and over a sufficient period of time. Most of the

resources of Project GRAD (apart from the scholarships) are front-loaded into the elementary and middle

schools, with the hope that by strengthening students’ skills and attitudes early, less extensive

intervention will be necessary later. However, we have seen that students in at-risk environments can

remain vulnerable throughout their schooling, and programs that provide one-on-one monitoring of the

progress toward graduation and college enrollment for adolescents can also capture students who would

otherwise be lost to the system. Project GRAD stops short of this kind of intervention at the high school

level.

Project GRAD does not report per-student costs of the program, although they do note that

over $10 million has been raised for the program from a large number of private sponsors. With perhaps

25,000 to 30,000 students now affected by the program, the actual per-student cost is probably relatively

low when compared to programs that focus on individual students. Nonetheless, it is an endeavor that has

required significant private funding to implement.

Statewide Programs Serving All (Underrepresented) Students

Both federal and state governments support various early intervention programs to increase

access to higher education for underrepresented students. The greatest investment by the federal

government has been in the TRIO programs, of which Upward Bound (reviewed earlier) is the largest.

While these programs are funded by the federal government, they are administered locally, and therefore

each differs somewhat according to local circumstances. Legislation was passed in 1992 establishing the

National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership Program (NEISP), which set out matching funds

for states that agree to provide both scholarship funding and support services for underrepresented

students. Total appropriations in 1998 were only $3.6 million. Nine states were participating in the

NEISP program in 1998. The most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in October 1998

included a $120 million allocation for FY1999 for a new program, Gaining Early Awareness and

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), which supercedes NEISP. Matching funds are

available to both states and educational consortia. The conditions for participation are essentially the

same as for the NEISP program, with minor modifications. Because GEAR UP is new, little is yet known

about how it is faring. Moreover, because education is largely left up to the individual states, there is no

federal program that could be evaluated as a strictly federal enterprise. There are, however, numerous

statewide initiatives.

Perna and Swail (1998) identified 15 states with active early intervention programs to help

underrepresented students gain access to college. While there are others, most do not provide evaluation

data that allow for an assessment of their effectiveness. While states may support programs that fit into

other categories, such as high school programs that serve individual students, the statewide programs tend

to be unique in that they attempt to impose strategies that have an overall impact. Three such programs

—Florida’s College Reach Out Program, Indiana’s Career and Postsecondary Advancement Center/ 21st

Century Scholars, and Minnestota’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program—represent quite

different strategies and have been evaluated for their effectiveness.
56

Florida’s College Reach Out Program (CROP)

Program description

The College Reach Out Program is a statewide program designed to strengthen the

educational motivation and preparation of low-income, educationally disadvantaged students in grades 6

through 12 who “otherwise could be unlikely to seek admission to a community college, state university

or independent postsecondary institution without special support and recruitment efforts” (Section 240.61

(1) Florida Statutes). The program recruits the students and provides them with academic enrichment

activities and career and personal counseling.

Forty-six of 67 Florida counties, with approximately 6,200 students in grades 6 to 12,

participated in CROP in 1995-96. The overwhelming majority of students served were black (78

percent), and the remaining small percentages were white, Hispanic, and Asian. The highest percentages

of students participated in the 7th, 8th, and 11th grades, with an average of 56 percent of students

returning to the program each year. Each local program differed in its mix of program activities;

however, grants are competitive and programs must present a comprehensive package of support

elements, including academic support and college readiness components, in order to obtain funding. The

cost of the program in 1995-96 was reported to be $365 per student.

Evaluation outcomes

CROP was evaluated by Florida’s Postsecondary Education Planning Commission (PEPC)

in 1998. The study is somewhat unique in that it attempted to evaluate the program from several

perspectives: it compared the 1995-96 CROP high school graduates with a random group of non-CROP

graduates (CROP students are not representative of all Florida students) for postsecondary choices; it

compared the 1991-92 CROP graduates with a random group of non-CROP graduates for postsecondary

outcomes in 1995-96; and it investigated the characteristics of the most successful CROP programs to

determine which program features appeared to be associated with successful outcomes.

The 1991-92 cohort of CROP students differed little from the non-CROP comparison

students with respect to enrollment in postsecondary education (52 percent of CROP versus 49 percent of

non-CROP), and 78 percent of both groups went to community colleges first. About half of the students

who completed community college continued on to a 4-year college. The percentage of students

completing degrees within 5 years was nearly identical—only 6 percent of both groups had received an

associate’s degree and 3 percent a bachelor’s degree. Twenty-seven percent of CROP students and 25

percent of non-CROP students were still enrolled in college 5 years later. Although CROP students were

disproportionately low income and educationally disadvantaged, they performed similarly to the nonCROP students, which suggests that the program may have had the effect of leveling the playing field for

the students in the program.

The 1995-96 cohort of CROP high school graduates, however, actually outperformed its

random comparisons with respect to enrollment in postsecondary institutions (51 percent versus 43

percent). Of those CROP students continuing their education, 36 percent enrolled in 4-year institutions

compared to only 29 percent of the non-CROP students. Of these students, 71 percent of CROP students

and 78 percent of non-CROP students had a GPA of 2.0 or better in their freshman year. Fifty-three

percent of CROP students and only 39 percent of non-CROP comparisons were required to take remedial

courses in core subjects in college. These outcomes were especially noteworthy since criteria for
57

participation had been made more stringent by 1995-96, and 79 percent of participating CROP students

were both economically and educationally disadvantaged. This fact was evident in the 10th grade

comparisons of reading scores in which the non-CROP students significantly outperformed the CROP

students. For both the 1991-92 and 1995-96 cohort comparisons, certain questions are left unanswered.

Because there were no preprogram comparison data presented, and because students were not matched on

important background characteristics, it is very difficult to know which outcomes can be attributed to the

program and which are a result of selection factors such as willingness to seek help, motivation to pursue

postsecondary education, parental support, and persistence.

The evaluation study is particularly helpful in its investigation of factors that very successful

programs identified as key to their effectiveness. The three programs with the best results all agreed that

parental involvement, close tutor/teacher/counselor relationships with students, and continuous and

consistent contact were critical factors in their success. Parental involvement in the program was a proxy

of sorts for parental support of the students, which proved to be very important for their academic

advancement. This evaluation, like so many others, also concluded that the close personal relationship

with a key supportive adult was an effective strategy for success, and consistent contact between students

and their mentors, tutors, or teachers was key to the strength of that relationship. Other factors that were

cited by a number of program sites included the availability of tuition scholarships (not all programs

provide scholarships), summer programs and field trips that add to student retention, and community

involvement, which can also be instrumental in gaining financial support for the program.

CROP appears to be providing important support and information for students such that

many who would not otherwise choose postsecondary education appear to be doing so, and their survival

rates in college appear comparable to other more typical students in the Florida schools. On the other

hand, it serves a relatively small number of students, and there is also high turnover in the program—

about half of students do not return from year to year. Florida’s experience does, however, confirm a

common finding in the literature: the most effective programs provide consistent monitoring of students

in the context of a close relationship between individual students and at least one supportive adult.

Indiana Career and Postsecondary Advancement Center (ICPAC)/21st Century

Scholars

Program description

The Indiana Career and Postsecondary Advancement Center was created in 1986 by the

Indiana General Assembly to help prepare more of Indiana’s students for higher education. In 1990, the

21st Century Scholars, a program designed to provide financial support to ensure that all eligible students

in the state, regardless of family income, could attend a postsecondary institution, became part of the

ICPAC portfolio. Indiana’s postsecondary initiatives grew out of a growing concern that a relatively

small percentage of the state’s high school students were pursuing a college education, which was having

a negative effect on the state’s economy. Research indicated that the state’s economy was lagging in the

production of knowledge-based employment opportunities that attract college graduates. State legislators

reasoned that these were the kinds of jobs that were created by entrepreneurs, and to create the jobs, it

would first be necessary to educate the students.

Indiana represents a unique and interesting approach to the problem of increasing collegegoing among its youth. It is a multi-pronged effort, including services, scholarships, and a careful study

of the attitudes, conditions, and resources surrounding postsecondary education. The program has also

been generously supported by the Lilly Endowment and is an example of state-foundation partnership.
58

In 1986, Indiana ranked 39th in the nation with respect to percentage of high school

graduates pursuing postsecondary education. Only 37.5 percent of high school graduates enrolled in any

kind of higher education institution. To approach the problem systematically, the state partnered with the

Lilly Endowment to study why students made the postsecondary choices that they did and to identify the

barriers to postsecondary education. Gary Orfield of Harvard University and Faith Paul of the Public

Policy Research Consortium in Chicago were commissioned to study the challenges that the state faced

and the options that lay before it in attempting to change college-going patterns in Indiana.

Orfield and Paul (1994) found that while Indiana’s students expressed high aspirations for

professional employment, many had little understanding of what was required to realize their dreams.

Although students enjoyed easy access to counselors in the high schools, counselors lacked a good

understanding of the higher education system, and many students—especially those of color and those

from low-income backgrounds—lacked both information and financial resources to make college a real

possibility. Orfield and Paul found that the school system was segregated by vocational and college

preparatory tracks, and that if a student was routed into the vocational track because of lack of

information or understanding of the requirements for professional employment, it was nearly impossible

to become college eligible. Gatekeeping courses were reserved for the students who declared their

academic intentions early. Based on the information available from the report, the ICPAC fine-tuned its

programs and dedicated itself to two major efforts: collection, analysis, and dissemination of information

about college-going, and financial incentives and support to attend college.

State planners concluded that they had two choices in how to spend their limited state

dollars: on an intensive program that would provide extensive support for a few students with greatest

need, or on an extensive program that would provide information and financial support for large numbers

of students (Gillie, 1999). Indiana chose the latter. ICPAC has focused on three strategies:

• Providing a massive guidance information and awareness campaign that begins in the

7th grade by contacting every family with initial information about postsecondary

options, including college, then continuing with a flow of information through the 12th

grade that provides all necessary steps to prepare for and apply to college.

• Restructuring the secondary curriculum to provide academic rigor to more students,

including introduction of the Core 40 program, a statewide campaign to encourage all

students to take the basic college preparatory course load that will qualify them for

admission to a 4-year college if they choose to apply.

• Reducing the financial barrier to college through state grant and scholarship programs

that provide between 80 percent and 100 percent of tuition and fees depending on the

student’s academic standing, and scholarships through the 21st Century Scholars

program, which guarantees fully paid college tuition to all low-income students who are

Indiana residents and meet the eligibility criteria for admission.

ICPAC has instituted other strategies as well to strengthen the curriculum, reduce the costs

of college, and stimulate greater interest in postsecondary education:

• Indiana pays the cost of the Advanced Placement exam for any student wishing to take

the test in English, math, or science.
59

• The Indiana University Early College Program is available at over 60 high schools to

allow students to take college courses through distance education.

Evaluation outcomes

Because Indiana viewed the low college-going rate of its youth as an economic and qualityof-life problem for the state (as opposed to individual students), it has evaluated its efforts by comparing

its standing on a number of dimensions against rankings for the states. Thus, Indiana judges its efforts at

stimulating college matriculation as successful because its ranking in the nation on this indicator rose

from 39th in 1986 to 20th in 1996. Progress on this goal was particularly strong in the period after the

publication of High Hopes, Long Odds in 1994. Between 1990 and 1995, the percentage of Indiana

students enrolling in higher education grew from 48.6 percent to 56.3 percent.

Indiana has been especially effective in moving more students into its college preparatory

track. Between 1994-95 and 1997-98, interest in the Core 40 program grew from 11 percent to 37 percent

of ninth graders. Likewise, the percentage of students graduating with the state’s Academic Honors

Diploma increased from 5.5 percent in 1990 to 15.3 percent in 1997.

The 21st Century Scholars program comprises a parent education component supported by

the Lilly Endowment, an outreach and support component supported by NEISP, and a service learning

component sponsored, in large part, by the Prudential Youth Leadership program. Americorps staff

provide tutoring, mentoring, and monitoring of student progress in high school. Students are invited to

sign up for the Scholars program at the end of eighth grade. They must be eligible for state assistance and

pledge to take the Core 40 courses, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, and to graduate with at least a 2.0

average. If a student meets all of these criteria, 21st Century Scholars promises to ensure the full cost of

tuition at any Indiana college or university to which the student is accepted. (Because it is a last-dollar

scholarship, the program pays the difference between all other scholarships and aid and the student’s

need.)

In the first cohort of students in 1990, 5,757 students signed up and 2,621 (46 percent) met

the conditions of the scholarship. Of these, 1,421 students (54 percent) used their award to attend college

in the first year, and 1,246 returned in the second year. Data for the second cohort to reach college were

similar, with more students enrolling initially (6,347), 44.5 percent of whom met the conditions. Some 65

percent of those students meeting the conditions of the scholarship attended college. Between 1989 and

1999, Indiana doubled the number of financial aid offers it made to college-going students and tripled the

amount of funding it provided.

Thus, as Gillie (1999) pointed out, Indiana found itself at a crossroads in 1990. It assessed

its problem of undeveloped human resources and decided to use its limited resources to provide extensive

services that targeted a large percentage of the state’s students with information and substantial financial

support for college. The evidence suggests that Indiana’s strategies have been successful.
60

Minnesota’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program (PEOP)

Program description

Minnesota’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program was instituted in 1985 as a direct

response to increased pressure in the state for “choice” programs in the form of vouchers. From the

perspective of students and families, the PEOP offered the opportunity to take college courses that would

count for credit both at the secondary and the college level, thereby giving students a head start on college

and reducing the costs of a higher education (all courses were paid for by the state). Minnesota’s PEOP

has been evaluated recently, and it is a model that other states have used, sometimes for different

purposes. For example, New Jersey has experimented with enrolling some at-risk high school students

into community colleges as a means of providing an environment—and an incentive to continue

schooling—aimed at stemming dropout rates and better meeting the needs of students who do not fit well

into the structure of high school. Minnesota does not address this potential benefit, and the criteria for

attendance at the postsecondary institutions are stringent enough that at-risk students are unlikely to be

accepted—in most cases high school students must meet higher criteria for admission than regularly

enrolled college students. Nonetheless, the Minnesota experience provides important insights into the

potential of this type of strategy to increase student achievement and provide increased options for

completing high school and increasing postsecondary enrollment.

In order to participate in PEOP, students wishing to attend classes at a state 4-year college or

university must be in the upper one-third of their class; for enrollment in the community colleges,

students must be in the upper half of their class. Students may take courses in both their junior and senior

years, and most elect to take social studies and language courses. Grades and credit received at the

college are transferred to the high school; most students’ GPAs are relatively unaffected because students

tend to get similar grades in college courses as in high school classes. In 1994-95, about 6 percent of all

juniors and seniors in Minnesota’s public schools participated in the program; almost two-thirds of

participants were female, and about three-quarter were seniors.

Evaluation outcomes

The evaluation of the PEOP program was conducted by the Program Evaluation Division of

the Office of the Legislative Auditor in 1996. It is largely a descriptive study, employing no comparisons

or controls to assess student outcomes. However, considerable survey data were collected on all

participants (students, parents, teachers, and administrators) to assess strengths and weaknesses of the

program. Students and parents were found to be overwhelmingly happy with the experience, and twothirds of students could not name a single weakness with the program. Program administrators, however,

were less enthusiastic. Almost one-third of postsecondary administrators cited lack of academic or

emotional maturity on the part of student participants as a significant weakness, while high school

administrators worried that students took nondemanding courses and that the program actually cost the

districts money (since colleges received per-course compensation that otherwise would have gone to the

high schools). Since no data were collected on the extent to which this program stimulated college-going

or captured students who might not otherwise have gone on to college, it is unknown whether the

program had such an impact. However, data on who participates in the program and to whom the costs

and benefits accrue provide some insights into this issue.

While minority students appeared to participate in the program commensurate with their

percentage in the Minnesota population (about 10 percent), there were significant differences in
61

participation according to income. Families with incomes above $45,000 were much more likely to

participate than low-income families. Moreover, when the costs of attending the program were

calculated, evaluators found that upper income families were the greatest beneficiaries of the program

since they would have had to pay college tuition in order for their children to take the same courses that

they took for free in high school. Lower income families could have depended on some aid from the state

to meet these college expenses in any case. Also, whereas the program was envisioned as adding only

marginal costs to the college budgets, since they were only required to accept students on a spaceavailable basis, the program cost an estimated $10 million in 1994-95 because institutions tended to

accommodate as many students as were eligible and applied. Since the state covered the costs of

educating the students, there were financial incentives for accepting more students. In sum, the PEOP

program, while producing highly satisfied “customers” and providing more school choice options for

Minnesota’s high school students, also operates to redistribute state funds to the most affluent portion of

the population. It substantially decreased the cost of education for the participating families, who were

disproportionately in upper income brackets, but had little effect on the cost of higher education for the

poorest families since they were much less likely to participate.

Lower income families tended to participate less for several reasons. One, transportation

was a problem—families had to make their own arrangements for transportation, and those living closer

to colleges, or who had more ready means of transportation, were more likely to attend. Second, the

criteria established for participation excluded lower performing students and those who were limited

English proficient. Finally, no special effort was made by the state agencies to encourage low-income

families to participate, and those families who were most adept at gaining information, i.e., those with the

greatest social capital, were most likely to apply.

Postsecondary enrollment programs for high school students can be used to achieve

numerous goals, including providing more challenging curriculum for high achieving students, offering

incentives for students who may have struggled in high school to continue their education, and facilitating

a college experience for some borderline students who might not have considered higher education as an

option. Fiscal policies can also be constructed that redistribute benefits to the most disadvantaged in

society. However, most of these goals were not part of the Minnesota initiative, so while this evaluation

yields the finding that such a program can be highly effective in producing a satisfied clientele, Minnesota

has not tested the limits of its program with respect to increasing access for underrepresented students.

Issues in Evaluation

The programs included in this section incorporate the more exacting evaluations of program

effectiveness found in the literature. Nonetheless, it is apparent that there is great variability in the rigor

of these studies, and in almost cases, they could be improved considerably with a few standard

modifications. Few evaluations employed true control groups, that is, comparisons between students who

had been randomly selected into the program and those who had not, or comparisons to students who had

not participated in the program and who were matched with participants on significant background

characteristics like socioeconomic status, race, and ability scores. Drawing comparisons to “all other

students nationwide” or to other students in the same school district or state ignores the fact that the

program participants were normally selected into the program by some process, and they were not like all

other students.

An important way to strengthen comparisons and partially control for bias in the control

groups is to collect baseline data on students from the point just prior to their entry in the program and

then to compare their growth over time with that of students who are not in the program. However,

studies with baseline data on student participants were rare. It was also uncommon to find studies that
62

had true longitudinal comparisons, beginning with a baseline data point. Most studies simply collected

outcome data at one point in time, leaving unknown what differences could be observed from preprogram to post-program.

Some programs simply provided information about responses to surveys conducted on

selected participants (those they were able to locate and who agreed to participate, introducing substantial

selection bias). It was often impossible to determine what the response rates were to these surveys, and

thus to what extent they may have represented a highly skewed sample (for example, only those

individuals who were either happy enough with the program, or upset enough with it, to want to have

their say). While these data can serve an important purpose in understanding how students experience a

program and how the program might be strengthened or improved, they are of limited value in measuring

how effective the program was compared to other kinds of interventions or no intervention at all.

There also seemed to be a lack of specificity of outcomes and measurement. For example,

many programs purported to “double” college-going but were not specific about what they meant by

“college.” Was it part-time attendance at a community college while holding a full-time job? Was it fulltime attendance at a 4-year college? The answer to this question has major implications for the likelihood

that the students will persist in college and actually earn a degree. It was also rare to find programs that

measured anything beyond college-going, such as grade point averages, college admissions scores, or

some other measure of achievement, including first-year persistence. It was not possible to know whether

the program influenced achievement or simply matriculation to a postsecondary institution. The few

studies that did report such data seem to indicate that affecting achievement is a much more difficult task

than affecting college-going. Since high school achievement is a much stronger predictor of persisting in

college and completing a degree than simply matriculating, these missing data are important.

Few programs kept careful track of participant attrition. Usually the number of students who

are measured on some dimension(s) for the purposes of evaluation were actually a subset of those who

started the program. Seldom was it possible to discern the percentage these students represented of that

initial cohort. This practice introduces enormous bias into the findings, since students who persist are

more likely to be successful in any undertaking than those who do not. The failure to keep track of

program attrition means that important opportunities are lost to learn more about what might help keep

students in programs and on track for high school graduation and postsecondary education.

While many people in education decry the mere notion of cost-benefit analysis as a

simplistic response to a complex problem, the virtual absence of any discussion about the costs of

programs and program components as they relate to outcomes is of concern. Given that resources are

limited, it would seem reasonable to deploy available resources in the most effective way possible.

However, in the absence of any evaluation of what works best at what cost, it is impossible to make these

judgments. Cost information sought from the programs studied was often difficult or impossible to

obtain. Even where such data are reported, it is with the caveat that it is generally the evaluator’s best

guess, because very few definitive analyses of program costs exist.

Social science research is fraught with limitations and pitfalls, and research in schools is

many times more difficult because of severe restrictions placed on researchers, the need for approval to

ask even the most benign questions of a minor, and the myriad problems of tracking highly mobile

students who tend to change schools or leave them altogether. Nonetheless, the incorporation of a few

standard methodological procedures into the studies that are done could strengthen greatly our knowledge

base about how and how well these programs work. Improving evaluation procedures could provide the

data necessary to improve programs.
63

7. CONCLUSIONS

Section 3, Study Methods, describes how programs that met the criteria for being college

preparatory and that had conducted evaluations with sufficient rigor to allow some conclusions about their

effects were identified. It is certain that some important programs were missed in this process. The scope

of this activity is enormous, and there is presently no central repository for information about these

programs. While there are many notable efforts to improve student achievement in the K-12 sector, and

many thousands of programs in schools across the nation, the scope of this study was limited to programs

that focused specifically on college enrollment as their chief outcome goal. However, even with these

acknowledged limitations, much has been learned about ways to improve the chances for

underrepresented students going on to higher education.

Effective Practices

From the review of evaluative studies of early intervention programs, the most effective

programs appear capable of at least doubling the college-going rate of participants. Students and families

report that these programs open both eyes and doors to postsecondary possibilities. The passion,

dedication, and commitment that are evidenced by staff and directors of these programs point the way to

successful strategies. The literature also suggests how the strategies these programs employ may be

implemented in different contexts. The programs that appeared to be the most effective had the following

elements in common:

• Providing a key person who monitors and guides the student over a long period of

time—a mentor, program director, faculty member, or guidance counselor. Studies are

not clear on which of these is most effective.

• Providing high-quality instruction through access to the most challenging courses

offered by the school (“untracking”), through special coursework that supports and

augments the regular curricular offerings (tutoring and specially designed classes), or by

revamping the curriculum to better address the learning needs of the students.

• Making long-term investments in students rather than short-term interventions. It was

clear that the longer students were in a program, the more they were reported to benefit

from it.

• Paying attention to the cultural background of students. Many programs reported having

greater success with one group of students than another. The background and expertise

of the staff and directors likely helped them make cultural connections with students.

• Providing a peer group that supports students’ academic aspirations and that meets for

academic as well as social and emotional support.

• Providing financial assistance and incentives. Financial assistance is important for

access to academic leveling experiences—college visits and SAT preparation courses—

as well as access to monetary support to make college a realistic possibility for some

students. Scholarships can make the difference between going to college or not for

many low-income students (Thomas, 1998; St. John, 1990; Gándara, 1995).
64

Program Limitations

Limitations for many of these program efforts included the following:

• Program attrition. Few programs either report or know how many students who begin

their program actually complete it, although an estimated third to half of all students

who begin in these programs leave them before completion or before high school

graduation. Nonetheless, programs commonly report very high percentages of

participants going on to college based on counting only the number of participants in the

graduating class. Because of cost and the labor-intensive nature of the services

provided, few students in any given school are normally included in such a program.

Based on High School and Beyond data, Adelman (2000) estimates that no more than

11.4 percent of black and 5.3 percent of Hispanic students participate, at any level, in

such programs.

• Participant selection. Few programs were explicit about how students were selected to

participate and about the characteristics of the most successful participants. This kind of

information is critically important to judge who can best benefit from the program.

• Participation of males. Boys are seriously underrepresented in these programs.

Generally, only about one-third of participants are males.

• Records on program contact. Few programs keep records on the amount of contact

that participants have with the program. Similarly, programs are often vague about what

constitutes completion or retention in the program. Without this information it is

difficult to know if a program can be credited for student outcomes, or if they are a result

of other factors.

• Sector approach. Programs are usually nonsystemic. Since most programs serve only

one sector of the K-12 system, services are noncontinuous. Without a continuous

intervention, gains made at one level may be lost at the next.

• Academic achievement. While some programs were able to demonstrate that they

doubled college-going among their participants (compared to controls), evidence that

programs are effective in raising academic achievement as measured by grades or test

scores is limited.

• Type of postsecondary institutions. Because measured achievement is not generally

raised, programs are most effective at increasing college-going to community colleges

and less selective 4-year colleges. They do not appear to have a major impact on

increasing the numbers of students who go on to selective colleges and universities who

would not otherwise have done so.

• Long-term outcomes. Little is known about long-term outcomes for students. Most

programs so not have data that show if they increase the rates at which participants

obtain college degrees when compared to students who have not participated in the

program.

• Costs. Very little is reported about the costs of these programs. This review does not

address the relationship between costs and outcomes.
65

Program Evaluation

Perhaps most troubling was the finding that so few programs had engaged in a thorough

evaluation of their activities. Program staff commonly operated on the assumption that their programs

were effective, but data were not available to support that belief. Evaluation may be viewed as a threat to

the program rather than a means to improve it, document its effectiveness, or better understand how it

works. Because of the widespread absence of evaluation, many questions remain unanswered:

• How effective are most of these programs at meeting their goals of increasing collegegoing rates when compared to similar students who have not been enrolled in such a

program?

• While careful monitoring and guidance of students is clearly beneficial, who might most

effectively provide this service—teaching staff, counselors, mentors, or specialized

program staff?

• How can programs increase their impact on student achievement?

• How can programs most effectively stem student attrition?

• What happens to graduates of these programs after they matriculate in college? Are

students equipped to succeed in a college environment?

• How can programs maximize their resources? Which features of the programs are most

(cost) effective?

To answer these questions, it would be important to:

• Collect baseline data on program participants and comparisons. Were there differences

between participants and comparison students before the program intervention?

• Monitor and report program attrition. How many students are lost along the way?

• Carefully match control groups (assuming random assignment of participants is not

possible) and report differences.

• Give attention to measuring the outcomes that the program purports to be affecting.

• Compare program features and outcomes. What specific features of the program are

most responsible for its effects? What attracts students to the program and fosters their

retention?

Connecting Programs With School Reform Efforts

It should not be surprising that these early intervention programs appear to have little effect

on academic achievement. The programs, whether community based, school district sponsored, or

partnered with postsecondary education, tend to be peripheral to the K-12 schools. They augment and

supplement what schools do, but do not fundamentally change the ways schools interact with students.

Thus, these successful programs work to emulate the features of schools that routinely send high
66

percentages of their graduating students on to college, but they only do it for part of the day, and often

outside of school time. The rest of the time, students are exposed to the same school practices that have

been proven to be unsuccessful for them. Good programs tend to help students maximize their assets,

expand their goals, and show evidence of doubling the college-going rate of their participants, but do not

appreciably alter their academic achievement. For changes in academic achievement to occur, and access

to highly selective institutions to be substantially increased, schools would need to adopt the proven

strategies that early intervention programs have incorporated.
67

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box. Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s

Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement.

Adelman, C. (2000). Participation in Outreach Programs Prior to High School Graduation:

Socioeconomic Status by Race. Paper presented at the ConnectED Conference, San Diego, CA, January

10.

Akerheilm, K., Berger, J., Hooker, M., and Wise, D. (1998). Factors Related to College Enrollment.

Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Office of the Undersecretary.

Atkinson, D., Jennings, R., and Livingston, L. (1990). Minority students’ reasons for not seeking

counseling and suggestions for improving services. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 342-

350.

August, D., and Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving Schooling for Language Minority Children. A Research

Agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Institute of Medicine.

Bailis, L. N., Melchior, A., Sokatch, A., and Sheinberg, A. (1999). Evaluation of the GE Fund College

Bound Program. Waltham, MA: Center for Human Resources, Heller Graduate School, Brandeis

University.

Bailis, L.N., Hahn, A., Aaron, P., Nahas, J. and Leavitt, T. (1995). A New Field Emerges: College

Access Programs. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Center for Human Resources.

Barr, R., and Dreeben, R. (1983). How Schools Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In Child Development Today and Tomorrow, edited

by W. Damon, 349-378. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass..

Berliner, D., and Biddle, B. (1996). The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on

America’s Public Schools. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bowen, W., and Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River. Long Term Consequences of Considering Race

in College and University Admissions. Princeton NJ: Princeton, University Press.

Bowman, C., and Gordon, E. (1998). A Connoisseurial Evaluation of the Posse Program. Pomona, NY:

Gordon and Gordon Associates in Human Development, Inc.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Denner, J., and Klebanov, P. (1995). Families and neighborhoods as contexts for

education. In Changing Populations, Changing Schools: Ninety-fourth Yearbook for the National

Society for the Study of Education, Part II., edited by E. Flaxman and A. Passow. Chicago: National

Society for the Study of Education.

Brophy, G., and Good, T. (1974). Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
68

Burkheimer, G., Levinsohn, J., Koo, J., and French, A.. (1976). Evaluation Study of the Upward Bound

Program. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Burkheimer, G., Riccobono, J., and Wisenbaker, J. (1979). Final Report. Evaluation Study of the

Upward Bound Program --A Second Follow Up. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle

Institute.

Cabrera, A., Stempen, J., and Hansen, W.L. (1992). Exploring the effects of ability to pay on persistence

in college. Review of Higher Education, 13, 303-313.

California Department of Education (CDE). (1999). California Basic Educational Data System.

Available online. www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports/statewide/sums98.htm.

Carnevale, A., Haghighat, E., and Kimmel, E. (1998). The Role of Tests in College Admission:

Evaluating Skills for Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.

Chapa, J. (1997). Hopwood in Texas: The Untimely End of Affirmative Action. Cambridge, MA: The

Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Chávez, L., and Serna, C. (1999). Access to A - F Courses and Racial Composition of the School. Paper

presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada, April.

Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). (1998). National Study of College Preparation

Programs. Program Summary: Los Angeles. Unpublished internal document.

Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998). Almanac of Higher Education, 1998-99. Washington, DC:

Chronicle of Higher Education.

Clark, B. (1980). The “cooling out function” revisited. New Directions for Community Colleges, 8, 15-

31.

Clark, R. (1983). Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children Succeed and Fail.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., and York, R. (1966).

Equality of Education Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

College Board (1999a). Trends in College Pricing. New York: The College Board.

College Board (1999b). Trends in Students Aid. New York: The College Board.

Crouse, J., and Trusheim, D. (1988). The Case Against the SAT. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Darling, N., and Steinberg, L. (1997). Community influences on adolescent achievement and deviance.

In Neighborhood Poverty. Volume II. Policy Implications in Studying Neighborhoods, edited by J.

Brooks-Gunn, G. Duncan, L. Aber. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
69

Darling-Hammond, L., and Green, J. (1994). Teacher quality and equality. In Access to Knowledge. The

Continuing Agenda for Our Nation’s Schools. Revised Edition, edited by J. Goodlad and P. Keating, New

York: The College Board.

Delgado-Gaitán, C. (1990). Literacy for Empowerment: The Role of Parents in Children’s Education.

London: Falmer Press.

del Pinal, J, and Singer, A. (1997). Generations of Diversity: Latinos in the United States. Washington,

DC: Population Reference Bureau.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children. Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New

Press.

DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on

the grades of U.S. high school students. American Sociological Review, 47, 189-201.

Douglas, W. (1989). New spin on getting in college: Applicants hire private counselors. Newsday, 6,

February, 4.

Eaton, S., and Meldrum, C. (1996). Broken promises. In Dismantling Desegregation. The Quiet

Reversal of Brown vs the Board of Education, edited by G. Orfield and S. Eaton. New York: The Free

Press.

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1-

26.

Epstein, J., and Karweit, N. (eds.). (1983). Friends in School: Patterns of Selection and Influence in

Secondary Schools. New York: Academic Press.

Etzioni, A. (1995). New Communitarian Theory: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and Communities.

Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

Ferguson, R. (1998). Can schools narrow the black-white test score gap? In The Black-White Test Score

Gap, edited by C. Jencks and M. Phillips. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing Dropouts: Notes on the Politics of an Urban Public High School. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Fordham, S., and Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden of “acting

white.” Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Gándara, P. (1995). Over the Ivy Walls: The Educational Mobility of Low-income Chicanos. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Gándara, P., and Lopez, E. (1998). Latino students and college entrance exams: How much do they

really matter? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 17-38.

Gándara, P., Mejorado, M., Gutiérrez, D., and Molina, M. (1998). Final Report of the High School

Evaluation, 1994-98. Davis, CA: University of California.
70

Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Larson, K., and Mehan, H. (1998). Capturing Latino Students in the

Academic Pipeline. Berkeley, CA: University of California: California Policy Seminar and

Chicano/Latino Policy Project.

Gillie, S. (1999). An Extensive System for Postsecondary Encouragement. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana

Career and Postsecondary Advancement Center.

Gladieux, L., and Swail, W.S. (1998). Financial Aid is Not Enough: Improving the Odds of Collage

Success for Low-Income Minority Students. Washington, DC: The College Board.

Goldhaber, D., and Brewer, D. (1996). Evaluating the Effect of Teacher Degree Level on Educational

Performance. Rockford, MD: Westat.

Grebler, L., Moore, J., and Guzmán, R. (1970). The Mexican American People: The Nation’s Second

Largest Minority. New York: Free Press.

Griffin, J. (1990). A Better Chance, Inc. Internal Program Review. Preliminary Findings. Submitted to

DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund. Boston: A Better Chance, Inc.

Grossman, J., and Garry, E. (1997). Mentoring—A proven delinquency prevention strategy. Juvenile

Justice Bulletin, April. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Grossman, J., and Tierney, J. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big

Sisters Program. Evaluation Review, 22, 403-426.

Grubb, W. N. (1991). The decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from national

longitudinal surveys. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 194-222.

Gurin, P. (1999). Expert Testimony in the Cases Gratz et al., v Bollinger et al., and Grutter et al., v

Bollinger et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Haro, R., Rodríguez, G., and Gonzales, J. (1994). Latino Persistence in Higher Education: A 1994

Survey of University of California and California State University Chicano/Latino Students. San

Francisco: Latino Issues Forum.

Hanushek, E. (1994). Money might matter somewhere: A response to Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald.

Educational Researcher, 23, 5-8.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters. How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K16, 3, 1- 14.

Heller, D., and Laird, T. (1999). Institutional need-based and non-need grants: Trends and differences

among college and university sectors. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 29, 7-24.

Henderson, R. (1997). Educational and occupational aspirations and expectations among parents of

middle school students of Mexican descent: Family resources for academic development and

mathematics learning. In Social and Emotional Adjustment and Family Relations in Ethnic Minority

Families, edited by R. Taylor and M. Wang. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71

Horn, L., and Carroll, C.D. (1997). Confronting the Odds: Students at Risk and the Pipeline to Higher

Education. NCES 98-094. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.

Hutchinson, R.L., and Reagon, C.A. (1989). Problems for which seniors would seek help from school

counselors. The School Counselor, 36, 271-80.

Jarret, R. (1997) Bringing families back in: Neighborhood effects on child development. In

Neighborhood Poverty. Volume II. Policy Implications in Studying Neighborhoods, edited by J. BrooksGunn, G. Duncan, and L. Aber. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jencks, C., and Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution Press.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heynes, B., and Mickelson, R.

(1972). Inequality. New York: Harper & Row.

Jencks, C., and Meyer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In

Inner-city Poverty in the United States, edited by L. Lynee and M. McGeary. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development in high risk settings. American Psychologist, 48,

117-126.

Johnson, S., and Prom, S. (1983). Factors Related to Science and Mathematics Career Choice in a

Minority Population: A Survey of Alumni of A Better Chance, Inc. Boston: A Better Chance, Inc.

Kahne, J., and Bailey, K. (1997). The Role of Social Capital in Youth Development: The Case of “I Have

a Dream.” Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education.

Karoly, L., Greenwood, P., Everingham, S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., and Chiesa,

J. (1998). Investing in Our Children: What We Know and Don't Know About the Costs and Benefits of

Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

King, J. (1996). Student Aid: Who Benefits Now? College Board Policy Analysis. New York: The

College Board.

Krop, C., Brewer, D., Gates, S., Gill, B., Reichardt, R., Sundt, M., and Throgmorton, D. (1998).

Potentially Eligible Students: A Growing Opportunity for University of California. PM-808-EDU. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

Kunen, J. (1996). The end of integration. Time, 29 April, 38-45.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education.

London and New York: Falmer Press.

Latino Eligibility Study. (1994). Report No. 4. Santa Cruz, CA: Regents of the University of California.

Lee, H. (1998). Oakland teachers decry UC rebuff of top students. San Francisco Chronicle, 17 April,

A21.
72

Levin, S. (1999). Social and psychological evidence on race and racism. Chapter 3 in Compelling

Interest. Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Higher Education, edited by M. Chang, D.

Witt, J. Jones, and K. Hakuta. Report of the AERA Panel on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and

Universities.

Levine, A., and Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the Odds: How the Poor Get to College. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Mahoney, J., and Cairns, R. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school drop out?

Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing Colleges. How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McDonough, P., Korn, J., and Yamasaki, E. (1997). Admissions advantage for sale: Private college

counselors and the students who use them. Review of Higher Education, 20, 297-317.

McLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t No Making It. Leveled Aspirations in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L, and Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing School Success: The

Consequences of Untracking Low-achieving Students. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mejorado, M. (1999). Puente: Creating a Model for Mentoring Chicano High School Students. Paper

presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada, April.

Miller, L.S. (1995). An American Imperative: Accelerating Minority Educational Achievement. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Minicucci, C., and Olsen, L. (1992). An Exploratory Study of Secondary LEP Programs. Vol. V.

Meeting the Challenge of Language Diversity: An Evaluation of Programs for Pupils with Limited

Proficiency in English. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates.

Moles, O. (1982). Synthesis of research on parent participation in children’s education, Educational

Leadership, 40, 44-47.

Morantz, A. (1996). Desegregation at risk. Threat and reaffirmation in Charlotte. In Dismantling

Desegregation. The Quiet Reversal of Brown v Board of Education, edited by G. Orfield and S. Eaton.

New York: The New Press.

Mortenson, T. (ed.). (1999). Postsecondary Education Opportunity. Washington, DC: Author.

Myers, D., and Schirm, A. (1997). The National Evaluation of Upward Bound. The Short Term Impact

of Upward Bound: An Interim Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the

Undersecretary.

Myers, D., and Schirm, A. (1999). The Impacts of Upward Bound: Final Report for Phase I of the

National Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary.
73

National Research Council, Panel on High Risk Youth. (1993). Losing Generations: Adolescents in

High Risk Settings. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 675-79.

Oakes, J. (1985) Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Oakes, J. (2000). Becoming Good American Schools: The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Olsen, L., Jaramillo, A., McCall-Perez, Z., and White, J. (1999). Igniting Change for Immigrant

Students. Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow.

Opuni, K. (1998). Project GRAD. Graduation Really Achieves Dreams, 1997-98. Program Evaluation

Report. Houston, TX: Project GRAD.

Orfield, G. (1996). The growth of segregation. In Dismantling Desegregation. The Quiet Reversal of

Brown v the Board of Education, edited by G. Orfield and S. Eaton. New York: The New Press.

Orfield, G., and Eaton, S. (1996). Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v the Board

of Education. New York: The New Press.

Orfield, G., and Paul, F. (1994). High Hopes, Long Odds: A Major Report on Hoosier Teens and the

American Dream. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Youth Institute.

Orfield, G., and Yun, J. (1999). Resegregation in American Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil

Rights Project.

Outreach Task Force. (1997). New Directions for Outreach. Oakland, CA: Board of Regents of the

University of California.

Postsecondary Education Planning Commission (PEPC). (1998). Statewide Evaluation of Florida’s

College Reach-Out Program. Annual Report: 1995-96 Cohort. Tallahassee, FL: PEPC.

Program Evaluation Division, Office of the Legislative Auditor (1996). Postsecondary Enrollment

Options Program. St. Paul, MN: State of Minnesota.

Perna, L., and Swail, W.S. (1998). Early Intervention Programs: How Effective Are They at Increasing

Access to College? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher

Education, Miami, Florida, November 7.

Perry, G., and Kopperman, N. (1973). A Better Chance: Evaluation of Student Attitudes and Academic

Performance, 1964-1972. Boston: A Better Chance.

Postsecondary Education Opportunity. (1999). Refocusing student financial aid: From grants to loans,

from need to merit, from poor to affluent. Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 82, 1- 4.

Puma, M., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuti, A., Thompson, W., and Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997).

Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office

of the Under Secretary.
74

Rendón, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student

development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-50.

Rendón L., and Garza, H. (1996). Closing the gap between two- and four-year institutions. In Educating

a New Majority: Transforming America’s Educational System for Diversity, edited by L. Rendón and R.

Hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rendón, L., and Hope, R. (1996). Educating a New Majority: Transforming America’s Educational

System for Diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, A., and Taylor, A. (1997). Intergenerational mentoring: A viable strategy for meeting the needs

of vulnerable youth. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28, 125-140.

Romo, H., and Falbo, T. (1996). Latino High School Graduation. Defying the Odds. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press.

Rosenholtz, S., and Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or

social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54, 31-64.

Rumberger, R. (1991). Chicano drop outs. In Chicano School Failure and Success: Research and Policy

Agendas for the 1990s, edited by R. Valencia. London and New York: Falmer Press.

Rumberger, R., and Larson, K. (1998). Student mobility and increased risk of high school dropout.

American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35.

Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., and Krysan, M. (1997). Racial Attitudes in America. Trends and

Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shields, P., Esch, C., Humphrey, D., Young, V., Gaston, M., and Hunt, H. (1999). The Status of the

Teaching Profession: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the

Future of Teaching and Learning.

Slavin, R., and Braddock, J. III. (1994). Ability grouping: On the wrong track. In Access to Knowledge.

The Continuing Agenda for Our Nation’s Schools. Revised Edition, edited by J. Goodlad and P. Keating.

New York: The College Board.

Slavin, R., and Fashola, O. (1998). Show Me the Evidence. Proven and Promising Programs for

America’s Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Slavin, R., and Karweit, N. (1985). Effects of whole class, ability grouped, and individualized instruction

on mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 351-367.

Sorensen, S., Brewer, C., and Brighton, E. (1995). Increasing Hispanic Participation in Higher

Education: A Desirable Public Investment. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp., Institute on Education and

Training.

Sprinthall, R., Sprinthall, N., and Oja, S. (1998). Educational Psychology. A Developmental Approach.

Seventh Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
75

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial

minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1-40.

Stedman, L. (1995). The new mythology about the status of United States’ schools. Educational

Leadership, 52, 80-85.

Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.

American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Steinberg, L., Blinde, P., and Chan, K. (1984). Dropping out among language minority youth. Review of

Educational Research, 54, 113-132.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform Has Failed and What Parents Need to

Do. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., and Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An

ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.

St. John, E. (1990). Price response in enrollment decisions: An analysis of the high school and beyond

sophomore cohort. Research in Higher Education, 31, 161-172.

St. John, E. (1994). Prices, Productivity, and Investment: Assessing Financial Strategies in Higher

Education. ERIC Digest. Available online. http://ericae.net/edo/ED382092.htm.

Swail, W.S. (1999). Do Pre-College Early Intervention Programs Work? Presentation at the West Coast

College Board Forum, San Diego, CA, October 28.

Swisher, K., and Hoisch, M. (1992). Dropping out among American Indians and Alaska Natives: A

review of studies. Journal of American Indian Education,31, 3-23.

Teranishi, R. (2000). African American college choice, post affirmative action: The role of information

and perceptions of opportunity. Paper presented at ASHE 2000 Conference, Sacramento, California,

November 17.

Thomas, R. (1998). Black and Latino college enrollment: Effects of background, high school

preparation, family and peer influence, and financial aid. Paper presented at American Educational

Research Association Conference, San Diego, California, April 13-17.

Tierney, W., and Jun, A. (1998). Tracking School Success: Preparing Low-income Urban Youth for

College. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern

California.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2000). Available online. http://www.

Census.gov/population/www/estimates/popest. html.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). The Condition of

Education 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
76

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997a). Dropout Rates in the

United States, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997b). The Condition of

Education 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Walberg, H. (1993). Productive use of time. In Timepiece: Extending and Enhancing Learning Time,

edited by L. Anderson and H. Walberg. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School

Principals.

Weinstein, R. (1989). Perceptions of classroom processes and student motivation: Children’s views of

self-fulfilling prophecies. In Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and Cognition’s. Vol. 3,

edited by R. Ames and C. Ames. New York: Academic Press.

Wilds, D. (2000). Minorities in Higher Education, 17th Annual Status Report. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education.

Wilds, D., and Wilson, R. (1998). Minorities in Higher Education, 16th Annual Status Report.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labor. How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York:

Columbia University Press.
APPENDIX A

Review of the Literature on Opportunities to Learn
A-1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN

Student Background Characteristics

Family Background

Family background characteristics have long been associated with students’ educational

achievement, and many studies have concluded that family background explains the largest portion of the

variance in student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966; Jencks et al., 1972; Puma et al., 1997). While

such factors as parental attitudes toward education, expectations, and involvement in their children’s

schooling certainly form an important part of the home environment (e.g., Puma et al., 1997), “family

background,” including family income and parent education level, is commonly operationalized as a

composite variable. By looking at the income and educational backgrounds, a considerable amount can

be inferred about their likely success in school. Table A-1 displays parental education and income for

several ethnic groups. The students in this sample intend to go to 4-year colleges and thus are among the

highest achievers in their respective ethnic groups.

Table A-1

Parental education and income

of college-bound students, by race/ethnicity: 1999

Race/ethnicity Number

Less than

high school

diploma

Some college Income less

than 20,000

Income more

than 100,000

Black ...................................... 114,912 5% 45% 27% 3%

Mexican.................................. 41,028 27 30 27 4

Puerto Rican........................... 13,635 9 47 26 5

Native American .................... 10,159 4 53 15 9

Asian ...................................... 94,066 11 59 21 10

White...................................... 704,462 1 66 5 16

SOURCE: The College Board, 1999 SAT administration data.

Nearly all of the black, Native American, and white students in this college-going group

have parents with high school diplomas. A relatively high percentage of these parents have at least some

college education, with 45 percent for blacks being the lowest for the three groups. Notable, however, are

the very low levels of parental education among the Mexicans in the sample—27 percent of parents do

not have a high school diploma, and only 30 percent have some college, about half the percentage for

either Asians or whites. Such low levels of education in the students’ backgrounds suggests a significant

need for both information and academic support to supplement parents’ efforts to support students.

Figure A-1 shows the average SAT scores by parental income and race/ethnicity. Mean

SAT scores for blacks students from upper income families (942 for more than $60,000) are lower than

the mean SAT scores for whites from the lower income category (976 for less than $20,000); based on

parents’ education for one would expect these scores to be higher. Moreover, high-income Hispanics

score only slightly higher than low-income white students (1,020 versus 976).
A-2

Figure A-1

Average SAT scores by parental income and race/ethnicity: 1999







































































































































































































































793

851

890

942

835

901

955

1020

976 1011 1035

1091

920

1014

1066

1151

885

970

1019

1085

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Lessthan$20,000 $20,000-$40,000 $40,000-$60,000 Morethan$60,000

Black Hispanic



White



Asian All

SOURCE: College Board 1999 SAT administration data.

Miller (1995) hypothesized that the substantial variation in test scores and achievement for

different ethnic groups within the same income and education categories is due to a type of cumulative

educational disadvantage experienced by underrepresented minorities. According to this hypothesis,

blacks and Hispanics (especially Mexicans and Puerto Ricans) are failing to adhere to the American

prototype of intergenerational advancement because the quality of education that they receive, in both

formal and informal settings, is consistently lower than that of more advantaged groups. Hence,

according to Miller, parents with lower quality formal education, albeit with similar educational

attainment, are less able to confer the educational advantages that other parents with the same level, but

higher quality, education do for their children. Thus, it is likely that many black and Hispanic children do

not receive the enriched educational experiences that should be commensurate with their parents’

educational background. These students find themselves at a serious disadvantage in competing with

students from other, better educated ethnic groups.

A number of studies have found that ethnic minority families have uniformly high aspirations for

their children (Haro, Rodríguez, and Gonzales, 1994; Delgado-Gaitán, 1990; Steinberg, 1996); however,

there is also a consensus in the literature that not all parents are equally endowed with the skills and

resources to help their children realize these aspirations (Lareau, 1987; Steinberg, 1996). Low-income

and minority parents often lack the cultural capital—knowledge of how the system works—and social

capital—access to important social networks—that play such an important role for middle class white and

Asian parents in supporting their children’s academic achievement. Even among middle class parents

from underrepresented communities of color, cultural capital may be in short supply. Often these families
A-3

represent the first generation in the middle class, and they do not have these middle class experiences in

their own backgrounds to draw upon and replicate for their children. Attitudes, tastes, and dispositions

develop over time and result from exposure to particular cultural experiences that are unique to class

categories (DiMaggio, 1982).

Research has also converged on a particular parenting style that appears to be associated

with higher achievement. Parents who are classified as “authoritative”—firm in their expectations yet

warm in their relationships with their children, and who provide significant autonomy for their progeny—

are most likely to have children who do well in school (Baumrind, 1989; Steinberg, 1996). Yet many

blacks and Hispanics are accustomed to parenting in a more traditional, authoritarian style that has been

adaptive to their own sociocultural circumstances; that is, higher risk urban environments may call for a

different parenting style than lower risk suburban neighborhoods (Clark, 1983; Gándara, 1995). Such

parenting styles, however, may not prepare students as effectively to compete in the classroom with their

white peers (Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown, 1992).

Family residential mobility can also play a large role in the educational achievement of

children. Both young children and adolescents are negatively affected by moves that result in school

changes; young children are more likely to have school adjustment problems, and older children are more

likely to drop out of school altogether (Rumberger and Larson, 1998). Unfortunately, family mobility is

more common among poor children and immigrants, and thus they are affected disproportionately by

these changes. Not all school changes are the result of family mobility, nor are they always bad.

Sometimes children change schools to find a better fit, but that appears to be more common with white

children than low-income minorities (Rumberger and Larson, 1998). In schools with high proportions of

low-income and minority youth in particular, multiple school changes can be the result of school practices

that “get rid of” students who are perceived to be problems (Fine, 1991). Multiple school changes are

more common among, and generally have a more negative impact on school achievement for, such

youngsters (Rumberger and Larson, 1998).

At the point when students begin to consider their postsecondary options—whether to go to

college or not, and if so, to what kind of college—the experience, knowledge, resources, and expectations

of parents play a significant role in the kinds of choices that students make. Students with equal ability

make very different decisions about their postsecondary education based on the guidance—or lack of it—

that they receive from home. Unfortunately, low-income and underrepresented students tend to set their

sights lower than white students with comparable academic records, due in large part to their parents’ lack

of understanding of the postsecondary education system (McDonough, 1997).

Community Characteristics

There is considerable debate in the literature about the relative effects of neighborhood type,

as distinct from family or peer influence, on student achievement. Two theoretical models can help to

explain how neighborhoods can affect the development of youth in ways that in turn have an impact on

their schooling outcomes. Neighborhood Resource Theory postulates that the quality of local resources

available to families (e.g., parks, libraries, child care facilities) affects child developmental outcomes.

Because poor children live in neighborhoods with fewer supportive resources, they receive less exposure

to developmentally enriching activities (Brooks-Gunn, Denner, and Klebanov, 1995). Even when such

resources are available, a family’s access to them is still mediated by the skills (cultural capital) of the

parents. More educated, well-informed parents are more likely to access whatever resources exist. Thus,

methodologically, there are difficulties in separating the effects of neighborhoods from the effects of

parenting.
A-4

Collective Socialization Theory argues that more affluent neighborhoods generally provide

more successful role models and stronger normative support for the kinds of behaviors that are associated

with school success (Jarret, 1997). Middle-income students are more likely to encounter both adults and

peers in their communities who are supportive of high educational goals and can even assist young people

in achieving them. This theory, like Neighborhood Resource Theory, is also plagued by methodological

problems that make it difficult to assess the independent effects of neighborhoods. For example, Darling

and Steinberg (1997) note that it is difficult to separate the influence of peers in these neighborhoods from

the effects of the neighborhoods themselves. Thus, neighborhood effects can be confounded with peer

influence. Nonetheless, Jessor (1993) has argued strongly for the importance of considering the total

ecological context in which a child is raised—families, schools, and communities—as influences on

development, and a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences on the problems of adolescence

points out that too much emphasis has been placed on high-risk youth, and not enough on the high-risk

settings in which they live and go to school (National Research Council, Panel on High Risk Youth,

1993).

Notwithstanding the significant impediments most poor families face in moving out of highrisk areas, choosing neighborhoods is one way that even low-income parents sometimes have an impact

on their children’s academic achievement (Jarret, 1997). In a study of high-achieving Chicanos from

low-income backgrounds, Gándara (1995) found that many parents made conscious choices to live in

parts of town that afforded access to a better school or fewer problems of delinquency, in spite of their

limited resources. Sometimes by choosing to live on the borders or “frontiers” of barrios or low-income

communities, families can provide access to resources that lie just beyond those borders (Grebler, Moore,

and Guzmán, 1970; Gándara, 1995).

Peer Influences on Student Achievement

Adolescent peer groups are commonly portrayed as having a negative influence on the

values and behavior of youth. Drug and alcohol use, gang membership, and a culture of

underachievement are popularly viewed as risks that are associated with peer influence, and with good

reason since such risky behaviors have been shown to occur in peer clusters (Henderson, 1997). Peers

can, however, also have a positive influence on each other. They can support academic goals and serve as

important sources of information for upward mobility (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Adolescents who join

friendship groups whose academic achievement is higher than their own tend to raise their achievement to

match the level of their peers. Of course, students who hang out with low-performing friends tend to

perform at lower levels as well, and those whose friends are dropouts are at higher risk for dropping out

themselves (Epstein and Karweit, 1983).

Among ethnic minority students from underrepresented groups, however, the issue of

academic achievement can be complex. Steinberg (1996) reported that one in five adolescents says that

his or her friends make fun of students who do well in school, and this is particularly true for black and

Hispanic students. Many black and Hispanic students who aspire to high achievement reported being

accused of “acting white” (Fordham and Ogbu, 1986) and thus being shunned by their lower performing

peers, who may be the arbiters of social acceptability in their schools. Because adolescents are

confronting the difficult (and self-absorbing) task of establishing a personal identity and forging a place

within their social order, peer acceptance is exceptionally important for their healthy development. Thus,

it is not difficult to understand why many students succumb to the admonitions of their friends to put

aside the school books and not be a “nerd” or a “school boy” or “school girl.”

Mehan et al. (1996) and Gándara et al. (1998) have both reported on programs that appear to

effectively foster peer groups that support students’ high aspirations, thus allowing students to be both
A-5

high achievers and proud of their ethnic heritage. These peer networks can serve multiple purposes—

support for ethnic identity, sources of information, and entree into a supportive peer network. Both

studies, however, caution that such groups only thrive in the context of supportive schooling structures

that provide both time and space for these relationships to flourish.

Social Structural Influences on Minority Student Achievement

Miller (1995) cited data suggesting that racism, or prejudice, is indeed one factor in the

lower performance of some students of color. James Kleugel (cited in Miller, 1995) analyzed General

Social Survey data to determine the trends in whites’ attitudes toward black disadvantage and concluded

that despite a drop from 27 percent in 1977 to 21 percent in 1989 in the belief that blacks are intellectually

inferior, a still-significant portion of the white population subscribed to such a belief. More recent data

from National Opinion Research Center (NORC) surveys on racial attitudes suggest that whites’ belief in

black inferiority has continued to drop. In 1996, only 10 percent of respondents would agree that this was

a factor in black disadvantage. However, what appears to be a positive trend is nonetheless problematic

because the belief that black disadvantage stems from discrimination has also fallen sharply.

In the same survey, the single most common response to the question of why blacks continue

to suffer disadvantages (52 percent) was that they lack the motivation to succeed (Schuman et al., 1997).

These beliefs have implications for the ways in which whites are willing to address the problem. For

example, Schuman et al. (1997) note that while whites overwhelmingly support the principle of equality

(depending on the particular question, responses affirming this principle approach 100 percent), they are

increasingly disinclined to support the implementation of measures that would facilitate it. Researchers

find declining support for methods to desegregate schools and for policies such as affirmative action

(Kunen, 1996; Morantz, 1996; Schuman et al., 1997). Miller (1995) concludes that “[T]hese views—

which include notions of the innate intellectual inferiority of blacks and the cultural inferiority of African

Americans and Latinos—seem to be associated with a lack of interest in or opposition to the addressing of

critical economic, health, and educational needs of urban minorities” (pp. 241-2).

Societal beliefs about the intellectual or cultural inferiority of certain groups can result in

constrained choices as well as constrained opportunities. Claude Steele (1997) has advanced the theory

of stereotype vulnerability to explain why many blacks, as well as other minorities, may perform poorly

or choose not to participate at all in academic endeavors in which they run the risk of confirming the

stereotype that they are intellectually inferior. He contended that the pervasive societal belief in the

inferiority of some groups weighs heavily on these individuals when they are confronted with tasks that

could support this stereotype.

Through a series of novel experiments in which he manipulated subjects’ perceptions of

testing conditions and consequences, Steele demonstrated that black students (and sometimes women)

may disidentify (that is, plead lack of interest) with academic goals because of the performance anxiety

that is produced by having to compete academically in settings where any mistake can be seen as an

affirmation of the notion that they are intellectually inferior. Steele argues that such disidentification can

lead to disengagement from academic endeavors as well as depressed performance on tests. Support for

Steele’s theory is also found in the ethnographic studies of Willis (1977) and McLeod (1987). In their

studies, both black and white disaffected, low-income youth rejected the social norms of the society that

they perceived as having rejected them. In assuming the very stereotypes that the society imposed upon

them, they thus inadvertently cooperated in reducing their own limited opportunities.

There can be little doubt that all of the foregoing background factors contribute significantly

to the lower achievement of underrepresented students. However, opportunity to learn is still
A-6

fundamentally the responsibility of schools, and many school practices function to reduce the opportunity

to learn for many underrepresented students.

The Influence of Schools on Student Achievement

Quality of School

The particular school that a student attends has a significant impact on student achievement.

Research has shown, for example, that learning environments and resources differ markedly between

high-poverty and low-poverty schools. Teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to report

problems of student misbehavior, absenteeism, and lack of parental involvement than teachers in lowpoverty schools; teachers’ salaries and advanced training are also lower in high-poverty schools than in

low-poverty schools (Darling-Hammond and Green, 1994; U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

Schools in more affluent neighborhoods have also been shown to provide more rigorous college

preparatory and honors courses than schools in lower income communities that largely serve populations

of underrepresented students (Orfield, 1996; Chávez and Serna, 1999).

Quality of Teachers

Not only are schools in more affluent areas better organized to provide more rigorous

curricula, they also tend to have stronger teachers (Haycock, 1998; Ferguson, 1998). However, Haycock

(1998) reviewed data that show children of color, regardless of their socioeconomic level, are more likely

to be taught by teachers with lower test scores and less academic preparation than white children. And

the quality of the teacher, measured by certification, quality of institution from which the teacher received

his or her degree, and test scores, has been shown in a number of studies to have a significant impact on

student performance. Ferguson (1998) reviewed data from Texas in the 1980s and found that teachers

with higher scores on the Texas teachers’ test were more likely to produce significant gains in student

achievement than their lower scoring counterparts. Goldhaber and Brewer (1996), in an analysis of

NELS:88 data, showed a positive relationship between teachers’ degrees in technical areas (math and

science) and students’ achievement. Hanushek (1994) also concluded, in spite of a general reluctance to

concede that a greater investment of resources in schooling is likely to produce higher achievement, that

the quality of the teacher is a major factor in increasing student test scores.

Some research also suggests that high scoring black or Hispanic teachers may be more

effective with black and Hispanic children than high scoring white teachers (Ferguson, 1998). Delpit

(1995) provided an explanation for this idea in her analyses of how progressive white teachers may differ

in their pedagogy from black teachers, who have greater familiarity with black children’s backgrounds

and experiences. She discovered that white teachers may make assumptions about these children’s

learning styles and prior knowledge that are unfounded and thus lead to inappropriate instructional

methods. Teachers’ expectations of children’s abilities can also affect their school performance.

Expectations and Encouragement for High Aspirations

Stereotypes and societal expectations for children of color (and low-income students) often

differ from those held for other young people. Teachers are not exempt from these biases. Teachers can

be very effective in sending nonverbal messages to students about the amount of confidence they have in

the students’ abilities. For example, not only do teachers call on favorite students more often, they wait
A-7

longer for an answer from students they believe know the answer than from those in whom they have

little confidence. With the latter, teachers are more likely to provide the correct answer or to move

quickly to other students (Brophy and Good, 1974). Students have also been shown to be very sensitive

to these subtle teacher behaviors and to “read” their teachers’ attitudes quite accurately (Weinstein, 1989).

In a series of studies conducted by the psychologist Robert Rosenthal, teachers’ attitudes toward their

students were shown to have a substantial impact on their academic performance. Thus, Sprinthall,

Sprinthall, and Oja (1998) concluded that “the Rosenthal effect is three-fold: (1) Pupils who are expected

to do well tend to show gains; (2) pupils who are not expected to do well tend to do less well than the first

group; and (3) pupils who make gains despite expectations to the contrary are regarded negatively by the

teacher” (p. 408). In this way, students’ assessment of their abilities can be moderated by teachers’

attitudes and beliefs.

Rosenholtz and Simpson (1984) have also demonstrated that teachers’ organization of their

classrooms—either unidimensionally in which students’ performance is evaluated very narrowly by

focusing on specific academic skills, or more multidimensionally, in which assessment incorporates a

broader range of skills—can mediate students’ evaluation of their peers’ ability. Because peer evaluation

has such a powerful effect on students’ own self-conceptions of ability, teachers can play a pivotal role in

students’ view of their own ability by manipulating organizational features of their classrooms. Through

direct evaluation, as well as indirectly by mediating the impact of peer evaluation, teachers can affect the

aspirations and the expectations that students hold for themselves.

Students’ own aspirations are also influenced greatly by those of the important persons,

including teachers, peers, and family members, in their environment. When students are surveyed with a

one-time question asking what they want to do or hope to do after high school, researchers find that

students respond with uniformly high aspirations to attend college across all ethnic groups (although in

research comparing approximately 2,000 California high school students by ethnic background, Gándara

et al. (1998) found consistently lower aspirations for Latino students than all others). Even though they

do report high aspirations, underrepresented students more frequently fail to meet their goals (U.S.

Department of Education, 1999). Thus, aspirations alone are not very good predictors of who will go on

to, and complete, college.

Adelman (1999) argued, however, that if aspirations are defined as what a student is

planning to do after high school, and if their responses are consistent over time, aspirations have much

greater predictive power. High aspirations, though, are almost certainly the product of high expectations

and encouragement on the part of parents, teachers, and counselors. There is abundant evidence that

teachers and counselors in low-income and heavily minority schools tend to have lower expectations for

their students than teachers and counselors in more affluent schools (McDonough, 1997; Haycock, 1998).

And while many low-income parents hold high aspirations for their children, their actual expectations for

what their children are likely to do are often considerably lower (Henderson, 1997). Aspirations are

clearly important in helping to put students on the path to higher education, but responses to surveys

about students’ aspirations often mask as much as they reveal about young people’s true intentions, which

are likely to reflect those of the important adults in their environment.

Grading systems also differ considerably between low-income, minority schools and more

affluent, suburban schools. Top grades represent very different levels of accomplishment between the two

educational environments (Carnavale, Haghighat, and Kimmel, 1998). Even so, grade point averages in

the courses that underrepresented students take are uniformly lower than for white or Asian students, and

thus suggest that these students are less well prepared by their schools to enter college than other students.

Table A-2 reports GPAs for students from six major ethnic groups who took the SAT exams in 1999.
A-8

Table A-2

National grade point averages of students taking the

1999 SAT, by race/ethnicity

Race/ethnicity GPA

White ..................................... 3.32

Asian...................................... 3.41

Mexican................................. 3.18

Native American.................... 3.09

Black...................................... 2.90

SOURCE: College Board 1998 SAT administration data.

Unfortunately, the relatively lower classroom performance of underrepresented minority

students is mirrored in their standardized test scores. Regardless of the debate—and it is a heated one—

about the validity of such scores for students from nonmajority backgrounds, the tests do measure, in part,

students’ exposure to middle class culture and high-quality educational experiences, and they do continue

to be used widely in the evaluation of students for selective colleges and universities. Therefore their

importance cannot be ignored. Table A-3 displays the range of scores among six ethnic groups on the

SAT.

Table A-3

National scores of students taking the 1999 SAT, by race/ethnicity

Race/ethnicity Number Verbal: All

students

Math: All

students

Percent

scoring

500+Verbal

Percent

scoring 500+

Math

Black ...................................... 116,144 433 421 25 21

Mexican.................................. 42,750 452 456 32 33

Puerto Rican........................... 13,897 455 448 33 30

Native American .................... 8,118 484 481 45 43

Asian ...................................... 85,128 497 552 50 66

White...................................... 705,019 527 528 61 61

SOURCE: The College Board, 1999 SAT administration data.

The effects of differential schooling experiences begin early in the educational careers of

students. Barr and Dreeben (1983) have shown how, in spite of the best intentions of teachers, the

boundaries between reading groups formed early in the first grade become impermeable barriers to

upward advancement in reading groups thereafter. Students have a strong tendency to stay where they are

initially placed. The students who come to school with readiness to read—usually those from homes that

have encouraged early literacy—tend to maintain their advantage over time. Teachers’ early judgments at

the beginning of schooling, more often than not, presage the educational path of students for the balance

of their K-12 years. Once students enter middle school, the math courses to which they are assigned will

largely determine their academic track in high school and their likelihood of being prepared to attend

college (Adelman, 1999; Oakes, 1985). If they have not been assigned to algebra by ninth grade, they are

unlikely to be competitive for a 4-year university. Moreover, they are also probably being “low-tracked”
A-9

depth of content, and quality of instruction (Oakes, 1985; Slavin and Braddock III, 1994). Findings from

this tracking research convinced the College Board to launch a major initiative entitled Equity 2000

whose purpose was to help cooperating schools enroll all students in algebra by the ninth grade, thus

eliminating one of the major barriers to gaining a college education.

Segregation

Racial and ethnic segregation continue to have an impact on school performance for

underrepresented students. Inequalities in educational opportunity between segregated white schools and

segregated schools with students of color have been well-documented (Orfield and Eaton, 1996) and

served as the catalyst for a decades-long experiment with desegregation and busing. That experiment has

largely come to an end during the latter half of the 1990s. Today, both black and Hispanic students attend

increasingly segregated schools. The percentage of black students in 90 to 100 percent minority schools

grew from 33.9 percent in 1992 to 35 percent in 1997. Hispanic segregation has been increasing since

data were first collected in the 1960s, and in 1997, 35.4 percent of Hispanic students were attending

schools that were 90 to 100 percent minority (Orfield and Yun, 1999). And, as Orfield (1996) points out:

Low-income and minority students are concentrated in schools within

metropolitan areas that tend to offer different and inferior courses and levels

of competition, creating a situation where the most disadvantaged students

receive the least effective preparation for college. A fundamental reason is

that schools do not provide a fixed high school curriculum taught at a

common depth and pace. The actual working curriculum of a high school is

the result of the ability of teachers, the quality of counseling, and enrollment

patterns of students (p. 67).

Eaton and Meldrum (1996) reviewed the case of Norfolk, Virginia, which in 1996 was the

first district to be allowed by the federal courts to dismantle its desegregation plan. Whereas the court had

been convinced that returning to a neighborhood school policy would increase parent participation, reduce

white flight (and even encourage white families to move back into Norfolk), and allow for funds to be

shifted from transportation costs to strengthening the schools—and therefore the achievement of all

children—outcomes have not been as anticipated. Segregation has become more acute since the busing

program was dismantled, and both parent participation in PTA meetings and black students’ test scores

have dropped.

Quality of High School Counseling

High school counseling represents a problem of both quantity and quality. Over the last

couple of decades, as school budgets have been stretched thin, particularly in some high-growth states

like California, school counselors have been the target of budget cuts. For example, the average high

school counselor in California serves almost 450 students (California Department of Education, 1999),

and an abundance of literature on high school counseling points to the fact that most public school

students rarely, if ever, see their counselors, and when they do, it is usually for the purpose of routine

scheduling of courses (Hutchinson and Reagan, 1989). Many low-income and underrepresented students

see their counselors not as allies, or sources of support, but as gatekeepers who all too often refuse them

admission to the courses that would prepare them for college (Oakes, 1985; Gándara, 1995). These

decisions are commonly attributed to students’ having low test scores or being ill-equipped to take on the
A-10

challenges of more rigorous coursework (Oakes, 1985; Romo and Falbo, 1996). Once tracked into the

slower reading group—or lower math group—it is difficult, if not impossible, for students to ever

compete with their peers who have become proficient in material to which the low-tracked students have

never even been exposed.

Like other resources in schools, however, the quality and quantity of counselors available to

students differs greatly by income level and education of parents. McDonough (1997) has shown how the

counseling support provided in middle class schools operates to achieve quite different outcomes than for

students in lower income schools—even when students present themselves with nearly identical

qualifications. In the lower income school, aspirations are also often lower, and students are channeled

into less prestigious institutions than those for which they may qualify. A student with similar academic

preparation in a middle class school is much more likely to be urged to reach for more selective schools—

and helped to do so (McDonough, 1997).

A relatively new feature on the educational landscape is the mushrooming business of

private, for-hire college counseling. Parents with sufficient means have increasingly been paying for

counseling services outside the schools. These private counselors can increase a student’s chances of

being selected into competitive colleges by advising on effective application strategies, as well as increase

the chances of even mediocre students finding colleges that meet their needs ( McDonough, Korn, and

Yamasaki, 1997; Douglas, 1989). Low-income and minority students are less likely to be able to avail

themselves of these services.

Dropping Out of School

Dropout rates for underrepresented students are much higher than for white and Asian

students, and this is especially true for Hispanics. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

reports that the high school dropout rate in 1995 was 8.6 percent for white students, but 12.1 percent for

black students, and 30 percent for Hispanics in the 16- to 24-year-old age cohort (U.S. Department of

Education, 1997a). The Native American dropout rate appears to be about 30 percent as well, although

these data are estimates and accurate counts for this population are difficult to obtain (Swisher and

Hoisch, 1992).

Social and academic integration into school are two factors that have been consistently

associated with persistence in both high school and college. Students who are active in extracurricular

activities and who have meaningful relationships with both other students and faculty are less likely to

drop out of school than students who do not participate in such activities or have such relationships

(Mahoney and Cairns, 1997). This is probably one reason why mobility has such negative effects on

student persistence: it is difficult for many students to reestablish relationships and group affiliations in

each new school to which they are assigned. Adolescents, in particular, are notoriously peer-oriented, and

it can be difficult for a new student to enter into already-established friendship groups.

Fine (1991), however, has questioned to what extent low-income and underrepresented

minority students actually choose to drop out of school and to what extent this is a choice made for

them—either by a system that is anxious to be rid of them, or by school personnel who are so indifferent

to their needs that some students find little point and few, if any, rewards in staying. There is both a push

and pull effect in the phenomenon of exiting school before graduation. Schools push some students out.

Pull factors also contribute to disengagement from school. One significant pull factor is primary

friendships outside of school, particularly when these friends are school dropouts; students with

significant friendships with peers who have left school are more likely to leave school themselves

(Epstein and Karweit, 1983; Rumberger, 1981). Another pull factor is employment that intrudes on both
A-11

time to study and to attend classes. Students who are employed more than 20 hours per week are at high

risk for having lower grades and less engagement with school, which in turn increases their risk of

dropping out of school (Steinberg, 1996).

Financial Constraints

Even if underrepresented students had no other impediments to accessing higher education,

financial constraints would continue to be a major factor in their postsecondary choices. While there is

some debate over the role of financial constraints as a major factor in students leaving college (Tinto,

1987), there is little debate that it is critical in deciding whether or not a young person will go to college at

all (Adelman, 1999; Cabrera, Stempen, and Hansen, 1992). Low-income students are significantly less

likely to attend college than upper income students, even when their test scores are similar. Akerhielm et

al. (1998) found that within the top test score group of the NELS:88 achievement test, 75 percent of lowincome, 86 percent of middle-income, and 95 percent of high-income students went on to college. Stated

differently, one out of every four high school graduates scoring at the top of their class, but coming from

a low-income family, did not go to college.

The cost of a college education encompasses more than the cost of tuition for young people

from low-income families. Potential students must also weigh heavily the costs of unearned income, and

the reality that they will not be able to help their families financially while they are in college. Even if

college costs are covered by grants and/or loans, it can be a difficult decision for some low-income youth

to give up helping their families at an age when they can be productive wage earners. In a study of high

achieving, low-income Chicano students, Gándara (1995) found that it was relatively common for older

siblings to forgo college in favor of work so that younger siblings might have the opportunity to study as

family finances were augmented by the incomes of the older siblings.

Some students, and their families, may take themselves out of the running for higher

education based on perceptions that do not fit reality. For example, research shows that many students are

unclear about the costs of a college education and about the options that exist for paying college tuition

(Akerhielm et al., 1998). “Sticker shock” has been shown to scare off some low-income students who

lack adequate information about grants and loans that can make college possible, or who fear going into

debt for school because it is perceived as too burdensome on the family (Gándara et al., 1998; Teranishi,

2000). Moreover, students tend to overestimate the costs of college, imagining an even greater barrier

than actually exists (King, 1996). That is, more low-income students can be expected to enroll in college

if it does not require that they burden themselves and their families with debt in order to do so (St. John,

1990; 1994).

The average cost of attending college has increased substantially. For example, at public

colleges and universities tuition and fees have risen by 114 percent and 113 percent (in current dollars),

respectively, in the decade from 1988-89 to 1998-99. During the same period, however, aid for full-timeequivalent students rose 68 percent, and the maximum Pell grant award, considered the foundation of the

federal student aid program, lost 15 percent of its purchasing power (College Board, 1999a). Financial

aid, in the form of grants, has failed to keep up with rising college costs. The decreasing real-dollar

benefits of Pell grants, and the increasing shift from grants to loans, has served to make the financing of

higher education more and more difficult for low-income minority families (College Board, 1999a). For

many students, this means that they either opt out of college altogether or restrict their choices to local

state or community colleges (Gándara et al., 1998; Teranishi, 2000; Thomas, 1998). While the latter

strategy would appear to be better than the former, data show consistently that the less selective the

institution a student attends, the lower is the probability that the student will complete a bachelor’s degree

(U.S. Department of Education, 1999).
A-12
APPENDIX B

List of Programs for Which Information Was Submitted
B-1

State Program Program Source Evaluation*

AK Arkansas Academic Challenge Governor’s

Scholars Program State initiative No

AL BioPrep**

CA Early Academic Outreach Program University of CA No

Monterey Bay Education Consortium (MBEC) Multiple No

Minorities in Engineering & Sciences (MESA) U of CA/CSU No

Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI) U of Southern CA Yes

AISES No

Advancement Via Individual Determination

(AVID) SD County schools Yes

Step to College and Mission to College San Francisco St. U No

Project Step University of CA No

Puente Project University of CA Yes

College Pathways** Foundation

College Kids Foundation No

CT Minority Achievement Program (MAP) State initiative No

Collegiate Awareness Preparation (CONCAP) CT Public schools No

Minority Enrollment Incentive Program (MEIP) No

CT College Access and Success (CONCAS) No

College Admission and Bridge Program (COMCAB) No

Minority Staff Development & Recruitment Program No

FED Upward Bound/TRIO Yes

Student Support Services /TRIO No

Talent Search/TRIO No

Gear Up No

FL College Reach Out Program (CROP) State initiative Yes

IL College Futures Program State initiative No

Parkland College Program State initiative No

Expanding Cultural Diversity Project State initiative No

Transfer Centers (27) State initiative No

Early Outreach Program** University of IL

King-Chávez-Parks Yes

IN Indiana Career and Postsecondary Advancement Program (ICPAP) State initiative Yes

21st Century Scholars Program State initiative No

KY Governor’s Minority Student College

Preparation Program State initiative No
B-2

State Program Program Source Evaluation*

LA Stress on Analytical Reasoning (SOAR) Xavier University No

MA Transitional Year Program Brandeis U No

The Education Resources Institute (TERI):

Kids to College (K2C) No

A Better Chance Foundation Yes

MD Baltimore College Bound Program No

MI A+ Schools Program State initiative No

Detroit Area Pre-college Engineering (DAPCEP) No

MN Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program (PEOP) State initiative Yes

MO Health Careers Opportunity Program University of MO No

INPSYCH University of MO No

MORE Energy Camp University of MO No

STEP Bridge University of MO No

Expanding Your Horizons University of MO No

Engineering Minority Program University of MO No

American Indian Research Opportunities University of MO No

Montana Apprenticeship Program University of MO No

Minority Intellectual Network University of MO No

Science and Engineering for All:

Opening the Door for Rural Women University of MO No

Educational Talent Search State initiative No

Tribal College/High Plains Rural System Initiative No

NJ New Jersey College Bound Program State initiative Yes

NY Goodard Riverside Community Center No

OPTIONS Center for Educational and

Career Choice No

Readiness Program Settlement College No

I Have a Dream (and national) Foundation Yes

Prep for Prep Foundation No

The Posse Program Foundation Yes

College Now** Kingsborough Com Coll

OK Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program

(OHLAP) State initiative Yes

PA Quantum Opportunities Program No
B-3

State Program Program Source Evaluation*

RI Access to Opportunity Comm Coll of RI No

Advanced Training for Empowerment &

Self-esteem (AT EAST) URI/CCE No

Gateway Program URI/CCE No

The College Readiness Program URI No

Guaranteed Admission Program URI No

Project Discovery URI No

Special Programs for Talent Development URI No

Getting to College Public Education Fund No

Kids Health Career Alliance Public Education Fund No

Learning Enhancement for Adults

Program (LEAP) URI/Foundation No

Pre-college Enrichment Program Brown University No

Preparatory Enrollment Program (PEP) RI College No

Literacy Initiative for Newport Kids ( LINK) Salve Regina College No

Providence Summer Bridge No

RI Children’s Crusade for Higher Education No

RI Educational Enrichment Program (RIEEP) No

RI Educational Opportunity Center (RIEOC) No

RI Educational Talent Search No

SPHERE Comm Coll of RI No

Times2

 (Times Squared) No

TX Academic Excellence Awards University of Texas No

Gateway Program University of Texas No

TexPrep Engineering Program University of Texas No

ACT/PLAN/EXPLORE University of Texas No

Supplemental Instruction University of Texas No

Maverick Scholars Program UT Arlington No

Project GRAD Public Schls/Foundtn Yes

VA Better Information Project State initiative No

Early Identification Program (EIP) George Mason U Reviewed

WI Wisconsin Educational Opportunity Programs State initiative Yes

Early Identification Program (EIP) State initiative No

Minority Pre-college Program State initiative No

Preschool to Grade 5 (P-5) State initiative No

Multiple States: General Electric College Bound Business sponsor Yes

* A “yes” in this column means that the program produced an evaluation that met the authors’ criteria for minimal rigor; an assessment

of student outcomes through use of systematic controls or comparison groups and/or data collected on individual students that yielded insight into

the program’s effects. A “no” does necessarily mean that no such evaluation has been conducted, only that it was not made available to us.

** These programs had been reviewed by other researchers; while their reviews were generally informative, they fell short of being actual

evaluations.
APPENDIX C

Brief Descriptions of Programs
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

The PosseProgram(1989)

NY Foundation

support,privatecontributions,universitypartners,some federalfunding

• Alternative

recruitmentstrategy

• 34-week precollege training

program

• Team/posse• Scholarship• Mentor• On-campus

program

• Faculty

involvement

• Charge/mission

High school seniors ofdiverse backgroundsfrom New York Citypublic schools

• To broaden the

applicant poolconsidered byelite collegesanduniversities; getmore studentsfrom diversebackgroundsinto topinstitutions ofhighereducation.

• To help these

institutionswork oncreating a morediverse campusenvironment.

• To graduate

more studentsfrom diversebackgroundsfrom selectivecolleges anduniversities sothey can take onleadershippositions in theworkforce.

Dr. CarolBonillaBowmanand Dr.EdmundGordon;ConnoseurialEvaluation,1997-98

Thas talschonWmy woPo17hainsLeVahaalmschStupupaculeaaccroStustuThto issnaac

C-1
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

A BetterChance(ABC)(1963)

NY Corporate,

foundation,and privatedonations

• Recruitment

strategy thatidentifies,screens,evaluates, andrefers studentsto schools

• Assistance to

schools inadditionalminorityrecruitmentefforts

• Works directly

with students tohelp duringtransition period

• “Motivates”

students[unclear]

• Exposes

students to“appropriateopportunities”

• Advocacy• Volunteer

recruiters

Minority students justabout to enter highschool.

• “Provide

educationalopportunities tominoritystudents withthe talent andpotential toexcel...”

• “Provide

assistance andguidance tothese schools,students andtheir families toensure the bestpossiblelearning andsocializationexperiences...”

• “To provide

direct academicand careerdevelopmentassistance tostudents... andto generateopportunitiesand support fordevelopment ofthese studentsin the corporateand pubicsectors.”

1983survey ofalumni of ABetterChance:Sylvia T.John –PrincipalInvestigator(submittedto the FordFoundation),InternalProgramReview,1990;severalpublishedarticleswritten bycurrentpresident

NatalemoneithepreVominstupotexcrecstra“al– inacaABmeStubefWhpresellattHostuhig

C-2
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Detroit AreaPre-CollegeEngineeringProgram(DAPCEP)(1976)

MI Annual

corporategifts,governmentsupport, inkind supportfrom Detroitpublicschools,Detroit UrbanSystemicInitiative:NSF subgrant,Black UnitedFund/Combined FederatedCampaign:contributionsfrom federalemployeesAlsoestablishinganendowmentfund.$3.6 millionbudget fundedby local, state,and federalsources, and21 localcorps.

• In-school

classes

• Saturday and

summer“enrichment”programs

• Teacher training• Partnerships

withcorporations,government andeducationalleaders

• Active parent

group

Black, Hispanic, andNative American middleand high school studentswho are academicallyprepared and motivated

• To increase the

numbers ofblack, Hispanic,and NativeAmericanmiddle schooland high schoolstudents whoare “motivatedandacademicallyprepared topursue careersin the science,engineering,andmathematicsrelated fields”

StudentTrackingReport:summaryoffindings1976-1996;annualreport

DAPstudinvoand progover 12 awith (gra2,00“Colocaand provA paoffecollespon

C-3
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

OklahomaHigherLearningAccessProgram(OHLAP)(1992)

OK Oklahoma

StateLegislatureFund

• Scholarships• Scholarship

informationdisseminationprogram

• Requirements of

applicantsinclude goodschoolattendance, goodGPA, nosubstance abuse,no involvementin crime ordelinquent acts

9th and 10th grade

students who could dowell in college butwhose families’ yearlyincome is $24,000 orless

• To ensure that

students whomeet the criteriaare providedwith financialassistance tohelp relieve theburden ofpaying forcollege

1997-98YearEndReport

Stat1992 studattenapplassistay and acad

C-4
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

CollegeReach-OutProgram(1992)

FL Provided by

the GeneralAppropriations ActAn annualallocation tothePostsecondaryEducationPlanningCommission,whichprovides anannualprogramevaluation, isrequired

• Recruits

students

• Provides

“academicenrichmentactivities”

• Career

counseling

• Personal

counseling [usestutors, teachers,and counselors]

• “Competitive

award programgivingpreference toconsortiainvolving two ormore collegesand universities,projects thatsecure matchinggrant funds...”

• Coordinated

efforts betweencolleges andschools

• Parental

involvement

Low-incomeeducationallydisadvantaged studentsin grades 6-12Seeks students whowould not haveconsidered admission tocommunity college, stateuniversity, orindependent institutionsof higher education“without special supportand recruitment efforts”

• “To increase

the number oflow-incomeeducationallydisadvantagedstudents ingrades 6-12who, upon highschoolgraduation, areadmitted to andsuccessfullycomplete postsecondaryeducation"

StatewideEvaluationofFlorida’sCollegeReach-OutProgramAnnualReport:1995-96Cohort

CRpronorconto “motlowdisamidStuproaca“enParand indi

C-5 for 
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

I Have ADream(1981)

NYbased,butnationwidenetworkofprojects

Individualsponsors mustinitiate eachprogram;some obtainfoundation,corporate,governmental,andcommunitydonations.

• Sponsormentors• Adopted class or

group ofstudents(between 50 and100)

• Promised

financial aid forcollege

• Personal, yearround support

from elementaryschool throughhigh school

• “Social

intervention”programs

• Cultural and arts

education

• Advocacy and

policy work“aimed atreversing thetrend of losingyouth to ourtroubled streets”

• College and

universitypartnershipswith IHAD(e.g., summercamps)

• Corporate

partnerships(e.g.,internships)

Usually 8- to 9-year-oldchildren in elementaryschool in public housingdevelopments

• To help

sponsoredstudentsachieve their“dreams” andbecomeproductivecitizens

• “It is IHAD’s

goal that everyDreamergraduate fromhigh schoolfunctionallyliterate andprepared eitherfor furthereducation or forfulfillingemployment."

.

“The Roleof SocialCapital inYouthDevelopment: TheCase of ‘IHave ADream,”JosephKahneand KimBailey;“Beatingthe Odds:How thePoor GettoCollege,”ArthurLevineand JanaNidiffer;Newsclips

Proacabeg

enhrateand The57 

C-6
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

TexPrep:TexasPreCollegeEngineeringProgram(1979)

TX In-kind

“manpower”from variouspublic andprivate sectoragencies andinstitutions:local, state,and nationalcolleges anduniversities;militarycommands;State ofTexas; TexasHigherEducationCoordinatingBoardEisenhowerProgram;NASA, U.S.Dept. ofEnergy; othergov. agencies;public andprivateindustry;professionalorganizations;individuals;local schoolsystems; andSYETPsponsors

• Intensive

summerprogram

• Classes• Field trips• Guest speakers• School

universitypartnerships

• Class

assignments andlaboratoryprojects

• Scheduled

examinationsand final grades

Different sites haveslightly differenteligibility requirementsbut many students comefrom low-income,minority familiesNo tuition or fee ischarged.

• Identify and

offeracademicenrichmentopportunitiesfor middleand highschoolstudents with“high ability”who want topursue careersin science,math orengineering

“The TexasPrefreshmanEngineeringProgram:Filling thePipeline forWorkforceDiversity,”Manuel P.Berriozabal

TEocabscpSasintr

C-7
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

NJ CollegeBoundProgram(1986)

NJ $2.9 million

annual stateappropriation(part of theGovernor’sbudget)

• Academic

classes

• Summer

programs

• Counseling• Mentoring• Tutors• Parent

involvement

• Career

exploration

• Middle school

programs

“Urban/minority youth”grades 6-12 who are“historically underservedor underrepresented andwho are located in‘special needs’ schooldistricts as identified inthe 1990 QualityEducation Act”

• To provide

support in theform of grantsto precollege“educationalenrichmentactivities” thathelp to ensurehigh schoolgraduation andthe pursuit ofcollege inscience, math,and technology

“Evaluationof the NewJerseyCollegeBoundProgram:1997,” CarolF. Stoel(Sponsoredby the NJCommissionon HigherEd.)

C-8
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

PostsecondaryEnrollmentOptionsProgram(1985)

MN 1985 State

Legislaturecreatedprogram –part of theGovernor’s“Access toExcellence”school reformpackage

• College courses• Scholarship

assistance

• College credits• Puts resources in

the hands ofhigh schoolstudents andparents ratherthan secondaryschooladministrators

• Credit for

college courses

• Creates

opportunities forhigh schoolstudents andsome adults totake collegecourses

• Admission

controlled bycolleges to theircourses

High school juniors andseniors enrolled in MNpublic schools or adults21 years or older who donot have high schooldegree

• Provide

opportunity foracademicadvancementand encourage“rigorousacademicpursuits” forhigh schooljuniors andseniors byhaving themattend postsecondaryclasses at “stateexpense”

• “Promote

rigorousacademicpursuits andprovide avariety ofoptions for 11th

and 12th grade

students bygiving them anopportunity totakepostsecondaryclasses at stateexpense”

• Make schools

moreresponsive tostudent needsand interests

PostsecondaryEnrollmentOptionsProgram,3/1996ProgramEvaluationDivision,Office oftheLegislativeAuditor,State ofMinnesota

C-9
Name and date

founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

NeighborhoodAcademicInitiative(1991)

CA University of

SouthernCalifornia;foundations

• Neighborhood

initiative

• Parent

involvement

• Daily classes• Saturday classes• Counseling• Mentoring• Scholarships to

USC

• Recruitment/

SelectionProcess

• Mission

“students asscholars”

Low-income studentsfrom the communitysurrounding USC(heavily Hispanic andblack) who expressdesire to go to college

• “Untracking”

students whohave beentraditionallylabeled “at risk”and helpingthem to achieveacademically

“TrackingSchoolSuccess:PreparingLowIncomeUrbanYouth forCollege,”WilliamG. Tierney

C-10
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Kids toCollegeprogram(K2C)(1992)

MA Private/Sallie

Mae

• Day trip to

colleges

• College-school

partnership

6th graders attending

selected schools in MA

• School-based

initiative with acurriculum thatintroduces 6th

graders tocollegecampuses“arming themwithinformation andresources tomake the goalof going tocollege areality.” Thisprogram hopesto raise“students’expectationsabout going tocollege andabout careerpossibilities.”

None Sc

ba

clato spaninccaThIncoHiCeIndUnEdCeSpAwM

C-11
Name and date

founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

MilwaukeeParentalChoiceProgram(1990)

WI Public (state

and federal)

• Scholarships• School Choice

Family income below 1.75times the national povertyline.

• Publicly funded

school voucherprogram toincreaseschooling optionsfor low-incomefamilies and toincrease schoolcompletion rates.

CeleliaElenaRouse,PrincetonUniversity,and NBERJanuary1998

Puproopanratis Primed

C-12
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

BaltimoreCollegeBoundProgram

MD • Presentations on

college to 9th

and 10th graders

• Counseling

about college onindividual basisto 11th graders

• Last-dollar

scholarships

Serves college-boundstudents.

• To increase the

numbers of highschool studentswho apply,enroll, andgraduate fromcollege throughcounseling andscholarshipassistance.

none In 

Co

anmocofutgrthe anAlstuofsen

C-13
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

MartinLuther KingJr.-CesarChavezRosa ParksInitiative(1986)

MI State • Exposure to

collegelife/housing

• Exposure to

collegeacademics

• Information

counseling

• Travel money• Bridge program

Public school studentsgrades 6-11

• “Enrollment of

a significantnumber ofAfricanAmerican,Latino, andNativeAmericanstudents incollegepreparatorycourse in the 35targeted schooldistricts inMichigan.”

BoyneCountyResearchServices1995

1. 2. 3. 4. 

C-14
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Prep for Prep(1976)

NY Funded

entirelythroughprivatedonationsfromcorporations,foundationsand individualsponsors

• Network of

elementary andjunior highschools used torecruit students

• Two 7-week

summer sessions

• After-school

Wednesday andall-day Saturdayclasses duringthe school year

• Placement in

independentschools (36 dayschools and 10boardingschools)

• Scholarships• Post-placement

counseling andactivities

• Leadership

development(personal,academic andcollegecounseling)

• Campus visits

for 11th and 12th

graders

Underrepresented(minority) junior highschool students andelementary schoolstudents

• To develop the

leadershippotential ofyoung peoplefromunderrepresentedgroups in societyby identifyingtalented studentsand placing themin independentschools – with asupport program

none E

6istsasf

C-15
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

CollegeBoundProgram(1989)

National General

Electric

• Grants made to

schools to workon increasingcollege-goingrates of students

• Volunteers from

GE

• Counseling• Mentoring• Test preparation• Campus visits• “Job

shadowing”

• Supplemental

instruction

• Tutoring• Special

academiccourses

• Saturday

workshops

• Curriculum

reform

(components listedabove varied byschool)

At-risk students(although this varied byschool)

• To increase the

college-goingrate at 11schoolsreceivingCollege Boundgrants from GE

“RANDFormativeAssessment,”Susan J.Bodilly,Susanna W.Purnell, andPaul T. Hill

C-16
Name and date

founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Summerbridge(1978)

National Privately

funded:foundations,corporations,and individualsponsors

• Six-week, fulltime, academic

summerprogram

• After school or

weekendsupportthroughoutschool year

• Tutoring• Mentoring• Academic

counseling andadvocacy

“Motivated elementaryand middle schoolstudents with limitededucationalopportunities”

• “To empower

students tosucceed inrigorousacademic highschoolprograms thatwill enablethem to attendstrongcolleges”

• “To empower

high school andcollege studentsto fullyexperience thechallenges,exhilaration andrealities ofteaching”

• “To empower

all students totake ownershipof theireducation andbecome leaderswithin theirprograms andschools”

none Vo

coclastuchexhois ClphAmothto leaThSu

C-17
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

UrbanPartnershipProgram(1989)

national FIPSE; Ford

Foundation

Partnerships betweeninstitutions of highereducation and publicschools

Varies by project “To broaden

postsecondaryopportunities for atrisk students withcollege potential andto do so in a waythat fosters systemicchange”

none The 

parcolparidepatmidwitcol

C-18
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

GainingEarlyAwarenessandReadinessforUndergraduatePrograms(Gear Up)(1998)

national U.S.

Departmentof Education;FordFoundation;NationalCenter forUrbanPartnerships

• Technical

assistanceworkshops

• Online

informationresources

• After school

programs

• College visits• Academic

enrichment

• Partnerships

betweencolleges andjunior highschools

• Mentoring• Tutoring• Counseling

Low-income youth inmiddle schools

• “To encourage

more youngpeople to havehighexpectations,stay in school,study hard andtake the rightcourses to go tocollege”

none Ge

parlowbetGepro

C-19
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

College Kids(1994)

CA Foundation,

corporate,individualsponsors

• After-school

programs

• Academic

enrichment inmath, socialstudies,language arts,and science

• Parent

volunteers

• College prep

curriculum

• Parent programs• Mentoring

(connectingstudents toyoungprofessionals)

Low-income students • To help young

people fromlow-incomebackgrounds togain access tocollege

none Coll

pareunivleadfacustudtheir colleand and ThreLos San Proginterlearn

C-20
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

MontereyBayEducationConsortium(MBEC)

CA UC Santa

Cruz, KelloggFoundation,Bank ofAmerica(somesupporters)

• Provides critical

information toparents,teachers, andcommunitypartners to helpchildren worktoward college

• Ongoing

evaluation

• Curriculum

development(see “KidsAround theUniversity”

• Community

involvement

• Website

All students in theMonterey Bay area

• To increase the

“levels ofeducationalattainment of allstudents in theregion” of theMonterey Bayarea

none Fo

regthe attregof foryo

C-21
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

EarlyIdentificationProgram(1982)

WI WI

Departmentof PublicInstruction

• Academic

enrichmentworkshops andskill building

• Parental

involvement

• “Curriculum

guidance forminority anddisadvantagedmiddle schoolstudents”

• Pre-college

programs

• Career

explorationprogram

• Counseling• Tutoring• ACT

preparation

• Information

about collegeand financial aid

• Assistance with

collegeapplicationprocess andcitizenshiprequirements

• Annual

recognitionprograms

Minority anddisadvantaged middleschool and high schoolstudents

• “To identify

potentialacademicproblems beforethey arise andto recognizeacademicachievement”

• To help

studentsachieve theircareer,employmentand collegegoals

• To reduce high

school attrition

none Stu

grbe stagrPapeteaanheopcaThcoprobuwo

C-22
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Stress onAnalyticalReasoning(SOAR) –one programof theSummerScienceAcademy forHigh SchoolStudents(1988)

LA Xavier

University;outsidefoundationsupport andsponsorsincluding theHowardHughesMedicalInstitute, theBureau ofHealthProfessions,and theJoseph andFlorenceRobleeFoundation(donations arealso made byXavierfaculty)

• Residential

program

• Daily quizzes• “Rapid

turnaround” ingrading

• Problem solving• Two hours of

homework daily

• Emphasis on

vocabulary andreading skills

• “Group

competitions” toencourage peersupport based onacademics

• Students as

group leaders

• Student tutors• Parent

orientation

• Weekly report

cards sent toparents

• Awards

ceremony

• Social activities

Pre-college students(mostly black femalestudents apply.)

• To increase the

numbers ofblack studentsprepared forand enteringcollege in thescience fields

(SOAR originallybegan as an effort toreduce freshmanattrition rates inscience courses atXavier U. and toincrease theirsuccess in mathcourses.)

Biosciencearticle“Minorities inthe biologicalsciences – theXaviersuccess storyand someimplications,”JWCarmichaelJr., Deidre D.Labat,Jacqueline T.Hunter, J.Ann Privett,and John P.Sevenair

C-23
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

EarlyIdentificationProgram(EIP) (1987)

VA George Mason

University;schoolsuperintendent’soffice

• Summer

academicprogram

• School-year

tutoring

• Saturday

enrichment

• SAT prep• Parent

involvement

• College

applicationassistance

High school studentswith “uneven academicrecords” who are at riskof “not successfullycompleting school” andmost will be firstgeneration collegestudents. EIP is targetedtoward minoritystudents.

• To help able but

at-risk highschool studentssuccessfullycomplete highschool, apply toand be admittedat college

Westat“ReachingforCollege”casestudiesevaluationbook, 1992

C-24
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

College Now(1984)

NY State • CUNY

placement test

• College-level

courses

• Remedial

courses

“Moderate achievers,”define as high schoolstudents whose averagesfall between 65 and 85(D and B).

• To ease the

transition fromhigh school tocollege formoderatelyachievingstudents whomay not haveconsideredcollege anoption

Westat“ReachingforCollege”casestudiesevaluationbook,1992

CbCNprhmpabah

C-25
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

BiomedicalSciencesPreparationProgram(BioPrep)(1982)

AL University of

Alabama;public andprivatefunding

• Professional

development forteachers

• Campus visits• Assistance with

applications tocollege andfinancial aidforms

• Parent

involvement

Disadvantaged rural highschool students “whoseschools lack a rigorouscollege-preparatorycurriculum”

• To help

disadvantagedhigh schoolsstudents topursue a careerin medicine orhealth sciencesby providing acollege-prepcurriculum—with the hopethat thesestudents wouldreturn to theircommunities toestablish theircareers.

Westat“ReachingforCollege”casestudiesevaluationbook,1992

Sin 

ateTin cBspthwc

C-26
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

EarlyOutreachProgram(1980)

IL University,

state, privateand corporatedonations;Mayor’soffice fundssummer jobprogram

• Saturday

academicprogram

• Tutoring• Counseling• Financial aid• Parent

involvement

• Assistance with

collegeapplications andforms

Junior high school andhigh school minoritystudents

• To encourage

minoritystudents topursue collegeandprofessionalcareers

Westat“ReachingforCollege”casestudiesevaluationbook,1992

ThSaprmwrThindeas Eapaa mplscbaIll

C-27
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Step toCollege/Mission toCollege(1985)

CA San Francisco

StateUniversity;some highschoolmoney; somefederal moneyfrom TitleVII; somefoundationsupport.

• College-level

classes

• Tutoring• Counseling• Followup in

college

• College prep

curriculum

• Professional

development forfaculty

• Bilingual

curriculum/programs

Underrepresentedminority high schoolstudents

• To “create a

culture ofcollege-going”among studentswho may notbelieve orrealize thatcollege is forthem

Westat“ReachingforCollege”casestudiesevaluationbook,1992

Hcainapsksufituth

C-28
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Project Step(1981)

CA FIPSE;

private andcorporatedonations/grants

• Partnership of

administrators,college faculty,principals,teachers, parentsand students

• Curriculum

development

• Professional

development

• Counseling• Tutoring

All students, “especiallyunderrepresentedminority students”

• To improve

academicpreparation ofall students inmath andscience

• To develop

teachers ofmath andscience

• To develop

educationreform models

• To establish

permanentschool-collegepartnerships

Westat“ReachingforCollege”casestudiesevaluationbook,1992

PdpedpedthPoP

C-29
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

21st Century

ScholarsProgram(1990)

IN State; Lily

Foundation

• Scholarship

assistance;tuition free atpublicuniversities

• Funding is equal

to public tuitionif student goesto privateinstitution

Indiana students • To reduce drop

out rates

• To dramatically

increase thenumbers ofstudents inIndiana who goto college

• To reduce the

cost barriers forlow-incomestudents

• To decrease

drug andalcohol use

• To improve

economics inIndiana

Statewidedata onhigh schoolretention,collegepreparationandenrollment;scholarshipfundsexpended,student testscores; etc.

8

cthaspsahD““psin ptesapato ewlobse

C-30
Name and date

founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Indiana Career&PostsecondaryAdvancementCenter(ICPAC)(1986)

IN State (Lilly

Foundationalso supportssome efforts)

• Extensive

informationgathering anddisseminationsystem thatallows highschoolcounselors topinpoint needsof students andlink them toavailableservices. (LillyFoundationprovidesfunding for anumber ofprogramsprovidingintensiveservice.) Highaspirationscampaign andup to 100percentscholarships forlow-incomestudents.

• Toll-free hotline

Indiana students • To dramatically

increase thenumbers ofIndiana studentswho go on tohighereducation andto reduce thecost barriers forlow-incomestudents.

Statewidedata on highschoolretention,collegepreparationandenrollment; Scholarshipfundsexpended,student testscores, etc.

C-31
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Project Grad(1993)

TX Houston

schooldistrict;considerablecorporatesponsorship

• Consistency

management &cooperativediscipline(CMCD)

• Move it Math

(MIM)

• University of

ChicagoSecondary Mathprogram

• Success for All

& CooperativeIntegratedReading andComprehension(CIRC)

• Cities in Schools• Scholarship

program

Entire feeder schoolnetwork. three now inprogram includingelementary, middle, andhigh schools

“Produce collegebound high schoolgraduates ofdistinction.” Lovefor learning, highacademicexpectations,strengthened skills,and ultimatelycollege attendance.

Annualevaluationsinclude prepost data onschoolclimatemeasuresand studentoutcomeswithcomparisonschools onTAAS andStanford 9,high schoolgraduationand collegematriculationdata

C-32
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

Puente(1993)

CA State,

University ofCA, and somefoundation.Per-studentcost about$500 perannum

• 2-year English

class

• 4-year counselor

daily

• Mentoring• Classes• Field trips

Targets full range ofstudents who exhibitdesire to go to college.Students must have goodschool attendance.Entering GPAs rangefrom 1.6. to 4.0.

Increase thenumbers of Chicanostudents going on to4-year college andincrease theircompetitiveeligibility for UC

4-yearevaluationincludingmatchedcontrolscomparingretention,GPA,collegeprepcourses,andcollegeenrollment.Statewidedata onattitudestowardschool,higher ed.

Sin2pafoinPscaPcau

C-33
Name and

date founded State Funding Main components Student eligibility Mission/goals Data 

AVID (1980) CA and

severalotherstates

State and K12 schools.Per-studentcost approx.$625 annually

• Additional

classes

• Guest speakers• Field trips• “Untracking”• College prep

Average to high-scoringstudents (in reading)who are underperforming (C average)but who express desire togo to college.

To increase thenumber of lowincome and underrepresentedstudents who aregiven access tocollege prep coursesand who go on tocollege.

Programgraduatesfrom SanDiego, CAcomparedto allstudents inthe samedistrictand thestate forcollegematriculation.

ThfoAVstucoCoStcospcopr

C-34