Title: Community Relevancy and Academic Impact: Measuring the Effectiveness of the California Teacher Pathway (CTP) and STEM Summer Institute on Latino Students Educational Outcomes
Ed.D. Candidate: Carissa A. Purnell, San Francisco State University
Research Question(s):
1.  How is the California Teacher Pathways (CTP) model maintaining its commitment to the “50/50 design” (Henderson et. al, 2012) of incorporating local relevancy alongside nationwide based research to participating underrepresented students in their journey overcoming socioeconomic barriers to get to college?
2.  What is CTP doing to cater its practices and model design to directly serve the learning, social, financial, and educational needs of their identified demographic in their pathway to higher education?
3.  How has the STEM Summer Institute contributed to the broader goals of CTP in contributing to increasing access to higher education for California’s Latino students?
Conceptual Framework and Purpose:
Increasing Access to Higher Education for California’s Latino Students
In California Latinos constitute 48% of California’s college age population, and in 2015 it is projected this age group, 18-24, will represent 52% of the state’s population (College Campaign, 2012). While 57 percent of Latino students graduated from high school across the state in 2009 only 16% graduated with scores making them eligible to enroll in California’s 4-year universities, and only 8% actually enrolled (Walters, 2012). For every 100 Latino students who entered a California high school in 2009 only 15 enrolled in a community college, 6 at a CSU institution, and 2 at a UC campus (UCLA IDEA, 2007). In addition to low enrollment in the CSU, UC, and private college systems despite 7 out of 10 California Latinos enrolling in a community college, only 2 out of those 10 will obtain an associate’s degree, and only 14% will transfer.
Two key factors that pose as barriers to eligibility and access to the higher education arena are language and income (Lopez, 2009). Seventy-six percent of Latino students traditionally speak a language other than English in their homes and live in lower levels of household income representation. According to 2009 the report from the Pew Hispanic Center authored by Lopez, the median annual household income for Latino families was only $20,000, and furthermore to augment the severity of the economic household climate for Latino students, 30% under the age of 17 live in poverty.
This educational attainment and opportunity gap that exists between Latino students and their white peers leaving them two to three years behind academically (McKinsey, 2008) is the result of an educational inequity in the state of California where more than half of the state’s students are Latino; of the 6.2 million students statewide, 3.1 million are reported Hispanic or Latino (The California Department of Education, 2010). The intention of the CTP is to deliberately investigate and close this gap.
The CTP project is to, “enable under-served, low-income youth to have paid employment in the afterschool workforce while earning a community college Associate of Arts (AA) degree… while also creating a continuous career pathways that leads to a multiple Subject Credential, then to teaching careers in K-8 settings” (Henderson et. al, 2012, p1). The CTP model deliberately recognizes the financial and social situations its student participants come from, and directly aims to adjust and create programmatic elements to address these two issues of income and language/culture for Latino students.
CTP has been designed to cater the learning styles of underrepresented students with a cultural and socioeconomic sensitivity that is not incorporated into California’s public education system at the K-12 level. Diane Ravitch (2010) notes the adoption of “No Child Left Behind” has left classrooms intensely focused on standardized testing outcomes in order to meet state mandated proficiencies, and many schools and districts meet these proficiency expectations at the expense of cutting social studies, arts, music, and culturally relevant coursework that directly impacts students of color.
The purpose of this evaluation study is to explore not only the root causes of barriers to educational access to California’s Latino students enrolled in the CTP program, but to highlight the aspects of the model that have increased CTP student learning and community engagement at College 1 and College 2.
Relevant Theoretical and Empirical Literature:
Adopting a Pedagogical Model Rooted in Culture and Community
Researchers and educators in the urban education field stress a strong need to recognize the socioeconomic and diverse cultural backgrounds California’s students come to the classroom with. This idea of recognizing and adapting learning to California’s Latino and students of color is best defined through the lens of culturally critical pedagogy. Based on the educational theory of Freire (1970) the practice of critical pedagogy is designed to develop the critical thinking and conscious freedom of students through the recognition of their own experiences as valid, moving from thought and discussion to action. This pedagogy is one, “…that acknowledges the spaces, tensions, and possibilities for struggles within the day-to-day workings of schools” (Giroux, 2010, p. 121). CTP recognizes the additional need Latino students may have and provides an academic coach or student support specialist throughout the program to serve as a familiar face, that understands the cultural and linguistic situation of students and can connect them to tutoring or wraparound support.
Leading advocates in the adoption of critical pedagogy in urban classrooms, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) note that this recognition of culture and community are imperative to the education reform movement,
To be effective, urban education reform movements must begin to develop partnerships with communities that provide young people the opportunity to be successful while maintaining their identities as urban youth. This curriculum, and pedagogy identifies the cultures and communities of urban students as assets rather than things to be replaced (p.7).
CTP incorporates these elements through it’s “50/50” design model. While 50% of the CTP evaluation will focus on assessing the success of the wrap around support, the student gains in student English and Math skills, progress in the pathway toward a credential, 50% will be organic to the local program (Henderson et. al, 2012). This recognition that local work and evaluation is equally relevant to the broader education scope of academic gain is a reflection of the CTP commitment to culturally relevant critical pedagogy for its participants.
In addition to the “50/50” model the afterschool model adoption directly addressing the financial needs of California’s Latino students who struggle with household poverty more than any other racial group in California (PEW Hispanic Research Center).CTP provides after school employment in a community-based organization to maintain not only cultural relevance, but relevance in the pathway to higher education process. Children Now (2010) prepared a policy brief that stated,
“An afterschool workforce that is linked to a career ladder benefits students, teachers entering the field and education systems… Student participation in afterschool programs is associated with improved school performance, decreased dropout rates, increased self-confidence, and positive school behaviors. Young people who regularly attend afterschool programs have higher rates of school attendance and are less tardy” (p. 4)
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis: Design, Setting, Participants:
The study was a comprehensive mixed methods study the collected both quantitative and qualitative data across three sites throughout the greater Bay Area of California, including two community colleges (College 1 and College 2) a local community nonprofit agency.
Participants in the data collection were active participants in the CTP and STEM Summer Institute and included students from College 1 and College 2, their course instructors, in addition to a student support specialist.
Instruments:
1.  Focus Groups
2.  Document Analysis
3.  Content Pre/Post Test
4.  Qualitative Pre/Post Student Experience Survey
A variety of data collection tools were utilized to capture a broad scope of perspective in a variety of formats to provide the most comprehensive reflection of both the structure of the CTP, STEM Summer Institute Programs and the experiences of participating students.
The focus group protocol was a collaborative design from three SFSU Doctoral Candidates. Each was scheduled in partnership with the student support specialist to ensure the scheduling and environment was in the best interest of student schedules and environments.
Document analysis was conducted in the beginning of the research to provide foundational background information to each individual researcher. SFSU Doctoral Candidates drafted data memos to capture the key content features of selected research and created an index of related subject materials and key vocabulary to be referenced throughout the research process.
Both the content and experience pre and post-tests were designed by the contracted agency MPR. This research body created the questions and SFSU Doctoral candidates distributed the surveys and tests with the support of student support specialist staff in addition to the grading, data entry, and data analysis of each implemented instrument.
Timeline of Data Collection:
January-April 2012: Literature Review, Program Research, Data Collection Design
This four-month block was allocated to the collection and analysis of current CTP literature. Document analysis and research took place, as the Ed.D evaluation fellows documented the CTP model and its historic origins. Documents were organized into a comprehensive index to capture both the demographic audience, socioeconomic, and education support models of the CTP design. This index will allow for the creation of survey and focused interview questions.
May-July 2012: Fieldwork and Data Collection
This time frame allowed for classroom observation and fieldwork study following the distribution of generated surveys to CTP student participants, after school employers, and the parents of CTP student participants. This block was identified during the summer months when Summer STEM Institute was in place in order to allow for direct fieldwork in addition to the pre/post testing of content knowledge acquisition and student experience pre/post STEM Summer Institute.
August-September 2012:Data Analysis and Progress Report #2
Upon the completion of summer data collection, analysis took place to compose the second progress report addressing the STEM Summer Institute outcomes. SPSS Statistics will served as the primary resource for the organization of collected quantitative data, in addition to SurveyGizmo features to generate the graphical data as requested by MPR. Qualitative data collected from interviews and online surveys was generated into an additional index to be compared alongside the introductory index based off document analysis and research from phase one. These two elements served as the primary content drafted into progress addressing the STEM Summer Institute submitted in September in partnership with MPR.
November 2012- March 2013: Fieldwork, Data Collection and Analysis
These months served to collect additional data to capture student voice and analyze all collected materials to compile a final report for submission. Indexes compiled in year one were compared to the indexes and data collected in year two to capture the long term impact of the CTP and STEM Summer Institute programs on participating students.
Data Analysis:
Data Source / Proposed Analysis
Summer STEM Institute Pre/Post Content Tests
(College 1, College 2) / The pre and post tests were distributed to student enrolled in Chemistry and Life Science. Only 5- 20% participated in science courses at the college level prior to entering the STEM Summer Institute with only 40% having taken science at the high school level. Despite little foundational background there was an average percentage gain of 2% from 29 to 31 percent correct on the Physics assessment. There was an 11% gain from 26 to 37 percent in Physical science, and a 13% gain from 36 to 49 percent in chemistry. 58% self reported a gain in understanding and comprehension of materials.
Summer STEM Institute Pre/Post Student Surveys
(College 1, College 2) / One of the most successful components to the STEM Summer Institute as reflected in the student survey was the role of the support specialist. 42% were in contact with them on a daily basis, and 66% rated them as “very helpful” while the remaining 33% identified them as “helpful.” While there was no statistically significant increase in interest amongst sciences, there was a dramatic number of students who felt the program increased their capacity as an educators and professional with 72% who “developed skills needed to become a teacher” and 68% marked the program “improved my ability to teach math and science to younger students.”
Focus Group, College 1 Community College
(CCCFG) / Students believed they had more fruitful ideas and curriculum enhancement ideas that could be applied in their instruction, but were not given the opportunity to place their own thoughts and ideas into their curriculum. From the kits students were not allowed to deviate, and this left students feeling like they were simply following directions of another, rather than truly learn to grow their own teaching style.
Students often felt rushed and forced to complete tasks while being ill prepared. If students are expected to teach they need increase access to classroom for set up time, and increased time allotted to develop curriculum and set up materials.
The largest student concern rose of out of a recognition to increase support to the young children they were expected to teach. STEM participants were not taught classroom management and disciplinary skills, and felt ill prepared to deal with socioeconomic factors that affected the behaviors and actions of the youth they were expected to teach.
Youthworker to Teacher Pathway (YTP) Survey
(College 2) / The YTP survey administered online yielded 24 responses to a variety of questions regarding personal experience, academic attainment, set goals, and outcome. The majority of students sited focus and “staying on track” as the most beneficial outcome of the program as cited in the text response portion of the survey. This proved to be a key element as the most difficult cited experiences included “papers… vocabulary… coursework…and materials.” The transition was reportedly difficult but the support specialists and cohort model coupled with community relevancy allowed students to stay focused as cited with the collected survey data. In addition the results yielded a positive financial and work force experience that served as both motivation and encouragement for pursuing a career in education, another key goal of the CTP framework.
Field Notes
(College 1, College 2) / Field notes were collected by two SFSU Doctoral Candidate students during the Chemistry lecture and student led module portion of the STEM Summer Institute. Both researchers noted the rigor of the academic content and encourage and investment from the instructor that fostered the growth of participating students. This was reflected in the highest reported grades of the three courses under evaluation during the STEM Summer Institute. 30% of the students earned an A, while 40% earned a B which reflects not only academic success, but quality instruction given only 5-20% had taken college level courses. While the lecture and lab proved to behoove the academic pursuits of students, the time frame in which students were expected to deliver the module trainings to youth were too short for a meaningful impact. This was demonstrated in field notes which reflected the urgency of students to adhere to mandated module rules, as well as in focus group data where students requested more time to not only complete the modules, but include time for prep and debrief.