Ohana School
Moving Forward in Education
Doug Gilbert and Maria Mill
ard
June 9, 2008
Stanford University
anthony lising antonio
Educ 417X
1
As Stanford University School of Education students getting ready to graduate we are eager to use our knowledge, passion and experience to affect social change and improve the state of education. We are deeply disturbed by the inequalities that pervade access to higher education and hope to use this paper to build a foundation for reform. In this paper we will use a cultural perspective to discuss talent loss, current college access programs and the need for reform. We have created a new educational design with real socioeconomic diversity and a hands-on and fully engaging curriculum. We recognize that there are already many notable efforts aimed at increasing the college-going rates of historically underrepresented groups in higher education. Yet, rates of attendance have not changed much over time. So, we ask ourselves, does it really make sense to continue and expand the types of college access initiatives that have already been attempted for numerous years, or do we need something radically different?
Part I Background: Addressing the Problem through a cultural Perspective
According to 1996 NCES data, 70% of high school graduates expect to go to college. However, the “education funnel effect” is apparent—fewer students who expect to go to college actually do (Antonio lecture April 3, 2008). The unfortunate reality is that a person’s social class and family background is one of the strongest predictors of whether they complete college or not. In 2004, the Pell Institute found that only 24.3% of students in the bottom income quartile completed a bachelor’s degree compared to 98.4% of students in the top income quartile (Mortenson 2006: 5). Thomas Kane, writes that family income has an effect on college enrollment “no matter what,” even after controlling for preparedness (Bowen & Kurzweil 2006: 85). We like to think that we live in a society where motivation, self-reliance and hard work result in social and economic mobility, but as Mike Rose writes, these ideas are in fact, “serious nonsense” (Rose 1989: 47, Millard et al 2008: 1).
Access to higher education varies dramatically across social class and racial groups. As mentioned above, students from higher income backgrounds have a much higher chance of going to college than their lower-income counterparts. Only 56% of first-generation students enroll in higher education as compared to 85% of non first-generation students. Continuation rates also vary across racial groups: 54% for Asian-Americas, 31% for Latinos, 42% for blacks and 47% for whites. Despite recent efforts to level the playing field, college going rates have not changed in ways that we would hope. Disparities between racial and economic groups have remained fairly constant over time (Antonio lecture, April 3, 2008).
This talent loss, “the non-utilization of those personal capacities which are necessary for the occurrence of socially significant performance” or the students with ability to attend a post-secondary institution but don’t enroll in college, is a complex issue that begins well before a student enters high school (Astin & Holland 1962: 79). Talent loss among traditionally underrepresented groups (low-income, blacks, Hispanics) has been interpreted through multiple perspectives—cultural, structural and curricular—each perspective offering valuable insight into the problem (Antonio lecture May 8, 2008). In this section, we will examine the factors of talent loss through a cultural perspective. We will discuss the roles of habitus, organizational habitus, cultural capital and social capital on educational outcomes. Figure 1 illustrates how these factors can be detrimental or helpful to a student, depending upon how they are accessed and utilized.
Habitus & Organizational Habitus:
Habitus is a common set of subjective perceptions which individuals receive from their immediate environment and which are shared by all members of the same social class (McDonough 1997: 106). It is a tacit understanding of how forces and social action are arranged in a particular field and guides decision-making. The habitus for postsecondary aspiration is one of high educational aspirations, a taste for colleges of the highest status, and the confidence and belief of individual success with respect to educational attainment (Antonio lecture April 23, 2008). Habitus begins to be internalized at birth. Therefore, in order to influence someone’s habitus to include a taste for higher education, it is crucial that they are exposed to attitudes that are supportive of education and a college-going culture at a young age.
Individuals have habitus and so do institutions. Organizational habitus is also important in influencing a young person’s decision about whether or not to go to college. Organizational habitus refers to the values, beliefs, norms and expectations of an intermediate organization, such as a high school. It provides meaning for students and shapes social interactions. The organizational habitus of a school includes the actual structure of the school, its resources, and its normative structure. Factors that contribute to a school’s organizational habitus include: an organizational mission that more or less emphasizes college, a college-preparatory curriculum, and college preparation resources (timing, availability, and support for college advising). Organizational habitus does not exist independently of students’ habitus, cultural capital and socioeconomic status—it is intertwined with and shaped by the people who make up the organization. Organizational habitus shapes students’ perceptions of appropriate college choices, thereby affecting patterns of educational attainment (McDonough 1997: 106). Students who attend schools with a strong college-going organization habitus will be less likely to suffer talent loss and more likely to enter a post-secondary institution. However, which higher education institution a student chooses to attend (if they attend at all) is often dictated by their cultural capital.
Cultural Capital
Cultural capital is cultural knowledge, styles, preferences, attitudes, and credentials that serve the process of social distinction and mobility (Antonio lecture April 23, 2008). Bourdieu writes that cultural capital is transmitted from middle and upper class families to their offspring. It supplements economic capital in a way that works to maintain class status and privilege across generations (as cited in McDonough 1997: 9). A student’s ability to develop and access cultural capital depends on the field of interaction and their understanding of the field. The field “is a specific space of interaction where individuals struggle for class mobility and distinction” (Antonio lecture April 23, 2008). Multiple groups including parents, peers, teachers, family friends and relatives can provide students with cultural capital by transmitting the attitudes and knowledge needed to succeed. Within the field of postsecondary aspiration and mobility, forms of cultural capital include embodied forms such as: engaging in college-preparatory activities, knowledge of the landscape of postsecondary institutions, opportunities, and their social value, as well as objectified forms such as high-status college paraphernalia and high-end computer equipment and internet access (Antonio lecture April 23, 2008). Cultural capital is precisely the knowledge that elites value yet schools do not teach (McDonough 1997: 8). Although all social classes have their own forms of cultural capital, the dominant form of cultural capital is that which is possessed by the middle and upper classes (McDonough 1997: 9). One way that students can expand their cultural capital is through access to social capital.
Figure 2 The Influence of Social Capital
Social Capital
Figure 2 is a comic representation of how social capital influences the lives, educations and life opportunities of students. Social capital is one of the more difficult forms of capital to understand: it is less tangible because it exists in the relations among people. James Coleman defines social capital by its function—social structures only become social capital when they enable an actor to further his or her interests (Coleman 1988: S98). Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, has conducted the most extensive studies on social capital in America. Putnam, controlling for family background and other variables, finds that the relationship between educational performance (measured by SAT scores, test scores, and high school completion rates) and social capital is two orders of magnitude stronger than “spending on schools or teacher/pupil ratios or any of the obvious things that are usually thought to increase educational performance.” Putnam’s findings are consistent with other work that has been done on social capital and education. Hofferth, Boisjoly and Duncan, in their article “Parents’ Extrafamilial Resources and Children’s School Attainment,” find that extrafamilial ties are strongly linked to a child’s educational outcomes. They argue, “families who are more embedded in a network of social exchanges outside their households are better able to develop their children’s human capital than are those who are not” (Hofferth et al 1998: 248). Relationships with people who have information and experience regarding higher education can positively influence and support the college choice processes of high school students. The more support a student has through access to relevant social capital, the more likely they are to enter higher education.
Part II College Access Programs: The Current Market
College access programs can be tremendously helpful in providing information about available resources as well as providing emotional and academic support. They can help families become more involved with their child’s education by providing them with information about “academic help, good guidance counselors, information on financial aid and the college admissions process and institutional agents in the school” (Kim et al 2005: 1184). However, most programs devote more attention to academics than influencing the cultural talent loss factors previously mentioned. Some programs recognize the importance of aspiration but many programs can’t influence the deeply engrained expectations and problems of going to college. In this section we will provide a brief over-view of three different kids of college access programs, each working to address talent loss through a different organizational structure.
Federally funded TRIO programs are, according to the website, "educational opportunity outreach programs designed to motivate and support students …” who are “low-income, first-generation college students, and students with disabilities” (TRIO 2008, Millard et al. 2008: 3). To see how TRIO defines “low-income” and therefore, eligibility for its programs, see Figure 3 (USDOE 2008). Does a single mom with one child who is making $23,000 qualify?
TRIO programs are located all over the country and serve students with a diversity of racial backgrounds, depending on where the program is located (Millard et al, 2008: 2). There are over 2,700 TRIO programs that serve nearly 866,000 low-income Americans. The racial breakdown of TRIO students nationally is: 37% Whites, 35% African American, 19% Hispanics, 4% Native Americans, and 1% Other. There are also 22,000 students with disabilities enrolled in the programs, and 25,000 U.S. veterans (All Aboard US 2008). TRIO programs report good outcomes. One of their programs, Upward Bound, for example, reports that 78.5% of students who began Classic Upward Bound programs in 2000 either completed college or were still enrolled by 2004. For that same year, 83% of Math-Science Upward Bound students had either graduated or were still enrolled in college (UB Database 2005). TRIO claims to help students overcome class, social, and cultural barriers to higher education (All Aboard US 2008). Perhaps, some of the programs that begin working with middle school students and provide support until college graduation are able to influence social and cultural barriers, but we are skeptical of TRIO programs that only begin working with students in eleventh grade.
Another college access program, located within high schools, is the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) model which is accessible to low-income and first generation college students. Used in over 3500 hundred school in the United States, AVID has a proved record of “detracking” students and helping them to push themselves academically through tutoring, structure, and motivational programming (Gilbert 2008: 1). AVID, through a focus on academics, provides its students with “explicit instruction in the implicit or hidden curriculum of the school.” Additionally, it strives to provide students some of the cultural capital that more economically advantaged parents give to their children at home (Gandara et al. 1999: 6). But, if AVID is only working with high schoolers, how can it influence habitus? Can it really challenge low-expectations?
Like the AVID program, the College Track program also provides study skills, tutoring and college advice, in an after-school environment for low-income students. Unlike AVID, College Track is a small scale after school support program in three locations in California. Former president Bill Clinton has recently praised this organization in his book Giving: “With a rate of 86 percent of College Tracks’ students attending college compared to the 29 percent national average, College Track could be replicated in virtually every community (Clinton 2007: 132).” Last year, 97% of its seniors were UC eligible (Gilbert et al: 2008: 1). While College Track reports some of the highest college continuation rates, it serves far fewer students than other programs and relies on private donors to assist funding. AVID appears to influence students’ disposition to higher education, but does it influence their internalized habitus?
We have discussed several models of college access programs that seem to be effective and certainly conceived with noble intentions. However, these programs also have many shortcomings. According to the research, most access programs are too focused on short-term solutions. From our work on habitus and the various forms of capital, we know that the college decision process occurs much before 11th grade, the year that most access programs target. Additionally, most programs do not develop strong relationships with sending high schools or the higher education institutions their students will attend. Despite being located at colleges and universities, most access programs do a poor job of integrating with the university as a whole (Antonio lecture May 8, 2008). Perhaps, this is because most programs run in the summer when most university operations are limited. In addition, many programs are dependent on soft money—the goodwill of wealthy donors and tenuous grants. As a result, access programs operate under many financial limitations and have to honor the stipulations attached to the money they receive. As a result, they d o not always have the freedom to act, in what is in their opinion, the best interest of kids (Solari lecture May 8, 2008).
Another problem with college access programs is that they tend to measure their success differently, making it hard to compare them and adopt best practices from each. Is success about being UC eligible, is it about gaining entry to a higher education institution or is success about graduating from a four-year college? Some programs track improvement of high school grades, some track the percentage of their participants who go on to college, some focus on degree completions while others are more concerned about “intangibles,” feelings, attitudes and other outcomes that are nearly impossible to measure with an assessment tool (Solari lecture 2008). However, most programs rely on little more than anecdotal information to determine if their students complete college degrees (Antonio lecture May 8, 2008).