Policy Brief of the Early Identification Program in Fairfax County

EIP 1

Running head: EIP

Policy Brief of the Early Identification Program in Fairfax County

Roger S. Baskin, Sr.

George Mason University

Abstract

The gap in access to postsecondary education has been a concern of colleges and universities for some time. Equally concerned are public school districts who see disparities in college attendance among their students. Of particular concern are those students who do not have the social capital necessary to successfully navigate the courses and practices consistent with admission to college. One such program that attempts to provide both the social and cultural capital needed to gain college admission is the Early Identification Program (EIP). The purpose of this paper is to describe EIPand the research that suggests the need for such a program.

Policy Brief of the Early Identification Program in Fairfax County

Introduction

Established in 1987, the Early Identification Program (EIP) is a partnership between George Mason University (GMU) and sevenpublic school districts in Northern Virginia. It is designed to address the access gap that exists between at-risk students and their counterparts in gaining college admission. The purpose of this paper is to share the basic construction of the program and to identify key research associated with the problem EIP is designed to address—college access. Of specific interest to this paper, is the implementation of the program in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS).

Early Identification Program

EIP was established to meet the needs of middle and high school students who could become the first college students in their families. A partnership between GMU and seven public school districts—FCPS, Arlington County Public Schools (APS), Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS), Falls Church City Public Schools (FCCPS), Manassas City Public Schools (MCPS), Manassas Park City Public Schools (MPPS), and Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS)—the program has grown from working with a few targeted schools in FCPS in 1987 to adding its seventh partnership just last year (ACPS). Directed by Hortensia Cadenas since 1990, the objectives of the program include identifying students with academic potential who need additional support, encouraging students to consider attending college, increase students’ leadership skills and academic interests, and to educate and assist parents as they attempt to guide their student to college.

Seventh grade students are selected for EIP(hence the term early identification) based on the recommendation of their teachers or guidance counselors. Once students are recommended, they fill out an application and are given consideration based on program resources and strength of the application which includes information about student demographics, a teacher or school counselor recommendation, a recommendation from a member of the community (clergy, coach, etc.) and grades. Students who are strong applicants have demonstrated both the interest in the program, the time to participate (including weekend programs, weekly tutoring, and summer enrichment), and a need for this support (particularly low parent advocacy and low educational attainment of family members). Students who participate are typically from underrepresented populations in college—minorities, low-income, and average to low-performing in school.

The program commences in eighth grade. Students are encouraged to participate in the programs offered by EIP and to take challenging classes that prepare them for college. The tutoring is designed to offer the support students need to be successful. If students are successful in continuing in the program through their senior year in high school, they gain admission to GMU. Students who demonstrate financial need may also get financial assistance if they attend GMU. Some students, however, choose to attend other universities after graduation.

EIP offers tutoring sessions with volunteers from GMU (typically students and former EIP students), math and science workshops, college preparation workshops, leadership workshops, and cultural fieldtrips and other experiences. There is both a three-week summer component where students meet on the GMU Fairfax campus and a school-year component that provides tutoring either on a GMU campus (Fairfax or Prince William) or at a school in the partnering district.

Table 1 demonstrates all school districts involved in the program, the year they began the partnership, and information about yearly enrollment numbers and liaison offices. This information was gathered by looking on the EIP and homepage and the homepages of the school districts involved in the partnership. As demonstrated by the table, most districts offer very little information about the program on their Internet sites. There are also differences in administration of the program from district to district. In some districts, the liaison is a central office; in others, the liaison is a school administrator. Clearly, the districts with the longest history of involvement with the program have much more available information about their partnership.

TABLE 1

School District / Year Partnership Established / Number of Schools Targeted within the Partnership / Number of Students Enrolled each Year / Current
School District
Liaison
FCPS / 1987 / 6 Middle Schools
5 High Schools / 134 / Office of College Success
APS / 1988 / All middle and high schools / 25 / Office of Minority Achievement
PWCPS / 1991 / All middle and high schools / NA / NA
FCCPS / 1998 / All middle and high schools / NA / ESOL Coordinator
MCPS / 2004 / All middle and high schools / NA / NA
MPPS / 2004 / All middle and high schools / NA / NA
ACPS / 2009 / All middle and high schools / NA / NA

Until recently, EIP was administered by the Office of Student Achievement in FCPS. It is now under the supervision of the Office of College Success, which is a part of the Instructional Services Department. This office supervises a variety of college access programs including AVID, Project Discovery, and the College Partnership Program. Like other school districts, FCPS is responsible for providing funds for transportation of students to fieldtrips, summer enrichment, and other activities connected with EIP. EIP provides the campus experience and the tutors.

Unlike the other school districts, FCPS has chosen to limit the scope of its delivery of the program—offering it only to select schools where students demographically fit the search criteria. These schools tend to have larger percentages of students who received subsidized meals. Although some of the demographics of other schools have changed to qualify for the program, the district has not added new schools to receive services. If students from who are admitted to the program move to a school that is not a part of the EIP offering, the student still maintains participation but may have to supply their own transportation to tutoring sessions. This is because of the logic of transportation which only allows for transportation from areas where a majority of the students attend school.

An office under the supervision of University Life, University Life Assistant Vice President Pat Canetta has direct supervision over the director EIP. EIP is managed by a staff of six individuals including a director, financial resources manager, tutoring coordinator, and a tutoring coordinator for specific districts (MCPS, MPPS, PWCPS, and FCCPS). The office also maintains a newsletter for participants and their parents. A predominantly Hispanic female office, most staff members are former EIP students. And so, students continue to be a part of the EIP community even after they graduate from college. In addition to school districts financing transportation, there is a considerable amount of financial support from various private donors. The EIP office at GMU also works to secure continued financial support from these donors.

The Problem of College Access

EIP is designed to address many of the problems associated with college access of underrepresented populations. The impacts of system and personal barriers like generational poverty, navigation of the complex system of college admission, and the reconciliation of home culture and school culture all play a role in a student’s successful transition from high school to college. EIP is designed to support those students for whom college admission would be difficult without the assistance of the cultural capital offered by workshops and tutoring. Further, social capital is offered by the instruction given to parents about how best to navigate the university admissions process. Additionally, creating a partnership in middle school between students, parents, school and university has the potential to create a very powerful social collaborative that can enhance students’ perception of their ability to gain college admission (Farmer-Hinton, 2008). Finally, the fact that students can also earn financial assistance and automatic college admission creates a substantial economic capital gap stop for students who aspire to postsecondary education.

The education of minorities has always been a controversial issue in American politics and research. Questions of equal intelligence and the moral standards of minorities have brought many white researchers to question and test the degree to which members of minority populations should be afforded the right to attend school (Wiggins, 2007). Under the influence of Jim Crow laws college admission at predominantly white colleges and universities became a seemingly insurmountable barrier for minorities to overcome. With the success of the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the mid 1950s, research like that of Dr. Kenneth Clark’s doll experiment (used as part of the plaintiff’s case) left many to ponder the lasting psychological impact of segregated schooling. In the 1960s and 1970s, research tended to focus more on the concern for social barriers associated with college access of minorities. Later supported by civil rights legislation, this research eventually supported the rise of greater numbers of minorities on college campusesand more culturally responsive approaches to addressing diverse student populations (Johnson, 1964; Mather, 1975; Sedlacek & Pelham, 1976).

By the 1980s and 1990s, assaults on affirmative action legislation led to a greater interest in the mechanisms that gave rise to the need for such policies (Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs & Rhee, 1997; Orfield, 1988). The interest in both the preparation of students and the admissions policies of students became more significant in the fight to hold off the nullification of affirmative action policies. More complicated admissions procedures and higher test score requirements gave an advantage to students from higher socioeconomic classes and made the gains of the previous decades appear to be in jeopardy. Current research still focuses on many of the issues raised in previous decades and is particularly concerned with policy that impacts the affordability of college for underrepresented populations (Perna, 2002) and the need for bridges of opportunity to be created between schools and universities(Cooper, 2002;Corwin, Venegas, Oliverez & Colyar, 2004;Martin, Karabel & Jaquez, 2005; Shulock & Moore, 2005). It is the stance of much of this research (particularly among researchers in California) that students are facing resegregation and need a collective effort to combat this political force. It is within this milieu that EIP was created and continues to exist.

References

Cooper, C. (2002). Five bridges along students’ pathways to college: A developmental

blueprint of families, teachers, counselors, mentors, and peers in the Puente Project. Educational Policy, 16 (4), p. 607-623.

Corwin, Z., Venegas, K., Oliverez, P. & Colyar, J. (2004). School counsel. Urban

Education, 39 (4), p. 442-457.

Farmer-Hinton, R. (2008). Social capital and college planning: Students of color using

school networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society, 41 (1), p. 127-157.

Hurtado, S., Inkelas, K., Briggs, C. & Rhee, B. (1997). Differences in college access and

choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38 (1), p. 43-75.

Johnson, G. (1964). Desegregation in southern higher education. Higher Education, 20

(9), p. 5-8.

Martin, I., Karabel, J. & Jaquez, S. (2005). High school segregation and access to the

University of California. Educational Policy, 19 (2), p. 308-330.

Mather, A. (1975). University-wide planning for the minority student. Regional

Spotlight, IX (3), p. 1-9.

Orfield, G. (1988). Exclusion of the majority: Shrinking college access and public

policy in metropolitan Los Angeles. Urban Review, p. 147-164.

Perna, L. (2002). Financing higher education at selective private institutions:

Implications for college access and choice. Review of Higher Education, 25 (2), p. 225-235.

Sedlacek, W. & Pelham, J. (1976). Minority admissions to large universities: A seven

year national survey. Cultural Study Center, University of Maryland, College

Park.

Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2005). Diminished access to the baccalaureate for low-income

and minority students in California: The impact of budget and capacity constraints on the transfer function. Educational Policy, 19 (2), 418-442.

Wiggan, G. (2007). Race, school achievement, and educational inequality: Toward a

student-based inquiry perspective. Review of Educational Research, 77 (3), p. 310-333.