DEVELOPING A STUDENT-CENTERED COLLEGE-GOING CULTURE (SPRING 2021)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DEVELOPING A STUDENT-CENTERED COLLEGE-GOING CULTURE (SPRING 2021)
UCLA EASE PROJECT: EQUITY & ACCESS STUDIES IN EDUCATION
University of California, Los Angeles
SEIS, Moore Hall 3028
Los Angeles, CA 90095
https://www.easeproject.ucla.edu
Robert Cooper, Ph.D., Director
Jonathan Davis, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate
Brande Otis, Research Associate
Gary Green, Research Associate
(Spring 2021)
EASE Project Overview
The EASE Project is a multidisciplinary research collaborative which engages in research activities that promote greater
equality of educational opportunities in schools serving large numbers of urban youth. The EASE Project conducts and
disseminates research that broadens our understanding of issues of equity and access in K-16 U.S. education. The primary
focus of the EASE Project is to study the multifaceted nature of equity-minded school reform and the conditions needed
for school leaders with a social justice orientation and commitment to bring about change.
As a research collaborative, the UCLA EASE Project aims to disrupt educational inequities by supporting the professional
learning and development of equity minded and courageous school leaders and educators. In particular, the EASE Project
approaches educational leadership from a transformative perspective (Shields, 2010) where social justice and equity are
foregrounded in an attempt to not only transform schools, but also individuals within them and society. To actualize this
aim, the EASE Project employs a theory of change model (Cooper, Slavin, & Madden, 1997) that centers the technical,
normative, political, and socio-cultural aspects of schools as the nucleus of institutional change.
2
STUDENT-CENTERED COLLEGE -GOING CULTURE
In the fall of 2014, The California Academic Partnership
(CAPP) Program entered into a 4-year partnership with 15*
schools in the state of California in an attempt to address the
underperformance of Black and Latinx students in the state.
Specifically, the partnership was focused on creating a
strong college-going culture in historically underperforming
schools so that more students would be prepared for
enrollment in and success at a 4-year post-secondary
institution. By developing and sustaining a student-centered
college-going culture, College-Going Culture (CGC) grant
schools could potentially better prepare all students to enroll
and succeed in their postsecondary pursuits.
This report illuminates how care is traditionally
Building on previous research from this grant project defined in the school setting; and how, through
(Cooper et al., 2017, 2016, 2015), this report explores, multiple forms of communication, students and
examines, and unearths the important role that an ethic of teachers interpret, demonstrate, and perceive care.
care plays in establishing a strong student -centered college-
Moreover, the data presented in this report show the
going culture. To highlight this relationship, we focus on the
ways that language and other forms of communication
five domains of care that support and sustain a strong impact and shape caring relationships in schools.
healthy student-centered college-going culture: (1) an adult Rather than relying upon teacher discretion or
culture of care, (2) positive peer culture, (3) school -wide individual interactions, we argue that schools must
focus on equity, (4) high expectations, and (5) a strong create schoolwide language and other practices around
administrative and leadership presence–all crucial elements care to maximize the schools experience, ensuring that
towards building and sustaining a successful college -going each student receives the necessary care. And schools
culture in secondary schools. must encourage and empower every student to be
prepared for college.
Four ideological questions guide this investigation:
1. What does care look like in schools? Specifically, how do teachers and administrators
communicate care to students in schools?
2. What is an Institutional Culture of Care?
3. How might an Institutional Culture of Care support a student-centered college-going culture?
4. To what degree were CGC schools able to establish/expand a college-going culture?
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Snap-shot of CGC Schools
III. Defining Institutional Culture of Care
IV. Contextualizing ICC in Political Race Theory
V. Defining a Student-Centered College-Going Culture
a. Domain 1: Clear College Expectations
b. Domain 2: Faculty Involvement in the College Process
c. Domain 3: School-wide Focus on Academic Equity
d. Domain 4: Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning
e. Domain 5: Healthy Student Academic Identity
VI. Inquiry Method
VII. Lessons from the Field
a. Lesson #1 - An Ethic of Care is the Foundation of a Student-Centered College-Going Culture
b. Lesson #2 - Laying the Foundation for College-Going: Employing A Continuum of Care
a) Authentic Caring Within an Institutional Context
b) Aesthetic Caring Within an Institutional Context
c) An Absence of Caring Within An Institutional Context
c. Lesson #3 - Transforming Schools into College-Going Cultures
VIII. Implications and Future Direction
Public schools in the United States serve as great sorting machines through which inequality and privileges are
produced… Those we expect to succeed–children from affluent families–tend to be more likely to succeed, while
those we expect to fail–poor children, especially those from the inner-city–tend to be more likely to fail
(Noguera, 2002, p. 181).
4
I. INTRODUCTION
Research suggests that despite their aspirations to do so, Such caring networks are predicated upon schools and
students of color, and low-income students are consistently communities that establish clear, consistent, and authentic
enrolling in college at lower rates than their peers (Cooper & forms of communication, ensuring that all students speak the
Davis, 2015; NCES, 2007; NCES, 2017). Marginalized “language” of academic success and college-going. At its core,
students are often less likely to enroll in and complete an ICC consists of an established community of conversations,
college, and are less likely to attend selective or prestigious shared vocabulary with shared meaning, and other forms of
colleges that match their level of academic preparation clear communication that each contributes to the academic
(Gamoran, 2001; Robinson & Roksa, 2016). Specifically, identity of all students as full members of a college-going
while Asian and white students enroll in college at rates of culture.
66% and 47% respectively, Black (37%), Latinx (31%), and
American Indian (28%) students have consistently lower In short, an ICC is a cultural and systemic feature of schools
rates of college enrollment (Ross, Kena, Rathbun, that ensures that all students are educated in an environment
KewalRamani, Zhang, Kristapovich, & Manning, 2012). that makes them feel respected, supported, and cared for.
The issue of college access is complex and influenced by Additionally, an ICC is an environment where administrators,
societal, structural, political, and institutional factors, which educators, and other school professionals and staff respect and
all impact the ability of underrepresented students to access support one another. The core components of an ICC are (1)
rigorous coursework, learn the college application process, Adult Culture of Care Outside the Classroom, (2) Positive Peer
and understand college as a viable option (Engber & Culture of Care, and (3) Commitment to High Expectations.
Wolniak, 2010).
A college-going culture ensures that all students have access to
For many students without access to college-going information about college and college preparation by providing
knowledge and preparation at home, schools are often the open access to Honors and AP courses, comprehensive
only exposure to college-knowledge these students have. counseling, consistent communication to families, clear
Although high school counselors and other designated college expectations, and strong college partnerships. Through
personnel are important options for getting useful college a college-going culture, secondary schools can better prepare
information, in large public schools, one or two designated more students for more post-secondary opportunities and
professionals are often not enough to reach all students– contribute to a vision of educational equity that supports the
particularly those underrepresented on college campuses. well-being of all students (McClafferty, McDonough, &
Instead, a focus on supporting students at the school-wide Nunez, 2002).
level is crucial towards encouraging all students to go to
Finally, a college-going culture is predicated upon a culture of
college. This school-wide focus, termed a “college-going
care or a schooling environment that ensures that each student
culture” (Cooper & Davis, 2015; McClafferty, McDonough,
feels cared for (Cooper et al 2015, 2016 & 2017). Research on
& Nunez, 2002), means that schools provide access to
college-going cultures is typically based on smaller schools
rigorous coursework to all students (Corwin & Tierney,
where genuine and caring relationships are theoretically easier
2007); build positive academic identities and develop
to form and maintain. In contrast, such literature claims that
college-going knowledge (Conley, 2008); and maintain high
building college-going cultures is difficult at large secondary
expectations for all students (McKillip, Godfrey & Rawls,
schools because it is theoretically harder for teachers to
2013).
establish meaningful connections with many more students
(Davis, 2020). Generally, the presence of caring relationships
is fundamental to learning (Noddings, 1992) and we too agree
that individual relationships alone are not enough to sustain a
college-going culture at a larger school. Instead, we argue that
an Institutional Culture of Care (ICC) serves as an opportunity
to create the larger caring networks and relationships required
to build and sustain college-going cultures. An ICC is a
school-wide culture and system of care that ensures that all
students are cared for, provided for, and supported in schools.
5
The theoretical foundation of our work is rooted in Noddings (1984) concepts of authentic caring and aesthetic caring.
Valenzuela summarizes Noddings’ concepts when she states that “schools are structured around an aesthetic caring whose
essence lies in attention to things and ideas” as opposed to authentic caring which is based on “sustained reciprocal
relationships” (1999, p. 61). In other words, authentic caring involves genuinely being interested in a student’s well-being,
while aesthetic caring involves fulfilling professional obligations.
Such caring networks are predicated upon schools and communities that establish clear, consistent, and authentic forms of
communication, ensuring that all students speak the “language” of academic success and college-going. At its core, an
ICC consists of an established community of conversations, shared vocabulary with shared meaning, and other forms of
clear communication that each contributes to the academic identity of all students as full members of a college-going
culture.
In short, an ICC is a cultural and systemic feature of schools that ensures that all students are educated in an environment
that makes them feel respected, supported, and cared for. Additionally, an ICC is an environment where administrators,
educators, and other school professionals and staff respect and support one another. The core components of an ICC are
(1) Adult Culture of Care Outside the Classroom, (2) Positive Peer Culture of Care, and (3) Commitment to High
Expectations.
Although there are many different ways to think about a college-going culture, we have defined college-going culture as:
“A school culture that embodies a caring learning environment that fosters the attitudes
and behaviors to support and encourage students and their families to obtain the information,
tools, and perspective necessary to ensure access to and success in postsecondary education.”
(Cooper, Davis, Jenkins, Munzer, Salazar, & Sanchez, 2014).
To bring about a strong college-going culture, we hypothesize that a school’s activities, programs, policies, and practices
must coalesce around five domains: (1) clear college expectations, (2) faculty involvement in the college process, (3)
school-wide focus on academic equity, (4) continuous improvement in teaching and learning, and (5) healthy student
academic identity.
To tap into in the systemic nature of the college-going process, we employ a conceptual framework which views systemic
change within schools from four distinct, yet overlapping dimensions: Technical, Political, Normative and Socio-cultural.
Each dimension serves as an analytic lens that illuminates how school structures, policies and norms are institutionalized
to ensure the quality and longevity of the school’s culture. These conceptual lenses provide a comprehensive picture of the
complexities of the strategies, practices, and relationships associated with developing a strong college-going culture.
6
“…When you create a relationship, a
connection with these kids, believe me,
they learn more in your class. They
tend to listen to you more, because
they know you care. Before it goes to
this institutional level, I think it has to
start with each and every one of us
trying to be part of it before it goes to
the institution. The institution did not
call us to get here. We came here in our
own will. We need to understand that
creating a culture of success, everyone
has to take part as a teacher. It's not
just making a paycheck, but it is being
fully part of the child's success. I think
it starts with understanding the "why."
Why am I here?”
(Veteran Teacher, Inglewood[S7]
7
II. SNAP-SHOT OF CGC SCHOOLS
The 10 high schools participating in the CAPP College-Going Culture Grant (CGCG) range in size, demographic
background, grade configuration, and location, but all serve a “majority-minority” student population and have a high
percentage of students who qualify for free or
reduced-price lunch. Additionally, several
schools have a sizable English language
learner (ELL) population (see Table 1.)
This purposeful sample of 10 schools across
the state represents both the demographic
diversity of California and the diversity of
approaches, perspectives, and attitudes about
the college-going process that exists in public
high schools across California.
Table 1: Demographics of CAPP CGCG
Schools 2017-2018
SCHOOL RACE/ETHNICITY OTHER STUDENT GRADUATES
CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS
# of Grade Number % % African % Asian, % eligible % English # of % of
SCHOOL students configuration of full- Latino American Filipino, for free or language graduates graduates
time or Pacific reduced– learners in class of eligible for
(LOCATION) teachers Islander lunch 2015 CSU/UC
system
Cabrillo High 2,630 9–12 119 68.4% 14% 14.9% 80.7% 21.2% 556 21.7%
School (Long
Beach)a
Cobalt 864 7–12 30 67.7% 14.8% 4.8% 72.9% 10.8% n/a n/a
Institute of
Math and
Science
Academy
School
(Victorville)b
Fremont 871 7–12 43 94.5% 1.3% 2.2% 90.6% 38% 70 33.8%
Academy of
Engineering
and Design
8
School
(Pomona)
Inglewood 1,050 9–12 59 60.4% 37.7% 1.5% 50.1% 19% 259 15.8%
High School
(Inglewood)a
Garfield High 194 10-12 28 88.7% 6.2% 3.6% 94.8% 21.6% 53 7.5%
School (San
Diego) c
CGC Schools 1,916 9–12 91 48.3% 20.7% 20.8% 79.5% 21.6% 352 35.9%
(Sacramento)a
Edward C. 210 9–12 n/a 92.4% 1.9% 2.4% 66.2% 41.9% 51 61.5%
Merlo
Institute of
Environmental
Studies
(Stockton) d
Mission High 1,058 9–12 79 50.3% 15.4% 18.6% 68.1% 37.5% 191 72.1%
School (San
Francisco) a
William C. 1,449 9–12 67 79.1% 2.1% 17.1% 80.2% 27.6% 243 34.8%
Overfelt High
School (San
Jose) a
Savanna High 2,035 9–12 74 73% 2.8% 10.9% 77.1% 21.4% 419 32.2%
School
(Anaheim) a
Note. n/a = data not available. Findings come from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/
a Comprehensive high school.
b First graduating class was the class of 2016.
c Continuation school.
d Alternative school of choice.
9
Fig. 1: 2017-2018 CSU and UC Admit Rates for CGCG Schools Graduates
*No Cobalt Seniors or Graduates in 2014-15
**No UC or CSU entries for Merlo or Garfield in 2014-15
Note: For A-G, UC Admits, and CSU Admits the percentages are of the 2015 graduates from each high school. There is
considerably more data available on the CDE, CSU, and UC sites. Data worth exploring include persistence data at both
CSU and UC, GPA data, breakouts by ethnicity, and comparisons with state totals.
Over the course of the four-year College-Going Culture Grant, members of the Equity and Access Studies in Education
(EASE) Project documented the process by which these educators and leaders at the 10 CGC schools developed,
maintained, and strengthened their college-going culture. Recognizing the myriad ways in which educators and school
leaders might approach this work in similar yet distinct institutional and environmental contexts, the EASE Project
employed a robust data collection design strategy. Our report enabled the EASE Project to capture varying permutations
of a college-going culture and educators’ and leaders’ actions over time.
10For instance, in some cases, educators and school leaders moved to develop clear schoolwide visions and plans that made
college an accessible pathway for all students. In other cases, educators and school leaders focused intently on developing
robust policies, practices, and systems that concretized espoused beliefs about all students’ potential and ability to
matriculate to higher education. Additionally, some educators and school leaders endeavored to ensure the relationships
between students and staff were positive. Here, we focus on the latter group of educators and school leaders because
taking these actions promoted an ICC.
It is important to note that this is not a report of “what worked” in creating a strong college-going culture, rather, it is
descriptive in that it illuminates the experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and practices used by the educators at CGCG Schools
as they struggled to meet the ever-changing learning and social needs of their students to be prepared and eligible for
college admissions. Our findings underscore the complexity of altering the hearts and minds of adults, and students alike,
to believe that college choice and attendance are a viable option for all students.
As has been articulated throughout, an Institutional Culture of Care (ICC) is an integral component of a college-going
culture–especially in comprehensive secondary school settings–in that it ensures every student, irrespective of program
affiliation or demographic characteristics, feels connected to and cared for by at least one adult at the institution and
supported in moving through the college-going process. You may find details of our research design and strategies used to
support the theorization of an Institutional Culture of Care in Appendix 1.
11III. INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE OF CARE
Two theories undergird our work: Cooper and Santos’ (2011a, In its simplest form, authentic caring is a way of doing
2011b) concept of Institutional Culture of Care and political what is right. Building from there, Noddings argues that
race theory (Guinier & Torres, 2002). Together these theories for teachers to be effective in the classroom, they must
aid our understanding of the relationship between race, class, start with authentically caring for their students rather
power, and school achievement (Cooper & Chizhik, 2004; than initially focusing on pedagogy. In this way, a
Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). Given the impact of both race culture of care must be developed in schools that seek to
and social class on student achievement, scholars must effectively support students on their paths to college.
continue to focus greater attention on identifying and Furthermore, as students transitioning from middle
reconciling ways in which race and class affect school to high school are more susceptible to negative
underrepresented groups educationally. Furthermore, both feelings about school (Epstein & McPartland, 1976),
theories point to future directions for research and deteriorating self-esteem, and declining academic self-
practitioners: (1) educators must expand authentic care out of concept (Marsh, 1989; Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver,
solitary classrooms to include entire schools (institutions) and Reuman, & Midgely, 1991), caring relationships (with
(2) schools must develop Institutional Cultures of Care and adults and with peers) are essential to mitigate some of
college-going cultures that seek to improve the educational the traumas associated with the transition.
opportunities and outcomes for students of color and/or low
socioeconomic status. Another way authentic care distinguishes itself from
aesthetic care is through the notion of reciprocity.
Schools that focus on developing caring relationships between Reciprocity is achieved between the one-caring and the
both adults and students, and students and their peers have the cared-for when the cared-for offers, “direct response to
best opportunity to change the educational experiences of the one-caring or in personal delight or in happy growth
Students of Color. Thus, authentic caring involves genuinely before her eyes” (Noddings, 1984, p. 74). In this way,
being interested in a student’s wellbeing, while aesthetic the cared-for can “complete the relation” through
caring involves fulfilling professional obligations and nothing “freedom, creativity, and spontaneous disclosure”
more. Valenzuela (1999) argues that “the logic of authentic (Noddings, 1984, p. 74). Reciprocity is critical to
caring” should dictate “the material, physical, psychological, maintaining authentic care because it provides feedback
and spiritual needs of youth” and guide their educational to the one-caring that allows his / her to continue the
experiences (p.61). Therefore, educating children requires a relationship. Reciprocity must be expanded to include
genuine commitment to helping them grow as people, not just not only the traditional student-teacher dynamic, but all
as students. of the people that students interact with daily at school.
An institutional culture of care broadens the horizon of
Noddings’ notion of aesthetic caring is founded on the idea reciprocity to caring relationships between students and
that people can and do care about objects and ideas. This form counselors, administrators, staff, and other students. By
of caring is different from authentic caring which is concerned increasing the number of reciprocal relationships a
with caring about people. Noddings asserts that a focus on student engages in at school, schools will be able to
aesthetic care risks alienating the ethical side of caring, as this minimize the feelings of isolation and disconnection that
focus separates humans from each other. She explains, “But prompt students to disengage from high school long
an ethic of [authentic] caring locates morality primarily in the before graduation.
pre-act consciousness of the one-caring” (Noddings, 1984, p.
28).
12Institutional Culture of Care, different from individual “...school policies, programs, and practices
care, focuses on creating a school culture that results in directly influence the ways that peers interact,
a learning environment where students and teachers feel including skills and knowledge they develop in
respected and valued (Cooper & Chickwe, 2012; working with one another. All too often school
Cooper, Smith, & Jenkins, 2013). This culture of care personnel overlook the power and responsibility
embodies five dimensions: (1) Adult Culture of Care they have for structuring peer relations in their
Outside the Classroom, (2) Positive Peer Culture of
classes, in extracurricular school activities, and
Care, and (3) Commitment to High Expectations for the
in everyday life of the school.”
intellectual and personal development of all students,
(4) Strong administrative presence and leadership, and (2004, p.145)
(5) School wide focus on equity. We argue that ICC
operates on a continuum; 1) authentic caring, 2)
Lastly, a commitment to high expectations is a critical
aesthetic caring, and 3) an absence of caring. While
way for educators to communicate that they care about
there is no universal definition of how care is defined
students. Students who feel challenged and supported
and demonstrated in a schooling context, we believe
report higher levels of perceived care (Alder, 2002; De
that the five dimensions of Institutional Culture of Care
Jésus & Anthrop-Gonzalez, 2006; Gay, 2000; McCabe,
capture the important elements involved in creating a
1995). High expectations are distinct from unattainable
strong college-going culture.
goals and must be conveyed with respect, rather than in a
An Adult Culture of Care entails reciprocal cold, impersonal manner (Cooper & Chickwe, 2012).
relationships between educators and students as School-wide high expectations connect the relevance of
discussed, but importantly, an Adult Culture of Care an Institutional Culture of Care to a college-going
requires recognition. Rodriguez (2008) describes culture. Going on to college is a high expectation, but for
recognition as the way in which adults recognize that expectation to be realistic, students must be
students as existing within a socially stratified society. supported along the way. Furthermore, students must
Recognition allows educators to understand the establish reciprocal relationships with both adults and
positionality that emerges from historical, political, peers who will provide the care necessary for them to
social, and cultural contexts. In order for school navigate the path to higher education successfully.
environments to be authentically caring for students,
everyone’s “positionality must be acknowledged,
embraced, and valued” (Cooper & Chickwe, 2012). In
addition to adult-student relationships, a Positive Peer
Culture of Care is essential to an Institutional Culture of
Care. A study by Gibson and colleagues (2004) found
that all high school students, particularly those from
marginalized minority backgrounds, participate more
and do better academically in school settings “where
they are respected and accepted as equal members of the
larger school community”, and when students help keep
each other accountable in school (p.144-145). Thus, a
positive peer culture can help students feel better
connected to the school and each other. These types of
student communities are not easy to build, but as Gibson
and colleagues also point out,
13IV. CONTEXTUALIZING ICC I N POLITICAL RACE THEORY
Race influences, consciously and unconsciously, how individuals in a school community interact, respond, and
speak to one another, as well as how students access, navigate, and negotiate their schooling experience
(Gregory & Mosely, 2004). With the important role that race plays in the schooling experience of students, our
attempt to identify the key elements of an Institutional Culture of Care draws upon Political Race Theory
(Guinier & Torres, 2002). Guinier and Torres (2002) argue that race is not only what a person looks like, but
also is a political tool that determines one’s relationship to power, wealth and opportunity. . As Guinier and
Torres (2002) explain, “political race is both a critique of the status quo and a space for action to change it (p.
65). The concept of political race possesses three major elements that contribute important perspectives to our
analyses of ICCs: (1) it allows us to diagnose problems in schools; (2) it embraces aspirational goals, such as
applying ICC to larger school institutions, and (3) promotes jump starting an activist project, in which we seek
to articulate a model for enacting change in school culture.
Building upon these three tenets, we seek to articulate a model for enacting change in school culture.
Incorporating political race theory into the three dimensions of institutional care is essential as this concept
fosters racial solidarity while also advocating for a critique of the current educational school system. The
importance of political race theory to institutional care is that it does not end solely with solidarity or critique;
rather, it seeks to forge a link to democratic participation.
The connection between ICC and political race theory is highlighted by the concept of recognition. As
referenced earlier, Rodriguez’s (2008) notion of recognition entails that people’s positionalities must be
identified, understood, and valued for authentic caring to be possible. One’s positionality stems from history,
politics, society, and culture; in the U.S. race is a key component of each of these elements. By advocating for
Institutional Cultures of Care in schools, we are asking educators to grapple with how race impacts caring
relationships, given the important role race plays in the educational experiences of students. If educators do not
understand the implications of race for their students, they will not be able to truly develop authentic caring
relationships on the individual or institutional level. Furthermore, we assert that an Institutional Culture of Care
can go hand-in-hand with a college-going culture (i.e. high expectations), by drawing from political race
theory’s emphasis upon activist and aspirational projects.
14V. DEFINING A STUDENT CENTERED COLLEGE -GOING CULTURE
Developing a student centered college-going culture involves five essential elements of the schooling process: (1)
establishing clear college expectations, (2) ensuring faculty involvement in all facets of the college-going process, (3)
maintain a schoolwide focus on academic equity, (4) support an ethos of continuous improvement in teaching and
learning, and (5) promote a healthy student academic identity amongst all students. In our previous research, we posit that
these elements of the schooling process can be thought of as domains that make up the culture of the school (Cooper et al
2015, 2016 & 2017). These domains, while operating independently and autonomously, are interconnected and must work
in concert to prepare all students for college enrollment.
DOMAIN 1: CLEAR COLLEGE EXPECTATIONS
Various factors, or spheres of influence, shape students’ postsecondary educational aspirations and plans. Each sphere
serves as a form of capital that makes a unique contribution to a student’s educational aspirations and future plans. Most
notably are the family and community contexts,
peer networks, and school norms, policies, and
practices (Cooper & Davis, 2015; Cooper & Huh,
2008). Clear college expectations (CCEs), while
broad in scope, are concerned with school norms,
policies, and practices.
CCEs are the manifestation of the school’s
recognition of and commitment to the idea that
all students are capable of going to college.
Setting high academic expectations is the first of
many steps toward preparing all students for
postsecondary opportunities. The CCE domain
focuses on how school norms, institutional
policies, and instructional practices communicate
implicit and explicit messages to students, their
parents, and other important stakeholders
regarding the value and importance of engaging
in the college-going process and matriculating to college.
Our definition of CCEs builds upon the work of McClafferty Jarsky, McDonough & Nunez (2009) who argued:
If all students are to be prepared for a full range of postsecondary options when they graduate from high school,
then the explicit goals of this preparation must be clearly defined. These goals must be communicated in ways
that make them part of the culture of the school, such that students, family members such as parents, teachers,
administrators and staff recognize the role that each plays in preparing students for college. (p. 4)
Finally, a school community that is serious about its efforts to establish a strong college-going culture must develop clear,
identifiable goals and explicitly map out the behaviors required to achieve these goals. In this process, all stakeholders
must be given the opportunity to interrogate, challenge, and—where necessary—change school norms, institutional
15policies, and instructional practices. This is done in order to align the overall objective of developing and sustaining a
student-centered college-going culture, specifically with regard to CCEs, with the mission and vision of the school.
DOMAIN 2: FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN THE COLLEGE PROCESS
The second domain in the student-centered college-going model is faculty involvement in college preparation (FICP).
Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper (1999) delineated three important stages in the col- lege-going process: (1) predisposition,
(2) search, and (3) choice. The availability of accurate and up- to-date information and assistance at each of these three
stages is essential if a student is to make in- formed, reasonable decisions about his or her educational trajectory.
Within this domain, an emphasis on clear communication is particularly crucial. Many educators may often be the only or
one of few sources of college-going information available to students. Therefore, it is important that educators utilize
standardized forms of conversation and communication with students about college readiness, college preparation and
college-going that are based on a standard of care. We argue that these conversations take on a series of steps that ensure
that (1) students are steered towards a track of college-going, and (2) feel cared for by their teachers.
To engage students into a college going culture they need to hear the college talk in a form where they are able to both see
and listen to the language. McClafferty et al (2002) discusses the role of formal and informal communication networks in
regards to beginning the college talk (Cooper & Liou, 2007). Engaging in verbal and non verbal forms of communication
effortlessly shape students' college preparation and decision-making through daily interactions such as seeing posters,
newsletter, and even through curriculum. When teachers discuss college with students it can be overwhelming for students
who are not familiar with the terms, but when teachers make a conscious effort to have ongoing informal and formal
conversations, students begin to become engaged and part of this speech community of college-going culture.
Predisposition stage: Emotional support and help. In the predisposition stage, students must be exposed to what is
possible and what is reasonable to aspire toward. For many students of color and students from low-income backgrounds,
the question is not “Which college?” but “Why college?” While there has been an incredible push to better prepare all
students for postsecondary opportunities, little attention has been given to helping students understand why going to
college is important and how a college education can
drastically change their career trajectory and future
socioeconomic status.
The focus for students in the predisposition stage is to assess
and evaluate their career and educational objectives and map
them onto the necessary educational requirements. It is in this
stage that an understanding of the various types of colleges and
universities, as well as their admissions requirements and
costs, is of paramount importance. Most important for students
of color and students from low-income backgrounds at this
stage of the college exploration process is an understanding
that attending college is not only a viable option, but is also
often a requirement to achieve their career goals.
Search stage: Knowledge and exposure to college and the application process. Once a student understands that attending
college is important, faculty members can engage them in activities that expand their knowledge of and exposure to
postsecondary opportunities. This search stage includes activities both inside and outside the classroom, such as teachers
sharing their own college stories, putting up college corners in their classrooms, or wearing college gear, as well as
students attending college fairs and taking college field trips. The search phase must include as many adults on campus as
possible.
16Choice stage: Helping with the application process. The choice stage is where counselors and teachers work to engage
students in completing college applications, financial aid forms, and other necessary documents, helping students write
statements of purpose, taking students on individual college trips, and talking to parents about college. Because school
becomes the primary source of information about college-going for many students of color and students from low-income
backgrounds, information from educators must be comprehensive, up-to-date, and easily accessible. Although counselors
are likely to have primary responsibility for collecting and maintaining resources, the FICP domain of the student centered
college-going model advocates that all teachers take responsibility for providing students with assistance in the process.
All teachers must be aware of the resources available to support college-going and regularly incorporate them in their
interactions and practices with students. In addition to building supportive, nurturing, and challenging learning
environments, faculty must also provide students with the necessary information and resources related to college
attendance that affluent families typically provide their students.
DOMAIN 3: SCHOOLWIDE FOCUS ON ACADEMIC EQUITY
School reform guided by a school-wide focus on academic equity (SWFAE) is all encompassing, as it focuses on creating
a learning environment that meets the needs of students regardless of their ac- ademic records or family backgrounds.
SWFAE calls for administrators to be creative in allocating funds and resources, teachers to be dutifully aware of the
circumstances of each student, and staff to commit to student success in ways that may be outside of their traditional roles.
In order for a school culture to evolve into one that is grounded in SWFAE, this domain must always be at the top of the
school’s agenda and made especially visible to everyone.
For schools with SWFAE, this may mean that students who have, in the past, received less (e.g., attention, resources, and
services) and are academically not on par with their peers will now receive more. However, this does not mean depriving
students who are on a college-bound track the support they need to remain on this trajectory. Instead, the goal is to
provide for all students so that their academic outcomes, sense of belonging, engagement, and college-going perspectives
are comparable. Developing a strong SWFAE will build and bolster a school’s college-going culture, ensuring that all
students receive opportunities to thrive on their self-directed college-going journeys.
It is crucial for school leaders to develop a shared understanding of how the entire school community will commit to
issues of equity and develop the structures to hold each other accountable. The first step in establishing SWFAE is to
make the school’s institutional commitment to equity explicit through the school’s mission, vision, goals, and other
statements that are communicated to the school community and the public. In these declarations, school leaders must
specifically address how they intend to provide an equitable education to students across the important facets of the
schooling process:
Curriculum: To enact equitable policies, schools should not close off opportunities to any students through academic
tracking; advanced courses should be available to all students. Furthermore, educators should explain the relationship
between advanced courses, being a competitive college applicant, and being college-ready.
Information Dissemination: All information, especially information pertaining to postsecondary opportunities, should be
shared with students in a manner that best suits them. To this end, schools must use varied, unique ways to communicate
information to students and their families.
Discipline Policies and Practices: Schools must create restorative policies and practices that bring students further into
the fold of the school community in order to understand the root causes of their behavior. Schools must ensure that
students are listened to, validated, supported, and guided in their education.
Resources and Services: All resources and services must be made available to all students. They must be modified as
necessary to meet the unique needs and circumstances of students.
17Partnerships: Schools need to develop partnerships and collaborate with community based organizations, faith based
organizations and community colleges and universities in order to provide students with information, resources, and
access to postsecondary opportunities well before they are in a position to apply to college.
DOMAIN 4: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN TEACHING AND LEA RNING
Continuous improvement in teaching and learning (CITL) describes a schoolwide focus on improving the practices and
policies that affect the overall school environment, as well as students’ academic preparation for future college enrollment
and success. Given the diverse and constantly changing needs of students, it is crucial that educators are not only aware of
students’ needs, but also make necessary adjustments to ensure that students are successful. Specifically, the CITL domain
focuses on pedagogy and curriculum, student engagement, and student outcomes. CITL is a critical component of creating
a schoolwide college-going culture, as it brings into focus the mindsets, values and beliefs that undergird the teaching and
learning process.
The driving force behind the CITL domain is the idea that schools are not static institutions; instead, they are dynamic and
designed to meet the needs of their students and to prepare students for graduation and postsecondary schooling. This
means that schools are constantly making changes to their instructional delivery practices, curricular materials, and
interdisciplinary collaborations to meet the changing needs of their student populations. This process begins when school
staff identifies areas in need of improvement and develop ways to modify, adjust, or rectify them, particularly as they
pertain to teaching, learning, and student engagement. Unfortunately, this is not always a simple process, as it is often
difficult to identify and institutionalize instructional practices that work for all students.
18In some cases, student achievement data alone may not paint a complete picture of the complex landscape. One approach
to identifying areas for improvement is through inquiry teams that examine and address problems across the school. An
equity leadership team is a collective of teachers, counselors, students, and support staff who work collaboratively to
identify policies, structures, and attitudes that limit learning opportunities. This team is responsible for developing a range
of ways to address problems and present their findings to the school community. This approach does not suggest that a
solitary team can or should be responsible for driving improvement across an entire school. However, an approach such as
this is useful in helping schools to conceptualize ways in which they might approach continuous improvement in their
particular contexts.
CITL does not happen in a linear fashion of identifying challenges and then generating solutions. The process is much
more iterative and often oscillates between identifying multiple problems and crafting multiple solutions simultaneously.
The loosely coupled structure of schools forces educators to consider the varied ways different systems work together
within the organization. This is especially true with respect to teaching and learning.
DOMAIN 5: HEALTHY STUDENT ACADEMIC IDENTITY
Much of the research that seeks to explain the persistent
educational gap in this country takes a deficit perspective,
focusing on how growing up in challenging environments can
negatively affect academic achievement (Lee, 2007; Paris &
Ball, 2009; Valdes, 1996). In recent years, however,
educational scholars have begun to shift the discourse from a
focus on factors that place students at risk of academic failure
to a focus on identifying individual qualities and traits that
promote student agency. A focus on the development of
student agency is one of the major principles undergirding the
healthy student academic identity (HSAI) domain.
HSAI is the internalization process that students undergo to make sense of the beliefs and expectations that various
stakeholders (e.g., family, teachers, administrators, peers, etc.) have for them. It implies that students and the people
involved with their education believe that they are intelligent and capable of graduating from high school and attending
college. Self-expectations and the expectations of those around students impact academic identity; when family members,
peers, and educators maintain and communicate high expectations, and employ language that supports students, students
are more likely to have higher academic identities (Reveles & Brown, 2008) .
Additionally, a shared vocabulary and language around college-going, education, and academics can help foster positive
academic identities in students as well. As a primary mode of communication, specific language practices take primacy
and deserve special consideration in their role of indicating care between individuals as well as within organizations. A
competent member of the community is accomplished through apprenticeship in face to face and diverse epistemic
ecologies (Goodwin, 2012), which impart the working knowledge individuals use to master culturally specific practices.
Thus a college-going identity is accomplished via cultivation or enculturation into the ideas and tools that prepare
students for college. Trueba (1993) explains that language is important and needed in order to maintain self identity and
fulfillment. Teachers' misunderstandings of students with different beliefs and backgrounds often leads to different
treatment of students in the classroom. In order for students to feel like they are part of a college going culture, students
need to hear affirming language around college that they can relate to in order to feel part of the school community.
A common theory to explain the academic failure of students of color and students from low-income backgrounds is that
these populations lack the academic aspirations, motivation, and resiliency to academically achieve at the level needed to
complete high school and be competitive for college.
19Academic aspirations are one’s subjective probability of reaching a certain level of formal education. They reflect the
educational goals that students set for themselv
Academic motivation is the process that initiates, guides, and maintains academic behaviors. It is what causes students to
actively engage in the behaviors and actions needed to support their educational and career aspirations.
Academic resiliency is a consciousness or mental outlook that allows students to form a critical perspective on their
surroundings and lived experiences in order to more effectively deal with, survive, and thrive within a given academic
reality. It is the ability to reflect on the obstacles that one needs to overcome to pursue educational and career goals.
Students demonstrate academic resilience when they reconcile their interest and desire for education with their behaviors
and attitudes as students.
Academic aspirations and motivation are cumulative in nature and are often realized as early as middle school (Cooper &
Huh, 2008). Students who do not aspire toward postsecondary education and are not academically motivated self-select
out of the educational pipeline by making decisions that lead them to non-college trajectories, often by the end of eighth
or ninth grade (Cooper & Huh, 2008). Because academic aspirations, motivation, and resiliency are considered three of
the best predictors of academic achievement and persistence in school, they serve as the focal point of the HSAI domain.
20V. INQUIRY METHOD
Building on previous research from this grant
project (Cooper, et, al, 2017, 2016), we now
explore, examine, and unearth the important
role that an ethic of care plays in establishing a
strong student-centered college-going culture.
In the pages that follow, we illuminate the
ways in which care is traditionally defined in
the school setting; and how, through
conversation and related language practices,
students and teachers interpret, demonstrate,
and perceive care.
The data for this report is based on well over
12,000 school-wide student surveys given in
the fall of 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as over
1000 teacher surveys collected in the spring of
2015, 2016, 2017. Additionally, qualitative
data was collected from over 175 in-depth
discussion groups with over 500 students and 200 faculty members.
Data analysis proceeded in five steps. First, descriptive data were generated for all survey respondents to the student and
teacher surveys. Because the survey data response rate varied between 78% and 84% for students and 59% to 73% for
teachers in CGCG schools we are confident that the data presented provide great insight into the experiences of students
and educators at these institutions. Second, exploratory factor analyses were conducted on survey items under
investigation to explore the degree to which particular items held together as factors. Reliability estimates were produced,
which were instrumental in the initial scale construction. Third, Pearson Correlations were calculated to identify
significant relationships between demographic variables and the variables that capture different aspects of the five
dimensions of a college-going culture: (1) clear college expectations, (2) faculty involvement in the college-going process,
(3) school-wide focus on equity, (4) continuous improvement in teaching and learning, and (5) healthy student academic
identity. Fourth, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to explore the relationship between
students’ and teachers’ perceived level of care and their college-going knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Combined,
these analyses illuminate the muli-faceted nature and importance of a college-going culture at CGCG schools.
Additionally, predetermined topics were selected for discussion in our focus group meetings, providing rich qualitative
data for this report. These interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of teachers and students who were able to
expound upon the college-going culture at their respective CGCG schools. The purpose of this muli-method data
collection strategy was to contextualize the data and to tease out the knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, perceptions, and
definitions teachers and students have of the college-going process.
Four ideological questions guided this investigation:
1. What does care look like in schools? How do teachers and administrators of schools communicate care to students
in schools?
2. What is an Institutional Culture of Care?
3. How might an institutional culture of care support a student centered college-going culture?
4. To what degree were CGC schools able to establish/expand a college-going culture?
21VI. LESSONS FROM THE FIELD:
An Ethic of Care is the Foundation of a Student Centered College-Going Culture
“It’s relationships, relationships, relationships. That’s what it all boils down to. How do we develop meaningful
relationships with these young people? To empower them, to engage them in the learning process. And then, more kids
are going to go to college.”
(Department Chair, Fremont HS, Fall 2014)
Research suggests that Institutional Care must be a vital part of the school environment if students are to feel connected to
the institution, develop a positive academic identity, and vigorously pursue their educational goals (Cooper & Chickwe,
2012; Cooper & Santos, 2011a, 2011b). While there is no universal definition of what care is in a schooling environment,
we argue that the five dimensions of Institutional Culture of Care capture the important complexities and nuances of care
at the organizational level in an educational context.
We use the remaining pages of this report to present examples from the field that further enhance, nuance, and potentially
challenge our conceptualization of an Institutional Culture of Care (ICC). In the paragraphs that follow, we focus
specifically on each tenet of the ICC model and provide a brief overview of the salient themes shared in the above
paragraphs. Thereafter, we share quotes and remarks from students, educators, and other school actors that evoke the
sentiment of said tenet.
Lesson #1: Developing and Ethic of Care is A Deliberate Practice
We encourage a shift in the education lexicon from care as a feeling, emotion, or state of being, to care as a deliberate and
intentional practice. To care for students in ways traditionally discussed in schools (to feel care, to want positive futures
for one’s students) is an attribute we assume that most, if not all, educators possess. No educator enters schools with the
intent to harm children, and many educators genuinely feel care for their students. However, we encourage educators and
school professionals to consider and embody care as a practice.
In data collected from CGCG schools, we find that student and teacher perceptions of care often differ from one another.
Whereby many educators discuss openly caring for their students (caring for what happens to them, wanting better for
their students, and hoping for positive futures), many students report that what helps them feel cared for are more likely to
be overt demonstrations. This means having one-on-one conversations about their progress in class, engaging in regular
check-ins, showing up to after school events, and establishing relationships with parents. Such demonstrations of care
impact the kinds of relationships educators build with students, and support students in their college-going.
22“You can see when teachers actually care about
you, because last year in my French 1 class I
was pulled asidr. I had like a D or a C in that
class and she put all my classes on a computer.
She was like what is happening here?... You
could tell when they care about you because
they pull you aside and talk to you for a long
time. They want to help you.”
(9th Grade Female Student, Inglewood, [F-5])
The word we call recognition to is “see.” This student
claims that she can “see” care happening. When students
see care being demonstrated, they feel it. Specifically,
these “pull-asides,” or check-ins with students are
fundamental elements to care as a practice, and towards
building both classroom and school cultures. When educators engage in regular conversations with students
about their lives, their experiences, and their ideas, it helps to build a positive culture that reinforces the likelihood of
similar conversations occurring in the future.
“I try to establish a close relationship with each of my students. I try to show them that I care for them… when
they don’t have their homework or any of their assignments, I tell them - I try to help them, I have tutoring, I’m
always in my classroom during lunch and afterschool. I try to help them out and show them that I care for them,
each of them.”
(Male English Teacher, Inglewood, [F-4])
In the above quote, the teacher acknowledges that caring for students is more than a feeling. Caring for students is based
in action, and is based in supporting students outside of designated class time. Additionally, care means recognizing one’s
students as whole persons, with joys and struggles outside of school.
“A lot of times, kids will come to class really needing attention. So, they may act out for the attention in a
negative way. Finding the time to pull that student aside and talk to them one-on-one, ‘What's going on? Is
everything okay?’ If they're at their desk with their head down, ask them if everything's okay as opposed to, ‘Sit
up. You're in class. If you can't sit up, get out.’ Maybe this student's family had a rough night for whatever reason.
Maybe this student is homeless and couldn't sleep in a shelter last night. You never know what's going on with a
student. Just appealing to their emotional needs, I think, is important.”
(Female Veteran Teacher, Inglewood HS, [S-7])
Again, we argue that many educators feel care for their students. However, as the above quote illuminates, care should be
about a deliberate practice that recognizes, affirms, and supports students. Rather than reinforcing school norms, the
above educators practice an ethic of care that is action-oriented.
23You can also read
