Essential Principles about Student-centered Strategies

1.  Student-centered programs provide a bridge to higher education for minority students.
Many activities of  student-centered programs which seem to be effective and to be valued highly by students and program staff have to do with the academic and social support functions of the programs.  Some social science research and a few program evaluations have explored the benefits of such support activities for minority students.  For example, Catherine Cooper et al. (1995) have conducted research on Black and Latino students participating in EAOP and MESA.  These researchers report that the outreach programs provide bridges connecting students' different worlds of family, community, and university life.  Research by numerous others, including Patricia McDonough, Lisa Kala, and Uri Treisman, further documents the importance of academic and social support for minority students both in pre-collegiate preparation programs and in ongoing support for students attending the University.  Several individuals interviewed for this report stated that the University can be an alien place for minority student and that academic success is not attained through individual achievement alone but requires relational support as well.

Evaluation studies of AVID and High School Puente also point to the importance of the program group as a factor in student success.  As noted earlier, Hugh Mehan attributes some of the success of AVID to the "socialization process" in AVID classrooms.  Mehan emphasizes the role of the AVID coordinators both as explicit teachers of the "hidden curriculum" (i.e., the culture of success) but also as mediators between students' multiple worlds and as student advocates and sponsors.  Patricia Gandara et al. also describe beneficial effects of group and cultural identification for Latino students in High School Puente.

We have stressed the group support features of the student-centered programs in this analysis because of the program implications of potential policy changes in ethnic-based selectivity.  Certainly a program such as Puente which is focused on Latinos would have a dramatically different character if it became more heterogeneous.  Other student-centered programs already serve students of all ethnicities but derive some of their group cohesion through identification of members as part of a family or as "underrepresented" or minority.

2.  Strategically timed interventions can make a difference.
The performance gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students begins early and widens quickly.  The University's Black and Latino eligibility studies document critical periods in the K-12 progression when large numbers of these students are lost from the educational pipeline.

There is evidence from large-scale evaluations of early intervention programs e.g., Success for all and the Accelerated Schools Program that interventions in elementary school can be successful in helping disadvantaged students keep up with their age-mates.  Higher education institutions can play an important role in such early interventions, particularly in professional development for teachers and staff.

The role for student-centered programs becomes clearer as students enter another critical period in the middle school years. MESA, EAOP, and the College Readiness Program are examples of programs that provide strategically-timed interventions focusing on this critical period.  These and other programs help minority students develop the academic skills and confidence to prepare for college-preparatory classes in high school.

Another example of a strategically timed intervention is admissions and placement test preparation beginning in early high school.  There are compelling reasons to remove the veil of secrecy around the tests that are used to admit and place students in higher education.  If students have the opportunity to take the tests early and often, and if parents and K-12 teachers are informed about student results, the later high school years can be better used to help many more students become well-prepared for college.  The 1992 CPEC report included a three-year evaluation of the College Admissions Test Preparation Programs which demonstrated positive effects of test preparation activities for underrepresented students.

3.  Comprehensive student-centered interventions seem more effective than single-component strategies.
Most of the student-centered programs included in this review describe a comprehensive set of services to students.  The programs have either evolved over time to become comprehensive or have been designed with a belief that multi-faceted interventions are needed to help disadvantaged students overcome the many barriers to full participation in our K-16 system. 

The arguments for a comprehensive approach are persuasive.  However, since there are no evaluations documenting the effects of single-component interventions on college-going rates, there is no direct evidence to prove that comprehensive programs are needed.  What we do have are several evaluations showing a relationship between the extent of program implementation and student outcomes.  For example, early evaluations of High School Puente suggest such a relationship.  Some compelling evidence in support of comprehensive programs comes also from the evaluations of the California Partnership Academies.  This program was not included in the set of student-centered programs described in an earlier section because it is not a college preparation program per se.  The Partnerships Academies are a school-within-a-school intervention for high school students at risk of failure or dropping out of school.  These programs have been extensively evaluated over many years.  Findings clearly demonstrate a strong relationship between the extent of implementation of all components of the program and student results, including persistence in school and academic performance.

Our review of all the evidence leads us to the conclusion that a comprehensive set of student-centered interventions is needed to prepare more disadvantaged students for higher education.  These interventions might be provided in a self-contained program, such as High School Puente, or in a collaborative service model in which the University might play a role in providing some of the services.  The key is to ensure that individual students receive well-coordinated assistance in overcoming the barriers to postsecondary education. 

4.  Student-centered interventions are more effective when sustained over time.
Program staff and researchers expressed the view that effective college preparation of underrepresented students requires support services that are sustained over a period of years, extending into students collegiate years.  Programs such as the Professional Development Program (PDP) and the Minority Engineering Program (MEP) were designed to offer sustained support.  The research of Cooper et al. with MESA and EAOP students also points to the importance of sustained interventions.  In an evaluation of AVID, Meehan found a positive relationship between length of time in AVID and student outcomes. 

BACK  |  HOME  |  NEXT