Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

“A Ditcher and a Scholar”: Figuring College-Going Identities in an Urban Magnet High School


by Julia C. Duncheon & Stefani R. Relles - 2019

Background/Context: To enhance postsecondary completion and minimize equity gaps, researchers have focused on defining, measuring, and developing students’ college readiness, or the preparation required to persist in higher education. While this work has been useful to identify the ingredients of postsecondary success, the emphasis on individual achievement runs the risk of portraying marginalized students as deficient. Culturally relevant studies that highlight institutional accountability for college readiness are needed to inform policy and practice.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: Using Holland and colleagues’ (1998) figured worlds theory, this study examines college readiness through the lens of student identity in an urban magnet high school. We investigate how first-generation, low-income students of color interpreted and negotiated local discourses and artifacts to “figure” college-going identities—that is, who they should become and how they should behave to earn a college degree. The purpose of this empirical approach is to contribute information that can inform college readiness efforts nationwide.

Research Design: The study utilizes an ethnographic approach that focused on how students conceptualized and developed their identities within the figured world of the magnet school. Data collection took place over the course of one school year and included over 200 hours of participant observation, in-depth interviews with 25 students and school staff, and document analysis.

Findings: The figured world of Jackson Magnet fostered and reinforced a hierarchy that consisted of magnet students (“scholars”) and their counterparts in the regular school (“ditchers”). A local feedback loop implied that the magnet school provided more rigorous college preparation than the regular school and, by extension, magnet students figured they would be ready for college. However, real-world feedback (standardized test scores) suggested magnet course rigor did not accurately reflect postsecondary standards. The result was that magnet students were underprepared but did not know it, an outcome that positioned them to experience a drastic identity reckoning in college.

Conclusions/Recommendations: While most college-readiness research focuses on academic skills preparation, our findings reveal the need to consider how high schools prepare students in terms of identity. In particular, our data suggest the threat of well-intentioned achievement discourses on pre-college identity development. Salient questions include whether and how to increase postsecondary opportunity without socializing students either to discriminate against their peers or to figure a false identity that undermines preparation and future cognitive stability.



Although more than 90% of young people aspire to obtain a postsecondary degree, college completion data reveal disparities by race/ethnicity, class, and parent education (Roderick, Coca, & Nagaoka, 2011). On average, students who are low income and/or of color enter and finish college at lower rates than their higher-income White peers (Kena et al., 2015). First-generation students—defined here as students whose parents do not hold bachelor’s degrees—also have a lower likelihood of four-year degree completion relative to students with college-educated parents: 27% compared to 42% (Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007; DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran, 2011; Pike & Kuh, 2005). To address these disparities, the completion agenda has sought to improve pre-college preparation in urban high schools that disproportionately serve students from these historically marginalized populations (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013).


One strand of research has focused on the construct of college readiness, or the preparation needed to enroll in credit-bearing courses and persist to graduation (Conley, 2014). This body of work has examined how college readiness is defined and measured and how it can be enhanced via policy and practice (Duncheon, 2015). While these studies have been useful to identify the ingredients of postsecondary success, the benchmarking of individual achievement against standards runs the risk of portraying marginalized students as deficient. Assumptions of student deficit disregard the role schools play in developing the skills and dispositions needed for college transition and persistence (Nasir, McLaughlin, & Jones 2009; Nygreen, 2013). Thus, scholars have called for more culturally relevant approaches to the study of college readiness that focus on underrepresented students and their high schools to bolster research and reform efforts (Nagaoka et al., 2013; Rosenbaum, 2001).


To that end, we investigate the schooling experiences of first generation, low-income students of color enrolled in an urban magnet high school (Welton & Martinez, 2014). We focus on how the seniors in the magnet not only experienced academic preparation, but also internalized college readiness, based on the messages they received at school. Drawing on ethnographic data (Wolcott, 1999), the study uses figured worlds theory (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998) to understand how students interpret and negotiate school-based interactions with classmates and school personnel as a way to “figure” college-going identities—that is, who they should become and how they should behave to earn a college degree (Urrieta, 2007a). Figured worlds theory suggests that students will develop their educational identities to match their assumptions about school. This figuring process has high stakes because the extent to which a student’s figured world assumptions reflect postsecondary standards indicates the likelihood that the school is fostering productive academic behaviors and, in turn, the likelihood that the student is actually ready for college-level coursework. Accordingly, figuring one’s world is part and parcel of figuring oneself, or identity development.


The present study asked: What college-going identities do first generation, low-income students of color figure in an urban magnet high school? In preview, findings indicate a disconnect between the college-going identities magnet students figured and the academic behaviors they practiced to meet the school’s expectations, which were consequential to the academic skillsets they ultimately acquired. Students’ perceptions of their readiness were strongly shaped by the school’s magnet designation, which they believed signified access to rigorous preparation. However, because magnet courses did not reflect postsecondary standards, most students graduated with an inflated sense of their own readiness. We conclude with implications for college-readiness research, policy, and practice.


COLLEGE-READINESS LITERATURE AND THEORY


College readiness is the assumed consequence of academic preparation, which is considered the strongest predictor of postsecondary success (Adelman, 1999, 2006; Long, Iatarola, & Conger, 2009; Perna, 2005). The existing literature divides into two strands of research that are related, but have important conceptual distinctions. The dominant strand frames college readiness as a set of skills, while an emergent strand considers college readiness to be a component of student identity. The dominant viewpoint—what we call the skills perspective—focuses on defining, measuring, and supporting college readiness. This literature answers basic questions such as: What does it mean for a student to be college ready? What indicators can be used to evaluate whether a student is ready? And what should be done to ensure students are college ready upon high school graduation? The alternative viewpoint—what we call the identity perspective—complements these findings by examining how social and cultural experiences mediate college skill acquisition.


The skills perspective undergirds institutional policies and practices that suggest college readiness is an either/or proposition: ready or not. This perspective raises equity questions because it ascribes deficit to the disproportion of historically underrepresented students who do not meet readiness benchmarks. In doing so, it covertly pardons institutions from accountability for structural inequalities. The identity perspective offers an alternative to deficit discourse by conceptualizing college readiness on a continuum and its achievement as a process. While the skills perspective assumes that student achievement reflects individual merit or effort, the identity perspective suggests achievement is mediated by school and classroom contexts. The former presupposes equal opportunity. The latter recognizes that institutional blind spots reduce opportunity for some.


TWO STRANDS OF COLLEGE-READINESS RESEARCH


Skills Perspective


College readiness is typically defined as a range of skillsets assumed necessary to enroll in credit-bearing college-level courses and persist to degree attainment (Conley, 2014; ConnectEd, 2012; McAlister & Mevs, 2012). Readiness frameworks identify a host of cognitive and non-cognitive competencies that enable students to persist. This focus on skills dominates how college readiness has been traditionally measured as well as how high school preparation and postsecondary remediation have been conceptualized in policy and practice. A primary assumption is that college readiness, like other achievement outcomes, reflects individual ability. Thus, traditional assessment measures often serve as readiness proxies (Porter & Polikoff, 2012). For example, benchmark scores on standardized college admission tests such as the SAT or ACT are widely used to determine the academic readiness of incoming freshmen, though this relationship is not causal (Wiley, Wyatt, & Camara, 2010). Passing scores on Advanced Placement (AP) exams are strongly associated with various measures of postsecondary success, including better performance in college courses (Patterson & Ewing, 2013) and higher likelihood of college completion (Smith, Hurwitz, & Avery, 2017). High school grade point average (GPA) and class rank are also used to assess college readiness (Astin & Oseguera, 2012; Cimetta, D’Agostino, & Levin, 2010; Desjardins & Lindsay, 2008).


The skills perspective’s reliance on standardized measures, however, creates difficulties for marginalized students. SAT scores, for instance, correlate with parental income, suggesting that high performance may reflect availability of educational resources more than cognitive ability (Mattern, Shaw, & Williams, 2008; Zwick & Greif Green, 2007). The effects of socioeconomic status on the SAT are even larger for Black students, suggesting an added element of racial disparity (Dixon-Román, Everson, & McArdle, 2013). Yet because the skills perspective tends to assume college readiness is an equal opportunity proposition, alternative explanations for achievement disparities—access to SAT preparation, for example—are often ignored (Carter-Andrews, 2009). Instead, scoring poorly on the SAT is assumed to reflect students’ skill deficiency. Although grades are less overtly mired in biases than standardized tests, measures such as GPA also raise equity questions. For example, the standards for earning an A in a low-performing Title I high school, where teachers may feel pressured to focus on tested content (Au, 2007; Crocco & Costigan, 2007) and emphasize rote skills (Wong, Anagnostopoulos, Rutledge, & Edwards, 2003), may be lower than in a better resourced, high-performing high school. The most credible measure of college readiness is academic rigor, which appears to control somewhat for the biases in other measures; the effect of rigorous course-taking on postsecondary outcomes is even larger for African American and Latina/o students than for their White peers (Adelman, 1999).


Thus, recent reforms have sought to support readiness for all by increasing academic rigor in low-performing high schools (Allen, Ndum, & Mattern, 2017). One common approach to increase college readiness has been for schools to enhance student access to high-level course options such as AP or dual enrollment (An, 2013; Ward & Vargas, 2012). Some states and districts have implemented “college for all” policies, in which high school graduation depends upon completion of core academic courses that meet university admissions criteria (American College Testing, 2007; Hoffman, Vargas, Venezia, & Miller, 2007). The Common Core State Standards were created to encourage college- and career-ready skill building across the curriculum, and states have adopted new assessments aligned with those standards (Conley, 2015). Another trend has been to improve information sharing (Venezia & Jaeger, 2013). Researchers, for example, suggest the need for networked interventions that enable students to triangulate the readiness signals they receive (Adelman, 1999; Iatarola, Conger, & Long, 2011; Karp, Calcagno, Hughes, Jeong, & Bailey, 2007). One approach has been to implement early assessments that alert students of their readiness prior to their senior year in high school (Kurlaender, 2014; Venezia & Voloch, 2012). Early assessment reforms can enhance students’ self-awareness and help college counselors serve their student populations (Hill, Begman, & Andrade, 2015; Stephan, 2013).


These reforms potentially increase access to higher academic standards and empower students to seek (and counselors to recommend) extra support if needed. Yet such policies still reflect the deficit assumptions embedded in the skills perspective. For example, requiring students to complete a college preparatory curriculum does not guarantee the institutional support required for their success, yet students suffer personal consequences for course failure (i.e., not graduating high school). Providing early signals of under-preparedness still puts the onus on the student to fix his or her presumed skill deficiencies. The limitation of the skills perspective is that its cognitive focus ignores the social, cultural, and structural forces that mediate readiness. In so doing, the skills perspective encourages the segregation of students into either/or categories that privilege some and stigmatize others (Castro, 2013).


Identity Perspective


Although the skills perspective dominates, another strand of college-readiness research focuses on the interplay of identity, social context, and practice (i.e., behavior; Edgerton & Roberts, 2014). This strand of readiness research is consistent with the literature on identity formation in academic settings. As Urrieta (2007b) explains, identity is not fixed, but rather a process of becoming, one that depends on a person’s social, cultural, and institutional contexts. Thus, school is not simply a place where students learn academic content and skills (Bettie, 2003; Eckert, 1989; Fine, 1991; Nasir & Hand, 2006); “it is also a place where they develop a sense of what kind of people they are, where they belong in this world, what they are capable of and entitled to, and what they can expect in the future” (Nygreen, 2013, p. 9). The identity perspective upends the policy precedent to identify and treat underprepared students as skill deficient through attention to the ways in which college readiness is socialized via schools and classrooms (Relles & Tierney, 2013). While skill preparation remains important, this strand of literature suggests that schools additionally ought to create “college-going cultures” that build students’ postsecondary aspirations and awareness (Corwin & Tierney, 2007; McDonough, 1997).


Research from the identity perspective has examined how a school’s culture shapes students’ perceptions of achievement and college going and, in turn, how they see themselves as students. By culture, we mean the “patterns of behavior, beliefs and language” shared by administrators, teachers, staff, and students within a particular school (Creswell, 2007, p. 68). Our view of culture foregrounds social and institutional practices—as opposed to individual students’ background characteristics or traits (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003)—to resist deficit assumptions about marginalized youth (Artiles, 2015). One study by Cooper and Liou (2007), for instance, examined how high school counselors mediated students’ access to high-stakes information about school and college, and in so doing, limited the opportunity for some students to develop college-going identities. Another study used Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, which can be conceptualized as identity, to explore how low-income students interpreted their college admissions test scores (Deil-Amen & Tevis, 2010). Findings revealed that the schools enhanced students’ college-going aspirations but not their capacity to accurately interpret their test scores, which left students with a false sense of college preparedness.


How students come to see themselves in school influences their academic behaviors. Rubin’s (2007) research on a low-performing urban high school found that students associated “smartness” with completing low-level assignments. Similarly, at one alternative school with a majority high-needs population, students viewed success as an outcome of basic actions like attending class (Nunn, 2014). Participants in these studies saw themselves as high achieving if they conformed to their schools’ expectations, but the expectations did not support the acquisition of high-order thinking skills required for college success (Nunn, 2014; Rubin, 2007). Thus, students aspired to college, but did not necessarily acquire the competencies to ensure college persistence. This research suggests the importance of developing a college-going identity that squares with postsecondary institutional standards.


From an identity perspective, however, the schools, not the students, fail to promote a national standard of high achievement. This viewpoint broadens the scope of college-readiness accountability to include institutions, yielding more explanatory power with which to understand inequitable student outcomes. Low-income students of color are more likely than their higher-income peers to attend schools without the necessary resources—qualified teachers, rigorous course offerings, high-quality college counseling—to develop college readiness (Barton & Coley, 2009; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009; Schott Foundation, 2009; Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). Many under-resourced schools are also subject to negative pressures from high-stakes accountability reforms. For instance, Welton and Williams (2015) studied one low-performing high school where teachers and administrators tailored instruction to state exit exams to avoid sanctions. The emphasis on the exam fostered a negative school climate, which in turn undermined college preparation.


In addition to foregrounding institutional accountability for college readiness, the identity perspective recognizes how structural factors such as poverty, racism, and segregation compromise schooling quality and educational attainment (Anyon, 1997; Noguera, 2008). Research from this lens considers, for example, how race and ethnicity intersect with high school context to shape student identity and achievement (Howard, 2003; Valenzuela, 1999). Studies have identified relationships among positive racial/ethnic identity, academic success, and college persistence (Castillo, Lopez-Arenas, & Saldivar, 2010; Flores, Ojeda, Huang, Gee, & Lee, 2006). Urrieta (2007b) showed how engaging with like-minded peers in ethnic and multicultural spaces led Mexican American college students to gain a sense of empowerment and develop Chicana/o activist identities. Research has also examined how students of color negotiate mainstream educational settings. Carter (2003) found that African American students drew upon diverse cultural codes to navigate the expectations of Black culture at home and White culture at school. How students aligned themselves with particular racial/ethnic peer groups in school had implications for their relationship to the institution. Carter’s study and others demonstrate that non-White youth may choose among—or feel forced into—limited identity categories made available within a particular school, such as book smarts or street smarts (Hatt, 2007), school-oriented or street savvy (Nasir et al., 2009). In sum, the identity perspective acknowledges the influence of institutional, social, and cultural contexts on students’ opportunities to become college ready, and in so doing, rejects framing marginalized youth as in deficit.


THEORIZING COLLEGE READINESS IN FIGURED WORLDS


Figured worlds theory is useful to investigate the co-constructed nature of the relationship between schooling context and student identity (Urrieta, 2007a). Developed by Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain (1998), the theory assumes a world is a context that is not objectively fixed, but rather subjectively performed by those who inhabit it. Such an assumption can be applied to worlds that are generalized, such as schooling, or concrete, such as a specific district or a magnet high school within it (Nygreen, 2013). When considering the figured high school world of first-generation students, for example, the theory implies that “rigorous educational work needs to respond to the dilemmas of the outside world by focusing on how young people make sense of their experiences and possibilities for decision-making within the structures of everyday life” (Giroux, 2003, p. 12). How students interpret high school, in particular, has high educational stakes as adolescence is a critical life phase in which college-going aspirations are either pursued or abandoned. This study uses the theory to highlight an emic viewpoint on college-bound students, exposing what they actually perceive about college—instead of what the high school assumes they should learn—that informs their identities.


A figured world is defined as “a socially and culturally constructed realm of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (Holland et al., 1998, p. 52). These basic assumptions dovetail with identity formation research in psychology and sociology. Inhabitants construct and negotiate identities within their worlds; they interpret social and cultural cues to “figure” not only what is important, but also who they are and should become (Urrieta, 2007b). The crux of figured worlds theory is the concept of a feedback loop based on one’s ongoing experiences and interactions in the world (Osborne, 1997). On the one hand, how one initially figures his or her world necessarily shapes how he or she aspires to behave within it. On the other hand, how one behaves and the feedback that behavior earns (re)shapes how one (re)understands the world, and so on, creating and recreating a process of figuring one’s world and identity over and over again. In the context of this study, an underrepresented student will construct an educational identity (and college-going aspirations) based on classroom and school cues. How he or she is treated by teachers, counselors, administrators and other students steers identity construction and behavior, and that behavior, in turn, steers subsequent iterations of the figuring process. The nature of the feedback loop implies that identities are fluid, dynamic, and negotiated through practice.


Although a figured world may be small, its feedback loop is influenced by the conditions of larger worlds. Figured worlds are microcosms of cultural and historical phenomena, including systemic forms of discrimination that are linked to broader systems of power. Tajfel (1982) noted the tendency of individuals to classify themselves in relation to social categories defined by gender, race, ethnicity, and class; students will bring the meanings, activities, and expectations affiliated with their background characteristics to bear on the process of figuring a school world and configuring an identity within it (Burke, 1991). Also important is how the school staff interpret and apply social categories in their policies and practices; for instance, a large comprehensive high school may disproportionately track students from historically underrepresented groups out of college preparatory courses (Oakes, 2005). In turn, how an underrepresented student interprets classroom and school cues will influence how he or she negotiates not only high school, but also the broader structures that marginalize students from households with low educational attainment (Carter, 2003; Steele, 2003). The implication for students from single or multiple marginalized categories is that their positioning in society writ large can shape their sense of who they are and what is possible in school (Weick, 1995).


In sum, figured worlds theory suggests that students figure their schools and themselves through a feedback loop, or the cyclical interactions among student identity, behavior, and experiences within their school context. While figured worlds theory identifies several sources of data for feedback, this study focuses on local discourses and artifacts, which we explain in more detail under data collection in the article’s next section.


RESEARCH DESIGN


This study examines students’ college-going identity development in the figured world of an urban magnet high school using an ethnographic approach. Consistent with the figured worlds premise, ethnography focuses on culture (Geertz, 1983; Wolcott, 1999), or the shared “patterns of behavior, beliefs and language” of a social group in a particular setting (Creswell, 2007, p. 68). The goal is to understand linguistic and cultural practices through which actors make meaning (Spradley, 1979). Ethnographers seek participants’ insider knowledge, or an emic perspective (Slembrouck, 2005). Ethnographic methods supported inquiry into how students interpreted cultural meanings from school discourses and artifacts—which figured worlds theory suggests are integral components of the feedback loop—to figure their college-going identities (Holland et al., 1998).


SITE


The study took place during the 2014–2015 school year at a magnet school associated with Jackson High School (a pseudonym), a traditional comprehensive school located in a large urban district in Southern California. The magnet and Jackson High School share a campus and name affiliation, but have distinct school codes and operate independently in some respects.1 Jackson Magnet has its own mission, assistant principal, counselor, teachers, and set of classrooms. However, students from both schools share the same campus, calendar, bell schedule, extracurricular programming, principal, and some classes and teachers.


Jackson is located in the heart of a high-poverty neighborhood with low educational attainment and high unemployment. The campus serves 2,500 students, of which 300 attend the magnet program. Of those students in Magnet, 95% are categorized as Hispanic, 5% as Black, and 10% as English Learners (EL). Over 90% live below the poverty line. Based on data from the whole campus (the comprehensive school and the magnet), Jackson is one of the district’s lowest-performing schools, having met only one of 18 criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the 2013–2014 school year. Only about 35% of students on campus graduate eligible for state university admission. The district does not disaggregate data by program, but Jackson Magnet’s reports show higher achievement on average than the host school (see Table 1).


Jackson Magnet was founded in 1980 to “counteract low academic achievement and overcrowded conditions in South Los Angeles.” Yet unlike a select number of magnets with a “gifted” designation, Jackson Magnet does not have specific admissions requirements. All students in the district are eligible to apply. Nevertheless, the application itself can create a self-selection effect; students who are high performing, have been enrolled in higher academic tracks, and/or have involved parents are more likely to seek admission (Hoxby & Murarka, 2009). Jackson Magnet was therefore part of a sampling strategy designed to identify urban high school youth committed to attending college. The intent was not to examine the specific influence of magnets (i.e., as opposed to traditional or charter schools). However, as elaborated in the findings, the “magnet” label emerged as a central part of students’ identities.


Table 1. Achievement Indicators for Jackson High School and Jackson Magnet

Achievement Indicator

Jackson High School   

(including Jackson Magnet)

Jackson Magnet High School

% graduating in four years

60

95

% meeting or exceeding proficiency in English

25

50

% meeting or exceeding proficiency in math

10

20

API score (out of 1000)1

620

790

1 The state’s proficiency benchmark is 800.


SAMPLE


The sample included 25 college-bound seniors (of the 75 total seniors in Magnet), and was purposive based on three factors: (a) achievement, students earning a 3.0 and above and taking one or more AP courses; (b) college plans, students who were eligible for and applying to four-year institutions; and (c) demographics, students belonging to traditionally underrepresented groups. All participants qualified for free and reduced lunch, and all but one lived below the poverty line. All were of color (i.e., 23 Latinas/os and two African Americans). All were the first in their families to pursue a bachelor’s degree, though two had siblings in college. Of the 25 students, six males and nine females became informants who provided “a unique inside perspective on events that the investigator is still ‘outside’ of” (Denzin, 2009, p. 202). In other words, informants were the students who offered insight when questions arose during fieldwork (e.g., Why do all the seniors think Mr. Roberts’ class is so difficult?). The 15 informants were selected to represent a range of achievement levels, college goals, and extracurricular involvement. Informants’ academic profiles, which offer insight into students’ readiness and the quality of the school’s preparation, are presented in Table 2. All participant names are pseudonyms.


Table 2. Informants’ Academic Profiles and College Aspirations

Name

GPA          (out of 4.0)

SAT             (out of 2400)

AP Courses Taken  

AP Exams Passed

College Goal

Alex

3.0

1700

5

2

UC

Analucia

3.8

1580

6

2

Priv Univ

Bryan

3.4

1290

4

1

CSU

Carmen

3.1

1350

4

0

CSU

Cindy

3.4

1460

5

2

UC

Daisy

3.2

1200

4

1

CSU

Daniel

3.83

1600

5

5

Priv Univ

Edward

3.9

1460

6

2

Lib Arts Coll

Emi

3.9

1310

5

2

Lib Arts Coll

Graciela

4.0

1610

6

3

UC

Hector

3.0

1440

3

1

CSU

Juan

3.48

1570

5

3

UC

Natalia

3.5

1310

5

0

UC

Paz

3.76

1330

4

2

CSU

Ximena

3.7

1510

6

3

Lib Arts Coll

In addition to students, 12 staff members participated in the study. Given its small size, Jackson Magnet only had one administrator, one counselor, and nine teachers. Seven of the nine teachers participated (representing English, Math, Physics, Government/Economics, U.S. History, Biology, Art/Music), including the five who taught seniors. The assistant principal, the counselor, the former campus-wide college counselor, and two program staff members were also in the sample.

DATA COLLECTION


Data were collected to explore how Magnet students not only figured their high school, but also configured their college-going identities within it prior to postsecondary transition. Data collection spanned from late August 2014 to the end of June 2015, encompassing students’ senior year. Methods were designed to capture discourses and artifacts, data sources that comprise students’ feedback loop. Below we explain the theoretical relevance of these data sources in addition to itemizing our ethnographic approach.


Discourses


Discourses are patterns of everyday language shared by the members of a particular context, or what linguists call a speech community. In schools, discourses are learned through “repeated participation in particular routines [that] socialize [students] . . . into a range of culturally defined relationships and activities” (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 172). Via school discourses, students not only learn who they can and should be, but also practice who they want to become (Cazden & Beck, 2003). Urban schools in particular may position students “in relation to discourses of achievement and failure in schools, from which emancipation is not possible” (Caraballo, 2011, p. 167), which has implications for college-identity development. A figured world’s discourse, then, is a situated narrative—told and reinforced through language use—that organizes the world’s inhabitants and socializes newcomers to its norms. We employed observations and interviews to capture the discourses students and staff used for figuring in the world of Jackson Magnet.


Observations. The bulk of the 240 hours of observations took place at the school site where the discourses surrounding Jackson Magnet were practiced. Fieldnotes were generated during and immediately following each observation. Passive observations of students were conducted in the Magnet Office and the surrounding common areas such as the computer lab, which students frequented during their off periods. Students were also observed attending college events and school-based programs. Participant observation methods included active mentoring by the article’s first author, helping students create lists of potential colleges, register for admissions exams, revise personal statements, and submit applications.


Interviews. Discourses were also captured via formal one-on-one interviews with 25 students and seven staff. At least one informal follow-up interview was conducted with each of the 15 student informants. In addition, four 90-minute focus groups were completed with groups of five to nine students. The student interviews ranged from 45 to 130 minutes with an average duration of just over an hour. A semi-structured protocol sought to understand how students figured the school and their identities within it. Probes solicited students’ personal views about, for example, their academic preparation and their readiness for college. Focus groups supported triangulation of students’ figured world interview findings as they emerged. Staff interviews also served triangulation and lasted approximately an hour. Interview questions centered on how school agents defined and estimated the college readiness of students. All one-on-one and focus group interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis.


Artifacts


According to figured worlds theory, artifacts are similar to discourses insofar as they also embody cultural meanings, but the sources are different and—in this study—represent the institution’s contributions to the feedback loop. Artifacts commonly take the form of documents, either physical or digital. Report cards, for example, are school artifacts that students use to interpret their institutional standing. Artifacts can also be evidence of participation in membership activities or rituals. Enrollment in an AP course as verified on a transcript is an artifact that high schools often associate with college going. Postsecondary institutions reward students whose AP artifacts demonstrate college-level achievement on a standardized exam. This study used document collection techniques to gather artifacts from students’ feedback loop.


Documents. All students completed demographic questionnaires and provided copies of their academic transcripts, college applications, and financial aid documents. Scholarship essays, job applications, and class assignments were also collected, as were electronic sources including emails, text messages, Facebook posts, Instagram pictures, and tweets. Apropos the school, documents such as data summary sheets, internal evaluations, school report cards, and the school websites were also reviewed. Fliers relevant to college going (e.g., SAT testing deadlines) that were publicly posted or distributed and announcements written on a whiteboard in the Magnet Office were collected, if not by hand then captured in situ with a cellphone camera.


DATA ANALYSIS


Data analysis took place concurrently with data collection. Reflective memos were dictated into an audio recorder, which were later reviewed and transcribed. Miles and Huberman’s (1994) three stages of iterative data analysis were implemented: (a) data reduction, (b) data display, and (c) conclusion drawing and verification. The first stage entailed organizing, selecting, summarizing, and memoing about data. Data were organized by date and type (e.g., fieldnotes vs. interview transcripts). Coding and creating categories were also part of the data reduction stage. A list of a priori codes based on theory (e.g., artifacts, discourses, identity) and literature (e.g., college-ready skills) were applied in conjunction with open coding. Examples of codes that emerged through analysis included “magnet” and “scholar.” Additional coding cycles facilitated the development of categories (e.g., characteristics of scholars, classroom experiences, and local feedback). The constant comparative method, whereby similarities and differences were discerned across the data, helped to identify relationships and refine categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Rereading and revising categories of data were aided by data display, stage two of the analysis process (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This stage involved generating “an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11). Charts, matrices, and other visual organizers were used to make sense of the data and clarify relationships among concepts. In the third stage, conclusion drawing and verification, interpretations were advanced and scrutinized for saturation.


TRUSTWORTHINESS


A variety of approaches were used to ensure trustworthiness (Guba, 1981; Lincoln, 2001). In addition to triangulating data sources (Mathison, 1988), informal member checks were regularly employed to insure interpretive continuity between what was said in the interviews and what was observed in the field. Two additional strategies were prolonged engagement (Spradley, 1979) and thick description (Geertz, 1973). The first author also engaged in reflexive memoing and bracketing to diminish bias from her dual role as a researcher and mentor and to address her positionality as a white woman doing research with students of color. For transparency, we disclose limitations that speak to the transferability of our findings. The first is time, because the process of preparing for college begins long before the senior year of high school tracked in this study (Conley, 2014). The second is sampling, which reflects a self-selected subgroup of high-performing, college-bound students willing to participate. The sample also did not include teachers or students from the main campus who would have been useful to gain additional perspectives into the Magnet–non-Magnet dynamic.


DATA PRESENTATION


Six Magnet students sat in a circle in the computer lab sipping on sodas and passing around slices of pepperoni. The late afternoon sunlight peered in through a door that opened to an outdoor hallway. It was Friday, and apart from the occasional straggler, most students and staff had gone home for the weekend. The students were discussing how the school’s administration treated Magnet students differently. Cindy offered an observation she had made the week prior: “So the principal was walking by, and a Magnet student said ‘Hi’ to him and he was like, ‘Hi,’ and then a regular student—and I think he was ditching—was like ‘Hey!’ And the principal did a whole handshake with him. And I was like, ‘Where was that for the Magnet student?’” Carmen shook her head disapprovingly. As if citing common knowledge, she sermonized: “Like you have a ditcher and a scholar.”


Carmen’s comment describes a figured world that socialized students into two groups, in which Magnet students believed they were different from the general school population. Scholars were students who “actually want to go to college,” whereas ditchers were “gang-bangers [who] don’t care about their futures.” The Magnet’s social hub was an Office, where a large red bulletin board read “Dare to Dream.” The room was located between an outdoor hallway and the entrance to the assistant principal and counselor’s offices. It was here that seniors often gathered during their lunch or free periods to work on homework or college applications. The room was small and crowded, but utilitarian. Furniture included a table with four chairs by the entrance and, to the right of the doorway, a desk with a computer beside a large fish tank. Opposite the fish tank were four additional computers and a printer. Near the doorway to the back offices, a revolving book tower overflowed with brochures and fliers, a collection of information about SAT and ACT registration, financial aid, and college application deadlines. Hand-written notes decorated the red bulletin board, bearing messages of encouragement to students entering the office: “College . . . the way to success!” and “College will change your life!”


In what follows, we present data according to the two types of local discourse that Jackson Magnet students used to figure their world and their college-going identities: scholar talk and ditcher talk. Our intention is to capture students’ emic perspective; we are describing the figured world of Jackson Magnet from their point of view.


SCHOLARS


Magnet students referred to themselves as “scholars”—a catchword that Daisy originated in 11th grade and that had since become common in all the seniors’ lexicons. She explained, “I was just sitting in Mr. Martinez’s class one day and I thought to myself, we’re all scholars!” This status was based, in part, on the shared belief that, in Natalia’s words, college was “the main goal of Magnet.” Thus, being a Magnet student was synonymous with being a scholar, which was inextricably tied to college going. Students used the word “magnet” as an adjective to reference their scholar status. The phrase “since we’re Magnet …” was code for a number of traits categorically associated with school success. Graciela, for example, the Magnet class valedictorian, associated being “studious” and “high performing” with having attended magnets since elementary school. Daniel defined himself as “a top student,” explaining, “I guess I’m very intelligent and I do my work.” While Cindy reluctantly acknowledged her tendency to procrastinate, she was nonetheless certain of her brainpower: “I see myself as someone who’s smart.” Magnet was also synonymous with motivation. Paz called herself “very dedicated” and Natalia used the term “proactive.”


Most Magnet students intended to go to college, some since they were young. Analucia explained, “I knew that one day in my life I was going to go to college.” Earning potential was a driving motivation, as well as making their families proud. Daniel, for example, sought to “get a good job and make a big salary to support my mom.” Family support sometimes intimated pressure to succeed. As Juan shared, “My parents are really excited [for me to go], and hopefully I can show them that all their hard work was not for waste, you know?” Alex confided he worried about “not making it because so many people . . . depend on me and . . . . That’s scary sometimes.”


College going at Jackson Magnet was a team sport. With the office as their home base, the seniors attended afterschool tutoring together, reminded each other of college deadlines, and attended college application workshops as a group. When asked how they maintained their focus, Graciela reflected: “I think it’s pretty much people who have a common goal. Like we all have the common goal to go to university, so what we’re supposed to do is that—the same thing.” Affirmations were shared on Instagram via hashtags: #magnet 2015, #magnetseniors, #scholars, and #professionalscholars. When admissions anxieties were high, students took emotional care of one another. Daisy delivered a pep talk: “We’re all scholars. We’ll get in.” Natalia offered these words:


But you guys we have to remember also though, that so long as you do what you gotta do, and we’re determined, regardless of if you go to a prestigious college or not-so-known college, you should be proud of that, that you’re going.


Being a scholar buoyed confidence around college preparedness. Looking ahead, Daniel boasted, “Yeah, I’m ready! I’m ready for anything honestly.” Bryan was similarly expectant: “I feel like I’m going to do good in my classes. I feel like I’m going to do very good.” Some filtered their optimism. Ximena shared, “I think [I’m ready]. I think I will be successful at this point, uh, whatever college I go to.” Analucia acknowledged, “It depends on the subject,” and Edward felt “ready for anything that involves math and science.” Others pinpointed specific areas where skill was “a little lower than it could be” such as Cindy who reported, “other than [time management], I do feel ready.” For most, being “scared” or “nervous” about college had less to do with academic preparation than with being a first-generation student. While Graciela felt “ready for college academic wise,” she also confessed to feeling “anxious” about her future, “ ‘cause I hear stories that there’s students that are like me when they start off in college, but something happens and they go downhill.” She saw attending Magnet as a kind of insurance: “I guess if you study at an early age, you’re going to do well pretty much.”


Consistent with the role of scholar, Magnet students got good grades and often referenced their As and Bs as evidence of their achievement and commitment to preparing for college. Alex, for example, proudly recalled earning a perfect score on almost every trigonometry exam. In the Magnet Office, most conversations revolved around who had done the best on a test or in a class. Assignments returned with minimal comments and an “A” or “100” marked at the top were sources of pride, though it was not uncommon for Magnet students to receive high grades without devoting long hours to studying. As Ximena shared, “I don’t usually do homework.” Daniel clarified: “Sometimes you don’t have to study a lot because you can remember everything.” Others strategically skipped assignments when doing so would not substantially compromise their college eligibility. Instead of completing a 2,000-word report for the science fair, for example, Cindy confessed: “Once I hit that lab report, I was like, ‘Naw.’” Cindy was not alone in her decision as reportedly only “about half” of the seniors turned in a report.


By reputation, however, the Magnet’s academic preparation was competitive, and many cited the science fair as an example of the school’s rigor. Students also spoke with trepidation about Mr. Roberts’ 50-page Life Plan assignment. Billed as a college research paper, the Life Plan asked students to chronicle their future goals (e.g., what career they want and where they hope to live) and the steps required to meet them (e.g., what degree they will need and how much rent will cost). The mission statement posted on the school’s website read, “Students are college prepared with rigorous curriculum.” A school evaluation from 2014 listed the Magnet’s purpose “to raise the number of students achieving high school graduation, college/university acceptance and overall preparation for a future beyond high school.” Juan affirmed, “At [Jackson Magnet] you’re always challenged, you’re never, there’s never a time that you can let go like ‘this is an easy class.’ . . . They really push you.” According to Carmen, “They expect a lot but in the long run it’s best for you.” Natalia added, “You learn a lot.” Students reported Magnet courses were “hard,” “really rigorous,” “pretty competitive,” and “challenging.”


A notable exception was AP English, which was uniformly criticized for being “too easy.” Students felt unchallenged because they had only been asked to write three short essays all year—one based on watching the movie Raisin in the Sun rather than reading the play. Several described getting perfect scores on these essays despite having spent 25 minutes writing the night before the due date. Analucia complained that the class “doesn’t even feel like an AP class. It feels like a regular class.” Emi acknowledged that, in general, some of their courses were “not at a level that [they] should be to prepare [us] for AP exams.” Alex described variations in Magnet course rigor: “Sometimes I feel like the school expects less from us. Not all but some teachers think our academic ability is lower than it really is.” Daniel recognized that easy classes were a disadvantage, “If we’re here [at Jackson] and we are already at the top, we’re already better than most, how can we be as good as [students at better schools] if we are not getting the option?” Easy classes, however, did not diminish one’s scholar status. Apart from Analucia who conceded the possibility that she might only be “half ready,” students remained confident that attending the Magnet program meant they were college ready.


Students believed college readiness was greater than the sum of its parts. Standardized test scores, for example, were interpreted in combination with other indicators. Several students assumed test scores were less important to admission committees than other criteria. Regarding the ACT, for example, Daisy counseled one of her classmates: “Don’t worry. It’s just one part of the application. Plus you took a bunch of APs so the colleges will see that too. And you joined clubs.” In contrast, Natalia—who held a fairly strong GPA of 3.6—felt insecure about her first composite SAT score of 810 out of 1600, so she registered to retake the exam. Ultimately, a third of the informants met the college-readiness benchmark on the SAT (see Figure 1). The students passed, on average, half of the AP tests they took (see Table 2). All scored well on the Spanish Language exam, and one student passed the AP English Literature exam.


Figure 1. Combined SAT scores relative to college-readiness benchmark, ranked lowest to highest

[39_22474.htm_g/00002.jpg]

* The SAT Benchmark score of 1550 (critical reading, mathematics, and writing sections combined) indicates a 65% likelihood of achieving a B– average or higher during the first year of college (College Board, 2011).


Teachers and administrators reinforced Magnet students’ scholar identity. In Natalia’s words, “Our counselors and our teachers in Magnet, they actually want you to go to college.” As the math teacher Mr. Martinez reflected, “We’re really emphasizing it—counselors, teachers, everyone. It’s common throughout [the school] that going to college is important.” The assistant principal echoed the message: “I can tell you that our Magnet school here really focuses on providing a rigorous curriculum. And so that in itself I think is legitimate in terms of preparing our students.” In service to this mission, the school sponsored college application and financial aid workshops and issued reminders of admissions deadlines. When students submitted applications in the office, the counselor initiated a round of applause. The government teacher shared, “The students know and we preach all the time: ‘You are part of this Magnet family. And we have high expectations for you.’” The assistant principal believed “that even our 2.7 GPA students have received enough quality instruction to be able to survive in the college environment, just because of the rigor of the curriculum.” Though support for college going at Magnet was undisputed, the biology teacher worried that the “higher standard” might not be high enough:


So they think, “Well I’m gonna go to college and just by doing my work, get As. And [I’m going to] study for a test for like 30 minutes and get an A.” While you know in some high schools, students study for three or four hours to get a C.


DITCHERS


Being a scholar involved a rivalry with students in the regular high school: “Like you have a ditcher and a scholar.” Students reported tensions between the factions: “There’s a certain hate toward us where they’ll be like, ‘Magnet’s not really smart!’” Edward shared how after he transferred to Magnet from the regular school, “There was some hostility like ‘Oh, you’re in Magnet now? Oh you think you’re all that?’” Yet while Magnet students gave lip-service to resisting the idea that they were “all that,” their egos often drew strength from ditcher comparisons. Alex, for example, had the highest SAT score of the Magnet informants, and confessed that “In honesty, when I first saw my SAT score I bragged about it a lot because other people scored lower.” Though he acknowledged it was not “the highest score you could get,” Magnet students always came up as the higher achievers when benchmarking against ditchers.


Magnet students justified ditcher comparisons on various counts. Those who transferred from regular Jackson cited discipline as their principal motive. Alex recalled, “I signed up during the ninth grade because I thought it was a better opportunity seeing that in the regular classes the students were all sorts of crazy. . . . I remembered my aunt telling me that in the Magnet program the students are more toned down and everything.” He visited the Magnet Office, asked for an application, and transferred. “And when I got there,” he added, “everything was settled down, it was quiet.” Magnet students also pointed to the inferior quality of college preparation at the regular school. Compared with Magnet, Graciela noted, “they don’t prepare everyone.” She clarified,


Like they prepare them just enough to just graduate high school. They just tell you, “Pass all your classes with a C or better.” Whereas, in Magnet, our personnel encourage us to pass our grades with a B or higher and if we can an A, and to take AP classes.


Magnet students believed the expectations were lower for regular students. According to Hector, “our [Magnet] teachers, they expect us to work, while in regular Jackson not so much.” Alex submitted proof: “I can slack off in [regular Jackson] and still receive an A, but I can’t slack off in my [Magnet] classes because it would hurt my grade.” From these comparisons, Magnet students extrapolated likelihood of college success. Reflecting on why her brother’s girlfriend had dropped out of college, Ximena surmised,


It’s hard coming from [a high-poverty urban neighborhood], maybe not from, from magnet schools like me. But usually from regular schools I’ve seen a lot of students drop out because the rigor is just too much and they’re not used to it.


Magnet teachers and administrators routinely compared Jackson’s programs and students. Recruitment, for example, hinged on distinguishing Magnet from its host campus. As a disclaimer at recruitment events, the counselor asked middle school parents not to “focus on the negativity that you might have heard in the community about [regular] Jackson High School.” Marketing also involved citing the Magnet program’s relatively higher outcomes. One senior teacher explained, “We can say to middle schools ‘Look, our score is 200 points higher [than regular Jackson’s].’” Indeed, the Magnet program outperformed regular Jackson 790 to 620 on the state’s Academic Performance Index, based on measures of high school proficiency such as attendance, state test scores, and exit exam pass rates (see Table 1). These metrics reinforced the comparative viewpoint shared by staff that it was “easier to talk about Magnet students relative to the regular kids.”


By consensus, the primary difference between student groups was motivation. As the math teacher stated, “In the regular school, they’re very apathetic, the majority of the class. But over [in Magnet], most of the students do work throughout the period.” Ms. Velasquez, the counselor, summarized the viewpoint: “The biggest difference is the number of kids who want to achieve and are hoping to go to college is much bigger in the Magnet school.” Differences in motivation were assumed, in part, because Magnet students had to apply to the program—signaling a preexisting, shared intention to go to college. According to the physics teacher, “It’s not necessarily that the [Magnet] kids are smarter. It’s like a selection bias. Because they’ve decided to go to the Magnet, that means that they’re actively interested in their education or they have parents who are.” A math teacher confirmed, “There’s a big difference between [Magnet and regular students], just in applying.” Mr. Kyle, the students’ favorite science teacher, explained, “A magnet program really is a way of tracking without tracking. Because you’re saying, ‘Look, if you care about your future and you care about your education, go to Magnet.’” The self-selection rationale lent credibility to archetypal distinctions between regular Jackson and Magnet students.


Teachers and administrators nonetheless made use of the distinctions to achieve different ends. Certain types of endorsements strengthened staff camaraderie with Magnet students. When his Magnet students charged, “Oh my god, those [regular] kids are horrible! They don’t do anything!” Mr. Roberts’ response was: “I know! I used to teach over there! That’s why I appreciate you guys.” Others used the distinction as a motivator for Magnet students: “This is not like the regular school; we are holding you to a higher standard.” Some teachers questioned the value of the comparative viewpoint for college transition. As the math teacher pointed out:


A lot of the [Magnet students’] SAT scores are not at the level of the typical student who attends, for example, UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles], but they are way above the average of Jackson, so they kind of have something to compare. Like, “Well I’m way above average here, so I’m doing well.”


The government teacher pointed out the liability of such comparisons: “They might be better than everybody else [in the regular school], but in a sense that brings its own set of problems.” In turn, he utilized the contrast with students as a cautionary measure:


I remind them all the time, “This is not your competition. You can’t just be better than everybody else here. You have to be better than all the kids from other places who have all the advantages you don’t have, who have parents who pay for tutors, whose schools don’t have all the dysfunction and turmoil going on around them.”


Ms. Velasquez—who had attended a high school like Jackson but now lived with her family in a nearby middle class community—agreed: “Even though they’re more committed and they’re hardworking and they’re higher academically than the rest of [Jackson’s] population, they’re still disadvantaged because they still lack what kids in my neighborhood have.”


Several Jackson employees regretted the social implications of comparing Magnet and regular students. Mr. Kyle, for example, expressed concern about promoting a discriminatory dynamic: “We—the teachers is what I mean when I say we—generally reinforce that perspective. Like we say, ‘We’re Magnet. We’re not like them.’” After a pause, he added, “But I mean, if we didn’t say we were Magnet, we wouldn’t really be, if that makes sense.” As it turned out, the overall AP pass rate did not vary substantially between Magnet and regular Jackson: 37% compared to 35% (see Table 3). These data square with the words of one science teacher: “There’s still a lot of really high-performing kids that aren’t Magnet.”


Table 3. AP Outcomes in Jackson High School and Jackson Magnet High School, 2013–2014

Test

Calculus AB

English Language2

English Literature

U.S. History2

Spanish Language2

Totals3

School

Reg

Mag

Reg

Mag

Reg

Mag

Reg

Mag

Reg

Mag

Reg

Mag

# Passing Scores1

4

1

10

3

3

3

13

8

151

38

226

62

# Tests Taken

34

16

101

33

97

19

50

27

166

39

650

166

Passing Rate

12%

6%

10%

9%

3%

16%

26%

30%

91%

97%

35%

37%

Note. Reg stands for Jackson High School (regular campus) and Mag stands for Jackson Magnet.

1 AP exams receive scores from 1–5. A score of 3 and above is considered passing.

2  Participants took these tests as 11th graders.

3 Totals include other tests not shown in this table. This figure denotes the total number of AP test-takers at each school during that testing period, and the resulting pass rates.


DISCUSSION


The archetypes of “a ditcher and a scholar” figured prominently into not only the figured world of Jackson Magnet High School, but also the college-going identities students figured within it. The local feedback loop suggested Magnet provided more rigorous college preparation than regular Jackson. Magnet students, in turn, figured their position as scholars relative to their peers. Yet the study’s standardized artifacts call into question the students’ scholar status relative to the national college-going population. In what follows, we use figured worlds theory to explore how Jackson Magnet’s context ultimately led Magnet students to graduate high school with an inflated sense of their readiness for college.


THE FIGURED WORLD OF JACKSON MAGNET


The lifeblood of Jackson Magnet culture was the local discourse—comprised of scholar and ditcher talk—that socialized its students into identities as scholars. Scholar talk focused on getting good grades and applying to college. Underlying scholar talk was an assumption that Magnet students’ priorities set them apart from their peers in the regular track. Hence a complement to scholar talk was ditcher talk, which typecast regular students as academically inferior. Consistent with studies showing that schools offer urban youth limited identity options (Hatt, 2007; Nasir et al., 2009), being a scholar at Jackson Magnet meant choosing not to be a ditcher. Indeed, “identity is always related to what one is not—the Other” (Sarup, 1996, p. 47).


The Magnet school fostered and reinforced scholar/ditcher discourse in various ways. Marketing campaigns and teacher feedback implied the academic superiority of the Magnet program and its students. Consistent with the mission of Magnet, faculty and staff promoted a college-going culture by encouraging students’ college aspirations and achievement (Corwin & Tierney, 2007). Local artifacts (i.e., grades) were signals of academic excellence. In these ways, scholar talk empowered Magnet students to claim a privileged educational status that research suggests is often reserved for middle and upper class White students (Oakes, 2005).


Yet in propping up its students as scholars, Jackson Magnet also promoted a brand of elitism that ghettoized regular students, a finding that echoes research on gifted and talented tracking (Bui, Craig, & Imberman, 2014; Ford, Coleman, & Davis, 2014; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). All students on Jackson’s campus lived in a high-poverty urban neighborhood, but scholar/ditcher discourse encouraged Magnet students to figure their college-going futures at the expense of their regular school peers. Through the appropriation of urban stereotypes (e.g., gangbangers), the figured world of Jackson Magnet replicated social and cultural hierarchies that systemically disadvantage non-dominant groups (Holland et al., 1998).


THE REAL WORLD OF HIGHER EDUCATION


Beyond the figured world of Jackson Magnet, students’ standardized test scores broadcast “real world” feedback that casts doubt on the school’s scholar narrative. On the SAT, only one third of the informants met the college-readiness benchmark (see Figure 1). Of the AP exams they took, most Magnet students passed fewer than half (see Table 2). Though admission tests are poor predictors of college achievement (Maruyama, 2012; Niu & Tienda, 2010), particularly for traditionally underrepresented students (Sedlacek, 2004), average AP score is strongly associated with college performance (Shaw, Marini, & Mattern, 2013). These real-world artifacts suggest that—like some “college for all” tracks in urban high schools (Martinez & Deil-Amen, 2015)—the Magnet program did not actually deliver the high-quality academic preparation of its branding. In fact, comparable AP passing rates in the Magnet and regular school suggest little, if any, variation in the quality of college preparation offered in each setting (see Table 3).


Students’ classroom experiences also raise questions about Magnet course rigor. Students described AP classes that were “not at the level they should be.” AP English required little writing, and the Life Plan—though promoted as a college research project—merely involved Googling. Low expectations, in turn, fostered poor academic behaviors. Only half the senior class completed the science fair report, and others reported not doing homework. This pattern echoes research showing the importance of teacher expectations for student achievement, as well as the tendency of teachers in Title 1 high schools—even those with the best intentions—to set lower expectations for historically underserved students (Diamond, Randolph, & Spillane, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Peterson, Rubie-Davies, Osborne, & Sibley, 2016; Rist, 1970). The real-world feedback embedded in standardized artifacts and corroborated by students’ classroom testimony suggests that Magnet students had not been well prepared for college.


How then did Magnet students reconcile this real-world feedback with their scholar identities? A skills perspective might suggest that students simply misunderstood the real-world implications of their test scores and classroom experiences; this viewpoint, however, assumes student deficit. A figured worlds perspective recognizes the ways in which the local feedback loop at Jackson Magnet shaped students’ interpretation of these data points. Thus, in the abstract, Magnet students understood that students from more affluent schools might score better on standardized tests. But they could only make sense of their preparation and performance in relation to local reference points—in this case, concrete comparisons with ditchers. Alex therefore conceded that his SAT score was “not the highest you could get,” but bragged about it because he outperformed his peers. Even registering for the SAT helped solidify one’s scholar status at Jackson by signaling one’s intention to attend college. Magnet students trusted that their As and Bs reflected college readiness regardless of how easily they earned them, because they assumed Magnet was more rigorous than the regular school. Consistent with studies showing local contexts mediate student perceptions (Deil-Amen & Tevis, 2010; Rubin, 2007), Magnet students’ figuring process was fundamentally tied to the world of “a ditcher and a scholar.”


Ultimately, Jackson Magnet High School socialized students into identities as scholars without providing substantive opportunities for them to develop college-ready skills and behaviors. Dependent on the local feedback loop to figure their college-going identities, students graduated with an inflated sense of their college readiness. Magnet students were underprepared for higher education but did not know it, a phenomenon that “put them at risk of failure once enrolled” (Deil-Amen & Tevis, 2010, p. 164).


IMPLICATIONS FOR COLLEGE READINESS


While the bulk of college-readiness research focuses on academic skill preparation, figured worlds theory enables us to consider how high schools prepare students in terms of identity. Jackson Magnet was intended to disrupt intergenerational cycles of low educational attainment, but our data suggest the threat of well-intentioned achievement discourses on pre-college identity development. The deceptions imposed by Jackson Magnet’s local feedback loop may have inadvertently positioned its scholars to endure a drastic identity reckoning in college. What happens, for example, when Alex, who bragged about his high SAT score at Jackson Magnet, discovers that many of his college classmates scored better? What happens when Magnet students learn that their college classmates spent hours studying in high school, or earned credit for passing AP exams? Will Magnet students have the resilience to persist when they confront postsecondary academic standards and realize the shortcomings of their high school preparation, and as a consequence, their own under-preparedness?


Figured worlds theory suggests the magnitude of cognitive disadvantage incoming college students may face to reconcile their college-going identities with the real-world standards of higher education. All entering college students will encounter new feedback loops that will require identity adjustment. Yet not all students will have to deconstruct their pre-college identities drastically in this process. The greater the misalignment between one’s high school world and the real postsecondary world, the more one must actively reinterpret old feedback to merge past and present identities. This hindsight-based identity deconstruction and reconstruction may place undue cognitive burdens on underrepresented students who already face a host of social and cultural obstacles when transitioning to college (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Such identity work also potentially compounds the academic difficulties associated with skill under-preparation.


Additional concerns about the breadth of identity preparation in urban high schools pertain to the myriad forms of discrimination—racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and linguistic—that stratify educational opportunity on college campuses (Kohli, Pizarro, & Nevárez, 2017). Neither race nor ethnicity, for example, figured prominently into the college-going identities of Magnet students. That is not to say Magnet students were colorblind. On the contrary, Latinx students expressed pride in their culture by regularly speaking Spanish with one another and celebrating Mexican and Salvadoran traditions. But apart from their excitement to encounter more diversity, they did not discuss race/ethnicity when reflecting on their college futures. Perhaps race/ethnicity was not a central aspect of their figuring process because they attended segregated K–12 schools, or because they did not perceive their academically elite Magnet community to be culturally subtractive (Valenzuela, 1999). Nevertheless, the absence of race/ethnicity from Jackson Magnet’s scholar discourse reflects a culturally neutral vision of college readiness (Castro, 2013). Since research suggests students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups are prone to experience alienation that can hinder college persistence (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2011), Magnet students may be underprepared to negotiate the racial and ethnic identity challenges they are likely to face in higher education (Kanno & Harklau, 2012).


FUTURE DIRECTIONS


Academic skill preparation has been the primary focus of reforms to increase college opportunity (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011), while identity preparation has been a peripheral concern (Wilkins, 2014). Our findings suggest that there is also a need to consider the identity implications of equity-minded college-readiness research, policies, and practices. It goes without saying that urban schools need to increase instructional rigor to enable students to develop college-ready skills. At the same time, K–20 stakeholders ought to consider the repercussions of local college-going discourses and artifacts on student identity. To increase postsecondary opportunity, urban schools will need to develop college-going programs that minimize the potential threat of cognitive disadvantage. This means addressing gaps between local feedback loops and the real-world feedback students are likely to receive in higher education. More research to understand how college-going cultures (and the identities they promote) influence students’ college transition is warranted. Studies are also needed to further unpack how local feedback loops, particularly in segregated urban schools, shape the relationship between race/ethnicity and college-going identity, and the implications for students’ postsecondary persistence.


Another set of questions pertains to the role of tracked programs in college preparation. In this study, tracking created social and cultural circumstances that undermined college-going identity development for regular Jackson and Magnet students alike. More research is needed to better understand whether and how college-readiness programs promote a culture of exclusivity, and the consequences for marginalized students who do and do not participate. Salient questions are whether and how to increase postsecondary opportunity without socializing students either to discriminate against their peers or to figure a false identity that undermines preparation and future cognitive stability. Research and reforms that strengthen the capacity of high schools to improve skill and identity preparation simultaneously for all students are needed.


In the meantime, given that raising expectations in low-performing schools is a slow, ongoing effort, we ask that our colleagues in the research community undertake this pressing line of questioning. How can stakeholders provide the gift of perspective to urban youth imminently facing college? How can stakeholders help students understand the particular struggles they may face without causing them to feel success is impossible? These ambiguities warrant consideration to better address the immediate college-going needs of historically underserved students.


Notes


1. In the remainder of the text, we use the term “Jackson Magnet” or simply “Magnet” to refer to the magnet program, borrowing the terminology used by participants. “Jackson” or “Jackson High School” is used to refer to the entire campus, inclusive of the magnet school.


References


Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/index.html


Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.


Allen, J., Ndum, E., & Mattern, K. (2017). An empirically-derived index of high school academic rigor. ACT Working Paper 2017-5. Iowa City, IA: American Testing Company.


American College Testing (ACT). (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high school core curricula. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/rigor_summary.pdf


An, B. P. (2013). The influence of dual enrollment on academic performance and college readiness: Differences by socioeconomic status. Research in Higher Education, 54, 407–432.


Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Artiles, A. (2015). Beyond responsiveness to identity badges: Future research on culture in disability and implications for response to intervention. Educational Review, 67(1), 1–22.


Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2012). Pre-college and institutional influences on degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention (2nd ed., pp. 119–145). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.


Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.


Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2009). Parsing the achievement gap II. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.  


Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race and identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.


Bui, S. A., Craig, S. G., & Imberman, S. A. (2014). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3), 30–62.


Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 62, 836– 849.


Caraballo, L. (2011). Theorizing identities in a “just(ly)” contested terrain: Practice theories of identity amid critical-poststructural debates on curriculum and achievement. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 8(2), 155–177.


Carter, P. L. (2003). “Black” cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-income African American youth. Social Problems, 50(1), 136–155.


Carter-Andrews, D. J. C. (2009). The construction of black high-achiever identities in a predominantly white high school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(3), 297–317.


Castillo, L. G., Lopez-Arenas, A., & Saldivar, I. M. (2010). The influence of acculturation and enculturation on Mexican American high school students’ decision to apply to college. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 38, 88–98.


Castro, E. L. (2013). Racialized readiness for college and career: Toward an equity grounded social science of intervention programming. Community College Review, 41, 292–310. doi:10.1177/0091552113504291


Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–197). New York, NY: Routledge.


Cimetta, A. D., D’Agostino, J. J., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Can high school achievement tests serve to select high school students? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29, 3–12.


Clauss-Ehlers, C. S., & Wibrowski, C. R. (2007). Building educational resilience and social support: The effects of the educational opportunity fund program among first- and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 574–594.


College Board. (2011). SAT percentile ranks for males, females and total group. Retrieved from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2011.pdf


Conley, D. T. (2014). Getting ready for college, careers, and the common core. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Conley, D. T. (2015). A new era for educational assessment. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(8). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1983


ConnectEd. (2012). College and career readiness: What do we mean? Berkeley, CA: The California Center for College and Career. Retrieved from http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/about/publications


Cooper, R., & Liou, D. D. (2007). The structure and culture of information pathways: Rethinking opportunity to learn in urban high schools during the ninth grade transition. High School Journal, 91(1), 43–56.


Corwin, Z. B., & Tierney, W. G. (2007). Getting there—and beyond: Building a culture of college-going in high schools. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis.


Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535.


DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college: Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Higher Education Research Institute, Graduation School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.


Deil-Amen, R., & Tevis, T. L. (2010). Circumscribed agency: The relevance of standardized college entrance exams for low SES high school students. The Review of Higher Education, 33, 141–175.


Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.


Desjardins, S. L., & Lindsay, N. K. (2008). Adding a statistical wrench to the “Toolbox.” Research in Higher Education, 49, 172–179.


Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98.


Dixon-Román, E. J., Everson, H. T., & McArdle, J. J. (2013). Race, poverty and SAT scores: Modeling the influences of family income on black and white high school students’ SAT performance. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–33.


Duncheon, J. C. (2015). The problem of college readiness. In W. G. Tierney & J. C. Duncheon (Eds.), The problem of college readiness (pp. 3–44). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Edgerton, J. D., & Roberts, L. W. (2014). Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality. Theory and Research in Education, 12(2), 193–220.


Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Flores, L. Y., Ojeda, L., Huang, Y., Gee, D., & Lee, S. (2006). The relations of acculturation, problem-solving appraisal, and career decision-making self-efficacy to Mexican American high school students’ educational goals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 260–266.


Ford, D. Y., Coleman, M. R., & Davis, J. L. (2014). Racially, ethnically, and linguistically different gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today, 37(3), 133–134.


Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.


Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.


Giroux, H. A. (2003). Public pedagogy and the politics of resistance: Notes on a critical theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 5–16.


Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.


Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.


Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366.


Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.


Hatt, B. (2007). Street smarts vs. book smarts: The figured world of smartness in the lives of marginalized, urban youth. The Urban Review, 39(2), 145–166.


Hill, L. D., Begman, A., & Andrade, F. (2015). Social capital for college: Network composition and access to selective institutions among urban high school students. Urban Education, 50(3), 316–345.


Hoffman, N., Vargas, J. A., Venezia, A., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2007). Minding the gap: Why integrating high school with college makes sense and how to do it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.


Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Howard, T. C. (2003). “A tug of war for our minds”: African American high school students’ perceptions of their academic identities and college aspirations. High School Journal, 87(1), 4–18.


Hoxby, C. M., & Murarka, S. (2009). Charter schools in New York City: Who enrolls and how they affect their students’ achievement (Working Paper No. 14852). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Iatarola, P., Conger, D., & Long, M. C. (2011). Determinants of high schools’ advanced course offerings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 340–359.


Kanno, Y., & Harklau, L. (2012). Linguistic minority students go to college: Preparation, access, and persistence. New York, NY: Routledge.


Karp, M., Calcagno, J. C., Hughes, K., Jeong, D. W., & Bailey, T. (2007). The postsecondary achievement of participants in dual enrollment: An analysis of student outcomes in two states. Louisville, KY: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.


Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., . . . Ballard, D. (2015). The condition of education 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.


Kohli, R., Pizarro, M., & Nevárez, A. (2017). The “New Racism” of K–12 schools: Centering critical research on racism. Review of Research in Education, 41, 182–202.


Kurlaender, M. (2014). Assessing the promise of California’s Early Assessment Program for community colleges. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655, 36–55.


Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 25–72). New York, NY: Agathon Press.


Long, M. C., Iatarola, P., & Conger, D. (2009). Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level math: The role of high school courses. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 1–33.


Martinez, G. F., & Deil-Amen, R. (2015). College for all Latinos? The role of high school messages in facing college challenges. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–50.


Maruyama, G. (2012). Assessing college readiness: Should we be satisfied with ACT or other threshold scores? Educational Researcher, 41(7), 252–261.


Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.


Mattern, K., Shaw, E., & Williams, F. (2008). Examining the relationship between the SAT, high school measures of academic performance, and socioeconomic status: Turning our attention to the unit of analysis (College Board Research Note No. RN-36). New York, NY: College Board.


McAlister, S., & Mevs, P. (2012). College readiness: A guide to the field. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.


McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.


Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2013). Readiness for college: The role of noncognitive factors and context. College Readiness Indicator Systems, Fall, 45–52.


Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76, 449–475.


Nasir, N. S., McLaughlin, M. W., & Jones, A. (2009). What does it mean to be African American? Constructions of race and academic identity in an urban public high school. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 73–114.


Niu, S. X., & Tienda, M. (2010). Minority student academic performance under the uniform admission law: Evidence from the University of Texas at Austin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 44–69.


Noguera, P. A. (2008). The trouble with black boys: And other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Nunn, L. M. (2014). Defining student success: The role of school and culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.


Nygreen, K. (2013). These kids: Identity, agency, and social justice at a last chance high school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


Osborne, J. W. (1997). Identification with academics and academic success among community college students. Community College Review, 25(1), 56–69.


Patterson, B. F., & Ewing, M. (2013). Validating the use of AP exam scores for college course placement (Research Report no. 2013-2). New York, NY: College Board.


Perna, L. W. (2005). The key to college access: Rigorous academic preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 113–134). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Peterson, E. R., Rubie-Davies, C., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. (2016). Teachers’ explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and the ethnic achievement gap. Learning and Instruction, 42, 123–140.


Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 276–300.


Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.


Porter, A. C., & Polikoff, M. S. (2012). Measuring academic readiness for college. Educational Policy, 26(3), 394–417.


Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317.


Relles, S., & Tierney, W. G. (2013). Understanding the writing habits of tomorrow’s students: Technology and college readiness. Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 477–505. 


Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 411–451.


Roderick, M., Coca, V., & Nagaoka, J. (2011). Potholes on the road to college: High school effects in shaping urban students’ participation in college application, four-year college enrollment, and college match. Sociology of Education, 84(3), 178–211.


Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban high schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185–210.


Rosenbaum, J. E. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.


Rubin, B. (2007). Learner identity amid figured worlds: Constructing (in)competence at an urban high school. The Urban Review, 39(2), 217–249.


Sarup, M. (1996). Identity, culture, and the postmodern world. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.


Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.) (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Schott Foundation. (2009). Opportunity to learn: A 50 state report on the opportunity to learn in America. Cambridge, MA: Author.


Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Shaw, E. J., Marini, J. P., & Mattern, K. D. (2013). Exploring the utility of advanced placement participation and performance in college admission decisions. Educational and Psychological Measurement 73, 229–253.


Slembrouck, S. (2005). Discourse, critique and ethnography: Class-oriented coding in accounts of child protection. Language Sciences, 27(6), 619–650.Sommerfeld, 2011


Smith, J., Hurwitz, M., & Avery, C. (2017). Giving college credit where it is due: Advanced placement exam scores and college outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 35, 67–147.


Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.


Steele, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and African-American student achievement. In T. Perry, C. Steele, & A. Hilliard III (Eds.), Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African American students (pp. 109–130). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.


Stephan, J. (2013). Social capital and the college enrollment process: How can a school program make a difference? Teachers College Record, 115(4), 1–39.


Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.


Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2011). Identity development of diverse populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher education: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 12). John Wiley & Sons.


Urrieta, L. (2007a). Figured worlds and education: An introduction to the special issue. Urban Review, 39, 107–116.


Urrieta, L. (2007b). Identity production in figured worlds: How some Mexican Americans become Chicana/o activist educators. Urban Review, 39(2), 117–144.


Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Venezia, A., & Jaeger, L. (2013). Transitions from high school to college. The Future of Children, 23(1), 117–136.


Venezia, A., & Voloch, D. (2012). Using college placement exams as early signals of college readiness: An examination of California’s Early Assessment Program and New York’s At Home in College Program. New Directions for Higher Education, 158, 71–79.


Ward, D. S., & Vargas, J. (2012). Using dual enrollment policy to improve college and career readiness: A web tool for decision makers (Policy Brief). Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.


Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.


Welton, A. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2014). Coloring the college pathway: A more culturally responsive approach to college readiness and access for students of color in secondary schools. Urban Review, 46, 197–223.


Welton, A., & Williams, M. (2015). Accountability strain, college readiness drain: Sociopolitical tensions involved in maintaining a college-going culture in a high “minority”, high poverty, Texas high school. High School Journal, 98, 181–204.


Wiley, A., Wyatt, J., & Camara, W. J. (2010). The development of a multidimensional college readiness index (Research Report No. 2010-3). New York, NY: The College Board.


Wilkins, A. C. (2014). Race, age, and identity transformations in the transition from high school to college for Black and first-generation White men. Sociology of Education 87, 171–187.


Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.


Wong, K. K., Anagnostopoulos, D., Rutledge, S., & Edwards, C. (2003). The challenge of improving instruction in urban high schools: Case studies of the implementation of the Chicago academic standards. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(3), 39–87.


Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio, J. J., Jr. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.


Zwick, R., & Greif Green, J. (2007). New perspectives on the correlation of SAT scores, high school grades, and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 23–45.




Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 121 Number 1, 2019, p. 1-36
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 22474, Date Accessed: 10/24/2021 1:00:30 PM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
Article Tools
Related Articles

Related Discussion
 
Post a Comment | Read All

About the Author
  • Julia C. Duncheon
    University of Texas at El Paso
    E-mail Author
    JULIA C. DUNCHEON is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership and Foundations Department at the University of Texas at El Paso. Her research broadly examines issues related to college access, readiness, and equity for underserved student populations. Her work has appeared in journals such as Review of Educational Research, American Educational Research Journal, and Urban Education.
  • Stefani Relles
    University of Nevada, Las Vegas
    E-mail Author
    STEFANI R. RELLES is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Higher Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her work focuses on college readiness, access, and equity for students from historically marginalized groups. Current fields of inquiry include writing education, digital literacies, public policy, and qualitative methods.
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS