This study conducts an intersectional analysis of two adjoined qualitative studies, reanalyzing the data using a college opportunity framework (González, Stoner, & Jovel, 2003) to examine how sources of social capital available within three high-“minority,” high-poverty high schools in Texas shape college opportunities for Latina/o and Black high school students. Findings indicate that counselors and teachers were sources of college information and support while advanced courses prepared students for college-level curriculum. However, these same support mechanisms often deterred students’ access to quality academic preparation and college information. The increased focus on state-mandated accountability measures at the schools also limited students’ level of academic preparation and college access. Additionally, state college access policies designed to increase the college participation of underrepresented groups effectively accomplished this policy intent, but these same policies influenced students’ college choice decisions.
AudS., HussarW., PlantyM., SnyderT., BiancoK., FoxM. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES Report No. 2010-028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
3.
BalfanzR., & LegtersN. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
4.
BourdieuP. (1980). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
5.
ButlerD. (2010). Ethno-racial composition and college preference: revisiting the perpetuation of segregation hypothesis. ANNALS of the American Academic of Political and Social Science, 627(36), 36–58.
6.
CabreraA. F., Deil-AmenR., PrabhuR., TerenziniP. T., LeeC., & FranklinR. E. (2009). Increasing the college preparedness of at-risk students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 5(2), 79–97.
ConleyD. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
10.
ConleyD. T. (2009). Creating college readiness.Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
11.
CorwinZ., VenegasK., OliverezP., & ColyarJ. (2004). School counsel: How appropriate guidance affects educational equity. Urban Education, 39(4), 442–457.
12.
CullenJ., LongM., & RebackR. (2011). Jockeying for position: Strategic high school choice under Texas’ top ten percent plan. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16663.pdf
13.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified teachers in California's public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936–1966.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667.
15.
FerriB. A., & ConnorD. J. (2005). In the shadow of “Brown”: Special education and overrepresentation of students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 93–100.
16.
FrenchD. (2003). A new vision of authentic assessment to overcome the flaws in high-stakes testing. Middle School Journal, 35(1), 1–13.
17.
GonzálezK., StonerC., & JovelJ. (2003). Examining the role of social capital in access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(1), 146–170.
18.
GriffinK. A., & ReddickR. J. (2011). Surveillance and sacrifice: Gender differences in the mentoring patterns of Black professors at predominantly White research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1032–1057.
19.
HamptonE. (2005). Standardized or sterilized? Differing perspectives on the effects of high-stakes testing in West Texas. In ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 179–200). Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
HollandN. E., & Farmer-HintonR. L. (2009). Leave no schools behind: The importance of a college culture in urban public high schools. High School Journal, 92(3), 24–43.
21.
HolleyD., & SpencerD. (1999). The Texas 10 percent plan. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review, 34(2), 245–278.
22.
HolmeJ. J., RichardsM., JimersonJ. B., & CohenB. (2010). Testing the “theory of action” of high school exit exam policies: A review of research of the impact of exit testing on student achievement, attainment, post-secondary outcomes, and institutional responses. Review of Educational Research80(4), 476–526.
23.
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996).
24.
HornC. L., & FloresS. M. (2003). Percent plans in college admissions: A comparative analysis of three states’ experiences.Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
25.
HosslerD., SchmitJ., & VesperN. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
HurshD. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 295–308.
JeraldC. D., HaycockK., & WilkinsA. (2009). Fighting for quality and equality, too: How state policymakers can ensure the drive to improve teacher quality doesn't just trickle down to poor and minority children.Washington, DC: Education Trust.
29.
KimJ., & SundermanG. L. (2004). Large mandates and limited resources: State responses to the No Child Left Behind Act and implications for accountability.Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
30.
Kimura-WalshE., YamamuraE. K., GriffinK. A., & AllenW. R. (2009). Achieving the college dream? Examining disparities in access to college information among high achieving and non-high achieving Latina students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(3), 298–315.
31.
KingK. A., KozleskiE. B., & LansdowneK. (2009). Where are all the students of color in gifted education?Principal, 88(5), 16–20.
32.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(10), 3–12.
33.
LinN. (1999). Building a networking theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
LongM. C., SaenzV. B., & TiendaM. (2009). Policy transparency and college enrollment: Did the Texas top 10% law broaden access to the public flagships? Retrieved from http://theop.princeton.edu
36.
McClaffertyK., McDonoughP., & NunezA. (2009). Establishing a college culture in secondary schools through P–20 collaboration: A case study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 357–373.
37.
McDonoughP. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity.Albany: State University of New York Press.
38.
McDonoughP. (2004). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and organizational commitment in college preparation. In TierneyW. G., CorwinZ. B., & ColyarJ. E. (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 69–88). Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
McDonoughP. (2005). Counseling and college counseling in America's high schools.Arlington, VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling.
40.
McNeilL. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 8(10), 729–734.
41.
MerriamS. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PACE Journal of Lifelong, 4, 51–60.
42.
MickelsonR. A., & HeathD. (1999). The effects of segregation and tracking on African American high school seniors’ academic achievement. Journal of Negro Education, 68(4), 566–586.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
OakesJ., RogersJ., SilverD., ValladaresS., TerriquezV., McDonoughP. (2006). Removing the roadblocks: Fair college opportunities for all California students.Los Angeles: University of California, Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
46.
OakesJ., & SaundersM. (2008). Beyond tracking: Multiple pathways to college, career, and civic participation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
47.
OrfieldG., & LeeC. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality.Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
48.
OrfieldG., & WaldJ. (2000, June 5). Testing, testing. The Nation, pp. 38–40.
49.
OxleyD. (2007). Small learning communities: Implementing and deepening practice.Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
50.
PernaL. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 21, 99–157.
51.
PernaL. W., & ThomasS. L. (2009). Barriers to college opportunity: The unintended consequences of state-mandated tests. Educational Policy, 23(3), 451–479.
52.
PeskeH. G., & HaycockK. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality.Washington, DC: Education Trust.
53.
RichmondE. (2009). Preparing students for college and career: California multiple pathways.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
54.
SantiagoD. A., & BrownS. E. (2004). What works for Latino students.Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.
55.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
56.
SloanK. (2005). Playing to the logic of the Texas accountability system: How focusing on “ratings”—not children—undermines quality and equity. In ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 153–178). Albany: State University of New York Press.
57.
SolórzanoD. G., & OrnelasA. (2002). A critical race analysis of advanced placement classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 215–229.
58.
Stanton-SalazarR. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–40.
59.
Stanton-SalazarR. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S. Mexican youth.New York: Teachers College Press.
60.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury, Park, CA: Sage.
TiendaM., AlonS., & NiuS. (2008). Affirmative action and the Texas top 10% percent admission law: Balancing equity and access to higher education. Retrieved from http://theop.princeton.edu
67.
TiendaM., LeichtK., SullivanT., MalteseM., & LloydK. (2003). Closing the gap? Admissions and enrollments at the Texas public flagships before and after affirmative action.Princeton, NJ: Texas Top 10% Project.
68.
TiendaM., & NiuS. (2006). Capitalizing on segregation, pretending neutrality: College admissions and the Texas top 10% law. American Law and Economics Review, 8, 312–346.
VargasJ. (2006, November). Creating and sustaining early college high schools: State policies that support 9-14 education. State Education Standard, pp. 33–38.
72.
Vela-GudeL., CavazosJ.Jr., JohnsonM. S., FieldingC., CavazosA. G., CamposL. (2009). “My counselors were never there”: Perceptions from Latino college students. Professional School Counseling, 12(4), 272–279.
73.
VeneziaA., KirstM. W., & AntonioA. L. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How disconnected K–12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student aspirations.Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.
YamamuraE. K., & MartinezM. A. (2010). Moving beyond high school expectations: Examining stakeholders’ responsibility for increasing Latina/o students’ college readiness. High School Journal, 93(3), 126–148.
