This article draws from a case study investigating the organizational characteristics of a college preparatory charter high school and the impact of that college preparatory climate on the postsecondary plans of the school's graduating classes. Although charters provide local communities with alternatives to existing educational institutions, many recently chartered schools face organizational trials that can limit their effectiveness. This article reports findings from the base-year data collection of a multiyear case study of a recently chartered college preparatory high school. The findings show how logistical constraints and staff turnover affected the implementation of the school's mission, which is to prepare educationally and socially disadvantaged students for college.
References
1.
AnyonJ. (1989). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. In and and BallantineJ. (Ed.), Schools and society (pp. 257—269). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
2.
AnyonJ. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
AuerbachS. (2002). Why do they give the good classes to some and not to others? Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers College Record, 104, 1369—1392.
4.
BalfanzR. (2000). Why do so many urban public school students demonstrate so little achievement? In and and SandersM.G. (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp. 37—62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BerlinnerD. C., and BiddleB. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. New York: Longman.
6.
BoykinA. W. (2000). Foreword. In and and SandersM.G. (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp. xi–xiii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., KerbowD., RollowS., and EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
BulkleyK., and FislerJ. (2002). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9.
ChangM. J. (2000). The relationship of high school characteristics to the selection of undergraduate students for admission to the University of California–Berkeley. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 49—59.
10.
ChubbJ. E., and MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
11.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95—S120.
12.
ComerJ. P. (1993). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press.
13.
ConleyD. (1999). Being Black, living in the red: Race, wealth, and social policy in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
CooksonP. W., and PersellC. H. (1985). Preparing for power: America's elite boarding schools. New York: Basic Books.
15.
CroningerR. G., and LeeV. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103, 548—581.
16.
Darling-HammondL., and GreenJ. (1990). Teacher quality and equality. In GoodladJ.I., and KeatingP. (Eds.), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools (pp. 237—258). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
17.
DelpitL. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.
18.
DressierB. (2001). Charter school leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33, 170—185.
19.
FarmerR. L. (1998). Who do schools really serve? Examining the relationship between socioeconomic status and access to school resources through Lisrel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
20.
Farmer-HintonR. L. (2002). The Chicago context: Understanding the consequences of urban processes on school capacity. Journal of Negro Education, 71, 313—330.
21.
Farmer-HintonR. L. (2003, Fall). Creating options: A peek inside the college preparation process for low income African American students. Illinois Committee on Black Concerns in Higher Education Journal, 7—12.
22.
FergusonR. L. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465—491.
23.
FriedkinN. E., and SlaterM. R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network approach. Sociology of Education, 67, 139—157.
24.
FullerB. (2000). The public square, big or small? Charter schools in political context. In and and FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization (pp. 12—65). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
FullerB., GawlikM., GonzalesE. K., ParkS., and GibbingsG. (2003). Charter schools and inequality: National disparities in funding, teacher quality, and student support. Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.
26.
GamoranA. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 57, 415—435.
27.
GándaraP. (2002). Meeting common goals: Linking K-12 and college interventions. In TierneyW.G., and HagedornL.S. (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 81—103). Albany: State University of New York Press.
28.
Glenn Hills Department of Public Health. (1996). Community area health inventory, 1992–1994. Chicago: Author.
29.
Glenn Hills Governing Body. (1997). Glenn Hills charter school application. Glenn Hills: Glenn Hills Public Schools.
30.
GriffinN., and WohlstetterP. (2001). Building a plane while flying it: Early lessons from developing charter schools. Teachers College Record, 103, 336—365.
31.
HansonS. L. (1990). The college preparatory curriculum across schools: Access to similar learning opportunities. In PageR., and ValliL. (Eds.), Curriculum differentiation: Interpretive studies in U.S. secondary schools (pp. 67—90). New York: State University of New York Press.
32.
HansonS. L. (1994). Lost talent: Unrealized educational aspirations and expectations among U.S. youths. Sociology of Education, 67, 159—183.
33.
HippK. A. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
34.
HornL., ChenX., and AdelmanC. (1998). Toward resiliency: At-risk students who make it to college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
HornL., and MawC. (1995). Minority undergraduate participation in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
36.
HornL., and NunezA. M. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First generation students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
37.
HosslerD., SchmitJ., and VesperN. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
JohnsonS. M., and LandmanJ. (2000). Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms: The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers College Record, 102, 85—124.
39.
JordanW. J., and PlankS. B. (2000). Talent loss among high-achieving poor students. In and and SandersM.G. (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp. 83—108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
KaufmanP., and ChenX. (1999). Projected postsecondary outcomes of 1992 high school graduates. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
41.
KozolJ. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Harper Perennial.
42.
LareauA., and HorvatE. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37—53.
43.
LeeV. E., DedrickR. F., and SmithJ. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190—208.
44.
LeeV. E., SmithJ. B., PerryT. E., and SmylieM. A. (1999). Social support, academic press, and student achievement: A view from the middle grades in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
45.
LemannN. (1991). The promised land: The Great Black Migration and how it changed America. New York: Knopf.
46.
LeonardJ. (2002). The case of the first-year charter school. Urban Education, 37, 219—240.
47.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 395—443.
48.
MalloyC. L., and WohlstetterP. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What's the appeal for teachers?Education and Urban Society, 35, 219—241.
49.
MannoB. V., FinnC. F., BierleinL. A., and VanourekG. (1998). How charter schools are different: Lessons and implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 488—498.
50.
MasseyD. S., and DentonN. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
McDonoughP. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
52.
McLaughlinM. W., and TalbertJ. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
53.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons to America from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
54.
MurnaneR. J., and LevyF. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York: Free Press.
55.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research.
56.
NewmanF. M., and WehlageG. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
57.
NoethR. J., and WimberlyG. L. (2002). Creating seamless educational transitions for urban African American and Hispanic students. Iowa City, IA: ACT Policy Research Center.
58.
NogueraP. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
59.
OakesJ. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
60.
O'ConnorC. (2000). Dreamkeeping in the inner city: Diminishing the divide between aspirations and expectations. In DanzigerS., and LinA.C. (Eds.), Coping with poverty: The social contexts of neighborhood, work, and family in the African American community (pp. 105—140). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
61.
ReichR. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Knopf.
62.
RoderickM., and EngelM. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 197—227.
63.
RubinH. J., and RubinI. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
RumbergerR. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57, 101—112.
65.
SchneiderB. L., and StevensonD. (1999). The ambitious generation: America's teenagers, motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
66.
SchorrJ. (2002). Hard lessons: The promise of an inner city charter school. New York: Ballantine Books.
67.
StakeR. E. (1997). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In and and JaegerR.M. (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 401—422). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
68.
StraussA. L., and CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
69.
SwailW. S., and PernaL. W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national perspective. In TierneyW.G., and HagedornL.S. (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 15—34). Albany: State University of New York Press.
70.
WalseyP. A., FineM., GladdenR. M., HollandN. E., KingS. P., and MosakE. (2000). Small schools, great strides: A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.
71.
WellsA., HolmeJ. J., and VasudevaA. (2000). Diversity and inequality: Montera charter high school. In and and FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization (pp. 144—176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
WexlerE., and HuertaL. (2000). An empowering spirit is not enough: A Latino charter school struggles over leadership. In and and FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization (pp. 98—123). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73.
WilsonW. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage Books.
74.
WimberlyG. L. (2002). School relationships foster success for African American students. Iowa City, IA: ACT Policy Research Center.
75.
WimberlyG. L., and NoethR. J. (2004). Schools involving parents in early postsecondary planning. Iowa City, IA: ACT Policy Research Center.
76.
ZernikeK. (2000). Selling air: New England parents spark a new revolution. In and and FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization (pp. 124—143). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
