1. SOCIAL CAPITAL, INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY, MINORITY OR LOWSTATUS
YOUTH EMPOWERMENT, AND AVID IMPLEMENTATION by Bruce Lamar Mims
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August 2007
Copyright 2007 Bruce Lamar Mims
2. DEDICATION First, I dedicate this project to Jason Cuneo, my
loving partner whose unwavering support has sustained me throughout
this academic and emotional journey. I also dedicate this project
to my children, Steven and Stephanie CuneoMims. My children and
their future are what inspired me to embark upon this scholarly
journey to better myself. To my parents, Joseph and Marceline Mims,
whose love, patience, support, and upbringing have made me the
person that I am today. To all of my relatives who are no longer
with us, I always carry the spirit of your memory close to my
heartespecially my grandmother, Maudine and my Aunt, Deloris: their
radiant spirits always shine brightly on my life, and shower my
family with many blessings. ii
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my chairperson and my
committee whose support and guidance made this all possible. I
especially would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Stacey Nickson. Her
presence in my life has been the guiding force that has motivated
me to expand my professional and personal horizons. Her membership
on my dissertation committee is the culmination of our professional
and personal relationship together; and, I am eternally grateful
for her continued friendship and collegial support. I would also
like to thank personnel from the following entities for their
support throughout this project: Los Angeles County Office of
Education AVID Regional Office; the Rowland Unified School
District; the Long Beach Unified School District; the Escondido
Union High School District; the Baldwin Park Unified School
District; and the Pomona Unified School District. iii
4. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..iii LIST
OF TABLESvi ABSTRACTviii CHAPTER 1..1 INTRODUCTION. 1 Problem
Statement..... 3 Purpose of the Study.. 5 Research Questions....6
Significance of the Study... 7 Terms and Definitions17
Delimitations of the Study 19 Assumptions and Limitations of the
Study 19 Conclusion..21 Organization of the Dissertation 21 CHAPTER
2...22 CRITICAL SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE... 22 Introduction22
Theoretical Frameworks of Social
Capital.................................... 23 The Plight of
Minority and Urban Youth 33 Community Based Intervention Programs
and Institutional Agency...44 Social Capital Theory in the Context
of Intervention and Institutional Agency.... 55 Social Capital,
Social Support, and Educational Outcomes... 62 Theoretical
Convergence and Opportunities for Expanded Articulation...65
Conclusion..68 CHAPTER 3.. 70 METHODOLOGY.. 70 Introduction70
Sample and Population.. 80 Instrumentation.106 iv
5. Data Collection 113 Data Analysis. 115 Summary 116 CHAPTER
4.. 117 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS. 117
Introduction....117 Program Coordinator Participant Descriptions
119 Analysis of the Findings in the Context of the Research
Questions. 119 Thematic Summary of Key Findings in the Analysis.
141 CHAPTER 5...... 144 DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS...144 Discussion of Key Findings in the
Analysis . 144 Implications of the Study 156 Limitations of the
Study.159 Recommendations..160 Suggestions for Further Study.. 162
REFERENCES.. 165 APPENDICES171 Appendix A: Resources Domains and
Essential Recourse and Relationship Groupings172 Appendix B: Name
Generator.174 Appendix C: Position Generator..182 Appendix D:
Resource Generator183 Appendix E: Guided Conversation Protocol184
Appendix F: Guided Conversation Excerpts Concerning AVID
Training..186 Appendix G: Name Generator Survey.189 Appendix H: SEI
Scores and Positional Status Relative to Occupations Listed in the
Position Generator (Appendix D).190 v
6. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Southland High School Enrollment by
Ethnicity 82 Table 2 Southland High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity84 Table 3 Pierce High School Enrollment by Ethnicity86
Table 4 Pierce High School AVID Enrollment by Ethnicity87 Table 5
Pinnacles High School Enrollment by Ethnicity...89 Table 6
Pinnacles High School AVID Enrollment by Ethnicity90 Table 7 Canyon
High School Enrollment by Ethnicity.92 Table 8 Canyon High School
AVID Enrollment by Ethnicity94 Table 9 Valley Vista High School
Enrollment by Ethnicity..96 Table 10 Valley Vista High School AVID
Enrollment by Ethnicity98 Table 11 Shoreline Heights High School
Enrollment by Ethnicity100 Table 12 Shoreline Heights High School
AVID Enrollment by Ethnicity ..101 Table 13 Parkview High School
Enrollment by Ethnicity...103 Table 14 Parkview High School AVID
Enrollment by Ethnicity105 Table 15 Program Coordinator Accessed
Positions and Positional Status121 vi
7. Table 16 Program Coordinator Resource Contacts and Extensity
of Weak Ties.124 Table 17 Program Coordinator Network Range..127
vii
8. ABSTRACT This study isolated the salience of institutional
agency within the context of a specific intervention program
called, Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID), an
untracking program designed to help low achieving students elicit
academic success. Four primary research questions guided the study.
First, to the degree those efforts to engage in social capital
mobilization are made, how might the program coordinators
accessible social capital play a prominent role? Second, to what
extent are AVID program coordinators able to mobilize their social
capital to convey information, resources, and opportunities to
minority and low-status youth in the context of program
implementation? Third, what factors facilitate or constrain the
accumulation of accessible social capital and agency-oriented
mobilization of social capital (on behalf of program participants
and/or program implementation)? Finally, to what extent does AVID
training identify the underpinning theoretical concepts and
processes of social capital theory; thus do AVID program
coordinators understand their role relative to the help-seeking and
network-seeking orientations of institutional agency? This study
incorporated both inductive and deductive methodologies within the
qualitative research design to accomplish in-depth cross-case
analysis of the range, quality, and nature of program coordinators
individual networks and sources of support. Furthermore, this
methodology also determined their proclivity to excess their
individual networks and sources of support to convey essential
resources, viii
9. information, and opportunities to minority or low-status
youth; thus facilitating their academic and social mobility, and,
hence, fostering their empowerment. The study revealed insight and
answers as it relates to the primary research questions, and
articulated the findings into (3) thematic summaries and
discussion. First, the study revealed that program coordinators
have critical deficiencies in their personal networks relative to
the status of their positional contacts. Second, it revealed that
program coordinators are not engaged in active (institutional)
agency as counterstratification mechanism. Finally, the study
revealed that AVID training does not explicitly address agency as
an intervention design relative to the resources model of social
capital. ix
10. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Urban Public Education: Crisis and
Opportunity Although public education continues to move forward in
this era of increased accountability, relative to No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), states, districts, and school-wide learning
communities continue to struggle with its implications; especially
those situated in large urban areas, serving predominately
low-status and minority children. This is due in large part to the
fact that the predominate policy initiatives and research studies
continue to analyze this dilemma through a deficit paradigm, rather
than considering variegated sociological, and social cultural, and
socioeconomic conditions, which either facilitate or hinder
academic success (Ladson-Billings, 2000; Singleton & Linton,
2005). Nevertheless, minority and lowstatus students continue to
lag behind their white middle-class counterparts, while
institutions assess and analyze their progress and shortcomings
through normative lenses. Institutions also engage in prescribing
instructional interventions without analyzing the nature of
schools, schooling, and foundational pedagogy. As bureaucratic
policy pressures mount, many districts and schools struggle for the
answers and formulas to close the achievement gap between minority
and low-status children and their white middle-class counterparts.
Some isolated school settings, teachers, and classrooms, however,
are uniquely poised to affect significant positive change in
student learning outcomes because they tacitly or explicitly equip
students with the skills and knowledge essential to elicit success.
These isolated 1
11. settings are elucidating success within the context of the
milieus, communities, social cultural and socioeconomic situations,
and challenges they face on a consistent basis. Why does this
happen in isolation? What have these pockets of powerful teaching,
learning, and student development discovered that public education
it its entirety cannot decipher and implement on a wide scale? Do
these isolated pockets of success reflect traditional or normative
paradigms or pedagogies? On the other hand, do these success
stories afford entirely new insight into how institutional pedagogy
and public schooling can and should adapt to meet the needs of the
demographics they serve? Success as the Exception Districts and
schools if not public education as a whole are gradually moving
toward a point of critical mass, whereas reform efforts imposing
normative or traditional means to improve student learning outcomes
relative to minority children are creating increasing levels of
dissonance and discord within the communities they serve. White
middle class students excel, achieve, and advance relative to the
people, information, resources, and opportunities at their disposal
and deployment. Their minority and low-status student counterparts,
however, lag behind because of inadequate resources and facilities,
poorly trained educators, curricular and instructional disconnect,
which results in alienation and internalized oppression. Normative
reform efforts such as standards-based and/or high-stakes testing
and standards-based instructional designs tend to perpetuate
alienation and disenfranchisement. As a result, minority student
dropout rates increase, and fewer 2
12. minority students gain access to colleges and universities;
thus, creating new cycles of marginalization, disenfranchisement,
and oppression. The gathering maelstrom concerning accountability,
coupled with increasingly scarce resources, socioeconomic
constraints is the backdrop that affords scholars the opportunity
to cultivate new areas of research to analyze the components of
schools and pedagogy that either foster or hinder positive human
development relative to minority or low-status youth. These
components either promote success or perpetuate failure in these
milieus. Although the institutional structures that circumscribe
productive educational programs provide the foundations for
positive student learning outcomes, their success by no means
ubiquitous (Conchas, 2001; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz,
1996). Success is systematic because strategically placed
individuals (e.g., teachers, program coordinators) have a penchant
to facilitate processes and provide support while embedding
minority and low-status youth into the relationships and networks,
which translate into academic and social support mechanisms.
Empowering them with essential resources, information, and
opportunities is essential to their ability to navigate through and
overcome the institutional, social cultural and socioeconomic
obstacles that typically impede their progress or mobility. Problem
Statement Many different types and/or categories of academic and
social intervention programs that exist pertaining to minority and
low-status youth, a substantial body of scholarly literature exists
that implicitly or explicitly articulates the theoretical 3
13. mechanisms of social capital, while analyzing their
efficacy relative to implementation cycles. A substantial body of
literature, however, does not exist that theoretically articulates
and analyzes exactly how teachers, youth workers, and other
institutional agents serving minority or low-status youth are able
to empower these youth along several simultaneous dimensions. These
dynamics include complex role-sets that such agents assume within
the context of the school setting or an intervention. As it
pertains to minority and low-status youth intervention programs, we
do not know enough about the dynamics of how program coordinators
and/or staff members assume the complex role-set of institutional
agents; and, how they acquire and mobilize social capital on behalf
of program participants and how they and serve as bridging agents.
They connect youth to essential resources, information, and
opportunities controlled by agents in other networks and
institutional settings. This process enables minority and
low-status to access institutional mechanisms that facilitate
academic and/or social mobility, which routinely engineer the
success and empowerment of white middle and upper-class youth.
Scholarly literature beckons for an expanded articulation of those
institutional mechanisms that underpin social capital relative to
minority and low status youth; meaning, institutional mechanisms
precipitate access to social capital. Whereas social capital
pertains to the institutional resources and support mechanisms
accessible through social ties to agents, who are strategically
positioned in relation 4
14. to societys stratification systems; thereby, facilitating
academic or social mobility. Therefore, examining the impact of
agency relative to program efficacy and/or learning outcomes, or
other dynamic manifestations that precipitate academic or social
mobility in the lives of minority and low-status youth is essential
to understanding the salience of social capital as it pertains to
their empowerment. Purpose of the Study Variegated depictions of
programmatic success relative to minority student achievement is
largely descriptive in nature, I intend to isolate the salience of
institutional agency at the individual level, within the context of
a specific intervention program called, Advancement via Individual
Determination (AVID). AVID is an untracking program designed to
help low achieving students elicit academic success. Institutional
agency refers to persons using their influence, capacity, and
resources in their own embedded networks to assist others, in this
case minority and low-status youth, in gaining access to networks,
resources, information, and opportunities essential for academic
and social mobility (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). In addition, I will
examine the manner in which the people, i.e., institutional agents,
involved in the intervention program convey essential skills, which
empower minority youth to overcome both institutional and societal
obstacles and attain academic success. Finally, using the two
predominant conceptual frameworks of social capital theory, coupled
with empowerment, I will construct a theoretical rationale to
articulate the complexities of these empowering mechanisms and
behaviors in a scholarly manner that future educational studies
related to institutional 5
15. or pedagogical reform might take into consideration when
elucidating recommendations. The primary focus of the study centers
on how institutional agents, who are members of privileged groups
or classes in their complex and evolving roles and mobilize, within
the context of their own social networks, to resources,
information, and opportunities, and their social capital to support
minority and low-status students within the framework of an
intervention program. Research Questions Primary The following are
the primary questions driving the research of this study: 1. To the
degree those efforts to engage in social capital mobilization are
made, how might the program coordinators accessible social capital
play a prominent role? 2. To what extent are AVID program
coordinators able to mobilize their social capital to convey
information, resources, and opportunities to minority and
low-status youth in the context of program implementation? 3. What
factors facilitate or constrain the accumulation of accessible
social capital and agency-oriented mobilization of social capital
(on behalf of program participants and/or program implementation)?
6
16. 4. To what extent does AVID training identify the
underpinning theoretical concepts and processes of social capital
theory; thus do AVID program coordinators understand their role
relative to the helpseeking and Significance of the Study
Re-Conceptualizing Youth Resiliency and Network Orientation One of
the most predominant and overarching ideologies, which permeates
our society, is individualism and meritocracy. On one hand, our
society exalts and reveres principles of individualism,
independence, and self-reliance. For the most part, individual
success is commonplace for those persons who reflect the value
systems and background typical of the white middle-class ideals
(Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). This ideal, however, does not
take into account the inherent social network structures that
individuals (i.e., white and black middle-class) marshal, to elicit
and attain the information, resources, and forms of support that
ensure their success; hence, the paradox (Cochran et al., 1990;
Spencer, 2001). Youth from privileged backgrounds inherently
benefit, tacitly and/or explicitly, from the institutional and
social structures embedded within their primary networks and
communities. Their network systems insulate them from failure and
ecological dangers relative to greater society, hence, facilitating
their success. Meanwhile, structural and institutional conditions
seemingly transform individual circumstances, pertaining to
minority and low-status youth, into situations that may increase
the potential for failure. Stanton-Salazar (2001) terms such
mechanisms as defensive or 7
17. self-protective help-seeking orientations; whereas, a lack
of proximity relative to adult kin, one-parent households, poverty,
coupled with environmental conditions typical of urban blight
translates into embedded ness into social dynamics that fail to
buffer or insulate them from the burdens of racial stratification.
Against this backdrop, Spina (as cited in Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2000) suggests that popular notions of resiliency (e.g.,
success against the odds) are misleading. In fact, popular culture
inordinately romanticizes the concept. This paradigm is plagued
with biases, which, consequently, diminish and/or de-legitimate the
belief systems and practices of other cultural communities, i.e.,
minority or lowstatus. These privileged communities perceive
resiliency as an ideal related to the adherence to traditions and
natural support systems emanating from the family and ethnic
communities (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Re-conceptualizing
our notion of youth resiliency is an essential component relative
to shifting the popular paradigm; it is a systematic developmental
process that begins with the individuals (e.g., child or parent)
ability to formulate optimal responses to adverse situations and
circumstances, as well as his or her perception that options and
assistance, indeed, exist (Spencer, 2001). The quality and salience
of youth and family relationships within the primary support
system, usually the family network, predicates cultivation and
promulgation of help-seeking tendencies outside of the primary
relationship support system or network. This is a critical
supposition as it relates to relationship and support network
dynamics within communities comprised of minority, low-income
8
18. individual and family units (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001).
Children and adolescents, as well as their families and communities
are constantly exposed and subject to influences extending outside
of the primary network or support systems. These outward extensions
are essential to healthy development, as well as access to
information and resources to guide and enhance their optimal
response patterns (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). They find
themselves embedded in a myriad of social dynamics outside of their
primary networks. Otherwise, they become isolated and disengaged
from the mainstream; lacking available resources and information
essential to foster upward social mobility (Cochran et al., 1990;
Granovetter, 1983; Spencer, 2001). From the onset of their school
careers, minority children face complex and evolving social
cultural challenges as they endeavor to overcome the institutional
obstacles typically associated with urban public education, as well
as those that characterize or society; plagued by various
constructs of oppression, which seemingly conspire to perpetuate
minority disenfranchisement and/or marginalization
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). They must assume the burden of
socialization through acquiring essential coping skills that will
enable them to navigate the ecological perils of a highly
racialized, and discriminatory society. Conceptually speaking, most
minority children are at-risk youth, although at different degrees
(Cochran et al., 1990). Therefore, we must begin to analyze
minority youth and family resilience within the scope of the
developmental process rather than an aberrant phenomenon (Spencer,
2001). As minority and/or low status 9
19. youth learn to employ their help-seeking skills, they
cultivate the ability to venture beyond their primary networks
seeking essential information and assistance relative to
situational decisions and responses; moreover, optimal response
skill enhancement increases the likelihood of upward social
mobility (Spencer, 2001; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2001).
Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2000) submit that minority and
low-status youth resiliency depends on the ability of persons to
reach across social cultural borders to foster positive
help-seeking orientations, or attitudes and beliefs about the
utilities of individual networks to assist in the coping process
concerning a life problem. Subsequent network-orientations entail
the proclivity towards strengthening relationship dynamics to reach
across social cultural borders and overcome institutional barriers,
seeking the assistance and support from relevant adults, agents, or
peers. This transformation is the process of strategic
socialization, which determines; (a) individual choices relative to
cultivating various social relationships in the face of structural
circumstances; (b) whether individuals utilize those relationships
as sources of social and institutional support; and, (c)
individuals facility relative to crossing conflictive social
cultural borders to overcome institutional barriers to facilitate
mobility. Institutional Agency and Complex Role Dynamics
Organizations and communities also entail forms of agency, and
their agency serves as a vehicle to assist members pertaining to
some benefits precluded from persons outside the community or
organization. Institutional agency, however, as 10
20. depicted by Stanton-Salazar (1997) usually consists of a
person who has the capacity to act or operate in the face of
opportunities, as well as constraints. In addition, their degree of
effectiveness is dependent upon the amount and diversity of the
social capital they can access; thus, the degree to which the
program coordinator assumes the role-set of institutional agent
predicates the effectiveness of an intervention program, such as
AVID. Although many scholars have tacitly conceptualized the role
of institutional agency in the context of their research and
publications, it remains considerably under-theorized. Yet, the
institutional agency is an integral component underpinning the
development and resiliency of minority youth. Stanton Salazar
(1997) posits that institutional agents as those individuals in
strategic positions who possess the commitment and the capacity to
facilitate or convey institutional resources, support, and
opportunities. The agents own embedded social networks are the
nexus of their ability to facilitate or convey resources and
opportunities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Stanton-Salazar & Spina,
2000). Thus, institutional agency pertains to an individuals
evolving dynamic of complex relationships that, when accessed
and/or mobilized in the context of an intervention, convey
essential resources, information, and opportunities that facilitate
growth and development. In this case, we are referring to the
social and academic mobility of minority or low-status youth, which
fosters their empowerment. 11
21. The institutional agents significance and efficacy lie in
the fact that, not only are they purveyors of resources and
support, hence, social capital, to minority or low-status youth,
but also due in large part because their transactions represent a
counter-stratification mechanism defined in terms of
Stanton-Salazar (2001). When employed, it counterbalances the ill
affects of differential privilege and marginalization due to
systemic biases and racial prejudice that plagues our society
(Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000).
Institutional agents mitigate potential alienated embeddedness
depicting the typical experiences of minority and low-status youth,
as they navigate through the situational perils, which they
encounter throughout their adolescent lives. A persons strategic
and positional relationships, resources, and their ability to
access resources and information relative to high-status or power
positions predicate their ability to act as institutional agents.
If this is the case, then they have the ability to align their
personal attributes and traits with the dominant culture of power,
i.e., white, middle-class, within the context of their own social
cultural experience (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001; Stanton-Salazar
& Spina, 2000). Thus, their potential to empower youth relates
to their ability to convey codes or rules of power that dictate
dominant institutional contexts; hence, enabling them how to
negotiate and, in some cases, subvert those rules to acquire power,
while attaining academic and social mobility within the dominant
construct (Delpit, 1988). It is important, however, to point out
that the role of institutional agents and agency itself constitutes
both the capacity to act, as well as the decision to act. In short,
12
22. capacity or capability alone does not necessarily equate to
agency. Agency is both a socio psychological and a behavioral
concept; and, program leadership does not necessarily predicate
agency, without action. Understanding the role and responsibilities
institutional agency entails is essential to its effectiveness as a
pedagogical construct. There are many academic intervention
programs endeavoring to implement innovative instructional designs
to elicit positive student learning outcomes. As the literature
reflects, in many cases, the programs elucidate positive student
learning outcomes. Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, and Lintz (1996), as
well as Kahne and Bailey (1999) articulate the fact that innovative
instructional design is not necessary tantamount to program success
as evidenced in positive student learning outcomes. In fact, many
of these innovative intervention programs fail, or elicit
variegated levels of success, and create considerable acrimony
relative to their implementation. This is why agency is such an
important concept to understand and manifest in the context of an
intervention design. Institutional agency as it relates to program
effectiveness entails that the institutional agent consciously acts
and successfully transitions between multiple and evolving dynamic
roles, relative to constructs which tend to empower minority and
low-status youth; hence, they are teachers, motivators, counselors,
parents, mentors, mediators, and, if necessary, disciplinarians
(McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994). Ironically, intervention
programs that do not explicitly articulate the essential dimensions
and dynamics that institutional agency entails may affectively do
more 13
23. harm than good, because implementation failure reinforces
or perpetuates trenchant embedded alienation relative to student
learning outcomes. In other words, there is no presupposing
framework from which to analyze the overriding philosophical or
ideological constructs precipitating the underlying dissonance
(Hernandez, 1995; Singleton & Linton, 2005). Social Capital
Theory, Strategic Socialization, and Equity Pedagogy Articulating
the theoretical mechanisms that facilitate resiliency, relative to
minority and low status youth, in the context of a social capital
framework is imperative to the study. In fact, they are the
lynchpin attribute that enables us to intellectualize the social
cultural and socioeconomic dynamics depicting systemic biases
plaguing our society and schools; and, consequently, marginalize
cultures and children (Delpit, 1988; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Moreover, social capital is a salient theoretical lens that when
catalyzed could adequately shift educational paradigms and pedagogy
towards equitable designs and practices. This theoretical mechanism
engages and empowers minority students to reach beyond the
institutional and social barriers they perceive as limiting, while
using the mechanisms, i.e., social capital, and moves them far
beyond conditional marginalization and disenfranchisement (Mehan,
Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996; Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2000). Understanding minority youth empowerment and
institutional agency in the context of a critically oriented social
capital framework requires analyzing the theoretical underpinnings
of counter stratification efforts. On a visceral level, however,
individual agents perceptions of race and culture, in relation to
their own 14
24. situational position or embedded networks, manifest in the
proclivity towards variegated institutional agency transactions, as
well as the efficacy of their efforts (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Therefore, individual belief systems, in the context of race and
culture, influence positional relationships to the extent that they
either empower or potentially impede social capital transactions,
relative to minority and low-status youth (Delpit, 1988;
Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Positional relationships,
pertaining to institutional agency, are the domain where latent
personal belief systems become factors into the analysis of social
capital transactions in the context of institutional agency;
ironically, the discussions regarding intervention efficacy
frequently relegate this topic non- discussable category to avoid
controversy or acrimonious debate (Singleton & Linton, 2005).
Nevertheless, this topic is the philosophical lens, which obligates
scholarly research. In the very near future, student-learning
outcomes, scholarly research, and instructional pedagogy will reach
a critical mass relative to the achievement gap that, indeed, will
compel them to consider conducting an open debate on this subject,
because successful programs frequently operate in isolation; and
with variegated results (Mehan et al., 1996). Researchers,
scholars, and educators must scrutinize this idea with great care
and concern if paradigms and pedagogies are to attain equity,
because the manifestations of inequity relative to student
achievement unfolding in classrooms on a daily basis are, indeed, a
microcosm of the social capital, social cultural, and institutional
mechanisms by which racism and stereotypes operationalize in our
15
25. society. In his conversation on the subject, Dr. John Hope
Franklin (2006) reminded his audience that President Bill Clinton,
in his 2003 commencement address at the University of California,
San Diego suggested that, the time has come for America to begin a
dialogue about race (p. 192); yet, in 2006 we still find ourselves
marred in a shroud of non-discussion (Franklin, 2006). Whereas, it
is within this particular dialogue, concerning race, culture, and
equity that therein lays the greatest understanding of how social
capital operationalizes in our institutional practices relative to
instruction and student learning outcomes. Therefore, it is an
imperative that scholarly research becomes a conduit to facilitate
this dialogue. Moreover, it is the authors hope that the studys
findings afford educational research an intellectual platform from
which to catalyze this discussion; hence, a paradigm shift.
Intervention and Explicit Theoretical Articulation Explicit
scientific and theoretical language relative to community-based or
academic intervention program not only affords those involved in
the implementation process the ability to articulate program
rationale in a conceptual framework, it also provides intervention
designers and program implementers an essential foundation from
which to commence critical inventory relative to program efficacy.
Succinct theoretical language pertaining to program design brings
clarity and consistency to the sociological, as well as the
sociopolitical ideologies that inevitability underpins all
community-based and academic intervention (LadsonBillings, 1995).
16
26. Youth engaged in an intervention design either connect or
disconnect in the context of a program implementation based on the
social cultural relevance of program components, whether the
program is culturally competent or compatible. However, youth also
respond to program endeavors based on how they perceive the
ideologies and perceptions of institutional agents involved in the
implementation (Singleton & Linton, 2005); moreover, the
ideological underpinnings relative to agency usually manifest in
tacit or implicit terms. Terms and Definitions A definitive
understanding of the following terms is critical to the study,
because they are articulated and discussed extensively throughout
its entirety: Complex Role Sets: Institutional agents whose
contextual roles interchange relative to situations and
circumstances (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Counter
Stratification: Social scaffolding efforts, which counterbalance
systemic or institutional biases that typically marginalize social
cultural, socioeconomic groups (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
Empowerment: A psychological state involving active participatory
processes by which individuals gain essential resources or
competencies to increase self-efficacy and accomplish set goals
(Maton & Salem, 1995). 17
27. Institutional Agent (Agency): Persons who use their
influence, capacity, and resources relative to their position to
assist others in gaining access to networks, resources,
information, and opportunities essential for social mobility
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Network Orientation: An array of
individual propensities or proclivities pertaining to ones beliefs
and attitudes that informs or motivates personal initiatives
towards engaging in various social relationships or group
affiliations (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Positional Resources:
Influence and salience of tangible or intangible assets possessed
within the context of ones individual embedded network relative to
their status in a social hierarchical structure (Lin, 1999).
Reciprocity: Individuals engaged in social exchanges of resources,
information, and opportunities that elicit mutual benefit
(Granovetter, 1983; Lin, 1999). Resiliency: Psychosocial mechanisms
of individuals, representing traditionally marginalized social
cultural groups; used to overcome institutional or systemic
barriers and elicit the assistance necessary to sustain overall
physical, mental, and emotional well-being (Spencer, 2001). Social
Capital: Acquirable tangible and intangible assets of social
position or status converted into individual or communal benefit or
profit (Bourdieu, 1988; Lin, 1999). 18
28. Delimitations of the Study The author will apply critical
case study approach to examine the functions of a high school
site-based AVID program, and draw research findings from a critical
ethnography. This process incorporates both inductive and deductive
methodologies to elucidate generalizations regarding the efficacy
of AVID, relative to the role of the institutional agents. Critical
ethnographic case study is essential to draw inferences relative to
a historical background of the site-based AVID program development
as it pertains to the program coordinator and other institutional
agents involved in the implementation cycles. Mixed methods are
essential to formulate generalizations regarding the salience of
institutional agency in the context of the AVID program, and
formulate relevant connections to the literature; as well, as to
triangulate findings in a manner that facilitates broader
discussion about the efficacy of AVID relative to the roles of
institutional agents as it pertains to implementation. Assumptions
and Limitations of the Study The author assumes that all persons
engaged in the implementation of AVID program components, i.e.,
senior leadership, regional and site-based program coordinators,
teachers, have attended and/or participated in at least one Summer
Institute, the primary training component of AVID core-principles
and practices; meaning, all relevant personnel are adequately
trained in AVID principles. Furthermore, the author assumes that
all persons engaged in school site-based AVID program
implementation participate in mandated ongoing professional
development relative to AVID program principles, instructional
designs, and curricular 19
29. implementation, which is a stipulation relative to
maintaining certification as an AVID school-site program. The
nature of the study renders the findings subjective, and, therefore
open to variegated interpretation, because the issues at hand are
both salient and potentially volatile. Race and culture are
visceral constructs underpinning the mechanisms and manifestations
of our society; yet, those who enjoy privilege or power relative to
the dominant culture are the least likely to acknowledge or
validate their dominant positions (Delpit, 1988; Singleton &
Linton, 2005). The results may also be a direct reflection of the
experience, or lack thereof, pertaining to the particular AVID
program coordinator or teacher involved in the implementation
process. Thus, the studys findings may not portray an entirely
accurate depiction of present paradigms and practices from which to
elucidate broader generalizations pertaining to the mechanisms of
institutional agency operationalized in a social capital framework,
given the realities of systemic biases that foster pervasive social
cultural marginalization and social stratification. Nevertheless,
the study intends to lend intellectual and theoretical insight into
this complex dynamic in a manner that may catalyze further,
broader, and deeper discussions concerning institutional agency,
equity pedagogy, and other relevant constructs, as well as their
salient affects pertaining to student achievement and/or learning
outcomes. 20
30. Conclusion In summation, the importance of this study lies
in the fact that disparities in academic and social outcomes
between minority or low-status youth and their middle class
counterparts result from the fact that middle class or privileged
youth are embedded in the social networks of their parents or
community. In other words, their access to social capital, by means
of institutional resources, are a function of their parents social
capital, as well as the schools; by means of the their networks or
positional resources. In contrast, minority or low-status youth, by
definition of what it means to be working class or working poor, do
not have access to social capital under normal circumstances. Thus,
when program leaders assume role-sets, typical of middle and upper
class backgrounds, they can potentially serve as bridging agents
who link minority and low-status youth access to social capital,
and facilitating the process of counter stratification.
Organization of the Dissertation The author has organized this
study into five interrelated chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the
purpose of the study, the rationale relative to its significance,
research questions, terms and definitions, as well as the studys
assumptions and limitations. Chapter 2 depicts a topic organized
critical synthesis of literature relevant to the study. Chapter 3
outlines the research methodology, rationale, sampling strategy,
instrumentation and related studies, data collection, and, finally,
data analysis and related rationale. Chapter 4 depicts the research
findings relative to the collected data. Chapter 5 is a discussion
of research implications. 21
31. CHAPTER 2 CRITICAL SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE Introduction The
goal of this chapter is to capsulate a critical synthesis of
literature that conceptualizes the content in a manner that is
relevant to the overall study, while transforming systemic or
normative intellectual frameworks entailing institutionalized
biases into operational consciousness. Furthermore, my alternative
insight through an intellectual articulation of institutional
agency, as it counterbalances systemic and ideological biases that
perpetuate the alienation and marginalization of minority youth is
an essential component of moving the theoretical mechanisms of
social capital the forefront of the discussion concerning the
salient affects of agency relative to academic or social mobility.
Therefore, this analysis of literature embeds opportunities for new
paradigms, while providing a critique of several dominant or
mainstream discourses that historically have accounted for the
pervasive, disproportionate, and chronic underachievement that
plagues minority and low-status student learning outcomes. In
addition, this depiction of an alternative analytical framework
draws primarily from theories of social capital. This framework
also draws upon critical race, and empowerment theories, because it
is important to highlight aspects of inequality and privilege as it
pertains to differential access to essential institutional
resources. This reality, coupled with the seminal impact of
institutional support, e.g., connections to gatekeepers who guide
youth and their families through channels and 22
32. resources relative to college enrollment, are essential to
understanding how their marshaled affects facilitate academic and
social mobility. Thus, I intend to thematically articulate elements
of paradigm shift into the intellectual and scholarly dynamic, as
well as the resulting inferences entailed in the literature
advanced throughout the critical synthesis of literature. Critical
understanding or insight pertaining to particular components of
paradigm shift underpins the imperative nature of the study, which
examines the effectiveness of institutional agents relative to
programs such as Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID).
Theoretical Frameworks of Social Capital Theoretical camps of
social capital are the integral lens of analysis relative to each
dynamic intervention depicted throughout this synthesis of
literature. Although the predominant theoretical camps of social
capital offer distinct and, sometimes, contrasting rationales, they
are the foundation that bind additional theoretical concepts into a
coherent platform to analyze and articulate the salient constructs
of agency, as well as empowerment. Despite many distinct contrasts,
each camp has various strengths and weaknesses; yet, employing
elements of both camps towards a rationale that articulates
empowerment, various opposing principles become congruent and
integral constructs through which to analyze the salience of
institutional agency. Functionalism and Social Closure The primary
supposition driving James Colemans (1988) conceptualization of
social capital is defined and, therefore, analyzed as a matter of
what it actually 23
33. does, rather than what it is; hence, its function.
Ideologically speaking, the primary social psychological processes
revolve around collective social structure through the enforcement
of norms and sanctions. Whereas, this normative or integrative
mindset presupposes that individuals are bound to the collective
via belief systems, commitment to common values, community
engagement, which fosters attachment (Portes, 1998, 2000; Lin,
2004). Therefore, the perceived value of membership, hence, social
capital, is relative to resources it enables participants to access
pursuant to their personal interest. It consists not of a single
entity or construct, but of a variety of entities bounded by two
common denominators: (a) they all exist within the context of a
social structure; and (b) they all facilitate certain actions
between participants within the structure. The underpinning aspect
of which is the fact that membership in the collective is
productive and allows attainment of certain ends that, in its
absence, would not be feasible (Coleman, 1988). Trustworthiness and
obligation within the context of a social environment are the
seminal underpinnings of social capital. In fact, without a high
degree of trustworthiness among members of the group, the
institution could not sustain itself; it is within this notion that
Coleman (1998) rationalizes the plight of large urban areas as
social capital deficit relative to the high degree of mobility
within these environs. Members frequently exit the social
structure, which leaves these communities blighted, considerably
disorganized, and/or void of social capital. Coleman adds that he
could never foresee credit associations flourishing in large urban
areas, due to the lack of trust and social cohesion. Obligation, he
states, must 24
34. permeate the society and bind it together. When members
come and go, however, vacuums exist that undermine their salience.
Coleman (1998) submits that social relations are healthy and
productive when people adhere to the norms and values the social
structure prescribes. People adhere to those norms because they
share a common interest, and this is what sustains the structural
collective. These norms and values are the powerful, but precarious
social capital, which binds the structure; deviance from these
norms warrants sanction or alienation from the benefits entailed
through participation in the collective or detrimental impact upon
ones reputation, hence, their trustworthiness. Therefore, it is
sanctions, or the fear of such, that constrain members from
engaging in behaviors or actions detrimental to the collective.
Portes (1998) conceptualizes this aspect of norms and sanctions as,
enforceable trust. Enforceable trust, as an extension of social
capital manifests for recipients when it facilitates access to
resources from the collective; for donors, the transaction
guarantees against malfeasance relative to the threat of ostracism
and sanctions from the collective (Portes & Landolt, 1996).
Thus, Coleman suggests that (social) network closure is an
essential component predicating the efficacy of norms and
sanctions. Network closure as it pertains to family and community
or intergenerational dynamics, is a necessary condition to elicit
trustworthiness. He uses this rationale to advance his analysis of
the conditions and outcomes of families and communities using a
deficit model, which compares the dropout rates between Catholic
school and Public school 25
35. students. He asserts, that Catholic high school communities
comprised of nuclear, i.e., two-parent, families are embedded in
networks that also entail intergenerational closure, based upon the
common practices entailed by membership, participation, and
interaction within these complex and closed networks. Portes (2000)
expands this proposition, when he asserts that social capital is an
asset exclusively afforded to intact families and communities,
attributable to embedded networks of traders of resources; and,
thus, explains why entire cities are well governed and prosperous,
while others are not. Stanton-Salazar (2004) cautions that Colemans
normative framework exists in a sociopolitical vacuum (p. 24), and
does not take into account institutionalized or hierarchical
structures that deny access to opportunities based upon race,
class, or gender (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001). According to Morrow
(1999) Coleman does not adequately contextualized his framework
into a socio-economic and social cultural history, given the
dissonance that comprises cross and inter-cultural relations in the
United States. Lopez and Stack (2001) expand the argument as they
assert that studies of urban change, as it relates to social
capital, indicate that such works with and on behalf of states and
markets rather than supplanting them. Enforcement procedures, i.e.,
social closure, also perpetuates cultural dissonance by positioning
sources of social power in segregated (i.e., white middle-class)
suburbs, severing all paths of positive interaction between whites
and minorities. 26
36. Lin (1999), however, suggests that social closure denies
the significance of weaker network ties, bridges, or structural
holes; meaning, that weak ties are the conduit that facilitates
access to positional resources vertically higher in the social
hierarchy. Furthermore, Granovetter (1983) emphasizes that network
density or social closure, as it relates to low-income and/or a
minority community alienates them from access to resources that
facilitate mobility. Both authors do not consider social inequality
as a critical component or factor in their assertions. Ironically,
resource exchanges between neighbors in minority or low-status
neighborhoods, indeed, comprise the alienated networks. Their
networks primarily facilitate these reciprocal exchanges as a means
for survival, which perpetuates or solidifies their embedded
alienation. Noguera (1999), however, sees utility in social closure
when contextually implemented as a pedagogical vehicle to mobilize
traditionally marginalized communities into informative action and
proactive oversight relative to parent-school relations and student
learning outcomes. Maeroff (1998) alludes to social closure as
inner-city school intervention programs endeavor to build
sustainable learning communities, incorporating his four prescribed
tenets as a means of promulgating social capital to minority youth.
Meanwhile, Kahne and Bailey (1999) depict the manner in which
social closure, adherence to norms, and effective sanctions serve
as the underpinning foundation that catalyzes trusting
relationships and the informational, i.e., social capital,
interchanges entailed within the collective 27
37. structure. Social capital relative functional utility is
useful when it is effectively reconceptualized and, therefore,
compatible in the context a social cultural milieu. Social
Reproduction, Social Support, and Network Theory Social
reproduction presupposes that privileged access to resources
fosters differential utility relative to social capital; thus,
domination and exploitation reproduces the power structure in
perpetuity. Whereas, Bourdieu (1986) conceptualizes capital as into
three fundamental components; hence, their efficacy is commensurate
to the relative value of convertibility. First, economic capital,
is convertible into money and institutionalized in the form of
property rights; secondly, cultural capital, is convertible into
economic capital and institutionalized in the form of education or
credentials; and, finally social capital, which is comprised of
obligations or connections and convertible into economic capital;
thus, institutionalized in the form of nobility. Cultural capital
is the primordial lynchpin that facilitates the relationships under
girding social capital, because it is acquirable and projects the
power and prestige commensurate with its value relative to economic
capital. Embodied, it is an essential component of persona and
cannot be transmitted or purchased because it requires specific
competence closely linked to the individual, bound to a cultural or
class community; objectified, it separates the dominant from those
who are marginalized; institutionalized, it predisposes value and
qualification for possession, hence exclusivity. 28
38. Social capital relative to the exclusivity entailed by
group membership is the actualized or aggregate potential for
resources linked to possession or access to a durable network of
institutionalized relationships; whereas, group membership
predicates access to the resources. Membership in the group
entitles them to the collectively owned, capital group. Meaning,
the degree or amount of social capital possessed by any particular
member of the group depends primarily on the vastness of the
network connections that one can mobilize, as well as the volume of
personal (economic or cultural) capital possessed by those within
the network. Group members predicate their ability to extract
benefits, i.e., profits, from ownership on the cohesion that
originally formulates endeavors to sustain the group. Network
connections, however, are not an aberrant occurrence; rather, they
are the product of ongoing institutional efforts to produce and
reproduce durable bonds to secure material or symbolic benefits or
profits. Thus, the network of relationships is the product of
strategies contrived to solidify and/or reproduce social
relationships that have short or long-term utility. Stanton-Salazar
(1997) underscores the importance of these networks and focuses
much attention on embedded network alienation relative to
marginalized social cultural groups. Low-status or minority
networks organize for the purposes of conservation and survival
based on scarcity, while cosmopolitan or middle-class groups orient
their networks to maximize individual access to institutional
resources, privileges, mobility, social advancement, and political
empowerment. Formulating supportive relationships with
institutional agents or gatekeepers is essential 29
39. concerning minority or low-status youth, particularly those
within a school setting, because, while pathways and conduits to
privilege are ubiquitous for (white) middleclass youth, entrapments
and barriers for minority youth are just as ubiquitous.
Stanton-Salazars (1997) primary proposition focuses on the role and
salience of the institutional agent relative to the resources
within their own individual social networks, which they marshal
while transmitting resources, information, and opportunity to
minority and low-status youth. Although social capital lies within
the context of the instrumental or supportive relationships as it
pertains to the institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), he
cautions, however, that the possession of social capital is not
necessary tantamount to the utilization of such; but, rather, the
potential for utilization. Therefore, he posits that success in
public education milieus is not simply a matter of cognitive
learning and performing skill sets, but also the challenge of
learning how to decode the system. This entails an explicit or
implicit understanding of the rules governing social or, in this
case scholastic advancement within the context of the dominant,
i.e., white middle class, discourse; meaning it is incumbent upon
the institutional agent to convey the codes of power (Delpit,
1988). Unfortunately, social cultural, economic, and
institutionalized barriers inhibit consistency and opportunity for
routine exchanges relative to agency. Stanton-Salazar (2004)
expands upon his argument pertaining to institutional agents and
instrumental relationships. He asserts that academic success, as it
relates to minority or low status youth does not depend on their
ability to internalize 30
40. normative values and identities, but the salience of their
connectedness pertaining to resources. Meaning, relationships are
positional within the context of social structure; furthermore,
social structure is the lynchpin that advances relationships, and
their utility or ability to endure. He posits that cultural schemas
and procedures delineate power dynamics, as well as domains of
influence that dictate social structure, guide, and sustain social
interaction. He also submits that resources or influence sustains
social relations; thus, groups are either empowered or disempowered
relative to the enduring social practices comprising school
milieus, government, workplaces, as well as economic institutions.
Society, he states, is a complex myriad of hierarchies; thus,
social capital pertains to how agents link, within their own
networks, to more extensive forms of resources and organizations in
a society, whose schemas and structures implicitly delineate access
to power, and privilege based on race, class, and gender. Society
also establishes the mechanisms by which minority or low-status
members cultivate connections and formulate relationships to
position themselves toward upward mobility. However, attaining
these positional relationships requires the ability to successfully
negotiate the barriers or conditions, preclude equitable access to
the resources essential to success within the institution. This
underscores the need for strategically placed individuals capable
poised to marshal systems of support, while drawing from their own
social capital in the context of their own networks. 31
41. Meanwhile, Lin (1999) posits that investments in social
relations that produce expected returns, i.e., resources, are
tantamount to social capital. To identify a construct as social
capital, it must contain three essential components: (a) resources
embedded in a social structure; (b) individual accessibility to
those embedded resources; and, (c) individual mobilization of
resources for purposeful action. Embedded resources and network
locations are an integral component of productive power;
furthermore, they are only as salient as they are accessible
through the strength of weak ties, bridges, and structural holes
within ones one embedded network (Granovetter, 1983). Social
closure in Coleman terms, along with the network density that it
entails, is not conducive to mobility because density may produce
or reinforce embedded alienation. Social reproduction, however, as
it pertains to the exclusivity and convertibility of cultural
capital, in terms of Bourdieu, is insufficient rational because the
general population may also reap benefits or profit from such
returns on acquisition (Lin, 2001). Thus, while Stanton-Salazars
social capital framework primarily focuses on relationships, in the
context of agency, as conduits to resources, information, and
opportunities that facilitate social and academic mobility, Lin
(1999, 2001), is primarily interested in the contextualized
productivity of network mobilization pertaining to benefit and
profitability, in the context of the positional resource proximity
relative to power and influence. The closer those embedded networks
have access to power and influence, via weak ties (Granovetter,
1983), the greater the likelihood they will produce individual
benefit. 32
42. The Plight of Minority and Urban Youth Predominant
paradigms concerning race and culture, as well as cultural nuances,
which characterize minority and low-status youth developmental
processes must be positioned and understood in a socio-historical
context; hence, critical analysis is essential to situating these
underpinning themes into an operational framework relative to
social capital and empowerment. Their salience pertaining to agency
is a powerful overriding supposition that predicates the efficacy
of the institutional agency relative to an intervention program.
Critical Race Theory and the Uniqueness of the Minority Cultural
Experience In their article, Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995)
suggest that race remains a salient factor influencing the
interactions and determining the outcomes for participants in U.S.
society. Several generations of scholars have developed historical
accounts, and conceptual frameworks of race and racism in the
United States. Yet, its salience relative to education remains
underplayed and poorly articulated. Articulating race as an
extensive theoretical concept is imperative to understanding how it
perpetuates systemic inequities in education; meaning, it depicts
the underpinning mechanisms, which result in academic disparities
between minority and low-status youth, and their white middle-class
counterparts. LadsonBillings and Tate (1995) submit three
assumptions pertaining to critical race theory, social inequities,
and schooling as a contextual milieu. First, race continues to be a
significant factor in determining overall (social) inequity in the
United States. Second, property rights are an underpinning
philosophy driving U.S. society. Finally, 33
43. the confluence of race and property creates an analytical
lens that enables or enhances scholarly analysis of social, hence
school, inequity. Predominant or popular notions of race as, an
ideological construct, abjectly dilutes the reality of how living
in a racialized society affects the everyday lives of raced people
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 48). However, if one thinks
of race as an entirely objective condition, it impairs the
perspective of race as a problematic construct that describes the
variegated manners depicting human grouping. Race as a theoretical
construct struggles for salient legitimacy in scholarly circles
against a backdrop of predominately White, i.e., White Marxist,
authors who oversimplify notions of race by convoluting their
arguments into tautologies interlaced with issues of ethnicity,
class, and gender. As Singleton (2005) also submits, race must be
analyzed and discussed as an isolated concept if is to effectively
examine its workings relative to social and economic hegemony; and,
thus contextualizing its potency in the spectrum of social inequity
(Noguera, 1999). The second proposition juxtaposes race with
principles of democracy. Upon its founding, the United States
re-contextualized democracy into a customized concept to include
capitalism as an economic and philosophical ideal. In other words,
from its onset, economic hegemony has been the underpinning force
formulating governmental principle; hence, the advancement of the
country depicts the pursuit, protection, and proliferation of
property rights (Cochran et al., 1990; Harris, 1995; Noguera,
1999). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) submit that civil rights
accrue largely in part through the evolution and modification of
property 34
44. rights; meaning, individual property rights are the
historical nexus of tensions between ethnic minorities, and their
Western European, i.e., white, counterparts upon whose principles
that founded this country, e.g., slavery, Native American removal,
Japanese Internment. As it relates to education, property is a
determining factor pertaining to the quality and quantity of
resources of public education. Moreover, its value begets
affluence, power, and entitlement; hence, social benefit and better
resources (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). The cornerstone of
critical race theory lies within the third proposition: the
confluence between race and property rights. This paradigm is the
critical lens, which will enhance scholarly analysis and
understanding of social and/or school inequity. The authors suggest
that the benefits, value, and entitlement relative to property
exist in a continuum of, whiteness (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995). Property ownership and/or its entailed entitlement beget the
rights of disposition measured (and rewarded) against a backdrop of
white norms and sanctions. The rights of enjoyment are transferable
in a context of white privilege, while the reputation and status
entailed by ownership are contrasts with an image of blackness,
which is referred to as a source of defamation. Finally, property
ownership entails the absolute right to exclude, measurable
relative to an absence of blackness. As a result, systemic
inequities manifest in the quality of programming, as well as
learning outcomes between minority groups and their white
counterparts. 35
45. Although the authors advance a philosophical argument that
resonates through the readers consciousness, they wholeheartedly
admit that their arguments contain empirical inconsistencies, which
are limited to subjective interpretation; nevertheless, many
aspects of their propositions are, indeed, measurable, as well as
qualitatively plausible. It is important to understand the
philosophical complexity relative to critical race, to understand
how institutional agents, working on behalf of minority and
low-status youth counterbalance the salient affects of systemic
biases, which comprise public education milieus, as well as
contextualized instructional pedagogy. Ladson-Billings (2000)
isolates the African American experience as a unique phenomenon
that warrants individual analysis from other experiences, which
comprise typically marginalized social cultural groups in our
society. The author suggests that teacher preparation literature
and other scholarly writing inordinately portrays the African
American dilemma within a deficit paradigm; this practice
unfortunately typecasts unique constructs, deserving unique
critical analysis, into a one universal perspective, regardless of
the economic or social circumstance. As a result, its salience is
lost in the discussion of issues relative to equity, and convoluted
with discussions pertaining to language and culture; in short, the
dominant culture dilutes and dismisses the African American
experience as an aberrant corruption of the predominant paradigm as
it pertains to social justice and school reform. 36
46. The author posits that the experiences of other cultures
who encounter racism and oppression are by no means any less
significant and important to the overall discussion of equity,
social justice, and/or teaching pedagogy. Ladson-Billings (2000),
however, juxtaposes the experiences of other races and cultures
against that of African Americans and suggesting that the
experiences of the latter group are seminal. In other words, they
are the only non-indigenous cultural group, relevant to the
discussion, brought to the American continent under the auspices of
racial slavery (Franklin & Moss, 1988). The prevailing issues
comprising the African American experience from the onset of its
Western European (i.e., white) history, are a complex and evolving
multidimensional dynamic. African Americans and their cultural
experiences typically find themselves polarized, from other
cultures and ethnic groups who attempt to align themselves in
relation to constructs of the dominant culture (King, 1994;
Morrison, 1991). The inequities surrounding the plight of African
American students and their culture are distinctive, and warrant
focused discussion as it relates to rectifying educational
disparities; meaning remedy is uniquely prescriptive (Boykin &
Tom, 1985; Hollins & Spencer, 1990). The author submits that
future scholarly literature must re-conceptualize research to
address pedagogy, and considers the unique cultural experiences of
individual racialized groups; otherwise, additional frameworks run
risk of becoming generic or generalized tautologies of pedagogical
perspective. Pedagogical research and/or teacher preparation
courses must foster the thought process as it relates to the
relationship between the educator and the distinct 37
47. social cultural groups, which comprise the school
community, rather than unsubstantiated perceptions of generalized,
cultural, and cognitive, deficiency (Ladson-Billings, 2000). This
argument resonates throughout various other dimensions of
literature, which address this notion; its salience underscores the
significance of explicit complex role sets of the institutional
agent, as a purveyor of various aspects of social capital. Ream
(2005) reminds us that individual cultural groups, as well as
various sub-cultural groups within an ethnic group, elicit
variegated or disparate value pertaining to the convertibility of
social capital (Portes & Landolt, 1996). As Stanton-Salazar
(1997) posits, mainstream institutional agents must possess or
acquire adequate cultural knowledge to facilitate student
engagement: The central problem at the core of analysis of
relationships between minority children and adolescents and
institutional agents is the construction of interpersonal trust,
solidarity, and shared meaning in the context of the institutional
relations, which are defined, on the one hand, by hieratical
relations of power and institutional barriers, and, on the other,
by institutionalized dependency. Given that working-class minority
children and youths are structurally more dependent on non-familial
institutional agents for various forms of institutional support,
the problematics of interweaving extended trust and solidarity
become ever so salient, especially because in the absence of such
solidarity, institutional support rarely occurs (p. 17).
Re-conceptualizing Models of Minority Child Development Providing
an alternative conceptual framework pertaining to minority youth
development patterns is essential to understanding how predominant
theoretical paradigms concerning child development, coupled with
societal tendencies can 38
48. seemingly conspire to perpetuate the embedded alienation of
minority and low-status youth. Thus, underscoring the importance of
the institutional agency as a counterstratification mechanism,
whereas individuals endeavor to convey essential resources,
information, and opportunities that facilitate the academic and
social mobility of minority and low-status youth; hence, fostering
their empowerment. This understanding is essential byproduct of the
intervention programs effectiveness because the developmental
process as it pertains to minority or low status youth is unique or
different from their white, middle-class counterparts. Persons
involved in minority or low-status youth intervention designs must,
furthermore, mobilize their social capital with this awareness in
mind in order to be effective. Spencer (1990) submits that trained
researchers advance their studies depicting the interactive stages
of child development based on obsolete models, because they fail to
incorporate the affects of socioeconomic status and race into their
analyses of children, relative to developmental milestones. In
addition, the author juxtaposes the notion of normative development
against her assertion that researchers measure such standards in a
Eurocentric paradigm (Ogbu, 1985); and, thus, conceptually flawed
because they do not account for the cultural nuances entailed that
must be situated in a social historical context. Meaning, if there
are widely-shared cultural practices relative to parenting among
working class African Americans, those practices developed as an
historical process, in the context of white domination and
exploitation; hence, the adaptive modes, which comprise minority
parenting. Spencer (1990) also posits the idea that analyzing
learning styles without 39
49. conceptualizing variegated cultural nuances conflicts
assumes that all cultural experiences are neutral rather than
unique. Colorblindness is not a viable lens with which to view
individual developmental dynamics within a social-historically
contextualized paradigm. To disavow the impact of minority
experiences from the analysis of developmental dynamics is to
dismiss the impact of popular images and negative stereotypes on
the individual self-concept and responses of minority children. By
adolescence, many minority children have acquired a complex array
of coping or defense mechanisms to mitigate the complexities of
societal inequities relative to their individual self-concept.
Normative, stage-related developmental analyses shortchange the
ability of the researcher to understand identity formation relative
to minority youth, as well as the establishing accurate causal
connections between identity formation and life outcomes. Child
development, as well as education will suffer egregiously if fails
to acknowledge or address constructs pertaining to racial prejudice
and/or societal inequities. The author presupposes this rationale
to advance the idea that society must begin to rethink dominant
culture or majority-oriented teaching methods and cognitive
interpretation paradigms, given that minority family dynamics are
constantly evolving relative to ever-changing societal pressures
and realities. On one hand, Spencers (1990) argument pertaining to
the adaptive modes of minority parenting are philosophically
plausible, but somewhat underdeveloped. Nevertheless, they are
salient propositions that yield insight into existing 40
50. deficiencies, which require considerable modification if
contemporary research models are to retain their field relevance.
The underdeveloped conceptualization relative to the adaptive modes
of minority parenting, however, creates ambiguous connections
between prevailing child development models and educational
practices. This conceptual weakness lends itself to undermining
scrutiny, because the primary premise demands additional empirical
articulation. Van Ausdale and Feagin (2002) surmise that race and
racial dynamics manifest in the interactions between children, as
well as those between children and adults from the onset of school
and schooling; contrary to predominant notions of early childhood
development. As the authors point out, rather than waiting for a
natural stage or cycle to activate that allows them to
systematically process contextualized experiences, children
observe, process, and experiment with their surrounding world based
on their own interactions as well those by adults; hence, their
social connections. Garcia-Coll et al. (1996) also assert that
contemporary researchers and scholars have yet to propose or adopt
an understanding that explains the variegated developmental
patterns of minority children as they navigate through their unique
experiences of social inequity (p.1892). In addition, the authors
introduce the idea that minority family and kin networks help
minority children mitigate the negative affects of socioeconomic
hardship, and racial oppression. They also suggest that researchers
need to incorporate a contextual understanding of minority family
41
51. networks to gain greater insight as to how these
relationships mitigate the ill affects of social positioning,
relative to the developmental dynamic. Although the authors admit
that there is no theoretical or empirical evidence to rationalize
variations in developmental processes between minority children and
their white counterparts, there are distinct differentiations
unique to ecological circumstances that either promote or inhibit
the cognitive development of minority children. The authors submit,
as does Spencer (1990), that if traditional or normative
methodologies are to be reliable, then they need to account for
these variations and/or developmental adaptations, which do occur.
The work of Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2000) is a critical bridge
fortifying this argument, because they offer insight, in contrast
to conventional paradigms relative to minority youth resiliency.
Youth resiliency is a systematic process where agents facilitate
acquisition of coping skills to counterbalance the affects of
systemic and/or institutional bias. Meaning, they marshal support,
and positional resources that enable minority youth to cope,
overcome, and transcend barriers. The strength of Garcia-Coll et
al.s (1996) argument lie in the fact that they introduce a
conceptual framework from which traditional models can broaden the
theoretical foundation of knowledge. The authors posit their
integrative model based upon two important suppositions. First,
that the constructs salient to children of color explain unique
variations in the developmental processes; secondly, although many
of these constructs are also relevant to the developmental
processes of other 42
52. populations, i.e., white, variations occur because of
differentiation concerning the affect of these constructs on a
particular individual. Garcia-Coll et al. (1996) categorize their
propositions into two distinct variable discussions: (a) social
positioning; and, (b) social stratification mechanisms. Social
positioning refers to the salient effects of race, in terms of skin
color, i.e., skin tones or shades. Van Audsale and Feagin (2002)
surmise that in terms of proximal development this aspect of
identity, indeed, may be one of the first distinctions affecting
racial consciousness; social class, in terms of economics and/or
value considerations pertaining to affluence; ethnicity, as it
relates to cultural distinctness; and gender, in terms of role
appropriation. It is important to note, that the authors discuss
race, as a separate or isolated entity, from that of class,
ethnicity, and gender. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) suggest that
such is essential to a fundamental understanding of its salience as
a construct. Social stratification mechanisms include racism,
whereas, the acquisition of wealth or higher social status may
buffer its ill affects. Noguera (1999), however, cautions that
acquisition of wealth, i.e., cultural capital, may mitigate some of
the affects of racial bias and/or discrimination, it does not
necessarily guarantee its alleviation. Prejudice, refers the manner
of how children acquire self and group concepts based upon racial
and ethnic constructs; thus, discrimination in treatment, manifests
through prejudice. Oppression is the relevant in terms of how
individual children and groups internalize the manifestations of
prejudice (Garcia-Coll et al., 1996). Van Ausdale and Feagin
43
53. (2002) also submit that children make these distinctions
from the onset of their interactions with each other, from the
colors they choose to associate their affinity towards, in the
context of an activity, to those they impose on one another
relative to their own preliminary perceptions of identity. Finally,
Garcia-Coll et al. (1996) discuss how residential, economic,
social, and psychological segregation are salient factors, which
mediate between social positioning variables and developmental
outcomes. On the one hand, they submit empirical evidence that
these constructs indeed have inhibiting factors as they manifest in
schools, neighborhoods, and health care relative to normative
environments, ideologically speaking, as well as resource
limitations. The authors highlight, however, that many of these
segregated networks also have promoting or protecting aspects to
them, which enable children to adapt internal mechanisms enabling
them to mitigate the dissonance between home and school
environments. Nevertheless, Garcia et al. (1996) conclude that a
paradigm shift in research on how these factors manifest in the
developmental patterns, variations, and/or adaptations of children
of color is essential to a broader understanding of the cognitive
developmental complexity, relative to cultural nuance. Community
Based Intervention Programs and Institutional Agency Empowerment is
the product, which fosters academic and social mobility, while
institutional agency in a social capital framework is the vehicle
that facilitates the empowerment process. Many successful community
based intervention programs implicitly infer many theoretical
constructs depicting the complex role 44
54. dynamics pertaining to institutional agents, as purveyors
of social capital; hence, empowering processes, facilitating the
academic and social mobility relative of minority and low-status
youth. Some intervention programs underestimate the critical role
of the institutional agent, as a facilitator of empowerment.
Understanding the role of the institutional agent, in terms of
their ability to strategically mobilize resources and elicit
assistance from other agents, on behalf of minority and low-status
youth is a critical link that lends insight into the processes by
which agents successfully fulfill the task of socializing youth in
manners that are authentically empowering. For minority or
low-status youth, who grow-up amidst racialized and
class-stratified social structures, it would seem that
extraordinary forms of empowerment would be necessary to foster
academic and social mobility. Theoretical frameworks that
articulate this process are only now beginning to emerge in
scholarly literature. Thus, institutional agency as articulated in
a critical social capital framework could be an important
analytical vehicle for understanding the empowerment process.
Empowerment Theory Empowerment applies much of the same rationale
articulated by scholars who portray depictions of social closure in
the context of an intervention program or relative to instructional
pedagogy, implemented in a manner that instills a sense collective
efficacy and elic