Blazing New Trails - Connexions

166 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
council members that included the principal, assistant principal, counselor, GEAR UP campus
coordinator, and two teachers. Two focus groups were conducted at the partner university
with six of the GEAR UP college tutors. In all, sixty-six individuals participated in the focus
group interviews. Marshall and Rossman (2006) clarified, “The interviewer creates a
supportive environment, asking focused questions to encourage discussion and the expression
of different opinions and points of view” (p. 114). Semi-structured focus group and individual
interviews provided an opportunity to explore the same topics while exploring for differences
in the various settings. Nine interviews with the partner school districts’ superintendents and
ten interviews with campus GEAR UP coordinators also served as data sources. One
superintendent declined to be interviewed due to his recent arrival at the district.
All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed before being analyzed to discern
themes. The transcripts were coded using open coding and axial coding. Careful attention to
how the data supported key themes emerged as Marshall and Rossman (2006) suggested
through “reading, rereading, and reading the data once more” (p. 158).Trustworthiness of the
data analysis was attained through peer debriefing, through maintaining an audit trail, and
through providing member checks (Creswell, 2007).
FINDINGS
Research Question 1: To what do you attribute your success in increasing the
participation and success of secondary students in rigorous classes?
A sustained focus, student support and outreach, professional development, high
expectations, demystifying college, and outreach to parents were the primary themes
discerned in response to the first research question. Each will be discussed as follows by
sharing key representative comments from the respondents.
Sustained focus. A key factor contributing to the success of this partnership in
increasing students’ participation and success in advanced courses was sustained leadership
from the university GEAR UP staff, the GEAR UP Advisory Board, and the GEAR UP
councils, teachers, counselors, and administrators. The collaborative structure of the project
was characterized by the partnership leaders engaging stakeholders in reflecting on practices
and ongoing planning of ways to further the work of the GEAR UP project. The GEAR UP
university leadership team met weekly; the GEAR UP coordinators met monthly; GEAR UP
coordinators, administrators, and counselors attended GEAR UP Leadership Institutes; and
biannual steering committee meetings were held to guide planning and implementation of
activities. Some schools experienced turnover in leadership although a core leadership team
remained with the project from the project’s beginning. The project leader, principal
investigator, and the community outreach coordinator from the partner university had worked
with the GEAR UP partnership for ten years. Five business members of the GEAR UP
advisory board and four superintendents had all worked with the GEAR UP partnership from
four to ten years. Many of the teachers, counselors, and principals had worked in the GEAR
UP partnership from four to ten years. Eight of the GEAR UP coordinators had worked with
the GEAR UP partnership for four years. The project leaders maintained a sustained focus on
high expectations, on academic rigor, on analysis of data, on P-16 alignment, on student
support, and on professional development. Through flexibility in implementation of activities
to meet local needs with inclusive leadership of all stakeholders, campuses were able to