School Context, Precollege Educational Opportunities,and College Degree Attainment Among High-AchievingBlack Males

Valija C. Rose

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Access to high-quality educational opportunities is central to growing

postsecondary degree attainment. This study employs secondary data analysis of the

public-use National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88/00) to examine how

school context and precollege educational opportunities influence college degree

attainment among high-achieving Black males. Findings show that approximately

40 % of high-achieving Black males attained a bachelor’s degree or higher 8 years

after high school. Binary logistic regression analysis indicates that attending an

urban school decreases the likelihood of bachelor’s degree attainment. Attending a

private school, on the other hand, has the opposite effect—it increases the likelihood

of bachelor’s degree attainment. Results also indicate that although participating in

a gifted and talented program increases the likelihood of bachelor’s degree attain-

ment among high-achieving Black males, participating in Advanced Placement has

no effect. Implications for educators in K-16 educational settings are discussed.

Keywords Access � Achievement � African American � Gifted � Postsecondary

Introduction

I am confident that by 2020, America will once again have the highest

proportion of college graduates in the world. That’s our goal. That’s our goal.

That’s how we’ll out-educate other countries. That’s how we’ll out-compete

with other countries tomorrow. That’s how we’ll win the future for the United

States of America. (President Barack Obama 2011)

V. C. Rose (&)

School of Education, Virginia Tech, Hampton Roads Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia

Beach, VA 23455, USA

e-mail: vcrose@vt.edu

123

Urban Rev

DOI 10.1007/s11256-013-0258-1

America’s quest to out-educate, out-compete, and win the future rests, in large

part, upon its ability to provide high-quality educational opportunities for all

students—regardless of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and the particular

school they attend. One national report has asserted that, ‘‘The federal government

must make access to a high-quality opportunity to learn a federally guaranteed right

for every American. We cannot have equity without quality. And we cannot have

true quality without real equity’’ (Schott Foundation 2009, Executive Summary,

para. 4). However, nearly 60 years after the Brown v. Board (1954) decision, access

to high-quality educational opportunities remains an elusive dream for many

students.

Irrespective of the opportunity measure, many students of color and students

from low-income backgrounds lack access to high-quality academic opportunities

(Aud et al. 2010; Lee and Ransom, 2011; Schott Foundation 2009; Wyner et al.

2007). This is true for many Black students who, at the K-12 level, are likely to

attend low-performing, high-poverty urban schools with fewer educational

resources, more inexperienced, out-of-field teachers, and fewer advanced courses

and programs [e.g., gifted and talented programs and Advanced Placement (AP)] in

comparison to White students (Aud et al. 2010, 2012; College Board 2012; Lippman

et al. 1996; Schott Foundation 2009; Snyder and Dillow 2012). Even when Black

students attend better-resourced, low-poverty schools with experienced teachers and

advanced courses and programs, they are still underrepresented in these offerings

(Adelman 2006; Aud et al. 2012; Ford et al. 2008; Klopfenstein 2004).

These issues are exacerbated among Black males who are overrepresented in

special education (Holzman 2006; Noguera 2009) and are underrepresented in

gifted and talented programs and AP (College Board 2012; Corra et al. 2011;

Holzman 2006; Moore and Flowers 2012). At the same time, the postsecondary

degree attainment of Black males lags behind many of their peers. For example, in

2011 among 25- to 29-year olds, 17 % of Black males held a bachelor’s degree or

higher in comparison to 36 % of White males, 43 % of White females, and 23 % of

Black females (Aud et al. 2012).

Although an emerging research base has examined the educational experiences of

gifted and high-achieving Black males in K-12 settings (Graham and Anderson

2008; Grantham 2004; Hebert 2001) and in college settings (Bonner 2010; Harper

2008, 2012; Harper and Griffin 2011; Hrabowski et al. 1998), few studies have

explored the connection between precollege educational opportunities and college

degree attainment among this student population (Harper 2012; Hebert 2002).

Harper’s (2012) national study represents an important milestone towards this end.

Using a retrospective qualitative design, Harper interviewed 219 high-achieving

Black male collegians, emphasizing significant precollege people and experiences

that shaped their college aspirations. One limitation in Harper’s study, however, is

that participants were selected because of their high achievement (i.e., cumulative

grade point averages above 3.0) in college. This design neglects the educational

experiences of Black males who displayed high achievement early on in their

schooling, but failed to become high-achieving collegians. The present study seeks

to fill this gap in the literature. Specifically, the purpose of this nationally

Urban Rev

123

representative quantitative study was to examine how school context and precollege

educational opportunities influence college degree attainment.

Four research questions guided this study:

1. What types of schools do high-achieving Black males attend?

2. To what extent do high-achieving Black males participate in high-quality

precollege educational opportunities (i.e., gifted and talented programs and

AP)?

3. To what extent does college degree attainment among high-achieving Black

males vary by school context and precollege educational opportunities?

4. How do school context and precollege educational opportunity factors influence

college degree attainment among high-achieving Black males?

The present study extends the research literature focused on high-achieving

Black males by using a prospective longitudinal design to investigate access to

precollege educational opportunities and how those opportunities impact college

degree attainment.

Literature Review

There is limited research that examines the intersection between school context,

precollege educational opportunities, and college degree attainment among high-

achieving students. Scholarship focused on high-achieving Black males is even

more limited. Thus, this review examines the topic in two component parts. First,

literature on the relationship between school context and educational outcomes will

be presented, followed by information on the relationship between precollege

educational opportunities and outcomes.

School Context and Educational Outcomes

Urbanicity1

Several empirical studies have examined the relationship between urbanicity (i.e.,

urban, suburban, rural) and educational outcomes. Many of those studies examine

the geography of opportunity and highlight the decreased opportunities and

outcomes associated with residing in urban communities and attending urban

schools (Anyon 2005; Kozol 2005; Tate 2008). Overall, urban schools have higher

levels of segregation, higher concentrations of poverty, lower academic achieve-

ment, and higher teacher-turnover (Aud et al. 2012; Lippman et al. 1996; Schott

Foundation 2009).

1 The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) uses the term urbanicity to describe a school’s

location or ‘‘locale’’. In 1988, when the National Education Longitudinal Study began, NCES used three

major classifications of urbanicity: urban, suburban, and rural. In 2006, NCES revised the classification

system to include: city, suburban, town, and rural (See NCES’s Urban Education in America website

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/urbaned/definitions.asp for additional information).

Urban Rev

123

In addition, it appears that urban schools are less likely to offer advanced courses

and opportunities than suburban schools. At a minimum, schools with higher

enrollments of students of color and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds

are less likely to offer AP (Barnard-Brak et al. 2011). There is mixed evidence,

however, about the availability of gifted programs across urbanicity. For example,

Lippman et al. (1996) found that gifted programs were less likely to be available in

urban schools than in suburban schools. In contrast, Baker and Friedman-Nimz

(2002) found that gifted programs were equally likely to be available across urban,

suburban, and rural schools. Despite Baker and Friedman-Nimz’s findings, students

attending urban schools are underrepresented among high-achievers (Hanushek

et al. 2010; Loveless 2008) and Black males attending urban schools are

underrepresented in gifted programs (Holzman 2006; Moore and Flowers 2012).

In terms of longer-term educational outcomes, residents of both urban and rural

communities have lower educational attainment than their suburban counterparts

(Sander 2006). At the same time, urban and rural students are less likely to attain a

postsecondary degree than suburban students (Adelman 2002; Lippman et al. 1996).

In general, urban students seem to fare worse than suburban and rural students

across many indicators of academic success. However, for postsecondary degree

attainment, Lippman et al. (1996) found that urban students performed the same as

their suburban and rural counterparts after controlling for poverty concentration.

School Sector

Just as student outcomes vary by urbanicity, they also vary by school sector (i.e.,

public versus private). Private school students consistently outperform public school

students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; Snyder and

Dillow 2012); however, these students tend to have different demographic

characteristics. Specifically, students who attend private schools are more likely

to come from families with higher socioeconomic backgrounds, have higher prior

achievement, more home resources, and parents who are more involved in their

schooling (Lubienski and Lubienski 2006; Wenglinsky 2007). In addition, private

school students take more academic math courses than their public school

counterparts (Carbonaro and Covay 2010), which in turn is linked to an increased

likelihood of college degree attainment (Adelman 2006).

Several studies, accounting for demographics differences, have compared private

and public school students’ performance. Some of these studies have shown that

when demographic differences are taken into consideration, students from public

schools perform as well as, if not better than, students from private schools (Braun

et al. 2006; Lubienski and Lubienski 2006). For instance, Wenglinsky (2007)

studied 1,007 low-income urban high school students attending public and private

schools. Using the NELS:88/00 data, the author found no difference between public

and private school students in terms of academic and life measures when

background characteristics were taken into account. Specifically, Wenglinsky

reported that public school students had the same likelihood of attending college,

the same level of job satisfaction, and the same level of civic engagement as private

school students.

Urban Rev

123

Despite Wenglinsky’s (2007) findings, questions still remain about whether

private schools offer an academic advantage. For example, Peterson and Llaudet

(2007) criticized Braun et al. (2006) for failing to employ adequate statistical

controls in their analysis. Peterson and Llaudet also questioned whether it was

appropriate to use NAEP data to compare public and private schools because the

NAEP data set lacks information on prior achievement—thus making it impossible

to control for a student’s ability or previous achievement. Given the complex

relationship between school context, access, and educational outcomes for various

student populations, additional research is warranted. Nonetheless, it cannot be

argued that school context matters in terms of access to opportunities and long-term

educational and life outcomes.

Precollege Educational Opportunities and Outcomes

Access to High-Quality Precollege Opportunities

National statistics demonstrate that Black students have unequal access to

educational opportunities (Aud et al. 2012; Snyder and Dillow 2012). In a recent

national report, the Schott Foundation (2009) created an opportunity to learn index,

which measured access to high-quality schools across all 50 states and the District

of Columbia. Specifically, the index measured the extent to which historically

disadvantaged students had access to high schools where nearly all of the students

graduated on time and were college-ready in comparison to White, non-Latino

students. This index was then combined with an indicator of how well students

performed on the eighth grade Reading NAEP in order to rank states using an

overall opportunity to learn index. The foundation estimated that Black students

have less than half the opportunity to learn as their White, non-Latino peers. One

recommendation that emerged from that study is that all students should have access

to ‘‘college preparatory curricula that will prepare all youth for college, work and

community’’ (Schott Foundation 2009, p. 2).

Gifted and talented programs and AP are regarded as examples of college

preparatory curricula and opportunities. Some even refer to AP as a ‘‘gold

standard’’ (see Byrd 2007). Despite the college preparation that gifted and

talented programs and AP can offer, Black students are underrepresented in both

offerings—even though their participation rates have increased over time (Corra

et al. 2011; Ford et al. 2008; Klopfenstein 2004; Snyder and Dillow 2012; Yoon

and Gentry 2009). In 2008, Ford and colleagues estimated that Black students

were underrepresented in gifted education by as much as 55 %. More recently,

Moore and Flowers (2012) focused on African American2 males and showed that

they were consistently underrepresented in gifted programs in the nation’s 20

largest school districts. Simultaneously, the College Board (2012) has found that

Black students are the most underrepresented racial subgroup in AP. The

organization reported that, ‘‘Four out of five black/African American graduates

were either left out of an AP subject for which they had potential or attended a

2 The terms African American and Black are used interchangeably throughout this article.

Urban Rev

123

school that did not offer the subject’’ (College Board 2012, p. 7). These levels of

underrepresentation persist despite the College Board’s equity statement and

various initiatives to improve access (see College Board 2012).

Linking Precollege Opportunities and College Outcomes

In what some consider the most comprehensive degree attainment research to date,

Adelman (2006) examined several national longitudinal data sets across multiple

decades to predict bachelor’s degree attainment as a function of demographic

characteristics, precollege performance, matriculation, college performance, and

financial aid factors. Adelman demonstrated that a rigorous high school curriculum,

what he called academic resources, was a strong predictor of bachelor’s degree

attainment. In fact, the academic resource index was the most consistent predictor of

bachelor’s degree attainment across models. These findings are consistent with the

Schott Foundation’s (2009) assertion that access to college preparatory curricula

matters in terms of long-term outcomes.

Although the connection between a rigorous curriculum and bachelor’s degree

attainment is clear, the research literature is less than straightforward regarding

the long-term impact of gifted and talented programs and AP. In several

qualitative research studies, students have reported the positive impacts of

participating in gifted programs, including higher levels of engagement, increased

academic rigor, better quality teachers, equally skilled peers, and overall better

preparation for college and the future (Henfield et al. 2008; Hertzog 2003; Reis

and Dıaz 1999). However, few quantitative research studies have examined the

longer-term impact of gifted and talented programs. In one such study, Bhatt

(2009) used NELS data and found that participating in a gifted and talented

program did not increase the likelihood of taking AP courses. Bhatt’s (2009)

finding is important considering that, increasingly, universities use AP partici-

pation and examination grades in admission decisions (Geiser and Santelices

2004; Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2009).

In terms of college outcomes for AP participants, studies have shown that

students who scored a 3 or better on AP exams were more likely to perform well in

comparable college courses (Geiser and Santelices 2004; Hargrove et al. 2008) and

typically had higher first-semester GPAs (Scott et al. 2010). Despite these positive

shorter-term AP benefits, it is still unclear whether participation in AP alone

increases the likelihood of bachelor’s degree attainment after controlling for other

variables such as ability and socioeconomic status (Geiser and Santelices 2004;

Klopfenstein and Thomas 2009). In fact, a recent report that synthesizes more than

20 research studies on AP has stated:

Though somewhat challenging to parse, the research suggests that while AP

students, especially those who pass the exams, experience more success in

college than do those who did not take AP courses in high school, this success

may not be attributable to the AP program alone. (Challenge Success 2013, p. 4)

Urban Rev

123

Methods

Data Source

This study used data from the public-use NELS:88/00, which is the third in a series

of five secondary school level longitudinal studies sponsored by the National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES) within the US Department of Education. The

NELS:88 base-year study employed a two-stage probability design to select a

nationally representative sample of eighth grade students within schools. In the first

stage, a stratified, proportional-to-size sampling method yielded a total of 1,052

schools. From this sampling of schools, approximately 25 students from each school

were randomly selected to participate in the study. The base-year study commenced

in the spring of 1988 when participants were in the eighth grade. Follow-up studies

were conducted in 1990 (10th grade), 1992 (12th grade), 1994 (2 years after high

school), and 2000 (8 years after high school). The fourth follow-up (in the year

2000) included a transcript study that collected and recorded participants’

postsecondary achievement and degree attainment. In combination, NELS:88/00

provides trend data about eighth grade student transitions from middle school to

high school to postsecondary institutions and the work force (Curtin et al. 2002).

Sample

A total of 24,599 students participated in the NELS:88 base-year study. The fourth

and final follow-up study had a sample size of 12,144 individuals (Curtin et al.

2002). The analytic sample for this study was obtained by applying a series of

sequential filters to the fourth follow-up sample. First, I defined high-achieving as

scoring in the top 10 % on any one of four base-year achievement tests—reading,

mathematics, science, or social studies. Then, I used within-group norms (i.e., the

top 10 % among Black students) to determine each achievement test cut-off score.

Within-group norms have precedent in the field of gifted education (e.g., Lohman

2006; Peters and Gentry 2012; Rose 2012) and align with the federal definition of

giftedness, which suggests that students should be compared to those of similar

experience and environment (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Finally, I

restricted my analytic sample to include Black males exclusively. The resulting

unweighted sample size was N = 85.

Since respondents were in the eighth grade during the NELS:88/00 base-year, the

manner in which I selected the analytic sample was equivalent to ‘‘identifying’’

high-achieving Black males in the eighth grade. The complex sampling design

employed in the NELS:88/00 requires the use of weights to adjust for oversampling

of certain groups and for nonresponse. Applying the panel weight yielded a

weighted sample representing 35,112 high-achieving Black males nationally.

Variables

The dependent variable in this study was college degree attainment as measured by

completion of a bachelor’s degree or higher. Two NCES-derived variables were

Urban Rev

123

combined to create a single variable representing college degree attainment. The

first variable indicated whether the respondent had a high school diploma or

equivalent as of the year 2000, and the second variable indicated the highest

postsecondary degree earned. Responses on this second variable ranged from 1

(some postsecondary education, no degree attained) to 6 (Ph.D. or a professional

degree). From these two variables, I formed a dichotomous variable indicating

whether the respondent had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (1 = yes,

0 = no).

Two sets of independent variables were used in this study: school context (i.e.,

urbanicity and school sector) and precollege educational opportunities (i.e., gifted

and talented programs and AP). In addition, socioeconomic status (SES) was used

as a demographic control. NCES constructed the SES variable by using information

from the base-year parent questionnaire. This variable used a combination of

mother’s education, father’s education, mother’s occupation, father’s occupation,

and family income to create a continuous SES variable. This standardized variable

had an approximate mean of zero and an approximate standard deviation of one.

Values ranged from -3.09 to 2.75.

It is important to include SES as a demographic control because of the

relationship between socioeconomic status, school context, and educational

opportunities and outcomes. Specifically, students from low socioeconomic

backgrounds are more likely to reside in either urban or rural communities than

in suburban communities (Aud et al. 2012). Students from low-income backgrounds

also are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs and in AP (College Board

2012; Wyner et al. 2007). In addition, Buchanan (2006) has found that

socioeconomic status is the most important predictor of educational attainment,

irrespective of race. Moreover, one of the greatest criticisms made about school

sector and AP studies has been that researchers have failed to account for

demographic variables such as SES (e.g., Challenge Success 2013; Peterson and

Llaudet 2007).

The urbanicity variable was recoded into three dichotomous variables to indicate

whether the respondent’s base-year school was in a suburban, urban, or rural

community. Each variable denoted group membership (1 = yes, 0 = no) with

suburban schools serving as the reference group. The school sector variable

classified schools as public, Catholic, private religious, or private non-religious. I

collapsed and recoded this variable into a new dichotomous variable denoting

whether the respondent attended a public or private school during the base-year

(1 = private, 0 = public). This coding made public schools the reference group.

The gifted and talented and AP variables indicated whether respondents as 12th

graders had ever participated in those programs (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Data Analysis

This study employed secondary data analysis of a nationally representative sample

to investigate the research questions. Data analysis proceeded in three phases. In the

first phase, descriptive statistics were computed to describe the sample across

independent and dependent variables. In the second phase, proportions were

Urban Rev

123

calculated on the dependent variable and t tests were conducted to determine group

differences by school context and precollege educational opportunities. In the third

phase, logistic regression analysis was employed to examine which school context

and precollege educational opportunity factors influenced college degree attainment

among high-achieving Black males.

In logistic regression analysis, odds ratios measure the influence of each

independent variable on the likelihood of the dependent variable occurring (e.g.,

attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher), holding all other variables constant. Within

the present study, an odds ratio of exactly one indicates no impact on the odds of

attaining a bachelor’s degree. An odds ratio greater than one indicates an increase in

the odds of attaining a bachelor’s degree when the independent variable increases by

one unit (i.e., a positive effect). An odds ratio of less than one indicates a decrease in

the odds of attaining a bachelor’s degree when the independent variable increases by

one unit (i.e., a negative effect). Taking the reciprocal of a negative effect allows for

comparing the relative magnitude and determining the most influential effects

(Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).

Analyses were conducted using Stata 10. I used multiple imputation on both

independent and dependent missing variables to prevent listwise deletion (Graham

2009; Peugh and Enders 2004). Missing data analyses and imputation were

performed using the free, user-created program, ice, with dichotomous, ordinal, and

interval variables appropriately denoted and imputed. A total of five imputations

produced five multiply-imputed datasets. Pooled results in this analysis were

weighted by the NELS:88/00 fourth follow-up panel weight. All statistical results

are reported significant at the p \ .05 level.

Results

Descriptive statistics revealed that 79 % of high-achieving Black males attended a

public school and 51 % attended an urban school. They came from relatively

modest socioeconomic backgrounds representing the 56th percentile of SES and

participated in high-quality educational opportunities at differential rates, with 20 %

having participated in a gifted and talented program and 56 % in AP. By the year

2000 when the typical respondent was 26 years old (i.e., eight years after high

school), 42 % attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (See Table 1 for descriptive

statistics related to the dependent and independent variables.).

Bachelor’s degree attainment varied among high-achieving Black males by school

context and educational opportunity factors. Although 42 % of the overall sample

attained a bachelor’s degree, suburban high-achieving Black males were more likely

to attain a bachelor’s degree or higher (M = 0.76, SE = 0.10) than urban high-

achieving Black males (M = 0.19, SE = 0.09), t(653) = 4.29, p \ .001. Similarly,

those who attended a private school were more likely to attain a bachelor’s degree or

higher (M = 0.93, SE = 0.06) than those who attended a public school (M = 0.28,

SE = 0.09), t(653) = 6.41, p \ .001. The remaining independent variables did not

yield statistically significant differences in bachelor’s degree attainment (See

Table 2 for college degree attainment by key independent variables).

Urban Rev

123

Results from the logistic model indicated that attending an urban school, attending

a private school, and participating in a gifted and talented program influenced

bachelor’s degree attainment among high-achieving Black males. Attending an

urban school decreased the odds of attaining a bachelor’s degree, holding all other

variables constant. This value was statistically significant, t(154.9) = -2.31,

p = .021. Attending a private school increased the odds of attaining a bachelor’s

degree, holding all other variables constant. This value was statistically significant,

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for independent and dependent variables

Variable M SE Minimum Maximum

Socioeconomic statusa 0.10 0.12 -1.987 1.871

Urban 0.51 0.12 0 1

Suburban 0.36 0.11 0 1

Rural 0.13 0.04 0 1

Public 0.79 0.10 0 1

Private 0.21 0.10 0 1

Gifted and talented 0.20 0.06 0 1

Advanced Placement 0.56 0.11 0 1

Bachelor’s degree or higher 0.42 0.11 0 1

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Data are weighted by F4PNLWT panel weighta Standardized normal variable with approximate mean of zero and approximate standard deviation of

one

Table 2 Bachelor’s degree attainment by key independent variables

Variable Mean Standard error 95 % confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

School urbanicity

Urbana 0.19*** 0.09 0.004 0.37

Suburban 0.76 0.10 0.57 0.95

Rural 0.36 0.12 0.14 0.59

School sector

Public 0.28 0.09 0.11 0.45

Private 0.93*** 0.06 0.82 1.04

Gifted and talented

Yes 0.67 0.10 0.47 0.87

No 0.36 0.13 0.09 0.61

Advanced Placement

Yes 0.34 0.13 0.08 0.61

No 0.51 0.14 0.23 0.79

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Data are weighted by F4PNLWT panel weight

*** p \ .001a Mean difference = (Suburban–Urban)

Urban Rev

123

t(154.9) = 3.37, p = .001. Participating in a gifted and talented program increased

the odds of attaining a bachelor’s degree, holding all other variables constant; this

value was also statistically significant, t(154.9) = 2.12, p = .036. SES, attending a

rural school, and participating in AP were not statistically significant predictors of

bachelor’s degree attainment (See Table 3 for results from the logistic model).

Discussion

This study employed secondary data analysis of a national longitudinal study to

examine how school context and precollege educational opportunities influence

college degree attainment among high-achieving Black males. Results from this

study indicate that high-achieving Black males are likely to attend urban, public

schools and to come from families with median socioeconomic backgrounds. These

characteristics differ from the typical gifted student profile, which suggests that

gifted students as a whole are more likely to attend suburban schools and to come

from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Konstantopoulos et al. 2001; Loveless

2008). Results from the present study indicate that high-achieving Black males

access high-quality educational opportunities—but at differential rates. Consistent

with Harper (2012), I found that high-achieving Black males are much more likely

to participate in AP courses than in gifted and talented programs. This finding begs

the question: Why do high-achieving Black males access gifted and talented

programs at such a lower rate than they access AP? Black males’ underrepresen-

tation in gifted and talented programs is well documented (Holzman 2006; Moore

and Flowers 2012). The disparity in participation could be an indication of the larger

politics and policies of gifted programs that limit access, including their exclusivity

(Morris 2002) and their narrowly constructed identification processes (Rose 2012).

Findings from this study suggest that high-achieving Black males attain a higher

level of education than many of their similarly aged peers. For example, in the year

Table 3 Logistic regression coefficients and odds ratio for predicting bachelor’s degree attainment

among high-achieving black males

Variable B SE B OR p value

Socioeconomic status 1.00 0.53 2.72 .06

Urbana -1.68 0.73 0.18* .02

Rurala -0.23 0.73 0.79 .75

Privatea 3.78 1.12 43.62** .001

Gifted and talenteda 1.81 0.85 6.09* .04

Advanced Placementa -0.18 0.66 0.75 .67

Constant -0.58

Model F-statistic 3.44**

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Data are weighted by F4PNLWT panel weight

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01a Dichotomous variable. Coefficient represents the effect of membership

Urban Rev

123

2000, on a national level, 29 % of all 25- to 29-year olds attained a bachelor’s

degree or higher (Aud et al. 2012). The comparable statistic for Black males in the

same year was 18 % (Aud et al. 2012). In this study, 42 % of high-achieving Black

males attained a bachelor’s degree or higher by the time the typical respondent was

26 years old. These results suggest that high-achieving Black males are more than

two times as likely to attain a bachelor’s degree as similarly-aged Black males.

Although this rate of bachelor’s degree attainment is an improvement over national

statistics for Black males in general, it is lower than the 59 % of lower-income high-

achieving students who attained a bachelor’s degree across all racial/ethnic groups

(Wyner et al. 2007).

Previous research has found SES to be one of the most significant predictors of

educational degree attainment (Buchanan 2006). In the current study, however, SES

was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of bachelor’s degree

attainment among high-achieving Black males. Attending an urban school, on the

other hand, was found to decrease their likelihood of attaining a bachelor’s degree.

Previous research has documented that urban schools have fewer resources, lower

overall academic achievement, fewer advanced courses, and fewer in-field, certified

teachers than suburban schools (Aud et al. 2012; Lippman et al. 1996; Schott

Foundation, 2009), each of which can negatively impact educational outcomes. One

potential explanation for the insignificant SES finding is that attending an urban

school may have served as a proxy for SES and the complex relationship between

SES and urbanicity. Another potential explanation is that when examining high-

achieving Black males exclusively, thus controlling for race, gender, and eighth

grade achievement, the impact of place (i.e., attending an urban school) outweighs

the impact of socioeconomic status. Geography of educational opportunity research

demonstrates that place is a significant determinant of social, political, economic,

and educational opportunities and outcomes (Anyon 2005; Tate 2008). Consistent

with that research, findings from this study indicate that attending an urban school

has negative consequences for high-achieving Black males.

Of all the factors explored in the study, attending a private school was found to

have the most influence on bachelor’s degree attainment among high-achieving

Black males. Previous research comparing public and private schools has shown

that although students from private schools outperform students in public schools,

when demographic characteristics and prior achievement variables are controlled

for, the private school advantage disappears (Braun et al. 2006; Lubienski and

Lubienski 2006; Wenglinsky 2007). Findings from this study represent a departure

from these earlier findings. Despite controlling for SES and prior achievement,

high-achieving Black males who attend private school appear to have an advantage

over their public school counterparts.

Participation in a gifted and talented program was also found to positively

influence bachelor’s degree attainment. This finding is consistent with qualitative

studies in which students felt better prepared for college as a result of their

participation in gifted programs (Henfield et al. 2008; Hertzog 2003; Reis and Dıaz

1999). AP, on the other hand, was not found to influence college degree attainment

among high-achieving Black males. One potential explanation is that although high-

achieving Black males participated in AP programs, they did not necessarily take

Urban Rev

123

the AP exam. Previous research on the impact of AP programs has been mixed

(Challenge Success 2013). Some of the favorable studies on the impact of AP

specifically analyzed test takers. As an alternative explanation, it should also be

noted that in the present study, the quality of AP programs is unknown. Simply

participating in AP does not necessarily mean that the AP course or program is of a

high quality (Hallett and Venegas 2011). Despite the College Board’s effort to

ensure quality across programs through mechanisms such as the AP course audit

and recommended teacher professional development, there is tremendous variation

in AP course quality both within and across schools (Challenge Success 2013).

Implications

Collectively, the study’s results have implications across the K-16 pipeline. To

better contextualize how school context and precollege educational opportunities

influence bachelor’s degree attainment, let us consider four hypothetical high-

achieving Black males. Antoine comes from a family whose SES is at the mean

level (SES = .10). He attended an urban public school, and never participated in AP

or a gifted and talented program. The predicted probability of Antoine attaining a

bachelor’s degree is .10 or 10 %. Brian, who other than attending a suburban school,

has the same characteristics as Antoine. The predicted probability of Brian attaining

a bachelor’s degree is .38 or 38 %. Table 4 shows predicted probabilities of

attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher for four hypothetical high-achieving Black

males. Comparing Chris to Antoine shows roughly the net impact of attending a

private school. Comparing Dante to Antoine shows roughly the net impact of

participating in a gifted and talented program.

Although school context and high-quality educational opportunities matter for all

students, Table 4 demonstrates how they matter for high-achieving Black males in

particularly stark ways. The very schools that high-achieving Black males are most

likely to attend (i.e., public, urban schools) disadvantage them in terms of their

Table 4 Predicted probabilities of attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher for hypothetical high-

achieving black males

Variable Hypothetical student

Antoine Brian Chris Dante

Socioeconomic status Mean Mean Mean Mean

Urban Yes No Yes Yes

Rural No No No No

Private No No Yes No

Gifted and talented No No No Yes

Advanced Placement No No No No

Predicted probability .10 .38 .83 .41

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Data are weighted by F4PNLWT panel weight

Mean SES = 0.10

Urban Rev

123

prospects for college degree attainment. This finding has significant implications for

urban schools. While increased accountability focuses, almost exclusively, on

educational outcomes for students at risk for failing to meet minimal competency,

the academic promise of high-achieving Black males seems to wither away.

Antoine, our hypothetical student who attended an urban, public school and never

participated in a gifted and talented program or AP, has a 10 % chance of attaining a

bachelor’s degree 8 years after high school—which is deplorable. Unfortunately,

Antoine represents thousands of high-achieving Black males nationwide who are

not identified for gifted programs and who do not access AP. All students deserve

opportunities for academic growth, including Black males who perform well on

early measures of achievement.

If participating in a gifted and talented program is positively associated with

college degree attainment for high-achieving Black males, then a specific

implication for urban schools is to open the doors of access into gifted programs.

Schools and districts must develop policies and procedures that support this type of

access. Further, teachers and counselors ought to participate in professional

development activities designed to not only help them identify academic potential,

but also help them learn how to support and nurture students as they navigate more

rigorous courses.

Limitations

This study has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the

results. The first imitation of this study is attrition. Although the NELS:88 began

with nearly 24,600 respondents, less than half completed the study. Attrition is not

random; participants who remain in a sample tend to have different characteristics

from those who drop out (Schneider et al. 2007). As a result, the NELS:88/00

requires the use of weights to address the issues of attrition and nonresponse. The

fourth follow-up panel weight was applied in this study to address the issue of

attrition.

In general, secondary analysis of large-scale datasets allows for a nationally

representative analysis of subgroups. However when analyzing a very specific

subgroup (e.g., high achieving Black males), the unweighted sample size can be

small; thus, producing less stable results. In this analysis, the unweighted sample

size was N = 85; however, when the appropriate panel weight was applied, this

sample represented more than 35,000 high achieving Black males nationally.

Finally, degree attainment is a complex endeavor that is impacted by numerous

factors. College-level factors were excluded from this study; instead, the current

study focused on precollege factors in order to examine the consequences of

early unequal access. Future research on high-achieving Black males could explore

a more comprehensive model of college degree attainment, similar to Adelman’s

(2006) research, which includes college matriculation, college performance, and

financial aid factors. Such research would be nearly impossible to conduct using

NELS:88/00, however, because the unweighted sample size in the current analysis

supports at most eight independent variables based on conventional regression

Urban Rev

123

analysis practice (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). In addition, this research used a

correlational design, which predicts outcomes based on association—not causation.

Results from this study should be interpreted in light of these limitations.

Conclusions

This study contributes to our understanding of how school context and precollege

educational opportunities influence college degree attainment among high-achiev-

ing Black males. High-achieving Black males, like all students, are at a

crossroads—what Kirsch et al. (2007) call a perfect storm. ‘‘Our nation is in the

midst of a perfect storm—the result of the confluence of three powerful forces—that

is having a considerable impact on our country…They are divergent skill

distributions, the changing economy, and demographic trends’’ (Kirsch et al.

p. 3). These three forces require a more skilled, better-educated workforce across all

demographic groups. Unequal access to high-quality educational opportunities

makes it difficult to weather the storm. ‘‘While not every American will go to

college, all American children should be given fair opportunities to be prepared for

college’’ (Welner and Carter 2013, p. 3). High-achieving Black males await that fair

opportunity.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Malik Henfield and La Francis Rodgers-Rose for

their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

Adelman, C. (2002). The relationship between urbanicity and educational outcomes. In W. G. Tierney &

L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 35–

63). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New

York: Routledge.

Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic

groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., et al. (2012). The condition of

education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 13, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2002). Determinants of the availability of opportunities for gifted

children: Evidence from NELS’88. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1, 52–71.

Barnard-Brak, L., McGaha-Garnett, V., & Burley, H. (2011). Advanced Placement course enrollment and

school-level characteristics. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 165–174.

Bhatt, R. (2009). The impacts of gifted and talented education (working paper). Retrieved from http://

www2.gsu.edu/~ecorrb/index_files/research.htm.

Bonner, F. A., II. (2010). Academically gifted African American male college students. Santa Barbara,

CA: Praeger.

Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using

hierarchical linear modeling (NCES 2006-461). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Urban Rev

123

Brown, V. (1954). Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483.

Buchanan, C. M. (2006). The impact of race and socioeconomic status on post-secondary achievement.

International Journal of Learning, 16, 69–81.

Byrd, S. (with Ellington, L., Gross, P., Jago, C., Stern, S.). (2007). Advanced Placement and International

Baccalaureate: Do they deserve gold star status? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Carbonaro, W., & Covay, E. (2010). School sector and student achievement in the era of standards based

reform. Sociology of Education, 83, 160–182.

Challenge Success. (2013). The Advanced Placement program: Living up to its promise? Retrieved from

Challenge Success website: http://www.challengesuccess.org/research/white-papers.aspx.

College Board. (2012). The 8th annual AP report to the nation. New York, NY: Author.

Corra, M., Carter, J. S., & Carter, S. K. (2011). The interactive impact of race and gender on high school

advanced course enrollment. The Journal of Negro Education, 80, 33–46.

Curtin, T. R., Ingels, S. J., Wu, S., & Heuer, R. (2002). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988:

Base-year to fourth follow-up data file user’s manual (NCES 2002–323). Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in

gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 64, 289–306.

Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and honors courses in college

admissions (Research & Occasional Paper Series, CSHE.4.04). Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in

Higher Education.

Graham, A., & Anderson, K. A. (2008). ‘‘I have to be three steps ahead’’: Academically gifted African

American male students in an urban high school on the tension between ethnic and academic

identity. Urban Review, 40, 472–499.

Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. American Review of

Psychology, 60, 549–576.

Grantham, T. C. (2004). Rocky Jones: Case study of a high-achieving Black male’s motivation to

participate in gifted classes. Roeper Review, 26, 208–215.

Hallett, R. E., & Venegas, K. M. (2011). Is increased access enough? Advanced placement courses,

quality, and success in low-income urban schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 468–

487.

Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P., & Woessmann, L. (2010). U.S. math performance in global perspective:

How well does each state do at producing high-achieving students? (PEPG Report No.: 10-19).

Cambridge, MA: Program on Education, Policy & Governance, Harvard University.

Hargrove, L., Godin, D., & Dodd, B. (2008). College outcomes comparisons by AP and non-AP

experiences (Research Report 2008-3). New York, NY: College Board.

Harper, S. R. (2008). Realizing the intended outcomes of Brown: High-achieving African American male

undergraduates and social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 1030–1053.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the national Black

male college achievement study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of

Race and Equity in Education.

Harper, S. R., & Griffin, K. A. (2011). Opportunity beyond affirmative action: How low-income and

working-class Black male achievers access highly selective and high-cost colleges and universities.

Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 17, 43–60.

Hebert, T. P. (2001). Jermaine: A critical case study of a gifted Black child living in rural poverty. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 45, 85–103.

Hebert, T. P. (2002). Gifted Black males in a predominately White university: Portraits of high

achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 25–64.

Henfield, M. S., Moore, J. L., III, & Wood, C. (2008). Inside and outside gifted education programming:

Hidden challenges for African American students. Exceptional Children, 74, 433–450.

Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students’ perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly,

47, 131–143.

Holzman, M. (2006). Public education & Black male students: The 2006 state report card. Cambridge,

MA: Schott Foundation.

Hrabowski, F. A., III, Maton, K. I., & Greif, G. L. (1998). Beating the odds: Raising academically

successful African American males. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces changing our

nation’s future. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/AmericasPerfectStorm.

pdf.

Urban Rev

123

Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity? Economics of

Education Review, 23, 115–131.

Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. K. (2009). The link between Advanced Placement experience and early

college success. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 873–891.

Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2001). Who are America’s gifted? American Journal of

Education, 109, 344–382.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of a nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York,

NY: Crown Publishers.

Lee, J. M, Jr, & Ransom, T. (2011). The educational experience of young men of color: A review of

research, pathways and progress. New York, NY: College Board Advocacy and Policy Center.

Lippman, L., Burns, S., & McArthur, E. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty

(NCES 96-184). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement.

Lohman, D. F. (2006). Identifying academically talented minority students (Research Monograph No.

RM05216). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of

Connecticut.

Loveless, T. (2008). Analysis of NAEP data. In A. Duffett, S. Farkas, & T. Loveless (Eds.), High-

achieving students in the era of NCLB (pp. 13–48). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). Student sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis

of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 651–698.

Moore, J. L., III, & Flowers, L. A. (2012). Increasing the representation of African American males in

gifted and talented programs. In M. Casserly, S. Lewis, C. Simon, R. Uzzell, & M. Palacios (Eds.),

Providing solutions for Black male achievement: Council of the Great City Schools (pp. 60–74).

Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.

Morris, J. E. (2002). African American students and gifted education: The politics of race and culture.

Roeper Review, 24, 59–62.

Noguera, P. A. (2009). The trouble with Black boys: And other reflections on race, equity, and the future

of public education. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Obama, B. (2011, March 4). Remarks by the President at Miami Central High School in Miami, Florida.

Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/04/remarks-president-miami-

central-high-school-miami-florida.

Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2012). Group-specific norms and teacher-rating scales: Implications for

underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 125–144.

Peterson, P. E., & Llaudet, E. (2007). The NCES private-public school study: Findings are other than they

seem. Education Next, 7(1), 75–79.

Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting

practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74, 525–556.

Reis, S. M., & Dıaz, E. (1999). Economically disadvantaged urban female students who achieve in

schools. The Urban Review, 31, 31–54.

Rose, V. C. (2012). Empirical support for a broadened conception of giftedness: Implications for school

leaders. In M. F. DiPaola & P. B. Forsyth (Eds.), Contemporary challenges confronting school

leaders (pp. 189–213). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Sander, W. (2006). Educational attainment and residential location. Education and Urban Society, 38,

307–326.

Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal

effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association.

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

Cambridge, MA: Author.

Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., & Lee, Y.-K. (2010). Assessment of Advanced Placement participation and

university academic success in the first semester: Controlling for selected high school academic

abilities. Journal of College Admission, 208, 26–30.

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001). Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tate, W. F., IV. (2008). ‘‘Geography of opportunity’’: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes.

Educational Researcher, 37, 397–411.

Urban Rev

123

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National

excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Welner, K. G., & Carter, P. L. (2013). Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps. In P. L. Carter &

K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even

chance (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wenglinsky, H. (2007). Are private high schools better academically than public high schools?.

Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio, J. J., Jr. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing

millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke

Foundation.

Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of

and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121–136.

Urban Rev

123