Abstract
High school graduation and successful entry into post-secondary education or the workforce has been a priority for educational policymakers, career development scholars, and educators for decades. Consensual qualitative research methods were used to analyze 11 education professionals working in high schools with high free and reduced lunch rates and were graduating students at a rate above the national average. Analysis of the data identified three domains: (a) School Climate (b) Community Impact and Involvement and, (c) Societal, Systemic, and Logistical Factors as being supportive of college and career readiness. Within domains were seven categories further describing specific factors perceived to be related to student post-secondary success. Limitations, future research directions, and implications for career development theory, practice, and practice will be discussed.
Introduction
High school graduation and successful entry into post-secondary education or the workforce has been a priority for educational policymakers, scholars, and educators for decades (Dougherty & Lombardi, 2016; Morningstar et al., 2018). This continues to be a priority given that approximately 20% of the nation’s youth do not graduate high school and the vast majority of new jobs created in the United States require at least some form of post-secondary education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). In order to address this priority, researchers and policymakers have designed interventions, examined policies, identified student intrinsic factors related to success, and documented psychosocial indicators that correlate with career preparedness.
High schools have a pivotal role to play in ensuring that students are adequately prepared for the next stage of their lives. While there have been federal initiatives that focus on ensuring that all students graduate college and are career ready, the reality exists that there continue to be gaps in educational attainment across various groups (Lapan et al., 2017). Related to these gaps includes the limited college and career services provided by school counselors, classroom interventions, and relevant college and career readiness assessments (Lapan et al., 2017). Although there have been college and career readiness interventions designed for high school students to advance career preparedness, continued research is needed to examine the specific intangible factors which help facilitate this process beyond interventions, curriculum development, and district initiatives (Marciniak et al., 2022). Current school-based career development activities focus on strategies which are short-term, with the lasting impact of such interventions unknown (Hughes & Karp, 2004). Strong inter personal relationships between students and staff engaging in college and career readiness are found to be important pieces of effective and successful post-secondary transition to higher education or work after high school (Lapan et al., 2017). The focus of this study is to further build upon previous research by examining the perceptions of student personnel professionals working in schools successfully supporting post-secondary student transitions, despite socioeconomic barriers.
Career Preparedness and Poverty
There has been a considerable body of scholarship that has examined different aspects of career preparedness with adolescents including both predictors and outcomes (e.g., Amarnani et al., 2018; Park, 2015). This includes predictive indicators, such as attitudes, knowledge, and competencies and research on career intervention outcomes (Marciniak et al., 2022). One contextual factor that clearly has some predictive properties as it relates to career preparedness and development is youth poverty. Students living in poverty experience additional barriers to college-career readiness and career preparedness compared to their peer counterparts. According to the Pew Research Center (2019), 10.5 million children were living in poverty in 2019. Barriers to career preparedness for these students include limited school resources, poor nutrition, exposure to violence, disengagement in school, socioemotional problems, and a lack of access to social, financial, and cultural capital (Currie & Tekin, 2006; Yavuz et al., 2019). Children in poverty are more likely to start attending school almost a full school year behind their peers who come from a higher SES background on core academic skills (Garcia, 2015), and these impacts lead to long-term academic discrepancies. Scholars have also found significant relationships between high poverty and poor academic performance, including lower scores on standardized tests of academic achievement (Sirin, 2005; White et al., 1993). Children who come from low SES backgrounds are more likely to exhibit cognitive issues, including short attention spans, lack of focus, and difficulty evaluating their work quality (Alloway et al., 2009). Additionally, as students from low SES backgrounds are more likely to experience greater levels of mental distress compared to their peers from higher SES backgrounds, they may experience psychological obstacles that hinder their ability to achieve academic success. This chronic distress has been found to impact children’s brain development, academic success, and social competence (Evans et al., 2007). As it relates to student motivation, students living in poverty are likely to anticipate failure in their future, which decreases their academic engagement and overall efforts in school (Jensen, 2013). Children in poverty experience a wide range of obstacles that hinder them from attaining academic achievement compared to those who do not live in poverty. Recently, Marciniak and colleagues (2023) have developed a framework that considered contextual factors in relation to career preparedness, including family background and socioeconomic status.
School Climate
Educational institutions are investing in improving school environments to optimize academic and psychological well-being for students. This concept, often referred to as school climate, has been demonstrated to mitigate the impact of family poverty on student outcomes (Berkowitz et al., 2017; Hopson & Lee, 2011). School climate is a multidimensional construct that includes factors such as school size, availability of resources, teacher expectations, student achievement treatment of students, and quality of relationships among students, staff and teachers (Epstein & McPartland, 1976; Haynes et al., 1993; Sinclair, 1970). The social norms and expectations within a school have been shown to influence student success to various degrees. School climate encompasses interpersonal interactions of safety, encouragement, respect, trust, and care (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001; Osher et al., 2006; Stewart, 2008). The school climate research at large suggests that a positive climate impacts student outcomes considerably, but that for students living in poverty it may be even more critical in helping them succeed (Becker & Luthar, 2002).
Cohen, Mccabe, Michelli, and Pickeral (2009) conducted a study in which they utilized a historical analysis, literature review, a systemic national policy scan, and a national survey to examine the state of school climate. They found significant relationships between positive school climates and school success, healthy relationships, violence prevention, students' healthy development, and teacher retention. Researchers have found a host of intrapersonal factors that have been linked to the school climate, including student self-concept, self-criticism (Kuperminic et al., 2001), and overall psychological well-being (Ruus et al., 2007). A positive school climate has also been associated with social behavioral issues, such as disciplinary actions, vandalism, substance use, and alcohol (Osher et al., 2006; Ripski & Gregory, 2009). The social characteristics of a school impacts more than just interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of those within a school systemic, including academic success. For example, scholars have found the quality of school climate to be associated with academic motivation and achievement, test scores, attendance, graduation rates (Christle et al., 2007; Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Klem & Connell, 2004; MacNeil et al., 2009). Although scholars have found significant relationships among school climate and overall student success, it is important to continue to examine the contextual factors that may be related to these associations. One factor that we will focus on in this manuscript that has demonstrated a considerable amount of scholarly attention and been shown to have a relationship with school climate is school belonging (Nisle & Anyon, 2023). For example, belongingness has been demonstrated to be a mediator between school climate and school burnout (Kalkan & Dagli, 2021).
Belonging
School belonging has specifically been defined as when “students feel accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment” (Goodenow & Grady, 1993, p. 80) School belonging is predictive of positive outcomes such as student success and achievement, psychological well-being, and academic motivation (Allen et al., 2018; Slaten et al., 2014; Slaten et al., 2018).The influence of belonging on school climate is an emerging field of work which is beginning to identify the importance of student belonging as a crucial factor in positive school climate (Ma, 2003). Current literature supports the idea that school environment plays a crucial role in student sense of belonging (Loukas et al., 2010; Slaten et al., 2015). Teacher support and positive personal characteristics have been found to be the strongest predictors of school belonging for students (Allen et al., 2018). Converting research on school belonging to actionable practice has been difficult due to lack of concise terminology, appropriate school-wide interventions, and concise measurement tools (Allen et al., 2018; Caraway et al., 2003; Slaten et al., 2015). Continued research is needed to determine the efficacy of specific factors in facilitating school belonging via the school environment.
Theoretical Framework
For the purposes of this study, we utilize Marciniak et al. (2022)’s most recent work in which they have developed an integrative framework for conceptualizing career preparedness for adolescents. This framework utilizes components of the social-cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2016), suggesting that career knowledge, competencies, and attitudes lead to action behaviors. Further, the authors integrate Super (1990)’s work and add an additional step speculating that this behavior will then in turn affect changes in knowledge, competencies and attitudes. In addition to these features, Marciniak and colleagues (2023) suggest that there are more distal contextual factors that also may impact and predict career preparedness and further likely influence more of the proximal factors listed in the previous paragraph. The focus of this study is to emphasize and look more deeply into these distal contextual factors to have a better understanding of they may influence youth career preparedness within a school building.
Participant Demographics.
There has been a significant amount of research examining career preparedness; however, the current study offers some unique contributions. This study seeks to explore how school community and belonging impact student college and career development. The focus of this study is to further build upon previous research by examining the perceptions of student personnel professionals working in high poverty schools successfully supporting post-secondary student transitions, despite these socioeconomic barriers. A qualitative interview protocol was developed centered around this central research question: What are the perceptions among student personnel staff in high poverty schools that are successful in career preparedness for youth, regarding what is contributing to post-secondary readiness in their respective buildings?
Method
Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR; Hill, 2011) is a methodology which systematically gathers contextual information about social phenomena, integrating constructivist and post-positivist approaches. This collaborative approach emphasizes collective interpretations by the research team, ensuring a holistic understanding and minimizing individual biases. Unlike other qualitative methods, which may lead to over-interpretation and inaccurate findings, especially regarding equity and social justice, CQR requires researchers to be knowledgeable about reflexive practice (Greenfield et al., 2010; Hill, 2011; Parker & Henfield, 2012). In school contexts, researchers invested in student well-being and educational systems can effectively explore relevant information and address biases.
Rationale for CQR
Qualitative and quantitative methods have been applied to examine social and academic phenomena in schools. Most studies that focus on socio cultural improvements in schools are quantitative studies; however, there are limitations to this approach, as socio-behavioral interventions may not be applied to fidelity (Kozleski, 2017). Qualitative methods may allow for a more nuanced understanding of school environments, particularly when the focus of interest is related to the experience of marginalized populations, which, in this case, is schools that have a large number of students living in poverty. Consensual qualitative research (CQR), offers a systematic yet flexible approach to understanding perspectives, allowing for both similarity and variation to be explored (Hill, 2011). This flexibility in data collection and analysis allows researchers to adapt their methods to the specific needs and characteristics of the study population, which is crucial when exploring topics such as school climate and belonging. This permits researchers to capture diverse perspectives and experiences from participants (Hill, 2011).
Furthermore, CQR facilitates the exploration of intersecting identities and social contexts which may influence individuals’ psychosocial experiences, such as perceptions of school climate and belonging (Hill, 2011; Parker & Henfield, 2012). By attending to these intersectional dynamics, CQR enables researchers to uncover less overt practices and targeted interventions which support all students’ success. Consensual Qualitative Research is a robust methodology able to examine the role of school climate and belonging on college and career readiness. The emphasis on collaborative inquiry and attention to consensus on subjective interpretation make it well suited for exploring the complex factors shaping students’ preparation for post-secondary life.
Participants
There is a specific focus on schools that successfully graduate students at a rate higher than the national average at the time of data collection (79%; National Center for Education Statistics, 2017) while working with a student body in which the majority are living in poverty at the time of data collection (e.g., free and reduced lunch rate over 51%). Originally, twelve schools met the criteria in the same large urban area in the midwest. Staff from four of those schools agreed to participate. The current study uses qualitative interviews from 11 participants who work at high schools in a large urban area in the Midwest and meet the above criteria (see Table 1). We were strategic in attempting to interview personnel that had a large focus on student services, often the school administrators and counselors. We were able to get a large portion of our participants from student services, with a few teachers that were also added and had additional student services duties outside of their classroom teaching. Participants were from a variety of educational backgrounds and included teachers, administrators, counselors, and curriculum positions. Interview questions were designed to inquire about the specific aspects of the school climate which were influential in student success and academic achievement. Particular consideration was given to those factors which were focused on college readiness and post-secondary career transition.
Procedure
IRB approval was sought at the authors’ primary institution and approved in order to proceed with the data collection for the study. Data for this study was collected by utilizing publicly accessible school data in a midwestern state that allowed us to reach out to high schools in metropolitan areas that were predominately impoverished youth and graduating high school students higher than the national average. Originally, twelve schools met the criteria in the same large urban area in the Midwest. Staff from four of those schools agreed to participate. Of the schools we reached out to Hill (2011) suggested that researchers select 8–15 participants from a homogeneous population who are knowledgeable about the topic of interest. For the interview protocol, researchers asked interviewees open-ended questions in a semi-structured format, which allowed for both consistent information across participants and data on individual differences.
Data Analysis Plan
The interview protocol delves into various aspects of how the school prepares its students for post-secondary education and careers. The questions focus on understanding the school’s practices and programming for assisting students in making college and career decisions, whether through school-wide events, small groups, or individual meetings, and the involvement of personnel in these processes. It also addresses areas of excellence and areas of improvement in college and career preparation, along with suggestions for enhancement. Additionally, it explores differences in approaches between post-secondary education and career/trade paths, the role of the interviewee in assisting students, and measures taken to support students at risk of dropping out, as well as high achieving and average students.
After the interviews were transcribed, the research team members began data analysis, which involved three phases: generating domains, developing core ideas, and conducting a cross-case-analysis (Hill, 2011). To create the initial list of domains, each team member individually coded transcripts and generated themes. After generating themes independently, the team reconvened to create an initial list of domains (Hill, 2011). Each member then read transcripts individually and ascribed each section of text to a particular domain. The team then broke off into pairs and coded the domains for each case. After establishing the codes, the original research team came together to develop a plan for coding the rest of the transcripts. After a plan was established, the final consensus version was comprised of the domain titles and the raw data.
The next phase included creating core ideas. Core ideas are summaries of the data that represent the central idea of the text in respect to the domains. The first step of developing core ideas includes an individual examination of the raw data, in which researchers would refer back to the raw data to ensure that the core ideas were relevant to the domains. After the team members agree on core ideas, the researchers conducted a cross-case analysis to identify themes across participant responses (Hill, 2011). Raters created categories to signify overlapping ideas within core ideas for each domain across participants. The auditor verifies that the core ideas reflect the domains accurately by reading through the raw data and offering feedback to the research team. After receiving the auditor’s feedback, the research team incorporated the suggestions into the adjusted consensus version of the domains and core ideas. The revised document of domains is then given back to the auditor, along with the original comments, to decide which domains and core ideas are relevant. After the auditor and research team resolved any discrepancies, the team finalized the list of domains and core ideas. During consensus scoring, team members openly discussed biases to ensure trustworthiness of the data analysis process.
Trustworthiness and Bias
Hill (2011) suggested multiple ways to ensure trustworthiness of the data. One way to evaluate the accuracy of the data is “member checking” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), which refers to the process of asking study participants to provide feedback on how their experiences are being reflected in the research process. This ensures that the interviewees’ experiences are being accurately portrayed in the data analysis process. Hill (2011) also identified various factors that may affect researcher bias, which include demographic characteristics, values, and beliefs, of the research team. Hill (2011) suggested that biases are unavoidable and must be acknowledged and discussed. Positionality was deliberated upon prior to protocol construction and data collection to ensure that the questions posed were devoid of bias or any predisposition towards a particular viewpoint. Reflexive exercises were employed preceding the commencement of data analysis, encompassing thorough discussion regarding the researchers’ identities, backgrounds, and educational experiences, all of which have the potential to shape perspectives regarding the data. These exercises naturally segued into a deliberation on potential biases, where researchers were prompted to scrutinize any underlying assumptions they might hold, particularly concerning the low socioeconomic status observed within the participating schools. Ensuring researcher credibility is paramount through the CQR process (Hill, 2011). As outlined, reflexivity and positionality play pivotal roles in the proper application of CQR, necessitating the disclosure of researcher identity (Hill, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The core research team comprised of three individuals, each bringing distinct perspectives and experiences to the study. This team consisted of a tenured white male faculty specializing in school counseling and school climate, an Korean female advanced doctoral candidate with experience in belonging and educational research, and a white female doctoral student possessing a background in school counseling education and prior professional experience. Additionally, a third-party auditor, a tenured white male faculty member with expertise in educational leadership reviewed the results.
Results
Analysis of the data, guided by CQR methodology (Hill, 2011), delineated three overarching domains: (a) School Climate, (b) Community Impact and Involvement, and (c) Societal, Systemic and Logistical Factors. Within each domain, categories were identified to support the higher-order themes derived from the data resulting in a total of nine categories across the three thematic domains. Specifically, under the school climate domain, categories included school policies, practices, rules, and extracurricular activities. In the community involvement and impact domain, categories comprised: shared whole school vision, neighborhood, and extended family. Lastly, within the societal, systemic, and logistical factors domain, categories encompassed teacher supports and parent supports. Each category was labeled for frequency in accordance with CQR methodology.
For this study, a category mentioned in ten or more cases (i.e., approximately 90%) were given a frequency label of “general.” Categories mentioned in six to nine cases (i.e., at least 50% but under 90%) were labeled as “typical.” Variant descriptors were given to categories mentioned in two to five cases (i.e., at least 20% but less than 50%). These frequency counts and indicators are consistent with Hill (2011)’s methodological approach.
Summary of Domains, Categories, and Frequencies
Note. N = 11. General = at least ten respondents; typical = between six to nine; variant = between 2 and five
School Climate
The first domain identified was school climate, which in this study refers to social traits of a school such as relationships among students and school employees, values and norms, standards of learning and teaching, and shared characteristics and practices (Anderson, 1982). School climate influences both student academic progress and factors related to staff work performance. Three categories were derived from the school climate domain: practices (N = 12), school policies (N = 11), rules (N = 9), and extracurricular (N = 7).
Practices
Teacher and staff dispositions were coded and found to incorporate foundational aspects of what Allen et al. (2018) code as practices within the identified mesosystem of school belonging. Dispositions and attitudes included accepting students and valuing student experience. In addition, awareness of student lifestyles and culture were integral in this category. Faculty and staff reported feelings of connectedness with their school building and students. According to Ben, an assistant principal, “I fell in love with it [school building] so many years ago and had opportunities to go other places and I can’t imagine anywhere else. The kids are just plain awesome and I love being around them.”
A strengths-based view of student culture and qualities were noted to influence positive relationships with students, leading to practices which focus on student success and well-being. Across this category were statements of acceptance, pride in student achievement, and understanding of the bidirectional relationships between students and staff. Brenda, an instructor in visual arts noted, “The kids are phenomenal. The things we provide them they give right back tenfold. They take care of everyone else around them. It’s a very diverse group and everyone embraces everyone else’s diversity.”
Positive accolades of students and recognition of the students’ role as active stakeholders in creating the school climate were all included within this category. Multiple participants acknowledged student exposure to social and economic issues as key reasons they felt the need to contribute additional support to students experiencing such barriers. “We spend a lot of time celebrating their talents. It was a part of celebrating the history and culture and there’s a lot of activities that will help try and make a sense of belonging here.”
Prominent amongst the theme of practices was post-secondary planning. Participants discussed engaging students prior to high school enrollment and throughout every stage of their secondary education in post-secondary planning and college readiness activities. School counselors, academic coordinators, and instructional coaches were leaders in this process and often developed the interventions and initiatives used by the school to facilitate post-secondary planning. This was done using practices such as advisory block, vocation oriented academic tracks, exposure to higher education and trade schools. Mike reported: We have once a week advisory and we do a lot of extra things [during that time]. We do a lot of things in our small groups specific to our groups so you get to spend a lot of time with them. We have faculty meetings with our specific groups to talk about students we need to keep an eye on.
School Policies
Staff positions that created most of the organization and structural components were student service coordinators, school counselors, assistant principals, instructional coaches, academic coordinators, and curriculum developers. Furthermore, each of these roles were clearly defined and had little overlap with one another. According to Josh who serves as a building principal: They [students] know that it’s a collaborative effort. It’s not a top down effort, it’s a support system every step of the way. They get it in class with teachers, counselors, college advisors all the way until they leave this building.
Observed across all campuses were variations of student career interventions and exploration; ranging from incorporation of career focus throughout all grade levels, to career fairs and exploration opportunities for juniors and seniors. Approaches within these concepts varied with some staff reporting heavy emphasis on college readiness, to others focusing on the needs within the trade markets and other non-collegiate post-secondary options. Mike reported: To help the student to help themselves we wanted to make sure it was relevant to the career they wanted….that was through the relationships that we were able to build…we had a lot of different activities that were house specific.
Rules
Academic freedom and flexibility encompassed the amount of autonomy and decision making students had to design their school experience. Within this definition was included course selection, free periods for students to receive support, and ability to move throughout the school without confinement to a singular classroom. As Carla recalled: You [students] get to gather less restrictively. Students gather in the front foyer or library. . . a lot of students end up going to their advisory teacher because that's the safe teacher they know. It’s really just a student choice of what they get to do during that time period.
Students were held to a high standard of academic and personal excellence, which was described in the category Academic Expectations and Accountability. Structured systems which encouraged accountability included staff check-ins with students regarding grades and attendance, intentionally requiring student participation, and guidelines which students must follow in order to maintain privileges. According to Josh: We have kids showing up late to first block. We call them down. . . . not to be punitive with them, but how can we support you? Students can either place themselves on restrictions or we place them on restrictions then after a week, see where we’re at. We don’t have many repeat offenders.
Accountability was structured and was consistent. It held a formalized place in the school environment via enforced policy, rather than being subject to individual staff discretion and practice. Students across participating schools were expected to have good attendance, appropriate school behavior, and engagement in school activities and opportunities. Students who were struggling to maintain these standards were met with support and problem-solving rather than punitive action. Staff were also held accountable for maintaining these standards through frequent trainings, consistent contact and communication with administration, and utilizing support staff who assisted in student development and success.
Extracurricular
Surrounding business, post-secondary institutions, and community vocational sites all provided career interventions and resources to participating schools. This included visits to local manufacturing plants or businesses, shadowing opportunities provided by local medical facilities, and college representative visits from nearby institutions. Participants valued these opportunities as important steps for students to begin planning for their post-secondary life. Josh reported a group of students having interest in industrial technology and how a community technology business facilitated an opportunity for students to tour the facility. “We bussed the students over to [company name] so they’re getting exposure to that now. Maybe they’re going to go to college, maybe not, but they’re still supported to get a job of their choosing.” Additionally, another participant, Jerry, added: We constantly encourage them to get involved. The more you’re involved, the more this experience is relevant and meaningful to you and the more fun you get to have. So definitely getting involved…just exposing them to the wide range of opportunities that they have not only in school but also beyond and investigating them personally
Domain 2 Community Involvement and Impact
This domain encompassed many components of the exosystem outlined by Allen et al. (2018). While not directly present in the immediate school environment, these factors are recognized as significant in defining the school climate and overall student perceptions of their academic institutions. The school is recognized as the common denominator which facilitates the connection of these categories within the exosystem. Involvement from families and the overall community at large was present across participants in the data collection process. Messages and attitudes about education were seen as being influential on the student body and on student perceptions of academics. Three categories were developed from this domain: shared whole school vision (N = 6), neighborhood (N = 9), and extended family (N = 4).
Shared Whole School Vision
A shared vision was identified as integral by participants for student success as it fosters a collaborative approach to supporting students through their educational journey. This shared vision was seen as ensuring that all stakeholders were committed to identifying and addressing challenges that students may encounter when preparing for life post-graduation. Greg the A + Coordinator noted: In the past, you know, before we adjusted our system, it felt like the students were out of reach and we couldn’t get them to respond. And its because we weren’t all agreeing, weren’t on the same page. And now we have worked together a little more and its for the students and its noticeable.
Adjusting structure to better address the needs of students was reported by several participants as having a meaningful impact on staff and students. Creating a space where voices and opinions were collaboratively shared was perceived as creating a noticeable positive difference in how students and staff were engaging. Furthermore, it was noted as creating less discord and confusion between staff. Josh exemplified this by stating: It’s the whole growth mindset with our [school] teams. It is something we’re really trying to push along with them. But with our students, do they see the connection? It’s not separate pieces where you’re learning separate things, separate times, but it’s all tied into something. And I think once students really see that purpose of why we are doing this, they’re more likely to do it
Neighborhood
Community concerns and strengths were present throughout interviews, with many noting both the positive and negative impact the neighborhood had on the school environment. Issues such as distrust in the education system, difficulties surrounding resource scarcity, and infrastructure concerns (e.g., poor bus routes, employment shortages, lack of technology access) were identified. Inversely, positive attributes of community such as connection, generational support and investment, and positive school outreach to the community were noted as being well-received by relevant stakeholders, particularly students. Jerry noted:
Number one road block, getting them to these opportunities, getting past the limitations and barriers in the area. Students want to go their families want them to go, and we will get them there. Even if it feels like it is impossible, we will get them there.
With many participants identifying as being members of the community and neighborhood surrounding the school, they were able to offer unique perspectives as being both school employees and community members. Jennifer expanded on this by stating: I think that there are many role models in the community. We probably need to do a better job as a school building in bringing them in. The kids enjoy being a part of the community. I think that there are resources out there that we haven’t even tapped yet. People need to continue to come to the table and talk about what that could look like.
Extended Family
Cited as an overall essential factor toward student success was the presence of mentors for students. Across participants, the idea of mentors was present, but what constituted an efficacious mentor varied. However, central to this subtheme was the construct of a support system toward positive student development. These supports were viewed as crucial to circumventing barriers students were facing both in regard to their education and overall well-being. Several interviewees cited representation of similar identity demographics, such as race and home language, as being of extreme importance, with students seeing positive representative role models in successful careers. Brenda reported: There are high paying positions that people get in these kinds of roles. And so again, that breaks down a stereotype of what our underprivileged children would be placed in and that gets them into thinking that there’s more on the horizon.
Mentors were noted as being essential in goal setting for students and allowing them access to recognizing their potential for future achievement beyond their current academic setting. Future oriented thinking was introduced through access to role models and support systems, particularly as it relates to post-secondary education and career aspirations. One participant Ben mentioned: It’s important to provide the support for those who don’t have the [family support]… I mean it’s very difficult for them to do as well. Its not a lack of support necessarily by the community I just think that members of the community don’t have the ability to support what the students need.
Domain 3 Societal, Systemic, and Logistical Factors
All participating schools were subject to a number of community and district barriers which centered around lack of funding and resources in the community. Barriers related to socioeconomic status within the community, acknowledging perceived risk which accompanies low-resource areas, and accommodating for barriers which are present due to district funding. Schools interviewed established collaborative and creative methods to both name and recognize the issues within their community, and made functional programming to address them. Two categories were identified within this domain: teachers support (N = 7) and parent support (N = 5).
Teacher Support
Teacher observation and support of the student experience proved instrumental in securing funding for the district, thereby enhancing the overall student experience. However, the lack of funding posed significant challenges, leading to deficiencies in essential programming, limitations in transporting students to external opportunities, and systemic inequities in funding allocation across districts. Staff members expressed frustration at the resulting barriers faced by both students and families. Inequity in opportunity was a pervasive theme exacerbated by insufficient funding, with many issues identified as solvable with greater financial resources. Furthermore, inadequate district funding precipitated structural changes in school operations, particularly impacting the availability of vocational emphasis within high school curricula. As Jerry noted, the absence of transportation and funds for basic expenses posed substantial barriers to students seeking post-secondary preparation opportunities. Despite these challenges, teachers' unwavering support and advocacy for programming, funding, and resources emerged as pivotal factors in enhancing access to opportunities, underscoring the importance of their role in facilitating student success. Brenda reported: We do our best to use the resources we have to their fullest, their most capability. It is hard to really see and find what we need sometimes and that makes people angry. But we have to keep trying, keep pulling together piling together resources for these kids.
In addition, Greg also shared: That’s huge to keep communication open, to access information. You know it’s sitting down with the kids to build that relationship that is one thing I think we do really well…continually developing a relationship piece so that kids can feel connected. Because a lot of the reason the kids aren’t passing is because they don’t feel connected, you know, they don’t feel they have a place.
Parent Support
Parent involvement included but was not limited to biological parents and included guardians and family systems involved in the guardianship of the students. Caregiver perceptions of academic success and the merits school system as a whole was recognized by participants as being important for student investment in their own educational experience. Across participants were feelings that parents supported their student’s academic experience without additional push from school programming. Josh commented, “family is supporting them in that process to be a good student and do what you possibly can to create a better life for yourself.” Current economic circumstances were cited as a reason consistently throughout participants as to why families would be supportive in their student’s education. Across schools was investment from community businesses and corporations. This involvement was varied between monetary investments, in-school programming, and outside school college and career exploration, as well as connection to external resources. Jerry emphasized this by stating: We’ve noticed that the families they want their child to graduate high school and whenever we converse with them we’re fully support on the house front. So it’s a wonderful working relationship that we have with our families because they want their child to be successful and they know that at [school] they have every potential to be successful.
Discussion
In the current study, CQR was utilized to answer the following research question: What are the perceptions among student personnel staff in high poverty schools that are successful in career preparedness for youth, regarding what is contributing to post-secondary readiness in their respective buildings? Research participants, which included principals, school counselors, teachers, and instructional coaches, were asked about their perspectives on how the school has successfully graduated students at a rate higher than the national average, considering the high levels of poverty among the students. After analyzing the data, three domains across nine categories emerged: school climate and culture (school policies, practices, rules, and extracurricular activities); community involvement and impact (shared whole school vision, neighborhood, and extended family); societal, systemic, and logistical factors (teacher supports, parent support). These overarching domains and categories are congruent with previous literature in youth career development. Poynton and Lapan (2017) found a variety of aspects in career development which are important for youth, one of the most important being the relationships developed in schools amongst peers, teachers, and administration. The five domains which were discovered within this study showed similar findings, with positive interpersonal factors amongst students, staff, and families all influencing how students from low income households were achieving greater post-secondary outcomes compared to the average of their peer cohorts across the country. These findings emphasize the importance of Poynton and Lapan (2017) in demonstrating how effective school climate structures which focus on student needs provide necessary support for students to achieve in career preparedness. The current study expands upon these ideas, demonstrating their efficacy in highly impoverished school districts and amongst marginalized student populations.
Limitations
While the current study offers important findings regarding student career preparedness, it is not without limitations. As with most qualitative studies, the interpretations of participant responses may have been influenced by researchers’ personal biases. Additionally, the researchers’ presence may have influenced the participants’ responses, which may also have been impacted by social desirability. Although the research sample has many advantages, including the perspectives of principals, school counselors, teachers, and instructional coaches, the findings are restricted by a small sample size and do not include the voices of students. While there are associated strengths with utilizing CQR, precautions should be taken when analyzing data using qualitative methods, as there may be issues related to clarity of methods, establishment of trustworthiness, and difficulty with implementation (Hill, 201). The current findings may not be generalizable to other school settings due to the nature of the sample.
Implications for Career Development Theory, Practice, and Research
Findings from this study have implications for career development theory, specifically as it relates to contextual factors having a significant impact on youth career development (Marciniak et al., 2022). Teachers and staff cited school climate factors which related to greater perceived sense of school belonging. This belonging was accounted for amongst staff as well as staff perceptions of students. Student belonging has been linked to students’ experiences of stress and focus on academic work (Pittman & Richmond, 2008). Greater sense of belonging within academic environments has a positive relationship with achievement in career development outcomes (Slaten & Baskin, 2014). This also speaks to environmental factors, in general, may play a significant role in career preparedness beyond direct college and career readiness interventions. In other words, fostering a school climate that is founded on safety, warmth, encouragement, and accountability could have a significant impact on not only social-emotional outcomes, but career preparedness and should be a specific consideration as career preparedness theories evolve.
Fostering positive relationships in order to influence post-secondary outcomes has been emphasized heavily within the school counseling profession. ASCA (2013) suggests school counselors should work closely with teachers and administrators to foster an environment that provides college and career readiness. School counselors are uniquely positioned to be at the forefront of these efforts through both responsive services and guidance curriculum, which can assist high school students in developing college and career plans. These efforts, in order to be at their most efficacious, must be ingrained as school initiatives, rather than the sole burden of the school counselor.
Career development scholars should consider re-engaging school counselors as not only facilitators of career preparedness interventions, but also as educators that help facilitate and foster a caring and safe school environment that at the very least likely impacts student career preparedness indirectly. The literature on school counselors as facilitators of career development education is limited, but certainly demonstrates potential (Slaten et al., 2024). In practice, school counselors are often solely responsible for the career development of the students in their buildings. This gap between research and practice could certainly be addressed by future research. Further, future career development research could quantitatively examine whether or not the results from this study remain true in larger populations of students in school districts across the country and the role of school counselors and other student support services personnel have in student career preparedness.
Conclusion
Scholars have identified various constructs related to poverty that impact students’ educational engagement and achievement (e.g., limited school resources, poor nutrition, exposure to violence, socioemotional problems, and a lack of access to social, financial, and cultural capital; Currie & Tekin, 2006; Yavuz et al., 2019), which, in turn, influences how students may or may not feel prepared for college or the workforce. While policymakers and researchers have implemented interventions to prepare disadvantaged students for college or for their careers (Morningstar et al., 2018), there still exist gaps among college and career services across schools, which leads to discrepancies in overall educational achievement across students and a lack of information on factors that may help students feel more prepared for their futures (Poynton & Lapan, 2017).
The current study sought to understand how schools support youth in career preparedness, particularly for those youth that are living in poverty. The results demonstrated the impact of contextual and environmental factors on youth career development and preparedness and the importance of fostering a school climate that is focused on policies, rules, and practices that enhance career preparedness. In addition, this study illuminated other contextual layers and groups outside of the school building that have a powerful impact on youth career preparedness, namely, families, neighborhoods, community members, and the school and district vision for career preparedness. The future scholarship around career preparedness should most certainly create a stronger emphasis on school climate, belonging and connection, and community/family partnerships.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
