1. By Rama Ali Kased Ed.D Research Symposium Feb. 2014
Countering Oppression: Examining Metro’s Model of Social Justice Education
By Rama Ali Kased Ed.D Research Symposium Feb. 2014

2. The Problem
The gap in graduation rates of low-income, underrepresented students and more affluent students in higher education (Engle & Lynch, 2009; Brock 2010).
The high drop rates of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented students during the their first two years at the university (Choy, 2001; Ishitani, 2006; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004).

3. The Problem
The challenges and difficulties students face during college adjustment (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996)
First-generation students often feel disengaged, marginalized, and isolated in the college environment (Choy, 2001; Bernal, Aleman, & Garavito, 2009; Jehangir, 2010).

4. Metro Academy Program (Metro) at San Francisco State University
Focus of Study
Metro Academy Program (Metro) at San Francisco State University
First Year Experience
Metro Course

5. Research Design
An embedded mixed methods, case study approach was used to examine the Metro Academy Program. QUALquant

6. Research Questions Qualitative Data
How is the social justice model of the Metro Academy Program manifested in the lives of first-generation, students of color, and what influences does the social justice model of Metro Academy Program have on their educational and personal experiences?
Quantitative Data
What are the impacts of the Metro Academy Program on the academic outcomes of its students when compared to other SF State first- and second-year students?

7. Theoretical Framework
Social Justice Education (also part of the literature review)
Critical Consciousness and Agency
Critical Pedagogy
Culturally and Socially Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy
“Schooling In Capitalist America”
Critical Race Theory
Community Cultural Wealth and Knowledge
Radical Healing and Community Reconciliation

8. Methodology
Qualitative: data was be gathered through individual,semi-structured interviews, using an interview protocol with open-ended questions (n=15).
Quantitative: data was gathered with the help of University’s Office of Institutional Research, and included one cohort of Metro Academy and a matched group of general population at SF State (Metro n=66; SFSU n=294).

9. Quant Findings
There were no significant differences between the GPA and units Completed between Metro students and the matched group
Metro students had higher persistence rates than the matched group
Metro students were more like to be at “Good Standing” with the University than their matched counterparts

10. Qual Findings
Socially Responsive Education  Developing Critical Consciousness;
(2) The Learning Community  Fostering Solidarity and Validation;
(3) Connecting to Community  Cultivating Agents of Change.

11. Qual Findings Reconstructing Knowing “I know how the world works”
Socially Responsive Education  Developing Critical Consciousness
Reconstructing Knowing
“I know how the world works”
Recognizing Agency
Transforming Academic Identity

12. Qual Findings
The Learning Community  Fostering Solidarity and Validation
The Teacher’s roles in fostering solidarity and validation
Collective Struggles: “Here, We are All the Same and It Is So Liberating”
Mutual Support, Mutual Trust
Challenging Marginalization: Finding Voice and Belonging

13. Qual Findings Family and Community Reconciliation
Connecting to Community  Cultivating Agents of Change
Acknowledging Community Cultural Wealth and Knowledge
Family and Community Reconciliation
Finding Purpose: Giving Back to Community
“I want to change the world”

14. Implications Educational Equity
Educational Leadership Theory and Practice for Social Justice
Policy Issues for Education
Educational Practitioners

15. Thank You!
Rama Ali Kased