History

In the summer of 2000, Miguel Centeno, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, and Dr. John Webb, Director of the Program in Teacher Preparation at Princeton University, began discussions with university faculty and educators from three Central New Jersey school districts. Their goal was to create an intensive program to prepare high school students, traditionally underrepresented at selective institutions due to socioeconomic status, to apply to and succeed within highly selective colleges and universities. The Princeton University Preparatory Program was formulated as a result of these discussions. It reflects both the personal experiences of those involved and their observations as educators.

We believe that there are two principal causes for the underrepresentation of working class to low-income students at highly selective institutions. First, admission criteria, which are not socially neutral, have been pushed ever higher by the competition for the limited supply of acceptance letters. The correlation between income and SAT performance is most obvious, but income also relates to extracurricular activities and other factors admissions committees consider. A second obstacle to increased lower-income representation is everyday academic and social know-how. While measures of intelligence and scholarly aptitude are imperfect, they reflect the cultural capital of families and life experiences. These exert a profound influence on lower-income students, causing them to underestimate their postsecondary education options or preventing them from developing the credentials required to signal their abilities to admission committees at selective institutions. They also shape how students view their own potential to enter a world that they perceive as being far beyond their grasp. For many, if not most working class students, even those of demonstrated ability, the idea of applying to Ivy League schools is daunting. Many do not understand the implications of financial aid policies; others consider the Ivy League to be unattainable for a host of other reasons. Even when accepted, they are pessimistic about their chances for success.

All involved with PUPP share the challenge of creating a way to help young people from lower-income families acquire the experiences and skills that they need to gain admission to highly selective universities and, once there, to remain and to benefit fully from the opportunities that those universities have to offer. We know that, if we were going to be able to stay the course and succeed, we will have to rely on teachers and administrators in the school communities to help us understand the challenges and realities of both the schools themselves and the young people within those schools. To that end, we identified those in each school who could lend us those insights and we invited them to join us as equal partners in the task of planning PUPP. We asked them what they thought we needed to know and be able to do. They told us what we needed to know and be able to do, and we listened, and they agreed to go with us for the long haul. We continue to listen to them and, as a result, we evaluate what we do and we revise, we rethink, we analyze ourselves and our own realities. We are present in the schools, observing, talking and exchanging ideas. The teachers and administrators of those schools, rather than questioning our motivations, welcome us, share with us, and trust us. The result is a rich collaborative relationship with each and every school.

We also know that, if we are to sustain PUPP for the long haul, we must understand our students and their realities. So often programs of this nature ignore the families and the worlds that they inhabit, building walls that cut students off from their heritage, from the arms and the hearts that nurtured and sustained them, and demanding that they perform on a stage where the backdrop bears no resemblance to their reality. We therefore met with prospective candidates and their parents, and listened to their questions and concerns. We continue to listen. Through an intensive PUPP mentoring program, trained Princeton undergraduates are paired with PUPP students, and mentors visit every home to meet parents and siblings and other family members, to learn about their realities and their hopes and dreams. An organization of PUPP parents has developed, providing the framework for an effective Parent Teacher Association. As we have listened, we have learned from and recorded virtually every experience, and each influences how and what we teach, the activities and experiences PUPP offers, and how we best encourage others to emulate PUPP.

Programs similar to PUPP are sometimes short-lived because the program directors have not built the conceptual framework and laid foundations that assure the program's permanence. Too often such programs are started, the students and parents enthusiastically buy in, but when difficulties arise or when students are not `gratefully receptive' to what is being offered or the expected results are not immediately forthcoming, the project is abandoned. When we began to talk about this concept, we agreed that whatever we planned to do in this program, we had to be prepared to sustain it. Those of us who are positioned to deliver programs so often approach them, at least subconsciously, as if they are charity work, and we fail to recognize that, when the recipients of those programs start to develop trust, failure of long-term staying power often results in doing damage that is deep and lasting. Students, particularly in inner cities such as Trenton, are all too well acquainted with abandonment, with programs that are started and never maintained. We have prepared for the long term and we will continue to listen, observe, evaluate, and refine according to the needs and realities of our students and the goals that we have established for this program. We are committed to succeed, and we hope that others will become partners with us as we grow.