Fluent Essays

Article Critiques: Students are required to complete an article critique on “HBCU and State Performance Funding  (3-5 pages each, double-spaced, 12pt font, 1-inch margins), you will critically evaluate the assigned articles determined by me using the following format: Introduction • The author’s name(s) and the title of the article • The author’s main point • A thesis statement that previews your analysis Summary • The main points of the article • The arguments presented in the article • The findings of the article Critique • Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article that you noted while critically reading the article. • State your informed opinions about the clarity, relevancy, and accuracy of the article, using specific examples from the article to support your statements. Conclusion • Summarize the key points in the article, as well the key points from your own analysis. • Close with a comment about the significance of the research or a statement of future research needed in the field Educational Policy 1 –43 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0895904815586852 epx.sagepub.com Article A Historical Mission in the Accountability Era: A Public HBCU and State Performance Funding Tiffany Jones1 Abstract The case study is an analysis of a state performance funding policy at a public historically Black college and university (HBCU). The policy attaches state funding to HBCU performance on measures like graduation rates and equity measures like the reduction in achievement gaps between Black and non-Black students. Participants liked that the policy helped the institution to become more outcome minded, but were critical of the equity measures and their relationship with the state system of higher education. The article addresses how the HBCU’s mission was addressed in the policy and its plans for responding that includes focusing on Latino students. Keywords accountability, equity, higher education policy, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), state policies Introduction In light of recent financial and political exigencies, higher education institu- tions have been increasingly asked to provide value-added evidence, thus 1Southern Education Foundation, Atlanta, GA, USA Corresponding Author: Tiffany Jones, Southern Education Foundation, 135 Auburn Ave. NE, 2nd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA. Email: [email protected] 586852EPXXXX10.1177/0895904815586852Educational PolicyEducational PolicyJones research-article2015 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ 2 Educational Policy propelling them into an increasingly assertive era of accountability (Zumeta, 2011). Often, within this culture of accountability, higher education institu- tions are pressured to provide quantifiable evidence of student outcomes. As a result, state and federal governments have attached financial incentives to desired outcomes, such as increased diversity and graduation rates. Furthermore, these policies are forcing the higher education community to address important questions such as “What are, and what should be, the goals of higher education?” “Do different goals apply to different types of educational institutions?” and “How can we know if these goals are being achieved?” The questions that accompany accountability policy (i.e., “Where are the deficits,” “Who is to blame for the deficits,” and “How are they to be held responsible?”) are especially challenging at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) whose histories include contentious relation- ships with media, researchers, and state and federal governments (Brown, 2001; Minor, 2008b; Palmer, Davis, & Gasman, 2011). Given the historical and contemporary challenges associated with differential funding for minority-serving and predominantly White institutions (PWIs) and their unique missions, it is important to engage in a conversation about identify- ing meaningful indicators to “judge” or evaluate HBCUs in ways that will foster institutional success. The purpose of this article is to understand one public HBCU’s response to a state performance funding (PF) policy. Furthermore, the article will critically examine the interpretation of diver- sity-oriented state PF metrics focused on the access and success of non- Black students at public HBCUs. The research questions are as follows: Research Question 1: How was the HBCU mission taken into consider- ation in the development of the PF policy? Research Question 2: What are the perspectives of a public HBCU com- munity on the state PF policy? Research Question 3: How is a public HBCU community responding (initially and strategically) to the state PF policy? This article begins with a review of the relevant literature on racial inte- gration, accountability, and outcomes at HBCUs. Next, the application of critical race theory (CRT) and case study methods are described. Following the theoretical framework and methods is a discussion of the major findings and limitations. The article concludes with the implications of the findings for PF policy design and next steps for research. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ Jones 3 Review of Relevant Literature Racial Integration at HBCUs Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legally prevented the federal govern- ment from providing funding for programs that discriminated based on race. Although the Civil Rights Act was a great victory for racial integrationists, the proportion of African American students attending HBCUs began to decline as the proportion attending PWIs increased (Hoffman, Snyder, & Sonnenberg, 1996). This change, which occurred in the late 1970s, was a direct result of integration, albeit in well-documented hostile environments. In the midst of this enrollment shift, HBCUs began to lose the lion’s share of their students who were now attracted to the pristine PWI campuses. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) civil rights activists sought to sue southern states that were operating dual systems of higher education (Egerton, 1974) in ways that continued to advantage PWIs while disadvantaging the HBCUs. This lawsuit evolved into the Adams v. Richardson case, which resulted in 19 southern and border states submitting higher education desegregation plans to the federal government’s Higher Education and Welfare department (Adams v. Richardson, 1972). Initially only eight states submitted plans that were accepted by the court, most of which left White institutions unchanged but included plans to provide scholarship funds to make Black colleges more attractive to Whites (Egerton, 1974). In the decades that followed, James Ayers (an African American) filed a lawsuit against Governor Fordice (Mississippi) on behalf of his son, claiming that the state operated separate and unequal systems of public higher educa- tion. The case and series of appeals evolved into United States v. Fordice in 1992, in which the court ruled that the state of Mississippi was operating racially segregated systems of higher education. The decision placed addi- tional pressure on the states involved in the Adams case to desegregate public higher education. Originally, the Mississippi courts suggested mergers between two HBCUs and two PWIs, but that decision was controversial because HBCU supporters felt that the burden to integrate was placed on its institutions (Minor, 2008b; United States v. Fordice, 1992). After many years of appeals, the case finally reached a settlement in 2002, when the Supreme Court decided against merging the institutions but instead awarded Mississippi HBCUs US$503 million (Sum, Light, & King, 2004). However, the contro- versy continued as a result of the stipulation that US$105 million would remain under the control of the state unless the HBCUs reached 10\% “Other” race enrollment. Opponents argued that again the onus to diversify had been placed on HBCUs (Minor, 2008b). at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ 4 Educational Policy Despite Black students’ increasing access to PWIs, in 2004 (2 years after the Fordice settlement), public HBCUs continued to educate the majority of African Americans in Mississippi. From 1984 to 2004, the proportion of White students at public HBCUs in Mississippi grew to less than 3\% of the student enrollment, which was only a 1\% increase (Minor, 2008b). As HBCUs seemed to be successfully educating the African American citizens of the state and because there were no policies prohibiting White students (even if the White student enrollment targets had not been reached), HBCU supporters questioned why HBCUs were being asked to increase other race enrollment to receive adequate funding and support (Hebel, 2001) whereas no similar stipulations were placed on PWIs. Citing Bell’s (1980) interest convergence theory, Gasman and Hilton (2012) argued that linking the access of needed financial resources to increases in White student enrollment at HBCUs was consistently contingent on the convergence of White and Black interests. However, the convergence of White and Black interests in policies that incentivized White student enrollment at HBCUs did not always mean that such policies achieved their intended outcomes. After decades of court decisions, federal policies, and economic incen- tives to diversify student enrollment, HBCUs have gone from nearly 100\% (1950) to only 76\% Black in 2011 (Gasman, 2013). Despite the increased diversity that has resulted in one fourth of all HBCUs having student enroll- ments that are at least 20\% non-Black, HBCUs remain predominately Black (Gasman, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a). Some HBCU leaders interested in attracting Black and non-Black students argue that the preferences given to PWIs at the state level make it difficult to attract non-Black students. For example, a Maryland federal district court ruled in 2013 that program duplication in Maryland’s PWIs violated the constitu- tional rights of students who attend the state’s four public HBCUs (The Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education v. Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2013). As a result of the Adams v. Richardson (1972) case, the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) agreed to enhance public HBCUs’ opportunities and infrastructures and prohibit program duplication. When MHEC allowed a successful program at Morgan State University to be duplicated by a nearby PWI, the OCR filed a complaint, but ultimately the institution was able to keep the program while only enrolling out-of-state students (Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2006; Palmer et al., 2011). The OCR and the public HBCU leaders in Maryland argued that dupli- cate programs at nearby PWIs negatively affected HBCUs’ ability to enhance their institutional quality and attract non-Black students. In the absence of nearby PWIs, the White graduate enrollment at Maryland’s public HBCUs at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ Jones 5 reached 53\% in 1973; however, following the establishment of nearby PWIs and duplicate programs, enrollment dropped to just 14\% in 2006 (Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2006; Palmer et al., 2011). Attempting to curtail all of the fallout resulting from external pressures to enroll White and other non-Black students made it difficult for HBCU leaders to increase the enrollment of these populations. The resulting implications were deep and wide. Public HBCU Outcomes and Funding Beyond what some perceive as having little diversity, Gasman (2013) noted that HBCUs are also critiqued for outcomes such as low 6-year graduation rates of 32\% (private HBCUs) and 29\% (public HBCUs). With average 6-year graduation rates under 40\% in the 2011-2012 academic year, and com- prising 2\% of all institutions of higher education, HBCUs awarded more than 30,000 degrees to African American undergraduates, representing 8\% of the undergraduate degrees awarded to that population (Cunningham, Park, & Engle, 2014). Public HBCUs constitute 51\% of the 101 HBCUs and more than 50\% of the predominately Black student body are low income and/or first-generation college students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011; Thurgood Marshall College Fund, 2010). With a mission of serving the students least likely to access higher education, public HBCUs awarded more than 90\% of the associate’s degrees, two thirds of bachelor’s degrees, and more than 80\% of master’s degrees awarded by HBCUs in the 2011-2012 academic year (Gasman, 2013; Lee & Keys, 2013b). Also notable is that HBCUs produce such outcomes using what its leaders describe as limited resources. A snap- shot of HBCU funding sources (see Figure 1) illustrates that private gifts constitute a small portion of public HBCUs’ institutional funds and as a result, the average endowment in 2009 was only about half (US$49 million) the national average of all public colleges and universities US$87 million; Gasman, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a). The lack of private funding elevates the importance of federal and state support, which provides a combined 75\% of all financial support received by public HBCUs. Historically, HBCUs have received comparably less federal support than PWIs, but instead of steadily increasing funds to account for historical defi- cits, the federal government has kept HBCU funding levels stagnant while at the same time increasing the funding of institutions of higher education as a whole (see Figure 2). Although one might argue that the static funding is a result of decreased enrollment, the argument is mitigated by the fact that public HBCU enrollment increased by 7\% between 1990 and 2000, and by at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ 6 Educational Policy 0 20,000,000,000 40,000,000,000 60,000,000,000 80,000,000,000 100,000,000,000 120,000,000,000 140,000,000,000 160,000,000,000 180,000,000,000 200,000,000,000 1994 1999 2006 2009 IHE Funding HBCU Funding Figure 2. Comparison of HBCU funding with Total IHE funding from 1994 through 2009 (in dollars). Source. Data reported are from the White House Initiative on HBCUs annual report (2005, 2010). Note. Funding refers to grants, student loans, and other allocations from 31 participating federal departments and agencies. HBCU = historically Black college and university; IHE = institutions of higher education. Public HBCU External Funding 2008-2009 (51 institutions) 19\% 28\% 47\% 4\% 2\% Student tuition and fees Federal Government State Government Local Government Private gifts and grants Figure 1. HBCU external funding (in thousands of U.S. dollars). Source. Data were retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics (2010a). Note. HBCU = historically Black college and university. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ Jones 7 30\% between 2000 and 2009. However, such enrollment increases did not result in increased federal funding (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a). Analyses of state support demonstrated similar trends with public HBCUs receiving less funding than public PWIs. In a 2008 report, Minor found that public HBCUs in southern states (including Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina) enrolled larger portions of African Americans but received a fraction of funding that the public PWIs received. In 2014, Boland and Gasman provided a follow-up to Minor’s analysis noting that these four states still provided PWIs with larger shares of the state appropriations to higher. Conversely, Boland and Gasman also noted that public HBCUs in these states received a larger percentage of spending cuts that were made between 2007 and 2012. For example, Louisiana State University, a larger public PWI, experienced a 25\% decrease in state appropriations, but HBCUs Southern University and A&M College and Grambling State University received decreases of 45\% and 36\%, respectively. All but one of the three states in Boland and Gasman’s (2014) and Minor’s (2008a) analyses adopted a PF model and Alabama began formal discussions about adopting a PF model for allocating public higher education funds in the state. PF Policies and HBCU Accountability PF policies were introduced to encourage colleges and universities to focus on issues that governments and voters felt were important such as outputs and efficiency (Dougherty, Natow, Hare, Jones, & Vega, 2011; Gaither, 1997). As the costs of higher education increased in the 1980s and 1990s, so did the demand for greater proof that higher education institutions provided a high- quality education and graduation rates. As of 1994, more than one third of the states implemented PF policies that provided financial incentives for mea- sures such as access for undergraduate students, quality in undergraduate education, national competitiveness in graduate studies and research, meet- ing critical state needs, and managerial efficiency and effectiveness (Ruppert, 1994). The economic crisis of the new millennium resulted in the reduction of the policies, as states did not have additional funding to provide enough incentive to affect institutional behaviors through PF policies (Burke & Modarresi, 2000; Shulock, 2011). More recently, the popularity of PF policies has reemerged as a result of limited state resources for higher education and an increased demand for accountability for all public spending (McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006). Currently, 25 states have PF policies in place, 5 states are transitioning to PF policies, and 12 states are conducting legislative hearings determining how to at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ 8 Educational Policy design PF (Ferguson, 2014; Friedel, Thornton, D’Amico, & Katsinas, 2013). Researchers examining the PF impact suggest that the policies have had min- imal and even negative impacts on retention and graduation. For example, Tandberg and Hillman (2013) found that when controlling for factors like political institutions and economic recessions, there was no statistically sig- nificant impact on the total number of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees earned in states where PF policies were introduced between 1990 and 2010. However, much of the PF impact research either incorporates or focuses exclusively on early iterations of PF, that is, PF 1.0, a financial bonus for campuses, which differs from more recent iterations of PF policies, that is, PF 2.0, which are typically larger proportions of a campus’ base funding received from the state. The assessments of PF impact are not disaggregated by insti- tutional type, making it difficult to assess the impact on HBCUs in particular. In their assessment of state PF policy implementation at HBCUs, Jones and Witham (2012) found that their leaders described PF policy as problematic to their institutions’ historical missions to serve Black students, but encouraged a more salient conversation about collecting and using data. With the limited PF research and its impact on HBCUs, it is critical to continue examining the implications of PF policies at public HBCUs. Theoretical Framework HBCU organizational and policy scholars such as Minor (2004), Harper (2012), and Gasman and Hilton (2012) recommend taking the context of HBCUs into consideration in organizational studies by foregrounding the historical, cultural, and contemporary experiences of Black Americans within research paradigms. CRT provides a lens for examining how issues of race and racism interact with, and shape, participants’ assumptions, beliefs, and ideas. For this study, CRT is used to help observe and interpret the partici- pants’ (a) understanding of the role of race in student outcomes, (b) perspec- tives on their relationship with their state system of higher education and the PF policy, and (c) views on how the institution’s and state system’s policies and practices contribute to racial inequities in student outcomes. CRT guides the study in the following ways: 1. CRT challenges common assumptions of objectivity and embraces the understanding that racism is common and likely in American struc- tures and institutions. Hence, it is important to consider the role of race and racism in examining the experience of an HBCU in a state system that, besides the one HBCU, includes only predominately White campuses. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ Jones 9 The role of race and racism was taken into consideration in the design of the study by including participant and campus racial demographics and asking questions about the role of race in participants’ organiza- tional identity and relationship with the state system during the data collection processes. 2. Within CRT is a commitment to social justice and an interdisciplinary perspective that includes an emphasis on the ways a historical context shapes contemporary problems. The study takes into account the his- torical context of the site as an institution founded to educate Black students at a time when White universities would not. Furthermore, the tension between the campus’ social justice mission to serve Black students and the state system’s focus on increasing the population of non-Black students in the PF policy is considered. 3. According to CRT, the experiences and perspectives of people of color are key to understanding the nuanced ways in which racism is infused in institutional structures. This study’s premise is that the participants from Smith University, an institution with a Black identity, will be keenly aware that racism can affect their relationship and success with the state system. Therefore, the main points of data collection include interviews with and observations of the HBCU practitioners and stu- dents. Also, the HBCU practitioners’ and their institution’s racialized identity are treated as critical conceptual variables. 4. Critical race theorist Derrick Bell (1980) describes “interest conver- gence” as the tendency of Whites (or others in positions of privilege or power) to consider policies regarding people of color (or others with less privilege or power) in terms of how they can appear to serve the needs of others while also benefitting themselves. Bell’s concept of interest convergence was used in the data analysis to examine the HBCU practitioners’ interpretations of the state PF policy and issues of equity for non-Black students. 5. Counternarratives are used by CRT scholars to describe the perspec- tive or experience of a particular marginalized group that is often different from the dominant narrative on a particular issue (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). The concept of counternarratives was used in the data analysis stage to contrast the perspectives on the goals and potential impact of the state PF policy. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the differences in perception as expressed by the HBCU participants and state system of higher education administration. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ 10 Educational Policy Method The case study methods used for this study include data from multiple sources such as interviews, observations, and document analysis that—when pieced together—provide a narrative about a particular context (Stake, 1995). Site selection is a key component of case study research because the goal is not to examine why, but how a particular phenomenon happens (Stake, 1995). Smith University1 is a small university of less than 2,000 students, located in the northeastern United States and is one of the oldest public HBCUs. The non-selective institution’s 4-year graduation rates is less than 15\% and the 6-year rate is less than 25\%.The demographic information about the faculty and students at Smith University is provided in Figure 3. Data Collection The data were collected during an on-campus visit to Smith University dur- ing fall 2012. During the visit, I collected university documents, observed campus leadership meetings, and interviewed students, staff, administrators, and faculty. 23\% 61\% 5\% 10\% 1\% Fall 2010 Smith University Faculty Demographics White Black or African American Hispanic/Latino Asian Race and Ethnicity Unknown 0\% 94\% 2\% 1\% 3\% Fall 2011 Smith University Student Demographics White Black or African American Hispanic/Latino Two or More Races Race and Ethnicity Unknown Figure 3. Smith University faculty and student demographics. Source. Data retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics Institutional Profiles (2010b, 2011). at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ Jones 11 Creswell (2007) suggests that in purposeful sampling, the “inquirer selects individuals and sites for study because they can purposefully inform an under- standing of the research problem and central phenomenon in the study” (p. 125). I have provided a description of each of the purposefully sampled par- ticipants (identified by pseudonyms) and their data collection activities in Table 1. Document analysis. Throughout the onsite visit, site documents were reviewed to provide a better context of the campus and state in which the participants work. The documents included institutional mission statements, historical reports on state expenditures, websites and promotional materials, and also articles and reports about the institution. The Smith University website was used to review the mission, vision, and institutional structure and to identify key administrators responsible for campus diversity and equity issues. In addi- tion to collecting the publicly available data, I also visited the university’s archives during my campus visit. The archival search included course cata- logues, campus newspapers, and other campus publications during the 5 years prior to and after Smith University joined the state system of higher education. On reviewing the documents, I retrieved items related to the state and issues of funding, governance, and accreditation. I also reviewed documents that addressed graduation/retention issues and racial integration topics. During the visit I obtained documents such as the advertisements placed in the lobbies of places (e.g., the admissions office and campus security center). I also reviewed flyers and bulletin boards placed on the walls of the residence halls, academic buildings, and student activity facilities. I looked for docu- ments that showed Smith’s relationship with the students, the state, and com- munity members. For example, I retrieved a brochure in the lobby of the admissions office that listed how much, in dollars, that Smith University con- tributed to the local economy, which helped provide context for the “need to justify an HBCU” issue that arose in the interviews. The archives and campus documents that provided information on issues of equity, retention, gradua- tion, finances, policies and practices affecting students, and the relationship with the state system were copied and filed into a binder system. Observations. The participants’ dialogue during meetings and other moments of observation provided understanding about their history, expectations, beliefs, and assumptions about race, their state PF policy, their state system of higher education, and students’ outcomes. I observed five meetings and several informal gatherings. Some of the meetings included the gathering of the president’s cabinet and an accreditation planning committee. During the onsite visit, I captured notes in a reflective journal and a field notes template. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ 12 Educational Policy Table 1. Data Collection Information. Data source Data collection description 1. Science, technology, engineering, and math department holiday party 2. Honors Program Graduate School information session 3. Evidence team meeting (discussed retention and graduation rates) 4. Retention department meeting 5. Senior campus leaders’ meeting 6. Evidence team meeting with the provost (discussed goals for retention and graduation) 7. Cafeteria, computer lab, tutoring program, admissions office, student activities building, library (general observations) Observations. Written notes. Audio recorded the evidence team meeting. All observations took place in fall 2012 8. Campus mission statement 9. Campus newspaper archives 10. Advisor position description 11. Campus advertisements and flyers 12. Academic program catalogues and info Content analysis of the documents. Thematic codes were developed from the research questions and document content Individual participants Participant name Title/major Race/ethnicity Gender Year(s) at Smith 1. Joy Brown Student: English/ African American Studies Concentration African American Female 2 2. Steven Jones Student: Business Administration and Marketing African American Male 3 3. Greg Lewis Student: Sociology African American Male 3 4. Brian Thornton Student: Undeclared African American Male 3 5. Kyle Brice Student: Biology/ Pre-Med African American Male 3 6. Nicole Hender-son Student: Communication African American Female 4 7. Kenneth Moore Student: Education Caucasian Male 5 (continued) at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://epx.sagepub.com/ Jones 13 Individual participants Participant …