Article critique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jones 13

Individual participants

Participant name Title/major Race/ethnicity Gender Year(s) at Smith

8. Jeremy Jackson

Student: Recreation and Leisure Management

African American Male 2

9. Denzel Hatcher

Faculty African American Male 12

10. Alisha Kline Faculty Caucasian/Adopted Native American

Female 13

11. Jesse Flowers

Faculty Asian Female 10

12. Brittany Green

Faculty Caucasian Female N/A

13. Dawn Wells Staff member/ administrator

African American Female 5

14. Frank Johnson

Staff member/ administrator and former master’s student

African American Male 2

15. Gale Stokes Staff member/ administrator

African American Female 20+

16. Shane Patton

Staff member/ administrator

Black Male 2

17. Malcolm Brown

Staff member/ administrator

Black Male 14

18. Benjamin Jenkins

Staff member/ administrator

African American/ Mexican American/ Native American

Male 4

19. Jeffrey Anderson

Staff member/ administrator

African American Male 20+

20. James Craft Staff member/ administrator

African American Male 5

21. Theodore Woods

Staff member/ administrator

African American Male 4

22. Moses Todman

Staff member/ administrator

Black Male <1

23. Candace Horne

Staff member/ administrator

African American Female N/A

(continued)

Table 1. (continued)

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 Educational Policy

Field notes include accounts of what is seen, heard, and experienced to paint portraits of the participants, the activities, events, and setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The field notes were also reflective of feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, and impressions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).

Interviews. The onsite and telephone interviews were 1 hr long, semi-struc- tured, and audio recorded. The aim of the interviews was to find out what the participants believed was contributing to their student outcomes, and their perspectives on their relationship with the state system of higher education and PF. There were three interviews that were conducted via telephone and the remaining interviews were conducted in person in a private room pro- vided by Smith University during my on-campus visit.

Data Analysis

In case study data analysis, Stake (1995) suggests developing a strategy for balancing between data that reveal the uniqueness of the case and the ordi- nariness of the context. In addition, data analysis requires the observance of emergent themes/patterns, and also being careful to triangulate those themes to assure that the interpretation is correct (Stake, 1995). Thus, it was impor- tant to consider all of the different data points (observation, interview, and secondary data and document analysis) when conducting and analyzing the case study data. The first step in the data analysis process was examining the institutional documents and archival data using content analysis strategies. Krippendorff (1980) suggests that before conducting a content analysis, the content must be defined in terms of what data will be analyzed and the

Table 1. (continued)

Individual participants

Participant name Title/major Race/ethnicity Gender Year(s) at Smith

24. Michael Cole

Staff member/ administrator

African American Male 1

25. Leslie Grey Staff member/ administrator

African American Female 2

26. Kenya Douglas

Staff member/ administrator

African American Female N/A

27. Ronald Carpenter

State system representative

Caucasian Male N/A

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 15

boundaries of the analysis. For the current study, the unit of analysis included the words, phrases, and overall messages in each written statement of the documents. After the areas of analysis were defined, the text was condensed into categories and meaning was extracted using coding techniques (Stemler, 2001). In addition, the ideas that emerged from the thematic analysis were interpreted using CRT to identify and understand the relevancy of issues of race, power, resources, and policy.

The remaining data that included the observations, interviews, and institu- tional data were organized using an electronic folder system (Stake, 1995). Next, reading and memoing were applied to the interviews and field notes. I began creating memos for the interviews and observations immediately after they were conducted using reflective prompts developed from the guiding literature and theoretical framework (CRT). For example, after evidence team meetings, I would respond to prompts that asked questions such as the following: What issues of individuals’ race or experiences with racism were raised? Who brought them up? What was said? How did the group react? What issues surrounding the relationship with the state system of higher edu- cation were raised? Who brought them up? What was said? How did the group react?

The following coil, classifying and interpreting, involved making sense of the data. Data were interpreted using an adapted version of Boyatzis’s (1998) four stages of thematic analysis to obtain the details extracted from codes and categories that help to explain how phenomena occur. The first two stages involved identifying codable moments in the documents, field notes, and interview transcripts, assigning initial codes, and collapsing these into more refined consistent codes. Some of the codes included “personable/warm cli- mate,” “administrator fatigue,” and “critiques of race based performance funding.” The collapsed codes were placed into categories. Some of the cat- egories were “relationships with accountability systems,” “addressing reten- tion/graduation,” and “the role of race and culture.” The final stage included creating themes that “describe, organize, and interpret aspects of the phenom- enon” (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 4).

Findings

A public system of higher education that has 14, 4-year, colleges of medium to lower selectivity developed a PF system that makes about 3% of the state system’s operating budget contingent on its progress on several indicators of effectiveness. A unique feature of the accountability model adopted by the state system is that two of the required performance indicators focus on equity in access and completion for the system’s low-income students and

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 Educational Policy

students of color. In addition to the state system’s incorporation of equity- oriented accountability indicators, this system is also unique in that one of its 14 campuses is a historical Black university, Smith University, which made the equity indicators of access and completion incongruous for its mission and population. Consequently, the system modified the access and comple- tion indicators so that Smith’s performance will be based on enrolling and graduating more non-Black students. The findings begin with a discussion of how issues of race have shaped Smith University’s relationship with its state system of higher education. The origins, purpose, and characteristics of the state’s PF policy are described. Next, the Smith University and state system of higher education perspectives on the purposes of the policy are contrasted. The section ends with the findings regarding the policy’s race and equity indicators and the participants’ perspectives on those indicators.

The State System of Higher Education Versus Smith University

When preliminary observations of Smith University began, it was evident in the participants’ protective postures that there was a complicated history between the school and the state system. In the first observed meeting, the participants shared stories of how the state system of higher education had historically underfunded the university and removed stellar academic and extracurricular programs to undermine the university. Moses, a fairly new Smith University staff member and administrator explained, “I think there’s a disconnect. I think there’s frustration on both sides. It’s kind of like they’re speaking German and we’re speaking French.”

When I asked participants why they thought the state system of higher education would not provide support to Smith University, they explained that it was because of race that they were being targeted and their history of lim- ited resources had provided them with limited ammunition to fight back. The participants explained that the state system of higher education uses Smith University’s vulnerability, which results from its limited resources, as a means to control it. Most public institutions of higher education are depen- dent on their states for support, but they may have other resources to draw on like endowments, and may also not have the history of underfunding that Smith has experienced, thus making Smith more reliant on the state’s eco- nomic support than other public universities. Furthermore, like many public HBCUs, over 75% of Smith students are Pell recipients, hence, serving such a large proportion of low-income students means that other sources of reve- nue like tuition increases are especially detrimental at Smith University, mak- ing economic support from the state even more important. This overreliance

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 17

on the state as its primary source of support means that Smith has to do “whatever the state says,” as Frank, a staff member/administrator, stated.

Frank described the result of the tension between the directions of the state system of higher education and Smith University as a “double conscious- ness” in which Smith University is “serving two masters.” Frank explained that those masters are “their mission and legacy versus what the state will allow them to do.” DuBois’s (1953) concept of double consciousness sug- gests that Black individuals are faced with the challenge of living in a duality of existence that includes the awareness of being Black through their own lens and also seeing self through the lens of the larger society that views Black individuals as “Other.” Like DuBois’s explanation of the experience of Black individuals, Smith University also faces the challenge of existing as a Black institution while existing within a state system of higher education where it is the “Other,” or what the state system representative has described as “an outlier.” The result is what Frank describes as a

half-ass school. You can’t go full either way. It just leaves you looking around like who is in power here? Nobody knows and everybody kicks the bucket to another department and everybody kicks it to another office and you email the president and the president is going to say well the state did this . . . you don’t know what you can do.

The participants explained that the opposition to Smith University receiv- ing financial or political support from the state system of higher education is less about fiscal justification and more an issue of institutional racism. Before getting into the specifics of the policy and what they did or did not like about it, some argued that the policy was a reflection of the state system’s almost paternalistic attitude toward Smith University. One Smith University student, Nicole, described the state system of higher education as

the overbearing parents [saying] this is what I want for you, Smith, this is who I want you to date. This is who I want you to bring into your institution and you’re gonna change that person to make them find what you want them to have.

Frank explained that their “relationship with the state is real oppressive so this is what the state says so this is what we’ve got to do.” Frank goes on to question how the state’s imperatives will affect Smith’s “mission” of “giving that student who doesn’t have a chance, a chance.”

In Smith’s case, the “student who does not have a chance” and who obtains a chance at Smith is typically Black, thus racializing the state’s perceived opposition to Smith’s autonomy and mission.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18 Educational Policy

Moses, a Smith University staff member and administrator, explained that

overt racism is always hard to prove . . . I think there may be an underlying and underpinning insensitivity . . . There are some folks at the state level that really don’t have the confidence in the way that this university is operated or run. They feel as though we are really just focused on a small target of the population, which is primarily African Americans.

Moses attributed the tensions between Smith University and the state sys- tem of higher education to “insensitivity,” “a lack of confidence,” and the school’s small focus on African Americans, but some participants went even further to argue that some acts of the state system were in fact racist.

Malcolm, another Smith University staff member and administrator, explained that the state system of higher education appointed a staff member/ administrator to the Smith University financial aid office, causing many chal- lenges that resulted in some eligible students losing their financial aid. Malcolm suggested,

[The state system] appointed a state person to [Smith] . . . which is the only Historically Black College in the state system. Now you know with Historically Black Colleges, the majority of the students need some type of financial assistance . . . was it a plan? Was it constructed? Because there’s no way you can come from the state and be a specialist and come in and mess it up.

When asked about the relationship between Smith University and the state system of higher education, Shirley, a Smith staff member and administrator, responded, “I find out based on how small our budgets are.” Shirley goes on to explain that there was a time that the state “didn’t want [Smith] to be here,” and thus they “would have a deficit.”

Some participants noted the state system of higher education’s refusal to provide adequate funding as an act of racism, referring to the retrieval of owed funds through the previously mentioned US$15 million lawsuit as “reparations.” Malcolm explained that in the past Smith University had to sue for funding and that

it was kind of a shame that we had to sue. The new residential hall that we have . . . that was due to reparations because our students had wrote . . . over several years stating that all the other schools in the state system had new facilities and we had none so how do you expect for us to be able to compete? It started to become a litigation issue as far as discrimination.

Malcolm goes on to explain that the only reason the state has not closed Smith University is because it would receive public opposition and Smith

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 19

provides a space to “place [their] minorities in the state. If they are not doing what they are supposed to in other places, you can still increase your numbers using [Smith] University.” These issues of racism color the relationship between Smith University and the state system of higher education, thus shaping participants’ perspectives on the PF policy.

PF and Smith University

The PF policy at Smith University and the other campuses in the state system was first enacted in 2003 with the aim to address educational achievement, the application of knowledge, public service, inclusiveness, and stewardship. The first phase of the policy was credited by the state system of higher educa- tion with contributing to increases in the 4-year graduation rates and second- year persistence rates, and an increase in the number of faculty with terminal degrees. The most recent version of the policy calls for a small, but substan- tial, percentage of the state’s annual appropriations to its institutions to be based on performance measures reflecting state priorities on degree comple- tion and research productivity. The PF model also holds institutions account- able for improving equity in enrollment and educational outcomes among racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

Smith University is being evaluated on five mandatory and five optional performance measures. The state system of higher education designed and selected the five mandatory measures, and Smith University selected five from a list of 22 optional measures, provided by the state system of higher education. The mandatory performance measures for Smith University include the number of degrees conferred, reduction in achievement and access gaps, increased faculty diversity, and private support. The optional indicators for Smith University include student persistence, science, technol- ogy, engineering, and math (STEM) and health profession degree recipients, closing the access and achievement gaps for transfer students, and instruc- tional productivity.

The PF policy adjusts for Smith University’s unique status as an HBCU in two ways. First, the other institutions in the state system were benchmarked against the average of all public master’s institutions, but to determine the target goals for Smith University, the state system of higher education used the average of the particular outcome for all public master’s HBCUs,2 and set that average as the goal for Smith University to achieve within 5 years. For example, for the “degrees conferred” performance measure, Smith University is being chal- lenged by the state system to increase the percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded per full-time enrollment (FTE). The average for all public master’s level HBCUs is 12.13%. Thus, the goal for Smith University is to increase

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20 Educational Policy

the percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded per FTE from its 2009/2010 percentage of 11.64% to the public master’s level HBCU average of 12.13%.

Second, the PF policy adjusts for Smith University’s unique HBCU status in the way it conceptualizes the term underrepresented minority (URM). For all of the other institutions in the state system of higher education, which are PWIs, the term URM refers to each institution’s Black, Latino, and Native American student populations. The state system of higher education has clas- sified the URM students at Smith University as all non-Black students. On indicators pertaining to the enrollment and success of URM students, Smith University’s PF policy inverts the accountability measures for the system’s historically Black university. Whereas PWIs are required to close gaps in access and success for students from URM groups, Smith University is required to close gaps for non-Black students. A sample of how this URM concept is applied to a performance measure for Smith University is provided in Table 2. The sample demonstrates that PWIs in the state system are being held accountable for closing the gap between the percentage of Black, Latino, and Native American students in the state’s high school graduate population (18%) and the percentage of these URM students in their freshmen popula- tion (16%). However, Smith University is responsible for closing the gaps in access between the average percentage of non-Black students enrolled at public master’s level HBCUs (16%) and the percentage of non-Black stu- dents in their freshmen population (2%).

Ronald, the state system of higher education representative, while speak- ing about how the “special adjustments” for Smith University were deter- mined, noted that the policy design was based on recommendations from a multi-campus committee. He explained that there were no representatives from Smith University who were selected to serve on the multi-campus com- mittee that helped develop the state PF policy. Ronald confirmed that there were other campuses besides Smith University that were not represented on

Table 2. PF Sample Measure: Closing the Access Gap for URM Students.

University Reference

group

State high school

graduates % URM

Total incoming freshmen

No. of URM

students % of URM Gap

Goal: Reduce gap

by ½

Smith University Non-Black 16 1,169 22 2 13.6 6.81 Predominately

White university

URM 18 2,056 329 16 2.0 1.0

Note. PF = performance funding; URM = underrepresented minority.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 21

the committee as well. He explained that they “put together a committee of people who knew the issues and problems with the old system . . . expertise was how you got on the committee.” He also suggested that Smith University’s status as an HBCU “was in our mind as we did this; that was a design piece that we incorporated.” However, when asked about his exper- tise to address Smith University, which he described as an “outlier,” he con- firmed that he is “not a great study of” or expert of HBCUs. The lack of HBCU expertise or representation on a committee that was making deci- sions on how an HBCU should perform and receive funding demonstrates the potential for the development of indicators that may not be applicable in the HBCU context.

Modernizing HBCUs for the 21st century: Narratives and counternarratives on the purpose of the PF policy. Counternarratives are used by critical scholars to describe the perspective or experience of a particular marginalized group that is often different from the dominant narrative on a particular issue (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). In the case of the PF policy, the state system of higher educa- tion’s perspectives on the goals and purpose of the policy differed substantially from the views of the participants from Smith University. The state system of higher education described the policy as an opportunity to help campuses improve. However, the participants from Smith University often described the policy as a barrier to achievement and improvement for the HBCU.

The state system narrative. In its published materials, the state system of higher education described the goal of the renewed PF policy as an effort to create compelling financial incentives for the public universities to alter their practices (whether through innovation in delivery mechanisms, internal reallocation of resources, or other measures) to meet specific performance targets identified as priorities by system administrators. Thus, institutions cannot opt out of the requirements that they meet the new performance benchmarks without sacrificing a substantial revenue stream on which they depend. Ronald, the member of the state system of higher education that had a leadership role in the development of the most recent version of the PF policy, explained,

It’s a sort of system wide strategic thing, what do we think is important to our students in [state]? And that leads us to, we need to graduate, we need to confer more degrees . . . we want to close gaps because access and achievement and success of all [state] students is important to our future. How do we provide tools to campuses to do that? Being at the central office level, what can we open up as pathways?

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22 Educational Policy

Ronald was hopeful in that although the “jury’s still out” on what the out- comes will be, they were “pretty darn successful for the small amounts of money that [they] put into the previous performance funding in terms of mak- ing some significant changes on campus.” Thus, he was “enthusiastic and hopeful” that the PF policy would “move the amount of underrepresented students who come to our campuses, who continue to move through on pace, who graduate and move on in their lives” because the PF policy makes “that a much higher probability” for the students in the system.

Ronald shared that the state wanted to ensure that the policy was written in a way that challenged institutions, but also supported their success with winning the additional aid and becoming better campuses overall. To ensure institutional success, the policy design reflects both the need to differentiate across institutions and recognition that institutions may lack the capacity to respond quickly or effectively to new performance priorities. The implemen- tation of the policy has also been coupled with an investment in capacity building and technical assistance to support institution-level changes in prac- tice. Ronald noted that in developing the policy, the committee created flex- ibility for special mission institutions like Smith University by offering optional measures that “could be managed much better for [Smith] given its history.” Ronald reported that he asked [Smith University],

What do you need to use as a tool to continue to produce results of being an HBCU in the 21st century? We want you to look at that one [measure] and say there’s an opportunity for you to help shape the much more mission and history centric sub measures for your institution.

The state system of higher education also used research data on other pub- lic master’s level HBCUs to develop measures and benchmarking “so there was a fairer comparison group for their national benchmarks.” Specifically, the policy design incorporates several “choice” indicators that institutions can design based on their own missions and priorities (e.g., a campus with a strong STEM or vocational focus might select as one of its indicators increas- ing output of degrees in those fields). Despite what Ronald described as the state system of higher education’s efforts to ensure that the PF policy was “fair” for all the campuses in the system, the Smith University narrative is predicated on the fact that the policy is anything but fair.

The Smith University counternarrative. As a result of their complicated rela- tionship with the state system of higher education, the members of the Smith University community had mixed feelings about the state’s newest version of the PF policy. First, some participants criticized the policy claiming that it

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 23

was not fair, that there was limited involvement by Smith University during its development, and that it uses a narrow view of diversity. Second, partici- pants critiqued the policy for being an unfunded mandate and even compared the states’ execution of a PF policy that would require Smith University to improve outcomes without additional financial resources to Pharaoh demand- ing the Israelite slaves to produce bricks without straw in the book of Exodus. Others criticized the paternalistic nature of having an outside body set the goals and standards for a supposedly independent institution; all agreeing that the policy posed challenges to the Smith University mission.

As noted in the discussion with Ronald, the state system higher education representative, members of the Smith University community were not involved in the committee made up of campus representatives who helped design the policy. Because of this, several critiques by participants focused on policy design. One Smith University community member, Shane, who in his position as a staff member and administrator plays an important role in implementing the policy at Smith University, noted his concerns with the comparison groups used to develop the Smith University benchmarks:

The issue I have with that is, yeah, they are HBCUs, but in terms of size, if you want to compare an institution that has one thousand, two thousand, three thousand students to an institution that has five, 10 thousand students; to me you are comparing a bigger apple to a smaller apple . . . that is one weakness I brought up to the [state system of higher education].

Shane goes on to explain that he was only allowed to provide feedback after the PF policy was already designed and was being explained to him.

Another critique of the policy design that was offered by the participants was what they described as a narrow definition of diversity. Theodore, a senior administrator at Smith University, suggested,

The harm comes in how diversity is defined . . . I think you got to look at diversity as being bigger than those qualities of a human being that are overtly conspicuous . . . Just because you look out there and you see a population of brown people doesn’t mean you don’t have a diverse population. I think these other areas of diversity in terms of race versus ethnicity versus national origin versus gender versus socioeconomic . . . if you start putting some of these, saying you need to increase diversity along the full spectrum of what makes America, America, some of these other institutions probably wouldn’t do so well. If you take an institution like [neighboring PWI in the state system], they have what looks like a great mix of middle class youngsters, is that really a more legitimate reason for getting more funds in the area of diversity than an institution like ours that has a greater mix of income . . . students from different

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24 Educational Policy

nations, religions, perspectives, things that make a difference in terms of what makes people human.

In addition, in a campus leadership meeting that included the administra- tion’s most senior members, Dawn, a Smith University staff member and administrator, publicly raised questions about the race/ethnicity definitions in the diversity category of the policy. Specifically, Dawn raised questions about why students’ ethnic diversity was not being considered. She went on to sug- gest that the consideration of ethnic diversity would benefit Smith University who she suggested had a large population of international students like Haitian students. When asked what categories she would like to see, Dawn responded that the policy should include residency status, country of origin, and interna- tional student status. When asked about how the state system has responded to Smith’s concerns about the race/ethnicity categories, Theodore suggested that the Smith community’s “concerns about racial/ethnic categories” for the PF policy “have been suppressed” at the system meetings.

It is also important to note that when raising questions about the popula- tion of international students and ethnic diversity on campus, Shane, a Smith University staff member and administrator, expressed that there were chal- lenges identifying international students using their current data system. This data capacity dilemma demonstrates one of the most common critiques of the policy: the notion that Smith University does not have sufficient resources to be compared with other institutions and to increase its performance on the included measures. On hearing a description of the PF policy during the inter- view, Greg, a Smith University student, responded that “my problem with the incentive thing is that it’s not fixing the reason, it’s trying to fix the result but it’s not trying to fix the reason for the result.” Leslie, a Smith University staff member and administrator, who addressed one of the performance measures, retention, argued,

We’re not on the same playing field as some of our other institutions because of the lack of funding that [Smith] has had for so many years. It’s gonna take a while for [Smith] to catch up with some of the basic amenities, that the university has to have to attract competitive students that we can retain.

A long-time Smith University staff member and administrator, Shirley, argued that it is not a coincidence that the university is being expected to meet expectations that they see as challenging. Shirley explained, “it’s obvi- ous that it’s harming the institution. Because we can’t get money . . . by the time you learn the rules of the game, how to play the game they change the rules.” Theodore, a Smith staff member and administrator, noted,

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 25

On the surface the policy may even look fair to the general public and it’s one that you can sell to the state legislature. But when you get beneath the surface there are real issues with the policy . . . they have some institutional structures that still persist from that system of inequality that has become so institutionalized in this country . . . And some people just don’t care about the school . . . they kind of question whether there is a need for a [Smith] University or a need for an HBCU because they have not for many years had a reason to have a serious faith in the leadership of the school. Again that is because of some of the transient stuff, some of the behaviors that have emerged as a result of not having stable and consistent leadership and sufficient resources to provide the incentives to people who really try to do the best that they can do on the job.

The participants suggest that the issue of limited resources not only ham- pers their administrative capabilities, but also negatively affects the very stu- dent behaviors that are being measured by the policy. For example, the policy includes funding increases for improved performance on retention and gradu- ation rates, but participants argued that without the funding first, they do not have the finances needed to increase or even sustain student retention and graduation. During a campus leadership meeting, the participants discussed the issue of delaying students’ graduation because Smith was forced to cancel degree-required courses that the university could not afford. One Smith stu- dent, Kyle, observed that “a lot of people leave” because of the lack of “finan- cial aid. I don’t know if something can happen with getting students or letting them know about scholarship opportunities or something to help them pay for school.”

It is important to note that many participants were not opposed to increas- ing diversity, and graduation and retention rates, but were concerned about the challenges involved in doing so. Moses, a fairly new staff member and administrator at Smith University, suggested that the issue of funding, increasing graduation and retention, and the PF policy poses real dilemmas for the members of the Smith community:

Statewide, they feel that they have done what they can do to support Smith University. Smith on the other hand is saying we need more support. Then they come back and say what have you done with the resources we’ve allocated for you? . . . one thing that is missing from the conversation is what is in the best interest of the students? How do we better serve students? . . . I think that if we did that we would come to the conclusion that we need better capital improvement such as better academic facilities, smart classrooms. That’s what’s in the best interest of the students, that’s what good students demand . . . every institution has to be held accountable for increasing retention,

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 Educational Policy

increasing graduation rates and persistence. I don’t argue with that one bit . . . [but] I’m not trying to make excuses, I think the system has a responsibility to make sure all the institutions are on a level playing field. If you all have comparable resources and you’re not performing up to par, then you have a reason to be penalized with the funding formula. If you are in a situation like [Smith] where the truth is, no new building in more than 30 years, when your sister institutions are building buildings like crazy . . . and in previous court decrees this has been in absolute terms that the institution hasn’t been treated fairly and the state continues to do that, then you have some issues with performance funding.

Moses’s statements articulately capture the sentiment that several partici- pants expressed, suggesting that the PF policy was simply unfair. Like Moses, other participants argued that they need more funding not only to make the suggested improvements, but also to just maintain their current performance. Participants believed that their experience with limited resources is not coinci- dental, and may be constructed in response to their Black identity. In other words, the participants felt that their limited resources were a direct result of institutional racism on the part of the state system of higher education and the larger society. The belief that the state provides differential and insubstantial funding to their public HBCU is not new or limited to the Smith University experience. For example, Lee and Keys (2013a) authored a report explaining that states often opt to not match the federal government’s support of their pub- lic land-grant HBCUs, as suggested in the 1890 Morrill Land Grant Act. The authors note that states are not given the option, but instead are required to match the federal government’s support of the predominately White land-grant institutions that were established as a result of the 1862 Morrill Land Grant act. Hence, Lee and Keys’s (2013a) analysis provides a contemporary example of the ongoing battle to ensure equitable state funding for public HBCUs.

Perspectives on the diversity and equity measures. Although the participants from Smith University had several critiques of the PF policy, the participants seemed most concerned with how the policy could affect their ability to pro- vide opportunity and focus on serving Black students. The PF policy for Smith University requires an increase in the access and achievement of stu- dents who are defined as anyone who is “Other than Black or Unknown.” Five of the 10 measures by which Smith University’s performance will be evaluated include a focus on the non-Black population. Specifically, Smith is held accountable for the following:

1. Reducing the “gap” between the percentage of non-Black students enrolled at public master’s level HBCUs and the percentage of

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 27

non-Black students enrolled at Smith University. In 2010, Smith enrolled 2% non-Black students and the average non-Black enroll- ment at public master’s level HBCUs was 16%; thus, there was a 13.6 percentage point “gap.” The 5-year goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.

2. Reducing the 5% gap in the 6-year graduation rate between non- Black students (24%) and Black students (29%), to a 2.5% percentage point gap.

3. Increasing the percentage of non-Black faculty from 41.94% to 45.59% (average for public master’s level HBCUs).

4. Reducing the “gap” between the percentage of non-Black transfer students enrolled at public master’s HBCUs and the percentage of non-Black transfer students enrolled at Smith University. In 2010, Smith enrolled 2.2% non-Black transfer students and the average non-Black transfer enrollment at public master’s HBCUs was 16%; thus, there was a 13.3% percentage point “gap.” The 5-year goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.

5. Closing the 6-year graduation rate gap for non-Black transfer students and Black transfer students. In 2010, the 6-year graduation rate for Black transfer students was 25% and the 6-year graduation rate for non-Black transfer students was 100%, thus there was no “gap” to close. The 5-year goal is to maintain a zero gap.

Ronald, the state system of higher education representative, argued against the perceived notion that the policy would require Smith University to increase the number of non-African American students. Ronald argued that instead, Smith University is expected to

equal the existing rate for their African American students so, fundamentally, it’s a mathematical calculation, but not fundamentally for them to succeed and win performance funding it does not mean that they need to increase the number of non-African Americans. They simply have to maintain their current level of success with their current numbers of African American students.

Ronald is correct in that the policy does not have a mandatory indicator that requires them to increase their number of non-Black students. However, the policy does include mandatory indicators to close any equity gaps that exist between the access and graduation rates for Black students and non- Black students. The policy suggests that “gaps are reduced,” so if Black and non-Black 6-year graduation rates increase, simultaneously the gaps could persist and Smith University could remain ineligible for the total performance award. In addition, the policy does not require a raw number increase in the

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28 Educational Policy

number of non-Black students, but does require an increase in percentages or proportions, thus the only way to meet the PF targets for non-Black access without actually increasing the number of non-Black students is to decrease the number of Black students. These indicators demonstrate how the state is both offering an opportunity to, and mandating an institutional focus on non- Black students, which is counter to Smith University’s historical mission to serve Black students. Thus, several participants critiqued this redirection sug- gesting that it could create mission drift at the institution.

Kenneth, one of Smith University’s few White students, suggested that the PF policy would be

getting away from their background for being known as an HBCU. It’s always great to give non-African American students the opportunity to experience and to learn from the culture, but that’s not what [Smith] or an HBCU is known for. It’s to develop successful male and female African American students.

Brian, a Black student at Smith University, argued that the PF policy “would take away from its original mission which was to give Black students an advantage in a world where they are at a disadvantage.” Denzel, a Smith University faculty member, explained that the concern about maintaining the historical focus on Black students is university wide:

There’s a culture here where there’s always a sense of [Smith] losing its identity if we admit students who are non-African American. I’ve understood the sense of that . . . being true to its mission, [Smith] should always maintain its sense of commitment to students of color, particularly African Americans. I would be careful of the legalities of it all, but [Smith] should always remain an HBCU in the sense of being a predominantly African American institution.

Participants also discussed the challenges that recruiting White students could pose to the university. A Smith University student, Nicole, cautioned that the recruitment of non-Black students could require institutional changes that could harm the current university culture and mislead perspective White students:

[Smith] would change the culture of the school so much to even make it marketable to non-Blacks . . . you can lose yourself like that. It’s like if this was a relationship and [Smith] is courting these non-Black students they would be putting on airs to get them here . . . you’re supposed to be yourself when you’re dating somebody.

Thus, participants were concerned that focusing on the enrollment or suc- cess of non-Black students could threaten their historical mission and con- temporary culture that focuses on Black student opportunity and success.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 29

It is also important to note that in the case of closing the achievement gap among non-Black and Black transfer students, Smith University has a 75 percentage point gap between the 6-year graduation rate for the non-Black transfer students and Black students. Because it is the Black transfer students who have the lower graduation rate of 25%, instead of the non-Black transfer students whose 6-year graduate rate is 100%, Smith University will not be awarded any PF if it is able to increase the 6-year graduation rate of Black transfer students. However, if the non-Black transfer student graduation rate was increased, it would be eligible for PF. Thus, the design of the policy requires an institutional shift in priorities and decision making, potentially shifting resources and focus away from Black students and faculty, whether White students and faculty or other non-Black populations choose Smith University. Therefore, some Smith University participants see the state PF policy as unfair and a threat to their identity and success as an institution, which runs counter to the state system of higher education’s narrative that suggests that the policy will increase student success and equity across the campuses in the state system.

Smith University arguments in favor of the PF policy. Although some of the par- ticipants were critical of the PF policy, several participants noted that the policy was helpful to the institution because it made them more aware of their institutional data and the outcomes that need improvement, it encouraged a more racially diverse campus where students could learn from one another and prepare for diverse post-graduate environments, and it productively chal- lenged Smith University to clarify and defend its mission. For example, a Smith University staff member and administrator, Shane, suggests that “hav- ing to deal with performance measures is good in one sense. It helps an insti- tution get on track. Make sure you monitor what it is you say you’re doing.” Many participants supported the measures because of what they described as the benefits that having a diverse student body could contribute to students’ learning experience and post-graduate experiences. One Smith University student, Steven, explained that he welcomed the opportunity for the univer- sity to focus on non-Black students because race

doesn’t have an impact on younger generations . . . when you look at color because that’s taught to you . . . racial issues are all taught to people. Unless it’s taught, younger people don’t have that. That’s more of an older generation issue.

Other participants argued that race does still have an impact, but the impact of race on students’ experiences is why they felt it was important to

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

30 Educational Policy

serve different student populations. Smith staff member and administrator, Benjamin, said,

I think multicultural education is important . . . a lot of our students come from inner city areas where the population density of students is 85 or 90% Black and Latino so I think that part of the college experience is that diversity.

Similar to Benjamin’s perspective that students would benefit from addi- tional exposure to diverse groups, faculty member Jesse explained,

It would provide perspective for our current student population to be able to see diversity on campus . . . our faculty are very diverse, it’s probably the most diverse faculty in the state system. But the student population doesn’t reflect that. And with the student mindset being what it is I think the diversity would add and change and maybe open up their eyes to other ways of acting, perceiving things, and learning in the classroom.

Staff member and administrator, Michael, argued that a focus on non- Black students did not take away from the university mission, but that their mission of “access and opportunity for people who are not given the same opportunities” includes “low socioeconomic status Whites, Hispanics, Asian, [and] whoever wants to come here and hopefully get a quality education.”

While some participants discussed the focus on non-Black as a benefit to Black students and an honoring of the university’s access and opportunity mission, others described the impact on those outside of the university. Specifically, participants explained that becoming more racially diverse could improve their reputation and image. A Smith University student, Kyle, expressed that he thinks “it would make it look better, if [Smith] is more diverse, or not just all African American students. I think that would really make the university look good.” Another Smith student, Brian, suggested that Smith’s lack of racial diversity was not appealing, and, that it was only because he had been awarded a scholarship that he chose to attend the institution:

[diversity] could help the institution because I always said that if it wasn’t for the [program name] scholarship I probably wouldn’t have come to [Smith] because in reality the whole world is not Black so I definitely would have preferred to be around a lot more ethnic groups than African Americans. There are maybe five White students here. I know some Dominican girl that was in my Spanish class. But that’s about it. For me, I’m a person that’s really interested in culture and things so it’s one of the things I dislike about the university because I don’t really get to mingle with people from different cultures.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 31

Other participants shared Brian’s concern that being educated in a pre- dominately Black environment would shield them from the realities of work- ing in a diverse society. A Smith staff member and administrator, Malcolm, shared,

It could assist the university even though it’s a Historically Black College. When you go into the working world, there are people of diverse backgrounds and diverse lifestyles, and they have to deal with and be able to work with or work for . . . it gives you different outlooks, different perspectives . . . It would also allow for barriers to be broken to get people to get an understanding of diverse cultures and things of that sort. How they live, the type of food, and sometimes maybe even a thought pattern could possibly help in the workforce adjusting to people of diverse backgrounds.

Malcolm goes on to share,

In reality, the whole world is not Black. So I think it would be a good thing because once you leave [Smith] and you go to grad school, if you go straight into work, clearly your whole company is not going to be Black. You are just going to have to face that reality so I think if we did get a little bit more exposure I think it would be good too. It’s kind of a double edged sword. I think it would just be better to have more people here who are not Black. Just so we can get a different perspective and interact with different people.

As a result of the PF policy and the potential benefits described by the participants, Smith University has begun to discuss how it is planning to respond to the measures that focus on non-Black students. When the idea of enrolling or increasing the performance of non-Black students was brought up in campus meetings and in the interviews, participants most commonly suggested that the institution target state’s budding Latino population. Alisha, a Smith University faculty member, shared that there was already a “push” in her department and that the department has “been working towards increas- ing the Hispanic population” and that she believes that “enrollment manage- ment” is also pushing toward this end. Alisha explained that Smith’s “Spanish faculty have produced a brochure in Spanish” and that the university has “participated in the Hispanic heritage month.” Alisha explained that they “celebrated any students and faculty who had any Hispanic heritage” and that the event was “quite successful” and that there is “an excitement and a push for that overall on the campus.”

Another example of the focus on Latino students is that in preliminary observations and campus leadership meetings, the participants inquired about the enrollment and performance of their Latino students both times the

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

32 Educational Policy

non-Black funding formulas were brought up. During one meeting, Smith University staff member and administrator, Shane, reported that the univer- sity had successfully increased the enrollment of Latino students but was not retaining them and discussed potential solutions. In an interview, Moses, a Smith University staff member and administrator, shared,

We have made some progress in the area of recruiting more Hispanics and White students. I think it’s like 3.4% Hispanic students and I want to say for White students it’s 8% maybe. I could be wrong on that statistic, I’m relying on memory. And that’s up from the year before. But I think that would be very good for this institution. I think the challenge for this university, too, is that the demographics have changed. A lot of Historically Black Universities have recognized that there’s an emerging, growing population of second generation, third generation Hispanic and Latino students that are going on to college. We have to get in that game and be able to recruit from those populations to increase our enrollment. The same holds true for White. If you look around us, what do you see? It’s primarily European environment, so we could do better at some of these high schools. I think from a financial standpoint, from an educational standpoint, it would behoove us to recruit aggressively from those underrepresented populations.

Present in Moses’s statement is the connotation that Smith should recruit from underrepresented populations. Although underrepresented at Smith may mean non-Black to some, one reason that the campus seems to embrace the idea of targeting Latino students is because they are both underrepre- sented at Smith University and (like Black students) have a history of limited access to higher education in the United States. Smith University staff mem- ber and administrator Jeffrey explained,

I think that there’s some similarities in underrepresented minorities across the board. I think if we take what we have, where we know what we’ve used, what we’ve been successful with and tweak it . . . a little Hispanic language.

Hence, participants articulated a need for greater institutional support for Latinos on campus. Staff member and administrator Moses argued for a “Hispanic recruiter” because “they have more credibility when they go in the community” as a result of being “born and raised in that culture.” Moses’s comments acknowledge that the Latino culture and student needs may be distinct from what Smith University has traditionally done, but the partici- pants of this study articulated an overwhelming support for the targeting of this population as a happy medium between becoming “more diverse” and continuing to serve students of color.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 33

Limitations

The findings tell a compelling story about the perspectives of participants from one HBCU on a state PF policy; however, the interpretation and impli- cations of these findings are limited by the participant’s unfamiliarity with the PF policy and the non-representative sample. First, prior to the study, many participants were unaware of what the PF policy was and how it could affect their campus. At the interview, they were provided with a quick verbal synopsis, with particular attention to the measures that were uniquely designed for the state system’s HBCU. Thus, it is possible that additional time reviewing the policy in its entirety, reflection, and research may have led the participants to think differently about the policy and the implications for their campus. Second, the study represents the perspectives of a small group of faculty, students, and administrators that are not generalizable to everyone on the campus or other HBCUs in states with PF policies. In addition, the students were recruited through a campus event for the honors program, which resulted in most of the student participants being in the honors pro- gram, further limiting the range of perspectives that were received. Despite these methodological limitations, the findings include perspectives from a small group of individuals who represent a wide range of spaces in the Smith Community, like tenured and non-tenured faculty, students, executive lead- ers, and student affairs professionals.

Measuring HBCU Performance: Necessary Considerations and Possible Indicators

HBCU PF Design Challenges

Throughout the higher education accountability movement that began in Europe and the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there have been concerns about (a) states’ abilities to “measure the unmeasurable” (Gaither, Nedwek, & Neal, 1994, p. 7), (b) the tension between policy mak- ers’ desires to measure efficiency and productivity, and practitioners’ interest in measures that “reflect the quality of the educational experience in a man- ner that elucidates their own specific institution mission” (Alexander, 2000, p. 426), (c) and the evolution of the state’s relationship with higher education from authoritative oversight to active involvement in financial planning and decision making (Wellman, 2001).

The state system of higher education attempted to account for Smith and other campuses’ uniqueness by allowing them to select from a list of 22 optional measures. The challenge is that even among the optional indicators,

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

34 Educational Policy

there is a prescribed focus on institutional capacity and non-Black students. Improving performance on indicators such as study abroad, individual donor support, and facilities investment would be difficult for a low-resource insti- tution like Smith University. Furthermore, closing the access (enrollment) and achievement gaps for transfer students requires Smith University to close the “gap” between the percentage of non-Black transfer students enrolled at public master’s HBCUs and the percentage of non-Black transfer students enrolled at Smith University. Thus, despite Smith University’s efforts to account for institutional differences, the PF policy at Smith University encourages the institution to either improve the institutional capacity using resources it may not have or challenge its historical mission by focusing on non-Black students.

Because student outcomes have such a direct impact on institutional fund- ing, it is possible that the university may attempt commonly used strategies to improve student outcomes, such as becoming more selective or broadening applicant pools. Both of these, however, can be problematic for niche institu- tions like public HBCUs, which have traditionally served as a point of access to higher education for Black students (Minor, 2004). It is not to assume that Smith University will be able to easily attract more academically competitive students, but that it may use its limited resources to try to cater to the desired student populations. For example, it could cater toward a more academically competitive student body by offering more academically challenging courses, but limited resources would require the institution to eliminate needed devel- opmental education courses.3 In addition, regardless of what group of stu- dents the institution aims to attract, strategies such as offering scholarships, increasing programs, and attracting competitive faculty require additional resources that many low-resourced, non-selective, public HBCUs do not have. Last, much of the literature on how HBCUs are responding to PF poli- cies comes from media and non-academic, non-scholarly resources; further empirical research and inquiry into the study of how HBCUs foster student success, respond to accountability pressures, and make improvement is nec- essary before mandating specific performance measures.

PF as an example of interest convergence. Of particular concern were the PF metrics that made a proportion of the funding contingent on the retention and enrollment of non-Black students and faculty. One issue that requires further interrogation is the notion of formally placing monetary value on the success of non-Black students in one of the few spaces in higher education designated to serve Black students. Jeffrey, a Smith staff member and administrator, raised this issue during a campus leadership meeting. The institutional researcher explained to the group how the improvement of their Latino

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 35

student retention could affect their funding as a result of the PF policy. Jeffrey asked, “How is [our] funding affected by what we do for our African Ameri- can students?” The institutional researcher explained,

African American students are a majority so they count in retention and graduation data . . . so for institutions that are White majority their target will be African Americans and since we are majority African American our minority in this case is Hispanics.

The policy does not require an explicit shift to another targeted demo- graphic group of people, like White or Latino students, but instead articulates a specific shift away from Black students and faculty. Considering Smith University’s narrative of racial oppression from the state, it was not surpris- ing that they would have strong feelings against the newly imposed perfor- mance measures.

Looking at the policy from a CRT perspective provides a further explana- tion about why non-Black performance measures could be problematic. The non-Black focus in the PF policy is an example of what critical race theorist Derrick Bell (1980) described as interest convergence. Bell (1980) describes interest convergence as the tendency of Whites (or others in positions of priv- ilege 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. PF as described by the state system of higher education was designed with the intention of providing support to increase equity and success at all institutions, but in the case of the only university in the system with an explicitly racialized historical mission, there is language to support the achievement of anyone who is not Black. Thus in the case of Smith University, the state’s efforts to increase the performance of a histori- cally Black university through increased financial support for the perfor- mance of non-Black students ensures the convergence of White or non-Black interests. Thus, the design of the policy requires an institutional shift in pri- orities and decision making, potentially shifting resources and focus away from Black students, whether or not White students or other non-Black stu- dent populations choose to attend Smith University. One Smith University student, Greg, raised the concern:

It would be different if the financial incentive was for the student as opposed to the university . . . giving the incentive to the university will most likely have them campaign at high schools with less of what the majority is [Black ] at the schools. That’s hit or miss and I think if you want the hits give the money straight to the students.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

36 Educational Policy

The history of racial integration at HBCUs suggests that Smith University has been placed in a lose-lose situation. They could ignore the need to improve the enrollment and outcomes of non-Black students and miss out on the PF. Or, they could threaten the mission and culture of the institution by shifting their focus to non-Black students and still likely have trouble recruit- ing and retaining these non-Black students.

A Smith University leader was featured in a recent publication in which he or she affirmed the need for greater diversity saying, “we need to admit stu- dents from a wider range of ethnic and income groups.” This statement from the Smith University leader demonstrates the difference in perspectives on diversity between Smith University and the state. In the PF policy, the state system refers to diversity at Smith University as non-Black students. In this statement, the Smith University leader refers to diversity as a wider range of ethnic and income groups, not different racial groups. The Smith University leader supports the admission of a wider array of students while being careful to focus on ethnicity and income, both of which do not require a diversion from Black students; thus, the state system and Smith University interests have not converged.

Next Steps for HBCU PF Policy Design

Taking into consideration what was learned about Smith University through this case study, I will recommend next steps for designing applicable mea- sures for Smith University’s state system of higher education as well as oth- ers in states like Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that have public HBCUs that are part of their state system of higher education. First, policy makers should engage HBCU leaders and experts during the policy development process. The disconnect between policy goals and cam- pus goals and the lack of buy-in from the Smith University leaders seemed to stem from the lack of HBCU expertise and presence during the policy devel- opment process. Thus, it would be helpful to include HBCU leaders and experts on any assembled committee or team that will make PF policy recom- mendations and to solicit input and feedback via surveys and town hall style meetings from all institutional members before the policy is developed and enacted.

Second, policy makers should take steps to guard against creating unin- tended perverse effects from policies that fail to take into account contextual differences by continually refining PF metrics based on what is learned about the intended and unintended consequences of the policy. The Smith University community expressed great concern over how the institution “could” be neg- atively affected by the policy; thus, they could be reassured by knowledge

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 37

that the state will monitor unintended outcomes. One way to get an idea of the potential unintended outcomes is to create a committee of representatives from each of the campuses affected by the policy to discuss policy under- standing, reception, and impact on campuses. Furthermore, states should conduct quantitative analyses of potential economic and racial stratification and shifts in student populations at their campuses.

Third, metrics should be responsive to input factors. Many HBCUs, like Smith University, aim to provide access to college for students who are least likely to enroll at highly selective institutions. If an HBCU has an open- admissions policy that would allow the admission of academically underpre- pared students, then applicable output indicators would focus on how effective the institution was in educating that particular population of stu- dents. Potential output indicators for open-admission and less selective HBCUs include time from developmental education course to credit-bearing course completion and an 8-year graduation rate. Policy makers can look to campus missions to gain understanding of who the target “inputs” are and how to assess how effective the institution is at educating them. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education has articulated a goal to “produce the best-educated citizenry and workforce in the nation” (Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, 2013). Thus, the depart- ment has created a study group to develop strategies for measuring engaged citizenship, demonstrating a unique departure from standard PF policies. This means that there could be measures that are tailored to the specific mis- sions of HBCUs. For example, if an HBCU has a specific goal of educating a “diverse student population” or “developing minority leaders,” PF policies should include measures like participation in national leadership and service organizations like the Peace Corps, or the proportion of registered voters on a campus.

There could also be a consideration of metrics that capture some of the “special” or “unique” benefits or characteristics of HBCUs. If there are advantages for students of color attending HBCUs beyond enrollment and student demographics, those concepts are worth exploring for their potential to be translated into measures or evidence of HBCU success. For example, a few states have included output measures related to job placement, readi- ness, and success as measured by employment rates and earnings. McMickens’s (2012) concept of “racism readiness” is HBCU specific and could be included as a sub measure of job readiness. McMickens’s study proposed that HBCUs had prepared students for encountering racism in the post-graduate environment, providing some possible explanation for the post-graduate success rates of HBCU graduates.4 Racism readiness is an example of something that HBCUs can provide to their students that can

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

38 Educational Policy

lead to desired outcomes such as earnings and postbaccalaureate degree attainment. Hence, racism readiness could be an ideal measure of institu- tional performance that is particular to the HBCU context, but is also linked to desired student outcomes.

Last, it is critical to address data capacity before implementing the policy. During the study, Smith University had recently addressed vacancies in its institutional research office and was in the process of updating the data pro- cesses to help correct errors in the reporting of its racial demographics that included an inability to identify international students and an overestimation of racially unknown students. This is important because the baseline data and goals had already been set by the state using the data with errors. Although these institutional research issues were being addressed at the time of the study, it was after the policy and subsequent goals were defined. The effec- tiveness of PF policies depends on campuses’ ability to accurately report data back to the state higher education governing bodies; hence, data capacity is critical to campus and policy effectiveness and success. Issues like small enrollments, endowments, and historical financial neglect can make items like a cutting edge data system, fully staffed institutional research and assess- ment offices, and even a wireless internet system difficult to finance. It is important that states with HBCUs have incentives to support data and tech- nological infrastructure development as data capacity will be a critical com- ponent of PF policy success. This is not meant to broadly imply that HBCUs do not collect and report data efficiently, but rather to suggest that states conduct a survey to assess campus data capacity and needs prior to policy implementation to ensure that all campuses in the state have equitable oppor- tunities to obtain PF.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is not just about developing a prescriptive list of HBCU indicators and measures, but instead, policy makers should consider what is unique about each HBCU in their state system of higher education. Although it is too early to determine the consequences of the PF system for Smith University, its architects at the system level seemed to treat HBCUs as if they were an undifferentiated group, for example, using more selective and larger HBCUs as a point of comparative reference for Smith University. Smith University participants connect their open-admissions policy to their HBCU mission, but some HBCUs are moderately to highly selective, so an 8-year graduation rate may be applicable to open-access institutions like Smith University, but does not mean that it would be an effective measure of perfor- mance for more selective HBCUs.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 39

In addition, when considering that in many states students of color are underrepresented at public PWIs in comparison with their proportion of the state population, it may not be strategic for states to incentivize a reduction in the proportion of Black students at their public HBCUs. Although it may seem logical to simply invert racial and ethnic diversity metrics, states should reconsider simply defining diversity as “non-Black” at HBCUs, and further understanding of how such incentives to support non-Black, and those who are not students of color will shift institutional priorities or even result in the successful awarding of additional funding should be carefully and critically considered and monitored. Instead of relying on race to address issues of equity and diversity at HBCUs, alternative metrics could include economic diversity (proportion of students who are Pell Grant eligible), ethnic diver- sity, or first-generation status. It is important for future research on PF at HBCUs to focus on the identification of measures of institutional perfor- mance, such as racism readiness, that are unique to HBCUs, and the short- and long-term impact of these policies on institutional culture, identity, and outcomes. Finally, the exploration of these ideas is valuable beyond the HBCU context and can provide a framework for approaching a discussion of accountability that can be applied at other institutions that aim to serve spe- cific student populations, such as Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal, women’s, and community colleges.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica- tion of this article.

Notes

1. Smith is a pseudonym that will be used to protect the identity of the institution and its members.

2. Some of the public master’s level historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) used for comparison include Alabama State University, North Carolina A&T State University, and Savannah State University.

3. As a result of their open-admissions policy, many Smith University students require at least one developmental education course. For example, one partici- pant reported that in the previous academic year, Smith enrolled more condition- ally admitted than regularly admitted students and offered more developmental education-level than credit-bearing math courses.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

40 Educational Policy

4. An average of HBCU students across institutions had lower grades and stan- dardized test scores than their Black peers at predominately White institutions (PWIs), yet they are more likely to graduate and to earn a graduate or profes- sional degree (Wenglinsky, 1996). The average individual earnings of HBCU graduates also exceed those of Black non-HBCU college graduates (Price, Spriggs, & Swinton, 2011; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2010).

References

Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia 1972).

Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assess- ing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411-431.

Bell, D. (1980). Brown and the interest-convergence dilemma. In D. Bell (Ed.), Shades of Brown: New perspectives on school desegregation (pp. 90-106). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An intro- duction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boland, W. C., & Gasman, M. (2014). America’s public HBCUs: A four state com- parison of institutional capacity and state funding priorities. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Minority Serving Institutions.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Brown, C. M., II. (2001). Collegiate desegregation and the public Black college: A new policy mandate. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 46-62.

Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 432-453.

The Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education v. Maryland Higher Education Commission, No. 06–2773 (4th Cir. Oct. 7, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/education/documents/files/ Coalition-v-MHEC-memorandum-decision.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cunningham, A., Park, E., & Engle, J. (2014). Minority-Serving Institutions: Doing more with less. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/research/publications/minority-serving-institutions-doing- more-less.

Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Hare, R. J., Jones, S. M., & Vega, B. E. (2011). The politics of performance funding in eight states: Origins, demise, and change. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

DuBois, W. E. B. (1953). The souls of Black folk. New York, NY: The Blue Heron Press.

Egerton, J. (1974). Adams v. Richardson: Can separate be equal? Change, 10, 29-36.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 41

Ferguson, D. (2014, January 17). Iowa Board of Regents considers performance- based funding. Iowa State Daily. Retrieved from http://www.iowastatedaily.com/ news/article_1aacf0fe-7f12-11e3-887b-0019bb2963f4.html

Friedel, J. N., Thornton, Z. M., D’Amico, M. M., & Katsinas, S. G. (2013). Performance-based funding: The national landscape. Tuscaloosa: Education Policy Center, The University of Alabama.

Gaither, G. H. (1997). Performance indicator systems as instruments for accountabil- ity and assessment. Assessment Update, 9(1), 1-2, 14-15.

Gaither, G. H., Nedwek, B. P., & Neal, J. E. (1994). Measuring up: The promises and pitfalls of performance indicators in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5). Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center.

Gasman, M. (2013). The changing face of historically Black colleges and universities. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Minority Serving Institutions.

Gasman, M., & Hilton, A. (2012). Mixed motivations, mixed results: A history of law, legislation, historically Black colleges and universities, and interest convergence. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1-20.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers mini- mize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.

Hebel, S. (2001, June 8). A new push to integrate southern Black colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, 39.

Hoffman, C. M., Snyder, T. D., & Sonnenberg, B. (1996). Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1976 to 1994. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Jones, T., & Witham, K. (2012, November). What is accountability for equity at pub- lic historically Black colleges and universities? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Lee, J. M., & Keys, S. W. (2013a). Land-grant but unequal state one-to-one match funding for 1890 land-grant universities. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.

Lee, J. M., & Keys, S. W. (2013b). Repositioning HBCUs for the future. Access, suc- cess, research & innovation. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land- Grant Universities.

Maryland Higher Education Commission. (2006). Partnership agreement between the State of Maryland and the Office of Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://www. mhec.state.md.us/higherED/ocrplan/OCRLetterandattachments.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Higher Education (2013). Within our sights: Inside cam- pus efforts to achieve national leadership in public higher education. Retrieved from http://www.mass.edu/visionproject/documents/WithinOurSightsLo-Res.pdf.

McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 1-24.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

42 Educational Policy

McMickens, T. L. (2012). Running the race when race is a factor. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 39-43.

Minor, J. T. (2004). Introduction: Decision making in historically Black colleges and universities: Defining the governance context. The Journal of Negro Education, 73, 40-52.

Minor, J. T. (2008a). Contemporary HBCUs: Considering institutional capacities and state priorities. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Minor, J. T. (2008b). Segregation residual in higher education: A tale of two states. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 861-885.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010a). 1990 through 2009 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, “Fall Enrollment Survey.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010b). Institutional profile. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Institutional profile. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Gasman, M. (2011). A matter of diversity, equity, and necessity: The tension between Maryland’s higher education system and its historically Black colleges and universities over the Office of Civil Rights Agreement. Journal of Negro Education, 80, 121-133.

Price, G. N., Spriggs, W., & Swinton, O. H. (2011). The relative returns to graduating from a historically Black college/university: Propensity score matching estimates from the national survey of Black Americans. The Review of Black Political Economy, 38, 103-130.

Ruppert, S. (Ed.). (1994). Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook of state-level performance indicators. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Shulock, N. (2011). Concerns about performance-based funding and ways that states are addressing the concerns. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter- storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 23-44.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research

& Evaluation, 7, 137-146. Sum, P., Light, S., & King, R. (2004). Race, reform, and desegregation in Mississippi

higher education: Historically Black institutions after United States v. Fordice. Law & Social Inquiry, 29, 403-443.

Tandberg, D. A., & Hillman, N. W. (2013). State performance funding for higher edu- cation: Silver bullet or red herring? Madison, WI: Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education.

Thurgood Marshall College Fund. (2010). Thurgood Marshall College Fund 2007- 2008 Demographic Report. New York: Thurgood Marshall Fund.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Jones 43

United States v. Fordice, 507 U.S. 1007 (1992). U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2010). The educational effectiveness of histori-

cally Black colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author. Wellman, J. V. (2001). Accountability systems. Change: The Magazine of Higher

Learning, 33(2), 46-52. Wenglinsky, H. (1996). The educational justification of Historically Black Colleges

and Universities: Policy responses to the U.S. Supreme Court. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 91-103.

White House Initiative on HBCUs Annual Report (2005). Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.

White House Initiative on HBCUs Annual Report (2010). Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.

Zumeta, W. (2011). What does it mean to be accountable? Dimensions and implica- tions of higher education’s public accountability. Review of Higher Education, 35, 131-148.

Author Biography

Dr. Tiffany Jones is the Program Director for Higher Education Research and Policy at the Southern Education Foundation (SEF). Prior to joining SEF, Jones was a dean’s fellow at the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California. She has published book chapters, scholarly articles, and policy reports that have focused on the ways that policies and practice facilitate college access and suc- cess for students of color. She also has a specific interest in higher education account- ability and assessment, developmental education, institutional effectiveness, and data use at Minority-Serving Institutions. Tiffany earned a bachelor’s degree in Family Studies from Central Michigan University, a master’s degree in Higher Education Administration from the University of Maryland, College Park and a doctorate at the University of Southern California.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from