DOCUMENT RESUME ED 329 179 HE 024 292 AUTHOR Richardson, Richard C., Jr. TITLE Promoting Fair College Outcomes: Learning from the Experiences of the Past Decade. INsTITUTION Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.; National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance, Tempe, AZ. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Jan 91 NOTE 48p.; For a related report see HE 024 291. AVAILABLE FROM Education Commission of the States, Distribution Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, CO 80202-3427 (No. MP-90-4, $6.75). PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) -- Guic - Non-Classroom Use (055) EDRS PRICE MF01/F-02 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Academic Persistence- American Indians; Blacks; Case Studies; Colleges; *Educational Improvement; Enrollment Influences; *Enrollment Trends; *Equal Education; Graduation; Higher Education; Hispanic Americans; *Institutional Role; *Minority Groups; Outcomas of Education; *School Holding Power; Undergraduate Study; Universities IDENTIFIERS *Diversity (Student) ABSTRACT This report presents an analysis of the data developed from a survey involving case studies of 10 public colleges and universities with good records for graduating African Americans, Hispanics, or American Indians. The survey Identified 36 state and 68 institutional practices associated with nigh, or improved, equity outcomes during the 1980s. Ten states and all of the 142 public, four-year institutions within their boundaries responded to the survey, providing information about the intensity and duration of these practices between 1980 and 1988. States and institutions also provided participation and graduation rates for the racial and ethnic groups they served. Among the study's findings concerning developing conditions between 1980-89 were the following: (1) about 20% of the predominantly Anglo institutions improved both enrollment and graduation equity outcomes between 1980 and 1988; (2) another 20% of the predominantly Anglo institutions improved enrollment equity, but lost ground on graduation equity; (3) about 30% of the institutions lost ground both in enrollment and graduation equity; (4) state efforts to improve access and undergraduate education had positive effects; (5) state policies improving transfer opportunities also had a strong positive effect; and (6) state actions were seen as primarily influencing graduation equity for African Americans and enrollment equity for Hispanics. Contains 5 references. (GLR) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. **********************A**********************************It ***** ***It***
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 329 179 HE 024 292
AUTHOR Richardson, Richard C., Jr.TITLE Promoting Fair College Outcomes: Learning from the
Experiences of the Past Decade.INsTITUTION Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.;
National Center for Postsecondary Governance andFinance, Tempe, AZ.
SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.
PUB DATE Jan 91NOTE 48p.; For a related report see HE 024 291.AVAILABLE FROM Education Commission of the States, Distribution
Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, CO80202-3427 (No. MP-90-4, $6.75).
PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) -- Guic - Non-ClassroomUse (055)
EDRS PRICE MF01/F-02 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Academic Persistence- American
This report presents an analysis of the datadeveloped from a survey involving case studies of 10 public collegesand universities with good records for graduating African Americans,Hispanics, or American Indians. The survey Identified 36 state and 68institutional practices associated with nigh, or improved, equityoutcomes during the 1980s. Ten states and all of the 142 public,four-year institutions within their boundaries responded to thesurvey, providing information about the intensity and duration ofthese practices between 1980 and 1988. States and institutions alsoprovided participation and graduation rates for the racial and ethnicgroups they served. Among the study's findings concerning developingconditions between 1980-89 were the following: (1) about 20% of thepredominantly Anglo institutions improved both enrollment andgraduation equity outcomes between 1980 and 1988; (2) another 20% ofthe predominantly Anglo institutions improved enrollment equity, butlost ground on graduation equity; (3) about 30% of the institutionslost ground both in enrollment and graduation equity; (4) stateefforts to improve access and undergraduate education had positiveeffects; (5) state policies improving transfer opportunities also hada strong positive effect; and (6) state actions were seen asprimarily influencing graduation equity for African Americans andenrollment equity for Hispanics. Contains 5 references. (GLR)
***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.**********************A**********************************It ***** ***It***
.orr."!,
,
,
a
' 1
It
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Edocseenel Reeeem+ ared Improvealva
EDUCA t. RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERiC)
Cr(edocument hal Coen recontivcadWowed twin the paraoh of orClah*Iehtthohginahrtg
rs mine( change* neve been mode to impfovereproducton Gusto
This is ihe final report of a five-year studyconducted by the former National Center forPostsecondary Governance and Finance,Research Center at Arizona State Universitywith funding from the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S.Deparnnem of Education (ED). The opinionsexpessed do ix* necessarily reflect theposition of the OERI/ED and no officialendorsement should be infened.
The research infotmed dm deliberations of theEducatice Commission of the Staies (ECS)National Task Force cm Minority Achievementin Higher Education. This final report of thecsoject provides evidence supportingrecommendaticos found in AgiaingSmatiRinlitiL Policies For Change," the finalreport of the Task Force. Additionalinformation about the project can be found inthat report and in the following four papersprepared for the task force and previouslypublished by ECS:
U Lesponding to Student Diversity: ACommunity College Perspective,June 1990The State Role in Promoting Equity,June 1990
II Institutional Climate and MinorityAchievement, October 1989
II Serving More Diverse Students: AContextual View, June 1989
Copies of this book are available for $5.00flan the ECS Distribution Center, 707 17thStreet, Suite 2700, Dower, Coloradc, 80202-3427, 303-299-3692. Ask for No. MP-90-4.
The Education Commission of the States is anowrofit, nationwide interstate compactformed in 1965. The primary purpose of thecommission is to help governors, statelegislators, state education officials and othersdevelop policies to improve the quality ofeducation at all levels.
Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia,American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the VirginIslands are members. The ECS central officesare at 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Drayer,Colorado 80202-3427. The Washington officeis in the Hall of the States, 444 North CapitolStreet, Suite 248, Washington, D.0 20001.
It is the policy of the Education Commissionof the States to take affirmative action toprevent discriminatim in its policies, programsand employment practices.
Helping Students Meet HighExPectations 15 References 39
Improvin LearningEnvironments 18 Notes 41
Management Strategies thatInfluence Outcomes 18
The State Policy Dimension 21
Ill
Executive Summary
The Study
Case studies of 10 public colleges anduniversities with good records for graduatingAfrican Americans, Hispanics or AmericanIndians were used to develop a surveycontaining 36 state and 68 institutionalpractices associated with high or improvedequity outcomes during the 1980s. Ten statesand all of the 142 public, four-year institutionswithin their boundaries responded to the surveyproviding information about the intensity andduration of these practices between 1980 and1988. States and institutions also providedparuipation and graduation rates for the racialand ethnic gmups they served. This report isbased on an analysis of the data from the casestudies and the survey.
The Participants
The case study institutions included: BrooklynCollege, California State UniversityDominguez Hills, Florida InternationalUniversity, Florida State University, MemphisState University, Temple University, Universityof California Los Angeles, University ofNew Mexico Main, University of Texas atEl Paso, and Wayne State University. The 10states participating in the survey were:California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,New Jetsey, New Mexico, Ohio, SouthCarolina, Tennessee and Texas.
The Results
Widely reported declines in minorityparticipation and graduation rates during the1980s conceal significant variations acrossstates and among institutions. Equity scoreswere calculated for the minority participationand graduation rates of the public, four-yearinstitutions of these 10 states for 1980-88 usinga scale of 1-100, where 100 representedproportional participation or comparable
V
graduation. Six distinctive equity scorepatterns resulted:
1. Historically or predominantly minorityinstitutions and slightly more than 10%of the predominantly Anglo institutionsachieved essentially fair outcomes(proportional participation andcomparable graduation) by 1988.Institutions were far more likely toreport fair outcomes for Hispanics thanfor African Americans.
2. About 20% of the predominantlyAnglo institutions improved bothenrollment and graduation equityoutcomes between 1980 and 1988.
3. Another 20% of the predominantlyAnglo institutions improved enrollmentequity, tot lost ground on graduationequity.
4. About 15% of tlx predominantlyAnglo institutions improved graduationequity while experiencing losses inenrollment equity. This pattern was farmore common for African Americansthan for Hispanics.
5. About 30% of thc institutions lostgmund on both enrollment andgraduation equity between 1980 and1988. This pattern was also far morecommon for African Americans thanfor Hispanics.
6. Slightly more than 15% of thepredominantly Anglo institutions wereat less than 60% of proportionalenrollment and comparable graduationin 1988. Again, this condition was farmore common for African Americansthan for Hispanics.
Differences in institutional practices explainedmuch of why sonic institutions got betterresults than others. Colleges and universities
reconiing gains in participation and graduationrates for African Americans and Hivanicsbetween 1980 and 1988 reported higher levelsof administrative commitment, greater use ofstrategic planning, mom careful attention toinstitutional outcomes forminorities andgreater emphasis on staff diversity than thosethat experienced losses. Successful institutionsalso reported more extensive and momsystematic use of strategies to:
1. Reduce barriers to minorityparticipation.
2. Help students achieve highexpectations.
3. Make learning environments momresponsive to cultural diversity.
Differences in state policy environments playedan important role in shaping institutionaloutcomes. State actions primarily influencedgraduation equity for African Americans andenrollment equity among Hispanics.
1. State efforts to improve access andndergraduate education had a positivezffect on enrollment equity for bothHispanics and African Americans.These eftbrts also contributed toimproved graduation equity for AfricanAmericans.
2. Defining minority participation andgraduation as a priority and usingplanning to set goals and evaluateoutcomes occuried most frequently instates where institutions were lessinvolved in open admissions, outreachto the public schools and minoritystudent recntitment; all practicesassociated with improved enrollmentequity or graduation equity for AfricanAmericans. The use of priorities andplanning had a positive impact onenrollment equity for Hispanics.
3. State policies improving transferopportunities had a strong positive
vi
impact on graduation equity both forHispanics and for African Americans.Among institutions serving AfricanAmericans, an emphasis on transferalso encouraged outreach to the publicschools.
4. State quality initiatives, such as arequired high school course of studyfor college admission and rising juniorexams, reduced graduation equity forAfrican Americans and enrollmentequity for Hispanics. However, theseinitiatives also motivated campusadministrators to engage in strategicplanning and to use information aboutAfrican American participation andachievement, strategies that contributedto improved enrollment and graduationequity.
5. State financial aid policies producednegative consequences for bothHispanics and African Americans. Inthe case of Hispanics the policiesdiscouraged institutional strategies thathad a positive effect on bothenrollment and graduation equity.Institutions serving African Americansweir encouraged to follow practicesnegatively associated with graduationequity.
During the 1980s, most institutions continuedto devote more time and resources to recruitingstudents than to helping those already enrolledgraduate. The most commonly reportedinstitutional strategies for improving minorityparticipation and graduation rates requiredlittle, if any, faculty involvement. Facultywere extensively involved in helping toimprove student achievement only in the moremulticultural and historically minorityinstitutions.
There were no "silver bullets" among thepractices that contributed to institutional gainsin minority participation and graduation rates.Unfair outcomes are the product of practicespursued consistently over long periods of time.
The evidence from this study suggests thatachieving fair outcomes will requirecompensatory practices pursued with similarconsistency over considerable time.
The outcomes achieved by some of the publicinstitutions within this 10-state study, as wellas the way that administrative commitment and
vii
strategic planning offset the negativeconsequences of state quality initiatives,demonstrated clearly that diversity and qualityneed not be pursued as mutually exclusiveobjectives. Givai a supponive state climate,institutions can attain both through committedleadership and systematic interventions.
Acknowledgments
The collaborative nature of this studynecessitated a high level of dependence uponcooperating researchers in the participatingstates and institutions. The survey wasdeveloped and administered with the extensivesupport of Stephen Bragg, Mimis; FrankCarrasco, New Mexico; Lewis Dars,Massachusetts; Rosario Martinez and Malice laOliva, Texas; Ann Moore, Ohio; ClarksRatliff, California; Regina Sofer, Florida; JuliaWells, South Carolina; Mattielynn Williamsand Robert Appleson, Tennessee; and DianeYavorsky, New Jersey. Representatives frommost of the public institutions in Florida,Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina andTexas attended statewide meetings to assist inthe survey design at institutional expense. Thequality of their advice and commitment isreflected in the perfect response rate achievedfor the survey.
The model that guided development of thesurvey and the case studies on which it wasbased owe much to the efforts of LouisBender, Patricia Crosson, Alfredo G. de losSantos, Howard Simmons, A. Wade Smith,Robert Stout, Gordon Van de Water and the
ix
cooperating researchers who worked with them.Alfredo de los Santos, Elaine El-Khawas andJim Mingle provided encouragement andtechnical advice. Ted Marchese read the draftreport and offered helpful comments. MichaelPavel provided assistance in developing chartsand formatting outcomes information. AliceShepard provided technical assistance with themanuscript and made certain the project stayedwithin its budget
Special thanks are owed to our colleagues atthe former National Center for PostsecondaryGovernance and Finance: Dick Chait, KatieThetis, Dick Anderson, Bob Berdahl, BobBimbaum and Frank Schmidtlein for theirconsistent support of the project over its five-year lifespan. Jeffrey Gilmore at OERIbecame a friend of the project and a valuedsource of technical advice. Elizabeth FiskSkinner, who worked with the project duringits first four years, was a special source ofinspiration and assistance.
Richard C. Richardson Jr.January 1991
Introduction
The hope that improved access to highereducation would lead to fairer outcomes forgroups underrepresented because of economiccircumstances and previous discrimination hasreceived little encouragement during the pastdecade. African Americans, several Hispanicgroups and American Indians have either lostground or recorded little progress inparticipation and graduation rates. By the year2020, Anglo children will represent one ofevery two students in tlx public schools.' In1988 more than eight of every 10 students inhigher education were Anglo. Participationrates were lower for African Americans in1988 than in 1978. For Hispanics, the ratesimproved slightly over the 10-year period, butremained well below the participation rates fo:Anglos.'
Between now and 2020, historically Anglocolleges and universities must enroll andgraduate a more diverse student population orsaddle :he nation with an under-educatedworkforce in a society stratified along ethnicand racial lines. For the United States toremain a productive and democratic nation inthe 21st century. colleges and universities, incooperation with state and federal governments,must reverse the equity trends of the pastdecade.
This report draws upon a collaborative five-year study of the practices and outcomes ofpublic four-year colleges and universities in 13states to provide state and institutional leaderswith information about the practices andpolicies that distinguished colleges anduniversities with high or improved equityoutcomes during the past decade from thosewhere participation and graduation ratesdeclined or remained low. The experiences of10 states and their public systems of highereducation are used to assess the remainingimpediments to fair college outcomes and tosuggest promising strategies for the decadeahead.
1
Learning from Successful Experience
Beginning in 1985, 10 public, historicallywhite colleges and universities with establishedrecords for awarding baccalaureate degrees toAfrican Americans, Hispanics or NativeAmericans cooperated in a three-year effort toexplain success in an endeavor where failurehad been the nde.' Each institution and itsstate setting was carefully studied to identifythe approaches used to improve theparticipation and graduation rates forunderrepresented populations.
The study produced eight testable propositionsabout the actions required from stategovernments and colleges and universities toproduce fairer outcomes:
1. Policy decisions of the 1960sencouraged colleges and universitiesto choose between diversity andquality. Achieving fair outcomes willrequire all institutions to pursueboth.
Access institutions emphasized enrollmentgrowth over traditional criteria for academicachievement. Selective institutions pursuedresource- and rtputation-dependent versions ofquality without evidencing much concern forthe impact on student diversity. AfricanAmerican, Hispanic and American Indianstudents who were disproportionately poor andthe first in their families to attend college wereconcentrated in the access institutions fromwhich they transferred and graduated at rateswell below the Anglo population. To reversethe unsatisfactory equity trends of the 1980s,selective institutions must reform their teachingand learning practices to help a more diversestudent population meet high standards acrossthe entire range of academic offerings. Andopen-access institutions must encourage andhelp more African American, Hispanic andAmerican Indian students achieve traditionallearning outcomes.
1 1
2. Fair outcomes for public systems ofhigher education should be definedas proportional representation andcomparable graduation for all racialand ethnic groups. State andinstitutional progress toward thesegoals can be estimated using datacollected by the National Center forEducational Statistics.
An institution's success in enrolling anappropriately diverse student population can beestimated by comparing the racial and ethniccomposition of the undergraduate students itenrolls with the composition of the populationof the region or state from which thosestudents come. Success in graduating anappropriately diverse student population can beestimated by comparing the racial and ethniccomposition of a graduating class with thecimposition of the undergraduate students fromwhich the graduates came. Race and ethnicitycease to be determinants of higher educationopportunities when the composition of thestudents enrolling in and graduating fromhigher education institutions within a statereflects its demographics.
3. Institutions move sequentiallythrough a three-stage process inadapting to student diversity. In thefirst, barriers to participation arereduced, leading to higher attritionrates for new student populations.
Institutions improve participation rates throughstudent recruitment, helping students qualifyfor financial aid, adequate financial aid, servingemployed adults and providing openadmissions. When barriers are reduced, someof the students who enter have preparationsdifferent from the populations an institution hastraditionally served. If support services and thelearning environment remain unchanged, amore diverse student population willexperience high levels of attrition. Graduationrates, in particular, decline precipitously ifacademic standards are maintained.
4. In the second stage, institutionsdevelop strategic interventions thatimprove student retention by helpingncw student populations cope withteaching and learning environmentsthat assume a level of preparationthey do not have. Completion ratesremain low in the absence of facultycommitment to translating retentioninto graduation.
To reduce attrition rates, institutions help newstudent populations achieve through outreach tothe public schools, helping students make thetransition from high school to college, andimproving the academic and social climate ofthe campus for student achievement. Strategiesthat help new students adjust to prevailinginstitutional practices improve retention rates.They do not have a similar impact ongraduation rates unless an instiMtion is willingto change some of its teaching and learningpractices in addition to trying to changenontraditionally prepared African American,Hispanic and American Indian students.
S. In the third stage, faculty becomeinvolved in helping more diverselyprepared students achieve academicsuccess in all majors. Improvementsin undergraduate education benefitall students, but have their mostsignificant impact on underrepre-sented populations who tenddisproportionately to have the leastcomprehensive preparations.
Helping a more diverse student populationgraduate without reducing academic standardsrequires improvements in the teaching andlearning process. First-generation collegestudents need more help in learning than theexperienced sons and daughters of collegeeducated parents. The strategies for improvingachievement include academic support, studentassessment and developmental assistance andcultural diversity in the educational program.
6. Institutional leaders guide theadaptation process to ensuresystematic attention tocomprehensive strategies forreducing barriers, helping studentsachieve and involving faculty inimprovements to the learningenvironment.
Achieving both diversity and quality requires asystematic combination of barrier reduction,student help and learning reform. Leadersguide their institutions to impiovedparticipation and graduation rates throughadministrative commitment, strategic planningand coordination, information andcommunication, staff diversity and facultyincentives and support.
7. State leaders create policyenvironments that support or impedeinstitutional efforts to improveequity.
Public institutions face conflicting demandsand scarce resources. They make the mostprogress toward fair outcomes when theyreceive clear signals from their state policyenvironments through such actions as assignedpriorities and use of the planning process,quality initiatives and outcome reporting,effons to improve access and undergraduateeducation, the removal of transfer barriers andfinancial aid.
3
S. The federal government definesnational priorities and supportsefforts to attain them in ways thatenhance and acknowledge theparamount state responsibility forachieving fair outcomes.
There is a compelling national, as well as statepolicy interest in achieving fair outcomes. Thefederal government contributes to a positivepolicy environment by supporting state effortsto achieve proportional representation andcomparable graduation across racial and ethnicgroups fmancially and politically. Historically,the federal government has made its mostimportant contributions through accepting aprimary role in removing economic bafflers,supporting programs to increase the racial andethnic diversity of the pools from whichfaculty are recruited, by providing risk capitalfor research and development, and bycollecting and reporting data that tracksprogress across states and for the nation as awhole.
Figure 1 models the influence of state actionsand institutional management on the threestages of institutional adaptation to studentdiversity. Institutions develop cultures thatfoster the concurrent pursuit of studentdiversity and student achievement when theirleaders design systematic interventions toreduce barriers, help students meet institutionalexpectations and improve learningenvironments. A balanced emphasis on qualityand diversity enables institutions to pmgresstoward fair outcomes.
Policy Environment
Mission
A Model of Institutional Adaptation to Student Diversity*
Federal PolicyEnvironment
National PrioritiesSpecial ProgramsFaculty PreparationFinancial AidReporting RequirementsInformation & Research
State PolicyEnvironment
Priorities & PlanningQuality Initiatives &
Outcome ReportingImproving Access &
UndergraduateEducation
Removing TransferBarriers
Financial Aid
help shapeOrganizational Culture 411----toOutcomeswhich affects
Achievementand Diversity Conflict
Selective institutions emphasizeachievement at the expense ofdiversity. Non-selectiveinsti1 tutions emphasize diversity
' at the expense of achievement.
ManagementStrategies
AdministrativeCommitment
Strategic Planning& Coordination
Information &Communication
Staff DiversityFaculty Incentives
& Support
AchievementAccommodates Diversity
Both selective and non-selectiveinstitutions manage culture togive balanced attention toachievement and diversity.
ProportionalEnrollment
InstitutionalMission
SelectivityTeaching/Research
EmphasisResidential/Commuter
MixService Area
Demographics
Increase Diversity Increase Achievement
Stage 1.ReducingBarriers
Student RecruitmentHelping Students Qualify
for Financial AidAdequate Financial AidServing Employed AdultsProviding Open
Admissions
Stage 2.Helping Students
Achieve
Outreach to the PublicSchools
Transition from HighSchool to College
Academic & Social Climate
Stage 3.Improving Learning
Environments
Academic Support
Student Assessment &DevelopmentalAssistance
Cultural Diversity in theEducational Program
* Student diversity has three major dimensions: (1) preparation. (2) opportunity orientation and (3) mode of college-going.African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians share these dimensions with other groups, but are distributed differentlyas a function of historic discrimination and socio-economic status. Note: Model modified January 4, 1991.
ComparableGraduation
Testing the Model
Ten states (California, Florida, Illinois,Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, NewMexico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas)selected to maximize diversity in size,geoglaphic region and racial/ethnic populationsparticipated in a two-year study to test thepropositions summarized by the model. Withinthese states, surveys were completed by statecoordinating and governing boards, systemboards and all 142 of the public four-yearcolleges and universities.
The survey, developed in collaboration withparticipating states, collected information aboutthe strategies institutions used to improveparticipation and graduation rates forunderrepresented populations during the pastdecade and the outcomes they obtained.' Thesurveys asked institutions to report on theduration and intensity of 68 different practicespreviously identified in the 10 case studies ascontributing to high or improved participationand graduation rates thr African American,Hispanic and American Indian students.Coordinating and governing boards providedinformation about the intensity and duration of36 state policies or practices identified withpolicy environments that encouragedinstitutions to make the pursuit of fairoutcomes (proportional representation andcomparable graduation) a high priority.'
Enrollment equity scores estimating howclosely each institution approached proportionalrepresentation for each racial/ethnic groupserved in 1980 and 1988 were calculated as theratio of the group's proportional enrollmentamong undergraduates in a specific year totheir proportional representation in thepopulation of the state for the same year(service area demographics were used forinstitutions enrolling more than 50% of theirundergraduates from a single standardmetropolitan statistical area [SMAl, specificcounty or other defined in-state service area).
Graduation equity scores estimating howclosely each institution approached comparable
5
graduation for each racial/ethnic gimp werecalculated as the ratio between proportionalrepresentation among graduates in a given yearand proportional representation amongundergraduates enrolled four years earlier.Data on the composition of undergraduateenrollments and baccalaureate graduates wereobtained from the National Center forEducational Statistics (NCFS), HigherEducation General Information Survey(HEGIS) and verified by each institution orfrom the survey which collected informationfor 1988 in a comparable format.
Least-squares multiple regression was used intwo different ways to estimate the relationshipsbetween equity scores and the intensity andduration of the 68 institutional practices and 36state practices identified in the survey. Aconservative estimate was obtained by entering1980 scores as the initial predictor of 1988outcomes. A less conservative estimate usedthe difference between 1980 and 1988outcomes as the dependent variable. Thepractices with the strongest positive zero-ordercontlations in each set of equations have beenreported as examples of more successfulstrategies. To limit the effect of small numberson the outcome measures, analyses for eachracial/ethnic group excluded institutions withless than 1% proportional enrollment for thatgroup in 1988.
Exploratory and confinnatory factor analysiswere used to reduce the 68 institutionalpractices to a more manageable 16 clusters.While these clusters differed modestly incomposition from the way practices wereorganized in the original conceptual model,their overall structure was remarkably similar.The 36 state practices were similarly reducedto five clusters through analyzing itemintercorrelations (the number of states wasinsufficient to permit tiw use of factoranalysis). Path analysis was then used to testthe value of the conceptual model in explainingdiffemnces in equity outcomes amonginstitutions as a function of state actions,management strategies and stage interventions.
After introducing the 10 states that took part inthe test of the model and summarizing theoutcomes for their public institutions of highereducation during the past decade, the reportdiscusses the strategies that differentiated morefrom less successful institutions, beginningwith reduced barriers and following withstrategies that helped students meet highacademic standards and those used to reformlearning environments. Finally, the reportidentifies the actions through which the moresuccessful states provided a policy environmentthat encouraged their institutions to focus onimproving equity outcomes. Because resultssuggest important differences as well assimilarities, the analysis is reported separatelyfor African Americans and for Hispanics.
The number of states and institutions whereAmerican Indians represented a significant part
of the student population was too small tosupport the analysis accomplished for AfricanAmericans and Hispanics.
Profile of Participating States
The 10 states collaborating in the test of thepropositions were home to 42% of the nation's1985 population. Together they enrolled 39%of all American Indian college students, 42%of all African Americans, and 72% of allHispanics. Information on the demographicsof the 10 states appears in Table 1. Table 2reports participation rates for AfricanAmericans and Hispanics for 1980, 1984 and1988 in the form of enrollment equity scores.
TABLE 1
Profile of States Collaborating in the Study
State
StatePopulation
x 1,000
PercentAfrican
AmericanPercentHispanic
Number ofFour-year
PublicInstitutions
California 26,365 7.9 22.3 27
Florida,
11.366 13.8 9.7 9
Illinois 11,535 15.4 6.5 12
Massachusetts 5,822 4.4 2.7 11
New Jersey 7,562 13.6 7.6 12
New Mexico 1,450 2.0 38.0 6
Ohio 10,744 10.6 1.0 12
South Carolina 3,347 30.3 0.6 12
Tennessee 4,762 16.1 0.4 9
Texas 16,370 11.7 22.5 32
10-State Total 99.323 12.6 11.1 142_
Source of Data: U.S. Department of Commerce. %frau of the Census. 1955 Population Estimates
6
TABLE 2
Aggregate Enrollment Equity by StateFour-year Public Institutions
1980-88
State
African Americans
1980 1984 1988
Hispanics
1980 1984 1988
California 85 76 73 44 42 46
Florida 77 51 100 65 81 98
Illinois 83 83 68 42 51 52
Massachusetts 74 82 63 57 65 57
New Jersey 87 75 78 82 100 100
New Mexico 75 94 99 62 89 70
Ohio 85 71 69 100 100 76
South Carolina 52 51 59 34 100 93
Tennessee 85 73 87 37 68 100
Texas 74 60 74 53 56 60
Value of 100 means that enrollment is proportional to representation in the state's population.
Data for 1980 may not be fully comparable to data for 1988 in mane states because of changes in student information systems and reportingpractices.
In 1988, African Americans in the eight stateswhere they constituted 5% or more of the 1985population were enrolled at appmximately 76%of their representation. Hispanics in the sixstates where they were present in similarnumbers were enrolled at 71% of theirrepresentation. The states exhibitedconsiderable variation. Those with smallminority populations (New Mexico for AfricanAmericans; South Carolina and Tennessee forHispanics) recorded some of the highest equityscores. Some of the states where historicallyblack institutions (Florida and Tennessee)enrolled a large proportion of AfricanAmericans also had high scores.
Seven of the 10 states reported lowerenrollment equity scores for African Americans
7
in 1984 than in 1980. By 1988, five of theseven had reversed the downward trend.Nevertheless, six of the 10 states had lowerenrollment equity scores for African Americansin 1988 than in 1980. The trends forHispanics were more favorable, with nine ofthe 10 states either maintaining enrollmentequity levels or showing improvement between1980 and 1988.
Table 3 provides comparable information ongraduation equity scores. Graduation equityscores were calculated as the ratio betweenproportional representation amongundergraduates in a given year andproportional representation among graduatesfour years later. In 1988 in the six states withsignificant Hispanic populations, they were
1
TABLE 3
Aggregate Graduation Equity by StateFour-year Public Institutions
1980-88
State
African Americans
1980 1984 1988
Hispanics
1980 1984 1988
California 65 60 61 87 79 82
Florida 70 63 69 100 100 100,
1
Illinois 62 55 62 95 82 89
Massachusetts 94 44 77 100 79 100
New Jersey1
80 69 67 85 86 77
New Mexico 72 68 68 84 82 93
Ohio 53 41 59 100 100 87
I South Carolina 94 89 84 100 100 100
1 TennesseeI
84 69 45 100 100 100
Texas 59 59 63 92 82 79
Value of 100 means that graduation classes P. proportional to representation among undergraduate students four years earlier.
almost 87% as well represented amongbaccalaureate graduates as they had beenamong undergraduates in 1984. For AfricanAmericans, the comparable figure was less than64%. Graduation equity scores estimateprogression rates through the higher educationsystem in relation to the rates for all students.
Hispanics graduate at higher rates than AfricanAmericans in every one of the study states.No state has a graduation equity score of lessthan 77 for Hispanics, while the scores rangeddown to 45 for African Americans. Four ofthe states (mostly those with small populations)have achieved comparable graduation rates forHispanics. None has reconled similar successwith African Americans. Comparisons acrossstates skluld be made with extreme caution.Florida's high graduation equity score forHispanics has more to do with thecharacteristics of the Cuban Americanpopulation who reside there than with state or
8
institutional policies as evidenced by the lessimpressive results Florida achieved for AfricanAmericans. South Carolina's high graduationequity score for African Americans must beconsidered in relation to its low score forenrollment equity.
Table 4 summarizes the outcomes for publicinstitutions in the 10 states between 1980 and1988. Approximately a third of the institutionsreported increases in the proportions of AfricanAmericans and Hispanics enrolled. A slightlylarger number teported progress towardcomparable graduation rates. A smallernumber of colleges and universities reportedincreases both in proportional enrollments andgraduation rates with institutions about twice aslikely to report this condition for Hispanics asfor African Americans.
TABLE 4
Changes in Enrollment and Graduation Equity OutcomesFour-year Public Institutions in 10 States
1980-88
Outcomes African Americo's Hispanics
Improved EnrollmentEquity Saxes 31% 34%
Improved GraduationEquity Scores 36% 37%
Increased Enrollment and GraduationEquity Scores 13% 25%
r133 n=115
institutions included moiled 1% or mom of the population for whia they are counted in 1984 or 1988.
Increases in proportional enrollments andcom --gable graduation rates tell only part ofthe stoty. Some institutions (mostlyhistorically minority or highly multicultural)recorded high enrollment or graduation equityscores or both in 1980 and in 1988. Table 5reports the distribution of institudons that hadenrollment or graduation equity scores of 80 orabove in 1988. Them is some overlap betweeninsdtutions that achieved high scores and thosethat reported improvements.
About a fourth of the institutions had highequity enrollment scores for African Americansin 1988. The number for Hispanics wassimilar. Almost a third reported highgraduation equity scores for AfricanAmericans; for Hispanics, the proportion wasmore than three-fourths. Ten percent reportedhigh enrollment and high graduation scores forAfrican Americans, while 22% recorded theseresults for Hispanics.
The information summarized in Table 5suggests that improving equity outcomes forHispanics involves getting them into collegemore than improving the achievement rates ofthose already enrolled. Improving equityoutcomes for African Americans involves
getting them into college, but the momimportant challenge involves helping those whoare already them to graduate.
Table 6 combines data from the previous twotables to report institutions that either improvedenrollment or graduation outcomes between1980 and 1988 or reported high outcomes in1988. About half of the institutions reportedthis combination for African Americans, eitherfor enrollment or for graduation equity.However, only a fourth reported thecombination for both graduation andenrollment. Seven of the institutions reportingthis combination were historically orpredominantly African American, but theremaining 26 were historically andpredominantly Anglo.
The results for Hispanics reveal a verydifferent picture with more than three-fourthsof the institutions reporting either high orimproved enrollment or graduation equityscores, and nearly two-thirds reporting both.These differences support the comments ofpublic polic: officials in states like Texas whoduring the r tcly were more optimistic aboutachieving fair outcomes for Hispanics than forAfrican Americans.
TABLE 5
Enrollment and Graduation Equity OutcomesFour-year Public Institutions in 10 States
1988
-4
High Enrollment and Graduation&pity Scores 10% 22%
r133 t115
TABLE 6
high or Improved Enrollment and Graduation Equity OutcomesFour-year Public Institutions in 10 States
1980-88
Outcomes African Americans Hispanics
High or Improved EnrollmentEquity Scores 48% 76%
High or Improved GraduationEquity Scores 49% 83%
High or Improved Enrollment Equityand High or Improved Graduation
-11V
26% 64%Equity Scores40-
r133 n=115
"High" means that the instittgion's equity same is 80 or greater.
Institutions included enrolled 1% or mote of the population for which they ate counted in 1988,
10
Practices that Predict Fair Outcomes
Not all institutions contributed to the declinesin participation and graduation rates so widelyreported for African Americans and someHispanic groups during the 1980s. Someinstitutions, including a significant number ofhistorically and predominantly Anglo collegesand universities, actually were gettingsubstantially better results in 1988 than theywere in 1980. What factms explain thedifferences?
Institutions that recorded better results madewider and more systematic use of the strategiessummarized in Figure 1. The results of thestudy confirmed the power of state andinstitutional leaders to alter practices thatexplained an important pan of the differencesin participation and graduation rates forAfrican Americans and Hispanics in 1988 aswell as the changes in these outcomes between1980 and 1988. It was insufficient to providesome of the practices for some of the studentssome of the time. In the more successfulinstitutions, appropriate combinations ofstrategies from all three stages receivedsustained attention over time. The influence ofany single intervention was invariably modest.
Between 1980 and 1988, more successfulinstitutions used the following strategies toreduce barriers to participation:
1. Adopted alternative admissionsprograms that included strategies forhelping nontraditional admitteesovercome differences in preparation.
2. Expanded recruitment effons toconsider such nontraditional sources ofunderrepresented students as thepersonnel and training offices ofemployers. Provided course patternsthat facilitated degree achievement byemployed adults with familyresponsibilities.
11
3. Emphasized merit as well as need inawaniing financial assistance tounderrepresented student groups.
4. Helped first-generation college studentsand their families cope with theprocedures and forms for requestingfinancial assistance.
The following strategies were used to helpstudents cope with expectations for which theywere not fully prepared:
5. Encouraged academic and professionaldivisions to adopt comprehensiveprograms for identifying promisingjunior high and high school students,strengthening academic preparationbefore matriculation, helping in thetransition to college, and supportingacademic achievement.
6. Provided first-generation collegestudents from underrepresentedpopulations with special orientation andother transition experiences, includingclass scheduling to encouragenetworking and mutual assistance.
7 Assigned mentors to first-time collegesnidents and provided intrusiveacademic advising.
8. Worked to improve the campus climatefor student diversity throughpublications, organizations, andactivities that portrayed culturaldifferences as a strength.
9. Used residence hall assignments as arecruitment and retention strategy forunderrepresented student populations.
The following strategies were used to improvelearning environments for a more diversestudent population:
10. Assessed the academic competencies ofentering students and- provided freetutoring and mandatory instruction inbasic skills to all who could notperform at levels required for successin regular college credit courses.
11. Taught first-gmeration college students(and others in need) how to learnthrough instruction in study skills, notetaking art preparation for tests.
12. Helped first-generation college studentsmake the transition from specialprograms to regular courseworkthrough credit classes offered inalternative formats with smallernumbers and through maintainingtutoring support as long as needed.
13. Encouraged undenepresented studentgroups to pursue academic excellence,as well as to attain minimum standards,through lxinors programs and paidinternships with faculty membersconducting research.
Leaders in the more successful institutions usedthe following management strategies to ensurethat stage interventions were employed insystematic =1 mutually reenforcing ways:
14. Used strategic planning to establish andfinancially support proportionalenrollment, comparable graduation andstaff diversity as top institutionalpriorities. Supplemented external fundswith unrestricted institutional dollars.
15. Employed senior administrators whoreflected the diversity of studentenrollments.
16. Increased the number of tenure trackand tenured African American andHispanic faculty members.
12
17. Encouraged all faculty members toaccept responsibility for improving thelearning environment throughincentives and professionaldevelopment activity.
The following state practices were positivelyassociated with improved institutional equityoutcomes:
18. Defined minority participation andachievement as important statepriorities through publicpronouncements, policy documents andproposed legislation.
19. Provided funding for need-basedstudent financial assistance, educationalopportunity programs and basic skillsinstruction in four-year institutions.
20. Developed a state plan for improvingminority student participation andachievement and staff diversity. Theplan included a formal evaluationprocedure for monitoring outcomes.
21. Developed, monitored and evaluatedarticulation and collaboration policiesthat encouraged four-year institutions,community colleges and the K-12sector to work together to promotestudent achievement and barrier-freemovement among institutions.
22. Kept track of institutional and stateprogress in achieving equity goals andreported results to the general public.
There were interesting differences betweeninstitutions with high outcomes and those withimproved outcomes. The group with highoutcomes included historically minoritycolleges and universities, as well as the moremulticultural Anglo institutions win.' sufficientnumbers of African Americans and Hispanicsto provide comfortable climates for academicachievement. Institutions with high enrollmentand graduation outcomes tended to concentrateon stage I or stage 3 interventions that
encouraged participation or imprtwed thelearning environment for all students.Institutions with impmved outcomesemphasized such stage 2 strategies as outreach,transiticm, mentors and campus climate.
States and institutions were clearly moresuccessful in impmving graduation rates duringthe 1980s than they were in changingparticipation patterns. Most of the 1988
13
differemes in enmIlment equity outcomes wereatUibutable to such barrier-reducing practicesas financial aid and alternative admissionscriteria, both of which were widely used before1980. In contrast, differences in graduationequity were more closely associated with suchstrategies as outreach and academic supportadopted during the 1980s to combat highattrition.
What Practices Made a Difference for African Americans?
State and institutional practices accounted for athird of the 1988 differences in institutionalenrollment equity scores for AfricanAmericans, and about 20% of the differencesin graduation equity scores. The institutionalpractices most strongly associated with highequity scores either for enrollment orgraduation are marked in Tables 7-10 with anX followed by (1).
A somewhat different cluster of practicesexplained about a third of the improvement inenrollment equity scores and a similarproportion of the improvements in graduationequity scores between 1980 and 1988. Theinstitutional practices most stiongly related toimprovements in equity scores are marked inTables 7-10 with an X followed by a (2).
Institutions with high outcomes approachproportional representation and comparablegraduation. Institutions with improvedoutcomes are headed in the right direction butmay still have been in 1988 far short ofproportional enrollment and comparablegraduation. The practices in the followingtables have been grouped according to thestages of adaptation in the model. Withinstages, the practices have been clusteredaccording to the results of the factor analysisof institutional responses to the survey.
Reducing Barriers to Participation
Institutions with high outcomes in 1988concentrated recruiting activities on highschools with high proportions of AfricanAmerican students and involved currentstudents in recruiting activities. Suchinstitutions also made certain prospectivecommunity college transfer students receivedgood information and emphasized their interestin academic performance by awarding aproportional share of their merit scholarships to
high-performing African American students.Institanions with high outcomes were alsolikly to emphasize adult enrollments.Admission to these institutions typicallyinvolved some combination of class rank andgrade point average for a prescribeddistribution of classes.
Institutions that improved participation orgraduation rates between 1980 and 1988waived admission standards, a practiceassociated with both improved participationand improved graduation rates. Like their highoutcomes counterparts, schools with improvedoutcomes used current students in therecruiting process and recruited through thepersonnel offices of employers.
Table 7 reports the barrier-reducing strategiesthat were associated with high or improvedoutcomes for African Americans.
Helping Students Meet High Expectations
Strategies used by institutions with highoutcomes in 1988 involved outreach throughprofessional schools such as business andengineering, and an emphasis on culturalsensitivity and institutional climate.
In marked contrast, the strategies of institutionsthat improved graduation rates between 1980and 1988 focused on learning support,priorities in residence hall assignments,mentors and advising and improving campusclimate through emphasizing the contributionsof African Americans and their culture ininstitutional publications.
The combination of strategies reported in Table8 reflects the multiple forms of assistance first-generation college students require to meethigh institutional expectations.
TABLE 7
Strategies Used Between 1980 and 1988by More Successful Institutions to Reduce Barriers
to Participation for African American Students (AAS)
Strategy
Related to Outcomes for
EE GE
Student Recruitment
II Concentrated recruitment on schoolswith high proportions of AAS
involved current students in recruiting
X(1)
X(12)
X(1)Provided CC transfers with accurateand timely advice
Institutions with high outcomes required thatstudents demonstrate academic skillsproficiency by the time they were juniors.They assisted students who lacked such skillsthrough academic advising, tutoring andinstruction in basic skills. While requiringacademic skills proficiency as a prerequisite tojunior status was positively associated withparticipation rates, the practice had a negativeimpact on graduation rates.
Institztions with improved outcomes were morelikely to require academic skills for entry levelcollege credit courses and less likely to offerbasic skills instruction. They did, however,teach study skills, note taking and testpreparation routinely to all students, a practicethat was associated with improved graduationequity. Interestingly, the practice of requiringacademic skills proficiency in entry levelcourses, while related to improved enrollmentequity scores, was not similarly associated withgraduation equity.
Colleges and universities with high graduationand enrollment equity scores also emphasizedcultural diversity in their educational programsboth through offering African Americanstudents paid intemships with faculty membersconducting research and by requiring allstudents to complete a course on minoritycultures. These practices were notcharacteristic of those with improved outcomes.
The strategies used by both sets of institutionsare summarized in Table 9. While the numberof interventions reported suggest less attentionto the academic environment than to barrierreduction and helping students achieve, themean scores for learning environment strategiesrevealed fairly intensive use by all institutions.limiting the number that distinguished the morefrom the less successful.
18
Management Strategies that InfluenceOutcomes
The most striking difference in managementstrategies between institutions that reportedhigh outcomes in 1988 and those that reportedimproved outcomes was the point of impact.Without exception, the management strategiesof institutions with high outcomes impactedgraduation equity. Having African Americansin visible leadership positions was alsopositively related to enrollment equity. Just asconsistently, the management strategies ofinstitutions with improved outcomes impactedon enrollment equity. Only the jointappointment of faculty member.; by ethnicresearch centers and academic departments alsoinfluenced graduation equity. Significantly,this strategy was most commonly used inresearch universities, also the most likely toreport improved graduation equity scoresbetween 1980 and 1988.
Table 10, which reports the managementstrategies most commonly associated with highor improved outcomes in 1988, offers anumber of insights. Administrativecommitment was significantly more common ininstitutions with high outcomes than in thosewith improved outcomes. Strategic planningwas equally common, but high outcomeinstitutions were more likely to put theirmoney where their planning led them.Institutions with improved outcomes were far
- likely to select a single, usually minority.nistrator, to coordinate all of their
recruitment and retention efforts.
Apart from the joint appointment of faculty byethnic research centers and academicdepartments, there was little evidence ofmanagement strategies that targeted faculty ineither set of institutions in 1988. None of thesurvey strategies associated with facultyincentives and support distinguished successfulinstitutions from their less successfulcounterparts. Nor was their much evidence ofthe consistent use of outcome data to monitorprogress in achieving fair outcomes.
TABLE 9
Strategies Used Between 1980 and 1988by More Successful Institutions to 1mm:we
Learning Envimnmenty. fur African American Students (AAS)
Strategy
Related to Outcomes for
EE GE
Acadewic Support
Taught study skills, note taking andtest preparation to all as needed X(2)
Student Assessment and DevelopmentalAssistance
IN Required studer..s in entry classes tohave needed academic skills
Requited academic skills pmficiency asa prerequisite to junior status
Pmvided academie advising, tutoringand instruction in basic skills
X(2)
X(1)
X(1)
Cultural Diversity in the EducationalProgram
Offered AAS paid internships withfaculty members conducting research
II Required of all students, one courseon sensitivity to minority cultuits
Path analysis was used to examine the waysthat state practices affected African Americanenrollment and graduation equity either directlyor through their influence on campusmanagement strategies and stage interventions.To reduce the 36 state and 68 institutionalpractices contained in the survey to amanageable number of variables, state practiceswere grouped into five categories through itemintercorrelations and semantic content;institutional practices were grouped into 16categories using factor analysis. The 1i;institutional categories were introduced anddefined in Tables 7-10. The five statecategories included: improving access andundergraduate education, priorities andplanning, improving transfer opportunities,quality initiatives and outcome reporting, andfinancial aid. These categories air defined inTable 11 by the practices most strongly relatedto 1988 enrollment or graduation equity.
Table 11 displays the paths (labeledalphabetically) reflecting the sequence throughwhich state policy contributed to differences inequity outcomes between 1980 and 1988. Incalculating the impact of state practices,enrollment and graduation outcomes for 1980were introduced to control for 1988 outcomesexplained by conditions existing in 1980.
State practices had very little impact onenrollment equity changes during the 1980s.Almost all of the differences in institutionalenrollment patterns in 1988 could be attributedto differences existing in 1980. State efforts toimprove access and undergraduate educationdid cause greater attention to strategic planningand coordination which had a weak positiveimpact on enrollment equity. Researchinstitutions were more likely to use strategicplanning than their more teaching orientedcounterparts.
A state emphasis on priorities and planning hadnegative consequences for enrollment equity bydiscouraging open admissions in four-yearinstitutions. In some institutions,
21
administrative commitment offset the negativeinfluence of state practice by emphasizing openadmissions and student recruitment. Residencehalls also contributed to improved enrollmentequity.
State practices exerted substantially moreinfluence on graduation outcomes. As was thecase for enrolhnent equity, not all of theinfluences were positive. State emphasis onimproving access and undergraduate educationled institutions to emphasize studentrecreitment and serving employed adults.Student recroitment had a positive impact ongraduation equity. Serving employed adultsreduced graduation equity suggesting thatAfrican Americans were less well prepared totake advantage of such opportunities than othergroups.
Policies that strengthened the transfer role ofcommunity colleges and made it easier forgraduates to transfer without loss of credit hadthe largest single positive effect on graduationequity of any category of state practice.Improving transfer opportunities alsoencouraged institutions to develop outreachprograms to the public schools, an interventionthat improved graduation equity.
State practices related to quality initiatives andoutcome reporting produced the greatestnumber of influences on institutional practice.When institutional administrators failed to takeoffsetting actions, quality initiatives hadsubstantial negative consequences forgraduation equity. However, institutionsemployed three different sets of managementstrategjes to soften the negative impact Of thethree, strategic planning and coordinationproduced the strongest improvement ingraduation equity. In a second response,campus administrators gave closer attention toinformation about African Americanenrollment, transfer, persistence and graduationrates. By itself, such information wasnegatively relaled to graduation equity.However, when information was used todevelop pmgrams for outreach to the publicschools and student recruitment, the effects
TABLE 11
Impact of State Practices on CampusManagesent, Equity Strategies and Outcomes
for African American Students (AAS) Between 1980 and 1988
StatePractice 1
ManagementStrategies
StageInterventions
EquityOutcomes
Improving Access and Undergraduate EdUestionSupported and monitored equalopportunity program
Established criteria forspecial admission of AAS
Rewarded success and penalizedfailure in achieving goats for AASparticipation and graduation
Mandated diagnostic tests of basicskills for new students
A. ,.221 Strategic +.066 EEPlanning & Coordination
B. .273 Student +.139 GERecruitment
C. .150 Serving -.164 GE
Employed Adults
Priorities and PlanningAssigned priority to improving equityoutcomes for AAS
Developed plan to improveAAS participation and greduation
Evalusted institutional progressin achieving state Roes
D. -.198 Providing __+.059 EE
Open AdmissionsAdministrative +.151 Providing .059 EECansitment Open Admissions
Financial AidOffset the difference between tuitionat public institutions and Pell awardsfor ail need-eligible students
N. .193 Serving -.164 GEProvided special financial assistance Employed Adultsprograms for AAS
krosnd
EE Enrollment Equity; GE Graduation EquityNumbers preceded by (Positive Impact) or - (Negative Impect) are standardized regression coefficients(Betas); they indicate the relative strength of significant relationshipsCC Community College; 58 State Governing or Coordinating Board
22
were positive. Outreach programs, even whenused in the absence of administrative strategies,were effective in improving graduation equity.In a third response to quality initiatives andoutcome reporting, campus administratorsplaced greater emphasis on strategies forimproving staff diversity. A diverse staff wassignificantly more likely to engage in outreachto the public schools and significantly lesslikely to emphasize serving employed adults,both with positive consequences for graduationequity.
Interestingly, the only measurable impact ofstate sindent financial aid practices involved anincrease in institutional emphasis on servingemployed adults, a practice that had negativeconsequences for graduation equity, as alreadynoted.
Selective institutions and those reporting astrong research emphasis were more likely to
23
have racial and ethnic information on studentparticipation and progress. Selectiveinstitutions gave less attention to outreachstrategies. Research-oriented institutionsplaced greater emphasis on student recruitingand strategies for improving staff diversity.Having residence halls also led institutions toplace more emphasis on student recruitment.
The relationships among state policies,management strategies, stage interventions andequity outcomes were clearly complex. Therelative absence of state practices related toimpmved enrollment equity for AfricanAmericans was clearly related to the absence ofimprovements to explain. Improvinggraduation outcomes without sacrificing qualityrequird supporting combinations of statepractice and institutional strategies employedover time.
What Practices Made a Difference for Hispanics?
State and institutional practices accounted for36% of the 1988 differences in graduation out-comes for Hispanics and 39% of the changesin graduation rates between 1980 and 1988.State and institutional practices also explained32% of the differences in 1988 participationrates and a similar amount of the differencesbetween 1980 and 1988 participation rates.
Outcomes for paricipation and graduation in1980 weir much less important as predictors ofoutcomes in 1988 for Hispanics than they werefor African Americans, reflecting greaterinstitutional success in improving equityoutcomes for Hispanics during the past decade.These figures also demonstrate convincinglythe significant influence state and institutionalpolicy leaders have had on participation andgrachAation outcomes for Hispanics.
The practices most strongly related to positiveoutcomes are reported according to the threestages of the model and the managementstrategies that guide their unfolding. In Tables12-15 as in Tables 7-10, X(1) indicates theintervention or strategy was related to highoutcomes in 1988; X(2) indicates theintervention or strategy was related toimproved outcomes.
Reducing Barriers to Participation
Institutions achieving high outcomes forHispanics in 1988 emphasized financial aid,served employed adults and provided openadmissions to at least a part of the institution.Helping students qualify for financial ai.1contributed to graduation outcomes while anemphasis on serving employed adults and openadmissions primarily predicted highparticipation rates.
Institutions that improved equity outcomesbetween 1980 and 1988 relied most heavily onstudent recruitment and augmented state andfederal need-based financial aid with their ownresources. Waiving undergraduate admission
25
standards was associated with improvements inboth participation and graduation rates as itwas for African Americans. Helpingcommunity college students transfer andproviding additional need-based financial aidpredicted improved graduation rates.
Table 12 summarizes the strategies related tohigh or improved enrollment and graduationequity for Hispanics.
Helping Students Meet High Expectations
Institutions with high participation orgraduation rates in 1988 exhibited relativelyfew student-helping strategies in contrast totheir greater emphasis on reducing barriers andimproving learning environments. In maltedcontrast, institutions with improvedparticipation or graduation rates exhibited awide range of interventions: collaborating withhigh schools, providing special access andorientation programs, emphasizing earlywarnings of academic difficulty, providingintrusive advising and mentors, attending tocampus climate and using residence halls forsummer bridge programs. Interestingly, all ofthese interventions were related to improvedgraduation rates; only special access programsalso predicted improved participation rates.
The relarively limited number of interventionsexhibited by institutions with high graduationrates comprehensive outreach and academicsupport programs offered by professionalschools, special orientation sessions, earlywarning of academic difficulty and priority inresidence hall assignments reflected in parttheir multicultural character. Institutions withlarge numbers of Hispanic students were not asdependent on the special interventions neededto help marginally represented populationsachieve academic success.
Table 13 summarizes the strategies used byinstitutions with high or improved participationand graduation rates in 1988.
TABLE 12
Strategies Used Between 1980 and 1988by Mort Successful Institutions to Reduce Barriers
Institutions with high outcomes in 1988required basic skills proficiency by the junioryear and provided extra hours of classroominstruction supplemented by tutoring andlearning laboratories. Institutions withimpiuved outcomes required students in entrylevel courses to have the academic skillsnecessary for success, but did not necessarilyprovide more developmental assistance thantheir less successful colleagues. Both sets ofinstitutions required all students to complete acourse on sensitivity to minority cultures.While the strategies used by institutions withhigh outcomes were associated both withparticipation and graduation equity, thestrategies used in institutions with improvedoutcomes related only to enrollment equity.
Table 14 identifies those learning strategiesthat distinguished high performing orimproving institutions from their lesssuccessful counterparts in 1988. Institutionsserving a significant number of Hispanicstudents made extensive use of learningstrategies. Six of the nine learningenvironment strategies not appearing in Table14, including basic skills assessment andremediation, tutoring, walk-in learninglaboratories, optional courses on minoritycultures and instruction in note taking, studyskills and test preparation, were used soextensively by all institutions that they werenot useful in distinguishing those with high orimproved outcomes from thc remainder.
TABLE 14
1
Strategies Used Between 1980 and 1988by More Successful Institutions to Improve
Learning Environments for Hispanic Students (HS)
I
1 Strategy
Related to Outcomes for
EE GE
Student Assessment ane DevelopmentalAssistance
i
III Required students in entry classesto have needed academic skills
II Required academic skills proficiencyas a prerequisite to junior status
Offered beginning course sections withextra hours of classroom instructionsupplemented by tutoring and learninglaboratories
X(2)
X(1) X(1)
X(1)
Cultural Diversity in the EducationalProgram
II Required of all students one course onsensitivity to minority cultures
Seven management strategies were associatedwith high grauuation rates in 1988. Planning,the use of unrestricted dollars, culturalawateness sessions, special strategies forattracting Hispanic faculty or expanding therecruitment pool, encouraging faculty membersto improve teaching and learning. andproviding mentors to help new facultymembers achieve tenure all played a role. Twostrategies resource allocation tied toplanning and the use of mentors to help newHispanic faculty achieve tenure wereassociated with improved graduation rates.There were no management strategies thatdifferentiated instituticas with high orimproved participation rates from their lesssuccessful counterparts.
Management strategies associated with equityoutcomes for Hispanic students are reported inTable 15. The absence of management strat-egies predicting high or improved participationrates suggests that lack of administrativecommitment may be part of the pmblemespecially since the average scores formanagement strategies were well below thosefor reducing barriers, helping students achieveand improving the learning environment.
The State Policy Dimension
Hispanics in this study graduated at ratesconsistently higher than their African Americancounterparts. But African Americans enteredcollege at rates consistently higher thanHispanics. Many of the differences ininstitutional strategies and interventions can betraced to these fimdamental differences inaccess and achievement patterns. Achievingfair outcomes for Hispanics calls for statepolicies that focus first on improvingparticipation rates. For African Americans, themore important focus is graduation equity.
Table 16 reports the results of the path analysisof state practices, campus management
29
strategies, stage interventions and outcomes for1988 with 1980 outcomes entered as a control.The impact of state practices for Hispanics wasalmost exclusively on enrollment equity.While outcomes for 1980 remained forHispanics as for African Americans the largestsingle influence on differences in enrollmentoutcomes, they explained far less for Hispanicsthan for African Americans. States andinstitutions experienced significantly momsuccess in changing enrollment outcomes forHispanics than for African Americans duringthe past decade.
A state emphasis on improving access andundergraduate educztion through such practicesas challenge grants, special admission criteria,coordinating equal opportunity programs, andmandating diagnostic tests of basic skills forfirst-time students increased institutionalattention to cultural diversity in the educationalprogram leading to improved enrollmentequity. This emphasis also causedadministrators to use strategic planning whichcontributed to better services for employedadults. Serving employed adults, whether inconcert with strategic planning or by itself hadweak positive effects on enrollment equity.
Identifying improved educational opportunitiesfor Hispanics as a state priority improvedenrollment equity, particularly when done aspart of a planning process. The use ofpriorities, planning and the evaluation of goalachievement also encouraged institutions togive greater attention to serving employedadults with the weak positive effect onenrollment equity previously noted.
Institutions were more likely to devote effort toimproving academic and social climate forHispanics in states that mandated andmonitored compliance with articulation policiesand used other strategies to improve transferbetween two- and four-year colleges. Animproved academic and social climate wasassociated with losses in enrollment equity,probably because institutions that enroll acritical mass of Hispanics have little need for
TABLE 15
Management Strategies Used Between 1980 and 1988in More Succesdul Institutions to Improve
Outcomes for Hispanic Students (HS)
''.......,... Strategy
Strategic Planning and Coordination
11 Required goals and action plans forenrolling and graduating more HS
II Resource allocation is tied to thestrategic planning process
II Used unrestricted dollars to increaseenrollment and graduation rates for HS
IIII Held cultural awareness sessions foradministrators, faculty and staff
Staff Diversity
III Recruited new Hispanic facultythrough enriched salaries, movingexpenses and releasal time forresearch
Used targeted dissertation and post-doctoral fellowships to expand thepool of potential Hispanic faculty
1Related to Outcomes for
EE GE
Faculty Incentives and Support
MIEncouraged faculty to developstrategies for improving studentachievement with grants and releasedtime
MI Provided mentors to untenuredHispanic faculty members to helpthem achieve tenure
Developed strategies for preparingand recruiting more Hispanic faculty
CondUcted regular meetings of highereducation and K-12 state boards
Improving Transfer OpportunitiesMandated and monit-Jrad compliance witharticulation policies F. +.187 Academic & -.111 EE
Social ClimateEstablished a cannon course nuaberingsystem
G. +.231 GE
gueiity Initiatives and Outcomes ReportingEstablished an approved high schoolcourse of study for coilege admission
Required basic skills proficiency forprogress to the upper division
Developed procedures reportingstudent performance data to K-12
14.+.233 Information & +.263 Academic &Communication Social Climate
-.111 EE
Flitanciat Aid
Offset the difference between tuitionat public institutions and Pelt awards I.
for all need-etigible students3.
Provided special financial assistanceprograms for HS
-.330 Cultural Div. +.133 EEin Educ. Program
-.168 Helping StLdents_+.195 GEQualify for Aid
lamest
EE Enrollment Equity; GE Graduation Equity+ (Positive Impact); (Negative Impact)CC Comminity College; SB State Governing or Coordinating BoardNumbers are standardized regression coefficients (Betas)
:?31
)
special strategies to increase comfort levels.However, state emphasis on improved transferopportunities had a substantial positive impacton graduation equity for Hispanics as it did forAfrican Americans.
State attention to quality initiatives andoutcome reporting had substantially less impacton equity for Hispanics than for AfricanAmericans. Where states adopted qualityinitiatives, campus administrators gave greaterattention to Hispanic participation andgraduation rates using such information toimprove academic and social climate; however,institutions devoting the most effort toimproving campus climate were typically thosewith the most serious equity problems.
States that developed their own need-basedprograms of financial assistance, includingtargeted aid for HispanicF. supportedinstitutions that devoted less effort to achievingcultural diversity in their educational programsand to helping students qualify for financialaid. Since cultural diversity in the educationalprogram contributed to enrollment equity, andhelping students qualify for fmancial aidcontributed to graduation equity, the negativerelationships between state financial aid andthese factors suggest that states placing thegreatest emphasis on student financial aid madethe least progress in improving equity
32
outcomes during the 1980s for both Hispanicsand African Americans.
Part of the explanation for the failure of statefinancial aid policies to exercise a positiveinfluence on either enrollment or graduadonequity may involve the extent to which tuitionincreases during the 1980s outpaced increasesin both state and federal aid. But the effects ofinstitutional characteristics as revealed by thepath analysis also offered a clue. Selectiveinstitutions, particularly those witt residencehalls, were characterized by administrators withless commitment to student diversity. Theabsence of administrative commitment alongwith admission standar& designed to includeonly well prepared students made them lesslikely to help students qualify for financialassistance, an important strategy for increasingparticipation rates of first-generation Hispaniccollege students. Selective institutions withresidence halls were more likely to useinstitutional resources to aid students and morelikely to exhibit the campus climateinterventions characteristic of institutions whereminority enrollments were marginal. Whilesome selective institutions improved equityoutcomes significantly during the 1980s, theystill did less well than the more multiculturalinstitutions making up the high outcomescategoiy.
Conclusion: The Equity Lessons of the 1980s
Study results made clear the complexitiesinvolved in devising a strategy for achievingfair outcomes as distinct from reacting withdiscrete programs to the problems arising fromthe absence of such a strategy. ln colleges anduniversities, as in other complex organizations,everything is connected to everything else.Reducing barriers to participation producesstudent who are doomed to fail unless they arehelped to survive in an unfamiliar and oftenhostile environment Special programs canhelp students survive for longer periods oftime, but will not improve graduation ratesunless faculty become committed to helpingstudents learn as a preferred alternative toaccepting failure as an indicator of quality.Institutional leaders must plan and orchestratethe required interventions, and state policyleaders must provide a policy environment thatencourages and empowers leaders who areprepared to take on the challenge.
Insights from Testing the Model
The model of institutional adaptation to studentdiversity explained a significant amount of thedifferences in participation and graduation ratesfor African Americans and Hispanics amonginstitutions participating in the study. Withoutminimizing the importance of such factors aseconomic status, parental education andprevious schooling, the test of the modelsuggested that state and institutional leaderscan produce fairer outcomes by asing practicesidentified within the model as part of asystemaric plan. Differences in state andinstitutional practices explain at least as muchof the variation in equity outcomes asdifferences in student characteristics andpreparation. Energy devoted during the pasthalf-century to finding more effective ways ofsorting students might in the next decade bemore productively focused on improvinginstitutional environments for student learning.
The attendance patterns of African Americansand Hispanics suggest that diversity and quality
33
have been mutually exclusive objectives inmany public colleges and universities.Community colleges, historically minoritycolleges and universities, and urban,multicultural institutions have shouldered mostof the responsibility for educating historicallyunderserved populat:Ln.;. Such institutionshave the fewest re..,,uP:zs and the smallestnumbers of baccalaureate options. Publicresearch universities have the most resources,the greatest prestige, the widest range ofbaccalaureate majors and the least studentdiversity.
There are some prominent exceptions whichsupport the assertion that institutions are not, asa matter of immutable principle, forced tochoose between quality and diversity. TheUniversity of California Berkeley,University of California Los Angeles, theUniversity of South Carolina and Clemson allhave made important gains in diversity duringthe past decade without discernible losses inquality. However, in California and SouthCarolina, as elsewhere, other institutions of lessprestige have experienced losses inparticipation rates, graduation rates or both. Apattern of gains and offsetting losses suggeststhat high prestige universities have recruitedstudents who would otherwise have attendedanother institution in the same state system.And, less attractive institutions have notchanged their strategies sufficiently tocompensate for the new circumstance they nowface. Sustained progress toward fair outcomesdepends upon system as well as institutionalimprovements.
Mission, location and historical characterstrongly influenced enrollment patterns asevidenced by the small ammmt of variance in1988 outcomes after the effects of 1980enrollment patterns were entered as a control.The presence of historically minorityinstitutions within a state system reduces therecruitment pool for predominantly Angloinstitutions. Comprehensive colleges anduniversities located near population centers Or
African Americans and Hispanics have reachedproportional representation, but have beenmuch less successful in achieving comparablegraduation. Some research universities haveattairwd high graduation rates through selectiveadmissions without making much peogresstoward proportional representation.
If states and their systems of higher educationare committed to fair outcomes, the history ormission of an institution cannot be an excusefor the failure to contribute appropriately tostate goals. In the study, state planning andpriorities contributed to improved epity bydefining goals for each institution, which ifattained, would produce fair outcomes for thesystem. This approach takes into account theimpact of historically minority institutions aswell as the influence of mission and location,but does not excuse any institution fromcontributing a fair share to the system effort.
Barrier-reducing strategies were heavilyemphasized by most institutions. Only twothe use of institutional resources to fundstudent fmancial aid and scheduling classes sothat degrees could be earned exclusivelythrough evening attendance appearedunderutilized. The strong influence of 1980participation patterns on those in 1988 suggeststhat much of the potential for equityimprovements through these strategies hasalready been realized. While barrier-reducingstrategies may be unlikely to bring aboutadditional improvement, they requirecontinuing attention to prevent the lossesexperienced by many institutions during thepast decade.
Interventions intended to help students meetacademic and social expectations were muchless in evidence than those designed to reducebaniers. The most heavily used strategiesincluded opportunity programs for limitednumbers of students who met special criteria(low income, first-generation college student)and orientation and advising programs thatbrought students into immediate contact withtheir majors. Neither of these interventions
34
distinguished between the more and lesssuccessful institutions probably because theyrequire little institutional commitment. Priorityin residence hall assignments, an effectiveintervention, was not widely usosA becausemany of the institutions that serve the largestnumbers of African American and Hispanicstudents lacked such facilities.
Stage 3 interventions, especially those relatedto student assessment and developmentalassistance, were nearly as common as barrier-reducing strategies. However, the mostextensively reported interventions required littlefaculty involvement. Student assessment wasused to sort students so that existing teachingand teaming practices did not need to changeto accommodate greater student diversityDevelopmental assistance was often providedby non-tenure track faculty or by adjacentcommunity colleges. Learning assistance,where not mandated by governing boards as anacademic responsibility (as in Tennessee), wascommonly provided under the supervision ofstudent affairs staff and limited primarily tostudents who qualified for externally fundedspecial prugrams.
Survey responses suggested facultydisengagement from equity objectives in manyinstitutions. The least used strategy forimproving learning envirorunents, "departmentsoffering prerequisite courses for majors havedeveloped approaches to avoid screening outdisproportionate numbers of minority students,"is the one that calls for the most facultyinvolvement. The second most lightly usedintervention, "providing sections of beginningclasses that met for extra hours of classroominstruction and enrolled fewer students," alsorequires greater faculty involvement than themore heavily used assessment and learningassistance interventions. Case study interviewswith African American, Hispanic and AmericanIndian graduates of the less multiculturalinstitutions painted a pictuie of stereotyping foridentifiable minorities, differential treatment,and a learning environment filled with manybarriers for the less well prepared!
Given the disparity between high averagescores for interventions associated withimproving learning environments ind abundantevidence of limited faculty involvement, thesafest conclusion is that the survey did a poorjob of identifying and measuring facultybehaviors, the most critical dimension of aneffective learning environment. Most publicinstitutions have made extensive use of barrier-red c 1g strategies, less use of interventions tohelp vtadents cope, and the least amount ofprogress in improving undergraduate education.apart from sorting and learning assistanceinterventions, divorced from the academicmainstream.
One of the most interesting study fmdingsinvolved the number of management strategiesthat were positively associated with high orimproved participation and graduation rates.Institutions that improved outcomes hadmanagers who set goals, required action plansfrom subordinate units, allocated resources inaccordance with plans, and supported strategiesto increase staff diversity and improveprofessional effectiveness. The number andstrength of relationships was surprising,particularly in light of other studies that havefound no, or negative, relationships betweenleadership priorities and institutionaloutcomes.' The best explanation appears to bethe longitudinal assessment of both strategiesand outcomes. Unfair outcomes have resultedfrom policies and strategies pursuedconsistently over long periods of time.Correcting inequities will require similarconsistency over an extended time.
The negative impact of state quality initiativeson graduation rates for African Americansmakes clear the reciprocal relationship betweenquality and equity. Neither can be addressedwithout considering the other. Achievingquality does not require limiting diversity, nordoes improved access imply the inevitable lossof quality. But these outcomes can occur whenthe two are pursued independently. In asimilar manner, raising tuition rates to preserveor improve educational quality adversely
35
impacts participation rates in the absence ofoffsetting increases in need-based financial aid.
While the federal policy environment mightappear to be relatively constant across states,the history of Title VI enforcement of the CivilRights Act of 1964 has produced importantdifferences between states that were subject toAdams regulation and those that haveexperienced less ininisive approaches to fairoutcomes. Court mandates in the Adams statesproduced goals, plans for attaining them andmethods of keeping track of progress that haveyet to appear in other states with equallyserious equity problems. While court mandatesfell short of many of their intended outcomes,they have produced expertise and a readinessfor dealing with equity issues much less inevidence in non-Adams counterparts.
Beyond readiness and expertise, courtintervention commonly led to the establishmentof equal oppoitunity programs, patterned afterthz effective federally-funded Trio model.While opportunity programs serve too limited aclientele to have a major impact onbaccalaureate completion, they havedemonstrated the capacity of nontraditionallyprepared students to succeed when providedwith appropriate forms of advising,developmental assistance and academicsupport. They have also been a major vehiclefor staff diversification as those recniited towork in them moved into more influentialpositions of state and institutional leadership.
A Final Note
None of the strategies or policies discussed inthis report are unique. All have been used bysuccessful institutions, and many are present inunsuccessful institutions as well. Whileprogress toward equity cannot occur withoutcommitment and systematic effort, it is clearfrom the experiences of the past decade thatinstitutions with the will to improveparticipation and graduation rates forunderrepresented groups can do so. They are
most likely to have and express that will whenstate and feekral policies provide anenvironment where fair outcomes can bepursued without sacrificing standards or othervalued priorities.
Institutions achieving improved outcomes by1988 displayed different patterns ofinterventions from the historically minority andmore multicultural institutions with highoutcomes. In particular they used differentmanagement strategies and gave greateremphasis to interventions aimed at helpingstudents achieve in the context of theiracademic setting. Multicultural or minoritydominant social and academic settings producecomfort levels for African American andHispanic studcnts that clearly facilitated theirpersistence and graduation. Whilepredominantly Anglo institutions cannotduplicate a minority dominant environment,they can improve the academic and socialenvironments they provide for African
36
Americ?It and Hispanic students by adoptingthe strategies and interventions of thepredominantly Anglo institutions that improvedoutcomes between 1980 and 1988.
The interventions useful in promoting fairoutcomes during the past decade need to beaugmented by some of the newer strategies thatby 1988 had not been in use long enough tomake a significant difference in graduationoutcomes. The remaining barriers to fairoutcomes for populations who will representhalf of the entering labor force sometime in thenext century cannot be overcome by specialinterventions that protect academic practicesfrom change under the dubious premise thatthis preserves quality. Changes in attitudes andpractice must extend to every facet ofinstitutional life. The means to ensure that thenext decade is not a replay of the last are wellknown. Needed is the federal, state andinstitutional leadership to ensure that thepotential for fair outcomes becomes a reality.
Project Publications
The following references report aspects of the five-year study in greater depth.
books
Richardson, R. C., Jr. and L. W. Bender.Fostering MinOrIty Access andAchievement in Higher Education: TheRole of Community Colleges andUniversities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers, 1987.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. and E. F. Skinner.Achieving Quality and Diversity:Universities in a Multicultural Society.New York: ACE/Macmillan, 1991.
Monographs
Richardson, R. C., Jr. Serving More DiverseStudents: A Contextual View.Denver, Colorado: EducationCommission of the States, 1989.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. Institutional Climate andMinority Achievement Denver,Colorado: Education Commission ofthe States, 1989.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. The State Role inPmmoting amity. Denver, Colorado:Education Commission of the States.1990.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. Responding to StudentDiversity: A Community CollegefArsmi_ive. Denver, Colorado:Education Commission of the States,1990.
37
Journal Articles
de los Santos, A. G., Jr. and Richardson, R. C.Jr. "Ten Principles for GoodInstitution Practice in RemovingRace/Ethnicity as a Factor in CollegeCompletion," Educational Record,Summer/Fall 1988, pp. 34-47.
Richardson, R. C., Jr., A. G. de los Santos, Jr.and H. Simmons. "GraduatingMinority Students: Lessons from TenSuccess Stories," Change, May/June1987, pp. 20-28.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. and E. F. Skinner."Making It In a Majority University:The Minority Graduate's Perspective,"Change, vol. 20, no. 3, May/June 1988,pp. 34-42.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. "If Minority Studentsare to Succeed in Higher Education,Every Rung of the Ladder Must Be inPlace," Point of View in Chronicle ofHigher Education, January 11, 1989.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. "Achieving QualityWhile Maintaining Diversity," AGBReports, vol. 32, no. 2, 1990, pp. 23-26.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. and E. F. Skinner."Adapting to Diversity: OrganizationalInfluences on Student Achievement,"Journal of Higher Education,September/October 1990, pp. 485-511.
4 5
References
Birnbaum, R. "Administrative Commitmentsand Minority Enrollments: CollegePresidents' Goals for Quality andAccess," The Review of HigherEducation 11(4), Summer 1988, pp.435-458.
Carter, D. J. and R. Wilson. Eighth AnnualStatus Report: Minorities in HigherEducation. Washington, D. C.:American Council on Education Officeof Minority Concerns, 1989.
Pallas, A. M., G. Natriello, and E. L. Mc Dill."The Changing Nature of theDisadvantaged Population: CurrentDimensions and Future Trends."Educational Researcher, vol. 18, no. 5,June/July 1989, pp. 16-22.
Richardson, R. C., Jr. and E. F. Skinner.Achieving Quality and Diversity:Universities in a Multicultural Societ y.New York: ACE/Macmillan, 1991.
Skinner, E. F. and R. C. Richardson Jr."Making It In a Majority Institution:The Minority Graduate's Perspective,"Change, vol. 20, no. 3, May/June 1988,pp. 34-47.
Notes
1. A. M. Pallas, G. Natriello, and E. L.Mc Dill, "The Changing Nature of theDisadvantaged Population: CurrentDimensions and Future Trends,"Educational Researcher, vol. 18, no. 5,(June/July 1989), pp. 16-22.
2. D. J. Carter and R. Wilson, EighthAnnual Status Report: Minorities inHigher Education (Washington, D.C.:American Council on Education Officeof Minority Concerns, 1989).
3. The institutions were BrooklynCollege, California State UniversityDominguez Hills, Florida InternationalUniversity, Florida State University,Memphis State University, TempleUniversity, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, University of NewMexico Main, University of Texasat El Paso, and Wayne StateUniversity. Case studies of theseinstitutions and a description of themodel developed to explain theiroutcomes is available in R. C.Richardson and E. F. Skinner,Achieving Quality and Diversity (NewYork: American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991).
4 1
4. The ten states participating in thisphase of the study were California,Florida, Illinois, Massachusetis, NewJersey, New Mexico, Ohio, SouthCarolina, Tennessee and Texas.
5. A complete list of all state andinstitutional practices appears inchapter 14 of R. C. Richardson, Jr. andE. F. Skinner, Achieving QualiV andDiversity (1991).
6. Skinner, E. F. and R. C. RichardsonJr., "Making It In a MajorityInstitution: The Minority Graduate'sPerspective," Change, vol. 20, no. 3(May/June 1988), pp. 34-47.
7. See, for example, Bimbaum, R.,"Administrative Commitments andMinority Enrollments: CollegePresidents' Goals for Quality andAccess," The Review of HisdierEducation vol. 11, no. 4, (Summer1988). pp. 435-458.
