Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Assessing equitable postsecondary educational outcomes for Hispanics in California and Texas
(USC Thesis Other)
Assessing equitable postsecondary educational outcomes for Hispanics in California and Texas
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ASSESSING EQUITABLE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
FOR HISPANICS IN CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS
by
Lan Hao
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
May 2006
Copyright 2006 Lan Hao
UMI Number: 3237151
3237151
2007
Copyright 2006 by
Hao, Lan
UMI Microform
Copyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Tieniu Li, and our son, Zheyu Li
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not be possible without the help and support from
many people over the years.
First and foremost, my heartfelt thanks go to my advisor and mentor, Dr.
Estela Mara Bensimon. She provided me with not only guidance and knowledge, but
also gave me the encouragement, trust, respect, and care to get through this long
process. Without her this study would not be possible.
I wish to acknowledge my committee members, Dr. Dowell Myers and Dr.
Tatiana Melguizo for their guidance and mentorship.
I also wish to convey my deep gratitude to Dr. Adrianna Kezar and Dr. Linda
Hagedorn for their guidance and support throughout my graduate school years.
There are two professors in the Rossier School of Education to whom I owe a
debt of gratitude – Dr. Penny Wohlstetter and Dr. Melora Sundt. Their support and
encouragement were pivotal when I was pursuing my master’s degree, which
prepared me to pursue my doctoral degree.
I am also very appreciative of my friends for their understanding, patience,
and encouragement during the time I have been in school. Their support and love
have been critical for me in the process. In particular, I would like to thank Edlyn
Pena, Letty Bustillos, Frances Wu, Karri Holley, Georgia Bauman, Arlease Woods,
Frank Harris, Eleanor Hoppe, and Jaime Lester. My fellow students read many drafts
of my dissertation chapters and supported me greatly throughout the writing process.
A great many friends likewise offered their help when I first started the
program. Although I don’t see them as often in person now, their names will not be
iv
forgotten. These friends are: Andrew Smith, Julia Colyar, Deborah Santiago, Paz
Oliverez, Melissa Contreras-McGavin, and Michelle Blazer.
I wish to thank the University of Southern California Urban Initiative for
awarding me the dissertation award, which enabled me to finish the study and also
provided me with the opportunity to interact with well-known, national experts in
higher education. My interaction with these individuals helped to enhance my study
and for that I am grateful. These individuals agreed to be interviewed and provided
me with their insights as to my study. They are: Drs Peter Ewell, David Longanecker,
Nancy Shulock, and Marta Tienda. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity
to talk with the “gurus” in the field and have them react to my study.
I also would like to thank my parents and my parents-in-law for their help.
They each came to the United States from China on two separate occasions. With
their assistance, I was able to leave my household in their capable hands, making it
possible for me to concentrate on my study.
Last but not least, I wish to thank my husband, Dr. Tieniu Li, for his love and
continuous support in this endeavor. Many times, we discussed my study and the
methods I used. Whether it be in the car going home, or over the dinner table, I feel
that I benefited greatly from his insight and suggestions. He is my partner in this
project as he is in everything else in my life. I would also like to thank our son, Joey.
He has taught me patience and perseverance. He is my inspiration for completing
this dissertation, as well as always pursuing higher achievements in life.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………….……………………………… iii
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………. viii
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………… xiii
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………… xiv
PREFACE ……………………………………………………………………... xv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………... 1
Problem Statement 3
Hispanics in the United States 8
Benefits of Higher Education 12
The Rationale for an Equity Accountability System 13
The Research Question 17
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………... 20
Section I: Accountability and Higher Education 20
Accountability in Higher Education 21
Higher Education Accountability Mechanisms 23
Higher Education Accountability Systems in California and Texas 28
The Conceptual Framework for the Equity Scorecard 34
Conclusion 38
Section II: Hispanics in Higher Education 40
High School Graduation and Academic Preparation 42
Four-year College Access and Two-year to Four-year Transfer 47
Four-year College Retention 51
Degree Completion and Excellence 53
Conclusion 56
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY …………… 60
The Equity Scorecard 62
The Equity Index 66
Advantages of the Model 72
Limitations 75
Data Source 78
Conclusion 79
vi
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ……………………………………………………. 81
Section I: The State of Equity throughout the Educational Pipeline
for Hispanics in California and Texas
82
High School Graduation and Readiness for College 82
Access to a Four-Year College 88
Retention and Bachelor Degree Completion 92
Excellence 95
Section II: Longitudinal Trends in Equitable Outcomes for Hispanics 97
1. UC: Hispanics fared worse in 2003 than in 1988 97
2. Equity Index for Hispanic community college transfers: Worsening
for UC and slightly improving for CSU
101
3. Hispanics better off in access to the University of Texas system than
at Texas A&M system
103
4. High school completion is a major obstacle to increasing the number
of college-educated Hispanics in California and Texas
106
5. Inequity in college readiness among California’s Hispanics persists
over time
107
6. Hispanics gain equity in UC bachelor’s degree attainment at the close
of the 20
th
century but experience the reverse at the beginning of the
21
st
century
107
7. Bachelor’s degree attainment in Texas: UT educates the majority of
Hispanics
111
Conclusion 113
Section III: The State of Equity for Hispanics in the Flagship Campuses 114
Summary of Findings 117
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION …………...…………………. 118
Discussion of the Findings 118
Advantages and Limitations of the Model 128
Areas for Future Research 138
Recommendations for Data Collection and Reporting 139
Conclusion 139
EPILOGUE………………………………………………………………………….. 142
The Interview Project 143
Feedback to the Equity Scorecard Study 144
Conclusion 154
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 155
APPENDIX A: Result Tables for California Analysis .…………………………….. 166
APPENDIX B: Result Tables for Texas Analysis ………………………….…….. 179
APPENDIX C: Result Tables for Flagship University Comparison ……………….. 190
vii
APPENDIX D: Experts’ Biographies………………………………………………. 192
APPENDIX E: Interview Protocol ...……………...……………………………….. 194
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Current Hispanic population in California and Texas………..……… 6
Table 2: Grades of California and Texas in Measuring Up 2002 …………….. 16
Table 3: A close look at the indicators employed in CPEC report: The
Performance Indicators of California Higher Education 2001……… 31
Table 4: High school graduates’ preparation for four-year colleges …………. 45
Table 5: National pipeline by ethnicity ………………………………………... 46
Table 6: California Equity Scorecard, 2003 …………………………………... 83
Table 7: Texas Equity Scorecard, 2003 ……………………………………….. 85
Table 8: First-time full-time freshman access to UT and Texas A&M systems
versus high school graduates in Texas by race/ethnicity, 1995-
2002 ……
104
Table 9: Hispanics’ bachelor’s degree attainment at UC and CSU, 1988-2003.. 110
Table 10: Hispanics’ bachelor’s degree attainment from UT and Texas A&M
systems, 1995-2003 …………………………………………………. 112
Table 11: Hispanic students’ share in undergraduate enrollment in UT and
Texas A&M systems, versus share in 25-29 age group in Texas,
1995-2003…………………………………………………………….. 113
Table 12: Comparison of flagship Equity Index to the system-level Equity
Index: First-time freshman enrollment in relation to high school
graduates in California and Texas, 2003 ………………….…………. 116
Table 13: Comparison of flagship Equity Index to the system-level Equity
Index: Transfer to four-year institutions in relation to enrollment in
community colleges in California and Texas, 2003 ………………… 117
Table 14: Hispanics' bachelor's degree attainment Equity Indices in public
higher education systems in California and Texas, in relation to the
25- to 29-year-old age group in the state's population, 2003 ………… 133
Table 15: First-time full-time freshman enrollment at UT system, fall 2003 …. 135
Table 16: List of experts who participated in the interview project …………... 143
ix
Table A-1: Equity Index for high school graduates versus 12
th
grader
enrollment…………………………………………………………... 166
Table A-2: Equity Index for high school graduates versus K-12 enrollment…... 166
Table A-3: Equity Index for high school graduates versus 15-19 age cohort in
California…………………………………………………………… 167
Table A-4: Equity Index for A-G completion versus high school graduates…... 167
Table A-5: Equity Index for A-G completion versus 12
th
graders’ enrollment… 168
Table A-6: Equity Index for A-G completion versus K-12 enrollment………… 168
Table A-7: UC Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus high
school graduates…………………………………………………….. 169
Table A-8: UC Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus K-12
enrollment…………………………………………………………... 169
Table A-9: UC Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus 15-19
age cohort in California…………………………………………….. 170
Table A-10: CSU Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus high
school graduates…………………………………………………….. 170
Table A-11: CSU Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus K-12
enrollment…………………………………………………………... 171
Table A-12: CSU Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus 15-19
age cohort in California…………………………………………….. 171
Table A-13: UC Transfer Equity Index versus CCC first-time freshmen……… 172
Table A-14: CSU Transfer Equity Index versus CCC first-time freshmen…….. 172
Table A-15: UC Equity Index in first-year to second-year persistence………… 173
Table A-16: CSU Equity Index in first-year to second-year persistence………. 173
Table A-17: UC Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment…………………………………………... 174
x
Table A-18: UC Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29
age cohort in California…………………………………………….. 174
Table A-19: CSU Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment…………………………………………... 175
Table A-20: CSU Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29
age cohort in California…………………………………………….. 175
Table A-21: UC Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment in STEM
majors versus undergraduate enrollment in UC ………..………….. 176
Table A-22: CSU Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment in STEM
majors versus undergraduate enrollment in CSU ……..…………… 176
Table A-23: UC Equity Index of Master’s degree attainment versus UC
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 177
Table A-24: CSU Equity Index of Master’s degree attainment versus CSU
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 177
Table A-25: UC Equity Index of doctorates degree attainment versus UC
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 178
Table B-1: Equity Index of high school completion versus 12
th
graders’
enrollment ………………………………………………………….. 179
Table B-2: Equity Index of high school completion versus K-12 enrollment …. 179
Table B-3: Equity Index of high school completion versus 15-19 age cohort in
Texas ……………………………………………………………….. 180
Table B-4: Equity Index of first-time freshmen versus high school
graduates .......................................................................................…. 180
Table B-5: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus high school
graduates, UT system ………………………………………………. 181
Table B-6: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus high school
graduates, Texas A&M system …………………………………….. 181
Table B-7: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus K-12
enrollment ………………………………………………………….. 182
xi
Table B-8: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus 15-19 age
cohort in Texas …………………………………………………….. 182
Table B-9: Equity Index of two-year to four-year transfer versus student
enrollment in community colleges in Texas ……………………….. 183
Table B-10: Equity Index of transfer to University of Texas system versus
student enrollment in community colleges in Texas ……………..... 183
Table B-11: Equity Index of transfer to Texas A&M System versus student
enrollment in community colleges in Texas ……………………….. 184
Table B-12: Equity Index in first-year to second-year persistence ……………. 184
Table B-13: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 185
Table B-14: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29 age
cohort in Texas …………………………………………………….. 185
Table B-15: UT Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 186
Table B-16: Texas A&M Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 186
Table B-17: UT Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29
age cohort in Texas ………………………………………………… 187
Table B-18: Texas A&M Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
25-29 age cohort in Texas ………………………………………….. 187
Table B-19: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment in STEM majors
versus undergraduate enrollment …………………….…………….. 188
Table B-20: Equity Index of Master’s degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment ………………………………………………………….. 188
Table B-21: Equity Index of doctorates degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment ………………………………………….. 189
Table C-1: Equity Index of First-time Freshmen Access to Flagship
Universities in California and Texas, 2003, using high school
graduates as the reference population ……………………………… 190
xii
Table C-2: Equity Index of First-time Full-time Freshmen Access to Flagship
Universities in California and Texas, 2003, using age cohort 15-19
in the state as the reference population …………………………….. 190
Table C-3: Equity Index of transfer to Flagship Universities in California and
Texas, 2003, using community college enrollment as the reference
population ………………………………………………………….. 191
Table C-4: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment from flagship
institutions in California and Texas, using the 25-29 age cohort in
the state as the reference population …………….……………….. 191
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with a BA degree or higher, by
race/ethnicity, March 1971-2001……………………………………. 4
Figure 2: The higher education pipeline…………………………………….…. 41
Figure 3: Enrolled-in-college rates for white and Latino high school graduates,
1978-2000…………………………………………………………… 48
Figure 4: The Equity Scorecard …………………………………………..…… 62
Figure 5: The Formula of the Equity Index…………………………………….. 67
Figure 6: First-time freshman access to UC versus high school graduates in
California by race/ethnicity, 1988-2003 …………………………….. 100
Figure 7: Community college transfers to UC and CSU versus first-time
freshman enrollment in CCC by race/ethnicity, 1988-2002 ………… 102
Figure 8: Community college transfers to UT and Texas A&M systems versus
total community enrollment by race/ethnicity, 1995-2003 ………….. 105
Figure 9: A-G curriculum completion rates for California high school
graduates, 2003 ………………………………………………………. 109
xiv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this dissertation is to demonstrate how states that are
undergoing major demographic shifts, such as California and Texas, can continuously
monitor the postsecondary educational attainment of Hispanics. To accomplish this, I
utilize publicly available data from California Postsecondary Education Commission
and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to construct Equity Scorecards for
California and Texas. I examine data under four perspectives—academic preparation,
access, retention and degree attainment, and excellence—and use the Equity Index as
the tool for data analysis. The results demonstrate that the greatest inequities for
Hispanics are found at the starting point of the educational pipeline: high school
graduation and access to four-year institutions. More attention should be given to these
crucial points in the pipeline in order to increase the proportion of Hispanics in
California and Texas with a baccalaureate degree. I argue that a comprehensive
accountability mechanism, such as the Equity Scorecard, with clear state priorities is
needed to address these problems. The Equity Scorecard provides a concrete and
useful example in assessing higher education systems in providing equitable
educational outcomes for Hispanics and serves as a starting point for conversation to
address those issues.
xv
PREFACE
One of the most critical roles of states is to provide the resources and
oversight for a high quality educational system. A state’s capacity to compete
effectively in today’s globalized economy requires a high percentage of college
graduates. Higher education is no longer a luxury reserved for the most privileged
members of society. While higher education has always been considered an
important public investment, it is now absolutely essential for a state’s economic and
social well-being. For states that are experiencing rapid and dramatic demographic
changes, the need to develop a highly educated citizenry presents a daunting
challenge. This is particularly true in such states as California, Texas, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Colorado, in which the Hispanic
1
population is growing very rapidly,
because Hispanics have very low rates of baccalaureate degree attainment in
comparison to other groups. In states where Hispanics are projected to become the
largest minority group, their educational attainment has become a matter of
economic necessity. However, none of the states in which Hispanics represent a
substantial segment of the population appear to monitor the educational achievement
of Hispanics systematically. Considering the growing number of reports that sound
the alarm about the low educational attainment of Hispanics, including high dropout
rates from high school and low Bachelor’s and Associate degree completion, this
lack of attention is surprising.
1
In this dissertation, I use the term “Hispanic” to refer to people of any of the following groups:
Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban American, Central or South American,
or of Spanish descent. When I cite literature that uses the term “Latino,” the term “Latino” will be
used interchangeably with “Hispanic.”
xvi
Most states have some form of accountability system to judge the quality and
productivity of colleges and universities and their responsiveness to citizens. In
states with a substantial number of Hispanic college-age citizens, the nature of
accountability—what is measured and what counts as evidence of educational
outcomes—may need to be reconsidered. Existing accountability systems are not
structured to address racial and ethnic differences in the student body. For the most
part, institutions are held accountable for results at an aggregated level, treating the
student body in higher education as a homogeneous group. The lack of systematic
and consistent requirements for reporting data disaggregated by race/ethnicity make
it difficult to assess the performance of state public higher education systems on such
measures as producing equal educational outcomes
2
for historically underrepresented
students. Even though there has always been an expectation that higher education is
a primary means of achieving racial and ethnic equity, most systems of educational
accountability for higher education do not incorporate performance indicators that
are specifically linked to equity in opportunity and results.
Accordingly, the purpose of this dissertation is to develop a prototype of an
accountability model called “Equity Scorecard” that can be used alone or as a
supplement to existing accountability systems to assess states on the basis of
equitable higher educational outcomes. Accountability systems consist of indicators
that enable the public, policymakers, and elected officials to make judgments about
2
By equal educational outcomes, I refer to results such as Hispanics being well-represented in
students earning a high Grade Point Average (GPA), in students coming back to school after the
summer and winter vacations, in students graduating in competitive majors, and in students attending
graduate schools. A detailed list of measures will be discussed in Chapter Four when I discuss the
Equity Scorecard of this study.
xvii
the composition of the student body, degrees granted, the composition of the faculty,
and so on. The value of an accountability system depends on whether it produces
information that reveals problems as well as progress and that can be used for
decision-making and planning. In states where the economic, social, and political
well-being will depend greatly on the participation of Hispanics, it is essential to
have evidence-based information on their status.
I demonstrate how the model works by applying it to California and Texas
and examining how well these two states perform on the metric of equity in
educational outcomes for Hispanic students. Although I use Hispanics as the target
population for the accountability model, this model can be applied to any other
population that has experienced the disadvantages of exclusionary practices and
whose educational outcomes lag behind those of Whites. I chose to focus the
accountability model on Hispanics because California and Texas are experiencing
what some demographers have called Latinization (Valle & Torres, 2000). To put it
bluntly, a White person who reaches retirement age and hopes to sell his or her home
at a price several times over its original cost may not be able to do so in a city like
Los Angeles if the proportion of Hispanics going to college and earning degrees does
not increase significantly in the next decades (Myers & Wolch, 1995). The well-
being of California in 2050 will depend on a concerted effort to elevate the
socioeconomic status of the Hispanic population, including doubling the number of
Hispanics earning baccalaureate degrees (Vernez & Mizell, 2001).
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
California has been described as a prime example of the polarizing effects of
globalization (Sassen, 1994), largely because of the high concentration of
immigrants with different levels of education. Demographic analyses of population
characteristics suggest that California is being divided into two separate and unequal
sectors demarcated by a shrinking middle-class. At the high end, Whites and Asian
Americans form an elite group of college-educated workers who flourish in the
growing knowledge-based sector of the economy; at the low end, an even larger
group of poorly educated Hispanic workers hold low-paying service and manual-
labor jobs. Within two decades, more than half of California’s working population
will be Hispanic; therefore, if these trends continue, the low-end sector will continue
to grow exponentially. Rapid population changes and disparities in educational
attainment lie at the heart of this growing polarization (Myers, Parks, & Hacegaba,
2000). While there is general knowledge about the under-representation of Hispanics
in higher education, none of the states with substantial numbers of Hispanics appear
to monitor their educational achievement systematically. As I have mentioned, the
purpose of my dissertation is to create a prototype of an accountability model that
can be used alone or as a supplement to existing accountability systems to assess the
performance of higher education on the basis of equitable educational outcomes.
The achievement gap in higher education has not received as much attention
as the one in grades K-12. Mainstream dialogue among higher education
policymakers and practitioners has been framed from the standpoints of affirmative
action and diversity rather than from the standpoint of accountability. The former
2
perspectives distort the pressing realities of a market-based economy, effectively
promoting greater access to higher education but doing very little to ensure greater
degree attainment and educational accomplishments. The purpose of accountability
systems is to monitor the performance of tax-supported institutions, identify areas in
which improvements are needed, and serve as an effective policy tool for judging
how institutions are promoting state priorities (Shulock & Moore, 2004). Given the
dynamic demographic changes occurring in California, Texas, and elsewhere, there
is an urgent need for measures of equitable educational outcomes for racial and
ethnic groups with a history of under-representation in higher education. Public
systems of higher education may be evaluated (and sometimes even funded) on the
basis of such criteria as productivity and quality, but they are not held accountable
for equitable educational outcomes.
The absence of equity in higher education accountability systems is one of
the major reasons that growing inequalities in educational outcomes have remained
invisible. This study has two key elements: a framework called the Equity Scorecard
(Bensimón, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003) and a mathematical formula called the “Equity
Index,” which I created independently (Hao, 2002). The Equity Scorecard consists of
four perspectives – preparation, access, retention and degree completion, and
excellence. Within these four perspectives are a set of key performance indicators
(e.g., enrollment and persistence in institutions by type, grade point averages (GPAs),
baccalaureate degree obtainment, etc.) that will make it possible to assess the state of
equity in postsecondary educational outcomes for Hispanics in proportion to their
population at large. At the conclusion of my study, the California and Texas Equity
3
Scorecards will make it possible for policymakers and others to answer such
questions as the following: Are Hispanics close to or far from attaining equity in
enrollment in higher education? What is the equity status for Hispanics in obtaining
baccalaureate degrees from public and independent four-year colleges? Given their
different state population dynamics, how do California and Texas compare on the
equity index for baccalaureate degrees granted to Hispanics?
This chapter is organized in the following way: I first present the problem
statement, with major trends occurring in the United States (U.S.) society. Then I
provide a brief study of Hispanics, highlighting their low levels of educational
attainment. I also illustrate the benefits of higher education, followed by the rationale
and importance of equity as an element of accountability systems in higher education.
Lastly, I present the research question for this study.
Problem Statement
Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, achieving equal educational
opportunity continues to be a major dilemma. In the past several decades, initiatives
at various levels (federal, state, institutional) have produced significant progress in
the participation of historically under-represented minority students, namely,
Hispanics and African Americans,
1
in higher education. However, equity in
educational outcomes is still an unrealized goal. National statistics reveal that despite
increased access to higher education, the achievement gap between Whites and
1
In terms of minority students’ access to higher education, progress has been made nationwide. In
almost two decades, from 1980 to 1999, the number of undergraduate Hispanic students enrolled in
college increased 185% (from 433,100 to 1,232,300). During the same period, undergraduate White
students increased 3.5% (from 8.5 million to 8.8 million). Retrieved from online data from The
Chronicle of Higher Education, http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2002/nation/0102302.htm
4
Asians and their Black and Hispanic counterparts is in fact growing. For example, as
Figure 1 shows, in 1971 the White-Hispanic gap for 25- to 29-year-olds attaining
bachelor’s degrees or higher was 14% (19% vs. 5%), while in 2000, the gap widened
to an alarming rate of 24% (34% vs. 10%) (National Center for Education Statistics,
2004). The college and higher educational attainment gap between Whites and
Hispanics has increased from 14% to 24%. In thirty years, the gap has almost
doubled in size.
Figure 1: Percentage of 25- to 29- year-olds with a Bachelor's Degree or
higher, by race/ethnicty: March 1971-2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
White Black Hispanic
Source: NCES, The Condition of Education 2002, page 174
While these statistics are daunting, they are not very useful in terms of
indicating what state policymakers should do to improve the situation. If elected
officials were to ask, “Are we preparing minority groups to participate in the new
economy?” or “Will the citizens of our state achieve the educational levels that are
required to compete effectively in a post-industrialized society?” they would find
5
that the information required to answer these questions is hard to access. Generally,
systems of accountability lack indicators that are specifically oriented to assess
systemic effectiveness on the basis of equitable educational outcomes.
Two major trends in American society should be noted. The first is a
demographic change brought about by the rapid growth of the Hispanic population.
From 1990 to 2000, the Hispanic population of the United States increased by 58%,
while the general population grew by 13% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). This
increase in the Hispanic population is especially evident in California and Texas,
where more than half of the Hispanics in the country reside. In absolute numbers,
from 1990 to 2000, the number of Hispanics increased by 13 million, from 22.3
million in 1990 to 35.3 million in 2000. Hispanics accounted for 40% of the total
U.S. population growth during that decade, as well as the largest of all ethnic/racial
groups. By 2050, the number of Hispanics nationwide is projected to reach 102.6
million, an increase of 191% from the year 2000 (State of California Department of
Finance, 2004).
This demographic shift coincides with the second major trend, which is a
change in the economic structure. With the development of technology in the
information age, the economy has become increasingly more knowledge-based.
More jobs now require at least some college education, while significantly fewer are
available for those with only a high school education or less. As the economy
becomes progressively less labor-intensive, the fastest growth will occur in
technology-related fields, service jobs in health fields, and financial services, all of
which require at least a college degree. Conversely, the slowest growth will be in
6
construction and manufacturing fields, where individuals with lower educational
attainment levels have traditionally found employment (Carnevale & Fry, 2000).
This shift in the economic structure is expected to continue for the foreseeable future
(Johnson, 2004).
As I mentioned before, while the Hispanic population is growing rapidly
throughout the United States, California and Texas are already home to half of the
Hispanics in the nation (see Table 1). Moreover, these two states are projected to
experience the greatest increase in Hispanics between 2000 and 2025. During this
period, there will be a growth of 10.6million more Hispanics in California and 4.4
million more in Texas (Campbell, 1996).
2
Table 1: Current Hispanic population in California and Texas
California Texas
Total population 33.9 million 20.9 million
Hispanics 11.0 million 6.7 million
Share of Hispanics in the state 32.4% 32.0%
Note. From U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrix P8
Retrieved online on August 11, 2004 from http://factfinder.census.gov/
As compared to other states, both California and Texas have large equity
gaps between the adult educational attainment of Whites and Hispanics. The gap
between White and Hispanic adults ages 25-64 with a baccalaureate degree or higher
in California was 28.6% in 2000. By a narrow margin, this was the second highest in
2
Data from the Department of Finance, State of California (2004) also show that in 2050 there will be
29.4 million Latinos in California, almost three times the number in 2000.
7
the nation (Colorado being the highest with 28.8%). In Texas, the corresponding gap
was 23.4% (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 2004).
Among all Hispanics aged 25-64 in Texas,13.1% hold a college degree
(associate or higher), ranking Texas 15
th
among all states. California ranked 18
th
with
12.4% of all Hispanic adults holding a college degree (National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems, 2004). These statistics clearly demonstrate that
California and Texas face serious challenges in improving the educational
achievement of Hispanics.
By 2020 there will be 3.7 million more Hispanic 25- to 64-year-olds (5.0 to
8.7 million) in California than there were in 2000. As a result, the percentage of this
population whose educational attainment is less than high school is projected to
increase from 21.8% to 26.4%. In Texas, there will be 1.8 million more Hispanic 25-
to 64-year-olds (4.8 to 3.0 million) by 2020. Accordingly, the percentage whose
educational attainment is less than high school is projected to increase from 21.7% to
25%. Based on these projections, there will be significant negative changes in per
capita personal income from 2000 to 2020 in both states. In the past 40 years,
California’s per capita personal income has declined substantially from 124% of the
national average in 1960 to 109% in 2000. Texas’ total taxable resources per capita
3
has declined from 117% of the national average in 1980 to 96% in 2000, and it is
projected to decline to 93% of the national average in 2020 (National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems, 2004).
3
Total Taxable Resources is a measure of the relative fiscal capacity of a state and the tax base from
which it can draw (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 2004).
8
In California, Texas, and certain other states, an obvious result of the rapid
expansion of the Hispanic population is that the economy is increasingly dependent
on this subgroup. In California for example, Hispanics are projected to be the single
largest group in the labor force by 2020 (Myers, Park, & Hacegoba, 2000). The
capacity of Hispanics to compete in a high-tech economy will be a determining
factor in the development and growth of the state’s economy. In the following
section, I provide a more detailed overview of Hispanics in this country, the
population growth and their placement in the labor market in general.
Hispanics in the United States
The Hispanic population has been increasing rapidly in the United States over
the past several decades. Economically, Hispanics are concentrated in the lower
socioeconomic strata, and academically, Hispanic students in college perform at a
lower level than their White and Asian American peers (Vernez & Mizell, 2001).
The educational attainment and skills development of the fastest growing minority
population in the United States will have a great impact on the development of the
country’s economy (Carnevale & Fry, 2000). This is not just a potential crisis for our
education systems but one that could threaten the future well-being of the entire
nation. A critical aspect in addressing this problem is determining how to improve
accountability in the public higher education system to ensure equal outcomes for
Hispanic students.
9
In this section, I address the following three issues pertinent to Hispanics:
immigration and high fertility rates; concentration in the lower levels of the labor
market; and low educational achievement.
Immigration and High Fertility Rates
The growth in the Hispanic population can largely be attributed to high birth
rates and a rise in the level of immigration since 1990 (Vernez & Mizell, 2001).
About half of the Hispanics living in the United States were born elsewhere and
educated in their country of origin (Vernez & Mizell, 2001). This group is of
particular concern as they score the lowest of any racial/ethnic group on nearly all
indicators of course-taking, educational expectations, and college-going rates
(Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). An interesting point raised by Vernez and Abrahamse
(1996) is that immigrants who enter this country after the age of 15, particularly
those of Hispanic origin, are less likely to enter the U.S. school system than those
who immigrate at an earlier age. The number of these youths is growing rapidly,
resulting in hundreds of thousands of young adults without high school diplomas and
consequently with low prospects for economic mobility throughout their lives.
In 1998, Hispanic women were found to have the highest fertility rate among
all ethnic and national origin groups (Keller, 2001). Statistics from 2001 indicate that
a Hispanic woman gives birth to an average of 3.2 children, whereas a White woman
averages 1.9.
Hispanics are also younger than other groups. The median age of the
Hispanic population is almost 10 years below the median age of the national
population (25.9 and 35.3 respectively). On a national average, among every 100
10
Americans, 26 are under the age of 18. Among every 100 Hispanics, 35 are under
age 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). These numbers indicate that the majority of
younger Hispanics are in elementary and secondary school and they represent a
sizeable pool of future college students.
Labor Market Concentration
Based on the most recent data (U. S. Census Bureau, 2002), Hispanics have
occupational distributions that are different from those of non-Hispanic Whites. For
example, they are more likely to be in service occupations (19.4% of all Hispanics as
opposed to 11.8% of all non-Hispanic Whites). Hispanics are also more likely to be
operators and laborers (22.0%) than non-Hispanic Whites (11.6%), and they are less
likely to hold managerial or professional occupations (14.0% for Hispanics and
33.2% for non-Hispanic Whites).
Hispanics are less likely than other ethnic groups to be equipped with the
skills and experiences that would qualify them for higher level jobs (Carnevale, 1999;
López, Ramírez, & Rochin, 1999). As a result, they are more likely to be
concentrated at the lower end of the occupational distribution and socioeconomic
status. Scholars have pointed out that a major reason for their concentration in the
lowest-paying jobs is low educational achievement (López et al., 1999; Myers, Park,
& Hacegaba, 2000).
Low Educational Achievement
When compared to Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics have the
lowest levels of educational attainment, highest dropout rates, and highest illiteracy
rates (Pérez & Salazar, 1993). Despite improving high school and college completion
11
rates from the 1970s to the 1990s, Hispanics continued to lag behind Whites and
Blacks. The rapid growth of college-age Hispanics makes the issue of low
educational attainment even more critical. From 1990 to 2000, Hispanics accounted
for more than one-third of the 2.2 million increase in 15- to 19-year-olds. Growth of
this age group is predicted to continue in the next decade, and Hispanics are expected
to comprise two-thirds of the growth (Vernez & Mizell, 2001).
If the trends described above continue, there is a very high risk that society
will become bifurcated (Myers et al., 2000) into two separate and unequal sectors.
The smaller sector will consist of people with college degrees who hold white-collar
positions and earn higher salaries because they have specialized skills that are in
demand (Myers et al., 2000).The larger sector will include poorly-educated people,
mostly immigrants and members of minority groups, who make their living from
low-paying service and manual-labor jobs (Myers et al., 2000). A profoundly
disturbing possibility is that these two sectors will be characterized not only by
differences in education and socioeconomic status but also by their racial and ethnic
composition. Based on current educational trends, Whites and Asian Americans will
be overrepresented in the high-end sector and Hispanics and African Americans will
be overrepresented in the low-end sector. There is no question that a much larger
group of Hispanics needs to move into the high-end sector. Otherwise, California
and Texas run the risk of becoming socially polarized states, with members the high-
income population retreating to gated communities (Myers et al., 2000).
Polarization along racial and ethnic lines is already a reality in California.
Immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala are the state’s gardeners,
12
dishwashers, garment workers, and domestics. They live in segregated Spanish-
speaking neighborhoods, and their children attend public schools in which Spanish is
the dominant language. The same patterns of segregation can be observed in higher
education. Hispanics are concentrated in community colleges in the counties of Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego, and they are conspicuously absent
from the elite four-year campuses of the University of California.
Clearly, unless Hispanics are given greater opportunities to earn four-year
college degrees, polarization will become even more intractable. Higher education
has become the virtual gateway for people to participate fully in the economic, civic,
and political life of the United States.
Benefits of Higher Education
The benefits of a baccalaureate degree are profound, not only for the college
graduate but also for society as a whole. Higher education provides two major
advantages for individuals: the capacity to earn more and to obtain better jobs.
People who have college degrees earn significantly more than those who do
not. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2002), the average annual salary of an
individual with a bachelor’s degree is 72% greater than that of a high school
graduate per year ($52,200 versus $30,400), and 123% greater than that of those who
do not graduate from high school.
4
In their analysis of Hispanics versus non-
Hispanics, Myers, Park, and Hacegaba (2000) found that Hispanics’ expected
earnings increase progressively with higher education, rising by $10,509 with an
4
The average earning for high school dropouts is $23,400 per year. All earnings refer to full-time,
year-round workers.
13
academic associate degree, and by $18,551 with a bachelor’s degree or higher. From
a longitudinal viewpoint, the U.S. economy is rewarding college graduates at higher
rates than ever before (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems,
2004). From 1975 to 2001, the median earnings for workers with a baccalaureate
degree or higher has risen substantially, while workers with a high school diploma
have experienced no increase when measured in constant 2001 dollars. Over this
period, the earning gap between college graduates and those who do not complete
college has widened dramatically.
Individuals with a college degree have access to better jobs. Myers et al.
(2000) found that the probability of Hispanics holding a white-collar job increased
progressively (by 60%) with a bachelor’s degree or higher. Better-paying jobs lead to
higher socioeconomic status, which in turn is strongly related to individuals’ upward
mobility and access to social and political opportunities. All these benefits to the
individual have a positive impact on a state’s economy.
The Rationale for an Equity Accountability System
A necessary first step in addressing the educational and economic gaps for
Hispanics is to call attention to the problem. One way of doing so is through a
system of higher education accountability. Accountability systems provide a source
of feedback for policymakers as well as institutional leaders, and negative feedback
is particularly effective in creating public awareness of the need for action
(Birnbaum, 1988). Although intra-institutional stratification based on race and
ethnicity is a reality at most of the nation’s colleges and universities, explicit
14
indicators are rarely used to measure an institution’s effectiveness in decreasing
educational inequities (Bensimón, 2004; Bensimón, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003).
Moreover, while the concept of equity is implicit in the standards of most accrediting
agencies, none of them require institutions to report statistics about students of color
beyond the numbers admitted or enrolled.
Nationally, there is a paucity of baseline data and benchmarks that would
make it possible to engage in a systematic and continuous self-appraisal of
educational outcomes for Hispanic students at the state and institutional levels. The
reason for the absence of equity indicators is not lack of data, but that available data
are not disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Consequently, they are not reported in a
form that facilitates a quick assessment of the state of equity in higher education. If
these data were disaggregated by race/ethnicity to reveal the gaps in student
achievement, educators and policymakers would surely be convinced of the need for
immediate action (Woody, 2004).
In spite of this, the disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, particularly
in relation to outcomes, is not a routine practice with the exception of data on college
access. Even though the values of diversity and equity are espoused in the mission
statements of higher education institutions and state level documents, progress
toward their attainment is not being monitored. Neither the institutions nor the states’
higher education systems have adopted equity as a performance standard by which to
judge their effectiveness in improving the educational outcomes of Hispanic students.
A possible reason for this may be that educational outcomes for Hispanics have
15
traditionally been framed more from the perspective of access and affirmative action
than from the perspective of equal educational outcomes.
In 2000, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
published Measuring Up: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education,
which was the first assessment instrument of its kind for higher education. In
Measuring Up, each of the 50 states’ higher education systems is graded on six
measures: preparation, participation, affordability, completion, benefits, and learning
(see Table 2 for the grades California and Texas received in Measuring Up 2002).
This instrument provides leaders and policymakers with objective information on
how to assess and improve higher education. As valuable as Measuring Up may
have been, none of the measures focused specifically on the educational outcomes of
identified ethnic groups. As none of the measures presented data disaggregated by
race and ethnicity, important information about specific populations in terms of their
preparation or participation in higher education were omitted. Consequently, it is
possible that a state earning a high grade for “participation” might at the same time
earn a low grade for “Hispanic participation.” Given the importance of this
population, specific assessment of Hispanics’ performance in higher education is
more critical than ever.
16
Table 2: Grades of California and Texas in Measuring Up 2002
California Texas
Preparation C- C+
Participation B+ D+
Affordability A D+
Completion C+ C-
Benefits A- C+
Learning I* I*
* “I” stands for “incomplete.”
While the “No Child Left Behind Act” is intended to cover all students in the
K-12 system, there is no comparable act that would mandate the collection and
reporting of data on Hispanic students as they make their way through college.
Consequently, there is no systemic mechanism in place that would enable
policymakers and the public to determine how well a certain state or institution of
higher education is doing in terms of achieving equitable educational outcomes for
its Hispanic students.
There are two stages in the K-16 educational pipeline at which action is
required to reach the goal of equitable outcomes. First, college access must be
expanded by improving the academic preparation of high school students to ensure
that they will be ready for college-level coursework. Second, colleges and
universities must accept responsibility for achieving equitable outcomes for their
Hispanic students, the proof of success being that Hispanics are obtaining degrees at
a comparable rate to their non-Hispanic peers. These two stages are interdependent,
17
and both are critical to attaining the ultimate goal of providing all students with full
access to intellectual growth and socioeconomic mobility. In dealing with both
stages, this study addresses the disparity between the growth of the Hispanic
population and the lack of an accountability system to monitor Hispanic students’
progress in public institutions of higher education.
The Research Question
The guiding question for my study is this: In what ways can we assess the
public higher education systems in providing equitable educational outcomes for
Hispanics in California and Texas? I will address this question by creating an Equity
Scorecard to assess each state’s system of higher education with respect to its
performance as measured by the educational outcomes of Hispanics. The Equity
Scorecard is modeled on the balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), the
Diversity Scorecard (Bensimón, 2004), and the Equity Scorecard (Bensimón, Hao, &
Bustillos, 2003).
In this study, I define equity as the point at which underrepresented minority
students (specifically, Hispanics) reach the same proportion for the measures being
examined as their proportion in the reference population — e.g., the demographic
composition of a state. The rationale behind equity is proportionality and equal
representation (Price & Wohlford, 2003; Renner, 1993, 2003). Accordingly, the
representation of minorities among outstanding students in an institution should be
the same as their representation in an agreed-upon reference population, which might
be the undergraduate student body or the graduating class. A more comprehensive
18
discussion of how I look at the achievement gap is provided in the methods chapter
(Chapter Three).
What is measured and reported is given priority. This study follows a similar
rationale. I am aware that an accountability system in and of itself will not solve the
problem of inequality, but it is important to reveal inequitable outcomes that are not
currently being addressed in accountability reports. As Woody (2004) observes, “A
primary aim of accountability is to shine the light on inequities” (p. 43). The equity
accountability system will provide a method for determining the current condition of
educational outcomes and the target for improvement (O'Day, 2002). Having a target
for improvement allows policymakers, the public, advocacy groups, and institutional
leaders to monitor progress toward equity continually, a practice that is presently not
employed at either the state or institutional level. At the same time, I am aware that
the path from reporting and analyzing data disaggregated by race/ethnicity to
accomplishing pedagogical change and academic improvement will not be linear or
smooth (Woody, 2004).
If we regard the process of higher education as a “tunnel,” we see increased
diversity in the ethnic and racial composition of the student body at the entrance, but
at the exit we find major differences between the outcomes attained by Hispanics and
those of other students. For state leaders and policymakers to understand that a
serious problem exists, they must be shown hard data on how Hispanic students are
faring in higher education in comparison to their non-Hispanic White and Asian
American peers. To the end, researchers in higher education need to present concrete
19
evidence that far too many Hispanic students never obtain the academic assets that
would enable them to make their way of the “tunnel.”
The rest of this dissertation is organized as follows: Chapter Two consists of
two parts. The first part presents the conceptual framework used in this study and a
discussion of existing accountability systems in higher education. The second part
provides a comprehensive review of the status of Hispanics in higher education, as
the intent of this study is to create a model of accountability with equity as the
performance indicator and demonstrate its utility by applying it to Hispanics.
Chapter Three includes the research design and methodology in which I employ an
equity-based accountability model: the Equity Scorecard. In Chapter Four, I present
the results of my research. In Chapter Five, I conclude the dissertation with
discussions and policy implications.
20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Section I: Accountability and Higher Education
The issue of accountability in higher education at the state level is gaining
greater attention from educational leaders, researchers, policymakers, and the general
public. A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Schmidt, 2004)
reported that at a meeting of policy experts from the National Collaborative for
Postsecondary Education Policy, everyone present was asked a basic question: Are
your community’s higher education needs being served? As simple as it sounds, this
is an important question that challenges higher education leaders and state
policymakers to consider what the higher education system must do to be
accountable to the public. Given the demographic changes that are expected in the
immediate future, basic questions that address the public purpose of higher education
are critical. Concerns must be re-examined with the changing population and context
in mind. Traditional solutions that treat students as a homogenous group will not
suffice for students with different needs.
This part of Chapter Two is organized in the following manner: First, I
briefly describe the history of accountability in higher education over the past several
decades. Second, I review and critique the most common higher education
accountability practices at the state level: 1) accreditation; 2) performance reporting,
budgeting, and funding; and 3) Measuring Up, the first nationwide state-by-state
report card on higher education. Third, I provide a brief review of the current higher
education accountability models in California and Texas. Last, I discuss the two key
elements of the conceptual framework of this study: 1) performance indicators, what
21
they consist of as well as their advantages and disadvantages; and 2) the logic of the
Balanced Scorecard approach (Kaplan & Norton, 1992), the framework on which I
modeled the Equity Scorecards for California and Texas.
Accountability in Higher Education
The passage of the GI Bill after the Second World War brought rapid
enrollment growth to postsecondary institutions throughout the nation. During that
era, higher education was primarily concerned with issues of capacity and access,
which continued into the 1950s and 1960s as the baby boom generation entered
college. Beginning in the 1980s, issues related to public accountability and
excellence dominated educational discourse as quality became a national concern for
both higher education and the corporate sector (Gaither, Nedwek, & Neal, 1994).
The emergence of performance indicators was in part a response to pressures for
higher education to demonstrate the returns on public investment.
The trend in higher education accountability reflects a larger movement
across all public services for the measurement of outcomes. Observers of educational
policymaking have termed this the “new accountability” because the focus is on
actual student and institutional performance rather than bureaucratic compliance with
rules and regulations (Darling-Hammond & Ascher, 1991; Fuhrman & Elmore, 2004;
Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The new accountability movement in the K-12 sector
focuses on standards for student learning, rewards and sanctions for schools and
districts based on their outcomes, and complex reporting systems. While
accountability systems in higher education are not as extensive or as consequential as
22
those in K-12, public colleges and universities are being required to provide more
data about their operations and the results achieved, and more states are linking
funding to measures of institutional performance (Zumeta, 2001).
While definitions of “higher education accountability” vary (Crow, 2004), the
newly established National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
(NCAHE) (2004) claims that “accountability implies the assessment of performance,
the public communication of information about performance, and the potential for
sanctions or rewards” (p. 1). Although public policymakers at both state and federal
levels are demanding stronger accountability systems for higher education patterned
after the K-12 model (The Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004), higher
education is a decentralized system with varying degrees of autonomy and freedom,
and historically, there has been a stronger tradition of professional accountability.
However, with increasing competition for state revenues and complaints about the
rising cost of higher education, there has also been a shift toward greater outcomes-
oriented accountability. Professional accountability has been criticized for being
more responsive to institutional interests than to public purposes and priorities
(Callan & Finney, 2005). A knowledge-based economy needs to make a transition
“away from public policies that implicitly equate the functioning of colleges with
state public purposes and toward policies that explicitly place expansion of the
state’s educational capital – the educational attainment of its populace – at the
forefront” (Callan & Finney, 2005, p. 209). In California, Texas, and certain other
states, expansion of educational capital cannot be attained without a specific and
concentrated focus on Hispanics. This provides the rationale for an accountability
23
system that incorporates continuous monitoring of the educational progress of
Hispanics. In what follows, I first provide an overview of common mechanisms in
higher education accountability before focusing on the accountability systems in
California and Texas.
Higher Education Accountability Mechanisms
Accreditation
Having been in existence for more than a century, accreditation is the oldest
form of formalized accountability in higher education. Its purpose is to determine
whether an institution or a program meets the threshold of minimum educational
standards (Gates et al., 2002). Typically conducted every ten years, the accreditation
process starts with a form of institutional self-examination, followed by the
submission of written materials and campus visits by an external team. One of the
strengths of accreditation is that the institution is reviewed by outside evaluators who
have professional experience in settings comparable to those they evaluate (Kezar &
El-Khawas, 2004). In keeping with increased public demands for educational
accountability, this system works to verify the academic quality of colleges and
universities. Accreditation is a proven means of protecting students and the public
from unqualified instructors and fraudulent degree mills. It enables colleges to help
peer institutions improve the quality of their academic programs and management
systems (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2004).
In recent years, accreditation has become much more result-oriented,
probably in response to the increased emphasis on outcome-based accountability.
24
Since 2000, student learning outcomes and accreditation have been major
organizational priorities of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
The mechanism of accreditation in higher education is a type of professional
accountability as schools and programs are reviewed according to professional
standards in the field. The consequence of not meeting the professional standards is
high: it leads to loss of certification. In terms of equity, one of the shortcomings of
accreditation is that even though institutions may be asked to report on issues of
diversity, they are not specifically required to disaggregate data by race and ethnicity.
Performance Reporting, Budgeting, and Funding
As of 2004, the State Higher Education Executive Officers’ (SHEEO)
website
5
indicates that 46 states have some type of performance accountability
system for their systems of higher education. While there is much variance between
states, these systems fall within three broad categories: performance reporting,
performance budgeting, and performance funding.
Since the 1990s, budget cuts from the states, rising costs, and the growing
demand for access to higher education have placed colleges and universities in
difficult positions. At the same time, state policymakers have become more
interested in indicators of institutional quality and productivity and in collecting data
on measures that can inform state planning and budgetary decisions (Ruppert, 1994).
Performance reporting, which involves the development of periodic reports that
quantify statewide and institutional results on a range of indicators, emerged under
these circumstances and has become a common accountability practice in many
5
See http://www.sheeo.org/
25
states. While the process varies from state to state, it generally involves an
institutional team gathering data and preparing a report that is submitted to the state’s
coordinating board of higher education. Customarily, the board sets a certain number
of goals or indicators, and institutions are expected to provide relevant student data,
with options given for reporting on institution-specific indicators (Burke, 2002). In
some states, the board publishes performance reports based on state-wide aggregated
data. It is important to note that as an accountability requirement, performance
reporting has built upon rather than replaced earlier assessment efforts that
institutions have conducted for several decades. The added element is the public
reporting format that reveals what is being achieved with public resources (Ruppert,
1994).
Performance budgeting includes some types of performance reporting but
goes one step further, in that policymakers may take the indicators into account as a
factor in determining funding allocations. Compared to performance budgeting,
performance funding has a more direct impact on institutions, as it “ties specified
state funding directly and tightly to the performance of public campuses on
individual indicators and focuses on the distribution phase of the budget process”
(Burke & Minassians, 2001, p. 4). The tie is “automatic and formulaic” (Burke, 2002,
p. 21). If a campus achieves a set target on a designated indicator, a certain amount
of money will be given to the institution for that measure. In this sense, performance
funding is significantly different from traditional ways of allocating funds based on a
formula without any performance targets. The logic behind performance funding is
that institutions will be more attentive to what is measured and rewarded, and
26
therefore will have an incentive to perform in ways that are consistent with state
priorities and interests.
On average, the percentage of funding that is based on performance is a very
small portion of the total. Several states that previously endorsed this approach have
abandoned it as a result of controversies inherent in the use of imperfect measures,
targets, weights, and formulas (Zumeta, 1998). The number of states that are
implementing performance-based funding has been declining steadily, from 28 in
2000 to 15 in 2003 (Burke & Minassians, 2003).
As most accountability systems are products of the mid- to late-1990s, it is
too soon to assess their impact on campus performance (Burke & Minassians, 2001).
Still, the creation and implementation of these systems reflects an increased
emphasis on the allocation of state resources on the basis of actual performance
rather than exclusively on the number of students served.
From the perspective of equity in educational outcomes, all the
aforementioned approaches include very few measures that are disaggregated by
race/ethnicity. Typically, data are provided at the aggregate level. I am not aware of
instances where equitable educational outcomes are treated as a performance
indicator having implications for the allocation of resources — for example,
determining levels of funding on the basis of baccalaureate degrees awarded to
minority students.
The Biennial National Report Card—Measuring Up
In 2000, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
published Measuring Up: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education,
27
which was the first report of its kind. Now three editions of this report card have
been issued (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2000, 2002,
2004). Based on the assumption that “the states bear a fundamental responsibility for
the policies and investments needed to achieve higher levels of educational
attainment” (NCAHE, 2004), Measuring Up gives letter grades, A to F, to each of
the 50 states on important dimensions of educational attainment and policy
(preparation, participation, affordability, completion, benefits, and learning).
Because the primary purpose of this report card is to find out how well the people of
a state are being served by higher education, not whether the state has good colleges
and universities, the unit of analysis is the state rather than individual institutions
(Callan & Finney, 2005). This makes Measuring Up different from other reports, and
it also reflects a fundamental shift in approaching accountability.
The way Measuring Up grades states is in keeping with the concept that
successful participation in postsecondary education has become a virtual requirement
to support a middle-class lifestyle in this country (NCAHE, 2004). It also reinforces
the outcome-based new accountability trend in higher education. Given the relative
newness of the national report card, it is premature to predict its long-term effects.
As the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education (2004) has
reported, many states are now using or adapting the dimension of performance and
the indicators in Measuring Up to assess needs and establish goals for higher
education. Several states have found that the national report card provides diagnostic
tools that help to shift the focus of policy leaders away from an institutional agenda
28
and toward a public agenda based on educational purposes, needs, and gaps (Callan
& Finney, 2005).
However, in terms equitable educational outcomes, Measuring Up only
provides information on minority educational achievement in a section on “other key
facts.” Overall, this report card does not grade the states on criteria related to
meeting the needs of minorities. Therefore, it is conceivable that a state earning a
high grade in “participation” might at the same time earn a low grade if assessed on
the level of participation of different racial and ethnic groups.
Higher Education Accountability Systems in California and Texas
California
Generally speaking, California has not had a well-established state-level
accountability system for higher education. While there are several segment-level
(e.g., UC and CSU segments) accountability structures in place with segment-
specific goals (Shulock, 2003), various accountability mechanisms are employed
throughout the state. Here I discuss the two major overarching structures: the Master
Plan for Education in California and the state coordinating board – the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). Thereafter I describe performance
reporting practices in California in relation to equity concerns.
The Master Plan for Education in California is a comprehensive organizing
template for the state’s schools, colleges, and universities. It clearly declares that one
of the most important functions of the state is to provide education, including
postsecondary education, for its citizens. Adopted by the legislature in 1960, the
29
Master Plan created frameworks for structure and governance, mission
differentiation, and financing that remain the foundation of California’s higher
education system today. Its expressed vision is to “develop and maintain a cohesive
system of …colleges and universities …that is responsive to the changing needs of
the state and its people” (The Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for
Education, 2000).
The California higher education system consists of three segments: the
California Community Colleges, the California State Universities, and the University
of California system. Mission differentiation among the segments is an advantage of
the Master Plan.
The Master Plan was originally designed to coordinate a cohesive system of
education, from kindergarten through university, to be responsive to Californians’
varied educational needs. One of its central principles is to guarantee every
Californian an opportunity to attend college. During the 45 years since the plan was
formulated, the baccalaureate degree, has replaced the high school diploma as the
gateway to socioeconomic mobility.
While the Master Plan provides an overarching framework, it lacks
systematic accountability requirements for the state and individual institutions to
meet specific needs for some specific subgroups. As important as access to college is,
an even more critical issue is how students of different racial/ethnic groups fare in
terms of degree completion. Unfortunately, this point was not addressed in the
Master Plan. Because of this, the looming challenge now is how to make the three
segments work congruently to increase the educational attainment of all Californians,
30
particularly Hispanics who have the lowest educational attainment but are increasing
at the fastest rate.
In California’s written testimony to NCAHE, one of the basic approaches
adopted by the state is to produce a state-level report with data that inform policy and
budget development. Three formats of data are required, including statewide
aggregate, regional breakdown, and segment breakdown. However, there is no
specific requirement for data to be disaggregated by race/ethnicity (NCAHE, 2004).
To illustrate the need for disaggregated data by race/ethnicity, I take the
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) as an example. As a
coordinating board of higher education in California, CPEC does not demand or set
the performance goals for individual colleges and universities. However, CPEC does
republish various types of reports on the performance of the states’ higher education
institutions (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2001, 2002a, 2002b,
2004). One such report is The Performance Indicators of California Higher
Education 2001.
6
In this report, indicators are divided into five sections: population
context, fiscal context, student preparation, student access, and student outcomes
(California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2002). While this is a very
comprehensive report, it cannot serve as an effective tool of accountability for the
performance of higher education in the state (Shulock, 2002). It is too long (103
pages) and does not present data in the context of state-level policy questions.
Moreover, it is not focused on outcomes, especially on equity-oriented outcomes by
race and ethnicity. As Table 3 shows, performance by race and ethnicity is examined
6
Reports with the same title were also published for the two previous years: 1999 and 2000. Here, I
comment on the 2001 report.
31
mainly from an access perspective, but the more important perspective of
educational outcomes, such as persistence rates and numbers of baccalaureate,
master’s, and doctoral degrees awarded, is ignored. Actually, the only indicator that
was disaggregated by race/ethnicity under the section of student outcomes was
composition of full-time faculty.
Table 3: A close look at the indicators employed in CPEC report: The Performance
Indicators of California Higher Education 2001
Total number of
indicators used in
this section
Number of indicators
disaggregated by
race/ethnicity
Section one: population context 12 4
Section two: fiscal context 14 0
Section three: student preparation 13 5
Section four: student access 22 17
Section five: student outcomes 17 1
As illustrated in the four state policy goals for California higher education —
educational opportunity, participation, student success, and public benefits — key
questions are raised in terms of who is prepared for college or who is going to
college (NCAHE, 2004), but not who is achieving certain educational goals. In other
words, attention paid to specific groups still remains on the level of access to higher
education, rather than that of achievement and success.
Texas
Unlike California, Texas has a more centralized accountability reporting
framework for its institutions of higher education. Interest in accountability is high,
“as demonstrated by an early 2004 executive order from the Governor calling for the
development of accountability systems by each public university” (National
32
Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, 2004). Compared to other states,
Texas’ higher education accountability system pays more attention to the equal
educational outcomes of historically underrepresented students. Two major programs
are worth mentioning.
The first is an initiative put forth by the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board (THECB), which was created by the Texas Legislature in 1965
to “provide leadership and coordination for the Texas higher education system to
achieve excellence for the college education of Texas students” (citation, year, page
number). As the central board in the state, the THECB provides general principles
for reporting in the initiative called Closing the Gaps by 2015. This is also known as
the Texas higher education plan, which provides the framework of state goals for
higher education to close the gap in four areas: participation, success, excellence, and
research (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2002a, 2003). It should be
noted that a clear definition of “gap” is missing from the plan, and it seems that the
term simply refers to differences between the present reality and the goals in general,
rather than racial/ethnic gaps. For example, the goal for the participation perspective
is to enroll more students, and the goal for success is to grant more degrees. However,
the Board recognizes that a large gap exists among racial/ethnic groups in both
enrollment in and graduation from the state’s colleges and universities (Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board, 2002). If this pattern continues, groups with the
lowest enrollment and graduation rates will constitute a larger proportion of the
Texas population. In the progress report, data on enrollment and degree attainment
are disaggregated by race/ethnicity, but they are not analyzed in a context that
33
indicates clearly what should be done to fulfill the public purpose of these
institutions. Furthermore, data on the other perspectives are not examined by
race/ethnicity.
The second accountability model in place in Texas is the accountability and
performance report submitted by the University of Texas system to its Board of
Regents in March 2004 (The University of Texas System, 2004). Developed in
response to the Governor’s executive order, this represents the first consistent and
detailed accountability reporting framework implemented in the state.
This report includes 70 performance measures for the nine academic
institutions, health-related institutions, and also on system-wide performance under
five perspectives: 1) student access and success; 2) teaching, research, and health
care excellence; 3) service to and collaborations with communities; 4) organizational
efficiency and productivity; and 5) system performance. The emphasis on minority
students is demonstrated throughout the report, as many measures are examined by
race/ethnicity. Furthermore, it demonstrates the forward-thinking of the University of
Texas (UT) system in considering the public responsibility of higher education to the
community and responsiveness to the demographic dynamics of the state. For
example, the priority of the “student access and success” perspective is to “Attract,
enroll, retain, educate, and graduate students who reflect the socio-cultural and
ethnic composition of Texas” (The University of Texas System, 2004).
By mentioning “socio-cultural and ethnic composition,” the University of
Texas has taken an innovative lead that other states would do well to follow in terms
of putting educational performance in the context of their diverse populations. The
34
implications extend beyond the creation of new measures to reflect a significant
change in the thinking of the state’s higher education leadership. The UT system
accountability plan takes into consideration the ethnic composition of first-time, full-
time, degree-seeking undergraduates at the nine UT campuses in 2002, along with
the ethnic composition of the state’s high school graduates in 2001-2002. The
conclusion is that the ethnic composition of the former group (UT undergraduates)
does not reflect the ethnic composition of the latter (the state’s high school graduate)
(The University of Texas System, 2004). Hispanic students comprised 33% of the
high school graduating class, but on large campuses such as Austin and Dallas, the
Hispanic share of undergraduate enrollment is far less (14% and 10% respectively).
The fact that the UT system is analyzing data through the lens of equity shows that
its approach to performance reporting is more advanced that those of other states.
In conclusion, there are structured accountability systems in place in Texas,
and emphasis is being placed on Latinos and other minority groups, particularly
through measures of access. However, few outcome measures such as graduation or
degree attainment are examined by race and ethnicity.
The Conceptual Framework for the Equity Scorecard
Performance Indicators
As Newmann and King (1997) indicated, information is the first necessary
element for a complete accountability system. The rationale for using performance
indicators in performance reports lies in the belief that information is valuable for
decision-making (Burke & Minassians, 2002). As Borden and Bottrill (1994) stated,
35
“performance indicators represent a very simple and compelling idea” (p. 6). They
are measures of how well something is being done.
The most commonly used performance indicators can be divided into four
types: input, process, output, and outcome (Burke & Minassians, 2002). Input
measures refer to human, financial, and physical resources received, such as funding
and enrollment indicators. Process indicators involve “the means used to deliver
programs” (Burke & Minassians, 2002, p. 36), such as the use of technology or
teacher training. Output measures refer to the “product” of the process, and outcome
indicators cover the long-term benefits to students and society, such as job placement.
Burke and Minassians distinguish outputs from outcomes as follows: “outputs
connote quantity and outcomes quality” (Burke & Minassians, 2002, p. 36).
According to Ewell and Jones (1994), performance indicators have the
following major advantages: 1) they enhance the process of state- and institution-
level goal development; 2) they help mobilize concerted action within the higher
education community, as well as support for higher education among the public at
large; and 3) they support and reinforce development of a national set of state
policies and institutional actions directed toward ongoing improvement. Reporting
results of higher education has become the preferred means of holding education
systems accountable for their performance on critical indicators of state needs (Burke
& Minassians, 2002).
As Kezar and El-Khawas (2004) state, the use of performance indicators
introduced a paradigm shift in how states think about the role of higher education.
Performance indicators “helped states to refocus their policy decisions, away from
36
the traditional focus on institutional structures and processes, and towards an
increased attention on results, especially to student outcomes and student learning”
(p. 21).
Analyses of all the commonly used performance indicators in higher
education (Borden & Bottrill, 1994) reveal that the majority are “input” measures
that reflect the incoming student body or “process” measures that reflect the existing
resources. Few performance indicators are “output” measures that evaluate student
learning, and even fewer indicate minority student achievement — e.g., degrees
awarded disaggregated by racial and ethnic groups.
Performance indicators that are quantifiable can only measure the condition
of education at a general level; they provide a good starting point for more
comprehensive and qualitative research. Many characteristics of an educational
institution that provides a supportive environment for minority students cannot be
captured by performance indicators. As Woody (2004) indicates, certain assumptions
about student achievement related to race and culture limit the ability of the
accountability system to address the issue of equity, and “the success of any
accountability reform lies in the belief that all students can succeed” (p. 45).
Obviously, these subtle yet critical factors cannot be quantified and measured by
performance indicators.
In the absence of an organizing framework, it is difficult to create meaning
out of a set of performance indicators. They can easily turn into a meaningless
laundry list if the focus becomes too diffused. The Balanced Scorecard developed for
37
business organizations has been designed to address some of these inherent
weaknesses.
The Balanced Scorecard
The framework in this study is adapted from the Diversity Scorecard project
7
(Bensimón, 2004; Bensimón et al., 2003), a framework based on the Balanced
Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). The Balanced Scorecard was a model created
by business experts in the early 1990s as a new approach to strategic management
(Kaplan & Norton, 1992). Since its inception, it has received a numerous
endorsements. The Balanced Scorecard is a data-driven approach that enables leaders
to examine organizational performance from four perspectives – the learning and
growth perspective, the business process perspective, the customer perspective, and
the financial perspective.
The rationale behind the scorecard approach is that instead of looking at just
one indicator – the profit that the enterprise is generating – companies should employ
a holistic approach for continuous improvement. By examining the organization
from more informed and better balanced perspectives, the scorecard provides a more
complete picture of the organization, leading to implementation of new strategies
that may contribute to improved performance.
As I have mentioned, holding organizations accountable requires information
about their activities and accomplishments (Gormley & Weimer, 1999). Often
7
The Diversity Scorecard project, funded by The James Irvine Foundation, is a partnership of 14
institutions in Southern California that seeks to examine institutional data to bring about institutional
change. The four perspectives in the Diversity Scorecard project are: Access, Retention, Excellence,
and Institutional Receptivity. More detailed descriptions of this project can be found in Bensimón
(2004); Bensimón et al. (2004); Bensimón and Polkinghorne (2003); Bauman (2002); and on the
website of the Center for Urban Education, at www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects
38
individuals who are being evaluated have more information available than those to
whom report. Such information asymmetries make accountability more of a
challenge (Gormley & Weimer, 1999). As monopolies, public higher education
systems exhibit characteristics that fit these conditions (Martínez, 2002). In this
sense, the Balanced Scorecard serves as an effective policy instrument for reducing
information asymmetry and increasing accountability (Gormley & Weimer, 1999).
The Equity Scorecard (Bensimón et al., 2003) is an adaptation of the
Balanced Scorecard in which the four business-oriented perspectives are replaced
with four perspectives that are indicative of minority student success. Instead of
focusing on measures that increase profit, it focuses on measures that influence
equitable educational outcomes. The Equity Scorecard can be used to stimulate
discussion of values related to the services institutions of higher education provide
(Gormley & Weimer, 1999). Without the information the Scorecard can provide, this
important topic might be omitted from public discourse.
Conclusion
Forty-four states now publish some type of performance report for higher
education (Burke and Minassians, 2002). Of the few equity indicators that are used
by some, most typically deal with inputs (e.g., enrollments) rather than outcomes
(e.g., graduation rates). Burke and Minassians’ (year) analysis of 29 state
accountability reports revealed 15 different equity measures that are specifically
related to the status of minority students, faculty, and staff; yet all but five consisted
of input measures exclusively. While 21 states use enrollment by race and ethnicity
39
as a performance indicator, graduation and retention by race and ethnicity are used as
indicators by only nine. Moreover, student transfers by race from two-year
community colleges (where the greatest numbers of Hispanics are concentrated) to
four-year colleges or universities is used as an indicator by just one state. Because
the accountability systems currently used in higher education do not and cannot
provide data that reflect the status of Hispanics, policymakers have not considered
equity as a policy goal or taken into account the potential effects of policymaking on
the state of equity.
Although specific practices vary, virtually all states have substantial
experience in collecting and publishing higher education accountability information
to inform policymakers and the general public (NCAHE, 2004). Higher education
accountability is significant not only for the development of policy alone. Because
public higher education systems are among the most important agencies in society,
they must be held accountable by the polity “for resources they use and values they
create” (Gormley & Weimer, 1999).
As institutions of higher education are experiencing continual change, they
are still struggling with the problem of how to ensure that equal educational
opportunities are provided for people with diverse ethnolinguistic backgrounds and
varied socioeconomic status. Accountability systems in higher education provide the
best hope for attaining the dual goals of access and equity. Regardless of which
model is employed, improving the academic performance of students, irrespective of
their background or status, should be the primary purpose of every higher education
accountability system (NCAHE, 2004).
40
Section II: Hispanics in Higher Education
In almost every measure of educational outcomes, Hispanics lag behind their
White and Asian American peers (Chapa & Valencia, 1993; Fry, 2002; García, 2001;
Jasinski, 2000; Santiago, 2004; Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004). With the Hispanic
population growing rapidly in California, Texas, and several other states, the issue of
their low educational attainment has never been more important. Although the
federal government enacts national educational policies, a great deal of the
policymaking that addresses problems in higher education occurs at the state level.
States therefore play an important role in making higher education accountable to the
community (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 2004).
State public higher education systems bear a major responsibility for ensuring that
Hispanics have the opportunity to go to college and, more importantly, exit the
higher education system with at least a baccalaureate degree.
Taking into consideration the changing economic structure in the information
age and the increasing Hispanic population in the country and in higher education
institutions, which I discussed broadly in the previous chapter, the next step is to
focus on the issues of participation and performance of Hispanics in higher education.
Following the pipeline rationale in my review of the literature, I examine the issue of
Hispanics in higher education from four perspectives, i.e., the four key transition
points along the education timeline: high school graduation, college access, retention,
and bachelor’s degree attainment (see Figure 2) (National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, 2004).
41
The framework conveys a chronological model to which I have added a
three-part layer of excellence: rigorousness of high school curriculum, access to
competitive majors
8
, and graduation from competitive majors.
9
The intent of this part
of Chapter Two is not necessarily to offer a better understanding of the factors that
promote or hinder success of Hispanic students in higher education, but rather to
provide a comprehensive review of Hispanic students’ performance in higher
education from the pipeline approach.
8
By competitive majors, I refer to math, science, and engineering majors.
9
Migration from competitive majors to less competitive majors is also an important topic, but due to
data availability, it is not reviewed in this dissertation.
Figure 2: The higher education pipeline
High School Graduation and
Academic Preparation
College Persistence and
Retention
BA Degree Completion and
Excellence
Four-year College Access and
2/4 Transfer
42
High School Graduation and Academic Preparation
High school graduation is the first key transition (National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, 2004) necessary for students to succeed in college. A
high school education plays a significant role in a student’s educational journey, as it
serves as the gateway for the next step: entry into either postsecondary education or
the workforce. An excellent high school education not only provides greater
opportunities for access to postsecondary education but also predicts that a student
will be able to undertake college coursework without remediation, pursue more
challenging majors, and earn one or more degrees. From the state’s perspective, the
quality of higher education is strongly related to the quality of pre-collegiate
schooling. To see this clearly, it is necessary view the entire educational system from
the perspective of those “who must negotiate its levels and structures” (Callan &
Finney, 2005, p. 211). Therefore, although my focus is on higher education, I start at
the high school level because it is impossible to evaluate a state’s higher education
performance for Hispanics or any other group without knowledge of the size, racial
and ethnic composition, and preparation of the potential pool of college students.
Recent data on Hispanic drop-out rates from the Pew Hispanic Center (2004)
are very troubling. Although the total high school dropout rate has declined
throughout the nation since the 1970s, far too many Hispanic youth are not finishing
high school. At 21%, the nationwide Hispanic high school dropout rate is more than
twice the national average of 10%, with Whites
10
dropping out at a rate of 7% and
10
The original term used was “White Non-Hispanic.” To be consistent, I used the term “White”
throughout the dissertation.
43
Asians alone at a rate 4% in 2000. Given the rate at which the population of school-
age Hispanics is increasing, these percentages translate into an alarming number of
Hispanics leaving high school without a diploma, thereby cutting themselves off
from a college education or even basic employment opportunities.
Using data from National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) that
tracked the nation’s tenth grade cohort from 1980 to 1993, Adelman (1999) found
that among all variables, high school curriculum is the most predictive factor for
earning a Bachelor’s degree. More importantly, the impact of a rigorous high school
curriculum on degree completion is far more pronounced for Hispanic students.
What they learn in high school or whether they complete A-G requirements,
11
as is
the case in California, provides the foundation for a student’s future academic
trajectory and/or an adequate job immediately after graduation. For the year 2000-
2001, among all Hispanic twelfth graders in California’s public schools, only 23%
completed all courses required for University of California (UC) and/or California
State University (CSU) admission. Theirs was the lowest rate of all ethnic groups, as
compared to 41% of White students and 58% of Asians.
12
Echoing Adelman’s (1999) conclusion, a study by Warburton, Bugarin,
Nuñez, and Carroll (as cited in Choy, 2002) shows that three years after entering a
four-year institution, 87% of those who had taken a rigorous curriculum in high
school were still on track to a Bachelor’s degree, compared to 62% of those who had
taken no more than a basic high school curriculum. In the most recent report by the
11
The A-G requirements are the minimum courses required by the UC and CSU systems for
admissions.
12
Data retrieved online from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
44
Education Policy Institute, using NELS data, Swail, Cabrera, and Lee (2004) found
that Hispanics are much more likely than other students to complete their public
education with lower-level mathematics courses. Consequently, Hispanic students
took advanced mathematics courses (e.g., trigonometry and calculus) at a much
lower rate than their non-Hispanic classmates. For instance, Hispanics completed
calculus at less than half the rate of all students (4.3% versus 10.0%).
Lower levels of mathematics achievement translate into limited admission to
most state universities and no admission to top-tier institutions. A report by the
Education Trust (2002) cited several consequences of lower levels of high school
education: 1) the low-level curriculum of high schools makes young adults less
employable; 2) unprepared students are severely disadvantaged in the college
admission process; and 3) if admitted, required remediation in English and
mathematics is far too prevalent. In fact, for the first-time first-year cohort in the
California State University system in fall 2003, 52% of Hispanic students needed
remediation in mathematics and 66% of them required remediation in English,
compared to 26% and 30% respectively for White students.
13
Research indicates that
remediation is often predictive of not completing college (Swail, Redd, & Perna,
2003). With the dis-enrollment policy at CSU institutions,
14
Hispanic students are at
a higher risk of dropping out at the start of their postsecondary education.
13
Data retrieved from CSU website: http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/proficiency.shtml
14
The new remedial policy for the California State University system (Executive Order 665 amended
Title V of the California Code of Regulations) mandates that all incoming freshmen complete any
remedial coursework in English and Mathematics within two semesters and the summer if they expect
to enroll in the fall semester of the second year. Those students who do not complete this requirement
are given “stop-out” notices and are dis-enrolled from the university. These students are then required
to complete coursework at the community colleges if they wish to re-enroll at CSU.
45
Research demonstrates consistently that Hispanics are far less qualified for
college access than other groups (see Table 4). According to a fact sheet from the
Pew Hispanic Center (2004), only 53% of Hispanic high school graduates in 1992
were “minimally qualified” for college or better, as compared to 70% of Whites.
15
At
the upper level of achievement, only 19% of Hispanic high school graduates are
“highly qualified” or “very highly qualified” for four-year colleges or universities, in
comparison to 35% of Whites.
Table 4: High school graduates’ preparation for four-year colleges
Not
college
qualified
Minimally
qualified
Somewhat
qualified
Highly
qualified
Very
highly
qualified
Total
16
Hispanic 47% 21% 14% 11% 8% 100%
White 32% 16% 17% 20% 15% 100%
Note. From Berkner & Chavez. (1997). Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High School
Graduates.
A recent university eligibility study from the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (2004) shows that although the eligibility rates for Hispanic
students have improved greatly since the previous study in 1996, they are still well
below the rates for Whites and Asians. Only 6.5% of Hispanic high school graduates
were eligible for UC institutions, compared to over 31% of Asian graduates and 16%
of White graduates. The eligibility rates for CSU show a similar pattern. Only 16%
of Hispanic graduates were eligible, compared to 48% of Asians and 34% of Whites.
15
The level of being qualified for college is determined by a “college qualification index”, developed
by Berkner and Chavez (1997), using NELS data. This “college qualification index” is based on
cumulative academic course GPAs, senior class rank, the 1992 NELS aptitude test scores, and the
SAT and ACT college entrance examination scores, with an adjustment for academic coursework.
16
Due to round-up, the total may not actually add up to a 100%.
46
A high school diploma has special significance for the Hispanic population.
Research indicates that when all other variables are equal, Hispanics are the least
likely among all racial and ethnic groups to graduate from high school and continue
on to college (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). In fact, according to the latest data from
the National Center for Higher Education Management System (NCHEMS) (2004),
53 out of every 100 Hispanic ninth graders eventually graduate from high school
(compared to 75 Whites), and only ten will graduate from college within 150%
time
17
(including two-year and four-year institutions). In contrast, 23 out of every
100 White ninth graders will graduate from college (see Table 5). These astonishing
disparities indicate that the gap between Hispanics and other students begins very
early. By the time Hispanics reach high school, they are significantly behind their
peers in terms of achievement.
Table 5: National pipeline by ethnicity*
Race/
Ethnicity
For every 100
Ninth Graders
__ Graduate
from High
School
__ Enter
College
__ Graduate
within 150%
Time**
Total 100 67 41 19
White 100 75 48 23
African
American
100 49 27 9
Hispanic 100 53 27 10
* Students are high school graduates in 2001.
** Graduation rates are weighted based on the percentage of first-time full-time freshmen enrolled in
two-year and four-year colleges
Note. Unpublished data from NCHEMS, The National Pipeline data 2004.
17
150% times means that for two-year colleges, students obtain the AA degree in 3 years, and for
four-year colleges, students obtain the BA degree within 6 years.
47
Improving high school completion rates has become a priority in many states
(Fry, 2004). This policy emphasis appears to be even more necessary in California
and Texas, given their changing demographic profiles. In these and several other
states, Hispanic children are the fastest growing segment of the school-age
population. If Hispanic students can graduate from high school at a rate comparable
to that of their White classmates — i.e., if 75 (not 53) out of every 100 Hispanic
ninth graders graduate from high school — this will translate into an enormous
increase in Hispanic college students and Bachelor’s degree recipients, and
eventually a great economic benefit to the vast Hispanic population, individual states,
and the nation as a whole.
Four-year College Access and Two-year to Four-year Transfer
At present, a larger percentage of Hispanics are attending college than there
was 20 years ago: 22% of 18- to 24-year-old Hispanics are enrolled in colleges and
universities, an increase of 6% from 1980. As a result, Hispanic representation in
college and university enrollment increased from 4% in 1980 to 10% in 2000
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). However, in light of the rapid
growth of minority populations, the progress that has been made in granting access
to education is almost inevitable from a demographic standpoint (Renner, 2003).
Even with the progress having been made, Hispanic high school graduates go
to college at a lower rate than their non-Hispanic peers. In 2000, Hispanic high
school graduates enrolled in college at a rate of 48.6%, while Whites enrolled at a
rate of 65.7% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). In fact, the gap
48
between Hispanic and White high school graduates enrolling in colleges widened
over the past two decades (see Figure 3). In 1978, 27% of Hispanic high school
graduates enrolled in college, while Whites enrolled at a rate of 31%. The college
access gap grew from 4% in 1978 to 14% in 1999. In 2000, the gap was still 8%.
Figure 3: Enrolled-in-college rates for White and Hispanic high school graduates,
1978-2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999
Year
Enrolled-in-College Rate (Percent)
Note. From Harvey (2003), pp. 49-50.
Under the surface of college access, there are two important points that are
often overlooked. The first concerns types of institutions and their relative selectivity.
The opportunity to begin a postsecondary education is critically important, but as Fry
(2004) indicates, the type of institution one attends also has implications for the
future. Disproportionate numbers of Hispanics are concentrated in less selective
four-year colleges, which research has shown to have lower graduation rates than
more selective institutions (Fry, 2004). The top Hispanic high school graduates
White
Hispanic
49
enroll at elite schools at rates comparable to those of their White peers. Thus, Fry
(2004) concludes that high schools need to bring Hispanic students to the same level
as their White classmates in terms of preparation for college.
The second point that may be overlooked is that most of the increase in
college enrollment for Hispanics has occurred in two-year rather than four-year
colleges (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). In effect, Hispanics are
over-represented in two-year colleges and consequently under-represented in four-
year colleges, resulting in de facto segregation in higher education. Data from the
Pew Hispanic Center (2004) show that in October 2002, among all 15- to 24-year-
old Hispanic college students (two-year and four-year, part-time and full-time), only
49% were enrolled in four-year colleges as full-time students, in comparison to 70%
of all 15- to 24-year-old White students. In California, the problem is more acute.
Among all Hispanic students enrolled in 2001, the four-year/two-year distribution is
25/75. In contrast, the four-year/two-year distribution is 35/65 for White college
students and 54/46 for Asians.
18
For students who begin their college education at a two-year college,
transferring to a four-year institution is a major milestone in their academic journey
to a Bachelor’s degree. As Wellman (2002) observes, as the ultimate goal is to
increase Hispanics’ baccalaureate degree attainment, transfer from two-year to four-
year institutions is an important aspect of the policy agenda. Several forces within
the current higher education establishment are converging to push more students to
community colleges as their initial point of entry into postsecondary education:
18
Data retrieved online from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
50
growth in the number of high school graduates; demographic changes that are
increasing the percentages of low-income and minority students; more stringent
admission requirements at many four-year institutions; and rising tuition (Wellman,
2002). For Hispanic students, the transfer from two-year to four-year colleges is even
more critical, given their over-representation in two-year institutions. The most
recent data from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
(NCPPHE) (Hayward, Jones, McGuinness, & Timar, 2004) show that the 1994
cohort of Hispanic students at California’s community colleges transferred at a rate
of 25.5% within six years. This is almost the lowest transfer rate among all groups,
with Asians and Pacific Islanders transferring at the highest rate of 43.1%. Once
again, these educational data reveal inequities for Hispanics.
The fact that the number of high school graduates, and Hispanic graduates in
particular, is projected to increase steadily in coming years makes the issue of equity
in college access even more important. According to the most recent projection study
conducted by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
(2003), high schools in the United States are expected to graduate over 541,000
Hispanic students in 2014. Up from 207,000 in 1994, this is an increase of 161% in
two decades. During the same period, California’s Hispanic high school graduates
are projected to increase by 115%, from 75,000 to over 161,000. The corresponding
rate of increase in Texas is 145%, from almost 48,000 to almost 118,000 (WICHE,
2003).
In California, the demand for higher education is expected to grow by
714,000 students between now and 2010 (Hayward et al., 2004). As three-fourths of
51
this growth will occur in California’s community colleges, the issue of transfer from
two-year to four-year institutions will become even more critical. With the over-
representation of Hispanic students in two-year colleges, improving the effectiveness
of two- to four-year transfer will be the key to national progress in closing the gap
between Hispanics and other groups in terms of degree attainment (Wellman, 2002).
Two years ago, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) (2003)
developed a strategic plan titled “Closing the Gaps by 2015.” According to this
document, Hispanic college enrollment in Texas grew by 36,340 from fall 2000 to
fall 2002, representing a 15% increase. The strategic plan indicates that most of the
increase occurred at two-year colleges.
Four-year College Retention
To attain the benefits of attending college, students must earn a baccalaureate
degree at the minimum; increasingly, full benefits may require postgraduate study.
Persistence and continuous enrollment are important for success in a baccalaureate
program. The problem of students leaving college before graduation has never been
more than it is now. Severe budget cuts and financial constraints have plagued
institutions of higher education in recent years. Retaining students who were able to
enter higher education is posing an even greater challenge.
Completion of the first year of college is an important benchmark (Choy,
2002). About 16% of freshmen at four-year colleges and universities in 1989-1990
dropped out during their first year (Horn, 1998). Although the majority (64%) of
those who dropped out came back within six years, the majority of those who
52
returned transferred to a less demanding two-year institution (Choy, 2002). As in
other academic areas, Hispanics lag behind their peers in college persistence.
According to Swail et al. (2004), NELS data show that on average, 43% of Hispanics
maintained continuous enrollment in postsecondary education, compared to 62.9% of
the entire cohort in the NELS dataset that entered college in 1992, and to 67% of
White students.
There have been numerous studies of college student retention, with Tinto’s
(1987) model of student departure serving as the founding theoretical framework.
However, few focus specifically on Hispanic students. Those that discuss Hispanics
provide insight on the academic and social integration of Hispanics within the
institution (Kraemer, 1997). While traditional theories of student retention and
involvement have been useful in providing a foundation for the study of persistence,
more attention should be given to Hispanic student retention in particular, in order to
uncover race, class, and gender issues that have an impact on their retention in
diverse institutions (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000).
An important criticism of retention studies is that they follow the institution
but not necessarily the students (Ewell, Schild, & Paulson, 2003). Whether a
departing student is transferring to another institution or dropping out of higher
education entirely, this is seen as a loss from the institution’s perspective. The
number of students in the former category is not small. According to Adelman
(1999), although only 43% of all college students remained at the first institution
they attended, 63% of the same students persisted to complete a baccalaureate
program somewhere in the higher education system. Similarly, a study by Ewell et al.
53
(2003) shows that more than half the students who ultimately earn Bachelor’s
degrees enroll in two or more institutions, and almost a fifth attend three or more.
Adelman’s is one of the few studies on persistence and Bachelor’s degree attainment
that addresses student migration from institution to institution. At present, the body
of data on this issue is too small to support conclusive research, and there have been
no studies that deal specifically with Hispanic students’ persistence in higher
education at a systemic level.
Degree Completion and Excellence
Over the past several decades, the number of Hispanics earning college
degrees from associates to doctorates has increased dramatically (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003). In the 1980s, the number of Bachelor’s degrees awarded
to Hispanics rose by 68% (from 21.8 to 36.6 thousand). From 1980 to 2000, the
number of first professional degrees awarded to Hispanics increased by 147%
(Harvey, 2003). Growth was particularly strong during the 1990s. In 2001 alone,
nearly 78 thousand Bachelor’s degrees were awarded to Hispanics, an increase of
256% since 1980 (Harvey, 2003). However, the increase in number of degrees
awarded must be considered in the context of increased enrollment in higher
education, as mentioned in the previous section.
In California, during the ten-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of
Associate degrees awarded to Hispanics increased by 155%, from 7,701 to 19,641.
During that period, the number of baccalaureate degree awarded to Hispanics almost
54
doubled, from 10,376 to 20,161.
19
In Texas, the THECB set a goal for the number of
certificates, Associate degrees, and Bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanics to
increase by 7,600 between 2000 to 2005. As of 2002, the number of degrees awarded
to Hispanics had risen by 2,887, from 23,369 to 26,256 (Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, 2003). However, more detailed information is needed to
analyze the increase in baccalaureate degrees awarded to Hispanics in Texas.
Regardless of all increases, an undeniable fact about the higher education
system in this country is that far too many students start their postsecondary
education but fail to obtain a degree. Even among the students most likely to succeed
– those who begin their college career as full-time freshmen at four-year colleges and
universities – only six out of every ten actually complete a baccalaureate program
within six years (The Education Trust, 2004). This translates into the fact that over
half a million college students fall short of acquiring the credentials and skills they
need, and among them there is a disproportionate number of Hispanics. On average,
less than half (47%) of Hispanics who first enrolled in a four-year institution in
1995-96 with the goal of earning a Bachelor’s degree actually managed to do so
within six years, as compared to 67% of Whites and 72% of Asians (Swail et al.,
2003). According to García (2001), the proportional number of baccalaureate
degrees attained by Hispanics 25 to 29 years of age increased , from 10.4% to 16.5%
between 1971 and 1998. However, there were also increases for Whites and Asian
Americans during that time period (from 23% to 34%). As a result, García found,
19
Data retrieved August 16, 2004 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
55
“Hispanic high school graduates are still only about half as likely as most others to
attain Bachelor’s degrees” (2001, p. 2).
It is projected that the gaps between Hispanics and other groups in terms of
baccalaureate degree attainment will to grow (Vernez, Krop, & Rydell, 1999; Vernez
& Mizell, 2001). Specifically, the gap between Hispanics and Whites is expected to
increase from 13 percentage points in 1990 to 16 percentage points in 2010. A
similar increase is expected in the gap between Hispanics and Asians. The
consequence of these trends is that while Hispanics will constitute the greatest
proportion of the increase in high school graduates between 1998 and 2010, Asians
and Whites will make up 80% of the projected increase in the number of college
graduates (Vernez & Mizell, 2001).
In terms of types of academic programs, the distribution of fields in which
Hispanics students earn Bachelor’s degrees is generally similar to that of other
groups (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). However, there are some
interesting patterns. In 1999-2000, the most popular fields of study in which
Hispanics earned Bachelor’s degrees were business, social sciences/history,
psychology, and education. Hispanics are less likely to earn degrees in several more
competitive fields nationwide, such as computer and information sciences, biological
sciences, engineering, and engineering-related technologies (Carnevale &
Desrochers, 2004).
Degree completion has long been a problem. In the past, lack of success in
college was seen as an individual disappointment, not a national dilemma. However,
the world is very different now, and not graduating carries far greater consequences.
56
The rapid globalization of the economy in 21
st
century is exerting relentless pressure
on lower-skill manufacturing jobs that traditionally provided employment for people
without a postsecondary education. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show
that millions of new jobs in the coming decade will require a Bachelor’s or even a
graduate degree (The Education Trust, 2004). The fastest-growing and best-paying
jobs have been those that require at least some college education. Currently, almost
six in ten jobs are held by workers with some higher education, as compared with
two in ten in 1959 (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2004). Whether our higher education
system is able to meet the challenge of increasing demands will play a decisive role
in determining our future prosperity.
The United States can no longer tolerate low college graduation rates if it is
to keep pace with the global economy. Every year, hundreds of thousands of young
Hispanics leave the higher education system prematurely, “burdened with large
student loans that must be repaid, but without the benefit of wages that a college
degree provides” (The Education Trust, 2004, p. 5). For many, going to college is
their first, best, and last opportunity for upward economic mobility and success.
Without a degree, they face an uncertain and unstable future.
Conclusion
The data provided in this section have shown that Hispanics are consistently
falling behind their non-Hispanic peers at every important stage along the
educational pipeline. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this review is to provide
an organizing framework of studies and reports on Hispanic academic achievement,
57
and to examine how effective previous research and reports are on painting a broad
picture of Hispanic educational outcomes. The focus, however, is not on discovering
the factors that have the greatest impact on Hispanic students’ achievement in higher
education. A major stream of educational studies has been devoted to investigate
factors that promote or hinder college student academic success and the extent to
which these factors affect college participation and degree completion. For example,
aside from being a member of a minority group, the socioeconomic status (SES) of
the students, mostly defined as family income, family size, and education of mother
and father (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996), have been found to be associated with
educational attainment in previous research (Carnevale & Rose, 2003; Berkner &
Chavez, 1997; Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Fry, 2002; García, 2001; Jasinski, 2000;
Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004). However, Berkner & Chavez (1997) show that
differences in college access between students with different SES status diminished
when students took the necessary steps (i.e. take college entrance examination and
apply for admission) to attend a four-year college. Also, Vernez & Abrahamse
(1996) indicate that greatest differences in achievement were found across
racial/ethnic groups in high school graduation and participation in postsecondary
education, regardless of their socioeconomic status. In that study, Hispanics’ college
preparation and college-going rates are consistently the lowest.
Instead of exploring the factors most influential to Hispanic student success,
a more fundamental issue preceding that question is how to report data in a more
effective way to garner public attention. While data are useful for formulating and
monitoring policies, as Brinkman (2003) observes, data in isolation almost never
58
have much value or impact. Meaning is revealed by placing the data within a context
or against a background. The data from the literature I have reviewed appear very
powerful. However, many of these studies have not taken into account the rapid
increase in the Hispanic population, leading me to suspect that that the gaps are
considerably larger than reported. The method by which I propose to assess states’
performance in terms of providing equal educational opportunities and producing
equal outcomes for Hispanics make it possible to examine outcomes for Hispanics
contextually — that is, in relation to their representation in the population — and
thereby increase the meaningfulness of the data.
Hispanics represent the fastest growing segment of the college-age
population in the United States. Considering the issue of their performance in higher
education in the context discussed earlier, it is clear that continued low achievement
will bring serious consequences not only for Hispanics but also for the nation as a
whole. Increasing Hispanics’ educational achievement, specifically through
attainment of baccalaureate degrees, will provide significant socioeconomic benefits
to the communities and states in which they live. For example, if Hispanics in
California were to have the same educational attainment as non-Hispanics, it would
bring an extra $28 billion a year to the state economy, along with $1.7 billion more
in state income taxes (López, Ramírez, & Rochin, 1999).
As stated in a compelling report by Education Trust (2004),
By the time that the United States entered World War II, the median level of
education for a seventeen-year-old was a high-school diploma – an
accomplishment that set us apart from other countries…We need to be
forward-looking in order to adapt our educational system to the evolving
needs of the economy and the realities of our changing society. More broadly,
59
our system of higher education bears an important responsibility for ensuring
that our workforce is prepared for the demands of economic change. (p. 5)
In the age of globalization and information technology, education is the
single most important factor for determining the level of individual income and
maintaining a prosperous economy (Vernez & Mizell, 2001). The ability to equip
Hispanics with the knowledge and skills they need to compete in the labor market is
a serious challenge faced by the U.S. higher education system. For the benefit of
individuals, the state, and the nation, Hispanics must not be excluded from
participation in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.
60
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
As mentioned in the previous chapter, data presented in various reports show
that Hispanic students experience achievement gaps at critical stages in the higher
education pipeline (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly, 2003). Consequently, they lag behind
their non-Hispanic peers in terms of graduation rates and Bachelor’s degree
attainment. Given the rapid growth of this population in the United States and the
consequent importance of their educational attainment, state higher education
systems must be monitored to ensure that they- are meeting Hispanic students’ needs.
As Callan & Finney (2005) have stated, the first step in an accountability
system should be “to take the educational temperature of the state in order to
measure how many are being educated and how well, compared with current and
prospective state needs and goals” (p. 209). This requires a data-driven mechanism
to generate findings that have implications for the state policy agenda, public finance,
and institutional accountability. In this study, I used the Equity Scorecard model to
inform policymakers as to how well states are meeting the educational needs of
Hispanics.
The Equity Scorecard model has two essential parts. The first is a framework
consisting of four perspectives, each with two to three performance measures to
assess states’ performance (see Figure 4 for details). This framework is modeled on
the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), the Diversity Scorecard
(Bensimón, 2004), and the Equity Scorecard (Bensimón et al., 2003). I use the four
perspectives in the framework to follow the critical stages in the higher educational
61
pipeline: high school graduation, college access, retention, and baccalaureate degree
attainment (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004).
Compared to the national report card, Measuring Up, the Equity Scorecard
employs fewer measures (of these, I omitted “affordability” and “benefits”). The
Equity Scorecard also aims at finer-grained outcome measures in the process of
higher education, such as year-to-year persistence, access to majors across the board,
and transfer from two-year to four-year colleges.
The second part of the model is a unique and simple tool called the “Equity
Index” (Hao, 2002), which is used to analyze data under each performance measure
in the Equity Scorecard. Equity is defined as the point at which the proportion of
Hispanics in higher education reflects their representation in the general public. In
this study, Hispanics’ representation in higher education is examined from each of
the four perspectives in the model, and the specific meaning of their representation in
the general public varies for each measure
20
. The Index is a ratio of two percentages:
the numerator is Hispanics’ share in an educational outcome measure (e.g.,
Bachelor’s degree attainment), and the denominator is their share in a relevant
reference population (e.g., undergraduate enrollment). This instrument is called the
“Equity Scorecard” because an Equity Index is employed for each of its measure to
examine the equity status of educational outcomes for Hispanics.
This chapter is organized as follows: First I discuss the Equity Scorecard and
explain the performance measures employed in the study under each perspective.
Then I introduce the Equity Index, including the philosophical rationale behind the
20
I explain this point in more detail when I explain each measure later in this chapter.
62
construct, the interpretation, and the advantages and disadvantages of such a method.
I end the chapter with information about the source and organization of the data.
The Equity Scorecard
Inspired by the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992), which reflects
the belief that it is beneficial to view educational systems as well as business
organizations from multiple perspectives, I examine the performance of public
higher education systems under four perspectives in a chronological order (See
Figure 4 for the Equity Scorecard perspectives and measures used under each
perspective).
I. Preparation
* High school completion
* Taking rigorous
coursework in high
school
III. Retention and Degree
Completion
* Year-to-year persistence in
four-year institutions
* Bachelor’s degree attainment
IV. Excellence
* Bachelor’s degree in
competitive majors
* Master’s and doctoral
degree attainment
II. Access
* First-time freshmen enrollment
* Two-year to four-year transfer
Figure 4: The Equity Scorecard
63
In the Equity Scorecard model, four perspectives – preparation, access,
retention and degree completion, and excellence – provide a framework for
evaluating state public higher education systems. This study uses statewide data from
California and Texas to examine the performance of their respective public higher
education systems in serving Hispanic students at critical stages in the educational
pipeline, as defined by specific perspectives and measures described below.
Academic Preparation and High School Graduation
In the academic preparation and high school graduation perspective, I
examine the academic achievement of Hispanic students prior to college enrollment
– their academic preparation in high school and high school graduation. This
perspective answers such questions as the following: How are California and Texas
preparing Hispanic students for college access in terms of taking rigorous courses
and graduating from high school, as compared to their peers of different racial/ethnic
backgrounds?
The two measures I use under the academic preparation perspective are 1)
high school completion and 2) rigorous curriculum, or taking advanced mathematics
and science courses in high school. The measure for California is A-G course
completion, which is required to be eligible for UC/CSU application. From the
perspective of higher education, these two indicators represent the availability and
preparation of students (i.e., inputs) for college-level work. Results lead to further
investigation of such issues as access to rigorous courses that affect students’
potential for advancement to higher education.
64
Four-Year College Access
The ability to enroll in a four-year institution is a basic transition for
baccalaureate degree attainment. In this perspective, I examine the opportunities for
Hispanic students to enroll in public four-year institutions in California and Texas,
taking into consideration the proportion of Hispanics in the population of each state.
The question is this: Considering the number of high school graduates and college-
eligible student pools, how do the higher education systems of California and Texas
rate in terms of providing Hispanic students with access to four-year colleges?.
The two measures I use to answer the question are 1) first-time freshmen
enrollment at four-year colleges and 2) transfer from two-year to four-year colleges.
The former can be regarded as an input measure for four-year institutions, while the
latter is an important output measure for two-year institutions. Given that the
majority of Hispanic college students are enrolled in two-year colleges, and students
who start their postsecondary education at two-year institutions experience low rates
of baccalaureate attainment, the transfer measure is particularly significant for
California and Texas.
Retention and degree completion
College completion is the ultimate goal, not only for students but also for
higher education institutions and state policy makers. A Bachelor’s degree serves as
the gateway to better paying jobs and promotes socioeconomic mobility. The
retention and degree completion perspective addresses the following question: Once
Hispanic students are able to begin their higher education journey, do they continue
in the second year and persist until they earn a degree? While each stage of year-to-
65
year persistence is important, I focus on first-to-second year retention for two
reasons. First, in most cases, state-level data are only available for first-to-second
year retention. Second-to-third year persistence and third-to-fourth year persistence
data are not available at the state level. Second, research shows that first-to-second
year dropout rates are the highest of all year-to-year dropout rates (Horn, 1998).
Therefore, it is critical to consider the consequences of this phenomenon for
Hispanic students. Once students are retained in the second academic year, there is
less likelihood that they will drop out.
The measures that I employ under the retention perspective are 1) first-to-
second-year retention at four-year colleges, and 2) baccalaureate degree attainment.
Both are important output measures as they provide information on how states are
performing in terms of Hispanics’ graduation rates. Out of the vast number of
Hispanic students in K-12 systems, only a small percentage enters four-year colleges
and universities. It is vitally important for states to ensure that Hispanic students are
granted access to higher education and encouraged to persist to graduation.
Excellence
While baccalaureate degrees have become increasingly important for
employability, degrees in more competitive majors such as science and engineering
are significant indicators in the perspective of excellence. Excellence is viewed as
the potential to go beyond the Bachelor’s degree, the opportunity to pursue graduate
studies, or the ability to succeed in a professional or doctoral program.
Within the excellence perspective, I use three key indicators to examine the
educational achievement of Hispanic students: 1) Bachelor’s degree attainment in
66
competitive majors such as science and engineering; 2) Master’s degree attainment;
and 3) doctoral degree attainment. These are critical output measures in higher
education, yet they are seldom considered by race/ethnicity in assessment and
accountability practices.
The Equity Index
The primary tool used in the model is the Equity Index (Hao, 2002), which is
simply a ratio of two percentages of Hispanics’ representation on two different
measures. Before introducing the instrument, I briefly discuss the difference between
two types of percentage data that are commonly used in educational reports and
studies: share and rate. The share percentage is the type used in the Equity Index.
The term share refers to how many students from a particular sub-group (e.g.,
Hispanics) contribute to a total of individuals who exhibit a particular academic
feature (e.g., baccalaureate degrees granted). For example, if among all students who
graduate from a college with a Bachelor’s degree in a given year, 10% are Hispanic,
10% is the share of Hispanics on the measure of baccalaureate degrees granted. The
term rate refers to the percentage of students out of the total of a particular racial or
ethnic sub-group (e.g., Hispanics) who exhibit a particular academic feature (e.g.,
baccalaureate degrees granted). For example, if among all Hispanic students in the
first-year cohort of four years ago, 45% graduated, 45% is the Hispanic graduation
rate. In calculation from raw headcounts, these two percentages have the same
numerator (Hispanic students with a Bachelor’s degree) but different denominators
(10% is out of all Bachelor’s degrees, and 45% is out of all Hispanic first-year
students). It is important to note that I employ a share analysis in this study. The
67
Equity Index consists is a ratio of two share percentages. See Figure 5 for the
Formula of the Equity Index.
Figure 5: The Formula of the Equity Index
The Equity Index was constructed to convert percentages (e.g., percentage of
Hispanics among baccalaureate degree recipients) into a standardized ratio that
makes it possible to determine whether a particular group (in this study, Hispanics)
has attained equity on various indicators of educational outcomes. The percentage in
the numerator consists of the proportion of Hispanic students who have achieved a
particular educational outcome out of students of all racial/ethnic groups with that
outcome. The denominator consists of the proportion of Hispanic students who
comprise the reference population. Equity is achieved when the value of the
numerator equals the value of the denominator; thus a score of 1.0 always represents
equity. An index that is less than 1.0 indicates that an outcome is below equity, while
an index that is greater than 1.0 indicates that it is above equity. Using the example
from the previous scenario, if Hispanics comprise 40% of the first-year cohort (the
denominator), and they account for 10% of the Bachelor’s degrees granted (the
Hispanic students with the educational
outcome / Total students with the educational
outcome
Hispanics’
Equity Index for the
educational outcome
of interest
=
Hispanic students in the reference
population / Total students in the reference
population
68
numerator), then the equity index for Bachelor’s degrees is 10% / 40% = 0.25. The
result of 0.25 indicates that in comparison to their share in the first-year cohort of
four years ago, Hispanics are severely underrepresented in the group attaining
Bachelor’s degrees.
The Rationale for Using Proportionality
The Equity Index is based on the rationale of proportionality, equal
representation, or parity. When considering minority students’ performance in higher
education, many scholars (García, 2001; Price & Wohlford, 2003; Renner, 1993,
1998, 2003) contend that comparing data on educational outcomes (e.g., transfer,
degree attainment, and all other measures) with the relative baseline population (e.g.,
K-12 enrollment, community college enrollment in the transfer measure, and the 18-
to 24-year-old college-going population in general) is more relevant and effective
than examining the absolute numbers (e.g., number of Bachelor’s degrees granted to
Hispanics) out of context.
Political scientists use equity ratios
21
based on a group’s population to
establish minimum standards for measuring the political power of an ethnic group in
Congress, state assemblies, and local city councils (Stone, 1968). Similarly, the
Equity Index is based on the rationale of equal representation and parity. When
examining minority students’ performance in higher education, the aforementioned
scholars (García, 2001; Price & Wohlford, 2003; Renner, 1993, 1998, 2003) also
21
Political scientists use different terms for similar measurements. Karnig (1976) calls the measure
“Black Council Penetration,” while Jones (1976) calls it “Black representation ratio.” The basic
formula is that the percentages of Blacks on the council are divided by the percentages of Blacks in
the city population. Some other scholars call it “Black Representation Index” (Robinson & Dye,
1978), or “equity score” (Heilig & Mundt, 1983).
69
contend that comparing data on educational outcomes (e.g., transfer, degree
attainment, and all other indicators) relative to their representation in the population
(e.g., K-12 enrollment, the population of 18- to 24-year-olds) is a more relevant and
effective approach than examining absolute numbers (e.g., headcounts of Bachelor’s
degrees granted to Hispanics) out of context. Examining educational outcomes in the
context of population is particularly important in California and Texas, where
Hispanics make up a significant portion of the state’s population. The degrees
granted to Hispanics should not be examined in isolation from the large shares of
Hispanic students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools and their
concentration in community colleges.
The Equity Index reflects the philosophy of proportionality. The rationale
behind it is that the proportion of high school graduates represented by Hispanic
students should be equal or similar to the proportion they represent in K-12
enrollment. Likewise, the proportion of baccalaureate degrees conferred on
Hispanics should be equal or similar to that of the college enrollment of Hispanics.
The underlying philosophy of the Equity Index also embodies a different approach to
achieving the public purposes of higher education, in that it recognizes the need to
change the focus from institutional capacity to the distribution of resources to
various populations in the state. Higher education leaders are being challenged to
widen their vision in regard to how well citizens are being prepared to cope with
rapid economic change. The use of demographic data as the denominator in the
Equity Index is consistent with this approach.
70
The Interpretation of the Equity Index
Suppose that out of 1,000 graduates from a public high school, 400 are
Hispanic. Therefore, Hispanic students make up 40% of the graduating class. From
this cohort, a total of 450 students enroll in the UC and CSU systems. Out of these
450, 10% are Hispanic; that is, 45 Hispanic students from this high school have gone
to UC and CSU campuses. The Equity Index for Hispanic students going to from this
public school to the UC and CSU systems will be 10% divided by 40%, which is
0.25.
A score of 1.0 represents equity, a score below 1.0 signifies below equity,
and a score above 1.0 signifies above equity. Scores that are below or above 1.0
indicate an equity gap resulting from under-representation or over-representation,
respectively. The achievement of equity requires an Equity Index of 1.0
22
for both
groups. In the above example, the Equity Index for Hispanic students is 0.25, which
is significantly below equity. This score would indicate a problem and should
provide an impetus for action.
The reference population used in the denominator varies according to the
purposes of the analysis; thus it is possible to use different reference populations and
reach the same educational outcome. For example, in examining the equity status for
Hispanics in terms of baccalaureate degree attainment, I used two reference
populations: 1) total undergraduate enrollment and 2) the age group of 25- to 29-
year-olds in the state population. The two sets of analysis reflect different policy
22
The indicators used in this model are expressed to reflect a positive outcome (e.g., degree
attainment); however, it is possible that the results of some indicators reflect a negative outcome (e.g.,
the need for remediation). Because the Equity Index is directional, it is important to note that a score
of 1.0 or above on a negative indicator reflects greater inequity.
71
questions. When total undergraduates are the reference population, the results
indicate parity between the baccalaureate degree attainment of Hispanics and their
representation in the total college population. In contrast, when the reference
population consists of the 25- to 29-year-old population, the result shows the status
of Hispanics in relation to their representation in the state population. A key variable
in higher education is the population pool (Brinkman, 2003), so population was used
as the reference point for the analysis of several measures. In essence, the Equity
Index is a standardized score that allows policymakers and educational leaders to
examine the equity status of Hispanic students on the basis of their proportion in the
population. It is also a simple and straightforward way of determining whether
outcomes are improving over time or not.
It is important to bear in mind various factors that can contribute to an
increase or decrease in the value of the Equity Index. When the numerator increases
faster than the denominator increases, the resulting increase in the Equity Index
indicates real progress. When the numerator increases more slowly than the
denominator increases, the resulting decrease in the Equity Index indicates slowing
improvement. When the numerator decreases faster than the denominator decreases,
the resulting decrease in the Equity Index indicates a real setback. Finally, when the
numerator decreases more slowly than the denominator decreases, the resulting
increase in the Equity Index is not a true reflection of progress (Bensimón et al.,
2003).
72
Advantages of the Model
For the purpose of this study, a comprehensive picture was obtained by using
the Equity Scorecard with key performance indicators as the framework to guide
data collection and using the Equity Index to conduct data analysis. It is
acknowledged that in absolute numbers, the representation of Hispanic students in
the postsecondary education system is growing. More Hispanics are enrolling in
institutions of higher education, more are transferring successfully from community
to four-year colleges, and more are attaining baccalaureate degrees. For example,
from 1988 to 2002, the absolute numbers of Hispanic community college students
who transferred to the UC system increased by a factor of 2.4, from 643 to 1,531.
23
However, increased headcounts can be deceptive because they do not reflect the
context in which the “progress” is taking place – i.e., the increase in state population
as well as in K-12 enrollment over the years.
Price and Wohlford (2003) give two reasons why typical longitudinal
analyses of the college participation of underrepresented students are inadequate
measures: 1) The statistics do not take into account changes in population growth
over time and therefore overlook the possibility that a group’s larger percentage of
degrees earned may be a function of declining populations rather than increasing
educational attainment; and 2) from the perspective of equity, a more useful measure
is one that makes it possible to compare educational outcomes between different
racial and ethnic groups. The Equity Index takes into account both of these points by
using multiple denominators and focusing specifically on a target population (i.e.,
23
Data retrieved online from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp
73
Hispanics). Another very important advantage of the Index is that it provides a
natural benchmark. Given that equity is always designated as 1.0, it is fairly simple
and straightforward for policymakers to interpret the performance of Hispanic
students on a particular measure. As the Equity Index takes the environment (the
denominator) into consideration, it can be driven by either a change in the numerator
or a change in the denominator. In other words, the overall performance in pursuing
a policy goal always has two dimensions—one may fall behind on attainment for any
population either because system performance really is getting worse (numerator) or
because the problem itself is getting bigger (denominator).
24
Generally speaking, the Equity Index used in the Equity Scorecard has the
following merits:
1. The most important contribution of the Equity Index is that it quantifies the
equity gap. It conveys the status of Hispanics clearly and alerts policymakers and
higher education leaders to the need for action.
2. The Equity Index calculation is not simply a new way of manipulating
numbers, but a pragmatic tool that can be of use to higher education researchers and
policy analysts. It is applicable to multi-measures, macro as well as micro (e.g., state
level, institutional level, etc.), as long as one is clear about the condition being
studied and knows which baseline to use. The universe of analysis can be large or
small. The Equity Index can be used to analyze the status members of an ethnic
group in a class, at a college, or during a certain year, as well as for a state or the
nation as a whole.
24
Email communication with Peter Ewell, 2003.
74
3. Use of the Equity Index does not require the collection of new data.. It
provides new a lens with which to analyze data that have already been collected for
general assessment purposes to ascertain the state of equity in educational outcomes.
4. The Equity Index does not require a benchmark. Using White or the best
performing student group (Lee, 2002) as the norm reference sometimes creates
controversy. With the Equity Index, one can consider the performance of a particular
group of students as a stand-alone population. For example, if a department chair
wishes to know Hispanic students’ Equity Index of representation in a first-year
calculus class, the only data elements needed are their share in the class and the
corresponding share in the first-year enrollment. The department chair is not
comparing Hispanic students with White or Asian American students. In a sense, the
Equity Index creates an internal benchmark for improvement.
5. By repeating the analysis on an annual basis, it is possible compare the
values of the Equity Index in order to determine whether Hispanic students are
moving toward equity or not. The Equity Index takes into consideration the change
of baseline measures. The composition of a class, a department, or a college may
vary from year to year, but the results of the Equity Index reflect the equity situation
of a particular group at a certain time and are comparable from year to year.
6. The Equity Index can be used to measure the value added by a college
education. It is more instructive to consider how the Equity Index of a group changes
over the duration of college enrollment than to look at one point in time.
75
Limitations
According to Newmann, King, and Rigdon (1997), a complete accountability
system should include at least four parts: 1) information on the performance being
evaluated; 2) standards to judge the degree of success of the performance, or the
sense-making of the results generated; 3) consequences attached to such evaluation;
and 4) a “judge” who will receive the information and decide the extent to which
standards have been met, and distribute rewards or sanctions accordingly. The Equity
Scorecard model provides the necessary information by utilizing an inherent
standard of equity (1.0). However, what the model cannot do is attribute
consequences when inequity is reported. As employed in the model, performance
measures provide information for the accountability system; however, they are not
the system itself. Accountability occurs when a useful set of processes exist for
interpretation, and action follows upon receipt of this information (Darling-
Hammond & Ascher, 1991). Given that the examination of educational outcome data
by race/ethnicity is rare in current accountability practices, the Equity Index model
serves as a “thermostat” (Birnbaum, 1988) that 1) monitors the status of public
higher education systems serving Hispanics, and 2) provides a platform for action to
be taken and change to occur.
Other limitations are associated with the Equity Index as a tool. First, this
research design is limited in that Hispanic students are viewed as a single group.
“Ethnic lumping” (Jasinski, 2000), or using one group to represent the several sub-
groups within the broader category of Hispanics, is a potentially misleading practice.
Furthermore, taking data availability into consideration, I treat “Hispanic” and
76
“Latino” as interchangeable terms in this study. In reality, the Hispanic/Latino
population encompasses a diverse collection of national-origin groups. Nevertheless,
this model is intended to reveal a general picture of the equity status of Hispanic
students, as this is lacking in the current accountability mechanism. Policymakers
need to have a better and more holistic understanding of how Hispanics, the largest
minority group in the nation, are faring in the higher education pipeline, and how
state higher education systems are responding to demographic changes.
Admittedly, the instrument and indicators used are preliminary measures to
some extent. For example, in the excellence perspective, the Equity Index contrasts
the Hispanics who have earned a baccalaureate or higher degree with the general
Hispanic population in California and Texas in 2001. Furthermore, the issue of
population mobility is not considered in the design of the measures. Hispanics who
live in California or Texas may choose to go to college elsewhere, and may not
return to their home state to work after graduating. The increased opportunities that
come with a college degree include a wider geographic range in potential places of
employment (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly, 2003). The operating assumption in my analysis
is that the Hispanic population under study remains constant in terms of high school
and college attendance and work opportunities in California or Texas. Arguably, the
numbers of in-migration and out-migration may be negligible, considering the size of
the Hispanic populations in these states. However, as a result of the unavailability of
data, factors of population mobility are not used in this study.
Another limitation to this method is that various types of institutions are not
differentiated in the study. As an example, for the access indicator, competitive and
77
non-competitive schools are lumped together. As Fry (2004) indicated, the type of
institutions that Hispanics attend makes a great difference in graduation rates.
Carnevale and Rose (2003) also contend that the selectiveness of institutions matters
in term of graduation rates, postgraduate access, and wage premium when the
graduate enters the job market. In spite of the limitations of the methodology, this
study has value in examining Hispanic student outcomes from the perspective of
state-level higher education accountability.
When the NCPPHE (2000) published Measuring Up 2000, the report card
made it possible for the first time to evaluate and compare the condition of higher
education in all 50 states. The Equity Scorecard is similar to Measuring Up, but
differs in several ways. First, the model focuses on one specific group – Hispanics.
This approach is in keeping with the axiom that accountability is always particular
and never general. Currently there are no state-level accountability studies that focus
on one minority group. Second, this model is not about comparison between states;
rather, it is intended as a self-examination for states to identify areas in need of
improvement. My aim is to show the situation of Hispanic students along the lines of
all the indicators. Third, my methodology is not as complex as that Measuring Up. It
is simple and straightforward, and the data it generates can easily be interpreted for
policy purposes. The Equity Index is an approximation or quantification of equity
gaps in educational outcomes for Hispanic students on the state level. It is by no
means intended to replace other performance measure; rather, it provides an
important supplementary tool for examining the issue of equity.
78
The purpose of accountability is not simply to provide better information
about institutional and student performance; its real value comes from being used to
bring about change. This study provides a point of departure for the collection and
analysis of information on equity. The ultimate goal, however, is to improve the
performance of state public higher education systems in serving Hispanics and
enabling them to achieve equal educational outcomes.
Data Source
For this study, I downloaded publicly available raw data of headcounts
disaggregated by race/ethnicity from the websites of the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (http://www.cpec.ca.gov) and the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board (http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/). I also obtained demographic
data — e.g., Hispanics’ share in the total population of California, and their share in
college-going 25-29 age group — from the website of the U.S. Census Bureau
(http://www.census.gov/). For the most part, multi-year data were downloaded, and
the results reflect a longitudinal study for the past 15- 20 years in terms of how
California and Texas are meeting the educational needs of Hispanics. For the
purpose of easy interpretation in calculating the Equity Index, when the measure
involved a numerator and denominator with a multi-year span, I chose to use the
denominator data for the same year as that of the numerator data.
25
For example, for
the measure of baccalaureate degree attainment, if the numerator is baccalaureate
degrees granted in2003, then the denominator, the total undergraduate enrollment, is
the data for 2003 as well, rather than for undergraduate enrollment four years earlier.
25
I explain this point in more detail in Chapter Four with the specific measures when necessary.
79
Conclusion
Educational accountability systems can be problematic, especially on a large
aggregated level, and they may not necessarily bring about change within institutions
or among individuals such as faculty members (O'Day, 2002). Furthermore, research
has shown that student assessment initiatives, which were popular in the 1980s and
1990s, have had very disappointing results as levers of change in teaching and
learning (Peterson, Augustine, Einarson, & Vaughan, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d).
These findings reveal the limits of evaluation as a policy instrument. The value of an
equity-oriented accountability system is that it brings inequities to the attention of
policymakers, as well as equipping advocates for equal educational opportunity with
evidence to support their calls for change.
The Equity Scorecard model will enable policymakers to monitor the
performance of public higher education systems in terms of serving Hispanics and
producing equal educational outcomes. A common assumption of accountability
policy is that, armed with accurate information about student achievement,
stakeholders and participants will take whatever action is necessary to improve
learning outcomes (O'Day, 2002). However, I acknowledge that there are
complicated issue beyond the scope of this model, such as the effective forms and
uses of information in the higher education improvement process, and the
motivational and learning links between information on the one hand and individual
and collective action on the other (O'Day, 2002).
80
Nevertheless, it is important to make equity a clear state policy goal and
necessary to include equity measures in higher education accountability systems. As
Callan and Finney (2005) write:
Explicit public policy goals and sustained policy attention by the states and
higher educational leaders are necessary conditions for increasing educational
attainment. State policy will not, in itself, guarantee the desired education
attainment, but without a deliberately designed policy infrastructure, the
needed attainment is unlikely. (p. 208)
Incorporated with equity measures, such infrastructure will set performance
goals for states to produce equal educational outcomes, monitor progress on a
longitudinal basis, and in turn use public finance as an incentive to improve
performance. Without such an infrastructure, educational change on a large scale is
unlikely (Callan & Finney, 2005).
81
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of my study was to demonstrate how states that are undergoing
major demographic shifts can continuously monitor the postsecondary educational
attainment of emerging minority-majority groups (i.e., Hispanics in the Southwestern
and Western states) and be better informed on how well they are being prepared for
integration into the economic and political life of the communities in which they live.
To accomplish this, I used publicly available data to construct Equity Scorecards for
California and Texas, two states whose economic and social well-being in the 21
st
century will be particularly dependent on the educational attainment of Hispanics. In
this chapter, I present California’s and Texas’ scorecards and use the results to
answer critical questions that should be of interest to policymakers and educational
leaders, as well as community and advocacy groups concerned with the economic
and educational advancement of the Hispanic population.
Essentially, the scorecards displayed in Tables 6 and 7 (on pages 81 and 83)
can be read as measures of how well or how poorly the public higher education
systems of California and Texas are performing in terms of providing Hispanics with
equitable preparation, access, opportunity, and choice. Before proceeding to the
findings, the following should be noted. While I am convinced that the scorecard
approach is practical and provides a more detailed picture of the status of Hispanics
in California and Texas than what is typically available at the state level, it is
important to test the model’s utility and feasibility with experts in the field who are
the potential users. Therefore, after completing the analysis presented in this chapter,
I invited nationally recognized academics and policy analysts to review the methods
82
and results and provide me with feedback in a face-to-face interview. The results of
these interviews are presented in the Epilogue.
This chapter has three sections. Section I consists of the 2003 Equity
Scorecards for California and Texas, focusing on the Equity Indices for each of the
key transition points in the K-16+ educational pipeline: (1) high school graduation
and readiness for college; (2) access to college; (3) persistence and graduation; and
(4) earning graduate degrees in high-demand fields. In Section II, I employ a
longitudinal view to examine the Equity Indices for selected measures over ten or
more years to determine whether the educational status of Hispanics appears to be
improving, deteriorating, or remaining unchanged. In Section III, I present results
from a comparison study of flagship institutions in California and Texas. The
findings reported in the body of this chapter are supplemented with data provided in
Appendices A, B, and C.
Section I: The State of Equity throughout the Educational Pipeline
for Hispanics in California and Texas
High School Graduation and Readiness for College
High School graduation. I calculated the High School Graduation Equity
Index using different reference populations (denominator): (1) in comparison to the
total enrollment of Hispanics in the 12
th
grade; (2) in comparison to the Hispanic K-
12 population; and (3) in comparison to the 15- to 19-year-old age group in
California. The Equity Index based on the 12
th
grade population (first column in the
first row of Tables 6 and 7) indicates whether the percentage of Hispanics who
83
graduate from high school is proportional to their representation in the 12
th
grade.
The Equity Index results for Hispanics of 0.94 in California and 0.98 in Texas are
quite promising as they are extremely close to 1.0, which signifies equity. However,
the good news is somewhat tempered by the Equity Index results for Whites and
Asians in both California (columns two and three in row one of Table 6) and Texas
(columns two and three in row one of Table 7), which are substantially higher than
the Equity Index results for Hispanics.
Table 6: California Equity Scorecard, 2003
Perspectives Measures Hispanic White Asian
High school completion vs. 12
th
grade
enrollment
28
0.94 1.07 1.03
High school completion vs. K-12
enrollment
0.74 1.31 1.28
High school completion vs. 15- to19-year-
old age group in California
0.84 1.06 0.94
Preparation
Public high school A-G completers vs.
high school graduates
0.64 1.17 1.62
University of California System
First-time freshmen vs. high school
graduates
0.42 0.83 2.90
First-time freshmen vs. K-12 enrollment 0.31 1.09 3.72
First-time freshmen vs.15- to19-year-old
age group in California
0.35 0.88 2.74
Access
Transfer from community colleges (CC) to
UC vs. CC first-time freshmen enrollment
0.52 0.92 1.98
First-year to second-year persistence 0.95 1.04 0.99
Bachelor’s degree attainment vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.85 1.10 0.99
Retention &
Bachelor’s
Degree
Completion
Bachelor’s degree attainment vs. 25- to 29-
year-old age group in California
0.26 1.11 2.24
28
Because data on 12
th
grade enrollment are only available to year 2002, so the results shown here are
for year 2002.
84
Table 6 continued…
Bachelor’s degree in STEM
29
majors vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.57 0.93 1.33
Master’s degree attainment vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.56 1.26 0.56
Excellence
Doctoral degree attainment vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.43 1.41 0.46
California State University System
Perspectives Measures
Hispani
c
White Asian
First-time freshmen vs. high school
graduates
0.69 0.91 1.20
First-time freshmen vs. K-12
enrollment
0.52 0.97 1.13
First-time freshmen vs. 15- to19-year-
old age group in California
0.58 1.07 1.15
Access
Transfer from community colleges to
CSU vs. CC first-time freshmen
enrollment
0.75 0.93 1.28
First-year to second-year persistence 1.04 1.06 1.06
Bachelor’s degree vs. undergraduate
enrollment
0.89 1.08 0.83
Retention &
Bachelor’s
Degree
Completion
Bachelor’s degree attainment vs. 25- to
29-year-old age group in California
0.43 1.12 0.92
Bachelor’s degree in STEM majors vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.55 0.91 1.41
Excellence
30
Master’s degree attainment vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.59 1.14 0.63
29
STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.
30
According to the 1960 California Master Plan, the CSU system has the mission of providing
undergraduate and graduate education through the Master’s degree, with particular emphasis on
“applied” fields and teacher education (University of California Office of the President, 1999). For
this reason, I did not employ the measure of baccalaureate degree in scientific and engineering majors
or the measure of doctoral degree attainment in the examination of equity status in CSU system.
85
Table 7: Texas Equity Scorecard, 2003
Perspectives Measures Hispanic White Asian
High school completion vs. 12
th
grade enrollment
0.98 1.02 1.00
High school completion vs. K-12
enrollment
0.77 1.25 1.19 Preparation*
High school completion vs. 15- to19-
year-old age group in Texas
0.86 1.09 1.22
First-time freshmen vs. high school
graduates*
0.66 1.12 1.91
First-time freshmen vs. K-12
enrollment
0.51 1.41 2.27
First-time freshmen vs. 15- to19-
year-old age group in Texas
0.59 1.18 2.20
Access
Two-year to four-year transfer vs.
total enrollment in community
colleges
31
0.88 1.11 1.49
First-year to second-year persistence 0.93 1.02 1.16
Bachelor’s degree vs. undergraduate
enrollment
0.86 1.11 1.06
Retention &
Bachelor’s
Degree
Completion
Bachelor’s degree vs. 25- to 29-year-
old age group in Texas
0.46 1.48 1.55
Bachelor’s degree in STEM majors
vs. undergraduate enrollment
0.73 1.01 2.14
Master’s degree attainment vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.62 1.01 0.78 Excellence
Doctoral degree attainment vs.
undergraduate enrollment
0.29 0.99 0.76
*Note: High school graduates in Texas in 2002 were the most recent data available.
Therefore, these equity indices in preparation perspective were based on 2002 data.
Furthermore, the high school completion Equity Index declines sharply in
both California (0.74) and Texas (0.77) when the reference population is Hispanic K-
12 enrollment. I attribute the precipitous decrease to the large numbers of Hispanics
who drop out of school before the 12
th
grade. Another possibility could be high rates
86
of relocation to other states; however, given other studies of Hispanic educational
patterns, the former interpretation is more plausible. Another revealing pattern is
that the Equity Index for Whites and Asians goes up when compared to their K-12
enrollment, not down as is the case for Hispanics. This suggests that persistence and
high school graduation is practically guaranteed for Whites and Asians, but not for
Hispanics.
To understand the full implications of the high school graduation Equity
Index for Hispanics, it is useful to look at the actual numbers used in the calculations.
Taking California as an example, in 2003, Hispanics constituted 34.2% of all high
school graduates, but they accounted for 46.0% of all the students in the state’s K-12
system, resulting in an Equity Index of 0.74. If equity had been reached, there would
be an extra 40,250 Hispanic students graduating from California high schools in
addition to the current 116,720 Hispanic high school graduates. In 2003, Hispanics
accounted for 40.9% of all the 15- to 19-year-olds in California, resulting in an
Equity Index of 0.84 for high school graduation. The difference between the two
Equity Indices shows that the increase in Hispanic population has largely taken place
in those of school age (K-12), which implies there will be a rapid increase of
Hispanic high school graduates in the near future.
College readiness. In California, a set of academic courses commonly known
as the A-G high school course requirements constitutes one of the prerequisites for
admission to the UC and CSU systems. A student who lacks the A-G requirements
31
Due to data availability, the reference population for this measure for Texas analysis is total
enrollment in community colleges, as opposed to first-time freshman enrollment in California
community colleges.
87
cannot go directly from high school to a four-year public college. For this reason,
the 0.64 Equity Index for Hispanic high school graduates who completed the A-G
requirements in 2003 leaves no doubt that a very large segment of this population
will be denied the opportunity to become freshmen at a CSU or UC campus. One
can grasp the extent to which the opportunity to earn a BA is diminished for
Hispanics by comparing their Equity Index (0.64) for the A-G requirements to those
of Whites (1.17) and Asians (1.62).
Texas does not have a metric that is comparable to the A-G requirements, so
it was not possible to measure the level of equity for college readiness.
The high school completion and readiness for college results can be
summarized as follows:
Both California and Texas have a long way to go before they achieve equity
in retaining Hispanics through the 12
th
grade.
Both California and Texas are doing much better in terms of graduating
Hispanics who make it all the way to the 12
th
grade.
While moving closer to equity in terms of Hispanic high school completion,
California is perpetuating inequality in educational outcomes in that a large
proportion of graduating seniors lack the requirements to pursue a
baccalaureate degree immediately after high school. The only option for
students who lack the A-G requirements is to go to a community college and
prepare for transfer. The question of whether the inequity caused by the lack
of A-G requirements is attenuated by greater equity in community college
88
transfers to the UC and CSU systems will be addressed in the following
section.
Access to a Four-Year College
To determine the state of equity for Hispanics in terms of access to public
four-year institutions of higher education, I focused on four measures for California
and two measures for Texas. The California measures were first-time freshmen in
the UC and CSU systems, and transfer from community colleges to the UC and CSU
systems. I separated the UC and CSU systems because they represent distinct
sectors in terms of mission, prestige, and requirements for admission. Texas has four
public university sectors: the University of Texas, Texas A&M, the University of
Houston, and Texas State University. However, the distinctions among the four are
not as clearly demarcated as those in the California systems, so the access measures
for Texas are aggregated. The differences within the Texas system are most obvious
when comparing flagship campuses, as will be shown by the discussion in Section III
of this chapter.
Access to UC and CSU. Because the University of California is
internationally recognized for excellence, admission is highly competitive. UCLA
and Berkeley, the two flagship campuses, are as selective as Stanford, which ranks
among the top ten universities in the United States. A degree from UC, even if it is
not from UCLA or Berkeley, represents a passport to greater opportunity,
particularly in terms of graduate studies and entry level jobs in the largest and most
prestigious private sector companies in the nation. Achieving equity in access to UC
89
is an important indicator of the Hispanic community’s progress toward social and
economic equality.
As explained in the previous section, completion of the A-G requirements is
one of the prerequisites for gaining access to UC. This alone diminishes the size of
the pool of eligible Hispanic applicants. When calculated against Hispanic
representation among high school graduates, the Equity Index for Hispanic first-time
freshmen enrolled in one of the UC campuses is a shocking 0.42. The Equity Index
for Whites (0.83) is twice as large, and that of Asians (2.90) is seven times as large.
It is easier to gain access to CSU than to UC. However, because the demand
for college has outpaced the availability of spaces, admissions to CSU has become
more competitive in recent years. As expected, CSU’s Equity Index for Hispanic
first-time freshmen is noticeably higher (0.69) than UC’s (0.42). Even though
CSU’s Equity Index based on the proportion of Hispanic high school graduates is
higher than that of UC, it is still quite low, given the mission and selectivity of the
sector. The fact that Hispanics are still more than 30 points away from attaining
equity in the less selective four-year college sector reveals the severe inequality
being experienced by this segment of the population, which in 2030 will constitute
46.8% of the total population of California (California Department of Finance, 2003)
Community college transfers to UC and CSU. It is a well-established fact
that community colleges have been the primary point of access to higher education
for Hispanics in California, enrolling about 75 percent of the state’s Hispanic college
student population. Improving equality in access and opportunity for Hispanics is
therefore highly dependent on the effectiveness of the community college system in
90
preparing Hispanics to transfer successfully to the UC and CSU systems. The role of
the community colleges in producing equitable educational outcomes is particularly
critical, given the inequity in terms of Hispanics’ fulfillment of the A-G requirements,
which was discussed in the previous section. In a sense, community colleges must
compensate for the inequities experienced by Hispanics in the K-12 system.
In order to calculate the Equity Index for CC transfer to the UC and CSU
systems, I used community college first-time freshmen as the reference population.
The rationale for selecting this group was that they constitute the population of
traditional college-age students who fail to meet the A-G requirements or who begin
their higher education at a community college in order to lessen the total cost. The
Equity Index for Latino CC transfer to CSU (0.75) was much higher than for UC
(0.52). The critical role community colleges play in closing the equity gap for
Hispanics is made clear by the fact that at both UC and CSU, the Equity Index for
Hispanic CC transfer is higher than their Equity Index for UC access (0.52 as
opposed to 0.42) and CSU access (0.75 as opposed to 0.69). Although the Equity
Index for Whites for CC transfer to the UC system (0.92) is forty points higher than
that of Hispanics, it follows a pattern similar to theirs in that it is higher than their
Equity Index for UC access (0.83). The same pattern is not evident for Asians
32
.
Access to Texas public higher education. Texas is unlike California in that
admission to UT or Texas A&M does not require completion of a certain curriculum
32
For this type of comparison, one point worth of noting is that compared to first-time freshmen
enrolled at UC, there are much fewer students transfer to UC. In 2003, there were 4,376 Hispanic
first-time freshmen (14.4% of total) enrolled at UC and 1,716 Hispanic students (15.3% of total)
transferred to UC. The numbers for CSU Hispanic freshmen and transfers were 9,427 (24%) and
7,236 (22%) respectively.
91
in high school. As a result, in the analysis of equity status, there is no equivalent A-
G metric. Hispanic first-time freshman enrollment at public institutions in Texas
(0.66) is closer to the value of CSU (0.69) than that of UC (0.42). However, the
college access Equity Index for Whites (1.12) was above equity, whereas it was
below equity in California (0.83 in UC and 0.91 in CSU). Asians in Texas again
experienced high equity (1.91) in college access.
33
When compared to Hispanics’
representation in the K-12 system, the Texas-access Equity Index was even lower
(0.51), while Whites’ and Asians’ scores became even higher (1.41 and 2.27,
respectively). The fact that Hispanics’ Equity Index is almost 50 points away from
equity indicates that a vast majority of students who were once in the K-12
educational pipeline disappeared before they reached college. It also means that in
order to attain equity, Hispanic representation in first-time freshman enrollment must
double.
Transfer to Texas public higher education institutions. Although below
equity, Hispanics seemed to have the higher Equity Index in transferring from two-
year colleges to four-year colleges in Texas (0.88) when compared to all other access
measures in the two states
34
. As a result of this, while the scores for Whites and
Asians remained above equity, they decreased somewhat (1.11 and 1.49, respectively)
in comparison to their scores on other access measures. The difference between the
community college systems of California and Texas is that California’s is much
33
It is worth mentioning that one of the major differences between California and Texas’s population
dynamic is that Asians occupy a much higher proportion in California than in Texas. Take the high
school graduates as an example, out of all high school graduates in California in 2003, 11.1% were
Asian; while in Texas, 3.4% were Asian. This means that a high equity index for Asians in California
represents many more people than in Texas.
92
larger. In 2003, there were 1.4 million students enrolled in California’s community
colleges, including about 357 thousand Hispanics (26.3%). The CC enrollment in
Texas was less than half of California’s. Out of 536 thousand community college
students in Texas, about 163 thousand were Hispanics (30.4%). However, many
more of these students transferred to Texas public higher education institutions in
2003 (92,028) than their counterparts in California who transferred to UC and CSU
in the same year (44,015 total). This difference merits further investigation. The
transfer issue is also discussed in greater details in Section II of this chapter.
The results of this consideration of access can be summarized as follows:
• The most severe inequity for Hispanics lay in access to UC by means of first-
time freshman enrollment. To a great extent, this can be attributed to the low
number of Hispanics who complete the A-G requirements in high school. In
terms of access, CSU and colleges and universities in Texas had a slightly
higher equity status.
• Hispanics also suffer from a lack of equity in transferring to UC. By
comparison, Texas is much more successful in transferring students from
community colleges to four-year institutions.
Retention and Bachelor Degree Completion
First-year to second-year persistence. Compared to the vast number of
students who were once in the educational systems, those who manage to go to
college are among the best, especially for Hispanics, as only a small percentage of
this population manages to do so. However, enrollment as a freshman is only the
34
Due to data availability, in Texas, the reference population for transfer is total enrollment in
93
first of several hurdles one must overcome in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. After
completing the first year, staying enrolled the sophomore year is the second hurdle,
and the one believed to be the most critical as a predictor of college graduation.
From the results displayed in Tables 6 and 7, Hispanics are doing quite well in
persistence, as the Equity Index is very close to equity in both the UC and Texas
systems (0.95 and 0.93, respectively) and above equity in the CSU system (1.04).
These results indicate that once Hispanics are admitted, they are being retained. Of
course, it is not possible to determine actual outcomes after the first year from these
results, such as number of credits accumulated and grades earned. In spite of these
limitations, the improvement in the Equity Index for this indicator is reason for
cautious optimism.
In the UC system, the Equity Indices for first-to-second year retention for
Whites (1.04) and for Asians (0.99) were slightly higher than for Hispanics (0.95).
In contrast, the Equity Index for Blacks was noticeably lower than for all other
groups. In the CSU system, the Equity Indices for Asians (1.06) and for Whites
(1.06) were remarkably close to the Equity Index for Hispanics (1.04). Judging from
these results, it appears that at the aggregate level, the CSU system does as well in
retaining Hispanics as it does in retaining White and Asians. However, it cannot be
construed that this is the case on every campus. Based on other reports (e.g.,
Bensimón, 2004) it is likely that Hispanics on some CSU campuses, particularly
those that are urban and enroll large concentrations of low-income students, may be
experiencing inequality in retention. Although, the Texas Equity Index for Hispanic
community colleges, as opposed to first-time freshmen in CCC for transfer to UC and CSU.
94
first-to-second year retention (0.93) was relatively high, it was lower than those of
California, particularly CSU’s.
Bachelor’s degree attainment. Attaining a bachelor’s degree is the ultimate
goal for undergraduate students and the basic metric by which higher education
institutions are judged. When undergraduate student enrollment was used as the
reference population, the Equity Indices for Hispanics were as follows:
UC = 0.85
CSU = 0.89
Texas = 0.86
While these were not as high as the Equity Indices for first year persistence
reported above, they were higher than all other Equity Indices reported so far. The
lower value of the Equity Index for bachelor’s degree completion in comparison to
the one for first year persistence means that more Hispanic students dropped out after
their second and third years in college.
In order to assess the state of equity for Hispanic in terms of bachelor’s
degree completion, one cannot ignore the very large numbers of students who
disappear from the system before entering college. Ultimately increasing the
proportion of Hispanics with bachelor’s degrees depends on increasing the number in
the pipeline. For this reason, I decided that the Equity Index for bachelor’s degree
completion also had to be calculated in relation to the 25- to 29-year-old age cohort
in the state population. By doing so, we can distinguish between equity in bachelor’s
degree attainment as proportional to the college student population and equity in
bachelor’s degree attainment as proportional to the age group. As the scorecard
reveals, when bachelor’s degree attainment is examined from the perspective of the
95
age group, the Equity Index for Hispanics drops precipitously. In the UC system, the
Equity Index falls from 0.85 to 0.26; in the CSU system, from 0.89 to 0.43; and in
Texas, from 0.86 to 0.46. Notably, the opposite trend is evident for Whites and
Asians, which makes the inequity for Hispanics even more pronounced. Whereas in
the UC system, the White-Hispanic gap for the bachelor’s degree Equity Index based
on undergraduate enrollment was 25 points, it climbs to 85 points when it is based on
the 25- to 29-year-old age group. The Asian-Hispanic gap grows exponentially from
just 14 points to a whopping 198 points when the 25- to 29-year-old age group
replaces undergraduate enrollment as the reference population.
The retention and bachelor’s degree completion results can be summarized as
follows:
• Colleges were doing well in terms of retaining first-year Hispanic
students, but more research on persistence in later years is needed.
• Hispanics were below equity in bachelor’s degree attainment in
relation to undergraduate enrollment, but when compared to age
cohorts in the state population, their equity status dropped sharply.
Excellence
35
For the excellence perspective, I used three measures: earning a bachelor’s
degree in STEM majors (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics);
earning a master’s degree; and earning a doctorate.
35
According to the 1960 California Master Plan, the CSU system has the mission of providing
undergraduate and graduate education through the Master’s degree, with particular emphasis on
“applied” fields and teacher education (University of California Office of the President, 1999). For
this reason, I did not employ the measure of doctoral degree attainment in the examination of equity
status in CSU system.
96
Bachelor’s degree in STEM majors. I created this measure by combining
degrees conferred in Computer and Information Sciences, Engineering, Biological
Sciences/Life Sciences, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences. This measure indicates
the status of Hispanics in fields that are in high demand and command high salaries.
Another characteristic they share is an under-representation of minority students. To
calculate the Equity Index, I used undergraduate enrollment as the reference
population. The Equity Index for Hispanics earning a bachelor’s degree in a STEM
field was 0.57 in the UC system and 0.55 in the CSU system. Both were
considerably lower than the Equity Index for Texas (0.73). As in many of the other
findings, the gap between Hispanics and Asian Americans is greater than the gap
between Hispanics and Whites. Asians had an even higher score in Texas (2.14)
than in the UC and CSU systems (1.33 and 1.41, respectively). While Asians
account for a very small percentage of the undergraduates in Texas (6.3%), they have
a much larger share of bachelor’s degrees awarded in the STEM majors (13.4%).
Graduate degree attainment. Earning a post-baccalaureate degree is also an
indicator of upward mobility and leadership potential. As higher degrees become
more common, equity in graduate degree attainment will be as important as equity in
bachelor’s degree attainment is now. Scorecard results show that the Equity Indices
for Hispanics earning master’s degrees at UC (0.56), CSU (0.59), and in Texas (0.62)
were fairly similar to their scores for bachelor’s degree attainment. The greatest
inequity was in doctoral degree attainment, particularly for Hispanics in Texas (0.29).
Whites had the highest Equity Index for doctoral degrees in California and Texas. In
2003, Hispanics constituted 20.4% of the undergraduate student enrollment, but
97
received only 5.9% of all the doctoral degree awarded. It is worth noting that 28% of
all the doctoral degrees awarded went to international students. This is the primary
reason for both Whites and Asians being under equity in Texas.
The excellence results indicated that Hispanics were severely under-
represented among recipients of bachelor’s degree in the STEM majors as well as
among recipients of post-baccalaureate degrees. Moreover, the number of Hispanics
involved in all three indicators of excellence is relatively small. It stands to reason
that a concerted effort to target high achieving Hispanics for STEM majors as well as
for advanced degrees would have a positive impact on equity.
In this section, I have discussed the results of the Equity Scorecard for
California and Texas in 2003. In addition to the snapshot study, I have examined
each measure in the Scorecard individually, using longitudinal data from 1988 for
California and 1995 for Texas. In the next section, I focus on longitudinal trends that
reveal changes in equity patterns.
Section II: Longitudinal Trends in Equitable Outcomes for Hispanics
The examination of longitudinal trends resulted in seven findings that provide
further insight into the status of Hispanics in higher education in California and
Texas. The longitudinal analysis supplements the findings discussed in Part I and
makes it possible to determine whether the 2003 scorecard results reflect an
improvement in equity, a decline, or no change. A benefit of longitudinal analysis is
that it provides the opportunity to view changes in the Equity Index in relation to
major policy initiatives that took place in particular years. In California, for example,
98
the elimination of affirmative action, first by the UC Regents adopting SP-1 in
2005,
36
followed by the voters’ approval of Proposition 209, could have profound
effects on the UC- and CSU-access Equity Indices.
The longitudinal trend analyses for California and Texas covers different
time periods, reflecting the availability of data in each state. In California, data were
collected as early as 1988, but in Texas, the earliest data were from 1995. The
analyses yielded seven findings, which will be discussed in order of severity.
1. UC: Hispanics fared worse in 2003 than in 1988
The most striking pattern of inequity was found in Hispanic access to the
University of California system. Even though in absolute numbers there are now
more first-time Hispanic freshmen at UC than there were fifteen years ago (a 60%
increase from 2,730 in 1988 to 4,376 in 2003), the increase has not kept pace with
the growing Hispanic population in the public school system or among graduating
seniors (a 138% increase from 49,000 to about 117,000). Consequently, the 2003
UC-access Equity Index (0.42) was 18 points lower than the one for 1988 (0.60)
when calculated in relation to the proportion of Hispanics among high school
graduates (Figure 5; also see Table 7, Appendix A). In 1998, the year in which
Hispanics experienced the least equity in access to the UC system (0.37), Hispanics
accounted for 31% of all California high school graduates, but only 11.5% of all
incoming freshmen at UC. The sudden drop in the index may be related to the fact
36
In July 1995, the University of California, Board of Regents adopted two resolutions, called SP-1
and SP-2, that changed the university's admissions, hiring and contracting practices. SP-1 eliminated
consideration of race and gender in the admission of students to the university. SP-2 eliminated race
and gender as considerations in UC's hiring and contracting practices, except where such action would
99
that 1998 was the first year in which affirmative action removed from the admission
criteria. The longitudinal analyses provided in Table 7, Appendix A, show that the
UC-access Equity Index for Asians increased steadily from 1988 to 2003 and the
greatest gap is now between Hispanics and Asians. In fact, the gap in equity
between Hispanics and Whites is relatively small (0.41) when compared to the one
between Hispanics and Asians (2.48).
When UC access is compared to the population in the California public
school system, Hispanics’ share in the total K-12 enrollment increased from 31.4%
in 1988 to 46.0% in 2003, while their share in the UC freshman cohort only
increased from 11.8% to 14.4%, resulting in a series of even lower Equity Indices
(see Appendix A, Table 8 for details).
During this period, CSU had slightly better scores than UC in terms of access
for Hispanics, but still remained significantly below equity. In relation to high
school graduates, the Equity Index for Hispanic first-time, full-time freshman
enrollment increased from 0.65 in 1988 to 0.83 in 1995, and then decreased to 0.69
in 2003. As CSU consistently enrolls more
result in the university's loss of federal or state funds. The first full entering freshman class admitted
under SP-1 enrolled at UC in fall 1998. From http://www.ucop.edu/news/access/qasp12.htm
100
Figure 6: First-time freshman access to UC versus high school graduates in
California by race/ethnicity, 1988-2003
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Hispanics than UC, an Equity Index score of around 0.60 indicates that even more
Hispanics would have enrolled if equity had been reached. For example, 116,720
Hispanic students graduated from California public high schools in 2003, accounting
for 34.2% of the total graduating class. In the same year, 9,427 Hispanics were
admitted to CSU as first-time freshmen, constituting 23.7% of the total freshman
class. If equity had been reached, an additional 4,200 Hispanic students would have
enrolled in CSU, which is about the same number of Hispanics who enrolled at UC
as first-time freshmen in that year. The 4,200 figure is conservative, considering that
ideally CSU should reflect the population of the state.
Hispanics
experienced
decrease of
equity after
1995.
Equity line
Asian
White
Hispanic
101
2. Equity Index for Hispanic community college transfers: Worsening for UC and
slightly improving for CSU
As I mentioned earlier, the equity index for community college transfers to
the UC and CSU systems is extremely important because community colleges serve
as the main point of entry into higher education for California’s Hispanic population.
In recognition of this, the California Legislature and the Office of the Chancellor for
Community Colleges have instituted a variety of measures to improve transfer rates
from community colleges to four-year institutions (e.g., the Partnership for
Excellence, Student Equity Plans). In view of the increased attention being given to
the transfer function, it is disappointing that the Equity Index for CCC-UC Hispanic
transfers declined from 0.72 in 1988 to 0.52 in 2003. The gain in CCC-CSU
Hispanic transfer during the same period, from 0.68 to 0.75, was far too modest to
compensate for the 20-point lost in the other system.
Unlike the Equity Indices for Hispanics, the Equity Indices for Asian
Americans seem to be improving, thereby making the gap between Hispanics and
Asians more significant than the one between Hispanics and Whites.
102
Transfer to CSU
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Equity
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Asian
White
Hispanic
Transfer to UC
Figure 7: Community college transfers to UC and CSU versus first-time freshman
enrollment in CCC by race/ethnicity, 1988-2002
There are at least two issues at the core of the transfer problem. First is the
under-representation of Hispanics among students who transfer. Although the
number of Hispanic students transferring to UC and CSU increased by 145% from
3,661 in 1988 to 8,952 in 2003, Hispanics are still severely underrepresented in
transfer in relation to the vast number that are enrolled in community colleges. In
2003 for example, Hispanics accounted for 29.3% of all community college
freshmen, but only 22.0% of those who transferred to CSU and 15.3% of those who
transferred to UC.
The second issue is the rapid growth of community college enrollment
projected for the near future. Between 2000 and 2010, community colleges in
California are expected to enroll some 450,000 more students, an increase of about
30% (CPEC, 2000), and a large proportion of these will be Hispanic. When these
issues are considered together, the prospects look dim for Hispanics who begin their
103
higher education in community colleges. Other than transfer to four-year colleges
and universities, what options would promote the intellectual growth and
socioeconomic mobility of the 55,000 Hispanic students who enrolled in California
community colleges in 2004?
3. Hispanics better off in access to the University of Texas system than at Texas
A&M system
For the access perspective in Texas, I examined longitudinal patterns only for
the two main public university systems, the University of Texas (UT) and Texas
A&M. Table 8 makes it abundantly clear that the equity status of Hispanics differed
dramatically in the UT and Texas A&M systems, both in terms of first-time, full-
time freshman enrollment and transfer from two- to four-year institutions. As the
table shows, when freshman enrollment in these two systems is compared to the
number of high school graduates, Hispanics are above equity at the University of
Texas (1.10) but seriously below equity at Texas A&M (0.50).
37
The UT-A&M gap
for Hispanics was about 60 points for almost every year examined.
37
For detailed results, see Tables 2 & 3 in Appendix B.
104
Table 8: First-time full-time freshman access to UT and Texas A&M systems vs.
high school graduates in Texas by race/ethnicity, 1995-2002
The University of Texas System Texas A&M University System
Hispanic White Asian Hispanic White Asian
1995 1.24 0.86 3.10 0.66 1.17 0.56
1996 1.20 0.87 3.14 0.52 1.24 0.60
1997 1.10 0.91 3.48 0.51 1.25 0.71
1998 1.12 0.91 3.21 0.46 1.30 0.69
1999 1.09 0.89 3.48 0.46 1.34 0.74
2000 1.07 0.89 3.29 0.50 1.29 0.72
2001 1.12 0.85 3.35 0.51 1.31 0.59
2002 1.10 0.88 3.28 0.50 1.34 0.62
As the equity scores indicate, the percentages of UT freshmen who are
Hispanic exceeds their representation among Texas high school graduates, whereas
the reverse is true in the Texas A&M system, where their numbers dropped
significantly from 0.66 in 1995 to 0.50 in 2002. For another example, 33.1% of all
graduates of Texas high schools in 2002 were Hispanic, and Hispanics accounted for
36.5% of the first-time full-time freshmen enrolled in UT, as opposed to 16.4% in
Texas A&M. Another interesting note regarding the differences between the two
systems is that Asians have a very high Equity Index score at UT (above 3.0), but
score below equity (around 0.60) in the Texas A&M system.
Patterns of differential access similar to those at UT and A & M emerged for
the community college transfer indicator. The percentage of Hispanics who transfer
from community colleges to UT has stayed above equity over the years, whereas the
percentage transferring to A&M remains below equity. In fact, the Hispanic CC
transfer-UT Equity Index increased from 1.26 in 1995 to 1.41 in 2003 (See Tables 4
and 5 in Appendix B for details), while the Hispanic 1995-2003 CC transfer-A&M
105
Equity Index did not change much between 1995 and 2003, remaining about 0.70
throughout the nine years. Interestingly, Asians also experience greater equity in
transferring to UT than to Texas A&M. In fact, Asians experienced lower equity
than Hispanics in transferring from community colleges to the Texas A&M system.
One caveat to bear in mind when considering Asians’ Equity Index is that Asians
represent only about 4% of the community college students in Texas,
38
so a small
difference in the number of transfers may result a big difference in the equity scores.
Asians also have a low representation among Texas high school graduates, about 3%
annually.
Figure 8: Community college transfers to UT and Texas A&M systems versus total
community enrollment by race/ethnicity, 1995-2003
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
White
Hispanic
Asian
As the two major public higher education systems in Texas, the University of
Texas and Texas A&M are considered peer systems, which is not the case with UC
and CSU. Therefore, the large differences between the two systems in equity for
Hispanics are perplexing.
38
Asians make up 7.2% of all students transferred to UT, and 1.5% of all students transferred to
Texas A&M in 2003. Overall, Asians made up 3.9% of all students at community colleges in Texas.
Transfer to UT Transfer to Texas A&M
Equity Line
106
4. High school completion is a major obstacle to increasing the number of college-
educated Hispanics in California and Texas
In addition to the existence of severe inequity in the UC, CSU, and Texas
A&M systems, a major obstacle to increasing baccalaureate degree attainment
among Hispanics is the smallness of the pool of Hispanic high school graduates. I
report the results of the high school graduation (HSG) Equity Index in terms of both
reference population used in the data analysis: the total K-12 enrollment and the 15-
to 19-year-old age group in the state’s population. The K-12 system is the source
pool for high school graduates, so the Equity Index for HSG was calculated using the
K-12 population as the denominator. Another reason for choosing the K-12
population for the comparison is that it represents progress through the pipeline. I
also calculated the HSG Equity Index using the 15- to 19-year-old age group in order
to establish the degree of equity in the proportion of Hispanic high school graduates
in the state’s population. In California, scores of 0.60 to 0.70 place Hispanics below
equity in high school graduation in relation to their representation in the K-12 school
system, and scores ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 placed them below equity in relation to
their representation in the state’s population.
39
In Texas, when the HSG Equity Index for Hispanics was calculated using the
15- to19-year-old population, it increased from 0.79 in 1995 to 0.86 in 2002. The
reason for greater equity in 2002 is that the Hispanic share of high school graduates
increased faster than the Hispanic share of the 15- to 19-year-old age group. Even
though Texas scored somewhat better than California, the HSG Equity Index is still
below equity.
107
In examining the differences between California and Texas, one should
remember that California has a much larger Hispanic population. Taking school-age
children as an example, in 2003, there were 2.9 million Hispanic students in the K-12
system in California, as opposed to 1.8 million in Texas. This means that the same
Equity Index score (e.g., 0.70) would involve many more individuals in California
than it would in Texas, thereby giving a more negative impression.
5. Inequality in college readiness among California’s Hispanics persists over time
Graduating from high school does not guarantee access to a four-year college
or university, not even the less selective ones. This particularly true in California,
where the demand exceeds the availability of college spaces. The A-G high school
curriculum represents the first hurdle students must get over in order to gain access
to the CSU or UC system. There are also other requirements such as graduating
class rank, but as the GPA’s of graduating seniors are not made public, fulfillment of
the A-G requirements provides the best indicator of a student’s eligibility for
admission to college. However, it is not always reliable, as students can have
completed the A-G curriculum without achieving the GPA required for admission to
the UC system.
Although the equity status of Hispanic high school graduates has been
improving gradually, increasing from 0.66 in 1990 to 0.84 in 2003 with 15- to 19-
year-olds as the reference population (Table 3, Appendix A), the opposite is true for
the equity status in A-G completion. In relation to the Hispanic representation
39
For detailed results, Tables 1-3 in Appendix A.
108
among high school graduates, the Equity Index for A-G completion remained
significantly lower and virtually static for the past 16 years, ranging from 0.62 to
0.65. In contrast, the A-G completion Equity Index was around 1.10 for Whites and
1.60 for Asians (see Table 4, Appendix A). In 2003, only 25,049 out of 116,720
Hispanic high school graduates completed A-G requirements (21% completion rate),
as opposed to 56,425 out of 144,660 Whites (39%) and 20,436 out of 37,748 Asians
(54%) (See Figure 8 on page 104).
6. Hispanics gain equity in UC bachelor’s degree attainment at the close of the 20
th
century but experience the reverse at the beginning of the 21
st
century
Hispanics’ Equity Index for UC bachelor’s degree attainment in proportion to
their undergraduate enrollment improved steadily from 1988 until 1999, when it
reached 1.04 (slightly above equity). Unfortunately, this hopeful trend was short-
lived. Having started to decline in 2001, the Equity Index dropped to 0.85 in 2003,
the same level as ten years earlier. Blacks also experienced a similar downward
trend after 2000, while the Equity Indices for Whites and Asian Americans continued
upward.
109
Figure 9: A-G curriculum completion rates for California high school graduates,
2003
21%
39%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Hispanics Whites Asians
Another way of calculating the Equity Index for UC bachelor’s degree
attainment is in relation to the development of capital—social, human, and
financial—among Hispanics. UC is the flagship higher education system in
California. It is highly selective, and a UC degree confers considerably more prestige
than a degree from CSU. Indeed, the UC system has been of the utmost importance
in cultivating California’s Hispanic intelligentsia, as evidenced by the number of
well-known and influential Hispanics who are UC alumni. This being the case, the
following questions arise. Compared to their representation in the 25- to 29-year-old
age cohort in the state population, how far from equity is the Hispanic representation
among UC degree recipients, and is the pool of Hispanics being educated at UC
growing? I can address these questions only in very general terms by using the age
cohort in California as the reference population. The results displayed in Table 9 are
disappointing in that there has been practically no change in the Equity Index for UC
110
bachelor’s degree attainment among Hispanic between the ages of 25 and 29. In
contrast, the CSU system appears to be doing better in this respect, with an Equity
Index for Hispanics that has been improving steadily and was substantially higher in
2003 (0.46) than that of the UC system (0.26). This finding has implications for
understanding economic and labor patterns among Hispanics as well as identifying
the pool of potential leaders.
Although Hispanics have relatively high Equity Index scores in UC
bachelor’s degree attainment in comparison to CSU bachelor’s degree attainment
from 1992 to 2002 (see the first two columns in Table 9), it is important to note that
a higher Equity Index does not indicate that more Hispanics are approaching equity,
Table 9: Hispanics’ bachelor’s degree attainment at UC and CSU, 1988-2003
Using undergraduate
enrollment as the
reference population
Using 25-29 age
group as the
reference population
UC CSU UC CSU
1988 0.62 0.70 n/a n/a
1989 0.64 0.73 n/a n/a
1990 0.66 0.67 0.25 0.27
1991 0.69 0.64 0.26 0.27
1992 0.76 0.65 0.28 0.28
1993 0.82 0.61 0.29 0.28
1994 0.82 0.65 0.30 0.31
1995 0.81 0.67 0.30 0.34
1996 0.84 0.73 0.30 0.37
1997 0.92 0.77 0.32 0.40
1998 0.99 0.80 0.32 0.41
1999 1.04 0.84 0.32 0.43
2000 1.02 0.89 0.30 0.44
2001 0.98 0.87 0.28 0.42
2002 0.93 0.91 0.27 0.42
2003 0.85 0.89 0.26 0.43
111
as the calculation of these sets of scores is based on Hispanic students enrolled as
undergraduates in the two systems respectively. As the previous analysis indicates, a
majority of Hispanic students had already disappeared from the pipeline. For those
who did reach the point of college enrollment, only a small percentage went to UC.
Taking as an example the year 1999 when UC bachelor’s degree attainment Equity
Index was 1.04, out of the total of 75,121 Hispanic undergraduates who were
enrolled in one of these systems, less than 23% (16,970) were at UC and over 77%
(58,151) were at CSU.
7. Bachelor’ degree attainment in Texas: UT educates the majority of Hispanics
It is important for public higher education systems to be responsive to state
needs, and the number of degrees conferred annually is one measure of an
institution’s effectiveness and productivity. In both Texas and California, Hispanics
constitute a critical mass; therefore, their educational status is as much a matter of
equality and fairness as of economic and social well being for all citizens.
Hispanics’ Equity Index for UT bachelor’s degree attainment in comparison to their
undergraduate representation has improved steadily, increasing from 0.72 in 1995 to
0.82 in 2003 (Table 10). Although the Equity Index for Texas A&M bachelor’s
degree attainment by Hispanics shows more fluctuation, it is quite comparable to that
of UT. However, the Equity Index for Texas A&M during the period of 1995-2003
was noticeably different from UT’s when it was calculated on the basis of 25- to 29-
year-old Hispanics. Even though UT’s Equity Index was consistently higher than
Texas A&M’s, both exhibited a downward pattern. The results suggest that the UT
112
system fills a critical role in Texas comparable to the one played by CSU in
California in terms of elevating the educational status of Hispanics.
Table 10: Hispanics’ bachelor’s degree attainment from UT and Texas A&M
systems, 1995-2003
Using undergraduate
enrollment as the
reference population
Using 25-29 age
group as the
reference population
UT A&M UT A&M
1995 0.72 0.82 0.73 0.44
1996 0.78 0.82 0.77 0.41
1997 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.40
1998 0.81 0.88 0.76 0.41
1999 0.83 0.97 0.76 0.43
2000 0.82 0.93 0.73 0.40
2001 0.84 0.88 0.72 0.37
2002 0.84 0.86 0.70 0.36
2003 0.82 0.82 0.70 0.35
In looking at these data, an important caveat is that improvement in the
Equity Index for bachelor’s degree attainment can be due to a decrease in
undergraduate enrollment, rather than an increase in the proportion of bachelor’s
degrees granted, which is precisely the case in the Texas A&M system. Table 11
provides data on Hispanic students’ share in undergraduate enrollment in the two
systems:
113
Table 11: Hispanic students’ share in undergraduate enrollment in UT and Texas
A&M systems, versus their share in 25-29 age group in Texas, 1995-2003
UT Texas A &M
25-29 Age
Group in Texas
1995 33.8% 17.8% 33.4%
1996 33.8% 16.9% 34.1%
1997 33.7% 17.2% 34.9%
1998 33.7% 17.0% 36.1%
1999 34.1% 16.7% 37.4%
2000 34.5% 16.8% 39.3%
2001 35.1% 17.3% 41.1%
2002 35.7% 17.7% 42.7%
2003 36.5% 18.2% 42.8%
This above table reveals that large differences existed in the undergraduate
composition of the two Texas systems. Of the four systems examined (two in
California and two in Texas), the UT system had the highest representation for
Hispanics with a steady upward trend over the years, while Texas A&M had very
low Hispanic representation in the undergraduate population with almost no progress.
Given that Hispanics’ representation in high school graduates has grown from 29%
in 1995 to 33% to 2002, there is a pressing need to increase Hispanic representation
in higher education in Texas, particularly at Texas A&M.
Conclusion
For California, the longitudinal analysis revealed improvement in equity for
Hispanics in community college transfers to the CSU system and in bachelor’s
degree attainment at both UC and CSU in proportion to their representation in the
undergraduate student population. Equity in Hispanics’ bachelor’s degree attainment
also improved in the CSU in proportion to the 25- to 29–year-old population. For
114
Texas, improvements in equity for Hispanics were evidenced in access to UT and in
bachelor’s degree attainment. Unfortunately, the longitudinal analysis produced
more bad news than good. Hispanics were found to be doing worse now than they
were fifteen years ago in terms of access to the UC system and community college
transfers to UC. In Texas, Texas A&M was found to be doing worse on just about
every measure. The most disappointing finding was that the important gains made in
the Equity Index for UC bachelor’s degree attainment by Hispanics were not
sustained.
Section III: The State of Equity for Hispanics in the Flagship Campuses
Up to this point, I have discussed the findings on equity at the system level
without taking into account intra-system differences in selectivity and reputation.
Clearly, not all campuses within each of these systems are equal, and it makes a
significant difference whether one is admitted to UC Berkeley or UC Riverside, or to
UT Austin or UT El Paso. The question that remains to be answered is whether the
patterns of equity and inequity that emerged in the system-level analysis are
perpetuated at the campus level, or whether different patterns emerge. To this end, I
conducted a comparative study of the flagship campuses in California and Texas for
the two access measures in 2003: 1) First-time freshmen enrollment in relation to all
high school graduates in the state, and 2) Student transfer from community colleges
(CC) to the flagship campuses in relation to first-time freshman enrollment in CCs.
The following were identified as flagship campuses in the public higher
education systems of California and Texas: UC Berkeley, UCLA, UT Austin, and
115
Texas A&M at College Station. Generally, the results show considerable
discrepancies between the Equity Index at the system level and the Equity Index for
the flagship campus. The greatest difference was between the Equity Index for
Hispanic first-time freshmen in the UT system and those at the Austin campus (Table
12). Notably, while Hispanics had an Equity Index of 1.10 for first-time freshmen at
the system level, the Equity Index for the Austin campus was 0.52, making it
abundantly clear that equity in the enrollment of Hispanics has been achieved
primarily through the less prestigious campuses in the system. The situation for
Whites provides quite a contrast, in that they were below equity in the UT system
(0.88) but above equity at the Austin campus (1.18). Hispanics’ Equity Indices were
also lower at UC Berkeley and Texas A&M at College Station than at the system
level. UCLA was the only flagship campus at which the Equity Index for Hispanic
freshman enrollment was slightly higher (0.48) than for the system in aggregate
(0.42). The Equity Indices for Hispanic freshmen were identical at UC Berkeley and
Texas A&M at College Station in both value and level of inequity.
116
Table 12: Comparison of flagship Equity Index to the system-level Equity Index:
First-time freshman enrollment in relation to high school graduates in California and
Texas, 2003
Hispanic White Asian
40
Flagship System Flagship System Flagship System
UC Berkeley 0.32 0.42 0.66 0.83 2.96 2.90
UC Los Angeles 0.48 0.42 0.76 0.83 2.76 2.90
UT Austin 0.52 1.10 1.18 0.88 4.92 3.28
Texas A&M,
College Station 0.32 0.50 1.64 1.34 0.98 0.62
The results reported in earlier sections showed that the equity gap is severest
between Hispanics and Asians, and these differences are even greater at flagship
campuses. At UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UT Austin, Asians are far ahead of
Hispanics in terms of equity. Moreover, Whites at UC Berkeley and UCLA lag far
behind Asians.
Community college transfers to flagship campuses. The disparate patterns
for Hispanic freshmen at the flagship campuses are also reflected in the Equity
Indices for Hispanics transferring from a community college. As in the previous
analysis, the disparity is greatest for Hispanics at UT Austin and Texas A&M at
College Station. While the initial aggregate analyses (shown in Table 13) indicated
that Hispanics were well above equity in the UT system in terms of community
college transfers (1.41), this more comprehensive campus-level analysis revealed an
extremely high level of inequity for Hispanics transferring from community colleges
40
In CPEC’s race/ethnicity category, Filipino is separated from Asian/Pacific Islanders. For the
purpose of across-state comparison, I combined Filipino and Asian/Pacific Islanders into “Asian” for
California data.
117
to UT Austin (0.53). A similar pattern of inequity was revealed for Texas A&M.
Inequity was also apparent in Hispanics transferring from community colleges to UC
Berkeley, but the differences were not as large as those found in the Texas system.
UCLA deviates from the flagship pattern by having a higher Equity Index for
Hispanics transferring from community colleges than that of the UC system as a
whole. However, as in the previous analysis, Asians also do not follow the same
pattern. Here we see the Equity Index for Asian community college transfers going
down at the California flagship campuses but not at the Texas ones.
Table 13: Comparison of flagship Equity Index to the system-level Equity Index:
Transfer to four-year institutions in relation to enrollment in community colleges in
California and Texas, 2003
Hispanic White Asian
Flagship System Flagship System Flagship System
UC Berkeley 0.47 0.52 0.86 0.92 1.77 1.98
UC Los Angeles 0.65 0.52 0.91 0.92 1.64 1.98
UT Austin 0.53 1.41 1.26 0.81 3.41 1.85
Texas A&M,
College Station 0.28 0.75 1.68 1.33 0.62 0.39
Summary of Findings
To summarize the findings discussed in this chapter, the greatest inequalities
for Hispanics are found at the starting point of the K-16 pipeline. In order to
increase the proportion of California and Texas Hispanics with a baccalaureate
degree, many more must graduate from high school and a much greater percentage
of those who do should go directly to a four-year college.
118
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The Equity Scorecard revealed severe inequities for Hispanics in California
and Texas at the state level. These patterns of inequity were not visible in other
accountability reports, such as Measuring Up (NCPPHE, 2000, 2002, 2004). The
Equity Scorecard demonstrated that in the pipeline from high school to bachelor's
degree and advanced degree attainment, the greatest inequities for Hispanics in
California and Texas exist at two specific points in the earlier critical stage: high
school graduation and college access. Serious inequities in baccalaureate degree
attainment were also revealed when Hispanics were compared to the 25- to 29-year-
old age cohort of the state population. In addition, different inequity dynamics were
discovered in California and Texas, as well as between different systems (i.e., UC
versus CSU, UT versus Texas A&M).
This chapter is organized as follows: First I discuss the most critical findings
from this study in relation to the state policy environment and the accountability
context. Then I discuss the advantages and limitations of the Equity Scorecard
model generally, and the Equity Index itself more specifically. I end this chapter
with areas for future research and recommendations on data collection and reporting
in accountability systems.
Discussion of the Findings
Equity in College Readiness
From the analysis presented in the previous chapter, it is evident that one of
the greatest obstacles to bachelor's degree attainment for Hispanics is that not enough
Hispanic students graduate from high school. To make matters worse, many of those
119
who do graduate are not prepared academically for college. It is true that over the
years both the absolute numbers of Hispanic high school graduates and Hispanics’
representation among all high school graduates in California and Texas have
increased exponentially and very rapidly. In the 15 years from 1988 to 2003, the
number of Hispanic high school graduates more than doubled, going from 49,000 to
116,000 (an increase of 137%), and Hispanics’ representation among all high school
graduates increased from 19.7% to 34.2%. However, numbers alone can be
deceptive and cannot indicate whether progress has been made in terms of equity. A
cursory glance at the longitudinal equity scores in the academic preparation
perspective of the scorecard gives the impression that progress has been made.
However, when Hispanic high school graduates are compared to their representation
in elementary and secondary school enrollment, or to their representation among 15-
to 19-year-olds, it is clear that the increases in equity are not keeping up with the
rapid “Latinization” of the K-12 educational system. In view of the under-
representation of Hispanics among high school graduates, every Hispanic graduate
should be viewed as a “member of a protected class” or as an “economic asset” to be
nurtured for admission to a four-year college. Based on the results of the Equity
Index, it cannot be said that California has been able offset the large number of
Hispanic high school dropouts by achieving equity among those who meet the A-G
requirements and have a greater chance of being admitted to CSU or even UC.
Achieving equity for Hispanics in completion of the A-G requirements
should be a state priority. It is clear from a number of national studies that
completion of a rigorous core high school curriculum has profound implications.
120
Students need to learn Algebra I and II not only for college admission, but also for
success after high school (The Education Trust, 2004). In fact, in California there
has been a strong movement among advocacy groups such as Education Trust West
to declare the A-G curriculum the default course sequence for all students. Another
advocacy group called Communities for Educational Equity (CEE) has been
pressuring the Los Angeles Unified School District to make the A-G curriculum part
of the high school graduation requirement. In Texas, although the ten percent plan
has no specific course requirements for college admission, the state has taken a
major step toward aligning K-12 and higher education by making the college-prep
track the recommended curriculum for all students (Barth, 2003). Starting with the
ninth grade class in fall 2004, students have been enrolled in this 24-unit curriculum
unless they and their parents explicitly choose otherwise.
The Equity Index for Hispanic high school graduates in Texas indicates that
they are doing better than their counterparts in California. They almost achieved
equity in 2002 in comparison to the 12
th
grade enrollment (0.98), which is a
promising sign. However, the Equity Index results should not be evaluated in
isolation from the broader context. It is important to note that there were almost
81,000 Hispanic 12
th
graders enrolled in public high schools in Texas in 2003.
Therefore, if equity were reached in relation to Hispanics’ share in the 12
th
grade,
5,000 more Hispanics would have received high school diplomas. When this
population is compared to the K-12 enrollment, it is clear that Hispanics are far from
equity. About 225,000 students graduated from high school in 2003. If Hispanics
had achieved equity in relation to their share in the elementary and secondary school
121
enrollment, then 23,000 more Hispanic would have graduated from high school that
year.
In essence, Hispanics’ under-representation in bachelor’s degree attainment
results from a series of nested problems beginning in elementary school and
continuing to college. This issue has attracted the attention of researchers and policy
analysts throughout the nation, as evidenced by the number of recent studies (Conley,
2003; Horowitz, 2005; Kirst & Venezia, 2004) of high school completion among
minority groups, recent immigrants, and low income youth. There is also concern
that as a result of measurement errors, high school graduation rates are even lower
than commonly believed (Allensworth, 2005). This problem is particularly acute in
California. Although the state reports a healthy graduation rate of 86.9% for all
students, a more precise method of calculation finds it to be 71% on average and
only 60% for Hispanics (The Civil Rights Project, 2005).
Equity Status in Higher Education
As shown in the results section of the previous chapter, Hispanics experience
minimal equity in the transition from high school graduation to college enrollment.
The under-representation of Hispanics in all sectors of higher education in California
and Texas cannot be separated from the political context of these states. Following
the abandonment of race-conscious affirmative action policies in 1997, California
and Texas both adopted versions of a percent plan as their college admission policies,
which went into effect in 1998. Similar in nature, these percent plans guarantee a
specified percentage of the top high school graduates admission to either a particular
university or university system (Horn & Flores, 2003). In Texas, the top ten percent
122
of graduates from the state’s high schools are guaranteed admission to any public
university, while California’s plan provides the top four percent of the state’s high
school graduates admission to one of the UC’s nine campuses without guaranteeing
admission to a particular campus. The Texas ten percent plan also guarantees
students the major of their choice, which is not the case for California’s percent plan.
In the following section, I first discuss trend differences in the Equity Indices
for the four major university systems in California and Texas (UC, CSU, UT, and
Texas A&M) as well as the substantial differences between these states.
The different equity dynamic among systems
In spite of the endorsement of the percent plans and the praise they have
received for their effectiveness in maintaining minority student enrollment, the
results from my study show that the equity status of Hispanic students decreased in
the years immediately following the elimination of affirmative action policies in
higher education in both California and Texas. Also, because these plans only
establish basic requirements for automatic admission, their implementation at the
system and campus levels varies dramatically in terms of outreach programs and
financial packages, which leads to very different results in terms of the number of
minority students on campus (Horn & Flores, 2003). My study also provided
evidence of the following differences.
1. UC is more competitive than UT
41
. The prestige differences between
California’s and Texas’ universities may partially account for UT’s higher and UC’s
41
The fact is that UC is far more competitive than UT. The flagship institutions in the UC system are
highly selective: UC Berkeley ranked 23
rd
and UCLA 25
th
nationally (U.S. News and World Report,
2003). In contrast, UT Austin was ranked 47
th
among the top 50 schools in the country and Texas
123
lower Equity Indices for access. After all, UT basically offers open admission to
high school graduates who rank in the top ten percent of their class. UC’s more
restricted admission requirements may also explain why its Equity Index in
Hispanics’ bachelor’s degree attainment is higher than UT’s.
2. Campuses in the UT and Texas A&M systems are different as well.
Following the implementation of the ten percent plan in Texas in 1997, there have
been heated discussions of its effectiveness in promoting campus diversity in
comparison to affirmative action (MALDEF, 2004; Horn & Flores, 2003). Under the
same law, very different outcomes have resulted in the two flagship institutions in
Texas: UT Austin and Texas A&M at College Station. The findings of Horn and
Flores (2003) may shed some light on why the equity scores for Hispanics are so
much better at UT Austin than at Texas A&M at College Station. According to Horn
and Flores (2003), UT Austin intentionally supplements the ten percent plan with
outreach and scholarship programs that target high school students in communities
with large Hispanic populations. In contrast, the ten percent plan at Texas A&M at
College Station has not brought the enrollment of Hispanics to the same levels
attained through affirmative action. Several factors may contribute to the lower
equity scores for Hispanics at Texas A&M at College Station. The findings of Horn
and Flores (2003) suggest that minority students are not enrolling in Texas A&M in
greater numbers primarily because of the lack of personal attention and inadequate
financial aid packages. In another study, Arekere and Rice (2001) reported that 40
A&M the second tier (out of four). Four additional UC schools (Davis, Irvine, San Diego, and Santa
Barbara) also have higher selectivity than either flagship in Texas. The differences in selectivity may
be related to the lower equity status of Hispanics in UC system.
124
percent of the students who did not enroll in Texas A&M attributed their decision in
part to characteristics of the college that have been carried over from its past. Until
1963, Texas A&M was an all-male, predominantly white military-training college.
Although it has changed and grown since then, the culture remains conservative
(Schmidt, 2005). In addition, the persistent low equity for Hispanics at Texas A&M
can be understood more completely by considering the college president’s remarks in
response to the University of Michigan’s victory in the case on the use of race as a
criterion for admission. While the president of UT Austin immediately declared that
the use of race for admission purposes would be reinstated, the president of Texas
A&M said, “Texas A&M won't consider race in admissions or financial-aid
decisions” (Arnone, 2003). In a report by the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Texas A&M was criticized as being mistaken in its conclusion
that the university can improve diversity significantly without affirmative action
(MALDEF, 2004).
The major differences between UT and Texas A&M underscore the
importance of understanding the nature and manifestation of problems thoroughly
before formulating policies and attempting interventions. Although UT and Texas
A&M are the largest universities in Texas’ public higher education system, they face
very different realities. In view of this, the consequences of any attempt to
implement the same policies at both institutions might be more detrimental than
beneficial. If the objective is to increase educational capital among Texas’ Hispanics,
the UT system should focus on retaining and graduating Hispanics students.
Although the Equity Index for bachelor’s degree attainment by Hispanics increased
125
from 0.72 in 1995 to 0.82 in 2003, equity is yet to be achieved. For Texas A&M, the
focus should be on greatly expanding access for Hispanic high school graduates, as
the Equity Index for this population decreased from 0.66 in 1995 to 0.50 in 2002.
3. The racial pattern of the equity gap is state specific. Asians have a much
larger representation in California than in Texas, especially in access to flagship
institutions. For example, in 2003, 44% of the first-time freshmen at UC Berkeley
and 41% at UCLA were Asians–the largest group on both campuses–as compared to
17% at UT Austin and 3% at Texas A&M. The differences in the sizes of the Asian
population have implications for the way in which the equity gap should be viewed.
While nationally there is still an inclination to think about inequalities as differences
between Whites and non-Whites (Davis, 2001), the results of the Equity Scorecard
make it clear that in California the gap is between Asians and Hispanics, and in
Texas it is between Whites and Hispanics. Ironically, in California the anti-
affirmative action movement was predicated on the issue of (less qualified)
Hispanics and Blacks allegedly taking spaces away from (more qualified) Whites,
but in fact the elimination of affirmative action has not reduced the numbers of
Asians nor increased equity for Whites to any extent.
What will it take to achieve equity in access for Hispanics?
The challenge for Hispanics to gain equitable access to the four-year college
systems of California and Texas is twofold. Assuming that there will be no
appreciable change in the number of Hispanic high school graduates, the first
challenge is to increase the number of Hispanic first-time, full-time freshmen each
year. In this scenario, using the data from 2003, Texas would need to increase
126
Hispanic enrollment by 44%, and the Hispanic first-time freshman enrollment in the
Texas A&M system would need to increase by 89%.
42
In California, attaining
equity for Hispanics without a significant increase in the number of high school
graduates would require a 135% increase in freshman enrollment in the UC system
and a 44% increase at the CSU system. Assuming that no major changes occur, UT
is the only system that can maintain the status quo in enrollment, given that it has
remained above equity for Hispanics relation to the number of high school graduates
for the past eight years.
43
The only caveat for UT is that even though Hispanics
having attained equity in the system, they are still underrepresented on the Austin
campus.
The second aspect of the challenge to increase the number of Hispanic first-
time, full-time freshmen is that, beyond the need to attain equity based on current
numbers of high school graduates, a large increase in this population is projected for
the near future. The rapid increase in numbers of Hispanic high school graduates is
predicted to be a nationwide trend. According to the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) (2003), the United States is expected to
graduate over 541,000 Hispanic high school students in 2013-14, a 161% increase
from the 207,000 Hispanic graduates in 1993-94. Between 2001-02 and 2012-13,
the nation can expect from 14,000 to 36,000 more Hispanic students to graduate
from public schools. In California, Hispanic high school graduates are expected to
42
Author’s calculation based on data in Chapter Four. In 2003, Hispanics made up 33% out of the
total high school graduates (74,466 out of 225,167), but only 22% of all first-time full-time freshmen
in Texas public higher education (11.355 out of 51,729). In Texas A&M, they only made up 17.5%
(2,239 out of 12,798).
127
increase from 109,038 in 2001-02 to 165,316 in 2017-18 (52% increase), and in
Texas, from 74,489 to 137,742 (85% increase) (WICHE, 2003). With this twofold
challenge, colleges and universities have a long way to go to attain equity in access
to higher education for Hispanics in the form of first-time freshman enrollment.
In addition to increasing the enrollment of Hispanic first-time freshmen,
another challenge to overcome is achieving greater success in transferring Hispanics
from two-year colleges to four-year institutions. Findings from the Equity Scorecard
support the results of other studies that transfer rates to UC and CSU campuses have
been declining, and there are significant disparities between Hispanics and their
White and Asian peers (Shulock, 2003). In a report to the state legislature, the
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO, 2002) suggested that
the declining numbers of transfers in recent years may reflect capacity constraints in
the CSU and UC systems rather than ineffectiveness in the transfer function of
community colleges.
Fifty years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the biggest obstacle to equity
in bachelor’s degree attainment for under-represented racial/ethnic minority students
remains at the point of entry to higher education. As Fry (2004) observed, efforts to
improve the bachelor’s degree completion rate for Hispanics–a widely accepted
public policy objective–could be targeted effectively at a large segment of Hispanic
youth who graduate from high school but fail to start higher education for a variety
of reasons.
43
One important consideration again is the different selectivity in terms of admission between UC and
128
Advantages and Limitations of the Model
Like other accountability tools, the Equity Scorecard model has its
advantages and limitations. The four perspectives in the scorecard provide a simple
strategic framework for organizing equity measures in the educational pipeline from
high school to baccalaureate and advanced degrees. As the tool, the Equity Index is
straightforward and makes it possible to quantify equity gaps. However, due to data
limitations, there are potential drawbacks in the methodology. In the following
section, I discuss the advantages and limitations of the model in greater detail.
Advantages of the Equity Scorecard
As delineated in the final report and recommendations from the advisory
group for California’s higher education accountability system (NCAHE, 2004),
California needs a coherent higher education accountability system that will respond
to the following policy goals: educational opportunity, participation, student success,
and public benefits. The Equity Scorecard model conforms perfectly to the
aforementioned goals, and the results of this study provide the following important
implications for the formulation of policy.
First, the Equity Scorecard filled an important gap in the existing
accountability systems, which was the absence of an equity model to evaluate a state
on how well its public higher education is serving one particular racial/ethnic group.
The Equity Scorecard made it possible to focus on Hispanics in California and Texas,
a group that needs attention and action from policymakers. While this population is
expanding exponentially, the majority of its members remain at the bottom in
UT systems.
129
socioeconomic status. On August 11, 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that
Texas joined California, Hawaii, and New Mexico as the fourth state to have a non-
white majority population. In the three states on the mainland, this trend was driven
by surging numbers of Hispanics; in Hawaii, the majority is Asian. The low
achievement of Hispanics has become a key policy concern in California and Texas,
where it has serious implications for state prosperity.
Second, the creation of Equity Scorecard is very timely, given the increasing
attention being given to higher education accountability throughout the nation. In
California, state policymakers realized that there was no system for determining how
well the state’s public higher education system was serving the student population as
a whole, not to mention specific ethnic groups (Hebel, 2005). In fact, the state
legislature has made two attempts to introduce an accountability bill. The first bill,
SB 1331, passed, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. The second one, AB 196,
which is a modified version of SB 1331, is currently under consideration. It is
commonly accepted that having an accountability system that addresses state
economic priorities is in California’s best interest. With four clearly delineated
perspectives, equity measures, and the Equity Index, the Equity Scorecard
framework can serve a useful and strategic tool for this purpose.
Third, the Equity Scorecard provides a model for state accountability that
goes beyond the aggregation of data, and the Equity Index can be employed to assess
statewide performance. A frequent criticism of accountability systems is that many
state reports are filled with pages and pages of data from individual institutions. In
her report to policymakers in California, Shulock (2003) noted “a common
130
complaint among policymakers and staff is that there are too much data and too little
info [information]” (p. 2). Such excessive data are not useful for state-level
decision-making aimed at improving collective educational outcomes. Instead, an
accountability framework with clearly delineated state priorities will be most helpful,
unlike the aggregation of individual institutions’ goals and plans. By placing the
performance of a state’s higher education system in the context of its population, the
Equity Scorecard has the potential to take evaluation to a higher level than
institutional accountability. As the results show, the most severe inequities occur in
the connection between systems, not in the progression after students have been
admitted to college. It is the responsibility of the state to provide a mechanism that
enables these systems to mesh together seamlessly, specifically in the connection
between high school and college, as well as in transfer from two-year to four-year
colleges.
Lastly, using the Equity Index, the Equity Scorecard makes it possible to
quantify the equity status of different measures into scores with one standard for
convenient interpretation. Being a ratio of two percentages, the Equity Index
contextualizes of the problem. In this, it is more sophisticated than single
percentages, which can conceal the problem. UT’s Equity Index for bachelor’s
degree attainment serves as a good example. Hispanic students’ share among all
bachelor’s degrees conferred increased from 14.9% in 1995 to 19.6% in 2003, an
upward trend indicating good progress. However, this set of percentages provides no
information about equity. When the undergraduate enrollment was used as the
reference population, the results of the Equity Index ranged from around 0.70 to
131
around 0.80. These results reveal two things: first, that Hispanics at UT were below
equity in terms of bachelor’s degrees attainment, and second, that minor progress
toward equity was being made. When the 25- to 29-year-old age cohort was used as
the reference population, one can see that the status of equity actually remained static
at around 0.70 throughout the nine-year period. As Ewell (2005) observed, changing
the denominator can change the message of a statistic radically. The message here is
that not only is it important to evaluate the performance of the higher education
system on the basis of students on campus, but also in terms of providing public
service and meeting the needs of people of the state. There are various forms of
equity—e.g., equity in relation to the pool of eligible students as opposed to equity in
relation to the population as a whole. For example, the per capita income of a state is
affected by the overall educational attainment of its population; therefore, it is
important to assess equity in bachelor’s degree attainment in relation to the
undergraduate population or first-time freshmen, as well as in relation to specific age
groups. However, as I explain below, the use of age groups as the reference
population to calculate equity is one of the most controversial aspects of my
approach.
Limitations
The first limitation concerns the method of the Equity Index and the use of
age cohorts of the state population as the denominator for some measures. The use of
population data as the denominator is a unique aspect of the method, but the fact that
it is impossible to separate the Hispanic population according to immigration status
raises questions about its meaningfulness. For example, I used the 25 to 29 years of
132
age cohort as one of the reference populations to calculate equity in bachelor's degree
attainment. As the term “reference population” suggests, it is a population chosen for
reference in determining equity.
Hispanics have a large share of the California population in the 25 to 29 years
of age range (41.6% according to Census 2000). In addition, foreign-born
individuals account for 26% of the state's population; and among these, 55.6% are
immigrants from Central and Latin America. In this age cohort, there is a group of
Hispanics who are recent arrivals to the United States and who presumably have not
participated in the public K-12 system or attended college here. The “coarseness”
inherent in the definition of the reference population raises questions about its
appropriateness as a measure of equity. When the method has been discussed in
public forums, the following question was raised: “How fair is it to make judgments
about the state of equity in bachelor's degree attainment for Hispanics when the
index is not able to control for immigrant status?” The implication of this question is
that the nature of the population makes it inevitable that the index will have a very
low value for Hispanics.
While I appreciate the logic of this criticism and would certainly take the
immigrant status of the population into account if the data were available, I believe
that this method is useful in determining the state of equity. My reasons for
choosing the 25- to 29-year-old population as one of the reference groups are as
follows. First, the use of age cohorts is relevant the purpose of this study. As Ewell
(2005) noted, “the denominator is the soul of any statistic because it immediately
reveals the population of interest or the vantage point from which the measure is
133
constructed” (p. 15). Using age cohorts in the state population as the denominator
established the demographic context of each state as the reference point for studying
the performance of its public higher education systems as measured by the metric of
equity for Hispanics. The results pose fundamental and critical questions regarding
the mission and purpose of public higher education. For example, “Considering the
rapidly changing dynamics in the demographic composition of states, what should
their higher education systems do to respond to the external environment?” The
notion of equity as a metric of accountability arose from the core concept that higher
education is connected to the public good—a perspective that necessarily includes
the entire polity (Ewell, 2005).
Second, using population data in the system-level analysis makes possible to
determine what each system "contributes" to the creation of educational capital, and
how effectively it is performing in terms of equity. This is reflected in the Equity
Indices for Hispanics’ bachelor's degree attainment in 2003 in relation to the 25- to
29-year-old age group in the state's populations, the equity indices, as shown in
Table 16:
Table 14: Hispanics' bachelor's degree attainment Equity Indices in public higher
education systems in California and Texas, in relation to the 25- to 29-year-old age
group in the state's population, 2003
Educational System Hispanic BA attainment
Equity Index, 2003
UC system 0.26
CSU system 0.43
UT system 0.70
Texas A&M system 0.35
134
Although this measure of educational attainment is an approximation, the
results provide a sobering picture that was previously unavailable to policymakers.
At the very least, this model raises an issue that should be, but is not, at the center of
the debate about accountability, higher education performance, and the allocation of
resources in states that are experiencing “Latinization.” Curiously, in spite of several
convincing reports on the increasing importance of Hispanics to the economy (Myers,
Park, & Hacegaba 2000), scholars, policy analysts, and higher education leaders
have yet to embrace the concept of measuring and monitoring Hispanics' academic
performance from the standpoint of equity. In most discussions about accountability,
students of color are usually treated in an ad hoc manner, typically under the banner
of “diversity” in the student body. The Equity Scorecard brings minorities in general
and Hispanics more specifically from the margins to the center of the accountability
movement.
The second limitation of this study is that I conducted the data analysis on a
state level and system level with aggregated institutional data. However, campuses
of the same system may differ greatly in terms of selectivity, student composition,
and performance. This point is best captured in the results for the UT. The racial and
ethnic composition of the student body varies considerably from one UT campus to
another (see Table 17 below).
135
Table 15: First-time full-time freshman enrollment at UT system, fall 2003
The University of
Texas System White Hispanic Asian Black Other Total
The University of Texas-
Pan American 105 2,004 (92%) 22 0 59 2,190
The University of Texas
at El Paso 176 1,791 (77%) 20 54 300 2,341
The University of Texas
of the Permian Basin 145 121 (42%) 3 14 5 288
The University of Texas
at San Antonio 1,659 1,591 (41%) 317 219 86 3,872
The University of Texas
at Austin 3,023 883 (17%) 858 222 139 5,125
The University of Texas
at Arlington 1,347 308 (13%) 356 274 89 2,374
The University of Texas
at Dallas 625 103 (10%) 168 40 48 984
The University of Texas
at Tyler 347 22 (5%) 5 31 10 415
UT total 7427 6823 (39%) 1749 854 736 17,589
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board online data.
The eight UT campuses have been ranked according to the proportion of
Hispanic students in the total freshman cohort on each campus in fall 2003. With
92%, UT Pan American took first place by a large margin. UT El Paso placed second
with 77%. On average, Hispanics students accounted for 39% of the total freshman
cohort in the UT system as a whole; however, a great number of them are
concentrated on the less selective campuses. The existence of institutional
segregation contributed to the limitation of the study, in that campuses with varying
levels of selectivity were lumped together for consideration. That is to say, having
one general Equity Index for the UT system masked the problem of intra-campus
segregation. Only 13% of the 6,823 Hispanic freshmen in the UT system were
enrolled in UT Austin. In contrast, being one of the larger campuses, UT Austin had
a 29% share of the whole system's freshman enrollment in 2003. The flagship
136
institution study also revealed that UT Austin had a much lower Hispanic Equity
Index than that of the entire UT system.
A study conducted by the Pell Institute (Muraskin & Lee, 2004) notes that
“among the colleges that serve low-income students there is also considerable
variation in graduation rates, differences that suggest a strategy for studying and
improving college outcomes” (p. 17). Similarly, other reports (see for example,
Carey (2005)) claim that institutions have the power to improve graduation rates,
especially for racial/ethnic minority students. Successful institutions have invested
“considerable, time, energy, and resources in analyzing their internal data to better
understand patterns of student progression, uncovering hurdles to completion”
(Carey, 2005, p. 17).
The third limitation is related to the fact that not all segments of higher
education were included in the study. The analysis focused exclusively on Hispanics’
baccalaureate degree attainment in public four-year institutions. Therefore, analysis
followed the line of progression from academic preparation to college access, then to
persistence, and finally to degree completion. Access to community colleges was
not included in the framework. However, I am well aware that in California, Texas,
and certain other states, community colleges play a vital role in providing
educational opportunities for minority populations.
Finally, the Equity Scorecard presents results for the equity status of Hispanic
students without controlling for their socioeconomic status (SES). As I mentioned in
Chapter two, previous research demonstrates that SES, like race/ethnicity, is an
important factor affecting student success. I did not incorporate the factor SES in the
137
Equity Scorecard model for the following two reasons. First, it is important to note
that due to limitations in data availability, SES is a missing variable in the publicly
available database from which data in this study were drawn. Second, controlling for
SES is a technique that is only meaningful statistically. We cannot control for SES in
real life because most minority students fall into the low socioeconomic stratum. If
the economy of the state depends on a college-educated population, it is imperative
to narrow the gap between Hispanics and their non-Hispanic peers regardless of their
socioeconomic status. Nevertheless, if the SES information were available, we would
be able to assess difference in equity by income for Hispanic students in California
and Texas.
Caveats for Interpreting the Results
Considering the advantages and limitations of the Equity Scorecard model, it
is important to bear in mind some caveats when interpreting the results. First, an
important distinction must be made with respect to the interpretation and/or use of
the results of this study. These results are intended to remind policymakers about the
goals of higher education or, in a broader sense, the goals of society. Equity is an
important objective in the United States and has provided the incentive for some of
the most important and progressive social policy of the 20
th
century, such the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of this study is to call attention to a topic that is
missing from national- and state-level discussions of accountability in higher
education. In creating a prototype for assessing equity, I have sought to offer an
informed and substantive point of departure for a broader conversation.
138
In addition, the results of Equity Scorecard are not intended to be used to
shame or threaten individual institutions. Institutional performance in terms of
graduating students is a separate issue from increasing educational attainment for
citizens of the state. Policymakers seem to have a natural tendency to view
accountability through an institutional lens and blame the institution if they are
dissatisfied with what they see. The Equity Scorecard framework and the results
presented in this study serve to provide policymakers with a broad yet
comprehensive picture of the equity status for Hispanics in California and Texas,
rather than evaluations of individual institutions. However, the results of the Equity
Scorecard can alert policymakers at both the state and institutional level of the need
to design and implement measures of accountability that will promote the
achievement of their common goals.
Areas for Future Research
As mentioned earlier, independent non-profit four-year colleges and
community colleges were not included in the data analysis because the purpose of
this study was to assess the performance of public four-year higher education
systems in meeting the economic, social, and educational needs of California and
Texas. However, independent institutions are a major component of the total higher
education system, so the level of equity experienced by Hispanic students on their
campuses is a matter of great importance.. A potential research agenda should
include a comparison of the equity status by sector (public vs. private) to determine
whether policy intervention is needed in certain areas. In addition, students’ access
to and success in community colleges should be in the framework.
139
Statistics on the numbers of associate's degrees and certificates conferred and
transfers to four-year institutions will serve as important measures for evaluating the
performance of two-year institutions.
Recommendations for Data Collection and Reporting
This study calls for a simple but significant change in the data-reporting
practices of higher education institutions–namely, that all data should be
disaggregated by race/ethnicity. While public reports on student performance
provide overwhelmingly large quantities of data, only the most basic input measures
such as college enrollment are usually disaggregated by race/ethnicity. As is evident
from the results of this study, reporting data in the aggregate masks problems that
affect specific sub-groups. Disaggregated data reveal key areas in need of changes
in policy or some form of intervention.
The final recommendation is that state coordinating boards of higher
education should build their capacity to aggregate individual institutional data into a
comprehensive accountability system that corresponds to state-level priorities. State-
level accountability and institutional-level accountability have different objectives
and require different kinds of indicators and data. The California Postsecondary
Education Commission and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board should
integrate higher education data with data from other fields (e.g., labor force data) to
create an accountability system that will help to promote economic prosperity.
Conclusion
“Accountability,” Burke (2005) notes, “is the most advocated and least
analyzed word in higher education” (p. 1). As accountability is widely advocated, a
140
mechanism is needed to hold higher education accountable for the students it
educates and the services it provides. However, as consensus has not been reached
on a single definition for accountability, the meanings attributed to this term vary
dramatically. In an era shaped by information technology and a market-based
economy, the purpose of a higher education accountability system is to monitor the
performance of tax-supported institutions, identify areas in which improvement is
needed, and serve as an effective tool for judging how institutions are promoting
state priorities (Shulock & Moore, 2004). Public systems of higher education are
often evaluated (and sometimes even funded) on such criteria as productivity and
quality, but these systems are not commonly held accountable for equitable
educational outcomes. Given the demographic changes occurring in California,
Texas, and certain other states, an urgent need exists for measures that will lead to
equitable educational outcomes for racial and ethnic groups with long histories of
under-representation in higher education.
Without such measures of accountability, the Hispanic population and U.S.
economy will continue to face detrimental consequences. Data released recently by
the U.S. Census Bureau reinforce the critical importance of a college education.
Workers 18 years of age and older with a bachelor’s degree earn an average salary of
$51,206 per annum, and those with an advanced degree average $74, 602. In
contrast, works with only a high school diploma earn an average salary of $27,915
per annum, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734. Among all
racial/ethnic groups, Hispanics have the lowest rate of baccalaureate degree
attainment (12.1%), falling far behind their Asian peers (49.4 %) and non-Hispanic
141
Whites (30.6%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Even as Hispanics are rapidly
becoming the largest ethnic group in California and Texas, they remain
disproportionately at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in these states.
Hispanics’ low educational attainment is a complicated social issue that
requires attention and investment from all sectors of society. However, certain
aspects relevant to higher education must be addressed at the state level. A
comprehensive accountability mechanism with equity in educational outcomes for
Hispanics as its clear priority is needed in both California and Texas. To accomplish
this will require political commitment at the state level to design new systems for
collecting and analyzing data by race/ethnicity, as well as willingness to understand
the difference between diversity in the student body and equity in outcomes for
diverse students. The Equity Scorecard serves as a concrete example and useful tool
for assessing the performance of higher education systems in providing equitable
educational outcomes for Hispanics.
142
EPILOGUE
At the conclusion of this study, I was left with several unanswered questions
concerning the Equity Scorecard. How would policymakers react to the concept of
the scorecard as a state accountability tool? What sorts of criticisms would be made
of the Equity Index? Although I was satisfied and convinced that the Equity
Scorecard was useful, would others feel the same? I realized it was not enough
simply to create this tool and offer it to policymakers. If the Equity Scorecard and
the Equity Index were not received in a positive light, they would never be
implemented. Consequently, the acceptance of the Scorecard by potential users and
decision-makers was critical to its success—a matter not addressed explicitly in the
first five chapters of this dissertation. I realized I needed to obtain constructive
feedback from experts on accountability about what they considered to be positive
and negative aspects of the Equity Index. Collecting expert opinions and perceptions
about the Equity Index would give me an idea of how other policymakers and
experts in accountability would respond to it. In turn, understanding such criticisms
would prepare me to address common concerns related to the Equity Scorecard and
the Equity Index before approaching potential users. This epilogue, therefore, serves
the following purposes: 1) to discuss constructive feedback about the Equity
Scorecard from four experts on accountability, and 2) to provide an opportunity for
me to address these concerns.
The need to collect useful information and insights prompted me to
interview four nationally recognized experts with an interest in access and success
for underserved populations and higher education accountability: Marta Tienda,
143
David Longanecker, Peter Ewell, and Nancy Shulock
44
. My conversations with
these experts proved very enlightening. In the following section, first I describe the
interview project–i.e., the protocol and the expertise of my interviewees–and then I
discuss their comments in greater detail.
The Interview Project
The four experts were chosen to participate in the interview project on the
basis of their national reputations among scholars and policymakers:
Table 16: List of experts who participated in the interview project
Name of Expert Position Reason for Inviting to
Participate
Peter Ewell Vice President, National Center
for Higher Education
Management Systems
(NCHEMS)
Expertise in higher
education assessment and
accountability
David Longanecker Executive Director, Western
Interstate Commission for
Higher Education
Expertise in statewide
accountability systems
Nancy Shulock Professor and Executive
Director, Institute for Higher
Education Leadership and
Policy, California State
University Sacramento
Expertise in California
state accountability
systems in higher
education
Marta Tienda Professor of Sociology and
Public Affairs, Office of
Population Research, Princeton
University
Expertise in Texas higher
education and
accountability
A more detailed description of each expert’s background and expertise is
provided in Appendix D. Semi-structured interviews, lasting from one to one and
one-half hours, were conducted to gather their perceptions about this study. All
interviews but one were conducted in person. I traveled to New Jersey to interview
44
With funding supported by USC Urban Initiative dissertation fellowship.
144
Professor Marta Tienda at Princeton University, and to Boulder, Colorado, to
interview Dr. David Longanecker and Dr. Peter Ewell at the offices of WICHE and
NCHEMS, respectively. Because of time constraints,
45
I interviewed Dr. Nancy
Shulock by telephone Before conducting these interviews, I mailed an executive
summary of my dissertation to each interviewee. Having this information
beforehand allowed them to gain a thorough understanding of my study and the
Equity Scorecard, and facilitated informed reactions to the Equity Index. In the
interviews, I asked the following questions:
1. In what ways do you think state level policy makers would react to the
concept of equity in educational outcomes as a metric of accountability?
2. What were your initial reactions to the Equity Scorecard model in general?
3. What do you think about the four perspectives in the framework of the Equity
Scorecard—Preparation, Access, Retention and Completion, and
Excellence—and the indicators used under each perspective?
4. What do you think about the “Equity Index”? Do you think it is a viable tool
to gauge equity in educational outcomes for historically underrepresented
students?
The full interview protocol is provided in Appendix E.
Feedback to the Equity Scorecard Study
From the four interviews, I collected useful and insightful comments about
the Equity Scorecard—particularly its methods, feasibility, and practicality. In what
follows, I organize interviewees’ comments and feedback into the four sections and
discuss each of them in detail:
45
I am extremely grateful to these professors and experts who were able and willing to give
145
• Positive comments regarding the Equity Scorecard.
• Challenges that the Equity Scorecard will face in how it is received and
its implementation, particularly in view of the political environment in
California and Texas, how policymakers typically interpret accountability,
and resistance to being held accountable.
• Areas of improvement regarding measures used in the framework.
• Comments regarding the Equity Index as the tool for measuring equity.
Advantages and Opportunities of the Equity Index
In general, the Equity Scorecard was well received by three of the four
experts interviewed. Ewell commented, “This work is very impressive. I like the
conceptual scheme and the idea of a balanced scorecard.” He also said, “This model
has the virtue of being conceptually simple and easy to adopt” as analyses are based
on existing data. Shulock also stated that the Scorecard left her with a very positive
impression, and it is a “very, very useful tool.” Longanecker concurred with these
sentiments, saying, “I am really keen on what you are doing, because it could be a
really nifty piece to put together.” Longanecker was particularly impressed by the
framework of the four perspectives: academic preparation, access, retention and
degree completion, and excellence. In his view, the four- perspective model was “a
very important part.”
A clear advantage of the Equity Scorecard model lies in the fact that the
Equity Index can be employed as a useful tool to gauge statewide performance as
opposed to institutional performance. Shulock commented that most states “don’t
constructive feedback to my study.
146
really have a structure for looking at statewide issues that transcend individual
institutions,” and the Equity Index “could really help” as it utilizes state-level data.
The Equity Index is distinct from other models in that it does not simply calculate
differences in the outcomes of two-year and four-year systems. The results from that
kind of analysis often overlook linkages or relationships between the two systems.
Therefore, the Equity Scorecard “could really [capture] some of these missed
issues.”
Because the four perspectives follow a conceptual pipeline that students pass
through in the course of their education, Ewell observed that the scorecard can
inform state policymakers “where their leaking point in the pipeline is,” which will
be very useful information.
The disparities revealed by the data, or the “symbolic nature of data,” to use
Ewell’s term, makes this model valuable for heightening awareness of inequities and
the need for changes in policy. Ewell specifically mentioned his strong reaction to
the great difference between UT and Texas A&M in enrolling Hispanic first-time
freshmen:
…if you showed those data to any lawmaker about A&M versus UT, I
think their jaws will drop. I really do. I mean, mine did. I had no
idea there was that kind of difference in performance.
He also commented that “the data in organizational decision-making is
almost never used the way information theorists think it is, which is to reduce
uncertainty.” In fact, the scorecard provides information that was previously
147
unavailable and evidence of the equity crises that are developing in California and
Texas.
In terms of the method of the Equity Index, Shulock found the use of
multilevel denominators to be “really helpful.” For instance, the bachelor’s degree
attainment example showed very different results when the denominator was
changed from undergraduates to age cohorts in the state population. As Shulock
pointed out, the results from the different denominators revealed that the problem is
not “that our institutions are not doing a good job of serving the Latinos who come to
them; the problem is that not enough of them are going to college.”
Last but not least, Ewell remarked that the utility of the graphics that
accompany the Equity Index is critical to how it will be received: “They are very
easy for a non-technical person to understand. Therefore, a policy person is going to
like this.” Shulock concurred, saying that the “visually appealing” graphs assisted in
conveying salient points of the study.
Challenges to the Scorecard
Many of the perceived challenges and problems mentioned in the interviews
stemmed from the questions I had asked myself: “Is the Equity Scorecard
appealing?” “How would policymakers respond to it?” and “Is it possible to
implement it at the state level?” In answering questions such as these, the experts I
interviewed felt that the political environment of California and Texas, traditional
ways of analyzing data, and unwillingness to hold oneself accountable present
challenges for implementing the Equity Scorecard.
1. Political environment of California and Texas
148
The political environment of the state is a key issue that affects how the
scorecard will be received. As Ewell pointed out, the main concern is its “political
feasibility.” California and Texas have different political dynamics, although, as
Shulock observed, equity should be considered a priority for both states. Ewell
believes that “Texas would be more likely to do it [the Equity Scorecard] than
California”; specifically, the “coordinating board of Texas would be very interested”
in this work. Longanecker expressed similar views in that, on the one hand, Texas
has a stronger accountability system in general and would be more receptive to the
concept of evaluating the state on equity. On the other hand, California wants to
uphold its image as a “powerful higher education” system or, metaphorically, “king
of the mountain.” Longanecker suggests that California’s policymakers might wish
to avoid being held accountable for equitable educational outcomes because the
results could prove “you weren’t king of the mountain.” According to Longanecker,
California has “an embedded conflict of interest in their government structure.”
While it is the third largest and one of the most powerful, states in the union,
California has one of the “weakest” accountability systems. Ewell concurred with
this point of view, stating that “California is very conscious of the changing
racial/ethnic composition of the student body, but they don’t have any political will
to do anything about it.”
2. Policymakers are used to their “institutional lenses” (Shulock)
As I mentioned in Chapter Five, state-level accountability and institutional
accountability are two different concepts. Several of the experts interviewed
reiterated this. Shulock warned that a key point to stress is that the Equity Scorecard
149
is not used to “blame institutions.” As the tendency in state accountability plans is to
focus on institutions, policymakers would be inclined to look at the Equity Index
results “through these institutional lenses.” Longanecker echoed this sentiment,
using bachelor’s degree attainment as an example. Although the UC results are low,
it may not be the system’s fault. The results of low equity suggest California's “lack
of parity in participation and success” for Hispanics.
3. Nobody wants to be held accountable.
In Longanecker’s opinion, a potential obstacle to the implementation of the
scorecard is the simple fact that “nobody wants to be held accountable.” California
is not alone in this. Other states and institutions will likely be reluctant to use the
Equity Scorecard for political reasons. Shulock expressed the opinion that
“Institutions don’t like to be compared to each other” simply because “they are
different.” Comparing institutions with distinctive characteristics can be interpreted
as unfair because outcomes do not reflect contextual differences. However, systemic
avoidance of accountability leads to a disastrous consequence: failure to monitor and
improve the state of equity for students of color.
“Institutions don’t want to be held accountable [out of] fear that data will be
misused” (Longanecker). In other words, the data can be used to blame institutions
for a situation that is beyond their control. As Longanecker contends, “Folks don't
want to be blamed for what they didn't do. And they don't want to have somebody
saying they didn't do the job on equity.” Thus, on the one hand, institutions do not
want to be held fully responsible for inequities that exist on their campuses.
Longanecker admitted, “Even good people don't like to be held accountable for these
150
[equity issues] because it's hard to achieve. Equity is hard to achieve.” On the other
hand, institutions do not want to tarnish their public image by publicly revealing the
disparities in performance by race and ethnicity.
Criticisms and Areas for Improvement
In addition to indicating how this model would be positively and negatively
received, experts offered constructive criticisms on specific measures used in the
framework of the Equity Scorecard. Shulock pointed out that the scorecard study
“seems to equate equal opportunity with equal outcome,” and policymakers would
object to “the implied equation of opportunity with outcomes.” Tienda also
considered “the conflation of outcome with opportunity” to be a major problem. For
example, in the Access perspective, the measure used was “first-time freshmen
enrollment.” As Tienda observed, for students to enroll, they have to be admitted;
for them to be admitted, they first have to apply. Enrollment is the outcome of this
three-step process. Opportunity, in this example, means knowing how to apply and
being admitted, which is different from enrolling in a college. Both Shulock and
Tienda argue a valid point: opportunity must not be confused with outcome. For
example, equity in access, as Tienda pointed out, is a complicated issue with nested
problems. Unfortunately, I could not separate the concepts of opportunity and
outcome due to the limited availability of data, and therefore was prevented from
addressing this complex issue in my analysis.
Another criticism of my study was that the measures focused exclusively on
four-year institutions. Shulock considered this unfair to the population of interest–
Hispanics, or Latinos. She felt that one of the main reasons there are so many
151
Hispanics in community colleges is that they choose to enroll in institutions closer to
home. From her perspective, “there are legitimate cultural reasons” for Hispanics
choosing not enroll in four-year colleges. The fact that CSU has more campuses
throughout the state may be one reason that there are more Hispanics at CSU than at
UC. Hence, Shulock believes that lower Hispanic enrollment in the UC system does
not necessarily mean the UC is doing a bad job. She feels it is “wrong” to “assume
inequity” and attribute a “negative value” to certain legitimate cultural patterns. “For
the newly arrived immigrant, going to community college is like going to the edge of
the world” (Shulock).
Future research should take into account the status of equity at community
colleges. Similarly, Ewell recommended that private colleges should be included in
the framework. This would be particularly valuable if the scorecard model were
expanded to other states (e.g., Massachusetts), where private sector institutions enroll
considerable numbers of students.
Last but not least, both Tienda and Shulock believed that the perspective of
excellence was too narrowly defined. Excellence, they stated, should not be
restricted to science and engineering majors; rather, Tienda contended, it ought to
refer to “achieving the best and the most in one’s own field.” Shulock expressed a
similar view: “If immigrants come here and they strive to get degrees in teaching and
social work and go serve their communities, I don’t know whether that’s lacking in
excellence.”
Indeed, if Hispanic students do well in any field, this constitutes success.
Even so, the under-representation of Hispanic in science and engineering translates
152
into a comparable lack of Hispanics who hold high-level positions in these fields.
This is particularly important in an age in which careers in science and mathematics
offer substantial salaries and benefits. Noting that Hispanics are “concentrated in
arts and [social] sciences relative to engineering and physical sciences,” Tienda
expressed concern that this “may limit their ability to capitalize on the employment
opportunities in a new information economy.” For this reason, a critical goal for
institutions of higher education is to increase the number of academically successful
Hispanics in science and engineering. My decision to focus on equity in terms of
participation in these fields is not intended to denigrate other majors, but rather to
emphasize the opportunities for professional advancement that accompany degrees in
science and engineering.
Equity Index as a Tool to Measure Equity
The Equity Index was generally well received as a tool to gauge equity, but
the experts I interviewed also offered criticism regarding the technicality of the
method. The first criticism pertained to the use of age cohorts of the state population
as the denominator for some measures—e.g., baccalaureate degree attainment. One
of the denominators used in the formula was Hispanics’ share in the 25-to-29 age
group in the state population. Tienda criticized this method by describing a
population-based denominator as making a loud “noise.” The loud noise to which
she referred was the complex student characteristics embedded, yet unaccounted for,
in the population. Tienda was particularly concerned about the omission of students'
immigration status. In California, Texas, and certain other states, large percentages
of the Hispanic immigrant population fall into the age bracket I chose (25 to 29 years
153
old). It well may be that the majority of this group immigrated to the state in which
they now live as adults and never intended to enroll in a college or university at all.
Tienda contended that by not accounting for immigrants, I had assumed that “the
population has not changed and it's closed.” Furthermore, she pointed out that
“immigration is not affecting Whites the same way” that it affects Hispanics.
While I agree with Tienda’s observation that I should have taken the
immigrant population into account in the analysis, at this time it is not possible to do
so. There are insufficient data, particularly educational data sets that account for
immigration status, to conduct such an analysis. As Longanecker remarked, “You
can't say anything about something you've got no proof of.” While Shulock agrees
that the issue of immigrants is complex, she does not thinks using the age cohort in
the state population as the denominator “discredits” the index.
The last kind of critical feedback I received pertained to the ease or difficulty
with which the Equity Index could be used. Is it simple and easy to understand, or
complicated and confusing? This is an interesting question that I did not consider
very deeply until I heard divergent opinions from the experts in the interviews.
Ewell thought the index was a simple and easy-to-understand tool. Having a ratio of
two percentages makes it possible to take changes in the baseline population into
account, which is an advantage that a single direct percentage number lacks. From a
higher education accountability perspective, Shulock found the index complicated.
“The complexity of the index is going to counteract a little bit the value added by it,”
she said, indicating that policymakers are not used to ratio of ratios. Shulock
indicated that the ratio of ratios might be “confusing” for some because it is a unique
154
concept and there will be “a learning curve.” From a sociology perspective, Tienda
thought the Equity Index was a “coarse” measure when population data were used in
the denominator, primarily because it fails to take the immigrants and other “noise”
in the analysis into account.
Conclusion
While I was satisfied to have my study validated, I benefited from the
feedback and reactions to the Equity Scorecard. These experts in higher education
accountability—Drs. Ewell, Longanecker, Shulock, and Tienda—offered me their
personal criticisms of the Equity Scorecard and the Equity Index, thereby preparing
me for future critiques from policymakers. Such expert advice has strengthened my
ability to “sell” the model to individuals who may use it to hold states accountable
for equitable educational outcomes. Conducting these interviews has brought me one
step closer to utilizing the scorecard model to monitor equity at a state level and to
work toward improving the academic success of Hispanic students.
155
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance
patterns, and a bachelor's degree attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department
of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Allensworth, E. (2005). Graduation and dropout trends in Chicago: A look at
cohorts of students from 1991 through 2004: Consortium on Chicago School
Research at the University of Chicago.
Arnone, M. (2003, December 12). Texas A&M Won't Consider Race in Admissions
or Financial-Aid Decisions. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i16/16a01702.htm
Barth, P. (2003). A common core curriculum for the new century: The Education
Trust. Thinking K-16.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The Diversity Scorecard. Change, Jan/Feb, 45-52.
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2003). Measuring the state of equity in
public higher education. Paper presented at the Harvard Civil Rights Project
Conference, Sacramento, CA.
Berkner, L. K., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for the
1992 high school graduates: National Center for Education Statistics.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). Administrative commitments and minority enrollments:
College presidents' goals for quality and access. The Review of Higher
Education, 11(4), 435-457.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borden, V. M. H., & Bottrill, K. V. (1994). Performance Indicators: History,
Definitions, and Methods. Using Performance Indicators to Guide Strategic
Decision Making, New Directions for Institutional Research, 82.
Brinkman, P. T. (2003). Informing the integration of tuition, student financial aid,
and state appropriations policies. In Policies in Sync: Appropriations, Tuition,
and Financial Aid for Higher Education: WICHE.
Burke, J. C., & and Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education:
Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
156
Burke, J. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance:
Popularity, problems, and prospects. Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute
Press.
Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2001). Linking state resources to campus results:
From fad to trend - The fifth annual survey 2001. Albany: NY: The Nelson A.
Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2002). Reporting higher education results:
Missing links in the performance chain. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 116, 138.
Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2003). Performance reporting: "Real"
accountability or accountability "lite" - Seventh annual survey 2003. Albany:
NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks
facing America’s disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42, 2, 119-
149.
California Community College Chancellor's Office. (2002). Transfer capacity and
readiness in the California community colleges. Sacramento, CA.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2004). University Eligibility
Study for the Class of 2003 (No. 04-05).
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2002a). Performance indicators of
California higher education. 2001, 113.
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2002b). Student Profiles, 2000:
214.
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2001). Performance Indicators of
California Higher Education, 2000: 103.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2000). Providing for progress:
California Higher Education Enrollment Demand and Resources into the
21st Century (No. 00-1). Sacramento: California Postsecondary Education
Commission.
Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (2005). State-by-state report cards: Public purposes
and accountability for a new century. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving
accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market
demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
157
Campbell, P. R. (1996). Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ppl47.html
Carey, K. (2005). One step from the finish line: Higher college graduation rates are
within our reach: The Education Trust: Washington, D. C.
Carnevale, A. P. (1999). Education=Success: Empowering Hispanic Youth and
Adults: ETS.
Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2004). Why learning? The value of higher
education to society and the individual. In K. Boswell & C. D. Wilson (Eds.),
Keeping America's Promise: A Report on the Future of the Community
College. Denver: CO: Education Commission of the States. A joint
publication of Education Commission of the States and League for
Innovation in the Community College.
Carnevale, A. P., & Fry, R. A. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve
equity when Generation Y goes to college ?Princeton: Educational Testing
Service.
Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and
selective college admissions. New York: NY: The Century Foundation.
Chapa, J., & Valencia, R. R. (1993). Latino Population Growth, Demographic
Characteristics, and Educational Stagnation: An Examination of Recent
Trends. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 165-187.
Choy, S. P. (2002). Access and Persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal
research on students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Conley, D. T. (2003). Connecting the dots: Linking high schools and postsecondary
education to increase student success. Peer Review, Winter 2003.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2004). Accreditation and
accountability: Testimony to the National Commission on Accountability in
Higher Education. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from
http://www.sheeo.org/account/comm/testim/CHEA%20testimony.pdf
Crow, S. D. (2004). Testimony to the National Commission on Accountability in
Higher Education. Retrieved September 16, 2004, from
http://www.sheeo.org/account/comm/testim/NCACS%20testimony.pdf
158
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city
schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Urban Diversity Series #
102.
Davis, M. (2001). Magical urbanism: Latinos reinvent the U.S. city. New York:
Verso.
Ewell, P. (2005, July/August). Power in numbers: The values in our metrics. Change,
37, 10-16.
Ewell, P., & Jones, D. P. (1994). Pointing the way: Indicators as policy tools in
higher education. In S. Ruppert (Ed.), Charting Higher Education
Accountability: A Source Book on State-level Performance Indicators.
Denver: CO: Education Commission of the States.
Ewell, P. T., Jones, D. P., & Kelly, P. J. (2003). Conceptualizing and researching the
educational pipeline. Retrieved July 7, 2004, from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/analyses/Pipeline%20Article.pdf
Ewell, P. T., Schild, P. R., & Paulson, K. (2003). Following the Mobile Student: Can
We Develop the Capacity for a Comprehensive Database to Assess Student
Progression? Denver, CO: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in Higher Education: Many Enroll, too Few Graduate.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F., (Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems
for education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gaither, G., Nedwek, B. P., & Neal, J. E. (1994). Measuring Up: The promises and
pitfalls of performance indicators in higher education: ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Reports.
Garcia, P. (2001). Understanding Obstacles and Barriers to Hispanic
Baccalaureates. Notre Dame: Inter-University Program for Latino Research.
Gates, S. M., Augustine, C. H., Benjamin, R., Bikson, T. K., Kaganoff, T., Levy, D.
G., et al. (2002). Ensuring Quality and Productivity in Higher Education
(Vol. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: v. 29). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
159
Gormley, W. T., Jr., & Weimer, D., L. (1999). Organizational report cards.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hao, L. (2002, November). The Equity Index: A method to measure equity in
educational outcomes for minority students, Poster session presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Sacramento, CA.
Harvey, W. B. (2003). Minorities in Higher Education 2002-2003: 20th Annual
Status Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hayward, G. C., Jones, D. P., McGuinness, A. C., Jr., & Timar, A. (2004). Ensuring
access with quality to California's community colleges. Washington, DC: The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Hebel, S. (2005). Marlene L. Garcia: Uses research to help shape California
legislation. Retrieved August 1, 2005, from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i45/45a01402.htm
Horn, L. (1998). Stopouts or stayouts? Undergraduates who leave college in their
first year. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Horn, C. L., & Flores, S. M. (2003). Percent plans in college admissions: A
comparative analysis of three states' experiences: The Civil Rights Project,
Harvard University.
Horowitz, J. (2005). Inside high school reform: Making the changes that matter:
WestEd, California Academic Partnership Program.
Jasinski, J. L. (2000). Beyond high school: An examination of Hispanic educational
attainment. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 276-290.
Johnson, H. (2004). New immigration trends and new forecasts in California. Paper
presented at the Population Forecasts for a New Century, 17th Annual USC
Demographic Workshop, Los Angeles, CA.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-84.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992, January-February). The balance scorecard:
Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71-79.
Keller, G. (2001). The new demographics of higher education. The Review of Higher
Education, 24(3), 219-235.
160
Kezar, A., & El-Khawas, E. (2004). Performance is in the eye of the beholder: An
examination of performance indicators. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Higher Education
Reform. London: Society for Research in Higher Education, Open University
Press.
Kirst, M. W., & Venezia, A. (Eds.). (2004). From high school to college: Improving
opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kraemer, B. A. (1997). The academic and social integration of Hispanic students
into college. The Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 163-179.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress
toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Lopez, E., Ramirez, E., & Rochin, R. I. (1999). Latinos and Economic Development
in California: California Research Bureau.
Martinez, M. C. (2002). State higher education report cards: What's in a grade? The
Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 1-18.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). (2004). Blend
it, Don't end it: Affirmative action and the Texas ten percent plan after
Grutter and Gratz.
Muraskin, L., & Lee, J. (2004). Raising the graduation rates of low-income college
students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.
Myers, D., Park, J., & Hacegaba, N. (2000). Reversing the shrinking middle and
polarization in California's labor force: Report of a pilot investigation. Los
Angeles: USC Center for Urban Education and Population Research
Laboratory.
Myers, D., & Wolch, J. (1995). Polarization of housing status. In R. Farley (Ed.),
State of the Union: Vol. 1, Economic Trends. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education 2003.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in the education
of Hispanics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
161
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2004). As America
becomes more diverse: The impact of state higher education inequality
(Draft).Boulder: CO: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2000). Measuring up 2000:
The state-by-state report card for higher education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2002). Measuring up 2002:
The state-by-state report card for higher education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). The educational
pipeline: Big investment, big returns
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). Measuring up 2004:
The national report card on higher education. Washington, DC: National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. (2004). Overview.
Retrieved August 15, 2004, from
http://www.sheeo.org/account/comm/Overview.pdf
Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school
performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 41-69.
O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
Perez, S. M., & Salazar, D. D. L. R. (1993). Economic, Labor Force, and Social
Implications of Latino Educational and Population Trends. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 188-229.
Peterson, M. W., Augustine, C. H., Einarson, M. K., & Vaughan, D. S. (1999a).
Designing student assessment to strengthen institutional performance in
doctoral and research institutions.Stanford, CA: National Center for
Postsecondary Improvement.
Peterson, M. W., Augustine, C. H., Einarson, M. K., & Vaughan, D. S. (1999b).
Designing student assessment to strengthen institutional performance in
comprehensive institutions.Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary
Improvement.
162
Peterson, M. W., Augustine, C. H., Einarson, M. K., & Vaughan, D. S. (1999c).
Designing student assessment to strengthen institutional performance in
baccalaureate institutions. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary
Improvement.
Peterson, M. W., Augustine, C. H., Einarson, M. K., & Vaughan, D. S. (1999d).
Designing student assessment to strengthen institutional performance in
Associate of Arts institutions.Stanford, CA: National Center for
Postsecondary Improvement.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Hispanic college enrollment: Less intensive and less
heavily subsidized: Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Hispanic school achievement: Catching up requires
running faster than white youth: Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Latino teens staying high school: A challenge for all
generations:Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet.
Price, D. V., & Wohlford, J. K. (2003). Race, ethnic and gender inequality in
educational attainment: A fifty state analysis, 1960-2000. Paper presented at
the The Harvard Color Lines Conference, Harvard University.
Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the
study of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton
(Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Renner, K. E. (1993). On race and gender in higher education: Illusions of change.
Educational Record, 74, 44-48.
Renner, K. E. (1998). Redefining the issue of racial preference: Minority access to
higher education. Change Magazine, March/April, 27-33.
Renner, K. E. (2003, Jan-Feb). Racial Equity and higher education. Academe, 89, 38-
43.
Ruppert, S. S. E. (1994). Charting higher education accountability: A source book
on state-level performance indicators. Denver, CO: Education Commission
of the States.
Santiago, D. A. (2004). Federal policy and Latinos in higher education: The Pew
Hispanic Center.
163
Schmidt, P. (2005, January 28). A new route to racial diversity. The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in a global economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Schmidt, P. (2004, June 11). A public vision for public colleges. The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
Shulock, N. (2003). A fundamental new approach to accountability: Putting state
policy issues first, Paper presented at the 28th Annual conference,
Association for the Study of Higher Education. Sacramento, CA.
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2004). Facing reality: California needs a statewide
agenda to improve higher education outcomes. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership and Policy.
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2003). Capacity constraints in California's public
universities: A factor impeding transfer? Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership and Policy.
State of California Department of Finance. (2004). Population projections by
race/ethnicity, gender and age for California and its counties 2000-
2050:Sacramento, California.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N., (Eds.). (2004). Organizational improvement and
accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Stone, C. (1968). Black political power in America. Indianapolis, IN, The Bobbs-
Merrill Company, Inc.
Swail, W. S., Cabrera, A. F., & Lee, C. (2004). Latino youth and the pathway to
college. Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute.
Swail, W. S., Redd, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority students in
higher education: A framework for success: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report: Volume 30, Number 2.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2003). Closing the Gaps by 2015:
2003 Progress Report. Austin, Texas: Author.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2002a). Closing the Gaps by 2015:
2002 Progress Report: 89.
164
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2002b). Closing the Gaps: the Texas
higher education plan: 18.
The Business-Higher Education Forum. (2004). Public Accountability for Student
Learning in Higher Education: Issues and Options: The Business-Higher
Education Forum.
The Civil Rights Project. (2005). Dropouts in California: Confronting the
graduation rate crisis.
The Education Trust. (2002). The high school diploma: Making it more than an
empty promise. Washington, DC: Author.
The Education Trust. (2004). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rates in
four-year colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author.
The Education Trust-West. (2004). The A-G curriculum: College-prep? Work-prep?
Life-prep. Understanding and implementing a rigorous core curriculum for
all: Author.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2000). Measuring Up
2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education: The National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
The University of Texas System (2004). Accountability and Performance Report,
2003. Retrieved January 14, 2005, from
http://www.utsystem.edu/cha/AcctRpt/2003/measures.pdf
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic
estimates of work-life earnings. Washington, DC: The author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved September 16, 2003, from
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
Valle, V. M., & Torres, R. D. (2000). Latino Metropolis. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Vernez, G., & Abrahamse, A. (1996). How immigrants fare in U.S. education. Santa
Monica: CA: RAND.
Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., & Rydell, C. P. (1999). Closing the education gap: benefits
& costs .Santa Monica, CA: RAND corporation.
165
Vernez, G., & Mizell, L. (2001). Goal: To double the rate of Hispanics earning a
bachelor's degree. Santa Monica: CA: RAND Education, Center for
Research on Immigration Policy.
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., Nunez, A.-M., & Carroll, C. D. (2001). Bridging the
Gap: Academic Preparation and Postsecondary Success of First-Generation
Students (No. NCES 2001-153): National Center for Education Statistics.
Wellman, J. V. (2002). State policy and community college-baccalaureate transfer.
Washington, DC: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2003). Knocking at the
College Door, Projections of High School Graduates by Race, Income, and
Race/Ethnicity, 1988 to 2018.
Woody, E. L. (2004). Voices from the field: Educators respond to accountability.
Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons
from the past and present for the new millennium. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The
states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and
accountability. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zumeta, W. (1998). Public university accountability to the state in the late twentieth
century: Time for a rethinking? Policy Studies Review 15(4): 5-22.
166
APPENDIX A: RESULT TABLES FOR CALIFORNIA ANALYSIS
Academic Preparation
Table A-1: Equity Index for high school graduates versus 12
th
grader enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1992 0.91 1.06 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.15 0.08
1993 0.92 1.05 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.13 0.09
1994 0.94 1.02 1.09 0.99 0.87 0.08 0.15
1995 0.94 1.04 1.04 0.95 0.90 0.10 0.10
1996 0.94 1.04 1.04 0.95 0.94 0.10 0.10
1997 0.92 1.04 1.04 1.00 0.93 0.12 0.12
1998 0.93 1.04 1.06 0.96 0.94 0.11 0.13
1999 0.94 1.03 1.03 0.97 0.96 0.09 0.09
2000 0.95 1.03 1.04 0.94 0.91 0.08 0.09
2001 0.95 1.04 1.04 0.92 0.89 0.09 0.09
2002 0.94 1.03 1.07 0.92 0.98 0.09 0.13
Table A-2: Equity Index for high school graduates versus K-12 enrollment
1
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.63 1.24 1.15 0.87 0.97 0.61 0.52
1989 0.64 1.23 1.18 0.87 1.02 0.59 0.54
1990 0.68 1.20 1.32 0.86 1.04 0.52 0.64
1991 0.72 1.18 1.31 0.85 1.05 0.46 0.59
1992 0.75 1.16 1.31 0.84 1.08 0.41 0.56
1993 0.77 1.15 1.34 0.84 1.04 0.38 0.57
1994 0.78 1.13 1.38 0.86 0.97 0.35 0.60
1995 0.77 1.17 1.27 0.84 1.02 0.40 0.50
1996 0.76 1.19 1.28 0.86 1.02 0.43 0.52
1997 0.75 1.19 1.29 0.88 1.02 0.44 0.54
1998 0.75 1.20 1.34 0.86 1.04 0.45 0.59
1999 0.76 1.22 1.33 0.86 1.04 0.46 0.57
2000 0.75 1.24 1.34 0.86 1.00 0.49 0.59
2001 0.74 1.27 1.33 0.85 1.00 0.53 0.59
2002 0.74 1.28 1.33 0.87 1.08 0.54 0.59
2003 0.74 1.31 1.28 0.90 1.09 0.57 0.54
1
Both the high school graduates and the K-12 enrollment data were downloaded from CPEC, which
enabled me to do the calculation from 1988 to 2003. Since CPEC has a separate category for
“Filipino”, for this calculation, I didn’t merge “Filipino” into the “Asian American/ Pacific Islanders”
category.
167
Table A-3: Equity Index for high school graduates versus 15-19 age cohort in
California
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.66 1.21 0.95 0.85 0.66 0.55 0.29
1991 0.70 1.19 0.95 0.83 0.69 0.49 0.25
1992 0.73 1.17 0.96 0.81 0.67 0.44 0.23
1993 0.76 1.15 0.99 0.83 0.64 0.39 0.23
1994 0.77 1.13 1.01 0.86 0.60 0.36 0.24
1995 0.77 1.15 0.92 0.85 0.61 0.38 0.15
1996 0.77 1.15 0.91 0.87 0.58 0.38 0.14
1997 0.77 1.15 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.38 0.14
1998 0.78 1.14 0.93 0.89 0.54 0.36 0.15
1999 0.80 1.14 0.90 0.90 0.52 0.34 0.10
2000 0.81 1.10 0.94 0.86 0.42 0.30 0.13
2001 0.81 1.09 0.97 0.82 0.42 0.28 0.16
2002 0.83 1.06 0.99 0.82 0.45 0.24 0.16
2003 0.84 1.06 0.94 0.81 0.43 0.22 0.10
Table A-4: Equity Index for A-G completion versus high school graduates
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.63 1.05 1.63 0.74 0.69 0.42 1.00
1989 0.64 1.04 1.65 0.83 0.63 0.40 1.01
1990 0.62 1.06 1.60 0.81 0.62 0.44 0.98
1991 0.65 1.04 1.63 0.86 0.60 0.39 0.98
1992 0.65 1.05 1.65 0.84 0.63 0.40 1.00
1993 0.62 1.09 1.61 0.84 0.68 0.47 0.99
1994 0.64 1.09 1.59 0.85 0.72 0.45 0.95
1995 0.65 1.11 1.55 0.83 0.77 0.46 0.90
1996 0.63 1.12 1.58 0.79 0.68 0.49 0.95
1997 0.63 1.11 1.63 0.81 0.65 0.48 1.00
1998 0.65 1.12 1.58 0.76 0.62 0.47 0.93
1999 0.62 1.14 1.62 0.74 0.63 0.52 1.00
2000 0.62 1.15 1.62 0.71 0.67 0.53 1.00
2001 0.64 1.14 1.59 0.73 0.65 0.50 0.95
2002 0.63 1.16 1.61 0.73 0.66 0.53 0.98
2003 0.64 1.17 1.62 0.73 0.69 0.53 0.98
168
Table A-5: Equity Index for A-G completion versus 12
th
graders’ enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1992 0.59 1.11 1.30 0.82 0.60 0.52 0.71
1993 0.57 1.14 1.30 0.83 0.67 0.57 0.73
1994 0.60 1.11 1.38 0.84 0.63 0.51 0.78
1995 0.61 1.15 1.25 0.79 0.70 0.54 0.64
1996 0.59 1.16 1.28 0.75 0.64 0.57 0.69
1997 0.59 1.16 1.31 0.81 0.61 0.57 0.72
1998 0.60 1.17 1.30 0.73 0.58 0.57 0.70
1999 0.59 1.18 1.31 0.71 0.60 0.59 0.72
2000 0.59 1.19 1.32 0.67 0.61 0.60 0.73
2001 0.61 1.19 1.30 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.69
2002 0.59 1.20 1.35 0.67 0.65 0.61 0.76
Table A-6: Equity Index for A-G completion versus K-12 enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.39 1.30 1.87 0.65 0.67 0.91 1.48
1989 0.41 1.28 1.95 0.72 0.64 0.87 1.54
1990 0.42 1.26 2.11 0.69 0.65 0.84 1.69
1991 0.47 1.23 2.13 0.73 0.64 0.76 1.66
1992 0.48 1.23 2.15 0.70 0.68 0.75 1.67
1993 0.48 1.25 2.16 0.71 0.71 0.77 1.68
1994 0.50 1.24 2.19 0.73 0.69 0.74 1.69
1995 0.50 1.30 1.98 0.70 0.78 0.80 1.48
1996 0.48 1.33 2.02 0.68 0.69 0.85 1.54
1997 0.48 1.32 2.10 0.71 0.67 0.84 1.62
1998 0.49 1.35 2.12 0.66 0.64 0.86 1.63
1999 0.47 1.39 2.14 0.64 0.65 0.92 1.67
2000 0.47 1.43 2.17 0.61 0.67 0.96 1.70
2001 0.48 1.45 2.12 0.63 0.65 0.97 1.64
2002 0.47 1.48 2.14 0.64 0.71 1.01 1.67
2003 0.48 1.52 2.07 0.65 0.75 1.04 1.59
169
Access to Four-year Institution
Table A-7: UC Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus high school
graduates
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.60 0.87 2.11 0.71 1.36 0.27 1.51
1989 0.64 0.84 2.20 0.76 1.36 0.20 1.56
1990 0.57 0.84 2.21 0.61 1.15 0.27 1.64
1991 0.53 0.83 2.43 0.57 1.43 0.30 1.90
1992 0.47 0.85 2.48 0.56 1.00 0.38 2.01
1993 0.49 0.82 2.59 0.58 0.82 0.33 2.10
1994 0.52 0.78 2.62 0.59 1.15 0.26 2.10
1995 0.51 0.80 2.66 0.58 1.29 0.29 2.15
1996 0.45 0.82 2.69 0.51 1.15 0.37 2.24
1997 0.42 0.85 2.73 0.50 0.89 0.43 2.31
1998 0.37 0.76 2.57 0.39 0.76 0.39 2.20
1999 0.38 0.84 2.78 0.39 0.58 0.46 2.40
2000 0.38 0.84 2.74 0.43 0.68 0.46 2.36
2001 0.40 0.82 2.77 0.42 0.68 0.42 2.37
2002 0.42 0.84 2.80 0.43 0.59 0.42 2.38
2003 0.42 0.83 2.90 0.45 0.50 0.41 2.48
Table A-8: UC Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus K-12
enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.37 1.08 2.42 0.62 1.31 0.71 2.05
1989 0.41 1.03 2.60 0.66 1.39 0.62 2.19
1990 0.39 1.01 2.92 0.53 1.19 0.62 2.53
1991 0.38 0.98 3.18 0.48 1.51 0.60 2.80
1992 0.35 0.99 3.25 0.47 1.08 0.64 2.90
1993 0.38 0.94 3.47 0.49 0.85 0.56 3.09
1994 0.41 0.89 3.61 0.51 1.12 0.48 3.20
1995 0.39 0.94 3.38 0.49 1.31 0.55 2.99
1996 0.34 0.98 3.43 0.44 1.18 0.64 3.09
1997 0.31 1.02 3.53 0.44 0.91 0.71 3.22
1998 0.28 0.91 3.46 0.34 0.79 0.63 3.18
1999 0.29 1.03 3.69 0.33 0.61 0.74 3.40
2000 0.29 1.03 3.68 0.37 0.68 0.74 3.39
2001 0.30 1.04 3.70 0.35 0.68 0.74 3.40
2002 0.31 1.07 3.74 0.38 0.64 0.76 3.43
2003 0.31 1.09 3.72 0.40 0.55 0.78 3.41
170
Table A-9: UC Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus 15-19 age
cohort in California
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.38 1.02 2.11 0.52 0.76 0.64 1.73
1991 0.37 0.99 2.31 0.47 0.98 0.62 1.94
1992 0.34 0.99 2.40 0.46 0.67 0.65 2.06
1993 0.37 0.94 2.57 0.49 0.53 0.56 2.20
1994 0.40 0.88 2.65 0.51 0.69 0.48 2.25
1995 0.39 0.92 2.45 0.49 0.79 0.53 2.06
1996 0.35 0.95 2.45 0.44 0.67 0.60 2.10
1997 0.32 0.98 2.48 0.46 0.49 0.66 2.16
1998 0.29 0.86 2.38 0.35 0.41 0.57 2.09
1999 0.30 0.96 2.51 0.35 0.30 0.66 2.21
2000 0.31 0.92 2.58 0.37 0.28 0.61 2.27
2001 0.33 0.90 2.69 0.34 0.28 0.57 2.36
2002 0.34 0.89 2.78 0.35 0.26 0.55 2.44
2003 0.35 0.88 2.74 0.36 0.22 0.53 2.39
Table A-10: CSU Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus high school
graduates
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.65 0.91 1.51 0.72 0.95 0.26 0.86
1989 0.70 0.86 1.56 0.81 1.07 0.16 0.86
1990 0.74 0.82 1.49 0.96 1.02 0.08 0.75
1991 0.78 0.80 1.40 1.02 1.00 0.02 0.62
1992 0.80 0.77 1.43 1.09 0.96 -0.03 0.63
1993 0.82 0.75 1.45 1.04 1.15 -0.07 0.63
1994 0.83 0.76 1.32 1.08 1.17 -0.07 0.49
1995 0.83 0.77 1.28 1.03 1.35 -0.06 0.45
1996 0.79 0.77 1.22 1.08 1.05 -0.02 0.43
1997 0.78 0.76 1.27 1.02 1.10 -0.02 0.49
1998 0.73 0.81 1.22 0.91 0.88 0.08 0.49
1999 0.69 0.80 1.26 0.86 0.84 0.11 0.57
2000 0.68 0.85 1.28 0.88 0.83 0.17 0.60
2001 0.70 0.86 1.22 0.93 0.70 0.16 0.52
2002 0.67 0.88 1.17 0.91 0.78 0.21 0.50
2003 0.69 0.91 1.20 0.89 0.75 0.22 0.51
171
Table A-11: CSU Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus K-12
enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.40 1.13 1.73 0.63 0.92 0.73 1.33
1989 0.45 1.06 1.85 0.70 1.10 0.61 1.40
1990 0.50 0.97 1.97 0.82 1.06 0.47 1.47
1991 0.56 0.94 1.84 0.87 1.06 0.38 1.28
1992 0.60 0.90 1.86 0.91 1.04 0.30 1.26
1993 0.63 0.86 1.95 0.88 1.20 0.23 1.32
1994 0.65 0.86 1.81 0.93 1.13 0.21 1.16
1995 0.64 0.90 1.63 0.87 1.37 0.26 0.99
1996 0.61 0.91 1.56 0.93 1.08 0.30 0.95
1997 0.59 0.90 1.64 0.90 1.13 0.31 1.05
1998 0.55 0.97 1.64 0.78 0.91 0.42 1.09
1999 0.52 0.97 1.67 0.74 0.88 0.45 1.15
2000 0.51 1.05 1.71 0.76 0.83 0.54 1.20
2001 0.52 1.08 1.62 0.79 0.70 0.56 1.10
2002 0.49 1.12 1.56 0.79 0.84 0.63 1.07
2003 0.52 1.19 1.54 0.80 0.82 0.67 1.02
Table A-12: CSU Equity Index for 1
st
-time freshmen enrollment versus 15-19 age
cohort in California
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.48 0.98 1.42 0.82 0.68 0.50 0.94
1991 0.55 0.95 1.33 0.85 0.69 0.41 0.78
1992 0.58 0.90 1.37 0.89 0.65 0.32 0.79
1993 0.62 0.86 1.44 0.87 0.74 0.24 0.82
1994 0.64 0.86 1.33 0.92 0.70 0.22 0.69
1995 0.64 0.88 1.18 0.88 0.83 0.24 0.54
1996 0.61 0.89 1.11 0.94 0.61 0.27 0.50
1997 0.60 0.87 1.15 0.93 0.61 0.27 0.55
1998 0.57 0.92 1.13 0.81 0.47 0.35 0.56
1999 0.55 0.91 1.14 0.77 0.44 0.36 0.59
2000 0.55 0.93 1.20 0.76 0.35 0.38 0.65
2001 0.56 0.93 1.18 0.77 0.29 0.37 0.62
2002 0.55 0.93 1.16 0.74 0.35 0.38 0.61
2003 0.58 0.97 1.13 0.72 0.32 0.39 0.55
172
Table A-13: UC Transfer Equity Index versus CCC first-time freshmen
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.72 1.05 1.73 0.47 1.10 0.33 1.01
1989 0.64 1.09 1.62 0.49 1.07 0.45 0.98
1990 0.61 1.10 1.77 0.45 1.13 0.49 1.16
1991 0.67 1.07 1.49 0.44 1.28 0.40 0.82
1992 0.59 1.07 1.50 0.43 1.03 0.48 0.91
1993 0.57 1.05 1.65 0.42 0.82 0.48 1.08
1994 0.60 1.02 1.77 0.48 1.02 0.42 1.17
1995 0.58 0.96 2.13 0.53 1.07 0.38 1.55
1996 0.56 0.96 2.22 0.44 0.99 0.40 1.66
1997 0.50 0.97 2.19 0.42 0.85 0.47 1.69
1998 0.52 0.88 1.77 0.35 0.96 0.36 1.25
1999 0.50 0.98 1.98 0.41 0.86 0.48 1.48
2000 0.51 1.00 1.85 0.48 0.69 0.49 1.34
2001 0.54 0.95 1.93 0.46 0.91 0.41 1.39
2002 0.53 0.91 2.05 0.45 0.98 0.38 1.52
2003 0.52 0.92 1.98 0.45 1.00 0.40 1.46
Table A-14: CSU Transfer Equity Index versus CCC first-time freshmen
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.68 1.03 1.25 0.79 0.76 0.35 0.57
1989 0.64 1.05 1.19 0.88 0.94 0.41 0.55
1990 0.70 1.08 1.16 0.93 1.01 0.38 0.46
1991 0.74 1.04 0.96 0.92 1.09 0.30 0.22
1992 0.68 1.06 0.94 0.89 1.17 0.38 0.26
1993 0.72 1.01 1.05 0.89 1.01 0.29 0.33
1994 0.71 1.01 1.06 0.89 1.03 0.30 0.35
1995 0.73 0.97 1.19 0.94 1.15 0.24 0.46
1996 0.75 0.91 1.28 0.95 1.14 0.16 0.53
1997 0.74 0.91 1.30 0.83 1.13 0.17 0.56
1998 0.74 0.94 1.22 0.75 1.12 0.20 0.48
1999 0.73 0.93 1.14 0.76 1.01 0.20 0.41
2000 0.73 0.95 1.04 0.86 1.07 0.22 0.31
2001 0.74 0.92 1.04 0.82 1.10 0.18 0.30
2002 0.75 0.90 1.06 0.80 1.12 0.15 0.31
2003 0.75 0.93 1.28 0.80 1.27 0.18 0.53
173
Retention and Degree Completion
Table A-15: UC Equity Index in first-year to second-year persistence
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.84 1.07 1.03 0.76 0.87 0.23 0.19
1991 0.88 1.06 0.98 0.84 0.90 0.18 0.10
1992 0.90 1.05 1.00 0.81 0.84 0.15 0.10
1993 0.92 1.01 1.05 0.83 0.93 0.09 0.13
1994 0.91 1.02 1.04 0.87 0.98 0.11 0.13
1995 0.89 1.04 1.03 0.84 0.86 0.15 0.14
1996 0.90 1.05 1.04 0.84 0.86 0.15 0.14
1997 0.95 1.04 1.02 0.89 0.85 0.09 0.07
1998 0.95 1.02 1.02 0.87 0.95 0.07 0.07
1999 0.97 1.05 1.01 0.95 0.96 0.08 0.04
2000 0.95 1.03 1.00 0.91 0.94 0.08 0.05
2001 0.96 1.04 0.99 0.84 1.04 0.08 0.03
2002 0.95 1.04 1.00 0.91 0.94 0.09 0.05
2003 0.95 1.04 0.99 0.88 1.00 0.09 0.04
Table A-16: CSU Equity Index in first-year to second-year persistence
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.88 1.10 0.88 0.87 0.99 0.22 0.00
1991 0.88 1.13 0.85 0.80 1.02 0.25 -0.03
1992 0.87 1.14 0.89 0.80 1.11 0.27 0.02
1993 0.91 1.13 0.94 0.83 1.09 0.22 0.03
1994 0.88 1.19 0.89 0.83 0.97 0.31 0.01
1995 0.90 1.16 0.90 0.89 0.97 0.26 0.00
1996 0.89 1.14 0.91 0.88 0.91 0.25 0.02
1997 0.91 1.13 0.91 0.85 1.04 0.22 0.00
1998 0.94 1.12 0.89 0.88 1.03 0.18 -0.05
1999 0.98 1.08 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.10 -0.09
2000 0.97 1.07 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.10 -0.08
2001 0.98 1.06 0.88 0.88 0.99 0.08 -0.10
2002 0.96 1.06 0.92 0.86 0.99 0.10 -0.04
2003 1.04 1.06 1.06 0.91 0.95 0.02 0.02
174
Table A-17: UC Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.62 1.14 0.88 0.62 0.65 0.52 0.26
1999 0.64 1.16 0.83 0.66 0.62 0.52 0.19
1990 0.66 1.17 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.51 0.15
1991 0.69 1.20 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.51 0.09
1992 0.76 1.21 0.78 0.87 0.87 0.45 0.02
1993 0.82 1.23 0.73 0.87 1.01 0.41 -0.09
1994 0.82 1.23 0.74 0.94 1.01 0.41 -0.08
1995 0.81 1.22 0.80 0.85 0.92 0.41 -0.01
1996 0.84 1.20 0.83 0.85 1.05 0.36 -0.01
1997 0.92 1.14 0.90 0.85 0.88 0.22 -0.02
1998 0.99 1.12 0.94 0.93 1.07 0.13 -0.05
1999 1.04 1.09 0.91 0.97 1.28 0.05 -0.13
2000 1.02 1.07 0.86 1.11 1.41 0.05 -0.16
2001 0.98 1.11 0.99 1.06 1.27 0.13 0.01
2002 0.93 1.10 0.96 0.99 1.15 0.17 0.03
2003 0.85 1.10 0.99 0.91 1.26 0.25 0.14
Table A-18: UC Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29 age
cohort in California
2
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.25 1.18 1.66 0.38 0.66 0.93 1.41
1991 0.26 1.19 1.67 0.40 0.76 0.93 1.41
1992 0.28 1.19 1.73 0.43 0.83 0.91 1.45
1993 0.29 1.19 1.68 0.43 0.90 0.90 1.39
1994 0.30 1.16 1.77 0.47 0.85 0.86 1.47
1995 0.30 1.12 1.91 0.44 0.76 0.82 1.61
1996 0.30 1.10 1.97 0.45 0.82 0.80 1.67
1997 0.32 1.07 2.08 0.45 0.63 0.75 1.76
1998 0.32 1.04 2.11 0.46 0.69 0.72 1.79
1999 0.32 1.05 2.00 0.45 0.69 0.73 1.68
2000 0.30 1.05 1.88 0.49 0.52 0.75 1.58
2001 0.28 1.12 2.20 0.45 0.43 0.84 1.92
2002 0.27 1.12 2.19 0.42 0.37 0.85 1.92
2003 0.26 1.11 2.24 0.39 0.37 0.85 1.98
2
The 25-29 age group data were downloaded from RAND website:
http://ca.rand.org/stats/popdemo/popestUS.html Because the earliest data for 25-29 age group was
1990, I did the data analysis of BA degree starting from 1990.
175
Table A-19: CSU Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.70 1.13 0.84 0.63 1.16 0.43 0.14
1999 0.73 1.16 0.81 0.59 1.01 0.43 0.08
1990 0.67 1.19 0.79 0.60 0.99 0.52 0.12
1991 0.64 1.18 0.75 0.58 0.87 0.54 0.11
1992 0.65 1.25 0.79 0.60 0.85 0.60 0.14
1993 0.61 1.25 0.75 0.63 0.86 0.64 0.14
1994 0.65 1.31 0.76 0.62 0.89 0.66 0.11
1995 0.67 1.30 0.80 0.65 0.94 0.63 0.13
1996 0.73 1.27 0.88 0.68 0.85 0.54 0.15
1997 0.77 1.24 0.92 0.73 0.91 0.47 0.15
1998 0.80 1.20 0.95 0.80 1.01 0.40 0.15
1999 0.84 1.17 0.96 0.82 1.13 0.33 0.12
2000 0.89 1.15 0.96 0.87 1.17 0.26 0.07
2001 0.87 1.15 0.97 0.82 1.25 0.28 0.10
2002 0.91 1.13 0.97 0.88 1.12 0.22 0.06
2003 0.89 1.08 0.83 0.83 1.01 0.19 -0.06
Table A-20: CSU Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29 age
cohort in California
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1990 0.27 1.25 1.01 0.40 0.91 0.98 0.74
1991 0.27 1.24 0.94 0.40 0.78 0.97 0.67
1992 0.28 1.29 0.97 0.44 0.79 1.01 0.69
1993 0.28 1.26 0.95 0.47 0.77 0.98 0.67
1994 0.31 1.29 0.95 0.49 0.79 0.98 0.64
1995 0.34 1.25 0.99 0.56 0.85 0.91 0.65
1996 0.37 1.19 1.02 0.61 0.74 0.82 0.65
1997 0.40 1.15 1.03 0.66 0.76 0.75 0.63
1998 0.41 1.13 1.04 0.71 0.77 0.72 0.63
1999 0.43 1.12 1.01 0.71 0.76 0.69 0.58
2000 0.44 1.12 0.98 0.71 0.58 0.68 0.54
2001 0.42 1.15 0.98 0.67 0.56 0.73 0.56
2002 0.42 1.15 0.96 0.71 0.47 0.73 0.54
2003 0.43 1.12 0.92 0.67 0.41 0.69 0.49
176
Excellence
Table A-21: UC Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment in STEM majors
versus undergraduate enrollment in UC
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1989 0.49 0.95 1.47 0.41 0.48 0.46 0.98
1990 0.48 0.93 1.49 0.39 0.40 0.45 1.01
1991 0.50 0.96 1.45 0.41 0.36 0.46 0.95
1992 0.48 0.98 1.38 0.51 0.48 0.50 0.90
1993 0.52 1.00 1.26 0.46 0.57 0.48 0.74
1994 0.49 1.01 1.24 0.45 0.55 0.52 0.75
1995 0.46 1.01 1.26 0.48 0.56 0.55 0.80
1996 0.50 1.00 1.27 0.45 0.61 0.50 0.77
1997 0.53 0.95 1.34 0.50 0.40 0.42 0.81
1998 0.63 0.93 1.35 0.52 0.54 0.30 0.72
1999 0.64 0.91 1.23 0.58 0.57 0.27 0.59
2000 0.60 0.91 1.16 0.64 0.76 0.31 0.56
2001 0.61 0.92 1.41 0.66 1.04 0.31 0.80
2002 0.56 0.92 1.34 0.70 0.82 0.36 0.78
2003 0.57 0.93 1.33 0.61 0.93 0.36 0.76
Table A-22: CSU Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment in STEM majors
versus undergraduate enrollment in CSU
Year Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1989 0.54 0.93 1.69 0.35 0.71 0.39 1.14
1990 0.51 0.96 1.60 0.35 0.70 0.45 1.09
1991 0.50 0.93 1.56 0.33 0.64 0.43 1.06
1992 0.49 1.02 1.51 0.36 0.58 0.53 1.02
1993 0.45 1.00 1.40 0.36 0.44 0.55 0.95
1994 0.42 1.11 1.35 0.36 0.59 0.69 0.92
1995 0.45 1.11 1.42 0.35 0.44 0.67 0.98
1996 0.47 1.09 1.51 0.35 0.52 0.62 1.04
1997 0.52 1.07 1.59 0.40 0.56 0.54 1.07
1998 0.54 1.00 1.67 0.51 0.64 0.46 1.13
1999 0.59 1.02 1.63 0.47 0.71 0.42 1.04
2000 0.58 0.99 1.59 0.47 0.90 0.41 1.00
2001 0.54 0.93 1.73 0.43 0.98 0.39 1.18
2002 0.58 0.96 1.62 0.43 0.83 0.37 1.04
2003 0.55 0.91 1.41 0.47 0.56 0.36 0.86
177
Table A-23: UC Equity Index of Master’s degree attainment versus UC
undergraduate enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.44 1.04 0.44 0.60 0.53 0.60 0.00
1989 0.40 1.10 0.36 0.52 0.60 0.70 -0.04
1990 0.36 1.15 0.42 0.64 0.62 0.79 0.06
1991 0.42 1.18 0.40 0.79 0.39 0.76 -0.02
1992 0.45 1.22 0.39 0.90 0.43 0.77 -0.06
1993 0.50 1.29 0.41 0.82 0.49 0.79 -0.09
1994 0.47 1.38 0.40 0.79 0.67 0.91 -0.07
1995 0.52 1.40 0.43 0.87 0.66 0.88 -0.09
1996 0.51 1.40 0.46 0.87 0.77 0.89 -0.05
1997 0.53 1.37 0.49 0.95 0.66 0.84 -0.04
1998 0.56 1.38 0.51 0.83 0.74 0.82 -0.05
1999 0.55 1.35 0.46 0.97 0.94 0.80 -0.09
2000 0.56 1.31 0.46 0.93 0.57 0.75 -0.10
2001 0.51 1.32 0.58 0.98 0.56 0.81 0.07
2002 0.57 1.28 0.54 0.88 0.98 0.71 -0.03
2003 0.56 1.26 0.56 0.80 0.81 0.70 0.00
Table A-24: CSU Equity Index of Master’s degree attainment versus CSU
undergraduate enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.46 1.12 0.59 0.59 0.93 0.66 0.13
1989 0.52 1.13 0.55 0.55 1.12 0.61 0.03
1990 0.45 1.17 0.53 0.60 0.98 0.72 0.08
1991 0.40 1.15 0.52 0.60 0.74 0.75 0.12
1992 0.42 1.26 0.51 0.63 0.83 0.84 0.09
1993 0.36 1.27 0.51 0.67 0.64 0.91 0.15
1994 0.39 1.34 0.52 0.66 0.69 0.95 0.13
1995 0.41 1.36 0.59 0.71 0.57 0.95 0.18
1996 0.40 1.37 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.97 0.25
1997 0.48 1.39 0.62 0.76 0.62 0.91 0.14
1998 0.48 1.34 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.86 0.21
1999 0.50 1.32 0.69 0.84 0.87 0.82 0.19
2000 0.53 1.29 0.66 0.86 0.85 0.76 0.13
2001 0.55 1.24 0.70 0.88 0.84 0.69 0.15
2002 0.57 1.22 0.70 0.85 0.91 0.65 0.13
2003 0.59 1.14 0.63 0.85 0.80 0.55 0.04
178
Table A-25: UC Equity Index of doctorates degree attainment versus UC
undergraduate enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black Native
American
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1988 0.31 1.01 0.34 0.38 0.54 0.70 0.03
1989 0.25 1.01 0.36 0.28 0.24 0.76 0.11
1990 0.27 1.08 0.30 0.30 0.36 0.81 0.03
1991 0.28 1.10 0.30 0.34 0.15 0.82 0.02
1992 0.23 1.19 0.29 0.38 0.35 0.96 0.06
1993 0.29 1.25 0.27 0.33 0.11 0.96 -0.02
1994 0.24 1.35 0.27 0.42 0.40 1.11 0.03
1995 0.31 1.38 0.32 0.44 0.61 1.07 0.01
1996 0.31 1.43 0.32 0.58 0.38 1.12 0.01
1997 0.30 1.48 0.35 0.43 0.42 1.18 0.05
1998 0.40 1.54 0.33 0.62 0.41 1.14 -0.07
1999 0.39 1.54 0.34 0.70 0.70 1.15 -0.05
2000 0.44 1.43 0.38 0.77 0.73 0.99 -0.06
2001 0.50 1.49 0.50 0.83 0.54 0.99 0.00
2002 0.43 1.46 0.49 0.99 0.98 1.03 0.06
2003 0.43 1.41 0.46 0.74 1.21 0.98 0.03
179
APPENDIX B: RESULT TABLES FOR TEXAS ANALYSIS
Academic Preparation
Table B-1: Equity Index of high school completion versus 12
th
graders’ enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.96 1.04 0.99 0.91 0.99 0.08 0.03
1996 0.96 1.05 1.02 0.91 1.08 0.09 0.06
1997 0.96 1.04 0.99 0.93 0.99 0.08 0.03
1998 0.98 1.03 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.05 -0.02
1999 0.96 1.03 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.07 -0.01
2000 0.99 1.02 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.03 -0.02
2001 0.98 1.02 0.96 1.00 1.05 0.04 -0.02
2002 0.98 1.02 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.04 0.02
Table B-2: Equity Index of high school completion versus K-12 enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.79 1.20 1.32 0.83 0.92 0.41 0.53
1996 0.78 1.21 1.31 0.85 0.92 0.43 0.53
1997 0.79 1.21 1.24 0.87 0.87 0.42 0.45
1998 0.79 1.20 1.25 0.89 1.02 0.41 0.46
1999 0.78 1.23 1.20 0.88 0.85 0.45 0.42
2000 0.79 1.23 1.21 0.90 0.82 0.44 0.42
2001 0.78 1.25 1.20 0.91 0.87 0.47 0.42
2002 0.77 1.25 1.19 0.93 0.83 0.48 0.42
180
Table B-3: Equity Index of high school completion versus 15-19 age cohort in Texas
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995
0.79 1.18 1.17 0.88 0.36
0.39 0.38
1996
0.78 1.18 1.16 0.90 0.34
0.40 0.38
1997
0.79 1.17 1.10 0.94 0.32
0.37 0.31
1998
0.81 1.15 1.12 0.96 0.40
0.35 0.31
1999
0.81 1.15 1.11 0.94 0.25
0.34 0.30
2000
0.84 1.12 1.16 0.96 0.25
0.28 0.32
2001
0.84 1.11 1.20 0.96 0.26
0.26 0.36
2002
0.86 1.09 1.22 0.98 0.25
0.24 0.37
Access to Four-year Institution
Table B-4: Equity Index of first-time freshmen versus high school graduates
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.72 1.09 1.73 0.95 1.84 0.37 1.01
1996 0.67 1.09 1.73 1.03 2.10 0.42 1.06
1997 0.65 1.11 1.96 0.98 2.04 0.46 1.31
1998 0.64 1.14 1.82 0.91 1.58 0.50 1.18
1999 0.63 1.14 1.91 0.91 1.86 0.51 1.28
2000 0.63 1.14 1.91 0.94 1.98 0.51 1.28
2001 0.66 1.12 1.86 0.98 1.70 0.46 1.20
2002 0.66 1.12 1.91 0.98 1.81 0.46 1.25
181
Table B-5: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus high school
graduates, UT system
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 1.24 0.86 3.10 0.32 1.53 -0.38 1.87
1996 1.20 0.87 3.14 0.33 1.58 -0.33 1.94
1997 1.10 0.91 3.48 0.31 1.94 -0.19 2.38
1998 1.12 0.91 3.21 0.31 1.71 -0.21 2.09
1999 1.09 0.89 3.48 0.37 1.42 -0.20 2.39
2000 1.07 0.89 3.29 0.36 1.60 -0.18 2.22
2001 1.12 0.85 3.35 0.36 1.50 -0.26 2.23
2002 1.10 0.88 3.28 0.35 1.51 -0.22 2.18
Table B-6: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus high school
graduates, Texas A&M system
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.66 1.17 0.56 1.12 1.32 0.51 -0.09
1996 0.52 1.24 0.60 1.10 1.86 0.72 0.08
1997 0.51 1.25 0.71 1.09 2.04 0.74 0.20
1998 0.46 1.30 0.69 0.99 1.37 0.84 0.23
1999 0.46 1.34 0.74 0.84 2.11 0.87 0.28
2000 0.50 1.29 0.72 1.03 2.03 0.79 0.22
2001 0.51 1.31 0.59 1.01 2.07 0.80 0.08
2002 0.50 1.34 0.62 1.00 1.60 0.84 0.12
182
Table B-7: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus K-12 enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.57 1.31 2.28 0.79 1.69 0.74 1.71
1996 0.52 1.33 2.26 0.87 1.93 0.81 1.74
1997 0.51 1.34 2.44 0.86 1.78 0.83 1.93
1998 0.51 1.38 2.28 0.80 1.61 0.87 1.77
1999 0.49 1.41 2.29 0.80 1.58 0.92 1.80
2000 0.50 1.39 2.30 0.84 1.62 0.89 1.80
2001 0.51 1.39 2.23 0.89 1.48 0.88 1.72
2002 0.51 1.41 2.27 0.92 1.51 0.90 1.76
Table B-8: Equity Index of first-time freshmen enrollment versus 15-19 age cohort
in Texas
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995
0.57 1.28 2.09 0.83 0.70 0.71 1.52
1996
0.53 1.28 2.07 0.93 0.77 0.75 1.54
1997
0.52 1.28 2.22 0.92 0.70 0.76 1.7
1998
0.53 1.30 2.09 0.87 0.67 0.77 1.56
1999
0.51 1.31 2.09 0.87 0.58 0.8 1.58
2000
0.53 1.27 2.19 0.91 0.50 0.74 1.66
2001
0.56 1.23 2.23 0.95 0.46 0.67 1.67
2002
0.57 1.22 2.34 0.96 0.46 0.65 1.77
2003
0.59 1.18 2.20 1.04 0.47 0.59 1.61
183
Table B-9: Equity Index of two-year to four-year transfer versus student enrollment
in community colleges in Texas
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.79 1.13 1.29 0.64 0.93 0.34 0.50
1996 0.79 1.14 1.38 0.63 1.03 0.35 0.59
1997 0.80 1.13 1.46 0.62 1.17 0.33 0.66
1998 0.82 1.13 1.46 0.62 1.12 0.31 0.64
1999 0.83 1.12 1.53 0.64 1.13 0.29 0.70
2000 0.85 1.12 1.54 0.66 1.18 0.27 0.69
2001 0.84 1.14 1.59 0.66 1.14 0.30 0.75
2002 0.88 1.11 1.50 0.73 1.16 0.23 0.62
2003 0.88 1.11 1.49 0.73 1.16 0.23 0.61
Table B-10: Equity Index of transfer to University of Texas system versus student
enrollment in community colleges in Texas
Hispanic White Asian White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 1.26 0.94 1.54 -0.32 0.28
1996 1.26 0.93 1.65 -0.33 0.39
1997 1.28 0.92 1.71 -0.36 0.43
1998 1.31 0.90 1.70 -0.41 0.39
1999 1.36 0.87 1.75 -0.49 0.39
2000 1.40 0.84 1.81 -0.56 0.41
2001 1.38 0.86 1.90 -0.52 0.52
2002 1.43 0.80 1.91 -0.63 0.48
2003 1.41 0.81 1.85 -0.60 0.44
184
Table B-11: Equity Index of transfer to Texas A&M System versus student
enrollment in community colleges in Texas
Hispanic White Asian White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.77 1.22 0.57 0.45 -0.20
1996 0.78 1.22 0.58 0.44 -0.20
1997 0.77 1.24 0.57 0.47 -0.20
1998 0.74 1.26 0.58 0.52 -0.16
1999 0.74 1.27 0.58 0.53 -0.16
2000 0.73 1.30 0.50 0.57 -0.23
2001 0.71 1.33 0.52 0.62 -0.19
2002 0.76 1.32 0.40 0.56 -0.36
2003 0.75 1.33 0.39 0.58 -0.36
Retention and Degree Completion
Table B-12: Equity Index in first-year to second-year persistence
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1994 0.93 1.03 1.18 0.92 0.86 0.10 0.25
1995 0.92 1.03 1.19 0.88 0.96 0.11 0.27
1996 0.92 1.03 1.21 0.89 0.98 0.11 0.29
1997 0.92 1.03 1.20 0.89 0.93 0.11 0.28
1998 0.92 1.03 1.18 0.93 0.96 0.11 0.26
1999 0.94 1.02 1.18 0.94 0.87 0.08 0.24
2000 0.93 1.03 1.17 0.94 0.90 0.10 0.24
2001 0.93 1.02 1.16 0.96 0.92 0.09 0.23
185
Table B-13: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995
0.74 1.14 0.88 0.66 0.92 0.40 0.14
1996
0.78 1.11 0.91 0.75 0.83 0.33 0.13
1997
0.80 1.11 0.89 0.72 0.82 0.31 0.09
1998
0.83 1.10 0.93 0.75 1.00 0.27 0.10
1999
0.87 1.08 0.99 0.74 0.91 0.21 0.12
2000
0.87 1.11 1.01 0.72 1.01 0.24 0.14
2001
0.86 1.11 0.99 0.72 1.04 0.25 0.13
2002
0.87 1.12 0.97 0.70 0.84 0.25 0.10
2003
0.86 1.11 1.06 0.71 1.01 0.25 0.20
Table B-14: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29 age cohort in
Texas
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.45 1.40 1.34 0.53 0.67 0.95 0.89
1996 0.47 1.37 1.36 0.58 0.63 0.90 0.89
1997 0.47 1.39 1.35 0.55 0.62 0.92 0.87
1998 0.48 1.40 1.43 0.57 0.72 0.92 0.96
1999 0.49 1.40 1.44 0.58 0.64 0.91 0.96
2000 0.47 1.45 1.47 0.58 0.61 0.98 0.99
2001 0.45 1.49 1.44 0.61 0.56 1.03 0.98
2002 0.45 1.51 1.46 0.63 0.44 1.06 1.00
2003
0.46 1.48 1.55 0.65 0.55
1.02 1.09
186
Table B-15: UT Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995
0.72 1.22 0.88 0.78 0.90 0.50 0.16
1996
0.78 1.18 0.87 0.80 0.78 0.40 0.09
1997
0.81 1.15 0.91 0.88 0.78 0.34 0.10
1998
0.81 1.14 0.97 0.89 1.08 0.33 0.16
1999
0.83 1.15 0.97 0.86 1.13 0.32 0.14
2000
0.82 1.14 1.05 0.89 0.97 0.32 0.23
2001
0.84 1.16 0.99 0.81 1.14 0.32 0.15
2002
0.84 1.16 0.97 0.87 0.83 0.32 0.13
2003
0.82 1.14 1.06 0.88 1.07 0.32 0.24
Table B-16: Texas A&M Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus
undergraduate enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995
0.82 1.10 1.12 0.64 0.97 0.28 0.30
1996
0.82 1.08 1.14 0.73 0.85 0.26 0.32
1997
0.81 1.09 1.05 0.71 0.83 0.28 0.24
1998 0.88 1.07 1.07 0.76 0.78
0.19 0.19
1999 0.97 1.03 1.09 0.81 0.90
0.06 0.12
2000 0.93 1.06 1.01 0.72 1.13
0.13 0.08
2001 0.88 1.06 1.02 0.80 0.86
0.18 0.14
2002 0.86 1.07 1.01 0.73 0.88
0.21 0.15
2003 0.82 1.08 1.24 0.71 0.96
0.26 0.42
187
Table B-17: UT Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29 age
cohort in Texas
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.73 1.22 1.92 0.29 0.59 0.49 1.19
1996 0.77 1.18 1.90 0.31 0.53 0.41 1.13
1997 0.78 1.17 2.02 0.31 0.54 0.39 1.25
1998 0.76 1.18 2.19 0.32 0.72 0.42 1.43
1999 0.76 1.19 2.12 0.32 0.71 0.43 1.37
2000 0.73 1.20 2.27 0.34 0.52 0.48 1.54
2001 0.72 1.22 2.19 0.32 0.56 0.50 1.47
2002 0.70 1.23 2.22 0.36 0.39 0.52 1.52
2003
0.70 1.19 2.35 0.38 0.49
0.49 1.65
Table B-18: Texas A&M Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment versus 25-29
age cohort in Texas
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1995 0.44 1.45 0.77 0.54 0.49 1.01 0.33
1996 0.41 1.47 0.67 0.63 0.55 1.06 0.27
1997 0.40 1.51 0.59 0.59 0.57 1.11 0.19
1998 0.41 1.52 0.60 0.62 0.53 1.10 0.18
1999 0.43 1.52 0.59 0.65 0.64 1.09 0.16
2000 0.40 1.61 0.53 0.59 0.67 1.21 0.13
2001 0.37 1.65 0.51 0.67 0.50 1.29 0.14
2002 0.36 1.71 0.49 0.64 0.49 1.35 0.13
2003
0.35 1.72 0.58 0.64 0.56
1.37 0.23
188
Excellence
Table B-19: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment in STEM majors versus
undergraduate enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1998
0.73 0.99 2.09 0.62 0.79 0.26 1.36
1999
0.77 0.98 2.15 0.62 0.92 0.21 1.38
2000
0.76 1.01 2.15 0.55 0.76 0.25 1.39
2001
0.75 1.00 2.12 0.58 0.70 0.25 1.37
2002
0.74 1.01 2.10 0.55 0.71 0.27 1.36
2003
0.73 1.01 2.14 0.56 0.83 0.28 1.41
Table B-20: Equity Index of Master’s degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment
Hispanic White Asian BlackAmerican
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1996 0.49 1.05 0.84 0.52 0.92 0.56 0.35
1997 0.50 1.04 0.87 0.62 0.90 0.54 0.37
1998 0.55 1.04 0.74 0.65 0.77 0.49 0.19
1999 0.54 1.03 0.69 0.70 0.89 0.49 0.15
2000 0.59 1.02 0.67 0.66 0.72 0.43 0.08
2001 0.59 1.02 0.82 0.67 0.76 0.43 0.23
2002 0.58 1.01 0.81 0.66 0.92 0.43 0.23
2003 0.62 1.01 0.78 0.65 0.76 0.39 0.16
189
Table B-21: Equity Index of doctorates degree attainment versus undergraduate
enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
White-
Hispanic
Gap
Asian-
Hispanic
Gap
1996 0.21 0.92 1.36 0.32 0.31 0.71 1.15
1997 0.20 0.91 1.24 0.36 0.38 0.71 1.04
1998 0.21 0.99 0.92 0.26 0.72 0.78 0.71
1999 0.29 0.97 0.71 0.36 0.72 0.68 0.42
2000 0.25 0.98 0.73 0.36 0.37 0.73 0.48
2001 0.30 0.98 0.78 0.41 0.76 0.68 0.48
2002 0.24 1.07 0.82 0.39 0.98 0.83 0.58
2003 0.29 0.99 0.76 0.37 0.29 0.70 0.47
190
APPENDIX C: RESULTS TABLE FOR FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITY
COMPARISON
Table C-1: Equity Index of First-time Freshmen Access to Flagship Universities in
California and Texas, 2003, using high school graduates as the reference population
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
UC Berkeley 0.32 0.66 2.96 0.57 0.47
UC Los Angeles 0.48 0.76 2.76 0.46 0.38
Texas A&M 0.32 1.64 0.98 0.19 1.26
UT Austin 0.52 1.18 4.92 0.33 1.24
Supporting data: First-time full-time freshmen enrollment versus high school graduates
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
Freshmen at UC Berkeley 10.6% 28.8% 43.9% 4.1% 0.4%
Freshmen at UC Los Angeles 16.0% 33.0% 41.0% 3.3% 0.4%
High school graduates in CA 33.6% 43.3% 14.9% 7.2% 0.9%
Freshmen at Texas A&M 10.7% 82.0% 3.3% 2.5% 0.4%
Freshmen at UT Austin 17.2% 59.0% 16.7% 4.3% 0.4%
High school graduates in TX 33.1% 49.9% 3.4% 13.3% 0.3%
Table C-2: Equity Index of First-time Full-time Freshmen Access to Flagship
Universities in California and Texas, 2003, using age cohort 15-19 in the state as the
reference population
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
UC Berkeley 0.26 0.72 3.74 0.46 0.21
UC Los Angeles 0.39 0.82 3.49 0.37 0.17
Texas A&M 0.28 1.80 1.19 0.18 0.37
UT Austin 0.45 1.29 5.98 0.32 0.36
Supporting data: First-time full-time freshmen and 15-19 age group population
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
Freshmen at UC Berkeley 10.6% 28.8% 43.9% 4.1% 0.4%
Freshmen at UC Los Angeles 16.0% 33.0% 41.0% 3.3% 0.4%
15-19 age group in CA 40.9% 40.0% 11.7% 9.0% 2.1%
Freshmen at Texas A&M 10.7% 82.0% 3.3% 2.5% 0.4%
Freshmen at UT Austin 17.2% 59.0% 16.7% 4.3% 0.4%
15-19 age group in TX 38.6% 45.7% 2.8% 13.7% 1.0%
191
Table C-3: Equity Index of transfer to Flagship Universities in California and Texas,
2003, using community college enrollment as the reference population
Transfer to flagship Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
UC Berkeley 0.47 0.86 1.77 0.52 0.60
UC Los Angeles 0.65 0.91 1.64 0.42 0.70
Texas A&M 0.28 1.68 0.62 0.14 1.43
UT Austin 0.53 1.26 3.41 0.26 1.24
Supporting data: student transfer and CC enrollment
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
Transfer at UC Berkeley 12.5% 33.2% 27.6% 3.8% 0.5%
Transfer at UC Los Angeles 17.4% 35.3% 25.7% 3.1% 0.6%
CC enrollment in CA 26.8% 38.8% 15.6% 7.3% 0.9%
Transfer at Texas A&M 8.4% 84.8% 2.4% 1.5% 0.7%
Transfer at UT Austin 16.0% 63.6% 13.2% 3.0% 0.6%
CC enrollment in TX 30.4% 50.6% 3.9% 11.2% 0.5%
Table C-4: Equity Index of bachelor’s degree attainment from flagship institutions in
California and Texas, using the 25-29 age cohort in the state as the reference
population
BA degree from flagship Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
UC Berkeley 0.19 0.89 3.17 0.42 0.37
UC Los Angeles 0.30 1.03 2.73 0.50 0.28
Texas A&M 0.19 1.98 0.80 0.18 0.55
UT Austin 0.29 1.55 3.51 0.23 0.49
Supporting data: BA degree and 25-29 age group in the state population
Hispanic White Asian Black American
Indian
BA from UC Berkeley 8.4% 31.7% 43.7% 3.0% 0.7%
BA from UC Los Angeles 13.2% 36.7% 37.6% 3.6% 0.5%
25-29 age group in CA 44.7% 35.6% 13.8% 7.2% 1.9%
BA from Texas A&M 8.1% 82.8% 3.4% 2.2% 0.5%
BA from UT Austin 12.4% 64.9% 15.1% 2.9% 0.5%
25-29 age group in TX 42.8% 41.9% 4.3% 12.3% 1.0%
192
APPENDIX D: EXPERTS’ BIOGRAPHIES
Peter Ewell is Vice President of the National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems (NCHEMS), a research and development center founded to
improve the management effectiveness of colleges and universities. Ewell’s work
focuses on assessing institutional effectiveness and the outcomes of college, and
involves both research and direct consulting with institutions and state systems on
collecting and using assessment information in planning, evaluation, and budgeting.
In addition, he has consulted with twenty-four state systems of higher education on
topics including assessment, program review, enrollment management, and student
retention. Ewell has authored six books and numerous articles on the topic of
improving undergraduate instruction through the assessment of student outcomes. In
addition, he has prepared commissioned papers for many agencies, including the
Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, the
Education Commission of the States (ECS), the National Governors’ Association,
the National Conference of State Legislators, and the National Center for Public
Policy in Higher Education. Ewell’s publications include State policy on assessment:
The linkage to learning (ECS), Developing statewide performance indicators for
higher education: Policy themes and variations (ECS), and Assessment,
accountability, and improvement: Managing the contradiction (NCHEMS). A
graduate of Haverford College, Ewell received his Ph.D. in Political Science from
Yale University in 1976 and was on the faculty of the University of Chicago.
Source: NCHEMS website: http://www.nchems.org/Staff/peter.htm
David A. Longanecker is the executive director of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education in Boulder, Colorado. Previously he served for six
years as the assistant secretary for postsecondary education at the U.S. Department
of Education, developing and implementing national policy and programs providing
more than $40 billion annually in student aid and $1 billion to institutions. Prior to
that, he was the state higher education executive officer (SHEEO) in Colorado and
Minnesota. He was also the principal analyst for higher education for the
Congressional Budget Office. Longanecker has served on numerous boards and
commissions and was president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers.
He has written extensively on a range of higher education issues. His primary
interests in higher education are: access, teacher education, finance, the efficient use
of educational technologies, and academic collaboration in Canada, the United States,
and Mexico. He holds an Ed.D. in education from Stanford University.
Source: WICHE Website: http://www.wiche.edu/Director/index.asp
193
Nancy Shulock is Professor and Executive Director for the Institute for Higher
Education Leadership and Policy at California State University, Sacramento. Her
specialties are public policy, higher education policy, public budgeting, and public
management. Widely known as the expert in higher education accountability,
Shulock has conducted several research projects on state-wide accountability
systems. She led a background study on accountability funded by the California
Senate, served on the California Accountability Advisory Group, and developed a
report with a “specific framework to guide California’s first ever attempt at statewide
accountability”. She served for 17 years as an academic administrator at CSU
Sacramento responsible for planning and budgeting. Her publications include: A
Framework for Incorporating Public Trust Issues in States’ Higher Education
Accountability Plans (Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership &
Policy); “Diminished Access to the Baccalaureate for Low-Income and Minority
Students in California: The Impact of Budget and Capacity Constraints on the
Transfer Function” (Educational Policy); and Facing Reality: California Needs a
Statewide Agenda to Improve Higher Education Outcomes (Sacramento, CA:
Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, all with C. Moore). Shulock
earned her Ph.D. in Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
Source: CSU Sacramento website: http://www.csus.edu/mppa/faculty/list/shulock.htm and
interview with Shulock.
Marta Tienda is Maurice P. During '22 Professor in Demographic Studies,
Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, and Faculty Associate at the Office of
Population Research in Princeton University. Tienda’s research interests include
ethnic and racial stratification, poverty and social policy, and the sociology of
employment and labor markets. Currently she is conducting a longitudinal evaluation
of the Texas top 10% law, which grants all high school seniors who graduate in the
top decile of their class automatic admission to any Texas public university. She also
chairs a National Academy of Sciences Panel on the U.S. Hispanic Population. Her
books and monographs include, Ethnicity and Causal Mechanisms (Cambridge, in
press, with Michael Rutter); Youth in Cities (Cambridge, 2002, with William J.
Wilson); The Color of Opportunity: Families, Welfare and Work in the Inner City
(Chicago, 2001, with Haya Stier); Divided Opportunities: Minorities, Poverty, and
Social Policy (Plenum, 1988, with Gary D. Sandefur); The Hispanic Population of
the United States (Russell Sage, 1987, with Frank D. Bean); and Hispanics in the
U.S. Economy (Academic, 1985, with George J. Borjas). She holds a Ph.D. from
University of Texas, Austin.
Source: Princeton University website:
http://webdb.princeton.edu/dbtoolbox/query.asp?qname=facultydetail&ID=tienda
194
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. I understand you have had very extensive experience with state
accountability measures in higher education. Can you talk a little bit about
those experiences?
2. Given your experiences, in what ways do you think state level policy makers
would react to the concept of equity in educational outcomes as a metric of
accountability?
3. Why do you think that the practice of examining data disaggregated by race
and ethnicity is not often done as a regular part of state accountability
systems?
4. What were your initial reactions to the Equity Scorecard model in general?
5. What do you think about the four perspectives in the framework of the Equity
Scorecard: Preparation, Access, Retention and Completion, and Excellence;
and indicators used under each perspective?
6. Is there a key performance measure that is missing? What is it? Why?
7. What do you think about the “Equity Index”? Do you think it is a viable tool
to gauge equity in educational outcomes for historically underrepresented
students? In your experience, have you used, or encountered a similar tool
like the Equity Index? What are the similarities and differences between the
two?
8. Do you think the employment of multi-level denominators in the Equity
Index formula makes sense?
9. Do you have any comments about the results of my dissertation in regard to
Hispanics’ equity status among various measures in California and Texas?
10. In your opinion, what might be the possible obstacles for implementing the
Equity Scorecard in a state-level accountability system?
11. If we were to implement the Equity Scorecard as a state accountability tool,
what would be the most important change that needs to be made structurally
at the state-level?
12. If there are things that I have to modify in the Equity Scorecard model, what
are they? Why?
195
13. In your opinion, where does my work fit in terms of the existing work on
higher education accountability? Why?
14. Is there anything else you want to add that we did not discuss today?
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Developing a culture of evidence: Using institutional data to identify inequitable educational outcomes
PDF
Improving the transfer rates of minority students: A case study
PDF
Exploring ethnic identity on a university campus: Filipino American students' perspectives
PDF
Internationalization of higher education: A case study of a private United States research university
PDF
Intergenerational conflict, family functioning, and acculturation experienced by Asian American community college students
PDF
Investigation of energy flow in earthquake response of structures
PDF
Educational development aid and the role of language: A case study of AIT -Danida and the Royal University of Agriculture in Cambodia
PDF
In their own words: Polynesian students' perspectives on persistence in an American university
PDF
Generation sex: Reconfiguring sexual citizenship in educational film and video
PDF
Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older
PDF
Chinese immigrants united for self -empowerment: Case study of a weekend Chinese school
PDF
Development of orthographic knowledge in a consonantal script: Children's invented spellings in Farsi
PDF
Aid and admission: Financial aid narratives of eight pre -college urban Latinas
PDF
Does program quality matter? A meta-analysis of select bilingual education studies
PDF
An assessment of general education requirements in Taiwanese higher education
PDF
Identity politics and accessing discourses: SLA narratives of Korean immigrants
PDF
Determining competent/resilient outcomes across multiple domains in sexually abused and nonabused females
PDF
A typological history of non-heterosexual male college students in the United States, 1945 to the present
PDF
Implementation of tobacco prevention programming and smoking related outcomes
PDF
Access factors and homerun experiences: Making readers of our children
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hao, Lan
(author)
Core Title
Assessing equitable postsecondary educational outcomes for Hispanics in California and Texas
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, bilingual and multicultural,education, higher,Hispanic American studies,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Bensimon, Estela Mara (
committee chair
), Melguizo, Tatiana (
committee member
), Myers, Dowell (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-442119
Unique identifier
UC11336883
Identifier
3237151.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-442119 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3237151.pdf
Dmrecord
442119
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hao, Lan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, bilingual and multicultural
education, higher
Hispanic American studies