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
/
Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process
(USC Thesis Other)
Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 1
ADDRESSING A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE DRIVEN SYSTEM: A
CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC HISTORICALLY BLACK UNIVERSITY ENGAGED IN THE
EQUITY SCORECARD PROCESS
By
Tiffany Jones
Advisor, Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon
______________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
December 2013
Copyright 2013 Tiffany Jones
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 2
Acknowledgements
In a 1924 address at Fisk University, W.E.B. Dubois said that “there are forces of advancement
and uplift, that there are forces of evil and retrogression, and that it is for the educated man to
find a way amid these difficulties.” While finding my way as a Black scholar in 2013 has been
challenging, God has blessed me with an amazing support system, that has carried me when I
couldn’t walk, yelled for me when I could not speak, and been my eyes when I could not see; I
dedicate this dissertation to each and every one of you.
To my ancestors and community members who fought, and continue to fight, for social justice
and equitable educational opportunities; your spirit of determination, resilience, and strength has
encouraged me to take advantage of the educational opportunities that God has so graciously
blessed me with.
I would like to thank my family for their love, support, encouragement, and faith that I would be
the first PhD in the family, even when I was unsure.
I would like to thank all of my University of Southern California (USC) friends and colleagues
for taking this journey with me. For listening, offering critical feedback, and inspiring me with
your stellar work!
To my spiritual family at the Normandie Church of Christ. Thank you for your unwavering
support, prayers, and love throughout this journey! Your care and concern for my mind, body,
and soul will never be forgotten!
I would also like to thank the “Smith University” community for their trust, time, and
willingness to share their stories.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 3
Table of Contents
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….…..6
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………..……7
Abstract……………………………………………………………...………………………….…8
CHAPTER I: Introduction………………………………………………………………….…..9
Study Context………………………………………………………………………………..13
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………..…14
Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………….15
Definition of Key Terms……………………………………………………………………..19
CHAPTER II: A Review of the Literature……………………………………………………22
A Review of the Literature………………………………………………………………………22
Public Historically Black College and Universities…………………………………….....…23
Public HBCUs and Desegregation………………...………………………………………25
HBCU Student Integration……………………………………..............……….……...27
Governance and Financial Challenges……………….......………...…………………...…29
Local leadership and Governance at Public HBCUs………….......……………...……33
Accountability, Performance-based Funding Policies, and Institutional Change……...……35
HBCU Performance and Outcomes………………………………….......………………..38
Accountability at HBCUs: How Institutions Are Responding……………………….…...40
Theoretical Perspectives to Examine Smith University’s Responses to the PBF policy and Equity
Scorecard Process……………………………………………………...………………………...43
What is the Equity Scorecard?……………………………………………………………….44
The Equity Scorecard Theory of Change…………………………………………………….45
Implementing the Equity Scorecard at Minority-Serving Institutions……………….………49
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)…………………………………………….....…50
Critical Race Theory (CRT)……………………………………………………………………54
Applying CHAT and CRT to the Equity Scorecard Study…………………..………………57
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….57
CHAPTER III: Methodology………………………………………………………………….59
Site and Sample Selection……………………………………………………………………60
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………………....61
Participant Selection…………………………………...…………………………….…….62
Equity Scorecard Evidence Team Members………………………………………..……63
Campus Leaders not Participating in the Equity Scorecard………………………...……63
Smith University Students……………………………………………………………….64
Document Review…………………….………………………………..…………….….....67
Secondary Data Analysis……………..……………………………………………….…...68
Observations…………………………………………………………………………….…68
Interviews……………………………….………………………………………………..70
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………...71
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 4
CHAPTER IV: Findings………………………………………...……………………………..74
Findings Part I: Understanding the Smith University Context: History, Culture, and
Student Support………………………………………………………………………………...75
Smith University: Pioneers of Higher Education for Black Americans……………………..76
The Founding of Smith University…………………………………………………….....76
Fighting for 21
st
Century Resources…………………………………………………..…77
Smith University Joins the State System of Higher Education…………………………..79
State Challenges to the Smith Mission……………………………………………..…80
A brief glimpse into the “HBCU Magic”…………………..………………………………..81
They Know Us by Name…………………………………………...…………………..…….83
A Small, Family-like Environment………………...…………………………………….83
Supporting Students’ Social and Emotional Well-being………….……………………..85
Supporting Students’ Academic Development…………………………………………..86
My Black is Beautiful……………………………………………………………………..…88
Challenging Meritocracy…………………………………………………………………….91
The Tension Between Opportunity and Rigor……………………………………...……94
Developmental Courses…………………………………………………………….....95
Findings Part II: Smith University Perspectives on the PBF Policy……………………...…98
The State System of Higher Education vs. Smith University………………………………..99
Performance-Based Funding and Smith University…………………………...……….…..105
Modernizing HBCUs for the 21
st
century: Narratives and Counternarrtives on the
Purpose of the PBF Policy……………………………...………………………..……..108
The State System Narrative………………………………….……………………….109
The Smith University Counternarrative…………………………...………………….110
Perspectives on the Diversity and Equity Measures…………………………..………..115
Smith University Arguments in Favor of the PBF Policy………………………..….120
Findings Part III: Smith University and the Equity Scorecard………………………........125
The Smith University Activity Setting: Mediating Artifacts and Findings………….……..127
Phase 1: Laying the Groundwork………………………...…………………………..…127
Creating the Evidence Team………………………………..………………………...127
Understanding the Smith University Context……………………………...…………129
Institutional Responsibility and Accountability for Student Outcomes.…………......132
Recognizing and Addressing Deficit-mindedness………………………………..…..135
Phase 2: Defining the Problem……………………………………………………...…..137
Institutional Data as a Mediating Artifact……………………….…………………...137
Developing “Hunches”……………………...……...………………………………140
Selecting a Focal Effort…………………………………………………………….144
Discussing Institutional Data Outside of the Evidence Team…………………...…146
Phase 3: Assessing Interventions……………………………………………..…………148
The Inquiry Plan……………………………...………………………………………149
Gathering Additional Data…………………………………………………..….….150
Addressing Latino Student Retention…………………………………………..….150
Addressing Developmental Education………………………………..………..….152
Surveying Faculty about Advising and Retention……………………..………......152
Phases 4 & 5: Implementing Solutions and Evaluating Results……………...…...……153
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 5
Going Against the Current: Presenting New Ideas to the “Old” Smith University……...…155
Challenges with the Equity Scorecard………………………………………..…………155
Communication/Collaboration Challenges………………………………………..….155
Challenges to Organizational Change……………………………………………...……159
Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………………….166
CHAPTER V: Reflections, Discussion, and Conclusions………………………………......168
Theoretical Practical, and Policy Implications……………………….……………….…....169
Critical Race Theory Implications……………………….………………………………169
Smith University Counternarratives on Racism……………………………………….170
PBF as an Example of Interest Convergence……………………………………….…172
The Challenge of Racial Integration at HBCUs……………………………………….174
Implications for the Equity Scorecard Process………………………………….……….177
Limitations of Studying the Equity Scorecard………………………………………...182
Recommendations for the Smith University Evidence Team…………………………185
Considerations for Conducting Research on HBCU Improvement……………………...…188
Access and Epistemic Privilege………………………………………...…………..……188
Using Institutional Resilience as a Framework…………………………………….…....192
Necessary Considerations and Possible Indicators for Measuring HBCU Performance...194
Concluding Thoughts……………………………………………………………………….202
References………………………………………………………………………………...….....204
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………….………..231
Appendix A: Interview Protocols……………………………………………………….…231
Appendix B: Field Observation Template………………………………………………....237
Appendix C: List of Codes and Categories…………………………………………….….239
Appendix D: Letter to Request Permission to Conduct Research………………………....242
Appendix E: Informed Consent Document………………………………………..……….243
Appendix F1: State Performance-Based Funding Measures for Smith University……......246
Appendix F2: State Performance-Based Funding Optional Measures…………………….249
Appendix G: Smith University Inquiry Plan………………...…………………………….250
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Collection Information ...........................................................................................65
Table 2: PBF Sample Measure: Closing the Access Gap for Underrepresented Minority (URM)
Students………………………………………………………………………………………....107
Table 3: Smith University Focal Efforts……………………………………………………..…144
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Timeline of acts, legal decisions, and political action affecting public HBCU
desegregation................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 2. HBCU external funding [in thousands of dollars]……………………………...……...31
Figure 3. Comparison of HBCU funding to total institutions of higher education funding, 1994
through 2009 (in dollars)…………………………………………………………………..……. 32
Figure 4. The CHAT activity setting………………………………………………………….…52
Figure 5. Using CHAT to understand institutional change………………………...…………….53
Figure 6. Smith University faculty and student demographics…………………………………..61
Figure 7. Institutional history activity…………………………………………………………..131
Figure 8. Smith University news story breakdown……………………………………………..131
Figure 9. Examples of deficit and equity-minded ness…………………………………………134
Figure 10. Campus leadership meeting seating diagram…………………………………….....146
Figure 11. Barriers to improvement……………………………………………………….……160
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 8
Abstract
The case study utilizes interviews, observations, and document analysis to examine how
the Equity Scorecard supported a public Historically Black University’s ability to (a) respond to
their state Performance-Based Funding policy and (b) address outcomes such as retention and
graduation rates. The participants identified nurturing, discussions of race, the challenge of
balancing opportunity and rigor, and limited resource realities as key components of their
organizational culture that shape student outcomes. The participants liked that the state
Performance-Based Funding policy and Equity Scorecard process helped the institution become
more data- and outcomes-minded. However, the participants were critical of the policy’s equity-
oriented measures and their overall relationship with their state system of higher education. The
findings from the study demonstrate that the Smith University evidence team displayed an
understanding of equity-mindedness and deficit-mindedness as well as the ability to better
interpret and use their institutional data. The participants also faced challenges within their
Equity Scorecard experience, which included difficulties communicating with each other and the
Center for Urban Education and limited capacity in the form of time allocation and data
processes. Despite these challenges, the participants identified, discussed, and investigated how
their institution could further address their retention and graduation rates.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 9
“Public Negro colleges are nominally less free, because they are responsive to White legislators,
local regents or state systems of higher education, and the journalistic monitoring of other
watchful Whites. Under these conditions, separatism seldom facilitates experimentalism or
innovation.”
-Jencks and Riesman, 1967 p.55
“I am aware of the performance funding formula. I’m actually very supportive of that as an
educator because I think the more diverse your student body is, the more likely that your students
are going to receive a well-rounded education...I think for [Smith] the challenge is going to be
really creating the infrastructure...enrollment standards have to be reflective of some of these
performance funding metric objectives and right now we’re just one-dimensional."
–Moses Glasper, Smith University staff member/administrator
“As soon as [Smith] starts to get good at something they flip the script…the rule across the state
system is underrepresented minorities. The more underrepresented minorities you bring in then
the better off you are. We brought in underrepresented minorities. Even though it’s a majority in
our school, underrepresented minorities in the country as far as being educated and getting
positive jobs, we should get a credit for that.”
-Jeffery Anderson, Smith University staff member/administrator
CHAPTER I:
Introduction
As demonstrated in Jencks and Riesman’s (1967) statement above, public Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are faced with the unique challenge of being
responsive to a “public” whose goals for the university may not align with that of HBCUs.
Jeffery, a public HBCU staff member/administrator identifies the primary dimension of this
challenge as the inversion, for public HBCUs, of traditional approaches to achieving racial
equity; instead of focusing on students of color to achieve increased parity in outcomes, public
HBCUs are asked to focus on non-Black students. HBCU members and supporters often argue
that public HBCUs should not be pressured to increase their racial diversity and selectivity when
Black students are still underrepresented in higher education overall. There are some HBCU
members, like Moses who believe that HBCUs should become more racially diverse and increase
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 10
their selectivity. However, as Moses points out, even when the goals of the “public” and the
HBCU are aligned, they are still difficult to accomplish because public HBCUs may lack the
infrastructure to make changes that could help increase their selectivity, student outcomes, and
racial diversity. For any institutional improvement or change initiative to be successful at a
public HBCU it must therefore take into consideration the tensions around (1) increasing racial
diversity and equity and (2) increasing selectivity and improving student outcomes, while
maintaining their position as a point of access to higher education for Black students.
The Equity Scorecard is an initiative designed by researchers at the University of
Southern California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE) who were concerned that increased
access to higher education for African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, and other
historically marginalized populations was not reflected in equitable outcomes in retention and
graduation, generally, or in participation in undergraduate majors leading to high-demand fields
such as computer science, engineering, health occupations, and the like. Recognizing the unique
nature of academic organizations, particularly the traditions of faculty governance and
autonomy, these researchers created a process of change that is driven by faculty members and
involves them as researchers of their own practices. The Equity Scorecard has been used to help
higher education institutions address inequities in their student outcomes and respond to any
policies holding these institutions accountable for such outcomes.
The Equity Scorecard process involves a team of faculty, administrators, and staff, who
first examine basic data on access, retention, and completion that have been disaggregated by
race and ethnicity in order to identify patterns of unequal outcomes. In most higher education
institutions where the Equity Scorecard has been implemented, teams discover that there are
large differences in metrics of student success, such as in the percentage of African Americans
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 11
who graduate within six years compared to Whites, or in the percentage of Latinos who transfer
from community colleges to four-year colleges. The process encourages participants to view
each of these inequities as an “indeterminate situation” that they must inquire into before
jumping into solutions (Bensimon, 2007). The teams are provided with a variety of tools to assist
them through the five core phases of the Equity Scorecard, which are named (1) Laying the
Groundwork, (2) Defining the Problem, (3) Assessing Interventions, (4) Creating Solutions, and
(5) Evaluating Results.
In fall of 2011, I learned that a public system of higher education consisting of 14
comprehensive four-year colleges, one of which was a Historically Black University, decided to
implement the Equity Scorecard. The HBCU, which I will refer to by the pseudonym Smith
University, is, like their 13 sister campuses, part of a centralized governance and leadership
system that includes a chancellor, vice chancellors, and a governing board with the power to
determine budgets and appoint campus presidents. The “System” as most campus level members
refer to it, introduced the campuses to the Equity Scorecard through the campus provosts, and in
response to their enthusiasm about the practicality of the tools and the Scorecard’s potential to
help campuses meet Performance-Based Funding targets approved a two-year contract with CUE
to implement the Equity Scorecard. The main driver of the provosts’ interest in the Equity
Scorecard was the new Performance-Based Funding formula which held the campuses
responsible for cutting in half the access and completion gaps for students of color. The Equity
Scorecard was designed specifically as an organizational learning process to develop the capacity
of institutional actors—faculty, leaders, and staff—to see past representational diversity, and take
notice that racial inequality in student outcomes is an enduring institutional characteristic that
calls for collective action to reform practices, structures, and policies.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 12
The Equity Scorecard was a good fit for Smith’s sister institutions that were under
increased pressure to enroll, retain, and graduate more Black, Latino, and American Indian
students. On the other hand, its applicability to Smith, whose student body is over 90% Black,
was not evident. Considering Smith’s origins as an institution to educate Black students in the
then legally segregated society, the usefulness of the Equity Scorecard was unclear. The purpose
of this study is to understand how the Equity Scorecard was implemented at Smith University. I
focus on understanding the implementation of the Equity Scorecard within the historical context
of Smith as an HBCU as well as within the bureaucratic context of a centralized system of higher
education. As mentioned above, the system offered the Equity Scorecard to the 14 campuses to
help them build their capacity to meet the performance indicators that called for closing gaps in
access and graduation for underrepresented minorities or, in the accepted lexicon of the system
and campuses’ Underrepresented Minorities (URMs).
Smith was held accountable for many of the same metrics and measures applied to the
other campuses, but since Smith did not have access gaps for URM’s, at least not among Blacks,
the System created two unique metrics. All the other institutions were being held accountable
through the Performance-Based Funding (PBF) system for closing racial/ethnic gaps in order to
be eligible for a certain percentage of funding, but Smith was being held accountable for
increasing the diversity of its student body by recruiting and enrolling more students who do not
identify as Black. The diversity metric made Smith accountable for the access and success of
non-Black students at the same time that the other institutions in the state system were being
encouraged to enroll more underrepresented students of color. Thus, attaching funding to White
and Black individuals at a Historically Black University and the implications of such practices
would be an important dilemma to explore.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 13
Study Context
Established in the mid-1800s, Smith University
1
identifies itself as one of the oldest
Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs) in the nation. As a small northeastern
HBCU of less than 2,000 students their long history includes many successes, among them
graduating notable alumni including activists, writers, nationally recognized journalists, and
scientists. However, in recent years Smith has experienced challenges with declining enrollment,
less than 15% of their first-time students earning a Bachelor’s degree within four years, declining
finances, and high turnover in administrative positions. Participants attribute these challenges to
the integration of Smith University into the state’s system of higher education in the 1980s.
Although Smith’s historical mission was to “educate Negros,” it now has a mission to educate
“students of diverse backgrounds.” Taking Smith even farther from their historical mission of
serving Black students is the state-system PBF model that, for Smith, ties state funding to
increased enrollment and performance of non-Black students. The challenges of an evolving
mission contribute to the context in which Smith University is being challenged to improve their
retention and graduation rates and increase the performance of non-Black students in particular
through the Equity Scorecard process.
Purpose of the Study
First, I wanted to examine the experiences of this public HBCU, Smith University, as it
addresses issues of equity and their student outcomes through the Equity Scorecard process.
Secondly, because the state provided the campuses with the Equity Scorecard in order to help
them respond to the PBF policy, I wanted to find out if and how the Equity Scorecard helped this
institution build their capacity to respond to the PBF policy. Thirdly, it was also important to find
1
Smith is a pseudonym that will be used in order to protect the identity of the institution and its members.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 14
out what factors were mediating the institution’s learning throughout the Equity Scorecard
process, such as their understanding of the PBF policy, their relationship with the state system of
higher education, and their beliefs about student outcomes overall.
Stake (1995) recommends that researchers use topical research questions that direct the
study, but not too much, leaving room for the development of questions that result from the emic
issues brought forth by those who are participating in the study. Further, Stake (1995) notes that
research questions will be developed and reworked as the study progresses. Hence, the research
questions were slightly modified after the conclusion of the data collection process to more
closely reflect the focus of the data collection that took place. Specifically, (a) how does Smith
University’s understanding of, and beliefs about, the state PBF policy mediate their learning?
and (b) how does Smith University’s relationship with the state system mediate its participation
in the Equity Scorecard? were later added as sub-questions. The sub-questions were added
because of the participants’ lack of understanding of the PBF policy when asked about it and
because of their strained relationship with state that was articulated during the preliminary data
collection. The revised research questions are as follows:
Research Questions
1) What does the Smith University evidence team learn through the Equity Scorecard
process?
a. What does the Smith University evidence team learn about their student outcomes?
b. What does the Smith University evidence team learn about how they might improve their
student outcomes? (i.e. specific strategies or practices)
c. What does the Smith University evidence team learn about equity- and deficit-
mindedness?
d. What does the Smith University evidence team learn through the Equity Scorecard
process that supports their ability to respond to the state Performance-Based Funding
policy?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 15
2) What mediates the Smith University evidence team’s Equity Scorecard learning
process?
a. How does Smith University’s organizational culture mediate the evidence team members’
learning? (i.e. culture of meetings, data practices)
b. How do the Smith University evidence team’s beliefs/assumptions about race, racism,
and student outcomes mediate their learning?
c. How does the Smith University evidence team’s understanding of, and beliefs about, the
state Performance-Based Funding policy mediate their learning?
d. How does Smith University’s relationship with the state system mediate their
participation in the Equity Scorecard?
e. How does the Equity Scorecard process and tools mediate the Smith University evidence
team’s learning? (i.e. meetings, activities, technological expertise)
Significance of the Study
In light of recent financial and political exigencies, higher education institutions have
been increasingly asked to provide evidence of their value, thus propelling them into a new era
of accountability (Zumeta, 2011). Often, within this culture of accountability, higher education
institutions are pressured to provide quantifiable evidence of learning and other student
outcomes, such as diversity, retention, and graduation rates. This accountability pressure is
forcing the higher education community to address important questions such as what are and
what should be the goals of higher education? Do different goals apply to different types of
educational institutions? How can we know if these goals are being achieved? Nowhere are the
challenges involved in answering these questions more evident than in the case of Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). When discussed in the context of general educational
goals, without reference to the population HBCUs traditionally serve, HBCUs are often criticized
by the media and scholars as having little diversity, ineffective leadership, and poor student
outcomes (i.e. retention and graduation rates) (Gasman, 2007a; Gasman 2011). This has given
rise to a new tension between HBCUs’ historical role as a point of access to higher education for
Black students and the pressure to improve their reputations in ways that aim to attract more
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 16
White , graduate, and academically competitive students as defined by high school grades and
standardized test scores (Minor, 2004).
The answers to the questions that accompany accountability policy—such as, where are
the deficits, who is to blame for the deficits, and how are they to be held responsible?—are
especially challenging at HBCUs whose histories are lined with contentious relationships with
media, researchers, and state and federal governments (Brown, 2001; Minor, 2008; Palmer,
Davis, & Gasman, 2011). Given the historical and contemporary challenges of differential
funding and unique missions, it is important to engage in a conversation about how to effectively
“judge” or evaluate HBCUs in ways that will foster institutional success. Further, how should
concepts like equity and diversity be interpreted, measured, and evaluated at institutions with a
historical equity focus? How can interventions like the Equity Scorecard, which aim to help
higher education institutions respond to accountability policies by addressing their inequities and
student outcomes, work at HBCUs? Lastly, do we even know enough about HBCUs to
understand how they should be evaluated?
The perception is often that HBCUs are less selective and ineffective and therefore have
poor student outcomes and graduation rates. For instance in their 2013 analysis of college
student outcomes in Texas, Flores and Park found that there was a negative relationship between
college completion and HBCU enrollment in Texas. Flores and Park’s study is just one example
of quantitative studies that have found an association between HBCU enrollment and a decreased
likelihood of completing a college degree. Although, studies like Flores and Park’s provide
evidence of low HBCU performance as defined by college completion rates, these studies do not
always consider the impact of HBCU type (private vs. public), size, and students’ backgrounds
(student demographics and academic preparation). Hence, it is important to consider if those
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 17
HBCU students who did not graduate would have had any other opportunities to study at a four-
year residential university.
Public HBCUs enroll a large proportion of low income and first generation college
students with low GPAs and standardized test scores; thus they often have lower retention and
graduation rates than more selective private HBCUs (Li & Carroll, 2007; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010c; Thurgood Marshall Fund, 2010). Hence, public HBCUs’ tendency to
enroll students with lower pre-college academic profiles could be contributing to their lower
retention and graduation rates. It is also important to note that despite their lower overall
retention and graduation rates, these non-selective public HBCUs have higher retention and
graduation rates than similar student populations at more selective Predominately White
Institutions (PWIs), suggesting that public HBCUs could be a better option for students with
lower high school grades and test scores. Thus, this study of how a public HBCU approaches
improving their student outcomes through the Equity Scorecard process will provide important
insights about how public HBCUs are able to balance the need for higher retention and
graduation rates and the commitment to providing opportunity to students with lower high school
grades and test scores.
This study will also provide important information about how a public HBCU approaches
discussions regarding the performance of non-Black students. HBCUs have prided themselves
on their ability to produce favorable outcomes when comparing HBCU students to Black PWI
students. For example, HBCU students report more frequent and favorable relationships with
their professors and greater satisfaction with their institution, have lower SAT scores and high
school GPAs but have similar bachelor’s degree attainment, higher college grades, similar
academic development, higher self-esteem, higher labor market outcomes, an increased
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 18
likelihood of completing a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) degree, and
greater growth in job related skills and graduate/professional school preparation than their Black
peers at PWIs (Allen, 1992; Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002; Fryer & Greenstone, 2010; Kim, 2002;
Kim, 2011; Kim & Conrad, 2006; Perna et al., 2009; Price, Spriggs, & Swinton, 2011; Redd,
2000; Solorzano, 1995; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2010; Wenglinsky, 1996;
Wenglinsky,1997). It is significant that HBCU students at the enrollment stage have lower GPAs
and test scores than their Black peers at PWIs, but have higher college outcomes, further
suggesting an institutional impact or effect on student outcomes. Thus these seemingly unrelated
findings create a narrative in which two Black students, student A with lower test scores and
GPA than student B, can enroll in an HBCU and have a better college experience (higher grades,
better relationship with faculty), and leave with better post graduate opportunities (increased
likelihood of graduate/professional school, higher salary) than student B who has a higher GPA
and test scores and selected a PWI.
Scholars have attributed the differences in Black student outcomes at HBCUs versus
PWIs to variations in organizational culture, policy, and practices (Allen, 1992; Fries-Britt &
Turner, 2002; Gasman, Baez, & Turner, 2008; Perna et al., 2009). Studies of the culture of
HBCU’s paint them as nurturing and supportive of their predominately Black student bodies
(Blacknall & Johnson, 2011; Hall & Closson, 2005; Hirt et al., 2008; Palmer & Young, 2010).
Scholars like Allen (1992) and Fries-Britt and Turner (2002) suggest that the organizational
culture of HBCUs cultivates success for Black students, but the organizational culture of PWIs
can create barriers. Despite the many positive attributes that are associated with HBCU’s there is
limited empirical evidence that demonstrates how HBCUs facilitate successful outcomes for
students of color and further, how they go about making institutional improvement or change.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 19
Hence the case study begins addressing important issues such as (a) how do HBCU policies and
practices shape student outcomes? And (b) how do capacity-building initiatives like the Equity
Scorecard process help HBCUs respond to accountability policies and improve student
outcomes? The answers to these questions have important implications for Black college student
access and success and HBCU performance and survival.
Definition of key terms
1. Historically Black College or University--A Historically Black College or University
(HBCU) is an institution founded in the U.S. prior to 1964 whose primary mission is the
post-secondary education of Black students
2
(Li & Carroll, 2007).
2. Predominately White Institution--Institutions serving primarily White students. They
may not have been established with an explicit mission to serve White students the way
HBCUs explicitly aim to educate Black or African American students; however, they
have historical and contemporary organizational cultures, policies, and practices that have
directly and indirectly operated in ways that limit access and opportunity for non-White
students.
3. Public HBCUs--There are 51 public HBCUs (National Center for Educational Statistics,
2010a). Early public HBCUs were predominately in the south and Border States
3
amidst
an extremely racially violent culture (Holmes, 1934). With the exception of the just over
20 public HBCUs established prior to 1890, most were the result of the second Morrill
Land Grant Act of 1890 (Atwood, 1962; Brooks & Starks, 2011). The federal
2
This definition of HBCUs was constructed by the federal government and included in the Higher Education Act of
1965. Other higher education institutions enrolling predominately Black students, not established before 1964, and
who may or may not acknowledge the education of Black s in their missions are not included in the group of
federally designated HBCUs for funding, legal, or policy purposes.
3
Border states include the slave states that either never declared secession or delayed their secession from the Union
until after 1861. The border states include: Deleware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Freehling, 1972)
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 20
government through the second Morrill Land Grant Act allowed the southern states to
create a separate system of public higher education for Black students. Specifically, the
policy provided states with funding if they did not discriminate based on race or color in
their admissions or if they “establish and maintain separate colleges for White and
colored students” and provide “a just and equitable division of the fund to be received
under this subchapter between one college for White students and one institution for
colored students” (Ch. 841, 26 Stat. 417).
4. The Equity Scorecard--The Equity Scorecard focuses on four perspectives on equity:
access, retention/completion, and excellence (Bensimon & Hanson, 2012). Within each
perspective the participants review relevant racially disaggregated data, hypothesize and
inquire about the causes of the gaps, identify goals, and develop recommendations. The
Equity Scorecard is an intervention tool and theory of change used by CUE to assist
college and university faculty and practitioners in transforming their frameworks from a
deficit-minded
4
to an equity-minded
5
view of student outcomes, and equipping them to
use data to understand racially differentiated experiences and outcomes, ultimately
leading to equity and data driven policies and practices and improved outcomes
(Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004; Bensimon, 2005;
Bensimon, 2007; Dowd, 2007; Dowd, Malcolm, & Bensimon, 2009). As members of the
Equity Scorecard evidence team, the participants are expected to (1) review student
outcomes data, (2) identify and inquire into possible causes or contributors to the
4
Deficit-mindedness refers to a cognitive frame in which student outcomes are attributed to personal attributes, such
as skills, ability, or motivation rather than institutionally related factors (Bensimon, 2007)
5
Equity-mindedness refers to a cognitive frame in which student outcomes are attributed to institutional factors such
as campus climate, pedagogy, institutional racism, or delivery of services (Bensimon, 2007).
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 21
outcomes, (3) develop recommendations, and (4) set goals with the aim of improving
student outcomes.
5. Evidence Team--An evidence team is made up of the group of participants from the
campus or university participating in the Equity Scorecard. The teams are typically 8-12
members and include faculty, staff, administrators, and other practitioners.
6. Student Outcomes--The evidence team members will engage in discussions of student
outcomes, which include retention and graduation rates disaggregated by racial and
ethnic groups, at their evidence team meetings. They will review data that is further
disaggregated by categories such as gender, undergraduate major, or department.
7. Organizational Culture--an imperfectly shared system of interrelated understandings
that is shaped by its members’ shared history and expectations and their beliefs,
assumptions and values about organizational members (including students), rules of
conduct, leadership styles, administrative procedures, rituals, and customs (Larsson and
Lubatkin, 2001; Schein, 1985).
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 22
CHAPTER II:
A Review of the Literature
I asked Ronald, a representative from the state system of higher education to which Smith
University belongs, how Smith University’s status as an HBCU was taken into consideration in
the design of the state PBF policy and their subsequent participation in the Equity Scorecard
process. Ronald responded that (1) he was aware that Smith University was “different” (2) and
that Smith University had a historical mission that required clarification and revisiting in the 21
st
century setting. To provide further clarification, Ronald went on to point to Howard University
and Morehouse College as examples of HBCUs that have reframed their historical mission for
the 21
st
century. Interestingly enough, Howard University and Morehouse College are examples
of private, selective HBCUs, and Smith University is a public, non-selective HBCU. Thus
Ronald implied that Smith may need to revise their mission to be more in line with institutions
that are distinct from them in terms of classification, mission, size, and selectivity. Hence it was
not surprising that Ronald shared that when developing the PBF policy, he and the state system
of higher education thought about Smith University’s differences, but he was not “a great study
of HBCUs.”
Interactions like those with Ronald helped guide the development of a literature review
that could first provide an understanding of those “HBCU differences,” but specifically the
characteristics and circumstances of public HBCUs, which are different from the selective,
private HBCUs like Howard University and Morehouse College. Although higher education
administrators, leaders, and faculty are likely to recognize the fundamental differences between
public four-year colleges and private research universities, they may not be as aware that there is
great diversity in size, prestige, wealth, mission, and source of control within the HBCU category
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 23
as well. The second purpose of the literature review is to provide an understanding of how
HBCUs are responding to 21
st
century challenges and pressures in the form of resources,
governance, court ordered desegregation, and accountability. The third purpose of the literature
review is to provide an overview of the theoretical frameworks that were used to guide the
development of this study and analyze interactions like those I had with Ronald. These
frameworks include Critical Race Theory and Cultural Historical Activity Theory.
Public Historically Black College s and Universities
“The publicly-supported Negro college has survived the stigma of charity; it has fought and won
the battle of curriculum justification; it has overcome the prejudice of the “culturally deprived’;
it is measuring up to the standards set for all colleges of equal status. It stands shoulder to
shoulder with its sister institutions, the private and church-related colleges, and in many
instances stands a head taller” (Atwood, 1962 p.250)
Atwood’s 1962 statement on public Black colleges is important because it distinguishes
the plight of public Black colleges from private Black colleges, acknowledges the perception of
public Black colleges being “culturally deprived” or educationally inferior institutions, and
public HBCUs’ ability to achieve some success despite these challenges. Atwood uses the term
“Negro college” to refer to what is now considered a Historically Black College or University
(HBCU). An HBCU is an institution founded in the U.S. prior to 1964 whose primary mission is
the post-secondary education of Black students (Li & Carroll, 2007). Today there are 100
HBCUs: 51 public and 49 private (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2010a). The six-
year graduation rates at four-year public HBCUs is 29% and 32% at four-year private HBCUs
(NCES, 2011). Together, public and private HBCUs are less than 3% of all postsecondary
institutions in the U.S. but produce nearly 20% of bachelor’s degrees, 10% of master’s degrees,
and 15% of doctoral degrees that were conferred to Black students in 2007 (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2010b; Ryu, 2010). Together public and private HBCUs have produced
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 24
more than their share of Black graduates, and individually, have distinct histories, characteristics,
contexts, and experiences that shape their institutions.
The early public HBCUs were located predominately in southern and Border States,
which were marked by an intensely violent and racist culture (Holmes, 1934). Most public
HBCUs were the result of the second Morrill Land Grant Act of 1890, but there were about 20
that were established prior to 1890 (Atwood, 1962; Brooks & Starks, 2011). The federal
government, through the second Morrill Land Grant Act, allowed the southern states to create a
separate system of public higher education for Black students. Specifically, the policy provided
states with funding if they (1) did not discriminate based on race or color in their admissions or if
(2) they “establish[ed] and maintain[ed] separate colleges for White and Colored students” and
(3) provided “a just and equitable division of the fund to be received under this subchapter
between one college for White students and one institution for colored students” (Ch. 841, 26
Stat. 417). Gasman and Hilton (2012) argue that “the establishment of public HBCUs evolved
out of the Whites’ desire to secure federal funding and to avoid admitting Blacks to existing
Historically White Institutions” (p.6).
There may not have been a desire for racial uplift and Black student success by the
founders of public HBCUs, but throughout the institutions’ histories and especially in recent
decades, they have been successful in advancing educational opportunities for the Black students
least likely to attend college (Anderson, 1988). Over half (62%) of the students enrolled at
public HBCUs are Pell Grant recipients, and over half are first generation college students,
compared to Predominately White Institutions (PWIs) whose student bodies are 32% Pell Grant
recipients and 35% first generation college students (Li & Carroll, 2007; Thurgood Marshall
Fund, 2010).
This demonstrates that not only do public HBCUs award a disproportionate
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 25
percentage of degrees to the nation’s Black students, but that these HBCU graduates are more
likely to come from poor and/or first-generation backgrounds than from PWI’s irrespective of
race. Public HBCUs provide educational opportunity to Black, low income, and first generation
college students, but not without challenges. Specifically, the major challenges described in the
literature include (1) the pressure to racially integrate into this perceived post-racial society and
(2) governance and financial challenges.
Public HBCUs and Desegregation. Public HBCUs in the United States were
established during a time when Black students were not welcome at PWIs. Current laws do not
explicitly forbid Black students from attending PWIs, nevertheless it has been well documented
that many Black students do not feel welcome at PWIs because of issues of race and racism
(Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, 1992; Pewewardy & Frey, 2002; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso,
2000). For example, Black students at HBCUs often report more positive interactions with peers
and faculty than reported by their peers at PWIs (Allen, 1992; Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002).
Despite the educational and social benefits derived by Black students attending HBCU’s,
the maintenance of segregated Black higher education institutions may strike many as
anachronistic in a society that strives to be integrated and inclusive (see figure 1 below) (Brown,
2001). Figure 1 below depicts a timeline of events that includes court decisions and legal and
political acts that contributed to the racial segregation and desegregation of higher education
institutions and HBCUs in particular. Additionally, the last three events, the Adams vs.
Richardson case, the United States vs. Fordice case, and the most recent era of accountability
contribute to the political and social context in which public HBCUs are being held accountable
for becoming more racially diverse and increasing their student outcomes.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 26
Figure 1. Timeline of acts, legal decisions, and political action affecting public HBCU desegregation.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for the government to provide
funding for programs that discriminated based on race. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, civil rights activists from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) sought to further eradicate the barriers to higher education for Black students
by suing southern states that were operating dual systems of higher education (Egerton, 1974).
In 1890, The 2
nd
Morril Land Grant
Act created racially
segregated
systems of public
higher education in
the south.
Civil Rights Act
of 1964, title
VI prohibit
discrimination
based on race
in gov.
supported
programs
(later used to
challenge gov.
support of
HBCUs).
1936, MD Court of
Appeals ruled in
Pearson vs. Murray
to allow a black
student into the U of
MD law school,
recognizing limited
HBCU offerings.
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
In 1863 President
Lincoln signs the
emancipation
proclamation,
proclaiming the
freedom of the
slaves.
In 1917 the
Smith Hughes
Vocational
Education Act,
provided
funding for
industrial
education to
HBCUs.
Higher Education
Act of 1965, title III
designated funding
for “developing
institutions ”,
providing funds for
many HBCUs.
Adams vs.
Richardson
1972 District
Court ordered
19 states with
dual systems of
public higher
edu. to submit
plans for
desegregation.
United States vs.
Fordice, filed in
1992, reached
settlement in 2002.
Recognizing
historical funding
disparities the
Supreme Court
awarded $503
million to HBCUs in
Mississippi.
Era of
Accountability in
education reaches
higher education in
the late 2000s w/
focus on
outcomes, gains,
and efficiency.
Civil War,
1861-1865
1954 Brown vs.
Board of Education,
Supreme Court ruled
that “separate but
equal ” was illegal.
1896 Plessy vs.
Ferguson, Supreme
Court ruled that
“separate but equal ”
was legal.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 27
This lawsuit evolved into Adams v. Richardson, which resulted in 19 southern and Border States
having to submit plans for desegregating their systems of higher education to the Higher
Education and Welfare (HEW) department of the federal government (Adams vs. Richardson,
1972). Initially only 8 states submitted plans that were accepted by the court, most of which
included plans to provide scholarship funds to make HBCUs more attractive to Whites, while
White institutions would remain largely unchanged (Egerton, 1974).
Following Adams v. Richardson, James Ayers, an African American, filed a lawsuit
against the governor of Mississippi (Fordice) on behalf of his son claiming that the state operated
separate and unequal systems of public higher education. The case and series of appeals evolved
into United States v. Fordice in 1992, in which the court ruled that the state of Mississippi was
operating racially segregated systems of higher education. The decision put additional pressure
on the states involved in the Adams case to desegregate their systems of higher education.
After
many years of appeals, the case finally reached settlement in 2002, when the Supreme Court
decided against merging the institutions but instead awarded HBCUs in Mississippi $503 million
dollars (Sum, Light, & King, 2004). However, the controversy continued as one stipulation
required that $105 million of the money would remain under the control of the state unless the
HBCUs reached 10% other race enrollment; opponents argued that once again the burden to
desegregate had been placed on HBCUs (Minor, 2008a).
HBCU Student Integration. Some HBCUs have been able to successfully enroll non-
Black students in large numbers and on rare occasion have become re-segregated, enrolling
predominately White students. In her 2013 report on the status of HBCUs, Gasman pointed out
that 25% of HBCUs are comprised of at least 20% non-Black students. The report also highlights
the state of Texas where Black students only make up 61% of the HBCU population across all
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 28
HBCUs in the state. The ethnic groups that make up the non-Black populations at HBCUs vary
by institution and region, but nationally White students make up about 13% of the HBCU
enrollment and have done so for the last 20 years (Gasman, 2013; NCES, 2011). Successful
cases of desegregation have involved low-cost institutions that are willing to accommodate part
time or commuting students (Brown, 2002). One profile of White students attending public
HBCUs in North Carolina found that the majority were nontraditional-aged, married, commuters,
and employed while enrolled in college (Brown & Stein, 1972). The White students who enroll
in HBCUs are likely to do so because of convenience, a high-demand or unique degree program,
low cost, or academic reputation of the institutions (Bellamy, 1982; Conrad, Brier, & Braxton,
1997). Although, some White students have discussed fear, apprehension, and criticism from
their family, friends, and high school staff about enrolling in HBCUs, once enrolled they report
similar levels of satisfaction as White students at PWIs and Black students at HBCUs (Closson
& Henry, 2008; Strayhorn, 2010). White students have described the benefits of attending an
HBCU as personal enrichment, increased confidence in their ability to persist, and a stronger
sense of self (Peterson & Hamrick, 2009). The challenges experienced by White students at
HBCU’s include: less faculty engagement, feelings of social exclusion which they attribute to
social cliques (i.e. sororities and fraternities), and frustration with the focus on “Blackness” in
the classroom (Closson & Henry, 2008; Hall & Closson, 2005; Strayhorn, 2010). Further, Black
students have expressed concern, fear, and distrust regarding the enrollment of White students
and the establishment of White fraternities at HBCUs (Hughey, 2006).
Despite the court decisions, federal policies, and economic incentives to diversify their
student bodies and the overall positive experiences of White students and faculty, HBCUs
student demographics have nevertheless remained predominately Black (National Center for
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 29
Educational Statistics, 2010a). Almost fifty years ago Jencks and Riesman (1967) observed that
the racial integration at HBCUs would be most likely under the following conditions : (1) when
commuters have no convenient or economical alternative, (2) when predominantly White public
institutions are not nearby, and (3) when a number of relatively poor Whites live in close
proximity to a HBCU (p.56). For example, in the case of Maryland, in the absence of nearby
PWIs, the White graduate enrollment at Maryland’s public HBCUs reached 53% in 1973;
however, since the establishment of close PWIs and duplicate programs, this enrollment has
dropped to just 14% in 2006 (Palmer, Davis, & Gasman, 2011). Perna et al. (2006) argue that
“progress in desegregating public higher education in the south has been limited, at least in part,
because of the absence of state-level coordinated and comprehensive approaches” (p.225). The
ability of public HBCUs to desegregate is also limited by their governance and financial
challenges.
Governance and Financial Challenges. Since HBCUs were first established, they have
had to manage the tension between the need for financial support and surrendering of power that
comes with such support. Public HBCUs face challenges with maintaining autonomy despite
their dependence on financial support from individuals and organizations of different racial or
cultural backgrounds which may have different ideas about how to support Black students (Allen
& Jewel, 2002; Holmes, 1934).
In the 25 years after the Civil War the majority of HBCUs were governed by White
philanthropic agencies and missionary societies who were described as “paternalistic” and
“White allies” (Allen & Jewel, 2002; Woodson, 1933). The cultural perspectives of these
governing agencies are credited with the enforcement of a curriculum that “focused on the
contributions of Europe and the west while viewing the non-White world (particularly Africa) as
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 30
benighted and in sore need of Christianizing and civilizing” (Allen & Jewel, 2002 p. 244). The
governance of HBCUs by White philanthropists and missionaries persisted throughout the
twentieth century and resulted in the demand for more Black faculty and administrators in the
1960s and 1970s (Allen & Jewel, 2002).
Public HBCUs are less dependent on philanthropists than private HBCUs (see figure 2),
however scholars suggest that public HBCUs have to respond to the state legislature and local
regents, journalists and even citizens who have an opinion about how public dollars should be
spent (Gasman, 2006; Gasman, 2007a; Jencks & Riesman, 1967; Minor, 2004). Gasman (2007)
notes in her analysis of the perception of HBCUs in the media that many journalists utilize the
financial and governance challenges of one HBCU to make general critiques about all HBCUs,
that includes both public and private. Gasman (2007) warns that this negative reporting often
results in the negative perception of HBCUs as dysfunctional, low quality institutions. Tax payer
and overall public opinion is especially important at public HBCUs who receive over 75% of
their funding from local, state, and federal governments, each with their own unique governance
and financial relationships and histories with public HBCUs.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 31
Figure 2. HBCU external funding [In thousands of dollars] U.S. Department of Education (2010a). 1990 through
2009 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, "Fall Enrollment Survey." National Center for Education
Statistics: Washington, D.C.
Through legislation like the Hatch Act of 1887 the federal government recommended that
federal funding of public higher education be equally distributed between institutions for Blacks
and Whites. However, as shown in figure 3 below, states have not distributed equitable funding
to their HBCUs. One reason for the inequitable funding is that states were often, not required to
distribute funding equitably, but instead were given the option to distribute the funding equitably
among Black and White institutions. The Hatch Act read: “the appropriations hereinafter made to
such State or Territory shall be equally divided between such colleges unless the legislature of
such State or territory shall direct otherwise” (Ch.314, 24 Stat.440). Given the choice by the
federal government, the states decided not to heed the recommendations for equitable funding
among their public HBCUs and PWIs and the HBCUs did not receive the federal research funds
792,641
805,194
93,983
14,878
240,428
Private HBCU External
Funding 2008-2009
(49 institutions)
Student Tuition
and Fees
Federal
Government
State
Government
Local
Governments
Private Gifts
and Grants
806,851
1,149,77
8
1,922,03
1
155,434
78,468
Public HBCU External Funding
2008-2009 (51 institutions)
Student tuition
and fees
Federal
Government
State
Government
Local
Government
Private gifts and
grants
Total=$4,112,562 [in thousands]
# of Students=246,595
Total=$1,947,124 [in thousands]
# of Students=76,194
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 32
they were eligible for until 1977 through the Food and Agriculture Act (Gasman & Hilton, 2012;
Preer, 1982).
Figure 3. Comparison of HBCU funding to Total Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) funding 1994 through 2009
(in dollars). Funding refers to grants, student loans, and other allocations from 31 participating federal departments
and agencies. Data reported from: White House initiative on HBCUs annual report (2005, 2010). Education
Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education: Jessup, MD.
Instead of steadily increasing funds to account for historical deficits, the federal
government has kept HBCU funding levels stagnant while at the same time increasing the
funding of institutions of higher education (IHE) as a whole. Although one might argue that the
stagnant funding is a result of enrollment, the argument is mitigated by the fact that HBCU
enrollment increased by 7% (same for public HBCUs) between 1990 and 2000, and 25% (30%
for public HBCUs) between 2000 and 2009; such enrollment increases did not result in increased
federal funding (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2010a). Federal funding is the
second largest source of support for public HBCU’s (Safier, 2008; Snipes, Ellis, & Thomas,
2006), thus it is important for HBCUs to be responsive to federal laws, mandates, and policies so
that they do not forfeit the opportunities for federal funding (Williams, 2008).
0
20,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
80,000,000,000
100,000,000,000
120,000,000,000
140,000,000,000
160,000,000,000
180,000,000,000
200,000,000,000
1994 1999 2006 2009
IHE
Funding
HBCU
Funding
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 33
One federal policy that has impacted HBCU operations is the requirement that an
institution have accreditation in order for the school and the students attending it to receive
federal aid. The problem with this policy is that HBCUs are often likely to lose accreditation
solely because they do not meet the resources requirement set by accrediting agencies (Donahoo
& Lee, 2008). The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the agency
responsible for accrediting public HBCUs in the South, has been found to assign harsher
penalties to HBCUs than to PWIs, even when the infractions are the same or less severe
(Donahoo & Lee, 2008). Linking financial stability to accreditation may not seem problematic in
theory; however, the added component of documented discrimination based on the racial identity
of the institution complicates such policies.
Local Leadership and Governance at Public HBCUs. HBCUs are led by presidents
that are mostly male (70%), Black (97%), and are slightly older (53% between age 60 and 70)
than college and university presidents overall (Gasman, 2007b; Gasman, 2013; Mishra, 2007;
Willie, Reddick, & Brown, 2006). The majority (58%) of HBCU presidents earned their
undergraduate degrees at HBCUs, but this has dropped nearly twenty percentage points from the
75% of HBCU presidents that earned their undergraduate degrees at HBCUs in 1983 (Gasman,
2013; Tata, 1980). HBCU presidents also serve an average of six years at an institution, which is
shorter than the eight year average served by college and university presidents nationally
(Freeman & Gasman, forthcoming; Gasman, 2013). Some argue that the high turnover in HBCU
leadership is the result of the unique challenges faced by HBCU leaders (Nichols, 2004).
Specifically, public HBCUs are often faced with the conundrum of fulfilling their mission
to offer access and opportunity to Black students while simultaneously addressing the resource-
based demands of outside governing bodies such as accreditation agencies and the federal
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 34
government. Some of these leadership challenges faced by HBCUs result in the high turnover of
senior and lower level leaders and the perception that HBCU leaders are autocratic and
authoritarian (Bonner, 2001; Gasman, 2011; Gasman, 2012; Jencks & Riessman, 1967). Gasman
(2011) explained that the arrival of Black HBCU presidents in the 1940s resulted in the
characterization of Black HBCU presidents as authoritarian, uncle toms, and conservative. Such
portrayals continued into the 1960s, during which Black HBCU presidents were described as
“riding in limousines and living in mansions while their colleges verged on the brink of fiscal
disaster” (Wagener & Smith, 1993 p.40). Gasman (2011) cautions that the actions and decisions
of these Black HBCU presidents should be examined within the difficult context in which, these
presidents were challenged to please donors, boards of trustees, state governments, and alumni.
Contemporary HBCU studies reveal that some HBCU students still describe their
leadership as “authoritarian” and “conservative.” Examples of HBCU leaders’ behavior that were
described as authoritarian and conservative are found in Harper and Gasman’s 2008 interviews
with over 70 Black male students enrolled at over 12 HBCUs that include public and private
institutions. The students reported incidents in which HBCU leaders forbade opposite sex dorm
room visitation, asked a student leader to cut his dreadlocks, and even requested a student to step
down from a leadership position when he fathered a child. It is important to note that the students
in the study attributed these behaviors to the HBCU leaders desire to “control” them, noting that
a campus administrator may retaliate if she “feels like we are taking away her power” (p.346).
The “authoritarian” behavior of some HBCU leaders has been attributed to their religious
origins and associations (Gasman, 2007b). Minor (2004) argues that some HBCU leaders are
able to govern in an authoritarian manner because of the lack of shared governance at many
HBCUs. Higher education institutions are often described as having complex shared governance
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 35
systems that include a balance of power between faculty, campus administrators, and boards of
trustees (Birnbaum, 1991). HBCU governance has been described somewhat differently, with
campus administrators like the dean of students and president having great decision making
power and HBCU boards of trustees are described as being distant from the campus and their
subsequent decision making (Minor, 2004). HBCU faculty, like faculty at other types of higher
education institutions, often resist or oppose the decisions of campus leaders and are in a position
to make recommendations, but are removed from decision making power (Bess & Dee, 2008;
Minor, 2004). As a result of the limited power of, or involvement by, the boards of trustees and
faculty, HBCUs have been described as “president-centric” (Guy-Sheftall, 2006). Hence the
recent departure of HBCU presidents in “droves” and questions of who will replace them has
important implications for the future of HBCU leadership, governance and the success of these
institutions overall (Gasman, 2012; Kelderman, 2012; Scott, 2002). Further, some credit recent
leaders like Michael Sorrell, President of Paul Quinn College, with single handedly turning
around or improving their respective struggling HBCUs, demonstrating the importance of quality
leaders to HBCU effectiveness (Hamilton, 2011). Hence examining how these leaders are able to
address their challenges that can include mission drift, racial integration, accreditation, and
resources is critical to understanding how HBCUs are able to change or improve.
Accountability, Performance-Based Funding Policies, and Institutional Change
Performance-Based Funding (PBF) policies were introduced in order to encourage
colleges and universities to focus on issues that governments and voters felt were important such
as outputs and efficiency (Dougherty et al., 2011; Gaither, 1997). As the costs of higher
education increased in the 1980s and 1990s, so did the demand for greater proof that higher
education institutions provided a high quality education and were graduating students within a
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 36
reasonable period. The popularity and prominence of the U.S. News and World Report rankings
also helped create a climate of measurement, evaluation, and competition that was somewhat
new to the higher education community (Ehrenberg, 2002). Hence PBF policies began to emerge
in the 1980s and continued to increase through the 1990s (Dougherty et al., 2011). As of 1994,
over one-third of the states had PBF policies that provided financial incentives for measures like
access for undergraduate students, quality in undergraduate education, national competitiveness
in graduate studies and research, meeting critical state needs, and managerial efficiency and
effectiveness (Burke & Freeman, 1997; Cunningham, 1997; Gaither, 1997; Ruppert, 1994;
Sanders, Layzell, & Boatwright, 1997; Stein, 1997). What followed was critique
by policy
scholars over which measures were important for what types of institutions, and a critique of a
one size fits all approach to performance funding policies (Dewees & Gaither, 1997; Gaither,
1997). One critique that seemed absent from the literature was the implications of PBF policies
for institutions with special missions like HBCUs.
The economic crisis of the new millennium resulted in the reduction of the policies, as
states had to first fund the items that were considered most important and then did not have
additional funding to provide enough incentive to impact institutional behaviors through PBF
policies (Burke & Modarresi, 2000; Shulock, 2011). Despite the fact that there is empirical
evidence that demonstrates that college benefits individuals by increasing their economic and
career opportunities, critics often complain that the qualitative value of higher education has not
been empirically proven and thus states should not use tax payer dollars to support institutions in
which the public is unsure of what is taking place (Baum & Payea, 2004). Hence the mid-2000s
was met with an increase in the learning outcomes movement that demanded higher education
institutions to demonstrate their educational value as a justification for receiving public dollars,
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 37
because if the benefits were just an individual’s financial opportunity, then that individual should
pay for higher education his/herself (Baum & Payea, 2004).
Also of importance are the 2003 Affirmative Action Supreme Court cases that influenced
a body of research that aimed to conceptualize, measure, and evaluate the benefits of one higher
education goal: increased diversity. Campus diversity has been associated with outcomes such as
intellectual growth, increased engagement and self-assessed academic skills, retention, social
self-concept, academic self-concept, and satisfaction with college (Chang, 2001; Gurin et al.,
2002; Hurtado, 2007; Saenz, Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007). Justice Sandra Day O’Connor even
mentioned the educational benefits of diversity in the majority opinion of the Grutter v.
Bollinger Supreme Court case (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The use of campus diversity research
in the Supreme Court decisions on Affirmative Action, demonstrates how empirical evidence of
student outcomes can impact policy.
As a result of the research demonstrating the educational benefits of diversity and the
higher education accountability movements, some PBF policies in states like Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, and South Carolina not only address efficiency outcomes such as retention and
graduation rates but also address issues of diversity and other issues related to student learning
(Layzell, 1998; PASSHE Performance Funding Recommendations, 2011). Even though
measuring institutional performance is important for political and economic reasons, this does
not mean the process itself has been refined to fully benefit—and minimize threats to—all
institutions of higher education. The most vulnerable are specialized institutions with missions to
serve specific student populations such as women and racial and ethnic minorities. In their
assessment of how state PBF policies were being manifested at three Historically Black
Universities, Jones and Witham (2012) found that the policies were challenging the institutions’
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 38
historical missions to serve Black students while supporting their efforts to create a more salient
conversation about collecting and using data. The policies also shifted institutional focus from
access to outcomes. To understand the implications of such shifts it is important to first consider
again what outcomes and measures of success are important at HBCUs. Thus it is important to
consider their unique missions when designing HBCU evaluations that effectively capture what
these institutions are, and should be doing.
HBCU Performance and Outcomes. Holmes (1934) suggests that HBCUs should be
“judged by the distance [they have] come rather than by [their] absolute achievement” (p.170).
The term “outcome” often used in the accountability discussion is defined as a final product or
end result. However, the term “performance” refers to the execution or accomplishment of work.
In reference to public HBCUs I will use the term performance to encompass not only the final
result or outcome of their efforts, but also to consider the context in which the work was
accomplished and the overcoming of challenges that make the final results valuable.
A substantial amount of research on HBCUs has focused on their student outcomes,
which are deemed significant considering the limited financial support these schools have
historically received from federal and state governments. As mentioned earlier, HBCU students
have more frequent and favorable relationships with their professors, slightly lower bachelor’s
degree attainment (55% for HBCUs and 63% for PWIs ; additionally, they earn higher college
grades (defined by college grade point average), an increased likelihood of completing STEM
degrees, and greater gains in critical and analytical thinking than their Black peers at PWIs
(Allen, 1992; Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002; Kim & Conrad, 2006; Nelson Laird et al., 2007; Perna
et al., 2009; Redd, 2000; Simkins & Allen, 2001; Solorzano, 1995; U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, 2010; Wenglinsky, 1996; Wenglinsky,1997). Further, an average of HBCU students
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 39
across institutions had lower grades and standardized test scores than their Black peers at PWIs,
yet they are more likely to graduate and to earn a graduate or professional degree (Wenglinsky,
1996). Lastly, HBCUs overall have higher graduation rates (13% on average) than non-HBCUs
with similar student demographics (Fryar, 2011).
As a result of their impressive outcomes, there is scholarly interest in how HBCUs are
able to produce such results. Researchers have interviewed and surveyed HBCU students,
faculty, and staff members/administrators to understand what elements of the campus culture,
policy, and practices may contribute to their performance. Characteristics such as small campus
size, supportive staff members/administrators, and positive student-faculty interactions have
been identified as helping to foster student success at HBCUs (Blacknall & Johnson; 2011; Hirt
et al., 2008; Palmer, Davis, & Maramba, 2010; Perna et al., 2009). Even though such
characteristics have been associated with student success at non-HBCUs, achievements
associated with HBCUs suggest that there are additional, unique factors that help HBCUs foster
success for Black students. Xavier University, for example, sends a larger number of Black
graduates to medical school than any other institution. Overall, the average individual earnings
of HBCU graduates also exceed those of Black non HBCU college graduates (Price, Spriggs, &
Swinton, 2011; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2010). Some call the special student outcomes
associated with HBCUs, the “HBCU effect” (McNair, 2009).
One limitation of the literature is that much of the data illustrates notable performances
from HBCUs, but it is often not disaggregated by institutional type. As a result, it is impossible
to know how much of the outcomes are true for private and public HBCUs. However, there are a
few exceptions, like Perna et al. (2006) who disaggregated data by public and private HBCUs,
and found that in the 19 southern and border states with public HBCUs, Black students only
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 40
approached or achieved equity
6
in enrollment and degree attainment at the public HBCUs and
not at public PWIs. Additionally there is student outcome data such as retention and graduation
rates that are disaggregated by public and private, and individual institutions. The retention and
graduation rate data reveal that public HBCUs’ six-year graduation rate of 35% is just above the
six-year graduate rate of 34.3% for public and private HBCUs combined (Thurgood Marshall
Fund, 2010; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2010). The data demonstrates that there
are a few private HBCUs, with different outcomes, however on average the outcomes for private
and public HBCUs are similar.
Overall, the HBCU performance literature provides evidence of some HBCU successes
and areas of needed improvement at these institutions. The perception found in the media and
even among scholars is that HBCUs are either great or inferior to other institutions of higher
education. Ignoring the evidence provided in the HBCU performance literature is problematic
because HBCUs can be perceived as having little or no value, or HBCU achievements can be
romanticized in such a way that ignores challenges like low graduation and retention rates.
Accountability at HBCUs: How Institutions are responding. Public HBCUs have
been called on to improve their student outcomes as a result of policies in states like
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Ohio, which attach
financial resources to increased graduation rates, increased enrollment of non-Black students,
and other desired student outcomes (Layzell, 1998; PASSHE Performance Funding
Recommendations, 2011; UNC Funding Formula, 2010). HBCUs like Southern University in
Baton Rouge have responded positively to the accountability pressures with agreement that they
6
Equity was calculated using the following formulas: 1) (black enrollment/total enrollment)/(Black high school
graduates/total high school graduates) 2) (black degrees/total degrees)/(Black enrollment/total enrollment)
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 41
too wish to increase outcomes such as graduation rates, recognizing that “a university cannot be
sustained with low graduation rates” (Baton Rouge Area Chamber, 2011 p.19). Some HBCUs
agree that they need to improve outcomes such as graduation rates and their discussions highlight
the challenges to doing so. Institutions often become more selective to improve their outcomes
by: (1) increasing undergraduate and graduate academic programs and research opportunities and
(2) admitting students with higher grades and standardized test scores (Ehrenburg, 2002). In
response to pressure to become more accountable, increase their enrollment and graduation rates,
and demonstrate their contemporary relevance, HBCUs have attempted to become more selective
by drawing from larger, more academically competitive applicant pools, and targeting
populations like part-time/nontraditional, community college transfer, White, and Latino students
(Jefferson, 2011).
To attract more academically competitive students, HBCUs have added new
undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs in order to increase their academic profiles.
However because of their small size and limited funds, rather than adding an abundance of
programs, HBCUs have carved out niche programs in order to maximize resources and ensure
quality (Baton Rouge Area Chamber, 2011). For instance, North Carolina Central University has
developed well-recognized environmental science programs and Florida A&M has strengthened
their engineering program through internship opportunities in network engineering (Florida
A&M, 2012; North Carolina Central University, 2012). HBCU efforts to increase selectivity
have been successful in that the number of applications for admissions increased by 58% at
HBCUs between 2001 and 2008 and the application acceptance rate declined by 37% during the
same period (Hossler, Gross, & Beck, 2010). Another example is that the Baton Rouge Area
Chamber (2011) has recommended that HBCUs in Louisiana recruit from a larger pool of
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 42
students and increase their selectivity so they can focus on providing a smaller number of
students with more support and academic opportunities.
In addition to strengthening academic programs, HBCUs have strategically targeted new
student populations to address the declining or stagnant enrollment and increase their applicant
pools. Public HBCUs in Louisiana learned from their student data that community college
transfer students had higher graduation rates than non-transfer students (Baton Rouge Area
Chamber, 2011).
In order to increase their graduation rates, the Baton Rouge Area Chamber
(2011) has recommended that the HBCUs increase their enrollment of community college
students by developing dual and cross enrollment programs with the community colleges.
Considering that nearly 25% of all public HBCU students are part-time students, plans like those
of the public HBCUs in Louisiana to increase support for part-time students through increased
financial aid, course flexibility, and child care are noteworthy (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2010a).
States have also begun targeting White students to increase their enrollment as a result of
court mandates and the perceived benefits of racial diversity to student learning and
development. A few HBCUs have been able to increase White enrollment by offering off-site
professional and high demand programs, and public HBCUs in states like Mississippi and
Maryland have begun to add more programs to attract White students who might not otherwise
attend an HBCU (McClure, 2007; Minor, 2008b; Mutakabbir, 2011; Palmer, Davis, & Gasman,
2011). States like North Carolina and Mississippi have funds set aside as a result of the United
States v. Fordice (1992) and Adams v. Richardson (1972), for the recruitment of White students
(typically spent on marketing materials and even scholarships) (Minor, 2008b). Some HBCUs
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 43
have even begun to distance themselves from their original missions to educate Black students
and instead begun targeting the general population.
An emerging strategy used by HBCUs to increase their pool of applicants and enrollees is
targeting the growing Latino population in the United States (Jefferson, 2011). The Hispanic
student enrollment at HBCUs has increased over 40% between 1997 and 2007 (Ryu, 2010).
Some HBCUs, though welcoming the new student population and the additional resources that
accompany them, have been careful to maintain the historical mission to educate Black students
(Jefferson, 2011). Examples of the targeting of Hispanic or Latino students at HBCUs is found at
Fayetteville State University in North Carolina, which has hired a Spanish speaking recruiter as
well as providing university documents in Spanish (Mann, 2007).
Theoretical Perspectives to Examine Smith University’s Responses to the Equity Scorecard
The purpose of this study is to understand how the members of Smith University’s
evidence team experienced the Equity Scorecard. This study is guided by two theoretical
frameworks, Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to understand learning and change in
structured activity settings (Cole & Engestrom, 1993; Leontiev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978) and
Critical Race Theory (CRT) to examine issues of race and racism (Bell, 1987). CHAT was
selected as theoretical lens because it is based on the assumption that participants play an active
role in their learning process. During the Equity Scorecard process, participants actively review
and discuss their institutional data, raise questions, and interrogate their assumptions, policies,
and practices, thus demonstrating the centrality of active participant engagement in the learning
and change process. Further, CHAT cites the role of mediating artifacts and tools in participants’
learning and change processes. In the case of the Equity Scorecard, mediating artifacts like
institutional data are key to participant learning, making CHAT an ideal framework to examine
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 44
how these tools initiated participant learning and institutional change. One limitation of CHAT is
that there is not an explicit focus on the role of race and racism in participants’ experiences and
interactions with the artifacts and tools. Issues of race and racism are key to the Equity Scorecard
process as well as the experience of the participants from Smith University, an HBCU. Thus, I
will provide an explanation of the Equity Scorecard’s theory of change, as well as an overview
of CHAT and CRT, and then discuss how both theories are used together to guide this study of
an HBCU engaged in the Equity Scorecard process.
What is the Equity Scorecard? The development of the Equity Scorecard was
influenced by the balanced scorecard that provided businesses with a framework that translates a
company’s strategic objectives into a set of performance measures (Kaplan & Norton, 1993).
Ruben (1999) argued for a balanced scorecard for higher education that would measure areas
such as teaching and learning, scholarship and research, and workplace satisfaction. O’Neil,
Bensimon, Diamond, and Moore (1999) developed the academic scorecard, which used
indicators such as
the quality of academic programs and faculty to provide universities with
feedback on their performance in the areas of finances, internal business, innovation and
learning, and customer service. The climate for minorities on campus was also used as an
indicator on the academic scorecard.
As a result of growing interest in diversity and campuses’ struggle to address persistent
equity gaps in student outcomes by race and ethnicity, Bensimon (2004) and her colleagues at
the University of Southern California introduced the diversity scorecard (Bensimon, 2004). The
diversity scorecard, later renamed the Equity Scorecard, is used to help colleges and universities
close the achievement gap between White students and historically underrepresented students.
The Equity Scorecard focuses on four perspectives on equity: access, retention and completion,
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 45
and excellence (Bensimon & Hanson, 2012). Within each perspective the participants review
relevant racially disaggregated data, hypothesize and inquire about the causes of the gaps,
identify goals, and develop recommendations.
The Equity Scorecard process assists the participants by helping them to transform their
frameworks from a deficit-minded to an equity-minded view of student outcomes, and equipping
them to use data to understand racially differentiated experiences and outcomes, ultimately
leading to data-driven policies and practices and more equitable outcomes (Bensimon, 2004;
Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). The Equity Scorecard is not a traditional
change or improvement intervention that provides campuses with prescribed recommendations
for improving their student outcomes and closing equity gaps. Instead, participants gain
knowledge and understanding of theories and tools that can be used to help them develop their
own strategies, relevant to their individual contexts. The Equity Scorecard approach helps
participants focus on changing their thinking rather than implementing best practices; the goal in
doing so is to create best practitioners who have the skills to address institutional problems
(Bensimon & Malcolm, 2012). The Equity Scorecard process creates these “best practitioners”
using the following strategies: (1) critical action research methods, (2) socio-cultural approaches
to learning, and (3) institutional data, policy, and practice as mediated learning tools.
The Equity Scorecard Theory of Change. Action research is an approach that has been
widely applied across different fields and disciplines in an effort to connect the research process
to change or improvement (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Reason, 1994). Despite its varied use,
action research commonly involves reflection or interpretation, the active engagement of
participants, integration of practical outcomes into the lives of the participants, and the spiraling
of steps that include a plan, action, and evaluation (Berg, 2007). Action research has been used in
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 46
the field of education to address student outcomes and practices in K-12 and higher education
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Reason, 1994). What distinguishes the Equity Scorecard as an
example of critical action research is the focus on racial inequities and, more specifically, on
how higher education organizations contextualize or facilitate those outcomes. Critical theory
informs understanding of how racial inequities come to be and the action portion of the process
is the “consciousness raising” of participants through the learning process so that they are
empowered to make change.
Participants’ learning and engagement is thus the core mechanism of the Equity
Scorecard—a theory of change that aligns with and draws from socio-cultural learning theories.
For example, socio-cultural learning theories suggest that learning is a socially and culturally
situated process in which the learning objectives are mediated by the cultural tools and artifacts
that structure communities of practice. The changes brought about by engaging in the Equity
Scorecard process, as suggested by socio-cultural learning theories like CHAT, are thus indicated
by new modes of participation within those communities of practice and changes in the artifacts
and tools that structure how individuals work within them (Jones, Bensimon, McNair, & Dowd,
2011).
Learning in the Equity Scorecard takes place within communities of practice, which are
social groups developed over time with a specific purpose, and include the community of
participants in the activity setting as well as the extended communities with which they are
connected (Bustillos, Rueda, & Bensimon, 2011; Engestrom, 2001; Wenger 1998). Within these
communities of practice the participants learn socially through dialogue and the process of
sensemaking, which is a process through which members of an organization alternate between
the particulars and explanations to come up with increasingly accurate deductions or reasonable
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 47
explanations for the phenomena they are observing (Weick, 1995). During the Equity Scorecard
sensemaking process the participants draw on concepts from their pre-existing ideologies and
paradigms to help them make sense of new artifacts—like racially disaggregated data on student
achievement—that potentially contradict their prior understanding or assumptions. This
sensemaking and the potential contradictions that surface help to make explicit participants’
personal and the institutions’ perspectives on issues of power, privilege, and inequity (Weick,
1995). Schein (2003) argues that, “dialogue is necessary as a vehicle for understanding cultures
and subcultures, and that organizational learning will ultimately depend upon such cultural
understanding. Dialogue thus becomes a central element of any model of organizational
transformation” (p. 40, emphasis added). In the Equity Scorecard, then, the dialogue or exchange
of ideas between the participants creates an opportunity for surfacing and understanding of
deeply held cultural beliefs—both individual and organizational—that may be indirectly
impacting equity outcomes for students of color.
Equity Scorecard participants also engage with cultural tools and artifacts that mediate
learning. Examples of cultural tools and artifacts include the vital signs that help campuses get a
picture of their “health” or how well they are doing in critical areas like retention. The vital signs
consist of the data that universities often collect but rarely use, such as the number of community
college transfer students admitted (which can serve as a vital sign for the access perspective)
(Bensimon & Hanson, 2012). The aim of these tools is to challenge the participants’
understandings of, assumptions about, and explanations for student outcomes and in doing so to
explicate and adjust their own “cognitive frames.”
Cognitive frames, similar in meaning to such terms as tacit knowledge and funds of
knowledge, refer to the “historically developed and accumulated strategies or bodies of
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 48
knowledge that practitioners draw on, mostly unconsciously in their everyday actions,” which
serve as the basis of their decision making and practice (Bensimon, 2012, p.18). The goal of the
Equity Scorecard is to help practitioners shift their cognitive frames to become more equity-
minded and less deficit-minded. Traditionally, the cognitive frame for faculty and practitioners
includes assumptions that students are the cause of their own academic success or failure, which
reflects a deficit model (Bensimon, et al., 2004). The deficit model also reflects single-loop
learning because the participants are often addressing symptoms of the problem rather than the
root causes (Bensimon, 2012). To become more “equity-minded” or to consider how the
institutional policies or practices can be improved to increase student learning involves double-
loop learning through which participants can address the thinking that is behind the behavior or
the root causes of the problem (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Bensimon, et al., 2004).
The goal of the Equity Scorecard is to use tools and artifacts like institutional data to raise
participants’ consciousness about the ways that their policies and practices contribute to student
outcomes so that these participants become institutional agents
7
who feel empowered and
equipped to change their institution. Several campuses have participated in the Equity Scorecard
process and some of the reported benefits include improvements in strategic planning around
basic skills courses (California Benchmarking Project, 2008), better support services for transfer
students (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009), increased collaboration and college preparation (Jones et
al., 2011), the development of context specific benchmarks and goals (Dowd, 2005), the
utilization of syllabi as learning resources (Bordoloi Pazich & Bensimon, 2010), improved
understanding of the social experiences of students of color on campus (Blake et al., 2012), and
new knowledge about which existing services work well and which could be improved in
7
Institutional agents are individuals who have the capacity and commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate the
transmission of institutional resources and opportunities to students with the goal of increasing student success
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 49
mathematics education (Bustillos et al., 2012). The most important benefits, however, have been
dramatic improvement in participants’ understanding of data, inequities in student outcomes, and
the means by which they can make changes to their institutional culture and practices (Pena &
Polkinghorne, 2012). Improved outcomes are the goal, however the participants are also able to
learn a skill set they can use to approach emerging and future challenges from an equity-minded
perspective that recognizes the capacity of institutions to change and support student outcomes
(Pena & Polkinghorne, 2012).
Implementing the Equity Scorecard at Minority-Serving Institutions. The Equity
Scorecard has been implemented at institutions whose demographics reflect specific student
populations including Latino students at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and non-traditional
aged and part-time students at community colleges. HSIs enroll a large proportion of Latinos, yet
their support of Latino students is not often reflected in their missions (Contreras, Malcolm, &
Bensimon, 2008). Similarly, the implementation of the Equity Scorecard at a HBCU with a
historical mission to serve Black students might require a reassessment of core concepts such as
equity and equity-mindedness so that they reflect the specific contexts of a Black student
population. In the case of Smith University in particular, such implementation required new
methods to approach data and assess outcomes at an institution that not only has a specific
mission as an HBCU but also has a history of limited resources, a complicated relationship with
their state system, and the burden of being perceived as racially discriminatory by those outside
the institution.
Given the unique contexts of HBCUs in general and Smith University in particular,
implementation of the Equity Scorecard requires a careful assessment of actual barriers to
change versus assumptions and cognitive frames such as deficit-mindedness that can be
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 50
remediated to promote change. Traditionally, when faculty and practitioners blame outside
factors like resources and students’ under-preparedness for the school’s poor outcomes, it is
interpreted as deficit-minded because the practitioner is not focusing on what changes they are
empowered to make and are often operating under assumptions. Socio-cultural learning theory
helps both emphasize the origins and sources of these cognitive frames as well as point to
opportunities for intervention. But the history of HBCUs demonstrates extremities in resource
depravation that HBCU leaders argue impact their ability to function today. Discussion of
outside factors like financial resources or discrimination from the state system may be a
necessary part of the organizational improvement process, and Critical Race Theory can be
productively layered on top of socio-cultural learning theories in order to better elucidate these
external, political, and systemic factors in addition to the cognitive factors pertaining to
individuals within institutions. In the following sections, I discuss these theoretical
frameworks—CHAT and CRT—and point to the ways in which they are complementary as
perspectives for studying the implementation of the Equity Scorecard at Smith University.
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)
CHAT provides a framework for examining the organizational learning, interactions, and
culture that exist within a change process (Engestrom, 2001). Vygotsky, a first generation
activity theorist, developed activity theory using concepts from Hegel and Marx of the subject,
object, artifact, and activity to explain how we create cultural worlds by associating our identity
with the tasks or activity we engage in (Engestrom, 1999a). In the early twentieth century
Vygotsky introduced the concept of cultural mediation to explain the relationship between a
stimulus and a response, thus linking individuals to their culture and society (Engestrom, 2001;
Vygotsky, 1978). In the 1970s, Ll’evnkov conceptualized the idea of internal contradictions as a
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 51
catalyst for change in activity systems (Engestrom, 2001). In the 1980s, Cole (1988) articulated
the need to focus on cultural diversity, thus influencing what Engestrom (2001) describes as the
need for third-generation CHAT theorists to develop tools and concepts to understand the
multiplicity of cultural perspectives.
Contemporary CHAT describes the space where actors come together to work towards
change or address organizational problems as the “activity setting” (see figure 4 below) (Cole &
Engestrom, 1993). Using CHAT as a lens, the activity setting can be seen as a microcosm of the
organizational culture of the larger institution. Within a CHAT activity setting there are six
elements, including an object, subject, mediating artifacts, community, rules, and division of
labor that interact to achieve the outcome (Cole & Engestrom, 1993; Engestrom, 1987). The
object in the activity setting is the purpose behind the activity, which evolves during the course
of the activity (Cole & Engestrom, 1993). The subject in the activity setting is a person (or
subgroup) who is working toward an object, like the individual participants from Smith
University (Cole & Engestrom, 1993). The mediating artifacts are the tools that connect subjects
to others and their contexts (Cole & Engestrom, 1993). The communities within the activity
setting are the object-subject-artifact relationships, which are characterized by mutual
engagement of members, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire of resources, language, and
actions (Ogawa et al., 2008). The rules within the activity setting are generalizable procedures
applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life (Giddens, 1984). The division of labor within
the activity setting is the use of specialized skills and knowledge of the individuals in a
community or organization as a way to increase overall efficiency and production (Ogawa et al.,
2008).
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 52
Figure 4. The CHAT activity system (Cole & Engestrom, 1993).
In the case of the Equity Scorecard activity setting, the Equity Scorecard participants
(subjects) engage in activities like reviewing (objects) racially disaggregated student outcomes
data (mediating artifacts/tools) at their meetings. To achieve their goals of learning how they can
improve their student outcomes, the Equity Scorecard participants, each fulfilling different roles
at the meeting (division of labor) like team leader, work together in the activity setting to create
the community. The CHAT activity setting creates an opportunity to observe the dialogue,
language, learning, and change processes of the Equity Scorecard participants. The learning and
change processes that take place in the CHAT activity setting are (1) initiated by the
participants’ identification of contradictions that emerge as they interact with mediated artifacts
and tools and (2) reflected in their changes in thinking and action. See figure 5 below.
Subject Object
Mediating Artifacts
Rules
Community
Division of Labor
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 53
Figure 5. Using CHAT to understand institutional change.
Within the CHAT activity setting, participants’ learning is mediated or initiated by their
engagement with artifacts and tools that often contradict or challenge their previous ideas and
assumptions. Engestrom (2001) explains that “as the contradictions of an activity system are
aggravated, some individual participants begin to question and deviate from its established
norms” (p.137). Contradictions emerge in the activity setting as individuals “reach a ‘need state’
and become gradually dissatisfied with the societally and historically given tools, artifacts, and
instruments that no longer resolve these tensions” (Pacheco, 2012, p.123). Thus, there is in the
process an element of dissatisfaction that can create a misalignment between individual and
organizational values, beliefs, policies, and practices. The discovery of contradictions as the
catalyst for change has its roots in critical theorists’ concept of “consciousness raising” in which
actors become aware, or conscious, of how institutional systems are working to maintain the
social position of privileged groups (Freire, 1970). Humans are conscious beings, and Freire
(1970) articulates that as “they simultaneously reflect on themselves and the world, increase the
Environment
(History, Culture, Power,
and Resoures)
Agency
(Praxis)
Contradictions
The empowered actors take
action that changes their
organizational environment
Knowledge of contradictions
motivates actors to change
Actors identify contradictions
or inconsistencies
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 54
scope of their perception, they begin to direct their observations towards previously
inconspicuous phenomena…[and] develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in
the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a
static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (p.82-83). Freire (1970) eloquently
describes the process through which new awareness or understanding of themselves and their
surrounding contexts initiate thoughts of transformation, or in this context organizational change.
According to CHAT, participants’ identification of contradictions leads to single
(changing action) and double-loop learning (changing thinking that causes action) (Argyris &
Schon, 1978). The participants’ changing in thinking that causes action helps them to act as
institutional agents and change their individual practices, thus beginning the organizational
change process. Engestrom (2001) explains that the discovery of contradictions in the activity
setting can “escalate into collaborative envisioning and a deliberate collective change effort”
(p.137). Indeed, using CHAT as a lens, scholars have examined learning, action, discourse and
change in structured settings within educational (Daniels & Cole, 2002; Franks & Jewitt, 2001;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 2005) and corporate (Bedny &
Karwowski, 2004; Blacker & Regan, 2009; Engestrom, 1999) organizations.
Critical Race Theory (CRT)
CHAT provides a useful explanation of how participants learn in activity settings and
how this learning can work as a catalyst for organizational change, but it does not address the
specific, unique, and persistent issue of race and racism in organizations. HBCU organizational
and policy scholars such as Minor (e.g., 2004) and Gasman and Hilton (e.g., 2012) recommend
taking the context of HBCUs into consideration in organizational studies by foregrounding the
historical, cultural, and contemporary experiences of Black Americans within research
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 55
paradigms. Critical Race Theory provides a lens for examining how issues of race and racism
interact with and shape participants assumptions, beliefs, and ideas. For this particular study
CRT is used to help observe and interpret the participants’: (1) understanding of the role of race
in student outcomes; (2) experiences as Black and non-Black faculty and staff at an HBCU; (3)
perspectives on their relationship with their state system of higher education and the state’s PBF
policy; and (4) views on how the institutions’ and the systems’ policies and practices contribute
to equity in student outcomes. CRT guides the study in the following ways:
1) CRT challenges common assumptions of objectivity and embraces the understanding that
racism is common and likely in American structures and institutions. Hence it is important to
consider the role of race and racism in examining the experience of a Historically Black
University in a state system made up of all predominately White campuses. The role of race
and racism was taken into consideration in the design of the study by: (1) including
participant and campus racial demographics, 2) and asking questions about the role of race in
their organizational identity and relationship with the state system during the data collection
processes.
2) Within CRT is a commitment to social justice and an interdisciplinary perspective that
includes an emphasis on the ways a historical context shapes contemporary problems. The
study takes into account the historical context of the site as an institution founded to educate
Black students at a time when White universities would not admit them. Further, the tension
between the campus’ social justice mission to serve Black students and the state system’s
focus on increasing the population of non-Black students at the site is analyzed as an
important part of their organizational learning process.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 56
3) According to CRT, the experiences and perspectives of people of color are key to
understanding the nuanced ways in which racism is infused in institutional structures.
Further, people of color often have the advantage of being able to see racism in ways that
may be invisible to those in a position of privilege. This study starts from the premise that
the participants from Smith University, an institution with a Black identity, will have
knowledge on the ways that racism can impact their relationship with the state system that
those outside of Smith University may not. Therefore, the main points of data collection
include interviews with, and observations of, the HBCU practitioners. Also the HBCU
practitioners’ and their institution’s racialized identity are treated as critical conceptual
variables.
4) Critical Race Theorist Derrick Bell (1980) describes “interest convergence” as the tendency
of Whites (or others in positions of privilege or power) to consider policies regarding people
of color (or others with less privilege or power) in terms of how they can appear to serve the
needs of others while also benefitting themselves. Bell’s concept of interest convergence was
used in the data analysis in this study to examine the HBCU practitioners’ interpretations of
the state PBF policy and issues of equity for non-Black students that were raised through the
Equity Scorecard process.
5) Counternarratives are used by CRT scholars to describe the perspective or experience of a
particular marginalized group that is often different from the dominant narrative on a
particular issue (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). The concept of counternarratives was used in
the data analysis stage to contrast the perspectives on the goals and potential impact of the
state PBF policy articulated by the HBCU participants from those shared by individuals
within the state system of higher education central office.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 57
Applying CHAT and CRT to the Equity Scorecard Study. The CHAT activity setting
is defined by the meetings and interactions between the Equity Scorecard participants and their
Smith University colleagues and students during the 9 months of the retention/completion
perspective. During their Equity Scorecard team meetings the participants (subject) reviewed
racially disaggregated student outcome data (mediating artifacts), identified potential areas of
concern (object), discussed how their own policies or practices helped contextualize the issue
(community), and identified strategies for inquiring further about the areas of concern (object).
Observing the participants in their activity setting community provided a window into the
organizational culture of the institutions and how that culture was manifested in the participants’
Equity Scorecard experiences. CHAT provides language for understanding the specific
structured setting in which the HBCU change processes take place. Specifically, these principles
of CHAT guided observations of how the tools, artifacts, and other representations of
organizational culture, as well as practices and outcomes mediated the participants’
understanding of how to make change. The principles of CRT, including attention to issues of
racialized histories and institutional identity, and counternarratives help to contextualize
observations and interpretations within the unique context of the HBCU.
Summary
CRT and CHAT are similar in that they have their roots in the principles of
organizational power, control, and purpose in Marxism and Critical Theory. CHAT explains that
the tension between social or environmental forces and individual action is resolved through an
individual’s “awakening” to truths about their organizational goals, values, and practices, which
inspires and empowers the individual to take action. CHAT acknowledges the relevance of the
environment through the emphasis on culture and history in the activity setting. However, CHAT
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 58
does not provide language or explanation about the intersection of race and racism with
organizational learning and change. An understanding of the role of race and racism is vital to a
study of the only HBCU within their state system of higher education. Hence, used together, the
theories provide a robust conceptual framework for helping guide the methodology and
interpretation within this study of the Equity Scorecard learning process at a public HBCU.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 59
CHAPTER III:
Methodology
The current study utilizes an intrinsic case study approach to better understand the Smith
University context and their participation in the Equity Scorecard.
8
Case study is a research
method in which several forms of data are collected to generate understanding about the specific
episodes, happenings, or nuances of the bounded context being studied. Case study research is
most appropriate for the examination of the contexts that make up an activity or process rather
than a specific group of people (Stake, 1995). As a result of special attention to the specifics of a
context and the focus on process an intrinsic case study analysis was applied to the current study
of Smith University, an HBCU, participating in the Equity Scorecard process. Intrinsic case
studies are used to examine a particular agency, program, or issue, not to learn about other cases
but to understand the nuances of a specific case (Stake, 1995). The current case is intrinsic
because it was the particulars of Smith University; their participation in the Equity Scorecard
process and their status as an HBCU, that generated interest for the researcher. The aim of this
case study is to provide new understanding about how the Smith University participants (1)
learned from the Equity Scorecard (2) and the factors that mediated their learning.
Case study includes data from multiple sources that when pieced together provide a
narrative about a particular context (Stake, 1995). The knowledge production process in case
study analysis is collaborative and comprehensive. Within case study research, interviews,
documents, and other artifacts from the site are used to generate understanding about complex
organizations (Stake, 1995). The current study utilizes three forms of data: institutional data
8
The Equity Scorecard is an organizational change process conducted by the Center for Urban Education with
college and university faculty and practitioners to assist campuses in addressing their equity gaps in student
outcomes.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 60
(i.e., student and faculty demographics), observational data, and interview data. The guiding
research questions include:
1) What does the Smith University evidence team learn through the Equity Scorecard
process?
a. What does the Smith University evidence team learn about their student outcomes?
b. What does the Smith University evidence team learn about how they might improve their
student outcomes? (i.e. specific strategies or practices)
c. What does the Smith University evidence team learn about equity- and deficit-
mindedness?
d. What does the Smith University evidence team learn through the Equity Scorecard
process that supports their ability to respond to the state performance-based funding
policy?
2) What mediates the Smith University evidence team’s Equity Scorecard learning
process?
a. How does Smith University’s organizational culture mediate the evidence team members’
learning? (i.e. culture of meetings, data practices)
b. How do the Smith University evidence team’s beliefs/assumptions about race, racism,
and student outcomes mediate their learning?
c. How does the Smith University evidence team’s understanding of, and beliefs about, the
state performance-based funding policy mediate their learning?
d. How does Smith University’s relationship with the state system mediate their
participation in the Equity Scorecard?
e. How does the Equity Scorecard process and tools mediate the Smith University evidence
team’s learning? (i.e. meetings, activities, technological expertise)
The aim of this chapter is (1) to describe the Smith University site and participant sample, (2) to
explain how and what data was collected, and (3) lastly to articulate how the data were analyzed.
Site and Sample Selection
Site selection is a key component of case study research because the goal is not to examine
why, but how a particular phenomenon happens (Stake, 1995). Smith University was established
in the mid-1800s and identifies itself as one of the oldest Historically Black College or
Universities (HBCUs) in the nation. Smith was founded by a northern White missionary who
wanted to develop an institution “to instruct the descendants of the African race in school
learning, in the various branches of the mechanic arts, trades and agriculture, in order to prepare
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 61
and fit and qualify them to act as teachers” (History of Smith University, 2010). Today Smith
University operates as a small open access institution that enrolls less than 2,000 students. The
average high school grade point average for incoming freshmen in 2011 was a 2.4. Demographic
data for both the Smith University faculty and students are provided below (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Smith University faculty and student demographics. National Center for Education Statistics (2010c).
Institutional Profile. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education; National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Institutional Profile. Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Data Collection
To complete the current study, observational data and interview data were collected.
Document analysis and secondary data analysis were also conducted. Data were collected
between September 2012 and May 2013. Institutional documents and data were reviewed first
and included an examination of the Smith’s website, mission, and graduation rates.
Observational data and interview data were then collected over a two-week time period (between
23%
61%
5%
10%
1%
Fall 2010 Smith University
Faculty Demographics
White
Black or
African
American
Hispanic/Latin
o
Asian
Race and
Ethnicity
Unknown
0%
94%
2%
1%
3%
Fall 2011 Smith University
Student Demographics
White
Black or
African
American
Hispanic/Latino
Two or More
Races
Race and
Ethnicity
Unknown
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 62
the months of November and December).
9
During this phase of data collection I observed
meetings of the campus leadership (e.g., Equity Scorecard meeting, Presidential cabinet
meetings, and accreditation meetings) and interviewed students, staff, administrators, and
faculty. Individual interviews were conducted in an enclosed office located inside of the campus
tutoring center. Aside from these data collection activities, I was also able to participate in
formal tours led by students and staff members/administrators and visit the university archives.
Participant Selection. Stake (1995) notes that one purpose of case study research is to
“obtain the descriptions and interpretations of others,” thus it was important to use purposeful
sampling strategies to select participants that could represent the various facets of the university
so that a comprehensive understanding of the institution could be obtained. Creswell (2007)
suggests that in purposeful sampling the “inquirer selects individuals and sites for study because
they can purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon
in the study” (p. 125). Specifically, I selected to interview three groups of people (1) evidence
team members, (2) campus leaders who did not take part in the Equity Scorecard process, and (3)
students. I have provided a description of each of the purposefully sampled participants and their
data collection activities in Table 1 below. The participants who were interviewed and observed
identified themselves as members of various racial and ethnic groups such as African American,
Caucasian, and Latina. The participants’ the racial and ethnic identifications are provided in
Table 1 below, but will not be included in the findings in order to protect the identity of the
participants.
9
I arrived on campus daily around 9am and left as late as 10pm.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 63
Equity Scorecard Evidence Team Members. First, all of the participants engaging in the
Equity Scorecard process were invited to participate in an in person interview on the Smith
University campus. An evidence team is made up of the group of participants from the campus
or university participating in the Equity Scorecard. An evidence team is typically 8-12 members
and includes faculty, staff, administrators and other practitioners. Campus leaders are encouraged
to create diverse evidence teams that include representation from the various aspects of the
university, including different levels of leadership, different races, and genders. The final Smith
University evidence team reflected a diverse race and gender balance that included five women
and three men, and five evidence team members that identified as African American, two who
identified as Caucasian, and one who identified as Asian. The team included members that were
new to the institution as well as those who had spent decades at Smith University. All but two of
the evidence team members participated in individual interviews that took place in the enclosed
on campus office on campus (4), in the participants’ own offices (1), and on the telephone (1).
Campus Leaders not participating in the Evidence Team. The aim of the Equity
Scorecard process is to help institutions address and improve their student outcomes, so I
intentionally identified faculty and practitioners that play a critical role in addressing student
outcomes through their official position and their service on campus committees. For example, I
interviewed the staff member/administrator responsible for admissions and enrollment
management as well as an Education faculty member who manages the data collection process
for Smith’s accreditation committee. I also conducted interviews with key leaders like the
provost and observed meetings with the president and campus leadership. In addition to the
Smith University evidence team members, campus leaders that fulfilled roles that were
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 64
especially relevant to enrollment, retention, graduation and other outcomes that are the focus of
the Equity Scorecard process were also interviewed.
Smith University Students. Since the focus of the Equity Scorecard is to help institutions
achieve greater equity and improvement in student outcomes, it was important to get the
perspective of Smith University students on issues of equity and student outcomes. The student
perspectives provide greater context to the Smith University narrative by adding information
about how the institutional policies and practices are received and experienced. Further,
comparing and contrasting the student perspectives to that of the practitioners can provide insight
into potential disconnects between institutional goals, desired outcomes and actual student
outcomes. Hence, during the campus visit, Smith University students were observed and
interviewed. To conduct the observations, I spent time eating in the cafeteria, working in the
computer lab, walking around campus, and visiting the student activities center. In each of these
locations I carried a paper notebook where I recorded notes on students’ behaviors and
interactions with myself and practitioners, and interesting statements they made about their
experience and how they saw the institution. For example, I recorded how a Smith University
staff member and Equity Scorecard participant introduced me to each of the students in the
cafeteria and recognized them all by name, demonstrating the university’s small, intimate
culture.
A small sample of students were recruited to participate in interviews. The students
were asked questions about why they chose to attend Smith University, their experiences as
students, the role of race in the culture of the institution, and what they saw as being the factors
that were critical to student retention and graduation. Students were recruited at a campus event
for the honors program in which I presented information on how to apply to graduate school. As
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 65
a result several of the participants were honors students. The high proportion of honors students
and students who were successfully persisting could cause a positive slant in the findings. It is
possible that a larger proportion of non-honors students or those who had not persisted beyond
their first year would paint a less positive picture of the university. Further, honors students are
provided with support like scholarships, an exclusive residential facility, and academic activities
that could influence how they see issues of equity and retention at Smith University, which may
be contrary to the views of non-honors students. In order to create more balance, I reached out to
Shirley, an administrator who provides direct services to students to identify students who were
not participating in the honors program and was able to recruit a few student participants who
were not honors students.
Table 1
Data Collection Information
DATA SOURCE DATA COLLECTION
DESCRIPTION
1. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Department
Holiday Party
Observations. Written notes.
Audio recorded the evidence
team meeting. All observations
took place in fall 2012.
2. Honors Program Graduate School Information Session
3. Evidence Team Meeting (discussed retention and
graduation rates)
4. Retention Department Meeting
5. Senior Campus Leaders’ Meeting
6. Evidence Team Meeting w/ the Provost (discussed goals
for retention and graduation)
7. Cafeteria, Computer Lab, Tutoring Program, Admissions
Office, Student Activities Building, Library (General
Observations)
8. Campus Mission Statement Content Analysis of the
Documents. Thematic codes
were developed from the
research questions and
document content.
9. Campus Newspaper Archives
10. Advisor Position Description
11. Campus Advertisements and Flyers
12. Academic Program Catalogues and Info
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 66
Participant Name Title/Major Race/Ethnicity Gender Years at
Smith
1. Joy Brown Student: English/African
American studies
concentration
African American Female 2
2. Steven Jones Student: Business
Administration and
Marketing
African American Male 3
3. Greg Lewis Student: Sociology African American Male 3
4. Brian Thornton Student: Undeclared African American Male 3
5. Kyle Brice Student: Biology/Pre-Med African American Male 3
6. Nicole Henderson Student: Communication African American Female 4
7. Kenneth Moore Student: Education Caucasian Male 5
8. Jeremy Jackson Student: Recreation and
Leisure Management
African American Male 2
9. Denzel Harris Faculty African American Male 12
10. Sheryl Kline Faculty Caucasian/Adopted Native
American
Female 13
11. Jesse Flowers Faculty Asian Female 10
12. Brittany Green Faculty Caucasian Female N/A
13. Dawn Wells Staff Member/Administrator African American Female 5
14. Frank Johnson Staff Member/Administrator
&
Former Master’s Student
African American Male 2
15. Shirley Stokes Staff Member/Administrator African American Female 20+
16. Shane Patton Staff Member/Administrator Black Male 2
17. Malcolm Brown Staff Member/Administrator Black Male 14
18. Benjamin Jenkins Staff Member/Administrator African
American/Mexican
American/Native
American
Male 4
19. Jeffrey Anderson Staff Member/Administrator African American Male 20+
20. James Scott Staff Member/Administrator African American Male 5
21. Theodore Woods Staff Member/Administrator African American Male 4
22. Moses Glasper Staff Member/Administrator Black Male Less
than 1
year
23. Candace Horne Staff Member/Administrator African American Female N/A
24. Michael Cole Staff Member/Administrator African American Male 1 year
25. Leslie Grey Staff Member/Administrator African American Female 2 years
26. Shirley Douglas Staff Member/Administrator African American Female N/A
27. Ronald Carpenter State System Representative Caucasian Male N/A
28. Alisha Thompson Equity Scorecard Latina Female N/A
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 67
Collaborator
29. Mitchell
Adeyemi
Local Anti-Racist Educator African American Male N/A
Document Review. Prior to, and during, the onsite visit, documents from the site were
reviewed to provide a better context of the campus and state that the participants’ work in. The
documents included: institutional mission statements, historical reports on state expenditures,
websites and promotional materials, and articles and reports about the institution. The Smith
University website was used to review the mission, vision, and institutional structure and to
identify key leaders like the administrators responsible for diversity and equity issues on campus.
In addition to the publicly available data I also had the opportunity to access the university’s
archives during my campus visit. The archival search included course catalogues, campus
newspapers, and other campus publications during the five years prior to and after Smith
University joined the state system of higher education. Upon reviewing the documents I retrieved
those that spoke about the state specifically and issues of funding, governance, and accreditation.
I also identified documents that addressed graduation/retention issues and racial integration
topics. During the visit I also obtained documents such as the advertisements placed in the
lobbies of places like the admissions office and campus security center. I also reviewed flyers
and bulletin boards placed on the walls of the residence halls, academic buildings, and student
activity facilities. I looked for documents that showed Smith’s relationship with the students, the
state, and community members. For example, I retrieved a brochure in the lobby of the
admissions office that listed how much, in dollars, that Smith University contributed to the local
economy, which helped provide context for the “need to justify an HBCU” issue that arose in the
interviews. The archives and campus documents that provided information on issues of equity,
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 68
retention, graduation, finances, policies and practices impacting students, and the relationship
with the state system, were copied and filed into a binder system.
Secondary Data Analysis. Prior to meeting the Smith University participants at the
Equity Scorecard kickoff, I completed a campus context inventory that provided information
about the campus and their regional demographics. The inventory included data from the
National Center for Educational Statistics on Smith University like, their retention and
graduation rates disaggregated by race, faculty racial demographics and classification, their
proportion of students who received the Pell grant, their student body size, and faculty to student
ratios. The inventory also included data from the Harvard School of Public Health’s Diversity
Data Project, the US Decennial Census, and the American Community Survey (ACS) on the
secondary school enrollment and county and state population by race and ethnicity. Additional
Smith University data was obtained through the Center for Urban Education (CUE). This
additional data was collected from, and used by, Smith University during the Equity Scorecard
process to provide further context and understanding of the issues discussed by the participants.
The institutional data reviewed included the institution’s retention and graduation rates
disaggregated by race and ethnicity and other factors such as gender, major, program of study,
and enrollment status. The Smith University enrollment data disaggregated by race and ethnicity,
full time and part time status, and transfer status were also reviewed.
Observations. Communication is important to planned organizational change processes
(Lewis, 2007). Therefore the participants’ dialogue during the meetings and other moments of
observation provided understanding about how their history, expectations, beliefs, and
assumptions relate to how they address retention and completion outcomes. I had the opportunity
to observe the Smith University participants at the Equity Scorecard kickoff for the access and
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 69
retention perspectives during the preliminary data collection. At the kickoffs the participants
were observed at two, one hour evidence team meetings and about 8 hours of workshop
participation with CUE and the Equity Scorecard participants from the other institutions in the
state system of higher education. Once official data collection began the two Smith University
participants that were designated as the team leaders were observed during six, hour long phone
calls with their Equity Scorecard liaison. The monthly phone calls took place from November
2012 to May 2013, during which the participants discussed their progress and what took place at
their Equity Scorecard meetings with the members of their evidence team. One challenge to
observing the participants was that I was unable to be physically present during their evidence
team meetings.
The Smith University evidence team sometimes did not have monthly in person meetings
as typically done during the process. Instead, the evidence team members worked together more
informally by calling one another, sending emails, and speaking in person when they crossed
paths on campus. Although the participants explained that they worked better informally, it was
difficult to observe. Hence, most of the data is the result of interviews, documents, and
observations at formal campus leadership and two team meetings where I was also helping
present information. I was able to observe the Smith University participants at a two hour Equity
Scorecard meeting held on campus and the participants did allow the use of an audio recorder so
that the information could be more effectively collected. I also observed four other meetings and
several informal gatherings during which at least one evidence team member was present. Some
of the meetings included the gathering of the president’s cabinet and an accreditation planning
committee. The purpose of the observations was to examine how the participants utilized the
information that they were learning through the Equity Scorecard process. Another aim of the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 70
observations was to examine the broader Smith community’s perspectives on the Equity
Scorecard themes of equity, data use, and retention.
During the onsite visit I captured notes in a reflective journal and a field notes template
that is included as appendix B. The template was developed based on a field note protocol used
by Gutierrez and Vossoughi (2009) to capture general observations and interpretations of
participant interactions during a CHAT activity setting. The field notes include accounts of what
is seen, heard, and experienced in order to paint portraits of the participants, the activities,
events, and setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The field notes were also reflective including,
feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, and impressions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
Interviews. The aim of the interviews with the Equity Scorecard evidence team
members from Smith University was to find out what they learned from the Equity Scorecard
process, what they believed was contributing to their student outcomes, and their perspective on
issues like the relationship with the state system of higher education that emerged during the
earlier observations. The aim of the interviews with the Smith University participants, who did
not participant in the Equity Scorecard evidence team, was to find out what they believed was
contributing to their student outcomes and what they thought about those factors that seemed to
mediate the learning of the Equity Scorecard participants (i.e. the relationship with the state). I
conducted one hour, semi-structured interviews that were audio recorded with the permission of
the participants. The interview protocols are provided in appendix A.
There were three interviews that were conducted via telephone and the remaining
interviews were conducted in person in a private room provided by Smith University during my
on campus visit. One side of the room had two large windows facing the academic services room
that several students, staff members, and faculty passed through during the interviews. With the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 71
door shut the voices of the participants were protected, but they often peered out of the window
to observe the foot traffic when sharing responses that critiqued the institution and some of the
practitioners. All of the participants were asked questions that asked about what factors that they
thought were contributing to their student outcomes. Some of the specific questions included,
what they saw as the role of race in the culture of the institution, what they thought contributed
to their student outcomes, and their perspectives on their relationship with the state system of
higher education and the state PBF policy. The Smith University members who participated in
the Equity Scorecard evidence team were also asked an additional set of questions about what
they learned from the Equity Scorecard process.
Data Analysis
In case study data analysis, Stake (1995) suggests developing a strategy for balancing
between data that reveals the uniqueness of the case and the ordinariness of the context.
Additionally data analysis requires the observance of emergent themes/patterns, but also being
careful to triangulate those themes to assure the interpretation is correct (Stake, 1995). Thus, it
was important to consider all of the different data points (observation, interview, and secondary
data and document analysis) when conducting and analyzing the case study data. The first step
in the data analysis process was examining the institutional documents and archival data using
content analysis strategies. Krippendorff (1980) suggests that before conducting a content
analysis, the content must be defined in terms of what data will be analyzed and the boundaries
of the analysis. For the current study, the unit of analysis included the words, phrases, and
overall messages in each written statement of the documents. Once the areas of analysis were
defined the text were condensed into categories and meaning was extracted using coding
techniques (Stemler, 2001). Additionally, the ideas that emerged from the thematic analysis were
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 72
interpreted using CRT and CHAT to identify and understand the relevancy of issues of
organizational culture, structure, power, resources, and change.
The remaining data that included the observations, interviews, and institutional data were
analyzed according to Creswell’s (2007) data analysis “spiral,” in which the data analysis
process is organized according to the “coil” along a spiral. The first coil includes data
management. The multiple sources of data typically collected in case study research,
observations and documents, were organized using an electronic folder system (Stake, 1995).
The next coil, reading and memoing, were applied to the interviews and field notes. I began
creating memos for the interviews and observations immediately after they were conducted using
reflective prompts developed from the guiding literature and theoretical framework (CRT). For
example, after evidence team meetings I would respond to prompts that asked questions like:
What issues of individuals’ race or experiences with racism were raised? Who brought them up?
What was said? How did the group react? What issues surrounding the relationship w/ the state
system of higher education were raised? Who brought them up? What was said? How did the
group react?
The following coil, classifying and interpreting, involved making sense of the data. Data
were interpreted using an adapted version of Boyatzis’ (1998) four stages of thematic analysis to
obtain the details extracted from codes and categories that help to explain how phenomena occur.
The first two stages involved identifying codable moments in the documents, field notes, and
interview transcripts, assigning initial codes, and collapsing these into more refined consistent
codes. Some of the codes included “personable/warm climate,” “administrator fatigue,”
“critiques of race based performance-based funding,” and “understanding of equity-minded
ness.” The collapsed codes were placed into categories. Some of the categories were
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 73
“relationships with accountability systems,” “addressing retention/graduation,” and “the role of
race and culture.” A complete list of the codes and categories are provided in appendix C. The
final stage included creating themes that “describe, organize, and interpret aspects of the
phenomenon” (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 4). The last step in Creswell’s (2007) data analysis spiral is to
visually represent the data. The themes will be presented in the findings section. The data were
assessed to see what themes emerged before any specific theory was applied.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 74
CHAPTER IV:
Findings
The case study findings address how the Equity Scorecard process supported Smith
University’s ability to a) respond to their state PBF policy b) and address their outcomes that
include retention and graduation rates. The data from the interviews, observations, and document
analysis were weaved together to create a coherent narrative or “story” about Smith University
(Stake, 1995). The findings are divided into three parts. Part I of the findings includes a
description of the Smith University context and highlights the aspects of their organizational
history and culture that are relevant to their Equity Scorecard experience including their attitudes
toward, and ability to improve, student outcomes. Part II of the findings includes a discussion of
the participants understanding of, and reactions to, the state PBF policy, the catalyst behind the
state’s adoption of the Equity Scorecard process. Part III of the findings focusses specifically on
the experiences and learning process of the eight Equity Scorecard evidence team participants
from Smith University.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 75
Findings Part I: Understanding the Smith University Context: History, Culture, and
Student Support
The aim of part I of the findings is to describe Smith University, including their history,
culture, characteristics, and unique approaches to serving students. This section begins with the
history of Smith University to provide a context for the subsequent sections on Smith’s
implementation of the Equity Scorecard. Throughout the historical account I focus on events that
faculty and others mentioned as critical markers of Smith’s evolution from their roots as a public
HBCU to their incorporation into the public system of comprehensive four-year colleges.
Among long-timers
10
there was a definite storyline of glorious days as a proud self-directed
institution with a firm HBCU identity to much more somber days as part of a system that many
perceive as insensitive, misinformed, and more likely to do them harm than good.
This section also addresses the distinctiveness of Smith University as a public HBCU as
opposed to Predominately White Institutions (PWIs). The participants describe Smith University
affectionately, but also identify the realities of the negative stigmas that are attached to the
institution. The participants specifically describe Smith University as: (1) having caring faculty
and staff that are perceived in concrete practices in the academic, social, and cultural realms (2)
being a cultural refuge because Smith University relieves the students from the emotional
stresses of a White environment (3) a provider of confidence and self-esteem because they instill
racial pride in Black students and support students who may not have high levels of academic
achievement (4) and as having negative consequences of their commitment to opportunity that
includes a poor academic reputation and a disinvestment in the academically prepared students.
Lastly, Smith University’s culture as an institution that, despite the challenges posed to
reputation and rigor, takes pride in their position as a point of access to higher education for
10
Long-timers refers to those who attended and/or worked at Smith University for 10 years or longer.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 76
students who otherwise may not be admitted to or be able to afford an education at a four-year
residential university is discussed.
Smith University: Pioneers of Higher Education for Black Americans
“A negro college must be judged by the distance it has come rather than by its absolute
achievement” (Holmes, 1934 p.170)
According to Atwood, the HBCU historian, HBCUs “came when Negroes recognized
that they were not sharing the benefits of their taxation and requested aid from the state
legislative bodies” (1962, p.242). Since their development, public HBCUs have had to rely on
the good will of state governments to provide the resources to educate Black tax-paying citizens.
Despite states’ historical unwillingness to provide public HBCUs with equitable resources many
of these institutions have survived (Adams v. Richardson, 1972; United States v. Fordice, 1992).
To this day, much of Smith University’s relationship with the state revolves around conflicts
over resources.
The Founding of Smith University. Established in the mid-1800s in a border state in
the northeast, Smith University identifies itself as one of the oldest Historically Black College or
Universities (HBCUs) in the nation. The students with whom I spoke, were open with their
critiques of Smith University but also took pride in their legacy as one of the oldest HBCUs and
situated their own educational experience and achievement among those who came before them.
This historical romance seemed to give them confidence in being part of an important
educational legacy. Nicole said, “I think we have an amazing foundation. You’ll walk through
campus and see the historic quad…there are things about the school that surpasses most of the
presidents that they can think of. It’s rich in culture, we’ve been here since [founding year] and
they knew back in [founding year] not to walk across the same grass. And it’s things like that,
that I love about this place.”
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 77
Smith University was established by a White northern missionary in the early 19
th
century who wanted to develop an institution “to instruct the descendants of the African Race in
school learning, in the various branches of the Mechanic Arts, Trades, and Agriculture, in order
to prepare and fit and qualify them to act as teachers” (History of Smith University, 2010). Smith
University’s focus on Black students went unchallenged until the 1970s when they were included
along with 19 other states in Adams v. Richardson (1972). As a result of that case, the state in
which Smith University is located proposed a desegregation plan that included goals to increase
the enrollment of White students (Collins, 1989). Like several other states, Smith University’s
desegregation plan was rejected by the Office of Civil Rights. The Office of Civil Rights failed
to continue to pursue the desegregation of the universities in the states involved in the Adams v.
Richardson case. However, Smith University continued to challenge the racial inequities in the
state’s support of higher education institutions. The result was a 1980s lawsuit that accused the
state of providing racially differentiated financial support to the public institutions of higher
education in the state.
Fighting for 21
st
Century Resources. Similar to many public HBCUs, Smith has
obvious remnants of their dual role of college and high school. Smith University offered
predominately high school level education in areas like agriculture and home economics and did
not award their first four-year degree until the 1930s, nearly 100 years after the institution was
first established. In Smith’s older buildings the walls are lined with metal lockers of the kind one
might only expect to see in a high school. The buildings are old, and the participants complained
that they often have to use buckets to “catch water” when it rains. The university recently built
their first new residential facility in over thirty years. A 1980 lawsuit filed by the faculty,
alumni, and students of Smith University reached the United States Court of Appeals in 1983.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 78
The plaintiffs argued that the state was operating a segregated system of higher education in
which, Smith University’s “library, facilities, course offerings, and budget were not on a par with
other state-owned schools; and their teaching staff was singled out for layoffs” (703 F.2d 732,
p.2). The State Department of Education submitted a separate plan to the U.S. Department of
Education a few days before the United States Court of Appeals was scheduled to rule on the
case. As part of the plan submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, the State Department
of Education offered to increase Smith’s funding in the amount of $15 million dollars (Graham,
1988). Ultimately, the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs. However, the State
Department of Education’s plan that was submitted to the U.S. Department of Education was
accepted, but Smith University faced difficulty in retrieving the funds and so eight years after the
original lawsuit was filed, Smith University reached an out of-court settlement to accelerate their
access to the $15 million dollars of improvement funds promised by the state (Graham, 1988).
The Smith University participants shared that because of the high-profile lawsuit,
members of the general public often assume that the university’s days as under-resourced came
to an end with the $15 million dollar settlement. One of the conditions in the settlement was that
the funds could only be used to make improvements in the “historical
11
” parts of the campus that
had been deprived of equal resources. This means that areas of campuses that were built after the
court’s determined time-period of systematic underfunding were not eligible for improvements.
Consequently the “newer” buildings made possible by the settlement are clustered in the
campuses’ historical area, however the remainder of the campus lacks the facilities one might
expect from a four-year residential university. For example, the college lacks access to wireless
internet in many of the buildings. Unless students have their own wireless service, they have to
11
The settlement was reached out of court, so specific information about the exact year for the historical cutoff is
not publicly available.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 79
rely on a small number of computers with internet access. The lack of wireless internet is just
one example of the impoverished facilities of Smith University which distinguish it from typical
four-year residential colleges. In response to the limited resources and facilities, the college
relies on grants to offer essential services. For example a retention center that I toured was
supported through a grant.
Smith University joins the State System of Higher Education. The resource
challenges that created tensions between Smith University and the state became conflated with
issues of autonomy and governance when Smith University joined their newly formed state
system of higher education in the early 1980s. The state system of higher education to which
Smith University belongs was first proposed in the 1970s to provide higher education institutions
that were placed within the state’s department of education greater autonomy from the larger
Department of Education that included the K-12 public system. The members of the higher
education community had long complained about being under the Department of Education’s
bureaucratic control, which was far more aligned with the culture of K12 public education than
with universities.
The newly formed state system of higher education included Smith University as the
only Historically Black University, and 13 other public PWIs. As part of the state system of
higher education, decisions regarding governance and appropriations became more uniform and
did not take into account differences in mission and students served, which deprived Smith of
special consideration for prior discrimination and for their large concentration of underprepared,
first generation low-income students. Student newspaper archives showed that Smith University
had an uneasy relationship with the state prior to the formation of the system. Additionally,
participants attribute many of the institution’s financial problems, enrollment downfalls, and
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 80
generally low, graduation rates to their integration into the state’s system of higher education.
For example a 1980s headline from the student newspaper read, “State is Accused of Failing
[Smith].” A few years later, in another article about the institution’s leadership, the author asked
if the state system of higher education leaders were intentionally trying to destroy Smith
University. Smith University participants viewed joining the state system of higher education as
detrimental and attributed negative events such as shutting down the university’s successful
sports and academic programs to the system. One Black educator and community member
described Smith University as a “hallmark” and a “place of pride for Black people in the state”
and the Smith participants explained that it is their identity as a Black institution that makes them
feel both unfairly targeted and ignored by the state and subsequent policies. When asked why the
system might be against Smith’s best interests, participants suggested that the state was either
disinterested in Smith University’s success or directly interested in Smith University’s demise.
State Challenges to the Smith Mission. Smith University’s original mission was to
“educate Negros,” but as early as the 1930s, Smith’s accreditation body began suggesting that
they recruit more White students and faculty. Although their historical mission has been to serve
Black students, their current mission statement has evolved to the educating of students from
“diverse backgrounds.” Taking Smith even farther from their historical mission of serving Black
students is the state-system PBF model. For Smith University, the model ties state funding to
increased enrollment and performance of non-Black students and faculty. The challenge is that
Smith University, like many other public HBCUs struggles for funding, thus limiting their ability
to (1) ignore performance measures it disagrees with because the university is in need of the
funding awarded through the PBF (2) or implement new initiatives and programs that could
attract non-Black students to Smith University and increase student outcomes overall in order to
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 81
receive the PBF. The challenges posed by the state’s PBF policy are important because of the
integration of state priorities with the threat of decreased funding. Smith’s resource challenges
make it difficult to ignore state’s priorities that they may view as counter to their institutional
mission.
A brief glimpse into the “HBCU Magic”
Smith University’s four-year graduation rate is less than 15% and the six-year
graduation rate is less than 25%. Based on these outcomes, it would be logical to question why
students would choose to enroll in such a low performing institution. Perhaps, as Holmes (1934)
suggests, traditional and absolute measures of institutional performance do not fully capture what
Smith has accomplished or the value it adds to students. An incident during my visit helped me
see beyond the standard metrics of institutional quality and performance. As a gesture of
reciprocity for the kindness and generosity shown to me by Smith’s leaders and faculty, I offered
to hold a graduate school information workshop for undergraduates. As I peered out into the
audience of about 40, mostly female, mostly Black students, I asked “How many of you are
concerned about paying for graduate school?” Only about five students raised their hands. So,
my next question was, “how many of you are interested in going to graduate school outside of
the state?” and about 20 raised their hands. I was surprised that so many had their sights on out-
of-state graduate schools yet so few seemed to be worried about money. Then I asked, “for those
of you who are not concerned about financing graduate school, how do you plan to pay for it?”
A few students shouted out, “scholarships,” others said “fellowships,” and one woman said her
job would pay for graduate school regardless of the field she studies. As I went on to explain to
the group the different ways to pay for graduate school, including teaching, research
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 82
assistantships, and other forms of financial aid, a very irritated Black female student (arms
crossed) said “if you work hard funding works itself out.”
I thought that the students were being naïve, which I had not expected because they were
in an honors program. I was also surprised that, these students who were predominantly Black,
first generation and low income, were not more realistic about the high cost of graduate school.
In offering to do the workshop I saw myself as helping students envision the possibilities of
graduate education and providing them with the information that would make it attainable. I
assumed that these students would lack the information to know about the options for further
education, but access to the information I could provide was not as connected to hope as I
imagined. These students did not need to know the name of a scholarship program to be certain
that if they wanted to go to graduate school, they could. These students aspired to graduate
school and they did not seem daunted, possibly naively, by known and unknown obstacles.
Their optimistic attitude of “anything is possible” was distinctively different than my experiences
with high achieving Black students at Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) who are hyper-
aware of potential barriers and obstacles.
Smith may have low graduation rates, but what I noticed about this small group is that one
of the unquantifiable benefits derived by students, at least those who are successful, is a sense of
possibility and agency. It is possible that students not encumbered by the challenges of
navigating a predominately White environment are not subjected to stereotype threat. They get a
break from having to vigilantly and continuously see themselves through the lens of Whiteness. I
focus on this incident as an important personal learning moment because it suggested that the
HBCU “magic” was not just reserved for more selective institutions that produce exceptional
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 83
post-graduate outcomes like Morehouse or Spelman (Fryer & Greenstone, 2010; Perna et al.,
2009; Price, Swigg, & Hinton, 2011).
They Know Us by Name
“It’s a very small school so your teachers don’t know you by a student ID number they know
you by name…they likely know what’s going on with you and your personal life…they’re more
understanding because there is a relationship…it’s a lot easier when you’re not being ignored.”
–Nicole, Smith University Student
A Small, Family-Like, Environment. As an “outsider” it only took a few days before I
felt like I was a part of the Smith University community. When walking on campus from one
building to another, I began to see familiar faces, and was often greeted by at least one student
that I had already met, helping me to feel like a university insider within a couple of days of my
arrival. Students I had interviewed, or were introduced to, began asking me questions about
graduate school and my career and we began mapping out potential educational and career paths
based on their goals. Smallness is one of the characteristics of Smith that makes it easier to create
a tightly knit and supportive community. Another factor is that for some participants the
relationship with Smith existed prior to their entry as a formal member.
Several students, staff members/administrators, and faculty mentioned that they had
either attended Smith University, known a friend or family member who attended Smith
University, or worked with the University prior to their enrollment or hiring. Participants
described how their familiarity with the institution influenced their decision to enroll and
subsequent experiences once they arrived on campus. Frank, a student, said “I have always been
familiar with [Smith], it’s a family thing. My mom went here. My cousin works here…my
family has a legacy of going to [Smith] so I always knew about [Smith].” Steven, also a student,
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 84
explained that when making his college choice, Smith was “more of a comfort” because his
mother, cousin, and grandfather had attended so they were “real excited” and “happy” because
when he enrolled it was like “everybody had a part of [Smith].”
When students without former affiliation with Smith were asked why they chose to
attend the University, they mentioned the educational and social benefits of the university’s
small size. Kyle stated that his mother encouraged him to attend Smith University because
“being a small school, the teachers know you. They get a closer relationship with you than at a
bigger school.” Another student, Greg said that his high school guidance counselor told him,
“one of the good things about [Smith] is that there is a lot of nurturing there. If you need help
you can get the help as opposed to [large neighboring PWI] where you’re a number. So there is
smaller class sizes and a lot of nurturing.” Greg confirmed that his guidance counselor was
correct because he “felt cared about” by his professors. Throughout the interviews the students
described Smith University as “family like,” “personable,” and “loving.” One student, Jeremy,
explained that “it’s like a family. Whatever goes on here is within these boundaries. You come
here, you get treated with respect and whatever you wanted to get done the staff
members/administrators are definitely gonna try and do their best to help you.”
The faculty and staff members/administrators also echoed the students’ sentiments that
Smith provides a small, personable and family-like environment. New staff
member/administrator, Shane noted that compared to the other institutions where he has worked,
Smith was small, and he saw “more interaction” and was able to get “to know the students,
faculty, and staff better.” Shane explained that unlike larger campuses, Smith provides an
“atmosphere where you can meet people rather than just through emails.” University leader
Theodore, noted that “Smith provides an environment that because of their size allows more
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 85
individualized attention to students that really does help them overcome some of the
shortcomings that they faced before they got here.”
Supporting Students’ Social and Emotional Well-Being. Black students, staff, and
faculty often describe Predominantly White Institutions as having a “chilly climate” in which
they feel unsupported and unwelcomed (Hurtado, 1992; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). The
majority of Smith’s faculty and staff members/administrators discussed that they intentionally
selected to work at an HBCU to provide a level of support for students of color that they may not
experience at other campuses. One staff member/administrator explained that he had a
“missionary zeal” to work at an HBCU, and another cited the opportunity to contribute to the
development of more Black males in higher education offered at HBCUs.
In their efforts to contribute to Black education and serve Black students, it seems to be
an expectation in the Smith University culture that staff members/administrators and faculty have
an interest in students that goes beyond their academic performance and actively addresses
students’ social and emotional needs and development. For example, on the College Success
Advisor position description there is a bolded section entitled “Intrusive Advising” that is
described as follows “action-oriented to involving and motivating students to seek help when
needed. The model utilizes the qualities of prescriptive advising (expertise, awareness of student
needs, structured programs) and of developmental advising (relationship to a student’s total
needs).” A story told by Shirley, a long time Smith University staff member/administrator,
illustrates Smith’s culture of caring for students’ total well-being. She recollected when she and
a colleague were looking out the window from their office on a cold winter day and noticed that
many of the students were not wearing winter weather gear and clothes. She explained that the
predominately low-income student body includes many who do not have the appropriate clothing
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 86
for the cold winter weather or for special occasions such as interviews for internships, jobs, or
graduate school. As a result, the staff members/administrators worked together to create a
“closet” where students can obtain winter coats and accessories and professional attire needed
for job interviews. The clothes are personally donated by the faculty, staff
members/administrators.
When describing an experience of donating food to a student who did not have anything
to eat for Thanksgiving, Shirley explained that giving their personal resources to students is “just
a way of life” for the Smith community. Another example is when Smith student, Jeremy,
described how a faculty member not only helps him select his courses but also has an open door
policy and talks with him about “academic or school related situations,” even describing him as a
“big brother” and “father.”
Supporting Student’ Academic Development. One staff member/administrator
shared that in the last two years Smith University has admitted more conditionally admitted
students than non-conditionally admitted. What is important is that Smith University accepts and
supports the academic development of students
who might not have qualified for admission to
other colleges or who at other institutions would have been labeled at-risk and placed in non-
credit remedial courses. One high level staff member/administrator argues that in light of the
students’ background: Black, low income, first generation college students, with low test scores
and GPAs, Smith University is “better able to teach the students that [they] get than [their] sister
institutions.” A faculty member noted that the “value of an HBCU is that it instills a sense of
confidence in [students] that allows them to deal with the larger society.” The participants cited
the university’s confidence in the students and willingness to provide them with support as being
critical for their success. One staff member/administrator tasked with serving conditionally
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 87
admitted students explained that “we provide them with self-esteem…when they come in we
groom…and encourage them.” Further, the participants noted that faculty provided them with
advice and resources for preparing for medical school and graduate school, aspirations that might
not otherwise be supported at other institutions. Beyond providing information, the faculty
members serve as mentors for the often first-generation college students.
Joy, described herself as a nontraditional-aged student, single mother of three children,
one of which has a disability. As a high-achieving student, Joy attended a PWI, where she
excelled academically, winning every award in her department, but experienced some
“prejudiced encounters.” Joy chose to transfer to Smith because it was more geographically
convenient. She shared that she had not really wanted to attend Smith University because it was
an HBCU. “In my head I’m like Black folks, they aren’t going to care and they won’t do me
right.” When asked what contributed to her negative impression of Smith University, Joy noted
that “I went to a White college and you know they just look down on us and maybe some of that
rubbed off on me and maybe it’s not going to be as pristine and not going to be as quality of an
education and when I try to go to grad school and say I went here, they’re going to say oh she
went there and it’s a ghetto school.”
Once on campus Joy described Smith University as being “completely opposite” from
what she expected, primarily because of the courses and relationships with her faculty mentors.
When nearly gushing about her mentor, Joy shared, “Professor [name] I love her she is so
motivational and inspirational…I went to my first African-American studies class and I just fell
in love with everything that she was talking about and everything she had to say and she’s been
to Africa and I was like, ‘oh my God, she’s living my dream’. And so I latched on to her and I
asked her if she needed an assistant…She’s nontraditional, I’m nontraditional, and she started
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 88
school late like I did so I can relate on so many different levels. So it’s just a great relationship
and I hope I stay friends with her forever.” Joy’s reference to her faculty member as a “friend”
who is “living [her] dream” demonstrates a significant level of closeness between student and
faculty member that has in Joy’s case encouraged the development of her own academic
aspirations.
My Black is Beautiful
One may argue that any small college or university could foster a warm, personable, and
nurturing climate and that these characteristics may not be the result of Smith University’s status
as an HBCU. However, there were institution-specific actions that the university employs to
engage, support, and equip Black students for success that may be unique to HBCUs
(McMickens, 2012). Smith University aims to promote achievement among their Black students
by teaching about Black history and culture, instilling racial pride in the campus community, and
teaching students how to deal with racism.
When you arrive on the Smith University campus it is quickly evident that it is a
Historically Black University. The dormitories are named after historical Black figures like
Martin Luther King and Sojourner Truth, rather than wealthy donors. There are symbolic
reminders like the historically Black fraternity and sorority artifacts and Black art in the lobbies
of the administrative buildings. Although most campuses aim to provide diverse student
programming and activities, Smith University student, Kyle noted that the university consistently
provides campus programs “that would draw African Americans to come out” and is intentional
about considering what Black students would find appealing throughout the year, and not just
during monthly cultural celebrations like Black History Month. Jeremy, a student, noticed the
effort that is placed on Black cultural programming. He described the “culture” of the university
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 89
as “focused on a lot of African American historical events” and then referenced one of their most
recent events featuring the famous Black poet, Maya Angelou. Smith University student, Greg
believes that providing students with a “culturally diverse education” with an emphasis on
African Americans and their history” is a key part of the Smith mission.
Beyond programming, the participants discussed how the university aims to integrate
Black history and culture into the academic courses. Participants complained that the discussions
of Black history and social justice seemed to be limited to Black studies-related courses, and
Smith University student, Jeremy explained that the university is “trying to get [the students]
more up-to-date on the people that paved the way for [them] today.” Smith student, Joy, noted
that when transferring from a PWI, she was initially reluctant about Smith. She described the
transformative power of learning about Black history and culture, when she stated that
“what I’ve learned here as far as who I am and my ancestry and history and stuff like that
I wish I would have learned at the grade school level…I would have had a higher self-
esteem, more confidence and I think my life would have been different I think I would
have felt differently about myself than I did growing up.” She goes on to explain that “in
the school books the only thing you hear is we were slaves and we worked on
plantations...we are so much more than that. The writers, Langston Hughes, W.E.B.
Dubois, all the things I’m learning I’m just so impressed with who we are. I think if a lot
of our young students knew all the great things we have done if they knew that at a young
age I think it would give them a sense of pride I think a lot of them are lacking…yes we
were slaves, yes we were brought over here and we triumphed over that we had some
great feats and yes we have an African American president but even before all that the
slave narratives they’re amazing...When I leave here I want to do African American
studies, I just want to know everything there is to know about who we are.”
Joy’s only complaint is that Black studies is not a required part of the curriculum and that there
are students who can graduate from Smith University without the gaining the same benefits that
come from a better understanding of Black history.
Beyond Black history, Smith University faculty facilitated discussions of contemporary
issues of race and racism. Nicole, said “I cannot think of a week that goes by that my teachers
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 90
don’t stop class and make sure that we know what we’re gonna be up against when we leave
here, as Black students, as women, as men, as Black women, as Black men. Because that’s
unique to our situation.” Additionally, Brian, another Smith student, explained that “a lot of
teachers tie Black issues into the classes, which isn’t a bad thing… they make me think about it.
One teacher used to tell a lot of stories about the ways that she’s experienced subtle racism…and
ways that I probably won’t realize it or didn’t realize it when it happened to me.” Brian’s
example also speaks to the benefits of Black students interacting with faculty and staff
members/administrators of color because they are able to provide personal examples of the
challenges Black people face while simultaneously serving as a model of Black success. Denzel,
a Smith University faculty member suggested that the value of an HBCU is that “it instills a
sense of confidence” that allows students to “deal with the larger society.”
Faculty members prepare Black students for the racial environment beyond Smith and
teach them strategies to deal with racism. One of Kyle’s professors advised him how to respond
when confronting a racist situation, when she said “you don’t want to come off wanting to fight
or anything like that but there’s ways that you can be subtle and …just pulling that person aside
and just talking to them and letting them know.” These examples provide further evidence of the
special effort that Smith University makes to support and educate their students in general, and
their Black students specifically.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 91
Challenging Meritocracy. The dominant perspective is that the more students that a
higher education institution rejects, the greater their value or merit. However Smith University,
assumes that what gives them “value” or “merit” is their acceptance of students, specifically
those students who may not have other opportunities to attend four-year residential universities,
thus challenging dominant views of merit and achievement. Most institutions of higher education
rely on standardized measures of student achievement like test scores and grades to determine
student ability, but Smith University participants were adamant about the role of the university in
providing college opportunity to students that other institutions do not view as having college
potential. When asked about the mission of Smith University, the most common response was
the provision of opportunity to students who would not otherwise have it, whether that is because
of race, socio-economic status, or academic preparation. Nicole, a student, said the mission “is to
give Black students as well as whoever else would be interested in coming to the university [but]
I would say predominately Black students the opportunity to receive higher education in an area
or place where they can be nurtured, in a place they can be comfortable, in a place where they
can feel that they are being supported by the staff members/administrators as well as the student
body.”
Like Nicole, Smith University faculty and staff members/administrators also held the
view that their main mission is to provide opportunity. Malcolm a Smith University staff
member/administrator explained that the “mission of [Smith] University initially was to assist
people of ethnic backgrounds that possibly couldn’t be educated in other places due to things that
were going on in the country at that time. Fast-forward it to today, [Smith] University is still a
university put in place to give people of color an opportunity that may not have that opportunity
somewhere else.” Sheryl, a Smith University faculty member shared that “most of the students
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 92
are first generation college students and many of them do not have the training and education
that they needed in high school and probably lower. I think anyone who teaches at [Smith] your
mission should be to take these beautiful students and without making them feel negatively
affected or embarrassed, to show them how brilliant they really are and to work with them to
bring them up to the highest standards…to take our students to the highest level possible and
then encourage them to go on and get their masters and doctorate if possible.”
As a Black faculty member with an Ivy League pedigree, Denzel could select to work at
a more selective institution, but instead chose to work with Smith University because of the
opportunity to “give back” by showing Black students what was possible. Denzel, who “gives
back” by teaching developmental education courses, says that the mission of Smith University is
to “be an organization, an institution of higher education, that provides opportunities for all
individuals who seek to gain access, particularly those students who would not necessarily have
an opportunity for higher education…[Smith] accepts a lot of students and I’m very proud of
that. They accept a lot of students who have gone through an urban public school system that has
not addressed their academic needs.” The notion that the faculty member is “proud” that Smith
University accepts a lot of students challenges contemporary notions of “merit” and “quality”
based on the small proportion of students admitted and the much larger proportion who are
denied entry.
The participants articulate that Smith University aims to provide opportunity, but there
were also assumptions about why an opportunity-granting mission is necessary for Black
students. There is also a notion that Smith University provides some sort of refuge for those
students that society or educational systems have not served or prepared well. Smith University
student, Jeremy said that Smith’s mission is “to take underprivileged African American people
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 93
who need a second chance” and to “give them hope” that even if they “might not be able to go to
a big name school” they can “still go to a college.” There may be barriers beyond academics and
finances that have kept some Smith University students from attending what Jeremy described as
“big name schools.”
Smith faculty and staff members/administrators were also proud to provide hope
specifically to those who need a “second chance.” Leslie, a Smith University staff
member/administrator noted that “when it comes to access we take a lot of students. Financially,
academically-- this is their only chance, this is it for them.” Staff members/administrators
explained that Smith takes pride in being a destination on the road to success for students who
have been incarcerated. Smith, Malcolm said, accepts “students that may be sent by a judge in
order to get their life straight” to “give them an opportunity later on in life and also to give them
a different outlook on life” thus “it’s a lot more than educating, here in the classroom it is also
about educating outside of the classroom as well and trying to show people and trying to teach
them how to adapt accordingly.” Thus, providing “second chances” also requires a need to meet
students where they are academically and socially.
When asked if Smith University was achieving their mission, the participants almost
unanimously agreed that the university was most definitely providing opportunity. The
university’s open admissions policy, willingness to admit students despite criminal histories, and
rolling admissions deadline are just a few of the examples of how Smith University goes beyond
what most four-year residential universities are willing to do to provide opportunity for their
students. However, as a result of such practices, there is a tension within the university in terms
of providing opportunity while sustaining a rigorous academic curricula and environment.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 94
The Tension between Opportunity and Rigor. Smith University’s willingness to
admit students whom others view as academically under-qualified to a four-year university has
caused concern among the students about how the institution and their graduates are perceived.
Kyle stated that he was “a little skeptical because the school didn’t come out as a strong school
that would reflect on your resume as ‘oh I got a degree from [Smith]’, that’s a major
accomplishment.” Kenneth, also a student said, “I think [Smith] can do a better job attracting
higher quality students…raise their standards on the SATs…which has been a huge downfall.
They’re not going to be able to progress if they keep attracting the type of student that they are
right now.”
Beyond reputation, students who were interviewed, many of whom were honors students,
complained that once on campus they did not experience the intellectually engaging community
that they anticipated that they would encounter at the collegiate level. Brian stated that
“academically” he felt that some of the classes just “weren’t that challenging.” Smith University
student, Greg, complained that upon arriving at Smith he was “shocked” because “for all the
preparation I had been through in senior year for college, when I got here…I don’t know if it was
because of how I scored on the entrance exam, even that aside, the classes they placed me in,
because even the following years, how the classes were conducted, just felt very junior year of
high school…here that pressure is taken away, that pressure to do well and make it to the next
level is sort of weird. Except for the people I know in the honors academy and my classmates it
was kind of sad that you should not talk about progression. Those are not the conversations for
the classroom.” When asked what he meant by “progression” Greg explained that the classroom
was not the place for discussions about what comes next after college the way that college was a
constant topic of discussion in high school.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 95
Developmental Courses. Students were not the only ones to complain about lack of rigor
in Smith’s academic offerings. Staff member/administrator, Shirley explained that “as we began
to have more students come in with specific needs, especially from [neighboring large urban
city] we began to know that they would be accepted conditionally.” Shirley suggested that the
students’ GPAs were “not where they needed to be” and so they would have to “gain the skills
they needed so they could be a part of the majority population.” The primary means of gaining
the needed skills was through the developmental courses, particularly “English, Reading, and
Math.” However, Shirley argues that even though their mission is “to provide students with an
opportunity,” they do not want “students who can’t function” because they “find that those
students affect [our] retention rates.”
Like Shirley, other staff members/administrators and faculty were concerned with how
students’ under preparedness impacted the university’s low graduation rates
12
. One Smith staff
member/administrator noted that “it’s about getting students who wouldn’t normally have an
opportunity somewhere else to come here and give them an opportunity to graduate. There’s no
guarantee [of graduation] unfortunately [bursts into laughter].” Participants stated that they agree
with the mission to provide opportunity, however there were just not enough resources to ensure
the success of such a large proportion of students that require extra support. Another Smith staff
member/administrator, explained that there was a program that provided tutoring and remedial
help that was eliminated due to resource related challenges. As a result, this staff
member/administrator encountered a student who “scored a 580 on the SAT, had a 1.6 GPA…he
received no help, he had to go find help. He wasn’t in any special program.”
12
The Smith University 6 year graduation rate is below 25% and the 4 year graduation rate is below 15%.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 96
Similar to the previously described student, the majority of Smith students require some
level of developmental education courses as a result of their limited academic preparation. At a
meeting of senior leaders, the issue of course offerings was raised. One staff
member/administrator complained that students were hoping to enroll in required courses, but
those courses had been canceled due to low enrollment. Another staff member/administrator
responded that they may need to revisit their course requirements and sequencing to determine
which courses they could afford to offer. This conversation underscored the tensions between the
espoused values for opportunity and the need to make difficult choices about the allocation of
resources to provide developmental courses or advanced courses for students who are better
prepared. The high proportion of students with remedial education needs can be very expensive
because these students take much longer to graduate. The time-to-degree as a metric of
institutional performance is also a political point of tension that causes considerable frustration
for Smith University. As a member of a larger system, four-year graduation rates are the gold
standard, six-year graduation rates are considered average; however, some of Smith’s
participants think that an eight-year graduation rate is a more appropriate metric given the
academic preparation of their students.
The need for developmental course offerings can create a situation where Smith
University, in some departments like Math, are offering more developmental than collegiate
level courses. Smith University staff member/administrator, Frank, explained that in the past
year Smith had almost twice as many basic math classes than advanced math classes. The
challenge is that if the developmental courses are reduced or eliminated, Smith University could
have trouble serving their current student population, the majority of which require at least one
developmental education course.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 97
The goals of providing opportunity or “filling a void” in a broken educational system can
be noble, but these factors are not visible or taken into consideration when outsiders including
the media, policy makers, researchers, perspective students, accreditation agencies, and their
governing state system of higher education are evaluating the success of Smith University. Thus
despite their own views on “merit” and student potential, Smith University is under immense
pressure to increase their enrollment of more academically prepared students and improve their
four-year and six-year graduation rates.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 98
Findings Part II: Understanding the Smith University Context: Perspectives on the State
System of Higher Education and the PBF Policy
A public system of higher education that has 14, four-year, colleges of medium to lower
selectivity, developed a PBF system that makes about 3% of the state system’s operating budget
contingent on their progress on several indicators of effectiveness. A unique feature of the
accountability model adopted by the system is that two of the required performance indicators
focus on equity in access and completion. Another feature that is unique to this system is that it
contracted CUE to implement their Equity Scorecard process to build the campuses’ capacity in
using data to define problems in access and completion, assess their own practices, and develop
context-specific solutions. In addition to the system’s incorporation of equity-oriented
accountability indicators and investment in the implementation of the Equity Scorecard, this
system is also unusual in that one of their 14 campuses is a Historical Black University, Smith
University, which made the equity indicators of access and completion incongruous for their
mission and population. Consequently, the system modified the access and completion indicators
so that Smith’s performance will be based on enrolling and graduating more non-Black students.
I hypothesized upon reviewing the policy indicators that there might be some resistance to the
state’s emphasis on non-Black students and at an institution founded to serve Black students.
During our first introductions the Smith University team members made several
statements that demonstrated that they were distrustful of the system and even though they were
part of the system, their relationship to the other institutions seemed like that of a stepchild.
Hence, issues that arose in our first interactions, like Smith University’s lack of data that the
other campuses were able to produce, had to be understood in the context of who the institution
was (their unique HBCU identity) and their historical and contemporary relationship with the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 99
state system. The purpose of part II of the findings is to describe how Smith University perceives
their relationship with the state and the PBF policy. The section begins with a discussion of how
issues of race have shaped Smith University’s relationship with their state system of higher
education. The origins, purpose, and characteristics of the state’s PBF policy are described. Next,
the Smith University and state system of higher education perspectives on the purposes of the
policy are contrasted. The section ends with the findings regarding the policy’s race and equity
indicators and the participants’ perspectives on those indicators.
The State System of Higher Education vs. Smith University
The study takes into account the historical context of the site as an institution founded to
educate Black students at a time when White universities would not admit them. Hence, the
participants’ perceptions of their relationship with the state are interconnected to their identity as
a Historically Black University in a state system made up of all PWIs. When preliminary
observations of Smith University began, it was evident in the participants’ protective postures
that there was a complicated history between the school and the state system. In the first
observed meeting, the participants shared stories of how the state system of higher education had
historically underfunded the university and removed stellar academic and extracurricular
programs in order to undermine the university.
For example, the participants spoke of a
successful athletic program that had won championships, but was eliminated by the state once
they joined the state system of higher education. Moses, a fairly new Smith University staff
member/administrator explained that “I think there’s a disconnect. I think there’s frustration on
both sides. It’s kind of like they’re speaking German and we’re speaking French.”
When I asked participants why they thought the state system of higher education would
not provide support to Smith University, they explained that it was because of race that they
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 100
were being targeted by the state system of higher education and their history of limited resources
had provided them with limited ammunition to fight back. The participants explained that the
state system of higher education uses Smith University’s vulnerability that results from their
limited resources as a means to control them. Frank, a Smith University staff
member/administrator, stated that “the state just does what they want to do to [Smith]” and
because the state system of higher education is “where the money comes from” and Smith
University doesn’t “have an endowment” and “alumni aren’t really contributing, so whatever the
state says… that’s what we have to do.” Most public institutions of higher education are
dependent on their states for support, but they may have other resources to draw on like
endowments, and may also not have the history of underfunding that Smith has experienced, thus
making Smith more reliant on the state’s economic support than other public universities.
Further, over 75% of Smith students are Pell recipients, hence, serving such a large proportion of
low income students means that other sources of revenue like tuition increases are especially
detrimental at Smith University, making economic support from the state even more important.
This over reliance on the state as their primary source of support means that Smith as Frank
stated has to do “whatever the state says.”
The participants discussed how the actions of the state system of higher education posed
daily challenges for Smith University. For instance, Frank argued that the bureaucracy that
results from state policies is not a problem because it involves a certain amount of work, but
rather because it is the result of the state system exercising their power in a way that forces Smith
to take actions that detract from their ability to address students’ needs. Participants complained
that the individualized attention, mentoring, and nurturing they like to provide to students is
often sacrificed as a result of their need to respond to demands from the state. Frank explained
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 101
that “there is so much bureaucracy that the state creates for [Smith] that [Smith] reproduces in
their own work that I would love to see disappear because it would be back to that one on one
relationship that I believe is the real power of [Smith]…students would tell you about a talk they
had with their administrator, a talk they had with a secretary that really caused them to think
about what they were doing.” Therefore, the participants were concerned that when the state
enacts requirements or policies to support institutions, these policies end up posing challenges to
Smith by taking away from Smith’s ability to provide personalized support to their unique
student populations.
Frank described the result of the tension between the directions of the state system of
higher education and Smith University as a “double consciousness” in which Smith University is
“serving two masters.” Frank explained that those masters are “their mission and legacy versus
what the state will allow them to do.” Dubois’ (1953) concept of double consciousness suggests
that Black individuals are faced with the challenge of living in a duality of existence that
includes the awareness of being Black through their own lens and also seeing self through the
lens of the larger society that views Black as “other.” Like Dubois’ explanation of the experience
of Black individuals, Smith University also faces the challenge of existing as a Black institution
while existing within a state system of higher education where they are the “other,” or what the
state system representative has described as “an outlier.” The result is what Frank describes as a
“half-ass school. You can’t go full either way. It just leaves you looking around like who is in
power here? Nobody knows and everybody kicks the bucket to another department and
everybody kicks it to another office and you email the president and the president is going to say
well the state did this …you don’t know what you can do.” These challenges are relevant
because, as Frank explained, it is difficult to create a clear direction for the institution. Aligning
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 102
with Frank’s observations, a state system of higher education representative also noted the need
for Smith University to “better articulate the historic mission of the HBCU in the 21
st
century”
because “it helps people focus mission, focus programs, and develop a sort of institutional
excitement.”
Part of the reason that the state system of higher education needs a clear understanding of
the mission and direction of Smith University is that, as their governing and funding body, they
are often placed in a position of defending the support of an HBCU in the 21
st
century. The state
system of higher education has the challenge of economically and politically justifying the
presence of their public HBCU. The state system representative noted that “being a part of the
system and being treated as a separate institution has always been a part of our tension in the
system…politics from inside the system may say we need to treat expectations for that institution
wholly different…we’ve always done that within the system formulas so that everybody lives
with an adjustment for [Smith], sort of knowing its uniqueness, so it’s not perfect…it’s just what
our internal politics permit.”
Promotional materials for Smith University emphasize the economic benefits that the
county derives from the campus, possibly as a way of discouraging attempts at eliminating it.
Evidence of this challenge to justify state support of Smith University was found in a brochure
placed in the lobby of the admissions office that provided facts about how Smith University
contributes to the state and local economy.
One fact was that Smith University generates over
$30 million annually for the county as a result of business stimulus. Such facts can be effective
rebuttals against arguments that state funding should not be supporting historically Black
institutions. Although, Smith University leaders, as evidenced in their campus newspaper
archives from the 1980s, have long argued that while they are an HBCU, they are “an equal
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 103
opportunity institution, predominately Black but offers an opportunity to all, regardless of race,
creed, and color,” their student body remains predominately Black. Part of the challenge is that
the broader higher education climate and the specific state PBF policy is pushing PWIs to
become more racially diverse, thus the implication is that HBCUs also have to diversify.
The participants explained that the opposition to Smith University receiving financial or
political support from the state system of higher education is less about fiscal justification and
more an issue of institutional racism. Before getting into the specifics of the policy and what they
did or did not like about it, some argued that the policy was a reflection of the state system’s
almost paternalistic attitude towards Smith University. One Smith University student, Nicole,
described the state system of higher education as “the overbearing parents [saying] this is what I
want for you, Smith, this is who I want you to date. This is who I want you to bring into your
institution and you’re gonna change that person to make them find what you want them to have.”
Frank, explained that their “relationship with the state is real oppressive so this is what the state
says so this is what we’ve got to do.” Frank goes on to question how the state’s imperatives and
directives will impact Smith’s “mission” of “giving that student who doesn’t have a chance a
chance.” In Smith’s case the “student who does not have a chance” that obtains a chance at
Smith is typically Black, thus racializing the state’s perceived opposition to Smith autonomy and
mission.
Moses, a Smith University staff member/administrator, explained that “overt racism is
always hard to prove…I think there may be an underlying and underpinning insensitivity…There
are some folks at the state level that really don’t have the confidence in the way that this
university is operated or run. They feel as though we are really just focused on a small target of
the population, which is primarily African Americans.” Moses attributed the tensions between
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 104
Smith University and the state system of higher education to “insensitivity,” “a lack of
confidence,” and the school’s small focus on African Americans, but some participants went
even further to argue that some acts of the state system were in fact racist.
Malcolm another Smith University staff member/administrator, explained that the state
system of higher education appointed a staff member/administrator to the Smith financial aid
office, causing many challenges that resulted in some eligible students losing their financial aid.
Malcolm suggested that “[the state system] appointed a state person to [Smith]…which is the
only Historically Black College in the state system. Now you know with Historically Black
Colleges, the majority of the students need some type of financial assistance…was it a plan? Was
it constructed? Because there’s no way you can come from the state and be a specialist and come
in and mess it up.” When asked about the relationship between Smith University and the state
system of higher education, Shirley, a Smith staff member/administrator, responded that “I find
out based on how our budgets are very small.” Shirley goes on to explain that there was a time
that the state “didn’t want [Smith] to be here,” thus they “would have a deficit.”
Some participants noted the state system of higher education’s refusal to provide adequate
funding as an act of racism, referring to the retrieval of owed funds through the previously
mentioned $15 million lawsuit as “reparations.” Malcolm explained that in the past Smith
University had to sue for funding and that “it was kind of a shame that we had to sue for that.
Reparations...the new residential hall that we have…that was due to reparations because our
students had wrote…over several years stating that all the other schools in the state system had
new facilities and we had none so how do you expect for us to be able to compete? It started to
become a litigation issue as far as discrimination.” Malcolm goes on to explain that the only
reason the state has not closed Smith University is because it would receive public opposition
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 105
and Smith provides a space for the state to “place [their] minorities in the state. If they are not
doing what they are supposed to in other places, you can still increase your numbers using
[Smith] University.” These issues of racism color the relationship between Smith University and
the state system of higher education, thus shaping participants’ perspectives on the PBF policy.
Performance-Based Funding and Smith University
The PBF policy at Smith University was first enacted in 2003 with the aim to address
educational achievement, the application of knowledge, public service, inclusiveness, and
stewardship. The first phase of the policy was credited by the state system of higher education
with contributing to increases in the four-year graduation rates and second-year persistence rates,
and an increase in the number of faculty with terminal degrees. The most recent version of the
policy calls for a small, but substantial, percentage of the state’s annual appropriations to their
institutions to be based on performance measures reflecting state priorities on degree completion
and research productivity. The performance-funding model also holds institutions accountable
for improving equity in enrollment and educational outcomes among racial/ethnic and
socioeconomic groups.
13
As noted in appendix F1, Smith University is being evaluated on five mandatory and five
optional performance measures. The state system of higher education designed and selected the
five mandatory measures, and Smith University selected the five optional measures from a list of
22 optional measures, provided to them by the state system of higher education. The mandatory
performance measures for Smith University include the number of degrees conferred, reduction
in achievement and access gaps, and increased faculty diversity and private support. The
optional indicators for Smith University include student persistence, Science Technology
13
The amount of funding channeled through the performance-funding formula is equivalent to 2.4% of the total
system’s “Education and General” (E&G) revenues.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 106
Engineering and Math (STEM), and health profession degree recipients, closing the achievement
gaps for transfer students, closing the access gaps for transfer students, and instructional
productivity.
The PBF policy adjusts for Smith University’s unique status as an HBCU in two ways.
First, the other institutions in the state system were benchmarked against the average of all public
Master’s institutions, but to determine the target goals for Smith University, the state system of
higher education used the average of the particular outcome for all public master’s Historically
Black Colleges and Universities
14
, and set that average as the goal for Smith University to
achieve within five years. For example, for the “degrees conferred” performance measure, Smith
University is being challenged by the state system to increase the percentage of baccalaureate
degrees awarded per full time enrollment (FTE). The average for all public master’s level
HBCUs is 12.13%. Thus, the goal for Smith University is to increase the percentage of
baccalaureate degrees awarded per full time enrollment from their 2009/2010 percentage of
11.64% to the public master’s level HBCU average of 12.13%.
Secondly, the PBF policy adjusts for Smith’s unique HBCU status in the way they
conceptualize the term underrepresented minority (URM). For all of the other institutions in the
state system of higher education, all of which are predominately White, the term URM refers to
their Black, Latino, and Native American student populations. The state system of higher
education has classified the URM students at Smith University as all non-Black students or
“Other than Black or Unknown” (OTBU). On indicators pertaining to the enrollment and success
14
The public master’s level HBCUs used for comparison include: Alabama State University, Albany State
University, Fayetteville State University, Fort Valley State University, Lincoln University, Lincoln University-
Jefferson City, North Carolina A&T State University, North Carolina Central University, and Savannah State
University.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 107
of “underrepresented minority”
15
(URM)
students, Smith University’s PBF policy inverts the
accountability measures for the system’s Historically Black University. Where PWIs are required
to close gaps in access and success for students from URM groups, Smith University is required
to close gaps for OTBU students. A sample of how this URM concept is applied to a
performance measure for Smith University is provided in table 2 below. The sample
demonstrates that PWIs in the state system are being held accountable for closing the gap
between the percentage of Black, Latino, and Native American students in the state’s high school
graduate population (18%) and their percentage of these URM students in their freshmen
population (16%). However, Smith University is responsible for closing the gaps in access
between the average percentage of OTBU students enrolled at public master’s level HBCUs
(16%) and their percentage of OTBU students in their freshmen population (2%).
Table 2
PBF Sample Measure: Closing the Access Gap for Underrepresented Minority (URM) Students
University
Name
Reference
Group
State High
School
Graduates
% URM
Total
Incoming
Freshmen
# of
URM
% of
URM
Gap Goal:
reduce
gap by ½
Smith University OTBU
16
16 1169 22 2 13.6 6.81
Predominately
White University
URM
17
18 2056 329 16 2.0 1.0
When speaking with the state system of higher education representative, Ronald about
how the “special adjustments” for Smith University were determined, he noted that the policy
design was based on recommendations from a multi-campus committee. Ronald explained that
there were no representatives from Smith University who were selected to serve on the multi
15
Defined by the system as Latino, American Indian, and African American students.
16
OTBU-Other than Black or Unknown
17
URM-Underrepresented Minority
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 108
campus committee that helped develop the state PBF policy. Ronald confirmed that there were
other campuses besides Smith University that were not represented on the committee. Ronald
explained that they “put together a committee of people who knew the issues and problems with
the old system…expertise was how you got on the committee.” Ronald suggested that Smith
University’s status as an HBCU “was in our mind as we did this, that was a design piece that we
incorporated.” However when asked about his expertise to address Smith University, which he
described as an “outlier”, Ronald confirmed that he is “not a great study of” or expert of HBCUs.
The lack of HBCU expertise or representation on a committee that was making decisions on how
an HBCU should perform and receive funding demonstrates the potential for the intentional or
unintentional development of indicators that could cause harm to the institution.
Modernizing HBCUs for the 21
st
Century: Narratives and Counternarratives on
the purpose of the PBF Policy. Counternarratives are used by critical scholars to describe the
perspective or experience, of a particular marginalized group that is often different from the
dominant narrative on a particular issue (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). In the case of the PBF
policy, the state system of higher education’s perspectives on the goals and purpose of the policy
differed substantially from the views of the participants from Smith University. The state system
of higher education described the policy as an opportunity to help campuses improve. However,
the participants from Smith University often described the policy as a barrier to achievement and
improvement for the HBCU.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 109
The State System Narrative. In their published materials, the state system of higher
education described the goal of the renewed PBF funding policy as an effort to create compelling
financial incentives for the public universities to alter their practices (whether through innovation
in delivery mechanisms, internal reallocation of resources, or other measures) in order to meet
specific performance targets identified as priorities by system administrators. Thus, institutions
cannot opt out of the requirements that they meet the new performance benchmarks without
sacrificing a substantial revenue stream on which they depend. Ronald, the member of the state
system of higher education that had a leadership role in the development of the most recent
version of the PBF policy explained that “it’s a sort of system wide strategic thing, what do we
think is important to our students in [state]? And that leads us to, we need to graduate, we need
to confer more degrees…we want to close gaps because access and achievement and success of
all [state] students is important to our future. How do we provide tools to campuses to do that?
Being at the central office level, what can we open up as pathways?” Ronald was hopeful in that
although the “jury’s still out” on what the outcomes will be, they were “pretty darn successful for
the small amounts of money that [they] put into the previous PBF in terms of making some
significant changes on campus.” Thus Ronald was “enthusiastic and hopeful” that the PBF policy
would “move the amount of underrepresented students who come to our campuses, who continue
to move through on pace, who graduate and move on in their lives” because the PBF policy
makes “that a much higher probability” for the students in the system.
Ronald shared that the state wanted to ensure that the policy was written in a way that
challenged institutions but also support their success with winning the additional aid and
becoming better campuses overall. To ensure institutional success the policy design reflects both
the need to differentiate across institutions and recognition that institutions may lack the capacity
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 110
to respond quickly or effectively to new performance priorities. Implementation of the policy has
also been coupled with an investment in capacity building and technical assistance to support
institutional-level changes in practice. Ronald noted that in developing the policy the committee
created flexibility for special mission institutions like Smith University by offering optional
measures that “could be managed much better for [Smith] given its history.” Ronald reported
that he asked [Smith University], “What do you need to use as a tool to continue to produce
results of being an HBCU in the 21
st
century? We want you to look at that one [measure] and say
there’s an opportunity for you to help shape the much more mission and history centric sub
measures for your institution.”
The state system of higher education also used research data on other public master’s
level HBCUs to develop measures and benchmarking “so there was a fairer comparison group
for their national benchmarks.” Specifically, the policy design incorporates several “choice”
indicators that institutions can design based on their own missions and priorities (for example, a
campus with a strong STEM or vocational focus might select as one of their indicators increasing
output of degrees in those fields). Despite, what Ronald described as the state system of higher
education’s efforts to ensure that the PBF policy was “fair” for all the campuses in the system,
the Smith University narrative is predicated on the fact that the policy is anything but fair.
The Smith University Counternarrative. As a result of their complicated relationship
with the state system of higher education, the members of the Smith University community had
mixed feelings about the state’s newest version of the PBF policy. First, some participants
criticized the policy, claiming that it is not fair, that there was limited involvement by Smith
during its development, and that it employs a narrow view of diversity. Others criticized the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 111
paternalistic nature of having an outside body set the goals and standards for a supposedly
independent institution; all agreed that it posed challenges to the Smith University mission.
As noted in the discussion with the state system of higher education representative
Ronald, members of the Smith University community were not involved in the committee made
up of campus representatives who helped design the policy. Because of this, several critiques by
participants focused on policy design. One Smith community member, Shane, who in his
position as a staff member/administrator, plays an important role in implementing the policy at
Smith University, noted his concerns with the comparison groups used to develop the Smith
University benchmarks. Shane expressed that “the issue I have with that is yeah they are
HBCUs, but in terms of size, if you want to compare an institution that has one thousand, two
thousand, three thousand students to an institution that has five, ten thousand students; to me you
are comparing a bigger apple to a smaller apple…that is one weakness I brought up to the [state
system of higher education].” Shane goes on to explain that he was only allowed to provide
feedback after the PBF policy was already designed and was being explained to him.
Another critique of the policy design that was offered by the participants was what they
described as a narrow definition of diversity. Theodore, a senior administrator at Smith
University, suggested that “the harm comes in how diversity is defined…I think you got to look
at diversity as being bigger than those qualities of a human being that are overtly
conspicuous…Just because you look out there and you see a population of brown people doesn’t
mean you don’t have a diverse population. I think these other areas of diversity in terms of race
versus ethnicity versus national origin versus gender versus socioeconomic…if you start putting
some of these, saying you need to increase diversity along the full spectrum of what makes
America, America, some of these other institutions probably wouldn’t do so well. If you take an
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 112
institution like [neighboring PWI in the state system] they have what looks like a great mix of
middle class youngsters, is that really a more legitimate reason for getting more funds in the area
of diversity than an institution like ours that has a greater mix of income…students from
different nations, religions, perspectives, things that make a difference in terms of what makes
people human.”
Additionally, in a campus leadership meeting that included the administration’s most
senior members, Dawn, a Smith staff member/administrator, publicly raised questions about the
race/ethnicity definitions in the diversity category of the policy. Specifically, Dawn raised
questions about why students’ ethnic diversity was not being considered. Dawn went on to
suggest that the consideration of ethnic diversity would benefit Smith University who she
suggested had a large population of international students like Haitian students. When asked
what categories she would like to see, Dawn responded that the policy should include residency
status, country of origin, and international student status. When asked about how the state
system has responded to Smith’s concerns about the race/ethnicity categories, Theodore
suggested that the Smith community’s “concerns about racial/ethnic categories” for the PBF
policy “have been suppressed” at the system meetings.
It is also important to note that when raising questions about their population of
international students and ethnic diversity on campus, the institutional researcher expressed that
there were challenges identifying international students using their current data system. This
data capacity dilemma demonstrates one of the most common critiques of the policy: the notion
that Smith University does not have sufficient resources to be compared to other institutions and
increase performance on the included measures. Upon hearing a description of the PBF policy
during the interview, Greg, a Smith University student, responded that “my problem with the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 113
incentive thing is that it’s not fixing the reason, it’s trying to fix the result but it’s not trying to
fix the reason for the result.” Leslie, a Smith University staff member/administrator, who
addressed one of the performance indicators, retention, argued that “we’re not on the same
playing field as some of our other institutions because of the lack of funding that [Smith] has had
for so many years. It’s gonna take a while for [Smith] to catch up with some of the basic
amenities, that the university has to have to attract competitive students that we can retain.”
A long time Smith University staff member/administrator, Shirley, argued that it is not a
coincidence that the university is being expected to meet expectations that they see as
challenging. Shirley argued that “it’s obvious that it’s harming the institution. Because we can’t
get money…by the time you learn the rules of the game, how to play the game they change the
rules.” Theodore shared that the policy is unfair, noting that,
“on the surface the policy may even look fair to the general public and it’s one that you
can sell to the state legislature. But when you get beneath the surface there are real issues
with the policy…they have some institutional structures that still persist from that system
of inequality that has become so institutionalized in this country...And some people just
don’t care about the school…they kind of question whether there is a need for a [Smith]
University or a need for an HBCU because they have not for many years had a reason to
have a serious faith in the leadership of the school. Again that is because of some of the
transient stuff, some of the behaviors that have emerged as a result of not having stable
and consistent leadership and sufficient resources to provide the incentives to people who
really try to do the best that they can do on the job.”
The participants suggest that the issue of limited resources not only hampers their
administrative capabilities, but also negatively impacts the very student behaviors that are being
measured by the policy. For example, the policy includes funding increases for improved
performance on retention and graduation rates, but participants argued that without the funding
first, they do not have the finances needed to increase or even sustain student retention and
graduation. During a campus leadership meeting the participants discussed the issue of delaying
students’ graduation because Smith was forced to cancel degree-required courses that the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 114
university could not afford. One Smith student, Kyle, observed that “a lot of people leave”
because of the lack of “financial aid.” I don’t know if something can happen with getting
students or letting them know about scholarship opportunities or something to help them pay for
school.”
It is important to note that many participants were not opposed to increasing diversity,
and graduation and retention rates, but were concerned about the challenges involved in doing
so. Moses, fairly new staff member/administrator to Smith University, suggests that the issue of
funding, increasing graduation and retention, and the PBF policy poses real dilemmas for the
members of the Smith community. Moses suggests that
“statewide, they feel that they have done what they can do to support Smith University.
Smith on the other hand is saying we need more support. Then they come back and say
what have you done with the resources we’ve allocated for you?...one thing that is
missing from the conversation is what is in the best interest of the students? How do we
better serve students?...I think that if we did that we would come to the conclusion that
we need better capital improvement such as better academic facilities, smart classrooms.
That’s what’s in the best interest of the students, that’s what good students
demand…every institution has to be held accountable for increasing retention, increasing
graduation rates and persistence. I don’t argue with that one bit… [but] I‘m not trying to
make excuses, I think the system has a responsibility to make sure all the institutions are
on a level playing field. If you all have comparable resources and you’re not performing
up to par, then you have a reason to be penalized with the funding formula. If you are in a
situation like [Smith] where the truth is, no new building in more than 30 years, when
your sister institutions are building buildings like crazy…and in previous court decrees
this has been in absolute terms that the institution hasn’t been treated fairly and the state
continues to do that, then you have some issues with performance funding.”
Moses’ statements articulately capture the sentiment that several participants expressed,
suggesting that the PBF policy was simply unfair. Like Moses, they argued that they need more
funding not only to make the suggested improvements, but also to just maintain their current
performance.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 115
Perspectives on the Diversity and Equity Measures. The 2003 Affirmative Action
Supreme Court cases were the catalysts in a development of a body of research that aimed to
conceptualize, measure, and evaluate the benefits of campus racial diversity. This research found
campus diversity to be associated with outcomes such as intellectual growth, increased
engagement and self-assessed academic skills, retention, social self-concept, academic self-
concept, and satisfaction with college (Chang, 2001; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007; Saenz,
Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007 ). The perceived benefits of racial diversity demonstrated in this research
make probable justification for why a state would require all public institutions, including an
HBCU to become more racially diverse.
The challenge with relying on the “benefits of diversity” argument is that the research
often demonstrated that Black students’ gains as a result of campus diversity were much less
than White students. Thus, simply requiring an HBCU to increase their non-Black student
population may not result in the same educational benefits to Black students that increasing the
non-White population at a PWI would. The second challenge is that unlike PWIs, HBCUs have
an explicit mission to serve a particular racial group of students; consequently, redirecting the
focus to new student populations could be viewed as a threat to that mission.
Although the participants from Smith University had several critiques of the PBF policy,
the participants from Smith University seemed most concerned with how the policy could impact
their ability to provide opportunity and focus on serving Black students. The PBF policy for
Smith University requires an increase in the access and achievement of students who are defined
as anyone who is “other than Black or Unknown.” Five of the ten measures by which Smith
University’s performance will be evaluated include a focus on the “Other than Black or
Unknown” (OTBU) population. Specifically, Smith is held accountable for:
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 116
1) Reducing the “gap” between the percentage of OTBU students enrolled at public
master’s level HBCUs and the percentage of OTBU students enrolled at Smith
University. In 2010, Smith enrolled 2% OTBU students and the average OTBU
enrollment at public master’s level HBCUs was 16%, thus there was a 13.6 percentage
point “gap.” The five year goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.
2) Reducing the 5% gap in the six-year graduation rate between OTBU students (24%)
and Black students (29%), to a 2.5% percentage point gap.
3) Increasing the percentage of OTBU faculty from 41.94% to 45.59% (average for
public master’s level HBCUs).
4) Reducing the “gap” between the percentage of OTBU transfer students enrolled at
public master’s HBCUs and the percentage of OTBU transfer students enrolled at
Smith University. In 2010, Smith enrolled 2.2% OTBU transfer students and the average
OTBU transfer enrollment at public master’s HBCUs was 16%, thus there was a 13.3%
percentage point “gap.” The five year goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.
5) Closing the six-year graduation rate gap for OTBU transfer students and Black
transfer students. In 2010 the six-year graduation rate for Black transfer students was
25% and the six-year graduation rate for OTBU transfer students was 100%, thus there
was no “gap” to close. The five year goal is to maintain a zero gap.
Ronald, the state system of higher education representative, argued against the
perceived notion that the policy would require Smith University to increase the number of Non-
African American students. Ronald argued that instead, Smith University is expected to “equal
the existing rate for their African American students so fundamentally it’s a mathematical
calculation, but not fundamentally for them to succeed and win performance funding it does not
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 117
mean that they need to increase the number of non-African Americans. They simply have to
maintain their current level of success with their current numbers of African American students.”
Ronald is correct in that the policy does not have a mandatory indicator that requires them to
increase their number of OTBU students. However, the policy does include mandatory indicators
to close any equity gaps that exist between the access and graduation rates for Black students and
OTBU (Other than Black or Unknown) students. Instead the policy suggests that “gaps are
reduced” so if Black and OTBU six-year graduation rates increase simultaneously the gaps could
persist and Smith University could remain ineligible for the total performance award.
Additionally the policy does not require a raw number increase in the number of OTBU students,
but does require an increase in percentages or proportions, thus the only way to meet the
performance funding targets for OTBU access without actually increasing the number of OTBU
students is to decrease the number of Black students. These indicators demonstrate how the state
is both offering an opportunity to, and mandating, an institutional focus on OTBU students,
which is counter to Smith’s historical mission to serve Black students. Thus, several participants
critiqued this redirection suggesting that it could create mission drift at the institution.
Kenneth, one of Smith University’s few White students, suggested that the PBF policy
would be “getting away from their background for being known as an HBCU. It’s always great
to give non-African American students the opportunity to experience and to learn from the
culture, but that’s not what [Smith] or an HBCU is known for. It’s to develop successful male
and female African American students.” Brian, a Black student at Smith University, argued that
“it would take away from its original mission which was to give Black students an advantage in a
world where they are at a disadvantage.” Denzel, a Smith University faculty member, explained
that the concern about maintaining the historical focus on Black students is a university wide
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 118
concern. Denzel explained that “there’s a culture here where there’s always a sense of [Smith]
losing its identity if we admit students who are non-African American. I’ve understood the sense
of that...being true to its mission, [Smith] should always maintain its sense of commitment to
students of color, particularly African Americans. I would be careful of the legalities of it all, but
[Smith] should always remain an HBCU in the sense of being a predominantly African American
institution.”
Participants also discussed the challenges that recruiting White students could pose to the
university. Smith University student, Nicole cautioned that the recruitment of non-Black students
could require institutional changes that could harm the current university culture and mislead
perspective White students. Nicole articulates that “[Smith] would change the culture of the
school so much to even make it marketable to other, to non-Blacks…you can lose yourself like
that. It’s like if this was a relationship and [Smith] is courting these non-Black students they
would be putting on airs to get them here…you’re supposed to be yourself when you’re dating
somebody. You’re supposed to be yourself when you’re marketing yourself.” Thus, participants
were concerned that focusing on the enrollment or success of non-Black students could threaten
their historical mission and contemporary culture that focuses on Black student opportunity and
success.
It is also important to note that in the case of closing the achievement gap among OTBU
and Black transfer students, Smith University has a 75 percentage point gap between the six-year
graduation rate of their OTBU transfer students and their Black students. Because it is the Black
students who have the lower transfer rate of 25%, instead of the OTBU transfer students whose
six-year graduate rate is 100%, Smith University will not be awarded any performance funding if
they are able to increase the six-year graduation rate of their Black transfer students. However, if
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 119
the OTBU transfer student graduation rate was increased they would be eligible for performance
funding. Further understanding of how such incentives will shift institutional priorities or even
result in the successful awarding of additional funding should be closely monitored. One Smith
student, Greg, raised the concern that “it would be different if the financial incentive was for the
student as opposed to the university…giving the incentive to the university will most likely have
them campaign at high schools with less [Black students] at the schools. That’s hit or miss and I
think if you want the hits give the money straight to the students. Students have a hard enough
time paying for college.” Thus the design of the policy requires an institutional shift in priorities
and decision making, potentially shifting resources and focus away from Black students and
faculty, whether or not White students and faculty or other non-Black populations choose Smith
University.
The history of racial integration at HBCUs suggests that Smith University has been
placed in a difficult situation. They could ignore the need to improve the enrollment and
outcomes of OTBU students and faculty and miss out on the performance funding. Or they could
threaten the mission and culture of the institution by shifting their focus to OTBU students and
faculty and likely still have trouble recruiting OTBU populations. Therefore, some Smith
University participants see the state PBF policy as unfair and a threat to their identity and success
as an institution; which runs counter to the state system of higher education’s narrative that
suggests the policy will increase student success and equity across the campuses in the state
system.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 120
Smith University Arguments in Favor of the PBF Policy. Although some of the
participants were critical of the PBF policy several participants noted that the policy was helpful
to the institution because it made the them more aware of their institutional data and the
outcomes that need improvement, it encouraged a more racially diverse campus where students
could learn from one another and prepare for diverse post graduate environments, and it
productively challenged Smith to clarify and defend their mission. Specifically, the participants
articulated that the policy encourages a focus on data use, improving student outcomes, and
diverse student populations. For example, Smith University staff member/administrator, Shane,
suggests that “having to deal with performance measures is good in one sense. It helps an
institution get on track. Make sure you monitor what it is you say you’re doing.”
Many participants supported the measures because of what they described as the
benefits that having a diverse student body could contribute to students’ learning experience and
post-graduate experiences. One Smith University student, Steven, explained that he welcomed
the opportunity for the university to focus on non-Black students because race “doesn’t have an
impact on younger generations…when you look at color because that’s taught to you…racial
issues are all taught to people. Unless it’s taught younger people don’t have that. That’s more of
an older generation issue.”
Other participants argued that race does still have an impact, but the impact of race on
students’ experiences is why they felt it was important to serve different student populations.
Smith staff member/administrator, Benjamin, said, “I think multicultural education is
important…a lot of our students come from inner city areas where the population density of
students is 85 or 90% Black and Latino so I think that part of the college experience is that
diversity.” Faculty member, Jesse, explained that “it would provide perspective for our current
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 121
student population to be able to see diversity on campus….our faculty are very diverse, it’s
probably the most diverse faculty in the state system. But the student population doesn’t reflect
that. And with the student mindset being what it is I think the diversity would add and change
and maybe open up their eyes to other ways of acting, perceiving things, and learning in the
classroom.” Staff member/administrator, Michael argued that a focus on non-Black students did
not take away from the university mission but that their mission of “access and opportunity for
people who are not given the same opportunities” includes “low socioeconomic status. Whites,
Hispanics, Asian, [and] whoever wants to come here and hopefully get a quality education.”
While participants discussed the focus on OTBU or non-Black students as a benefit to
Black students and an honoring of the university’s access and opportunity mission, others
described the impact on those outside of the university. Specifically, participants explained that
becoming more racially diverse could improve their reputation and image. Smith student Kyle
expressed that he thinks “it would make it look better because [Smith] is not more diverse it’s
not just all African American students. I think that would really make the university look good.”
Another Smith student, Brian, suggested that Smith’s lack of racial diversity was not appealing
and that it was only because he had been awarded a scholarship that he chose to attend the
institution. Brian explained “it could help the institution because I always said that if it wasn’t
for the [program name] scholarship I probably wouldn’t have come to [Smith] because in reality
the whole world is not Black so I definitely would have preferred to be around a lot more ethnic
groups than African Americans. There are maybe five White students here. I know some
Dominican girl that was in my Spanish class. But that’s about it. For me I’m a person that’s
really interested in culture and things so it’s one of the things I dislike about the university
because I don’t really get to mingle with people from different cultures.”
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 122
Other participants shared Brian’s concern that being educated in a predominately Black
environment would shield them from the realities of working in a diverse society. Smith staff
member/administrator, Malcolm shared that “it could assist the university even though it’s a
Historically Black College. When you go into the working world, there are people of diverse
backgrounds and diverse lifestyles, and they have to deal with and be able to incorporate work
with or work for… it gives you different outlooks, different perspectives, different locations,
different demographics, different types of households, different types of upbringing. It would
also allow for barriers to be broken to get people to get an understanding of diverse cultures and
things of that sort. How they live, the type of food, and sometimes maybe even a thought pattern
could possibly help in the workforce adjusting to people of diverse backgrounds.” Brown goes
on to share that “in reality the whole world is not Black. So I think it would be a good thing
because once you leave [Smith] and you go to grad school, if you go straight into work, clearly
your whole company is not going to be Black . You are just going to have to face that reality so I
think if we did get a little bit more exposure I think it would be good too. It’s kind of a double
edged sword. I think it would just be better to have more people here who are not Black. Just so
we can get a different perspective and interact with different people.”
As a result of the PBF policy and the potential benefits described by the participants,
Smith University has begun to discuss how they are planning to respond to the measures that
focus on non-Black students. When the idea of enrolling or increasing the performance of non-
Black students was brought up in campus meetings and in the interviews, participants most
commonly suggested that the institution target their state’s budding Latino population. Sheryl, a
Smith University faculty member, shared that there was already a “push” in her department and
that the department has “been working towards increasing the Hispanic population” and that she
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 123
believes “enrollment management” is also pushing towards this end. Sheryl explained that
Smith’s “Spanish faculty have produced a brochure in Spanish” and that the university has
“participated in the Hispanic heritage month.” Sheryl explained that they “celebrated any
students and faculty who had any Hispanic heritage” and that the event was “quite successful”
and that there is “an excitement and a push for that overall on the campus.”
Another example of the focus on Latino students is that in preliminary observations and
campus leadership meetings, the participants inquired about the enrollment and performance of
their Latino students both times the OTBU funding formulas were brought up. The campus did
not ask about other non-Black student populations. During one meeting, Smith university staff
member/administrator Shane reported that the university had successfully increased their
enrollment of Latino students but they were not retaining them and discussed potential solutions.
In an interview with Moses, Smith staff member/administrator, he shared that
“we have made some progress in the area of recruiting more Hispanics and White
students. I think it’s like 3.4% Hispanic students and I want to say for White students it’s
8% maybe. I could be wrong on that statistic, I’m relying on memory. And that’s up from
the year before. But I think that would be very good for this institution. I think the
challenge for this university too is that the demographics have changed. A lot of
Historically Black Universities have recognized that there’s an emerging, growing
population of second generation, third generation Hispanic and Latino students that are
going on to college. We have to get in that game and be able to recruit from those
populations to increase our enrollment. The same holds true for White. If you look
around us, what do you see? It’s primarily European environment, so we could do better
at some of these high schools. I think from a financial standpoint from an educational
standpoint, it would behoove us to recruit aggressively from those underrepresented
populations.”
Present in Moses’ statement is the connotation that Smith should recruit from
underrepresented populations. While underrepresented at Smith may mean non-Black to some,
one reason that the campus seems to embrace the idea of targeting Latino students is because
they are both underrepresented at Smith University and (like Black students) have a history of
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 124
limited access to higher education in the United States. Smith University staff
member/administrator Jeffrey explained, “I think that there’s some similarities in
underrepresented minorities across the board. I think if we take what we have, where we know
what we’ve used, what we’ve been successful with and tweak it… a little Hispanic language.”
Hence participants articulated a need for greater institutional support for Latinos on campus.
Staff member/administrator Moses argued for a “Hispanic recruiter” and a “Latino or Hispanic
recruiter” because “they have more credibility when they go in the community” as a result of
being “born and raised in that culture.” Moses’ comments acknowledge that the Latino culture
and student needs may be distinct from what Smith University has traditionally done, but the
participants of this study articulated an overwhelming support for the targeting of this population
as a happy medium between becoming “more diverse” and continuing to serve students of color.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 125
Findings Part III: Smith University and the Equity Scorecard
As previously discussed, the state system of higher education retained CUE to implement
the Equity Scorecard and provide the colleges with a structured process of data use, setting goals,
assessing their current practices, and developing action plans to increase access and success for
underrepresented students. Ronald, a representative system leader said that he and his colleagues
agreed to support the implementation of the Equity Scorecard because it “was the best thing out
there for changing how institutions operated and achieved results.” In particular, the Equity
Scorecard was perfectly aligned with the PBF indicators that require the campuses to close the
gap for underrepresented students in admissions and graduation. Part III of the findings is
organized into the five phases of the Equity Scorecard process, to describe what participants
learned and experienced through each phase. The section closes with a discussion of the
challenges to implementing what the participants learned from the Equity Scorecard at Smith
University.
The Equity Scorecard is an intervention tool and theory of change used by CUE to
assist college and university faculty and practitioners, with transforming their frameworks from a
deficit-minded
18
to an equity-minded
19
view of student outcomes, and equipping them to use data
to understand racially differentiated experiences and outcomes, ultimately leading to equity and
data driven policies and practices and improved outcomes (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon,
Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004; Bensimon, 2005; Bensimon, 2007; Dowd, 2007;
Dowd, Malcolm, & Bensimon, 2009). The Equity Scorecard focuses on four perspectives on
equity: access, retention/completion, and excellence (Bensimon & Hanson, 2012). Within each
18
Deficit-mindedness refers to a cognitive frame in which student outcomes are attributed to personal attributes,
such as skills, ability, or motivation rather than institutionally related factors (Bensimon, 2007)
19
Equity-mindedness refers to a cognitive frame in which student outcomes are attributed to institutional factors
such as campus climate, pedagogy, institutional racism, or delivery of services (Bensimon, 2007).
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 126
perspective the participants review racially disaggregated data on such outcomes as rates of
admissions, retention after the first-year, credit accumulation by semester, successful completion
of gateway courses into the majors, and graduation rates.
As part of the process, a group of 10 faculty members, administrators, and staff form into
an “evidence team” and they engage in a collaborative process of defining problems of
equity/inequity based on student outcomes data; identifying the structures, policies, and practices
that are associated with equity problems (e.g., the admissions office, a specific mathematics
course) and submitting them to an inquiry process designed to understand how they work in
general, and how they work for specific underrepresented student groups; based on the
outcomes of the inquiry process the evidence teams make recommendations for changes. They
also create an Equity Scorecard report that delineates equity goals. For example, if the average
six-year graduation rate in 2012 at an institution was 50% and Black students had a graduation
rate of 38%, the Equity Scorecard report would include a goal of increasing the Black graduation
rate to 50% and would also indicate interim benchmark goals that have to be attained in order to
reach a 50% graduation rate for Black students (e.g., increase first-year retention from 75% to
85%). The evidence team examined current practices, policies, structures, and special programs
to hypothesize and inquire about the causes of the gaps, identify goals, and develop
recommendations. The aim of this study was to focus on how the participants from Smith
University learned during the retention/completion perspective.
During the retention/completion perspective the Smith University participants were
advised to meet for at least an hour once a month from September 2012 through May 2013.
During the meetings the participants reviewed their racially disaggregated student outcomes data
(mediating artifacts) and identified potential problem areas. The participants discussed what they
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 127
thought was contributing to the outcomes, some of which included student oriented factors like
financial aid and academic preparedness and institutional factors like their advising practices.
The participants then conducted inquiry to find out more about the potential causes of the student
outcomes. The inquiry included reviewing retention/completion data disaggregated by student
characteristics such as income and gender. The participants also gathered information on their
advising and faculty perspectives on student retention and graduation. The evidence team closed
out the retention/completion perspective by identifying strategies for inquiring further about the
problems, and developed recommendations for improving potential problems. The participants’
Equity Scorecard experiences are discussed below.
The Smith University Activity Setting: Mediating Artifacts and Findings
Phase 1: Laying the Groundwork. The first phase of the Equity Scorecard process is
laying the groundwork. Laying the groundwork involves forming an evidence team that adheres
to the specifications provided by CUE and training the teams and team leaders on the theory,
tools, and activities of the Equity Scorecard. Laying the groundwork also involves CUE
gathering information about the institutional context and profile of the participating higher
education institution. Lastly, this phase includes the introduction of the Equity Scorecard
concepts at a Kick Off and Team Member Orientation.
Creating the Evidence Team. The Evidence Team was appointed by a Smith University
senior leader and it included two team leaders, one male and one female. Each of the team
leaders held administrative positions and were Smith University veterans, having worked at the
institution for over twenty years. The CUE guidelines recommend that faculty members who
have sufficient management, organizational, and interpersonal skills are appointed to the
leadership positions. The Equity Scorecard process demands a great deal of coordination and
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 128
management; there is an expectation that the evidence team will meet at least once a month for at
least two hours and there is also a telephone meeting once a month with CUE’s specialist. Each
of the phases of the Scorecard concludes with several deliverables. CUE also recommends that
the team leaders have easy and open access to the institution’s leadership in order to increase the
likelihood of implementing changes. Studies of the process (Bustillos, Rueda, & Bensimon,
2011) show that successful implementation of the Equity Scorecard depends greatly on the
efficacy of the team leaders and the team’s perceptions of their status and leadership.
Most of CUE’s Equity Scorecard partners, even though they may enroll a high
proportion of underrepresented students, are predominantly White. As a consequence, there is
the risk that leaders will default to appointing individuals who are identified with multicultural
and diversity initiatives. In order to avoid the marginalization of the process CUE specifies that
the team must include participants who are boundary spanners (serve on multiple committees on
campus, thus have a far reaching impact), from diverse demographic backgrounds, task oriented,
and can understand institutional data. Another requirement is that the Institutional Researcher be
part of the team. The Smith University evidence team included eight participants selected by the
Smith University liaison, however the composition of the team did not adhere to all of the
guidelines provided by CUE. The evidence team did include gender, racial, and position
diversity by including three males and five females; three faculty members and five staff
members/administrators; and five Black , two White , and one Asian team member. However,
the team leaders were not faculty members, they were staff members/administrators who later
discuss the difficulty of making time for the Equity Scorecard because of their busy and
structured schedules. Other team members expressed difficulty with participating in the process,
specifically, two staff members/administrators, after participating in the access perspective of the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 129
Equity Scorecard from fall 2011-Spring 2012, shared that because of their other institutional
commitments they were unable to participate, leaving a team of six faculty members and
administrators to engage in the retention perspective of the Equity Scorecard.
Understanding the Smith University Context. As a CUE staff member working with
the Smith University evidence team, one of my tasks was to complete an inventory with basic
information about Smith University. This inventory included information about student
enrollment by race and ethnicity, the mission statement, list of key leaders and decision makers
for the institution. The inventory also included regional demographics by race. Through this
inventory I learned that unlike many other HBCUs, Smith University did not have a religious
affiliation and they enrolled mostly full time, low income, and Black students.
In fall 2011, the CUE held their first institute to introduce the theory, activities,
processes, and expectations of the Equity Scorecard to teams of faculty and administrators from
the campuses in the state system. As a CUE research assistant my role in this Institute was to
provide support to the team from Smith University as they went through a review of their data to
identify equity gaps in rates of admissions and enrollment. During the institute I sat at a table
with the Smith University evidence team during the sessions with the other campuses in the state.
I also worked privately with the Smith University evidence team when all of the participants
broke out into campus based groups. When meeting privately with the Smith University evidence
team, we discussed the purpose of the Equity Scorecard and how it could help them address the
performance measures included in the state PBF policy. It was during these initial discussions at
the institute, that I became aware of Smith’s resistance to the state PBF policy and their very
complex relationship with the state system of higher education.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 130
When meeting with the Smith University evidence team we discussed that CUE was
unable to retrieve their institutional data from the state system of higher education because the
Smith University Institutional Researcher had not provided it. I was concerned that the
participants may become defensive or concerned that I was going to be critical of them, the way
that others had been critical of HBCUs. Hence, I shared with them that I was not an HBCU
expert, but I did understand that they have a unique mission and that HBCU students on average
have more post graduate success than Black non HBCU students. I explained that I believed
HBCUs have something valuable to offer the higher education landscape and that the Equity
Scorecard process was about helping this HBCU improve. As the institute progressed, the
evidence team members shared that they trusted me because I seemed to know something about
HBCUs and didn’t paint them as failing institutions. Members of the team went out of their way
to explain their past accomplishments and the services they provide to students, even if the
information was not directly relevant or necessary to complete the activities. It was very
important for the team to come across as competent to the teams from the other campuses
because they suspected that they saw Smith as being a lesser institution, of lower quality and
they wanted to avoid reinforcing those negative perceptions.
One of the first activities at the institute was the creation of a historical map that consists
of critical events identified by team members. The purpose of the exercise was to name previous
programs, events, and incidents that may in some way relate with the aims of the Equity
Scorecard. It is also a strategy to elicit the participants’ perspectives on the institution. Campus
teams go about completing this activity in different ways. The Smith team placed positive events
such as graduating notable alumni at the beginning of the timeline and negative events such as
decreasing enrollments, elimination of programs, and what one participant even described as the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 131
“decline of Smith University” were placed in the most recent thirty years (See Figure 7 Below). I
asked the participants about what caused the shift from “success” to a college in “decline.” The
state of decline, particularly enrollment loss and difficulties in attracting higher performing
students, was attributed to actions at the state level, at the system level, and the media. The
media was blamed for reporting only negative stories about Smith.
Figure 7. Institutional history activity. This activity was completed by the evidence team at the Equity Scorecard
access perspective kickoff.
Following the institute, I decided to review the news coverage of Smith University in
two of higher education’s most prominent news outlets, Inside Higher Education and the
Chronicle of Higher Education. I reviewed all the news articles published about Smith
University from 1990-2012. The profile provided in figure 8 below, shows that over 90% of the
articles were about problems among the Smith University students, faculty, and administration.
The headlines included charged phrases such as “campus nightmare” and “NCAA penalizes” and
“state takes over.”
Figure 8. Smith University news story breakdown.
Smith University Est.
(Late 1800s)
1960s-Institutional
Prominance (famous
program and alumni)
1980s-downfall of Smith
(joined state system)
2000s-new programs (First
year experience, honors,
learning communities)
3
2
13
1
Student Related Problems
Faculty Related Problems
Administrative/Governance Problems
(including financial/transitions)
Positive Programs
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 132
While the news articles report actual events that took place at Smith University, such as
leadership transitions and criminal incidents, the participants shared that they were frustrated that
this coverage did not include enough stories of accomplishment and triumph for the institution.
Participants felt that the constant negative portrayal of leadership, governance, and athletics
created an impression among their alumni that Smith was not as “good” as it once was and were
less likely to want to be associated with it. The one article that could be characterized as a
spotlight on a positive program, Smith’s empowerment program for Black male youth, is still
described in the context of the criminal problems of Black male youth in the neighboring urban
city.
Institutional Responsibility and Accountability for Student Outcomes. The Equity
Scorecard inquiry process raises the awareness of institutional actors that having a diverse
student body is insufficient if the students who make racial and ethnic diversity possible are not
experiencing equity in the full range of outcomes that constitute equal educational opportunity.
The most important aspect of the Equity Scorecard is to assist participants in learning how to
interpret inequities in educational outcomes as a signal of institutional practices not working
effectively for some segment of the student population. The aim is to shift institutional actors’
attention away from student deficits (e.g., they are not motivated, not prepared) to, in essence,
asking “why is it that our practices are not achieving intended outcomes with [Black ] [Latino]
students?” The inquiry process of the Equity Scorecard engages team members in a structured
investigation of practices within the education core (e.g., curriculum), student support services
(e.g., tutoring center), administrative offices (admissions, financial aid, institutional research),
and special programs (e.g., developmental education, high impact practices, study abroad).
Learning among the members of the teams and within their institutions is evidenced by changes
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 133
in practices, structures, and policies. It is also evidenced by the capacity of individuals to be
equity-minded in their interpretation of student outcomes. Bensimon (2012) describes equity-
minded practitioners as those who are (1) color-conscious, meaning they notice and question
“patterns of educational outcomes that reveal unexplainable differences for minoritized students
and viewing inequalities in the context of a history of exclusion, discrimination, and educational
apartheid” (p.37) (2) aware that assumed neutrality in “beliefs, expectations, and practices” can
have racially differentiated outcomes (3) willing to assume responsibility for the elimination of
inequality (4) and aware that even in absence of overt racism, and in the presence of diversity,
higher education institutions often maintain “racial hierarchies.”
The concept of equity-mindedness was developed by CUE to counteract the tendency of
higher education practitioners to interpret inequities in educational outcomes from a deficit
perspective, or as a symptom of student deficiencies ranging from academic under preparation to
having parents who do not value education. Although the lack of equity-mindedness may be
more typical of majority populations or individuals who have not experienced being a minority
the belief that student success results from individual effort is so ingrained in academic culture
that it was possible that the participants would view their own students through the lens of deficit
and that they are as unlikely as individuals in other types of institutions to not entertain the
possibility that students’ failures are a reflection of failing practices. In the case of Smith
University, the definition of equity-mindedness is slightly adapted, because their population of
students is over 90% Black. Equity-mindedness in the Smith context still meant the practitioners
are willing to assume responsibility for eliminating inequalities, but focusing on their
institutional responsibility to improve student outcomes for their mostly Black student
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 134
population does not automatically mean that they are not race conscious or concerned with
educational equity.
One aim of this study was to uncover what the participants “learned” about equity-
mindedness from the Equity Scorecard process. In this section I discuss the ways in which
evidence team members demonstrated equity and deficit-mindedness. I provided an illustration
of the ways in which the participants engaged in both Equity and Deficit-minded thinking
throughout the process in figure 9 below.
Figure 9. Examples of deficit and equity-minded ness. This is an illustration of the participants’ deficit and equity-
minded thinking.
When data collection began in November 2012, the evidence team began meeting for
the retention and completion perspective, during which they reviewed and discussed their
retention and graduation data. When reviewing their data the discussion centered on
institutionally focused responses when questions were raised about what was contributing to low
retention and graduation rates. During the interviews, I asked each of the participants what it
Deficit
Mindedness
Equity
Mindedness
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 135
meant to approach the discussion of student outcomes from an equity-minded perspective. Sheryl
noted that being equity-minded was to “look at our student population in terms of diversity and
to evaluate our policies our procedures… to make changes where needed.” Shane discussed that
being “equity-minded helps you identify where your gaps are and helping you to address
them…our sister institutions mostly focus on minorities being African American students and
getting them in and helping to retain them and get them to graduate…. we don’t focus on Blacks
but we have our performance funding measures that focuses on different groups of students, our
responsibility to identify those gaps and yes we do have them. So how do we address them
now?” Later, in the discussions of what the participants learned from their institutional data, I
provide a description of how the participants selected to focus on and explore their gaps in
outcomes for Latino students specifically. Although the participants only began discussing the
differences in outcomes and experiences for other racial groups like Latino students, the focus on
non-Black students at the Historically Black University represents an important cultural shift that
is further interrogated in the discussion.
Recognizing and Addressing Deficit-mindedness. Evidence that the participants had
begun to understand equity-mindedness is that they were able to identify and explain what it was
to be deficit-minded, or the tendency to blame perceived student “deficits” as the primary cause
for poor student outcomes. Evidence team member Jesse described the difference between equity
and deficit-mindedness as “bringing what you can to the table as opposed to what you’re lacking.
So with students if they can’t understand the concept it’s not you’re not intelligent enough to sit
in my class, it’s more how can I get you to understand the concept. Trying different ways to
approach student’s modalities” Jesse goes on to explain that some in the Smith University
community are deficit-minded and “whether it’s faculty, staff or administrators…they don’t
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 136
expect much and therefore they don’t put in much…we have to step up and be able to give them
more that doesn’t require money, it doesn’t require buildings…we have to change our attitude
and not be so, was it deficit driven? And more equity-minded. So unfortunately I think a large
number of people that work here have that mindset.”
Sheryl also mentioned the tendency of other Smith faculty to have a deficit perspective,
and the potential of that perspective to contribute to and shape student outcomes. Kline noted
that “deficit-mindedness for me is someone who feels that there is a deficit in the student and
they’re just not capable of learning. Equity would be that every single person is capable of
learning and depending on your pedagogy is whether or not you can achieve your goal as an
administrator as a teacher to help the students… I think there are also a few, not many, a few
faculty who feel the students are not good students…I hear that a lot at the union that the
administration is not bringing in intelligent enough students and honestly I don’t think that’s the
problem I think it’s that people don’t know how to teach them. Because they are learning
differently so the frustrated faculty who won’t adapt feel that the students are not intelligent.”
Shirley also explained that recognizing students’ limitations isn’t the problem, but rather the lack
of willingness to take action to support students. Shirley states that “deficit thinking would be
thinking to realize that there is a deficit but equity thinking is to ask “what causes the deficits?
and what can I do to change?” Thus, the participants demonstrated an understanding of equity-
minded and deficit-minded concepts introduced during the Equity Scorecard process.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 137
Phase 2: Defining the Problem. With their understanding of equity-mindedness as
“what can I do to address student outcomes,” the participants begin reviewing their institutional
data to identify educational gaps during the defining the problem phase. During this phase,
Equity Scorecard participants typically hold evidence team meetings during which they review
their institutional data and acknowledged an equity gap between racial and ethnic student groups,
developed hunches and questions about what was contributing to the student outcomes. Part of
this phase is also selecting “focal efforts” or specific areas the evidence team will concentrate on
in order to meet their specific benchmarking goals. The Smith University evidence team began
the defining the problem phase at the September 2012 retention/completion perspective kickoff
and continued at their November 2012 Equity Scorecard meeting.
Institutional Data as Mediating Artifact. After the kickoff the Smith University evidence
team was instructed to hold monthly meetings to review the retention/completion data and to
hold monthly calls with their CUE project specialist to discuss the meetings and their progress.
However, the Smith University participants shared that they were overwhelmed with other
obligations like, preparing for accreditation and so they were unable to bring all of the evidence
team members together for a meeting. When I prepared to do a site visit in November 2012, I
shared with the team members that I would like to attend their evidence team meeting to observe
and provide any support that they needed. When I arrived at the evidence team meeting only the
team leaders and the institutional researcher were present. When I asked about the other
participants, the institutional researcher shared that they had been only given a few days’ notice
about the meeting and so the others likely had other obligations. When following up with the
CUE project specialist, she shared that after the visit the participants admitted to only meeting in
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 138
person one other time during the nine months of the retention/completion perspective, and
participated in two monthly calls.
Even with just the three evidence team members, the participants began reviewing their
retention/completion data at their November 2012, Equity Scorecard meeting. The data is
referred to as the “vital signs” that are used to take the temperature or get an assessment of how
the university is doing in regards to retention/persistence, completion, and equity. Hence, the
tables provide persistence and graduation rates disaggregated by racial/ethnic categories. The
different formats in which the data is presented (pie and bar graphs) are used to make any equity
gaps more visible. The vital signs assist evidence team members to notice patterns of student
outcomes that reflect poor performance. For instance Smith University loses more of their
students from the first to second year and retains the most from the third to fourth year.
The data was the catalyst for participants raising questions about the information itself
and what it meant for the institution. For example, when looking at their year to year retention
data, evidence team member Shirley noted that “something’s happening between year one and
two.” Shirley was noting that Smith loses the most students from year one to year two. Shane, in
response to Shirley’s observation, commented that although they are still losing the largest
proportion of students from year one to year two, “for year one and two the university college
has been very helpful in improving retention…our retention for 2010/2011 compared to
2011/2012 there’s been an increase of I think close to about 10%...It really helped with retention
from year one to year two.” Shane and Shirleys’ dialogue is an example of how reviewing the
data helped the participants identify problems, and that the team members were also able to add
other information to the dialogue, like the fact that there had been an institutional initiative and
decrease in the percentage of students lost after the first year. Thus, demonstrating that the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 139
Equity Scorecard provided an important opportunity for campus leaders to communicate and
share information.
When the participants reviewed the data, they looked to one another for information and
understanding, but being true to the Equity Scorecard’s action research approach, they also asked
me as the CUE liaison to clarify what the data was saying and what it is they were supposed to to
do to complete the Equity Scorecard. For example, Shirley asked “is this the actual data from
2010? The number of graduates that we had from 2010, it was 180?” “So we have yet to get to
2015 so how does this work? How does this happen? Show us, tell us what we’re looking for?”
Thus the participants often checked in with me to ask if they were doing what they were
supposed to do.
The participants also asked me for information about additional data that I often did not
have access to and would redirect the questions to their institutional researcher. One example of
this is when Jeffrey asked for clarification on whether some of the patterns they were seeing for
the fixed data period also occur when looking at longitudinal data. Jeffrey said “I would just like
to see…I don’t know things change so quickly in this period of time, if it’s a pattern or
luck…you know how when you have a tree and they cut the tree across and you see the rings
going around the tree, somewhere on the tree you’ll see something that’s real jagged. What
happened during that time? That was the year they had the flood, that was the year they had the
big fire, you can almost track it, you can see that something big happened at that point. Did it
happen every 3
rd
to 4
th
year? Did it go up like this? or not go down as far? I’m still wondering,
was it a pattern?” Although, the additional data Jeffery was requesting was not available, I
responded by telling them that questioning what is contributing to the data is an important part of
finding out what the problems are.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 140
Some of the additional data that the evidence team members asked for was data that they
felt could better address how they were serving their unique student body. For example, Shane
noted that for Smith University, “the majority, about 80% or more of the students are Pell grant
recipients so clearly income is a big factor. A lot of them are first generation college students too
and also in regards to income, a lot of them had to go to school part time and sometimes they
may stop for a semester, go away get money before they come back. So that’s one reason that’s
affecting our completion rates. So it takes them longer. If you look at our eight year graduation
you will notice quite a number of them graduate in eight years compared to four, six years. And
then that is not something that is usually tracked.” I responded to questions like Jeffery’s and
Shane’s with an explanation of the parameters of the available data, encourage the climate of
questioning, and recommend that they follow up with institutional researcher to obtain additional
data. These interactions between the participants and myself, demonstrate how as a participant
observer I was engaged in their Equity Scorecard learning process.
Developing “Hunches.” After gaining a practical understanding of what the data meant,
the evidence team participants began hypothesizing about the potential causes of the data. The
initial brain storm did involve the identification of student characteristics such as income status,
academic and social preparedness, and motivation. Shane suggested that “we have a lot of first
generation college students here. Some of them I don’t think are prepared enough for the college
environment so some show up after one semester they just drop out. Based on the data I’ve seen
some students who are here but don’t go to class, they just stay in the dorm and at the end of the
semester they have withdrawn all their classes…So some of these factors play together and
definitely affect our retention and graduation rates.”
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 141
Jesse cited personal motivation as a potential cause for the low retention and graduation
rates. Jesse shared that “if you’re a student and you’re determined, persistent and really focused.
You can get through here and be okay. Unfortunately the majority of our students aren’t like that
when they start off so they fall through the cracks and don’t finish, hence our 13% graduation
rate. For instance, if a student goes to an advisor and they say oh no you can’t graduate on time
they’ll just stop. Not just stop, but they won’t ask anymore. Whereas the persistent student will
go to the chair or the dean, what do you mean I can’t graduate on time? Explain it to me, how,
what am I missing?” Although, Shane and Jesse’s statements attribute the data to the student
characteristics, other participants suggested that there are institutional obstacles that students
must overcome in order to successfully graduate from Smith University.
Some of the institutional factors that the evidence team identified included advising,
student-faculty relationships, financial resources to provide programs and tools to engage and
support students, and graduation policies and procedures. One area the evidence team selected to
focus on was advising. When asked about what she felt contributed to completion rates, evidence
team member, Shirley noted, “I personally think that a lot of it has to do with proper advising.
Because I’ve seen advising change so much. There’s something called the want to and the can
do. And you have to be in a position to can do… I think we should do something with the
general education to help people know the process because when you help people who have been
away from education for a while things change.” While she was not specific about what it means
to be a “can do” person in advising and how it directly impacts student outcomes, Shirley’s
comment is an example of the conversations in which institutional factors were discussed as a
contributor to student outcomes.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 142
Sheryl also mentioned advising, but referred to a specific policy that advisors implement
that could be negatively impacting the graduation rate and that is the Smith University policy
that students are allowed to participate in commencement even if they still need to complete up
to six credits. Sheryl explained that “our students think they graduated. And they didn’t. And
then 10 years later, 20 years later they’re being fired from their jobs. And they have to come
back and complete their class work and in fact I have one on my desk right now and it was in
2002 he walked and it’s in his petition, I’m in jeopardy of losing my job, it’s right in front of me.
I sign these every week…I believe that is a huge fault of the institution that they need to stop that
policy because they say the students knew they didn’t graduate and no they don’t. They wear that
cap and gown, their parents think they graduated and they’re embarrassed and they don’t come
back.”
Jeffrey explained that in addition to the advising policies, faculty who also serve as
academic advisors at Smith University, can impact students through their relationships. Jeffrey
noted that, “faculty very often have a lot to do with students who hang around. When you talk to
the alumni, what was it that really impacted you at [Smith]. Professor so and so was a major
factor in my life…talk about ah hah moments, when you start to look across things, you can
identify things and then it’s an idea. How do you clone those faculty? How do you then take the
characteristics of those faculty and try to bring that into new faculty when they come in?” Sheryl
suggests that some faculty struggle to connect with students, noting although “faculty do want
the students to succeed” “some are very uncomfortable. The older faculty, are uncomfortable
with the technology. There’s a problem with that. Then of course the students will not succeed if
that doesn’t happen.” When I went on to ask why faculty were unable to effectively use the
technology that engages students Sheryl noted that part of the issue is “finances, not having the
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 143
equipment…We do not have smart classrooms…we’re supposed to be getting them, we’ve
petitioned and they’re supposed to be put into a classroom for this department but that’s only
covering a couple buildings...so you’re limiting your ability to inspire the students to want to
learn.” Sheryl explained that in the absence of sufficient finances and equipment the faculty are
limited in their use of new and innovative methods like “smart classrooms” that utilize visual
technology to engage students.
Participants suggested that beyond technology, Smith’s limited finances posed challenges
to their ability to effectively engage and support students in the form of financial aid and
extracurricular programs. Sheryl noted that because of their rural location, it is really important
for Smith to have on campus activities to keep students engaged. Sheryl explained that Smith
does not “have enough clubs to engage students…they have to drive everywhere and they can’t
walk into the city and attend an art opening or attend a concert or whatever and a lot of the
students don’t drive. At night we have the deer and the ground hogs and then there’s party time
and I just think in the evenings there needs to be more educational activities. I know student
activities are trying their best. They’re doing so much but a big part of it is that we never had the
funding enough to bring in the concerts, the lectures to engage the students. A big part of it is
funding.” Shane also suggests that “if you have the lowest funding in the whole system, how are
you supposed to put programs in place and support students. At the end of the day it goes back to
the money. If you don’t have it, you might have the ideas but there’s no way you can put things
in place to support your students. That’s one big challenge here.” In their data learning process,
the evidence team members, reviewed the data, asked questions about its meaning and then
began discussing the student characteristics and institutional factors that could explain the
particular student outcomes.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 144
Selecting a Focal Effort. After reviewing the retention and completion data at the
September 2012 kick-off and their November 2012 evidence team meeting, the participants
selected three focal efforts, or three areas to focus their retention/completion efforts. The focal
efforts included six-year graduation rates for African American students, first to second year
retention for Latino students and first to third year retention for all students. Those areas were
selected for their alignment with the measures that the institution would be evaluated for through
the state PBF policy. The participants also discussed the need to pick focal efforts that were
relevant to the criteria that they would be evaluated by for their upcoming accreditation review.
The focal efforts selected by the participants are provided below:
Table 3
Smith University Focal Efforts
Completion: Six-Year Graduation Rate of African American Students
Evaluation Indicator Baseline
2010
Goal 1
2013
Goal 2
2014
Equity
2015
African American six-year Graduation
#
180 186 194 204
African American six-year Graduation
Rate Increase
N/A 3% 4% 5%
Retention: First to Second Year Retention for Latino Students
Evaluation Indicator Baseline
2005
Goal 1
2015
Goal 2
2018
Equity
2021
Hispanic first year to second year
persistence rate
40% 43% 47% 52%
Hispanic first year to second year
persistence rate increase
N/A 3% 4% 5%
Retention: First to Third Year Persistence for All Students
Evaluation Indicator Baseline
2008
Goal 1
2011
Goal 2
2012
Equity
2013
All student 1
st
year to 3
rd
year
persistence rate
31% 34% 37% 42%
All student 1
st
year to 3
rd
year
persistence rate increase
N/A 3% 4% 5%
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 145
The discussion around selecting the focal efforts involved evidence team members
highlighting for what they thought was possible and most important for Smith University. During
the discussion I shared with the evidence team the different measures that they would be held
accountable for in the state PBF formula. I shared that they would be held accountable for
closing equity gaps in retention for non-Black students and the team responded that Latino
students would be a good focus because it would allow them to focus on students of color.
Following the decision to include Hispanic student retention as a focal effort, evidence team
member, Jeffrey quickly asked “how is our funding effected by what we do for our African
American students?” Shane responded that “African American students are a majority so they
count in retention and graduation data…so for institutions that are White majority their target
will be African Americans and since we are majority African Americans our minority in this
case is Hispanics.” Jeffrey replied, “I think the HBCUs need to be looked at a little differently”
and suggested they “go all the way through this process [the Equity Scorecard] with African
Americans.” Shane reminded Jeffery that Hispanic student retention is tied to funding and that is
a “good reason to push us to really do something.” Ultimately the team compromised by having
one focal effort designated for African Americans, one for Hispanic students, and one for all
students. The dialogue between Shane and Jeffrey was an example of the tension that existed for
Smith in responding to their historical focus on Black students and current financial pressures
that require them to pay more attention to the success of non-Black student groups.
The evidence team selected to focus on first to third year retention because they lose most
of their students between the first and second, and between the second and third years.
Additionally, the PBF policy attaches specific funding to an increase in first to third year
retention.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 146
Discussing Institutional Data Outside of the Evidence Team. There was a similar data
learning process that took place outside of the evidence team meeting. During the campus
leadership meetings, the Smith University participants reviewed the data, began asking me
questions to clarify its meaning and began hypothesizing what the data represented or did not
represent for their institution. During the site visit I had the opportunity to participate in three
campus leadership meetings. I have provided a diagram of the participants who were present at
one campus leadership meeting and how they were seated in figure 10 below.
Figure 10. Campus leadership meeting seating diagram. This is an excerpt from the field notes that captured who
was in attendance and their placement during a campus leadership meeting.
First, the retention/completion vital signs data were presented to the group of campus
leaders that included senior administrators, practitioners, and faculty responsible for areas like
admissions, data, retention, and finance for Smith University. It is important to note that because
of Smith’s small size, some of the evidence team members were also a part of the campus
leadership meeting. I passed out copies of the data, provided an overview of what the data meant
Table
Smith
University
President
Interim VP of
Finance and
Administration
Library
Director
Institutional
Research
Provost
Administrative
Assistant
Outreach
Program
Coordinator
Administrative
Assistant
Student
Affairs
Administrator
Administrative
Assistant
Honors
Program
Director
Developmental
Education
Coordinator
Researcher
(Me)
Enrollment
Management
Administrator
Administrative
Assistant
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 147
as well as the Equity Scorecard process, and then began taking notes on the discussion that
followed.
First, evidence team member Brittany began the discussion with a question about
whether the 38% four-year persistence rate was their four-year graduation rate. I clarified that
38% of the students persist to the fourth year, but that was not their graduation rate. Smith
University staff member/administrator Dawn responded that it “makes you wonder if we could
get them to graduate?” This was important because Smith’s four-year graduation rate is below
15%, but they were retaining 38% of students, so figuring out how to graduate the persisting
students is relevant to increasing their outcomes overall. After Dawn raised this point, the group
began enthusiastically speculating about why students make it to year four without graduating,
often talking over one another. Wells asked is it “advising, course scheduling?” Evidence team
member Shirley responded that it was “developmental education and financial aid” because
students “run out of financial before completing all courses because they had to take so many
developmental education courses that did not count towards graduation.” Smith University staff
member/administrator, Theodore noted that because of math requirements “students are behind
but are not allowed to move forward without fulfilling those requirements.” The vital signs were
also shared during a meeting with the evidence team, the provost, and the vice president of
student affairs. After reviewing the data, evidence team member Sheryl, suggested that advising
is a problem. The provost supported Sheryl’s comment even speculating that some faculty could
have some of the “deficit thinking I [researcher] discussed.”
The dialogue at the two campus meetings captures a few important points. First, the
group including the president seemed both surprised and encouraged that Smith University was
retaining more students through the fourth year than is reflected in their four-year graduation
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 148
rate, demonstrating the importance of giving institutional members and leaders the opportunity to
view disaggregated data. Secondly, an evidence team member that had been engaging in the
Equity Scorecard process provided an explanation of the data that was equity-minded or
institution oriented, in each of the meetings. These comments provide an illustration of how
equity-mindedness was being used outside of the Equity Scorecard setting to help the institution
identify potential areas of concern. In both instances the provost supported the equity-minded
suggestions given by the evidence team members, by following up with additional information or
examples. There were even examples of staff members/administrators not participating in the
evidence team using the language of Equity Scorecard when introducing the process at the
campus leadership meeting. For example, one staff member/administrator mentioned terms like
“focal effort” and recited the evidence team’s findings from the access perspective without
referring to notes. The staff member/administrator’s understanding and engagement with the
process demonstrates that the Smith University evidence team had the support of their leaders,
thus increasing their potential to effect change on their campus.
Phase 3: Assessing Interventions. During the third phase of the Equity Scorecard
process, the participants “assessed interventions” by conducting inquiry into institutional
effectiveness in promoting equity through courses, programs, and support services. After
becoming familiar with the institutional data and developing “hunches” about the causes of the
data, the Smith University participants moved into assessing interventions by taking what they
learned about their student outcomes from the data and “inquiring” about how their institutional
policies and practices contributed to these outcomes, through inquiry activities. Inquiry activities
are exercises where the participants gather information through observation, interviews, or
document collection to further investigate an institutional policy or practice that could be
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 149
hindering the improvement of student outcomes or creating equity gaps in student outcomes. For
Smith University, much of what they decided to “inquire” about were the outcomes that were a
part of their PBF formula that included, graduation and retention rates overall and for non-Black
students.
The Inquiry Plan. With all of their various hypotheses about what the potential causes
of the graduation and retention rates, the evidence team needed to select a few areas to focus on
that would provide them with new information about how to improve their rates. Jeffrey
suggested speaking with alum to find out what contributed to their success and Shirley
mentioned interviewing the registrar. Ultimately, the evidence team agreed on a plan that
included (1) requesting additional data from the institutional researcher that disaggregated the
data of students who did not persist by factors like first generation status, Pell grant recipient
status, gender, transfer status, GPA, credits earned/attempted, and major (2) interviewing at least
10 Latino students to discuss their experience during their transition from their Freshmen to
Sophomore year (3) interviewing/surveying at least 10 faculty to get their perspectives on how
Smith University can increase student graduation rates (4) and meeting with the appropriate
offices to investigate pressing policy issues surrounding: developmental education/financial aid,
major declaration, course scheduling, and graduation. The specific inquiry plan is provided in
appendix G.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 150
Gathering Additional Data. Throughout the Equity Scorecard process the Smith
University evidence team shared that because of their busy schedules and the campuses small
size they didn’t need to have as many formal meetings, but instead selected to have informal
phone calls and conference calls to communicate with one another. Thus as the liaison working
with the group it was difficult to capture how they were learning from their inquiry in “real time”
because I could not necessarily arrange to participate in the impromptu calls. Thus during the
inquiry process, I tried to capture their learning retrospectively through what they reported to the
CUE liaisons. The additional data collection revealed that most of the students who did not
persist from the 2009/2010 to the 2010/2011 academic years were Pell grant recipients (65%)
and enrolled full time (89%). The data also revealed that the students who did not persist were
about half male and half female and spread evenly across the grade spectrum with about half
having a GPA above a 2.0 and about half having a GPA below a 2.0. Smith’s student population
is 76% Pell grant recipient, 96% full time, 52% female and 48% male. Thus, the population of
students who were not retained is very similar to Smith’s overall student population suggesting,
some broader institutional contributors to student outcomes, and not those limited to particular
student groups like low income students as the team hypothesized.
Addressing Latino Student Retention. As a result of its emphasis in the performance-
based funding formula, the participants discussed the recruitment and retention of non-Black
students. More specifically, the participants addressed Latino students, and not any other racial
demographic. When discussing the recruitment of non-Black students during the access
perspective of the Equity Scorecard the evidence team explained that resource limitations and
social norms were significant barriers to attracting and graduating non-Black students. During
the retention perspective of the Equity Scorecard the participants discussed the retention of
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 151
Latino students from a more equity focused, or “what can we do to address the gaps?”
perspective. During the first evidence team meeting of the retention perspective, Shane reported
that Smith University had increased their Latino student population but were unable to retain any
of the new students after the first year. Shane responded that the group should focus on “those
that are here now, how do we keep them” and Shirley responded “that’s good, that’s good and
we do have a population.” While the data showed the team that they do in fact have a population
of non-Black students, they could have focused on student characteristics to explain why they do
not stay. However, the participants engaged in a discussion about what they have in place to
support the retention of Latino students and discovered that targeted structures were not in place.
The participants made a decision to interview and hold focus groups with Latino students to
discuss their experiences with and impressions of Smith University in order to further understand
what might be contributing to their retention. The Smith University evidence team reported that
they were able to hold a small focus group with two Latino students, one male, one female, both
traditional college age, and enrolled full time.
The students shared that they had an overall positive experience at Smith University but
were “disappointed with some of the ignorance they encountered with other students.” The
students reported that they were “sometimes stereotyped” and that they are thought of as
“outsiders” who are at Smith for a “specific purpose” like a scholarship or extracurricular
activity like marching band. The participants also shared that they “don’t care to be lumped
together” as all Mexican or Puerto Rican because they come from different places such as
Guatemala and “don’t care to be identified as Spanish unless from Spain.” The students
attributed their challenges to interactions with ignorant or unknowing students, but the Smith
University evidence team began generating ideas about how they might provide more support to
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 152
the Latino students and educate their Black students on Latino culture through cultural activities
and celebrations. This example demonstrates the participants’ willingness to focus on their
policies and practices when trying to understand student retention.
Addressing Developmental Education. The participants also discussed how their
developmental education program helped or stifled completion. While many Smith students are
required to complete remedial or developmental courses, evidence team member Shirley, stated
that she “didn’t mind developmental courses because [she] had seen students go through
developmental courses and come out and be the greatest.” Shirleys’ statement is an example of
her belief that students’ placement in developmental courses is not necessarily a testament of
their ability or potential. Subsequent discussion in the evidence team meetings centered on what
barriers students may face as a result of their placement in developmental courses. The evidence
team asked “what happens if students run out of financial aid before completing the required
courses because they were required to spend time in developmental education?” “Do financial
aid limits create a barrier to completion for low income students who have successfully
completed developmental education programs?” These questions are examples of the evidence
team taking institutional responsibility by being more mindful of the ways that Smith may be
contributing to the delay of or inhibiting completion for their students.
Surveying Faculty about Advising and Retention. At Smith University, the faculty
members serve as academic advisors. Some of the evidence team members hypothesized that
some of the faculty members were deficit-minded because they didn’t believe in the students’
abilities and suggested that these beliefs could be impacting student success and outcomes. Thus,
two evidence team members were tasked with interviewing faculty members about advising and
their beliefs about student outcomes as a part of the inquiry plan. The evidence team members
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 153
shared that they opted to survey the faculty so that they could reach more in a shorter period of
time. The CUE project specialist helped create the survey questions and an evidence team
member distributed the survey. In March 2013 nine faculty members, from six departments that
included Business and Science, completed the twenty item survey. The survey asked questions
like “what differentiates a [Smith] student who stays from those who leave?”, “what training
does [Smith] provide to advisors?” and what they believe Smith “can do to improve their
graduation rates.”
The results revealed that all of the faculty members, who were surveyed, with the
exception of one, did attribute student retention and completion to student characteristics like
motivation and ability. Interestingly enough, the one faculty member who did not blame students
for their retention, replied that “the faculty make students leave.” Additionally the faculty
members noted that Smith does not provide any training for advisors and more faculty
accountability could help improve the retention and graduation rates. The faculty survey data is
an example of what information the Smith University Equity Scorecard participants were able to
gather, however it is unknown how it will be used outside of the evidence team because the
participants did not meet as a team to discuss the survey results and inquiry activity findings.
Phases 4 & 5: Implementing Solutions and Evaluating Results. Typically, the final
two phases of the Equity Scorecard process involve making changes based on the inquiry
findings and evaluating the effectiveness of the changes. In May 2013, at the conclusion of the
Smith University retention perspective the evidence team had provided some findings from their
inquiry activities to the CUE project specialist via email; however they had not met as a whole
evidence team to discuss the inquiry findings. The purpose of this study was to examine what the
Smith University evidence team learned throughout the Equity Scorecard process, however it
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 154
was not possible to examine their learning through the implementing solutions and evaluating
results phases because the participants did not engage in those steps of the process. It is possible
that the Smith University evidence team could take what they learned from the inquiry activities
and make changes at a later date. When following up with the evidence team members to discuss
any progress that had been made on implementing any changes based on what they learned from
the data and inquiry activities the participants shared that they had not been meeting because
they were busy with the accreditation process. Nevertheless, they did share that participating in
the Equity Scorecard process made them better prepared for the accreditation process because
they were more familiar with their data and had a better grasp on how they had been performing
as an institution.
Although, the participants have not yet reviewed what they learned from the inquiry
activities to make institutional changes, there were other things that they learned through the
process that resulted in some sort of institutional improvement or change. For example, when the
Equity Scorecard process was introduced in 2011, Smith University discovered that they could
not accurately benchmark where they were because their institutional data had been entered
incorrectly. When asked about this issue, Shane replied that it was both a human capital and
technology/software issue that resulted in the appearance that the university had a larger
proportion (almost 25%) of racially “unknown” students than they actually do. After addressing
this challenge it was discovered that less than 1% of Smith students racially identified as
unknown. The accuracy of their racial demographics data is increasingly relevant because Smith
University is being held accountable through the state PBF policy, for the enrollment and
graduation of non-Black students. Thus the Equity Scorecard process aided Smith University in
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 155
identifying a key institutional problem, and the institution responded by addressing the issue, and
increasing their capacity to better assess how they are serving students.
Going Against the Current: Presenting New Ideas to the “Old” Smith University
The evidence team was able to work with their institutional data and learn more about the
potential causes of that data through their inquiry activities. Despite this progress, actually
implementing institutional change may be challenging for Smith University.
Challenges with the Equity Scorecard. Smith University is the first HBCU to
participate in the Equity Scorecard process so it was important to examine any challenges, to
assess whether the process is beneficial to HBCUs, and to identify how it could be improved.
The analysis revealed that there were three issues that posed a potential threat to the
effectiveness of the Equity Scorecard at Smith University. First, there were challenges in the
communication between the evidence team members, and between the evidence team and the
CUE project specialist. Secondly, the participants discussed the issue of not having the necessary
time to allocate to the process. Lastly, the evidence team members described the challenges that
they face in making actual change within their organization, thus limiting the impact of the
Equity Scorecard.
Communication/Collaboration Challenges. One of the biggest challenges to Smith
University’s Equity Scorecard learning was their lack of fidelity to the process. The Equity
Scorecard is based on the principle that learning is social and so learning takes place in
“communities of practice” where the participants are interacting and engaging in a collaborative
environment (Bensimon, 2012). However, the Smith University evidence team did not meet
monthly as instructed or engage with the Equity Scorecard project specialist via telephone or
internet to receive support as recommended. When asked about their limited communication
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 156
with each other and the CUE, the evidence team members expressed that it was not always clear
what the expectations of the process were and how often and under what circumstances they
were expected to contact the CUE Project Specialist. Jeffrey noted that “there was some
disconnects in some parts…we were working on some parts and we got communications to say
to do something different and we didn’t really understand why, what we were already doing we
hadn’t completed...why we should have jumped around?” Jeffrey was referring to a common
situation where the CUE project specialist would provide instructions for a particular portion of
the process via email. The evidence team members shared that the electronic instructions were
not always clear. Shane shared that they “write stuff sometimes and then no this is not what
[CUE] wanted, it looks different.” Hence, there were instances where the evidence team
members felt that they had successfully completed a task and CUE disagreed and continued to
ask for something different.
The evidence team members also discussed their desire to have more engaging Equity
Scorecard experiences. Specifically, a few evidence team members mentioned that they were
hoping to have a stronger voice at the Equity Scorecard kickoff meetings that included other
members of the state system of higher education. Participants noted that their experience and
expertise as an HBCU had value in a discussion about increasing equity, especially because for
the other campuses they were trying to figure out how to serve Black students better. Sheryl
explained that “so many people had to increase the enrollment for African American students
and I think because [Smith] is an HBCU it might have been good maybe to give us a little bit
more voice about the students that we have. I think we could help the other institutions because
that’s what we do. They may not want to hear it but I think it’s very important that they do
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 157
because we’ve been doing it for a hundred and seventy five years I think faculty know and
administrators do know what they’re doing.”
The evidence team members also expressed that it was difficult to completely engage all
of the evidence team members in the process. The participants shared that everyone did not
attend the meetings and participate in the process, for reasons that some attributed to members
being over committed and to the lack of organization and communication within the team. When
CUE asked about the dates and times of the evidence team meetings the evidence team members
often responded they worked more informally to complete the tasks by talking over the telephone
and sending emails, therefore they did not need to have as many formal meetings. Jesse
explained that despite not meeting in person she worked with her “smaller group” to complete
the tasks.
When I visited the campus to attend the evidence team meeting in person only three of
the eight evidence team members were in attendance. A few evidence team members shared that
they had not received enough notice to attend the meeting. Shane suggested that “it would be
good if the entire group is made aware of the meeting times at least a week ahead. I think this
invitation came just this week right? Aha, I had to move things or else I would not be here
myself too.” The evidence team members also noted that they each have many other
responsibilities that make it difficult to fully participate in the Equity Scorecard process. For
instance, one team member left the team because he was already committed to eight other
campus committees and no longer had time. A participating faculty member noted that she
missed the meeting because she had to teach a class. Over half of the evidence team is serving on
multiple campus committees as a result of their accreditation process. I observed one team
member attend four campus meetings in a single day. Sheryl explained that the university has
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 158
seen a drastic reduction in tenure track faculty and an increase of non-tenure track faculty who
because of the nature of their university contracts, are unable to share in the outside of classroom
responsibilities like serving on campus committees. Thus, the tenure track faculty and eligible
practitioners are forced to serve on more committees than they have in the past. Shirley shared
that Smith practitioners are required to write grant proposals to “do the programming that is
required to do what we need to do.” Thus they perceive that they have a heavier workload than
their peers at other institutions.
Jeffrey expressed that despite these prior commitments the process is “important for what
we’re trying to do for the life of the university, even more important than that, the life of the
students.” Jeffrey went on to explain that they were “trying to get the provost to put some teeth
in it” in order to increase greater participation. The evidence team members noted that it is just a
few that ends up “carrying a lot of the load.” Shirley shared that although “people don’t want to
work hard” she continued to work through the Equity Scorecard process “out of desperation.” As
a result of the challenge to get all of the evidence team members to meet and contribute to the
Equity Scorecard efforts early on the process, the group decided to create a standing meeting to
increase the engagement of the participants during the retention/completion perspective.
However, when it was time for the first meeting during their standing meeting time, the
participants shared that they were too busy and an actual meeting never took place. To help
support the engagement of all the evidence team members, the CUE project specialist assigned
specific individuals with tasks in order to increase the engagement of the entire evidence team.
For example, when I worked with the CUE project specialist to write up the ideas for inquiry
activities that the participants shared during the visit, we assigned Sheryl and Shirley to work
together on a task and Jeffery and Jesse to work together on a specific task because Shirley and
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 159
Jeffery had been participating more than Sheryl and Jesse. As a result, the evidence team
members reported that more participants were participating in the process and completing the
tasks together.
Challenges to Organizational Change. The evidence team members reported that they
had more participation during the latter part of the retention perspective, after the initial meeting
of only 3 team members. Despite the progress of the team, there were a few issues that emerged
that pose threats to Smith’s ability to improve student outcomes as a result of the Equity
Scorecard findings. The participants agreed that it was necessary to raise their graduation rates;
however, they offered many reasons for the lack of improvement in student outcomes that went
beyond students’ academic preparedness. They identified aspects of the organizational culture
that create barriers to improving graduation and retention rates, which include limited resources,
and challenges within the faculty and staff member/administrator interactions as well as their
interactions with students. Also, the presence of these challenges mediated the evidence team’s
Equity Scorecard learning when they were cited as reasons why change was not possible or
realistic.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 160
Figure 11. Barriers to improvement.
The most prevalent issues are related to Smith University’s limited resources and their
institutional culture. The provost noted that
“one of the major barriers is financial of course, and that’s probably most institutions, but
particularly this one that has been under- resourced for a long, long time. Other barriers
have to do with what I call institutional culture. I think some of the institutional culture is
tied to resource restrictions. I don’t know if people have gone without for so long that
they’ve gotten used to going without. But they had not for a long time had the appropriate
incentive to do some of the things that you kind of expect is the norm for faculty and staff
at other institutions. Then there is sort of a legacy around issues of accountability because
there’s been such rapid turnover in the senior administration that nobody’s been here long
enough to hold people accountable for what they’re supposed to be doing. So by the time
you hold somebody accountable they’ve moved on to another job. So too many people
don’t believe that there are or should be consequences for not doing what you’re
supposed to do. And the institution hasn’t had the resources to provide the appropriate
incentives to encourage the behavior that you want to see.”
When asked what barriers the institution faces in improving their retention and graduation
rates the most common response from the evidence team members and the institution’s senior
•Working with faculty unions
•Bureacracy
•Faculty/Administrator Tension
•High Turnover Staff and Administrator
Faculty, Staff/
Administrator
Internal Challenges
•Poor Customer Service
•Administrative Errors and Mismanagement
•Lack of Classroom engagement and creativity
Faculty, Staff/
Administrator to
Student Challenges
•Limited Facilities
•Limited Technological Resources and Use
•Staff Memeber/Administrator Fatigue
Limited Resources
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 161
leaders was financial resources. The evidence team members also explained that in the past,
consultants have come to Smith and made recommendations for how Smith could improve but
nothing has ever happened as a result. Jeffrey Anderson speculates that the institution has not
responded because they don’t have the funds to implement the changes or there is a lack of will
on the part of the institution. One senior administrator explained that “there are a lot of
gatekeepers of the status quo.” Another practitioner described Smith as “in flux” because
“there’s a change, there’s a change that has to come…there are certain people here that realize it.
But there are some people that are resistant. But the people that are resistant…they’re in the
middle. And middle management controls everything.” Recognizing some of the organizational
challenges, Shirley Stokes explained that “we’re trying. We want to affect change. We are not
lazy. We do work. We just need the results of the data to show you that we want to affect change
but we might have to do it a different way. We might have to do it a way that is not normal. We
may have to do it from a way that is not usually done.” While the resource limitations and
cultural norms may pose a challenge to institutional change, Shirley suggests that change is
possible but it may require nontraditional approaches.
During the interviews, observations, and document analysis it was clear that there were
challenges between faculty and staff members/administrators. There seemed to be tensions
between the faculty and staff members/administrators, in which the staff members/administrators
complained about the difficulty of making changes when working with unionized faculty and the
faculty participants noted the high turnover of staff members/administrators as challenging. One
senior staff member/administrator, Theodore, explained that “you’ve just got people trying to
live up to the level of the contract. And that’s an unfortunate characteristic of HBCUs or of this
particular school in this unionized environment that is sometimes overlooked…I really want to
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 162
look at student performance or measures of student satisfaction at HBCUs that are in collective
bargaining environments and compare them to areas where there are no collective bargaining...I
suspect that there’s a big difference.” Another staff member/administrator, Michael in response
to a question about what barriers the institution faces in addressing student outcomes shared that
“part of its union. Everything has been a fight, well my union says this.”
Additionally, there were two camps of staff members/administrators: those seasoned
individuals who have been at Smith University for extended periods of time (over 10 years) and
the newer staff members/administrators (less than 5 years). The newer staff
members/administrators complained that they would present ideas for improving the campus but
those ideas were not supported by the seasoned staff members/administrators—not because they
weren’t good ideas, but because the latter group were resistant to change. Benjamin, a newer
Smith University staff member, described the other staff members/administrators as “resistant”
to new and younger staff “because they feel like that young person is coming to take their job.”
Benjamin goes on to explain that having the staff members/administrators who have greater
seniority at the middle management level prevents innovative ideas from reaching the necessary
leaders. Benjamin provides an example of how a proposal for a new program that he wrote was
“cut” and “chopped” after the middle level staff member/administrator passed it on to a senior
staff member/administrator. Benjamin’s understanding is that the proposal was denied because of
how it had been altered, but he was ultimately able to get it accepted once the senior staff
member/administrator reviewed the original version. Another newer staff member/administrator
attributed such experiences to Smith University’s “gatekeepers of the status quo.”
In contrast, Jeffrey, a staff member/administrator who has been at Smith University for
over 10 years, described the organizational culture as “evolving” in which “you have the formal
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 163
structure and then you have those interactions that are not part of the formal structure. You have
people who are not necessarily in positions of authority or high authority but they tend to move
people.” This is important because Jeffrey also noted the necessity that newer staff
member/administrators honor the hierarchy of the university by using appropriate channels, but
he clearly also recognizes that those who may not be in positions of “high authority” are
important contributors to organizational change, and may even have to go outside the “formal
structure” to do so.
An aspect of organizational culture that can potentially impact student outcomes is the
interaction between the students and the organizational leaders and faculty at the institution. The
students and the staff members/administrators mentioned several examples in which students
received poor customer service or suffered as a result of university error in important areas such
as registration and financial aid. An example of an administrative error in the financial aid office
was discussed by several of the participants. Malcolm, a Smith university staff
member/administrator, explained that the error resulted in students not receiving the financial aid
they needed. Especially notable is an example of a Smith University employee’s family member
who, although eligible to receive a tuition waiver, selected not to attend the university because of
what the employee described as poor service and unresponsiveness. Malcolm further explained
that such errors or mismanagement take place because Smith University “has not trained their
management force accordingly…to be able to deal with ethics and things of that sort.”
While there are the previously provided examples of faculty members who mentor and
engage students, the participants also noted their disappointment with some professors who
seemed disengaged and were not particularly creative in their delivery of academic content.
Students provided examples of faculty reading them an entire lecture and using premade quizzes
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 164
available online that are not aligned with the assigned texts to test students. Smith University
faculty member, Sheryl argued that the faculty need to incorporate technology into the classroom
in order to engage students. She noted that students’ “learning is so interconnected to audio and
visual and technology… I encourage them to research using their smart phones… Too often I
think the older faculty do not accept that. They don’t see it as valid. They don’t realize that that’s
the way our young people learn now... teaching them to read if we just do it with a book we’re
miserably failing now. This is I think all youth.”
Some of the participants argued that the main problem that all of the other institutional
challenges stem from is the institution’s limited resources. Participants attributed issues like staff
member/administrator fatigue, high turnover, poor customer service, and administrative errors to
the limited resources. Malcolm, a Smith University staff member/administrator, noted that
because of financial constraints the university had to undergo a restructuring process that has
negatively impacted employee morale, possibly further increasing turnover. Further, the
participants shared that the lack of resources impacts student outcomes like completion because
without adequate facilities the institution is unable to attract academically competitive students
who are most likely to graduate in four years. Leslie, a staff member/administrator, explained
that Smith University has “to attract students that [Smith] can retain…[Smith] can’t do that” until
they get their “dining facilities” and “residential facilities” “up to par.” Leslie was not
demanding state of the art facilities, but was rather mentioning the need for functioning campus-
wide wireless internet service and necessary building repairs like fixing the leaking roofs in
academic buildings. Jeremy, recalled that as a prospective student thinking that Smith “looked
like the ghetto.” And though he was “coming from the ghetto,” it was a place he did not “want to
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 165
go back to.” While Jeremy eventually selected to attend Smith, it was only because he could not
go to another HBCU that had newer facilities.
Participants explained that without the proper physical resources, such as up to date
technology and data systems, administrative errors are inevitable. Administrator/staff member
Moses explained that data system limitations pose challenges for collecting admissions data.
Moses states that “we are really recruiting with yesterday’s recruitment practices in terms of
technology…we have difficulty uploading test scores, that’s pretty basic for most contemporary
admissions offices.” Another challenge is the lack of knowledgeable staff. Shane pointed out a
variety of staff related problems including “staff capacity” and “getting the technical support to
get the work done…is a real challenge here...having to find out that the database itself wasn’t
aligned brought up challenges.” Without proper data collection and management Smith
University faces challenges in measuring how they are doing, making it difficult to identify what
needs to be improved to increase student outcomes.
At small colleges human capital is an especially important commodity in that there are
less staff/administrative positions, which results in employees having numerous responsibilities
within their professional jurisdiction. For example, at many institutions the staff
members/administrators in charge of enrollment management and admissions are two different
people. However, at Smith University, one person is responsible for enrollment management and
university admissions. While the potential for coordination and synergy is increased, the
likelihood of fatigue and even administrative error can be increased. Theodore, a Smith
University staff member/administrator, explained that “the work load is heavier. And in HBCUs
in general, even those that are well resourced, it’s pretty much known that you get paid for doing
one job officially in terms of your employment contract, but in reality if you work on an HBCU
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 166
campus you probably wear half a dozen hats.” Another participant, Michael also shared that in
his first year as a staff member/administrator he was assigned to eight university committees
while also fulfilling the duties of his designated position. Demonstrating that the participants
may lack human capacity to be effective and engage in the extra work required by initiatives like
Equity Scorecard process.
Summary of Findings
In order to increase the potential for success on the performance measures, the state
introduced the Equity Scorecard process to the campuses in the system in order to provide
education about data and equity. As the only HBCU in the state system, Smith University was a
unique site to receive “education” about racial equity and to approach a discussion of change and
improvement within their parameters.
As expected, unlike PWIs that have traditionally used the
Equity Scorecard process, the Smith University participants did not resist the focus on outcomes
for students of color. Similar to other institutions participating in the Equity Scorecard, the
observations and interviews provided many examples of participants learning from their student
data. Specifically, the evidence team learned that (1) there were errors in Smith’s data system,
(2) they were able to enroll but struggled to retain non-Black students, (3) and that they were
able to retain a decent proportion of students (38%) into their fourth year, even though they were
not graduating. What the participants learned from the Equity Scorecard provided the critical
first steps in institutional improvement. The data system was corrected and the institution
discussed an emerging focus on improving the retention of Latino students. Additionally, the
evidence team began an investigation to determine what institutional factors were causing
students to persist without graduating. The participants considered the role of their course
offerings, advisement, and remediation programs.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 167
The implementation of the Equity Scorecard at a HBCU provided the team of
practitioners with the opportunity to review and discuss their institutional data.
The participants shared that the opportunity to work with the data supported their other
responsibilities to provide evidence and documentation of what their institution is doing for their
accreditation processes. Hence, the alignment with the concurrent accreditation process and PBF
policy made the Equity Scorecard process more effective and useful for their institution. The
issue of how Smith can maintain their historical mission to serve and provide opportunity to
Black students be maintained while responding to accountability pressures was not completely
solved. However, the Equity Scorecard process provided a structured space where the review of
institutional data mediated a learning process in which the participants became more aware of the
outcomes of various student groups and what institutional factors are potentially contributing to
those outcomes; a very important step towards institutional improvement.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 168
CHAPTER V:
Reflections, Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusions
The case study provides new insights into issues of race, organizational culture, state
policy, institutional change, and student outcomes at public HBCUs. The aim of this case study
was to answer the following research questions, first “what does the Smith University evidence
team learn through the Equity Scorecard process?” and secondly, “what mediates the Smith
University evidence team’s Equity Scorecard learning process?” In response to the first research
question, the Smith University evidence team learned that (1) there were errors in Smith’s data
system, (2) they were able to retain a decent proportion of students (38%) into their fourth year,
even though they were not graduating within four years (less than 15% four-year graduation
rate), (3) they were being held accountable for the retention of non-black students as a part of
their state Performance-Based Funding (PBF) policy, (4) and that they were able to enroll but
struggled to retain non-Black students.
The interviews and observations provided an opportunity to discuss and witness what the
evidence team learned as well as those factors that seemed to shape their learning process.
Specifically, the Smith University evidence team’s Equity Scorecard learning process seemed to
be mediated by (1) their shared belief that their financial resources were too little to make any
significant changes in student enrollment, retention, and graduation (2) their critiques of the PBF
policy that stemmed from their disappoint with their level of involvement in the development of
the policy and the conflicts between the policy and their institutional mission, (3) their shared
suspicion that the state system of higher education was taking steps to harm, rather than help, the
institution (4) and their shared belief that Smith University should provide opportunity to Black
students who might otherwise not be admitted to a four-year university despite how this practice
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 169
may impact their institutional performance overall. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the
meaning and implication of these findings. The chapter will begin with a discussion of the
theoretical, practical, and policy implications of the findings. The chapter will then address the
considerations for conducting research on HBCU improvement, in which reflections on access
and epistemic privilege and directions for future research will be provided. The chapter will
close with concluding thoughts on the case study.
Theoretical, Practical, and Policy Implications
Critical Race Theory Implications. Critical Race Theory (CRT) embraces the
understanding that racism is common and likely in American structures and institutions and
includes an emphasis on the ways historical context shapes contemporary problems (Solorzano,
1997). One of the most important findings is that the members of the Smith University
community identified resource challenges as a major barrier in their ability to make institutional
improvement. Participants explained that the resource limitations impact their ability to recruit
and retain competitive faculty and staff, offer financial support to students, and increase
academic and extracurricular offerings on campus. Resource challenges seemed to be the culprit
behind their low student outcomes, criticism of the PBF policy, and their challenges with the
Equity Scorecard process. While most higher education institutions would argue that they need
additional funding, the Smith University participants connected their resource challenges to their
status as an HBCU and resource providers like the state system of higher education’s lack of
support for Black education.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 170
Smith University’s Counternarratives on Racism. Participants believed that their
experience with limited resources is not coincidental, and may be constructed in response to their
Black identity. In other words, the participants felt their limited resources were a direct result of
institutional racism on the part of the state system of higher education and the larger society. The
belief that the state provides differential and insubstantial funding to their public HBCU is not
new or limited to the Smith University experience. For example, Lee and Keys (2013), authored
a recent report explaining that states often opt to not match the federal government’s support of
their public land-grant HBCUs, as suggested in the 1890 Morrill Land Grant Act. The authors
note that states are not given the option, but instead are required to match the federal
government’s support of the predominately White land-grant institutions that were established as
a result of the 1862 Morrill Land Grant act. Hence, Lee and Keys (2013) analysis provides a
contemporary example of the ongoing battle to ensure equitable state funding for public HBCUs.
State actions such as the PBF policy may have been designed with good intentions (as
communicated in the state system narrative), but participants from Smith University were both
critical and suspicious of the policy’s potential to create improvements at the institution. Smith
students, faculty, and staff members/administrators were most concerned about the effects of
some of the indicators—for example, tying increased funding to the improved retention of non-
Black students—which they felt could threaten the institution’s historical focus on Black
students. While some participants supported the idea of increasing racial diversity on campus,
they also explained that because of the school’s limited resources and fragile organizational
structure (as a result of high turnover in their senior leadership positions) Smith does not possess
the infrastructure needed to make improvements on the performance measures.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 171
When I began the study and heard the participants’ claims of racism against the state
system, suggesting that they had been intentionally deprived of resources I felt that it was
important to consider these claims when examining the history of the relationship between Smith
University and the state system. Was there evidence to support the accusation of institutional
racism? There was evidence of the state not providing adequate support to the system’s only
Historically Black University (i.e. the multimillion dollar lawsuit that was filed prior to the
formation of the system and settled after the system was formed). However, as the study
progressed I realized that it was not just about “proving” whether or not the state was racist
towards Smith. Instead, it was important to understand how the narrative of institutional racism
was shaping the experiences of participants from Smith University. Erickson (1986) argues that
“the object of interpretive social research is action, not behavior. This is because of the
assumption made about the nature of cause in social life. If people take action on the grounds of
their interpretations of the actions of others, then meaning-interpretations themselves are causal
for humans” (p.127). Therefore, to comprehensively understand the impact of the PBF policy, it
is necessary to examine how the participants “interpreted” the policy and their relationship with
the state system of higher education, in addition to the stated goal and components of the policy.
Further, it is beneficial for state systems and other stakeholders to consider the historical and
social contexts, cultures, and narratives when thinking about how to support, govern, and partner
with institutions like HBCUs. With a critical race assumption of racism as an endemic
characteristic of organizations, it is not enough to say that an institution hasn’t acted in a racist
manner; stakeholders must consider in what ways have their actions, or inactions, elicited a
narrative of opposition? And further, how might those narratives shape how policy makers
approach resource allocation and policy design, formation, and institutional improvement?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 172
PBF as an example of Interest Convergence. Of particular concern were the PBF
metrics that made a proportion of the funding contingent on the retention and enrollment of
Other than Black or Unknown (OTBU) students and faculty. One issue that requires further
interrogation is the notion of formally placing monetary value on the success of non-Black
students in one of the few spaces in higher education designated to serve Black students. Jeffrey,
a Smith staff member/administrator, raised this issue during a campus leadership meeting. The
institutional researcher explained to the group how the improvement of their Latino student
retention could impact their funding as a result of the PBF policy. Jeffrey asked “how is [our]
funding affected by what we do for our African American students?” The institutional researcher
explained that “African American students are a majority so they count in retention and
graduation data…so for institutions that are White majority their target will be African
Americans and since we are majority African American our minority in this case is Hispanics.”
The policy does not require an explicit shift to another targeted demographic group of people,
like White or Latino students, but instead articulates a specific shift away from Black students
and faculty. Considering Smith’s narrative of racial oppression from the state, it was not
surprising that they would have strong feelings against the newly imposed performance
measures.
Looking at the policy from a CRT perspective provides a further explanation about why
OTBU performance measures could be problematic. The OTBU focus in the PBF policy is an
example of what Critical Race theorist Derrick Bell (1980) describes as interest convergence.
Bell (1980) describes interest convergence as the tendency of Whites (or others in positions of
privilege or power) to consider policies regarding people of color (or others with less privilege or
power) in terms of how they can appear to serve the needs of others while also benefitting.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 173
Performance funding as described by the state system of higher education was designed with the
intention of providing support to increase equity and success at all institutions, but in the case of
the only university in the system with an explicitly racialized historical mission, there is
language to support the achievement of anyone who isn’t Black. Thus in the case of Smith
University, the state’s efforts to increase the performance of a Historically Black University
through increased financial support ensures the convergence of non-Black interests through the
OTBU measures.
Further understanding of how such incentives to support non-Black students will shift
institutional priorities or even result in the successful awarding of additional funding should be
carefully and critically considered and monitored. One Smith student, Greg, raised the concern
that “it would be different if the financial incentive was for the student as opposed to the
university…giving the incentive to the university will most likely have them campaign at high
schools with less of what the majority is [Black ] at the schools. That’s hit or miss and I think if
you want the hits give the money straight to the students.” Thus the design of the policy requires
an institutional shift in priorities and decision making, potentially shifting resources and focus
away from Black students, whether or not White students or other non-Black student populations
choose to attend Smith University. The history of racial integration at HBCUs suggests that
Smith University has been placed in a lose-lose situation. They could ignore the need to improve
the enrollment and outcomes of non-Black students and miss out on the performance funding. Or
they could threaten the mission and culture of the institution by shifting their focus to non-Black
students and still likely have trouble recruiting and retaining these non-Black students.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 174
The Challenge of Racial Integration at HBCUs. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 made it illegal for the government to provide funding for programs that discriminated based
on race. Although the Civil Rights Act was a great victory for racial integrationists, the law did
not result in an immediate change of attitudes or behaviors; African Americans still faced
difficulty gaining acceptance to and receiving social support at PWIs (Boyd, 1974). Beginning in
the late 1970s the proportion of African American students attending HBCUs began to decline,
as the proportion attending PWIs increased (Hoffman, Snyder, & Sonnenberg, 1996). In the
midst of this enrollment shift, civil rights activists from the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sought to eradicate further the barriers to higher
education access for African Americans by suing Southern states that were operating dual
systems of higher education (Egerton, 1974). This lawsuit evolved into the Adams v. Richardson
case which resulted in 19 Southern and border states having to submit plans for desegregating
their systems of higher education to the Higher Education and Welfare (HEW) department of the
federal government (Adams v. Richardson, 1973). Initially only 8 states submitted plans that
were accepted by the court, most of which left White institutions unchanged but included plans
to provide scholarship funds to make Black colleges more attractive to Whites (Egerton, 1974).
Next, James Ayers, an African American, filed a lawsuit against the governor of
Mississippi (Fordice) on behalf of his son claiming that the state operated separate and unequal
systems of public higher education. The case and series of appeals evolved into United States v.
Fordice in 1992, in which the court ruled that the state of Mississippi was operating racially
segregated systems of higher education. This put additional pressure on the states involved in the
Adams case to desegregate their systems of higher education.
Originally the courts suggested
mergers between two HBCUs and two PWIs, but that decision was controversial because some
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 175
felt that the burden to integrate was placed on HBCUs (Minor, 2008a; United States vs. Fordice,
1992). After many years of appeals, the case finally reached settlement in 2002, when the
Supreme Court decided against merging the institutions but instead awarded HBCUs in
Mississippi $503 million dollars (Sum, Light, & King, 2004). However, the controversy
continued as a result of the stipulation that $105 million of the money would remain under the
control of the state unless the HBCUs reached 10% “other” race enrollment. Opponents argued
that once again the burden to diversify had been placed on HBCUs (Minor, 2008a).
Despite Black students’ increasing access to PWIs, in 2004, two years after the Fordice
settlement, public HBCUs continued to educate the majority of African Americans in
Mississippi. The proportion of White students at HBCUs only grew 1% between 1984-2004 to
2.7% of the student enrollment at public HBCUs in Mississippi (Minor, 2008b; Minor, 2008c).
Since HBCUs seemed to be successfully educating the African American citizens of the state and
since there were no policies prohibiting White students (even if the White student enrollment
targets had not been reached), HBCU supporters questioned why HBCUs were being asked to
increase other race enrollment to receive adequate funding and support (Hebel, 2001). Gasman
and Hilton (2012) argue that the attachment of needed financial resources to White student
enrollment is an example of Bell’s interest convergence theory. Using Bell’s (1980) interest
convergence theory, it can be argued that Whites only support policies related to integration if
there is some obvious benefit to Whites. Like the case of Smith University and their state PBF
policy, legislative funding for HBCUs will, as a result, only receive necessary support if the
interests of African Americans and White s converge in the policy.
Since the federal court decisions in the Adams and Fordice cases pushed for racial
integration in public HBCUs, states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, have
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 176
created policies that attach increased funding at public HBCUs to the enrollment of non-Black
students (Hebel, 2001; McLeod, 2011; PASSHE Performance Funding Recommendations,
2011). The states have created the policies as a result of their participation in either the Adams or
Fordice cases and as a result of the increased push for institutional diversity in higher education.
Despite the court decisions, federal policies, and economic incentives to diversify their student
bodies, HBCUs have nevertheless remained predominately Black (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2010a). Some HBCUs interested in attracting Black and Non-Black
students argue that the preferences given to PWIs at the state level make it difficult to attract
Non-Black students. For example, the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) and the
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) made an agreement as a result of the Adams (1972) case, to
enhance the opportunities and infrastructures at the public HBCUs and prohibit program
duplication. When the MHEC allowed a successful program at Morgan State to be duplicated by
a nearby PWI, the OCR filed a complaint, but ultimately the institution was able to keep the
program while only enrolling out of state students (Palmer, Davis, & Gasman, 2011). The OCR
and the public HBCUs in Maryland argued that duplicate programs at nearby PWIs impact their
ability to increase their institutional quality and attract non-Black students (Palmer, Davis, &
Gasman, 2011). In the absence of nearby PWIs, the White graduate enrollment at Maryland’s
public HBCUs reached 53% in 1973; however, since the establishment of close PWIs and
duplicate programs, this enrollment has dropped to just 14% in 2006 (Palmer, Davis, & Gasman,
2011).
Despite the evidence that it is difficult for HBCUs, even when facing financial,
political, and legal pressure, to enroll White and other non-Black students at HBCUs, campuses
like Smith University are still being pressured to do so. A Smith University leader was featured
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 177
in a recent publication in which she/he affirmed the need for greater diversity, saying “we need
to admit students from a wider range of ethnic and income groups.” This statement from the
Smith leader demonstrates the difference in the Smith University and the state perspectives on
diversity. In the PBF policy, the state system refers to diversity at Smith as non-Black students.
In this statement, the Smith leader refers to diversity as a wider range of ethnic and income
groups, not different racial groups. The Smith leader supports the admission of a wider array of
students while being careful to focus on ethnicity and income, both of which do not require a
diversion from Black students, thus the state system and Smith University interests have not
quite converged.
Implications for the Equity Scorecard Process. According to Cultural Historical
Activity Theory (CHAT), participants in the activity setting are a part of campus community that
can share a set of beliefs within the culture of that community (Cole & Engestrom, 1993). The
community within the Smith University activity setting shared beliefs about (1) their ability to
provide opportunity to students and (2) their challenging relationship with the state system of
higher education, both of which, mediated their Equity Scorecard learning process. The Equity
Scorecard process encourages participants to become more “equity-minded” or to consider how
institutional policies or practices can be improved to increase student learning rather than the
deficit-model that assumes that students are to blame for their outcomes (Bensimon, et al. 2004).
The Smith University participants prided themselves on their historical mission to ability to
provide opportunity to impoverished and marginalized students but their uncritical acceptance of
this discourse of caring at times seemed to provide a justification for their low graduation rates.
The participants often mentioned that they admit the students that other institutions would not
admit, thus they have lower retention and graduation rates. Though it is likely that Smith in
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 178
operating as an open access institution, enrolls students who would not be accepted at other four-
year universities that does not automatically mean that the institution is as effective as it could
be. Despite its shortcomings, a benefit of the PBF policy was as a catalyst in re-directing the
conversation from opportunity and access to institutional change and effectiveness. For example,
when I raised questions about the PBF measures the participants were more willing to discuss
institutional factors that seemed to be related to retention and graduation. Thus, to some extent
the introduction of PBF policy in combination with the Equity Scorecard into the activity setting
refocused institutional priorities and increased attention to the improvement process.
The findings from this study also created understanding about how the institutional
members were able to use the Equity Scorecard process despite their institutional challenges like
limited time and resources. Even though the Smith University evidence team was not able to
fully utilize the Equity Scorecard because they did not follow the guidelines of the process, they
were able to adapt the methods to ensure some participation. For example, the participants
reported that they had multiple responsibilities at their institution and were too busy to meet, so
they collaborated informally over the telephone and internet rather than holding several formal
meetings. One benefit of the participants having so many institutional responsibilities and
serving on several campus committees is that they were able to answer some of the questions
about institutional policies and practices, posed by the other Equity Scorecard participants,
creating fewer steps for inquiry and investigation. For example, when the issue was raised about
the course completion commencement participation requirement, one of the Equity Scorecard
evidence team members happened to also be the faculty member responsible for working with
students who had participated in commencement without graduating. The faculty member was
able to clarify the specifics of the policy and offer an estimation of how many students seemed to
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 179
participate in commencement without completing their courses and later returned to the
university to do so. As a result of this faculty members’ knowledge, the participants did not need
to engage in an inquiry activity to find out more about the policy and how it works. Hence, it
may be important to consider how to capitalize on the evidence team members’ insights when
thinking about how the Equity Scorecard could be adapted for other small, low-resourced public
HBCUs. It would be essential to question if participants can engage in a “community of practice”
without holding formal in person meetings? And can inquiry be simplified by drawing on the
expertise to the evidence team members?
In previous studies of the Equity Scorecard, practitioners often attribute inequitable
student outcomes to students’ culture, prior education, and socioeconomic status (Bensimon,
2005; Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, & Harris, 2007; Bustillos, Rueda, & Bensimon, 2011). However
the faculty and practitioners from an HBCU with a historical mission of racial uplift were more
attuned to how student outcomes are shaped by historical and contemporary forms of racism.
Among the evidence team there seemed to be an unquestionable commitment to serving their
predominately Black student body. Secondly, although the faculty and practitioners from the
Smith University evidence team talked about race and racialized student experiences and
outcomes, they were not always willing to discuss how their own policy and practices could be
creating barriers for their students and reducing opportunities for success. They questioned the
influence of income and academic and social preparedness, and began to question in what ways
the institution had failed to alleviate barriers caused by these factors.
Thirdly, there was some resistance to the concept of equity as what practitioners can do to
change student outcomes. Minor (2004) suggests that public HBCUs operate in a racialized
climate where race is seen as a major part of their identity so they are conscious of being
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 180
observed by outsiders through a racial lens. The evidence team from the kickoff of the Equity
Scorecard process discussed being racially targeted in the state system where they receive less
funding than the other schools, and attribute their student outcomes to their limited financial
resources. Thus, the participants responded to discussions of equity-mindedness as “what they
can do or change” as organizational members with an emphasis on “what they can’t do because
of resource limitations.” Single-loop learning involves the ability to recognize the symptoms of
problems rather than the root causes and double-loop learning requires participants to consider
the thinking that is behind the behavior or root causes (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Bensimon, et al.,
2004; Bensimon, 2012).Thus, the participants’ recognition of problematic student outcomes as a
result of the data represented single-loop learning, but they did not achieve double-loop learning
because there was no evidence of how their understanding resulted in institutional practices to
ensure equity in student outcomes.
There is some precedence in the application of the Equity Scorecard at Hispanic Serving
Institutions and urban high schools where the populations are predominately students of color;
however, none of those institutions were established with their primary mission to serve students
of color (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008; Jones, Bensimon, McNair, & Dowd, 2011;
Kezar, Glenn, Lester, & Nakamoto, 2008). Despite the challenges faced by the participating
evidence team and CUE in reconceptualizing their equity concepts and process for an HBCU,
greater understanding about how the participants viewed equity and student outcomes at an
HBCU was generated. Typically, the Equity Scorecard is aimed at identifying gaps as evidence
that the institution can do better to serve students of color. However, when working with an
HBCU populated with majority Black students the discussion was less about “gaps” and more
about making improvements that will benefit all students.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 181
As with individuals of color, the HBCU as an organization aimed at serving Black
students has experienced a history of discrimination that includes being underfunded by the state.
It is controversial and complicated to challenge the commitment to equity of an institution that
has a historical mission to “racial uplift,” so it was important to observe how their HBCU
identity was brought up during Equity Scorecard intervention. In her 2002 study of evidence
teams participating in the Equity Scorecard process, Bauman characterizes high learning teams
as those that prioritized data over other types of information and medium learning teams as those
who assume that the data would “confirm their experiential knowledge” (p. 108).
The participants often discussed the state system of higher education and outsiders not
understanding what it is that they do and so they often told stories about their experience as an
institution and the students they served. As a Smith University outsider it was helpful to hear the
stories to get a better understanding of the context; however, it became problematic when the
stories were relied upon even in the face of contradicting data. For example, Jeffrey suggested
that serving Latino students would only require a “little tweaking of language,” even after
hearing the institutional researcher report that none of the over twenty Latino students who had
enrolled as freshmen in 2010 had returned the following year. It is obvious from the data that not
being able to retain any Latino students is a major issue that would warrant more than just a little
tweaking. Jeffery was able to learn more about the Latino student experiences during the inquiry
activity, when he interviewed two Latino students. However, it is difficult to assess how the
inquiry findings contributed to a new understanding because the evidence team did not meet as a
group after the inquiry activities.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 182
Using Bauman’s (2002) framework, the disregard of data and reliance on experiential
knowledge by the evidence team members, and especially the team leaders, would suggest that
Smith University fits the profile of a low learning team. However, I would encourage a revisiting
of this concept for the purposes of an HBCU where issues of history, mission, and identity
complicate this notion. There could be a desire to protect a mission, culture, and history that is
mediating how the participants react to the data. This is not to suggest that there was a high level
of learning, but to instead consider the dynamic reasons for why the participants from an HBCU
would feel the need to resist the data and protect their institution by using institutional history
and mission to justify the outcomes. Thus, it would not be enough to say that the Smith
University evidence team was a low learning team because they used experiential knowledge
rather than data, it would also be important to say why they felt the need to rely on the
experiential knowledge.
Limitations of studying the Equity Scorecard. A limitation of the study was that there
was only one site visit, so it was difficult to determine if their lack of fidelity to the Equity
Scorecard process, was an act of resistance or a manifestation of their organizational culture. In
the instance of not holding formal team meetings, the participants explained that they do not
need to meet because their campus is so small and their interactions are more frequent and
informal. However, even though the participants did not frequently hold formal meetings for the
Equity Scorecard, during the site visit several formal meetings were held for various campus
committees, and at each meeting were participants from the Smith University Equity Scorecard
evidence team. At each of the meetings the participants brought up the issue of accreditation,
thus, I wondered if they were only meeting because of the accreditation process. I asked a
participant about this and he shared that although the campus does have a lot of committees and
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 183
the staff/administrators and faculty do engage in a lot meetings, they were throwing things
together for accreditation to try and document what they have been doing because formal
documentation was not a part of their organizational culture or practices. With only one site visit
in the middle of the accreditation whirlwind, it was impossible to assess how much of their lack
of adherence to the meeting and written requirements of the process were because a) they did not
support the Equity Scorecard process or if b) formal meetings and documentation were not a part
of their organizational culture, or if c) they were too busy with other meetings like those for
accreditation where the stakes are much higher.
Another limitation of the analysis is that the Equity Scorecard is being used with HBCUs
for the first time. As a result there may be aspects of the intervention process that have not been
adjusted to better initiate interactions or facilitate engagement for participants at HBCUs and
their specific limitations. The Equity Scorecard activities and prompts may assume availability
of resources that HBCU’s lack and it may be insufficiently responsive to their culture and
history; as a consequence it is not as effective in eliciting and supporting the level of engagement
that is required by the process at the evidence team meetings, making it difficult to collect
valuable data from the observations. For instance, during preliminary data collection it was
observed that Smith University, like many HBCUs had experienced extremely high turnover and
have limited resources (Fleming et al., 2008; Gasman, 2013; Harper, 2007; Minor, 2008b; Preer,
1982). The Smith University enrollment management director and institutional researcher were
new and thus faced difficulty when locating or producing the necessary data to engage in the
process. While the idiosyncrasies of Smith University as an HBCU may impact what the
participants were able to learn from the Equity Scorecard process, there is potential to uncover
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 184
unknown challenges that they face that are relevant to improving student outcomes, thus the
information is still valuable.
Despite the challenges in generating data in the beginning of the Equity Scorecard
process the participants discussed that they had greater understanding of the need for data
collection and use. Jesse explained that “the Equity Scorecard makes us start moving on it now
by beginning to collect data.” Shirley shared that “it’s important to look at data…we should
become more data minded. And more data focused. We should keep the records in regards to
who comes, who stays, what does the data show.” Participants like Shirley often asked the CUE
liaison several questions about the meaning of the data during the evidence team meetings
demonstrating the important role of the Equity Scorecard in initiating and facilitating important
data learning. The participants were receptive to the core concepts of the Equity Scorecard and
most of the activities despite the fact that CUE was brought to them by the system that they
distrusted. Smith’s willingness to engage with CUE demonstrated greater openness to an outside
entity whose motives, particularly given the emphasis on data, could have raised suspicions and
cautious interactions. Indeed, Smith’s relationship with CUE was far more genuine and collegial
than would have been predicted by accounts of the uneasy relationship between HBCU’s and
outside researchers. CUE’s staff has several Latinas and the initial kick off institute involved
African American facilitators; moreover, CUE’s recognition of institutional racism and
willingness to talk about it may have made them more trustworthy. While CUE had never
worked with a HBCU prior to starting the work CUE’s staff did not go into the process blindly
and spent considerable time planning how to be effective partners to Smith.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 185
Recommendations for the Smith University Evidence Team. The Smith University
Equity Scorecard evidence team learned that their students were persisting until their fourth year
at Smith University at a rate of 38%, but less than 15% of the students were graduating in four
years and less than 25% were graduating in six years. Based on the case study findings, the
following recommendations should be considered: First, the evidence team discussed a
potentially problematic policy that allows students to participate in commencement ceremonies
even without completing their last six credits and as a result the students often do not actually
complete their degree. I recommend that Smith University review this policy to assess how many
students actually return to complete their final credits after participating in commencement. If
there is a substantial number of students who are participating in commencement but do not
complete their final credits within a year of their commencement participation I recommend that
the policy be eliminated and that students who have not completed their final credits participate
in a later commencement ceremony. I also suggest that the retention and registrar’s offices work
together to identify students who have participated in commencement but have not completed all
of their required courses and encourage them to return to complete their degree.
Second, I recommend that future institutional improvement committees and initiatives
include leadership from a veteran Smith University faculty or staff member and a more recent
hire. It seems that having leadership from veteran faculty and staff who have worked at Smith for
at least ten years is a critical part of gaining trust and buy-in from the other veteran members of
the small, tightly knit, Smith University community. However, as discussed, there is a chasm
between the veterans and more recent hires who argue that the veteran leaders are resistant to
change and new ideas. Thus, for institutional change to take place there has to be a partnership
between the veteran and recently hired practitioners so innovation is not stifled and there is
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 186
expertise about how to navigate the Smith University landscape. I would also recommend that
the senior leadership make special efforts to bridge the gap between the veteran and recently
hired practitioners by creating more opportunities for interactions between the two groups
through initiatives like mentoring programs and social gatherings.
Third, with the competing interests of their institutional mission, upcoming accreditation
review, and PBF policy it is important that the senior leadership create a coherent message about
the Smith mission and what changes Smith needs to make. In regards to their mission, about half
of the case study participants expressed a commitment to maintaining a university mission
focused on educating Black students. The other half suggested that the university needs to focus
on more diverse racial and ethnic groups because the world is not all Black. It is important that
before Smith University leaders start sharing how they plan to change or ‘improve’ as a result of
the accreditation review and PBF policies, they have an internal discussion about what changes
should be made that will help the university achieve their mission. For example, the Smith
participants for the most part were not aware of all the performance measures. Thus a university
wide town hall meeting or smaller conversations with specific segments of the population are
needed to discuss the mission, current student outcomes data, and the policies that are impacting
the university.
During these conversations, the Smith leaders need to explain what the performance
measures are to everyone and provide a strategic plan for attaining them without compromising
their identity as a HBCU. Specifically, the leaders must address how they will approach issues of
racial diversity as an HBCU in the twenty-first century. Are they going to recruit non-Black
students? If so, which student groups will they target? And how will they recruit them? And
what are the potential consequences of altering the racial demographics of Smith University?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 187
They should consider conducting a survey or holding focus groups to get the perspective of
Smith University students, faculty, staff members/administrators, and alum on how to approach
this issue. The Smith community may be more in favor of racial diversity than leaders anticipate,
or there may be resistance to certain groups, while embracing others. For instance, the evidence
team members did not discuss recruiting White students but suggested that targeting Latino
students would allow them to increase diversity while maintaining a commitment to students of
color.
The Smith University leaders must also facilitate conversations about how they will
continue to position themselves as a four-year residential, open access university. With an open
access admissions policy, and in the absence of abundant resources, the tensions between their
role as providers of opportunity and maintaining rigor will not be resolved without more careful
attention. There is not a simple answer to solve this dilemma, I only suggest that careful thought
and planning take place. For example, should the qualifications for regularly and conditionally
admitted students be reviewed? Some staff members/administrators suggested that they are
happy to serve students who need more academic support, but often students who need support
are not properly classified as conditionally admitted so they are not given all of the support that
they need. Next, there has to be strategic planning of course offerings. Honors students
complained that there were not enough rigorous courses. Practitioners argued that some students
were delayed in graduating and even transferred because required courses were cancelled due to
low enrollment. Thus, coordination is key to supporting the diverse student needs while utilizing
Smith’s limited resources. Hence, ongoing dialogues, facilitated by senior leaders will be needed
to engage the entire Smith University in discussing their identity and capacity for responding to
the policies impacting all factions of the Smith University community.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 188
Considerations for Conducting Research on HBCU Improvement
Access and Epistemic Privilege. The detailed and often critical nature of some of the
findings demonstrates a level of trust that was established between the researcher and members
of the institution. A relationship was first established with the institution a year prior to data
collection due to my professional role with the CUE. As a result, the evidence team leaders
oriented me to the institution. During the on campus visit, an evidence team leader organized a
work and interview space, printing and internet access, and free meals for me. The evidence team
leader also notified and rallied the support of the senior leadership (president and provost) for the
visit and notified the campus of my visit. A campus wide email was sent announcing me, the
purpose of the visit, and encouraging the support of the institution. Once on campus the evidence
team leader made calls and physically recruited students, faculty, and staff
members/administrators to participate in the study.
As a doctoral student I was both grateful and surprised. Some of the research warns that
HBCUs are often suspicious of researchers (Gasman, 2006; Gasman, 2007a). I began to consider
why I might be receiving such an abundance of support. Did the participants want to ensure they
made a good impression for the outsider, who represented the CUE? I did not think so. Overall,
the participants’ support seemed to derive from their desire to be supportive and facilitate my
success as a young Black woman pursuing a PhD. During our very first interactions at the Equity
Scorecard trainings prior to any data collection, the Smith University evidence team members
regularly asked about my degree progress and offered words of encouragement. During the
interview one evidence team member stated that the participants “look at people like you
[researcher] and Obama and some of the other people that we meet and say wow. I have been
about you [researcher], the way those old ladies in my church would be when I would come
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 189
home from college…she’d roll up those little dollar bills and give them to me because I was
going a place where she would never go.” The evidence team member also described me as a
“fine young woman of color” when speaking with a Smith alum about providing me access to the
university archives.
Additionally, it was important that I reminded them that I was there to get an
understanding of their perspectives but not to do harm to the institution. I let them know that I
hold HBCUs in high regard and was not interested in focusing on deficits the way the media and
previous researchers have done. When given a survey at the Equity Scorecard kick off training
asking what they liked about the process, a participant actually listed my name. They later noted
that they liked the way I presented their progress, stating “you say that so nice, it makes me say
did we do that?” As a result of our increasing closeness, I tried to ensure the evidence team
members that although I am employed by CUE, it was important for them to critique the Equity
Scorecard process so that it can be improved. Even in their critiques they reassured me that it
was important to work with me, and our ability to work together was related to my identity as a
person of color. One evidence team member responded to the question of how the Equity
Scorecard could be improved with “more people like you.” The participant went on to say “our
whole life changed when you came. And if they ever work with HBCUs they need to have
somebody of color, somebody who understands the process, or is capable of understanding the
process there. Because that day you took that piece of paper away from us and said look let me
tell you, this is what you’re trying to say. Because you were familiar with the process, you knew,
we didn’t. And it made us more trustworthy of the process.”
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 190
Throughout the campus visit I interviewed participants who I did not have an established
relationship with; however, they were introduced to me by evidence team members and therefore
gave candid responses. When asking about controversial topics like race and their relationship
with the state system of higher education participants often stopped and questioned whether or
not they should say something. I often reassured them of the anonymity of the research and they
then went on to share personal experiences and insights. The participants often said “you know”
and “we” when referring to me, also suggesting that although I am an outsider, I was being
treated as an insider. The university archivist provided unlimited access and even helped me
search through the documents so that what could have taken multiple visits was achieved in one.
Thus I had an opportunity to directly experience the unique level of support that they provide to
students. When I prepared to leave campus I had small gifts of appreciation for the participants
that had helped coordinate the visit and were supportive of my research. To my surprise, they
also had gifts for me along with a luncheon in my honor.
The evidence team members even
helped prepare food for the luncheon. As I prepared to leave, one evidence team member noted
that “I seemed really happy and glowing and that [Smith] must be rubbing off on me. ”
Despite the overwhelming access that I was given, I was concerned about how my status
as an affiliate of CUE may have impacted my findings and interpretations, given their distrust for
the system that had retained CUE’s services. It is possible that participants painted a very
positive picture of the institution and their participation and progress with the Equity Scorecard
to manage the impressions’ of outsiders like myself. They may have felt the need to prove
wrong negative commentaries that CUE and I might have heard from the system’s leadership.
Even so, some of the participants spoke candidly about the shortcomings of Smith as well as the
state system of higher education.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 191
Another outcome of my long-term working relationship with the campus was that I
developed an emotional connection and attachment to the institution and the participants,
particularly the members of the evidence team with whom I worked for more than a year, even if
it was long distance. While the epistemology guiding the research methodology is not premised
on “true objectivity”, it was important that I be cognizant of my feelings for the participants and
the institution and not allow them to cloud my interpretation of the findings and distort the
findings to provide a favorable account of Smith. While Smith’s history is one of deprivation and
adversity, leaders and participants did not always seize on opportunities to improve. Their sense
of victimism, at times, overwhelmed their sense of agency and seizing the opportunities to
exercise it on behalf of the institution and students. I had my own opinions about the
appropriateness of the PBF policy and metrics that were applied to Smith; however, when I had
to explain PBF to campus participants who were not familiar with it, which was a large number,
I was careful to describe the policy non-judgmentally.
Also, as the institution provided me with an abundance of support during my visit I
developed a sense of loyalty to them, which made critiquing the campus increasingly difficult.
However, even though it was sometimes difficult, I still had to discuss the challenges and areas
that need to be improved at Smith University. Being reflexive throughout the data collection,
analysis, and writing processes was key to identifying and limiting my own involvement and
perceptions as much as possible. Often when I would discuss the findings verbally with my
dissertation chair I was more comfortable sharing information that could portray Smith in a less
than positive light. However I was hesitant about writing such information because I have less
control over how it will be interpreted and used. For example, in the beginning I was hesitant to
discuss that the evidence team did not hold meetings, or that the practitioners did not have full
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 192
understanding of their institutional data and the PBF policy. I was cautious because I did not
want to reinforce negative stereotypes of HBCUs or write another research article that solely
focused on HBCU deficits or strengths. Crafting a complex, nuanced story that highlighted the
challenges and successes of a public HBCU was more difficult than I imagined. After
completing the initial data analysis and write up of the findings I had constructed a somewhat
positively slanted story, so to address this problem, I revised the draft of the findings by adding
more of the examples, quotes, and stories that highlighted the problems in order to create a more
honest and balanced portrayal of the data and findings.
Using Institutional Resilience as a Framework. HBCU experiences and outcomes
have been amply documented and discussed from atheoretical perspectives (Allen, 1992; Fries-
Britt & Turner, 2002; Gasman, 2007b; Gasman, 2011) and from standpoints like Critical Race
Theory (Gasman & Hilton, 2012), organizational formulation (Harper & Gasman, 2008), open
systems organizational perspectives (Wenglinsky, 1996), institutional effectiveness models
(Kim & Conrad, 2006), integrated social justice frameworks (Strayhorn & Hirt, 2008), and
institutional advantage perspectives (Robinson & Albert, 2008). This study introduces
“institutional resilience” as an analytical framework for the study of HBCU’s. Running parallel
with their story of challenges and the state’s failure to make good on their commitments, there
was also a story of pride in their capacity to survive. Institutional resilience is a concept that has
been used in various fields, including Business, Political Science, Environmentalism, and
Healthcare to explain an “institution’s resistance to adverse events” (Carthey, Leval, & Reason,
2001 p. 32). In education, the concept of “resilience” has been applied at the student or
individual level to explain the intrinsic qualities that predict student success despite challenges or
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 193
opposition (Catterall, 1998; Floyd, 1996; Guiffrida, 2006; Haring, Freeman, Guiffrida, & Dennis,
2012; Martin & Marsh, 2006; Wilson-Sadberry, 1991).
Why does institutional resilience seem to matter at HBCUs like Smith University? First,
it increases the University’s ability to survive. One way that institutional resilience could impact
a university’s ability to survive is by fostering cohesiveness and loyalty. By the participants
taking ownership of the University’s struggle, they followed up any critiques of Smith University
with statements about their commitment or dedication to the institution. Another way that the
spirit of institutional resilience can impact institutional survival is that if there was a need to be
filled, rather than completely give up in the face of limited resources, the participants took on
proactive behaviors such as grant writing and even giving their personal clothes to meet student
needs. Everyone seemed to be involved with grant and proposal writing from senior leaders to
staff members working in the library and in each case, someone saw a need, recognized there
was no funding, and took action. Grant funds were used to support everything from the
University’s main retention initiative to the online archives system at Smith University.
The most important reason that institutional resilience can help an institution like Smith
University survive is that the culture of resiliency cultivated on campus can help students
embrace rather than retreat from challenges when they approach barriers during their post
graduate careers. The students while open with their critiques of Smith University, took pride in
their legacy as one of the oldest HBCUs, and situated their own educational experience and
achievement among those who came before them. This connection to a historical legacy seemed
to give them confidence as a result of their place in such an important educational legacy.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 194
The history of oppression that created the need for Smith and the inequities that make it
important for HBCUs to exist contribute to how the university sees itself. Their perceptions of
themselves as survivors are interconnected to their identity as a Historically Black University in
a higher education system in which predominately White campuses are normalized. While CRT
effectively articulates the realities of institutional racism, its limitation is that it does not
effectively explain Black survival at the individual or institutional levels. Institutional resilience
can be used in conjunction with CRT, not to dismiss the realities of racism and subsequent
approaches to decision making like interest convergence, but to allow a more robust dialogue
that resists the critical theorist tendency to paint people of color solely as victims, but instead as
groups who, like Smith University, are able to survive and thrive despite their challenges. Hence,
applying the concept of institutional resilience helps supplement CRT by calling attention to the
inner strength and determination of people of color that exists despite the realities of institutional
and structural racism.
Necessary Considerations and Recommendations for State Systems Measuring
HBCU Performance. As a result of limited state resources for higher education and an
increased demand for accountability for all public spending, states have enacted accountability
systems that require higher education institutions to demonstrate improvements in efficiency and
effectiveness (McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Wellman, 2001 ). By 2003, twenty five states
adopted performance funding policies that “link state funding directly and tightly to the
performance of public campuses on individual indicators” (McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006
p. 2). Throughout the higher education accountability movement that began in Europe and the
United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there have been concerns about (1) states’
abilities to “measure the unmeasureable” (Gaither, Nedwek, & Neal, 1994 p. 7) (2) the tension
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 195
between policymakers desires to measure efficiency and productivity and practitioners interest in
measures that “reflect the quality of the educational experience in a manner that elucidates their
own specific institution mission” (Alexander, 2000 p. 426) (3) and the evolution of the state’s
relationship with higher education from authoritative oversight to active involvement in financial
planning and decision making (Wellman, 2001).
The state system of higher education attempted to account for Smith and other campuses’
uniqueness by allowing them to select five optional measures from a list of 22 optional measures.
The optional indicators selected by Smith University include student persistence, Science
Technology Engineering and Math (STEM), and health profession degree recipients, closing the
achievement gaps for transfer students, closing the access gaps for transfer students, and
instructional productivity. The challenge is that even among the optional indicators (see
appendix F2) is a prescribed focus on institutional capacity or non-Black or Other Than Black or
Unknown (OTBU) students. Improving performance on indicators like study abroad, individual
donor support, and facilities investment, would be difficult for a low resource institution like
Smith University. Further, closing the access (enrollment) and achievement gaps for transfer
students requires Smith University to close the “gap” between the percentage of OTBU transfer
students enrolled at public master’s HBCUs and the percentage of OTBU transfer students
enrolled at Smith University. Thus, despite their efforts to account for institutional differences,
the PBF policy at Smith University encourages them to either improve their institutional capacity
using resources they may not have or challenge their historical mission by focusing on non-Black
students.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 196
Because student outcomes have such a direct impact on institutional funding, it is
possible that the university may attempt commonly used strategies to improve student outcomes,
such as becoming more selective or broadening applicant pools. Both of these, however, can be
problematic for niche institutions like public HBCUs, which have traditionally served as a point
of access to higher education for Black students (Minor, 2004). It is not to assume that Smith
University will be able to easily attract more academically competitive students, but that they
may use their limited resources to try to cater to the desired student populations. For example
they could cater towards a more academically competitive student body by offering more
academically challenging courses, but because of their limited resources would require them to
eliminate many developmental education courses. Additionally, regardless of what group of
students the institution aims to attract, strategies such as offering scholarships, increasing
programs, and attracting competitive faculty require additional resources that many low-
resourced, non-selective, public HBCUs do not have. Lastly, much of the literature on how
HBCUs are responding to PBF funding policies comes from media and non-academic or
scholarly resources; further empirical research and inquiry into the study of how HBCUs foster
student success, respond to accountability pressures, and make improvement is thus necessary
before mandating specific performance measures.
Given the historical and contemporary challenges of differential funding and unique
missions there needs to be a conversation about how to effectively “judge” or “evaluate” HBCUs
in ways that will foster institutional success. In selecting variables to measure HBCU
performance it is important to consider their capacity to focus on particular areas of improvement
given their resources and competing interests. It will be helpful for organizations that work on
capacity building at HBCUs like the Southern Education Foundation and the Thurgood Marshall
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 197
College Fund to provide insightful instructions for policy makers on what variables could lead to
greater improvement at HBCUs, and what commonly used metrics should be adapted or are not
applicable in the HBCU context. For example, it may make logical sense to simply invert racial
diversity metrics used for predominately White campuses, and hold HBCUs accountable for the
enrollment and graduation of non-Black students. However, such metrics may challenge the
already limited higher education opportunities for students of color, thus expert organizations
can provide insight into what diversity could or should look like at HBCUs and suggestions for
how to hold HBCUs accountable without necessarily threatening their mission.
Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs provides a useful framework for thinking about what
improvements HBCUs could reasonably make given their capacity to address their basic needs.
Maslow suggests that individuals’ motivation is dependent upon their needs being met at various
levels beginning at the lowest level, physiological, all the way up to the highest level, self-
actualization. Accordingly, individuals are motivated to first make sure their basic physiological
needs like food and shelter are met before they can focus on achievement and creativity. Like
other small public HBCUs, Smith University struggles to provide basic needs that are taken for
granted in wealthier institutions, such as an operating wireless internet system and having
enough sections of required courses and offering them regularly. Thus, if they opted to respond
to the PBF policy by recruiting new student and faculty groups, the new recruitment would need
to come secondary to their primary responsibility to provide adequate service and support to their
existing student body. When designing accountability policies aimed at increasing their
institutional performance it is important to consider that low resourced, public HBCUs, like
Smith University may have basic needs that have not been met, and thus may require unique
measures of accountability.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 198
Taking into consideration what was learned about Smith University through the case
study, I will recommend more applicable measures for Smith’s state system of higher education
as well as others in states like Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that have
public HBCUs that are part of their state system of higher education. One potential indicator or
measure of HBCU performance could be McMickens’ (2012) concept of “racism readiness.”
McMickens’ (2012) interviews and focus groups with over 80 HBCU graduating seniors and
alumni proposed that the HBCU context had prepared them for encountering racism in the post-
graduate environment, providing some possible explanation for the post-graduate success rates of
HBCU graduates. HBCUs provided students with the following, which prepared them to deal
with racism: (1) a safe space (HBCUs provided an informal, open, and comfortable space for
students to discuss issues of race and racism), (2) personal empowerment (HBCUs provided
empowering messages of self-worth and friendly competition to students), (3) learning cross-
contexts (involved messages that faculty and staff members/administrators convey to students
about the HBCU versus PWI context; professionals reiterated the importance of learning
etiquette, including the proper and appropriate ways to dress, eat, interview, and speak in
predominately White workspaces) and (4) Socializing exceptionalism (explicit and implicit
messages of expressing best efforts and being exceptional in their collegiate pursuits and
afterwards) ( p.42).
Racism readiness is an example of something that HBCUs can provide to their students
that can lead to desired outcomes such as earnings and postbaccalaureate degree attainment.
Hence racism readiness could be an ideal measure of institutional performance that is particular
to the HBCU context, but is also linked to desired student outcomes. Policy makers interested in
holding HBCUs accountable for “racism readiness” could measure the indicator using student
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 199
survey instrument. Similar to McMickens (2012) study, the survey could be administered to
graduating seniors and alumni and include questions asking respondents to rate how prepared
they felt to deal with issues of race and racism in the postgraduate environment. The survey
should include spaces for written responses where participants could report ways that their
institution prepared them to deal with racism in addition to questions that ask about specific
strategies for teaching about racism like curriculum inclusion or informal mentoring.
Over 75% of Black undergraduates enrolled at public, four-year, HBCUs require at least
one developmental education course (Li and Carroll, 2007). Therefore, other HBCU specific
indicators could focus on the institutions’ effectiveness at educating and graduating students who
may require additional academic preparation and support. Particular indicators could include:
academic performance in developmental education courses, or progress towards college level
readiness. Policy makers could also provide incentives for HBCUs’ introduction of alternative
and innovative approaches to developmental education like acceleration, which condenses the
course length by a) using diagnostic testing to design course content to focus on students’ needs
and/or b) by offering supplemental instruction and support services (Rutschow and Schneider,
2011).
In addition to measuring performance on specific outcomes oriented indicators, policy
makers could design more holistic accountability systems that examine effective resource
management and capacity building. States could offer grant style resources for specific capacity
building initiatives that are critical to completion like diverse course offerings. State systems of
higher education could temporarily provide incentives for HBCUs and PWIs to partner and share
course offerings. For example, if a Smith student needed to complete a course in order to
graduate, but that course was not being offered, they could complete the course at a neighboring
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 200
PWI without having to transfer to the institution. A more long term solution would be to provide
support for more faculty and course offerings at public HBCUs. Another important part of
capacity building is providing incentives for creating and sustaining an operating technological
structure for the campus. In the case of Smith University, one may look at their per student
expenditure and argue that they receive more funding than the other campuses in the state
system. However, because of their small enrollment, endowment, and historical financial neglect,
items like a wireless internet system are difficult to finance. Even if Smith receives more per
student funding than their neighboring PWI, if the neighboring campus has more than five times
the student enrollment than Smith, they are better equipped to create technology-heavy
infrastructures that are expensive to support. It is important that states with a concentration of
HBCU’s have an incentive strategy to support their capacity building.
Lastly, it is critical that any state that is serious about creating achievable and useful goals
for HBCUs must consult with experts who understand the context. This means that if there is a
committee that is involved in creating a PBF policy; there should be someone from the impacted
HBCUs on that committee. Scholars and policy analysts that are experts on HBCU’s and
knowledgeable of their context should be sought out during the planning process. It should not
be assumed that policy experts and consultants on higher education reform, innovation, and
accountability are knowledgeable of the history, diversity, and conditions of minority serving
institutions. It is important to guard against creating unintended perverse effects from policies
that fail to take into account contextual differences. Further, it is not just about developing a
prescriptive list of HBCU indicators and measures, but instead policy makers should consider
what is unique about each HBCU in their state system of higher education. While it is too early
to determine the consequences of the PBF system on Smith, its architects at the system level
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 201
seemed to treat HBCU’s as if they were an undifferentiated group, e.g., using more prestigious
and private HBCU’s as a point of comparative reference for Smith. The measures used for large,
selective, doctoral granting HBCUs should be different from those used for small, non-selective
HBCUs like Smith University. For example, Smith University has an open admissions policy
that results in their admittance of students who require significant developmental course work, so
the state could instead measure their performance by an eight year graduation rate. Smith
participants connect their open admissions policy to their HBCU mission, but some HBCUs are
moderately to highly selective, so an eight year graduation rate may be applicable to open access
institutions like community colleges or Smith University, but does not mean that it would be an
effective measure of performance at other moderately to highly selective HBCUs.
There may be different measures of institutional performance, such as racism readiness,
that are linked to student outcomes that should be identified so that HBCUs can improve and be
rewarded for their performance. Finally, such knowledge is even valuable beyond the HBCU
context and can provide a framework for approaching a discussion of accountability that can be
applied at other institutions that aim to serve specific student populations, such as Hispanic
Serving Institutions, Tribal, Women’s and Community Colleges. Additionally, the impact of
state and federal accountability policies such as state PBF initiatives requires further
investigation.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 202
Concluding Thoughts
Smith is the most common last name in the United States. About ¾ of the individuals
with the last name Smith are White, and about ¼ of the individuals with the last name Smith are
Black. On the surface Smith is just a common American name, but beneath the surface are two
experiences made distinct by their histories and their journey to acquiring the name Smith. Black
Americans with the name Smith are most likely the decedents of Africans, brought to the United
States (U.S.) to work as slaves for the White Smiths. As such, for the African American Smiths,
their name represents their historic ties to White ownership and oppression, further illustrating
how the experiences of White and Black Smiths in the U.S. are distinct but connected. Thus I
selected the name Smith University for the HBCU participating in the case study because like
African Americans with the name Smith, Smith University has an experience that is made
distinct by their legacy, as an institution established as a result of their ties to a history of
oppression and racial inequity in the U.S.
Although, Smith University was established in response to Black exclusion from U.S.
higher education, it also represents survival and resistance because of their role as a point of
refuge for Black Americans seeking higher education. In their mission to serve marginalized
populations, Smith and other Historically Black Universities, have faced systematic opposition
and challenges like limited resources that also color their experience. However, the ways that
history and individual identity shape the contemporary culture, practices, and outcomes of
Historically Black Universities like Smith, are not always obvious on the surface. For example, if
one reviewed the 2012 per student expenditures for Smith University and the other students in
their state system of higher education they may assume that mismanagement was the sole reason
for the Smith University resource challenges. However, after looking below the surface, one will
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 203
see that Smith University’s historical underfunding from the state, their small enrollment, and
their student population that requires a greater financial investment because they are more likely
to be low income and academically underprepared than their peers enrolled at the other campuses
in the state system, are important factors in understanding their resource challenges and
subsequent academic outcomes. Therefore it is critical to continue questioning how these distinct
histories and identities are taken into consideration in the development of accountability policies
that are predicated on the principles of fairness, standardization, and equity.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 204
References
Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp.636 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia 1972).
Ader, C.R. (2005). A Longitudinal Study of Agenda Setting for the Issue of Environmental
Pollution. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 300-11.
Aldrich, H.E., Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 2,
79-105.
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing
institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 411-431.
Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at
predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(1), 26-44.
Allen, W. R., & Jewell, J. O. (2002). A backward glance forward: Past, present, and future
perspectives on Historically Black College s and universities. The Review of Higher
Education, 25(3), 241-261.
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Black s in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Argyris, C, & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Atwood, R. B. (1952). The public Negro college in a racially integrated system of higher
education. Journal of Negro Education, 21(3), 352-363.
Atwood, R. (1962). Origin and development of the Negro public college with especial reference
to the land grant college. Journal of Negro Education, 31(3), 240-250.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 205
Bastedo, M. and Gumport, P. (2003). ‘Access to what? mission differentiation and academic
stratification in U.S. public higher education.’ Higher Education, 46, 341–359.
Baton Rouge Area Chamber (2011). Towards a Renaissance of Southern University and A&M
college. Retrieved from
http://brac.org/uploads/Southern_ResearchPaper_2011_Final_Distribute.pdf.
Baum, G., & Payea, K. (2004). Education pays 2004: The benefits of higher education for
individuals and society. Washington, DC: College Board.
Beach, A. L., Dawkins, P. W., Rozman, S. L., & Grant, J. L. (2008). Faculty development at
Historically Black College s and universities: Current priorities and future directions. In
M.B. Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving
institutions (pp. 156-168). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bell, D. (1980). Brown and the interest-convergence dilemma. In D. Bell (Ed.), Shades of
Brown: New perspectives on school desegregation (pp. 90-106). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Bell, D. A. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York: Basic.
Bellamy, D.D. (1982). White students-historically Black Fort Valley State College A study of
reverse desegregation in Georgia. Negro Educational Review, 33(3/4), 112-134.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change, 36(1), 44.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship of student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 206
Bensimon, E.M. (2012). The Equity Scorecard: Theory of change. In E.M. Bensimon,
L.Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus. Implementing the Equity
Scorecard in theory and practice (pp.17-44). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Bensimon, E.M., Dowd, A.C. (2009). Dimensions of the transfer choice gap: Experiences of
Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(4), 632-58.
Bensimon, E.M, Hanson, D.A. (2012). The Equity Scorecard process: Tools, practices and
methods. In E.M. Bensimon, L.Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus.
Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice (pp.64-74). Sterling, Virginia:
Stylus.
Bensimon, E.M., Malcolm, L. (Eds.) (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus. Implementing
the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that
makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104–126.
Benson, K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1),
1-21.
Bess, J., & Dee, J. (2008). Understanding college and university organizations: Theories for
effective policy and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
Inc.
Blackler, F., Regan, S. (2009). Intentionality, agency, change: Practice theory and management.
Management Learning, 40(2), 161-176.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 207
Blacknall, T., Johnson, J.M. (2011). Selective HBCUs: A competitive option. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Blake, L.P., Pena, E.V, Akiyama, D., Braker, E., Maeda, D.K., McDonald, M.A., North, G.,
Swift, J., Tamada, M., Yoshino, K. (2012). In E.M. Bensimon, L.Malcolm (Eds.),
Confronting equity issues on campus. Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and
practice (pp.96-116). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklin, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (3
rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bonner, F. B. (2001). Addressing gender issues in the Historically Black College and university
community: A challenge and call to action. Journal of Negro Education, 70:176-91
Bordoloi Pazich, L. & Bensimon, E.M. (2010). Wisconsin Transfer Equity Study: Final Report.
Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boyd, W. M. (1974). Desegregating America's Colleges: A Nationwide Survey of Black
Students, 1972-1973. New York, NY: Praeger.
Braddock, J. (1981). Desegregation and Black student attrition. Urban Education, 1(5), 403-418.
Brooks, F.E., Starks, G.L. (2011). Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An
Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
Brown, C.I., & Stein, P.R. (1972). The White student in five predominately Black universities.
Negro Educational Review, 23(4), 148-169.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 208
Brown, C. M., II. (2001).Collegiate desegregation and the public Black college: A new policy
mandate. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 46-62.
Brown, C.M. II (2002). Good intentions: Collegiate desegregation and transdemographic
enrollments. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 263-280.
Brown, P., Green, A. and Lauder, H. (2001). High skills: Globalization, competitiveness and skill
formation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R.H. (1978). Bureaucracy as Praxis: Toward a Political Phenomenology of Formal
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(3), 365-382.
Burke, J.C., & Freeman, T.M. (1997). Performance indicators at SUNYand in New York: Where
have we been? Where are we going? Assessment Update, 9(1), 3, 8, 15.
Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from
stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 432-453.
Bustillos, L.T., Rueda, R., & Bensimon, E.M. (2011). Faculty views of underrepresented
students in community college settings. In P.R. Portes & S. Salas (Eds.), Vygotsky in 21st
century society. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bustillos, L.T., Rueda, R., Hentschel, D., Kinney, D., Love, J., Magee, I., Payne, N., Plotquin,
H., Wolf, R. (2012). The math project at Los Angeles City College. In E.M. Bensimon,
L.Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus. Implementing the Equity
Scorecard in theory and practice (pp.117-137). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Carthey, J., De Leval, M. R., & Reason, J. T. (2001). Institutional resilience in healthcare
systems. Quality in Health Care, 10, 29–32.
Catterall, J.S. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American Journal
of Education, 106(2), 302-333.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 209
Chang, M. J. (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on campus. In G. Orfield
& M. Kurlaender (Eds.), Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative
action (pp. 175–186). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Closson, R., & Henry, W. J. (2008). The social adjustment of undergraduate White students in
the minority at a Historically Black College. Journal of College Student Development,
49(6), 517-534.
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact
and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249-281.
Cole, M. (1988) Cross-cultural research in the sociohistorical tradition, Human Development,
31(3), pp. 137–151.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
(pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, H. (1989). Pa. Colleges May Face Renewed Pressure To Desegregate. Retrieved from
http://articles.philly.com/1989-07-21/news/26133527_1_desegregation-plan-appeals-
court-ruling.
Conrad, C. F., Brier, E. M., & Braxton, J. M. (1997). Factors contributing to the matriculation of
White students in public HBCUs. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3(1), 37–62.
Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). An equity-based accountability
framework for Hispanic-serving institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. Turner
(Eds.), Understanding minority serving institutions (pp. 71-90). Albany: State University
of New York Press.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 210
Cottrell, T., Greene, T. K., Irvine, W. (2000). African dream [Recorded by T. Kweli]. On Train
of thought [CD]. New York, NY: Rawkus/UMVD. (1999-2000).
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Cunningham, S. (1997). Performance indicators for multiple audiences: The Colorado
experience. Assessment Update, 9(1), 10-11.
Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Hare, R. J., Jones, S. M., Vega, B. E. (2011). The politics of
performance funding in eight states: Origins, demise, and change. New York:
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved
from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=875.
Dee, T.S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review
of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195-210.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Dewees, V., & Gaither, G.H. (1997). The Texas A&M University system model: One size does
not fit all. Assessment Update, 9(1), 6-7.
DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160.
Donahoo, S., & Lee, W. (2008). The adversity of diversity: Regional associations and the
accreditation of Minority Serving Institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. Turner
(Eds.), Understanding minority serving institutions (pp. 292–310). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 211
Dowd, A.C. (2005). Data donʼt drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. (Research report). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation
for Education.
Dowd, A.C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the
access “saga” toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407–418.
Dowd, A.C., Malcom, L.E., & Bensimon, E.M. (2009). Benchmarking the Success of Latino and
Latina Students in STEM to Achieve National Graduation Goals. Los Angeles, CA:
University of Southern California.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1953). The souls of Black folk. New York, NY: The Blue Heron Press.
Eckel, P.D. (2008). Mission diversity and the tension between prestige and effectiveness: An
overview of U.S. higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21, 175–192.
Egerton, J. (1974). Adams v. Richardson: Can separate be equal? Change, 10, 29-36.
Ehrenberg, R.G. (2002). Reaching for the brass ring: The U. S. News & World Report rankings
and competition. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 145–162.
Engestrom, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit.
Engestrom, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engestrom, M.R. Miettinen, & R.L. Punama (Eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 212
Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E.N., Miller, A.H. (1980). Front Page News and Real World Cues: A
New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media. American Journal of Political Science, 24,
16-49.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp.119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Evans, M.O. (1992). An estimate of race and gender role-model effects in teaching high school.
The Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 209-217.
Fleming, J., Tezeno, A., Zamora, S (2008). The retention planning process at Texas Southern
University: A case study. In M. Gasman, C.L. Tudico (Eds), Historically Black College s
and universities: Triumphs, troubles, and taboos (pp.163-185). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Flores, S.M., & Park, T.J. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and college success: Examining the continued
significance of the Minority Serving Institution. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 115-128.
Florida A&M (2010). The Cisco Networking Academy. Retrieved from
http://eng.fsu.edu/cms/networkingacademy/cisco.html.
Floyd, C. (1996). Achieving despite the odds: A study of resilience among a group of Africa
American high school seniors. The Journal of Negro Education, 65(2), 181-189.
Franks, A., & Jewitt, C. (2001). The meaning of action in learning and teaching. British
Educational Research Journal, 27, 201-218.
Freehling, W.W. (1972). The founding fathers and slavery. The American Historical Review,
77(1), 81-93.
Freeman Jr., S. & Gasman, M. (forthcoming). Characteristics of Historically Black College and
University presidents and their role in grooming the next generation of leaders.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 213
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. (1970). Reprint, translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New
York: Continuum, 2011.
Fries-Britt, S., & Turner, B. (2002). Uneven stories: Successful Black collegians at a Black and a
White campus. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 315-330.
Fryar, A.H. (2011). The disparate impacts of accountability – searching for causal mechanisms.
Paper prepared for the Public Management Research Conference in Syracuse, NY.
Fryer, R. G., Jr., & Greenstone, M. (2010). The changing consequences of attending Historically
Black College s and universities. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1),
116-148.
Gaither, G. H. (1997). Performance indicator systems as instruments for accountability and
assessment. Assessment Update, 9(1) 1-2, 14-15.
Gaither, G. H., Nedwek, B. P., & Neal, J. E. (1994). Measuring Up: The Promises and Pitfalls of
Performance Indicators in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
5. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 630,
Washington, DC 20036-1183.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45-56.
Gasman, M. (2006). Salvaging “academic disaster areas”: The Black college response to
Christopher Jencks’ and David Riesman’s 1967 Harvard Educational Review article.
Journal of Higher Education, 77 (2), 317–52.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 214
Gasman, M. (2007a). Truth, generalizations, and stigmas: An analysis of the media's coverage of
Morris Brown College and Black colleges overall. Review of Black Political Economy,
34(2), 111–135.
Gasman, M. (2007b). Swept under the rug? A historiography of gender and Black colleges.
American Education Research Journal, 44, 760–805.
Gasman, M. (2010). Going global: Pushing for more study-abroad programs at Historically
Black College s. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Gasman, M. (2011). Perceptions of Black college presidents: Sorting through stereotypes and
reality to gain a complex picture. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 836-
870.
Gasman, M. (2012). Vacancies in the Black -College Presidency: What’s Going On? Chronicle
of Higher Education.
Gasman, M. (2013). The changing face of Historically Black College s and Universities. Center
for Minority Serving Institutions. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Graduate
School of Education.
Gasman, M.B., Hilton, A. (2012). Mixed motivations, mixed results: A history of law,
legislation, Historically Black College s and Universities, and interest convergence.
Teachers College Record, 114 (7).
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). 539. U.S. 982
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto's theory. The Review of Higher
Education, 29(4), 451-472.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 215
Gutiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larsen, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the
classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational
Review, 65, 445–471.
Gutierrez, K.D. & Vossougi , S. (2009). Lifting off the ground to return A new: Mediated praxis,
transformative learning, and social design experiments, Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1-2), 100-11.
Hall, B., & Closson, R. B. (2005). When the majority is the minority: White graduate students'
social adjustment at a Historically Black University. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 28-42.
Hamilton, R. (2011). Changing a college with prose and patience. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/us/new-leader-changing-paul-quinn-
college-with-prose-and-patience.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Haring, R. C., Freeman, B., Guiffrida, A. L., & Dennis, M. L. (2012). Relationship building for a
healthy future: Indigenous youth pathways for resiliency and recovery. Journal of
Indigenous Social Development, 1(1), 1-17.
Harper, B.E. (2007). African American access to higher education: the evolving role of
Historically Black College s and universities. American Academic, 3, 109–28.
Hatch Act of 1887, Ch. 314, 24 Stat. 440 (1887).
Hebel, S. (2001, June 8). A new push to integrate southern Black colleges. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47, 39.
Hirt, J.B., Amelink, C.T., McFeeters, B.B., Strayhorn, T.L. (2008). A system of Othermothering:
Student affairs administrators’ perceptions of relationships with students at Historically
Black College s. NASPA Journal, 45 (2), 210-236.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 216
Hoffman, C.M, Snyder, T.D., & Sonnenberg, B (1996). Historically Black College s and
universities, 1976 to 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Holmes, D. O. W. 1934. The beginnings of the Negro college. The Journal of Negro Education,
3(2), 168-93.
Hossler, D., Gross, J.P.K, Beck, B.M. (2010). Putting the college admission “arms race” in
context: An analysis of recent trends in college admission and their effects on
institutional policies and practices. National Association for College Admission
Counseling: Arlington, VA.
Howard, T. C., & Flennaugh, T. (2011). Research concerns, cautions and considerations on
Black males in a ‘post-racial’ society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(1), 105–120.
Hughey, M. W. (2006). Black , White , Greek...like who? Howard University student perceptions
of a White fraternity on campus. Educational Foundations, 20(1–2), 9–35.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539-569.
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher
education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196.
Iloh, C., & Gasman, M.B. (2012). Moving institutional vision from Black to Multicultural?
Globalization and Historically Black College s and Universities. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV.
International Education Resource Center (2012). Special programs. Retrieved from
http://www.studyabroadierc.com/newsite/eng/special_program/pre_college_program.php.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 217
Jaquette, O. (2006). Funding for performance and equity: Student success in English further
education colleges. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(24), 1-36.
Jefferson, C. (2011). HBCUs saving themselves with non-Black students. Retrieved from
http://www.bet.com/news/national/2011/08/18/hbcus-saving-themselves-with-non-Black
-students.html.
Jencks, C., Riesman, D. (1967). The American Negro college. Harvard Education Review, 37(1),
3-60.
Jones, T., Bensimon, E.M., McNair, T.B., & Dowd, A. C. (2011). Using data and inquiry to
build equity-focused college-going cultures. Washington, DC: National College Access
Network.
Jones, T., Witham, K. (2012). What is accountability for equity at public Historically Black
College s and Universities? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balance scorecard to work. Harvard Business
Review, 134-147.
Kelderman, E. (2012). Turnover at Historically Black College s creates openings for new style of
leaders. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(29).
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Kim, M. M. (2002). Historically Black vs. White institutions: Academic development among
Black students. Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 385–407.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 218
Kim, M.M., Conrad, C. F. (2006). The impact of Historically Black College s and Universities
on the academic success of African American students. Research in Higher Education,
47(4), 399-427.
King, K.J. (1970). African students in Negro American colleges: Notes on the good African.
Phylon, 31(1), 16-30.
Kingdon, J.W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd Edition. New York, NY:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a "nice" field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97, 47-68.
Larsson, R., Lubatkin, M. (2001). Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisitions: An
international case study. Human Relations, 54, 1573-1607.
Layzell, D.T. (1998). Linking Performance to Funding Outcomes for Public Institutions of
Higher Education: The US Experience. European Journal of Education, 33(1), 103-111.
Lee, J. M., Keys, S.W. (2013). Land-grant but unequal state one-to-one match funding for 1890
land-grant universities. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.
Lee, W. Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring of
African American students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 27-43.
Leslie, D. W., & Fretwell Jr, E. K. (1996). Wise Moves in Hard Times: Creating & Managing
Resilient Colleges & Universities. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 219
Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational stakeholder model of change implementation
communication. Communication Theory, 17, 176–204.
Li, X., Carroll, C.D. (2007). Characteristics of minority-serving institutions and minority
undergraduates enrolled in these institutions: Postsecondary education descriptive
analysis report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Long Beach City College & Center for Urban Education. (2008). California benchmarking
project: Final report to the superintendent-president. Los Angeles, CA: University of
Southern California.
Mann, A. (2007). HBCUs diversify by recruiting Hispanic students. Retrieved from
http://www.thehilltoponline.com/nation-world/hbcus-diversify-by-recruiting-hispanic-
students-1.461977#.T9th5bWOTms.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267–282.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology,
2(4), 425-444.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins
and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.
McLeod, H. (2011). South Carolina moves to define performance-based funding formula for
higher education. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://diverseeducation.com/article/15010/#.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 220
Marx, K. (1967). Writings of the Marx, K. (1967). Writings of the young Marx on philosophy
and society (L. D. Easton & K. H. Guddat, Eds.). Garden City, NY: Anchor. (Original
work published 1858).
McClure, M.L. (2007). Collegiate desegregation: Can Historically Black College s and
universities maintain their mission and identity in the midst of desegregating? In O.G.
Brown, K.G. Hinton, M. Howard-Hamilton (Eds), Unleashing suppressed voices on
college campuses: Diversity issues in higher education (pp.35-42). New York, N.Y.:
Peter Lang Publishing.
McMickens, T. L. (2012). Running the race when race is a factor. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 39-
43.
McNair, L. D. (2009). HBCU perspectives and research programs: Spelman College as a model
for success in the STEM fields. In Memoriam, 85.
Minor, J.T. (2004). Introduction: Decision making in Historically Black College s and
universities: Defining the governance context. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(1),
40-52 .
Minor, J.T. (2008a). A contemporary perspective on the role of public HBCUs: Perspicacity
from Mississippi. The Journal of Negro Education, 77, 323-335.
Minor, J.T. (2008b). Contemporary HBCUs: Considering institutional capacities and state
priorities. A recent report. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of
Education, Department of Educational Administration.
Minor, J. T. (2008c). Segregation residual in higher education: A tale of two states. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 861–885.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 221
Mishra, J. (2007). Becoming president: Patterns of professional mobility of African American
university presidents. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Morphew, C.C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on
academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 491-506.
Morrill Act of 1890, Ch.841, 26 Stat. 417 (1890).
Mutakabbir, Y.T. (2011). A case study examining how a public, Historically Black University
recruits other race students (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clemson University,
Clemson, SC.
National Center for Education Statistics Data (2010a). 1990 through 2009 Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System, "Fall Enrollment Survey." Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2010b). Graduation Rates Components. Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2010c). Institutional Profile. Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). HBCU Enrollment Rates component. Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Institutional Profile. Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 222
Nelson Laird, T.F., Bridges, B. K., Holmes, M. S., Morelon, C. L., &Williams, J. M. (2007).
African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and
predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 39-56.
Nichols, J. C. (2004). Unique characteristics, leadership styles, and management of Historically
Black College s and universities. Innovative Higher Education, 28(3), 219-229.
North Carolina Central University (2012). Environmental, earth and geospatial sciences.
Retrieved from
http://www.nccu.edu/academics/sc/scienceandtechnology/geospatialscience/.
Ogawa, R., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball T. (2008). CHAT – IT: Toward a conceptualizing
learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 83-95.
O'Neil, H. F., Jr., Bensimon, E. M., Diamond, M., Moore, M. R. (1999). Designing and
implementing an academic scorecard. Change, 33-40.
Pacheco, M. (2012). Learn in/through everyday resistance: A cultural-historical perspective on
community resources and curriculum. Educational Researcher, 41(4), 121-132.
Palmer, R.T., Davis, R.J., Gasman, M. (2011). A matter of diversity, equity, and necessity: The
tension between Maryland’s higher education system and its Historically Black Colleges
and Universities over the Office of Civil Rights agreement. Journal of Negro Education,
80(2), 121-133.
Palmer, R.T., Davis, R.J., Maramba, D.C. (2010). Popularizing achievement: The role of an
HBCU in supporting academic success for underprepared Black males. Negro
Educational Review, 61(1), 85-106.
Palmer, R.T., Young, E. (2010).The uniqueness of an HBCU environment: How a supportive
campus climate promotes student success. In T.L. Strayhorn (Ed.), The evolving
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 223
challenges of Black college students: New insights for practice and research (pp.138-
160). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Parker, L. & Stovall, D.O. (2004). Actions following words: Critical race theory connects to
critical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 167-182.
Pena, E.V., Polkinghorne, D.E. (2012). Evaluating the Equity Scorecard project: the participants’
point of view. In E.M. Bensimon, L.Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on
campus. Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice (pp.138-156).
Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Performance Funding Program
Recommendations (PASSHE) (2011). Retrieved from
http://www4.esu.edu/faculty_staff/campus_info/oaie/passhe%20performance%20funding
%20overview.pdf.
Perna, L. W., Gerald, D., Baum, E., & Milem, J. (2007). The status of equity for Black faculty
and administrators in public higher education in the South. Research in Higher
Education, 48(2), 193–228.
Perna, L. W., Milem, J., Gerald, D., Baum, E., Rowan, H., & Hutchens, N. (2006). The status of
equity for Black undergraduates in public higher education in the south: Still separate and
unequal. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 197–228.
Perna, L. W., Lundy-Wagner, V., Drezner, N. D., Gasman, M., Yoon, S., Bose, E., Gary, S
(2009). The contribution of HBCUs to the preparation of African American women for
STEM careers: A case study. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 1 – 23.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 224
Peterson, R. D., & Hamrick, F. A. (2009). White, male, and “minority”: Racial consciousness
among White male undergraduates attending a Historically Black University. Journal of
Higher Education, 80(1), 34-58.
Pewewardy, C. & Frey, B. (2002). Surveying the landscape: Perceptions of multicultural support
services and racial climate at a predominately White university. Journal of Negro
Education, 71(1/2), 77-95.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Preer, J. (1982). Lawyers v. educators. Black colleges and desegregation in public higher
education. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
Price, G.N, Sprigg, W., Swinton, O.H. (2011). The relative returns to graduating from a
Historically Black College /university: Propensity score matching estimates from the
national survey of Black Americans. The Review of Black Political Economy, 38, 103-
130.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Redd, K.E. (2000). HBCU graduates: Employment, earnings and success after college.
Indianapolis: USA Group Foundation.
Robinson, B. B., & Albert, A. R. (2008). HBCUs institutional advantage: Returns to teacher
education. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C. S. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority
serving institutions (pp. 183-199). Albany: State University of New York Press.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 225
Roebuck, J.B. and Murty, K.S. (1993). Historically Black College s and universities: Their place
in American higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ruben, B. D. (1999). Toward a balanced scorecard for higher education: Rethinking the college
and university excellence indicators framework. Center for Organizational Development
and Leadership, Rutgers University.
Ruppert, S. (ed.) (1994). Charting Higher Education Accountability: A Sourcebook of State-
Level Performance Indicators. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Rutschow, E.Z., & Schneider, E. (June 2011). Unlocking the gate: What we know about
improving developmental education. Washington, DC: MDRC.
Ryu, M (2010). Minorities in Higher Education: Twenty-Fourth Annual Status Report, American
Council on Education.
Saenz, V. B., Ngai, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across
race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1-38.
Safier, K. (2008). The impact of a federal civil rights investigation on Central State University
of Ohio, 1981-2005. In M. Gasman, C.L. Tudico (Eds), Historically Black College s and
universities: Triumphs, troubles, and taboos (pp.143-162). New York, N.Y.: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sanders, K., Layzell, D., Boatwright, K. (1997). University of Wisconsin system’s use of
performance indicators as instruments of accountability. Assessment Update, 9(1) 4, 13.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E. H. (2003). On dialogue, culture, and organization learning. Reflections, 4(4), 27–38.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 226
Scott, M. (2002, September 21). Trend sees Black colleges’ leaders vacating their posts in
droves. Louisville, Kentucky: The Courier-Journal.
Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change:
A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.
Shield, R. W. (2004). The retention of indigenous students in higher education: Historical issues,
federal policy, and indigenous resilience. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory and Practice, 6(1), 111-127.
Shulock, N. (2011). Concerns about performance-based funding and ways that states are
addressing the concerns. Sacramento, CA: California State University, Sacramento,
Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
Simkins, S., & Allen, S. (2001). Are learning outcomes in economics different at predominately
Black and White universities? Lessons from principles of macroeconomics courses at two
school. The Review of Black Political Economy, 28(3), 23-39.
Smith, S. L., & Borgstedt, K.W. (1985). Factors influencing adjustment of White faculty in
predominantly Black colleges. Journal of Negro Education, 54(2), 148-163.
Smith-Maddox, R. & Solorzano, D. G. (2002). Using critical race theory, Freire problem-posing
method, and case study research to confront race and racism in education. Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(1), 66-84.
Smith University v. U.S. Department of Education. 703 F.2d 732 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 1982).
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M. & Yosso, T. (2000) Critical race theory, racial microaggressions and
campus racial climate: the experiences of African-American college students. Journal of
Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 227
Solorzano, D.G. (1995). The doctorate production and baccalaureate origins of African
Americans in the sciences and engineering. Journal of Negro Education, 64(1), 15-32.
Solorzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping,
and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(1), 5-19.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
Snipes, V. T., Ellis, W., & Thomas, J. (2006). Are HBCUs up to speed technologically? One
case study. Journal of Black Studies, 36(1), 382-395.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
State Senate Session Wrap Up (1981-1982). Retrieved from
http://www.pasenate.com/Archives/WrapUp/LegisWrapUp_1981-1982.pdf.
Stein, R. B. (1997). Missouri’s performance funding program: Funding for results. Assessment
Update, 9(1), 12-13.
Stout, L. W. (1983). A legislative history and analysis of Act 188 of 1982 establishing the state
system of higher education in Pennsylvania. Unpublished Dissertation. Leigh University,
Bethlehem, PA.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2010). Majority as temporary minority: Examining the influence of faculty-
student relations on satisfaction among White undergraduates at Historically Black
College s and Universities. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 509–524.
Strayhorn, T. L., & Hirt, J. B. (2008). Social justice at historically Black and Hispanic-serving
institutions: Mission statements and administrative voices. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, & C.
S. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority serving institutions (pp. 203-216). Albany:
State University of New York Press.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 228
Stovall, D. (2004). School leaders as negotiator: Critical theory, praxis, and the creation of
productive space. Multicultural Education, 12 (2), 8-12.
Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in
university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 61–105.
Sum P, Light S, King R (2004). Race, reform, and desegregation in Mississippi higher education:
Historically Black institutions after United States v. Fordice. Law & Social Inquiry,
29(2), 403–43.
Tata, S. S. (1980). A study of the occupational origins and career patterns of presidents of Black
colleges and universities in the United States. (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Thompson, D.C. (1973). Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Thurgood Marshall College Fund. (2010). Thurgood Marshall College Fund 2007-2008
Demographic Report. New York: Thurgood Marshall Fund.
Townsend, B. K. (2000). Integrating nonminority instructors into the minority environment. In S.
R. Aragon (Ed.), Beyond access: Methods and models for increasing retention and
learning among minority students. New directions for community colleges, no. 112 (pp.
85-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UNC Enrollment Change Funding Formula Needs Documentations and a Performance
Component (2010). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina General Assembly.
United States v. Fordice, 507 U.S. 1007 (1992).
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2010). The educational effectiveness of Historically Black
College s and Universities. Washington, DC.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 229
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagener, U., & Smith, E. (1993). Maintaining a competitive edge: Strategic planning for
historically Black institutions (HBIs). Change, 25, 40–50.
Walker, C., Gleaves, A., & Grey, J. (2006). Can students within higher education learn to be
resilient and, educationally speaking, does it matter? Educational Studies, 32(3), 251-
264.
Warnat, W. I. (1976). The role of White faculty on the Black campus. Journal of Negro
Education, 45(3), 334-338.
Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wellman, J. V. (2001). Accountability systems. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
33(2), 46-52.
Wenger, E.C., Snyder, W.M., (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.
Wenglinsky, H. (1996). The educational justification of Historically Black College s and
universities: Policy responses to the U.S. Supreme Court. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 18, 91-103.
Wenglinsky, H. (1997). Students at Historically Black College s and universities: Their
aspirations & accomplishments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
White House Initiative on HBCUs Annual Report (2005). Jessup, MD: Education Publications
Center, U.S. Department of Education.
White House Initiative on HBCUs Annual Report (2010). Jessup, MD: Education Publications
Center, U.S. Department of Education.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 230
Williams, P.C. (2008). McCarythyism’s effect on Black colleges in Pennsylvania: A historical
case study of Cheyney and Lincoln Universities. In M. Gasman, C.L. Tudico (Eds),
Historically Black College s and universities: Triumphs, troubles, and taboos (pp.77-92).
New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Willie, C.V., Reddick, R.J., Brown, R. (2006). The Black college mystique. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Wilson-Sadberry, K. R. (1991). Resilience and persistence of African-American males in
postsecondary enrollment. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 87-102.
Woodson, C. G. (1933). The mis-education of the Negro. Washington, DC: Associated
Publishers.
Zumeta, W. (2011). What does it mean to be accountable? Dimensions and implications of
higher education’s public accountability. Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 131-148.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 231
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocols
Participant (Title, Name, Gender, Race, Institution):
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Date:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. You can stop the interview at any time.
During the interview I may take notes on issues that you raise that I would like to ask further
questions about. As mentioned in the consent form I would like to use a digital audio device to
record the interview. If you are uncomfortable being taped by the recording device please let me
know and I will stop recording at any point during the interview. Also, after the interview the
tapes will remain confidential and only shared between the researcher and transcriber. When
referring to any information shared during the interviews pseudonyms will be used to ensure the
protection of your identity. Thank you for your participation.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 232
Understanding Smith University
1. Can you discuss your role at your institution? Why did you select to work at this
institution?
2. How would you describe the organizational culture of your campus? How would you
describe the mission of your campus?
3. How would you describe the role of race in the organizational culture of Smith
University?
4. What do you believe are the student outcomes that are most pressing for your
institution to improve?
5. What do you think contributes to the mentioned outcomes?
6. Have you observed any connections between the organizational policies and practices
and the experiences of and outcomes for students of color on your campus?
7. How would you suggest improving the outcomes?
8. What, if any, are the challenges that your institution faces in trying to improve
student outcomes? Are any of these challenges unique to Smith University?
Why/Why not?
Reflecting On Race, The State System of Higher Education, and Performance-Based Funding
1. How would you describe Smith University’s relationship with the State System of
Higher Education?
2. What factors do you believe contribute to the relationship between Smith University
and the State System of Higher Education?
3. What is your perspective on the role of race in the relationship between Smith
University and the State System of Higher Education?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 233
4. What is your knowledge of the State System of Higher Education Performance-Based
Funding policy? (provide explanation if they are unaware)
5. What is your perspective on the Performance-Based Funding policy?
6. What do you believe will be the impact on the Performance-Based Funding policy on
Smith University? Will such impact help or harm the institution? Why or why not?
Additional Questions for Equity Scorecard Participants
Reflecting on the Equity Scorecard
7. If a colleague asked you what the Equity Scorecard process was about, what would
you say? Can you tell me a little bit about why you decided to participate in the
Equity Scorecard process? Were you involved in the promoting equity prior to the
project? If so, can you describe your involvement? If not, why not?
8. What do you feel that you learned from the Equity Scorecard process?
9. In what ways was the process beneficial?
10. During the process you reviewed data that identified student outcomes that your
institution would like to improve (i.e. four-year graduation rate of 13%). What do
you think is the cause of this graduation rate? What was your reaction when you
reviewed this data with the evidence team?
11. How would you define equity and deficit-mindedness? Were you familiar with those
terms prior to the process? What were your reactions to/experiences during the
discussion of equity and deficit-mindedness? How do you think your reactions and/or
experiences compared to the reactions and or/ experiences of the members of your
group? How do you think typical members of your institution would have responded?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 234
Deficit-mindedness refers to a cognitive frame in which student outcomes are attributed
to personal attributes, such as skills, ability, or motivation rather than institutionally
related factors
Equity-mindedness refers to a cognitive frame in which student outcomes are attributed
to institutional factors such as campus climate, pedagogy, institutional racism, or delivery
of services
12. What were your reactions to/experiences during the examination of racially
disaggregated data? How do you think your reactions and/or experiences compared
to the reactions and or/ experiences of the members of your group? How do you think
typical members of your institution would have responded?
13. What were your reactions to/experiences during the inquiry activities? How do you
think your reactions and/or experiences compared to the reactions and/or experiences
of the members of your group? How do you think typical members of your institution
would have responded?
14. What were your reactions to/experiences during the development of
recommendations? How do you think your reactions and/or experiences compared to
the reactions and or/ experiences of the members of your group? How do you think
typical members of your institution would have responded?
15. Did you face any obstacles while going through the Equity Scorecard process?
16. Have you observed any connections between the organizational culture of your
campus and the dialogue and interactions during the Equity Scorecard project?
17. What factors do you believe impacted your learning and experiences during the
Equity Scorecard process?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 235
Additional Questions for Campus Leaders:
1. What are your impressions of the Equity Scorecard process? Do you feel it was beneficial
for your institution to participate? Why/Why Not?
2. What, if anything, has your institution gained as a result of participating in the Equity
Scorecard process?
3. Describe an ideal institutional change process that you believe would be beneficial for
your institution?
Additional Questions for the State System of Higher Education Representative
1. In what ways do you think the current PBF policy could help Smith University?
2. In what ways do you think the current PBF policy could harm Smith University?
3. Who was involved in designing the PBF policy? Were there any representatives from
Smith University? Why/Why not
4. How were participants selected to participate in the designing of the PBF policy?
5. What considerations if any were given to Smith University and their unique mission in
the designing of the PBF policy?
6. What do you think will be the impact of the PBF policy on Smith University? What do
you think will be the impact of the race/ethnicity indicators? What do you think will be
the impact of the graduation/completion indicators?
Additional Questions for Regional Race Expert
Race and the Region
1. Smith University describes their joining the state system of higher education in 1983
as a critical point in their organizational history in which they began a decline. Can
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 236
you describe the racial climate of the region in the late 1970s, early 1980s? What
factors and/or events contributed to this climate?
2. Can you describe the racial climate of the region today? What factors and/or events
contribute to this climate?
3. If one wanted to understand the history of race and/or racism in the region, what is
critical to know?
Understanding Smith University
4. Can you discuss any previous interactions or perceptions of Smith University?
5. How would you describe the perception of Smith University to the surrounding
community? Do those perspectives vary by different groups of people?
6. What factors do you believe contributes to the perceptions of Smith University to the
surrounding community? (ask about the media, if not mentioned)
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 237
Appendix B: Field Observation Template
Field Note Template
Name (First and last name of field note
writer)
SITE: (Location of observation)
DATE: (Date and time of observation)
ENSEMBLE: (Who was there? What are
their titles?)
ACTVITIES: (What was the basis for the
Observation)
PROJECT: (Activity is a part of what larger
CUE Project?)
Time Period/Task
Site (room temp, equipment, environment)
Task performance (engagement with
presentation or tool)
Social Context (interactions, who is talking)
Dialogue (what is being said)
Reflection/
Analysis
1. General reflections
2. Bensimon and Neumann (1993)
A. How do people communicate with one another on the team?
B. Do people seem to listen to one another?
C. How does the group resolve disagreements?
3. What did the language seem to imply or represent about the
organizational culture?
4. How did they seem to make sense of the data (What did they
understand it to mean? What did they identify as the cause of the
data?)
5. What connections did they make between organizational
characteristics and student outcomes?
6. How did they describe their personal role in the issues raised during
the discussions?
7. What seem to be the obstacles to learning?
8. What happened that reflected understanding of the process?
9. What factors seem to mediate the learning of the team members?
10. What is the progression of the themes over the course of the
meetings?
11. What were the group dynamics?
12. What about their actions/discussion reflected belonging to one to a
high/medium/low learning team?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 238
High Learning Medium
Learning
Low Learning
*prioritize data
over own
experiential
knowledge
*inquired into
educational
processes and not
just outcomes
*did not identify
potential points
for intervention
*blamed students
for observed
outcomes
*experienced very
little/if any learning
about inequities in
education
*relied on experiential
knowledge rather than
data
*(Bauman, 2002)
13. What issues of individuals’ race or experiences with racism were
raised? Who brought them up? What was said? How did the group
react?
14. What issues of institutional race and racism were raised? Who
brought them up? What was said? How did the group react?
15. What issues surrounding the relationship w/ the state system of
higher education were raised? Who brought them up? What was
said? How did the group react?
16. What issues surrounding PBF were raised? Who brought them up?
What was said? How did the group react?
Field Note Template Adapted from:
Gutierrez, K.D. & Vossougi , S. (2009). Lifting off the ground to return a new: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design
experiments, Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 100-11.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 239
Appendix C: List of Codes and Categories
Race, Organizational Culture, and Student Outcomes at a Historically Black College or
University
1) Category-Positive Attributes of University
Code-University’s small size
Code-Providing opportunity
Code-Addressing students’ personal needs
Code-Supporting students’ development of confidence and a healthy academic self-
concept
Code-Personable climate/Warm
2) Category –Critiques of the University
Code-Too many remedial courses/Not enough rigor
Code-Too many conditionally admitted/non focused students
Code-Poor reputation
Code-High staff turnover
Code-Administrator fatigue
Code-Difficult to work with faculty unions
Code-Limited resources (facilities)
Code-Limited resources (technology)
Code-Unhappy w/ Institutional staff/faculty/administrators
Code-Poor customer service
3) Category-Role of Race and Culture
Code-Instilling racial pride in campus community
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 240
Code-Protecting the university from outsiders
Code-Legacy of first HBCU
Code-Presence of spirituality/religion
Code-Black/White tension
4) Perspectives on Organizational Culture
Code-Perspectives on bureaucracy
Code-Perspectives on the university mission
Code-University loyalty
Code-Family culture/environment (those hired, enrolled have previous personal
connection)
Code-Faculty vs. administration tension
Code- Limited data systems/use
Code-Grant writing
Code-Institutional resiliency
Code-Race and social justice not at the forefront
HBCU perspectives on a State Performance-based Funding Policy
1) Category-Relationship w/ accountability systems
• Code-presence of middle states
Code-relationship w/state system of higher education (including historical)
Code-racism and relationship w/ accountability systems
2) Category –perspective on diversity and race based PBF
• Code-critiques of race based PBF
• Code-support of race based PBF
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 241
• Code-how increased racial diversity could benefit the institution
• Code-how increased racial diversity could harm the institution
Equity Scorecard at an HBCU
1) Category-Learning from the Equity Scorecard
• Code-understanding of equity-minded ness
• Code-understanding of deficit-mindedness
• Code-understanding/using data
2) Category –Challenges w/ the Equity Scorecard
• Code-Communication w/ CUE
• Code-Evidence team communication/collaboration
• Code-Evidence team member fatigue
3) Category-Addressing Retention/Graduation
• Code-perspectives on contributors to the retention/graduation rates
• Code-Inquiry process for understanding retention/graduation rates
• Code- recommendations for improving the retention/graduation rates
• Code-Challenges to organizational change
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 242
Appendix D: Letter to Request Permission to Conduct Research
September 1, 2012
Dr. John Richard
Chair
University Park Institutional Review Board
Stonier Hall (STO), Room 224a
Los Angeles CA 90089-1146
RE: Estela Mara Bensimon, Ed.D., Equity Scorecard Project
Dear Dr. Richard:
This letter is to convey that I/we have reviewed the proposed research study being conducted by
Estela Bensimon and Tiffany Jones intended to conduct research regarding student equity in
educational outcomes at [Smith] University and find the study of the Equity Scorecard process
acceptable. I/we give permission for the above investigators to conduct research at this site.
I/we will review, abide by, and comply with the procedures approved by the University of
Southern California’s University Park IRB. If you have any questions regarding this permission
letter, please contact the undersigned at 610-399-2271.
Sincerely,
[Smith] University Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 243
Appendix E: Informed Consent Document
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Reflections on the “Equity Scorecard Project”
Participant Interviews & Observations
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this project.
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Estela Bensimon and Tiffany
Jones, who are working in partnership with the Center for Urban Education at the state system of
higher education. This study is supported by the state system of higher education.
The data from this study may contribute to future publications about the outcomes of the Equity
Scorecard intervention. All of the participants of the Equity Scorecard project that include
faculty, staff, and practitioners from the evidence team have been invited to participate. You
must be at least18 years of age to participate. Your participation is voluntary. Please take as
much time as you need to read the information sheet. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to learn more about
the impact of the Equity Scorecard on the participants and how the tools are working in the
Equity Scorecard process.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to:
1. Allow your interactions with the tools and the process during each of the meetings to be
observed by the researchers.
2. Participate in individual interviews which will last approximately 45 minutes-1 hour; the
interview will be conducted on-site in a secure location.
3. During the interviews you will be asked several open-ended questions and allow for you
to offer information not asked by questions guiding this study.
4. We will ask for permission to audiotape the interview for later transcription and accuracy
of the information obtained during the interview. Of course, your participation is still
desired whether or not you agree to be audio taped.
5. As we will be discussing our findings only in the aggregate, we will not be using your
name nor writing about you in a way that would be personally identifiable.
6. Once we have summarized the findings you will have an opportunity to provide any
follow-up feedback you feel is needed for clarification.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 244
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort at
completing the interview or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to
complete the focus-group interview.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no additional compensation for participating in the reflective interview.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There are not conflicts of interest for the researchers involved in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or initials
and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information which has your identifiable information
will be kept separately from the rest of your data.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer. As noted above, we will be discussing our findings only in the aggregate. We will not
be using your name nor writing about you in a way that would be personally identifiable.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will
be included that would reveal your identity. Audio-tape recordings of you will only be used for
educational purposes; your identity will be protected or disguised. When the findings have been
summarized, you will have an opportunity to provide any feedback needed for clarification or
enhance accuracy.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw
you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 245
study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to speak
with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about the
research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park
IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Estela Bensimon, EdD
Professor & Co-Director
Center for Urban Education
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, Suite 702
(213) 740-5202
bensimon@usc.edu
Tiffany Jones, PhD Candidate
Research Assistant
Center for Urban Education
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, Suite 702
(213) 740-5202
Tiffannj@usc.edu
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 246
Appendix F1: State Performance-Based Funding Measures for Smith University
Measure Measure
Type
Definition 2009/
2010
status
5 year
goal
(2017)
Degrees
Conferred
Mandatory a. Increase the Number of Degrees (associate,
bachelor’s, and graduate) conferred annually.
180 224
b. Increase Baccalaureate Degrees per Full Time
Enrollment (FTE) Undergraduate Enrollment
11.64% 12.13
%
Closing the
Achievement
Gaps
Mandatory a. Closing the achievement (six-year graduation rate)
gap for Pell recipients. The “gap” is the difference
between the six-year graduation rate for Pell
recipients and the six-year graduation rate for Non-
Pell recipients. In 2010 the six-year graduation rate
for Non-Pell recipients was 27% while the six-year
graduation rate for Pell recipients was 23%, thus
there was a 4% “gap”. The five year goal is to
reduce the gap by 50%.
4.0% 2.0%
b. Closing the achievement (six-year graduation rate)
gap for Underrepresented Minority (URM)
students. The “gap” is the difference between the
six-year graduation rate for URM and the six-year
graduation rate for Non-URM students. URM for
Smith University is anyone Other than Black or
Unknown (OTBU). In 2010 the six- year
graduation rate for Non-OTBU students was
29.3%, the six-year graduation rate for OTBU
students was 24%, thus there was a 5% “gap.” The
five year goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.
5.3% 2.64%
Faculty
Diversity
Mandatory a. Achieving a Smith University faculty
20
that is
50% OTBU. Smith will be evaluated 50% based
upon improvement and 50% based upon meeting
at least the average scores of public master’s
HBCUs.
41.94% 45.59
%
b. Achieving a Smith University faculty that is 50%
Female. Smith will be evaluated 50% based upon
improvement and 50% based upon meeting at least
the avg scores of public master’s HBCUs.
51.72% 41.89
%
21
Closing the
Access Gaps
Mandatory a. Closing the access (enrollment) gap for Pell
recipients. The “gap” is the difference between the
percentage of Pell recipients enrolled at Smith
University and the percentage of low income high
school graduates in the state. In 2010, 38% of high
school graduates in the state were low income,
while75% of Smith students are Pell recipients,
(37.3%) 0%
20
Faculty-anyone who holds titles of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, or
equivalent of these academic ranks.
21
The goal is based on the average of similar institutions (public HBCUs), thus Smith is challenged to maintain their
gender diversity and not to drop below 41.89% female faculty.
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 247
thus there is no “gap.” The five year goal is to
maintain a zero gap.
b. Closing the access (enrollment) gap for
Underrepresented Minority (URM) students. URM
for Smith University is anyone Other than Black or
Unknown (OTBU). The goal is the close the “gap”
between the percentage of OTBU students enrolled
at public master’s level HBCUs and the percentage
of OTBU students enrolled at Smith University. In
2010, Smith enrolled 2% OTBU students and the
average OTBU enrollment at public master’s level
HBCUs was 16%, thus there was a 13.6% “gap.”
The five year goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.
13.6% 6.81%
Private
Support
Mandatory a. The three-year average of annual private funds
raised by the university and foundations. 50% of
the performance will be measure based upon
improvement. 50% of the performance will be
based upon meeting the average of peer
performance
22
.
$556,25
5
$4,104
,396
Student
Persistence
Optional a. Student persistence from fall of freshman year to
fall of third year. The five year goal is based on the
average first to third year persistence for public
master’s HBCUs.
46.22%
(fall
2006
cohort)
53.97
%
(fall
2006
cohort)
b. Student persistence from fall of freshman year to
fall of fourth year. The five year goal is based on
the average first to fourth year persistence for
public master’s HBCUs. Performance is measured
as follows: 33% based on third year persistence
improvement, 33% on meeting at least average of
peer group third year persistence, and 34% based
on annual improvement of fourth year persistence.
37.99% N/A
(no
nationa
l data,
so
general
improv
ement
is the
goal)
STEM and
Health
Profession
Degree
Recipients
Optional a. Percentage increase of degrees conferred in all
STEM-HP fields. Performance will be measured,
50% based upon annual improvement of the
indicator. 50% based upon at least meeting the
average scores of similar institutions. “Similar
institutions” for Smith University includes all
public master’s HBCUs.
-46.15%
(three
year
avg. is
95.09%)
7.14%
Closing the
Achievement
Gaps for
Transfer
Students
Optional a. Closing the transfer achievement (six-year
graduation rate) gap for Pell recipients. The “gap”
is the difference between the six-year graduation
rate for transfer Pell recipients and the six-year
graduation rate for transfer, Non-Pell recipients. In
2010 the six-year graduation rate for transfer Non-
Pell recipients was 30% while the six-year
graduation rate for transfer Pell recipients was
26%, thus there was a 4% “gap”. The five year
goal is to reduce the gap by 50%.
4.0% 2.0%
22
Peers were defined as 1) all public HBCUs 2) all public doctoral/research institutions 3) all public master’s
institutions (all schools with division I athletic programs were excluded).
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 248
b. Closing the achievement (six-year graduation rate)
gap for Underrepresented Minority (URM)
transfer students. The “gap” is the difference
between the six graduation rate for URM transfer
students and the six- year graduation rate for Non-
URM transfer students. URM for Smith University
is anyone Other than Black or Unknown (OTBU).
In 2010 the six-year graduation rate for Non-
OTBU transfer students was 25%, the six- year
graduation rate for OTBU transfer students was
100%, thus there was no “gap” to close. The five
year goal is maintain a zero gap.
(75%) 0%
Closing the
Access Gap
for Transfer
Students
Optional a. Closing the access (enrollment) gap for transfer
Pell recipients. The “gap” is the difference
between the percentage of transfer Pell recipients
enrolled at Smith University and the percentage of
low income high school graduates in the state. For
the baseline year 36% of high school graduates in
the state were low income, while56.95% of Smith
transfer students are Pell recipients, thus there is
no “gap.” The five year goal is to maintain a zero
gap.
(21%) 0%
b. Closing the access (enrollment) gap for
Underrepresented Minority (URM) transfer
students. URM for Smith University is anyone
Other than Black or Unknown (OTBU). The goal
is the close the “gap” between the percentage of
OTBU transfer students enrolled at public master’s
HBCUs and the percentage of OTBU transfer
students enrolled at Smith University. In 2010,
Smith enrolled 2.2% OTBU transfer students and
the average OTBU transfer enrollment at public
master’s HBCUs was 16%, thus there was a 13.3%
“gap.” The five year goal is to reduce the gap by
50%.
13.3% 6.65%
Instructional
Productivity
Optional a. The number of student credit hours divided by
total FTE instructional faculty
23
. Performance is
50% based on annual improvement of the indicator
and 50% based on at least meeting the average to
peer performance (peer for Smith University is the
average for all public master’s HBCUs)
461.83 516.79
23
Faculty includes all part time and full time faculty
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 249
Appendix F2: State Performance-based Funding Optional Measures
1. SUCCESS 3: Student Persistence
2. SUCCESS 4: Student Learning Assessment
3. SUCCESS 5: STEM and Health Profession Degree Recipients
4. SUCCESS 6: Closing the Achievement Gaps for Transfer Students
5. ACCESS 3: Faculty Career Advancement
6. Employment (Non-faculty) Diversity
7. ACCESS 5: Student Diversity
8. ACCESS 6: Closing the Access Gaps for Transfer Students
9. STEWARDSHIP 2: Facilities Investment
10. STEWARDSHIP 3: Support Expenditures as Percent of Cost of Education
11. STEWARDSHIP 4: Instructional Productivity
12. STEWARDSHIP 5: Employee Productivity
13. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Distance Education Enrollment
14. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: External Grant Support
15. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: High Impact Practices
16. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: International Enrollment
17. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Individual Donor Support
18. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Second Year Persistence for URM Students
19. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Student Engagement
20. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Study Abroad
21. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Reducing Greenhouse Emissions
22. UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC MEASURE: Undergraduate Research
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 250
Appendix G: The Smith University Inquiry Activity Plan
PART 1- ADDITIONAL DATA
Team members are responsible to answer these questions and present the information to
the evidence team:
A. Gather additional data to understand which students were leaving. Request the
Institutional Researcher provide data on students who are not persisting disaggregated by:
a. Full time/part time enrollment status
b. First generation student status
c. Pell status
d. Gender
e. Transfer student status (note 2 year versus 4 year transfer)
f. At the time they left Smith
How many had a GPA of 2.0 or higher?____
How many had a GPA below a 2.0?____
g. Credits attempted (by major)
h. Credits earned (by major)
i. How many students had enrolled in non-credit remedial courses?
j. List classes that students earned less than a C-
k. How many courses did the students drop on average? Was there a particular course
dropped more frequently?
l. How many students had a declared major?
m. Eight year graduation rate
PART 2: INTERVIEWS
A. Interview at least 10 Latino students to discuss their experience during their
transition from their Freshman to Sophomore year.
Team members are responsible to answer these questions and present the information to
the evidence team:
1. Where in the state (country or world) does the student reside from?
2. What drew the student to Smith? How did they first learn about Smith?
3. Why did they decide to attend Smith?
4. How has their experience been so far?
5. What are their interactions with students, staff, and faculty on campus?
6. Do they feel like they belong?
7. What campus groups are they involved with? Do they have a leadership position in
any of these groups?
8. Why do they think Latino students do or do not persist?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 251
9. What do they need to feel supported by the campus?
10. How often do they meet with their advisor? How long is the session? What kind of
questions are the students typically asked about by their advisor? Do they feel
comfortable sharing their challenges and/or goals with their advisor?
B. Interview at least 10 Faculty, using the questions below, from different fields – to
discuss their perspectives on how Smith can increase student graduation rates.
Team members are responsible to answer these questions and present the information to
the evidence team:
1. Who are your students?
2. In your opinion, what differentiates students who stay from those who leave?
3. There is a sense that students do not seek help voluntarily, especially among those
populations where help-seeking behaviors were not actively encouraged. To what extent
are you “intentional” in your approach to help students?
4. What training does Smith provide advisors to effectively provide guidance to students?
5. Do advisors play a role outside the advisement center?
a. If yes, please describe.
6. What kind of advisement is provided to students after the first year?
a. How are these efforts coordinated with other retention efforts?
7. How would you describe your advisement process – is it student initiated or advisor-
initiated?
a. To what extent do you feel this process is helping you meet your retention and
graduation goals?
b. To what extent do students engage in long-term planning or “backwards
planning” to ensure they meet graduation and major requirements?
8. What areas of guidance are advisors solely versus collaboratively responsible for?
Graduation Check? Degree Audit? Financial Aid?
a. Are advisors expected to follow documented protocols during the initial
interaction with students? Follow-up interactions? If yes, please describe. Can you
share these documents with the team members?
b. Are there specific topics that advisors are expected to address beyond course
selection? If yes, please describe.
9. How does Smith assess advisement’s impact on students? What does the institution
consider success?
a. What instruments are used?
b. How often are documents assessed?
c. Is campus level data available regarding the student body’s use of advisement?
10. How do you assess your impact on students? How do you know you are successful in
your efforts?
a. What instruments are used?
b. How often do you assess?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 252
11. In your opinion what do you believe Smith can do to increase student graduation rates?
C. Meet with the Appropriate Offices to Investigate the Following Policy Issues:
Team members are responsible to answer these questions and present the information to
the evidence team:
1. The issue of developmental education and financial aid:
(a) How many courses can students take using financial aid?
(b) What happens if the student has reached the limit of credits in terms of
financial aid support, but has not yet reached the credits needed for
graduation?
(c) What is the planning process to help developmental education students plan
their classes so that they do not exhaust their financial aid prior to graduation?
2. The issue of declaring a major?
(a) When are students encouraged to declare a major? What happens if the
student does not declare a major by this point?
(b) What is the process for declaring a major? Does the process differ between the
majors?
(c) How long can a student continue without declaring a major?
(d) What efforts does the institution make to help students declare a major?
3. The issue of course scheduling:
(a) What are the major considerations in planning the schedule? What is the
procedure for determining which classes to cut?
(b) Are there majors that are often hardest hit when classes need to be canceled?
If so, why are they the first to be canceled?
(c) How often are upper division level classes canceled due to low enrollment?
Are there records kept that show how often seniors may be impacted by these
actions showing for example that they have delayed graduation dates, drop
out, or transfer?
4. Issues around Graduation:
(a) What are the PASSHE requirements for a student to be declared a graduate of
Smith?
(b) What steps does the advisor need to accomplish in order to declare a student
eligible to graduate? In order for the student to receive their diploma?
A HISTORICAL MISSION IN A PERFORMANCE SYSTEM 253
(c) What steps does the institution need to accomplish in order to declare a
student graduate? In order for the student to receive their diploma?
(d) What steps does the student need to accomplish in order to graduate? In order
to receive their diploma?
(e) How many students on average participate in graduation under the policy of
being able to “walk” if they are still 6 credits short of their required units?
(i) Is there a follow up process to guarantee that the students in this category
return to complete the credits?
(ii) Is there a follow up process to identify these students as having completed
the degree after they complete the 6 credits? Are these results routinely
updated to the state system of higher education?
(iii) What majors are these students usually from?
(iv) Are these students generally first generation students?
(v) How often do these students come back to complete the 6 missing
credits? How often does the student not return to Smith to complete the
needed units?
(vi) Do the final 6 credits need to be completed at Smith in order to earn their
diploma?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The case study utilizes interviews, observations, and document analysis to examine how the Equity Scorecard supported a public Historically Black University’s ability to (a) respond to their state Performance-Based Funding policy and (b) address outcomes such as retention and graduation rates. The participants identified nurturing, discussions of race, the challenge of balancing opportunity and rigor, and limited resource realities as key components of their organizational culture that shape student outcomes. The participants liked that the state Performance-Based Funding policy and Equity Scorecard process helped the institution become more data- and outcomes-minded. However, the participants were critical of the policy’s equity-oriented measures and their overall relationship with their state system of higher education. The findings from the study demonstrate that the Smith University evidence team displayed an understanding of equity-mindedness and deficit-mindedness as well as the ability to better interpret and use their institutional data. The participants also faced challenges within their Equity Scorecard experience, which included difficulties communicating with each other and the Center for Urban Education and limited capacity in the form of time allocation and data processes. Despite these challenges, the participants identified, discussed, and investigated how their institution could further address their retention and graduation rates.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
PDF
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
PDF
Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents
PDF
Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis
PDF
Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation
PDF
Beyond access: an evaluation of attitudes and learning towards achieving equitable educational outcomes in higher education
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty
PDF
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
An evaluation of individual learning among members of a diversity scorecard project evidence team
PDF
Tempering transformative change: whiteness and racialized emotions in graduate leaders' implementation of equity plans
PDF
Mission dissemination: a multi-case study of the research university mission
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform
PDF
Advancing retention strategies at a historically Black university
PDF
The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program
PDF
Against all odds: examining the educational experiences of farm working students
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jones, Tiffany
(author)
Core Title
Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
10/30/2013
Defense Date
10/30/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
equity,HBCUs,higher education policy,OAI-PMH Harvest,performance funding
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bensimon, Estela Mara (
committee chair
), Riley, Patricia (
committee member
), Slaughter, John Brooks (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jones1tn@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-343184
Unique identifier
UC11296154
Identifier
etd-JonesTiffa-2118.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-343184 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-JonesTiffa-2118.pdf
Dmrecord
343184
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Jones, Tiffany
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 a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
equity
HBCUs
higher education policy
performance funding