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
/
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
(USC Thesis Other)
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS
State Policy as an Opportunity to Address
Latinx Transfer Inequity in Community College
By
Eric R. Felix
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon, Rossier School of Education, Chair
Dr. Julie A. Marsh, Rossier School of Education, Member
Dr. Shaun R. Harper, Rossier School of Education, Member
Dr. Daniel A. Mazmanian, Price School of Public Policy, Member
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)
May 2019
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS ii
To the strong Mujeres in my life
who forged this path for me
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS iii
Acknowledgments
Writing this dissertation and wrapping up my doctoral program has been the hardest thing
I ever done. There is no way I would be writing these words of acknowledgment without the
village next to me; picking me up, cheering me on, and keeping an unwavering faith in my
ability to complete this Ph.D. and use it for good. This dissertation is a collective
accomplishment one rooted in the love and support of my family, friends, peers, and mentors.
It all starts with family. I want to recognize and honor my grandparents (Juana, Lucio,
Raul, y Emilia) who brought my parents (Santiago and Miriam) over from Mexico and
Guatemala to provide a better life. My grandparents are the original dreamers, enduring the
hardships and anti-immigrant climate, all while navigating a foreign environment. I’m the son of
immigrants; a janitor and constructor worker who tirelessly sacrificed everything to move me
forward. Their experiences drive my work ethic to stay humble in success and be committed to
using research in ways that serve our community. My abuelita, Emilia, has asked me since about
2015, “y el libro, ya lo terminastes?” Well, I can finally say, si, the libro is done!! A special
shout out to my brother Jonny who has always supported my dreams, I hope I made you proud.
And, lastly, it is hard to put into words what the support, love, and patience from my wife,
Jacklyn Felix, has meant to me during these last five years. You have kept our family afloat and
afforded me the opportunity to pursue this endeavor full time. Your selflessness allowed me to
immerse myself in the Ph.D. program; spend days writing, nights revising, and weekends
working to become the scholar I am. It took some time, but your husband is a student no more!
The support of friends and peers has been instrumental in this doctoral journey. My
undergrad friends, Gaston, Joser, Penguin, Migs, Squints, to name a few have kept me sane,
reminding me that there is more to life than academia, like fantasy football. They all have helped
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS iv
me come up for air after coursework, my qualifying exam, proposing my study, and between
draft 1 and draft 201 of this dissertation. Since starting the Ph.D. there have been so many
brilliant colleagues I’ve built community with and struggled in solidarity to finish the degree. I
want to recognize my cohort, Center for Urban Education Crew, Pocos Per Locos Writing
Group, and AERA Division G peers.
Tien, Román, Antar, and Jason, I benefited greatly from our conversations from
orientation to commencement. I’m sorry I was the last one to wrap up and skew that time to
completion rate. To my CUE crew (Cheryl, Maxine, Paloma, Jordan, Deanna, Esmeralda) the
transition to the program was heavily facilitated by y’all, helping me find a home as a doctoral
student and develop as a researcher, facilitator, presenter. To my SDSU Homies, Jamal, Elliott,
and Ray, thanks for teaching me what it means to be a scholar committed to research that makes
an impact with community college practitioners and the students they serve. Pocos Pero Locos:
Mi Hermanos, fellow CSU grads, writing partners, and conference roomies. This program has
been a blast with y'all. Edwin glad we connected during our first year and have collaborated the
last few years to address Latinx educational issues. Román, my ace, like Tupac and Snoop we
“Two of Akademiaz Most Wanted” from our first-year boot camp to having deep dissertation
conversations on theory, methods, and how many championships Lebron will bring to LA.
Through this all you’ve been next to me, literally, since we’ve shared an office space for nearly
five years. Let’s see what’s next for the crew!! Also want to thank the Latinx Collective, past and
present, for creating a welcoming space for Latinx students to learn and build community at
USC. Finally, to my besties involved with DivGgrads: Sakeena, Berenice, Cassie, Jon, Shena,
and Adam, much respect for your critical work with and for communities. It has been an honor to
build an academic home with AERA. See Y'all at #AERA2020.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS v
I am very grateful for the support and outreach programs throughout my life, altering my
educational trajectory. Early on teaching me to see myself as a scholar, not just a student;
someone that honors and builds from a community of immigrant, low-income, Latinx gente.
There may be too many educational interventions to list, but a few to include are the Anaheim
Public Library and it’s reading programs, free and reduced lunch, after-school youth programs
keeping me out of trouble, vacation bible school, Upward Bound, GEAR UP, USC’s EDGE,
NYU’s Faculty First Program. A reminder to fund and sustain these types of programs because
they make a difference. #TRIOworks!!
I wouldn’t have made it to USC’s Ph.D. program without the commitment of caring
mentors. At Cal State Fullerton I had mentors in Student Support Services, the History
Department, and Chicano Studies. Thank you, Patricia Alvarado, Jochen Burgtorf, and Alejandro
Gradilla for helping me see myself not as a student, but a scholar. Before attending USC, I had
an amazing mentor helping me navigate the world of student affairs and introducing me to the
scholar life. Frank Harris III has been and continues to be instrumental in my life. The Magic
Johnson of my academic career facilitating my success, giving me open looks, and throwing the
perfect lob to slam it down. Thank you for helping me meet and exceed my potential; Reminding
me of the ability I possess.
While at USC, I’ve had faculty and staff in my corner helping me navigate the process.
The facilities staff, Felix, Dora, and Angel have been like a second family, providing familiar
Latinx faces, checking in on me, asking how my progress is going, and brightening up my day
with a simple “hola, como estas.” In the program office, I have bugged Laura for the last five and
a half years, I think she may be happiest now that I am done and no longer a student. Thank you
for your patience and diligence with helping me make sure my paperwork was always in order.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS vi
While I have benefited greatly from the amazing faculty at USC, there have been three
influential faculty members to recognize. In Anthropology, Lanita Jacobs taught me to be a more
caring and compassionate qualitative research with critical reflexivity. Darnell Cole has been a
willing ear to listen to my research projects, questions on pedagogy, and ways to engage students
in the classroom. Lastly, I am lucky to observe the academic brilliance of Julie Posselt who has
invested in me since randomly being assigned the discussant role for a paper in 2015. Since then
she served on my qualifying exam, helped me through the publication process, allowed me to co-
teach advanced qualitative methods, and shared insight on navigating academia as a parent.
I have to thank the members of my committee, each of whom has supported me over the
last two years. Dan Mazmanian taught me everything there is to know about policy
implementation research. My scholarly thinking on policy, analysis, and implementation
changed the day I walked into his PPD 555 course. Julie Marsh has helped me become a more
rigorous and theoretically grounded researcher. I’ve been lucky to learn from a dynamic scholar
who has dedicated their research to improving educational equity in schooling. Shaun Harper,
first thank you for bringing me to Penn to study and learn with you in the summer of 2015. My
time in Philly allowed me to see how someone can humanize the academy, put the emphasis on
people over projects, and helping me navigate the unspoken rules and norms in higher education.
And, I appreciate you always challenging me to explicitly address race and racism in my work
and doing research that is with and for my community. Lastly, my advisor Estela Bensimon who
has been in my corner from day one. It truly has been an honor and privilege to learn, write, and
teach with one of the greatest education scholars of all time. You’ve been everything you’ve ever
written about institutional agents in higher education: the faculty member who uses her agency to
support racially-minoritized students as well as uses her position and status to call out practices,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS vii
programs, and policy that may perpetuate inequities. As an advisor, you’ve let me grow into my
own scholar-identity. You always set high expectations for my work and hope I exceeded them.
I’m indebted to you and the time, effort, and insight you’ve shared over the year.
Two concluding thoughts. First, this dissertation would not be possible without a site to
study or individuals to observe. I’d like to thank the practitioners at Huerta for allowing me into
their community and giving me something to study. I learned so much from campus leaders
trying to address the complex pathways and oppressive structures that act as barriers to transfer
for Latinx students in race-conscious and culturally relevant ways. Second, and most recently, I
have become a parent to Elijah J. Felix. As the date emerge, I was encouraged by faculty to take
time off and enjoy the first few months of fatherhood. The decision to take a break put the
dissertation off and experience parenthood was the best choice. As I finish my doctoral journey
and this dissertation, it is a reminder that academia can be an affirming place that doesn’t make
attaining a doctorate and carrying a diaper bag mutually exclusive. I hope this experience is not a
one-off, and that institutions, programs, and faculty members work towards creating this
experience and space for women of color navigating the doctoral process, pregnancy, and
mothering. I want to acknowledge all the parents in academia trying to make it all work,
especially mothers of color, y’all the strongest scholars I know!
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS viii
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Abstract xii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Community College, State Higher Education Policy, and Educational Equity 1
1.2 Latinx Students: California’s Equity Imperative 3
1.3 Dissertation Topic and Its Genesis 6
1.4 Purpose of the Study 11
1.5 Organization of Dissertation 16
Chapter 2: A Review of Related Literature
2.1 Community College Transfer, Latinx Transfer Gap, and Policy Reform 17
2.2 State Policy Interventions to Address Transfer 23
2.3 Implementing State-Level Equity-Oriented Policies 27
2.4 Literature Review Summary 33
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framing
3.1 Studying the Implementation of Equity-Oriented Reforms 35
3.2 Multi-Contextual Implementation Framework
3.2.1 The Zone of Tolerance for Equity-Minded Reforms
3.2.2 Policy Context: Structuring Equity Oriented Reform
3.2.3 Organizational Context: Where Policy is Embedded
3.2.4 Individual Characteristics: Role of the Implementing Actor
3.2.5 Situated Context: The Collective Group of Implementers
38
40
42
44
46
47
3.3 Summary of Guiding Theoretical Framework 49
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
4.1 Case Study Design 51
4.2 Site Selection, Research Context, and Access to Data 53
4.3 Data Collection Strategy 59
4.4 Data Analysis 68
4.5 Trustworthiness and Limitations 74
4.6 Research Design Summary 76
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS ix
Chapter 5: The Development of Huerta Community College’s Student Equity Plan
5.1 The Importance of the Individual Overseeing Student Equity at Huerta 79
5.2 New Coordinator, New Policy Effort: The Benefits of an Informal Planning
Process
87
5.3 In the Room Where It Happens: Advocating for Latinx-Students in Equity
Planning
95
5.4 Things Fall into Place: Organizational Alignment with Huerta Equity Plan 105
5.5 Summary of the Planning Process at Huerta 115
Chapter 6: The Implementation of Latinx Transfer Equity Efforts at Huerta
6.1 The Shifting Contextual Factors that Influenced Implementation at Huerta 117
6.2 Moving Through the Contextual Factors and Getting the Equity Projects Off
the Ground
128
6.3 What Were the Results of Implementing these Latinx Transfer Equity
Efforts?
146
6.4 Summary of the Implementation Process at Huerta 157
Chapter 7: Discussion and Implications
7.1 Summary of Major Findings 160
7.2 Implications: Lessons from Huerta 169
7.3 Recommendations for Policy and Practice 177
7.4 Future Research 183
7.5 Reflections from the Dissertation Process 184
References
198
Appendices
A: State Policies Initiatives to Improve Transfer, Select years from 1960-2014
B: Student Equity Allocations for 33 Equity Plans Analyzed
C: Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Administrators, Faculty, and Staff
D: Connecting Theory to Data Collection
E: Observation Protocol
F: Interview Protocol
G: Multi-Contextual Framework Codebook
H: Approved IRB Information Sheet
I: Student Equity Plans Policy (CA Education Code, § 54220)
211
212
213
214
215
219
224
229
231
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS x
List of Tables
Table 1. Profile of Huerta Community College, 2015-2016 55
Table 2. Tracking the Transfer Success of Racial/Ethnic Groups at Huerta 58
Table 3. Data Sources for the Instrumental Case Study 62
Table 4. Analytic Question Posed 71
Table 5. Simplified Code Book 72
Table 6. Results of First-Level Theoretical Coding 73
Table 7. Participants Involved in the Early Phase of Student Equity Planning 90
Table 8. Cohort Persistence by Race and Ethnicity 96
Table 9. Time to Transfer Completion at Huerta 98
Table 10. Breakdown of Student Equity Funding, Transfer Efforts 100
Table 11. Project Coordinators 125
Table 12. Assessing Each Program on the Level of Implementation Difficulty 130
Table 13. Participation in the Four Equity Initiatives 147
Table 14. Contextual Factors as Catalysts and Barriers 167
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Share of Latinx Enrollment in California Higher Education 3
Figure 2. Theoretical Framework for the Dissertation Study 39
Figure 3. Latinx Student Enrollment at Huerta, 1972-2014 57
Figure 4. Illuminating Context to Understand Huerta’s Zone of Tolerance 60
Figure 5. Timeline of Huerta’s Student Equity Plan Development 95
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS xii
Abstract
In 2014, California policymakers revised and passed the Student Equity Plans (SEP)
policy to address outcome disparities in the state’s community college system. The reform
formalized a campus-wide planning effort, which required all community colleges to develop a
“student equity plan” that identified equity gaps for different student groups, including
racial/ethnic groups within five academic areas (i.e., access, transfer, basic skills progression). It
also provided new funding sources to create activities and strategies to mitigate the inequities
uncovered. This policy offered the possibility for institutions to directly target racial disparities
on their campuses if they seized the opportunity within the reform.
As an instrumental case study, I selected Huerta Community College, since their equity
plan stood out as an outlier for its focus on addressing Latinx transfer inequity, which is one of
the state’s largest equity gaps in community college. Policy implementation research tends to
document the failures of reform, describing a myriad ways individuals and institutions miss the
mark in translating policy intent into impact. Rather than conduct “misery research” as labeled
by McLaughlin (2006), Huerta was chosen to highlight a potential institution that interpreted and
implemented policy in race-conscious ways to achieve student equity for Latinx students. This
dissertation tackled three questions: What contextual factors influenced the campus to develop
their plan to explicitly address Latinx transfer inequity? What contextual factors shaped the
implementation process when moving from proposed projects in a plan to actual campus
programs and practices? And what lessons can be learned from Huerta related to implementing
equity-oriented policies in community college?
Guided by a multi-contextual theoretical framework of policy implementation, I explored
the socio-cultural conditions that enabled Huerta to craft a plan that was transparent in its focus
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS xiii
on racial equity, particularly for Latinx students, and then how it moved forward with
implementing that plan on campus. Central to this framework was the concept that educational
institutions have an enactment zone shaped by contextual factors such as institutional culture or
background of individual implementers that can restrict, resist, or enable the implementation of
equity-minded reform. I spent over 16 months collecting data, interviewing implementers,
observing equity meetings, and collecting documents that served as artifacts of implementation.
My findings were described in two sections covering the planning and implementation
phases of the student equity plan. Key to equity planning was a critical mass of Latinx
practitioners who were able to see the policy as an opportunity to tackle one of the greatest
inequities on their campus, Latinx transfer. They used the planning process to propose new
equity projects that would better support Latinx students in their journey from Huerta to a four-
year institution. Although the campus crafted a Latinx-focused equity plan, practitioners tasked
with making this document come to life faced unanticipated challenges and roadblocks during
the implementation process; the strong leadership and advocacy for Latinx transfer present
during the planning phase was absent during the critical process of enactment, limiting the ability
of practitioners to establish and coordinate these new projects as envisioned in the plan.
The results of my dissertation have broad implications for policymakers, institutions, and
practitioners seeking to use reform efforts to address current and historical inequities for racially
minoritized students. I provide four lessons from Huerta that can be used to support community
college practitioners implementing various federal, state, and local educational reforms in ways
that improve outcomes for racially minoritized students. On the planning side, I emphasize the
need for institutions to intentionally select practitioners to oversee the implementation of equity-
oriented reforms that possess more race-conscious and equity-minded competencies, skills, and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS xiv
experiences. When developing new, more race-relevant programs and practices, it is necessary to
also map up the organization’s capacity to implement and adopt these efforts given long-standing
practices that may run against more equitable change, as well as the lack of infrastructure to
support and carry out the envisioned ideas. The differences between planning and
implementation at Huerta indicate a need for committed and consistent leadership to see reform
ideas through—from an idea on paper to an institutionalized program on campus. This study
contributes to policy implementation research and the ways community colleges use equity-
oriented reform to address and mitigate inequitable student outcomes on campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 1
CHAPTER 1:
Introduction
The California Master Plan for Higher Education (Master Plan) promised access to
postsecondary opportunities for all California residents by committing to “create a place in
higher education for every person” through a coordinated public higher education system
(Donahoe Act, 1960, p. 5). This system consisted of two baccalaureate-granting systems–the
University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU)–that would admit the
top 33% of public high school graduates. The California Community Colleges (CCC) were
established as an open-access system that would provide equal treatment and equal access to all
students who were not admitted to the UC or the CSU (Kerr, 1963). A “central institutional
priority” (p. 71) identified in the Master Plan was transfer, such that the CCCs would serve as a
pathway to the baccalaureate degree for students who did not meet the entry requirements for the
CSU or the UC. However, to date, the transfer process between systems has not served as
efficiently as originally envisioned; only 23% of students successfully transfer after six years in
community college even though over 60% aspire to do so (Moore, Tan, & Shulock, 2014).
1.1 Community College, State Higher Education Policy, and Educational Equity
In the last fifty years, two key shifts–increased demand for college and constrained
institutional capacity–have limited educational opportunities ensured by the Master Plan, most
notably the ability to transfer (Contreras, 2011; Gandara, Alvarado, Driscoll, & Orfield, 2012).
The higher education system in California has faced growing student demand without
significantly increasing the number of colleges and universities available (Newfield, 2008). In
fact, college enrollment across the three systems has continuously grown between 1980 and
2015, from 880,000 to 2.2 million fall enrollees (IPEDS, 2016). Yet, an overall decline in state
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 2
support and capital expenditures has limited the building of new campuses and the expansion of
existing infrastructure to accommodate student demand (Newfield, 2008; Public Policy Institute
of California, 2016). Given the decreased capacity of the system, a majority of students enroll in
the CCCs rather than the CSU and UC. In fall 2015, the state enrolled over 2.26 million students;
70.2% enrolled in community colleges, 21% in the CSUs, and 8.8% in the UCs (IPEDS, 2016).
Parallel to the growing number of college-bound students and the inability to create space
for them is the Latinx
1
demographic shift. The Latinx population in the state has significantly
increased from 19.2%
2
in 1980 to 38.4% in 2015 (US Census, 2016). Across all three systems,
Latinx growth is mirrored; Latinx students were less than 16% of the total student population in
the 1990s and now comprise 41% of all enrollees (California Postsecondary Education
Commission, 2017; CCCCO Datamart, 2016; CSU Analytic Studies, 2016; UC Info Center,
2016). Although enrollment rates have increased in general, access for Latinx students is
concentrated primarily in community colleges where over 76% of Latinx students in California
attend one of its 113 community colleges. In contrast, 19% of Latinx attend CSUs and 5%
attending UCs (See Figure 1 below) showing the extent to which Latinx students are
underrepresented in more selective public universities (Contreras, 2011). The results of this
underrepresentation are especially acute given research shows that where a student starts will
likely determine when and if a student earns a bachelor’s degree (Alfonso, 2006; Bahr, 2013;
Monaghan & Attewell, 2014). Latinx students that enroll directly into a UC have a 76%
graduation rate after six years, while the graduation rate is 46% for CSU. For students starting in
1
Latinx is used as a term to replace “Latina/o” recognizing the fluidity of gender identity and students that are
trans* and gender non-conforming. The term “Hispanic” is not used interchangeably, but only as a descriptor of
formal categories such as “Hispanic-Serving Institution.”
2
Previous to 1980, the US Census Bureau did not report the Latinx populations, this category was labeled as “Race
by Spanish Origin.”
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 3
California Community Colleges, less than 30% successfully transfer and only 17% receive a
bachelor’s degree within six years (Moore et al., 2014).
Figure 1. The Share of Latinx Enrollment in California Higher Education, Fall 2015.
3
1.2 Latinx Students: California’s Equity Imperative
Today, Latinx students find themselves at the center of California’s higher education
system, seeking the opportunities of access and attainment espoused by the Master Plan. Data
show that the route to a bachelor’s degree for most Latinx students begins in the community
colleges (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2017). Once enrolled in community college, the
areas of greatest inequity for Latinx students are in developmental education and transfer success
(Acevedo-Gil, Santos, Alonso, & Solórzano, 2015; Contreras, 2011; Villalpando, 2004).
Notably, Latinx students are placed in developmental courses at a higher rate than their non-
Latinx counterparts, which delays degree completion and overall transfer rates (Contreras &
Contreras, 2015). Statewide, only 31% of the Latinx students who first enrolled in a
3
Sources from CCCCO Datamart, 2016; CSU Analytic Studies, 2016; UC Info Center, 2016
76%
19%
5%
CA Community Colleges
Cal State University
University of California
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 4
developmental math or English course completed a transfer-level course after six years,
compared to 36.8%for white students and 45.1%for Asian students (CCCCO, Scorecard, 2016).
While studies have found that over 60% of Latinx community college students in California
aspire to transfer to a four-year college—a higher than average baccalaureate aspiration (Gándara
et al., 2012)—research shows that Latinx students experience numerous challenges in achieving
this goal (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Castro & Cortez, 2017).
Once Latinx students reach transfer-level courses, the rates of success still remain low.
The most recent six-year cohort data available finds that Latinx students had the lowest transfer
rate among all racial/ethnic groups. Only 29%of them successfully transferred to a four-year
college or university after six years (CCCCO, 2016), which was eight percentage points below
the state average (37.9%) and 24.6 percentage points below Asian students (53.7%), the highest-
performing racial/ethnic group (CCCCO, 2016). The decline of the transfer function between the
three state systems has created a bottleneck for Latinx students seeking to transfer out of
community college to attain a bachelor’s degree (Dowd, 2003). Latinx students represent 38.4%
of California’s population and are therefore a significant contributor to the state’s economy.
However, longstanding inequitable transfer rates for Latinx represent an inexorable obstacle to
economic opportunity for students and the state (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015) by
severely compromising baccalaureate degree completion, upward social mobility, and additional
benefits (i.e., civic engagement) of educational attainment (Torche, 2011).
State Policy Attempts to Improve Latinx Transfer
California policymakers have used legislation as a primary vehicle to address transfer
inefficiencies in the state’s higher education system. These policies have addressed a specific
aspect of the transfer process (see Appendix A) via the use of different policy instruments—
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 5
mechanisms that motivate and shape how implementers translate policy goals into action—to
persuade institutions to improve vertical transfer from community college to four-year
institutions (Mattheis, 2016; Stone, 2002). Some policies, such as the Community College
Reform Act (AB-1725, 1999) sought to improve transfer through symbolic and hortatory tools,
to reemphasize the importance of transfer across the three systems of higher education. Symbolic
and hortatory tools assume policy targets are intrinsically motivated to act (i.e., work towards
improving transfer), especially if policies are prioritized by government officials, align with their
beliefs and values, and are tied to positive symbols, events, images (i.e., the Master Plan). While
other policies such as the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act (SB-1440, 2010) used
system-changing tools to restructure how transfer worked between the CCC and CSU systems
(McDonnell & Elmore, 1987).
The state’s adoption of Student Equity Plans (SEP) policy in 2014 prompted community
colleges to document the extent of inequity in five areas—access, basic skills, course completion,
degree completion, and transfer—for over 14 different target student groups, of which
racial/ethnic groups were one. Through equity plans, institutions a) identify equity gaps in
student success, such as transfer inequity, b) target specific student groups to address inequities,
including racial groups such as Latinx students, and c) allocate new funding resources to mitigate
equity gaps as an institution sees appropriate, including race-conscious strategies
4
. A key aspect
of this policy effort was the inclusion of “equity-specific funds” to support implementation as
well as provide training and capacity-building at the institutional level to achieve the intended
purpose of improving student equity in community college. Inducement and capacity-building
tools were therefore employed to motivate institutions to develop these student equity plans and
4
I provide a more in-depth description of the SEP policy, its mandates, and implementation process in community
college in Appendix F of this dissertation.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 6
propose new interventions, scale-up current practices, or deploy professional development
geared towards improving the equity conditions on campus (Schneider & Ingram, 1990).
California has had many educational policies to improve transfer, but none have
specifically targeted the Latinx transfer crisis. The SEP policy’s inclusion of transfer as an
indicator, coupled with the requirement to calculate disproportionate impact by race and
ethnicity, gives colleges the atypical opportunity to address the Latinx transfer crisis through
intentional and transparent race-conscious strategies. How a community college used this state
policy to address Latinx transfer inequity is the focal point of this dissertation. In this chapter, I
first provide a brief background on the role of community college transfer, the Latinx transfer
gap, and California’s response to improving transfer. Second, I distill state higher education
policy and its potential impact on Latinx transfer by highlighting a recent analysis on the race-
conscious implementation of the SEP. Third, I discuss the purpose of this dissertation study and
the significance of the research endeavor. I conclude with a description of the remaining chapters
that comprise this dissertation.
1.3 Dissertation Topic and Its Genesis
This dissertation is written at a time when Latinx students are overly concentrated in
community colleges and face some of the largest gaps in student success and educational
attainment of any racial group. The concentration of Latinx in California Community Colleges
operates as stratification bookends between access and outcomes for Latinx students. On the
access side, 76% of all Latinx students in California’s higher education system are in community
colleges and once enrolled nine out of ten are placed in developmental education (CCCCO,
2016). On the outcomes side, Latinx students experience the greatest rates of inequity in the
areas of degree completion and transfer (CCCCO, 2016). The most recent transfer data available
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 7
shows Latinx students falling behind in transfer success rates compared to state averages and the
highest performing groups. Solórzano, Acevedo-Gil, and Santos (2013) found that after four
years, only 14 out of 100 Latinx students who enrolled in community college transferred to a
public university. Despite the increased enrollment of Latinx students, primarily through open-
access institutions, educational outcomes have not followed pace (Contreras & Contreras, 2015).
Part of the challenge in moving from access to equity lies in understanding the diminished
opportunities to transfer and the possibilities for transformation policy reform provides.
Though much of the rhetoric of the last decade has focused on completion, such that there
is an increase in baccalaureate degree holders by 2025, there has not been a focus on addressing
the educational inequity or transfer complexities in community college to reach these goals
(Castro, 2013). In community colleges, completion has been defined as earning a certificate or
associate’s degree rather than transfer success (Lumina Foundation, 2016). Lester (2014) points
out that an unintended consequence of the Completion Agenda in community college is deeming
successful attainment as “just filling jobs” or providing “some level of education,” which lead to
diminishing the importance of transfer (p. 423). If increasing baccalaureate recipients motivates
the Completion Agenda, then the improvement of Latinx student transfer from community
college to bachelor’s degree-granting institutions is critical.
The Student Equity Plans policy, as a state-level reform, created an opportunity for
community colleges to concentrate resources and attention to improve the outcomes for students
from vulnerable groups. As the data above makes clear, Latinx students are one of the
populations that suffer the greatest inequities and experience the least success in degree
completion and transfer. Given the large share of Latinx students in California’s community
colleges and the stagnant transfer rates they experience, I focus on studying the contextual
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 8
factors that prompt an institution to focus their policy implementation (i.e., equity plan
development) efforts on Latinx transfer inequity and student success issues. The central effort of
this study was to examine how one community college took advantage of the student equity
reform effort to explicitly address Latinx transfer inequity. To help learn more about how
community colleges in the state developed their equity plans and narrow down a potential site for
the dissertation, I conducted a study of 33 HSI community college student equity plans. The
following section describes the analysis of the plans, which examined if and how community
colleges explicitly addressed Latinx transfer.
Student Equity Plans: An Unexploited Opportunity to Address Latinx Transfer?
Two claims undergirded my motivation to study how the SEP policy compels institutions
to address Latinx transfer inequities. First, the SEP policy offered community colleges the
opportunity to plan, target, and address equity gaps in race-conscious ways, only if the college
possesses the institutional conditions and individual actors to recognize and act upon the
opportunity. Second, given the size of Latinx students and the inequities they face in the
community college system, institutions should be compelled to take advantage of the opportunity
to address Latinx student-specific needs. I conducted an analysis of 33 student equity plans
5
from
Hispanic-Serving community colleges to understand if and how they target Latinx students in the
area of transfer. This analysis drew from a larger study examining HSI and non-HSI community
colleges that received over one million dollars in equity funds. The larger study produced three
5
As researcher with the Center for Urban Education, the Chancellor’s Office provided all student equity plans
submitted in 2015-2016. With access to these documents, I was able to conduct an extensive content analysis of
these plans to understand aspects such as which target groups are identified as facing equity gaps, what activities and
interventions are proposed, and how colleges allocate funds provided.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 9
working papers
6
, but more importantly allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of the
policy, the content of equity plans, and ways to study and analyze SEP implementation.
Two findings stand out from this analysis helping to identify a community college that
used their equity plan to explicitly target Latinx transfer inequity. First, transfer, on average, had
the least amount of funds allocated among the five indicators across the 33 SEPs (see Appendix
B), receiving $5.7 million in equity funds (10.2%). In comparison, basic skills received $10.5
million (18.6%) and course completion received the most at $14.2 million (25.2%). Six
institutions did not propose any transfer activities, instead, they used their equity plans and
appropriated funds to address issues in other areas such as expanding marketing efforts to white,
Asian, and Veteran students in the area of access or purchasing math software licensing for all
basic skills students. Second, given that these 33 equity plans came from Hispanic-Serving
Institutions
7
, there was an expectation that more activities within the transfer indicator would be
Latinx-related; however, that was not the case. The 33 equity plans produced a total of 108
activities focused on improving transfer, but of those, only 26 proposed strategies addressed
Latinx students explicitly. For those HSIs that did address Latinx students in transfer, there were
slight variations in approach. One group of institutions that proposed to address Latinx transfer
did so in a way that was not explicit to Latinx students but supported all students. An example of
this was a college that expanded transfer center hours as a way to improve Latinx transfer.
Another group of institutions that proposed specific strategies to address Latinx transfer allocated
6
A subset of 42 equity plans were examined to discover promising practices for community colleges to support men
of color that culminated in a grant-funded report. A second paper, accepted to the 2017 American Education
Research Association, explored the equity plans of a large, urban district to understand how Black and Latinx
students benefit, if at all, from the policy; the manuscript was published in Education Policy Analysis Archives in
2018. Lastly, and described in the narrative of this dissertation is the analysis of 33 equity plans to understand how
Hispanic-Serving Institutions take advantage of the policy to address Latinx transfer equity issues; this paper will be
submitted as a proposal to the ASHE 2018 conference.
7
To be designated a Hispanic-Serving Institution, Latinx student enrollment has to be at least 25% of the total full-
time enrollment. Once recognized, community colleges can apply for additional grants through Title V HSI funds.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 10
minimal amounts, such as one college that allocated $4,000 – or 4.7% of its total equity funds –
for a Latinx-specific college tour (See Appendix B for additional information).
Of the 33 equity plans analyzed, five community colleges stood out for explicitly
addressing Latinx transfer through their allocation of significant funds (20% or greater) for
tailored activities. For example, one institution paired targeted services with their Chicano
Studies program to improve Latinx transfer. Another college dedicated $25,000 to expand a
transfer program that provided college field trips and leadership development opportunities to
help students identify colleges for transfer. Dolores Huerta Community College (pseudonym)
allocated over $500,000 to address Latinx transfer inequity, which included the development of a
Viva La Mujer transfer program that aimed to support Latinas through the transfer process and
ultimately decrease the campus average of eight years to successfully transfer out of Huerta.
Latinx transfer equity continues to be a critical issue in California; only a handful of
colleges used the SEP to improve transfer outcomes. Although it may be clear that Latinx
transfer outcomes are dismal, community colleges in the sample did not take advantage of the
new opportunities provided by the SEP to address this area of student inequity. The analysis of
33 community colleges motivated me to conduct a more comprehensive study that explored how
a community college came to implement education policy to intentionally address and benefit
Latinx students seeking transfer. Identifying community colleges that were more race-conscious
with their equity planning was necessary as recent research shows that student equity plans were
initially implemented in ways that diminished the role of race in proposing equity interventions
for students (Bensimon, 2016; Ching & Felix, 2015). Through this work, Huerta Community
College was selected to learn from and understand how more race-conscious implementation was
possible in the equity planning process.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 11
1.4 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the circumstances that influenced Huerta
Community College (Huerta) to focus their attention and significant resources towards Latinx
transfer inequity. Huerta is one of the 113 community colleges in California with an annual
headcount over 35,000 students, 80% of which are Latinx students. Perhaps because it is a
Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), Huerta allocated the most funds towards activities intended
to support Latinx transfer. The implementation of the student equity plan at Huerta, therefore,
represented a unique research opportunity given its Latinx-conscious approach over the last three
academic years. Building off the 33-plan analysis, this dissertation project was a more in-depth
study seeking to understand the contextual conditions and decision-making processes that led
Huerta to use the student equity plan as a lever to address the outcomes for transfer-aspiring
Latinx students. The following questions guided this dissertation:
1. In what ways did the policy, institutional, individual, and situated contexts of Huerta
enable the development of a student equity plan to improve transfer opportunities for
Latinx students?
2. In what ways did the current contextual conditions at Huerta facilitate the implementation
of the student equity plan with fidelity to its focus on improving transfer opportunities for
Latinx students?
3. What can be learned about equity-oriented policy implementation from the experiences
of individuals charged with its enactment?
To pursue this line of inquiry, I conducted a case study design that allowed me to explore
how Huerta implemented their SEP to address Latinx transfer. In-depth interviews with a broad
cross-section of practitioners, observation of key spaces, meetings, and pertinent events, and the
collection of relevant documents yielded the data needed to accurately assess the influences and
actions guiding SEP development and implementation. As a researcher with the Center for Urban
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 12
Education (CUE), I had the opportunity to work with Huerta on a two-year project focused on
improving transfer equity for Latinx students. The project with Huerta formally started in
January 2017.
Guiding Theoretical Framework
Policy research has long been influenced by rational-scientific theories focused on
observing the policy process in an objective and linear fashion from formulation and
implementation, to outcomes (Heck, 2004) such as compliance or fidelity (Sabatier & Weible,
2014). Scholars using more critical approaches have critiqued the limits of rational-oriented
education research given its overreliance on objectivity, rationality, and ahistoricism (Young &
Diem, 2017). For this study I relied on cultural and critical theories to explore policy narratives,
highlight social context, and acknowledge the role of actors, individually and collectively, to
resist, reconstruct, and implement equity-oriented policies in schools (Oakes, Welner,
Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005). Drawing on this literature, I adapted Oakes and colleagues’ (2005)
work on equity-minded reforms and enactment zones to develop a theoretical framework that
highlights contextual elements relevant to the implementation of policy in higher education. I
briefly explain the Multi-Contextual Implementation Framework
8
below.
Integrating elements from a cultural perspective such as sensemaking (Weick, 1976;
Spillane et al., 2006), critical theories like critical policy analysis (Aleman, 2007; Dumas &
Anyon, 2006), and the concept of equity-mindedness (Bensimon, 2007) allowed me to explore
the contextual factors that facilitated the implementation of the SEP policy to advance equity in
race-affirming and culturally-relevant ways. This was important given that most other
community colleges developed their plans in race-neutral ways (Ching & Felix, 2015). Central to
8
A fuller description of my theoretical framework is provided in the third chapter of this dissertation.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 13
this framework is the concept of “enactment zones” (McGivney & Moynihan, 1972) that are
shaped by contextual factors that can restrict or enable the implementation of equity-minded
reform in educational settings. The theoretical framework used for this dissertation draws on the
concept of a “zone of tolerance,” a type of enactment zone used by researchers to examine the
reasons why policies seeking more equitable results in schooling do or do not achieve their intent
(Oakes, Welner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005; Renee, Welner, & Oakes, 2009).
To understand how the zone of tolerance enables or restricts the implementation of the
SEP, I looked at four contextual factors: policy, institutional, individual, and situated. These four
factors highlight the contextual complexities of policy implementation. For instance, policy
context explored the language used within a policy and the flexibility institutions have to
interpret the intent and goals of the reform. Institutional context examined the site of
implementation and how existing factors (i.e., campus leadership, organizational identity, shared
values) shaped the implementation on campus. Individual context focused on the beliefs,
experiences, and prior knowledge of implementation actors. Additionally, I applied the concept
of equity-mindedness (Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012) to understand how actors
adopt the following four characteristics to implement reform: 1) being race-conscious in an
affirming way, as opposed to deficit-oriented or color-evasive; 2) being cognizant of structural
and institutional racism as the root cause of inequities; 3) recognizing that to achieve equity may
require treating individuals unequally as opposed to treating everyone equally; and 4) focusing
on practices as the source of failure rather than students. Lastly, situated context explored how
individuals came together as a collective to guide the implementation of equity-minded reform
through the zone of tolerance on their campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 14
The framework posits that a variety of external and internal factors influence and shape
how a campus responds and reacts to equity-oriented efforts (Museus, 2014). For this
dissertation, I underscore four contextual areas that help to understand how a community college
developed their student equity plan to strategically address Latinx transfer equity. The
components included in my theoretical framework, described herein as the Multi-Contextual
Implementation Framework (MCIF), are the most salient factors found in the literature reviewed
related to policy implementation, enactment of equity-minded reforms, and higher education
policy (Nienhusser, 2018; Oakes et al., 2005). As Hurtado, Alvarez, Guillermo-Wann, Cuellar,
and Arellano (2012) note multi-contextual frameworks are more explicit than previous ones in
education, allowing the researcher to account for macro- and micro-level factors in colleges and
universities. This framework provides the opportunity to highlight various contextual factors,
how they influence the ways in which policy gets implemented and learn what factors widen the
zone of tolerance to allow the development of race-conscious equity plans.
Study Significance
This study is significant for multiple reasons. First, improving community college
transfer success for Latinx students is both an economic and equity imperative for California. As
the Latinx population increases, the state will need more educated Latinx to fill knowledge-based
jobs and drive economic development (CCO, 2015; Carnevale & Rose, 2012). The Public Policy
Institute of California projects (2017) that an additional 1.1 million degree holding residents are
needed by 2030 to fill the jobs of the future. This study provides a case description and findings
that can equip policymakers with better information to formulate state-initiatives to improve
educational outcomes in community colleges through race-conscious approaches.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 15
Second, higher education policy that is guided by principles of equity are limited and
empirical studies of those policies are even more limited. As such, this study will contribute to
the extant literature on equity-oriented policy implementation, understanding the contextual
factors that influence colleges’ equity plan development, and the potential for state policy to
address racial disparities through formal planning. In California, the recent Student Equity Policy
allows for researchers to understand how equity-based policy reform is interpreted, negotiated,
and implemented across the state. The recent implementation of the policy limits how much is
known about its impact or whether colleges have treated this new source of funds as an
opportunity to focus intensively on student groups that experience inequality in educational
outcomes. In California’s post-affirmative action environment, institutions of higher education
have been very cautious about focusing on race for fear of violating the ban (Winkle-Wagner et
al., 2014). However, the policy’s requirement that institutions identify equity gaps by race and
ethnicity provides campuses with the legal justification they need to allocate resources in support
of educational efforts designated specifically for racial/ethnic groups. In this case study, I
examine how an institution took advantage of state-based educational reform to be openly race-
conscious in regard to addressing the barriers to transfer success for Latinx students.
Lastly, this study’s findings also yield a practical benefit of identifying the primary
factors that influence local actors to act in ways that promote race-conscious equity. The findings
from this study inform and provide replicable strategies that community college practitioners can
utilize as they implement various federal, state, and local educational reforms. Insights from this
work serve as a catalyst to further improve the transfer experiences and outcomes for Latinx
students via academic publications, professional development workshops, and online webinars.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 16
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter introduced the
dissertation study and aims of the project. In Chapter 2, I provide a review of relevant literature
to situate this study, identify gaps in the field, and synthesize ways researchers have previously
analyzed policy implementation. In Chapter 3, I describe my theoretical framework, outlining its
properties and how it will be applied. Chapter 4 delineates the research design and methodology,
including the rationale for an instrumental case study, data collection strategy, and analytic
procedures
9
. In Chapters 5 and 6, I detail the development and implementation of the student
equity plan at Huerta Community College in two phases. Chapter 5 illustrates the first phase, the
process of crafting and completing the student equity plan and the factors that shaped a more
Latinx-focused approach. Chapter 6 then describes the second phase, how the ideas and efforts in
the plan were enacted in practice over time to improve Latinx transfer equity on campus. In
Chapter 7, I draw out major findings related to the implementation of equity-oriented policy and
what can be learned from Huerta’s approach to the student equity plan process. I conclude with a
discussion of the study’s implications for policy and practice and ideas for future research.
9
In the appendices, I include all protocols used, IRB documentation, and a description of the Student Equity Policy
and its mandates to be implemented in community college.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 17
CHAPTER 2
A Review of Related Literature
In this chapter, I draw on the scholarship related to community college, Latinx students’
experiences in transfer, and the policy reforms created to improve conditions and outcomes for
these students. First, I present a detailed discussion about transfer in the community colleges, the
Latinx transfer gap, and the ways California has addressed transfer inequities through policy.
Second, I synthesize the research that examines the use of education policy as a strategy to
reduce inequities for historically-marginalized populations. Lastly, I describe scholarship that
examines the formulation and implementation of policy reforms seeking to improve equity in
educational settings and how this literature informs the direction of this study.
2.1 Community College Transfer, Latinx Transfer Gap, and Policy Reform
Community colleges have become the de-facto Latinx-serving sector in California’s
system of higher education. Today, Latinx students are the largest racial/ethnic group enrolled in
California’s community college with over 42 percent of total enrollment. Despite their greater
participation in higher education, most of the gains in enrollment have been in community
college, nearly three-fourths of all first-time Latinx freshmen attended one of the 113 institutions
in California (Contreras & Contreras, 2015; CCO, 2015). This stratification of Latinx students is
concerning given that comprehensive and research university systems have higher persistence
rates and grant bachelor’s degrees, yet less than 24% of Latinx are attending the University of
California or California State University systems.
In 1992, Latinx students represented 19% of the 2.2 million community college
population in California. Today they are 43% of the 2.3 million students enrolled, demonstrating
a 24% increase in the last 30 years. This shift has resulted in over half a million more Latinx
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 18
students concentrated in the community college sector (CCCCO, 2016). Latinx students’
overrepresentation in the community colleges raises many questions given the many inequities
they have previously faced in K-12 (Grodsky & Jackson, 2009). Data show Latinx students
primarily enroll in underresourced K-12 schools (Yosso, 2006), have limited access to honors
and gifted programs (Ford, 2014), have the highest high school dropout rates across racial groups
(USDOE, 2016), and are tracked into remedial and vocational programs that limit their college
readiness (Castro, 2013; Yosso & Solórzano, 2006). Because they are stratified into open-access
postsecondary institutions (Contreras & Contreras, 2015), Latinx students are less likely to reach
college-level transferable courses, persist to associate degree completion, or reach the necessary
requirements to transfer (CCO, 2015; Moore & Shulock, 2010; USDOE, 2016).
Research suggests that students attending community colleges are more likely to:
• Attend underfunded institutions (Beach, 2011; Dowd & Shieh, 2013);
• Be disproportionately placed in developmental courses (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015);
• Have below average course and degree completion rates (Gonzalez, 2012);
• Experience inequitable rates of transfer (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Castro & Cortez, 2017;
Crisp & Nuñez, 2014); and
• Interact with institutional structures, policies, and practices that may not be culturally-
sustaining for these students (Dowd, Pak, & Bensimon, 2013; Rendon, 2002).
Scholars describe the accumulation of these conditions and the stratification of Latinx students in
community college as a “de facto segregated system of higher education” (Carnevale & Rose,
2013, p. 8) that perpetuate inequities in educational outcomes (Gonzales, 2015).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 19
Community College Aspirations and the Path to the Baccalaureate
Transfer is one of the primary purposes of community colleges, serving as a pathway to
the baccalaureate (Bragg & Durham, 2012; Brint & Karabel, 1989). Known as the “transfer
function,” it provides students the opportunity to accumulate college credits at a low-cost
community college en route to the baccalaureate (Townsend, 2007). Though California’s Master
Plan articulates an ostensibly seamless transfer pathway for students not eligible for the UC and
the CSU, transfer trends illustrate the process is incredibly complex and difficult to achieve.
Researchers and practitioners describe the transfer pathway in California as “log-jams,”
“puzzles,” and “labyrinths” (Dowd, 2007; Jain, Herrera, Bernal, & Solórzano, 2011; Martinez-
Wenzl & Marquez, 2012). Unclear transfer pathways from the community colleges to 4-year
institutions jeopardize the ability of California’s students, notably Latinx students, from
achieving a Bachelor’s degree (Gonzalez, 2012).
In theory, a transfer-aspiring student only needs to complete 24-48 units before
transferring to a public four-year institution (Bahr, Hom, & Perry, 2005; CCCCO Transfer Tool
Kit, 2017). However, with decreased capacity to enroll students, public institutions in the state
have developed various pre-transfer curricula (i.e., IGETC, ADTs, CSU GE Breadth) that require
up to 60 units. California’s complex transfer pathways have resulted in community college
students accumulating up to 80 units before transferring. Largely due to the lack of articulation
between California’s three systems of higher education that would make transfer a much more
seamless and less redundant process, students may have acquired these additional units by taking
similar courses required by different state institutions (CCO, 2015).
For example, if a community college student intends to transfer to a UC or a CSU
campus as a Psychology major, each institution of interest might require different curricula for
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 20
the same major. One CSU campus could require Psychology 101 whereas another CSU campus
might only accept Psychology 105 as the lower-division course necessary to transfer. At the UC,
accepted Psychology courses are even more limited, such that students are restricted in taking
introductory statistics or research methods for psychology (UC Transfer Admissions Planner,
2017). Navigating the complex transfer process at the community colleges is a challenge for any
student; but for Latinx students, the data suggest their pathway to transfer is far more
challenging.
The Latinx Transfer Gap
Low transfer rates for California’s community college students (Bensimon & Dowd,
2009; Dowd, 2007; Moore & Shulock, 2010), and Latinx students specifically (Villalpando,
2004; Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Gándara et al., 2012), are well-documented in the literature and
bring to light the Brown Paradox (Contreras, 2011). Analyses by Yosso and Solórzano (2006)
found that over 60% of Latinx students aspired to transfer, but less than 14% of them were
successful. In the same study, the authors reported that students who started in developmental
education had a transfer rate of less than 1%. Hagedorn & Lester (2006) found that although the
state invested significant resources between 1985 and 2005 to improve the transfer function, the
number of Latinx students who transferred stayed relatively the same despite an increased
percentage in student aspirations. In documenting the inequitable rates of transfer experienced by
Latinx students, the Brown Paradox draws attention to disparities between espoused aspiration to
transfer and their actualized transfer outcome (Contreras, 2011; Castro & Cortez, 2017).
Examining the most recent transfer cohort data, Latinx students comprised over 31% of
all transfer aspiring students in California’s community colleges in 2009, but only 23% of those
who successfully transferred to a four-year college or university after six years (CCCCO, 2016).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 21
In comparison, the average transfer rate across the state is 37.9% while Asian students, the
highest performing group have a transfer rate of 53%. The 2008-2009 transfer cohort of first-
time college students with a “behavioral intent to transfer
10
” consisted of 138,000 students, of
which 43,000 (31%) were Latinx students. After six years of community college enrollment,
only 12,600 (29%) were successful in transferring. Although community colleges were built on
the promise of educational access and social mobility, there is a disconnect between the transfer
aspirations and outcomes of Latinx students (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009).
Addressing the Latinx Transfer Gap
Scholars concerned with the success of Latinx students have conducted studies to better
understand the gap and the ways in which transfer can be improved. Ornelas and Solórzano
(2004) examined a predominantly Latinx community college to understand faculty, counselors,
and administration perceptions regarding the barriers to transfer. They found that many of the
practitioners at the institution possessed “cultural deficient thinking,” which placed an emphasis
on students’ “educational disadvantages” as explanations for Latinx students transfer conditions
(p. 243). Yosso and Solórzano (2006) examined the transfer opportunities for Chicano/a students
in California. They found that community colleges offered a “less than welcoming academic
environment” for Chicano/a students to be successful. Students in their study shared that they
lacked accessibility to courses that accrued transfer credit, quality transfer counseling, timely
financial resources, and other support services (i.e., application support, understanding financial
aid options once admitted) along the transfer pathway. Yosso and Solórzano (2006) argued that
these experiences in community college were part of the “history of institutional neglect” that
limits the baccalaureate opportunities for Latinx students (p. 2).
10
For more information on California’s Transfer Cohort Methodology, see this report:
http://www.ccctransfer.org/TransferReport.pdf
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 22
Bensimon and Dowd (2009) carried out an action research project to explore why
transfer-ready community college Latinx students do not transfer. They found that Latinx
students faced significant informational and cultural barriers on their path to transfer. These
barriers included limited opportunities to meet with a counselor to develop a transfer plan,
interacting with faculty that had lowered academic expectations of them, and the inability to
connect with practitioners in ways that validated their cultural background. The authors contend
that these students needed access to “transfer agents” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011)—individuals on
campus that serve as role models and are in a position to advocate and support students—who
can validate Latinx students’ aspirations to transfer and serve as a bridge between the community
college and the four-year institution.
Jain, Herrera, Bernal, and Solórzano (2011) suggested that a “transfer sending culture,”
an institutional commitment to provide tailored outreach and resources, is key to improving
Latinx transfer. Castro and Cortez (2017) reaffirmed the importance of transfer culture in their
study of Mexican-American students. They found that successful transfer students interacted
with culturally-relevant institutional programs. The benefits of these race-conscious programs
such as PUENTE
11
included the fostering of a culturally-validating environment, pedagogy that
highlights students’ cultural assets, and having tutors and instructors who themselves attended
and transferred from community college (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Rendon, 2002). As with
these studies, the literature on Latinx students’ transfer is situated in understanding individual
experiences or the role institutions’ play in their success and failures of students. Writ large, the
policy attempts have failed to achieve their intended goals and impact, leaving Latinx students in
11
The PUENTE project is a collaboration between the UC and CCC systems that provide students with culturally-
relevant instruction, focused academic counseling, and mentoring opportunities along the transfer pathway.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 23
community college with unfilled hopes of transferring, leaving equity in education as an elusive
target (Anderson, 2015; Bell, 2004).
2.2 State Policy Interventions to Address Transfer
California has a long history in transfer reform with mixed levels of success.
Notwithstanding the Donahoe Act in 1960, which delineated the role of each public system of
higher education and established the integral aspect of coordinating transfer, the California
legislature has passed seven additional bills focused on transfer reform (see Appendix A). These
acts were passed with the intent to encourage systems to develop and implement a more seamless
transfer pathway to the four-year colleges and universities as originally conceived in the Master
Plan. Three of these policies (AB1725, 1988; SB1440, 2010; SB860, 2014) stand out for their
attempts to restructure and improve transfer across the three segments in comprehensive ways.
In 1988, the declining rate of transfer prompted legislators to pass the Community
College Reform Act (AB-1725). The policy focused on aligning lower-division curriculum
among the three systems and called on the Board of Governor’s (CCC), the Board of Regents
(UC) and the Board of Trustees (CSU) to jointly develop “a common core curriculum in general
education courses and lower division major preparation curricula for purposes of transfer” (AB-
1725). As part of the directive was designating the “Articulation System Stimulating
Interinstitutional Student Transfer” (ASSIST), which had been created by the UC, as the official
“repository of the articulation for California’s college and universities.” ASSIST allows students
to map out their transfer pathway from their respective community colleges to any of the state’s
public four-year institutions by noting the coursework required by each institution for particular
majors. While the creation and eventual adoption of ASSIST statewide improved the ability of
students to “navigate” transfer, the barriers to transfer success nonetheless remained.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 24
Two decades later, California passed the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act in
2010 (SB-1440). The policy addressed the lack of coherence in transfer pathways by creating a
streamlined process between the CCCs and CSUs to ensure greater efficiency of transfer.
Heralded as historic legislation (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015), SB-1440 changed the
structural aspects of transfer by taking a more comprehensive approach to curriculum
requirements, unclear transfer pathways, credit acceptance/redundancy, and time to degree
completion (Public Policy Institute of California, 2014). Central to this policy was the mandate
to create entirely new degrees known as Associate Degrees for Transfers (ADT) that provide
certain guarantees for community college students. These guarantees include admissions to the
CSU system, junior status, and pre-scribed major curricula to expedite degree attainment. Recent
data points to the modest success of SB-1440 as the number of students who transfer with ADTs
and graduate appears to be greater than traditional transfer students (PPIC, 2014; LAO, 2015).
Despite these improvements, the data do not indicate that students who have faced greater
disparities in transfer have benefited (Baker, 2016) from the enacted reform. Indeed, recent
research finds that those student groups who already had successful transfer trends are the ones
who most benefited from the policy change (Baker, 2016).
Missing from both these policies were the explicit mention of specific racial groups that
have faced longstanding inequities in community college that could benefit from a more
streamlined transfer pathway. AB-1725 focused on creating new common courses and shared
curricula to enhance transfer in California. SB-1440 addressed transfer for all students by
creating new transfer degrees that streamlined the process but failed to incorporate language or
instruments that helped to ameliorate inequities for groups that needed additional support in the
transfer process. Most policies drafted in the state have failed to include language that seeks not
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 25
only to improve transfer, but also make it equitable for specific student racial groups (Ching,
Felix, & Bensimon, 2015). These types of policies can be described as race-neutral or color-
blind, where history, context, institutional racism, and structural determinants of educational
success based on race and ethnicity are ignored by policymakers or restricted by law (Gill, Cain
Nesbitt, & Parker, 2017; Harper et al., 2009; Winkle-Wagner et al., 2014). The two previous
policies discussed were in effect race-neutral, seeking to improve transfer for all students,
regardless of racial background, which can lead to overall improvement of transfer rates but
maintain the disparities across groups. As Harper, Patton, and Wooden (2009) suggest, color-
blind policy decisions enacted to improve education outcomes for race-based population create
an illusion of progress where students “essentially take three steps forward and two steps back”
(p. 410). The next policy, which is central to my dissertation study, offered an opportunity to
address Latinx transfer inequity in community college.
California Student Equity Policy
In 2014, the state passed the Student Equity Plans (SEP) policy (SB860), which had been
in existence since 1992, but had never received financial support from the legislature, leaving it
largely ineffective and under-implemented (Ching & Felix, 2015; LAO, 2016). The SEP called
on the state’s community colleges to conduct a campus audit “as to the extent of student equity
and as to institutional barriers to equity in order to provide a basis for the development of goals
and the determination of what activities are most likely to be effective” (California Education
Code, Section 78220). In doing so, individual community colleges would need to document
inequitable outcomes, develop goals for specific target groups, and propose strategies to close
equity gaps in a single document known as a “student equity plan.” The state legislature
allocated funding to the community colleges to complete the plan based on a formula that
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 26
accounted for campus enrollment size, the number of low-income students enrolled, the poverty
level in which the campus is situated in, and other sociocultural factors.
Over the last four fiscal years, the state has provided $540 million to the community
colleges in support of proposed solutions emerging from these plans to mitigate student inequity
in the following critical areas: basic skills, course completion, degree/certificate completion, and
transfer. Additionally, the SEP described specific policy targets which included eight
racial/ethnic groups, women, students with disabilities, low-income students, foster youth, and
veterans (California Education Code, Section 78220). This policy improved on the Community
College Reform Act and Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act by offering institutions the
opportunity to improve educational outcomes for underrepresented groups that face persistent
inequities (Guichard, 1992).
As one of the most recent policies passed in the state to address inequity in community
college, the reform effort offers a unique opportunity to study how institutions implement equity-
oriented policies to improve conditions or ameliorate inequities for racially-minoritized students
in transfer. The final section of this literature review examines how policy researchers have
studied policies that seek to improve parity in opportunity and achievement for students through
equity-minded reforms (Oakes, et al., 2005). This serves as a bridge between what has been done
to study education policy implementation, underscoring various methods and theoretical
approaches employed, and what I propose in my theoretical framework and research design
sections to explore the ways in which Huerta Community College developed their student equity
plan to address Latinx transfer issues.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 27
2.3 Implementing State-Level Equity-Oriented Policies
State policymaking is paramount to addressing inequities and improving outcomes in
higher education. Perna and Finney (2014) argue that states have the primary responsibility for
developing policies that “raise overall higher education attainment and improve equity across
groups” (p. XI). Policymakers across the country have thus developed an array of state reform
initiatives to address challenges in educational attainment, remedial education, time-to-degree
completion, and declining transfer rates (National Conference of State Legislators, 2015), all
bent towards equity. Texas, for example, passed a P-16 initiative known as Closing the Gaps
2015, which intended to increase attainment and achievement rates – especially for students of
color – by aligning state and local educational systems from preschool to postsecondary
graduation (Mansfield & Thachik, 2016). Similarly, in 2013, Maryland passed the College and
Career Readiness and College Completion Act that required high schools and community
colleges to align their curriculum and graduation requirements for a seamless pathway to degree
and certificate completion as well as transfer (Senate Bill 740). In addition to the above-
referenced policies, the California legislature passed the Student Success Act and the Basic Skills
Initiative to improve outcomes in community college
12
.
These state policies are vital to addressing, restructuring, and improving the conditions,
experiences, and outcomes experienced by postsecondary students. As policies move from the
capitol to the campus, researchers have utilized multiple frameworks to assess the impact and
effectiveness of policy as an intervention to improve postsecondary outcomes. Distinct patterns
are found in the literature to delineate the implementation of equity-oriented policy and its effect
12
Recognizing the need for better policies and funding strategies, the state of California has recently enacted
educational reforms (LCFF/SEP) that focus on improving educational outcomes by providing additional resources
for schools that enroll “high need” students (See Policy Analysis for California Education, 2014).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 28
on campus. One set of studies found that educators were both resistant and hesitant to implement
change-seeking initiatives, thus minimizing the achievement of intended goals (Howard, 2013;
Oakes et al., 2005; Turner, 2015). The second set of studies found that even when educators are
well-intentioned and are in alignment with policy goals, implementation may result in
differential effects for student groups that miss the mark on improving equity (Chase, 2016;
Taylor, 2015). These varying outcomes in implementation stem from issues such as lacking the
capacity to fully-implement or misinterpreting the mandates’ intended change. The third set of
studies describe the characteristics and conditions in which educators were successful in
implementing equity-oriented policies (Nienhusser, 2014; Taylor, 2017).
Implementing Equity-Oriented Policy: Cases of Resistance, Variation, and Success
Studies that reach a finding of resistance point to the inability of policymakers to
adequately develop policies that achieve their intended goals during implementation. According
to researchers, equity-minded reforms that did not account for the behavioral change needed to
implement reform required (1) additional action levers to disrupt the status quo, (2) explicit
language for institutional actors to act upon, and (3) fiscal resources to motivate implementation.
Oakes and associates (2005) conducted a study to understand how practitioners implemented
detracking policies in ten racially-mixed secondary schools. Using “Zones of Tolerance and
Mediation,” the authors uncovered several forces at play that led school leaders to either resist or
comply with policy mandates during implementation. Because policymakers lacked strong
enough mandates that could counteract the “power, control, coalitions, and bargaining” (p. 289)
endemic to schools, school personnel could effectively resist mandates for change. The authors
concluded that the “neutral language” of policy cannot change the longstanding structures and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 29
practices of schooling; instead, language must be specific in naming equity efforts and the target
groups intended to benefit from the policy.
Similarly, Trujillo (2012) found that educators charged with implementing equity-
oriented instructional policy were thwarted by firm ideologies that protected the status quo. In a
year-long case study, she found equity-oriented policies were diluted and compromised to
“pacify constituents” (i.e., White parents) and thereby compromising a policy intended to
improve equity for underrepresented student groups (p. 531). Like Oakes et al. (2005), Trujillo
(2014) highlighted the importance of equity-oriented policies to include strong “levers of action”
(i.e., clear mandates, motivating inducements, capacity-building tools) that could absorb the
“normative and political pressures” from school leaders who are resistant to change (p. 294).
These studies demonstrate the effects of policies that are not sufficiently and adequately
structured to support educators charged with the implementation of equity-oriented mandates.
Though limited, this grouping of studies provides needed knowledge as to the intricacies of
policy implementation when aimed at longstanding and oft times controversial practices or
structures (i.e., detracking). Oakes et al. (2005) articulated the importance of documenting the
tension between policy objectives (i.e., improve student equity) and the objectives of local actors
(i.e., the perception of which students deserve support). Moreover, they stress the importance of
calling out the challenge equity-oriented policies have in disrupting structures that perpetuate
inequity. Additionally, these studies provide a roadmap to better understand why some
implementers maintain the status quo and others do not.
Well-Intentioned, but Differential Effects
Studies of education policies with well-intentioned goals to improve student outcomes
are shown to have mixed results in regard to impact. Taylor (2015) studied a 2009 Illinois policy
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 30
expanding dual-enrollment programs with the intent to increase community college enrollment
and completion in the state. Using propensity score matching technique, Taylor examined the
effects dual-enrollment had on different groups disaggregated by socioeconomic status and
race/ethnicity. Drawing on Rawls’ (1971; 1999) framework positing justice as fairness, Taylor
sought to understand if the policy could serve and benefit the most vulnerable students (i.e., low-
income and students of color) in the state. The author found that dual credit policies positively
impacted all students, but failed to shrink equity gaps. Taylor argued that the policy led to
inequitable effects for students of color because it did not provide additional resources and
support, nor did it provide information on how to access the dual-credit programs.
Baker’s (2016) examination of the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act used a
difference in differences technique to examine the first three years of transfer degree
implementation in California. Her analysis found a significant increase in transfer and degrees
earned in schools that were “much more heavily Asian and much less Latino than the state
average” (p. 6). Baker concluded that Asian students, as the highest-performing group in
transfer, benefited the most from the new transfer policy. Similar to Taylor (2015), this study
found policy was effective in the aggregate (i.e., increasing transfer numbers), but perpetuated
longstanding gaps in transfer success for low-income and Latinx students.
Chase, Dowd, Pazich, and Bensimon (2012) present one of the most comprehensive
studies examining transfer policies across seven states: California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota,
Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Using critical policy analysis, they examined policy texts
and supporting documents to learn if minoritized
13
students benefited from state policies. Chase
13
The term “minoritized” is used instead of “minority” throughout this paper to signify that persons are not born
into a minority status, but are subordinated and rendered into minority positions by US social institutions (See
Gillborn, 2005 or Harper, 2012).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 31
et al. (2012) found that transfer policies in these seven states were primarily “color blind,” failed
to mention or include race/ethnicity in language, and accountability mechanisms did not monitor
rates of success by race/ethnicity. Examining documents specific to California, they further
highlighted the coded language of “underrepresented,” “diversity,” and “minorities” within the
state’s policy that substitute for racial- and ethnic-specific language. The authors concluded that
any benefits of the policy were neutralized as a result of the state’s failure to recognize historic
patterns of disadvantage for racially-minoritized students.
Studies in this second group highlight the mixed implementation results of equity-minded
reform when they are constructed in color-blind ways. For equity-oriented policies to succeed,
stronger language must be included that explicitly targets the most vulnerable groups. This area
of research also highlights the importance of how policy is received in various educational
settings and the need for policymakers to reformulate policy efforts with design elements that are
more effective in implementing equity-minded reform. The final set of studies explore the
successful implementation of educational policy, helping to tease out what elements are most
important in learning why implementation occurs in ways that achieve intended goals of
improving outcomes for students who have faced longstanding inequities.
Cases of Policy Implementation Success
Dowd and Bensimon (2015) and Nienhusser (2014) analyze two equity-minded reform
efforts whose implementation succeeded in serving marginalized student groups. Nienhusser
examines the role community colleges played in the implementation of New York’s in-state
resident tuition (ISRT) policy for undocumented students. Given the complexity of a law carried
out across multiple campuses of the City University of New York (CUNY), the author focuses
his analysis on the ambiguity in policy language and the role of individuals’ knowledge and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 32
expertise to interpret and carry out the policy in two community colleges in different New York
City boroughs. The author finds significant variation in ISRT implementation and noted the
“powerfully influential role” that individual implementers served as intermediaries between
policies and the intended beneficiaries—undocumented students. Moreover, the ambiguity of
policy language enabled implementers to interpret the legal mandates and organizational goals in
ways that took advantage of their expertise as practitioners to best meeting the needs of
undocumented students and their “dreams of pursuing a college education” (p. 16).
Dowd and Bensimon (2015) conduct an analysis of the Wisconsin Transfer Equity Study,
which was an effort to enhance equity of outcomes between students of color and white peers in
transfer and baccalaureate attainment through the development of new practices. Their analysis
suggests that to achieve race-conscious reform, implementers must act as change agents who are
(1) race-conscious, (2) committed to equity, and (3) understand that institutional structures and
practices must change to improve racial equity. As change agents, individuals are able to
navigate through roadblocks imposed by individuals and sub-cultures on campus that “ha[ve]
vested interests in keeping the status quo” (p. 129). Unlike in previous studies shared, these
actors had the ability to overcome the weak structure and vague language within the policy to
enact change on their campus.
Common to these policies is the importance of individual actors and the environments in
which policy implementation occurs. Nienhusser (2014) notes that successful implementation
must be entrusted to informed professionals that understand the policy context and the ways in
which policy mandates can better the lives of the students. Dowd and Bensimon (2015) illustrate
the need for implementers to develop the capacity and knowledge to support and push reform
efforts forward that require change on campus, such as restructuring transfer to improve
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 33
outcomes for racially-minoritized students. Actors, to implement equity-oriented reform,
required tools and expertise (i.e., ability to facilitate difficult dialogue, understanding of complex
mandates, or campus status to gain buy-in) which they might not possess as they are tasked to
oversee and develop mandates on their campus. These studies point out the importance of actors
that have the skills to navigate policy through the implementation process both when the policy
mandates align with campus contexts, but especially when reforms may go up against the status-
quo, potentially misalign with institutional values, or face resistance from individuals on the new
efforts that seek to improve educational parity (Lewis & Diamond, 2016).
2.4 Literature Review Summary
Some researchers have focused on policymakers and how they formulate reforms—using
vague language, lacking fiscal support, or employing poor design elements—to explain the
inability to enact intended change (Alemán, 2006; Cerych & Sabatier, 1986; Hill, 2001; Stein,
2004). Others describe implementation failings at the local level, where actors actively resist,
unknowingly misinterpret, or lack the capacity to implement reforms that produce their intended
outcomes (McLaughlin, 2006; Moses & Saenz, 2008; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002;
Weatherly & Lipsky, 1979). Additionally, when it comes to implementing equity-oriented
reforms that press for complex and transformative change, most implementing agents are novices
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). The enactment of these policies are then left to individuals that may
lack the capacity (i.e., knowledge to address racial inequity), willingness (i.e., lacking incentive
to redistribute resources), or experience (i.e., ability to lead or navigate contentious terrain) to
interpret and carry out equity-based reforms successfully to achieve their intent (Chase, 2016).
The literature cited denotes the importance of contexts when analyzing the
implementation of policies seeking complex change. These studies reveal the vital role
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 34
implementers play in fulfilling policy goals and the importance of explicitly calling out race if
policy efforts are to benefit students of color. Baker (2016) and Chase et al. (2012) clearly
articulate that inequities will not be erased if policies do not have specific policy levers or
language to address the historic and longstanding barriers faced by students of color. In other
cases of policy enactment, challenges to implementing equity-oriented reform called attention to
the structural context of policies, failing to have the necessary design elements or policy
instruments (Oakes et al., 2005). Further, other studies focused on the role of institutional
context, how organizational dynamics facilitate, restrict, and at times compromise, the efforts of
individual actors seeking to implement policy reform (Koyama, 2015; Taylor, 2017).
The Student Equity Plan policy is a statewide mandate requiring community colleges to
examine their campus data, identify student inequities, and propose solutions to mitigate
highlighted equity gaps using new fiscal resources. It enables community college institutional
actors to be equity-focused and race-conscious and consider how to redistribute resources in
ways that benefit students experiencing educational inequities. The inclusion of racial/ethnic
groups in the SEP policy is unlike other policies that are typically race-neutral. As such,
community colleges can plan, target, and address equity gaps in race-specific ways. Ultimately,
it is up to individual institutions and implementing actors to interpret the policy through a lens of
race-consciousness and use the SEP as a tool to address racial equity. The review of the literature
on state-level policy implementation underscores the importance of contextual—particularly of
the policy, institution, and actors—influences that shape how implementation occurs, such as the
development of a student equity plan in community college. The next chapter of this dissertation
describes the theoretical framework guiding this study, outlining specific elements and the
rationale for their inclusion.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 35
CHAPTER 3
Theoretical Framework
Policy is a vehicle employed to improve the quality of education for racially minoritized
students and address disparities in outcomes. Equity-oriented reforms, specifically, are policy
initiatives aimed at increasing parity of opportunity and achievement across diverse groups of
students (Oakes, Welner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005; Trujillo, 2012). Several attempts to legislate
change on behalf of historically marginalized student populations include the following:
detracking (Oakes et al., 2005), desegregation (Bell, 2004; Gil et al., 2016; Mattheis, 2016) and
finance reform (Alemán, 2006; Rodriguez, 2004) in K-12 education. In higher education, equity-
oriented reforms have targeted basic skills (Ngo, 2016; Ngo & Melguizo, 2016), completion
(Mansfield & Thachik, 2016), affirmative action (Neumann & Pallas, 2015; Winkle-Wagner et
al., 2014) and accountability (Harbour & Jaquette, 2007; Kelchen & Stedark, 2016). These types
of reforms have been crafted, passed, and implemented with the hopes of addressing long-
standing barriers in education and mitigating the inequities faced by low-income, first-
generation, and racially minoritized students (Martinez-Aleman, Pusser, & Bensimon, 2015).
3.1 Studying the Implementation of Equity-Oriented Reforms
Despite this two-decade history of education reform, researchers point to the various
reasons why they have not achieved their desired result, or in the words of Derrick Bell (2004),
have left “unfilled hopes of racial reform” (p. 185). Because so much has been written on the
failed accounts of reforms, McLaughlin (2006) describes this work as “misery research,” given
decades of studies that report “failed expectations, dashed hopes, and misjudged” opportunities
to improve educational conditions (p. 5). Oakes and colleagues (2005) argue that most of the
literature in educational policy research has focused on examining “normatively and politically
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 36
neutral, technical school reforms” that seek to improve equity without addressing challenges
local actors face within implementation sites (p. 282). Chase (2014) adds that studies examining
implementation in education have not focused on the influence of “settings” and “people” and
how both factors contribute to how policy unfolds in colleges. In addition to critiquing policies
and how they are formulated, some scholars argue that traditional approaches, methods, and
theories constrain our understanding of the implementation process, failing to acknowledge
social context (i.e., the role power, discourse, race), and why policies, as implemented, have
differential (negative) effects on racially-minoritized students (Chase, 2016; Dumas, 2014;
Dumas & Anyon, 2006; Young & Diem, 2017). These studies highlight several shortcomings in
analyzing educational policy implementation and opportunities to develop a different way
forward, including: (a) shifting from a focus on negative cases of implementation to those that
seem successful, (b) emphasizing social context and how these factors influence implementation
and ability to achieve intended goals, and (c) the need for new theoretical approaches to learn
how and why policy unfolds differently across higher education settings.
Observations (CUE, 2017) and analyses of several student equity plans at the community
colleges (Harris, Felix, Bensimon, Wood, Mercado, Monge, & Falcon, 2017) point to an array of
approaches to racial inequities and race-conscious solutions. A majority of the 42 reviewed plans
addressed inequity in the aggregate, targeting funds on practices and programs seeking to
improve student success for all. This was driven in part by the language of policy where an
inconsistent definition of equity gave implementers discretion to (a) focus on cultivating
individual opportunity, regardless of race (Education Code §66010.2c), (b) conflate equity with
equality, thus prompting color-blind, “success for all” practices (CCCCO, SEP Template, 2015)
or (c) target historically underrepresented groups with additional resources (Guichard, 1992).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 37
How equity is understood ultimately impacts the ability to address racial inequity at the
community colleges (Ching, Felix, Fernandez, & Trinidad, forthcoming). Given the potential for
wide variation with the SEP, Bensimon suggests that the policy could be seen as “an expensive
boat without a rudder,” unable to lead campuses towards developing new practices and
interventions that ameliorate racial inequity 2016a).
Accordingly, Huerta is the focus of this study because it was identified as implementing
the student equity plan policy in a race-conscious manner. Huerta is one of a handful California
Community Colleges that researchers highlighted as using the Student Equity Plans policy (SEP)
as an opportunity to address racial disparities in culturally-affirming ways (Ching & Felix, 2015;
Harris et al., 2017). As Harper (2015) suggests, researchers and policymakers can learn as much,
if not more, from cases where success is found, especially when the overwhelming majority of
published scholarship on equity-minded reform has largely reported its failings (Oakes et al.,
2005), distortions (Alemán, 2007; Gill et al., 2017; Trujillo, 2012) and unintended consequences
(Baker, 2016; Dumas & Anyon, 2009).
For this study, I utilized cultural theories and critical perspectives to highlight the context
of Huerta Community College as it prompted a more race-conscious and equity-minded
approach. Using critical and cultural perspectives moves this research beyond a traditional
approach that is undergirded by rational-scientific assumptions of objectivity, linearity, and
fidelity. Instead, the focus moves toward uncovering “complex social processes” between
policymakers, implementers, and perceived policy beneficiaries (Koyama, 2015). Specifically,
cultural theories help to explain how environments and individuals influence policy
implementation (Chase, 2016; Spillane et al., 2006) given their emphasis on the roles of
institutional context (i.e., institutional history, culture, leadership) and individual cognitive
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 38
elements (i.e., prior experiences, beliefs, identities) to influence how policy is understood and
subsequently implemented. Critical theories deepen our understanding of how systems and
structures influence the interpretation of policy such that it is implemented in ways that benefit
racially-minoritized students (Chase, 2016; Marshall, 1999; Young & Diem, 2017). For this
study, I will focus on the racialized aspects of policy implementation, which includes the ability
of individuals to discuss race and racial equity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015), an institution’s
willingness to embrace race-conscious strategies (Trujillo, 2012), and how implementation of
equity-minded reform disrupts racial inequity in critical areas like Latinx transfer (Harper,
Patton, & Wooden, 2009).
3.2 Multi-Contextual Implementation Framework
I developed the Multi-Contextual Implementation Framework (MCIF) that centers the
contextual dimensions of policy, places, and people (Honig, 2006) to situate Huerta’s
implementation of the SEP within our overall understanding of successful equity-oriented reform
(See Figure 2). I adapted Oakes et al.’s (2005) use of enactment zones in K12 educational policy
research to develop a theoretical framework that highlights the importance of context in higher
education policy implementation. According to Chase (2014), contextual aspects like
institutional factors and individual actors within community colleges and their influence to shape
implementation is understudied. These elements are particularly important for researchers
studying the benefits of equity-minded reforms in diverse higher education settings. The Multi-
Contextual Implementation Framework uncovers the institutional conditions that facilitate
implementation of the SEP, as well as the necessary characteristics of individuals to carry out the
policy in race-conscious and equity-minded ways.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 39
Figure 2. Theoretical Framework for the Dissertation Study (The figure for the theoretical
framework was developed by the author drawing on the extant policy implementation literature).
Central to this framework is the notion that educational institutions have an “enactment
zone” that is shaped by contextual factors that can restrict, resist, or enable the implementation of
equity-oriented policy (McGivney & Moynihan, 1972; Wells & Serna, 1996). Four contextual
factors influence the development of a zone. These are: (1) how equity-minded policy is
designed and structured to achieve its intent; (2) the institutional context where implementation
occurs; (3) the characteristics of individual implementers; and (4) the role of a situated context.
Together these forces form the zone of tolerance (Oakes et al., 2005), an area where institutional
and external dynamics shape what implementers can do to develop equity-oriented reform,
which affects the ability of a collective group to leverage the SEP as a means for racial equity. In
the subsequent sections, I detail the zone of tolerance and the four contextual factors comprising
the MCIF. I describe the properties of the framework and how they are applied to identify
potential factors that influence how policy is interpreted and implemented to take advantage of
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 40
the race-conscious and equity-oriented aspects of the SEP so as to explicitly target Latinx
transfer equity.
3.2.1 The Zone of Tolerance for Equity-Oriented Reforms
The concept of a “zone of tolerance” (Oakes et al., 2005; Trujillo, 2012) is used in this
study to understand how equity-oriented reforms move through educational institutions to
achieve intended outcomes. Oakes et al. (2005) use the zone of tolerance to understand the local
social setting that influences how “equity-minded reforms” are adopted or rejected during
implementation. The authors describe this zone as the “area within which local context allows
policy to be changed and developed” to achieve its intended goals (p. 289). Enactment zones
acknowledge that schools are situated in particular, local settings that are informed by cultural
norms, organizational rules, and institutional histories. These zones have also been described as
the latitude that is given to local implementers to develop policies that may conform to the norms
of the school (McGivney & Moynihan, 1972).
The zone of tolerance (ZOT) can be seen as a negotiated space within an educational
setting that constricts or allows equity-oriented reform to continue through in its attempt to
improve the conditions and outcomes for racially-minoritized students. Within each site of
implementation, the zone of tolerance is shaped by factors such as: the degree of change required
by a policy, the institutional conditions that mis(align) with the reform, the individuals
overseeing implementation, and how a group of implementers understand what can be done to
enact equity-oriented policies, and move forward with trying to achieve the intended goals of the
reform. In this study, I use the four contextual factors (Policy, Institutional, Individual, and
Situated) to define the local social setting at Huerta and how it allows for equity-minded reform
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 41
to be implemented in race-conscious ways. The four factors are reviewed in detail as four
separate sub-sections below.
At Huerta Community College the zone of tolerance can be seen as the area where
institutional and external forces shape what implementers can do to develop equity-oriented
reform. For example, if there is alignment between contextual factors, then implementers have a
larger zone of tolerance available to them to develop reform in ways that can meet the intended
goals of the policy, such as addressing racial disparities in educational outcomes. If, however, the
reform is not seen as acceptable or contextual factors are in opposition, then the zone of
tolerance to enact the policy is smaller and thus restricts what can be achieved by implementing
actors. Depending on the implementation setting, a community college may be comprised of
contextual factors that expand or widen their zone of tolerance for more equity-oriented policies
and race-conscious strategies. As indicated previously, Huerta’s student equity plan stood out
with race-specific projects to address Latinx inequity, which may be an indication of a zone more
open to race-conscious strategies, whereas the more generic nature of the plans from most other
colleges may be an indication that the zone of tolerance limited or constricted the ability of
practitioners to do so. Based on my plan analysis, Huerta and its institutional characteristics had
a widened zone of tolerance accepting the implementation of equity-oriented reform. while other
colleges may have expressed hesitancy or resistance to race-conscious equity efforts based on a
limited zone of tolerance. Therefore, the four contextual factors shape the zone of tolerance and
help to identify the conditions required for a community college to see the policy as an
opportunity to improve racial equity. In the following section, I describe the properties of the
four contextual factors of the theoretical framework.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 42
3.2.2 Policy Context: Structuring Equity Oriented Reform
Researchers have documented a long history of resistance to education policies seeking to
improve conditions for racially-minoritized students. Desegregation policies in the Midwest
which sought to integrate public schools, for example, did not create the “sufficient conditions to
ensure and advance equity” for black and Latinx students (Lewis, Diamond, and Forman, 2015,
p. 22). How a policy is formulated and existing conditions at the local level are critical for
implementers to achieve intended goals. Seeking to understand the conditions and factors that
influence implementers, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) focus on three broad policy
considerations: understanding the tractability of the problem being addressed, the ability of a
policy to structure favorable implementation, and external factors affecting implementation. Key
to this work is acknowledging how policies structure implementation for local actors, asking
such questions as: Does the policy acknowledge the extent of behavioral change required? Are
the mandates written in a clear and consistent manner? Does the policy include instruments to
motivate implementers? How will implementation be influenced by the views and attitudes of
constituency groups?
Looking at equity-minded policies in education specifically, Oakes et al. (2005) find that
they require strong, non-neutral-language that provides less flexibility in interpretation, in order
to avoid resistors from compromising the intent of the policy. Spillane et al. (2002) found that
messaging from reform leaders (i.e., campus president, school principal) could significantly
influence how local implementers perceive a policy, decide to embrace or resist said policy, and
undertake efforts to comply or exceed the objectives of the reform. From the elements described,
I focus on three properties that comprise the policy context section: policy design, language and
flexibility, and reform messaging.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 43
Policy Design. Equity-oriented reforms seek to improve the conditions and outcomes for
students facing current and historic educational disparities. As a state-level policy tool, the
Student Equity Plans policy creates an opportunity for the California Community Colleges to
seriously examine whether and to what extent inequitable student outcomes exist on their
campuses. The funding provided by the Governor’s budget helps to ensure that colleges will be
able to address the issues uncovered from data analysis and inquiry. Critical to this process is
how policy is structured so that implementers clearly understand the concept of equity and thus
have the ability to structure guidelines to carry out its implementation. Moreover, the inclusion
of an adequate theory of action to compel community college actors to develop their plans in
ways that ameliorate racial inequities is likewise needed for success.
Language and Flexibility. Equity as a concept takes on different meanings across policy
venues and among individuals. How equity is defined within policy and how actors interpret it is
key to understanding the implementation of equity-minded reform (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015;
Stone, 2002). Yet, too often, policy efforts fail to provide detailed language, definitions, and
applicable descriptions to help implementers understand and interpret what is required of them,
such as the concept of equity within the SEPs (Hill, 2001). Sensemaking theory allows the
researcher to uncover how the interpretation of policy language may lead to non-compliance,
compliance, or robust implementation (Spillane et al., 2002). Oakes et al. (2005) argue that
equity-minded reform cannot be successfully implemented when the language used to guide
actors is “neutral” since there are too many forces at play that may contest changes to the status
quo (p. 283). Therefore, emphasizing the importance of language will allow me to understand
how the SEP defined equity that enabled implementers to create an equity plan in race-conscious
ways and serve as a vehicle to address inequities.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 44
Reform Messaging. Although state policies may be comprehensive and detailed in their
instructions for implementing mandates, Coburn (2001) suggests that local actors do not often
read the statutes themselves, but are informed by “external sources, messaging from the
environment, and reform leaders,” (p. 150). Most on-the-ground implementers (i.e., faculty, staff,
counselors) receive policy information and implementation guidelines from school leaders, such
as campus presidents or senior administrators. For these reasons, it is important to know how the
Student Equity Plan was introduced to implementing actors as well as how it was received by the
campus community to better understand whether the values and mandates from the SEP align
with the institutional context of Huerta and individuals overseeing its implementation.
3.2.3 Organizational Context: Where Policy is Embedded
A focus on a community college’s identity, history, leadership, and culture is vital for
understanding how institutional context influences the implementation of the Student Equity
Plans policy to address Latinx transfer inequity. This is especially true for community colleges,
all of whom have divergent philosophies of education, mission, ideologies, and histories that
shape how they respond to state policies (Trujillo, 2012).
Identity and History. In her examination of culture, politics, and policy interpretation in
a Wisconsin community college, Chase (2014) found that institutional identity and history
played a significant role in policy implementation. These elements are the “DNA” of an
institution and help to explain why institutions operate and respond to policy mandates in
different ways. Schein (1990) adds that institutional histories are deeply rooted and remind the
community of what has been done before and how it has been done. According to Weerts, Freed,
and Morphew (2014), each institution develops a unique personality that is shaped by its mission
(i.e., liberal arts education, vocation-oriented, comprehensive), the community (i.e., urban area
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 45
serving low-income students or rural area focused on workforce development), and the students
they serve (i.e., primarily Latinx, first-generation, adult re-entry). This identity is adopted by
academic departments, governance bodies, and individuals that ultimately influence how they
perceive externally-mandated change efforts. Therefore, implementers look to their institution’s
history as a guidepost for making decisions (Chase, 2016) particularly when those changes
require considerable restructuring of policy and practice to be more equitable.
Senior Leadership. Campus leaders play a role in championing and supporting equity-
minded reform by letting it be widely known that the policy aligns with the goals and values of
the institution. In many cases, researchers have found that leaders have the power to obstruct,
challenge, and compromise equity initiatives in schools. Trujillo’s (2012) study of district
instructional policy articulates how district leaders frame implementation in their schools
according to their ideological orientation and succeed in achieving or hampering intended goals.
Research conducted by Marcus (1999) demonstrates how leaders assume a symbolic role
throughout the implementation process; however, their power and status is carried out by proxies
charged with the day-to-day activity of implementation. As such, campus leaders have the ability
to appoint “inspired personnel” (Weerts et al., 2014, p. 240) who are able to carry out the change
and transformation required with equity-minded reforms (Kezar, 2014).
Campus Culture. Organizational culture, seen as the shared values, beliefs, and
meanings that become the foundation for how a community college behaves and responds to
tasks, goals, and priorities (Shaw, Valadez, and Rhoads, 1999), holds a prominent place in the
overall context of institutions. These shared values are shaped and reshaped by individuals
within the organization, over time becoming normative and behavioral structures that guide how
a college responds to external policy demands (Shaw & London, 2001). Schein (1990) adds that
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 46
culture is used to teach new members of the organization how to think and feel, and at times
behave. Culture is an essential element of the institutional context such that it can influence and
shape interpretation and implementation of equity-oriented reform.
3.2.4 Individual Characteristics: Role of the Implementing Actor
An individual’s capacity and expertise (Nienhusser, 2014), willingness and motivation
(Oakes et al., 2005), individual sensemaking (Spillane et al., 2006), and equity-minded
competence (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015) are critical components influencing policy interpretation
and implementation. These properties help to distinguish the individual characteristics that lead
to the development of policy in equity-minded and race-conscious ways.
Capacity, Expertise, and Willingness to Implement Policy. Successful policy
implementation requires individuals to lead, understand the policy context, and be familiar with
how change occurs (Kezar, 2014; Nienhusser, 2014). Prior research finds that individual campus
actors have a significant influence on how policy is developed (Chase, 2016; McLaughlin, 2006)
and Nienhusser (2014) describes implementers as “powerfully influential intermediaries” (p. 16)
between policy goals and the gains to be made by marginalized students. An examination of
capacity, expertise, and willingness frames how individual actors respond to equity-minded
reform in positive ways.
Prior Knowledge, Experience, and Beliefs. Spillane et al. (2002) argue that most
conventional theories fail to take into account the complexity of human sense-making. In other
words, how educational practitioners come to construct the meaning and intent of policy during
implementation and how that understanding impacts policy enactment (Spillane, 1998; Coburn,
2001). Pre-existing beliefs, experiences, and knowledge combined provide individuals with a
frame of reference from which they deconstruct intended policy (Coburn, 2001). To ensure
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 47
successful implementation of equity-oriented reforms, which are incredibly complex, there is a
need to draw attention to sensemaking matters because these reforms must either align with an
individual’s current frame of reference or be restructured so that they are true to the intent of the
policy. It is even more important for equity-focused policies if practitioners are influenced by
norms of color-blindness and liberal progressivism (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Harper, 2012).
Equity-Minded Competence. Bensimon (2007) developed the principles of equity-
mindedness to assess the responsiveness of institutional practices and structures toward racial
and ethnic groups. Equity-mindedness is focused on the role institutions and practitioners (i.e.,
faculty, staff) play in implementing policies that are intended to improve educational conditions
and outcomes for racially-minoritized students (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). The characteristics
of equity-mindedness include: (1) being race-conscious, as opposed to colorblind; (2) being
cognizant of structural and institutional racism as the root cause of inequities; (3) recognizing
that to achieve equity it may be necessary to treat individuals unequally as opposed to treating
everyone equally; and (4) being able to focus on practices as the source of failure rather than
student deficits (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Equity-minded competence thus serves as an
important element to understand the disposition of individuals and their ability to take action to
change practices and structures that help close equity gaps. How implementers embody equity-
minded principles and act on them to create more equitable conditions for racially-minoritized
students is a critically important aspect of the theoretical framework.
3.2.5 Situated Context: The Collective Group of Implementers
The final factor included in the framework is situated context, which is focused on the
interaction of individuals within specific organizational arrangements (i.e., student equity
committee, shared governance), the dynamics within the group (i.e. like-minded or diverse
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 48
perspectives), and their ability to recognize the influence they have on improving equity on
campus. Collective sensemaking emphasizes that meaning and interpretation occur within
specific social contexts through interaction with others (Spillane et al., 2002). As such, how
intragroup dynamics influence policy implementation (Marcus, 1999; Kezar, 2014) and the
extent to which implementers as a group are prompted/empowered to enact change to improve
racial inequities (Baez, 2000; Bensimon & Dowd, 2009), are critical to understanding why a
policy succeeds or fails (Zoch, 2017).
Collective Sensemaking. This property highlights two aspects: how a group of
individuals come to interpret and (re)construct policy as well as the shared values and motivation
that develops to push forward with the implementation of equity-minded reform. Sensemaking is
a social affair as implementers make sense and reinterpret policy via conversations with
colleagues. They draw on shared understandings and the values that align with different
embedded contexts (Coburn, 2001; Spillane et al., 2006). Drawing on collective sensemaking
(Coburn, 2001; Spillane et al., 2002) helps to understand how local actors came together within a
specific context (i.e., student equity planning committee) and potentially developed shared
understandings and values that facilitated the development of an equity plan that was Latinx-
focused. This factor looks at the group setting to learn who shaped implementation and its
outcomes on campus.
Intragroup Dynamics. One of the micro-political factors at play in higher education
policy implementation is intragroup dynamics: the composition of the group, divergent
perspectives, willingness to work together, and ultimately, the ability to develop a plan that
meets or exceeds a policy’s intent (Marcus, 1999). Previous research documents how groups can
assert their collective power and voice to resist aspects of the plan that they disagree with or
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 49
move forward with initiatives that align deeply with their shared values (Marshall & Scribner,
1991).
Critical Agency and Institutional Agents. Equity-oriented reforms mandate significant
changes in educational structures and individual practices. Consequently, it is imperative for
implementers to take on a more critical role. Baez (2000) asserts that critical agency, awareness
of inequities, the resistance of hegemonic practices, and efforts to bring about social justice, is
necessary for higher education to challenge existing practices and structure institutions to better
serve people of color. Additionally, the work on institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2011) and
its application in community colleges (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Dowd, Pak, & Bensimon,
2013) help to explore how implementers act as “transfer agents” using the SEP as an opportunity
to take an active role in facilitating transfer opportunities for racially-minoritized student groups
(Pak, Bensimon, Malcom, Marquez, & Park, 2006).
3.3 Summary of the Guiding Theoretical Framework
The Multi-Contextual Implementation Framework combines theoretical elements from
the extant literature to help uncover the contextual conditions facilitating the implementation of
the Student Equity Plans policy at Huerta Community College in ways that are race-conscious
and equity-minded. By highlighting the four contextual factors, I am able to understand how
these aspects come together at Huerta to create a zone of tolerance that embraces equity-minded
reform and resulted in a student equity plan explicitly focused on Latinx transfer.
To summarize, this theoretical framework delineates the zone of tolerance guiding
equity-minded reform at Huerta. The zone of tolerance is used as an enactment zone to
understand the relationship between policy, people, and places and how the interaction of these
factors led to robust, varied, or misaligned implementation of equity-oriented reform (Oakes et
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 50
al., 2005). The use of enactment zones to understand policy implementation has been underused
in higher education. As such, this dissertation bridges the gap in the knowledge base on equity-
minded reform and its implementation in education. The results of this study will have
implications for the study of the Student Equity Plans Policy, but also for other policies intended
to improve student success, close “achievement” gaps, or address longstanding inequities in
higher education. With a full description of the theoretical framework guiding my dissertation
study, I move to Chapter 4 which outlines the research design and methodology used to complete
this dissertation.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 51
CHAPTER 4
Research Design and Methodology
Understanding the contextual factors that shaped the student equity plan at Huerta
Community College to explicitly focus on Latinx transfer is a complex endeavor. Therefore, I
employed a qualitative case study design to study phenomena (i.e. policy implementation) in
their natural setting (i.e., community college), make sense of why and how things occur (i.e.,
development of student equity plan), and provide an in-depth analysis of processes and factors at
play within their real-life contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013). Through a case study design, this
dissertation highlights the complex interaction of multiple factors that shape how individuals
consider such contentious issues as race, racial disparities, and equity-mindedness (Bensimon &
Malcom, 2012; Oakes et al., 2005). In this section, I provide a discussion and rationale for
employing a case study approach and describe the site selection, research context, and access to
data. I outline the data collection strategy and analytical procedures used, highlighting the
connection between my theoretical framework and research design. I conclude with a discussion
on the study’s trustworthiness and limitations.
4.1 Case Study Design
Case study research draws from anthropology, political science, and sociology, allowing
the researcher to conduct an in-depth description and analysis of educational issues (i.e., Latinx
transfer inequity) within a bounded system (i.e., community college). A “bounded system,” case
study allows the researcher to fence in what will be studied by time, place, and activity (Smith,
1978, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 39). I conducted an instrumental case study which
focuses on providing insight into an issue from a singular case (Stake, 2005). Huerta served as
the case and the study explored how and why the college chose to address Latinx transfer equity
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 52
through the Student Equity Plans policy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, I examined the
implementation of Huerta’s student equity plan and the extent to which the contextual factors
described in my theoretical framework informed and influenced their decisions to focus on
Latinx student transfer.
A case study design is appropriate and well suited for the task as it strives for thick
description in order to understand the details, complexities, and circumstances of the selected
case (O’Reilly, 2012). This case study also involved the close examination of a phenomenon
within a bounded system over time, allowing for detailed, in-depth data collection using multiple
sources that lead to deeper understanding of the topic of interest (Merriam, 2009). As Patton
(2002) explains, “Multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source
of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective” (p. 244). This is
especially resonant in educational policy research as multiple actors, policy interpretations, and
contextual differences across institutions too often lead to varied implementation with differing
outcomes for students. Additionally, the qualitative case study approach has been successfully
used to examine the implementation of school turnaround plans (Koyama, 2015; Strunk et al.,
2016), equity-oriented reform in urban schools (Trujillo, 2014; Nienhusser, 2018), and state
transfer policy implementation in Wisconsin (Chase, 2016).
The application of case study research also provided an opportunity to address the call by
Koyama (2015) for policy scholars to use critical and qualitative approaches to contest the
growing trend of “technical and rational educational policy… seen as efficient and practical” and
move towards uncovering the complex social processes between policymakers, implementers,
and perceived beneficiaries (p. 547). The study was sensitive to this call and aimed to produce a
study that revealed how practitioners in a community college used their “identities, resources,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 53
and histories” to “variably interpret, negotiate, and selectively appropriate policy” to address
Latinx students in transfer in their SEP, while other community colleges did not (2015, p. 549).
4.2 Site Selection, Research Context, and Access
I employed a purposive sampling strategy to identify and select a community college that
created an equity plan with a stronger focus on Latinx transfer issues. According to Maxwell
(2013), purposeful selection allows the researcher to deliberately select a case to provide
information that is relevant to the questions being asked and the goals of the study. Merriam
(2011) adds that a sampling strategy is based on the assumption that the researcher wants to
“discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most
can be learned” (p. 61). In selecting Huerta, I was able to “maximize the utility of information
from a single case” (Flyvberg, 2006, p. 230) to obtain robust data about their Latinx-specific
approach to implementing state-directed education policy.
Huerta serves as an ideal site for an in-depth inquiry into policy implementation for
multiple reasons. First, a recent analysis I conducted of 33 student equity plans found that very
few community colleges used the reform effort or included funding to address transfer in
general, or more specifically Latinx transfer equity (Felix, 2018). Huerta was distinctive among
the colleges examined in that it developed their equity plan with the intent to implement and use
appropriated equity funds to create Latinx-conscious strategies to mitigate transfer inequity. Of
the 33 equity plans, less than 14% of all proposed activities and strategies in the equity plans
addressed transfer and even less included Latinx students as a specific target group. Of those
who did choose to focus on transfer initiatives, colleges within the sample allocated between .7%
and 26% of their total equity funds towards transfer. Huerta, in contrast, spent over 21% of their
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 54
funds in support of existing transfer initiatives as well as the development of new strategies that
intentionally target Latinx.
Second, Huerta has unique institutional characteristics that contribute to our
understanding of policy implementation (See Table 1 below). At the time Huerta was identified,
the campus enrolled over 35,000
14
students annually, of which nearly 80% were Latinx students
(Huerta Office of Institutional Research, 2017). With such a high concentration of Latinx
students, the school easily surpasses the 25% enrollment threshold to be identified as a Hispanic-
Serving Institution (HSI)
15
. Its HSI designation was not only reflected in the students it served,
but also in the senior administration and individuals involved with the implementation of the
SEP policy. The Campus President, the Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs and Student
Services, and the majority of implementing actors involved in the effort were Latinx. Moreover,
Huerta employed a higher rate of Latinx in administration, tenure-track faculty, and classified
positions than its surrounding district or the state. In 2016, the share of administrators who were
Latinx in the state was 18%, 28% in the district, and 47% at Huerta. For tenure-track faculty, the
rates were lower for each; only 15% of faculty were Latinx in the state, 16% within the district,
and 25% at Huerta (See Appendix C). Given the demographics of the state, selecting Huerta
provides a worthwhile site to explore and learn about strategies employed in support of the
largest student population in California and its higher education system.
Last, as one of the largest community colleges in the state, Huerta has been a top five
recipient in equity funds, receiving over $8 million dollars between 2014 and 2017. Of the $3.2
million it was awarded in 2015-2016, the campus designated nearly a third of those funds to
14
Numbers are rounded to try to protect anonymity.
15
Which entitles the institution to apply and access federal Title 5 grants.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 55
improve transfer for Latinx students. Hence, it was important to explore how the deployment of
incentives (i.e., funding) may drive not just implementation, but a more Latinx-conscious and
transfer-focused student equity plan (Ching et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2017).
Table 1
Profile of Huerta Community College, 2015-2016
16
Characteristic Huerta Community College
Institutional Size 50,000+ (Headcount)
38,000+ (Credit Students)
% Latinx 78.4
Founding Era 1940s
Academic Programs 63 Certificate
50 AA Degrees
Student Completion Rate
17
40.2% (Overall)
37% (Latinx)
Student Transfer Rate 24.9% (Overall)
19.9% (Latinx)
Community Context
18
56K (Median Family Income)
38.85 (AA or Above)
Campus President Latinx Male
SEP Liaison Latinx Female (Dean of Equity)
Equity Funds Allocated Over Three Million
Student Equity Committee Informal Advisory Committee
Formed Fall 2014
14 Members
Source. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Datamart.
Research Context. The name used to identify my research site honor’s Dolores Huerta, a
Chicana activist, labor leader, and civil rights icon. Driving to Huerta is a lesson in
understanding the context of the institution. Exiting the freeway, you are greeted by signs for the
local Mercado Azteca, across the way is the Tortilleria Coyolxauhqui that fuels many of my days
in the field. Past these shops is a community center and garden with an image of La Virgin de
Guadalupe, a spiritual and cultural symbol for the heavily Mexican, Mexican-American area.
Closer to the community college, you pass two elementary schools with Latinx surnames
16
Institutional characteristics are rounded and slightly underestimated to protect anonymity of the case site.
17
Student completion in community college is referred to as the “SPAR Rate” which includes percentage of
successful students to complete a degree, certificate, or transfer-related outcomes after six-years.
18
Based on US Census data pulled from the primary zip code of the institution.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 56
welcoming the students entering its gates. Outside of one of these school buildings are a set of
murals depicting the Chicanx history of the area and a tribute to Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta,
and the United Farm Workers. Arriving at Huerta, you walk onto campus and see a Latinx
surname across one of the newest and tallest buildings honoring a longtime president. Initially,
looking at Huerta’s equity plan and institutional data, I was less aware of the social context in
which the campus was embedded. Now, being here, I am increasingly aware of the need to
examine the setting in which the student equity planning unfolded, particularly how
organizational dynamics such as history/identity, culture/commitment, and leadership played in
shaping the interpretation and enactment of this educational reform at one community college.
Huerta was established after World War II in a small classroom of a local high school
serving approximately fifty students (Huerta Website, 2016). Seventy years later, Huerta is now
one of the largest enrolling postsecondary institutions in the state and country with an annual
headcount of 35,000 students and 20,000 FTE students (IPEDS, 2016; Datamart, 2016). Located
in an urban, low-income, and primarily Latinx community, the college serves a community that
is largely Latinx (68%) and has a poverty rate (20.5%), above both that of the college’s district
(13.7%) and of the state (11.5%) (US Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates; Huerta Strategic
Plan, 2015). The educational attainment level of the community is below district and state
averages, with less than 38% of individuals in the area possessing an associate’s degree or higher
(US Census, 2015). As an open-access institution, Huerta is vital in providing educational
opportunities to the surrounding community seeking to transfer to four-year institutions.
Today, the campus is primarily comprised of two racial groups, 80% of which are Latinx
and 15% are Asian. The data show that many of its enrolled students are first-generation (66%),
low-income (52%), and live in close geographic proximity to the campus. As Figure 3 shows,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 57
Huerta has out-paced Latinx enrollment growth across the state and in its Urban Community
College District (UCCD). In 2014, Huerta enrolled 78.7% Latinx students, UCCD enrolled
56.9% and the state enrolled 42%.
Figure 3. Latinx Student Enrollment at Huerta, 1972-2014.
19
The campus also gained the descriptors of being “intensely segregated” with “extremely
low transfer rates” for Latinx students by UCLA’s Civil Rights Project (2012). In 2015-2016, the
overall Huerta six-year transfer rate was 24.9%, but for Latinx it was 19.9%. The transfer rate
doubled for Asian students who, at 45% had the highest transfer rate on campus (CCCCO, 2016).
District and state rates were not much higher, with Latinx student transfer rates of 21% and 29%,
respectively. Table 2 further delineates the three-year cohort progression of students at Huerta,
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, at different momentum points leading to transfer.
19
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Datamart; Urban Community College
District Office of Institutional Research.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 58
Table 2
Tracking the Transfer Success of Racial/Ethnic Groups at Huerta.
Source. Huerta Community College 2014-2015 College Profile and Data Book.
As the table shows, the cohort entering Huerta for the first time in 2010 included 3,333 Latinx
students, or 77% of the student population. Even though Latinx students represented the majority
of first-time students, three years later they had the lowest rate of transfer among all racial and
ethnic groups. Indeed, only 5% of Latinx students transferred compared to 12% of White and
16% of Asian students. Given this data, the biggest obstacle to transfer appears to be the very
small percentage of students that complete college-level English (24.8%) and math (20.2%).
Access to Case Site. As a researcher on the Huerta’s Latinx Transfer Equity Project with
the Center for Urban Education (CUE), I had formal access to the site and the ability to collect
data through my status as project lead. The research project was a 2-year action research project
focused on improving the experience and outcomes for transfer-aspiring Latinx students. My
involvement with the project gave me the opportunity to conduct fieldwork on site, interact with
campus practitioners, and collect multiple forms of data. I secured Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval from the University of Southern California and Huerta to conduct this study in
Ethnicity
African-American
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
Hispanic/Latino
Native American/ Other
Non-Caucasian
Unknown/ Decline to
State
Total 20.0% 11.5% 7.1% 4,282 77.2% 73.9% 63.3% 29.4% 27.3%
10.7%
145 83.4% 76.6% 60.7% 31.7% 26.2% 19.3% 9.7% 6.2%
8.3% 5.1%
28 60.7% 64.3% 50.0% 28.6% 25.0% 21.4% 14.3%
20.3% 18.6% 11.9%
3,333 74.6% 72.6% 61.1% 24.8% 20.2% 14.7%
59 86.4% 61.0% 49.2% 28.8% 20.3%
12.8%
670 89.1% 82.8% 77.3% 51.9% 64.8% 46.9% 26.9% 16.1%
Completed
Degree, Cert or
Transfer
Transferred to
a 4-year
University
47 66.0% 55.3% 51.1% 29.8% 14.9% 12.8% 14.9%
Longitudinal Cohort Tracking by Ethnicity (%): 2010-2013 Cohort Analysis
Cohort
Completed
Units in First
Semester
Fall to Spring
Persistence
Fall to Fall
Persistence
Completed
English
Completed
Math
Completed
English and
Math
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 59
March 2016. I worked directly with the Dean of Student Equity at Huerta to recruit participants
for interviews and gain access to various events and meetings that helped me collect vital pieces
of data and information for the dissertation project.
4.3 Data Collection Strategy
Data collection in case study research is typically extensive, drawing on multiple
information sources to provide a comprehensive and detailed description of a case (O’Reilly,
2005; Patton, 2002). I collected data at Huerta from March 2016 to October 2017 enabling me to
observe meetings, interview practitioners, and collect documents over time, related to the
implementation of their student equity plan (See Table 3 for Full Project Data Collected).
Connecting Theory and Data Collection
Guided by a framework emphasizing how context shapes implementation I was able to
use the four aspects as theoretical spotlights (See Figure 2 in Chapter 3) helping to illuminate and
learn about the factors shaping zone of tolerance at Huerta, enabling them to craft a Latinx-
specific plan. As Hurtado et al. (2012) note, multi-contextual models are more explicit than
previous models in education, providing an opportunity to highlight various factors at work that
are influencing how institutions and individuals implement policy seeking parity in educational
outcomes across student groups (Oakes et al., 2005). Before detailing the data collection strategy
for this project, I share how my framework was incorporated into the research methods. This was
done to make a stronger connection between my theoretical grounding and procedures employed
to collect data (See Appendix E for Theory to Data Collection Guide).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 60
Figure 4. Illuminating Context to Understand Huerta’s Zone of Tolerance.
Grounding my data collection, in theory, helped to create protocols that enabled me to capture
the appropriate data to learn how Huerta’s zone of tolerance facilitated the implementation of
their student equity plan (Oakes et al., 2005). Below I briefly describe the four contextual factors
of the framework and how they are tied to my data collection procedures.
Policy context refers to how policy itself shapes implementation. Specifically examining
how design elements, language used, and messaging permeates educational institutions to
structure implementation, to inform and guide implementers about mandates, and the kind of
information shared by external sources (Coburn, 2001; Hill, 2001). To learn about the policy
context, I collected documents from the state legislature, the Community College Chancellor’s
Office, and Huerta Community College.
Institutional context brings attention to the campus environment where the educational
policy is embedded and helps in understanding how organizational identity, history, leadership,
Zone of
Tolerance
Institutional
Indivudal
Situated
Policy
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 61
and culture influence implementation (Chase, 2016). Scholars have identified these
organizational dimensions as potential barriers to achieving intended goals during
implementation (Koyama, 2015; Young & Diem, 2017). To this end, I relied on observations,
interviews, and institutional documents to further delineate the institutional context at Huerta.
A focus on individual characteristics moves the data collection from the broader forces
that influence implementation to a focus on micro-level forces. Specifically, I examined the role
of the individual actors, their identities, their capacity to carry out implementation, and
commitment to work towards the development of reform goals (Marsh, Strunk, & Bush, 2012;
Nienhusser, 2016). I used semi-structured interviews as the primary source for this factor.
Situated context brings collective sensemaking, intragroup dynamics, and critical agency
to the foreground. I gathered documents, observations, and interviews to learn about these
implementers as a group. Documents included equity planning meeting notes, minutes from
board meetings in which the plan was presented, and other materials archived by the
implementation committee. I also observed implementers’ current interactions via their
attendance at the Student Equity Committee and included questions that helped understand how
the committee worked together, negotiated and proposed Latinx-conscious strategies, and how
they actualized their power/agency as a group (Baez, 2000).
Collecting Data
In this study, data collection consisted of interviews, observations, and document/archival
materials. The findings shared are a result of over two years of being embedded in the field with
a final year of intensive data collection. I collected data informally in spring 2015 as a facilitator
of an “Obtaining Buy-In” workshop with Huerta Community College practitioners involved with
equity planning. Formal data for this dissertation project began in March 2016 and concluded in
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 62
October 2017 (See Table 3). The richness of this data allows me to tell a deeper and more
comprehensive story of the ways Huerta came to conceptualize and develop their student equity
plan that focused on improving Latinx transfer equity.
Table 3
Data Sources for the Instrumental Case Study
Data Collection (March 2016 - October 2017)
Interviews
8 Student Equity Planners
12 Student Equity Programmers
8 Campus Leaders
28 Total (40.5 hours)
Observations
12 Committee meetings
8 Equity-related events, workshops
3 Campus-wide events
3 Program observations
1 Department retreat
27 Total (95.5 hours)
Documents
65 Archival documents (Pre-2016)
42 Collected during observations
24 Agenda and minutes
10 State-level policy documents
2 Submitted equity plans
143 Total
Given my focus on transfer, most of my interactions and observations were directly tied
to those proposed activities unfolding into practices, including the Viva La Mujer Academy, Men
of Color Support Program, Summer Transfer Partnerships, Faculty Advocate Program, and the
Latinx Transfer Equity Project with the Center for Urban Education. Overall, I conducted 28 in-
depth interviews, observed over 90 hours of meetings and events, and reviewed archival
documents related to student equity from 2014 to the present.
Observations. I began my data collection with observations. I observed 27 meetings,
retreats, and campus-wide events to understand how equity was conceptualized, discussed,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 63
enacted, and the ways that Latinx students were specifically included. These observations
accounted for over 95 hours in the field between March 2016 and October 2017. I also have
contextual data that was collected in fall 2014 and spring 2015 for a project examining the
implementation of transfer reform.
The use of participant observation was critical to understanding the institutional context
of Huerta and the situated context of institutional actors. Observations strengthen data collection
in several ways. First, observations take place in “naturalistic settings” that allow the researcher
to observe the phenomenon of interest, with individuals interacting in real-world contexts
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Second, they provide firsthand encounters with individuals, groups,
and committees that can provide a more nuanced understanding of the phenomena than
secondhand accounts collected via interviews. Third, observations allowed me to learn how
practitioners, individually and collectively, discussed equity, race, Latinx students, and transfer
issues, in situ (O’Reilly, 2012). Lastly, observations improve the ability of a researcher to
triangulate emerging themes and provide substantiated findings (Merriam, 2011).
Since spring 2015, I have informally observed several gatherings at Huerta – professional
development workshops, fall convocation, student equity advisory committee meetings – that
help pinpoint areas where I expected discussions about student equity efforts, Latinx transfer,
and progress of current equity plan activities on campus. In reviewing my fieldnotes and the
generic protocol used, I have developed a specific observational protocol to record interactions,
discussions, and nonverbal cues that help answer my questions. (See Appendix F). Sample
prompts for the observations include:
• How does equity, transfer, or supporting Latinx students’ surface at the event being
observed? (Specific language, presentations, conversations),
• What are the missed opportunities for being race-conscious with student equity efforts?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 64
• How does this observation help to understand how/why the campus prioritizes Latinx
transfer equity?
Interviews. I held off interviewing until I had officially defended my dissertation
proposal and had my collection protocols approved by my committee. In total, I interviewed 28
practitioners which were divided into three groups: 8 were initial planners of the student equity
policy, 12 were more recent implementers developing practices/programs based on the proposed
plan, and 8 were campus leaders including the college president, president of the academic
senate, and head of the faculty union. My first interview was on April 11, 2016, with my primary
contact at the site, who had helped me conduct an earlier study on the implementation of transfer
reform. Between April 11 and July 19, I interviewed 28 people involved in the student equity
planning process. The bulk of the interviews (16) were conducted in May. These interviews
include practitioners with a range of experience and involvement with the policy. A few have
been involved since the first plan was created in 2014, others came on board for the 2015
planning process. Some were not involved in the planning process at all but were critical to the
implementation phase, which was taking the ideas and activities written in the pages of the plan
and making them a reality.
Interviews in educational research “allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective”
and discover their feelings, beliefs, and intentions towards the phenomenon under study (Patton,
2002, p. 341). Interviews helped to understand how individual actors conceptualized equity, their
understanding of inequities, how they framed inequities based on race, and the strategies they
believed would be helpful to alleviate the Latinx educational inequities. Specifically, interviews
enabled me to document the ways in which individuals were encouraged to use the SEP and
race-conscious approaches to address inequities and if that encouragement came as a result of the
policy, the institutional culture at Huerta, or a combination of those contextual factors. In
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 65
addition, I explored practitioners’ understanding of the barriers that created and maintained
inequities for Latinx, such as unequal resources in K-12 (Yosso, 2006), lack of institutional
support (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009), differential advising (Hagedorn & Lester, 2006), and the
manifestation of race and racism in campus policies, structures and practices (Harper, 2015a).
This type of inquiry was central to identifying aspects of my theoretical framework such as
individuals’ capacity, willingness, and equity-minded competence towards using policy as an
opportunity to address racial inequity. Participants interviewed included administrators, faculty,
and staff involved in the implementation of the student equity plan. As I conducted these
interviews, I shaped my protocols for three distinct groups:
• The first group, planners, focused on practitioners that proposed the goals and activities
in the student equity plan. This included individuals involved with the development of the
2014-15 student equity plan. These individuals met as an informal group to examine
campus data, identify specific student groups, and decide how to distribute resources to
fund new and existing programs to improve equity. This group contributed a historical
perspective as to how the policy was perceived when it was initially introduced on
campus, the messaging that accompanied implementation directions, and how they felt
the campus would respond to an equity-minded reform.
• The second group, coordinators, included practitioners currently charged with
administering and running activities proposed in the 2014-15 student equity plan to
improve transfer for Latinx students. After proposing activities and interventions in their
student equity plans, institutions had to hire individuals to initiate, run, and coordinate the
programs. While these individuals may not have been involved with the development of
the equity plan or proposed activities, they now serve as a new hire or from a different
area of campus. This second group shared their perspectives about what the policy
enables the campus to do and why Huerta had a Latinx transfer equity focus. In addition,
they were able to share their thoughts on the barriers that arose when Huerta moved from
ideas on paper to actual campus practices.
• The final group, campus leaders, consisted of individuals such as the President, vice
presidents, deans, and others involved with shared governance. The campus leaders did
not overlap with the first two groups. Individuals in this group helped to illustrate
Huerta’s institutional context, perceptions of what equity planning was about, and why
improving Latinx transfer equity is a vital component of the campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 66
An interview protocol includes instructions for the researcher to follow so that the
process is standardized from one interview to another (Creswell, 2014). The interview protocols
I used for this dissertation included introductory questions to create a welcoming and open
environment, followed by a list of focused questions that are informed by my research questions
and theoretical framework (See Appendix G). For the purpose of these interviews, however, I
developed and used an interview protocol tailored to the different groups from whom I was
interested in learning more. Semi-structured interviews often allow for open-ended questions that
may diverge from the interview protocol (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). This allows the researcher
flexibility when the conversation strays from its intended path and offer the opportunity to
collect data that was unforeseen. Sample questions asked, included:
• Huerta primarily enrolls students of color, particularly Latinx students, can you tell me how
conversations about race and racial inequities occur here?
• Your campus, when compared to others developed more practices and allocated more funds
in their plan to address Latinx transfer equity, why do you think that is?
• How does Huerta’s commitment to Latinx compare to other colleges where you have
worked? What is different here?
These interviews allowed me to get to know the participants and learn about their role in the
various phases of the development and implementation of the student equity plan. Moreover,
these interviews yielded increased information about how implementers understood the SEP,
how they collectively decided on which racial groups to address, and the influencing factors that
prompted them to focus on Latinx transfer. Because I aimed to document both the retrospective
development and current implementation of the student equity plan, I interviewed three people
multiple times, since they were in the initial planning group then continued on with the
implementation committee. Interviews ranged from 40 minutes and 96 minutes. To address
issues of trustworthiness and credibility, all interviews were audio-taped, professionally
transcribed verbatim, and reviewed with select participants for accuracy and meaning.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 67
Documents. The third source of data were documents collected while in the field
(program flyers, data presentations, newsletters) and archived materials (handwritten notes from
meetings, prepared data tables, original planning materials). Documents are “artifacts” that can
shed light on a case by providing a window into historical, political, social, and cultural
dimensions of a case (Merriam, 2011). As such, documents specific to the development of the
student equity plan and implementation activities (e.g., community colleges’ student equity
plans, meeting minutes) were collected for analysis. These sources helped to triangulate the
experiences, perceptions, and stories shared about the equity planning process. This was critical
in piecing together how implementation unfolded on campus and asking individuals to recall
their involvement with a process that began in 2014, just over two years prior to when I started
my study. These documents provided an “objective” temporal account of how the planning
process unfolded; helping me to learn when the planning process was first introduced to the
campus community, who and how people spoke about the process, and what the thought process
and discussions were like in situ without a time machine.
Additional institutional documents such as master plans, program review materials, and
accrediting self-studies and reports and any other document that specifically referenced
institutional priority of improving Latinx transfer equity on campus were collected. This
included the campuses’ five-year strategic plan, accreditation report, state of transfer report, as
well as transcripts of the president’s remarks at fall convocation. These documents provided
important background and contextual information about the structural and institutional elements
that facilitated the development and implementation of the student equity plan aimed at
improving Latinx-transfer at Huerta Community College.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 68
4.4 Data Analysis
In case study research, there is no standard approach or strategy to analyze data
(Merriam, 2009). Data analysis began as a simultaneous activity with data collection allowing
me to conduct an iterative analysis of the data over time to identify emerging insights and
themes, refine the collection process, and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the
case (Hatch, 2002; Patton, 2002). Once I completed my fieldwork, I proceeded to analyze in five
phases helping me to organize, interrogate, and present my data in ways that illuminated the
factors that shaped the implementation process at Huerta. In writing up qualitative research,
Walcott (2009) recommends simply answering the question: “what did you do to make your data
usable?” (p. 99). Below, I share the process taken to move from raw data to meaning-making and
findings that are shared in the next two chapters.
Phase 1: Analytical Reflections During Data Collection
As a qualitative researcher, I am drawn to the idea that analysis begins the first day of
data collection (Luker, 2008; Merriam, 2011). Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2001) share that the
researcher is tasked with writing down in “regular, systematic ways what is observed and learned
from the first day” they are embedded in the field (p. 31). My analysis began with writing
memos during data collection that helped to capture the essence of what I was hearing,
observing, and reading in the field (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). I wrote reflective memos to
help summarize and synthesize the various materials collected and produced. These memos
included: What data was collected (laundry list), a summary of the data collected (quick recap),
remarks on revising collection strategies, interactions/themes that stood out, and insight gained
related to my theoretical framework and four factors. Taking a simultaneous and iterative process
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 69
helped to avoid “unfocused, repetitious, and an overwhelming volume of data” that might have
been irrelevant to the study (Merriam, 2009, p. 171).
Writing these memos on a bi-weekly basis helped me to step back from what was
observed and discussed in the field, and move towards making connections with previously
collected data to see if consistent or different patterns were emerging (Emerson et al., 2011).
These memos ranged from 5 to 19 pages of text and provided the opportunity to capture my
thoughts, emerging themes, aspects on which to follow-up, and tweaks to collection protocols to
capture data that helped answer my research questions. This phase was critical to data analysis,
allowing me to capture detailed notes with first impressions, interactions that stood out, and
general observations. As a set of memos written over time, I was then able to use these texts to
identify emerging patterns and highlight significant details captured in the moment (Emerson et
al., 2011).
Phase 2: Reviewing and Sorting Data
Second, once I completed data collection and had all the data available to me, I reviewed
and sorted them in three ways that help answer my research questions (Charmaz, 2009). I sorted
chronologically, based on my theoretical framework, and the type of data collected. I read my
field notes sequentially, to review what I had observed and understand the implementation of
equity efforts over time. Similarly, once I received my transcribed audio files, I listened to the
interviews alongside their respective transcript. I then reviewed all my observation notes and
interview transcripts to effectively piece together how the student equity plan was developed and
implemented at Huerta.
Spending over a year collecting documents, observing meetings, and interviewing
practitioners, I felt I collected a sufficient amount of data to sort by the properties of my
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 70
theoretical framework and categorize them into themes. I attempted to sort the data by my
theoretical framework, but that was less practical and broke down the narrative into minor,
exhaustive details that could potentially lose the reader. Lastly, I categorized my data into three
buckets: interviews, observations, and documents to see how each source of data contributed
information pertinent to my research questions. Once I took stock of the materials collected and
experimented with different analytic strategies, I moved towards using analytic questions
(Neumann, 2006; Neumann & Pallas, 2015) to review all interviews and observations collected
and answer the research questions I proposed.
Phase 3: Asking Analytic Questions
Seeking to understand how Huerta developed a Latinx-focused equity plan, I turned to
asking analytic questions (Neumann, 2006; Neumann & Pallas, 2015). Analytic questions are
“questions that are asked of the data” meant to extract usable chunks to formulate patterns based
on that extraction. (Neumann, 2006). This approach can be described as taking a “small shovel,
shaped (and iteratively reshaped)” to “scoop out” relevant data that helps the researcher answer
their questions of interest (Neumann & Pallas, 2015, p. 166). Analytic questions allow the
researcher to “search for direct responses to research questions,” while also “considering
potentially relevant surrounding content” (Neumann & Pallas, 2015, p. 157).
The technique can be seen as analytical data mining where the researcher is able to
extract data at three different levels of analysis. The first level is the “ground level” where the
analytic question is posed to a single piece of data, such as one particular observation and
individual conversation. For example, I created a specific analytic question to guide the process:
“how does this interview or how does this observation today or this document I've collected
account for/describe/explain why Huerta Community College explicitly focused on Latinx in the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 71
implementation process” (See Table 4 for all questions asked.) From there, the “intermediate
level” analytic question draws on the entire set of data collected for the study. At this level, I
asked, “what does all the data I have collected say about the ability of Huerta to develop a
Latinx-specific equity plan?” The final level, abstract, seeks to “generate a claim about the
phenomenon at issue supported by the data, and possibly generalizable beyond the specific case
studies. At the third level, I shared, what I learned about how Huerta developed and implemented
their equity plan that is applicable to other institutions and practitioners enacting educational
reforms.
Table 4
Analytic Question Posed
RQ1:
• What does this participant [whose voice is represented in this transcript] share about how they
understood the requirement to develop an equity plan and what they could include in it?
• What does this participant share about the why Huerta was able to develop a Latinx-specific
equity plan?
• What does this participant share about their ability to advocate for Latinx-specific programs while
being involved in the development of the plan?
RQ2:
• What does this participant [whose voice is represented in this transcript] share about the process
to implement the Latinx-specific equity efforts at Huerta?
• What does this participant share about the opportunities or challenges faced while implementing
Latinx-specific equity efforts at Huerta?
• How does this participant discuss/describe the progress and/or impact of these equity efforts on
Latinx students?
This process led me to “scooping out” only the data that answered my analytic question.
As I did this with every transcript, I aggregated all excerpts into one Excel document. Using this
approach allowed me to focus on direct accounts rather than infer them from the data, keeping
my findings as close to the data collected as possible. From the analytic questions process, I had
432 excerpts from 27 interviews and 27 field notes that helped described why Huerta developed
an equity plan that explicitly addressed Latinx students in transfer.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 72
Phase 4: Theoretical Coding
After extracting data via analytic questions, I theoretical coded (Merriam, 2011) the
subset of data to help identify patterns and emergent categories to present and describe as
findings (Neumann & Pallas, 2015; Yanow, 1996). I utilized a two-stage approach whereby all
432 excerpts were reviewed and coded using the elements of my theoretical framework. This
process was done using Microsoft Excel. The first round of coding was based on the four
contextual factors and the properties within each of them. A simplified codebook is presented
below. A detailed codebook with definitions, what data was included in the code, and what data
was excluded from particular codes is provided in Appendix H.
Table 5.
Simplified Code Book
• Policy Context
o Policy Design
o Language and Flexibility
o Reform Messaging
• Organizational Context
o Identity and History
o Campus Leadership
o Campus Culture
• Individual Characteristics
o Prior knowledge, experience, and beliefs
o Capacity, expertise, and willingness
o Equity-minded competence
• Situated Context
o Collective Sensemaking
o Intragroup Dynamics
o Critical agency
I first coded with the broader categories such as “policy context” or “individual characteristics”
to take stock of what I had within the data collected (Charmaz, 2009) and how it shaped the zone
of tolerance on campus (Oakes et al., 2005). After this process, the excerpts were organized into
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 73
the four contextual factors. The theoretical elements related to the organizational context and
individual characteristics had the most instances with 121 and 115 instances, respectively.
Table 6.
Results of First-Level Coding
Contextual Factor Instances
Policy 87
Organization 121
Individual 115
Situated 109
All excerpts 432
In the focused coding stage, I drilled further based on the properties within each contextual factor
such as “Policy - language and flexibility” or “Institutional – campus leadership,” which helped
me identify the specific contextual conditions on campus that widened the zone of tolerance for
Latinx-conscious strategies.
Phase 5: Identify Patterns and Emergent Categories
In the final phase, I worked towards identifying patterns, descriptions, and events that
highlighted how the student equity plan was developed and implemented on campus (Charmaz,
2009; Walcott, 2009). For example, I collapsed coded analytic questions excerpts into themes
like “the perfect contextual storm,” “allowing space for race talk,” “individuals involved in
planning explicitly supported Latinx students.” These helped organize my data buckets that told
a narrative about policy implementation. From these emergent categories, I initially settled on
four themes to present in the findings chapter on plan development, which included “equity
policy as a shield,” “what the implementer sees,” “assembling the necessary team,” and “the
perfect storm.” Having the opportunity to review my analytical process with committee
members, I fine-tuned the patterns that told the story of implementation at Huerta and improved
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 74
the insights shared in my findings chapters. In doing so, the reanalyzed data revealed more
salient and accurate themes describing how practitioners at Huerta were enabled or constrained
when developing and implementing their student equity plan to address Latinx transfer inequity.
4.5 Trustworthiness and Limitations
Stake (2005) notes that a case study approach is methodologically sound by using
specific data gathering techniques, triangulation, and stating the subjectivity of the researcher.
Moreover, as noted by Whittemore and colleagues, a case study approach lends itself to reducing
many of the challenges faced in qualitative research such as credibility, authenticity, and
integrity (2001). First, I triangulated the data through multiple methods of analysis to confirm
emerging findings (Merriam, 2011). Using documents, interviews, and observations provided a
rich, thick description that I used to illuminate how policy implementation occurred within the
cases under study (Maxwell, 2013). The purpose of triangulation was helpful to develop a
“holistic understanding” of the case and provide credible explanations of the issue under study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 16). Second, I utilized member checks during the interview stage
and post-analysis stage to establish credibility (Creswell, 2014). After typing out a verbatim
transcription of my audio interviews, I selected six participants to debrief, to review the content
of the conversation, clarify responses, and solicit additional feedback. This also served a
secondary purpose as it extended engagement in the field with participants that were actively
implementing the policy. After analyzing my data, and during the writing of my findings and
implications, I spoke with three participants about the themes that had emerged from my
analytical process. These conversations helped to check my interpretation of events and moments
that had been shared with me retrospectively from 2014-2015, before I was in the field, as well
as the observations I conducted between 2017-2018. Last, I reviewed my codes, field notes, and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 75
analytical memos for any discrepant data in the case (Maxwell, 2013) to identify evidence that
may disconfirm the themes and categories that emerged. By searching for disconfirming
evidence, I was able to identify potential biases, check for researcher assumptions, and
strengthen conclusions. In doing so, I was able to be critical of the research I conducted and
question the accuracy of my interpretations related to the implementation of student equity at
Huerta and how they came to focus on Latinx transfer equity (Whittemore et al., 2001).
Limitations. There are several limitations to note despite steps taken to establish
trustworthiness in this study. The findings, recommendations, and implications for policy and
practice may be limited by this study sampling strategy, size, and scope. First, there may be
selection bias as sampling was purposeful and intended to explore a case of race-conscious
implementation, not for population representativeness. There are 113 community colleges in the
state, many of which did not implement the SEP in the same manner as Huerta. Second, the
results of this study are context-bound; Huerta may share similar characteristics with other
community colleges but has features that are uniquely their own. Given the complexity of
implementation and its dependence on contextual factors such as campus leadership, governance
structure, and the individuals tasked with overseeing the policy, the findings may not be
generalizable beyond the research site. Fourth, a portion of this dissertation was dedicated to
understanding how the student equity plan was developed in 2014-2015 to explicitly target
Latinx students. I began studying Huerta in March 2017 and asked participants to recall, reflect,
and describe events, conversations, and decisions that occurred over two years prior. This
retrospective inquiry may have led to data that was lacking detail and specificity in the ways
implementation occurred on campus. Lastly, as an emerging researcher, I acknowledge that there
may be unknown biases and assumptions underlying my research. As such, I drafted a research
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 76
identity memo reflecting on how my presence influenced the data collected, the interactions
observed, and the interpretations made in describing Huerta and its implementation of policy.
This is particularly important, as I identify as a Latinx scholar and advocate for improving the
experiences and outcomes related to transfer from community college. Considering my identity
and positionality, I continuously examined the ways I collected data, asked questions,
highlighted certain themes, or potentially omitted other aspects relevant to my study.
4.6 Research Design Summary
The research design for this study builds from Maxwell’s (2013) interactive model,
where key components of the proposed study are intentionally interconnected in a flexible
structure. In developing the methodology and methods described in this section, I reflected on
the research questions, theoretical framework, and overarching goals of the study. As an
instrumental case study, the data collected will be used to learn how the four contextual factors
shaped a zone of tolerance that enabled on-site practitioners to implement the equity plan at
Huerta to focus on activities intended to improve transfer equity for Latinx students.
Structure of the Findings
To conclude this chapter, I explain the structure of the findings included in my
dissertation. My research questions explored first how the student equity plan was developed to
focus on Latinx transfer equity and then how practitioners proceeded to enact the activities and
strategies proposed. The focus of my data collection and analysis was to explore the contextual
forces that shaped the results of both of these phases. The first phase (Chapter 5) required Huerta
to form a planning workgroup, conduct inquiry and identify equity gaps in their student
outcomes, and most importantly craft a student equity plan that detailed how the college planned
to address and mitigate those identified gaps. The second phase (Chapter 6) enacted the student
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 77
equity plan, taking the proposed efforts in the document and turning them into actual campus
programs. My findings follow suit and are described in two chapters. Chapter 5 describes the
events and circumstances that shaped the development of the equity plan at Huerta. Chapter 6
highlights the processes to get these equity efforts off the ground – the challenges faced, delays
endured, and progress achieved – to address the barriers facing Latinx students in transfer.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 78
CHAPTER 5
The Development of Huerta Community College’s Student Equity Plan
This chapter answer my first research question: In what ways did the policy, institutional,
individual, and situated contexts of Huerta influence the development of a plan with an explicit
focus on transfer equity for Latinx students? As described in Chapter 3, my theoretical
framework focused on highlighting the complex social process of implementing education policy
and the interaction of policy, environments, and individual actors through four contextual factors
(Koyama, 2015). Through interviews and document archives, I explored the factors that shaped
the planning process on campus to result in a Latinx-focused equity plan. From one participant's
point of view, developing the student equity plan unfolded during a “perfect storm,” a
combination of political, organizational, and individual factors, that made it possible for Huerta
to develop an equity plan focused on Latinx transfer equity, explicitly directing equity dollars to
support transfer to four-year institutions.
This chapter is divided into four sections describing the events and circumstances that
shaped how the equity plan was developed at Huerta. The first section highlights the importance
of individuals and their background, experiences, and competencies as institution-level policy
implementers. The development of the student equity plan began with a sudden resignation and
the assignment of Emilia Leon to coordinate the planning process in a race-conscious way.
Emilia was able to take advantage of the planning effort’s newness and unfamiliarity on campus
to temporarily sidestep the traditional bureaucratic structure of shared governance. The second
section illustrates the importance of situated context and the role of intragroup dynamics, shared
values, and collective advocacy in shaping the plan to address Latinx transfer equity. Emilia was
able to craft the plan through an informal workgroup that she intentionally recruited. The
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 79
composition of this group was dominated by Latinx faculty and staff with a personal
commitment to improving Latinx transfer and heavily influenced what was proposed in the
student equity plan.
The third section showcases the ability of individuals on campus to take advantage of the
policy opportunities embedded in the student equity plan. Campus practitioners benefited from a
policy that legitimized the disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity and required them to
propose new strategies that improved educational outcomes for student groups who experienced
the greatest inequities. In the case of Huerta, the largest disparities were found among Latinx
students seeking to transfer and the planners explicitly used the policy as a shield to defend their
race-conscious approach from potential detractors seeking race-neutral equity efforts. Lastly, I
describe the organizational context and conditions that facilitated a race-conscious planning
process at Huerta. This includes Huerta’s new president who made transfer his number one
priority on campus as well as faculty awareness and acceptance of race-specific programs to
address gaps in student outcomes.
5.1 The Importance of the Individual Overseeing Student Equity at Huerta
James Denton, Dean of Institutional Research and the Chair of Strategic Planning, first
announced the news that Huerta Community College needed to develop a student equity plan at a
campus-wide shared governance meeting in January 2014. Minutes from that meeting show that
James provided information that the California Community College Chancellor’s Office would
require all colleges to write a student equity plan. He also informed the members of the
committee that “most of spring 2014 would focus on completing the college’s equity plan” under
his leadership. In March 2014, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office
(Chancellor’s Office) released a memorandum with the guidelines for the student equity plan.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 80
The guidelines required that campuses examine outcomes in five indicators of academic
progress: access, basic skills, course completion, degree completion, and transfer; included
background information on student equity planning in the California Community Colleges and
information on associated legislative and regulatory requirements; a timeline for developing the
student equity plan; the student groups that had to be considered in the equity analysis; the
methods to calculate equity gaps; a template that delineated how to report equity gaps and
identify student groups with the largest equity gaps; and outlined how the college would allocate
its equity funds.
How Individuals’ Prior Knowledge, Experience, and Beliefs Informed Equity Planning
At Huerta, external requests for data, plans, and reports such as an Educational Master
Plan or Facilities Plan, typically were delegated to the Strategic Planning Committee, one of the
groups that operated under the auspices of Huerta’s Shared Governance. The Strategic Planning
Committee (SPC) was charged with oversight of all planning processes to ensure “campus-wide
and community input on college goals and objectives” and to develop plans that “represent the
culmination of data-driven approaches to improving student outcomes” (Huerta, SPC
Description, 2017). The most demanding aspect of the student equity plan was the organization
and analysis of disaggregated data for six student subgroups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age,
disability status, economically disadvantaged, and foster youth) thus it made sense that since
James Denton’s area of responsibility was collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting data
that he would be in charge of the plan. Indeed, he described the central aspect of student equity
planning as “pulling lots of data, calculating equity gaps, and helping people interpret the data.”
James, a white male, started working at Huerta in 2007 as a research analyst and became
Dean of Institutional Research three years later. He had served as the chair of the Strategic
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 81
Planning Committee for four years when the requirement to complete a student equity plan was
introduced on campus. As Dean of IR, he had written many plans and reports required by the
Chancellor’s Office and had grown somewhat jaded about their importance. As a result, he
viewed the equity plan as something that just needed to “get done” and was largely
“inconsequential.” He also felt that the kind of data that was mandated by the plan was not new
to him because his office did equity gap analysis already. He recollected, “We always did these
equity calculations, we just knew it as a gap analysis.”
Equity Planning as a Procedural Task. James spoke of the policy as if it was not a big
deal on campus, not necessarily irrelevant, but a view that it was inconsequential. Rather than
seeing the student equity plan as an opportunity to bring about change, he described it as “just
another task that needs to be completed.” It is possible that James minimized the significance of
the Student Equity plan because the Chancellor’s Office had not announced that funding would
be available for implementation. The Student Equity Policy had existed since 1992 but it had
never been funded. Consequently, the equity plan was viewed as a paper exercise, where the
objective was to get the task done. As James put it,
We looked at the instructions from the State for measuring equity and then we learned the
areas that it was going to cover- Access, Transfer, Completions, - the five areas. This
would be simple, we had developed our educational master plan, our technology plan, our
facilities plan. So, I was familiar with the process of gathering people to develop a plan.
Consistent with shared governance guidelines that require the representation of campus
stakeholders in decision-making, between March and May 2014, James Denton recruited
practitioners to form a planning committee. One of his first recruits was Emilia Leon to represent
the Vice President of Student Services. Quite unexpectedly, a few weeks into the process, James
Denton accepted a position elsewhere and left Huerta before appointing a full committee to
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 82
complete the equity plan. James’ departure allowed Emilia’s ascension to lead the equity
planning process, including the responsibility of selecting members of the planning workgroup.
Equity Planning as Campus Transformation. Emilia interpreted the student equity
plan differently from Dean Denton. She saw it as a lever to address racial inequity and social
injustice and to transform the campus into one that served students more equitably. Emilia, a
Latina faculty member turned administrator, grew up in the Huerta community and strongly
identified with the history of Chicanx activism, including the walkouts of 1968
20
and subsequent
protests over unequal education. Emilia Leon was well-regarded as a leader on campus. She
possessed aspects highlighted in my theoretical framework including a willingness to implement
the policy as an opportunity to address racial inequity and the equity-minded competence to use
student equity as an action plan to tackle the barriers facing Latinx students in transfer. When she
took over the coordination of the student equity plan she had been at Huerta for over 17 years, 15
as a faculty member in the Child Development department. In 2014 she became the Dean of
Student Services, and in 2016 she was promoted to Vice President for Student Services.
Emilia recounts her initial conversation with James when he invited her to join the
student equity planning workgroup in spring 2014:
I remember when James came to my office and told me that we needed to do some tasks
related to equity. And that there was some funding, but it’d be very small and that it
really was kind of inconsequential, but we had to do it and, “would I like to be involved”
and I said, “sure, of course.” Well, he said, “I’d like you to represent, the Vice President's
office” since he was busy doing other things and I said, “sure.”
Emilia became curious about the origins of the student equity plan and decided to learn
more about it. Through this research, she realized that the plan required a focus on “specific
20
Under a wave of student activism, these organized walk-outs demanded better teachers, improved resources, and
equal education, in particular for Chicanos, Mexican-American, and students of Mexican descent.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 83
student demographics” making it possible to address issues facing “people of color, especially
Latinos, and low-income students.” In contrast to James’ procedural perspective on the plan,
Emilia immediately saw that the plan could make a difference for students, her division, and the
campus community. For her, the student equity plan was a “new opportunity to transform the
campus” and live up to its commitment to educational excellence for Latinx students who
entered Huerta with transfer aspirations. In seeing that the student equity plan mandated the
examination of racial inequity, she remembered thinking:
I can't believe the state is funding this. Nobody wants to talk about equity. Nobody wants
to talk about racial inequality and social injustice and how we can make changes. That’s
what I was excited about. I thought it was a good time to bring together people, to find
people on campus that could unite and really try to push forward the agenda on equity.
By June 2014, Emilia was leading and coordinating the student equity plan on campus. In the
next section, I provide a profile of Emilia Leon and the characteristics she embodied that helped
alter the equity planning process at Huerta towards an effort that addressed Latinx transfer
equity.
Altering the Trajectory for Equity Planning
Emilia’s approach to equity planning was informed by her identity as a Chicana activist
from the Huerta barrio, her historical understanding of the policy and original focus on
improving outcomes for “ethnic minorities,” and her race-conscious leadership that focused the
campus’ efforts on specific groups like Latinas, men of color, and students of color in general.
Seizing the Moment. In the 1960’s, Emilia at the young age of eight accompanied her
older siblings to “La Raza Coalition” meetings, giving her a taste of student activism and
community organizing. Emilia describes her ties to the campus and the surrounding area,
sharing, “I used to demonstrate here, I tell the story to my students about my issues coming from
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 84
poverty, how it drives me, and how I always stay engaged with activism in the [Huerta] area.”
Emilia mentions that throughout her educational trajectory she has been called to work with and
for her Latinx community. She points to a time where she took a leave of absence from college
to help start a Head Start-type early education program for Chicanos with fellow Huerta
community organizers. She described the program as a way to “keep children off the streets, a
gang intervention, and employment training for youth.” Reflecting on her long affiliation with
Huerta Community College she says “it is just surreal that I’m being paid to be here, I'm
engaging in a different type of work, but pretty much similar [to community organizing]” Her
roots in the Huerta community and her “activist-mentality” deeply informed her work in the
equity planning process.
From Emilia’s account, student equity was a natural fit in the student services division
since they were the “heart and soul of the institution” and “provide[d] programs to help students
be successful.” She shared, “I’m thinking, student equity, this is a really valuable project, I just
felt like wow, I opened a box with opportunities to make a difference.” Emilia saw an
opportunity to address problems that couldn’t be talked about openly. For example, committing
to address racial disparities or providing additional resources to specific student groups without
being seen as “running boutique programs” or participating in “reverse discrimination.” The
equity plan mandated this systematic examination of educational outcomes by race and ethnicity
and it required that investments be made toward closing equity gaps. She added: “People on
campus were not really cognizant of the value of the equity plan. Even if we didn’t have money,
I thought this opportunity to examine equity was fabulous.” Her enthusiasm and strategic
thinking contrasted with Dean Denton’s more “task” oriented approach to student equity. She
was excited, driven, felt empowered as the leader of the equity planning process.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 85
Developing A Race-Conscious Vision for Student Equity. Emilia Leon did not
anticipate overseeing the entire process when asked to help out initially, but she seized the
opportunity when presented with it. She examined documents from the 1990s to see what could
be done, she read about the data, what student groups had to be addressed in the plan, what kind
of efforts and recommendations could be made. Through it all, she was adamant that the plan
“needed to be focused on equity-minded principles.” The more she learned, the more she realized
it was an opportunity to change her campus and her division to “improve the services offer[ed]”
and “be more targeted with our efforts” to mitigate equity gaps.
Emilia Leon saw the policy as an opportunity to have genuine conversations on how to
address “racial inequality” and “social injustice.” Emilia viewed the plan as a form of
empowerment to accomplish an agenda that was important to her and other Latinx campus
stakeholders. Emilia derived power and authority from the state’s requirement for the provision
of racial disaggregation of data and identification of equity gaps and she felt free to pursue,
administratively, an agenda that had always been important to her. It provided the rationale for
“embedding equity within our culture, our structures, and our institutional vision.” Whereas
James viewed the student equity plan as mostly a compliance exercise, Emilia saw it as a shield
against charges of racial partisanship and ideological decision-making. She recalled, “Let’s just
say this was 10 years ago and I brought up race or ways to target [racial] inequality. We couldn’t.
We couldn’t show any favoritism. That would be discrimination at its worse because now we’re
just doing it for a certain group of people. That’s what people believed.” But now, “we’re able to
talk about it, about race and politics, and develop these various initiatives for specific groups.
Because of equity, I think it’s a lot easier. And now we also are looking at the disaggregated data
and suggesting these innovations and they're supporting it.” Emilia recognized that the planning
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 86
process and the need to disaggregate data based on race aligned and offered cover for more race-
conscious approaches to addressing student equity at Huerta.
Under Emilia’s leadership, Huerta’s 2014 student equity plan included explicitly race-
conscious language. From the executive summary:
If the goals for increased completion are to be met, in the context of a state with
increasing proportions of students of color, then community colleges must implement
programs and strategies that support students of color to more successfully complete their
educational goals (Huerta Student Equity Plan, 2014).
When discussing why a statement like this was included, she shared, “We intentionally wanted to
write people of color. We didn't want to have ‘minorities,’ we read it and said we have to be
bolder. We can't be saying underrepresented, so let's just say what it is.” She continued, “I wrote
the executive summary, I didn’t want generic terms like underrepresented groups, the data
showed that Latinas and students of color faced the largest gaps, so that what should say. She
asserted, “using language like that, it came from being, and having, an activist perspective.”
Becoming the Equity Champion at Huerta. Other study participants described Emilia
as a “champion” for equity, someone who “marathoned” the planning process and was able to
“push through” the proposed ideas with faculty, academic senate, and board of trustees to
approve the plan. Participants acknowledged that her passion was not just about student success
for all, but focused on those student groups that needed additional support to achieve their
educational goals. One practitioner involved with crafting the plan shared, “she’s an amazing
champion for so many different efforts. She’s very committed to improving student outcomes,
specifically for people of color and women.” Another participant remembered, “Emilia was
definitely the head of our team, she was the visionary, sharing what she wanted to see in this
plan, and she brought in people that were passionate about bringing change to our students.” In
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 87
addition to her status as a leader on campus, her willingness to coordinate the planning effort and
having a race-conscious historical understanding of student equity enabled her to focus the plan
toward areas that she viewed as critical for Latinx students. The next section highlights the
unique opportunities Emilia had as a novice coordinator with a new policy initiative.
5.2 New Coordinator, New Policy Effort: The Benefits of an Informal Planning Process
Since it began in the early 1990s, the student equity plan process was treated as a
pointless endeavor. Santiago Perez, a research analyst supporting the planning effort after James
left, mentioned: “we were always accustomed of these equity reports going nowhere, just
completing them and putting them on a shelf to collect dust.” When Emilia took over this was
still the assumption. The campus had no established process to complete the plan, there was
limited familiarity with what the planning process entailed, and there had never been funding.
Whereas the college had established routines for other processes such as accreditation and
facilities plan, there was student equity plan had no established procedures. The compressed
timeline for submitting the plan to the Chancellor’s Office meant Emilia could short-circuit
traditional campus governance rules. I highlight two specific areas that played a role in
advancing a more race-conscious student equity plan at Huerta: first, the opportunity to operate
as an “ad-hoc workgroup” to complete the plan, and second, the flexibility to intentionally recruit
members to the workgroup who shared Emilia’s vision for student equity.
Opportunity to Operate as an Informal Implementation Workgroup
When Emilia took over from James Denton, the purview of the student equity planning
process also changed. If James had stayed, the planning process would have been coordinated by
the Strategic Planning Council. When Emilia took over, it became an ad-hoc workgroup housed
in student services. Rey Valenzuela, a former Huerta transfer student and now a long-time
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 88
professor in the Social Sciences, participated in the planning workgroup and shared, “the first
year, we were a workgroup…we had no equity committee.” He added that “committee” had a
formal definition and role within the campus, and that as a workgroup there would be more
flexibility to meet more often during the summer and get the plan done within a small group
before sharing out with decision-making bodies at Huerta.
The workgroup
21
was created and operated outside the typical structure established by
shared governance rules
22
. For example, a long-standing process required by the union contract
was committee appointments that are representative of formal stakeholder groups such as
employee-type (i.e., classified staff), specific academic departments (i.e., math, liberal arts), and
functional area (i.e., student services, workforce development). Speaking with two planners,
these rules of representative membership in formal committees were described as the “Noah’s
Ark” approach where the priority was to have two people from different sectors of the campus
serving on decision-making bodies. At Huerta, this usually resulted in committees being filled
randomly with two faculty union representatives, two counselors, two classified staff, and so on.
In the context of adopting new policy mandates established by external actors, like the
Chancellor’s Office, implementation rested on groups based on “traditional guidelines and union
rules [that] selected people based on their particular work responsibilities and duties.” In
Emilia’s experience, “implementation becomes difficult” because people involved are
21
Given the informal nature of the planning team, I describe this decision making body as the “planning
workgroup.” Later on, in the fall of 2016, the workgroup became the Student Equity Advisory Committee, a formal
subcommittee of the Shared Governance Council.
22
An implementation progress report by the Legislative Analyst Office in 2016 showed that community colleges
had an array of configurations to develop an equity plan from advisory groups, informal working groups, ad-hoc
subcommittee, or folded into existing planning-related committees in the shared governance structure.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 89
“representing their area” rather than “what’s best for the campus or students” and ultimately, she
felt that “very little change occurred.”
Emilia was adamant that her planning workgroup needed to be different. She sought
people with interest and expertise in equity rather than people selected by a process that
prioritized equal campus representation. Rather than leaving things to chance or having the
workgroup filled at random, Emilia engaged in behind-the-scenes recruiting; she shared, “I
called people and said, I need you to volunteer because [shared governance is] putting out the
announcement to join the [workgroup], I really needed people who were committed to equity.”
For her, it was key to have “like-minded people, to have a cadre of people who [were] interested
in improving equity and could be flexible and versatile during a new planning process.” “I built a
team who had like-mindedness to figure out how we [could] create the most significant change
with the equity plan as possible in the shortest time that we [could].”
Given its recent enactment, the policy only provided guiding language over who “should”
be included in the planning committee. Huerta, like other campuses in the state, had the
discretion to determine what “broad campus and community participation” meant (California
Education Code, Title 5, §54220). At Huerta, Emilia Leon filled a roster of members that aligned
with her vision to use the plan as a means to address racial disparities in transfer and completion.
The end result was a workgroup of individuals who shared her values and commitment to social
justice and equity for Latinx students.
Emilia’s Planning Team: A Group of Latinx, Transfer-Focused Practitioners
The 12-member workgroup met from June and December 2014 to develop, complete, and
get the student equity plan approved. I was able to interview eight of the twelve. At the time of
data collection, three members had left the campus and were unreachable. One individual,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 90
Bianca Morales, still worked at Huerta but declined to participate (See Table 7). Of the eight
committee members interviewed, seven identified as Latinx
23
and one as Black. On average each
member had over 14 years of service to the campus community. Additional characteristics of the
members of the planning workgroup are noted in Table 7.
Table 7.
Participants Involved in the Early Phase of Student Equity Planning
2014 Planners Title & Area Represented
On-
Campus
Since Gender Race
From
Huerta
Barrio
Successful
Huerta
Transfer
Bianca Morales
a
VP, Academic Affairs 2002 F Latinx
Debra Smith
a
Accreditation Liaison 2006 F White
Julie Struve
a
Dean, Basic Skills 2012 F White
Roberto Duran
a
VP, Student Services 1998 M Latinx
Emilia Leon Dean, Student Services 1997 F Latinx X
Lola Velazquez Transfer Counselor 1998 F Latinx X X
Marissa Martinez Faculty, Social Sciences 2006 F Latinx X X
Nancy Ortiz VP, Workforce Development 1997 F Latinx X
Rey Valenzuela Faculty, Social Sciences 1997 M Latinx X X
Santiago Perez Institutional Research 2007 M Latinx
Sarah Barnett Faculty Union 2002 F Black X
Stacy Ramirez Dean, Academic Affairs 1995 F Latinx X
Note.
a
I was unable to interview those with an asterisk because they declined or were unreachable.
Emilia’s planning team consisted of people who were aware of issues of equity and racial
disparities, had expertise in program development, as well as individuals that possessed social
status at Huerta Community College that could help push the plan forward. She shared some
specific characteristics of the planning workgroup:
First, these [practitioners] have a strong work ethic. Second, they are ready for a
challenge and are very fluid in terms of working with something new. And the biggest
thing is how they view students. They are viewing students as an asset here on campus,
not talking about what students can't do. So I feel like, with the team, we had a collective
vision that we’re here to help students find their self-agency, and could use the [plan] to
be much more organized and efficient with our services to help them be successful.
23
Four of the seven identified as Mexican-American and/or Chicana/o, but I use the umbrella term Latinx.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 91
Through her intentionally recruitment, she brought on vocal leaders from across the campus that
were like-minded and concerned with improving how the campus supported students. Emilia
described how members of the planning workgroup had a sense of agency and were practitioners
that wanted to make a difference. She shaped the situated context of equity planning at Huerta by
bringing in people with a similar perspective, who were willing to work together, wanted an
active role in addressing inequity, and where their personal values aligned with the initiative.
All workgroup participants were described as being “student-centered,” six of the
participants grew up in Huerta’s neighborhood and four were Huerta alumni who successfully
transferred to four-year colleges. The members of the group were high-status individuals with
accrued power based on their positions and their long association with the college. Most
importantly, the planning workgroup was predominantly Latinx with a shared commitment to
improving transfer opportunities. Below I provide additional details on the distinctive
characteristics of the planning workgroup at Huerta.
Student-Centered. The ethos on campus is one of helping students thrive and to serve as
a springboard for whatever educational aspirations they have, particularly in transfer. On
campus, over 80% of the students enrolled are Latinx and nearly 65% articulate the goal of
attaining a bachelor’s degree. Lola Velazquez elaborated on the ways actors included in the
planning process were focused on making sure the ideas, programs, and resources were centered
on students and their goals of transferring from Huerta. She felt strongly that “in this kind of
group” it was important that the members be “student-focused and have a commitment to ensure
that resources be provided to Hispanic students.” She added, “the reason we were selected, it was
not random, we were all selected because we had the actual expertise and an actual interest in
students’ success.” Stacy Ramirez, a Dean at Huerta’s regional campus, echoed that sentiment
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 92
sharing that the practitioners involved in this workgroup “were more concerned with students’
learning and success,” compared to others that were “just collecting a paycheck” on campus.
Marissa Martinez, a social sciences instructor representing Huerta’s regional center,
passionately spoke about the need to provide more wraparound services to improve transfer and
acknowledged that Latinx students were not well-served in the community college system. She
stated, “This [community college] system was intended to be two, three years, it wasn’t intended
to be four, five or six-year years on campus, our Latinas spend over eight years here trying to
transfer.” She added that “supporting students” needed to take a “holistic approach” to address
some of the challenges students face outside of the classroom related to finances and parenting
responsibilities, and curriculum that may not be as relevant to Latinx students. Nancy Ortiz
similarly shared, “we’re dedicated to our students. We know that every student has a story, every
student needs to get through, and there’s a reason why we’re at [Huerta].” She continued, sharing
that the campus allowed practitioners to focus on student populations they are “most passionate
about,” groups that have been historically marginalized and disenfranchised, specifically naming
“Latino, low-income, and immigrant students.”
Connection to the Huerta Community. It was clear that the members of the planning
workgroup had strong ties to the campus and the surrounding Huerta community. Stacy Ramirez,
who began as a librarian in the 1990s, encapsulated the idea of this community:
Well, for me I love working at [Huerta]. I love the students. I love the community. I feel
like this community college is a symbol of opportunity, a symbol of potential and
possibility and a lot of other… cultural, academic and generational success. My in-laws
live down the street. They brought their children, my husband, to [Huerta] when they
were kids, either for community classes or a summer math class in high school or
between their college stuff. So I feel like this is one of the stepping stones for a lot of
families in the neighborhood to be successful. And it’s predominantly a Latino working-
class community that I feel very connected to and that I’ve sort of built my career. If I
could choose anywhere to work, I want to work with this population.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 93
Lola Velazquez, a Latina who attended Huerta and was now the director of the Transfer Center
said, “we hire people who want to serve our community and [who] come from it, and know the
struggles and aspirations our students have.” Another senior administrator affirmed this
sentiment, “here, we hire our own” because people from Huerta have a “higher commitment to
student success.” Lola described ways Huerta intentionally hired people that came from the area:
Our former president, he did his best to hire people who had a vested interest in the
community and might’ve been [Huerta] alums. That local identity has helped to form
who we have here. There are many people who have very much of a social justice
background. I would say a large percentage of our campus, our Latino faculty, and
administrators and staff, as well as many staff, are first-generation college students.
Practitioners like Stacy Ramirez and Rey Valenzuela shared how they grew up nearby and were
inspired by the rich history of activism. Stacy reflected, “growing up here, a lot was going on
with the Chicano Movement” and it shaped her desire “to go to college, get educated, and give
back to the community.” Although she went to the Midwest for college to study library science,
she added, “I had this drive and desire, I wanted to get back to the community and I needed to be
here in [Huerta].” She concluded, “I was not raised with books in the home. Becoming a
librarian was kind of like a contradiction because I was never in a library, you know, but I
wanted to change that experience for kids in the [Huerta Barrio].” Rey also shared that he was
always drawn to working at Huerta, he commented “[Huerta] is known as the hub of activism,
and I still have that recollection as I would come here for marching. When I got the faculty job, I
knew I was home. It was strange, but that’s what was calling me to come back.”
A Critical Mass of Latinx Faculty and Staff Committed to Transfer. Lastly, among
the twelve workgroup members, six emerged as more transfer-focused practitioners who wanted
to invest the funds in the improvement of transfer services. This transfer-focused sub-group that
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 94
coalesced included practitioners with three types of experiences; they successfully transferred
from Huerta themselves (Rey, Lola), had worked in programs to improve transfer and
completion (Lola, Nancy, Emilia), or had conducted research on the transfer process (Nancy,
Marissa). For example, Nancy Ortiz was one of the leading voices in the planning workgroup
advocating for transfer. She grew up in the neighboring area to Huerta and had been on campus
for over 15 years as a faculty member and administrator. Nancy was known for successfully
acquiring a Title V grant to improve transfer for Latinx students and applying her transfer
expertise stemming from doctoral work focused on community college and programmatic efforts
that support Latinas’ transfer aspirations. Similarly, these transfer-focused practitioners shared
that they had long been advocates for improving the conditions and experiences of transfer on
campus. Each was doing their part to try to improve transfer on campus, usually in isolation and
as informal efforts in their classroom or department. Lola shared that “there was a commitment
to transfer” but “there wasn’t much coordination…or institutional efforts being offered,” she
lamented “it was unfortunate, but that was the reality.” Being in charge of developing the student
equity plan gave these transfer advocates the opportunity to propose race-specific, culturally-
relevant transfer efforts to combat the low rates of transfer success on campus.
Rey introduced himself as a “Chicano from [the Huerta Barrio]” who attended the college
from 1982 until he transferred in 1987. After attending and graduating from a UC with his
bachelor’s and master’s, he returned to Huerta committed to helping students transfer from the
campus as well. He now was a tenured professor in the social sciences and served on the Shared
Governance Council. He said “for me, it’s important to be a voice on [the Shared governance
council] and make it easier to transfer than when I attended. He added, that “sometimes they [the
faculty on council] complain there is too much emphasis on transfer” but “I don’t think that’s the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 95
case, but certainly, it's noticeable the degree of support for transfer.” He followed up, “we’ve
invested money in new programs, we are talking more about the options available after [Huerta];
there’s a lot of work to create a transfer culture.” Lola, another transfer student from Huerta who
now served as the transfer center director was all-in on making the campus a place where every
student is prepared to transfer.
5.3 In the Room Where It Happens: Advocating for Latinx-Students in Equity Planning
This third section highlights how the collective group of planners worked together to
complete the necessary steps to develop their student equity plan and prepare for multiple phases
of review and approval by the end of the year (See Timeline below). By most accounts, there
were five to six equity workgroup meetings held during the summer to finalize the plan. Over a
three-month period, the workgroup focused on four aspects, which entailed a) examining campus
data and identifying student equity gaps, b) deciding which student groups to prioritize and for
which measures of student success (e.g., access, basic skills, course completion, degree
completion, and transfer), c) developing goals and activities to mitigate identified equity gaps,
and d) providing a budget and evaluation strategy to implement the plan.
Figure 5. Timeline of Huerta’s Student Equity Plan Development
Jan 2014
James
Denton
oversees
equity plan
Mar 2014
Memo
about
creating
an equity
plan sent
May 2014
James leaves
and Emilia
Leon takes
over
coordination
Jun 2014
Emilia
recruits
workgroup
to develop
student
equity plan
Summer 2014
Conduct data
inquiry, discuss
results, and
brainstorm
possible
solutions for the
equity plan
Nov 2014
Plan presented to
Shared
Governance,
President, Board
of Trustees for
approval
Jan 2015
Plan approved
and begin to
implement
proposed ideas
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 96
As the fall semester approached, the workgroup completed a draft of the equity plan and
presented it at a campus-wide event for faculty and staff in late August. From there the plan
would be reviewed internally by different levels of Shared Governance in September and
October. After incorporating campus feedback, the equity plan was presented by Emilia Leon,
Santiago Perez, and campus president Manuel Lopez to Huerta’s District Board in November
before submitting it to the California Chancellor’s Office by December 31, 2014.
Conducting Data Inquiry into Student Inequity
Among the first steps in the planning process was conducting campus-based inquiry into
five academic indicators
24
for specific student groups (i.e., students of color, women, foster-
youth, veterans) outlined in the policy. The workgroup received a set of “data packs” for each
indicator area. The five “Equity Plan Data packs,” as they were known, contained student
profiles, data tables, charts to visualize the disparities on campus.
Below is a re-created table based on the information provided in the data packets showing
the educational outcomes over four years of enrollment, from 2009 to 2013, for a cohort of
16,528 students. The data highlighted that even though Latinx students account for 80% of the
enrollment they had the lowest rates of completion and transfer at Huerta.
Table 8.
Cohort Persistence by Race and Ethnicity
Cohort Persistence Cohort
Fall to Fall
Persistence
English
Completion
Math
Completion Completion Transfer
American Indian 88 47.7% 19.3% 18.2% 11.4% 4.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander 2625 69.1% 42.6% 57.5% 24.5% 14.2%
Black 243 42.0% 13.6% 8.2% 17.3% 12.8%
Latinx 12756 56.2% 21.7% 19.0% 7.8% 4.3%
Unknown 595 53.1% 25.0% 22.4% 8.4% 5.5%
White 221 45.2% 20.4% 13.6% 15.4% 7.7%
Total 16528 57.7% 25.0% 25.0% 10.8% 6.1%
24
Access, basic skills progression, course completion, degree completion, and transfer
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 97
These data reports served as confirmation for some practitioners with long-held beliefs
that Huerta was not serving Latinx students effectively. For others, it was more of a discovery,
unveiling previously unknown inequities on campus. One participant shared, “For me, the data
were eye-opening, because I was new, I was new to the whole role of postsecondary college. It
was an eye-opening experience to see the numbers.” For others, like Lola, one of the transfer-
focused members of the workgroup the data confirmed her prior beliefs. “I always knew that’s
who needed the most help. We are a Hispanic-Serving Institution, the majority of our students
are Latino and Latinos are the ones that are struggling the most. I mean it is ridiculous to not
acknowledge those facts.”
The first set of data was a springboard for additional inquiry. Nancy commented, “we had
so many questions after the first meeting” and, “we asked for more data.” Nancy continued, “we
further dissected the data and we looked at momentum points and the time it took to transfer.”
She continues, “there were lots of variables acting as barriers for Latino students, math that was
tripping the progress because they’re repeating and getting stuck there.” To drill further, the
workgroup continuously asked for additional data to help them identify which students were
facing the largest equity gaps on campus. Santiago, an institutional researcher, recollected:
I worked with all the indicator areas, but I spent more time working with the transfer
group. We looked at the standard data reports, but we also went beyond, we did follow-
up research where we actually found out that there were a large group of students who
graduated after the first 10 years. I don't know about the percentage, but let's say 20%, of
the students in those cohorts, were graduating 10 or 15 years later and what we found out
was that the majority of those students were Latinas.
As the committee members poured over data charts, tables, and reports they gained
confidence that the evidence pointed towards supporting Latinx students, especially in transfer.
“Having race-based data” according to Nancy made these transfer inequities “so evident” and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 98
much more “glaring,” as if they were “screaming at you” to address them. Rey recollected that
one of the most “critical things [they] learned was the time it took to transfer for Hispanic
students.” Nancy provided the data points referred to by Rey in a chart titled “[Huerta]’s Time of
Completion for Transfer,” showing the time to transfer by gender and ethnicity within a 12-year
period (See Table 9). The average time to complete transfer for all students on campus was
nearly five and a half years, but Latinx students took the longest of all racial groups, nearly seven
years to transfer. When the chart data was disaggregated by gender, Latinas had the longest
completion time, over eight and a half years. Additionally, Nancy circled around the section of
the chart displaying that of the 584 Latinas in the cohort of 1392 analyzed, 42% (248) of Latinas
took more than ten years to successfully transfer.
Table 9
Time to Transfer Completion at Huerta
Group Total Transfers Average Time
All Students 1392 5.3
Latinx Students 949 6.89
Latina Students 584 8.6
Source. Huerta Institutional Research Office
Nancy shared that she returned to the data which examined cohort persistence to
highlight the stark disparities faced by Latinx students. In her handwritten notes from the
meeting were the calculations for the number of students that did not transfer out of Huerta.
During one of our conversations in Nancy’s office, she pulled her files related to equity planning
from 2014. Reflecting on her notes, she added, “we looked at the transfer number, disaggregated
that by race, gender, time to completion, and who’s going to the UCs, it was just dismal.” She
then shared, “The data just screamed at you. It really gave us an opportunity to run with the
numbers and say this is a priority because it was really glaring that Latino students weren’t
working their way through [Huerta].”
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 99
Equipped with this data, practitioners moved forward with discussions on how to best
support the groups found with disproportionate impact. The planning group spent the rest of the
summer discussing
25
the identified disparities on campus: what caused those outcomes, which
groups would be targeted, and what ways could the equity plan be used to address them. Sitting
in the large conference room of the administration building, the workgroup began to discuss
what could be done. Emilia remembered going around the room and asking, “What are you
finding in the data? What's going on in your area? What have you thought about to improve these
outcomes?” Individuals started to share ideas; some suggested scaling up existing services,
others talked about developing new programs to make a difference. One participant recollected
that some in the workgroup wanted to fund programs on campus that already existed, saying,
“let’s fund things we’re already doing. We need to fund the writing center, the library, and so
forth.” Huerta had some activities that expanded tutoring and math labs, but in the area of
transfer, the ideas proposed the equity plan were all new. As one participant shared, “addressing
our Hispanic, Latino students was the priority” since they faced the greatest equity gaps to
transfer success. The results of data inquiry resulted in compelling evidence that Latinx students
needed more support in transfer to be successful on campus. The equity gaps identified became a
driving force shaping how the equity plan came to include Latinx-specific transfer efforts.
Using Inquiry to Advocate for Latinx-Specific Programs
The Chancellor’s Office for California Community Colleges provided explicit directions
on how to calculate equity gaps; however, there was less guidance on how to complete the plan
25
A caveat to this section is that most of the planners had difficulties recounting their conversations from equity
planning meetings that took place in 2014 when I interviewed them nearly two years later. Some answered to the
best of their knowledge, other participants responded in vague ways such as “I kind of remember it happening this
way,” while a few just said they couldn’t remember the meetings or wouldn’t comment on what others said during
those discussions, since it was “fuzzy.” This section then privileges the voices that did remember those
conversations related to how the equity plan was developed.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 100
such as establishing goals and proposing initiatives. Once data inquiry was complete, there was
less guidance or structure related to how to develop or plan interventions and distribute resource.
The policy guidelines were also silent on how to evaluate impact. Accordingly, the workgroup
had a lot of discretion and freedom to determine how to invest the equity funds. Within the
equity planning workgroup, the most vocal actors in the development process were the transfer-
focused practitioners. Nancy, Lola, and Rey were described as being more involved in meetings,
requesting nuanced transfer-level data and had ideas ready for improving equity issues in the
area of transfer. Lola described how she, Rey, and Nancy took advantage that other people in the
group were slower to come up with ideas while they had plenty of ideas. Nancy shared that the
meetings were a place “we could be creative about what could work” for the “students identified
as facing gaps” and “talk about what really could address these disparities in outcomes.”
Based on the state formula for the distribution of student equity funding Huerta’s share
was 3 million dollars and they allocated more than one-third, $1,350,000 to support transfer. The
substantial investment on transfer, in addition to the Latinx focus, made Huerta’s plan an outlier
within the district. Five activities stood out for their focus on improving the experiences and
outcomes of Latinx students (See Table 10).
Table 10.
Breakdown of Student Equity Funding, Transfer Efforts
Equity Activity Amount*
Viva La Mujer Transfer Program $ 160,000
Men of Color Transfer Program $ 180,000
University Transfer Partnership $ 450,000
Latinx Transfer Equity Project $ 450,000
Faculty Advocate Program $ 110,000
Sub-Total Allocated $ 1,350,000
Total Allocated $ 3,000,000
Note. Funds rounded in an attempt to provide anonymity*
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 101
Nancy and Lola pitched Viva La Mujer, “a program just for Latina women” and grounded
in “the data because we identified the gap. Latina women were finishing in ten years or stopping
out.” Lola reflected, “We thought, what can we propose to keep them from stopping out?” She
continued to share, “once we proposed the idea, that really got the ball rolling, people in the
room were all for it, they became part of the movement” to address the barriers facing Latinas in
transfer. Nancy added, “the program was focused on improving transfer rates for Latinas and
providing wrap-around services that scaffold” as well as “getting them through developmental
courses that were holding them back.” Nancy mentioned that there was minimal push back in the
planning meeting, “there wasn’t any pushback from the group. It was one of the outcomes of the
whole equity plan effort.” She recollected, “with everyone on board, our juices were going,
trying to do more specific things for Latinas like offering daycare services.” She added she was
very excited to be able to pitch the idea and make it happen: “We explored lots of ways to better
support the students that needed additional help to transfer out. Glad this one was included.”
The Men of Color transfer program proposed leadership development and mentoring
strategies to support and assist Black and Latinx men in their goals of degree completion and
transfer from Huerta. Stacy Ramirez reflected, “I was open to what was proposed, we supported
the [Men of Color] transfer program.” Stacy added that transfer subgroup “I felt great about the
idea, I have felt for a long time that we’re not addressing students who are falling through the
cracks with transfer.” The University Transfer Partnership was the third project proposed which
created a Latinx-focused summer transfer immersion program with a neighboring four-year
institution. This effort would build on an existing partnership, but the focus was to target the
“disproportionate results in transfer for Hispanic/Latino students” by creating a “transfer
pathway program with a local university” where “Hispanic/Latino students” spent the summer
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 102
taking Chicano Studies courses, live in the residence halls, and attend workshops that “promoted
the importance and value of transfer” to students.
The remaining two proposed activities were the Faculty Advocate Program and Latinx
Transfer Equity Project. The faculty program would provide campus practitioners with training
to better support Latinx students explicitly, and students of color broadly, by bringing in speakers
on topics such as racial equity, supporting men of color, validating Latinx students, and using
contemplative pedagogies. The Latinx Transfer Equity Project was a contract with the University
of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education to examine institutional transfer practices
through the lens of racial equity in general and Latinx inequity more specifically. This two-year
effort, in which I served as a researcher member, was a participatory action research project
focused on examining the ways in which structural, relational, cultural, and practitioner capacity
posed barriers to transfer inequity.
These transfer-focused practitioners used the available data, their expertise, and personal
advocacy as an opportunity to shape Huerta’s student equity plan to address Latinx transfer
equity. Nancy was matter of fact reflecting in the planning process, “well, they put us in a room,
with that data, and that amount of money, what did you expect us to do?” The next section
describes how the planning workgroup used the policy mandates as a shield to defend their
Latinx-specific plan when others on campus thought it would be best to develop programs and
practices that served all students.
The Policy Opportunities in Equity Planning to Address Latinx Inequity
By late August 2014, the workgroup began to share out the equity plan and proposed
activities. Some campus stakeholders were hesitant about the Latinx-specific activities included.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 103
Alejandra Gutierrez recalls going to a governance meeting to share the first full version of the
plan and getting pushback from some members:
When we presented it at an academic senate meeting, and somebody said, “this sounds
exclusionary, are we going to exclude all our other students, but Hispanics? What if
somebody Asian comes in and wants to join the programs you’ve proposed?”
Emilia recalled these comments as well, adding that there were three types of objections
by senators: 1) that the program was race-specific 2) that it was creating another boutique
program, and 3) not the best use of funds. For instance, when a senator asked at the Council
meeting in October if creating a Latinx-specific program could be seen as “reverse-racism,”
Emilia was able to rely on the policy, the compelling data accumulated, and the guiding
documents from the Chancellor’s Office to underscore that the plan’s focus was based on
objective evidence. Alejandra shared “this is where leadership was so important, having Emilia
willing to kind of step out and say, ‘yes, we are going to use this language and it’s okay’ because
we are being asked to look at inequities for specific students.” She also reflected on Nancy’s role
in one of the campus meetings, “She didn’t tiptoe around the issue,” Nancy was straightforward
in arguing that these programs were addressing inequity and there was a need to “talk about
racism and institutionalized racism” and “recognize that inequities on campus are a race issue.”
Nancy talked about countering comments around the amount of funding being used for
programs like Viva La Mujer:
People questioned the resources that went into the programs. But when you see that this
is where there is a gap, and this is where there is a need, then, yeah, your resources
should go there. Some may completely disagree with me, but that’s how I feel. So this is
where it’s really important to have a strong team that shared your goals and philosophy.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 104
Rey Valenzuela, a long-time faculty member who served on the shared governance council, said
that the planning group was not targeting Latinx students capriciously, but responding to the
needs that emerged from the data that they were required to include in the plan.
Yeah, mostly it was Hispanic/Latino students. I think it was based on the data. It was like
yeah, that’s what we need to do. That was the – that was the conversation was focused
on. There was also in the conversation what about – what about other groups. And often
times the answer was they weren’t as much data.
In years past, both Lola and Nancy shared that there was a greater objection for Latinx-specific
programs. Nancy claimed, “it was an uphill battle. The climate now, it’s completely 180
[degrees] from when we’re trying to establish new programs and a transfer culture to support
Latinos on this campus.” Lola added, “We always were questioned if the work we did was based
on advocacy rather than the data available,” but with the equity plan, both data and advocacy for
addressing Latinx students aligned. Marissa joked, “This wasn’t just plucked from the sky or
something that [we] just came up with, ‘poof,’ let’s just focus on Latinos. I mean the data was
there. We had the evidence.” The State Chancellor’s Office requirement that the campuses
identify equity gaps by race, gender, and other dimensions legitimized a very race-specific focus
and empowered the planning group to advance an agenda that had been waiting for such an
opportunity for a long time. Lola who oversaw transfer efforts at the time shared: “We always
had a hunch that we needed more supports for these special populations, which is the majority of
our students if you look at our profile,” but before “you had to be very respectful and careful and
make sure that things were fair, but for the first time, we had the opportunity and the freedom
actually to show the data publicly and address them through equity.”
One implementer described how the policy was used as a “shield” whenever potential
resistors or impediments had risen, using the policy requirements coupled with the data showing
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 105
Latinx students as facing the greatest inequity to pursue a course of action that had been
impossible in previous years. Lola stated “for the first time, we had the green light to be Latino-
centric, we had the license to do it. The plan asked us to close the equity gaps, that’s what we
needed to do… it was now okay to over-resource certain groups in order for them to be
successful.” Others shared similar understandings that equity planning “equipped” and
“authorized” the workgroup to follow up on hunches that Latinx students faced the greatest
disparities on campus and should get additional help, but traditionally had been told to avoid
practices that singled-out specific racial groups.
Ultimately, what I found was that the policy and planning process offered opportunities
to talk, somewhat openly, about racial equity gaps and why these racial disparities occurred on
campus. As Lola Velazquez shared, “the equity plan [was] saying you must serve these groups.
So, I can come out and say this program is for these groups; this is what the state is telling me,
this is what the data says. So, let’s target them.” The mandates included in the planning process
created a window for race-conscious plan development, and when questioned about their
approach, these campus leaders were able to use the policy as a legislative-leverage to get their
plan and proposed ideas passed and approved for enactment.
5.4 Things Fall into Place: Organizational Alignment with Huerta Equity Plan
Thus far I have described aspects highlighting the individual, situated, and policy
elements of my theoretical framework. In the final section of this chapter, I describe the
organizational context at Huerta and the dynamics that allowed the campus to move forward
with implementing the proposed Latinx-focused equity activities.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 106
Nancy reflected on why she and others were able to develop their plan in ways that
explicitly targeted barriers to transfer for Latinx students. She alluded to shifts on campus before
2014 that created a more accepting environment:
It was kind of a perfect storm. The equity policy was created. You had Emilia in place.
You had a new president. You had a surge of new faculty hires. You had a shift in
academic senate leadership, a shift in AFT leadership. And, the president came on and
said yeah, let’s improve Latino transfers. And it was like all right; we are all hoping for
the same thing.
When the requirement to create an equity plan arrived at Huerta, campus leadership had become
increasingly more supportive of addressing the low rates of success around transfer, equity gap
analysis had been embedded into department-level program review, and was experiencing a
budgetary period with renewed and expanded fiscal support. These three aspects – alignment
with President’s transfer priority, increased faculty awareness of equity gaps, and period of
increased fiscal resources – establish a propitious context to employ the equity plan as a
mandate to address transfer inequity for Latinx and men of color.
Aligning with the President’s Transfer Vision
President Manuel Lopez arrived at Huerta in the summer of 2013. One of his first
priorities was to improve transfer rates, in particular, he was committed to moving Huerta to be a
top-ranked transfer college. The president’s vision for transfer, according to Lola Velazquez, the
Huerta transfer center director at the time, brought about a mindset shift where “everybody on
campus is looked at as a transfer student.”
At an all-day faculty and staff professional development workshop, the President
highlighted a successful accreditation review, the newly constructed buildings on campus,
Huerta’s growing identity as a Hispanic-Serving Institution, and the recent success of transfer
efforts. Of his fifteen-minute speech, just over half was dedicated to highlighting transfer;
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 107
sharing new efforts on campus and the improved rankings across the state. In one portion of his
remarks, he stated, I “want [Huerta] to be the bridge between where students are and where they
strive to be” then added that in recent years “more students have transferred out through our
strategic efforts,” as he spoke, a slide in the background showcased the significant increase in
associate degrees for transfer awarded from 42 in 2012, 250 in 2013, and 482 in 2015. He then
reported that Huerta jumped into the top 15 (rounded for anonymity) of community colleges that
transfer students to both the CSU and UC systems. He concluded by saying, “there’s no reason
we can’t be number one if we come together to share ideas and tackle barriers, each of you can
have an impact on improving transfer.” Wrapping up, his final words to an auditorium full of
faculty and staff were, “join me in bringing change and transformation.” More than articulating a
vision, Lola described how President Lopez also committed resources and encouraged others to
also focus on improving transfer on campus:
[In 2013], our new president dedicated a million dollars to create a first-year
completion program, to serve 500 students with the intent to create transfer-ready
students. Many of our students come from [names local feeder high schools], and
although they come with good GPAs, they don’t always place well during assessment.
This new transfer program helped with the getting through math and English courses,
provided a career guidance counselor assistant, and additional support for when life
happens. We model it after our Latino culture, so family members are included in the
program, we hired more personnel for the program during the second cycle and added
personal development/student success courses. So that’s one huge effort of getting our
students through the transfer pathway.
According to a member of the workgroup the student equity plan aligned perfectly with
the president’s vision for transfer. He recalled, “Some of the transfer initiatives we developed
coincided with the push for transfer as a big initiative by the president. I think the plan’s efforts
dovetailed nicely with the push from the college president to increase transfer.” Practitioners in
the workgroup spoke to the effect the President’s transfer vision had, Stacy remembered: “we
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 108
had this opportunity, we need to do better at transfer, the president had this as a priority, and we
felt empowered to push transfer in the [planning] meetings.” She added that President Lopez
“was very competitive, yes, he wanted to improve transfer, but he also was motivated by upping
our numbers and being as good as other colleges.” She added, “so when we did our plan, I don’t
think people had an issue with being transfer heavy, it wasn’t a problem.” The convergence
between the President and the planning group was perceived as helping the equity plan pass the
approval process on campus.
Faculty Awareness and Campus Discussion of Equity and Racial Disparities
A second aspect supporting the passage of the Latinx-focused student equity plan at
Huerta came in the form of a growing awareness of equity issues and public discussion of racial
issues among faculty members. The shared governance council at Huerta decided to incorporate
equity calculations in their Annual Program Review across all academic departments. Ray
Valenzuela reported, “Once the state template came out with the equity plan, we got all
departments to look at it – go through the program review process – to look at the equity gaps
that were evident in their disciplines.” Santiago Perez in the Office of Institutional Research
remembered, “when it became part of the Annual Program Review (APR), the departments had
to look at their equity gaps and answer the questions of which students faced inequity.” He added
that this decision was an intentional “attempt to institutionalize these equity calculations” and
have similar data to what was being examined by the equity plan workgroup.
With the decision to include equity analysis in program review, faculty across Huerta
now had to discuss course success rates disaggregated by gender, race, and income status and
figure out ways to improve their outcomes for the student groups facing the most significant gaps
in success. Jim Kelly, the English Department Chair, shared:
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 109
As part of our annual planning, we started having discussions on the different success
rates broken down by age, gender, and race. As faculty, we [were] presented with equity
reports and [so we] can see for ourselves, how or what inequities exist. And we had to
identify gaps in different English courses with little stickers to show [faculty], hey, this
might be an inequity here, to make it even simpler for [faculty].
Through the assessment of data during the annual review process, more campus members
became aware of the challenges facing specific racial groups on campus. Rey Valenzuela added
that embedding aspects of the equity planning process into academic program review created an
opportunity for faculty “to be aware of what we were doing” in the planning workgroup, “expose
them to data presented in a new [disaggregated] manner” that allowed them to talk about racial
equity gaps and prompt discussion about what they could do within their department to address
“persistent problems with course success.”
In a campus-wide context, Santiago recalled, “Student equity was a major part of the
events on Opening Day, faculty and staff listened to a talk about the ongoing student equity plan
efforts” and “we held breakout sessions for people to examine student equity measures and
reflect on what they could do within their departments.” This public display of data helped foster
conversations about racial disparities and the need to explicitly address them with various
stakeholders.
Participants shared that in recent years, discussion of race had become a more
commonplace occurrence. A faculty member observed that it was quite normal and easy to talk
about racial issues in most pockets, although some spaces are still hard (mentions math
department). Kristine Phang, sociology faculty involved with the transfer programs commented
on racial discussions at Huerta:
It just comes up, it's not something that people shy away from I feel like. When the issue
of race comes up, people talk about it, like they're talking about anything else. I feel like
in the rest of the world when you bring up race it's sort of like people get worried about
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 110
talking about race. Whereas at [Huerta] it feels like you're just talking about something
else. If you're talking about transfer, of course, you're going talk about transfer from a
race perspective. It’s race-based. For me, it feels like it’s always in the conversation.
In addition to exposure to disaggregated data based on race/ethnicity, faculty members
were more receptive to targeting and supporting specific student groups. Of particular
importance was the way faculty members become more open to equity efforts like Viva La
Mujer, shifting the perception that smaller, specialized efforts that targeted specific groups were
ineffective or unable to make an impact. Stacy, the coordinator of faculty professional
development, shared “as faculty, we know we had to start somewhere new, what we have done
in the past wasn’t working, so let’s try something else.” Jim Kelly shared how over time his view
of these types of efforts changed:
I used to think these were, oh boy, a waste of time and waste of money. And I myself did
not understand it. Because I felt, you know, why are we putting all these efforts into a
small cohort and we have general pop and we should be really kind of looking at bigger
kind of things to do and change. And very quickly had a realization that you know from
those experiences you’re really creating a culture.
By the time I arrived to examine the planning process, a change had occurred on campus
where faculty members were more open to student-specific programming after institutionalizing
data inquiry that was broken down by race, gender, and ability status. In the review process that
occurred in the late fall, faculty members were open to using the equity plan to develop different
types of efforts to see if an impact could be made. Emilia noted that the review process with
shared governance “was pretty easy,” adding that “during [the] presentation with the faculty
there wasn’t questions about who are programs targeted [i.e., Latinx students], they only cared
about how we were going to measure the impact” of these efforts.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 111
“Money Ain’t a Thing”: Student Equity and its Own Funding Source
The third organizational aspect facilitating the acceptance of Latinx-specific efforts was
the resource-rich period Huerta was experiencing while equity planning occurred. In particular,
the infusion of $3 million dollars in equity-specific funds transformed equity planning from a
procedural bureaucratic task into a lever for progressive change.
Equity Dollars Arriving at the Right Time. Huerta benefited from increased state
general appropriations, enrollment growth incentives created by the Chancellor’s Office, and the
new categorical funding tied directly to student equity efforts. First, with an improved economic
outlook, there was a steady increase in the level of state appropriations allotted to the community
college system from California’s Proposition 98 general fund. Huerta received an increase in
annual state appropriations, on average 4% of their budget, allowing them to expand services,
hire more staff, and provide new programs. Second, under the existing funding formula at the
time, the state awarded additional financial resources to campuses that increased their enrollment
numbers. Since 2010, Huerta had been a growth-positive campus, meaning the institution had
continuously increased its student enrollment and been allocated supplementary dollars in
appropriations to operate. Lastly, the post-recession period saw California policymakers craft
and legislate new student success reforms paired with financial resources to implement these
efforts. In late 2013, student equity planning as a state-level policy was revisited and seen as a
much-needed initiative to have community colleges take stock of their gaps in student success
and embedded the concept of equity into campus program and practices (personal
communication, 2015). As a result, the state Governor and Legislature proposed $70 million
dollars be allocated to fund student equity planning in community colleges in 2014 (SB-860,
Budget Trailer Bill); since then the funding has increased. These positive trends in funding are
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 112
important to highlight as practitioners at Huerta felt that the Latinx-focused activities proposed in
the equity plan were self-sustaining, were not diverting institutional resources or drawing from
campus general funds and created the perception that equity funds were “soft monies,” more
fungible in ways they could be used to target specific student groups.
Increased funding lessened the competion for scarce resources and it was easier to gain
support for initiatives that in times of scarcity would have been rejected. As Emilia put it: “we
realized we had money to make a change, to change the campus, having our own money was
important because it helped fuel those new ideas without taking [General Funds].” From Emilia’s
perspective, it was clear that she and the workgroup felt ownership of the equity funds and had
the discretion to allocate it according to their priorities. Emilia added that having equity dollars
put her in a position of power, knowing that the law said: “these funds were an opportunity to
redistribute resources for those that need it the most.” Nancy recalled how in years past there had
been plans to address the barriers Latinx students faced, but without money, they were “only a
vision, far-fetched ideas, that’s all they were,” until the right timing when the state “backed up
our ideas with the money, once the dollars came in we were able to hit the ground running.”
Perceiving Equity Funds as Soft/Flexible Resources. One of the underlying reasons
why individuals on campus, including those in the academic senate, were open to how Huerta
practitioners developed the plan was the perception of equity funds as “soft monies.” Participants
shared that the equity funds were seen as “different” types of resources. The Assistant Dean of
Outreach, Rudy Gamboa, commented on the uniqueness of equity funding:
A lot of funds come to campus, but with equity, a rise in money is a rise in the level of
attention to student-specific groups that for a long time were not focused on, or services
were not rendered to, because people might not have known about them. Now you've got
money aside for a specific group. So, I think it really is helpful to have funds coming in
that can be carried towards specific action towards those groups facing lower outcomes.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 113
For the wider campus, student equity funds were seen as supplementary dollars because they
were new categorical
26
resources that did not take away from state-appropriated general funds
allocated to the campus. Emilia described it as “people on campus didn’t know the value of
equity funds, they just knew the things we proposed weren’t coming from the General 100
[fund]” as such those reviewing the plan were less like to “fight [us] on the use of resources.”
Alejandra Gutierrez reflected on the review and approval of Huerta’s Latinx equity projects:
We are a “Hispanic serving institution” the majority of our students are Latino. Latinos
are the ones that are struggling the most. I mean ridiculous, that’s where our attention and
money need to go. Luckily we [had] good people that their minds and hearts [were] in the
right place. They realized that even though this money could be used to change all kinds
of things, we were going to focus on Latinos and the challenges faced in transfer.
This view of equity funds as “new,” “add-on,” and “soft” money made it less contentious for
practitioners to use student equity resources to address Latinx transfer inequity since the last few
years the campus had significant enrollment growth compared to institutions strapped for cash.
Huerta’s president had a similar view that equity dollars could be used to address Latinx
students, but described them as “flexible” rather than soft:
Student equity funding is so flexible. We’ve had grants before but this was different. We
were driven by the identified gaps. So, we know that in order to close the gap. For
example, to close the gap of Latino students transferring from this campus, it's going to
take a while, it’s not going to happen in a year or two. It might take another five years, I
don't know. So that's the advantage of having student equity funds. You get a chance to
delve into these issues that you know are going to take a long-term solution, it's just not
going to be a quick fix.
The campus president was open to using student equity funds not just as a one-time effort, but to
create long-term solutions. With a positive funding climate, increased awareness, and alignment
26
Categorical funds are resources earmarked for specific programs and resources, restricted in how they can be used
on campus compared to general funds that may be used for any educational purpose. The funds provided to
implement student equity had its own expenditure guidelines related to how these resources could be used to
advance equity on campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 114
with the president’s transfer priority, the equity plan faced less scrutiny once the plan was
approved by the state Chancellor’s Office.
Getting the Equity Plan Signed, Sealed, and Delivered
During the months of October and November, Emilia and Santiago with the support of
the Huerta President, presented the equity plan to the Strategic Planning Committee first, then to
the full shared governance committee. Emilia noted that this internal review yielded minimal
revisions. The workgroup prepared next for the district review, the last step before submission to
the state. At this meeting, an updated equity plan and one-page executive summary with five
supplementary tables on “disproportionate impacts and plans for improvement” for each
academic indicator were presented. Santiago recalled, “I don't remember it as a difficult vetting
process,” adding “our presentation to the board of trustees was only like three slides, four slides,
and so we probably had about five minutes to present, right. So, that was it.” He concluded, “We
didn’t even review all the indicators, just some of them. And what they really cared about was
the budget piece, now that I am looking at it [pulled up notes on his computer screen], they only
cared that what we proposed aligned with the money we spent.” Emilia remembered feeling
rushed when presenting as well, “we only had five minutes at the board, there was this sense of
urgency to review them and get them out to the state.” She commented, “you have to remember
that the board of trustees are looking at [multiple colleges], and a relatively short amount of time
to review these plans.” Looking at the agenda from December meeting, the review of multiple
equity plans was only one of 16 items on the consent calendar and from the minutes reported the
entire process was discussed within an hour period. Huerta’s equity plan was approved internally
in November, reviewed and voted on by the district on December 3
rd
, and submitted to the state
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 115
on December 10
th
, five days before the deadline. Practitioners at Huerta then waited to hear back
from the Chancellor’s Office after the winter break to move forward with their proposed plan.
5.5 Summary of the Planning Process at Huerta
This chapter highlighted the critical aspects that shaped a convergence towards Latinx
transfer equity: Emilia’s accession to lead the planning effort, the composition and
characteristics of the equity plan workgroup, the ways the actors collectively used the policy’s
mandates to be Latinx-specific in their approach to developing the plan, and the organizational
conditions that created the window for a more race-conscious approach to planning. This chapter
was based on the recollections of members of the workgroup. The next chapter is about what I
learned from observing and talking to the individuals who were given the responsibility to
implement the plan. Consistent with Kezar’s (2014) observation that having a plan (albeit a good
one) is not enough to enact change on campus, in the next chapter I describe the obstacles that
stood in the way of implementing Huerta’s plan with fidelity to its race-conscious aspirations.
As I report in the next chapter the implementation of the plan was impeded by Huerta’s
burdensome administrative procedures and rules, staff capacity, and leaders stretched to the
maximum in the attempt to develop these new Latinx-focused transfer projects.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 116
CHAPTER 6
The Implementation of Latinx Transfer Equity Efforts at Huerta
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the factors that influenced how practitioners at
Huerta implemented the transfer equity projects proposed in their student equity plan. Grounded
in my multi-contextual implementation framework, I describe the complexity of enacting the
student equity plan projects at Huerta. In doing so, I highlight a) the pre-existing organizational
conditions and campus practices shaping enactment, b) the new individuals selected to
implement projects, and c) the importance of having a collective group of leaders to shepherd the
process from the planning phase to institutionalizing the plan. Santiago Perez, an institutional
researcher, distinguished the differences between designing the equity plan and implementing the
equity plan. “We were definitely optimistic, we believed that the [Men of Color] and [Viva La
Mujer] transfer programs could reduce gaps, that our efforts could reduce the time to transfer for
Hispanic students.” He continued, “there was energy in the [planning room], we felt, yes, we’re
going to be able to do this. But, implementation was a whole different animal.” As he described,
the vision developed by planners in 2014 was one of big ideas trying to change how Latinx
students navigated the transfer process at Huerta, but much of those aspirations became dreams
deferred when new practitioners were given the responsibility to carry out implementation.
The story of implementation is about a plan that stood out for its Latinx transfer focus
and how it came up against a shortage of experienced leaders, entrenched campus practices, and
limited organizational capacity to enact the Latinx-transfer equity projects. The plan was
coherent and clear in its emphasis on making transfer to four-year colleges more attainable for
Latinx students; however, the projects were developed without consideration of potential
implementation roadblocks such as the college’s administrative processes or internal
organization that lacked the flexibility required for implementation. Instead, the new programs
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 117
had to adapt to dysfunctional administrative procedures, personality idiosyncrasies, a leadership
vacuum, and unstable and inexperienced coordination. Emilia Leon revealed that despite lofty
ideas developed in the equity plan, the campus struggled to create and establish these programs.
She shared that Huerta was starting to “get accolades” for what was “envisioned in the equity
plan” by their district leaders, but in reality, the campus did not “have the staffing or the time
necessary to build the capacity” to implement equity efforts and get the programs off the ground.
In this chapter, I present the conditions for implementation at Huerta, the progress practitioners
made towards establishing the equity projects, and how these efforts addressed transfer barriers
for Latinx students.
6.1 The Shifting Contextual Factors that Influenced Implementation at Huerta
As Huerta practitioners moved to implement the Latinx transfer projects, they began to
experience a different set of conditions, obstacles, and challenges that were not encountered in
the planning phase. Two factors were identified in influencing how implementation occurred at
Huerta after the equity plan was approved: 1) unanticipated organizational roadblocks
undermining implementation with fidelity to the plan and 2) a shaky transition between the
planning workgroup and the individuals made responsible for implementing equity programs.
Organizational Bureaucracy: Accessing Equity Funds and Delays in Hiring Personnel
The first set of roadblocks involved practitioners’ ability to access and spend the equity
funds to establish these programs. In particular, the initial phase of implementation faced delays
related to the campus requisition and approval process as well as hesitation from the fiscal office
on using short-term funding for long-term projects. As the first campus-wide coordinator for
student equity, Alejandra Gutierrez commented: “it was frustrating, we couldn’t spend the
money, we couldn’t get anything really in place. I never had real control over the budget, how
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 118
was I supposed to oversee these projects?” Alejandra’s comment speaks to her experience trying
to get things in place to start implementation, but facing challenges with the existing
organizational structure and practices that would delay how the projects unfolded regardless of
what was envisioned in the plan. Alejandra was a Latina professor in the Chicano Studies
department and selected by Emilia Leon to coordinate these efforts across the campus. Gutierrez
had been at Huerta since 2007 and shared “Teaching in Chicano Studies here was my dream job”
and “now I had the chance to make a difference for students across the campus with these equity
programs.” She reflected, “I was asked if I would want to be the faculty liaison for equity,” since
“I was known on campus for my commitment to equity issues [here] and work with Latino
students in my department.” The hiring of a student equity coordinator marked the transition
between the planning phase in 2014 and start of implementation in 2015.
Funding Requisition Process at Huerta. The first obstacle faced was a cumbersome
process related to requesting, approving, and spending equity dollars on campus. With Huerta’s
equity plan approved, Emilia and Alejandra were ready to hire personnel, pay for programming
costs, and acquire materials or supplies necessary for each program, but Huerta’s fiscal office
required budget requisitions for the positions and purchases. One participant described this as
“trying to unlock the money” and “convince[ing] people on campus how to use the money we
had already decided how to spend” even though funding allocated in the plan and approved by
campus and district leaders for a specific use. Although the plan set an amount of money to begin
implementing each of the equity projects when Emilia and Alejandra were ready to spend the
funds they needed to submit their requests through a three-stage of review that included the
shared governance budget committee, the Vice President of Finance
27
, and district budget office.
27
Although not originally identified as a potential participant, I contacted the Vice President of Finance twice. First
for an interview for my dissertation, second for an informal conversation to get more contextual information, neither
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 119
All funding requests for the equity projects were routed through the Vice President of Finance
and other bureaucratic structures that delayed access to funds needed to start these programs.
These campus routines were useful for programs that already existed on campus but did not align
with the newly envisioned equity projects and the pace needed to get started and implement
quickly after the plan was approved.
Unlocking the money for these new equity projects was an added layer of bureaucracy
that delayed implementation and took time away from developing the programs since
coordinators needed to advocate for these resources to be approved. Alejandra Gutierrez spoke of
the delays related to budget requisitions for the programs: “Just because they were approved in
the equity plan didn’t mean that they were approved by our VP [of Finance] or the district budget
office.” For example, Emilia Leon discussed the lengths it took to get requests approved for
student equity projects. She shared, first you “draft[ed] the job posting, making sure to include
all the details of the position and how they would support the campus’s equity efforts.” Then it
would need to be approved internally by “budget committee of Shared Governance, then VP of
Finance and finally campus president.” From there the posting was submitted for review to the
district budget office to make sure funds were available for hire. At the district level, a budget
analyst reviewed the posting which varied between “three days and a month “depending on the
number of job requests submitted to the central office at that time. Emilia mentioned that most
times she would personally go from the fiscal office to the district office and back to the
president to get the signatures in one day and try to avoid weeks of delays.
request was granted. I was not able to capture her perspective on student equity and the use of funds for these
programs. The VP of Finance retired summer 2017.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 120
Emilia recalled her frustration with the requisition process to get these programs up and
ready: “So 2015 hits, our plan is approved, we have all this work to do, and we haven’t got our
funds approved, no staff onboard yet.” She continued, “We were really stymied during this time,
we’re building this process, trying to figure out how to move forward” but challenged with
“getting the capacity built for these programs” and doing “time-consuming work” that was
necessary before the efforts could help Latinx students transfer. Emilia shared, “we have our
money to pay for them. But they don’t want to fund it because it commits the position. So that’s
why we’re behind with hiring.” She felt the initial implementation process was like “squirrels,
getting all these nuts collected, but couldn’t crack them open.”
Cumbersome Process to Hire New Personnel. One of the most visible consequences of
the cumbersome requisition process and hesitancy to approve equity expenditures was the
decision to abandon plans for hiring new full-time coordinators and instead, recruit current staff
already working on campus. Initially, Alejandra intended for new, dedicated positions to direct
each project. Alejandra shared, “Emilia and I brainstormed how to find people to coordinate
these efforts,” considering two options: hire new people for these specific efforts or recruit
“interested staff and faculty” from campus. She soon realized that the process to approve and
hire new staff took at least six to eight months, from drafting the job description to on-boarding
new hires. Administrative procedures and organizational rules made it almost impossible to bring
on new personnel dedicated to the equity initiatives; Emilia and Alejandra decided to staff from
within campus. As a tradeoff, Huerta was able to fill-in coordinating roles quickly, a few weeks
rather than six months, but with practitioners who had a limited capacity to serve in these roles.
Emilia reflected on the hiring process and influence on getting these programs started in 2015:
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 121
You have to allow staffing capacity to occur and that had been a big barrier. How can you
develop strategies and really realize them without having the adequate staff or the
appropriate stuff to carry them out? So the implementation [became] difficult
Short-Term Funding for Long-Term Projects. Another challenge related to accessing
funds was pushback from the Vice President of Finance on how to spend the equity dollars.
Emilia and Alejandra described an antagonistic relationship between them and the Vice President
of Finance who, “delayed funding requests, tried to control everything,” and made it a “struggle,
to use equity [money] for its intended purpose.” From Alejandra’s perspective, the Vice
President of Finance was concerned that the equity funds provided in 2014 may be a one-time
occurrence and any effort established within the plan would lack stable funding over time. The
underlying tension between equity leaders and the fiscal office was the divide between the
permanence of equity funds and if they should be used for one-time activities or attempting to
institutionalize new efforts. Emilia shared that past experiences with “one-time funds” led the
Vice President of Finance to be cautious and make approval decisions based on budgetary
concerns, “we had special grants before to do innovative programs, then the money went away
and it was over. Our fiscal folks were like, ‘Oh, okay. Here we go again’ with the equity
money.” Emilia added that “the people in the fiscal office tried to put restrictions on the way we
used equity funds” because of “the downsizing in 2009 from the recession hit, money like this
[was] the first thing to go, categoricals [got] slaughtered.” At the time of implementation, it was
unknown whether the equity funds would persist, be stable, or increase over the next few years.
In the midst of concerns over funding continuity, the VP of Finance was reluctant to
approve the new job positions and requisitions submitted by equity leaders, especially if money
was allocated on a year-to-year basis without guarantee of future funds. For example, the equity
plan called for hiring a coordinator to oversee Viva La Mujer transfer program and allocated
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 122
funds for that salary, but the fiscal office would not approve a position that later on might require
the allocation of general funds if the state ended the funding for equity planning. The individuals
that developed the plan did not anticipate the concern over using equity funds to create new
positions that required a more permanent funding source. In Chapter 5, the perception of equity
funds as “soft money” was a benefit when proposing new programs with a focus on Latinx-
transfer. During the implementation phase, this soft money became an issue with the VP of
Finance and fiscal office as they were reluctant to approve equity requests for projects proposed
as long-term solutions with short-term funding.
Distributing the Implementation Responsibility of the Student Equity Plan
The lengthy hiring process and uncertainty of how long Huerta would receive equity
funds described above resulted in the second major condition influencing implementation:
selecting individuals to coordinate the new Latinx transfer equity projects on a part-time basis.
The transition from the individuals who designed the equity plan to practitioners tasked with
carrying out the proposed initiatives produced challenges during implementation. The challenges
were twofold: losing individuals heavily involved with the planning process and needing to get
new staff up to speed on the plan and activities.
Emilia and Planning Leaders Step Away During Implementation. Soon after the plan
was approved, the campus leaders intimately aware of the conversations on student equity,
familiar with the learning during data inquiry, and involved with the summer-long planning
process began to step away from the workgroup. Some left for new career opportunities outside
of the campus and others were promoted within Huerta to senior administration positions,
removing them from day-to-day interactions with the student equity projects. Prominent
individuals in the planning process, like Emilia, Nancy, Lola, and Rey who advocated for the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 123
Latinx transfer focus moved on to new responsibilities that removed them from the activities of
student equity. In 2015-16, Emilia Leon became Vice President of Student Services and oversaw
a new “Promise Program” focused on providing students in the local Huerta area a tuition-free
first year; Nancy Ortiz became the Vice President of Workforce Development tasked with
implementing California’s initiative on “Guided Pathways”; Lola Velazquez transitioned to Dean
of Student Services and was made responsible for a similar planning effort known as Student
Success and Support Programs; and Rey Valenzuela moved from Vice President to President of
the Shared Governance Council. The key actors in the planning process were in new positions,
with new responsibilities that limited their role in the implementation of the ideas they developed
just a few months earlier. Nancy reflected on this transition, “I wasn’t involved with equity
anymore, but there was some overlap, we were working together on a comprehensive strategy,
leveraging our resources through [multiple] state efforts.” For others in the 2014 planning
workgroup, rather than a departure or promotion, there was a perception that once the plan was
written and approved, their role was over. For example, Santiago Perez commented, “in January
people were identified to help implement the plan, but I don’t remember how. But for that part,
my job was done.” To bridge this gap, the position of student equity coordinator was created to
oversee the campus-wide implementation of the proposed equity projects which included
identifying practitioners to oversee equity projects, making sure equity resources were being
used appropriately, and managing the transition between planning and enacting phase.
Identifying Practitioners to Carry Out Implementation. In order to move these
projects forward, Alejandra recruited individuals from within Huerta to launch and run the
individual projects proposed in the student equity plan. The first set of coordinators in 2015 were
all Huerta practitioners who already worked on campus in various capacities and could shift or
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 124
add responsibilities to oversee these new efforts being established. Individuals were selected
with a sense of urgency, putting a priority on immediacy rather than expertise, searching for
people on campus who could start coordinating these projects quickly in spring 2015. Only
Emilia Leon, Stacy Ramirez, and Lola Velazquez overlapped as members of both the 2014
student equity planning workgroup and the implementing team in 2015-2016, and they served in
limited roles before being promoted to higher levels of administration during the same period.
Table 11 lists the individuals involved with coordinating the equity projects throughout
the time I studied Huerta’s implementation. I include demographic characteristics, duration in the
position, and the role they held before given the task to oversee the creation of these Latinx
transfer efforts. A majority (13 of the 16) of individuals carrying out the projects identified
ethnically as Latinx. Many of them, particularly in Viva La Mujer, Men of Color, and the
University Transfer Partnership had also successfully transferred from community college.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 125
Table 11
Project Coordinators
Effort Coordinator Gender Ethnicity CC
Transfer
Years at
Huerta
28
Duration as
Coordinator
Full-time
Responsibility
Position on
Campus
Campus Wide
Alejandra Gutierrez F Latinx 9 Spring 2015 – Fall 2015 Yes Faculty
Tracey Rodriguez F Latinx Yes New Hire Spring 2016 – Current Yes Dean
Viva La Mujer
Alejandra Gutierrez F Latinx 9 Spring 2015 Only No Faculty
Marissa Martinez F Latinx 10 Fall 2015 – Spring 2016 No Staff
Sandra Flores F Latinx Yes 8 Summer 2016 – Current No Staff
Men of Color
Antonio Nava M Latinx Yes 3 Spring 2015 Only No Staff
Jamal Brown M Black Yes 8 Spring 2015 Only No Staff
Robert Harris M Black 4 Fall 2015 Only No Faculty
Román Hernandez M Latinx Yes New Hire Spring 2016 – Spring 2017 No Counselor
Victor Magaña M Latinx Yes 1 Summer 2017 – Current No Staff
University Transfer Partnership
Lola Velazquez F Latinx Yes 18 Spring 2015 Only No Counselor
Elias Alonzo M Latinx Yes 3 Fall 2015 – Current No Counselor
Faculty Advocate Program
Stacy Ramirez F Latinx 21 Spring 2015 Only No Staff
Juanita Guzman F Latinx 3 Spring 2015 – Current No Staff
Tyler Gerhardt M White 1 Spring 2015 – Current No Staff
Latinx Transfer Equity Project
Emilia Leon F Latinx 19 Spring 2015 Only No Dean
Tracey Rodriguez F Latinx Yes New Hire Spring 2016 – Current No Dean
28
Time on campus is counted as of Spring 2017 when data collection began.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 126
Given the laborious hiring process, initial coordinating responsibilities were assigned to
part-time staff members, counselors who dedicated a portion of their weekly assigned tasks, or
faculty reassigned and released from teaching responsibilities. For example, a counselor selected
to run a program would get reassigned 30% of their time towards the project, which at Huerta
meant spending 12-15 hours a week fulfilling this role. Staff members, most in the role of
“student services assistants,” were responsible for establishing and overseeing one of the new
equity projects while still held various duties and working on projects related to student services.
Disconnect Between Planning and Implementation. There were critical differences
between the individuals involved with the planning and implementation process: the members’
social status on campus and their level of equity-minded competence and contextual knowledge
related to student equity. First, the members of the planning workgroup had longevity and social
status on campus, practitioners were senior administrators, representatives from the faculty union
and shared governance, and experts in transfer-related issues. This new group selected
individuals for their ability to coordinate a program and carry out its day-to-day operations,
rather than the capacity to develop and push through big ideas to address student equity. The
coordinators included in Table 11 had fewer years on campus, did not hold senior-level
positions, and were tasked with leading individual projects, which caused them to pay attention
to the discrete components for their program without accounting for the original, more
comprehensive, vision of the plan. Second, staff members recruited to carry out the activities in
the student equity plan had not participated in the deeper data-based discussion that drove the
content of the plan. Consequently, they were less knowledgeable about the student equity plan
policy, the planning process, or the impetus for these Latinx transfer projects. This difference in
knowledge came through during the interviewing process as three participants involved with
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 127
implementation used old notes and printed handouts to discuss student equity and their role
assigned when I spoke with them. In conversations with those involved with the planning
process, they were able to provide an account of their participation without supplemental notes
or materials. Additionally, individual project implementers had a more siloed approach to student
equity, focused solely on their program rather than seeing a comprehensive strategy for
addressing Latinx transfer issues on campus. During the spring of 2015, the implementation of
Huerta’s equity plan began without the participation of the individuals who conceived the
programs creating a knowledge, leadership, and experiential vacuum.
To add to the disconnect between the two phases, coordinators taking over in 2015
described a poor transition process and rocky handoff between the designers and implementers
of these equity projects. One coordinator shared, “I felt like they developed the equity plan and
said to us, ‘here, go implement these ideas.’” This resonates with what Santiago had described as
“his job being done,” - that the task of the first group was only to develop the ideas and the next
group would need to see them through. During the transition from planning to implementation
not much was done to provide the newly identified coordinators with background on the policy,
the planning process that occurred over the summer, or specific goals of the 2014 equity plan.
Antonio Nava, working in student activities and campus the first co-coordinator for the Men of
Color transfer program shared, “I felt it was a rocky start, it wasn’t until I started working with
the transfer program that I learned about the goals, vocabulary, and mindset for equity.” He
continued, “It definitely was an on the job learning process, trying to get this program off the
ground.” Other coordinators described having to “figure out what could be done” and said they
had limited guidance “about the scope of work and how to carry out.”
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 128
The task before new coordinators like Melissa who oversaw Viva La Mujer or Antonio
who started the Men of Color transfer program was to translate and expand the limited details in
the equity plan; moving forward they faced a sharp learning curve with limited time to get up to
speed. Marissa Martinez, an adjunct faculty in the social sciences, described her perspective on
this transition, “although the background and scope of the project were shared, spearheading the
project wasn’t easy, trying to achieve what [Lola and Emilia] wanted to see with the program
took time, some failure, and getting more help.”
Implementing the student equity plan required that it conform to procedures and rules
that had been in place at Huerta long before equity became a goal. Consequently, Huerta’s
entrenched bureaucracy and the inexperience and lower status of the individuals charged with
implementation undermined the transformational vision for Latinx transfer equity. The next
section covers how the practitioners responsible for the implementation process navigated
through these difficulties to establish the programs outlined in the student equity plan.
6.2 Moving Through the Contextual Factors and Getting Equity Projects Off the Ground
In this second section, I focus on the challenges faced by coordinators during
implementation and how they moved past them to establish the Latinx transfer equity programs.
Based on the plan’s timetable, ideally, all the programs should have been up and running by
Spring 2015. It turned out that some programs were in place within four months and others took
as long as a year before they were in place. A variety of unforeseen obstacles derailed the
timetable that had been envisioned in the plan, including the availability of staff to coordinate
and support each project, filling in missing details from the plan, cumbersome budget requisition
process, programmatic decisions related to the type of services and resources to provide
participating students, and the time necessary to make those services available. For example, in
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 129
the student equity plan, the Men of Color program called for programmatic elements like a
common academic course for participants and creating a mentoring program. In addition to the
delays to bring on personnel to implement and coordinate the program, it would take time to
identify a faculty member willing to teach the course selected for the transfer program, recruit
men of color to participate, and deliver the program as it had been envisioned in the plan.
The Degree of Difficulty During Implementation Varied by Project
During the analysis process, I noticed how each project experienced conditions on
campus differently. Rereading transcripts and field notes, I asked what contextual factors made a
difference during implementation. I then sorted the four projects
29
by assessing them according
to three criteria: was it a new idea (i.e., was the program new or the expansion of an existing
one), did it have the organizational infrastructure available on campus (i.e., would the program
need facilities and support staff or could it operate out of a current department), and what was the
coordinator’s capacity and level of experience with transfer programs. Based on these factors I
categorized each program as facing a high or low level of difficulty during implementation.
Table 12 shows that the new programs, all of which had emerged from the desire to address
Latinx transfer inequity directly also happened to be the programs that lacked infrastructure and
were delegated to inexperienced coordinators.
29
Moving forward in this chapter, I focus on the four equity efforts managed internally by Huerta. I leave out the
Latinx Transfer Equity Project in this section since it was managed by an external party and did not face the same
factors as the on-campus efforts.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 130
Table 12
Assessing Each Program on the Level of Implementation Difficulty
Program New
Effort
Infrastructure
Available
Coordinator Level of
Difficulty
University Transfer Partnership No Yes Experienced Low
Faculty Advocate Program Yes No Inexperienced High
Men of Color Transfer Program Yes No Inexperienced High
Viva La Mujer Transfer Program Yes No Inexperienced High
The University Transfer Partnership was the only equity project that faced a low level of
implementation problems because it was designed and expanded from existing programs on
campus. The other three faced additional challenges as new programs on campus trying to
address transfer inequity in ways that explicitly addressed the barriers for Latinx students.
Transfer Partnership with Flagship University. The University Transfer Partnership
already existed on campus and was coordinated through the transfer center at Huerta. It had an
experienced coordinator in place. It was first led by Lola Velazquez the longtime transfer center
director. She had attended Huerta, successfully transferred out, and returned to become a transfer
counselor. Lola reflected “this was my personal mission, to remove barriers and create
opportunities for students in our community.” In addition to a strong leader and expert in
transfer, the equity project was housed in the transfer center, supported by center staff, and built
on existing relationships with California Flagship University (pseudonym), a large public and
selective university. The equity funds made it possible to create a new summer transfer program
within the partnership that was more relevant for Latinx students.
Elias Alonzo, who directed the project after Lola was promoted to Dean, commented,
“We worked with [California Flagship University] because they had an established program to
support transfer students of color.” With the funds from student equity, “we created specific
summer transfer programs to support our Latino, first-gen, and undocumented students,” said
Elias. Another staff member said, “We wanted it to be based on our Latino values, to include
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 131
families, peer support, and relevant curriculum.” She added, “We used community cultural
wealth and critical race theory” making sure we talk about transfer in ways that were meaningful
to Latinx students
30
.. “We are empowering students by connecting them with peers that look like
them, offering Chicano Studies courses, and holding workshops that help them navigate a system
that is trying to make them fail.”
The University Transfer Partnership started its inaugural run in the summer of 2015. For
two weeks, students lived on California Flagship University’s campus, were exposed to college
life at a four-year institution, had their family visit during the first and last day of the program,
and connected with Latinx students who had already successfully transferred. Lola and Elias
were also intentional about the college course offered during the program. Elias commented, “it
was an intro course from the Chicano Studies department, taught by a [Latinx] faculty member
who had transferred from a community college.” Elias shared that the course was selected to
show students that their culture was valued at four-year institutions and to “expose them to a
pedagogy that validates them.” Other Latinx oriented components included a peer mentorship
component with undergraduate Latinx students, and social activities coordinated by the Mexican-
American student alliance on campus such as a Latinx-led campus tour or student panel that
provide a different perspective on attending California Transfer University. Speaking with Elias
about why it was important to create these types of summer transfer immersion programs for
Latinx students, he commented: “We are trying to fight imposter syndrome
31
, we know that
30
Critical Race Theory and Cultural Community Wealth are theoretical frameworks that center race and racism to
understanding inequities in social institutions like universities. These theories center communities of color and
highlight the strengths and assets possessed by racial/ethnic groups. The transfer partnership embedded these
theories to help Latinx students understand why transfer barriers exist in community college, highlight the wealth
that can be drawn from their community to navigate higher education, and exist in spaces that are predominantly
white. (See Yosso, 2005 for more details)
31
Imposter syndrome is a psychological concept that describes students’ internalized doubts of their
accomplishments, feeling like an outsider, or fear of being exposed as a fraud in a new academic environment. For
community college students, transferring to a new institution creates a difficult transition on its own and these
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 132
Latinos are underrepresented in four-year schools.” Elias further observed that previous Huerta
programs that exposed Latinx students to four-year colleges did not address cultural or ethnic
issues on campus. He brought up students’ prior experiences with predominantly white
institutions, where students reported that “the only Latinos that I see here are the ones serving the
foods.” He argued, “that’s why we need these programs to be culturally-relevant, to empower
our students, to show them they need to be here.”
Establishing this initiative was much easier since it was coordinated by experienced
practitioners, had an existing infrastructure to support implementation, and was built off a solid
relationship with four-year partners. These program features allowed the University Transfer
Partnership to launch without much difficulty the first summer after the student equity plan was
approved and serve Latinx students seeking to transfer out of Huerta.
Projects that Experienced Difficulties in Implementation. Viva La Mujer and Men of
Color programs lacked the foundational advantages that eased the implementation of the
Transfer Partnership with Flagship University and had to be built from the ground up.
The unique, novel characteristics of these programs that made them far more likely to be
successful in improving Latinx transfer, were also the qualities that made them hard to
implement. I focus on Viva La Mujer to describe how these difficulties manifested while trying
to implement the equity project at Huerta. The Men of Color had similar challenges, especially
with the continuous turnover of coordinators, but during my time in the field, there was less
opportunity to observe program events, sit in on coordinator meetings, or review planning
documents as compared with Viva La Mujer. The individuals involved with Viva La Mujer
feelings are heightened when entering a new academic space, getting acclimated to new courses and teaching styles,
or being in class with a less diverse group. Studies find imposter syndrome prevalent among first-generation, low-
income, and students of color. (See Peteet, Montgomery, & Weekes, 2015).
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 133
provided more documents when requested, allowed for several opportunities to observe the
program, and included me in planning meetings held.
Viva La Mujer was designed to support Latinas through the transfer process at Huerta by
providing academic support, mentoring, childcare, and cultural empowerment (Viva La Mujer
Logic Model, 2015). Viva La Mujer was an ambitious program, it aimed to create an
environment that was centered on Latinas and develop services and resources to specifically
address the barriers they faced. The plan called for the involvement of Latina faculty who were
“culturally-sensitive instructors,” Latina tutors, and the organization of “cultural, social justice,
and leadership workshops that support growth and increase self-efficacy.” The initiative faced
institutional challenges at Huerta (i.e., limited staffing, delay in accessing resources, dedicated
space on campus) causing frequent coordinator turnover and delaying program development.
Limited Staffing and Materials to Build the Program. As mentioned earlier,
implementation was stymied by bureaucratic barriers within the fiscal office and requesting
access to equity funds. On the ground, this meant that the individuals overseeing the
establishment of Viva La Mujer were delayed in hiring instructors or tutors to kick off the
program. Alejandra noted, “Given that the [Viva La Mujer] was founded late in the 2014-2015
academic year and the delays with getting the money the possibility of starting our services was
severely limited.” Instead, the program began by holding outreach sessions to make Latinas
aware of the soon-to-be program and providing end-of-semester “care packages,” including
scantrons, blue books, study snacks, and a coffee gift card. Without immediate access to equity
funds, Alejandra and two Latina faculty members in the Chicano Studies department focused on
developing a comprehensive logic model that specified the services to be included. During
summer 2015, they focused on recruiting students, getting faculty and tutors who were Latina,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 134
and planning out the various programs, among them a leadership empowerment workshop and an
invitational event to meet Reyna Grande, an award-winning Mexican-American novelist.
Alejandra Gutierrez handed off coordination to Marissa Martinez, who would lead the effort in
Fall 2015.
Marissa was a part-time instructor in the social sciences when she began to coordinate the
program. She reflected, “it was a challenge for me, trying to achieve the scope of work for the
program, I had to tap into my network here for help.” She continued, “I got volunteers because
we all wanted this to work, to support Latina success,” but it was just “campus members who
were all borrowed for a limited time because there was really no true staffing.” For example, the
coordinator was only half-time, supported by two Latinas that were 25% time “case managers”
while also on the faculty of the child development program, and a counselor liaison that reserved
six hours a week to meet with Viva La Mujer participants. The additional three Latinas
volunteering their time included Lola who was the Dean of Student Success, Marisol in the
EOP&S office, and Areli in the admissions and records office. Marissa Martinez reflected, “it
was always a struggle to make this program happen, it was only me for a while, I always had to
ask for help, and felt guilty asking people to review files or present on the weekends.” A
volunteer at a participant selection meeting observed shared, “I’m here because these ladies need
help, we’ve been waiting for a program like this, and I’m invested in its success.”
I met many of the Latina volunteers when they met to discuss and select the second
cohort of program participants. That specific meeting was divided into three sections to introduce
new faces (like myself), provide program updates from the first year of implementation, and
review applicants for the next cohort, which took the bulk of the time. In conversation, Areli
asked, “Who do we select? We have nearly 400 mujeres who could benefit, but only so many
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 135
can take our courses.” Lola chimed in “well we can probably remove the first year students and
those with less than 12 units, there’s [First-Year] program and we have better orientation now
through SSSP
32
.” Miriam adds, “we should focus on older Latinas, not just in units, but those
who may have outdated educational plans or never met with a counselor to create one.” Another
person responded, “We need to support those who have been here a long time, ones who are
really close to graduating and transferring, but maybe face those barriers,” adding that Latinas
often “hold off to take math, because of work or childcare issues.” Another person reacted in
Spanish, “o el marido que fastidia” translating to “or the bothersome husband, holding the
student back.” A few minutes were spent discussing the family dynamics these Latina transfer-
aspiring students faced and the roadblocks faced at home, on campus, and in society and what
this program could do to combat them. This was an added layer of implementation, the time
necessary to build out the skeleton ideas provided in the equity plan and specifically articulate
how the program would serve and support Latinas in transfer. This observation gave a glimpse
into the patchwork support system necessary to move Viva La Mujer forward given the
coordinators limited capacity and lack of support staff to establish a new program.
Building a Program without Adequate Facilities. For most of 2015 and 2016, both Viva
La Mujer and Men of Color lacked their own dedicated space. The Men of Color program
operated out of available meeting spaces in the library and student center. Viva La Mujer was
somewhat better off, working out of a small cubicle in the back of an office that housed a large
financial aid and counseling program for low-income students. Sandra Flores, a student services
assistant, became the third coordinator of Viva La Mujer, in spring 2016. She discussed how
location and accessibility was an issue with students, “Our space in EOP&S was a small office in
32
Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) refers to a state-level grant that provides community colleges with
funds to restructure and improve matriculation, orientation, counseling, and education planning for students.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 136
the back, it was hard for the students to get to our little area.” She added that EOP&S department
staff added to the complexity by stopping each student and verifying they had an appointment,
while other staff did not know that the program was operating out of the same space:
We had to always remind the [EOP&S] staff and say, “It’s okay, they can come in.”
[Students] always felt like there was a barrier like they couldn't reach us and my
[personal] office wasn’t in that space, it was in [a different building], so I couldn't even
see them come in. If nobody was at the cubicle, the student waited until somebody called
them back. So it wasn’t working out. I was transitioning out of my other role, so that's
why I had an office for that other program, I was kind of working on multiple programs
in student services.
Sandra added, “Students were hesitant to visit because it was usually hard for them to
come early and then EOP&S closes at 7:00pm.” So again, it was a barrier, having the doors
being locked when we were available for our students.” While they shared a space in EOP&S,
Latina students found it difficult to drop-in and it felt like it wasn’t a place they could stop by at
any time. Participating students didn’t know where to go when they had questions or needed
information, the lack of a dedicated office made it impossible to connect with peers during
downtime, and locations for workshops always changed. Similarly, coordinators operated out of
their full-time office space, needing to always travel with program materials in a rolling travel
bag as Antonio recollected. Antonio Nava shared that for Men of Color participants it was also
hard to connect since there was no space available for students to “meet, relax, or just drop-in
between classes.” The lack of facilities made it difficult for program coordinators to be more
engaged with the students, limited the sense of community for the initial cohort, and only the
most persistent students would find their way into the temporary spaces to access support and
resources. With all the limitations of the small cubicle in another program’s office, it was better
than meeting students in the hallway outside of their classrooms, which is what Sandra had to do.
She mentioned, “I found out one of the best ways to meet with them was sitting outside of their
classrooms. It was just easier, so I thought, Okay, the students are here, I’m here, let's meet.”
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 137
Unstable and Inexperienced Coordination. Selecting staff already on campus to serve as
coordinators was helpful to avoid the lengthy hiring process, but there were drawbacks. The
coordinators responsible for the new equity transfer programs were not released from their
existing responsibilities so they assumed leadership of the projects on top of their other roles and
responsibilities. Unusually short tenures in the positions of coordinators was a serious setback to
creating programs with fidelity to their vision for increased equity in transfer for Latinas and for
men of color.
In addition to overseeing the entire equity plan implementation, Alejandra, the newly
appointed Student Equity Coordinator served as the first manager for the Viva La Mujer
program. She shared “we were rushed to get this off the ground and start serving Latinas.” Soon
after, Alejandra identified Marissa Martinez, who was an adjunct professor in the social sciences,
to take over the program. Although the transition was smooth, Marissa commented that she was
only able to “help for about six months because [she] ended up getting the full-time faculty
position” Sandra Flores, a student services specialist, took over as coordinator in the summer of
2016 and she transitioned to a full-time coordinator with the program. Thus, by the second year
of implementation, a total of three coordinators had been appointed to Viva La Mujer, none
lasting more than a few months. It would be nearly two years from the start of the program when
Sandra Flores was designated the full-time coordinator in Spring 2017.
The Men of Color program had even more instability, with four different coordinators
between 2015 and 2017. During the initial period of implementation, Antonio Nava and Jamal
Brown were paired as co-coordinators. Antonio was a staff member in student activities and
Jamal was the men’s basketball coach. As the inaugural coordinators, they spent the early part of
2015 planning for a start in fall 2015. Antonio Nava concluded that it was a “challenge” to lead
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 138
the Men of Color program during its first few months, stating that the 2014 planners only left
him with “a basic blueprint, just the sketches to build an entire program.” The Nava and Brown
co-coordination lasted through fall 2015. Soon after, Robert Harris, a faculty member in the
liberal arts, served as a stopgap between coordinators to keep the program running. In spring
2016, Dr. Román Hernandez, a counselor splitting time in the drop-in counseling office and the
transfer center, took over coordination of the program through summer 2017. In fall 2017, Victor
Magaña became the interim coordinator when Dr. Hernandez left to work at another college.
In their part-time role, these staff members operated at a limited capacity, had their focus
divided among multiple programmatic responsibilities, and faced delays in resource acquisition
that hindered their ability to get the programs up and running. Some shared a sense of guilt for
the inability to focus their attention on the program and participating students. Victor Magaña
shared that he dedicated less than half of his time to the program, “I feel terrible, it’s been a
challenge being there for the students, especially after [Román] left.” He added that he has asked
for additional hours to be shifted to the MOC program but could not get release time since he
oversaw three other projects, including the city-wide free college initiative, formerly-
incarcerated student support program, and undocumented student safe zone training. Victor
continued, “we’ve never had anyone full-time, not even half-time” and “it’s a challenge.” I asked
Victor how he would prioritize leading the MOC among all his responsibilities, and he shared
“probably third on my list of responsibilities, definitely less than half of my time on campus.” He
concluded, “but we do what we can with what we have.” These factors hampered the equity
projects to live up to the vision in the equity plan and address the transfer inequities experienced
by Huerta’s Latinx students.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 139
Pushing Back on Race-Specific Equity Programming. A third project with a high
degree of difficulty at the implementation stage was the Faculty Advocate Program. The idea for
this project came from Juanita Guzman with the support of Stacy Ramirez during the planning
process. The program was envisioned as “a professional development training series for faculty,
staff, and administrators intended to increase the cadre of equity-minded professionals at
[Huerta] who could implement policies and practices that will improve educational outcomes for
students of color.” The program, according to Juanita was meant to help faculty and staff
understand what “equity is, to be comfortable with talking about race, and encouraging faculty to
consider the race-based needs of those students.” The program would be a series of speakers who
would address how to support “Latino, low-income, first-generation students,” “ways to address
transfer barriers here,” and help “define equity and what equity-minded practitioners mean.” She
added, “that’s how we started the program because we felt it was critical that people understand
what equity is and the difference between equity, and say diversity.” The equity project focused
on “increasing equity-mindedness, promoting culturally-responsive practices, and enhancing
cross-cultural communication” to improve the outcomes for students of color on campus.
Designed as a semester-long academy, participants attended four workshops that built off each
other and at the end received a certificate of completion. The first Faculty Advocate Program
series was held in spring 2016. Followed by a second series in fall 2016. The program, on
average, worked with over 110 attendees each semester and nearly half of them received a
certificate for attending at least 3 of the 4 workshops in the series. The series brought nationally
known speakers to address issues of equity, race, and validating the predominantly Latinx
population on campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 140
Although an Office of Professional Development existed on campus, there was no
collaboration between the equity project and current professional development programs offered.
Juanita shared “I spoke with the new professional development person, and asked if they wanted
to work together to bring equity into faculty leadership training” but she was told that
“department chairs have other things in mind for professional development.” She then spoke
about how she avoided that office while coordinating the Faculty Advocacy Program since she
felt some tension related to who oversees professional development, sharing, “I felt it was kind
of territorial, like who are you and why are you doing professional development [Laughs].”
Seeking to improve faculty and staff competence around race and equity, this equity project
could have operated through the existing professional development office, but Juanita felt it was
best to keep the program separate since she had received pushback for trying to create a program
focused on learning about racial equity that deviated from the traditional “leadership
development” curriculum.
The project also faced delays stemming from the budget requisition process and Juanita
trying to navigate the complex process of contracting external speakers at Huerta. After the first
two Faculty Advocate Program cohorts, the coordinator shared, “we started getting pushback
about the money being spent and the effectiveness of bringing these speakers.” Juanita
continued, “I think the [district] board didn’t want us to use our equity money on this, but
addressing racial inequity was our focus, so I didn’t see the issue.” She stated that the Faculty
Advocate Program had to be restructured since funds were no longer being approved for the
speakers, even though the program had originally been developed and allocated resources
through the equity plan. Juanita commented, “we’re trying to redevelop, rethink the program,
given that we can’t do what we did last couple semesters.” Moving forward, the effort focused
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 141
on using alumni of the workshops as facilitators. In comparison to the first year of
implementation that drew over 100 participants, the revised program drew 8, 15, and 25 people
for the sessions. Reflecting on the restrictions placed on the program, Juanita lamented, “not
having the ability to bring on off-campus speakers put a damper on our program, we couldn’t get
a larger draw.” Then concluding, “If people have that expertise on campus already, we wouldn’t
need this. What frustrates me is there’s funding available for this type of work in student equity,
so I’m just not sure what that is about.” Although the purpose was to instill “equity-minded
practices to positively impact the success of students of color in course completion, graduation,
and transfer rates” the effort was deprived of the resources that were needed to create a
professional development activity that would be viewed as a unique opportunity to learn
pedagogical approaches that are responsive to the needs and cultural backgrounds of Huerta’s
students.
“We Failed, We learned”: Re-envisioning Implementation
The coordinators described the early implementation period as the “pilot phase,” where
they experimented and tinkered with what these programs could look like, tried out ideas, and
started over if things did not work out. Antonio Nava expanded, “it was a lot of reflection, going
back to the drawing board, and sharing out ideas, saying this is not going to work or this is
what’s going to work.” He continued, “We failed, we learned, we were pretty much piloting
during the first year, but that’s the foundation for what we currently have.” Although there were
several obstacles in the early implementation period, practitioners were able to learn from
mistakes, make progress, and address some of the shortcomings that constrained implementation.
In particular, programs were given more support staffing and resources as equity funds were
renewed and the funding became stable, communication improved across equity programs which
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 142
lessened the siloed implementation approach, and more attention was placed on evaluation to
understand the progress each program was making towards improving Latinx transfer equity.
Providing More Support and Space to Operate Programs. When asked to reflect on
the early implementation period, Juanita Guzman shared, “the transfer efforts are amazing on
paper, but results aren’t.” “We’ve had lots of challenges with equity programs, sustaining them,
trying to make them larger, incorporating them into the fabric of the campus.” She continued,
“one of the biggest obstacles was there was no clear designation of who was leading the efforts,
you had people with .4 or .6 [percent] of their time committed,” and “without 100% focus, things
fall through the cracks, it’s tough, nobody feels responsibility if they are only doing this part-
time on campus.”
These early implementation challenges faced by coordinators also plagued Alejandra
Gutierrez, the Student Equity Faculty Coordinator, overseeing the development of these efforts
across the campus. Gutierrez would oversee campus-wide coordination from January to
December 2015; leaving the position after several bad experiences trying to lead the
implementation of the student equity efforts on campus. As a faculty member, Alejandra
Gutierrez shared that she “struggled in the position,” had “difficulty convening meetings,”
working with an informal group, and wanted to move the workgroup into a formal committee “to
try to gain legitimacy with the academic senate.” As described earlier, the pushback from the VP
of Finance and the fiscal office also made it a difficult experience to manage. She shared:
“Getting them to pay for the equity stuff was like pulling teeth. There was money for it. We were
just always struggling to get money on time to make these things work.” From conversations
with senior leaders, coordinating student equity was a better fit for a dean or someone with
administrative experiences creating job postings, negotiating contracts, and managing budgets.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 143
Replacing Alejandra with coordination responsibilities was Tracey Rodriguez, hired as
Dean to oversee equity, with experience administering grants in workforce and adult education.
Tracey started in December 2015 and is currently in the position. Her primary responsibility was
to get these programs more support, document impact, navigate organizational hurdles, and make
the informal workgroup of planners and implementers into a sub-committee of the shared
governance structure on campus. By summer 2016, Emilia Leon, now Vice President, and
Tracey Rodriguez, Dean of Student Equity, were able to get their budget requisitions approved
quickly and began to hire people as full-time coordinators. Additionally, the opening of a newly
constructed student center allowed these equity efforts to move into the old campus bookstore.
After a year and a half, Viva La Mujer and Men of Color transfer programs each had a dedicated
space in the same building as the transfer center. Coordinators noted the difference in having
their own space for the equity projects, “So, now that we have a location, [students are] able to
just walk in and meet with us. No appointments needed, they can just be here. Another
coordinator added, “We have a real space on campus, we can be right next door to our students.”
She pointed to her new office and how it was located next to the open lounge area that had
couches, tables, and computers for students in Viva La Mujer and the Men of Color programs to
use during breaks, for workshops, or tutoring sessions.
Better Cross-Effort Communication and Collaboration. As described above, rather
than a comprehensive plan to target Latinx transfer equity, the Viva La Mujer, Men of Color,
University Transfer Partnership, and Faculty Advocacy Programs developed to mitigate
disparities were implemented as separate efforts. Each project went its own way to achieve its
goals from the time they were conceived in 2014 and began implementation in 2015. Over time
project leaders learned from early mistakes and adapted their practices. Juanita shared that as a
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 144
student equity committee, “we learned a lot from the first years of implementation,” noting that
in summer 2017 they held a meeting to coordinate across the four programs for the first time,
“we did planning together, to see what we each were doing, to get organized, to learn how to
better support each other.” This meant that it was nearly a year and a half before coordinators of
individual equity efforts came together to discuss “what were our challenges, what did we
accomplish, and what did we need to improve,” commented Juanita. The lack of early
coordination highlighted the decentralized approach to implementation. After a student services
retreat in 2017, Emilia shared that a reorganization would occur for the three student-focused
equity projects, “we want to improve the individual investments that we have made towards the
Viva La Mujer and Men of Color transfer programs.” She added, “we will still fund them, but we
are also going to make changes organizationally because we want a comprehensive transfer
pathway that builds on each of the strategies” She shared, “before they were being operated by
academic affairs and they were just left hanging on their own,” but moving forward these
projects were going to be “integrated under the transfer center, making sure that these programs
are supported and involved with each other to improve our campus transfer initiatives.”
Lacking Evaluation Strategies. Lastly, one of the things that fell through the cracks
early was program evaluation. Limited data and evidence made it difficult to understand the
changes to Latinx transfer and the specific effect each equity effort had on participants and the
campus at large. As Chris Valencia in Institutional Research shared, “I wish these initiatives
would consult with us, so we can look at the [Viva La Mujer participants] and map out their
achievements, from the time they started and find out if they hit certain benchmarks and transfer
milestones.” Emilia Leon reflected on what could have been done better, she shared, “looking
back, I wish we would’ve really honed in and made sure that our data was collected in a robust
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 145
manner to know what we did in transfer, maybe for all five, all of the indicators [in the student
equity plan]” (e.g., access, basic skills, course completion, degree completion, and transfer).
Tracey agreed, sharing “we’ve struggled with evaluation, it’s been our main criticism. I really
feel like we need to have third-party evaluator brought on as part of equity because we are not
getting the data we need to know if we are making an impact.”
The informal group that wrote the equity plan did not include an assessment plan and
throughout the initial period of implementation, there were no formal procedures to assess how
students experienced the activities. Assessing equity programs was addressed starting in April
2017 by collaborating with the Office of Institutional Research and allocating equity funds to
hire an additional analyst. This analyst spent half of his time evaluating equity programs. A key
focal point was to be able to “map out students’ achievements in the programs, from the time
they started and find out if they hit certain benchmarks and transfer milestones” Tracey, Dean of
Student Equity, commented. She added “I want to be able to say we’ve made an impact, but we
haven’t been able to document and do that yet, that’s where I want to move to” and “that’s where
[Emilia] wants to move to too.” Additionally, by 2017 the informal workgroup that developed
the plan in 2014 was now a formal sub-committee of Huerta’s shared governance and was tasked
with overseeing, evaluating, and reporting the impact of these programs to the shared governance
council, district stakeholders, and community. Becoming part of the governance structure served
as an impetus to collect better data on program enactment, milestones achieved, and outcomes
for participating students.
The experiences at Huerta showcased the slow and complex process of implementing
equity-oriented policy reform. The individuals involved with establishing equity programs to
serve Latinx students seeking to transfer needed time to troubleshoot organizational capacity
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 146
issues and delays in accessing equity funds while also serving in part-time coordination roles.
The final section discusses the progress and milestones achieved by these equity projects and
how Latinx transfer barriers were addressed through the implementation of the student equity
plan at Huerta.
6.3 What Were the Results of Implementing these Latinx Transfer Equity Efforts?
Three years into the implementation of Huerta’s student equity plan, I set out to examine the
preliminary influence of the four equity initiatives on Latinx transfer. The findings in this section
were informed by practitioner anecdotes, program observations, equity committee meeting
minutes, publicly available equity reports, and institutional outcome data
33
. I first document the
results of the four equity programs, then I highlight the change that occurred on campus as a
result of implementing these initiatives, and I conclude with how the student equity planning
process impacted the state of Latinx transfer equity on campus.
Documenting the Impact of the Equity Projects
In the 2014 student equity plan, the articulated goals for the equity projects were simple:
“increase the proportion of Hispanic/Latino students transferring” and “reducing their equity gap
in transfer completion.” I share data from two public-meetings where coordinators provided
program updates in 2016 and 2017 as well as documents shared by individuals at Huerta while in
the field to describe the impact of these equity efforts.
In late 2016, the Student Equity Committee —which went from planning group in 2014,
implementing team in 2015, and now a formal subcommittee on campus reporting to Huerta’s
shared governance council— convened a meeting to share out “Equity Progress Reports” where
33
I was limited in terms of acquiring raw data directly from Huerta practitioners or the institutional research office
to understand the progress made by each program and how they supported students towards transfer success.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 147
coordinators presented implementation progress, challenges faced, and student achievements. At
this point, the campus was two years beyond the planning phase and had completed their first
full academic year of implementation. This meeting was the first opportunity to learn about the
progress being made with student equity at Huerta. Each program coordinator presented updates
in a common format that included a project overview, described services provided, the number of
participants served, the impact of the program, and the challenges faced. In Table 13 below I
illustrate the participant count shared out at the 2016 equity meeting and 2017 student services
retreat for the four initiatives observed at Huerta.
Table 13
Individual Student Participation in the Four Equity Initiatives
Program 2015 2016 2017 Total After 3 Years
34
Viva La Mujer Participants 80 130 180 390
Men of Color Participants 40 60 80 180
University Transfer Partnership
Participants
120
145
175
440
Faculty Advocate Program
Participants
180
35
215
Sandra Flores began the presentations by describing the purpose of Viva La Mujer, “we
provide Latinas with a pathway to academic success, we are trying to address the gap in transfer
completion for the ladies” through a “cohort that provides classes and resources specifically
tailored to Latinas.” She added that the program was about providing “layers of support” that
included educational planning, tutoring, leadership, and empowerment, as well as courses
offered at night or on weekends with childcare services. The Viva La Mujer program began with
80 students in fall 2015 and grew by 50 participants each year. She added, “good news, we
already have our first [set of] transferred students” and the room broke out into a spontaneous
34
With the data provided from Huerta practitioners I am unable to account for students that may have participated in
more than one equity program. There may be some overlap in the total number reported.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 148
applause. She then spoke of the services offered such as identifying high-risk courses for Latinas,
which included Biology and Math, and creating customized classes for the participants that were
taught by Latina professors. In addition, the courses had in-class supplemental instruction, Latina
peer-tutors, and workshops on developing study skills. She added, “these courses and workshops
are offered in the evenings on Fridays (6:00pm-8:30pm) and Saturdays (9am-12pm), making it
more flexible for Latinas who may work during the day, are the primary caretaker, or need
additional support to navigate more challenging courses along the transfer/graduation path.” In
addition, she mentioned all participants were provided a comprehensive educational plan that
followed the transfer curriculum required to attend a University of California campus, known as
IGTEC
35
. By following the UC transfer pathway, Latinas were more informed about the transfer
process, able to narrow their focus on a program of study and, hopefully, lessen the time needed
to transfer by only taking courses within the UC transfer curriculum. Additionally, by following
the UC transfer curriculum, Latinas would be eligible to apply to the California State University
system which also accepts the general education courses outlined in the pathway.
Sandra mentioned two challenges to sustain Viva La Mujer: the wide variation in
participants’ needs and striking a balance between optional and required participation. She
shared that the program needed to do a better job of disaggregating data to identify the needs of
students, in particular, how to run a program that serves Latinas in their 8
th
year on campus with
over 100 units and more recent students just beginning in college seeking to transfer. To address
this, she shared, “we will do a better job of disaggregating data of who we can support” and
“create new criteria for who should be part of [Viva La Mujer].” For the newer students in the
35
The Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) is a statewide articulation agreement
between the University of California System and California Community Colleges. This transfer pathway is also
aligned with the California State University System given students flexibility and choice when applying to schools.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 149
program, following the UC transfer curriculum for early on would also help minimize the time
need to take the necessary units to transfer out of Huerta. She then discussed that a challenge was
getting participants to attend all the workshops planned during the semester. Sandra added, “we
need to be more stern with the ladies” regarding things that are “recommended” and “be more
direct” by establishing a participation contract for the program. As she concluded presenting, she
had a slide behind her with the commencement ceremony held spring 2016: “it’s powerful, to see
these ladies wear their [Viva La Mujer] sash at the transfer ceremony and be role models for
other Latinas that want to graduate and transfer.”
Román Hernandez went next to discuss the Men of Color program which “focuses
specifically on black and brown students, in terms of supporting them to cultivate leadership
skills and then transfer.” The program was smaller than its Latina counterpart, established with a
cohort of 40 students. Román talked less about the numbers only sharing, “we served 41 students
this fall” and highlighted the programming which included transfer workshops, community
service, and a neck-tie drive to help the men dress up for job interviews. He admitted, “I haven’t
been here long, so I’m catching up on the transfer rates for the group.” He then talked about the
“mentality” of the program and developing resources and programs that don’t see men of color
as “a deficit” but put the responsibility on the “program, [Huerta], and community” to support
these students to transfer. Román then shared that a “student club was created to include students
that weren’t part of the official program” because of a cap on program participation which
allowed additional men of color to attend workshops and events.
Elias Alonzo came up next and discussed the progress with the University Transfer
Partnerships which held immersion programs the last two summers. He began by saying “equity
has really helped change the culture around transfer on campus, equity has helped us focus on
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 150
Latino transfer and offering services that appeal to them.” He reported that in 2015 over 120
students took advantage of the two-week program at California Flagship University and that the
number grew to 145 the following year. He added that the partnership was growing to a second
campus in summer 2017, a private college near the coast known as Palm Breeze University.
After the individual presentations, Emilia Leon shared a glossy “Student Services
Newsletter” prepared by the Division of Student Services. That report highlighted the first year
of implementation and the progress of Huerta’s “aggressive student equity program” focused on
improving educational equity on campus. The publication was a way for student services to
provide the campus with a “snapshot of some of the new and/or redesigned programs funded by
equity dollars that have recently been launched or expanded” to “address educational equity that
leads to increased rates of student success for disproportionately impacted student groups.”
As the newsletter made its way around the room, Emilia Leon stood up and began to
describe why the initial equity planners in 2014-2015 decided to focus the campus’s equity
efforts on transfer and Latinx students. She stated, “In the beginning, we were protecting this
money in equity for transfer, to support Latinos, no matter what anyone else told us.” She
continued, “and now, yes we are seeing changes in transfer, why is that? Equity.” Nearly two
years after the plan was created, Emilia was reminding the current student equity committee
members of their initial commitment to transfer equity and why they safeguarded those resources
to improve Latinx transfer on campus. In this same meeting, Emilia concluded, “it's not about
little programs and projects, it's about transformation… equity isn't about the money, but the
quality of the endeavors.” By interjecting, she was making sure that committee members did not
get hung up on the dollars available, but on the efforts that had been proposed in 2014-2015 and
what could be done currently to build on them and continue to target Latinx transfer equity.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 151
After numerous coordinators and a few years to become operational, these projects were
living up to the expectations set in their 2014 plan. At a student services retreat in 2017, Sandra
Flores reported 70% of the 80 students in 2015 Viva La Mujer cohort transferred out of Huerta.
Román Hernandez stated that 45% of the 40 students in the inaugural cohort transferred. Viva La
Mujer had successfully supported 56 Latinas to complete their transfer curriculum, apply to four-
year schools, and transition out of Huerta. The Men of Color program had 18 students do the
same. In any given year, Huerta transfers out between 900 and 1200 students. In 2017, Huerta’s
six-year transfer rate for all students was 31% and 24% for Latinx students. Based on the self-
reported numbers by coordinators, which I was not able to confirm with publicly-available data,
these programs outpaced the Latinx and all student transfer rate averages on campus
36
. It is
important to note that the unequal comparison between all Latinx students (that may not have
received an additional support or advising at Huerta) and those in the equity programs since they
ranged between 3
rd
semester and 6
th
year students and received wrap-around support to help
them navigate the campus and prepare for transfer. Lastly, Elias Alonzo reported that the
University Transfer Partnership served nearly 450 Latinx, first-generation, and undocumented
students over the first three summers. Elias Alonzo also mentioned that he did not have data yet
that tracked the milestones achieved after participation and was working on building a database
that listed where students transferred to. In the 2017-2018 academic year over 400 Latinx
students were able to take advantage and benefit from these equity programs combined.
Practitioners’ Perception of Change on Campus
Coordinators and campus leaders at Huerta shared different perspectives on the influence
these efforts had on improving transfer for Latinx students. Their perspective largely fell into
36
I requested “aggregate” student-level data to explore the success rate of each program, but was not provided with
that data. I was only able to follow-up with coordinators and confirm the numbers shared at public meetings.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 152
three themes: increased exposure to transfer opportunities, creating new culturally-relevant
programs on campus, and moving towards systemic change to address student equity.
Increasing Exposure to Transfer Opportunities. Practitioners indicated that the area
where the initiatives had the most impact was in expanding exposure and visibility of transfer.
There were new opportunities for Latinx students to “finally step outside of [Huerta]” as Tracey
Rodriguez mentioned, “and go to the Bay Area, visit Stanford University” or as Elias shared,
“leave their parent’s home for the first time, learn what it is like to be at a four-year institution
and live in a residence hall for three weeks” as a University Transfer Partnership participant.
Marissa Martinez had a similar sentiment, “these equity programs are helping our Latinas be
prepared to transfer, and when it happens, seeing them leave the [Huerta] area for the first time,
it’s worth it.” Others shared that it was about seeing a greater emphasis throughout campus on
transfer, and offering more students the opportunity to see themselves as a four-year student.
Tracey Rodriguez, the campus equity coordinator, also talked about the ultimate impact
as “giving students exposure. There really is no price tag on it.” She added, “sometimes I get
upset when I see contracts coming in for hotels and student travel but at the end of the day when
I talk to students and see we are sending [on visits to four-year colleges] students that never
would have that opportunity otherwise.” As Tracey speaks, she starts to tear up, then crying, she
pauses, “That’s when I say, okay, because I just see the growth.” She then described the
influence of the University Transfer Partnership, “I had a student worker that was so afraid to go
to [California Flagship University” and then spent three weeks” there and “is now considering
moving out of the area. There is not a price tag on that. When the students come back and [are]
inspired to transfer anywhere.” Juanita shared, “funding has been able to help a lot of programs
that needed help, you know, getting students to colleges so that students can envision themselves
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 153
there. I think that’s critical. So, I know a lot of the funding went there, which is great. The
students were able to do campus visits.”
Similarly, Elias mentioned, “I think with our students the biggest thing is exposure. I
could talk to [them] until my head turns blue regarding doing research on campuses, but it’s
another thing to take a student [on a campus visit].” He continued:
When I take a student and he steps foot on a campus and they are out of the bubble
because we are in a bubble here at [Huerta]. You go to the local mercado, it’s all Latino,
Latino, Latino. Where we have the [University Transfer Partnership], like many other
colleges that our students transfer to, all they see, white, white, white when they arrive.
So the 22-day on-site program through equity is where they take a Chicano Studies class
and they are talking about identity theory with Latino peers, and they are actually really
experiencing what it’s like to be at [Four-Year Campus] before they transfer.
Emilia also discussed that when the equity projects began in 2015, it coincided with the
growing aspiration among Latinx students to transfer. She shared data that showed transfer as the
primary educational goal increased from 60% in 2010, 66% in 2012, 71.5% in 2015, and in
2016, the most recent year available, showed 73.1% of first-time students
37
wanting to transfer.
Juanita added that Viva La Mujer has been able to make Latinas in the program “feel like they
can transfer if they want to, now or in the future. The program is getting them to see that they can
do it. So I absolutely believe that by their participation in it they are able to see themselves as
four-year students. So, yes that’s money well spent.” For practitioners on campus, the creation of
these Latinx transfer programs helped more students see themselves as transfer students and
exposed them to universities outside of the Huerta area.
Culturally-Relevant Transfer Programs. Coordinators overseeing the transfer equity
projects believed that creating and offering transfer-related programs tailored specifically for
Latinx students was a critical difference made by student equity at Huerta. Lola Velazquez
37
From our conversation, the data discussed was from CCCApply which is the online application portal for students.
The primary educational goal and transfer aspiration only captures new students to the community college district.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 154
commented, “It’s been nice to be a little more creative and flexible with [Viva La Mujer], having
Latina tutors engaging with the students in the classroom, getting to know the math faculty who
are Latinas themselves.” She added that the initiatives were developed as “creative programs
centered on Hispanic culture,” and have been “successful in getting everyone to buy into helping
out our Latinas on campus transfer.” Román Hernandez also saw an opportunity to be creative
with the type of support provided for Latinx students, “As a lead, it’s like, it’s a playground, I get
to develop and create these awesome programs. And our campus community wants us to be more
equity-minded.” He continued, “The equity focus and funding for [Viva La Mujer] and [Men of
Color] are different, I’ve been at places before and felt that we were meeting them halfway to a
certain extent,” but “these programs here were created differently, staying away from the student
deficit model,” and focused on “what can we do in the institution to get the students to benefit
from them on a consistent basis.” He continued, “in our program, we provided intrusive
counseling, developed some awesome resources, and cultivated leadership skills that benefit
black and brown students.”
Practitioners shared that these Latinx-specific efforts were making an impact on students
but did not have access to data to support their beliefs. Román commented, “Well, I haven’t been
here a whole year yet, but I would like to look at transfer rates, retention rates, number of units,
more quantitative data, to see how we are making a difference for our men.” Sandra Flores did
have some data to share for Viva La Mujer, stating that the first cohort that began in 2015 had 56
of 80 students successfully transfer out of Huerta. She concluded that the graduation was free
marketing for the program and the incoming 2016 cohort since “people asked at the [transfer
reception], what group is that? How can more students join the program?” One of the most
impactful efforts was bringing speakers of color to motivate and inspire participants in Viva La
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 155
Mujer. Through Viva La Mujer participants were able to attend cultural events, including
attending a performance of “Real Women Have Curves” a movie about an academically gifted
girl from East Los Angeles who is admitted to Columbia University. The movie’s themes are
close to the experiences of Latinx first-generation students and the barriers they have to
overcome to fulfill their aspirations for a college education. Tracey Rodriguez, the campus-wide
coordinator overseeing the equity funds, added, “Sometimes, I think, are we really going to
spend money on a play? But then I realize it’s an opportunity for these ladies - who gets that
opportunity to talk to Josefina López [the writer], like one-on-one?” She continued, “It’s not just
seeing her play, but having our ladies be there and be able to talk to her about Real Women Have
Curves and be in the presence of a strong Chicana.”
Systemic Change. Lastly, there were a few practitioners that described these equity
efforts as giving rise to systemic change on campus. Antonio Nava described it as “reshap[ing]
how the campus thought about supporting students.” He mentioned how equity planning was
“rubbing off on people, before equity was about fairness, treating individuals equally, having a
cookie-cutter approach to supporting students,” but now “we know that there is no one size fits
all, and the campus has to approach barriers to student success differently, validating students’
backgrounds.” He continued, “equity made these ideas a reality for many individuals that wanted
to see this campus-wide change.” Being more optimistic, he concluded, “I know that [the
campus] is changing; my experience with [the Men of Color program] and knowing firsthand
what these programs are doing for students, allowing students to reach their max potential, they
are transform[ing] the campus and students’ academic journey.” Huerta President, Manuel
Lopez, shared, “There is a lot of challenges to transfer, but you know, in hindsight regarding the
Latino population, I definitely think that as an institution we’ve created equity initiatives moving
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 156
us towards the right direction” and “those projects that are now being implemented to really get
our students to thinking about transfer early on and then give them the support needed to achieve
their goals is improving [Huerta].”
Moving the Needle toward Latinx Transfer Equity
As practitioners reflected on the student equity planning and its implementation, there
was a sense that improving Latinx transfer equity was a slow process and it would take years to
show progress. The President of Huerta said that in 2014 when the student equity plan was
announced the college was not “transferring as many students” as he thought they should be.
“We were not helping students to achieve their educational goals. Given the size and scope of
who we are, we weren’t transferring as many people as [other colleges].” He continued, “Equity
has given us the motivation to change. Sometimes you need the legislature to provide a policy
like this, to have us look at our numbers, see we aren’t doing so well in certain areas, and use
[planning] as a tool to change the campus.” He shared that the efforts resulting from the equity
plan were helping Huerta change from being “just a big campus with a lot of Latino students” to
one where “the campus becomes a top transfer institution” and “the Hispanic student that lives
across the street says they want to go here rather than [high-transfer community colleges].”
He then commented that the “state needs to keep the funding going because a lot of the
gaps that [Huerta] are trying to close have been going on for years, it may take ten years to fix
the gap” because “it’s impossible for me to say, we implemented these [equity efforts] and now
two years later, everything is fixed.” He concluded, “the legislature doesn’t like to hear that
progress takes time and that moving the needle takes years,” but his impression was that “we’ve
made an impact with what [Emilia] and [Lola] have done with this equity opportunity.” The
president then shared some data about Huerta’s progress on improving transfer in general:
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 157
Incrementally, we can certainly show that from all the equity money there have been
results. Many more students are transferring, the culture on our campus is changing. Our
transfer ceremony that we do, the first one [in 2014] had maybe 75 people. The last
[2017] ceremony we just did in [Huerta] Auditorium, had about 1,600 people. No doubt
student equity helped tremendously. We began to line up the ducks, line up the funds in
order to help us achieve the plan that we've established under transfer. We made a
commitment to put more resources into it. In 2013, we were ranked [Top 30] in sending
students to the Cal State system. Now [Top 15] and we still have work to do. I don’t want
to be 13
th
, I want to be number one, we all want to be the best. So, we’ve improved
statistically and dramatically, with the support of equity.
From this conversation, it was clear that the president felt student equity had made an impact on
campus with their transfer success. He pointed out how equity planning allowed the campus to
prioritize transfer and use the funds toward that end. He continued, “So that's the advantage of
having student equity funds in that you get a chance to delve into these issues that you know are
going to take a long-term solution, that we know it's just not going to be a quick fix.” He then
talked about the pressure to show results immediately, “Proposing long-term solutions [are]
difficult to push because we live in a society where nobody wants to wait more than a year, a
year is one year too long. But addressing inequity requires long-term solutions.” He concluded,
“When you think about it logically, you know it's the right thing but it’s hard for anyone to wait
that long. I remember talking about it with Trustees, they want to be able to put their trophies in
the case, but closing gaps for Latinos take long-term solutions.”
6.4 Summary of the Implementation Process at Huerta
At Huerta Community College, equity planners seized equity funding as an opportunity
to improve Latinx transfer equity. They proposed programs and services that could better serve
Latinx students on campus, the group with the largest disparities in transfer. In the equity plan,
these efforts were outlined as a comprehensive strategy of direct student support, summer
transfer immersion programs, professional development for faculty and a research partnership to
further investigate the barriers and potential remedies for these inequities. This chapter
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 158
highlighted the difficulty of implementing those Latinx-focused equity efforts and shows the
complexity of moving student equity from ideas on paper to campus practices that can benefit
Latinx students. As I described, coordinators made responsible for implementing these equity
projects were placed challenging situations; they were serving in part-time and limited capacity,
had less knowledge and experience with student equity, and needed to contend with and navigate
through organizational structures, not accounted for in the equity plan. The projects proposed
were aspirational and the execution was unstable taking multiple years just to get off the ground
and start these efforts, but over time, Latinx students were able to access, participate, and benefit
from the programs envisioned. In the final chapter, I situate the implementation of student equity
at Huerta within the broader literature, draw out the lessons learned from this study, and layout
implications from this case for policy, practice, and future policy implementation scholarship.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 159
CHAPTER 7
Discussion and Implications
My interests in equity, policy analysis, and improving outcomes for Latinx students in
community college prompted this study. I explored how one community college took advantage
of a state policy to address Latinx transfer disparities openly. In the first two chapters, I
introduced the student equity policy, the importance of addressing Latinx transfer inequity in
California, and the benefits of the reform effort to invest resources in strategies that addressed
racial inequity in community colleges. In part, the selection of Huerta Community College was
an attempt to move “beyond misery research” (McLaughlin, 2006), where researchers document
and report the failures of policy implementation. Instead, Huerta was selected to explore and
learn how it was able to develop an equity plan focused on one of the most pressing issues in
higher education, the inequitable rates of transfer for Latinx students. The results from my
dissertation indicate that good intentions and a Latinx-focused equity plan are insufficient when
navigating the complex process of implementation. This is especially so when many of the
programs proposed were new to campus, focused on addressing Latinx inequity, and the existing
infrastructure was inadequate for the vision articulated in their plan. Data from this study
highlights the need for practitioners to act as advocates for Latinx students and use policy as
opportunities to address areas of inequity, like transfer disparities. At the same time, there is a
need for continuity and commitment from the individuals who seized on the plan to carry out an
explicit agenda of racial equity.
The case study showed that the centeredness of Huerta’s plan on Latinx transfer equity
was made possible by the visionary leadership of Emilia and her hand-picked colleagues.
Leadership that flows from experience with social justice movements and identifies with the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 160
situation of marginalized communities was essential to Huerta’s plan. However, the findings
show that the realization of grand visions of social justice require leadership with the managerial
know-how to get things done effectively. Huerta’s experience argues for visionary and pragmatic
leadership as necessary elements of projects that aim to change long-standing structures and
establish an agenda that challenges color-blindness and the ideology of serving “all” students
equally. The case study of Huerta also shows that it is possible for an institution to self-correct.
The first year of implementation was characterized by instability, a lot of floundering, lack of
accountability, and a general sense of chaos. However, Huerta’s leaders and practitioners learned
from their mistakes and were able to remediate their implementation approach to accomplish the
goals of strengthening transfer for Latinas and for men of color. This final chapter offers an
overview of key themes drawn from my findings, links the results to my theoretical framework
and relevant bodies of literature, outlines implications for policy and practice, reflects on the
dissertation process, and proposes future research to continue the work brought forth from this
study.
7.1 Summary of Major Findings
This dissertation explored three research questions:
1. In what ways did the policy, institutional, individual, and situated contexts of Huerta
enable the development of a student equity plan to improve transfer opportunities for
Latinx students?
2. In what ways did the current contextual conditions at Huerta facilitate the implementation
of the student equity plan with fidelity to its focus on improving transfer opportunities for
Latinx students?
3. What can be learned about equity-oriented policy implementation from the experiences
of individuals charged with its enactment?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 161
To answer these research questions, I developed a Multi-Contextual Implementation Framework
(MCIF) adapted from Oakes and colleagues’ (2005) work exploring the contextual factors that
can restrict, resist, or enable the implementation of equity-minded reform in schooling. Key to
this framework was the concept of a Zone of Tolerance which places the focus on specific
factors that influence policy implementation and how those factors work to constrain or enable
race-conscious strategies in equity planning (Coburn, 2016; Oakes et al., 2005; Renee et al.,
2009). For my framework, I highlighted four contextual elements: the policy and its mandates
(Policy Context), the site of implementation (Organizational Context), the individual actors
involved (Individual Characteristics), and their interactions in social settings (Situated Context).
Research question 1: In what ways did the policy, institutional, individual, and situated
contexts of Huerta enable the development of a student equity plan to improve transfer
opportunities for Latinx students?
The extant literature documents the importance of policy context and structuring policy
in ways that allow for ground-level actors to interpret, carry out, and achieve the intended goals
of reform (Coburn, 2016; Marsh, 2012; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989). The results from this
study show the importance of designing a policy with non-neutral language (Oakes et al., 2015),
including mandates that can empower practitioners to be race-conscious in their approach (Dowd
& Bensimon, 2015), and allowing for flexibility at the local-level (Hill, 2001). The equity-
oriented language in the policy cued practitioners at Huerta that this reform was about supporting
students that faced the largest barriers in student success. Practitioners described that the student
equity plan finally offered the opportunity to pursue endeavors that sought parity in outcomes for
racial groups on campus. One individual shared how “the state finally gave them the license to
be Latino-centric” because the reform was about serving students that were facing large gaps and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 162
use equity resources specifically for these identified groups. An important finding that emerged
was how the design of the policy, which required community colleges to examine their inequities
by race and ethnicity, served as a catalyst for practitioners at Huerta to address disparities in
Latinx transfer. Through the disaggregation of data, practitioners were provided with compelling
evidence that Latinx students faced severe disparities in transfer and now could use student
equity to finally serve them. The design of the policy, language used, and discretion at the
institutional-level prompted practitioners at Huerta to see the planning process as an opportunity
to address racial inequities on campus.
This study found that the organizational context of Huerta during the equity planning
phase was open to a more Latinx-focused approach. Specifically, the campus’ history, senior
leadership, and shifting campus culture were part of the foundation that allowed practitioners to
develop an equity plan that addresses Latinx transfer barriers. The emphasis on Latinx transfer
issues taken when designing the equity plan aligned well with the identity and conditions of the
campus at that time. Huerta had a rich history of activism, working towards social justice, and
centering the educational opportunities of the Latinx community. A new president arrived on
campus in 2013 with a focus on improving Huerta’s state rankings and called for the
prioritization of transfer. There was also an improving climate related to discussing inequities in
terms of race and offering race-specific solutions. Lastly, the individuals involved in planning
benefited from developing programs and strategies with newly allocated equity funds. Having
specific money to draw from lessened the potential opposition on campus since Latinx transfer
projects would not be funded by general campus resources.
At the individual level, I documented the critical nature of leaders involved in student
equity and the characteristics they possess that help facilitate equity-oriented change on campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 163
Oakes and Lipton (2002) highlight the need for implementing leaders to possess a critical
understanding of equity, savviness to navigate around potential opposition, and the status on
campus that allows them to persuade people to support the reform’s intent and vision for change.
At Huerta, the transition from James Denton to Emilia Leon put in place a leader with a race-
conscious vision for equity planning who was known as a champion for student success.
Although serendipitously placed in this role, Emilia leveraged her experience as a faculty
member and administrator to maneuver the planning process through campus, district, and state
review and approval. The literature on policy implementation finds that leaders must be able to
use their status and reputation on campus to carry complex reforms forward and build
relationships with potential detractors to enact change towards more equitable results (Lewis &
Diamond, 2015). Prior knowledge, experiences with external reform, and beliefs around using
student equity to address racial injustice were an asset during the planning phase. Additionally,
as the leader of equity planning, Emilia was responsive to the reform’s intent and possessed a
level of willingness to use the reform to explicitly target the greatest inequity on campus, the
transfer rates of Latinx students.
The situated context during the planning phase was shaped by the intentional
recruitment of individuals and willingness to come together over the summer to review data,
propose programs, and complete the plan. Emilia’s workgroup consisted of individuals who were
“like-minded, equity-oriented,” possessed high-status on campus and advocated for improving
transfer for Latinx students. In turn, the planning workgroup displayed characteristics of equity-
mindedness, as defined by Bensimon (2007), specifically being more race-conscious,
acknowledging the existence of a color-blind ideology, recognizing the responsibility of
institutions to address inequity, and need for the redistribution of resources to the neediest groups
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 164
on campus (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). As a group, they reviewed their campus data, had
discussions on identifying equity gaps, and proposed strategies and activities to improve student
outcomes. Key elements of situated context were present during the planning phase; there was a
shared understanding of student equity, they developed a cohesive intragroup dynamic, and used
their collective agency to craft an equity plan that addressed Latinx transfer.
Research question 2: In what ways did the current contextual conditions at Huerta
facilitate the implementation of the student equity plan with fidelity to its focus on
improving transfer opportunities for Latinx students?
The policy context, design and mandates of the student equity policy, were less of a
factor in the implementation of the equity plan and proposed Latinx transfer projects. As time
passed, individuals involved were less concerned with the reform itself since they were busy
establishing and coordinating the different projects in the plan. Similarly, student equity began to
transition from an external reform mandated by the state to a normal campus process. There were
benefits and drawbacks to this formalization process. The informal workgroup led by Emilia
Leon in 2014 was now a formal subcommittee of Huerta’s shared governance, chaired by Dean
Tracey Rodriguez. Through this process, the Student Equity Committee defined their role and
purpose on campus, recruited members through a representative model, and moved towards an
advisory group that oversaw and allocated equity money rather than one that developed and
funded its own programs intent on addressing student equity on campus. A drawback of
formalization was no longer being able to recruit like-minded individuals and the shift in
members from year to year. With these transitions over time, the workgroup drifted away from
using the policy as an opportunity to address racial disparities and the 2014 vision of addressing
Latinx transfer inequity. Lacking continuity in committee membership there was a loss of
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 165
institutional memory related to student equity, the planning process, and the initial focus on
Latinx transfer equity, although those projects established earlier on continued to be funded and
supported through equity funds.
As implementation proceeded, the organizational context, including existing campus
structures, practices, and rules emerged as barriers and roadblocks for the development of new
equity projects. Although these projects were envisioned with the new equity dollars in mind, the
individuals charged with implementation were not able to access the funding in a timely manner
because they had to abide by cumbersome procedures. As the campus-wide coordinator for
equity shared, Huerta had adequate funds for these projects but was unable to “crack them” to
build the institution’s capacity for new Latinx transfer programs. Similarly, equity initiatives like
Viva La Mujer and the Men of Color transfer academies were planned as stand-alone programs,
but the practitioners in 2014 failed to acquire or assign space for coordinators to operate them. In
the first year of implementation, these programs were given minimal space: one received a small
cubicle in the student services building, while another used the campus center and library
workgroup spaces to conduct meetings, workshops, and student check-ins. The challenges and
delays observed at Huerta were largely associated with lack of capacity on campus to start new
programs. Practitioners at Huerta may have had well-intentioned ideas, strategies, and programs
to make a difference for Latinx students but bureaucratic barriers, limited organizational
infrastructure, as well as pushback from campus actors like the Vice President of Finance
restricted and delayed the implementation process.
At the individual level, there was a sharp transition between the practitioners that came
up with the plan and the ones tasked to carry it out. During the implementation phase,
responsibility was delegated to a new group of individuals. There were critical differences in the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 166
social status of practitioners, their knowledge related to the policy reform, equity-minded
competence, and expertise related to starting and coordinating a program designed to redress
student inequities. For the most part, the individuals charged with implementation of student
equity were new to the process and missed out on key discussions about the policy guidelines,
data inquiry, and deliberations on how to best use the plan to improve equity. Lacking this
foundational context, they were more focused on the individual programs tasked to coordinate
rather than on understanding the plan as a comprehensive effort to improve transfer equity at
Huerta. To add to their differentiated knowledge, these implementers were given the
responsibility of coordinating these equity initiatives as part-time staff or as one of many other
responsibilities they had on campus. Compared to the individuals involved in the planning phase
like Nancy, a long-time faculty member and union president, Lola the dean of student services,
or Emilia, who had a 20-year history on campus and now serving as Vice President, the
coordinators given the responsibility to get the programs off the ground were less experienced
and their limited power made it difficult to advocate for the programs during the implementation
process. As documented in Chapter 6, these actors worked towards implementing the ideas in the
equity plan but had to contend with conditions that made it an overwhelming task. Regardless of
their commitment to addressing Latinx transfer or improving equity, practitioners were limited in
their capacity to do so and lacked the know-how and power to overcome the bureaucratic
barriers as the implementation of the equity plan unfolded on campus.
The situated context at Huerta shifted from a having collective group advocating for
Latinx transfer during the planning phase to siloed individual action when coordinators were
tasked with implementing the equity plan. While the first phase included handpicked, seasoned
campus leaders with time for them to come together to craft the equity plan, those elements were
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 167
missing during implementation. Practitioners were selected in haste to start implementation
quickly; emphasis was placed on their ability to oversee a specific task. Similarly, since the
implementation of the projects focused on discrete components of the larger plan, individuals
lacked the opportunity to come together. Without a shared space, individuals coordinating
projects were not able to develop a shared understanding of student equity or see how their
specific task contributed to a comprehensive plan designed to address Latinx transfer inequity.
Research question 3: What can be learned about equity-oriented policy implementation
from the experiences of individuals charged with its enactment?
Comparing planning and implementation, the planning phase described in Chapter 5
could be likened to practitioners flying 10,000 feet above the campus with seasoned pilots
charting the trajectory and destination of student equity. Above the clouds, the development of
the equity plan was guided by experienced leaders at Huerta, shaped by a small core of Latinx
transfer advocates, and faced minimal resistance when moving the Latinx-focused projects
through the review and approval process. Table 14 organizes the findings by my framework and
highlights ways practitioners at Huerta were enabled or hindered during the planning and
implementation of student equity.
Table 14.
Contextual Factors as Catalysts and Barriers to Equity-Oriented Policy Implementation
Factor Planning Phase Implementing Phase
Individual • Strong, high-status leaders
• Social justice focus with an
understanding of student equity
• Prior knowledge and experiences
with campus reforms
• Practitioners in less influential
positions on campus
• Lack of contextual knowledge of
student equity
• Implement plan in a part-time role
Organizational • Senior leadership prioritized
improving transfer
• Increased awareness of racial
disparities and how to address them
• Campus bureaucracy and
entrenched practices delay access
to equity funds
• Lack of infrastructure on campus
to support the implementation
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 168
• Institution committed to supporting
Latinx student success
Situated • Strategic recruitment of planners
allows for cohesive intragroup
dynamics
• Summer planning process allows
for collective sensemaking
• Use agency to advocate for campus
change related to Latinx transfer
(collective action)
• Hastily selected individuals to
coordinate equity projects
• No organized space for
practitioners to come together and
develop a shared understanding
• Focus on implementing an
individual project (siloed action)
Policy • A new initiative on campus
overseeing by an informal ad-hoc
workgroup
• Mandates prompt the exploration of
inequity in outcomes by race
• Initiative gets embedded into
campus structure becoming a
shared governance subcommittee
• Revised mandates prompt equity
for all approach
Zone of
Tolerance
• Contextual factors aligned to create
an environment that was open to
race-conscious planning
• Contextual factors acted as barriers
to create an environment that
limited the ability to enact race-
conscious equity projects
Ultimately, it seemed as if Huerta had two different zones of tolerance, where the
planning phase experienced a more open-environment for race-conscious efforts and the
implementation phase experienced a constricted environment. When it came to implementing the
equity plan, the destination was the same, but a different journey altogether. During
implementation, practitioners overseeing the process traveled via car to try to reach the
destination, having to face more on-the-ground obstacles, unanticipated challenges, and traverse
organizational roadblocks to reach the destination. As newcomers to the equity projects, these
coordinators were less aware of the conversations and data analysis that took place during the
planning process, how the emphasis on Latinx students came to be, and for the most part, only
knew about the individual program they would oversee. Lacking the foundational context limited
their ability to implement the reform to address specific racial disparities and advocate for
remedying Latinx transfer inequity as a priority. The window for race-conscious implementation
decreased between getting ideas approved on paper and making them a reality in practice. So,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 169
what can be learned? I discuss this in the next section as I link my work to the broader policy
implementation literature and draw out the ways Huerta can provide lessons for practitioners to
use reform opportunities to address racial inequity like Latinx transfer disparities.
7.2 Implications: Lessons from Huerta
I identified Huerta Community College as an institution of interest because they wrote an
equity plan unlike others in the state in that it directly addressed Latinx transfer. Across
California, plans varied in terms of framing racial equity as their priority, developing race-
conscious efforts to close gaps, and allocating financial resources towards those endeavors
(Ching et al., 2018). In addition, little was unknown about the implementation process, with most
of the recent research examining only the content, goals, and activities of these equity plans.
Huerta served as a dual-purpose case study. First Huerta met the criteria of an instrumental case
study, providing insight into the way California’s Student Equity Policy was being implemented
in community college. Second, Huerta was also an intrinsic case study allowing me to “better
understand the particulars of a specific case” (Stake, 2005, p. 444); how a campus was able to
develop and implement a Latinx focused equity plan. Offering insight into Latinx-specific equity
planning and policy implementation more generally, Huerta offers several lessons for how
equity-oriented reform can be leveraged to more directly address long-standing problems in
higher education, such as the disproportionately low transfer rates among Latinx students.
Individuals with a Critical Perspective Are Needed in Policy Implementation.
Evident in my study was the critical role of individual actors and how they seized the student
equity policy as an opportunity to address racial inequity. Huerta’s Latinx-focused equity plan
occurred from both accidental occurrences and intentional decisions. The equity plan process
could have looked differently if Dean Denton had stayed on as the primary coordinator since he
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 170
believed that the equity plan was nothing new and perceived it as just another task from the state
Chancellor’s Office to be completed. As it would occur, he left and allowed Emilia Leon to lead
the reform effort on campus which altered the trajectory of the planning process and resulted in
equity projects that explicitly focused on Latinx students rather than more generalized solutions
for all students found in equity plans across the state (Ching et al., 2018).
The first lesson drawn from my study is the need for equity-minded individuals to lead
educational reforms that seek more radical campus transformation. Previous research indicates
that policymakers and the reforms they craft fail to recognize the importance of institutional-
level implementers and the ways their prior experiences (Spillane et al., 2006), understanding of
the world (Coburn et al. 2009), social status (Battilana, 2006; Chase, 2016; Nienhusser, 2018),
and awareness of causes of racial inequities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015) shape how they interpret,
respond, and implement policy reform they are tasked with. At Huerta, it was clear that Emilia
drew on her funds of knowledge (Bensimon, 2007; Rios-Aguilar & Marquez Kiyama, 2012); the
experience growing up in the Huerta Barrio, years of social activism to improve education in that
community and awareness of the barriers facing Latinx students on campus to inform how the
equity plan should be used. As the leader of student equity, she brought on key members to the
planning process that also had similar experiences; they identified as Latinx, many were from the
Huerta area, and nearly half were successful transfer students. To them, the barriers Latinx
students faced were not data abstractions but informed by first-hand knowledge. Examining how
educators use reform as a catalyst for change, Porter (2001) shares that it is not enough for a
policy to declare that student inequities need to be addressed, “local actors must deem it true for
themselves first” before acting on reform demands (p. 274). My findings indicate that the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 171
individuals involved in planning recognized the current and historical inequities faced by Latinx
students and were driven by a desire to uplift the community.
Documenting the experiences of Latinx implementers at Huerta points to an area missing
from the policy literature, how race and racial identity shape the way reform unfolds in higher
education. My findings highlight that people like Emilia, Nancy, and Lola are necessary to
envision reform as opportunities to address student groups facing longstanding inequities, like
Latinx students at Huerta. Their involvement and placement in overseeing reform efforts cannot
come from happenstance, but from strategic choices to put committed and competent actors in
charge of carrying out complex higher education reforms. These findings mirror Dowd and
Liera’s (2018) work on the importance of intentionally-selected individuals that are given a
sustained period to examine campus data, reflect on strategies to thwart inequity, and use policy
to address racial inequity on campus. Given the demographics of who attends community
college, there is a need for Latinx, and other racially-minoritized individuals, to be included as
leaders and members of committees that oversee policy implementation on campus. As Dowd
and Bensimon (2015) argue, “a critical perspective is necessary during policy implementation to
call attention to” racial equity gaps and the institutionalized structures and practices that
perpetuate them (p. 144). Getting more critical, equity-minded individuals that tap into their
funds of knowledge and see the assets of their community and students can help ensure that the
ambitious goals of policy are not lost in the process of implementation (Bensimon, 2007).
Equity-Oriented Vision Necessary, But Not Sufficient. The second lesson from Huerta
highlights the importance of understanding the complex task of equity-oriented change,
identifying potential roadblocks during the planning process, and having campus leaders to stay
committed to projects during implementation. The experiences described in Chapter 6
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 172
underscore the complexity of trying to implement a transformative vision for Latinx equity. It is
a reminder that having an exemplary equity-minded plan is necessary, but not sufficient. Huerta
struggled with implementing the ideas envisioned to improve the conditions and outcomes faced
by transfer-aspiring Latinx students. Many of these implementation hurdles were related to
bureaucratic routines on campus that delayed hiring personnel as well as lacking the
organizational capacity to establish these equity projects. Malen and colleagues (2014) add that
shortcomings in organizational capacity are a primary issue and hindrance to implementing
policy in ways that achieve its intended goals. Meyer and associates (2018) add that policies
seeking equity are limited by organizational conditions and lack of existing resources and
structures to support new ideas, programs, and practices that are significantly different from
current organizational views, routines, and practices.
Although the proposed initiatives in the equity plan looked like great opportunities to
improve how Huerta supported Latinx students in transferring, the plan lacked an awareness of
campus dynamics. Planners failed to consider that they were introducing new strategies into
preexisting campus infrastructure, entrenched practices, and bureaucratic organizational routines
that would constrain the implementation process. Implementers at Huerta were unable to
anticipate challenges, lacking an “analysis of the organization, its readiness for change, and how
an initiative fits” or can be sustained with the current campus context (Kezar, 2014, p. xiv).
Research on organizational change (Kezar & Eckel, 2002) emphasizes that campus leaders must
have a firm understanding of their campus culture before engaging in change, to assess how the
newly introduced ideas will integrate or contend with the existing culture. An assessment of
Huerta’s readiness for more Latinx-focused programs was missing during the planning phase
which made the initial phase of implementation much more difficult for project coordinators.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 173
Limitations of Policy Design in Implementation. In addition to issues related to
Huerta’s campus bureaucracy and organizational infrastructure, my research points to the design
of the student equity policy and overlapping state reform efforts as potential detriments for
implementers trying to carry out the plan with fidelity. Observing the implementation process at
Huerta, it became evident that the policy was designed as a two-phase process. The first phase
was related to developing and crafting the equity plan. The second phase was the implementation
of that plan. The design of the policy front-loaded the instructions and guidelines. Implementers,
like Emilia, were giving a script to develop an equity plan. The state provided a template to
complete the plan, outline the academic areas to examine, select the groups to include in data
inquiry, identify a specific methodology to calculate inequity, and propose activities to address
racial equity gaps. This planning script was helpful for practitioners to complete their equity
plan, but once it was approved there was no such script or detailed guidelines for individuals to
transition into the implementation process.
Mattheis (2016) states that policies seeking educational equity are “heavy on
prescription” (i.e., how to calculate student equity) within policy text, but “light on process” (i.e.,
ways to actually mitigate inequity) making implementation and achieving the intent of the
reform a challenge (p. 7). It was evident that Huerta struggled early on to translate the ideas in
their plan into functioning transfer programs and services. Similar to the template and guidelines
developed for crafting the plan, the Chancellor’s Office could improve the implementation
process by providing more structure and support for institutions. This could include ways to
better collaborate across functional areas, in particular between student services (which plans the
projects) and fiscal affairs (which releases and approves funds). Moving forward this could
mitigate the type of experiences faced at Huerta, avoiding delays to access funds, reluctance to
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 174
hire full-time personnel, or failing to secure space for the programs. Implementing a plan will
always be much harder than writing one up; and most of our research has focused on the quality
of the plan rather than the implementation process or subsequent impact (Strunk et al, 2016). My
research points to the need for continuous support during the implementation to help individuals
through the process of introducing and establishing equity-oriented projects on campus.
Considering Reform Overlap on Campus. As a researcher studying policy
implementation, I can focus on a single reform effort and explore how individuals within a
campus respond to that specific policy. On the ground, the individuals observed are not only
carrying out that policy of interest, but also many other local, district-wide, and state initiatives.
At Huerta, and all California Community Colleges, the reality is that practitioners are tasked with
developing the student equity policy as well as several other, new, overlapping initiatives like the
Student Success and Support Program (SSSP), College Promise Programs, Guided Pathways,
and Transforming Basic Skills Education at the same time. As I described in Chapter 6, key
leaders who developed the student equity plan at Huerta were less involved with overseeing the
creation of the projects and programs they envisioned. Emilia Leon was given the responsibility
of overseeing Huerta’s College Promise program, Nancy Ortiz shifted her focus to Guided
Pathways, and Lola Velazquez coordinated SSSP. In community college, things do not stand
still, new reforms are introduced, and others fall to the wayside, and campus leaders must attend
to the demands of these policies. Huerta highlighted the difficulty of leading implementation
when there are overlapping, and at times competing, initiatives intended to improve student
success. After the first year of student equity, campus leaders needed to move on to new reform
efforts which did not allow them to maintain focus or long-term commitment to the policy.
Carrying out the vision of their Latinx transfer was delayed and derailed by the need to fulfill the
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 175
demands required of other state policy efforts. Based on my findings, policymakers and system-
leaders must take note that the multiple initiatives developed in Sacramento, intended to improve
student success, divert and dilute campus leaders’ attention, time, and effort necessary to
robustly implement each reform. In 2017, the state acknowledged this issue and is currently
attempting to create a more streamlined process through “integrated planning” that combines
multiple reform initiatives, included student equity, to decrease the burden of having to juggle
student success efforts.
Over Time, Things Come Together. It is also important to note that not all was lost at
Huerta. It took time for the Latinx transfer equity projects envisioned to get established and serve
their purpose. Kezar (2014) shares that the change process is slow and incremental requiring new
strategies, like Huerta’s equity projects, to go through distinct phases. The first phase,
mobilization, lays the foundation for the change initiatives to be implemented. This was the
planning phase at Huerta. The second phase, implementation, “creates the infrastructure and
support” for the equity-oriented projects (Kezar, 2014, p. 167). She adds that resistance and
obstacles are a natural part of the implementation process since the ideas and programs being
introduced to the campus disrupt the existing institutional norms and practices (Kezar, 2014).
During this period, the campus may not be prepared for change, so campus leaders need to
navigate resistance and obstacles that emerge. The third phase is institutionalization, where the
strategies move from new, external ideas and are embedded into the organization itself.
At Huerta, the individuals implementing the equity projects describe it as a “pilot year”
where they learned from their mistakes and understood that improvements needed to be made.
Since 2016, more resources and staffing have been provided to the programs, they received
dedicated facilities, collaboration was increased across the transfer projects, and new evaluation
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 176
strategies were introduced to help them identify their progress, impact, and areas for future
improvement. Kezar (2014) helps to map out the experiences at Huerta over time, from planning
to implementation, and the start of institutionalization of equity projects and see what I
documented on campus as a natural occurrence of the change process. Being on campus allowed
me to see the implementation process evolve and observe how campus leaders self-corrected
their approach to improve the equity projects intended to support Latinx transfer students.
Activities as the Solution to Student Inequity. The findings from this study contribute
to the limited research on policy implementation in community college and the ability to use
reforms in ways that address racial inequities in higher education. Huerta's equity plan was
unique in that it attempted to address one of the most pressing concerns: in the state, the low
rates of transfer for Latinx students. Led by Latinx campus leaders the results of the planning
process were equity projects that took a more culturally-relevant and race-specific approach to
mitigate the challenges faced by Latinx students. When I left Huerta, the programs envisioned in
2014 were fully-functioning and providing students with resources, advising, and mentoring to
better navigate the transfer process. Although these programs were important to highlight, they
served only a fraction of the nearly 20,000 transfer aspiring Latinx students on campus.
A final lesson from Huerta is considering how the Student Equity Policy prompted
individuals on campus to consider activities and strategies to address equity, rather than
exploring structural barriers and normative beliefs on campus that may create and perpetuate
barriers for Latinx students. The student equity plan, as designed, was a reform focused on
identifying equity gaps and developing new strategies and programs to address inequity. Missing
from this reform were system-changing tools that are necessary when “institutions cannot
produce the results that policymakers want” (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 143). Focused on
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 177
programmatic solutions limited the scope of what individuals could do to transform their
campus. Mets (1997) writes that most reforms are about change within a system rather than
changing the system or removing it entirely. In that sense, the equity plan prompted practitioners
at Huerta to develop activities to mitigate inequity rather than explore ways to eradicate it. It is
clear that a difference was made at Huerta and that the plan was a catalyst to provide Latinx
students with more opportunities to transfer, but the focus on programs limited the size and
magnitude of the change on campus.
7.3 Recommendations for Policy and Practice
The findings from this dissertation on designing and implementing the student equity
plan in community college have implications for both policy and practice. I share
recommendations useful to state-level policy actors, organizational leaders, and local-level
implementers involved with student equity plan policy so that the reform efforts can be used in
race-conscious ways to address disparities facing Latinx students in community college.
Be Supportive: Expand state-level resources and professional development to enhance
practitioners’ capacity for race-conscious planning
Policy implementation in community college is usually an add-on activity where
individuals are tasked with overseeing the reform effort as they manage their day-to-day
responsibilities (Nienhusser, 2016). The California Community College Chancellor’s Office
must take stock of the required efforts to enact equity-based reforms and develop capacity-
building tools as support. This includes providing professional development on equity and racial
inequity and better guidelines and training to help institutions move from plan to practice.
Examining accountability and equity in higher education, Dowd and Bensimon (2015) argue the
need for university leaders and practitioners to be provided with more “resources to engage in
facilitated discussion” of issues such as race and equity to move towards an individual and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 178
organizational commitment to racial equity (p. 33). In their work, they document how tools (i.e.,
a workshop on facilitating race talk or discussion on white fragility) help practitioners not only
gain awareness on racial inequity but take meaningful action towards changing their own
practices to improve conditions and outcomes for racially minoritized students.
At Huerta, practitioners were able to propose more race-conscious efforts, in part due to a
fortuitous change in leadership and the intentional selection of practitioners during the plan
development process. Huerta’s plan stood out from the other plans because it embodied
characteristics of equity-mindedness: it was race-conscious, positioned equity as the
responsibility of the institution, and included more culturally-relevant projects. The plan had all
the elements that are essential to accomplishing equity in transfer and other educational
outcomes. Yet much of the plan was derailed in the implementation process. To that end,
Mattheis’ (2016) highlights how state leaders fail to recognize the importance of providing
structure and guidelines to help implementers carry out the intended goals of equity-oriented
reform. These conditions may not be unique to Huerta and important to address state-wide.
Moving forward state-level actors must increase the capacity for race-conscious planning
and implementation by committing more resources and professional development to these
implementation efforts. I recommend that the Chancellor’s Office consider the level and depth of
change required to implement the student equity policy, particularly understanding ambiguous
concepts such as “equity” and “racial disparities.” Aligned with Patton, Harper, and Harris
(2015), I suggest adopting capacity-building tools such as professional development workshops
and trainings that focus on the realities of race, systemic causes of inequities, and ways well-
intended policies at times are detrimental to students of color in higher education. As the authors
note, regardless of the student equity efforts, if oppressive structures are not acknowledged,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 179
racial equity will not be achieved. With an investment in capacity-building, institutions and
practitioners can have a deeper awareness of issues of equity and race and use policy efforts to
support the success of racially-minoritized students.
Be Committed: Provide the time, capacity, and consistency required to move policy
implementation beyond compliance
If the student equity plan, and similar policy efforts, are expected to bring about changes
in outcomes for racially minoritized students, practitioners must be provided the time, capacity,
and consistency to move beyond compliance and embrace the effort as an opportunity for
campus transformation. Given the experiences of participants in this study, I find the need for
institutional actors to have time to wrestle with the concept of equity, come to define it in a
meaningful way, and engage in conversations with colleagues so that the notion of equity-
mindedness permeates campus (Bensimon, 2007). Practitioners require the time and space to
learn how policy can be used, develop thorough implementation strategies, and evaluate results
for improvement. With a myriad of existing responsibilities on campus, it becomes more difficult
to create, coordinate, and manage a new program seeking to improve student equity. Similarly,
practitioners placed in implementing roles should have the competence to carry the policy
forward or be provided with training and support once identified as an implementing leader.
To work towards using student equity as transformative change, I recommend state-level
actors give community college practitioners additional resources to build the infrastructure on
campus necessary to improve outcomes for racially minoritized students. This includes providing
practitioners with the opportunity to implement, oversee, and manage a new initiative as a full-
time responsibility, rather than an add-on task or coordination in a limited capacity (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2012; Kezar, 2014; Oakes & Welner, 2015). When it comes to equity planning, there
is also a need for consistency, keeping the practitioners that developed these programs involved,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 180
to see them through in practice. In particular, equity-oriented practices face greater resistance as
they seek to address structures and programs on campus that perpetuate inequity. Given the
potential barriers to change, there is a need for individuals to have a commitment to the reform
from planning to implementation. One of the issues that arose at Huerta was the disconnect
between the practitioners that designed the Latinx transfer efforts and the ones who coordinated
them. As a matter of practice, campuses should try to keep individuals involved in the process
and allow the ideas and strategies developed through student equity the adequate time to be
implemented, revised, and institutionalized.
Be Strategic: Identify implementers who can carry out equity-oriented reform
Nienhusser (2018) describes how institutional implementers respond to policy objectives
in varied ways; at times compliant, other times unpredictable, and many times resistant. Research
on implementing equity reform (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Chase, 2016; Dowd & Bensimon,
2015) shows that ideal implementers are individuals who are friendly to a culture of inquiry (i.e.,
examining campus equity gaps), are able to have conversations about race and racial disparities
(i.e., who should be addressed in the plan and through what means), and have power, influence,
and institutional know-how to create change from the ground up (i.e., develop a coalition to
move policy forward). My findings call for the intentional selection of implementers that can
interpret and implement policy in ways that can benefit racially minoritized students facing
equity gaps, such as Latinx students in transfer. Once in charge of equity planning, Emilia
intentionally selected “like-minded, equity-oriented” practitioners that made a difference in how
the equity plan was developed. In turn, the planning workgroup displayed characteristics of
equity-mindedness, as defined by Bensimon (2007), specifically being more race-conscious,
acknowledging the existence of a color-blind ideology, recognizing the responsibility of
institutions to address inequity, and need for the redistribution of resources to the neediest groups
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 181
on campus (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). With these individuals overseeing the development of
the equity plan, they were able to use it in ways that explicitly targeted barriers facing Latinx
students in transfer.
Implementing complex reforms within institutions of higher education requires
practitioners that have a certain set of skills, competencies, and experiences on campus. Here
then I argue for institutions to actively seek and identify reform leaders who are more equity-
oriented, comfortable discussing race and racial disparities, possessed the ability to develop race-
specific strategies, and able to advocate for these efforts when getting the plan approved on
campus. Practitioners possessing equity-minded competence may ask, what are the policy
possibilities to enact change to improve racial equity, either specifically articulated in legislative
mandates or inferred in the spirit of the law? Through an understanding of equity and the causes
of racial inequity, practitioners may be able to see racial possibilities in reform efforts and strive
toward racial equity in community colleges. Having practitioners committed and capable is
necessary, especially when facing resistance from individuals or groups reluctant to accept the
mandated changes of the reform. For those enacting policy in community college, it is critical
that they exploit the discretion left in legislative mandates and take advantage of reform in ways
that benefit racially-minoritized students.
Be Bold: Encourage practitioners to use student equity to develop race-specific activities
Huerta is an example of an institution that identified disparities in transfer for Latinx
students and moved forward with proposing and implementing equity projects to improve the
outcomes for Latinx students in transfer. Student equity planning provided implementing
committees with guidelines, methods, and training to collect and analyze campus data and
identify equity gaps. However, there was much less support for committees to propose and
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 182
develop data-driven, evidence-based, culturally relevant, and equity-minded solutions to mitigate
the disparities facing racially minoritized students. Even though official policy language states
“colleges must review and address the following populations when looking at disproportionate
impact: American Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics,
Whites, men, women, and persons with disabilities” (CA §54220). Practitioners must be trained,
if not empowered, to develop and create explicit strategies for the equity gaps identified.
Generalized strategies cannot address specialized problems, failing to address racialized
inequities on campus.
Without a race-conscious and equity-minded approach, even well-intended activities can
be framed through a deficit-minded framework and fail to address institutional causes of equity
gaps (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Practitioners and institutions may be hesitant to be race-
conscious during their equity planning and funding processes given the “anti-affirmative action”
legal and public discourse, especially in post-Prop 209 California (Garces, 2014; Gandara, 2012).
Although affirmative action in education mainly applies to admissions and not to services for
enrolled students, public discourse tends to frame race-conscious decisions as reverse
discrimination and counter to ideals of meritocracy (Garces, 2014; Tatum, 2007). However,
color-blind policies and practices tend to negatively affect students of color and thus hinder
efforts to mitigate equity gaps (Bonilla-Silva, 2009; Bensimon, 2007). In order for activities
included in student equity plans to address equity gaps among racially-minoritized student
groups, equity committee members must be able to talk about race, racism, and the causes of
persistent racial inequity (Carter, et al., 2017).
This final recommendation is rooted in the original intent of student equity planning
(Guichard, 1993) and the emphasis on addressing the disparities facing racially minoritized
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 183
students. Without a focus on specific student groups, equity gaps experienced by racially
minoritized students will likely persist even if overall performance outcomes improve (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2015; Ching, 2013). Thus, practitioners should be encouraged to create new
structures, programs, and practices that center the experiences of specific student groups, as was
the case with Huerta. When policies encourage color-evasiveness in implementation,
practitioners tend to create generalized solutions for specialized problems, failing to address the
racial disparities on campus. The eradication of educational inequity can only be addressed when
racial inequality is acknowledged and addressed by practitioners through explicit and targeted
policies, practices, and programs that are race-conscious.
7.4 Future Research
The findings from this study can serve as a springboard for new research and long-term
projects. There are several questions that emerge that are worthy of further investigation related
to the role of individual implementers, organizational context, and equity-oriented reform efforts.
A related study could focus more on the ways implementers use their funds of knowledge and
agency to carry implementation when facing organizational practices and process that misalign
with the intended change. This further study would help to develop a nuanced understanding of
what characteristics, competencies, and skills help to carry-out reform in race-conscious ways.
Building on the work at Huerta, there is also a need to conduct a multi-college study that helps to
explore social context and identify what factors are critical for the successful implementation of
equity-oriented reform across the state. By examining multiple institutions, I can conduct a
cross-case analysis that helps identify the conditions in community college that are critical to
facilitating the implementation of student equity, and other similar reforms, potentially
expanding or challenging what was found at Huerta. This work would further the ability to assess
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 184
and evaluate community college readiness for implementation thus highlighting resources,
practices, and structures on campus that can support the process as well as identifying challenges
within the organization to address or potential pitfalls to avoid when moving forward with
implementation. Finally, future research might investigate the long-term influence of the student
equity policy, either examining the practitioners’ application of equity to improve their practice,
the design and creation of new programs and activities through the planning process, and the
progress in closing equity gaps since the introduction of equity planning in the community
college system. These questions can make important empirical and practical contributions for
policy researchers, state-level policymakers, institutional leaders, and practitioners serving as
implementers.
7.5 Reflections from the Dissertation Process: On Theory, Methods, and Policy Analysis
Writing this final chapter, I began to reflect on my dissertation and the research process it
entailed. In conversation with my advisor, we talked about putting down some thoughts I had
shared about this experience. To frame this section, I reread Annette Lareau’s (1989) appendix to
Home Advantage on common problems in field work and how researchers need to reflect and
grow from the “traps, delays, and frustrations” of conducting research (p. 197). As a culminating
project for my Ph.D. I immersed myself in the research process unlike projects before; seeking
this work to showcase my progression at USC. In that time, I have grown as a scholar through
struggles and achievements en route to conducting and completing a study that would document
policy implementation in community college and provide implications for campuses and
practitioners to use reform opportunities to address racial inequities. Like Lareau, I describe the
challenges during this dissertation, outline my theoretical choices and methodological
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 185
approaches to examine the process of implementing the student equity plan at Huerta
Community College, and the intellectual journey taken as an emerging scholar.
The Utility of My Theoretical Framework
In designing my dissertation study, I developed a theoretical framework that drew from
three strands of the policy literature to examine the implementation of equity-oriented reform in
community college. I brought together theories with underpinnings in the Rational and Scientific,
Cognitive and Cultural, and Critical and Equity-Minded theoretical perspectives. Each
perspective offers a different lens to examine and understand policy implementation and
provides a distinct story of how reform unfolds on campus towards achieving its intent. From the
first area, I brought in elements that help understand the policy context and design elements of a
reform that facilitates or hinders the implementation process. A strength of these theories is that
they help simplify the complexity of the policy process by allowing the researcher to look at
specific conditions known to influence implementation. Research within this perspective focuses
on understanding if a policy’s causal theory led to effective implementation, understanding why
a policy was successful or failed, and the impact and outcomes of a policy years after
implementation (Heck, 2004). Critiqued as providing an “incomplete portrayal of the complexity
and richness of policy implementation” (Schneider & Ingram, 1990, p. 510), I sought to
incorporate theories from cultural and critical perspectives that did.
Theories within the Cultural and Cognitive perspective emphasize understanding the
cultural (i.e., institutional history, organizational arrangement, shared values) and cognitive
elements (i.e., prior experiences, beliefs, positionality) that influence policy implementation. The
cultural and cognitive theories I drew on such as sensemaking theory (Chase, 2016; Spillane et
al., 2006) allowed me to highlight the ways individuals and their context influence the policy
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 186
process, including the ways their prior knowledge and experiences inform their interpretation of
policies and goals. These theories helped to uncover cultural and organizational aspects that
existed at Huerta and influenced how the reform is received, understood, and implemented.
Focused on exploring how policy is used to specifically address racial inequity, specifically
Latinx transfer barriers at Huerta, I include theories from more critical perspectives. Especially
since there have been numerous higher educational policies passed in the state addressing issues
of transfer for racially-minoritized students and we are nowhere near equitable transfer rates.
The third strand, critical perspectives, seek to go beyond rationality and interpretivism,
examining issues of power, structural racism, and social reproduction. These perspectives focus
on examining how power and race and racism are reasons why policies intended to address
educational inequities fail to improve the conditions, experiences, and outcomes of historically
marginalized students. I attempted to include elements from this perspective that could highlight
how practitioners at Huerta were able to develop a race-conscious equity plan.
I constructed a conceptual framework based on the three aforementioned theoretical
approaches to examine: the way the student equity policy was structured and how it shaped
implementation (Policy Context), the institutional dynamics of Huerta and how they facilitated
the process (Organizational Context), the characteristics of the individuals who oversaw student
equity (Individual Characteristics), and the collective work of the implementers (Situated
Context) to move student equity forward. By highlighting these four contextual factors I was
able to illuminate across two phases the ways elements of the policy, conditions of the campus,
characteristics of individuals, and dynamics of the collective group influenced the possibility of
race-conscious implementation. Specifically, the attempts of practitioners at Huerta to design an
equity plan focused on Latinx transfer equity and then carried out the programs and projects
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 187
listed in that equity plan. Examining both phases, it was apparent that each contextual factor
could act as a barrier or catalyst for equity-oriented change in community college.
Theoretical Spotlights and Blinders
The theoretical elements I selected from my framework guided me as a researcher to look
at four specific contextual factors, though broad, it narrowed the focus of what influenced policy
implementation at Huerta and potentially created blind spots for unaccounted aspects that may
have been important to the process. The framework captured major theoretical elements from
rational-scientific, cultural, and cognitive areas of policy implementation, but in its application
lacked the critical aspects such as power, the role of race (in implementers and proposed
projects), and race consciousness of implementers and the organization itself.
Kris Gutierrez shares, “Theory provides a way of seeing and also not seeing; theories can
have explanatory power; on the other hand, they can obscure the wonder of the everyday. If we
are fortunate, theories help reveal our blind spots and we theirs.” Reflecting on her words, my
theoretical framework was developed to highlight certain aspects related to policy design,
institutional context, individual characteristics, and collective sensemaking, which means it also
rendered certain things invisible. The interview and observation protocols, as well as who I chose
to speak with or where I observed, was guided by this framing providing me with a particular
view of what Huerta looked like in general, and how the implementation of student equity
unfolded on campus. Emerson and colleagues (2011) suggest that the researcher cannot see all
that occurs in the field but must be aware and acknowledge that certain conversations and
observations will be missed that could help explain the questions being asked. Thus, being
unable to speak with people who left Huerta before my project or limiting the time on campus to
observe certain equity effort programs over others may have provided a frame of reference to
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 188
understand and describe how implementation unfolded. Employing this framework, I did not
consider what would be left out of my theoretical gaze, whether the approach was too
prescriptive, or unwieldy for a single study, trying to capture too many aspects of the
implementation process. With that said, I consider what the study would have looked like if I had
selected only one of the three theoretical areas to explore student equity planning at Huerta.
From the Rational Perspective. Creating the framework in itself was an attempt to
simplify the investigation of how the student equity plan was implemented at Huerta. By
developing a theoretical lens that only focused on four specific contextual elements, in a way, I
aligned myself with a more rational-scientific approach, assuming that these four theoretical
elements would be able to explain how the policy text, campus environment, and implementers,
individually and collectively, influenced the implementation process on campus.
The implementers at Huerta achieved the goals and intent of the policy; namely, that they
would carry out in the examination of campus data, identify student groups facing large gaps in
outcomes, and propose interventions to mitigate in equity. Following these mandates, they
highlighted that Latinx students faced the greatest barriers in transfer. Given that evidence, they
developed five equity projects that explicitly targeted that equity gap. The student equity policy
asked for certain things to be accomplished and Huerta achieved them. Many of my questions
during data collection and analytic focus for Chapter 5, on the developing the equity plan, related
to this more linear process of analyzing policy implementing. Asking, about how individuals
were selected to participate in the planning process, what were the discussions like when they
examined campus data and had to identify groups with gaps, and how did the workgroup come
up with potential solutions to address the equity gaps highlighted. Beyond examining data,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 189
identifying gaps, and proposing solutions a more rational framework would not ask further
questions, at least not at this time period when evaluating the impact of the reform is too early.
From the Cognitive/Cultural Perspective. These types of theories help to explore how
individuals and the environment influence policy implementation highlighting individuals’
characteristics such as prior knowledge, experiences, and beliefs as well as organizational
context including history, culture, and leadership. In hindsight, much of the data collection and
analysis was rooted in this theoretical perspective. My first research question asked what
contextual forces shaped the planning process to focus on Latinx transfer issues. I answered that
questions by exploring the sensemaking process of individuals involved with the planning
process as well as uncovering the organizational dynamics on campus that facilitated or
constricted the ability to propose a Latinx-focused student equity plan. Including cultural
theoretical perspective helped me understand how student equity was defined by individuals,
what was prioritized in the process, and ultimately what was articulated in the plan. At Huerta,
Emilia was able to see the reform effort as a way to address racial injustice on campus, she
brought on people that prioritized the needs of Latinx students, and the plan included programs
that attempted to improve the transfer process for Latinx students. Given that each community
college has its own historical context, shared beliefs and values, and structures, wide variation in
implementation of the policy can be expected, it was important for me to explore the conditions
at Huerta that allowed them to develop an equity plan with a vision of improving Latinx transfer.
From a Critical Perspective. Centering issues of power, race, and interest convergence,
I would have examined the way the policy inherently setup Huerta practitioners to think of
student equity in a linear way and not truly uncover the causes of inequity on-campus. The policy
had three mandates: a) collect and examine campus data in five academic indicators
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 190
disaggregated based on race/ethnicity and other student characteristics, b) identify student groups
facing gaps in success rates and set goals for improvement, and c) propose activities and
strategies to mitigate student inequities. As a result, Huerta practitioners focused on identifying
student equities and then coming up with solutions they thought could benefit students. These
solutions, as talked about in Chapter 6, were to address barriers faced by Latinx students, in more
culturally relevant ways, but still compensatory programs that focused on addressing the
potential deficits students had. Compared to research documenting how colleges improve racial
equity (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), there was a lack of deep-inquiry into root causes of
inequity such as practitioner beliefs and how they perceive why Latinx students are or aren't
successful, existing campus structures and practices and how they may perpetuate inequities, as
well as ignoring potential socio-cultural forces that shape why Latinx students face more
challenges in the transfer process.
Second, with more attention to power dynamics, I would have described the shift in the
individuals involved with planning and implementation. In the first phase, they were key leaders
and seasoned administrators that possessed social status, respect, and power. They had the power
to develop the plan as they saw fit, then be able to present and get it passed without challenges
from campus or district actors. In contrast, those tasked with carrying out the vision of the plan
were not in positions of power; they were, for the most part, individuals whose responsibilities
and duties on-campus could be easily rearranged to oversee the implementation and establish the
equity projects. They were part-time staff or faculty and counselors who could divvy up parts of
their responsibilities towards these efforts. Ultimately, these coordinators lacked the power to be
able to push implementation past the challenges and obstacles that emerged; even though they
were committed to the equity project and advocates for improving Latinx transfer at Huerta.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 191
On Methods
In regard to methods, there are a few areas to highlight. First, as I moved into data
collection I developed protocols that tied my design, research questions, and theory together. My
thought process was: it is great to know theories of the policy process, another to be able to apply
them to a study, but the richness comes from being able to embed and integrate guiding
theoretical principles into what and how you collect data. I developed observation and interview
protocols that would help answer my research questions and were aligned with my theoretical
framework (See Appendix E). Although I tried to stay open during fieldwork, my collection tools
were designed with a lens focused on four contextual factors. Creating these protocols in this
way provided rich data in certain areas while potentially ignoring others. Trying too hard to
make the theory and data collection fit may have left out the flexibility to collect relevant data
not tied to my theoretical framework.
Second, I was in the field for over a year observing and learning about the
implementation of the Latinx-specific transfer equity programs at Huerta, but I was unable to
capture in real time the happenings in 2014 when planning occurred and 2015 when
implementation began. I had some difficulties with getting participants to recall events,
meetings, discussions, and decisions made two or three years prior. Later in the analysis and
writing process, I realized that the time gap between the planning phase and when I was studying
it left my participants with responses that were at times generic or surface-level. In trying to get
the more nuanced details of the implementation process at Huerta, I may have asked the
appropriate questions, but responses were subject to the practitioners’ memories of the
implementation process. I did not probe enough, or realize, while in the field, that the interview I
was facilitating generated responses to the questions that lacked depth and detail. Through this,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 192
I’ve been reminded of the critical importance of asking follow-up questions, digging deeper; not
seeing probing as an interrogation, but an opportunity for important details to be captured that
helps uncover aspects of the implementation process.
Third, I learned the complex process of trying to simultaneously collect and analyze data.
I remember reading method books and how easily they articulated the “simultaneously process”
useful in case study work (Merriam, 2016; O’Reilly 2014). To help me stay on top of the
collection process, I wrote reflective memos to take stock of what was being collected, what I
was observing and hearing, as well as how the things I collected helped to answer my research
questions. Looking back on that process of simultaneously trying to collect and analyze data I
may have been too procedurally focused. Asking how much data did I collect? Did the protocols
work to capture what I was looking for? As well as making sure that I followed the research
design laid out in Chapter 4. My memos included more analytical questions such as What insight
was gained related to my framework and the four contextual factors? What was learned during
this data collection period about Latinx transfer equity? or What was learned during this period
that helps me understand what influenced Huerta’s zone of tolerance to be more open to Latinx
equity effort? Although this was done to help me do an early analysis of the data being collected,
I had this tension with privileging the people who I interviewed early on and potentially
silencing or minimizing the voices of people who interviewed later, even though they may have
shared perspectives and experiences just as important as the first people interviewed. Since I
interviewed over 25 people I made the decision to wait to do a more complete analysis until “all”
the data was collected; Interviewing all participants and gathering a certain level of observations.
In hindsight, there is always more data that is collected and the researcher needs to contend with
what data is more relevant to the purpose and research questions of this study. A drawback of
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 193
waiting until all the data was collected was realizing certain shortcomings in the protocols used
or the lack of probing and vague responses in transcripts which would make the analysis and
writing process much harder.
Fourth, I enjoyed the analysis process. The ability to deconstruct and construct, put pieces
together, take pieces out, and use different approaches to analyze the same interviews, field
notes, and documents. The analytic process was a trial-and-error exploration, using different
strategies to examine the data that I had collected. I first reviewed and sorted my data, looking at
the different data sources. Interviews first, then fieldnotes, and finally documents. Then I tried a
more interpretive, open-coding strategy with a subset of transcripts, field notes, and artifacts of
implementation. Since I had an explicit theory, I also conducted theoretical coding, building a
codebook from my framework to analyze a subset of the data. I also tried analytic questions to
extract responses that directly helped answer my research questions. Working with my advisor, I
explored all these options with a few interviews and fieldnotes to see which analytic strategy
would be helpful in trying to answer my research questions. After these initial attempts, I moved
forward with using analytical questions developed by Anna Neumann and Aaron Pallas which is
a technique where you ask a specific question to your data, one of which was What does this
participant share about the why Huerta was able to develop a Latinx-specific equity plan?
(Table 4 lists analytic questions). From this process, I was able to extract all of the data that was
relevant to the questions I posed. I then theoretical coded the extracted data to identify which
factor shaped the focus on Latinx students during implementation, which resulted in the findings.
Lastly, I reflect on the writing process and the time it takes to move from data collection,
analyzing, then categorizing and recategorizing data into engaging text. This has been the hardest
struggle for me, to write in ways that clear and coherently tells the implementation story at
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 194
Huerta. I see this as the time need to move from various levels of writing. The first level of
writing can be described as unfocused thick description where I wrote everything down related to
planning and implementation in a way that exhausted the reader with minute by minute detail.
Revising my writing, I moved to the second level, asking myself what is relevant to write in
these findings chapter, considering my purpose for the study and research questions. I then
reorganized what was written to align with my theoretical choices. The third level was to make
my writing even more concise and coherent. This level was not just about having text describe
what occurred but crafting an engaging narrative that captures the story of the case and allows
the reader to see how implementation unfolded at Huerta.
The Novice Researcher and the Dissertation Process
Reading about fieldwork I had a romanticized notion of what I would be doing as I
observed and interviewed participants to learn about the implementation process at Huerta.
Enamored with the literature, I wanted to be able to see and observe policy as others had
described in their work, to be able to “understand policy as a complex, ongoing social practice of
normative cultural production constituted by diverse actors across diverse contexts” (Levinson et
al., 2009, p. 770), “trace policy to see how words shape what actors can do with reform”
(Koyama, 2017, p. 67), and “evaluate practitioner policy perceptions and the implementing
actions or non-actions of actors” to see how reform can be used as a “possible tool in reducing
educational disparities” (Chase, 2016, p. 7).
I am proud of what I've accomplished in this dissertation; the way that I described and
reported how the Huerta practitioners developed their equity plan to address Latinx transfer and
then provided a realistic account of the time it takes for new projects to address inequity, the
complex process to get established on campus, and the obstacles people face in trying to get
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 195
these things started and make a difference for Latinx students. One of the benefits of studying
Huerta’s implementation process between 2014 and 2017 was the opportunity to see the time it
takes to move policy forward, from interpretation to enactment and impact.
Qualitative Policy Work. A qualitative approach to policy implementation helps to
identify and understand the underlying forces and mechanisms that shape how people think
policy should be implemented, how a campus, its culture, and structure either align or conflict
with the intended goals proposed and ultimately what good comes out of implementation
process. In this study, I documented the grand plan to address Latinx inequity in 2014; how
individuals came together to understand and respond to student equity plan then develop
programs that explicitly targeted the campus greatest inequity, Latinx transfer. In the second
year, I highlighted the transition from ideas on paper to actual programs on campus. The
challenges coordinator at Huerta faced during implementation, from lacking contextual
knowledge about the equity efforts, having limited capacity and time to implement projects, and
facing burdensome campus practices to get the programs off the ground. Over time, there were
some points of redemption where leaders realized that they had failed and made mistakes and
were able to adapt their strategies and practices to better support Latinx students wanting to
transfer from Huerta. Once established, these programs were supporting Latinx students to
navigate the complex transfer process and practitioner articulated the impact and change
occurring on campus. Using an instrumental case study approach allowed me to observe the flow
of policy in a community college and the cycle of the enactment process. Rather than a snapshot
of the implementation process, I was able to describe how key contextual factors related to the
policy, people involved, and organizational dynamics shaped how student equity was envisioned
and enacted on campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 196
Critical Policy Analysis. During my proposal defense, a committee member shared that
my dissertation was “a decidedly racialized study without a racialized framework.” From that
comment, I worked to enhance the theoretical framework to contend with issues such as race,
power, and interest convergence directly, but then decided that the elements and framework
should stand as is. I believed that I as the researcher would be able to cover the critical and
racialized aspects missing in the theoretical choice. In hindsight, that was not the best choice as
much of my tools, analysis, and writing drew from the framework which itself drew more from
rational/stages and cognitive/cultural than critical/equity-minded. I wonder if a more open
theoretical approach such as social-cultural analysis or critical race theory would have helped me
explore more critical aspects related to the implementation process.
Inherent in my study was a quest to understand how policy serves and benefits racially-
minoritized students as well as ways that institutions use policy to address racial inequity. As I
attempted to integrate my theoretical framework into all elements of the research design, I should
have been as diligent about embedding my purported criticality in the work conduct. I learned
the lesson that being a critical researcher is not enough, as I noted earlier, drawing from multiple
areas –culture, cognition and even more rational approaches– I may have internalized my
theoretical lens and lost the focus on examining factors related to power, institutional racism, or
interest convergence. In trying to develop a comprehensive framework to study policy
implementation in a more racialized manner I did not embed or intertwine enough critical aspects
in my work. I stand by my research, the results, and implications, and see them as valuable to
understanding how policy implementation occurs in community college. I take the lessons
learned and acknowledge the importance of explicitly embedding critical theoretical perspectives
when a researcher and their study seeks to explore policy work in racialized ways.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 197
The Struggle Shapes the Scholar. This reflection served as an opportunity to highlight
how the methods, theories, and procedures described in my earlier chapters were lived out during
my time at Huerta and after as I analyzed, wrote, reanalyzed, wrote, and refined my last three
chapters. As I have documented here, it is much easier to describe these approaches on paper
than carry them out in practice. This introspective look at the dissertation process allowed me to
see how I lived up and fell short of the type of scholar I want to be, one that critically examines
the role higher education policy plays in trying to address longstanding inequities facing racially-
minoritized students. My dissertation serves as a culminating project, but more so an assessment
of the tools, theories, and skills I have and how I displayed or omitted them in this particular
work. Moving forward there is a lot that I have learned and can change as I continue to be a
scholar examining policy, racial inequity, and how these reform efforts make a difference for
racially minority students in higher education settings.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 198
References
Abrica, E. J., & Rivas, M. (2017). Chicanas in IR: Data-driven advocacy for Latinx students
from institutional research contexts in the community college. Association of Mexican
American Educators Journal, 11(2), 43. https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.11.2.349
Acevedo-Gil, N., Santos, R. E., Alonso, L. I.., & Solórzano, D. G. (2015). Latinas/os in
community college developmental education: Increasing moments of academic and
interpersonal validation. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(2), 101–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715572893
Alemán, E. (2007). Situating Texas school finance policy in a CRT framework: How
“substantially equal” yields racial inequity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5),
525–558. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07303276
Alfonso, M. (2006). The impact of community college attendance on baccalaureate attainment.
Research in Higher Education, 47(8), 873–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-
9019-2
Anderson, G. M. (2012). Equity and critical policy analysis in higher education: A bridge still
too far. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 133–142.
http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0051
Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45-57.
doi:10.1080/01596300050005493
Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in
academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363–391.
Bahr, P. R. (2013). The deconstructive approach to understanding community college students’
pathways and outcomes. Community College Review, 41(2), 137–153.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113486341
Bahr, P. R., Hom, W., & Perry, P. (2005). College transfer performance: A methodology for
equitable measurement. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 13(1),
73-87.
Baker, R. (2016). The effects of structured transfer pathways in community colleges.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716651491
Barnett, P., & Gunersel, A. B. (2014). Challenges to change. Educational Policy, 28(5), 648–
668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812468226
Bastedo, M. N., & Jaquette, O. (2011). Running in place: Low-income students and the
dynamics of higher education stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
33(3), 318–339. http://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711406718
Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position.
Organization, 13(5), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406067008
Beach, J. M. (2011). Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the United
States. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bell, D. (2004) Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of education and the unfilled hopes for racial
reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 199
Bensimon, E. M. (2016a). 3 changes to get racial equity at California community colleges.
Sacramento Bee, Soapbox. Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-
ed/soapbox/article66485972.html
Bensimon, E. M. (2016b). Equity-minded policy analysis. Presentation given at Lumina
Foundation Convening, Indianapolis, IN.
Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Dimensions of the transfer choice gap: Experiences of
Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways. Harvard Education Review
79(4), 632-659.
Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. (2012) Confronting equity issues on campus: implementing the
equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2009). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bragg, D. D., & Durham, B. (2012). Perspectives on access and equity in the era of (community)
college completion. Community College Review, 40(2), 106-125.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2016). Datamart Information Systems.
Retrieved from http://datamart.cccco.edu/DataMart.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2016). Student success scorecard,
California community colleges. Retrieved from http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecard.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017). Transfer counselor toolkit.
Retrieved from http://ccctransfer.org/
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2017). Population attending college report, by
ethnicity then gender. Retired from
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/AttendReport.ASP
California State Department of Education. (1960). A master plan for higher education in
California, 1960–1975. Sacramento: Author.
California State University, Analytic Studies. (2016). Statistical reports. Retrieved from
http://www.calstate.edu/as/
Campaign for College Opportunity. (2015). The state of Latinos in California higher education.
Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Campaign for College Opportunity. (2017). Tthe transfer maze: The high cost to students and the
state of California. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CCO-2017-
TransferMazeReport-27.pdf
Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective
college admissions. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.
Carnevale, A. P., & Strothel, J. (2013). Separate and unequal: How higher education reinforces
the intergenerational reproduction of white racial privilege. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce.
Carter, P. L. (2018). Education’s limitations and its radical possibilities. Contexts, 17(2), 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504218776956
Carter, P. L., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M. I., & Pollock, M. (2017). You can’t fix what you don’t
look at. Urban Education, 52(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 200
Castro, E. L. (2013). Racialized readiness for college and career toward an equity-grounded
social science of intervention programming. Community College Review, 41(4), 292–310.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113504291
Castro, E. L., & Cortez, E. (2017). Exploring the lived experiences and intersectionalities of
Mexican community college transfer students: Qualitative insights toward expanding a
transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(2),
77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1158672
Cerych, L., & Sabatier, P. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: The
implementation of higher education reforms in Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Chase, M. M. (2011). Benchmarking equity in transfer policies for career and technical
associate's degrees. Community College Review, 39(4), 376-404.
Chase, M. M., Dowd, A. C., Pazich, L. B., Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Transfer equity for
"minoritized" students: A critical policy analysis of seven states. Educational Policy,
28(5), 669-717.
Chase, M. M. (2016). Culture, politics, and policy interpretation: How practitioners make sense
of a transfer policy in a 2-year college. Educational Policy, 30(7), 959-998.
Ching, C. D., & Felix, E. R. (2015). Equity espoused, equity achieved? Examining student equity
plans in the California community colleges. Paper presented at the Association for the
Study of Higher Education. Denver, CO.
Ching, C. D., Felix, E. R., Trinidad, A., & Fernandez, M. C. (2018). Achieving racial equity
from the bottom up?: The student equity policy in the California community colleges.
Education Policy.
Ching, C. D., Felix, E. R., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Statement on California Community
Colleges Student Equity Plans before the California State Assembly. Los Angeles, CA:
Center for Urban Education.
Contreras, F. (2011). Achieving equity for Latino students. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Contreras, F., & Contreras, G. J. (2015). Raising the bar for hispanic serving institutions: An
analysis of college completion and success rates. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
14(2), 151–170.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can
illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122, 465-4753.
https://doi.org/10.1086/685847
Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion:
Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record,
111(4), 1115-1161.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crisp, G., & Nuñez, A.-M. (2014). Understanding the racial transfer gap: Modeling
underrepresented minority and nonminority students’ pathways from two-to four-year
institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 37(3), 291–320.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 201
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donahoe Act, Senate Bill 33. (1960). General provisions for California’s higher education.
Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/donahoe.htm
Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: the conflicting origins, impacts, and futures
of the community college. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the
community college. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 568, 92-119.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the
access “saga” toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-419.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the race question: Accountability and equity
in U.S. higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dowd, A. C., Liera, R., (2018). Sustaining change towards racial equity through cycles of
inquiry. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(0), 65-94.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3274
Dowd, A. C., Pak, J. H., & Bensimon, E. M. (2013). The role of institutional agents in promoting
transfer access. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(15).
Dowd, A. C., & Shieh, L. T. (2013). Community college financing: Equity, efficiency and
accountability. The NEA Almanac of Higher Education, 37-65.
Dumas, M. J. (2014). “Losing an arm”: schooling as a site of black suffering. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 17(1), 1–29. http://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.850412
Dumas, M. J., & Anyon, J. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy
implementation. Implications for the (battle)field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in
Education Policy Implementation (pp. 149-168). New York: State University of New
York Press.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago,
IL: Chicago University Press.
Felix, E. R., Trinidad, A., Ching, C. D., & Bensimon, E. M. (2018). California’s student equity
plans policy: An unexploited opportunity among Hispanic-serving community colleges.
In A. G. de los Santos Jr., G. F. Keller, R. Tannenbaum, & A. Acereda (Eds.), Moving
Forward: Policies, Planning, and Promoting Access of Hispanic College Students, (pp.
75-94). Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press.
Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219-245.
Ford, D. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of blacks and hispanics in gifted
education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143–154.
Gándara, P., Alvarado, E., Driscoll, A. & Orfield, G. (2012). Building pathways to transfer:
Community colleges that break the chain of failure for students of color. Los Angeles,
CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Garces, L. M., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2014). Dynamic diversity toward a contextual
understanding of critical mass. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 115–124.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14529814
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The
interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 202
Gill, C., Cain Nesbitt, L. L., & Parker, L. (2017). Silent covenants in the neoliberal era: Critical
race counternarratives on African American advocacy leadership in schools. In M. D.
Young, & Diem, S. (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis (pp. 155-
174). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race
theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485–505.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. Ann Arbor, MI: Academic Press.
Gonzalez, K. P. (2012). Increasing Latina/o college completion rates: Mistakes and
opportunities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 11, 279–290.
Gonzalez, K. P. (2015). Increasing college completion for Latina/as in community colleges:
Leadership and strategy. New Directions for Higher Education, 172, 71-80.
Grodsky, E., & Jackson, E. (2009). Social stratification in higher education. Teachers College
Record, 111(10), 2347-84.
Guichard, G. (1992). Student equity policy: A status report. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov
Gurin, P., Lehman, J. S., & Lewis, E. (2004). Defending diversity: Affirmative action at the
University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gutierrez, K. [KrisGu]. (2018, September 12). Theory provides a way of seeing and also not
seeing [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/krisgu/status/1040089353698009090
Hagedorn, L. S., & Lester, J. (2006). Hispanic community college students and the transfer
game: Strikes, misses, and grand slam experiences. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 30(10), 827–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920600901822
Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of critical
mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college
students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73–91.
Harbour, C. P., & Jaquette, O. (2007). Advancing an equity agenda at the community college in
an age of privatization, performance accountability, and marketization. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(3), 197–207. http://doi.org/10.1080/10665680701434650
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.
Harper, S. R. (2015a). Black male college achievers and resistant responses to racist stereotypes
at predominantly white colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 85(4),
646–674. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.4.646
Harper, S. R. (2015b). Success in these schools? Visual counternarratives of young men of color
and urban high schools they attend. Urban Education, 50(2), 139–169.
Harper, S. R., Patton, L., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American
students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. Journal
of Higher Education, 80(4), 389-414.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hayward, C. (2011). The transfer velocity project: A comprehensive look at the transfer
function. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 2(18), 21-32.
Heck, R. H. (2004). Studying educational and social policy: theoretical concepts and research
methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 203
Honig, M. (Ed.) (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting
complexity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Howard, T. C. (2013). How does it feel to be a problem? Black male students, schools, and
learning in enhancing the knowledge base to disrupt deficit frameworks. Review of
Research in Education, 37(1), 54–86.
Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2012). A model
for diverse learning environments. In Smart, J. C., & Paulsen, M. B. (Eds.), Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, (Vol. 27, pp. 41-122). Netherlands:
Springer International.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2016). Data Center: Institutional Comparison.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/UseTheData
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 586-611.
Jain, D., Herrera, A., Bernal, S., & Solórzano, D. (2011). Critical race theory and the transfer
function: Introducing a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 35(3), 252-266.
Jenkins, D., & Fink, J. (2015). What we know about transfer. New York, NY: Columbia
University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Kelchen, R., & Stedrak, L. J. (2016). Does performance-based funding affect colleges’ financial
priorities? Journal of Education Finance, 41(3), 302–321.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kezar, A. (2014). How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and Enacting Change. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777159
Koyama, J. (2015). When things come undone: the promise of dissembling education policy.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 548–559.
Koyama, J. (2017). Producing policy prescriptions in a “persistently low-achieving” school. In
A. E. Castagno, T. L. McCarty, (Eds.), The anthropology of education policy:
ethnographic inquiries into policy as sociocultural process (pp. 63-71). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental interventions in elementary
education. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2012). Reforming the state's transfer process: A progress report
on senate bill 1440. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/Policy-
Areas?areaId=4&category=4
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2015). Implementation update: Reforming transfer from CCC to
CSU. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/Policy-Areas?areaId=4&category=4
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2016). California community colleges: Second progress report on
the student success act of 2012. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/Policy-
Areas?areaId=4&category=4
Levin, J. S., & Kanter, S.T. (2013). Understanding Community Colleges. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lester, J. (2014). The completion agenda: The unintended consequences for equity in community
colleges. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 204
(Vol. 29, pp. 423–466). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_10
Levinson, B. A., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power
theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6),
767–795. http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808320676
Lewis, A. E., & Diamond, J. B. (2016). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrive
in good schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, A. E., Diamond, J. B., & Forman, T. A. (2015). Conundrums of integration:
desegregation in the context of racialized hierarchy. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity,
1(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649214558687
Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation
and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Long, B. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a
baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 30–53.
Lumina Foundation. (2016). Closing the gaps in college attainment: A strong California through
higher education. Indianapolis, IN; Author.
Malcom, L. (2013). Student diversity in community colleges: Examining trends and
understanding the challenges. In J. S. Levin & S. T. Kanter (Eds.), Understanding
Community Colleges (pp. 19-36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Malen, B., Rice, J. K., Matlach, L. K. B., Bowsher, A., Hoyer, K. M., & Hyde, L. H. (2015).
Developing organizational capacity for implementing complex education reform
initiatives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 133–176.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14522482
Mansfield, K. C., & Thachik, S. (2016). A critical policy analysis of Texas’ Closing the Gaps.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(3), 1-33. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v241991
Marcus, L. R. (1999). The micropolitics of planning. Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 45–64.
Maryland State Legislature. (2013). College and Career Readiness and College Completion Act.
Retrieved from http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/fnotes/bil_0000/sb0740.pdf
Marsh, J. A., (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1-48.
Marsh, J. A., Strunk, K. O. and Bush, S. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school
turnaround. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498–527.
Marshall, C. (Ed.). (1997). Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from post-secondary
education. London: Falmer Press.
Marshall, C., & Scribner, J. D. (1991). “It’s all political”: Inquiry into the micropolitics of
education. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 347–355.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124591023004001
Martinez-Aleman, A. M. (2015). Critical discourse analysis in higher education policy research.
In A. M. Martinez Aleman, B. Pusser, & E. M. Bensimon (Eds.), Critical approaches to
the study of higher education (pp. 7-43). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Martinez-Wenzl, M., & Marquez, R. (2012). Unrealized Promises: Unequal Access,
Affordability, and Excellence at Community Colleges in Southern California. The UCLA
Civil Rights Project. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/23c5m52j
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 205
Mattheis, A. (2016). A mashup of policy tools and CDA as a framework for educational policy
inquiry. Critical Policy Studies, 11(1), 57-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2016.1170618
Maxwell, J. A. (2103). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1989). Implementation and Public Policy. University Press of
America.
McDonnell, L. M. & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002171
McLaughin, M. (2006). Beyond “misery research:” New opportunities for implementation
research, policy, and practice. In C. Sugrue, The Future of Educational Change:
International Perspectives (pp. 175-190). NY, NY: Routledge.
McGiveny, J. H., & Moynihan, W. (1972). School and community. Teachers College Press,
74(2), 317-356.
Melguizo, T., Witham, K., & Fong, K. (2015) Understanding the Relationship between Equity
and Efficiency: Towards a Concept of Funding. Working Paper.
Merriam, S. B. (2011). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J., (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mets, L. A. (1997). Planning change through program review. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, &
L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Meyer, E. J., Somoza-Norton, A., Lovgren, N., Rubin, A., Quantz, M., & Quantz, M. (2018).
Title IX coordinators as street-level bureaucrats in U.S. schools: Challenges addressing
sex discrimination in the #MeToo era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3690
Monaghan, D. B., & Attewell, P. (2014). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70-91.
Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and closing racial gaps
in California’s community colleges. Sacramento, CA: The Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy.
Moore, C., Tan, C., & Shulock, N. (2014). Average won’t do: Performance trends in California
higher education as a foundation for action. Sacramento, CA: The Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy.
Moses, M. S., & Saenz, L. P. (2008). Hijacking education policy decisions: Ballot initiatives and
the case of affirmative action. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 289–310.
Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new
theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In M. B. Paulsen
(Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, V. 27 (pp. 189–227).
Netherlands: Springer.
National Conference of State Legislators. (2015). NCSL bill tracking database. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/Education.aspx
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 206
Newfield, C. (2008). The unmaking of the public university: The forty-year assault on the middle
class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Neumann, A., & Pallas, A. M. (2015). Critical policy analysis, the craft of qualitative research,
and analysis of data on the Texas top 10% law. In A. M. Martinez Aleman, B. Pusser, &
E. M. Bensimon (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 153-
173). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ngo, F., & Melguizo, T. (2016). How can placement policy improve math remediation
outcomes? evidence from experimentation in community colleges. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715603504
Nienhusser, H. K. (2014). Role of community colleges in the implementations of postsecondary
education enrollment polices for undocumented students. Community College Review,
42(1), 3-22.
Nienhusser, H. K. (2018). Higher education institutional agents as policy implementers: The case
of policies that affect undocumented and DACAmented students. The Review of Higher
Education, 41(3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0014
Noldon, D. (2015, August). 2015-16 Student equity plan template. Retrieved from
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/StudentEquity.aspx
O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic Methods. London: Routledge.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities:
School reform as social movement. International Journal of Educational Change, 3,
383–406.
Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawa, S., & Allen, R. L. (2005). Norms and politics of equity-
minded change: Researching the "zone of mediation." In M. Fullan (Ed.), Fundamental
change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 282-305). Springer.
Ornelas, A., & Solórzano, D. G. (2004). Transfer conditions of Latina/o community college
students: A single institution case study. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 28, 233–248.
Pak, J., Bensimon, E. M., Malcom, L., Marquez, A., & Park, D. (2006). The life histories of ten
individuals who crossed the border between community colleges and selective four-year
colleges. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Perna, L. W., & Finney, J. E. (2014). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher
education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2014). 2020 vision: Rethinking budget priorities
under the LCFF. Stanford, CA; Graduate School of Education, Stanford University.
Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Porter, M. (2001). “We are mountain”: Appalachian educators’ responses to the challenge of
systemic reform. In M. Sutton, & B. Levinson, Policy as practice: Toward a comparative
sociocultural analysis of educational policy. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2014). From community college to university: Expectations
for California’s new transfer degrees. Sacramento, CA; Author.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 207
Public Policy Institute of California. (2016). Higher education in California: Investing in public
higher education. Sacramento, CA; Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1185
Public Policy Institute of California. (2017). Higher education: California’s future. Sacramento,
CA; Author. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=903
Rawls, J. A. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. A. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
Renee, M., Welner, K., & Oakes, J. (2009). Social movement organizing and equity-focused
educational change: shifting the zone of mediation. In A. Hargreaves, Second
International Handboook of Educational Change. Netherlands: Springer International.
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community college puente: A validating model of education. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 642–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016004010
Riley, B. L., Taylor, S. M., & Elliott, S. J. (2003). Organizational capacity and implementation
change: a comparative case study of heart health promotion in Ontario public health
agencies. Health Education Research, 18(6), 754–769. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyf051
Rivera, C. (2010, April 21). Bill would ease Cal State transfer rules; Community college students
who meet new requirements would be admitted. Los Angeles Times, AA4.
Rodriguez, G. M. (2004). Vertical equity in school finance and the potential for increasing
school responsiveness to student and staff needs. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3),
7-30.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A
critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C. M. (2014). Theories of the policy process (3
rd
ed.). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. The American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Schneider A., & Ingram H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of
Politics, 52(2), 510-529.
Scribner, J. D., Aleman, E., & Maxcy, B. (2003). Emergence of the politics of education field:
Making sense of the messy center. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 10-40.
Shaw, K. M., & London, H. B. (2001). Culture and Ideology in Keeping Transfer Commitment:
Three Community Colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 91-114.
Shaw, K. M., Valadez, J. R., & Rhoads, R. A. (1999). Community colleges as cultural texts:
Qualitative explorations of organizational and student culture. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Rules of the game: How state policy creates barriers to degree
completion and impedes student success in the California community colleges.
Sacramento, CA: The Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
Solórzano, D. G., Acevedo-Gil, N., & Santos, R. (2013). Latina/o community college students:
Understanding the barriers of developmental education (Policy Brief No. 10). Los
Angeles, CA: UC/ACCORD. Retrieved from http://pathways.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of Qualitative Research (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 208
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The
role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M.
Honig, (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity
(pp. 47-64). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional and their
role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 11(43),
1066–1109.
Stein, S. J. (2004). The culture of education policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Strunk, K. O., Marsh, J. A., Bush-Mecenas, S. C., & Duque, M. R. (2016). The best laid plans an
examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement
initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309.
Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act (SB1440), 428 CA § 66745 (2010). Retrieved from
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Sutton, M., & Levinson, B. (2001). Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural
analysis of educational policy. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era of school
resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Taylor, A. J. (2017). Putting race on the table: How teachers make sense of the role of race in
their practice. Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-
5045-87.1.50
Taylor, J. L. (2015). Accelerating pathways to college: The (in)equitable effects of community
college dual credit. Community College Review, 43(4), 355–379.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552115594880
Taylor, S. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences.
Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(1), 23-35.
doi:10.1080/0159630970180102
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2014). Closing the Gaps. Retrieved from
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=858D2E7C-F5C8-
97E90CDEB3037C1C2CA3
The Century Foundation. (2014). Bridging the higher education divide: Strengthening
community colleges and restoring the American dream. New York, NY: Author.
Torche, F. (2011). Is a college degree still the great equalizer? Intergenerational mobility across
levels of schooling in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(3), 763-807.
Townsend, B. K. (2007). Interpreting the influence of community college attendance upon
baccalaureate attainment. Community College Review, 35(2), 128–136.
Trujillo, T. M. (2012). The politics of district instructional policy formation compromising
equity and rigor. Educational Policy, 27(3), 531–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812454000
Trujillo, T. M., & Woulfin, S. L. (2014). Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based
accountability a qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary’s instructional
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 209
practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 253-293.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214527335
Turner, E. O. (2015). Districts’ responses to demographic change: Making sense of race, class,
and immigration in political and organizational context. American Educational Research
Journal, 52(1), 4–39.
University of California, Information System. (2016). Dashboards and data tables. Retrieved
from https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter.
University of California, Admissions. (2016). Transfer admissions planner. Retrieved from
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/transfer/transfer-admission-planner/
US Census Bureau. (2016). 2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
US Department of Education. (2015). 2015 Conditions of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
US Department of Education. (2016). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by level and control of institution and race/ethnicity of student: Selected
years, 1976 through 2012 Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_306.20.asp
Vasquez, J. H., Ward, D. R., Weisman, E., & Cole, H. (2014). Community-based school finance
and accountability a new era for local control in education policy? Urban Education,
49(8), 871–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914558171
Villalpando, O. (2004). Practical considerations of critical race theory and Latino critical theory
for Latino college students. In A. M. Ortiz. (Ed.), Addressing the Unique Needs of Latino
American Students: New Directions for Student Services, 105 (pp. 41-50). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Webb, A. L., Dantzler, J. A., & Hardy, D. E. (2015). The influence theory: Factors that influence
the transfer advising process. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
39(7), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.872060
Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance
to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 93–118.
Weerts, D. J., Freed, G. F., & Morphew, C. C. (2014). Organizational identity in higher
education: Conceptual and empirical perspectives. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 229-278). NY: Springer.
Winkle-Wagner, R., Sule, V. T., & Maramba, D. C. (2014). When race disappears: College
admissions policy discourse in the state of Texas. Educational Policy, 28(4), 516-546.
doi:10.1177/0895904812465114
Witham, K., Malcom-Piqueux, L. E., Dowd, A. C., Bensimon, E.M. (2015). America's unmet
promise: The imperative for equity in higher education. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges & Universities.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative
Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.
Yanow, D. (2007). Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice. Critical Policy
Studies, 1(1), 110-122. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2007.9518511
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational
pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 210
Yosso, T. J., & Solórzano, D. G. (2006). Leaks in the Chicana and Chicano educational pipeline.
Latino Policy & Issues, Brief 13, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Chicano Studies Research
Center.
Young, M. D. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing
traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Researcher, 36(4), 677-714.
Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2017). Critical approaches to education policy analysis.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Zenk, L. R. (2017). Implementing university change: Intersections of academic policy and
institutional culture. Journal of Applied Educational and Policy Research, 3(2).
Retrieved from https://journals.uncc.edu/jaepr/article/view/526/702
Zoch, M. (2017). A school divided: One elementary school’s response to education policy.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 48(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12181
Zucker, L. G. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from? Organizations as actors in
social systems. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations; Culture
and Environment (pp.23-49). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 211
Appendix A: State Policy Initiatives to Improve Transfer, Select years from 1960-2014
Policy/Statue Year Description
AB23 – Donahoe Act 1960 Established a central mission and governance
structure for the state’s higher education system
AB1725 – Community
College Reform Act
1988 Called for a common curriculum of lower division
requirements to be accepted at UC and CSU.
Additionally, the bill established the IGETC transfer
pathway currently used by students.
SB121 – Hart
Amendment
1991 It stated that a strong transfer function is the
responsibility of all three segments of higher
education. The provisions focused on improving
transfer by formalizing transfer agreement programs
known as “community college transfer plans.”
AB617 – Hayden
Amendment
1991 Enacted a subset of 55 recommendations from a joint
taskforce that would revise the master plan and
emphasize transfer as the “central institutional
priority” among the systems
SB724 – Scott
Amendment
2005 Made exceptions to the structure of the Master Plan,
allowing CSUs to award educational doctorates and
established committee to explore the ability of
community colleges to grant four-year degrees.
SB1440 - Student
Transfer Achievement
Reform Act
2010 The new law enabled the creation of new transfer
degrees in collaboration with the CCC and CSU
system. The Associate Degree for Transfer as it is
known provide guaranteed transfer to the CSU system
with priority admissions and junior status.
SB1456 – The Seymour-
Campbell Student
Success Act
2012 Established new matriculation processes in
community college to improve the degree completion
and transfer success of students by providing
“effective orientation, assessment and placement,
counseling, and educational planning services.”
California Code –
Section 54220
Amendment – Student
Equity Plans
2014 State education code was amended to require every
community college in the state to “maintain a student
equity plan” that document the extent of equity on
campus and promoted student success for all. In
conjunction with SB-860, new funds were attached to
the statue to incentive the development of these plans.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 212
Appendix B: Student Equity Allocations for 33 Equity Plans Analyzed
38
38
All other campuses are described with a number to anonymize them.
Institution Total Allocation
Allocated to
Transfer
% of Allocation to
Transfer Activites
Total
Transfer
Activities
Explicit
Latinx
Activities
% Latinx
Transfer
Activites
Valley River College 3,241,105 $ 668,521 $ 20.6% 3 2 67%
Campus 2 2,121,860 $ 495,116 $ 23.3% 3 1 33%
Campus 3 1,951,457 $ 447,000 $ 22.9% 5 0 0%
Campus 4 1,957,324 $ 428,635 $ 21.9% 1 0 0%
Campus 5 1,610,914 $ 407,873 $ 25.3% 2 0 0%
Campus 6 1,956,682 $ 407,840 $ 20.8% 3 0 0%
Campus 7 2,410,224 $ 398,062 $ 16.5% 6 0 0%
Campus 8 1,385,652 $ 360,341 $ 26.0% 2 0 0%
Campus 9 3,387,056 $ 216,000 $ 6.4% 6 1 17%
Campus 10 1,848,676 $ 187,000 $ 10.1% 4 0 0%
Campus 11 2,180,810 $ 178,680 $ 8.2% 1 0 0%
Campus 12 2,543,627 $ 169,600 $ 6.7% 4 0 0%
Campus 13 2,112,177 $ 169,000 $ 8.0% 4 1 25%
Campus 14 1,603,301 $ 168,500 $ 10.5% 5 5 100%
Campus 15 1,475,652 $ 145,568 $ 9.9% 5 1 20%
Campus 16 2,144,665 $ 125,000 $ 5.8% 2 1 50%
Campus 17 1,835,099 $ 110,719 $ 6.0% 3 1 33%
Campus 18 1,394,815 $ 87,000 $ 6.2% 4 2 50%
Campus 19 1,359,752 $ 77,000 $ 5.7% 2 0 0%
Campus 20 2,232,711 $ 71,942 $ 3.2% 3 0 0%
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 213
Appendix C: Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Administrators, Faculty, and Staff
Huerta Community
College Urban CC District California
Position Type
Employee
Count
%
Employee
Count
%
Employee
Count
%
Educational
Administrator
Total
21
134
1,992
African-American
18 13.4% 225 11.3%
American Indian
/Alaskan Native
15 0.75%
Asian 2 9.5% 12 8.9% 177 8.9%
Hispanic 10 47.6% 38 28.4% 362 18.2%
Multi-Ethnicity
1 0.8% 22 1.1%
Pacific Islander
9 0.5%
Unknown 7 33.3% 36 26.9% 133 6.7%
White 2 9.5% 29 21.6% 1,049 52.76%
Academic,
Tenured/Tenure
Track Total
342
1,625
17,576
African-American 14 4.1% 162 10% 1,033 5.9%
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
6 0.40% 109 0.6%
Asian 51 14.9% 170 10.5% 1,642 9.3%
Hispanic 87 25.4% 270 16.6% 2,679 15.2%
Multi-Ethnicity 1 0.3% 12 0.7% 215 1.2%
Pacific Islander
2 0.1% 88 0.5%
Unknown 92 26.9% 294 18.1% 1,252 7.1%
White 97 28.3% 709 43.6% 10,558 60.1%
Classified Total 374
2,250
25,958
African-American 28 7.5% 351 15.60% 2,171 8.4%
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
4 0.18% 179 0.7%
Asian 48 12.8% 291 12.9% 3,152 12.1%
Hispanic 166 44.4% 621 27.6% 7,272 28%
Multi-Ethnicity
9 0.4% 360 1.4%
Pacific Islander 1 0.3% 3 0.1% 193 0.7%
Unknown 104 27.8% 518 23% 1,909 7.3%
White 27 7.2% 453 20% 10,722 41.3%
Source. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Datamart. 2015-2016 Faculty & Staff Demographic
Reports.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 214
Appendix D: Connecting Theory to Data Collection
Theoretical
Element
Explores… Properties Protocol Link Example
Policy
Context
Statutes and guidelines to understand how they
shape the ability to achieve policy intent during
implementation
-Theory of Action
-Language
-Reform Messaging
Documents
Interviews
(D) What meaning(s) do formal policy
documents, implementation guidelines,
and other memos provide to understand
the intent of the policy?
Institutional
Context
The ways campus context influences
implementation looking at campus history,
identity, politics, and culture
-Campus Identity/History
-Senior Leadership
-Campus Culture
Documents
Observations
Interviews
(D) What do documents share about
campus concerns related to racial equity,
Latinx student success, or improving
transfer?
(O) In what ways do Latinx students or
improving transfer come up as campus
priorities in this meeting?
Individual
Characteristics
The prior knowledge, capacity, and equity-
mined competence of the individuals selected to
implement policy mandates
-Prior Knowledge
-Capacity & Willingness
-Equity-Minded
Competence
Interviews (I) What does the word “equity” mean to
you? How did you come to define equity
in this way? How are issues of equity
discussed on campus?
Situated
Context
The interaction of individuals within specific
organizational arrangements and how those
dynamics shape the outcome of implementation
-Collective Sensemaking
-Intragroup Dynamics
-Critical Agency
Observations
Interviews
(O) How does equity, transfer, or
supporting Latinx students surface at the
event being observed?
(I) In your committee, how did you
negotiate how to move forward with the
policy? Did you have to define what
equity meant?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 215
Appendix E: Observation Protocol
Name of Observer Date Time and Duration
Location Activity/Event
Observer Role
What am I doing? What
is my role?
How may my presence
affect the participants?
How does the activity
being observed relate to
the focal effort?
Space, Artifacts, and Presenters
Describe the physical
space and the setting the
activity takes place
Is there an agenda or
materials for the event?
What are the artifacts
being used?
Someone facilitating the
meeting? Who is it?
What’s their role?
Participants and Activity
Who are the
participants?
-Administrators,
Faculty/Staff, Students?
How many are there?
-Who’s represented?
(Representing specific
academic disciplines,
programs, etc.)
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 216
Can any demographic
characteristics be
identified among the
participants? (i.e.,
gender, race, age?)
What are the
participants’ roles?
What are the participants
doing?
• Interaction among
participants
• Group power dynamics
• Passivity/Activity
How does equity,
transfer, or supporting
Latinx students surface
at the event being
observed? (Specific
language, presentations,
references,
conversations)
General Observation Notes
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 217
HIGHLIGHTING CONTEXTUAL FACTORS THROUGH OBSERVATIONS
Are there any interactions that stand out from today’s observation?
Are there emerging patterns or themes that build on previous observations and what was witnessed
today?
Institutional Context
How does this observation help to understand the institutional context? (i.e., do people reference
their mission, students served, how things have been done before, etc.)
How does this observation help to understand how and why the campus prioritizes Latinx students
and transfer inequity?
How does this observation help to understand the institution’s identity, history, leadership, or
culture that is embedded on campus?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 218
Individual Context
-In what specific ways do participants observed seem to draw on their experiences?
-How do they discuss students and the challenges they face on campus?
-Do participants enact their role as an institutional agent? How does this manifest?
Are there other emerging patterns or themes related to individual participants’
action/discussion/interaction?
Based on your observation today, are there issues to follow up with or a need for more information
to contextualize your experience? If so, who will you reach out to?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 219
Appendix F: Interview Protocol
Respondent Name________________________ Pseudonym ____________________
Position________________________________________________________________
Gender___________________ Race/Ethnicity (if mentioned)____________________
Interviewer__________________________ Date___________________________
Documents Obtained: ____________________________________________________
General Notes about the Setting and other Notable Details:
Introduction
Thank you for taking the time today to speak with me. I hope you are well. My name is Eric Felix and I
am a research assistant at the Center for Urban Education at USC. You have been identified as someone
who may be able to help me better understand the current equity initiatives and priorities at your campus.
Interview Goals
I’m focused on understanding the role of equity and equity-initiatives that have been developed recently
to support Latinx transfer success. The purpose of this interview is two-fold. First, I would like to better
understand the SEP planning process at your institution, who was involved and how the activities
proposed were negotiated among campus constituents. Second, I would like to understand how the SEP
was regarded by these different constituents, particularly in relation to other campus priorities, as well as
other previous or current equity-related initiatives.
Informed Consent and Confidentiality
I’m sharing with you an informed consent form for your review. Please take you time to look over the
form. [Pause, to give participant time to review the form.]
Before we begin, I would like to ask for your permission to tape record this interview. I will may every
attempt to keep any information you share with me confidential. This means that no one besides myself
will hear the audio recording of this interview. Also, the transcript of our conversation will use a
pseudonym.
Finally, please know that your participation in this interview is voluntary. You can stop the interview at
any time if you feel uncomfortable. You may also tell me to stop recording at any point. Do you have any
questions about what I’ve just said?
Okay, let’s get started.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 220
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Can you please share your full name? [Get a pseudonym by end of interview]
2. Can you share a bit about your educational background? Where did you go to school? What you
studied?
-Did you go to community college? Did you transfer?
3. How did you come to work at this community college? How long have you been here?
4. What is your current title and role at the institution?
-How long have you been in this role?
-What are your primary responsibilities?
-What aspects of your position do you enjoy the most?
-What do you find challenging in your position?
5. Can you share what it is like to work on campus?
-Probe about the students they serve, experiences, campus culture
-What do you like most about being a faculty member/counselor/administrator here?
STUDENT EQUITY EFFORTS [participants in first phase have been involved w/ planning]
I’m interested in learning more about [Huerta’s] equity planning process and your involvement with
developing the Huerta’s student equity plan. The rest of the interview focuses on different planning
aspects
PERCEPTIONS (Policy Context)
6. When did you first learn about the Student Equity Policy? Who did you learn this from?
7. What was your understanding of the policy? What is the purpose of it?
8. Do you remember how the campus initially reacted to the policy? What did you think of having
to create a student equity plan?
FORMATION AND ROLE (Institutional and Situated Context)
9. Here at Huerta, who formed the committee to create the plan?
10. How were you—and others—selected to be part of the committee?
-Were you asked, did you volunteer, how were you selected?
-Were you representing a specific program, department, or division?
11. Do you serve on other committees? How are committees typically organized at Huerta?
-Did the SE planning committee adhere to that standard? Or was it different in anyway?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 221
12. What was your role? Who else was involved in the development of the SEP?
UNDERSTANDING THE POLICY & MEANINGS OF EQUITY (Individual Characteristics)
13. Once on the committee, how did you learn about what you needed to do to create an equity plan?
14. Did you read the policy or the implementation guidelines? What do you recall? What did you
think/what were your impression?
15. How well did you feel you understood the policy? And what need to be done?
16. So, now you are on the committee and you are developing an educational plan, different from a
strategic planning efforts, since this one is focused on equity. Can you share what the word
“equity” means to you? How did you come to define equity in this way?
17. How about in the planning committee? Did they have a similar definition of equity?
-Was there ever an established or working definition used?
18. Did you or the committee ever reference external documents (Chancellor’s Office memos,
research, professional development) to help understand what equity meant?
19. How were issues of equity discussed on campus? How would you describe the campuses ability
to understand equity?
20. If I were to ask you what the most pressing issue on campus was in terms of student equity, what
would that be?
21. Who are the most active proponents of equity here? Who would you consider supportive, if not
active? Who would you say are skeptical of the equity work?
EQUITY-MINDED COMPETENCE
22. Huerta primarily enrolls students of color, particularly Latinx students, can you tell me how
conversations about race and racial inequities occur here?
-How are issues of race discussed on your campus?
-Is it difficult to have conversations on race? Or is it common to discuss race, racial groups, and
their experiences in meetings?
23. In your experience, what are some specific barriers to transfer success for Latinx students?
[participant could respond by talking about institutional/societal inequities or may attribute the
fault to the student—deficit minded]
-If faculty or staff were asked, what do you think they would say are the barriers for Latinx
students in terms of transfer success?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 222
-If Latinx students were asked, what do you think they would say are the barriers they face to
transfer success?
-What do you think can be done to address these racial equity gaps?
-Is there anything the college could be doing to better aid the needs of these students?
24. How does Huerta’s commitment to Latinx compare to other colleges where you have worked?
What is different here?
PLANNING
Help me understand how the plan that you have got created. (Have the actual plan at the interview)
25. Walk me through a student equity planning meeting? What were the frequency of your meetings?
-How often did you participate? What would you say your role on the committee was?
26. Do you recall advocating for anything in particular? Were you able to share ideas about the plan
or how the money could be used?
27. One thing about the planning process, is that you had multiple target groups to address. How were
the discussions around which specific students groups to address in your plan?
28. How did you narrow down what students to target?
-Were there disagreements among committee members?
-What were they about?
29. Were there particular individuals in the committee that played a bigger role in developing the
direction of the plan? Did you feel like you had an influence on the plan?
30. It would seem difficult to write the plan as a committee, so how did the plan actually get written?
-Did you read in its entirety? What were your impression?
PRESENTING THE PLAN & EXTERNAL INFLUENCES
31. After the plan got written who had to approve it? Do you remember those conversations?
32. What was discussion like on campus once you started to present the plan and what the group
decided on focusing on? Who did you share it with? (Name answers from Q32 Pres/SG/ BOT)
33. Do you recall what the role of the president had, if any? How about other senior administrators?
FOCUSING ON LATINX TRANSFER
34. So, I looked at your plan and 27% is allocated towards Latinx transfer, I’m interested in learning
how that came about?
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 223
35. What were discussions like when taking about Latinx transfer? Was everyone onboard with
focusing on this group? Were there some people with other ideas on how to spend the money?
36. What do you think about this goal of increasing the number of Latinx students who transfer?
-Particularly, the campus emphasis on the number who transfer to “elite” institutions?
37. Your campus, when compared to other colleges developed more practices and allocated more
funds in their plan to address Latinx transfer equity, why do you think that is?
38. Do you think what you’ve written in the plan will make a difference in transfer?
ENACTING THE PLAN AND PROGRESS ON STUDENT EQUITY
39. Did you feel supported by campus leadership when developing/implementing the equity plan?
40. Now, as you enact those proposed ideas, what is your sense of campus leadership and support for
the student equity initiatives? What about the ones that focus specifically on Latinx students?
41. How do you feel about the ability of your campus to enact the goals and activities described in the
plan?
42. What about now? You created the plan, you have the money. To what extent are the activities
being implemented as describe in the plan?
43. Have you or the committee experienced any roadblocks in putting your plan into practice?
-How do you deal with those hiccups?
-Can you share a specific example?
44. Do you think you could have done this student equity plan in the same manner if you were at
another institution? What made it possible here?
45. Are you still involved with student equity work? What’s it like now? How is it different?
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We've completed the formal aspect of the interview, is there anything else that you would like to add
about your experience with the creation of the student equity plan?
-Are there any questions I should have asked but didn’t?
-Based on our conversation, are there any other people you would recommend for me to interview to learn
more about the development of Huerta’s equity plan??
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 224
Appendix G: Multi-Contextual Framework Code Definitions
Factors that Shape Latinx-Focused Implementation
The concept of a “zone of tolerance” (Oakes et al., 2005; Trujillo, 2012) is used in this study to
understand how equity-oriented reforms move through educational institutions to achieve intended
outcomes. Oakes and colleagues (2005) used the zone of tolerance to understand the local social setting
that influences how equity-oriented policies were adopted or rejected during implementation process. The
authors described this zone as the “area within which local context allows policy to be changed and
developed” to achieve its intended goals (p. 289). Enactment zones acknowledge that schools are situated
in particular, local settings that are informed by cultural norms, organizational rules, and institutional
histories. Specifically, I focus on four contextual factors: policy, organizational, individual, and situated.
Coding Scheme
• Policy Context
o Policy Design
o Language and Flexibility
o Reform Messaging
• Organizational Context
o Identity and history
o Campus leadership
o Campus culture
• Individual Characteristics
o Prior knowledge, experience, and beliefs
o Capacity, expertise, and willingness
o Equity-minded competence (Understand of Eq/Race-Conscious/Inst Action)
• Situated Context
o Collective sensemaking
o Intragroup dynamics
o Critical agency and institutional agent
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 225
Factor Influencing
Implementation
Definitions/Explanations What does this code include?
POLICY CONTEXT Factor explores how the policy acknowledged the extent of behavioral change required. Are the
mandates written in a clear and consistent manner? Does the policy include instruments to motivate
implementers? How will implementation be influenced by the views and attitudes of constituency
groups? The elements in policy context help to understand how local implementers perceive a policy,
decide to embrace or resist said policy, and undertake efforts to comply or exceed the objectives of the
reform.
A) Policy Design Element looks at how policy is structured so that
implementers clearly understand the concept of
equity, equity planning, and addressing inequity.
It also captures the discussion about the mandates
required to carry out the SEPs implementation.
Moreover, the inclusion of an adequate theory of
action to compel community college actors to
develop their plans in ways that ameliorate racial
inequities is likewise needed for success.
• This code includes discussion of the policy’s
intent and mandates to be fulfilled by
community college actors.
• For example, when a participant discusses what
the policy required them to do: “And that’s what
equity allows us to do is look at race, because
before it was like a taboo.” or “it was just so
glaring and this is why I’m saying to you that
equity gave us that ability to talk about, really
talk about these disparities because it was
inherent to the charge. So, we saw the inequities
that were going on. The data was clear”
B) Language &
Flexibility
How equity is defined and how actors interpret it
is key to understanding the implementation of
equity-oriented reform (Stone, 2002). Policy fails
to provide detailed language, definitions, and
applicable descriptions to help implementers
understand and interpret what is required of them,
such as the concept of equity within the SEP. This
element emphasizes how the SEP defined equity
and enabled implementers to create an equity plan
in varied ways (i.e., transfer-focused/race-
conscious)
• This code refers to instances where actors
described and interpreted “equity” from the
policy as well as what was required of them to
achieve the policy’s goals.
• For example, when some says that examining
race is inherent to the word equity: “I think it’s
inherent to the definition, I mean look at the
numbers, you disaggregate the data. It pops up.
Women, people of color, low income. You
know it’s there. It’s given for me.”
C) Reform Messaging This code looks for how the SEP was introduced
and communicated to implementing actors by
external influencers (i.e., Governor, Chancellor)
as well as how it was received by the campus
community to better understand whether the
values and mandates from the SEP aligned with
the institutional context/individuals overseeing it.
• This code includes external (outside of
immediate organization) influences on how a
practitioner makes sense of a reform/policy
• Refers to discussion/mentions of macro-level
policy actors such as the “State” “chancellor’s
office” “district” or “at a training meeting” that
describes how the policy and its intent were
described and received.
ORGANIZATIONAL
CONTEXT
Factor spotlights the community college’s identity, history, leadership, and culture is vital for
understanding how institutional context influences the implementation of the Student Equity Plans
policy to address Latinx transfer inequity. This is especially true for community colleges all of whom
have divergent philosophies of education, mission, ideologies, and histories that shape how they respond
to state policies (Trujillo, 2012).
A) Identity & History These elements are the “DNA” of an institution
and help to explain why institutions operate and
respond to policy mandates in different ways.
According to Weerts and colleagues (2014), each
institution develops a unique personality that is
shaped by its mission and the situated context
• This code includes all references to history of
the institution or organizational identity and how
this history/identity has influenced how
practitioners make sense of a policy or reform.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 226
(i.e., urban area serving low-income students or
rural area focused on workforce development) and
the students they serve (i.e., primarily Latinx,
first-generation, adult re-entry). Therefore,
implementers look to their institution’s history as
a guidepost for making decisions particularly
when those changes require considerable
restructuring of policy and practice to be more
equitable.
• This code is used when references are made to
history, but also tradition of the organization
(i.e., the way things have always been done.)
• For example, “I think that’s one of the reasons
why we’re here, because you look at our
population and this is the population that we’re
dedicated to and this is who we serve. We know
that every student has a story and every student
needs to get through, and every student needs to
be committed to all students. But there’s a
reason why where at VRC. VRC allows us to
focus on the populations that we’re most
passionate about, serving communities that have
been historically marginalized…”
B) Org Leadership Leadership includes how leaders of an
organization or those in positions of power
influence how a policy is perceived or interpreted
by practitioners. Campus leaders play a role in
championing and supporting equity-minded
reform by letting it be widely known that the
policy aligns with the goals and values of the
institution. In many cases, researchers have found
that leaders have the power to obstruct, challenge,
and compromise equity initiatives in schools.
Campus leaders have a symbolic and proxy role,
buy how they speak of the reform efforts as well
as the individuals the appoint to carry out the
process.
• This code includes the influence organizational
leaders have on how practitioners make sense of
the policy/reform.
• Also includes the organizational list of campus
priorities (what do leaders have on the
organizational agenda? What is most important
to them? Is the policy/reform on the agenda?
Where is it placed in order of importance will
influence how practitioners interpret the reform)
• For example, “It was almost kind of a perfect
storm. You had Paulina in place. You had a
surge of new faculty hires. You had a new
president. You had a shift in academic senate
leadership, a shift in AFT leadership.”
C) Campus Culture Organizational culture, seen as the shared values,
beliefs, and meanings that become the foundation
for how a community college behaves and
responds to tasks, goals, and priorities (Shaw,
Valadez, and Rhoads, 1999) holds a prominent
place in the overall context of institutions. These
shared values are shaped and reshaped by
individuals within the organization, over time
becoming normative and behavioral structures
that guide how a college responds to external
policy demands (Shaw & London, 2001). Culture
is an essential element of the institutional context
such that it can influence and shape the
implementation of equity-minded reform.
• This code refers to the normative and behavioral
structures established within the organization
(VRC) that influence how one makes sense of a
reform and is able to move forward with its
implementation
• It can refer to the organization as a whole or
specific sub-units within an organization (i.e.,
departments, divisions, programs, etc.) For
example, “ The climate now, what you’re
studying, people you’re interacting, it’s
completely 180 from when we’re trying to
establish a transfer culture on this campus.”
INDIVIDUAL
CHARACTERISTICS
An individual’s capacity and expertise (Nienhusser, 2014), willingness and motivation (Oakes et al.,
2005), individual sensemaking (Spillane et al., 2006), and equity-minded competence (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2015) are critical components influencing policy interpretation and implementation. These
properties help to distinguish the individual characteristics that lead to the development of policy in
equity-minded and race-conscious ways.
A) Prior Knowledge,
experience, & beliefs
Elements focus on how institutional actors come
to construct the meaning and intent of policy
during implementation and how that
• This code captures how the background/past of
the practitioner (including education, life
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 227
understanding impacts policy enactment (Spillane,
1998; Coburn, 2001). Drawing attention to
sensemaking matters because these reforms must
either align with current frames of reference or be
restructured so that they are true to the intent of
policy. This more important for equity-focused
policies if practitioners are influenced by norms of
color-blindness.
experience, family history, prior beliefs/values
etc.) has influenced how he/she views the world.
• Schein’s definition of value (which references
beliefs)
o Deeply held feelings of a person toward
particular things, people, or actions. (i.e.,
supporting Latinx students)
o Values emerge on the basis of profound
assumptions about human nature, e.g.,
assumptions about motivation
o Values become institutionalized as
beliefs, beliefs are the cognitive side of
values.
B) Capacity, expertise,
& willingness
Successful policy implementation requires
individuals to lead, understand the policy context,
and be familiar with how change occurs (Kezar,
2014; Nienhusser, 2014). Prior research has found
that individual campus actors have significant
influence on how policy is developed (Chase,
2016; McLaughlin, 2006) and Nienhusser (2014)
describes implementers as “powerfully influential
intermediaries” (p. 16) between policy goals and
the gains to be made by marginalized students. An
examination of capacity, expertise, and
willingness frames how individual actors
responded to equity-minded reform in positive
ways.
• This code refers to instances where actors: a)
share their professional experience that
influences implementation and informs their
ability to propose race-conscious strategies; b)
the responsiveness of an individual to the call of
addressing student inequity through the policy
mandates
• For example, “it really gave us an opportunity to
run with it and say this is a priority because it
was glaring, it was really glaring what our
transfer numbers were given the volume of
students that work their way through this
college. We had some really good committed
leaders that were willing to take it on.
C) Equity-minded
competence
The characteristics of equity-mindedness include:
(1) being race-conscious, as opposed to
colorblind; (2) being cognizant of structural and
institutional racism as the root cause of inequities;
(3) recognizing that to achieve equity it may be
necessary to treat individuals unequally as
opposed to treating everyone equally; and (4)
being able to focus on practices as the source of
failure rather than student deficits (Bensimon &
Malcom, 2012).
Equity-minded competence thus serves as an
important element to understand the disposition of
individuals and their ability to take action to
change practices and structures that help close
equity gaps. How implementers embodied equity-
minded principles and act on them to create more
equitable conditions for racially-minoritized
students is a critically important aspect of the
theoretical framework.
• This code refers to instances where these
characteristics are displayed/discussed:
• Race-consciousness
o Speaks of racially-minoritized students in
affirming ways
• Equity-Mindedness (not equality)
o Communicates a more critical
understanding of equity, as
redistribution, unequal treatment of
unequals, transformation
• Institutionally-Focused
o Communicates that “student equity” is
the responsibility of the institution and
the practitioner
• Latinx-Specific
o Communicates supporting Latinx
students is a priority for campus
• Transfer-Specific
o Communicates transfer as a priority for
the campus
• For example, “I think it’s inherent to the
definition, I mean look at the numbers, you
disaggregate the data. It pops up. Women,
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 228
people of color, low income. You know it’s
there. It’s given for me.”
SITUATED CONTEXT Factor focuses on the interaction of individuals within specific organizational arrangements (i.e., student
equity committee, shared governance), the dynamics within the group (i.e., like-minded or diverse
perspectives), and their ability to recognize the influence they have on improving equity on campus.
Collective sensemaking emphasizes that meaning and interpretation occur within specific social contexts
through interaction with others (Spillane et al., 2002). As such, how intragroup dynamics influence
policy implementation (Kezar, 2014) and the extent to which implementers as a group are
prompted/empowered to enact change to improve racial inequities (Baez, 2000; Bensimon & Dowd,
2009) are critical to understanding why a policy succeeds or fails (Zoch, 2017).
A) Collective
Sensemaking
Property highlights two aspects: how a group of
individuals come to interpret and (re)construct
policy as well as the shared values and motivation
that develops to push forward with the enactment
of equity-minded reform
• The code refers to any social interaction that is
formal or informal where practitioners discuss
the policy/reform with their colleagues, and that
interaction influences how the practitioner
interprets the policy/reform
• For example, participants have a shared
understandings about how to respond to policy
messages are socially constructed and
reconstructed as new information becomes part
of practitioner conversations (Coburn & Talbert,
2006).
B) Intragroup Dynamics One of the micro-political factors at play in higher
education policy implementation is intragroup
dynamics: the composition of the group, divergent
perspectives, willingness to work together, and
ultimately, the ability to develop a plan that meets
or exceeds a policy’s intent. Prior research has
documented how groups can assert their collective
power and voice to resist aspects of the plan that
they disagree with or move forward with
initiatives that align deeply with their shared
values.
• The code focuses on the how participants
discuss their willingness to work together to
implement the policy
• Includes the mention of “working groups”
“committee” or use of “we”
• For example, Intragroup dynamics only used
when an individual describes how student
services personnel were more involved and
that’s why LCTA and MLA were created.
C) Critical Agency Equity-minded reforms mandate significant
changes in educational structures and individual
practices. Consequently, it is imperative for
implementers to take on a more critical role. Baez
(2000) asserts that critical agency – awareness of
inequities, resistance of hegemonic practices, and
efforts to bring about social justice – is necessary
in higher education to challenge existing practices
and structure institutions to better serve people of
color. Additionally, the work on institutional
agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2011) and its application
in community colleges (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009;
Dowd, Pak, & Bensimon, 2013) help to explore
how implementers act as “transfer agents” using
the SEP as an opportunity to take an active role in
facilitating transfer opportunities for racially-
minoritized student groups (Pak, Bensimon,
Malcom, Marquez, & Park, 2006).
• Code refers to a display or discussion of
collective action towards making sure the
implementation process stayed race-conscious
or transfer focused
• I mention of persistence to get these strategies
approved in the equity plan and become a reality
to help mitigate inequities for racial groups on
campus.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 229
Appendix H: Approved IRB Informed Consent
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 230
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 231
Appendix I: Student Equity Plans Policy
California Education Code Title 5 sections 54220 and 51026
§ 54220. Student Equity Plans.
(a) In order to promote student success for all students, regardless of race, gender, age, disability,
or economic circumstances, the governing board of each community college district shall
maintain a student equity plan which includes for each college in the district:
(1) Campus-based research as to the extent of student equity in the five areas described in
paragraph (2) and the determination of what activities are most likely to be effective;
(2) Goals for access, retention, degree and certificate completion, ESL and basic skills
completion, and transfer; for the overall student population and for each population group of
students, as appropriate. Where significant underrepresentation is found to exist in accordance
with standards adopted by the Board of Governors, the plan shall include race-neutral and/or
gender-neutral measures for addressing disparities in those areas, and, when legally appropriate,
goals for addressing a disparity in representation of students with disabilities, and where required
by federal law, race-conscious and/or gender-conscious measures for addressing a race or gender
disparity;
(3) Implementation activities designed to attain the goals, including a means of coordinating
existing student equity related programs;
(4) Sources of funds for the activities in the plan;
(5) Schedule and process for evaluation; and
(6) An executive summary that includes, at a minimum, the groups for whom goals have been
set, the goals, the initiatives that the college or district will undertake to achieve these goals, the
resources that have been budgeted for that purpose, and the district official to contact for further
information.
(b) These plans should be developed with the active involvement of all groups on campus as
required by law, and with the involvement of appropriate people from the community.
(c) The Board-adopted plan shall be submitted to the Office of the Chancellor, which shall
publish all executive summaries, sending copies to every college and district, the chair of each
consultation group that so requests, and such additional individuals and organizations as deemed
appropriate.
(d) For the purposes of this section, “each population group of students” means American
Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, men, women,
and persons with disabilities. A person shall be included in the group with which he or she
identifies as his or her group.
POLICY AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LATINX TRANSFER STUDENTS 232
Note: Authority cited: Section 70901, Education Code. Reference: Sections 66010.2, 66010.7,
66030 and 70901, Education Code.
§ 51026. Student Equity.
In accordance with the provisions of section 54220, the governing board of a community college
district shall adopt a student equity plan.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 66700 and 70901, Education Code. Reference: Sections 66010.2,
66010.7, 66030 and 70901, Education Code.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In 2014, California policymakers revised and passed the Student Equity Plans (SEP) policy to address outcome disparities in the state’s community college system. The reform formalized a campus-wide planning effort, which required all community colleges to develop a “student equity plan” that identified equity gaps for different student groups, including racial/ethnic groups within five academic areas (i.e., access, transfer, basic skills progression). It also provided new funding sources to create activities and strategies to mitigate the inequities uncovered. This policy offered the possibility for institutions to directly target racial disparities on their campuses if they seized the opportunity within the reform. ❧ As an instrumental case study, I selected Huerta Community College, since their equity plan stood out as an outlier for its focus on addressing Latinx transfer inequity, which is one of the state’s largest equity gaps in community college. Policy implementation research tends to document the failures of reform, describing a myriad ways individuals and institutions miss the mark in translating policy intent into impact. Rather than conduct “misery research” as labeled by McLaughlin (2006), Huerta was chosen to highlight a potential institution that interpreted and implemented policy in race-conscious ways to achieve student equity for Latinx students. This dissertation tackled three questions: What contextual factors influenced the campus to develop their plan to explicitly address Latinx transfer inequity? What contextual factors shaped the implementation process when moving from proposed projects in a plan to actual campus programs and practices? And what lessons can be learned from Huerta related to implementing equity-oriented policies in community college? ❧ Guided by a multi-contextual theoretical framework of policy implementation, I explored the socio-cultural conditions that enabled Huerta to craft a plan that was transparent in its focus on racial equity, particularly for Latinx students, and then how it moved forward with implementing that plan on campus. Central to this framework was the concept that educational institutions have an enactment zone shaped by contextual factors such as institutional culture or background of individual implementers that can restrict, resist, or enable the implementation of equity-minded reform. I spent over 16 months collecting data, interviewing implementers, observing equity meetings, and collecting documents that served as artifacts of implementation. ❧ My findings were described in two sections covering the planning and implementation phases of the student equity plan. Key to equity planning was a critical mass of Latinx practitioners who were able to see the policy as an opportunity to tackle one of the greatest inequities on their campus, Latinx transfer. They used the planning process to propose new equity projects that would better support Latinx students in their journey from Huerta to a four-year institution. Although the campus crafted a Latinx-focused equity plan, practitioners tasked with making this document come to life faced unanticipated challenges and roadblocks during the implementation process
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform
PDF
Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis
PDF
Navigating the struggle: neoliberal meritocracy, Latinx charter school graduates, and the college transition
PDF
Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Tough conversations and missed opportunities: implementing district policies for racial equity
PDF
Tempering transformative change: whiteness and racialized emotions in graduate leaders' implementation of equity plans
PDF
Keyholding or gatekeeping: managing the contradictions between market pressures and equity imperatives in the modern racialized college admissions office
PDF
To what extent does being a former high school English learner predict success in college mathematics? Evidence of Latinx students’ duality as math achievers
PDF
Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment
PDF
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
PDF
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
Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students
PDF
AB 540 community college students in Southern California: making connections and realizing dreams
PDF
Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents
PDF
Broken windows on campus: Policing and racism in higher education
PDF
Examining the sociopolitical and racial beliefs of United States history teachers
PDF
Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation
PDF
Race in the class: exploring learning and the (re)production of racial meanings in doctoral coursework
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
Asset Metadata
Creator
Felix, Eric Ricardo
(author)
Core Title
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Urban Education Policy
Publication Date
02/19/2019
Defense Date
10/30/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community college,Higher education,Latinx students,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy implementation,racial equity,transfer
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bensimon, Estela Mara (
committee chair
), Harper, Shaun R. (
committee member
), Marsh, Julie A. (
committee member
), Mazmanian, Daniel A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
eric.felix@usc.edu,ericfeli@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-123984
Unique identifier
UC11675909
Identifier
etd-FelixEricR-7086.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-123984 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-FelixEricR-7086.pdf
Dmrecord
123984
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Felix, Eric Ricardo
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
community college
Latinx students
policy implementation
racial equity