Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students: The Institution's Roles and Responsibilities

Transcript

1 Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students: The Institution’s Roles and Responsibilities By Georgia L. Bauman, Leticia Tomas Bustillos, Estela Mara Bensimon, M. Christopher Brown II, and RoSusan D. Bartee One in a series of three papers commissioned as part of the Making Excellence Inclusive initiative

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii iii Introduction to the Series Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students: The Institution’s Roles and Responsibilities Introduction 2 What is it? The Achievement Gap: 3 Diversity and the Gap in Achievement 9 Equity and Inclusive Excellence 10 Recognizing Inequities 13 The Diversity Scorecard 14 Loyola Marymount University 16 34 Institutional Factors to Help Achieve Equity Conclusion 38 References 42 About AAC&U/About the Authors 55 Copyright © 2005 by the Association American Colleges and Universities. All rights reserved.

3 Acknowledgments AAC&U would like to thank the following groups for their contributions to these papers. • The authors , for carefully working through the connections between their areas of research and the overarching goals of the Making Excellence Inclusive initiative. • who participated in the Inclusive The educators, students and community members Excellence forums across the country; the members of the pilot campuses who lier drafts of the papers; and reviewed and provided feedback on ear the 2005 Greater Expectations Summer Institute participants who used insights from these papers to enhance their educational action plans. AAC&U staff , especially Nancy O’Neill, who edited the papers and coordinated the • production process. ii

4 Introduction to the Series Background The educational environment followi ng the recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action calls for colleges and universities to connect their educational quality and inclusion efforts more fundamentally and comprehensively than ever before. This challenge, however, presents a set of difficult questions. What will the next generation of work on inclusion and excellence look like? How will both our thinking and our actions need to shift? Who will need to be involved? How will we know we are accomplishing our goals? This introduction prefaces three papers commissioned by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) to respond to these questions and to provide an intellectual 1 backdrop for its new initiative, Making Excellence Inclusive. With initial funding from the Ford Foundation, this multiyear initiative is designed to help campuses: (a) integrate their diversity and quality efforts, (b) situate this work at the co re of institutional functioning, and (c) realize the educational benefits available to students and to the institution when this integration is done well evidence is beginning to show, that integrating and is sustained over time. We feel strongly, and diversity and quality initiatives—as with the forging of elements into an alloy—produces something that is both different than its constituent elements stronger and more durable. and As an “alloy,” Inclusive Excellence re-envisi ons both quality and diversity. It reflects a striving for excellence in higher education that has been made more inclusive by decades of work to infuse diversity into recruiting, admissions, and hiring; into the curriculum and cocurriculum; and into administrative structures and practices. It also embraces newer forms of excellence, and expanded ways to measure excellence, that take into account research on learning and brain functioning, the assessment movement, and more nuanced accountability structures. Likewise, diversity and inclusion efforts move beyond numbers of students or numbers of programs as end goals. Instead, th ey are multilayered processes through which we achieve excellence in learning; research and teaching; student development; local and global community engagement; workforce development; and more. 1 We also use the term “Inclusive Excellence” to capture this notion. iii

5 Mapping the Future of Inclusion and Excellence Making Diversity Work on Campus: A Each of the three commissioned papers— Research-Based Perspective ; Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students: The ; and Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Institution’s Roles and Responsibilities —addresses one or more aspects of the work that is needed Change in Postsecondary Institutions to comprehensively link diversity and quality. Collectively, they offer readers fresh perspectives on, and evidence-based approaches to, embedding this work into campus culture and sustaining this work over time. Making Diversity Work on Campus : A Research-Based Perspective , In the first paper, Jeffrey Milem, Mitchell Chang, and Anthony Ant onio discuss recent empirical evidence that demonstrates the educational benefits of divers e learning environments. The evidence, gathered on behalf of the University of Michigan in its defense of its affirmative action policies before the Supreme Court, indicates that diversity must be carried out in intentional ways in order to accrue a educational benefits for students and for the institution. The authors argue persuasively for as a conception of diversity rather than as an outcome—a certain process toward better learning percentage of students of color, a certain number of programs—to be checked off a list. They also provide numerous suggestions for how to “engage” diversity in the service of learning, ranging from recruiting a compositionally diverse student body, faculty, and staff; to developing a positive campus climate; to transforming curriculum, cocurriculum, and pedagogy to reflect and support goals for inclusion and excellence. In the second paper, Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students: The Institution’s Roles and Responsibilities , Georgia Bauman, Leticia Tomas Bustillos, Estela Bensimon, Christopher Brown, and RoSusan Bartee discuss the responsibility that institutions have to examine the impact that traditional higher education practices have on those students historically underserved by higher education, including African American, Latino/a, and American Indian students. With the persistent achievement gap facing African American and Latino/a students as a starting point, the authors argue that if we do not commit to discovering what does and does not work for historically underserved students, we run the very real risk of failing a significant portion of today’s college students— even as we diversify our campuses to a commitment that is greater extent than ever before . To demonstrate the kind of institutional iv

6 needed, the authors present one campus’s process for systematically monitoring and addressing the inequities they discovered. usive Excellence in Post , econdary Institutions In the third paper, Toward a Model of Incl s framework for Damon Williams, Joseph Berger, and Shederick McClendon offer a comprehensive organizational change to help campuses achieve Inclusive Excellence. The authors review several dimensions of organizationa l culture that must be engaged to achieve this goal and discuss a method to help campuses monitor changes that might come from introducing importantly, helps new systems and new practices. The resulting framework, perhaps most that systematically campus leaders focus simultaneously on the “big picture”—an academy arning and institut ional excellence —and the myriad individual leverages diversity for student le pieces that contribute to that picture (see box 1). Box 1. From diversity as an isolated initiative to diversity as a catalyst for educational excellence Isolated Initiative: Increase racial/ethnic diversity of student body Responds to: Calls from business and community leaders to strengthen workforce diversity • Desire to redress past societal inequities • • General feeling that diversifying student body is the “right thing to do” But does not address: • Compositional diversity of other parts of campus community (faculty, staff, administrators) ns and predominantly minority-serving institutions Differences between predominantly white institutio • Campus climate once students and others arrive on campus • Students’ multiple identities: race and ethnicity intersecting with gender, class, sexual orientation, • national/regional origin, ability, and religion • Curriculum transformation to include perspectives, sources, and modes of inquiry heretofore left out of the academy How compositional diversity influences classroom and cocurricular practices, and ultimately, student learning • Catalyst for Educational Excellence: Increase racial/ethnic diversity of student body as part of comprehensive plan to make excellence inclusive Also responds to: • Need to enact diversity in intentional ways that enhance students’ intercultural competency, cognitive complexity, and ability to work in diverse groups (Milem et al.) Need to address equity in academic achievement for all students, with particular attention paid to groups • historically underrepresented in higher education (Bauman et al.) • Need to engage entire campus community in conceiving of, carrying out, and assessing a comprehensive process to enact diverse learning environments (Williams et al.) v

7 Defining “Inclusive Excellence” At the outset of this initiative, AAC&U advanced an operational definition of Inclusive Excellence. This definition is intended to be flexible enough to be “localized” by a campus while also retaining basic principles to guide a natio nal movement and to connect campuses in these efforts. The definition consists of four primary elements: 1. Academically, it means offering A focus on student intellectual and social development. 2 the best possible course of study for the context in which the education is offered. 2. A purposeful development and utilization of organizational resources to enhance student learning . Organizationally, it means establishing an environment that challenges each student to achieve academically at high levels and each member of the campus to contribute to learning and knowledge development. 3. Attention to the cultural differences learners bring to the educational experience and that 3 . enhance the enterprise 4. A welcoming community that engages all of its diversity in the service of student and organizational learning. Each set of authors received this definition when they were commissioned to write the papers, and each connected it to existing and em erging research on subjects as varied as the educational benefits of diversity, the achievement gap, and organizational change. We expect this reworking to occur in the field also, as campus leaders juxtapose the definition against institutional mission, policies, and practices. At the same time, we believe the definition is incomplete without all four elements in play, and the large questions posed at the beginning of this introduction cannot be answered without having all four present. Why Now? Making Excellence Inclusive builds on major AAC&U initiatives—most notably, Greater Expectations and American Commitments — and ties together the association’s long-standing interest in educational quality in the underg raduate curriculum, in diversity and civic 2 “Best” here implies the provision of qualified instructors and sufficient resources—including other learners—as well as a sequence of study that is coherent and challenging, and one th at comprehensively addresses the student learning goals of the particular institution. Contexts vary from preschool to postgra duate education, by affiliation (e.g., religious or secular), an d by sector (e.g., elementary, high schools, co mmunity colleges, research universities). 3 Cultural differences include race/ethnicity (e.g., Latino, Caucasian, Asian/Pacifi c Islander, African American, American rst language, physical and learning ability, and learning style. Indian), class, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, fi vi

8 engagement, and in preparing faculty to deepen st udents’ learning. It is designed to address the following four dilemmas confronting higher education today. Islands of Innovations with Too Little Influence on Institutional Structures Hardly any campus is without some tangible, and often impressive, number of initiatives to help create more inclusive environments, more expansive intellectual horizons, or more opportunities for outreach to the larger community. Yet how does a campus coordinate these multiple efforts so they have a greater impact on all students, and on the institution as a whole? One frequently can identify educational innovations, but rarely can one detect structures that link them. Accordingly, the impact of these innovations is isolated rather than pervasive. And with so many individual diversity initiatives springing up like daffodils in springtime, people long for coherence, cohesion, and collaboration. They also want to figure out how to “get it right” as they move through this astounding transition to an inclusive academy that strives for diversity and excellence. ity and Educational Excellence The Disconnect between Divers Although we know meaningful engagement with diversity benefits students educationally, little has been done to create a comprehensive framework for excellence that incorporates diversity at its core. Similarly, new research about how to help diverse and differentially prepared students succeed has no t yet provoked widespread change across higher education. And diversity is not typically a focus at any level in “quality improvement” efforts. As a result, education leaders routinely work on diversity initiatives within one committee on campus and work on strengthening the quality of the educational experience within another. This disconnect serves students—and all of education—poorly. Disparities in Academic Success across Groups There has been significant progress in expanding access to college for underrepresented students. Yet many of these students experience differential retention rates and inequities in academic achievement. This troubling achievemen t gap, especially across specific racial and , signals failure, not only for the individual ethnic groups and across different income levels vii

9 students affected but also for the colleges and universities they attend and for the educational system as a whole. The “Post-Michigan” Environment The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in the recent University of Michigan cases affirm the value of diversity when tied to the educational purpose and mission of an institution. At this historic juncture, it is imperative that higher education leaders seize the opportunity to help colleges and universities—and the public—b etter understand how diversity and educational quality are intertwined. Despite the Court’s a ffirmation, those opposed to affirmative action continue to bring lawsuits, organize anti-affi rmative action referenda, and influence public opinion. While many campuses feel pressure to move into “compliance mode,” AAC&U aims to help institutions establish diversity as a core component in achieving desired student learning outcomes and put diversity and inclusion efforts at the center of their decision-making. In order inclusion, and equity initiatives must be so to reach this academic higher ground, diversity, fundamentally linked to educational mission that to ignore them in everyday practice would jeopardize institutional vitality. A Comprehensive Response Initially, Making Excellence Inclusive seeks to bring about comprehensive educational reform based on research and theory not only about “what works” to help all students achieve new forms and levels of excellence, but also about what makes for responsive, educationally on to commissioning these three papers, AAC&U powerful colleges and universities. In additi has organized several other “foundational” activitie s. We have held thirteen forums around the country where key education stakeholders discus sed how our conception of Inclusive Excellence can serve as a catalyst for institutional renewal and to identify promising practices toward that end. We launched a pilot project with nine institu tions to test the usefulness of new frameworks for inclusion and institutional change, and we are starting to build a collection of practical resources to help campuses enact these frameworks. Looking ahead, we plan to work with a broad range of postsecondary institutions to make Inclusive Excellence a signature element of America’s best colleges and universities. We will engage campus leaders in refining our current definition of Inclusive Excellence and ask them to viii

10 document their challenges and successes as we work together to make excellence inclusive. In the process, we will continue to build our resource collection by featuring campus “success stories” and developing tools that reflect the late st research “what works” in fostering inclusive and educationally powerful learning environments. Conclusion The three papers, taken together, form a rich dialogue where similarities and dissimilarities arise and information that is glea ned from one is made richer by the others. We hope they will engender this same kind of interplay between people on campuses, as well as provide them with practical evidence, support, and guidance for this ongoing work. The efforts needed to make excellence inclusive cannot be done by any person, unit, or campus alone. Nor will will it look the same everywhere. What individuals and institutions share are its hallmarks— an ongoing, systemic awareness of the “state of of higher education” the campus” and the “state regarding the interconnectedness of diversity and quality, an active process of engaging diversity in the service of learning, and the courage to reflect on our efforts and to improve them where needed. Please visit AAC&U’s Web site (www.aacu.org) for updates about the Making Excellence Inclusive initiative, including the ev olving resource collection that will support our shared endeavor of helping all students develop the intellectual, social, emotional, cultural, and civic capacities needed to lead in this new century. Alma Clayton-Pedersen Vice President for Education and Institutional Renewal Caryn McTighe Musil r Diversity, Equity, and Global Initiatives Senior Vice President and Vice President fo ix

11 Achieving Equitable Educationa l Outcomes with All Students: The Institution’s Roles and Responsibilities Georgia L. Bauman Leticia Tomas Bustillos Estela Mara Bensimon Center for Urban Education Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California M. Christopher Brown II RoSusan D. Bartee Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute The preparation of this paper was supported by a grant from the James Irvine Foundation. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the James Irvine Foundation, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors are grateful to Father Robert Lawton, president of Loyola Marymount University, and the members of the LMU Diversity Scorecard Team, Drs. Abbie Robinson- Armstrong, Brian Hu, David Killoran, and Mr. Marshall Sauceda, for their collaborative in the University of Southern California work with the Center for Urban Education with Rossier School of Education, and for granting us permission to feature their efforts to bring about equitable educational outcomes for underrepresented students. Commissioned by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) with generous support from the Ford Foundation

12 Introduction In a stirring speech delivered at Howard University shortly after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson proclaimed, “We seek not just freedom, but opportunity. We seek not just legal equality but human ability. Not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result” (Johnson 1965). For the intended beneficiaries of the act, “equality as a fact and equality as a result” remains mostly economic and social well-being, students unrealized. On virtually every indicator of historically underrepresented in higher education—by which we mean African American, 1 Latino/a, and Native American students —lag well behind white students and also some 2 In spite of encouraging headlines about record numbers of African Asian American students. Americans and Latino/as enrolling in college, the reality is that, in terms of access as well as degree completion, the gap is now larger th an it was at the time of Johnson’s famous declaration (Renner 2003). Evidence of these inequities has been revealed in numerous research studies that report bleak outcomes in higher education as well as bleak future prospects for African Americans and Latino/as in the United States (Barton 2003; Carnevale and Fry 2000; Fry 2002). For those of us who witnessed the birth of the civil rights movement and viewed education as the prime engine for social as well as economic mobility in the United States, these trends are both appalling and frustrating. One is moved to ask, how is it that forty years progress toward equality in higher education later, in spite of initiatives of all kinds, participation and completion has been so slow and so small? How is it that institutions take pride in the racial and ethnic diversity of their student bodies yet are incapable of producing equitable results for some of the very students who make diversity possible? In this paper, we regard the challenge of narrowing the college education gap and achieving equitable educational outcomes for historically underrepresented students as a problem of institutional responsibility and performance rather than as a problem that is exclusively related to student accountability, motivation, and academic preparation. We have of institutional responsibility because the chosen to emphasize inequality as a question majority of studies on college student success take the opposite perspective. These studies focus on characteristics such as students’ social and academic integration (Braxton and Lein 1 Generally, we use the term “historically underrepresented students” to describe these three groups. In places, we focus on to parallel an action research project we describe later in the status of African American and Latino/a students in particular the paper. 2 We use the terms “African American,” “Latino/a,” “Native American,” “white,” and “Asian American” throughout the paper, except where source materials use alternative terms. 2

13 2000; Tinto 1987), student involvement (Astin 1999), intensity of their high school curriculum (Adelman 1999), lack of cultural ca pital (Bourdieu 1985), and other risk factors this, we tend to accep t the findings at face associated with poor performance. Because of level. While we agree value without considering the possibility of deficits at the institutional that students must accept responsibility for their own success or failure, we also believe that institutional actors, particularly faculty members, also bear individual and collective 3 responsibility for student outcomes. This paper describes: • key national indicators of a race/ethnicity-based achievement gap; • one tool to help college and university leaders assess and rectify race/ethnicity- based achievement gaps on their campuses. Our premise is that gathering evidence of student outcomes disaggregated by race/ ethnicity can be an effective and powerful means of ra ising awareness of a problem and motivating institutional actors to seek a solution. To illustrate the connection between evidence and such institutional motivation, we provide a case study of Loyola Marymount University (LMU), a Jesuit institution located in Los Angeles, California. LMU is one of fourteen initial partner campuses in an action research project on equitable educational outcomes. The project is supported by a grant from The James Irvine Foundation and directed by the Center for Urban 4 Education at the University of Southern California. What is it? The Achievement Gap: The achievement gap is a phenomenon that occurs early in childhood and persists The Black–White Test Score Gap , Jencks and Phillips (1998) point out through adulthood. In that the achievement gap between African American and white students is evident prior to entering kindergarten and continues through seco ndary and postsecondary educational levels. Second- and third-grade test scores and grades reveal that African American and Latino/a students trail behind white and Asian students (College Board 1999). The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress test (NAEP 2003), which is given to fourth and eighth graders nationwide, indicates that African Americans and Latino/as continue to lag behind their white and Asian peers in both reading and mathematics. As Derek Bok notes, 3 The concept of collective responsibility for student learning is derived from Lee and Loeb’s (1996) construct. 4 The Center for Urban Education is an action research center locat ed at the Rossier School of Ed ucation in the University of Southern California. The mission of the center is to create educational environments that produce equitable educational and adults from historically outcomes for children, youth, disenfranchised communities. 3

14 “the [achievement] gap is nationwide, it is substantial, and it has not diminished in the last 15 years” (2003, 20). In fact, the American Council on Education’s Minorities in Higher Education 2002– th (Harvey 2003) clearly illustrates a Annual Status Report achievement gap growing 2003: 20 between minority and white students in higher education. Some of the key findings indicate that while the total college enrollment of minority students has increased by 122 percent in the past twenty years, the gap in college part icipation between white students and particular groups of minority students has widened. In 1978–1980, among white, Latino/a, and African American 18–24 year old high school graduates, the college participation rate for each group was approximately 30 percent. By 1998–2000, the college participation rate for white high school graduates in this age bracket had risen to 46 percent, compared to 40 percent for African Americans and 34 percent for Latino/as in this same age bracket (Harvey 2003). In a press release for the report, author William B. Harvey, vice president of the American Council on Education (ACE) and director of th e Center for Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Equity (formerly the ACE Office of Minorities in Higher Education), notes, “The 20th anniversary Status Report challenges us to recognize the demographic, political, and social realities of the 21st century. The data tell us how far we have come in our quest for educational excellence for all students, but also caution us that equity in education for all Americans remains a goal that we must strive to reach” (American Council on Education 2003). Figure 1 shows the percentages of students enrolled in college the October following their high school graduation in the years 1972–2001. The figure shows a much more erratic pattern of college enrollment for African American and Latino/a students than for white students. For example, in 1993 and 1997, the gap in enrollment between white and Latino/a students nearly closed, but significant drops in enrollment occurred for Latino/as following each of these years. In 2000, Latino/as had an approximate 10 percent increase in enrollment, but they nonetheless remained below the percentages of white students enrolled. 4

15 Figure 1. Percentage of high school completers enrolled in college, by race/ethnicity: October 1972–2001 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1972 2002 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 Black Hispanic White Source : U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Surveys, 1972– 2001, in NCES 2003. The Condition of Education , 127. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003067.pdf . In 1987, the enrollment gap between African American and white students was similar to the gap that existed in 1980, but in the intervening years, the gap was significantly wider—at a time when white student enrollment stayed above 50 percent and, in many years, increased. By 2001, the gap between African Americans and whites was approximately 9 percent. Overall, although Latino/as and African Americans have demonstrated gains in enrollment at various points in the last thirty years, the gains have not been sustained. Throughout this period, there were no major drops in the enrollment rates for whites. Figure 2 shows the bachelor’s degree comple tion of African Americans and Latino/as lagging appreciably behind whites. Overall, in th e last thirty years, the number of degrees conferred to African Americans went up by approximately 8 percent and the number conferred to Latino/as went up by approximately 7 percent. White student degree attainment was considerably larger than African Americans and Latino/as by a difference of 15–20 percent, with white students making significant gains in the last eight years in particular. 5

16 Figure 2. Percentage of the 25- to 29-year-old population with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, by race/ethnicity: March 1971–2000 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 Black Hispanic White : U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Surveys, 1971–2001, Source in NCES 2002. The Condition of Education , 174 . Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002025.pdf. When confronted with data that show differences in educational outcomes by race, a visceral reaction, based on the assumption that the gaps reflect differences in students’ educational backgrounds, is to ask whether “input” measures were considered. Although we do not dispute the fact that minority students concentrated in underfunded and segregated school districts have a high likelihood of being underprepared for college, there are data to show that gaps may persist regardless of academic preparation. One of the clearest representations of the magnitude of the achievement gap can be found in Bowen and Bok’s widely cited The Shape of the River (1998), in which the authors compare the class graduation ranks of whites and African Americans who entered college with the same SAT scores. The bar graph reproduced below as Figu re 3 shows that African American and white students with comparable SAT scores ended up with very unequal class rankings. Bowen and Bok’s most discouraging finding was that white students with SAT scores below 1000 earned higher GPAs on average than African Americans with SAT scores of 1300 and higher. 6

17 Figure 3. Differences in college class rank between white and African American students who were in the same interval of combined SAT scores upon entering college 75% Black White 50% 25% 0% Four-Year Class Rank Based on GPA 1200-1299 1300+ <1000 1000-1099 1100-1199 Combined SAT Score Source: Bowen, W. G., and D. Bok. 1998. The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Another aspect of the gap that is becoming increasingly critical is the difference in college enrollment between females and males. Almost 8 million women participate in higher education at all levels annually, compared to only 6.3 million men (King 2000). African American students are particularly affected by this growing trend in enrollment. Table 1 shows the enrollment increases of African American and white students according to gender. Since 1976, African American women have demonstrated significant gains in undergraduate, graduate, and professional enrollments. Comparatively, African American males have demonstrated only nominal increases over the last twenty-five years. Table 1. Higher education enrollment increases by race, gender, and level of study, 1976–2000 Degree Level African American African American White White Women Men Women Men Undergraduate +94% +36% + 38% -1% +16% -24% Graduate +69% + 21% Professional +236% +36% +58% -25% Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute analysis of IPEDS data, 2002. Source: www.patterson-uncf.org/home.htm In recent years, as table 2 indicates, women consistently represented approximately 60 percent of the total African American student population at all institutions, including 7

18 historically black colleges and universities (Hurst 2002). In 2000, African American women attending all institutions represented 63 percent of the total African American student enrollment, while they represented 61 and 60 percent of the total African American enrollment at historically black colleges a nd universities and United Negro College Fund member institutions, respectively. ts at all institutions and at historically black Table 2. Enrollment of African American college studen itutions, by gender: Fall 1990, 1995, and 2000 colleges and universities and College Fund inst 1990 1995 2000 African Americans Men Women Men Women Men Women Attending: All Institutions 762,300 555,911 917,761 640,354 1,099,934 Number 484,700 39% 61% 38% Percent 37% 63% 62% Historically Black Colleges and Universities Number 82,897 125,785 90,130 136,391 134,958 86,410 60% 40% Percent 40% 60% 39% 61% College Fund Institutions Number 29,375 20,484 20,143 31,069 23,066 35,121 Percent 41% 59% 39% 61% 40% 60% Source: , Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute, 2002. United Negro College Fund 2001 Statistical Report One explanation for the continuing gender gap is that African American women are more likely to be financially independent with dependents of their own, and therefore more eligible for (and in need of) financial assistance than are African American men. Cohen and Nee (2000) found that African American women are more likely to receive financial aid from most types of institutions. Trent (1991) notes that funding policies that constrict educational access overall are clearly more restrictive for African Americans, and they are most severe for African American males at the early degree levels. Thus, there is some evidence that, for African American men considering a college education, the cost may outweigh the perceived benefits. Yet earnings research demonstrates the economic benefits to be derived from postsecondary degree attainment. African Ameri cans, whites, and Latino/as—both male and female—had higher median earnings with higher levels of educational attainment. In 2000, for example, the difference between median earn ings for African American males with a high school diploma and no college and those for African American males with a bachelor’s degree or higher was $17,000 (NCES 2003). In th e same year, the difference between median 8

19 earning for African American females with a high school diploma and no college and those for African American females with a bachel or’s degree or higher was $20,000 (National 5 Center for Education Statistics 2003). Diversity and the Gap in Achievement The civil rights movement and particular changes in national policies in the 1960s ushered in an era in which the greater inclusion of minorities in mainstream society was paramount (Massey et al. 2003). The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the call for “affirmative action” in federal contracts led to the dismantlement of “de jure and de facto mechanisms” (Massey et al. 2003, 1) that ex cluded minority groups from fully participating within the public sphere. As more efforts were focused on increasing opportunities for African Americans and Latinos/as in society, inst itutions of higher education began to recruit students from minority populations more aggressively (Massey et al. 2003). Then, over time, recruitment practices initially designed to rect ify racial discrimination and exclusion changed to encompass a more diversity-oriented approach. As Massey and others (2003) suggest, “as immigration from Asia and Latin America transformed the United States, the rationale [for recruitment] shifted from righting past wrongs to representing racial and ethnic ‘diversity’ for its own sake” (1). Bowen and Bok (1998, 7) identify two reasons that motivated colleges and universities to diversify: To begin with, [colleges and universities] sought to enrich the education of all their students by including race as another element in assembling a diverse student body of varying talents, backgrounds, and perspectives. In addition, perceiving a widely recognized need for more members of minority groups in business, government, and the professions, [colleges and universitie s] acted on the conviction that minority students would have a special opportunity to become leaders in all walks of life. Efforts to increase the diversity of the student body, coupled with the proliferation of 6 community colleges in the 1960s, produced a tremendous increase in the number of African Americans, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans going to college over the last four decades. Yet as noted earlier in this paper, in spite of greater emphasis on campus diversity and launching myriad programs to make formerly all-white campuses more 5 This research highlights some persistent equity issues as well. In 2000, median earnings for African American and Latino males were lower than those of white males at all education levels (NCES 2003). However, no statistically significant differences were detected between the median incomes of Af rican American and white females at any educational level. African American males had higher median earnings than African American females at every education level, as did males in all groups in relation to their female peers. 6 esent,” available at www.aacc.nche.edu See “Community Colleges Past to Pr . 9

20 inclusive, the gaps in college participation and completion between whites and African Americans and between whites and Latino/as gr ew larger. As Massey and others (2003, 2) point out Despite a variety of retention efforts—incr eased financial aid, remedial education, special tutoring, peer advising, culturally sensitive dorms, and ethnically supportive student unions—once admitted to institutions of higher education, African Americans and Latino/as continually under perform relative to their white and Asian counterparts, earning lower grades, progressing at a slower pace, and dropping out at higher rates. This achievement gap will continue to widen unless campus leaders recognize that diversity and equity are different goals requi ring different strate gies. Unlike public elementary and secondary schools, most colleges and universities are not subject to comprehensive accountability systems that require the reporting of student outcomes data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, special education, and so on. Consequently, even though stratification based on race/ethnicity is a reality within the majority of institutions of higher education—whether they are highly sele ctive and predominantly white or open-access or classified as Hispanic-serving—the details of this stratification are largely invisible to institutional actors. not a measure of postsecondary institutional Indeed, equity in educational outcomes is performance that is tracked continuously at the national, state, or local levels. With respect to historically underrepresented student populations in the K–12 public schools, the central concern of educators and scholars has been the academic achievement gap, particularly in mathematics, reading, and writing. In contrast, the central concern in higher education, at least since the 1980s, has been diversity and affirmative action. While most campuses today have diversity statements, programs, and staff positions, the monitoring of equity in student outcomes is rarely an integral component of diversity efforts. Yet, it is our belief that a campus with a diversity agenda that does not incorporate equity into its educational outcomes as a measurable goal cannot truly be inclusive. Moreover, an institution that does not produce equitable educational outcomes and has not made equity a priority cannot truly be educationally excellent. Equity and Inclusive Excellence Disparity in academic achievement across racial/ethnic groups is a major dilemma that fueled the Association of American facing higher education today and one of four 10

21 7 Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) call for institutions to make excellence inclusive. AAC&U’s conception of inclusive excellence—found in the introduction to this series of papers—differs from ours. It poi nts to more expansive notions of inclusion and excellence than are generally embraced in the academy today. Our conception of inclusion focuses on specific groups who comprise “involuntary” minorities (Ogbu 1978), that is, groups whose histor ical connection to the United States is a consequence of enslavement, colonization, or th e forced annexation of territory. These groups are historically underrepresented in higher education and include African Americans, Latino/as, and Native Americans. We stress the need for attention to these groups because of our concern over the persistent achievement gap that we see evidenced in our research and work with campuses. AAC&U’s notion of inclusion also recognizes the fundamental need to redress inequities, but it then also challenges campuses to help all students examine and understand differences—their own and others—a nd actively engage these differences for learning. From our perspective, “inclusive excellence” is achieved when these historically underrepresented students exhibit traditional acad emic characteristics of high achievers, such as high grade point averages, honors, high class rankings, and so on. We emphasize traditional measures of academic excellence because for too long, institutions of higher education have approached the college particip ation of historically underrepresented students as a matter of producing “survivors,”—st udents who persist and graduate—largely disregarding the institution’s responsibility and effectiveness in producing “leaders” (Gándara 1999). To illustrate our point: if the presidents or provosts of Ivy League colleges or universities were asked, “Of your most recent bachelor’s de gree recipients ranked in the top 10 percent, what percentage are African American or Latino/a?”, they probably would not know the answer. Most institutions evaluate their effectiveness in serving historically underrepresented students in terms of access, to a lesser extent in terms of persistence and completion, and rarely ever in terms of high achievement among specific groups. While recognizing that traditional measures of educational excellence currently serve as the academy’s most common proxy for educational quality and student learning, AAC&U contends that these measures are inadequate to assess the new levels of learning espoused in its report, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College 7 The four dilemmas, described in the introd uction to this series of papers, are: (1) islands of innovations with too little een diversity and educational excellence, (3) disparities in influence on institutional structures, (2) the disconnect betw academic success across groups, and (4) the “post-Michigan” environment. For more on AAC&U’s Making Excellence /inclusive_excellence/index.cfm. Inclusive initiative, see www.aacu.org 11

22 (2002). Still, we all agree that however indirect or incomplete many of these traditional measures may be, disparities in these measur es along racial/ethnic lines point to a major breakdown in our quest to serve all students currently entering higher education. institutional Fundamentally, we and AAC&U both seek to provide mechanisms for action to address the achievement gap. They agree with our contention that to truly make excellence inclusive, institutions must be committed to identifying and monitoring indicators of excellence disaggregated by race/ethnicity . Paraphrasing John Dewey, to form relevant and effective ideals, we must first be acquain ted with and take notice of actual conditions; otherwise our ideals become vacuous or else filled with Utopian content. Unless colleges and universities create structures to mo nitor educational achievement among students— all African American, Latino/a, Native American, Asian American, white—the ideal of inclusive excellence will be meaningless. We believe that an institution takes inclus ive excellence seriously if it (1) accepts the responsibility for producing equitable educati onal outcomes for students from historically underrepresented groups and (2) monitors the development of high achievement among students from these groups. Furthermore, institutional personnel, such as faculty, deans, and counselors, must demonstrate personal respons ibility for the educational outcomes of ps. Rather than attributing underperformance students from historically underrepresented grou among historically underrepresented students to “dysfunctional” backgrounds, “not knowing how to be a student,” or lack of motivation, faculty members who take inclusive excellence seriously must internalize the responsibility for equitable educational outcomes. For example, a dean must recognize that, even though the student body may be as “diverse as the United Nations,” diversity in an d of itself does not guarantee that all students are equally well served by the institution. I ndeed, as we mentioned earlier, race/ethnicity- based disparity in educational outcomes is the norm at virtually every institution of higher or university, a tribal college, or one that is education that is not a historically black college located in Puerto Rico. For the most part, these disparities are not noticed because equity is missing from external and internal accountability structures. Accrediting associations proclaim the merits of evidence-based cultures but fail to require evidence of equitable outcomes broken down by race/ethnicity or other dimensions, such as gend er. The majority of states have some type of accountability system for higher education (Burke and Minassians 2003), but very few hold institutions accountable for the outcomes of hist orically underrepresented students, in either the aggregate or disaggregate (Bensimon et al . forthcoming). Significantly, the biennial 12

23 national report card, (National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education Measuring Up 2000, 2002), which grades states on several education indicators, does not include a student enrollment indicator based on race and ethnicity. Commenting on this absence, Burke and Minassians (2003, 106) observe, “in an age wh en ethnic groups have already attained—or will soon attain—majority status in the population, an indicator comparing the racial composition of the state population and student enrollment seems desirable as a performance measure in the category of participation.” Recognizing Inequities A plethora of data is currently available at most institutions of higher education. College and university leaders have made considerable investments in technology and training to develop the capacity for collecting all sorts of information about their institution and their students—from incoming grade point averages (GPAs), to every course taken, to graduating GPAs. The Knight Higher Education Collaborative (2000, 5), made up of educational leaders and researchers, notes Today, universities and colleges expend more time, effort, and money than ever before in gathering data... [Yet] for all that, higher education institutions still have not ively for internal decisions or public learned to organize and use data effect accountability...most institutions have yet to learn how to use data strategically. Many questions can be answered through the use of data. Who starts but does not finish, and why? What is being learned, and for what purpose? Answers to such questions, found in part through the examination of institutional data, provide new knowledge about institutional effectiveness and performance and promote organizational learning. Too often, individuals make decisions and judgments on the basis of their own experiences and what they believe to be true of their institution and its students. They feel that the students they have encountered could benefit from a particular program, and therefore they implement that program without examining institutional data or other sources of information in their own contexts. For example, if students are not doing well in mathematics, this must mean that an institution needs a tutoring program; if engineer ing students are changing to other majors, it must mean that the campus needs a summer bridge program. The issue is not that tutoring or there is a tendency to assume a problem is bridge programs are bad ideas, but rather that understood and to come up with solutions that may do nothing to address it. In sum, institutional actors may claim that inclusiveness and diversity are important goals but fail to notice that the ideals of “equality in fact and equality in results”—which gave 13

24 rise to affirmative action and later to diversity efforts—are fa r from being attained on their own campuses. In 2000, concerned about the chasm between what the higher education community espouses and how we act, researchers at the Center for Urban Education, supported by grants from the James Irvine Foundation and in partnership with fourteen campuses in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, developed and began field testing a tool— 8 —designed to help campuses increase institutional capacity to called the Diversity Scorecard 9 produce equality in results for African American and Latino/a students. Work with the fourteen initial partner campuses continues, a nd the project is expanding to include additional colleges and universities from around the country. The Diversity Scorecard The Diversity Scorecard is a mechanism to help campuses put existing institutional data to good use by using them to identify inequities in educational outcomes for African American and Latino/a students in postsecondary education. The goal of the Scorecard is for campus leaders to establish indicators and scales that will enable them to assess their institution’s effectiveness in improving access , retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence for these historically underrepresented students. The Diversity Scorecard is theory-based, practical, and cost-effective and allows emselves accountable for race/ethnicity-based institutions of higher education to hold th equitable educational outcomes. One of the tool’s important aspects is that it was designed to be adaptable to particular institutional circumstances and to build internal capacity to address the problem of unequal results. Neither a best practice nor a packaged intervention, the process —built upon theories of organizationa l and individual learning—that is Scorecard is a intended to bring about institutional and individual ownership of the problem of pproach is the core principle that individual race/ethnicity-based inequality. Key to this a practitioners are far more likely to examine their practices, attitudes, and beliefs to find the causes of and remedies for unequal results if they are in charge of defining the problem. Institutional Accountability for Student Outcomes 8 The tool has been renamed the Equity Scorecard, but we retain th e original name in this paper for clarity. For more detailed information about the project, including a listing of the partic ipating institutions, see www.u sc.edu/dept/education/CUE. For a discussion of the theory behind the project, see “Research that Makes a Difference” in the Journal of Higher Education (Bensimon et al. 2004), and for a description of the implementation steps, see “A Learning Approach to Institutional Change Change” in (Bensimon 2004). 9 The project focuses on African American and Latino/a students because it is being field tested at institutions that have a very high representation of students from each of these groups. However, the methods of this project can be applied to any population that has a history of inequality. 14

25 The Diversity Scorecard is based on two premises. First, the prevalence of inequitable educational outcomes for African American, Lati no/a, and other historically underrepresented students needs to be viewed as a problem in institutional performance. Typically, higher education leaders have sought ways to change or influence “at-risk” students so that these students can succeed at institutions that remain relatively static. In contrast, we believe that both students and institutions need to be held accountable for educational outcomes and be open to examining, and possibly changing, their practices. While there is an extensive literature on what historically underrepresented students lack and how they can change to better meet the rigors of college, in this pa per we introduce an approach that focuses on change on the part of the institution. Second, individuals’ awareness of the importance of equity in student outcomes is a necessary prerequisite for institutional change. In this sense, the Diversity Scorecard is based on the principles of organizational learning. Individuals can develop a new or deeper awareness of equity in educational outcomes by engaging in and learning from routine data analysis. Turning Data into Knowledge We maintain that in order to bring about change in an institution, individuals must see for themselves, and as clearly as possible, the magnitude of the inequities affecting students from historically underrepresented groups. W ith the Diversity Scorecard project, the opportunity for learning is cultivated by involvi ng campus teams in the examination of data 10 that is disaggregated by race/ethnicity and that reflects educational outcomes at their respective institutions. For example, at most institutions in the project, Latinas tend to be overrepresented in education majors and severe ly underrepresented in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology majors. However, many faculty members, counselors, and deans were not fully aware of the unbalanced distri bution of Latinas across majors because such data are not typically disaggregated or routinely reported. When individuals examine data together and discuss what they notice and what it might mean, they construct new knowledge. Through their conversation, they translate tables of raw numbers into knowledge that can then be acted upon to bring about positive changes for students. Becoming aware that Latinas are underrepresented in certain fields can motivate a deeper inquiry into why this is so. 10 er to investigate possible differences in outcomes within Many of the campuses also disaggregated their data by gend particular racial/ethnic groups. 15

26 The Diversity Scorecard’s Conceptualization of Institutional Change In order to bring about institutional change, individuals have to see for themselves, as clearly as possible, the magnitude of inequities (awareness); and they have to integrate the meaning of these inequities (interpretation), so that they are moved to act upon them (action). It is through this learning experience that an individual’s consciousness is raised, and this is how change—beginning at the individual level—can spread throughout an institution. Here, strated through the experience of one of the this process of learning and change is illu la Marymount University (LMU). project’s partner institutions, Loyo Loyola Marymount University LMU is one of twenty-eight Jesuit Founded in 1911 and located in Los Angeles, universities in the United States. The student body consists of 5,465 undergraduates; 1,639 graduate students, largely majoring in education; and 1,377 law students. Among the est minority group (19 percent), followed by undergraduates, Latino/as constitute the larg Asian/Pacific Americans (11 percent), African Americans (6 percent), and American Indians 11 (less than 1 percent), while European Americans account for 50 percent of the student population. There are also 534 students (11 percent) who declined to report their racial/ethnic background. Interestingly, the lattermost group is twice as large as it was in 1997, reflecting a curious trend that has occurred in other private institutions. LMU is organized into four colleges—Liberal Arts, Business Administration, Communication and Fine Arts, and Science and Engineering—and two schools—the School of Education and the School of Film and Television. Its mission statement reads Loyola Marymount University understands and declares its purpose to be: the the whole person, the service of faith and encouragement of learning, the education of the promotion of justice. LMU’s Evidence Team In 2000, the presidents of the fourteen initial partner campuses were asked to each appoint a group of people to work with the USC researchers, with one person in each group coming from the office of institutional research. The composition of the fourteen teams differs, but collectively they include deans, vice presidents, assistants to the president, 11 These are the terms used by LMU to describe the racial/ethnic identities of students. 16

27 counselors, and faculty members in various disciplines, including English, philosophy, psychology, ethnic studies, and mathematics. The USC researchers call these groups “evidence teams” because their role in the project is to hold up a mirror to their respective esented students on basic educational outcomes. institutions and reflect the status of underrepr On most campuses, data are collected and organized into reports by an office of institutional research. Very few individuals see these reports, and even fewer actually discuss them. To raise the teams’ awareness of inequities, the USC researchers asked them to take on the role of researcher—team members would become responsible for developing equity indicators and actively analyzing data. In a change from customary practice, the USC researchers did not undertake the data gathering or analysis but rather served as facilitators of the process and as resource people for the teams. The evidence team at LMU included te am leader Dr. Abbie Robinson-Armstrong, special assistant to the president for intercultural affairs; Dr. Brian Hu, director of institutional research; Dr. David Killoran, profes sor of English and department chair; and Mr. Marshall Sauceda, associate dean of ethnic and intercultural services. In terms of diversity, LMU’s evidence team included an African American female, an Asian American male, a Latino male, and a white male. At the start, some of the LMU team members were skeptical about the value of the Diversity Scorecard project. Their skepticism seemed to originate primarily from previous experiences with assessment-related, data-driven initiatives that never made any difference. Several months after the project started, Dr. K illoran admitted his initial dubiousness. “I don’t know whether I was ever a disbeliever in assessment,” he said, “[but] you would do it, then they would throw it away and things would go on; and when changes occurred, it was because somebody intuited that change was needed, not because they had a lot of evidence for it.” Dr. Robinson-Armstrong came to LMU from the University of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana a few months after the project started. Hired as a special assistant to the president for intercultural affairs, she immediately became the leader of the evidence team. Before she joined the group, the other members felt they did not have the power or influence to set equity goals for their institution. The consensus was that “everything we do, we have to ask them before we do it.” the team, the sense of powerlessness After Dr. Robinson-Armstrong joined diminished considerably. As one of the members observed, “now that people know that she [Robinson-Armstrong] has the ear of the president, she’s permanent, and she has a lot of guts, 17

28 people stand up and take notice.” The combination of her title, her collegial leadership style, and her confidence seemed to empower the group. Undoubtedly, she was critical to this team’s success because she provided the space and opportunity for each member to be the expert in his or her area of specialization. As the project proceeded and the team members became more and more involved in data analysis, we saw them overcome their initial reticence and passive detachment to form a highly effective team. Vital Signs and Disaggregating Data To start their work, the teams from the fourte en initial partner campuses were directed to collect what are called “vital signs” data . Like blood pressure and temperature, these are particular indicators that every institution uses and reports as baseline measures of institutional “health” and/or status. The most critical aspect of this exercise was that the data were disaggregated by race/ethnicity and, in many cases, gender. The purpose of this was for each team to look for potential differences in outcomes between groups. In many instances, the teams looked at data from more than one year in order to detect trends. The indicators used at LMU included enrollment by race/ethnicity, enrollment in major or college by race/ethnicity, retention from freshman to sophomore year by race/ethnicity, retention to graduation by race/ethnicity, and the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty by race/ethnicity. From studying these data, the evidence team at LMU was able to formulate follow-up questions and to request new data from Dr. Hu, the director of institutional research. In reviewing LMU’s vital signs data, the team members became aware that the percentages of African American and Latino/a students had decreased over the preceding five te population had increased by 21 percent, years (see table 3), even though the undergradua from 4,113 students in 1997 to 4,959 students in 2001. Between 1997 and 2001, the African American population decreased from 7.8 to 6.4 percent, and the Latino/a population decreased from 20.6 to 18.5 percent. European American students represented 67 percent of the increase in undergraduate students. 18

29 Table 3: Undergraduate student enrollm ent by race/ethnicity, 1997 and 2001 1997 2001 % of total N % of total N African American 321 7.8% 317 6.4% American Indian 38 0.9% 39 0.8% Asian/Pacific American 575 14.0% 545 11.0% 47.3% 2516 50.7% European American 1946 18.5% 20.6% 918 Latino/a 847 International 155 3.8% 90 1.8% 5.6% 534 10.8% Decline to State 231 100.0% 4959 100.0% Total 4113 Once they learned about the declining enrollment of African Americans and Latino/as, the LMU team generated new questions. For example, a team member wondered whether the proportion of male versus female minority students had changed over time. This mposition for each group (see table 4). led the team to examine the gender co Table 4: Undergraduate student enrollment by race/ethnicity and gender, fall 1997 Total Male Female % N N % N African American 107 321 214 33.3% 66.7% 38 60.5% 39.5% 15 American Indian 23 245 Asian/Pacific American 330 575 57.4% 42.6% 867 European American 1079 55.4% 1946 44.6% 63.3% 536 847 36.7% Latino/a 311 67 56.8% 43.2% 155 88 International 108 Decline to state 46.8% 123 53.2% 231 1749 Total 42.5% 57.5% 2364 4113 By examining the data presented in table 4, the team learned that more than 60 percent of the African American and Latino/a students on campus were women, while the gender distribution was more balanced in other groups. 19

30 Next, the team decided to examine the distribution of students across the four academic colleges. Their findings are shown in table 5. Table 5: Undergraduate degrees conferred by college and race/ethnicity, 2000/2001 European American Asian/Pacific African Decline to Latino/a Non-Res. Total American American Indian State American College # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 135 31.4% 39.7 65 19.1 22 6.5 58 17.1 2 0.6 36 10.6 22 6.5 340 Business Adm. 146 55.7 29 11.1 21 8.0 32 12.2 6 2.3 8 3.1 20 7.6 262 24.2% Comm. & Fine Arts 192 4.1 89 33.9% 24.3 3 52.3 37 10.1 15 5.4 367 3.0 20 0.8 11 Liberal Arts 42 36.5 28 24.3 7 6.1 27 23.5 1 0.9 3 2.6 7 6.1 115 10.6% Sci. & Eng. 515 Total 14.7 65 6.0 206 19.0 12 1.1 58 47.5 159 6.4 1084 100.0% 5.4 69 The data presented in table 5 led to additional questions. For example, how do minority students end up being concentrated in particular colleges? Are they migrating out of their original majors or applying to particular majors? Questions such as these led to the collection of additional data, which in turn provided the foundation for LMU’s Diversity Scorecard. The disaggregated data turned out to be “eye-opening” for most LMU team members—even the skeptics. our Perspectives on Equity The Diversity Scorecard’s F Each evidence team in the project examines institutional data concurrently from four perspectives on equity in educational outcomes: access, retention, excellence, and 12 institutional receptivity. These four perspectives form the Scorecard’s framework. While each team interprets the four perspectives diffe rently to reflect the needs and priorities of their respective institutions, the following general definitions were used. Access perspective . Access refers to programs and resources that can significantly improve life opportunities for historically underr epresented students. Indicators in the access perspective are concerned with questions such as the following: 12 in institutions of higher an and Norton’s (1992) “b This framework was adapted from Kapl alanced scorecard” for use education by O’Neil et al. (1999) as the “academic scorecard.” Bensimon then adapted the framework for the Diversity Scorecard. 20

31 • To what programs/majors do underrepresented students have access? presented students have access lead • Do the programs/majors to which underre to high-demand, high-paying career opportunities? • to select academic and socialization Do underrepresented students have access programs, such as special internships or fellowships? • What access do underrepresented students have to financial support? • What access do community college students have to four-year colleges? • What access do community college students have to “hot” programs, for example, programs leading to fields with the highest starting salaries? • What access do underrepresented students have to graduate and professional schools? Retention. Retention refers to continued attendance from one year to the next and/or to degree completion. Retention can also re fer to continued progress toward degrees in competitive majors. Equity indicators within the retention perspective provide answers to questions such as the following: What are the retention rates for • underrepresented students according to program types? What are the drop-out patterns for underre presented students from particular • “hot” programs, for example, engineering and computer sciences? • What are the completion rates for underrepresented students in basic skills courses? • What are completion rates for associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and credential/certificate programs? Excellence. Within these four perspectives, excellence refers to measurements of achievement for historically underrepresented students. Such indicators help answer questions such as the following: • Might different majors or courses functi on as “gatekeepers” for some students and “gateways” for others? (For example, is there racial/ethnic bias in physics and mathematics? Is there a Western culture bias in the humanities?) • Are historically underrepresented students concentrated in particular majors? • What are the underrepresented student completion rates in highly competitive programs? What percentage of historically underrepresented students graduate with a • GPA of 3.5 or higher? 21

32 • What is the size of the pool of high-achieving, underrepresented students who are eligible for graduate study in the full range of academic disciplines? • What percentage of underrepresented students graduate in the top 10 percent of their class? Institutional receptivity . Institutional receptivity refers to goals and measures of institutional support that have been found to be influential in the creation of affirming campus environments for historically underrepresented students. Receptivity indicators provide information to answer questions such as the following: • Do new appointments enhance the racial and ethnic diversity of faculty, administrators, and staff? • Does the racial and ethnic composition of the faculty reflect that of the student body? Every four to six weeks, each team from the fourteen initial partner campuses met with two USC researchers for two hours to examine data from these four perspectives. As the data examination progressed, teams learned new things about educational outcomes and the on anecdote and experience were dispelled. equity gap, and many preconceived notions based The LMU team met with USC researchers sixteen times between January 1, 2001, and January 28, 2003. Fine-grained Measures of Educational Outcomes As the fourteen evidence teams delved deeper into the data, they continually asked new questions and developed new measures of equity in educational outcomes. The USC researchers refer to these as fine-grained measures. Such measures go beyond traditional indicators used by institutions and enables teams to identify problem areas more specifically. The LMU team, in particular, embarked on a second-order level of inquiry and began to examine educational processes as well as educational outcomes. For example, after examining the vital signs, the team became interested in access to different majors and wanted to know whether African American and Latino/a students were proportionately represented in those that lead to careers in high-demand fields, such as engineering and computer science. They also wanted to know whether these students were overrepresented in particular majors. Initially, the LMU team looked at graduation rates by major, disaggregated by race/ethnicity. From these data, they learned that African Americans and Latino/as were underrepresented in certain majors. However, this did not help them understand the reasons 22

33 for this underrepresentation. When the team decided to track cohorts of students from their original major to the major in which they graduated, Dr. Hu proposed the following: We can track from entry major to graduating major. This might show if students intended on majoring in one major, then changed their mind later on. If many students sign up for more economically advantageous majors, like engineering, but then graduate with majors in the humanities, this might give us an idea about access to certain majors for African American and Latino/a students. By doing this, the evidence team found that 42 percent of the 1997 cohort of African ege of Science and Engineering had left that American students who had enrolled in the Coll college and the African American enrollment in the College of Liberal Arts had increased by 31 percent (see table 6). 23

34 Table 6: Student migration from entering major to degree major by ethnicity European American Asian/Pacific American Degree Difference College Entering Degree Difference Entering College BA 258 311 0% BA 647 650 21% 7% LA 169 180 LA 763 955 25% CF 521 478 -8% 79 82 4% CF SE 272 205 SE 517 365 -25% -29% Total 2448 2448 Total 778 778 African American American Indian Degree Difference College Entering Degree Difference Entering College -6% BA 8 7 -13% BA 71 67 LA 7 7 LA 71 93 0% 31% 100% CF 2 4 0% CF 49 49 SE 10 9 SE 43 25 -10% -42% Total 234 234 Total 27 27 Latino/a Decline to State Entering Degree College Entering Degree Difference Difference College BA 18 20 11% 5% BA 256 269 20% LA 13% 34 30 LA 323 387 CF 103 94 -9% 18 21 17% CF SE 208 140 -33% 22 13 -41% SE Total 890 890 Total 88 88 BA- Business Administration; Liberal Arts; CF- Communication and Fine Arts; SE- Science and Engineering LA- By tracking the transfer of African American and Latino/a students from engineering to other majors, such as communications, the team identified courses and prerequisites that create barriers for these students. Their learni ng was increased through intensive investigation of the fine-grained measures of educational outcomes. This approach revealed the point at which African American and Latino/a students freque ntly left particular majors, a finding that 13 will enable the faculty and counselors to intervene in a timely and more proactive manner. Keeping the Measures Simple and Manageable The USC researchers recommended that each of the fourteen evidence teams limit the number of measures to twenty—no more than fi ve per perspective. At first, some of the teams felt this was too limiting, but the rationale was that if there were too many measures, the scorecard would devolve into a laundry list of metrics rather than a list of actionable 13 While individual students may choose new majors that better su it their interests, it is in cases where disproportionate or grating that institutional barriers may be revealed. large numbers of underrepresented students are mi 24

35 items. In the end, many teams used between four and twelve measures—no more than three per perspective. In developing their Diversity Scorecard, the LMU team chose measures that complemented the university’s mission, their Intercultural Vision Statement and Principles, and their new ten-year strategic plan. The following measures comprised LMU’s final Diversity Scorecard: Access. • Undergraduate enrollment by race/ethnicity and gender, 1997 vs. 2001 cohorts • Transfer students by race/ethnicity, 1999 vs. 2001 cohorts • Financial aid recipients by race/ethnicity and by aid type, 2000–2001 • Student migration from entering major to degree major by school and by race/ethnicity Retention. • Year-by-year retention rate for first year cohorts by race/ethnicity, fall 1997 vs. fall 2001 • Graduation in 4, 5, 6, and 7+ years by race/ethnicity, 1997 vs. 2001 cohorts • Undergraduate degrees conferred by college and by race/ethnicity, 1997 vs. 2001 cohorts Excellence. • Student representation in GPA intervals (i.e., those students who achieved 3.0–3.49 vs. those who achieved 2.0–2.49, etc.) by race/ethnicity, 1995–2000 • Students on the Dean’s list by race/ethnicity, 1996, 1998, and 2001 • Honors students by race/ethnicity, 1995, 1998, and 2001 Institutional receptivity. • Gender and race/ethnicity of faculty, 2001–2003 • Student-faculty ratio by race/ethnicity, 2001 • Faculty and administrative staff by rank, gender, and race/ethnicity, 2000 nt composition by race/ethnicity, 2001 Board of trustees composition vs. stude • 25

36 26 2000 – XCELLENCE E y race/ethnicity, 1995 Student representation in GPA intervals by 1996, 1998, and 2001 and 2001 Honors students by race/ethnicity, 1995, 1998, Students on the Dean’s list by race/ethnicity, • • • 2003 – niversit U t staff by rank, gender, by race/ethnicity and ECEPTIVITY race/ethnicity R race/ethnicity, 1999 vs. by moun CCESS and Equity in y Outcomes 2001 Educational – A ar M Student migration from entering major to degree major by school Student–faculty ration by race/ethnicity, 2001 composition by race/ethnicity, 2001 Board of trustees composition vs. student and race/ethnicity, 2000 Faculty and administrative aid type, 2000 Financial aid recipients by race/ethnicity and by Gender and race/ethnicity of faculty, 2001 2001 cohorts Transfer students by gender, 1997 vs. 2001 cohorts Undergraduate enrollment NSTITUTIONAL I • • • • • • • • ola y Diversity Scorecard Framework o L vs. 2001 cohorts 997 vs. 2001 cohorts ETENTION R by race/ethnicity, fall 1997 vs. fall 2001 Year by year retention rate for first year cohorts race/ethnicity, 1997 Graduation in 4, 5, 6, and 7+ years by by race/ethnicity, 1 Undergraduate degrees conferred by college and • • •

37 Benchmarking—Equity and Improvement Targets In the Diversity Scorecard proj ect, the ultimate benchmark is equity—the point at which 17 For example, if 25 percent of the student body is tation is reached. proportional represen Latino/a, equity would be reached when 25 percent of the graduates in engineering are also Latino/a. Improvement ta rgets are annual, mid-range goals fo r the institutions to accomplish team may determine that , to reach equity for while striving to reach equity. For example, a Latino/as in engineering, the inst /a enrollment in calculus by 5 itution will need to increase Latino percent each year for five years. The LMU team explained the benchmarki ng in their final report to the president: Equity is defined as the poin t at which the share of student s of a given ethnic group with a particular academic feature is equal to that same group’ s share of the total student population. For example, at LMU, Latino/a st udents comprised 14.7 pe rcent of the total this number to their number of students on the Dean’s list in fall 2001. We then compared share of the overall student population—18.5 pe der to determine rcent in 2001—in or whether there was an equity gap. In this ca se the equity gap was 3.8 percent; Latino/a d on the Dean’s list. Ou ed us to determine students are underrepresente r data analysis help educational outcomes. whether we had equity of As indicated in table an, Asian Pacific American, and 7, African American, American Indi Latino/a students at LMU are all underrepresented among students who have earned GPAs in the top 10 percent (red numbers i ndicate underrepresentation). A frican Americans account for 6.8 percent of the stud ese students have GPAs in the top ent population, but only 4.1 percent of th category. In contrast, 62. 7 percent of European Americans ra nked in the top category, which is considerably higher than this group’s repres entation in the undergra duate student population (49.5 percent). The purpose of th e Diversity Scorecard is to call attention to proportional disparities such as these. 17 veloped specifically for the Diversity Scorecard project and does We remind readers that this benchmarking framework was de not reflect any official position of AAC&U. 27

38 Table 7. Top 10 percent stud ents by race/ethnicity Percent in the Percent in the Top Student Number 10 Percent Population 19 4.1% 6.8% African American Latino/a 60 12.9% 19.9% 2 0.4% American Indian 0.9% Asian/Pacific American 52 11.2% 14.9% European American 292 62.7% 49.5% Decline to state 41 8.8% 8.8% 100% TOTAL 466 100% Report to the President and Campus Community As mentioned earlier, the f ourteen teams were appointed by the presidents of their institutions. Once teams identified th e types of data they wanted to examine and performed their analyses, they submitted reports back to their presiden ts describing their fi ndings on the state of equity in educational outcomes for African American and Lati no/a students on their campuses. The process of developing th e project. In writing the report, ese reports was critical for th t, the team members ha the teams had to make several commitments. Firs d to reach a consensus on which of the many equity indicators they had examined would be included in the final the most important indicators of inequi ty in educational Scorecard and report. What were l priorities? What were the advantages and outcomes? Which were aligned with institutiona disadvantages of presenti ng certain indicators? Who might react defensively? The teams understood that they had to choose th e indicators and data carefully in order for the report to gain acceptance and to prompt others to take action. Their role was to present the evidence in such a way that it would mo tivate faculty members and administrators to eliminate the inequities that were now apparent to all team members. However, as a member of one of the teams acknow ledged, the statisti cs could lead to political problems. The teams also had made a commitment to share their findings with their campus communities as well as their presidents. Do cumenting and describing the magnitude of the inequities in educational outcomes on campus is an unenviable task, and in almost every case, the teams were the bearers of bad news. At the ends of their reports, each team made recommendations for action, such as volunteering to continue their data analysis as a group, seeking involvement from other de partments, and encouraging the use of institutional resources 28

39 (e.g., employee time and/or budgeta ry allocations) to eradicate equities. In the existing in review and summariz ned in months of data analysis addition, the teams had to e all they had lear and reflection. After receiving the report and the request for a meeting with the LMU evidence team, ident of LMU, convened a “t own hall” meeting to which Father Robert Lawton, the pres nd staff attended. Copies of the report were everyone on campus was invited. Faculty, deans, a provided for everyone in attendance, and it was available on the institutio n’s internal Web site as 18 The meeting was opened by the provost, who important gathering,” described it as “an well. erated the importance of disaggr egating institutional data by praised the team’s work, and reit race/ethnicity and gender. Each team member presented a s ection of the report, using a PowerPoint presentation to displa y the data and indicators so that the audience could easily see the inequities they had discovere d. At the conclusion of the presen tation, the team le ader told the audience that “everyone has to commit to being evidence monito rs” and reminded them that “equal access does not guaran tee equity in success.” In the introduction to the re port, the LMU team recalled their early reactions to the initially believed that the proj project. “The LMU Scorecard team ect would be quick and easy. We had data to demonstrate that LMU c ould improve the opport unities and academic students. We simply needed achievement for underrepresented to bring the problem to the attention of the appropria te administrators, and o ffer solutions.” It did no t take long for the team rategy would not work. Th ey could present the evid ence and offer solutions, to realize that this st ograms to meet demonstrated needs and establish assessment but they could not develop pr measures for the various units of the university. Therefor e, the team stated th at “if we wanted the best results, we needed to rely on the experts who worked in these areas. We further realized we needed their commitment. The Diversity Scorecard had to be their project . They needed to be part of the team, and we had to work to fa s on behalf of LMU’s cilitate their effort underrepresented students.” In the section on recommenda assumed responsibility for tions, the team wrote, “we raising awareness of the current situation at LMU by providing statisti cal evidence. We saw ourselves as both ‘evidence mon itors’ and a group that could provi de resources and facilitate continuing work in this area. No w it is time for broader campus involvement in the work of being ‘evidence monitors.’” Acco rdingly, at the town hall meet ing, the LMU team recommended 18 LMU’s report is available onli ne at www.lmu.e du/pages/6546.asp. 29

40 that each college within the university and se veral other programs and departments, such as eir own Diversity Scorecards. The president admissions and the Honors program, create th nd asked the deans and program he ads to build on the report and accepted this recommendation a develop Diversity Scorecards. the LMU team’s repor t to the president: There were a number of important findings in • Latino/as had the highest fina l graduation rate, with 81 perc ent graduating in seven or more years. The comparable figures for African Americans and European Americans were 54.5 percent and 75.4 percent, respectively. • In fall 2001, out of 105 students in the honor s program, seven were Latino/as and two were African Americans. Almost three-f ourths of the honors students were European Americans. • Both Latino/as and Africa n Americans were underrepres ented among the students who earned GPAs of 3.7 and above at the end of th eir first year. • Between 1997 and 2002, forty-two new, full-ti me faculty members we re hired, of whom eight were African Americans, nine were La tino/as, nine were As ian/Pacific Islanders, and two were American Indians. Overall, facu lty of color constitute 67 percent of the new faculty. Organizational Learning at LMU The Diversity Scorecard appr oach is based on theories of organizational learning. Like “evidence-based cultures,” “org anizational learning” is curre ntly a popular term on college campuses. However, what these terms mean in r not always understood eal action or behaviors is or specified. Because the words “organizatio n” and “learning” are assumed to be self- explanatory, there is a tendency to oversimplify or ganizational learning by re garding it simply as a data collection method. Indeed, empirical studies of organizational learning in general are very scarce, and those that with higher e ducation are even rarer (Bauman 2002). deal specifically The USC researchers were keenly aware that many projects said to be guided by the principles of organizational learning often pay no heed to the importance of empirical documentation. Consequently, an im portant goal of this project was to observe and document organizational learning in real time from start to finish. In particular, the USC researchers wanted to have sound empirical evidence for their claims to succe ssful (or unsuccessful) organizational 30

41 learning. Therefore, they observed the teams over two years and meetings of the evidence 19 r to capture learning as it occurred. documented their conversations in orde Four major strands of lear ning took place among most of th e teams. First and foremost, the teams in the project iden ional outcomes. The LMU team, tified inequities in educat specifically, learned that African American wome n were the most “at risk ” student population in terms of retention; that females accounted for two-thirds of the growth in African American and Latino/a student enrollment; that minority stude nts tended to leave scie nce and engineering at higher rates than any of the othe r colleges; and how th e size of the gap in faculty diversity gap in student diversity in particular colleges. compared to that of the Second, the project team s learned what it means to devel op a culture of ev idence as well as the importance of data in terms of shaping one’s work and making inst itutional decisions. At one of the team meetings, LMU’s Dr. Killoran, who had been skeptical of the project at first, said We have a chance to look at where we are. We can make argument s supported with the numbers. Maybe we could even ask some ne w questions. For instan ce, I never knew to ask the institutional research department to disaggregate the data for the English department. I didn’t ha ve a reason. I had mentioned in me etings that our students were I have proof that white. It has been really, really white, but now the department is obvious to me, but I haven’t been able to get some of my white colleagues to acknowledge this. s in the project b Third, the members of the team ecame empowered and developed agency at the individual level. After le arning so much from analyzing the data with colleagues, many felt sufficiently well “armed” with information to ad vocate institutional change in ways that they would not have attempted before. Dr. Hu, the direct or of institutional research at LMU, felt that, as a member of a minority group, he could not ha ve brought up these issues previously. Now the Diversity Scorecard project has given him the o. “Doing the Diversity “permission” to do s Scorecard gives us a good opportunity to have dialogues. Now we can raise issues. I, myself, am a minority. I could not ge nerate this profile on my own. People might ha ve asked why or would have been suspicious of my data. Now I can sa y, look at this report I did for the Diversity Scorecard project.” 19 Several research-oriented publica tions that address various aspect s of organizational learning ar e forthcoming, and they will be du/dept/education/CUE. accessible via the Center for Urban Education’ s Web site, www.usc.e 31

42 Finally, team members across th institutional responsibility e project developed a sense of for the inequities that occurred on their campuses and communicated this responsibility to others in the institution. Dr. Robinson- Armstrong, LMU’s team leader, said that “if we have a problem, it.’” She went on to say that sh e will engage in “other kinds we have to own up to it, ‘fess up to campus community] that this is not going to go away.” Marshall of ways that will tell them [the Sauceda, associate dean of ethnic and intercu ltural services at LMU, said that, between and accreditation effort s, “the university foundation grants aimed at diversity is making diversity a campus-wide priority. The timing re, it’s been a program here is right for LMU to change. Befo and a program there, but not with un iversal buy-in.” Sustaining and Spreading the Diversity Scorecard Among the biggest challenges fa ced by the project’s campus es is how to sustain the Scorecard’s impact and broade n its reach. For LMU, it was im portant that awareness about inequities in educational outcomes be spread to others on campus ; otherwise, it would not be mmended that each school and possible to bring about systemat ic change. The LMU team reco coached these program develop its own Di versity Scorecard. The LMU evidence team members units on how to construct their ow n Scorecards. In total, LMU created ten new teams. Using the original report to the president as their point of departure, each of the new teams identified one measure to investigate more thor oughly in their own college. For example, in response to the findings re ported in table 5, the Co llege of Sc ience and Engineering set out to review gr ades in what might be consider ed “gateway” courses—courses, such as calculus, required to ad vance in the major. The director of the University Honors Program developed a Scorecard to address the problem of underre presentation among Latino/as, African Americans, and Asian Pacific Americ ans. As a result, she discovered that to recruit students, of the process used underrepresentation among these groups was a function and that there were more student s who qualified than had been selected for the program. Each new Diversity Scorecard evidence team at LMU presented its findings and recommendations to 20 ll meeting, thirteen months after the original report was issued. the president at another town ha Most campuses tend to treat dive rsity efforts in an ad hoc ma nner, and these efforts rarely become a central part of institu tional decision making. Provosts bri ng deans together to consider and so on, but even questions of enrollments, rete ntion, program review, student assessment, 20 The reports from each of these teams are available on LMU’s Web site, www.lmu.edu. 32

43 though diversity and equity are integr n into account. are rarely take al to each of these topics, they Furthermore, academic decision makers do not ty pically assess the impact of new initiatives from the perspective of equity . Given the ad hoc stat us of equity efforts on most college campuses , the second town hall e president to disc uss the scorecards developed by each meeting at LMU—convened by th academic unit—was impressive. Up on entering the room in whic h the meeting was held, one’s ack of three-ring binders labeled “DIVERSITY attention was immediately drawn to the large st SCORECARD REPORTS.” Deans, directors, an d faculty members made brief individual presentations of their findings. In most cases, the recommendations fo r addressing inequities involved changing internal creating new programs or other initia tives that practices, rather than would require additional fundi ng. For example, the Beyond LMU international study program found some interesting new info rmation about the a pplicants to the Fu lbright program. The person spearheading the scorecard effort for this program noted The Diversity Scorecard [DS] got me to l ook at the small number of students [with whom] I work, which represents a “micro samp le,” but still intere sting. People who apply their class, but really they to the Fulbright program tend to be in the top 10 percent of only need a 3.0 or better GPA to qualify. In response to my DS, I am going to create a 21 Students would join in network of mentoring groups for regions and for areas of study. r things they could ap their junior year. There’s a whole raft of othe ply for as well. There are bigger implications...the 5,000 students [nationally] who apply have a great experience just in the appl ication process. They have a “running start” in terms of applying to graduate sc hool and other stuff. After all of the deans and pr ogram heads presented their Sc orecard findings , one of the deans gave the president three recommendations, con cerning the areas of budgeting, ting, the dean recommended that budgetary collaborating, and reporting. In terms of budge decisions be based on information teams analyzed for th eir reports. Financial such as the data the support ought to be provided in response to evidence of need and to maintain successful programs. In terms of collaborat ing, it was pointed out th at certain deficienci es identifie d in the Diversity Scorecard reports could only be addressed by collabora tive efforts across units. In the 21 Also noteworthy, there are no planned costs attached to the development of the mentoring ne twork. The director of the who have studied abroad to help new for volunteers from the faculty and students international study program intends to ask applicants with the process. 33

44 words of the dean, “We need to collaborate across campus with those who can have an impact.” e dean noted that th e teams needed to Finally, in terms of reporting, th e institution and thes continue monitoring and re porting in this manner on a regular basis. dual Diversity Scorecard reports pr ovided evidence of All of the indivi unequal results, and several of the presenters ac knowledged that they we re delivering ba d news by saying that the experience was “like go ing to confession.” Following this li ne of thought, Father Lawton closed the meeting by saying I want to talk about temptations to be overwhelmed by data. . First, there is the temptation I am very happy to see that you have avoided it. Second, is the temptation to relish knowledge but not allo w it to lead to action. He re you’re all taking ac tion, which is great. Third, is the temptation to do t oo much and therefore make y our efforts too diffuse. I am happy that you are taking ma nageable actions. I applaud you and your commitment. Institutional Factors to Help Achieve Equity Several of the elements in place at LMU are cr itical for success in working toward equity of educational outcomes for all st project of Inclusive Excellence. udents and, thus, for the larger These elements are: (1) committed leadership at both the institutional and the team level; (2) ticism; (4) motivation; (5) credibility; and (6) team member expertise; (3) openness to self-cri resources. Committed Leadership . To a great extent, the su ccess of the Diversity Scor Presidential ecard project at LMU can be attributed to the president. Father La wton, as one might say coll oquially, “walks the walk” and “talks the talk.” Hi s genuine commitment to inclusive excellence is demonstrated through the appointment of Dr. Robins on-Armstrong as his special assi stant and through his willingness to examine data that had the potential for cr eating discomfort within the university. With regard to the appointme nt of Dr. Robinson-Armstrong, what is important is not that a position for a special assistant for intercultural affairs exists at LMU. Such positions are now commonplace. Unfortunately, individuals who hold pos itions that are specifically associated with diversity and minority affairs can often be marginalize d. At LMU, the presid ent has made it clear that the position, the indi vidual who fills it, and the work the position represents , must be taken rsity Scorecard project in his about the Dive ident has spoken seriously. For example, the pres 34

45 annual convocation addr ess; he has regularly scheduled meetings with Dr. Robinson-Armstrong; on that all academic units be and he supported the first Dive rsity Scorecard’s recommendati asked to participate in the process. When the deans and dire ctors presented their own Diversity Scorecard findings in the sec ond town hall meeting, Father Lawton listened attentively also showed his commitment by giving his full attention throughout the two-hour gathering. He the Scorecards’ findings for the institution. to the implications of In a post-affirmative action e nvironment, particularly in Ca lifornia, there is heightened sensitivity about th e examination of data disa ggregated by race/ethnici ty. We have found that, on the campuses where the project has been least su l reluctance to talk ccessful, there is a genera about race/ethnicity and/or an institutional culture that enc ourages sharing of only positive information in order to reinforc e a desirable image. In such institutions, the revelation of inequities in educational outcomes violates an important cultural norm. Organization learning theorists have observed that an unwillingness to look at informat ion that challe nges leaders’ institutional images of themselves as well as of their organizations is the biggest obstacle to learning and change (see, for example, Argyris 1977). LMU was unusual in that no one—not the members of the team, the pr stioned the usefulness or esident, or anyone else—que appropriateness of disagg regating data by race/ethnicity. Ev en more unusual is the fact that campus leaders decided to post all of the Diversity Scorecards on the LMU Web site, thereby making them available to the public. The willingness to admit vulne rability is a characteristic of highly effective lead ers, and Father Lawton did so without hesitati on. In his most recent convocation address, Father La wton told the LMU community that “modern corporations emphasize data. Decisions need to e very least data be, if not data-driven, then at th -sensitive and data-informed. And we are becoming more da enced by the Diversity ta conscious as evid Scorecard.” Team-based. Dr. Robinson-Armstrong was a driving force behind the success of the LMU project. It was evident from the start that she was committed to the notion of equity in educational outcomes and did not need to be convinced. However, she was well aware that others on the campus would resist the concept and would have to be convinced of its importance. The fact that she was able to persuade the de ans and directors of ten units—some of whom may potency of her —to develop their own Scorecards have been less than enthusiastic attests to the interpersonal and political skills. 35

46 Team Member Expertise The Diversity Scorecard cons es (e.g., class rankings by ists of fine-grained measur race/ethnicity) that are not typica lly part of routine in stitutional reports. The ability of a team to greatly on having an institutio carry out the work thus depends nal researcher who is not only competent, but also willing to prepare the data in formats different from t hose to which he or she is accustomed. LMU’s director of institutional rese arch, Dr. Hu, was a critical asset to the team because he had the expertise and ability to produce analyses quic kly. Moreover, because he was committed to the goals of the proj ect, he did not feel overburdened or put upon by its demands. forms of expertise. Dr. Killoran, a long-time The evidence team also had other important professor of English and chair of the department, gave the group a high degree of legitimacy with the faculty and served as a very effective ambassador for the project . He was particularly effective in representing the project because he admitted his initial skep ticism and explained why he eventually changed his mind. His speaking ab out the value of the Scorecard to faculty members at LMU and other institu tions made the project more ap pealing. The fourth member of ciate dean for ethnic the team, Marshall Sauceda, asso and intercultural serv ices, brought a strong understanding of the academic and social experiences of minority students at LMU. Openness to Self-criticism The willingness of institutional actors to examine themselves and their institutions oblem of inequities base d on race/ethnicity. One critically is a prerequisite for addressing the pr ng and change at the in stitutional level is a natural tendency to of the greatest obstacles to learni look past ourselves for the source of problems or to avoid examining them at all. At LMU, with the president setting the standa rd, there was never any question that holding up a mirror to the institution was the right thing to do. Motivation The members of the original LMU evidence team found the Diversity Scorecard to be a promising tool from the very start of the project. Each te am member had been involved in diversity-related initiatives on campus prior to their participati on in the project, and they were at the forefront of many of the institution’s effort s to increase the enrollme nt of minority students. They were also aware that not all of their coll eagues were conscious of the pressing issues facing minority students or committed to the goals of di versity. In the Divers ity Scorecard, the team 36

47 found a non-threatening means for can American and the status of Afri calling attention to Latino/a students at LM U and, in turn, motivating others to redress inequities. The LMU team members were highly motivated to complete the Sc orecard because they sa w it as an opportunity itutional goals, and thus, to make diversity more central to the to connect diversity to core inst institution’s work. The LMU team’s motivation was also shown in their task orient ation and enthusiasm. al tasks on schedule. Team members focused The team met regularly and completed individu their discussions on the data a nd on the development of new quest ions and rarely wasted time. They were eager to share their work with the ces. Indeed, the team campus and at conferen members’ belief in the aims of the Scorecard pr ovided them with the ener gy and will to engage in a process that was new and time-consuming, and where the data results could not be known in advance. Credibility selected individuals In appointing the evidence team, Father Lawton, the LMU president, who enjoyed the respect of the campus communit y. The choice of indi viduals was important because it was a way of signaling is was an important and serious to the campus at large that th undertaking. There were additional ways in which the credibility of the project was established. The president convened the aforementioned town hall meeting at whic h the evidence team presented the Scorecard results to the campus community, and he mentioned the Scorecard in his speeches. As noted, the Scorecar d reports were posted on the LMU Web site, and the reports were referenced in materials for accreditation, conference pro posals, and grant applications. Resources especially valuable to the project: team members’ Two types of resources were investment of time—without additional remuneration or release time from other responsibilities—and the office of in stitutional research. With rega rd to the latter, because the Scorecard relies on data that are disaggregated by race and ethnicity (and in the case of LMU, by gender as well) and is based on fine-grained measures (e.g., the migration of students from their chosen majors), LMU’s capacity to complete the pr oject depended greatly on the willingness of nd present it in formats in a variety of ways a their director of institutional research to run data that were easily decipherable. 37

48 Conclusion We have approached the persistent college achievement gap for African American and of institutional responsibilit Latino/a students as a problem y and performance. Within this approach, campus community members—particul arly faculty—share th e responsibility of striving for parity in educational ou tcomes for all stud ents. Based on the rectifying inequities and ial partner campuses in the Scorecard project, USC researchers’ experience with the fourteen init we believe that gather ing evidence about outcomes—disaggregated by race/ethnicity—is an effective and powerful means of first raising awareness of institutional problems and then motivating faculty and staff to seek solutions. When the USC researchers bega 00, they did not fully realize n the Scorecard project in 20 how important leadership, motiva tion, credibility, and resource s were with regard to the successful implementation of th e Scorecard. The LMU team has s hown us that th ese elements are critical. As the proj ect expands to other inst itutions in California a nd beyond, these elements will be woven into criteria for participation. Recent scholarship ha s also identified these elements as vital for change-oriented interventions to be successful in educationa l organizations (Coburn 2003; McLaughlin and Mitra 2001). For other campuses looking to undertake su ch a process of institutional transformation, there are several action items that can be derive we have made at LMU d from the observations and elsewhere. To raise , campuses looking to undertake such a data examination process commitment should consider • e central concepts in the hiring process of senior making diversity and excellenc leaders and requiring that candidates demonstrat e sustained work and commitment in these areas; • identifying a team le ader who can create a cohesive group that draws on the strengths of its members; selecting a team leader with sufficien t campus clout who is experienced in • navigating the politics of chan ge efforts, particularly t hose related to diversity. To ensure motivation , campuses looking to undertake such a data examination process should consider • recruiting team members who are experience d in campus divers ity work and able y skeptical, audiences; inexperienced, and possibl to introduce such work to 38

49 • action and meet identifying team members who can move from discussion to deadlines; r project participati on, reaching out to • estimating the time commitment needed fo potential team members w ho can commit the necessary time, and exploring ways ants—through mini-grants, cour se release time, student to free up time for particip assistance, etc.; providing and supporting opportunities for team members to pres ent their work on • and off campus. To increase , campuses looking to undertake such a data examination process credibility should consider • identifying team members who have clout across campus; providing numerous venues, • visibility of Scorecard over time, for raising the findings, formulating action pl ans to redress inequities that are discovered, and receiving updates a nd progress reports; • incorporating results from th is work into accreditation self-studies, conference proposals, and grant applications. To ensure adequate resources , campuses looking to undertak e such a data examination process should consider • discovering creative ways to reward the efforts of the team(s), particularly if the comes without additional remu service to the campus neration or release time; exploring ways to provide release time, mi ni-grants, graduate assistantships, or • toward the project; other fiscal resources • identifying people from the institutional re search office who can translate data into materials that are relevant, focu sed, and easily understood by a diverse readership. The USC researchers have also learned that the very characteris tics that make the Diversity Scorecard appealing could also defeat its purposes. Readers of this brief case study may become interested in deve loping a Scorecard for their ca mpus, and the USC researchers welcome their participa tion. At the same time, it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge some of the poten tial pitfalls. As was discussed earlier, th e Scorecard has many characterist ics that make it appealing. vident. It is nd. Its logic is self-e manageable. It provides a It is simple and easy to understa 39

50 roadmap. It results in tangible evidence. However, these qualitie s can also cause potential users itutional change that d is a theory-based to ignore the principles of inst underlie it. The Scorecar intervention. It is grounded in principles of organizational ch ange, and specifically on those zational learning theory and situated inquiry. related to organi e group process of constructi ng a Scorecard—selecting the The USC researchers view th measures, gathering and analyzing the data—a s consisting of an in tervention aimed at developing “equity-minded” individuals who are in positions of influence and power. Simply put, the purpose is to en courage institutions—thr ough the beliefs, values , and actions of its members—to be equity-driven. Th means of creating a context for e Scorecard is important as a change, and it represents the first phase toward building equity-based academic cultures. However, the Scorecard itself—even if campuses faithfully complete it year after year—will not alter inequities in educa tional outcomes. One of the pitfalls of the Scorecard is the very high risk that the process will become mech C researchers’ experience, this anical or perfunctory. In the US typically occurs when campus leaders are not fully cognizan t of the Scorecard’s underlying principles, or when they fail to integrate these principles into their everyday work. The way in which most people make sense of problems such as those revealed by the Scorecard is one of the most intractable challenges to creat ing equitable institutions. The typical response that the Scorecard elicits from campuses is a search for a program or practice that can stion to make educational dispar be applied to the students in que ities disappear. But one of the core principles underlying th e Scorecard is that the so lution to the problem lies within the —in its culture and in the be institution uence the expe ctations and liefs and values that infl practices of individuals. The USC researchers view the process of creating the Scorecard as an intervention that heightens a campus community’s awareness of inequities and, hopefully, motivates the members to want to know more about how they can reduce them in a systematic and comprehensive fashion. An in elming GPA disparities between stitution that discovers overwh white students and African American students in certain majors , for example, may want to assess whether such disparities are at least partially based on the use of a na rrow set of pedagogical techniques, lowered faculty expe ctations of African American students, or lack of African American representation on the faculty or in th e curriculum, to name just a few factors. Attaining Inclusive Excel lence is a very ambi tious undertaking. It demands that those in higher education shift thei r thinking about diversity. Rather than simply re ferring to the increased nority students on campus, dive rsity must have equity in presence of racial and ethnic mi 40

51 educational outcomes for all students at its conceptual core. The experiences of Loyola partner campuses in the Marymount University and the seve ral other initial project illustrate the positive shifts that can occur when academic co mmunities are motivated to become more equity- ic achievement and success. nts move toward high academ minded and to help all stude 41

52 References Adelman, C. 1999. : Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and a Answers in the tool box . Jessup, MD: U.S. Department bachelor's degree attainment of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 2003, October 8. Minority college enrollment surges over the American Council on Education. Students of color still la g behind whites in college participation. Press past two decades; release. Available at: http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template .cfm?Section=20032&CONTENTID=3719&TEMP LATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm . Argyris, C. 1977. Double loop Harvard Business Review 55 (5): 115- learning in organizations. 25. Association of American Co lleges and Universities. 2002. Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a na tion goes to college. Washington, DC: Associ ation of American Colleges and Universities. Astin, A. 1999. Involvement in learning re visited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College 40 (5): 587-98 Student Development Barton, P. E. 2003. Parsing the achi acking progress. Princeton, NJ: evement gap: Baselines for tr Educational Testing Service. Developing a culture of evidence: Us ing institutional data to identify Bauman, G. L. 2002. inequitable educational outcomes. Unpublished dissertation, Un iversity of Southern California, Los Ange les, California. Bensimon, E. M. 2004. The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change. Change 36 (1): 45-52. Bustillos. in press. Measuri Bensimon, E. M., L. Hao, and L. T. ng the state of equity in higher education. Harvard Civi l Rights Project. Bensimon, E. M., D. E. Polkinghorne, G. L. Baum an, and E. Vallejo. 2004. Research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education 75 (1): 104-26. Bok, D. 2003. Closing the nagging gap in minority achievement. The Chronicle of Higher Education 50 (9): 20. Handbook of theory and resear ch for the sociology of Bourdieu, P. 1985. The forms of capital. In , ed. J. G. Richardson, 241-58. New York: Greenwood Press. education 42

53 Bowen, W. G., and D. Bok. 1998. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University The shape of the river. Press. Braxton, J. M., and L. A. Lein 2000. The viab ility of academic integr ation as the central eory of college stud ent departure. In Reworking construction in Tinto's interactionalist th , ed. J. M. Braxton, 11-28. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt the student departure puzzle University Press. Burke, J.C., and H. P. Minassians, ed. 2003. ucation results: Missing links in Reporting higher ed the performance chain . New directions for in stitutional research , no. 116. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Crossing the great divide: C an we achieve equity when Carnevale, A. P., and R. A. Fry. 2000. generation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Coburn, C. E. 2003. Rethinking scale: Moving be yond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher 32 (6): 3-12. in African Cohen, C. J., and C. E. Nee. 2000. Educational attainment and sex differentials American Behavioral Scientist 43 (7): 1159-1206. American communities. Reaching the top: A repor College Board, The. 1999. force on minority high t of the national task New York: author. achievement. Latino/as in higher education: Many en roll, too few graduate. Washington, DC: Fry, R. 2002. Pew Hispanic Center. Maxwell-Jolly). 1999. Priming the pump: Strategies for increasing the Gándara, P. (with J. achievement of underreprese nted minority undergraduates . Princeton, NJ: The College Board. th Annual status report. Harvey, W. B. 2003. Minorities in higher education 2002-2003: 20 Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hurst, T. 2002. United Negro College Fund 2001 statisti cal report. Fairfax, VA: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute. Johnson, L. B. 1965. To fulfill thes e rights. Commencement address at Howard University, June 14. Available at: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/a rchives.hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp . The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: The Jencks, C., and M. Phillips. 1998. Brookings Institution. 43

54 Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1992. Th e balanced scorecard: Measur es that drive performance. 70 (1): 71-9. Harvard Business Review Gender equity in higher ed ucation: Are male stud ents at a disadvantage? King, J. E. 2000. Council on Education Cent Washington, DC: American er for Policy Analysis. Knight Higher Education Collaborative, The. 2000. The data made me do it. Policy Perspectives 9 (2): 1-12. Lee, V. E., and J. B. Loeb. 1996. Collective responsi bility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early se condary school students. American Journal of Education 104: 103-47. F. Lundy, and M. J. Fisher. 2003. The source of the river: The Massey, D. S., C. Z. Charles, G. social origins of freshmen at Americ a’s selective college s and universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McLaughglin, M.W., and D. Mitra. 2001. Theory-bas ed change and change -based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educ ational Change 2: 301-23. Measuring up 2000: The state- National Center for Public Po licy and Higher Education. 2000. by-state report card Washington, DC: The National Center for for higher education. Public Policy and Higher Education. licy and Higher Education. 2002. Measuring up 2002: The state- National Center for Public Po by-state report card for higher education. Washington, DC: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. National Assessment of Educational Progress. 2003. The nation’s report card: 2003. Mathematics and reading assess ments results. Available at: and http://nces.ed.gov/natio nsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/ http://nces.ed.gov/nationsrepor tcard/reading/results2003/ . National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. e education of Blacks Status and trends in th (NCES 203-034) . Washington, DC: U.S. Depa rtment of Education. Ogbu, J. U. 1978. Minority education and cast e: The American system in cross-cultural perspective . New York: Academic Press. O’Neil, H. F., Jr., E. M. Bensimon, M. A. Diamond, and M. R. Moor e. 1999. Designing and implementing an academic scorecard. Change 31 (6): 32-41. 89 (1): 38-43. Academe Renner, K. E. 2003. Racial eq uity and higher education. 44

55 Tinto, V. 1987. Leaving college: Rethinki ng the causes and cures of student attrition . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Trent, W. T. 1991. Focus on equity: Race & gend er differences in degr ee attainment 1975-76; 1980-81. In College in black and white: African American students in historically black ed. W. Allen and E. Epps, 41-59. Albany, and predominantly whit e public universities , NY: SUNY Press. 45

56 About AAC&U on concerned with the quality, vitality, and AAC&U is the leading national associati liberal education. Its members public standing of undergraduate are committed to extending the advantages of a liberal education to all stud ents, regardless of academic specialization or 1915, AAC&U now comprises 1,000 a ccredited public and private intended career. Founded in ities of every type and size. colleges and univers AAC&U functions as a catalyst and faci litator, forging links among presidents, administrators, and faculty memb ers who are engaged in institut ional and curricu lar planning. Its mission is to reinforce the collec tive commitment to liberal education at both the national and local levels and to help individual institutions keep th e quality of student le arning at the core of their work as they evolve to meet new economic and so cial challenges. Information about AAC&U membership, pr ograms, and publicati ons can be found at www.aacu.org. About the Authors is the Director of Inst Georgia Bauman ructional Services in A cademic Affairs at Santa Monica College. Her scholarly interests incl ude organizational lear ning and change which educational outcomes for students of color. promote student success and narrow the gaps in [email protected] Contact Georgia Bauman at is a Doctoral Student at the Univ ersity of Southe rn California as Leticia Tomas Bustillos ant for the Center for Urban Educat ion. Her scholarly interests include well as a Research Assist issues of equity in remedial education for students of color in higher education. Contact Leticia Tomas Bustillos at [email protected] Estela M. Bensimon is Professor of Higher Education and Director of the Center for Urban Education in the Rossier Sc the University of Southern California. hool of Education at Her research interests include academic leadersh ip, organizational chan ge, urban colleges and universities and women a nd minority faculty in higher educat ion. Contact Estela Bensimon at [email protected] M. Christopher Brown II is the Vice President for Resear ch and Policy at the American Association of Colleges for Teac her Education and a professor a nd senior research associate on continuous leave at the Pennsyl vania State University. His sc holarly interests are higher 46

57 education leadership and govern ance, postsecondary st atutory and legal co ncerns, institutional history, and collegiate dive rsity. Contact M. Christopher Brown at [email protected] RoSusan D. Bartee is former Interim Executive Direct or of the Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of the United Negro College Fund. She is curren tly Associate Project Director on. Contact RoSusan Bartee at of the National Council for A ccreditation of Teacher Educati [email protected] 47

Related documents