Educational Policy 1 –43© The Author(s) 2015Reprints a

Educational Policy
1 –43
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0895904815586852
epx.sagepub.com
Article
A Historical Mission in
the Accountability Era:
A Public HBCU and
State Performance
Funding
Tiffany Jones1
Abstract
The case study is an analysis of a state performance funding
policy at a
public historically Black college and university (HBCU). The
policy attaches
state funding to HBCU performance on measures like
graduation rates and
equity measures like the reduction in achievement gaps between
Black and
non-Black students. Participants liked that the policy helped the
institution

to become more outcome minded, but were critical of the equity
measures
and their relationship with the state system of higher education.
The article
addresses how the HBCU’s mission was addressed in the policy
and its plans
for responding that includes focusing on Latino students.
Keywords
accountability, equity, higher education policy, historically
Black colleges and
universities (HBCUs), state policies
Introduction
In light of recent financial and political exigencies, higher
education institu-
tions have been increasingly asked to provide value-added
evidence, thus
1Southern Education Foundation, Atlanta, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Tiffany Jones, Southern Education Foundation, 135 Auburn
Ave. NE, 2nd Floor, Atlanta, GA
30303, USA.
Email: [email protected]
586852EPXXXX10.1177/0895904815586852Educational
PolicyEducational PolicyJones
research-article2015
at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11,
2016epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://epx.sagepub.com/

2 Educational Policy
propelling them into an increasingly assertive era of
accountability (Zumeta,
2011). Often, within this culture of accountability, higher
education institu-
tions are pressured to provide quantifiable evidence of student
outcomes. As
a result, state and federal governments have attached financial
incentives to
desired outcomes, such as increased diversity and graduation
rates.
Furthermore, these policies are forcing the higher education
community to
address important questions such as “What are, and what should
be, the goals
of higher education?” “Do different goals apply to different
types of
educational institutions?” and “How can we know if these goals
are being
achieved?”
The questions that accompany accountability policy (i.e.,
“Where are
the deficits,” “Who is to blame for the deficits,” and “How are
they to be
held responsible?”) are especially challenging at historically
Black colleges
and universities (HBCUs) whose histories include contentious
relation-
ships with media, researchers, and state and federal
governments (Brown,
2001; Minor, 2008b; Palmer, Davis, & Gasman, 2011). Given
the historical
and contemporary challenges associated with differential

funding for
minority-serving and predominantly White institutions (PWIs)
and their
unique missions, it is important to engage in a conversation
about identify-
ing meaningful indicators to “judge” or evaluate HBCUs in
ways that will
foster institutional success. The purpose of this article is to
understand one
public HBCU’s response to a state performance funding (PF)
policy.
Furthermore, the article will critically examine the
interpretation of diver-
sity-oriented state PF metrics focused on the access and success
of non-
Black students at public HBCUs. The research questions are as
follows:
Research Question 1: How was the HBCU mission taken into
consider-
ation in the development of the PF policy?
Research Question 2: What are the perspectives of a public
HBCU com-
munity on the state PF policy?
Research Question 3: How is a public HBCU community
responding
(initially and strategically) to the state PF policy?
This article begins with a review of the relevant literature on
racial inte-
gration, accountability, and outcomes at HBCUs. Next, the
application of
critical race theory (CRT) and case study methods are
described. Following
the theoretical framework and methods is a discussion of the
major findings

and limitations. The article concludes with the implications of
the findings
for PF policy design and next steps for research.
Jones 3
Review of Relevant Literature
Racial Integration at HBCUs
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legally prevented the
federal govern-
ment from providing funding for programs that discriminated
based on race.
Although the Civil Rights Act was a great victory for racial
integrationists, the
proportion of African American students attending HBCUs
began to decline
as the proportion attending PWIs increased (Hoffman, Snyder,
& Sonnenberg,
1996). This change, which occurred in the late 1970s, was a
direct result of
integration, albeit in well-documented hostile environments. In
the midst of
this enrollment shift, HBCUs began to lose the lion’s share of
their students
who were now attracted to the pristine PWI campuses. The
National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
civil rights

activists sought to sue southern states that were operating dual
systems of
higher education (Egerton, 1974) in ways that continued to
advantage PWIs
while disadvantaging the HBCUs. This lawsuit evolved into the
Adams v.
Richardson case, which resulted in 19 southern and border
states submitting
higher education desegregation plans to the federal
government’s Higher
Education and Welfare department (Adams v. Richardson,
1972). Initially only
eight states submitted plans that were accepted by the court,
most of which left
White institutions unchanged but included plans to provide
scholarship funds
to make Black colleges more attractive to Whites (Egerton,
1974).
In the decades that followed, James Ayers (an African
American) filed a
lawsuit against Governor Fordice (Mississippi) on behalf of his
son, claiming
that the state operated separate and unequal systems of public
higher educa-
tion. The case and series of appeals evolved into United States
v. Fordice in
1992, in which the court ruled that the state of Mississippi was
operating
racially segregated systems of higher education. The decision
placed addi-
tional pressure on the states involved in the Adams case to
desegregate public
higher education. Originally, the Mississippi courts suggested
mergers
between two HBCUs and two PWIs, but that decision was

controversial
because HBCU supporters felt that the burden to integrate was
placed on its
institutions (Minor, 2008b; United States v. Fordice, 1992).
After many years
of appeals, the case finally reached a settlement in 2002, when
the Supreme
Court decided against merging the institutions but instead
awarded Mississippi
HBCUs US$503 million (Sum, Light, & King, 2004). However,
the contro-
versy continued as a result of the stipulation that US$105
million would
remain under the control of the state unless the HBCUs reached
10% “Other”
race enrollment. Opponents argued that again the onus to
diversify had been
placed on HBCUs (Minor, 2008b).
Despite Black students’ increasing access to PWIs, in 2004 (2
years after
the Fordice settlement), public HBCUs continued to educate the
majority of
African Americans in Mississippi. From 1984 to 2004, the
proportion of
White students at public HBCUs in Mississippi grew to less
than 3% of the
student enrollment, which was only a 1% increase (Minor,

2008b). As
HBCUs seemed to be successfully educating the African
American citizens
of the state and because there were no policies prohibiting
White students
(even if the White student enrollment targets had not been
reached), HBCU
supporters questioned why HBCUs were being asked to increase
other race
enrollment to receive adequate funding and support (Hebel,
2001) whereas
no similar stipulations were placed on PWIs. Citing Bell’s
(1980) interest
convergence theory, Gasman and Hilton (2012) argued that
linking the access
of needed financial resources to increases in White student
enrollment at
HBCUs was consistently contingent on the convergence of
White and Black
interests. However, the convergence of White and Black
interests in policies
that incentivized White student enrollment at HBCUs did not
always mean
that such policies achieved their intended outcomes.
After decades of court decisions, federal policies, and economic
incen-
tives to diversify student enrollment, HBCUs have gone from
nearly 100%
(1950) to only 76% Black in 2011 (Gasman, 2013). Despite the
increased
diversity that has resulted in one fourth of all HBCUs having
student enroll-
ments that are at least 20% non-Black, HBCUs remain
predominately Black
(Gasman, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics,

2010a). Some
HBCU leaders interested in attracting Black and non-Black
students argue
that the preferences given to PWIs at the state level make it
difficult to attract
non-Black students. For example, a Maryland federal district
court ruled in
2013 that program duplication in Maryland’s PWIs violated the
constitu-
tional rights of students who attend the state’s four public
HBCUs (The
Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher
Education
v. Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2013). As a result
of the Adams
v. Richardson (1972) case, the Maryland Higher Education
Commission
(MHEC) and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) agreed to
enhance public
HBCUs’ opportunities and infrastructures and prohibit program
duplication.
When MHEC allowed a successful program at Morgan State
University to be
duplicated by a nearby PWI, the OCR filed a complaint, but
ultimately the
institution was able to keep the program while only enrolling
out-of-state
students (Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2006;
Palmer et al.,
2011). The OCR and the public HBCU leaders in Maryland
argued that dupli-
cate programs at nearby PWIs negatively affected HBCUs’
ability to enhance
their institutional quality and attract non-Black students. In the
absence of
nearby PWIs, the White graduate enrollment at Maryland’s

public HBCUs
Jones 5
reached 53% in 1973; however, following the establishment of
nearby PWIs
and duplicate programs, enrollment dropped to just 14% in 2006
(Maryland
Higher Education Commission, 2006; Palmer et al., 2011).
Attempting to
curtail all of the fallout resulting from external pressures to
enroll White and
other non-Black students made it difficult for HBCU leaders to
increase the
enrollment of these populations. The resulting implications
were deep and
wide.
Public HBCU Outcomes and Funding
Beyond what some perceive as having little diversity, Gasman
(2013) noted
that HBCUs are also critiqued for outcomes such as low 6-year
graduation
rates of 32% (private HBCUs) and 29% (public HBCUs). With
average
6-year graduation rates under 40% in the 2011-2012 academic
year, and com-
prising 2% of all institutions of higher education, HBCUs
awarded more than

30,000 degrees to African American undergraduates,
representing 8% of the
undergraduate degrees awarded to that population (Cunningham,
Park, &
Engle, 2014).
Public HBCUs constitute 51% of the 101 HBCUs and more than
50% of
the predominately Black student body are low income and/or
first-generation
college students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011;
Thurgood
Marshall College Fund, 2010). With a mission of serving the
students least
likely to access higher education, public HBCUs awarded more
than 90% of
the associate’s degrees, two thirds of bachelor’s degrees, and
more than 80%
of master’s degrees awarded by HBCUs in the 2011-2012
academic year
(Gasman, 2013; Lee & Keys, 2013b). Also notable is that
HBCUs produce
such outcomes using what its leaders describe as limited
resources. A snap-
shot of HBCU funding sources (see Figure 1) illustrates that
private gifts
constitute a small portion of public HBCUs’ institutional funds
and as a
result, the average endowment in 2009 was only about half
(US$49 million)
the national average of all public colleges and universities
US$87 million;
Gasman, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a).
The lack of
private funding elevates the importance of federal and state
support, which

provides a combined 75% of all financial support received by
public HBCUs.
Historically, HBCUs have received comparably less federal
support than
PWIs, but instead of steadily increasing funds to account for
historical defi-
cits, the federal government has kept HBCU funding levels
stagnant while at
the same time increasing the funding of institutions of higher
education as a
whole (see Figure 2). Although one might argue that the static
funding is a
result of decreased enrollment, the argument is mitigated by the
fact that
public HBCU enrollment increased by 7% between 1990 and
2000, and by
0
20,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
80,000,000,000

100,000,000,000
120,000,000,000
140,000,000,000
160,000,000,000
180,000,000,000
200,000,000,000
1994 1999 2006 2009
IHE
Funding
HBCU
Funding
Figure 2. Comparison of HBCU funding with Total IHE funding
from 1994
through 2009 (in dollars).
Source. Data reported are from the White House Initiative on
HBCUs annual report (2005,
2010).
Note. Funding refers to grants, student loans, and other
allocations from 31 participating
federal departments and agencies. HBCU = historically Black
college and university; IHE =
institutions of higher education.
Public HBCU External Funding 2008-2009
(51 institutions)
19%

28%
47%
4% 2%
Student tuition and fees
Federal Government
State Government
Local Government
Private gifts and grants
Figure 1. HBCU external funding (in thousands of U.S. dollars).
Source. Data were retrieved from National Center for Education
Statistics (2010a).
Note. HBCU = historically Black college and university.
Jones 7
30% between 2000 and 2009. However, such enrollment
increases did not
result in increased federal funding (National Center for
Education Statistics,
2010a).
Analyses of state support demonstrated similar trends with

public HBCUs
receiving less funding than public PWIs. In a 2008 report,
Minor found that
public HBCUs in southern states (including Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi,
and North Carolina) enrolled larger portions of African
Americans but
received a fraction of funding that the public PWIs received. In
2014, Boland
and Gasman provided a follow-up to Minor’s analysis noting
that these four
states still provided PWIs with larger shares of the state
appropriations to
higher. Conversely, Boland and Gasman also noted that public
HBCUs in
these states received a larger percentage of spending cuts that
were made
between 2007 and 2012. For example, Louisiana State
University, a larger
public PWI, experienced a 25% decrease in state appropriations,
but HBCUs
Southern University and A&M College and Grambling State
University
received decreases of 45% and 36%, respectively. All but one of
the three
states in Boland and Gasman’s (2014) and Minor’s (2008a)
analyses adopted
a PF model and Alabama began formal discussions about
adopting a PF
model for allocating public higher education funds in the state.
PF Policies and HBCU Accountability
PF policies were introduced to encourage colleges and
universities to focus
on issues that governments and voters felt were important such

as outputs and
efficiency (Dougherty, Natow, Hare, Jones, & Vega, 2011;
Gaither, 1997). As
the costs of higher education increased in the 1980s and 1990s,
so did the
demand for greater proof that higher education institutions
provided a high-
quality education and graduation rates. As of 1994, more than
one third of the
states implemented PF policies that provided financial
incentives for mea-
sures such as access for undergraduate students, quality in
undergraduate
education, national competitiveness in graduate studies and
research, meet-
ing critical state needs, and managerial efficiency and
effectiveness (Ruppert,
1994). The economic crisis of the new millennium resulted in
the reduction
of the policies, as states did not have additional funding to
provide enough
incentive to affect institutional behaviors through PF policies
(Burke &
Modarresi, 2000; Shulock, 2011).
More recently, the popularity of PF policies has reemerged as a
result of
limited state resources for higher education and an increased
demand for
accountability for all public spending (McLendon, Hearn, &
Deaton, 2006).
Currently, 25 states have PF policies in place, 5 states are
transitioning to PF
policies, and 12 states are conducting legislative hearings
determining how to

design PF (Ferguson, 2014; Friedel, Thornton, D’Amico, &
Katsinas, 2013).
Researchers examining the PF impact suggest that the policies
have had min-
imal and even negative impacts on retention and graduation. For
example,
Tandberg and Hillman (2013) found that when controlling for
factors like
political institutions and economic recessions, there was no
statistically sig-
nificant impact on the total number of associate’s and
bachelor’s degrees
earned in states where PF policies were introduced between
1990 and 2010.
However, much of the PF impact research either incorporates or
focuses
exclusively on early iterations of PF, that is, PF 1.0, a financial
bonus for
campuses, which differs from more recent iterations of PF
policies, that is, PF
2.0, which are typically larger proportions of a campus’ base
funding received
from the state. The assessments of PF impact are not
disaggregated by insti-
tutional type, making it difficult to assess the impact on HBCUs
in particular.
In their assessment of state PF policy implementation at
HBCUs, Jones and

Witham (2012) found that their leaders described PF policy as
problematic to
their institutions’ historical missions to serve Black students,
but encouraged
a more salient conversation about collecting and using data.
With the limited
PF research and its impact on HBCUs, it is critical to continue
examining the
implications of PF policies at public HBCUs.
Theoretical Framework
HBCU organizational and policy scholars such as Minor (2004),
Harper
(2012), and Gasman and Hilton (2012) recommend taking the
context of
HBCUs into consideration in organizational studies by
foregrounding the
historical, cultural, and contemporary experiences of Black
Americans within
research paradigms. CRT provides a lens for examining how
issues of race
and racism interact with, and shape, participants’ assumptions,
beliefs, and
ideas. For this study, CRT is used to help observe and interpret
the partici-
pants’ (a) understanding of the role of race in student outcomes,
(b) perspec-
tives on their relationship with their state system of higher
education and the
PF policy, and (c) views on how the institution’s and state
system’s policies
and practices contribute to racial inequities in student outcomes.
CRT guides
the study in the following ways:

1. CRT challenges common assumptions of objectivity and
embraces the
understanding that racism is common and likely in American
struc-
tures and institutions. Hence, it is important to consider the role
of
race and racism in examining the experience of an HBCU in a
state
system that, besides the one HBCU, includes only
predominately
White campuses.
Jones 9
The role of race and racism was taken into consideration in the
design
of the study by including participant and campus racial
demographics
and asking questions about the role of race in participants’
organiza-
tional identity and relationship with the state system during the
data
collection processes.
2. Within CRT is a commitment to social justice and an
interdisciplinary
perspective that includes an emphasis on the ways a historical
context
shapes contemporary problems. The study takes into account the
his-

torical context of the site as an institution founded to educate
Black
students at a time when White universities would not.
Furthermore, the tension between the campus’ social justice
mission to serve Black students and the state system’s focus on
increasing the population of non-Black students in the PF policy
is
considered.
3. According to CRT, the experiences and perspectives of
people of color
are key to understanding the nuanced ways in which racism is
infused
in institutional structures. This study’s premise is that the
participants
from Smith University, an institution with a Black identity, will
be
keenly aware that racism can affect their relationship and
success with
the state system. Therefore, the main points of data collection
include
interviews with and observations of the HBCU practitioners and
stu-
dents. Also, the HBCU practitioners’ and their institution’s
racialized
identity are treated as critical conceptual variables.
4. Critical race theorist Derrick Bell (1980) describes “interest
conver-
gence” as the tendency of Whites (or others in positions of
privilege
or power) to consider policies regarding people of color (or
others
with less privilege or power) in terms of how they can appear to
serve
the needs of others while also benefitting themselves. Bell’s

concept
of interest convergence was used in the data analysis to examine
the
HBCU practitioners’ interpretations of the state PF policy and
issues
of equity for non-Black students.
5. Counternarratives are used by CRT scholars to describe the
perspec-
tive or experience of a particular marginalized group that is
often
different from the dominant narrative on a particular issue
(Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). The concept of counternarratives
was
used in the data analysis stage to contrast the perspectives on
the
goals and potential impact of the state PF policy. Furthermore,
the
study emphasizes the differences in perception as expressed by
the HBCU participants and state system of higher education
administration.
Method
The case study methods used for this study include data from
multiple sources
such as interviews, observations, and document analysis that—
when pieced

together—provide a narrative about a particular context (Stake,
1995). Site
selection is a key component of case study research because the
goal is not to
examine why, but how a particular phenomenon happens (Stake,
1995).
Smith University1 is a small university of less than 2,000
students, located in
the northeastern United States and is one of the oldest public
HBCUs. The
non-selective institution’s 4-year graduation rates is less than
15% and the
6-year rate is less than 25%.The demographic information about
the faculty
and students at Smith University is provided in Figure 3.
Data Collection
The data were collected during an on-campus visit to Smith
University dur-
ing fall 2012. During the visit, I collected university documents,
observed
campus leadership meetings, and interviewed students, staff,
administrators,
and faculty.
23%
61%
5%
10%
1%

Fall 2010 Smith University
Faculty Demographics
White
Black or African
American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian
Race and
Ethnicity
Unknown
0%
94%
2% 1%
3%
Fall 2011 Smith University
Student Demographics
White
Black or
African
American
Hispanic/Latino
Two or More

Races
Race and
Ethnicity
Unknown
Figure 3. Smith University faculty and student demographics.
Source. Data retrieved from National Center for Education
Statistics Institutional Profiles
(2010b, 2011).
Jones 11
Creswell (2007) suggests that in purposeful sampling, the
“inquirer selects
individuals and sites for study because they can purposefully
inform an under-
standing of the research problem and central phenomenon in the
study” (p.
125). I have provided a description of each of the purposefully
sampled par-
ticipants (identified by pseudonyms) and their data collection
activities in
Table 1.
Document analysis. Throughout the onsite visit, site documents
were reviewed
to provide a better context of the campus and state in which the
participants
work. The documents included institutional mission statements,

historical
reports on state expenditures, websites and promotional
materials, and also
articles and reports about the institution. The Smith Uni versity
website was
used to review the mission, vision, and institutional structure
and to identify
key administrators responsible for campus diversity and equity
issues. In addi-
tion to collecting the publicly available data, I also visited the
university’s
archives during my campus visit. The archival search included
course cata-
logues, campus newspapers, and other campus publications
during the 5 years
prior to and after Smith University joined the state system of
higher education.
On reviewing the documents, I retrieved items related to the
state and issues
of funding, governance, and accreditation. I also reviewed
documents that
addressed graduation/retention issues and racial integration
topics.
During the visit I obtained documents such as the
advertisements placed in
the lobbies of places (e.g., the admissions office and campus
security center).
I also reviewed flyers and bulletin boards placed on the walls of
the residence
halls, academic buildings, and student activity facilities. I
looked for docu-
ments that showed Smith’s relationship with the students, the
state, and com-
munity members. For example, I retrieved a brochure in the
lobby of the

admissions office that listed how much, in dollars, that Smith
University con-
tributed to the local economy, which helped provide context for
the “need to
justify an HBCU” issue that arose in the interviews. The
archives and campus
documents that provided information on issues of equity,
retention, gradua-
tion, finances, policies and practices affecting students, and the
relationship
with the state system were copied and filed into a binder
system.
Observations. The participants’ dialogue during meetings and
other moments
of observation provided understanding about their history,
expectations,
beliefs, and assumptions about race, their state PF policy, their
state system
of higher education, and students’ outcomes. I observed five
meetings and
several informal gatherings. Some of the meetings included the
gathering of
the president’s cabinet and an accreditation planning committee.
During the
onsite visit, I captured notes in a reflective journal and a field
notes template.

Table 1. Data Collection Information.
Data source
Data collection
description
1. Science, technology, engineering, and math
department holiday party
2. Honors Program Graduate School information session
3. Evidence team meeting (discussed retention and
graduation rates)
4. Retention department meeting
5. Senior campus leaders’ meeting
6. Evidence team meeting with the provost (discussed
goals for retention and graduation)
7. Cafeteria, computer lab, tutoring program, admissions
office, student activities building, library (general
observations)
Observations.
Written notes.
Audio recorded
the evidence
team meeting. All
observations took
place in fall 2012
8. Campus mission statement
9. Campus newspaper archives

10. Advisor position description
11. Campus advertisements and flyers
12. Academic program catalogues and info
Content analysis of the
documents. Thematic
codes were developed
from the research
questions and
document content
Individual participants
Participant name Title/major Race/ethnicity Gender
Year(s)
at Smith
1. Joy Brown Student: English/
African
American Studies
Concentration
African American Female 2
2. Steven Jones Student: Business
Administration
and Marketing
African American Male 3
3. Greg Lewis Student: Sociology African American Male 3
4. Brian
Thornton
Student:

Undeclared
5. Kyle Brice Student: Biology/
Pre-Med
6. Nicole
Hender-son
Student:
Communication
7. Kenneth
Moore
Student:
Education
Caucasian Male 5
(continued)
Jones 13

Year(s)
at Smith
8. Jeremy
Jackson
Student:
Recreation
and Leisure
Management
9. Denzel
Hatcher
Faculty African American Male 12
10. Alisha Kline Faculty Caucasian/Adopted
Native American
Female 13
11. Jesse
Flowers
Faculty Asian Female 10
12. Brittany
Green
Faculty Caucasian Female N/A
13. Dawn Wells Staff member/

administrator
14. Frank
Johnson
Staff member/
administrator
and former
master’s student
15. Gale Stokes Staff member/
administrator
African American Female 20+
16. Shane
Patton
Staff member/
administrator
Black Male 2
17. Malcolm
Brown
Staff member/
administrator
Black Male 14
18. Benjamin

Jenkins
Staff member/
administrator
African American/
Mexican American/
Native American
Male 4
19. Jeffrey
Anderson
Staff member/
administrator
African American Male 20+
20. James Craft Staff member/
administrator
21. Theodore
Woods
Staff member/
administrator
22. Moses
Todman
Staff member/

administrator
Black Male <1
23. Candace
Horne
Staff member/
administrator
African American Female N/A
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
Field notes include accounts of what is seen, heard, and
experienced to paint
portraits of the participants, the activities, events, and setting
(Bogdan &
Biklen, 1998). The field notes were also reflective of feelings,
problems,
ideas, hunches, and impressions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
Interviews. The onsite and telephone interviews were 1 hr long,
semi-struc-
tured, and audio recorded. The aim of the interviews was to find
out what the

participants believed was contributing to their student
outcomes, and their
perspectives on their relationship with the state system of
higher education
and PF. There were three interviews that were conducted via
telephone and
the remaining interviews were conducted in person in a private
room pro-
vided by Smith University during my on-campus visit.
Data Analysis
In case study data analysis, Stake (1995) suggests developing a
strategy for
balancing between data that reveal the uniqueness of the case
and the ordi-
nariness of the context. In addition, data analysis requires the
observance of
emergent themes/patterns, and also being careful to triangulate
those themes
to assure that the interpretation is correct (Stake, 1995). Thus, it
was impor-
tant to consider all of the different data points (observation,
interview, and
secondary data and document analysis) when conducting and
analyzing the
case study data. The first step in the data analysis process was
examining the
institutional documents and archival data using content analysis
strategies.
Krippendorff (1980) suggests that before conducting a content
analysis, the
content must be defined in terms of what data will be analyzed
and the
Table 1. (continued)

Year(s)
at Smith
24. Michael
Cole
Staff member/
administrator
25. Leslie Grey Staff member/
administrator
26. Kenya
Douglas
Staff member/
administrator
African American Female N/A
27. Ronald
Carpenter
State system
representative
Caucasian Male N/A

Jones 15
boundaries of the analysis. For the current study, the unit of
analysis included
the words, phrases, and overall messages in each written
statement of the
documents. After the areas of analysis were defined, the text
was condensed
into categories and meaning was extracted using coding
techniques (Stemler,
2001). In addition, the ideas that emerged from the thematic
analysis were
interpreted using CRT to identify and understand the relevancy
of issues of
race, power, resources, and policy.
The remaining data that included the observations, interviews,
and institu-
tional data were organized using an electronic folder system
(Stake, 1995).
Next, reading and memoing were applied to the interviews and
field notes. I
began creating memos for the interviews and observations
immediately after
they were conducted using reflective prompts developed from
the guiding
literature and theoretical framework (CRT). For example, after
evidence
team meetings, I would respond to prompts that asked questions
such as the

following: What issues of individuals’ race or experiences with
racism were
raised? Who brought them up? What was said? How did the
group react?
What issues surrounding the relationship with the state system
of higher edu-
cation were raised? Who brought them up? What was said? How
did the
group react?
The following coil, classifying and interpreting, involved
making sense of
the data. Data were interpreted using an adapted version of
Boyatzis’s (1998)
four stages of thematic analysis to obtain the details extracted
from codes and
categories that help to explain how phenomena occur. The first
two stages
involved identifying codable moments in the documents, field
notes, and
interview transcripts, assigning initial codes, and collapsing
these into more
refined consistent codes. Some of the codes included
“personable/warm cli-
mate,” “administrator fatigue,” and “critiques of race based
performance
funding.” The collapsed codes were placed into categories.
Some of the cat-
egories were “relationships with accountability systems,”
“addressing reten-
tion/graduation,” and “the role of race and culture.” The final
stage included
creating themes that “describe, organize, and interpret aspects
of the phenom-
enon” (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 4).

Findings
A public system of higher education that has 14, 4-year,
colleges of medium
to lower selectivity developed a PF system that makes about 3%
of the state
system’s operating budget contingent on its progress on several
indicators of
effectiveness. A unique feature of the accountability model
adopted by the
state system is that two of the required performance indicators
focus on
equity in access and completion for the system’s low -income
students and
students of color. In addition to the state system’s incorporation
of equity-
oriented accountability indicators, this system is also unique in
that one of its
14 campuses is a historical Black university, Smith University,
which made
the equity indicators of access and completion incongruous for
its mission
and population. Consequently, the system modified the access
and comple-
tion indicators so that Smith’s performance will be based on
enrolling and
graduating more non-Black students. The findings begin with a

discussion of
how issues of race have shaped Smith University’s relationship
with its state
system of higher education. The origins, purpose, and
characteristics of the
state’s PF policy are described. Next, the Smith University and
state system
of higher education perspectives on the purposes of the policy
are contrasted.
The section ends with the findings regarding the policy’s race
and equity
indicators and the participants’ perspectives on those indicators.
The State System of Higher Education Versus Smith University
When preliminary observations of Smith University began, it
was evident in
the participants’ protective postures that there was a
complicated history
between the school and the state system. In the first observed
meeting, the
participants shared stories of how the state system of higher
education had
historically underfunded the university and removed stellar
academic and
extracurricular programs to undermine the university. Moses, a
fairly new
Smith University staff member and administrator explained, “I
think there’s
a disconnect. I think there’s frustration on both sides. It’s kind
of like they’re
speaking German and we’re speaking French.”
When I asked participants why they thought the state system of
higher
education would not provide support to Smith University, they

explained that
it was because of race that they were being targeted and their
history of lim-
ited resources had provided them with limited ammunition to
fight back. The
participants explained that the state system of higher education
uses Smith
University’s vulnerability, which results from its limited
resources, as a
means to control it. Most public institutions of higher education
are depen-
dent on their states for support, but they may have other
resources to draw on
like endowments, and may also not have the history of
underfunding that
Smith has experienced, thus making Smith more reliant on the
state’s eco-
nomic support than other public universities. Furthermore, like
many public
HBCUs, over 75% of Smith students are Pell recipients, hence,
serving such
a large proportion of low-income students means that other
sources of reve-
nue like tuition increases are especially detrimental at Smith
University, mak-
ing economic support from the state even more important. This
overreliance
Jones 17

on the state as its primary source of support means that Smith
has to do
“whatever the state says,” as Frank, a staff
member/administrator, stated.
Frank described the result of the tension between the directions
of the state
system of higher education and Smith University as a “double
conscious-
ness” in which Smith University is “serving two masters.” Frank
explained
that those masters are “their mission and legacy versus what the
state will
allow them to do.” DuBois’s (1953) concept of double
consciousness sug-
gests that Black individuals are faced with the challenge of
living in a duality
of existence that includes the awareness of being Black through
their own
lens and also seeing self through the lens of the larger society
that views
Black individuals as “Other.” Like DuBois’s explanation of the
experience of
Black individuals, Smith University also faces the challenge of
existing as a
Black institution while existing within a state system of higher
education
where it is the “Other,” or what the state system representative
has described
as “an outlier.” The result is what Frank describes as a
half-ass school. You can’t go full either way. It just leaves you
looking around
like who is in power here? Nobody knows and everybody kicks
the bucket to
another department and everybody kicks it to another office and

you email the
president and the president is going to say well the state did this
. . . you don’t
know what you can do.
The participants explained that the opposition to Smith
University receiv-
ing financial or political support from the state system of higher
education is
less about fiscal justification and more an issue of institutional
racism. Before
getting into the specifics of the policy and what they did or did
not like about
it, some argued that the policy was a reflection of the state
system’s almost
paternalistic attitude toward Smith University. One Smith
University student,
Nicole, described the state system of higher education as
the overbearing parents [saying] this is what I want for you,
Smith, this is who
I want you to date. This is who I want you to bring into your
institution and
you’re gonna change that person to make them find what you
want them to
have.
Frank explained that their “relationship with the state is real
oppressive so
this is what the state says so this is what we’ve got to do.”
Frank goes on to
question how the state’s imperatives will affect Smith’s
“mission” of “giving
that student who doesn’t have a chance, a chance.”
In Smith’s case, the “student who does not have a chance” and

who obtains
a chance at Smith is typically Black, thus racializing the state’s
perceived
opposition to Smith’s autonomy and mission.
2016epx.sagepub.comDow nloaded from
Moses, a Smith University staff member and administrator,
explained that
overt racism is always hard to prove . . . I think there may be an
underlying and
underpinning insensitivity . . . There are some folks at the state
level that really
don’t have the confidence in the way that this university is
operated or run.
They feel as though we are really just focused on a small target
of the population,
which is primarily African Americans.
Moses attributed the tensions between Smith University and the
state sys-
tem of higher education to “insensitivity,” “a lack of
confidence,” and the
school’s small focus on African Americans, but some
participants went even
further to argue that some acts of the state system were in fact
racist.
Malcolm, another Smith University staff member and

administrator,
explained that the state system of higher education appointed a
staff member/
administrator to the Smith University financial aid office,
causing many chal-
lenges that resulted in some eligible students losing their
financial aid.
Malcolm suggested,
[The state system] appointed a state person to [Smith] . . .
which is the only
Historically Black College in the state system. Now you know
with Historically
Black Colleges, the majority of the students need some type of
financial
assistance . . . was it a plan? Was it constructed? Because
there’s no way you
can come from the state and be a specialist and come in and
mess it up.
When asked about the relationship between Smith University
and the state
system of higher education, Shirley, a Smith staff member and
administrator,
responded, “I find out based on how small our budgets are.”
Shirley goes on
to explain that there was a time that the state “didn’t want
[Smith] to be here,”
and thus they “would have a deficit.”
Some participants noted the state system of higher education’s
refusal to
provide adequate funding as an act of racism, referring to the
retrieval of
owed funds through the previously mentioned US$15 million
lawsuit as

“reparations.” Malcolm explained that in the past Smith
University had to sue
for funding and that
it was kind of a shame that we had to sue. The new residential
hall that we have
. . . that was due to reparations because our students had wrote .
. . over several
years stating that all the other schools in the state system had
new facilities and
we had none so how do you expect for us to be able to compete?
It started to
become a litigation issue as far as discrimination.
Malcolm goes on to explain that the only reason the state has
not closed
Smith University is because it would receive public opposition
and Smith
Jones 19
provides a space to “place [their] minorities in the state. If they
are not doing
what they are supposed to in other places, you can still increase
your numbers
using [Smith] University.” These issues of racism color the
relationship
between Smith University and the state system of higher
education, thus
shaping participants’ perspectives on the PF policy.

PF and Smith University
The PF policy at Smith University and the other campuses in the
state system
was first enacted in 2003 with the aim to address educational
achievement,
the application of knowledge, public service, inclusiveness, and
stewardship.
The first phase of the policy was credited by the state system of
higher educa-
tion with contributing to increases in the 4-year graduation rates
and second-
year persistence rates, and an increase in the number of faculty
with terminal
degrees. The most recent version of the policy calls for a small,
but substan-
tial, percentage of the state’s annual appropriations to its
institutions to be
based on performance measures reflecting state priorities on
degree comple-
tion and research productivity. The PF model also holds
institutions account-
able for improving equity in enrollment and educational
outcomes among
racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.
Smith University is being evaluated on five mandatory and five
optional
performance measures. The state system of higher education
designed and
selected the five mandatory measures, and Smith University
selected five
from a list of 22 optional measures, provided by the state
system of higher
education. The mandatory performance measures for Smith

University
include the number of degrees conferred, reduction in
achievement and
access gaps, increased faculty diversity, and private support.
The optional
indicators for Smith University include student persistence,
science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and math (STEM) and health profession
degree recipients,
closing the access and achievement gaps for transfer students,
and instruc-
tional productivity.
The PF policy adjusts for Smith University’s unique status as an
HBCU in
two ways. First, the other institutions in the state system were
benchmarked
against the average of all public master’s institutions, but to
determine the target
goals for Smith University, the state system of higher education
used the average
of the particular outcome for all public master’s HBCUs,2 and
set that average
as the goal for Smith University to achieve within 5 years. For
example, for the
“degrees conferred” performance measure, Smith University is
being chal-
lenged by the state system to increase the percentage of
baccalaureate degrees
awarded per full-time enrollment (FTE). The average for all
public master’s
level HBCUs is 12.13%. Thus, the goal for Smith University is
to increase

the percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded per FTE from
its 2009/2010
percentage of 11.64% to the public master’s level HBCU
average of 12.13%.
Second, the PF policy adjusts for Smith University’s unique
HBCU status
in the way it conceptualizes the term underrepresented minority
(URM). For
all of the other institutions in the state system of higher
education, which are
PWIs, the term URM refers to each institution’s Black, Latino,
and Native
American student populations. The state system of higher
education has clas-
sified the URM students at Smith University as all non-Black
students. On
indicators pertaining to the enrollment and success of URM
students, Smith
University’s PF policy inverts the accountability measures for
the system’s
historically Black university. Whereas PWIs are required to
close gaps in
access and success for students from URM groups, Smith
University is
required to close gaps for non-Black students. A sample of how
this URM
concept is applied to a performance measure for Smith
University is provided
in Table 2. The sample demonstrates that PWIs in the state

system are being
held accountable for closing the gap between the percentage of
Black, Latino,
and Native American students in the state’s high school
graduate population
(18%) and the percentage of these URM students in their
freshmen popula-
tion (16%). However, Smith University is responsible for
closing the gaps in
access between the average percentage of non-Black students
enrolled at
public master’s level HBCUs (16%) and the percentage of non-
Black stu-
dents in their freshmen population (2%).
Ronald, the state system of higher education representative,
while speak-
ing about how the “special adjustments” for Smith University
were deter-
mined, noted that the policy design was based on
recommendations from a
multi-campus committee. He explained that there were no
representatives
from Smith University who were selected to serve on the multi -
campus com-
mittee that helped develop the state PF policy. Ronald
confirmed that there
were other campuses besides Smith University that were not
represented on
Table 2. PF Sample Measure: Closing the Access Gap for URM
Students.
University
Reference

group
State high
school
graduates
% URM
Total
incoming
freshmen
No. of
URM
students % of URM Gap
Goal:
Reduce gap
by ½
Smith University Non-Black 16 1,169 22 2 13.6 6.81
Predominately
White
university
URM 18 2,056 329 16 2.0 1.0
Note. PF = performance funding; URM = underrepresented
minority.

Jones 21
the committee as well. He explained that they “put together a
committee of
people who knew the issues and problems with the old system . .
. expertise
was how you got on the committee.” He also suggested that
Smith
University’s status as an HBCU “was in our mind as we did
this; that was a
design piece that we incorporated.” However, when asked about
his exper-
tise to address Smith University, which he described as an
“outlier,” he con-
firmed that he is “not a great study of” or expert of HBCUs. The
lack of
HBCU expertise or representation on a committee that was
making deci-
sions on how an HBCU should perform and receive funding
demonstrates
the potential for the development of indicators that may not be
applicable in
the HBCU context.
Modernizing HBCUs for the 21st century: Narratives and
counternarratives on the
purpose of the PF policy. Counternarratives are used by critical
scholars to
describe the perspective or experience of a particular
marginalized group that is
often different from the dominant narrative on a particular issue
(Solórzano &
Yosso, 2002). In the case of the PF policy, the state system of

higher educa-
tion’s perspectives on the goals and purpose of the policy
differed substantially
from the views of the participants from Smith University. The
state system of
higher education described the policy as an opportunity to help
campuses
improve. However, the participants from Smith University often
described the
policy as a barrier to achievement and improvement for the
HBCU.
The state system narrative. In its published materials, the state
system of
higher education described the goal of the renewed PF policy as
an effort
to create compelling financial incentives for the publ ic
universities to alter
their practices (whether through innovation in delivery
mechanisms, internal
reallocation of resources, or other measures) to meet specific
performance
targets identified as priorities by system administrators. Thus,
institutions
cannot opt out of the requirements that they meet the new
performance
benchmarks without sacrificing a substantial revenue stream on
which they
depend. Ronald, the member of the state system of higher
education that had
a leadership role in the development of the most recent version
of the PF
policy, explained,
It’s a sort of system wide strategic thing, what do we think is
important to our

students in [state]? And that leads us to, we need to graduate,
we need to confer
more degrees . . . we want to close gaps because access and
achievement and
success of all [state] students is important to our future. How do
we provide
tools to campuses to do that? Being at the central office level,
what can we
open up as pathways?
Ronald was hopeful in that although the “jury’s still out” on
what the out-
comes will be, they were “pretty darn successful for the small
amounts of
money that [they] put into the previous performance funding in
terms of mak-
ing some significant changes on campus.” Thus, he was
“enthusiastic and
hopeful” that the PF policy would “move the amount of
underrepresented
students who come to our campuses, who continue to move
through on pace,
who graduate and move on in their lives” because the PF policy
makes “that
a much higher probability” for the students in the system.
Ronald shared that the state wanted to ensure that the policy
was written

in a way that challenged institutions, but also supported their
success with
winning the additional aid and becoming better campuses
overall. To ensure
institutional success, the policy design reflects both the need to
differentiate
across institutions and recognition that institutions may lack the
capacity to
respond quickly or effectively to new performance priorities.
The implemen-
tation of the policy has also been coupled with an investment in
capacity
building and technical assistance to support institution-level
changes in prac-
tice. Ronald noted that in developing the policy, the committee
created flex-
ibility for special mission institutions like Smith University by
offering
optional measures that “could be managed much better for
[Smith] given its
history.” Ronald reported that he asked [Smith University],
What do you need to use as a tool to continue to produce results
of being an
HBCU in the 21st century? We want you to look at that one
[measure] and say
there’s an opportunity for you to help shape the much more
mission and history
centric sub measures for your institution.
The state system of higher education also used research data on
other pub-
lic master’s level HBCUs to develop measures and
benchmarking “so there
was a fairer comparison group for their national benchmarks.”
Specifically,

the policy design incorporates several “choice” indicators that
institutions
can design based on their own missions and priorities (e.g., a
campus with a
strong STEM or vocational focus might select as one of its
indicators increas-
ing output of degrees in those fields). Despite what Ronald
described as the
state system of higher education’s efforts to ensure that the PF
policy was
“fair” for all the campuses in the system, the Smith University
narrative is
predicated on the fact that the policy is anything but fair.
The Smith University counternarrative. As a result of their
complicated rela-
tionship with the state system of higher education, the members
of the Smith
University community had mixed feelings about the state’s
newest version
of the PF policy. First, some participants criticized the policy
claiming that it
Jones 23
was not fair, that there was limited involvement by Smith
University during
its development, and that it uses a narrow view of diversity.
Second, partici-
pants critiqued the policy for being an unfunded mandate and

even compared
the states’ execution of a PF policy that would require Smith
University to
improve outcomes without additional financial resources to
Pharaoh demand-
ing the Israelite slaves to produce bricks without straw in the
book of Exodus.
Others criticized the paternalistic nature of having an outside
body set the
goals and standards for a supposedly independent institution; all
agreeing
that the policy posed challenges to the Smith University
mission.
As noted in the discussion with Ronald, the state system higher
education
representative, members of the Smith University community
were not
involved in the committee made up of campus representatives
who helped
design the policy. Because of this, several critiques by
participants focused
on policy design. One Smith University community member,
Shane, who in
his position as a staff member and administrator plays an
important role in
implementing the policy at Smith University, noted his concerns
with the
comparison groups used to develop the Smith University
benchmarks:
The issue I have with that is, yeah, they are HBCUs, but in
terms of size, if you
want to compare an institution that has one thousand, two
thousand, three
thousand students to an institution that has five, 10 thousand

students; to me
you are comparing a bigger apple to a smaller apple . . . that is
one weakness I
brought up to the [state system of higher education].
Shane goes on to explain that he was only allowed to provide
feedback
after the PF policy was already designed and was being
explained to him.
Another critique of the policy design that was offered by the
participants
was what they described as a narrow definition of diversity.
Theodore, a
senior administrator at Smith University, suggested,
The harm comes in how diversity is defined . . . I think you got
to look at
diversity as being bigger than those qualities of a human being
that are overtly
conspicuous . . . Just because you look out there and you see a
population of
brown people doesn’t mean you don’t have a diverse population.
I think these
other areas of diversity in terms of race versus ethnicity versus
national origin
versus gender versus socioeconomic . . . if you start putting
some of these,
saying you need to increase diversity along the full spectrum of
what makes
America, America, some of these other institutions probably
wouldn’t do so
well. If you take an institution like [neighboring PWI in the
state system], they
have what looks like a great mix of middle class youngsters, is
that really a

more legitimate reason for getting more funds in the area of
diversity than an
institution like ours that has a greater mix of income . . .
students from different
nations, religions, perspectives, things that make a difference in
terms of what
makes people human.
In addition, in a campus leadership meeting that included the
administra-
tion’s most senior members, Dawn, a Smith University staff
member and
administrator, publicly raised questions about the race/ethnicity
definitions in
the diversity category of the policy. Specifically, Dawn raised
questions about
why students’ ethnic diversity was not being considered. She
went on to sug-
gest that the consideration of ethnic diversity would benefit
Smith University
who she suggested had a large population of international
students like Haitian
students. When asked what categories she would like to see,
Dawn responded
that the policy should include residency status, country of
origin, and interna-
tional student status. When asked about how the state system

has responded to
Smith’s concerns about the race/ethnicity categories, Theodore
suggested that
the Smith community’s “concerns about racial/ethnic
categories” for the PF
policy “have been suppressed” at the system meetings.
It is also important to note that when raising questions about the
popula-
tion of international students and ethnic diversity on campus,
Shane, a Smith
University staff member and administrator, expressed that there
were chal-
lenges identifying international students using their current data
system. This
data capacity dilemma demonstrates one of the most common
critiques of the
policy: the notion that Smith University does not have sufficient
resources to
be compared with other institutions and to increase its
performance on the
included measures. On hearing a description of the PF policy
during the inter-
view, Greg, a Smith University student, responded that “my
problem with the
incentive thing is that it’s not fixing the reason, it’s trying to
fix the result but
it’s not trying to fix the reason for the result.” Leslie, a Smith
University staff
member and administrator, who addressed one of the
performance measures,
retention, argued,
We’re not on the same playing field as some of our other
institutions because
of the lack of funding that [Smith] has had for so many years.

It’s gonna take a
while for [Smith] to catch up with some of the basic amenities,
that the
university has to have to attract competitive students that we
can retain.
A long-time Smith University staff member and administrator,
Shirley,
argued that it is not a coincidence that the university is being
expected to
meet expectations that they see as challenging. Shirley
explained, “it’s obvi-
ous that it’s harming the institution. Because we can’t get
money . . . by the
time you learn the rules of the game, how to play the game they
change the
rules.” Theodore, a Smith staff member and administrator,
noted,
Jones 25
On the surface the policy may even look fair to the general
public and it’s one
that you can sell to the state legislature. But when you get
beneath the surface
there are real issues with the policy . . . they have some
institutional structures
that still persist from that system of inequality that has become
so
institutionalized in this country . . . And some people just don’t

care about the
school . . . they kind of question whether there is a need for a
[Smith] University
or a need for an HBCU because they have not for many years
had a reason to
have a serious faith in the leadership of the school. Again that
is because of
some of the transient stuff, some of the behaviors that have
emerged as a result
of not having stable and consistent leadership and sufficient
resources to
provide the incentives to people who really try to do the best
that they can do
on the job.
The participants suggest that the issue of limited resources not
only ham-
pers their administrative capabilities, but also negatively affects
the very stu-
dent behaviors that are being measured by the policy. For
example, the policy
includes funding increases for improved performance on
retention and gradu-
ation rates, but participants argued that without the funding
first, they do not
have the finances needed to increase or even sustain student
retention and
graduation. During a campus leadership meeting, the
participants discussed
the issue of delaying students’ graduation because Smith was
forced to cancel
degree-required courses that the university could not afford.
One Smith stu-
dent, Kyle, observed that “a lot of people leave” because of the
lack of “finan-
cial aid. I don’t know if something can happen with getting

students or letting
them know about scholarship opportunities or something to help
them pay for
school.”
It is important to note that many participants were not opposed
to increas-
ing diversity, and graduation and retention rates, but were
concerned about
the challenges involved in doing so. Moses, a fairly new staff
member and
administrator at Smith University, suggested that the issue of
funding,
increasing graduation and retention, and the PF policy poses
real dilemmas
for the members of the Smith community:
Statewide, they feel that they have done what they can do to
support Smith
University. Smith on the other hand is saying we need more
support. Then they
come back and say what have you done with the resources
we’ve allocated for
you? . . . one thing that is missing from the conversation is what
is in the best
interest of the students? How do we better serve students? . . . I
think that if we
did that we would come to the conclusion that we need better
capital
improvement such as better academic facilities, smart
classrooms. That’s
what’s in the best interest of the students, that’s what good
students demand
. . . every institution has to be held accountable for increasing
retention,

increasing graduation rates and persistence. I don’t argue with
that one bit . . . [but]
I’m not trying to make excuses, I think the system has a
responsibility to make
sure all the institutions are on a level playing field. If you all
have comparable
resources and you’re not performing up to par, then you have a
reason to be
penalized with the funding formula. If you are in a situation like
[Smith] where the
truth is, no new building in more than 30 years, when your
sister institutions are
building buildings like crazy . . . and in previous court decrees
this has been in
absolute terms that the institution hasn’t been treated fairly and
the state continues
to do that, then you have some issues with performance funding.
Moses’s statements articulately capture the sentiment that
several partici-
pants expressed, suggesting that the PF policy was simply
unfair. Like Moses,
other participants argued that they need more funding not only
to make the
suggested improvements, but also to just maintain their current
performance.
Participants believed that their experience with limited
resources is not coinci-

dental, and may be constructed in response to their Black
identity. In other
words, the participants felt that their limited resources were a
direct result of
institutional racism on the part of the state system of higher
education and the
larger society. The belief that the state provides differential and
insubstantial
funding to their public HBCU is not new or limited to the Smith
University
experience. For example, Lee and Keys (2013a) authored a
report explaining
that states often opt to not match the federal government’s
support of their pub-
lic land-grant HBCUs, as suggested in the 1890 Morrill Land
Grant Act. The
authors note that states are not given the option, but instead are
required to
match the federal government’s support of the predominately
White land-grant
institutions that were established as a result of the 1862 Morrill
Land Grant act.
Hence, Lee and Keys’s (2013a) analysis provides a
contemporary example of
the ongoing battle to ensure equitable state funding for public
HBCUs.
Perspectives on the diversity and equity measures. Although the
participants
from Smith University had several critiques of the PF policy,
the participants
seemed most concerned with how the policy could affect their
ability to pro-
vide opportunity and focus on serving Black students. The PF
policy for
Smith University requires an increase in the access and

achievement of stu-
dents who are defined as anyone who is “Other than Black or
Unknown.”
Five of the 10 measures by which Smith University’s
performance will be
evaluated include a focus on the non-Black population.
Specifically, Smith is
held accountable for the following:
1. Reducing the “gap” between the percentage of non-Black
students
enrolled at public master’s level HBCUs and the percentage of
Jones 27
non-Black students enrolled at Smith University. In 2010, Smith
enrolled 2% non-Black students and the average non-Black
enroll-
ment at public master’s level HBCUs was 16%; thus, there was
a 13.6
percentage point “gap.” The 5-year goal is to reduce the gap by
50%.
2. Reducing the 5% gap in the 6-year graduation rate between
non-
Black students (24%) and Black students (29%), to a 2.5%
percentage
point gap.
3. Increasing the percentage of non-Black faculty from 41.94%

to
45.59% (average for public master’s level HBCUs).
4. Reducing the “gap” between the percentage of non-Black
transfer
students enrolled at public master’s HBCUs and the percentage
of
non-Black transfer students enrolled at Smith University. In
2010,
Smith enrolled 2.2% non-Black transfer students and the
average
non-Black transfer enrollment at public master’s HBCUs was
16%;
thus, there was a 13.3% percentage point “gap.” The 5-year goal
is to
reduce the gap by 50%.
5. Closing the 6-year graduation rate gap for non-Black transfer
students
and Black transfer students. In 2010, the 6-year graduation rate
for
Black transfer students was 25% and the 6-year graduation rate
for
non-Black transfer students was 100%, thus there was no “gap”
to
close. The 5-year goal is to maintain a zero gap.
Ronald, the state system of higher education representative,
argued against
the perceived notion that the policy would require Smith
University to
increase the number of non-African American students. Ronald
argued that
instead, Smith University is expected to
equal the existing rate for their African American students so,

fundamentally,
it’s a mathematical calculation, but not fundamentally for them
to succeed and
win performance funding it does not mean that they need to
increase the
number of non-African Americans. They simply have to
maintain their current
level of success with their current numbers of African American
students.
Ronald is correct in that the policy does not have a mandatory
indicator
that requires them to increase their number of non-Black
students. However,
the policy does include mandatory indicators to close any equity
gaps that
exist between the access and graduation rates for Black students
and non-
Black students. The policy suggests that “gaps are reduced,” so
if Black and
non-Black 6-year graduation rates increase, simultaneously the
gaps could
persist and Smith University could remain ineligible for the
total performance
award. In addition, the policy does not require a raw number
increase in the
number of non-Black students, but does require an increase in

percentages or
proportions, thus the only way to meet the PF targets for non-
Black access
without actually increasing the number of non-Black students is
to decrease
the number of Black students. These indicators demonstrate how
the state is
both offering an opportunity to, and mandating an institutional
focus on non-
Black students, which is counter to Smith University’s
historical mission to
serve Black students. Thus, several participants critiqued this
redirection sug-
gesting that it could create mission drift at the institution.
Kenneth, one of Smith University’s few White students,
suggested that the
PF policy would be
getting away from their background for being known as an
HBCU. It’s always
great to give non-African American students the opportunity to
experience and
to learn from the culture, but that’s not what [Smith] or an
HBCU is known for.
It’s to develop successful male and female African American
students.
Brian, a Black student at Smith University, argued that the PF
policy
“would take away from its original mission which was to give
Black students
an advantage in a world where they are at a disadvantage.”
Denzel, a Smith
University faculty member, explained that the concern about
maintaining the

historical focus on Black students is university wide:
There’s a culture here where there’s always a sense of [Smith]
losing its identity
if we admit students who are non-African American. I’ve
understood the sense
of that . . . being true to its mission, [Smith] should always
maintain its sense
of commitment to students of color, particularly African
Americans. I would be
careful of the legalities of it all, but [Smith] should always
remain an HBCU in
the sense of being a predominantly African American
institution.
Participants also discussed the challenges that recruiting White
students could
pose to the university. A Smith University student, Nicole,
cautioned that the
recruitment of non-Black students could require institutional
changes that could
harm the current university culture and mislead perspective
White students:
[Smith] would change the culture of the school so much to even
make it
marketable to non-Blacks . . . you can lose yourself like that.
It’s like if this was
a relationship and [Smith] is courting these non-Black students
they would be
putting on airs to get them here . . . you’re supposed to be
yourself when you’re
dating somebody.
Thus, participants were concerned that focusing on the
enrollment or suc-

cess of non-Black students could threaten their historical
mission and con-
temporary culture that focuses on Black student opportunity and
success.
Jones 29
It is also important to note that in the case of closing the
achievement gap
among non-Black and Black transfer students, Smith University
has a 75
percentage point gap between the 6-year graduation rate for the
non-Black
transfer students and Black students. Because it is the Black
transfer students
who have the lower graduation rate of 25%, instead of the non-
Black transfer
students whose 6-year graduate rate is 100%, Smith University
will not be
awarded any PF if it is able to increase the 6-year graduation
rate of Black
transfer students. However, if the non-Black transfer student
graduation rate
was increased, it would be eligible for PF. Thus, the design of
the policy
requires an institutional shift in priorities and decision making,
potentially
shifting resources and focus away from Black students and
faculty, whether
White students and faculty or other non-Black populations

choose Smith
University. Therefore, some Smith University participants see
the state PF
policy as unfair and a threat to their identity and success as an
institution,
which runs counter to the state system of higher education’s
narrative that
suggests that the policy will increase student success and equity
across the
campuses in the state system.
Smith University arguments in favor of the PF policy. Although
some of the par-
ticipants were critical of the PF policy, several participants
noted that the
policy was helpful to the institution because it made them more
aware of their
institutional data and the outcomes that need improvement, it
encouraged a
more racially diverse campus where students could learn from
one another
and prepare for diverse post-graduate environments, and it
productively chal-
lenged Smith University to clarify and defend its mission. For
example, a
Smith University staff member and administrator, Shane,
suggests that “hav-
ing to deal with performance measures is good in one sense. It
helps an insti-
tution get on track. Make sure you monitor what it is you say
you’re doing.”
Many participants supported the measures because of what they
described as
the benefits that having a diverse student body could contribute
to students’
learning experience and post-graduate experiences. One Smith

University
student, Steven, explained that he welcomed the opportunity for
the univer-
sity to focus on non-Black students because race
doesn’t have an impact on younger generations . . . when you
look at color
because that’s taught to you . . . racial issues are all taught to
people. Unless it’s
taught, younger people don’t have that. That’s more of an older
generation
issue.
Other participants argued that race does still have an impact,
but the
impact of race on students’ experiences is why they felt it was
important to
serve different student populations. Smith staff member and
administrator,
Benjamin, said,
I think multicultural education is important . . . a lot of our
students come from
inner city areas where the population density of students is 85
or 90% Black
and Latino so I think that part of the college experience is that
diversity.

Similar to Benjamin’s perspective that students would benefit
from addi-
tional exposure to diverse groups, faculty member Jesse
explained,
It would provide perspective for our current student population
to be able to see
diversity on campus . . . our faculty are very diverse, it’s
probably the most
diverse faculty in the state system. But the student population
doesn’t reflect
that. And with the student mindset being what it is I think the
diversity would
add and change and maybe open up their eyes to other ways of
acting,
perceiving things, and learning in the classroom.
Staff member and administrator, Michael, argued that a focus on
non-
Black students did not take away from the university mission,
but that their
mission of “access and opportunity for people who are not given
the same
opportunities” includes “low socioeconomic status Whites,
Hispanics, Asian,
[and] whoever wants to come here and hopefully get a quality
education.”
While some participants discussed the focus on non-Black as a
benefit to
Black students and an honoring of the university’s access and
opportunity
mission, others described the impact on those outside of the
university.
Specifically, participants explained that becoming more racially

diverse
could improve their reputation and image. A Smith University
student, Kyle,
expressed that he thinks “it would make it look better, if
[Smith] is more
diverse, or not just all African American students. I think that
would really
make the university look good.” Another Smith student, Brian,
suggested that
Smith’s lack of racial diversity was not appealing, and, that it
was only
because he had been awarded a scholarship that he chose to
attend the
institution:
[diversity] could help the institution because I always said that
if it wasn’t for
the [program name] scholarship I probably wouldn’t have come
to [Smith]
because in reality the whole world is not Black so I definitely
would have
preferred to be around a lot more ethnic groups than African
Americans. There
are maybe five White students here. I know some Dominican
girl that was in
my Spanish class. But that’s about it. For me, I’m a person
that’s really
interested in culture and things so it’s one of the things I dislike
about the
university because I don’t really get to mingle with people from
different
cultures.

Jones 31
Other participants shared Brian’s concern that being educated in
a pre-
dominately Black environment would shield them from the
realities of work-
ing in a diverse society. A Smith staff member and
administrator, Malcolm,
shared,
It could assist the university even though it’s a Historically
Black College.
When you go into the working world, there are people of
diverse backgrounds
and diverse lifestyles, and they have to deal with and be able to
work with or
work for . . . it gives you different outlooks, different
perspectives . . . It would
also allow for barriers to be broken to get people to get an
understanding of
diverse cultures and things of that sort. How they live, the type
of food, and
sometimes maybe even a thought pattern could possibly help in
the workforce
adjusting to people of diverse backgrounds.
Malcolm goes on to share,
In reality, the whole world is not Black. So I think it would be a
good thing
because once you leave [Smith] and you go to grad school, if
you go straight
into work, clearly your whole company is not going to be Black.

You are just
going to have to face that reality so I think if we did get a little
bit more exposure
I think it would be good too. It’s kind of a double edged sword.
I think it would
just be better to have more people here who are not Black. Just
so we can get a
different perspective and interact with different people.
As a result of the PF policy and the potential benefits described
by the
participants, Smith University has begun to discuss how it is
planning to
respond to the measures that focus on non-Black students. When
the idea of
enrolling or increasing the performance of non-Black students
was brought
up in campus meetings and in the interviews, participants most
commonly
suggested that the institution target state’s budding Latino
population. Alisha,
a Smith University faculty member, shared that there was
already a “push” in
her department and that the department has “been working
towards increas-
ing the Hispanic population” and that she believes that
“enrollment manage-
ment” is also pushing toward this end. Alisha explained that
Smith’s “Spanish
faculty have produced a brochure in Spanish” and that the
university has
“participated in the Hispanic heritage month.” Alisha explained
that they
“celebrated any students and faculty who had any Hispanic
heritage” and that
the event was “quite successful” and that there is “an

excitement and a push
for that overall on the campus.”
Another example of the focus on Latino students is that in
preliminary
observations and campus leadership meetings, the participants
inquired about
the enrollment and performance of their Latino students both
times the
non-Black funding formulas were brought up. During one
meeting, Smith
University staff member and administrator, Shane, reported that
the univer-
sity had successfully increased the enrollment of Latino
students but was not
retaining them and discussed potential solutions. In an
interview, Moses, a
Smith University staff member and administrator, shared,
We have made some progress in the area of recruiting more
Hispanics and
White students. I think it’s like 3.4% Hispanic students and I
want to say for
White students it’s 8% maybe. I could be wrong on that
statistic, I’m relying on
memory. And that’s up from the year before. But I think that
would be very

good for this institution. I think the challenge for this
university, too, is that the
demographics have changed. A lot of Historically Black
Universities have
recognized that there’s an emerging, growing population of
second generation,
third generation Hispanic and Latino students that are going on
to college. We
have to get in that game and be able to recruit from those
populations to
increase our enrollment. The same holds true for White. If you
look around us,
what do you see? It’s primarily European environment, so we
could do better
at some of these high schools. I think from a financial
standpoint, from an
educational standpoint, it would behoove us to recruit
aggressively from those
underrepresented populations.
Present in Moses’s statement is the connotation that Smith
should recruit
from underrepresented populations. Although underrepresented
at Smith
may mean non-Black to some, one reason that the campus seems
to embrace
the idea of targeting Latino students is because they are both
underrepre-
sented at Smith University and (like Black students) have a
history of limited
access to higher education in the United States. Smith
University staff mem-
ber and administrator Jeffrey explained,
I think that there’s some similarities in underrepresented
minorities across the

board. I think if we take what we have, where we know what
we’ve used, what
we’ve been successful with and tweak it . . . a little Hispanic
language.
Hence, participants articulated a need for greater institutional
support for
Latinos on campus. Staff member and administrator Moses
argued for a
“Hispanic recruiter” because “they have more credibility when
they go in the
community” as a result of being “born and raised in that
culture.” Moses’s
comments acknowledge that the Latino culture and student
needs may be
distinct from what Smith University has traditionally done, but
the partici-
pants of this study articulated an overwhelming support for the
targeting of
this population as a happy medium between becoming “more
diverse” and
continuing to serve students of color.
Jones 33
Limitations
The findings tell a compelling story about the perspectives of
participants
from one HBCU on a state PF policy; however, the

interpretation and impli-
cations of these findings are limited by the participant’s
unfamiliarity with
the PF policy and the non-representative sample. First, prior to
the study,
many participants were unaware of what the PF policy was and
how it could
affect their campus. At the interview, they were provided with a
quick verbal
synopsis, with particular attention to the measures that were
uniquely
designed for the state system’s HBCU. Thus, it is possible that
additional
time reviewing the policy in its entirety, reflection, and
research may have led
the participants to think differently about the policy and the
implications for
their campus. Second, the study represents the perspectives of a
small group
of faculty, students, and administrators that are not
generalizable to everyone
on the campus or other HBCUs in states with PF policies. In
addition, the
students were recruited through a campus event for the honors
program,
which resulted in most of the student participants being in the
honors pro-
gram, further limiting the range of perspectives that were
received. Despite
these methodological limitations, the findings include
perspectives from a
small group of individuals who represent a wide range of spaces
in the Smith
Community, like tenured and non-tenured faculty, students,
executive lead-
ers, and student affairs professionals.

Measuring HBCU Performance: Necessary
Considerations and Possible Indicators
HBCU PF Design Challenges
Throughout the higher education accountability movement that
began in
Europe and the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
there have
been concerns about (a) states’ abilities to “measure the
unmeasurable”
(Gaither, Nedwek, & Neal, 1994, p. 7), (b) the tension between
policy mak-
ers’ desires to measure efficiency and productivity, and
practitioners’ interest
in measures that “reflect the quality of the educational
experience in a man-
ner that elucidates their own specific institution mission”
(Alexander, 2000,
p. 426), (c) and the evolution of the state’s relationship with
higher education
from authoritative oversight to active involvement in financial
planning and
decision making (Wellman, 2001).
The state system of higher education attempted to account for
Smith and
other campuses’ uniqueness by allowing them to select from a
list of 22
optional measures. The challenge is that even among the
optional indicators,

there is a prescribed focus on institutional capacity and non-
Black students.
Improving performance on indicators such as study abroad,
individual donor
support, and facilities investment would be difficult for a low -
resource insti-
tution like Smith University. Furthermore, closing the access
(enrollment)
and achievement gaps for transfer students requires Smith
University to close
the “gap” between the percentage of non-Black transfer students
enrolled at
public master’s HBCUs and the percentage of non-Black
transfer students
enrolled at Smith University. Thus, despite Smith University’s
efforts to
account for institutional differences, the PF policy at Smith
University
encourages the institution to either improve the institutional
capacity using
resources it may not have or challenge its historical mission by
focusing on
non-Black students.
Because student outcomes have such a direct impact on
institutional fund-
ing, it is possible that the university may attempt commonly
used strategies
to improve student outcomes, such as becoming more selective
or broadening
applicant pools. Both of these, however, can be problematic for

niche institu-
tions like public HBCUs, which have traditionally served as a
point of access
to higher education for Black students (Minor, 2004). It is not
to assume that
Smith University will be able to easily attract more
academically competitive
students, but that it may use its limited resources to try to cater
to the desired
student populations. For example, it could cater toward a more
academically
competitive student body by offering more academically
challenging courses,
but limited resources would require the institution to eliminate
needed devel-
opmental education courses.3 In addition, regardless of what
group of stu-
dents the institution aims to attract, strategies such as offering
scholarships,
increasing programs, and attracting competitive faculty require
additional
resources that many low-resourced, non-selective, public
HBCUs do not
have. Last, much of the literature on how HBCUs are
responding to PF poli-
cies comes from media and non-academic, non-scholarly
resources; further
empirical research and inquiry into the study of how HBCUs
foster student
success, respond to accountability pressures, and make
improvement is nec-
essary before mandating specific performance measures.
PF as an example of interest convergence. Of particular concern
were the PF
metrics that made a proportion of the funding contingent on the

retention and
enrollment of non-Black students and faculty. One issue that
requires further
interrogation is the notion of formally placing monetary value
on the success
of non-Black students in one of the few spaces in higher
education designated
to serve Black students. Jeffrey, a Smith staff member and
administrator,
raised this issue during a campus leadership meeting. The
institutional
researcher explained to the group how the improvement of their
Latino
Jones 35
student retention could affect their funding as a result of the PF
policy. Jeffrey
asked, “How is [our] funding affected by what we do for our
African Ameri-
can students?” The institutional researcher explained,
African American students are a majority so they count in
retention and
graduation data . . . so for institutions that are White majority
their target will
be African Americans and since we are majority African
American our minority
in this case is Hispanics.

The policy does not require an explicit shift to another targeted
demo-
graphic group of people, like White or Latino students, but
instead articulates
a specific shift away from Black students and faculty.
Considering Smith
University’s narrative of racial oppression from the state, it was
not surpris-
ing that they would have strong feelings against the newly
imposed perfor-
mance measures.
Looking at the policy from a CRT perspective provides a further
explana-
tion about why non-Black performance measures could be
problematic. The
non-Black focus in the PF policy is an example of what critical
race theorist
Derrick Bell (1980) described as interest convergence. Bell
(1980) describes
interest convergence as the tendency of Whites (or others in
positions of priv-
ilege or power) to consider policies regarding people of color
(or others with
less privilege or power) in terms of how they can appear to
serve the needs of
others while also benefitting. PF as described by the state
system of higher
education was designed with the intention of providing support
to increase
equity and success at all institutions, but in the case of the only
university in
the system with an explicitly racialized historical mission, there
is language
to support the achievement of anyone who is not Black. Thus in
the case of

Smith University, the state’s efforts to increase the performance
of a histori-
cally Black university through increased financial support for
the perfor-
mance of non-Black students ensures the convergence of White
or non-Black
interests. Thus, the design of the policy requires an institutional
shift in pri-
orities and decision making, potentially shifting resources and
focus away
from Black students, whether or not White students or other
non-Black stu-
dent populations choose to attend Smith University. One Smith
University
student, Greg, raised the concern:
It would be different if the financial incentive was for the
student as opposed to
the university . . . giving the incentive to the university will
most likely have
them campaign at high schools with less of what the majority is
[Black ] at the
schools. That’s hit or miss and I think if you want the hits give
the money
straight to the students.
The history of racial integration at HBCUs suggests that Smith
University

has been placed in a lose-lose situation. They could ignore the
need to
improve the enrollment and outcomes of non-Black students and
miss out on
the PF. Or, they could threaten the mission and culture of the
institution by
shifting their focus to non-Black students and still likely have
trouble recruit-
ing and retaining these non-Black students.
A Smith University leader was featured in a recent publication
in which he
or she affirmed the need for greater diversity saying, “we need
to admit stu-
dents from a wider range of ethnic and income groups.” This
statement from
the Smith University leader demonstrates the difference in
perspectives on
diversity between Smith University and the state. In the PF
policy, the state
system refers to diversity at Smith University as non-Black
students. In this
statement, the Smith University leader refers to diversity as a
wider range of
ethnic and income groups, not different racial groups. The
Smith University
leader supports the admission of a wider array of students while
being careful
to focus on ethnicity and income, both of which do not require a
diversion
from Black students; thus, the state system and Smith
University interests
have not converged.
Next Steps for HBCU PF Policy Design

Taking into consideration what was learned about Smith
University through
this case study, I will recommend next steps for designing
applicable mea-
sures for Smith University’s state system of higher education as
well as oth-
ers in states like Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and North
Carolina that
have public HBCUs that are part of their state system of higher
education.
First, policy makers should engage HBCU leaders and experts
during the
policy development process. The disconnect between policy
goals and cam-
pus goals and the lack of buy-in from the Smith University
leaders seemed to
stem from the lack of HBCU expertise and presence during the
policy devel-
opment process. Thus, it would be helpful to include HBCU
leaders and
experts on any assembled committee or team that will make PF
policy recom-
mendations and to solicit input and feedback via surveys and
town hall style
meetings from all institutional members before the policy is
developed and
enacted.
Second, policy makers should take steps to guard against
creating unin-
tended perverse effects from policies that fail to take into
account contextual
differences by continually refining PF metrics based on what is
learned about
the intended and unintended consequences of the policy. The
Smith University

community expressed great concern over how the institution
“could” be neg-
atively affected by the policy; thus, they could be reassured by
knowledge
Jones 37
that the state will monitor unintended outcomes. One way to get
an idea of
the potential unintended outcomes is to create a committee of
representatives
from each of the campuses affected by the policy to discuss
policy under-
standing, reception, and impact on campuses. Furthermore,
states should
conduct quantitative analyses of potential economic and racial
stratification
and shifts in student populations at their campuses.
Third, metrics should be responsive to input factors. Many
HBCUs, like
Smith University, aim to provide access to college for students
who are least
likely to enroll at highly selective institutions. If an HBCU has
an open-
admissions policy that would allow the admission of
academically underpre-
pared students, then applicable output indicators would focus on
how
effective the institution was in educating that particular

population of stu-
dents. Potential output indicators for open-admission and less
selective
HBCUs include time from developmental education course to
credit-bearing
course completion and an 8-year graduation rate. Policy makers
can look to
campus missions to gain understanding of who the target
“inputs” are and
how to assess how effective the institution is at educating them.
For example,
the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education has
articulated a goal to
“produce the best-educated citizenry and workforce in the
nation”
(Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, 2013). Thus,
the depart-
ment has created a study group to develop strategies for
measuring engaged
citizenship, demonstrating a unique departure from standard PF
policies.
This means that there could be measures that are tailored to the
specific mis-
sions of HBCUs. For example, if an HBCU has a specific goal
of educating a
“diverse student population” or “developing minority leaders,”
PF policies
should include measures like participation in national leadership
and service
organizations like the Peace Corps, or the proportion of
registered voters on
a campus.
There could also be a consideration of metrics that capture some
of the
“special” or “unique” benefits or characteristics of HBCUs. If

Educational Policy 1 –43© The Author(s) 2015Reprints a

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Educational Policy 1 –43© The Author(s) 2015Reprints a

Similar to Educational Policy 1 –43© The Author(s) 2015Reprints a (19)

More from EvonCanales257

More from EvonCanales257 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Educational Policy 1 –43© The Author(s) 2015Reprints a