Race Neutral Admissions Policies: Draft of
Intro and Lit Review
Anthony Vincent LeClair
17 October 2013
Race Neutral Admissions Policies
Introduction
A
representative democracy requires equal representation. If this condition is not met, then power,
privilege and access to resources is consolidated, and our whole U.S. political
experiment cannot live up to the goals of its charter. Unfortunately, this is an all too distinct
reality of our country. Our populace is
not equally represented within our political establishment, and I am afraid
this will continue be the case until we work to create the structural
circumstances that will allow for all in our citizenry the access to a
foundational education that provides for economic mobility and prepares the
public for thoughtful participation in the public process. At present, there are historical, social, and
economic barriers to representation within our education system, which in turn,
limits participation in our society. Though
the paper ahead will not be arguing that education is the panacea to all of our
social problems, we have, over several decades, seemingly since President
Lyndon B. Johnson’s ushering of “Great Society” policies, placed an undue
burden on our education system. We have
bought into the idea of meritocracy, without examining the foundations
necessary for a merit-based system of education to work. Nor, have we thought long and hard about the
goals for which that “merit” pertains. For
many, education has become the ticket
to greater prestige, economic prosperity and a sense of inclusion within
society. So, it is here at which we are
left to tinker with policy to create the structural conditions within education
to achieve greater demographic representation within our political process.
Since the dual 2007 U.S. Supreme
Court decisions were rendered on Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle Public Schools and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of
Education, the last bastion of equity based admissions and attendance
policies based on any racial variable was struck from the public arena of
Kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) education. Thus, the public university system is the only
place we can hope to have any mechanism designed to control for the unequal
schooling experiences between our social and economic elites and our students
who come from minority and low socioeconomic communities.
In this paper I will focus on the
Texas context. It is here that shifts in
racial and economic patterns are shifting the quickest, de facto segregation as a consequence of de jure segregation is prominent, and where the most successful,
though insufficient race-neutral admissions policy has been heralded as the
best way to move forward after several landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions
have made it nearly impossible to achieve an accurate societally representative
student body within our universities. Below,
I will discuss the court cases and the policies enacted as a result of landmark
U.S. Supreme Court Cases that will give us an understanding of where admissions
policies in Texas stand today.
Background
In 1997,
the Texas Legislature had a major task before it: finding a race-neutral
admissions policy that would act to increase racial, geographic, socioeconomic
and ethnic minority access and participation in the state’s flagship
universities without employing a race-based affirmative action policy, which
had just been struck down by the 5th Circuit Court in Hopwood v. Texas (1996). The response
was House Representative Irma Rangel’s H.B. 588, which granted automatic
admissions to any high school student graduating in the first decile (top ten
percent) of his or her senior class. The law would be popularly referred to as
the Top Ten Percent Plan.
In essence, the law would work to increase
minority enrollment by taking advantage of the racial and economic segregation
that currently maintains in Texas high schools (Horn & Flores, 2012). While
students from traditional feeder schools, in high socioeconomic settings would
continue to frequent Texas A&M and The University of Texas at Austin, the
law would also create access for schools that did not have a strong history of
feeding into the state’s flagship institutions. This means each of the flagships, should the
students apply, would now be receiving students from high schools with high
minority populations and a likely history of low university enrollment.
This review of literature on the
Texas Top Ten Percent Plan (TTP) and other race-neutral admissions plans will
employ the breadth of extant research to explain the intended and actual
effects of the law over the last 15 years. These peer-reviewed research
studies, institutional and governmental reports all draw a very similar picture
of the landscape at The University of Texas and Texas A&M University, post Hopwood and Texas Top Ten Percent. Chief
among this research has been the work of Dr. Marta Tienda at Princeton
(formerly of The University of Texas at Austin). Dr. Tienda has spent the last
15 years studying the Top Ten Percent Law. Though she and her fellow
researchers vary in explanation and slightly in response, the numbers are
consistent and rendered stark. During the period encompassing the Top Ten
Percent Law, enrollment at the University of Texas at Austin has exploded while
shares of the incoming freshmen class have moved only modestly in a positive
direction for African American and Hispanic student populations (Andrews,
Ranchhold, & Sathy, 2010; Campbell, 2004; Dietz, Hamilton, Heilig, Reddick,
& Rodriguez , 2011; Dickson, 2006: Holley & Spencer, 1999; Horn &
Flores, 2012; Long & Tienda, 2008; Niu & Tienda, 2010; Tienda &
Sullivan, 2009).
Representative of these findings is
the following excerpt, “Ten years of
institutional data shows that Black and Latina/o student enrollment has
increased in the midst of the Top Ten Percent Plan. In 2008, Black students made up 5.6 percent of
all incoming freshmen and Latina/os made up 19.9 percent, representing an increase
of 2.9 and 7.3 percentage points from 1997, respectively” (Dietz, Hamilton,
Heilig, Reddick & Rodriguez, 2011). Though certainly significant, these
numbers are not near the goal of achieving flagship universities reflecting the
demographic make-up of the state.
The Data
Over the 15-year period under this
law, there have been a handful of studies on the effectiveness of TTP. The vast
majority of these studies are focused on the University of Texas at Austin, as
it has been disproportionately affected. Texas A&M has been affected, but
is a distant second, and thus has had little quantitative focus in the
research. One would think there would be a great deal of research on such an
important policy initiative that promotes a race-neutral alternative to affirmative
action policies, for it does not suffer a lack of interest. Though interest is
high, access to comprehensive statistics that would paint a definitive picture
of TTP’s impact are not available to researchers.
As such, there are major
difficulties with accurately sifting through the dearth of available data. Much
of this data is kept at the individual local high school level. The composition
of a given school’s highest decile graduate group is not available to
researchers, nor is it kept at The Texas Education Agency (TEA), nor the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). This is problematic, as we must
rely on the individual university breakdowns of those who applied, and thus
were admitted, under TTP and those who applied but did not qualify for
automatic admissions. This means a student must actually apply to a university in the state of Texas for anyone to know
whether that student graduated in the top ten percent of his or her class, and
if that student chose to forgo the flagship university in favor of something
else.
This is the case because a student’s
transcript, originating from his or her high school, is the only document that
states whether or not a student is within the top ten percent of his or her
class cohort. If the student does not apply (not all do), then the student is
not included in the data. Thus, we have a very skewed picture of how the top
ten percent plan is playing-out within our graduating classes, and across race
and ethnicity. This information would be especially helpful in understanding
where recruitment efforts need to be focused and if targeted financial aid
might entice students to enroll at a flagship institution.
In order to overcome these
obstacles, each of the studies employed one or more of the following data
sources to gauge the effectiveness of the Top Ten Percent Law: Individual,
longitudinal university demographic breakdowns for each incoming freshmen
class, demographic admittance and enrollment data from the THECB, and student
surveys from the Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project (THEOP). To date, no study has been published that
relies on the sensitive data held in our state’s Education Research Centers
(ERCs). Using data from the ERCs would give us the most accurate picture of
which students are choosing which post-secondary institutions, while also
giving us a definitive look at how high school top ten percent demographics are
shaking out across the state.
The first two data sources, those at
the university level and those from the THECB, are fairly easy to obtain and
analyze. The third, however, was an attempt to get an idea of the TTP landscape
from the student choice perspective. The THEOP studied student/family planning
and enrollment behavior for over 30,000 students in a representative sample of
Texas high schools. This project relied on a series of in-depth surveys of
sophomore and senior students. THEOP data, used in conjunction with the purely
quantitative statistics on enrollment, attempts to explain why student
populations are choosing one institution type over another, or choosing not to
attend at all. Using all of these data resources, researchers studying TTP have
all come to very similar conclusions regarding its effects, though there are a
number of explanations for why the numbers are only modestly positive for
particular groups with regards to Texas’ flagship institutions.
The Effects of H.B. 588
Without doubt, the greatest effect
of The Texas Top Ten Percent Law (TTP) has been a dramatic increase in geographic representation of Texas
students at the University of Texas at Austin (Saenz, 2007; Niu & Tienda,
2010; Long, Saenz, & Tienda, 2010; Powers, 2012). This has been the most
consistently positive finding attributed to TTP. Students from more counties
around the state have access to and are enrolling in Texas flagship
universities than at any other time in the state’s history. Prior to H.B. 588, UT
had, on average, drawn nearly half of its incoming freshmen class from only 59
of the 1,500 high schools around Texas (Saenz, 2007). These are high schools
throughout their histories have sent the majority of their seniors to UT and
A&M. Under TTP the number of top high schools it took to fill fifty percent
of UT’s incoming class increased to 104.
Looking more broadly, however, the
number of schools that sent one or more of their graduating class members to UT
went from 674 in 1997 to over 900 within the first ten years of TTP (Long,
Saenz & Tienda, 2010). This is a very significant increase that points
toward one target where the law has achieved desired outcomes at the University
of Texas at Austin, and these numbers continue to increase at a significant
rate. According to a University of Texas report to the Governor of Texas in the
fall of 2012, the number of high schools sending students to UT has risen to a
peak of 1,104 (Powers, 2012).
Similar increases are not found at
Texas A&M University (TAMU) under TTP. A likely explanation is offered by
Long, Saenz and Tienda (2010), historically A&M has drawn from a greater
number of high schools than had UT and these feeding patterns are far more
entrenched at TAMU. Unfortunately, these numbers are not as positive for
minority populations at the public flagships of our state during this same time
period. Though the number of black and Latino/a students attending institutions
of higher education in the state of Texas are greater than ever before, the
numbers at our public flagships are not as robust.
Looking at raw TTP percentages,
first-time freshmen Latino/a student enrollment numbers at the University of
Texas at Austin have increased approximately 7% points. This number is
complicated by the significant increase in the Latino/a population in the state
(Alfonso & Calcagno, 2007). During the time Latino/as have also greatly
increased in the share of Texas’ high school graduates. Prior to the Hopwood
decision, Hispanic students made up 29% of the state’s graduating class. By
2004, that number had increased to 35% (Tienda & Sullivan, 2009). In 2009,
the share of Latino/a high school graduates reached 40% (THECB, 2012).
Unfortunately, this means the true story of these numbers is that admissions
and enrollment rates under the Top Ten Percent Plan have not been commensurate
with the growth in graduation rates for Hispanic students (Harris & Tienda,
2012).
H.B. 588 Effects on African American
Enrollment:
The effects of TTP are less
complicated for African Americans, because the total population share has
neither grown nor decreased dramatically during the affected time period. Two
major studies have looked exclusively at African American enrollment during
TTP; both reach similar conclusions. Though African American students are
applying to colleges at a much higher rate than at any other time in the past,
and while many are forgoing attendance at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), they are relatively less likely to apply to The
University of Texas at Austin and at Texas A&M (Dietz, et al., 2011). According to the table provided by Dr. Choquette
Hamilton, if students apply to UT-Austin, they are likely to enroll (See Table
in Appendix). The research has found that African American students are less
likely to apply to flagship universities, and TTP has done little to change
this trend. In order to understand why this is the case, we need to look at the
barriers to college entrance beyond admittance.
Why Hasn’t H.B. 588 Increased Representation at
the Flagship Universities?
Looking at the dichotomous
white/non-white ratio at the University of Texas at Austin recently, might
cause a person to believe that Top Ten Percent is doing an excellent job of
increasing the share of racial minority student populations at the university.
That metric is far too simple. As of 2010, the incoming class was, for the
first time, less than 50% white (The University of Texas at Austin, 2010).
However, a closer look at the distribution among the non-white student
population yields important nuance. The breakdown was as follows: White 48%,
Hispanic 23%, Asian 17%, Black 5%, and Foreign 4%. The percentage of black
students is the same as it was immediately following the Hopwood decision. Only
the share of Hispanic students has moved in a significantly positive direction,
though, again, there are population trends that account for this increase.
There are many reasons students in
the top ten percent of their graduating class do not apply to a public
four-year university. Low-income Hispanic and African American student
populations are far likelier to enroll in community colleges in the state, as
cost is a major barrier to access. This significantly affects the Top Ten
Percent Plan in a negative manner. For students who have earned automatic
admissions under the law, enrolling in a community college is anathema to the
goals of the law, increasing minority populations at public four-year
institutions. A student’s eligibility to apply under TTP is determined by their
“first time freshmen” status. As such, a student cannot pursue their core
courses at a community college in a cost saving measure, without forgoing her
or his eligibility. However, many students are choosing this option prior to
attending a 4-year institution.
This is particularly problematic
because, a great majority of students intending to move to 4-year institutions
first enroll in one of the state’s community colleges. In fact, according to a
recent CCRC report, Texas is the leader in students using the community college
program as a steppingstone to its universities (Jenkins, 2013). The following
excerpt may help to explain just how significantly this issue plays out:
Of
eligible TTPP students, about 40 percent of Latina/o students and 30 percent of blacks choose the two flagship
universities. As a result, 70 percent of eligible black and 60 percent of
eligible Latina/o students turned down the opportunity to attend the most
selective institutions of higher education in Texas despite their preferential
admission (Dietz, Hamilton, Heilig, Reddick & Rodriguez, 2011). Perhaps,
the most important reason the share of socioeconomically disadvantaged minority
student populations has not increased much high school students simply do not
know that the law exists. This was one of the most significant findings in the
work done by the THEOP. Students in low SES schools are far less likely to be
aware of the fact that their class rank can be their ticket to one of the
state’s flagship universities (Niu
&Tienda, 2010a).
There are likely two reasons that
students in urban schools are persistently unaware of TTP. First, the turnover rate for high school
staff, including guidance counselors, teachers and principals in low SES
schools is considerable (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005). This
ensures that students will receive inconsistent information about higher
education opportunities, if they receive that information at all.
Secondly, the role of a high school
counselor has changed substantially during the era of NCLB, especially in low
achieving schools that are disproportionately under threat of sanctions. In
other words, the high schools that TTP was designed to benefit most. Often,
these counselors are tasked with administering state examinations and are
responsible for the data that is necessary for meeting the State and Federal
accountability requirements (Crump, Duffy, Farrell, Giordano, & Paneque,
2008). This leaves very little time for counselors to meet with students to
explain the top ten percent law, let alone letting each student know of his or
her class rank after each semester’s grading period. This is failure at the
most basic level of the implementation and likely the easiest to fix. However,
there are many who do not believe the law can achieve its intended purpose.
Texas Top Ten Percent Compared to Affirmative
Action Policies:
The most common theme echoed
throughout each of the research studies was a simple fact, enrollment rates for
minority students were highest during the pre-Hopwood period, and came the
closest to recovering after Hopwood was rendered irrelevant in the Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) decision. The 2003 decision
allowed the University of Texas to return to an affirmative action policy,
which relied on race as one of many factors in determining the non-automatic
admissions for its incoming class.
The enrollment numbers dealing with
the period after the Hopwood decision was rendered and before H.B. 588 was
implemented are telling, “[f]reshman enrollment [at UT] dropped by 4.3% for
Hispanic students and by 33.8% for black students. At Texas A&M, freshmen
enrollment for Hispanic and black students dropped by 12.6% and 29%
respectively” (Holley & Spencer, 1999). Corroborating this decline and offering present day
implications, Harris and Tienda explain:
First, Hispanics’ application rates
to the Texas flagship universities fell after affirmative
action was banned. Even with the
declines in application rates for Hispanics
since the repeal of affirmative action, our results suggest that Hispanics would gain substantial
representation in Texas flagship universities if they maintained the admission shares they held during affirmative
action. (2012)
How to Increase Minority Enrollment at
Flagships in Texas:
The cost of university study has been and continues to be
a major struggle for low-income students of all backgrounds, but African
American and Hispanic students are being disproportionately affected. Targeted
recruitment and easing of the upfront costs to these universities, such as
provided by The Longhorn Opportunity Scholarship at the University of Texas and
the Century Scholarship at Texas A&M, do affect admissions decisions for
students of low socioeconomic means (Andrews, Ranchhod, & Sathy, 2010;
Tienda & Long; Tienda & Niu, 2006; Harris & Tienda, 2012). Researchers contend that if TTP eligible
students do not receive targeted aid and intervention, they are less likely to
apply to the expensive public flagship universities. In fact, a 2012 study by
Horn and Flores has shown that targeted aid significantly and positively
impacts TTP student enrollment decisions toward the public flagship
institutions.
The Immediate Impact on The University of Texas
at Austin
As has been established, H.B. 588 has impacted
the University of Texas at Austin to a much greater degree than any other
university in Texas. In 1998, the first year of eligibility for admissions
under the law, automatic admissions made up 41% of UT’s incoming freshmen
class. By 2010, the year prior to S.B. 175 taking effect, the number of
automatic admits enrolled was over 83%. If this pattern were to continue,
automatic admissions would dictate 100% of UT’s incoming freshmen class in the
near future. The effects of which would be many.
If
100% of UT’s freshmen class admissions were comprised of TTP eligible students,
according to the literature, it would hurt efforts to increase minority
enrollment, close admissions for out-of-state and foreign student, and require
the university to accommodate a persistent and ever increasing number of
students each year (Tienda & Sullivan, 2009). The University of Texas would
lose control of its enrollment numbers, and it is not out of the realm of
possibility that one of the largest universities in the world could see an
enrollment of over 60,000 students in the near future (Martinez & Martinez,
2004). The University does not have the
capacity to meet the population demand.
Notes on moving forward….
In a portentous report, released
just two years after the implementation of TTP, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights released a report that sums up the majority of researcher attitudes
toward the continued implementation of the Texas Top Ten Percent Law:
It
is doubtful that the Texas Plan will be able to achieve enrollment figures in undergraduate and graduate school
similar to pre-Hopwood numbers. But, at least,
the Ten Percent Plan makes it possible for some students to attend UT- Austin who after Hopwood might not have
been included. (U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, Washington D.C., 2000).
Though many find the basis for the
law to be an untenable compromise, as it leaves persistent issues of high
school minority segregation untouched, and actively relies upon it, ultimately,
it has increased minority representation better than no policy at all. Below,
researcher Campbell relates her uncomfortable compromise with the law.
[I]t is clear that a plan that
relies on the persistence of racial segregation is counterintuitive to stated goals of promoting racial diversity both
on campus and in our society…Providing
more socioeconomically challenged minorities with the opportunity to receive a college education, a proven factor in
achieving a higher socioeconomic
status, could work to end affirmative action by providing minorities not just with an opportunity to go
to college, but with an opportunity to participate
fully in an American society that has historically excluded people’s full participation in business and politics
based on money. By increasing the potential
of minorities to earn, the potential voice and representation of minorities could be increased as well. (Campbell, 2004)
And,
Horn & Flores:
[T]hese findings suggest both that
the Top Ten Percent Plan has not proven to be a
successful stand-alone race-neutral alternative in the creation of diverse
student bodies from which the
benefits of that diversity can be reaped. (2012)
References
Alfonso, M. & Calcagno, J.C. (2007).
Minority enrollment at public universities of
diverse
selectivity levels under different admission regimes: The case of
Texas. Inter-American Development Bank Working
Paper #617.
Andrews, R.J., Ranchhod, V., & Sathy, V.
(2010). Estimating the responsiveness of
college
applications to the likelihood of acceptance and financial assistance:
Evidence
from Texas. Economics of Education Review,
29(1), 104-115.
Boyd,
D., Lankford, H., Loeb, L., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short
careers of
high-achieving teachers in schools
with low-performing students
The
American Economic Review, 95(2).
Campbell, M. (2004). Texas ten percent plan: A
closer look; few if any
minorities
in many classes. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 14,
15-15.
Crump, G.B., Duffy, M.,
Farrell, J.B., Giordano, V.A. & Paneque, O.M. (2008).
No child left behind: values and research issues in
high-stakes assessments.
Counseling and
Values, 53(1), 53.
Dickson, L.M. (2006).
Does ending affirmative action in college admissions lower
the percentage of minority students applying to college?.
Economics of
Education Review, 25(1), 109-119.
Dietz, L., Hamilton, C.,
Heilig, J. V., Reddick, R. J., & Rodriguez, C. (2011).
Actuating equity: historical and contemporary analyses of African
American access to selective higher education from Sweatt to the
top 10 percent law. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 17.
Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA267429080&v=2.1&u=txshracd2598&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Hamilton, C. (in
progress). Does Race Matter?: Black Student Access to Texas Public
Institutions of
Higher Education in the Context of Automatic Admission
Laws and
Race-Based Admissions Policies. (Doctoral
Dissertation).
Holly, D. & Spencer,
D. (1999). The Texas ten percent plan. Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties Law Review, 34, 245-251.
Horn, C., & Flores,
S.M. (2012). When policy opportunity is not enough: College
access and enrollment patterns among Texas percent plan
eligible students.
Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy
for Children at Risk.
3:2.
Jenkins, D. (2013).
Texas would benefit by improving its community college to
bachelor’s transfer system: policy brief. Community College Research Center,
Columbia University, NY.
Long, M.C., &
Tienda, M. (2008). Winners and losers: changes in Texas university
admissions post-“Hopwood.” Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis,
30(3), 255-280.
Long, M.C., Saenz, V.,
& Tienda, M. (2010). Policy transparency and college
enrollment: did the Texas top ten percent law broaden access
to the
public flagships? The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political
and Social
Science. 627: 82.
Martinez, T.P., &
Martinez, A.P. (2004). Reality Check Texas Top Ten Percent Plan:
Princeton Researcher Looks at UT and Texas A&M. Hispanic Outlook in
Higher Education, 14(15).
Niu, S., & Tienda,
M. (2010a). The impact of the Texas top 10 percent law on college
enrollment: A regression discontinuity approach. Journal of Policy Analysis
And Management, 29(1), 84-110.
Niu,
S.X., & Tienda, M. (2010b). Minority student academic performance under the
uniform admission law: Evidence from
the University of Texas at Austin.
Educational
Evaluation And Policy Analysis, 32(1),
44-69.
Owens,
J. (2010). Foreign students, immigrants, domestic minorities and admissions to
Texas’ selective flagship
universities before and after the ban on affirmative
Action. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(4),
486-510.
Powers,
W.P. Jr. (2012). Report to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the
Speaker of the House of
Representatives on the implementation of SB 175,
81st Legislature for the
period ending Fall 2012.
Seanz,
V. (2007). Democratization of access: how the top ten percent law has affected
the geographic and socioeconomic
diversity of Texas high school feeders to UT-
Austin. Presented at the Civil Rights Research Conference,
Austin, TX, October.
Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board, (2012). Changes in demographic
characteristics of Texas high school
graduates 2003-2009: key findings
Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board (2012). Texas high school fraduates-
college enrollment trends:
2003-2009.
Tienda,
M., & Niu, S.X. (2006). Flagships, feeders and the Texas top 10% plan. Journal
of
Higher Education, 77,
712-739.
Tienda,
M., & Sullivan, T. A. (2009). The promise and peril of the Texas uniform
admission law. In M. Hall, M.
Krislov, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), The next
twenty five years? Affirmative
action and higher education in the United States
and South Africa. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
The U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, W.C. (2000). Toward an understanding of
percentage plans in higher
education: Are they effective substitutes for
The
University of Texas at Austin (2010). Class of first-time freshmen not a white
majority this fall semester at the
University of Texas at Austin.
No comments:
Post a Comment