USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00270
usfldc handle - e11.270
System ID:
SFS0024511:00270


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00270
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 22 (April 25, 2002).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c April 25, 2002
505
Affirmative action in higher education : an analysis of practices and policies / Alfred R. Cade, Jr.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.270



PAGE 1

1 of 26 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 22April 25, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .Affirmative Action in Higher Education: An Analysis of Practices and Policies Alfred R. Cade Jr. Missouri Southern State CollegeCitation: Cade, A. R. (2002, April 25). Affirmative action in higher education: An analysis of practices and policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (22). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n22.html.AbstractThis study analyzed the variations of policies and practices of university personnel in their use of affirmative action progra ms for African American students. In this study, the policy topic is affirmative action and the practices used in admissions, financial aid and special support services for African-American students. Surveys wer e mailed to 231 subjects representing thirty-two Missouri colleges and universities. Most of the survey respondents were male, white, and nea rly two-thirds were above the age of forty. Ethnic minorities were unde represented among the professionals. Seventy-two percent of responden ts were white, 23% were African American, and 5% were Hispanic. The re sults of this study suggest a positive picture of student affirmative a ction practices and policies used by Missouri personnel. Differences am ong professionals

PAGE 2

2 of 26were at a minimum. The overall mean score for suppo rt in diversifying Missouri institutions was fairly high, and this may reflect diversity initiatives taken by the Missouri Coordinating Boar d for Higher Education in the late 1980s, and early 1990s. Data suggested that Missouri personnel are aware of the judicial scruti ny by the courts in administering student affirmative action. Most Miss ouri institutions use a single process for assessing all applicants for a dmission, without reliance on a quota system. The recent Hopwood deci sion showed little impact on the decisions regarding professionals' us e of student affirmative action at Missouri institutions. Althou gh public attitudes toward student affirmative action may play a role i n establishing policies and practices, Missouri personnel are very similar in their perceptions regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, and instituti onal office or position. IntroductionThe purpose of analyzing race-based affirmative act ion practices used by higher education personnel was based on concurrent court r ulings and the political climate. California, Washington state, and Florida ceased th e use of affirmative action practices in higher education. In the court decision, Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996), the court rendered their decision that ended race-based affir mative action practices historically used by colleges and universities in the Fifth Dist rict. Some speculate that these actions precipitated reactions by institutions of higher ed ucation in their approach to practices and policies concerning affirmative action.According to Cross and Slater (1997), analyzing the use of affirmative action practices and policies regarding minority access to higher ed ucation is important for the future of our country. Both authors' calculations suggested t hat if standardized tests become the single norm in admission decisions, African-America n enrollment at some institutions will drop by at least one half and in some cases as much as 80 percent. Former higher education administrators Bok and Bowe n (1998), concluded in their longitudinal study that race-neutral standards woul d produce troubling results in the proportion of African American students in higher e ducation. Statistics at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Law indicated a decre ase in the number of applications from African-American students following the Fifth Circuit Court's decision in Hopwood (Henry, 1998, Cross & Slater, 1997, Chenowe th, 1997). In the University of California System following th e passage of Proposition 209 (the California Civil Rights Initiative), African-Americ an applications and admission declined significantly (Jones, 1998). In the spring of 1998, the U. S. House of Representatives voted 249 to 171 to reject an amend ment, which if passed could have barred federal support for public colleges and univ ersities that granted preferential treatment in admissions based on an applicant's rac e, gender and ethnicity (Burd, 1998). Consequently, universities are evaluating their aff irmative action policies and practices used in student admission and retention. For these institutions, lawsuits and political ramifications forced some to defend and to abandon the use of race in their policies (Kurlaender & Orfield, 1999). Are colleges and univ ersities altering their practices and policies in using race as a criterion in admissions financial aid, and special support

PAGE 3

3 of 26services? Could this disparity widen if colleges an d universities altered their practices and policies in the use of affirmative action? Various public opinion surveys consistently found t hat most Americans valued and embraced diversity whether in the workplace, or uni versity setting. Americans are more inclined to modify than dissolve existing race-base d policies (Bolden, Goldberg, & Parker, 1999). Universities inevitably understood t hat having a diverse student body was essential for student growth. This cultural and eth nic educational environment has naturally effected the outcomes of learners in a un iversity setting. In regards to race conscience efforts, decision makers in higher educa tion are left pondering over decisions on what ways to promote inclusion and diversity.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to analyze the variat ions of policies and practices of selected Missouri college and university personnel in their use of affirmative action programs for African American students. In this stu dy, the policy topic is affirmative action and the practices used in admission, financi al aid, and special support services for African-American students. At the time of this stud y the courts have not mandated Missouri institutions to alter their admissions and financial aid policies in affirmative action procedures.This study analyzed the present use of affirmative action policies and practices being administered for student admission, financial aid, and special support services by selected colleges and university personnel in Misso uri. Affirmative action policies are currently being challenged at a vast number of coll eges and universities across the nation. Institutions of higher education are concer ned with the strict scrutiny of the courts in reference to practiced affirmative action policies (Kurlaender & Orfield, 1999). Over the past few years, numerous books, articles a nd scholarly journals addressed the issue of affirmative action, mainly concerning coll ege admissions and financial aid. Nearly all these reports dealt with the legal, ethi cal, and political issues surrounding affirmative action and preferential admissions for students of color (Bolden, Goldberg, & Parker, 1999). Very few of the studies attempted to forecast how the attacks on affirmative action influenced the policies and prac tices of those in academia (Bowen & Bok, 1998).In essence, the present study was significant given the fact that institutions should consider the condition for African Americans studen ts in higher education if we began to eliminate institutional affirmative action policies and procedures. In the late 1980s, the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education (C BHE) developed strategies to increase minority recruitment and retention in Miss ouri institutions of higher education. Their report entitled “Challenges and Opportunities : Minorities in Higher Education” urged Missouri institutions to develop policies and practices to address the issue of low minority participation (Missouri CBHE Review, 1988) In general, African American students are more likely than white students to com e from educational backgrounds that will not adequately prepare them for the challenges of post secondary education (Bowen & Bok, 1998). The objective of the (CBHE) report wa s to have an impact on the goal of diversifying Missouri society, particularly in the middle and upper reaches of the socioeconomic status system.

PAGE 4

4 of 26The CBHE report, and other prominent educational pu blications, need to analyze affirmative action policies within institutions of higher education. Have institutions developed policies and practices to address the iss ue of minority, and in particular, African American student participation? If so, to w hat degree are personnel using affirmative action practices? Do significant differ ences exist regarding affirmative action practices used by higher education personnel? These were questions the researcher asked investigated throughout this study.HypothesesIn this study, null hypotheses were developed based on the theoretical support that existed in the literature: Hypothesis one: There are no significant difference s regarding participants perception toward affirmative action practices amon g Missouri personnel based upon their institutional affiliation (public or pri vate). Hypothesis two: There are no significant difference s regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between participants g rouped by ethnicity. Hypothesis three: There are no significant differen ces regarding perceptions toward affirmative action practices between partici pants grouped by gender. Hypothesis four: There are no significant differenc es regarding participants perceptions toward affirmative action practices bet ween Missouri institutions based on admission classification. Hypothesis five: There are no significant differenc es regarding participants perceptions toward affirmative action practices bet ween Missouri institutions based on size of institution. Hypothesis six: There are no significant difference s regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between participants b ased on number of years in position at institution. Hypothesis seven: There are no significant differen ces regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between partici pants based upon position within the institution. Hypothesis eight: There are no significant differen ces regarding perception toward affirmative action practices currently used by Miss ouri personnel when institutions are grouped according to the percentag e of African-American student enrollment. MethodThis study followed a quantitative descriptive appr oach to investigate the level of variability in affirmative action practices by Miss ouri institutions. According to Gay and Airasian (2000), quantitative descriptive studies a re conducted to acquire knowledge about preferences, practices, concerns, or interest s of a specific group. A quantitative descriptive survey was used to collect data on both practices and policies used by the selected population. Data were coded and analyzed t o yield the variance that existed among Missouri college and university personnel in their practices of student affirmative action. Following the collection of data the major statistical analysis used was an analysis of variance. The mean scores for the subje cts were analyzed to measure the degree of difference that existed among group chara cteristics.

PAGE 5

5 of 26 Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the SampleVariableNumber%SexMale7265Female4845Age25 3075.930 352117.740 451411.845 5097.650+4638.9Ethnicity/RaceCaucasian8572.1African American27Hispanic65.1DepartmentCEO3528.9Student Support3428.0Admissions2923.9Financial Aid2319.1PositionDirector/Assistant Director7864.5President/Chancellor1310.7Vice President/Vice Provost24.8Number of Years in PositionLess than Five4335.5Five to Ten3932.2Ten or more3932.2 Demographic information regarding the institutional characteristics are presented in Table 2. Sixty-five, or 54% of respondents listed t heir institution as public, with 46%

PAGE 6

6 of 26 responding as representing private institutions. Ov er half, 56% responded as being moderately selective institutions, 25% as selective and 19% as having open admission status. As for the institutional size, 47% responde d as having under 5,000 students, 26% represented institutions between 5,000 to 10,000 st udents, and 25% of respondents represented a student body of over 10,000. Forty-se ven percent stated having an African-American student population under 5%, thirt y-eight percent responded as having between 5% to 10%, ten percent answered with having between 10% to 15%, and under eight percent responded having an African-Ame rican student body above 15%. Specific frequencies for characteristics of the ins titutions are shown in Table 2.Table 2 Characteristics of the InstitutionsVariableNumberPercentageInstitutionPublic6553.7Private5646.3Admission StatusOpen2319.5Moderate Selective6655.9Selective2924.5Size of Institution< 5,0005648.35,000 to 10,0002925.0> 10,0003126.7Percent ofAfrican American Students< 55344.55 104537.810 151210.1> 1597.6 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The percentages are based on the number of responses pr ovided; in some cases this was less than 121.The dependent variables in this study were the perc eived levels of affirmative action policies and practices used by the subjects in six areas of practices and policies. This was obtained from subject's responses to the survey questions. Based on the construction

PAGE 7

7 of 26 of the survey instruments scale, a high mean (3.0 > ) indicated a greater perceived level of use in applying student affirmative action pract ices and policies. A low mean (< 3.0) represents a perceived lower level of use in studen t affirmative action practices and policies. The mean for all questions combined, tota l M = 3.21. The sample's responses based on individual questions are represented in Ta ble 3.Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Individual QuestionsVariableMeanSDVar.Q14.39.93.868Q23.471.432.058Q33.681.281.628Q42.691.411.978Q52.941.381.917Q62.521.562.437Q72.871.522.322Q83.151.432.056Q93.681.341.804Q102.941.853.412Q113.371.331.764Q123.601.171.378Q133.681.401.969Q142.641.572.471Q152.131.311.714Q162.701.442.069Q173.031.422.008Q183.161.321.755Q193.771.422.006Q203.891.361.841Q214.471.021.038Q222.261.221.488 The survey questions were grouped into six areas of student affirmative action practices and policies. The six areas included a strict scrut iny analysis, race-targeted financial aid analysis, race-neutral alternatives, special suppor t services, admission program analysis, and affirmative action program tailoring. This info rmation was obtained from subject's

PAGE 8

8 of 26 responses to survey questions listed in Table 3. Th e groupings according to question number are as follows: strict scrutiny analysis Q 1, Q2, and Q3; race-targeted financial aid Q4, Q5, Q6; race-neutral alternatives Q7, Q 8, Q9; special support services Q10, Q11, Q12; admission program analysis Q13, Q14, Q1 5; and affirmative action program tailoring Q16 thru Q22. The perceived levels of s tudent affirmative action practices and policies are listed respectively in Table 4.Table 4 Descriptives from the Six Survey AreasVariable GroupingMeanSDNStrict Scrutiny AnalysisQ14.39.93119Q23.471.43115Q33.681.28116Total3.21.7266120Race Targeted FinancialAid AnalysisQ42.691.41111Q52.941.38114Q62.521.56120Total2.681.174120Race NeutralAlternatives AnalysisQ72.871.52116Q83.151.43117Q93.681.34117Total3.26.990411Special Support ServicesAnalysisQ102.941.85119Q113.371.33120Q123.601.17119Total3.311.18120Admissions ProgramAnalysis

PAGE 9

9 of 26 Q133.681.40120Q142.641.57118Q152.131.31116Total2.861.17120Affirmative Action ProgramTailoring AnalysisQ162.701.44113Q173.031.42116Q183.161.32111Q193.771.42115Q203.891.36117Q214.471.02118Q222.261.22114Total3.36.8240120 Statistics for Scale NMeanSD Var. 121 3.21 .528.7266 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The percentages are based on the number of responses pr ovided; in some cases this was less than 121.Responses to Survey as Related to Subject GroupingsTable 5 presents the mean and standard deviation of individual's responses and grouped according to gender. The mean difference between th e two groups is minimal.Table 5 Descriptives based on GenderGenderMeanStd. Dev.CasesMale3.21.711572Female3.23.737248 Table 6 presents the mean and standard deviation of individual's responses and grouped according to age.Table 6

PAGE 10

10 of 26 Descriptives based on AgeAgeMeanStd. DevCases25 303.51.9292730 353.19.68452135 403.19.54391440 453.37.50742145 503.30.38849> 503.02.854146 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The percentages are based on the number of responses pr ovided; in some cases this was less than 121.The largest difference of means between groups base d on age were between the youngest professional age group (25 30), and the above 50 age grouping for professionals. Table 7 represents the mean and stan dard deviation of individual's responses, and subsequently grouped according to et hnicity/race.Table 7 Descriptives based on Ethnicity/RaceEthnicity/RaceCasesMeanStd. Dev.Caucasian853.14.6942African American273.28.7660Hispanic63.28.7019 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The percentages are based on the number of responses pr ovided; in some cases this was less than 121.Professionals grouped according to their ethnicity showed only a minimal mean variance. The mean average between African American and Hispanic professionals were identical. Furthermore, the mean average between th e previously observed groups when compared to white professionals was minimal. Table 8 presents the mean and standard deviation of individual's responses grouped based o n their respective department within the institution.Table 8 Descriptives based on DepartmentDepartmentNMeanStd. Dev.

PAGE 11

11 of 26 CEO353.17.7550Student Support343.08.8230Admissions293.21.5885Financial Aid233.46.6703 Note: CEO represents those professionals working in central administration. Institutional Financial Aid Professionals scored th e highest mean of the four group represented. Overall there was only a modest varian ce between group mean scores based on the professionals institutional department. Tabl e 9 presents the mean and standard deviation of individual's responses and grouped acc ording to their respective position within the institution.Table 9 Descriptives based on PositionPositionNMeanSDPresident/Provost132.93.7888Vice President/Vice Provost303.20.8138Director/Assistant Director783.21.6788 The difference in mean scores of the three groups w as relatively small. Two of the groups represented were separated by a score of .01 Presidents and Provost had the lowest group mean ( M = 2.93). Overall there was only a small variance b etween the three groups.Table 10 presents the mean and standard deviation o f individual's responses and grouped based on the number of years in current position.Table 10 Descriptives based on Number of Years in Current Po sitionNo. of YearsNMeanSD< than 5433.39.6429Five to Ten393.28.6152Ten >392.94.8460 The professionals were closely distributed when gro uped according to their number of years at current position. Professionals with more than ten years in current position recorded the lowest mean score ( M = 2.94). Consequently, professionals with the leas t number of years in current position recorded the hi ghest mean score ( M = 3.39). Data Analysis

PAGE 12

12 of 26 The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SP SS) was used to compute the analysis. Following the collection of data the majo r statistical analysis used was an analysis of variance (One-Way ANOVA). Additionally, the researcher in this study analyzed selected hypothesis using a t-test. Hypoth esis 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were tested using the One-Way ANOVA. The reason for this was to test multiple groups (variables) for comparison. Hypothesis 1 and 3 were tested usin g the t-test. Hypothesis 1 and 3 compared two distinct groups. The mean scores for t he selected samples were compared to measure the degree of variance between groups. T he .05 level of significance was used for all statistical analysis. This section is organized into eight categories based on the hypotheses tested in this study.Analysis Between Professionals within Public and Pr ivate Missouri Institutions There was a significant difference between the type of institution, public or private at the .05 level, t (119) = 4.26, p < .001. Based on the respondents perceived level o f use in student affirmative action practices and policies r espondents representing private institutions perceived level of student affirmative action was less ( M = 2.92, SD = .678) than respondents representing public institutions ( M = 3.45, SD = .681). (See Table 11) Applying the t-test for independent samples resulte d in rejecting the null hypothesis for professionals grouped according to institution (pub lic or private). This finding suggested that the independent variable had an effect on the dependent variable. Institutional personnel do differ significantly in their perceive d level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on the institut ion being public or private.Table 11 t-test for Independent SamplesEqual variances assumeddft p 1194.262< .001 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. To follow up on the differences between the groups, an analysis of variance between the six areas of student affirmative action practices a nd type of institution was performed. The significant differences between groups fell int o three categories, special support services, admission program analysis, and affirmati ve action program tailoring. (See Table 12).Analysis revealed that the significant differences occurred between groups in the following areas; special support services, admissio n program analysis, and affirmative action program tailoring. This difference was signi ficant at the p < .05 level.Table 12 ANOVA Summary TableVariabledfbgdfwgFp

PAGE 13

13 of 26 Strict Scrutiny11183.32.071Race Targeted Financial Aid11182.81.096Race Neutral1117.690.408Special Support Services11188.63.004Admissions Program11189.19.003Narrow Tailoring111820.29<.001 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Analysis Between Professionals Grouped by EthnicityThe three groups analyzed consisted of Caucasian, A frican American, and Hispanic. After determining that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, a One-way ANOVA was calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in the level of use in student affirmative action prac tices and policies based on ethnicity. There was no significant difference between the sub jects grouped according to ethnicity at the .05 level, F (2, 115) = .455, p = .05. (See Table 13) Applying the analysis of variance resulted in accep ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to ethnicity. This f inding suggested that institutional personnel grouped according to ethnicity do not dif fer significantly in their perceived level of use in student affirmative action practice s and policies.Table 13 ANOVA Summary TableVariabledfbgdfwgFp Ethnicity2115.455.636 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Analysis Between Participants Based on GenderTo determine if a significant difference existed be tween professionals grouped according to gender, a t-test was conducted. As illustrated i n Table 14, there was no significant difference between the groups based on gender at th e .05 level, t (116) = -.054, p = .957. Based on the respondents perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies, professionals grouped according to ge nder perceived level of student affirmative action was not significant. For male pr ofessionals ( M = 3.2319, SD = .7272), and for female professionals ( M = 3.239, SD = .7372). Applying the t-test for independent samples resulte d in accepting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to gender. This find ing suggested that institutional personnel grouped according to gender do not differ significantly in their perceived level in the use of student affirmative action practices and policies.Table 14

PAGE 14

14 of 26 t-test for Independent SamplesVariabletdf p Gender -.054 116.957 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Analysis Between Professionals Grouped by Instituti onal Admission Criteria The three groups analyzed represented institutions having open admission status, being moderately selective, and selective in criteria for admission. After determining that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, a One-way ANOVA was calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in the level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on admission status. There was no significant difference between the subjects grouped according to institutional admissions requirements at the .05 level, F (2, 115) = 2.42, p = .093. (See Table 15) Applying the analysis of variance resulted in accep ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to the admission sta tus of their institution. This finding suggested that institutional personnel do not diffe r significantly in their perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on the institutional admission status.Table 15 ANOVA Summary TableVariabledfbgdfwgFp Admission Status21152.42.093 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Analysis Between Professionals Grouped by Size of I nstitution The three groups analyzed represented institutions having a student body enrollment of under 5,000, between 5,000 to 10,000, and above 10, 000. After determining that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, a On e-way ANOVA was calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in the perceived level of use of student affirmative action practices and policies based on the institutional student body enrollment. There was a significant difference betw een the professionals grouped according to institutional size at the .05 level, F (2, 113) = 13.46, p < .001. (See Table 16)Table 16 ANOVA Summary Table

PAGE 15

15 of 26 VariableSSdfMS p Institutional SizeBetween Groups11.86 25.933<.00 1 Within Groups49.81113.441Total61.68115 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Applying the analysis of variance resulted in rejec ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to the size of their respective institution. This finding suggest that institutional personnel do differ sign ificantly in their perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and policie s based on the institutional size. Since the computed F value was significant, Tukey's HSD post hoc test was conducted to determine which groups significantly differed in their perceptions toward the use of student affirmative action policies and practices. Results are listed in Table 17.Table 17 Dependent Variable: Total; Tukey HSDVariable (I) Size Variable(J) Size Mean Diff. (I) (J) Std Error p < 5,0005,000 10,000.4081.1519<.022 10,000+.7575.1486<.001 5,000 to< 5,000.4081.1519<.02210,00010,000+.3494.1715.10810,000+< 5,000.7575.1486.001 5,000 to 10,000.3494.1715<.108 The mean difference is significant p < .05 level. Post hoc analysis using Tukey's HSD test was comput ed at the .05 level. Analysis revealed that the less than 5,000 institutional gro up differed significantly ( M = 2.89, SD = .6377) from the other two groups. The 5,000 to 10 ,000 group ( M = 3.29, SD = .7986), and the 10,000+ group ( M = 3.64, SD = .5653), revealed no significant difference at th e .05 level. Institutional size does have an effect o n personnel's perception of levels in the use of student affirmative action practices and pol icies. Analysis Between Professionals Grouped by the Numbe r of Years in Position The three groups analyzed represented professionals years of service in current position at their respective institutions. The professionals were grouped accordingly; less than five years of service, five to ten years of service and, above ten years of service. After determining that the data met the assumption of hom ogeneity of variance, a One-way ANOVA was calculated to determine if there was a si gnificant difference in the perceived level of use in student affirmative actio n practices and policies based on

PAGE 16

16 of 26 professional years in position. There was a signifi cant difference between the professionals grouped according to years in positio n at the .05 level, F (2, 118) = 4.42, p = .014. (See Table 18)Table 18 ANOVA Summary TableVariableSSdf MSFYears in PositionBetween Groups4.41722.209.014 Within Groups58.939118.499Total61.68120120 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Applying the analysis of variance resulted in rejec ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to the number of yea rs in position. This finding suggested that institutional personnel do differ si gnificantly in their perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and pol icies based on the institutional size. Since the computed F value was significant, Tukey's HSD post hoc test was conducted to determine which groups significantly differed in their perceptions toward the use of student affirmative action policies and practices. Results are listed in Table 19.Table 19 Dependent Variable: Total; Tukey HSDVariable (I) Size Variable(J) Size Mean Diff. (I) (J) Std Error p < fivefive to ten.114.1563.756 > ten.4499.1563<.013 five to ten< five-.1114.1563.756 ten>.3385.1600.091 The mean difference is significant p < .05 level. Post hoc analysis using Tukey's HSD test was comput ed at the .05 level. Analysis revealed that professional with less than five year s differed significantly ( M = 3.39, SD = .6429) from the professionals with more than ten ye ars in their current position ( M = 2.94, SD = .8460). The professionals with five to ten years ( M = 3.28, SD = .2.94), and the professionals with more than ten years in their current position ( M = 2.94, SD = .8460), revealed no significant difference at the 05 level. Furthermore, the professionals with less than five years revealed no significant d ifference when compared to the professionals with five to ten years of experience in their respective positions. The number of years in position does have an effect on personnel's perception of levels in the use of student affirmative action practices and pol icies.

PAGE 17

17 of 26 Analysis Between Professionals Grouped by Instituti onal Position The three groups analyzed represented institutional presidents/chancellors, vice presidents/associate chancellors, and departmental directors. After determining that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, a One-way ANOVA was calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in the level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on institutional position. There was no significant difference between the subjects grouped according to institutional position at the .05 level, F (2, 118) = 1.14, p = .323. (See Table 20)Table 20 ANOVA Summary TableVariabledfbgdfwgFp Position21181.141.323 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Applying the analysis of variance resulted in accep ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to their position wi thin the institution. This finding suggested that institutional personnel do not diffe r significantly in their perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on the institutional admission status.The researcher for this study also analyzed profess ionals perceived levels of the use in student affirmative action based on their respectiv e departments. The four groups analyzed represented the department of admissions, financial aid, student support services, and central administration. After determi ning that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, a One-way ANOVA was cal culated to determine if there was a significant difference in the perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on professionals group ed by department. There was no significant difference between the subjects grouped according to institutional position at the .05 level, F (3, 117) = 1.29, p = .278. (See Table 21)Table 21 ANOVA Summary TableVariabledfbgdfwgFp Department31171.298.278 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on the number of responses provided; in some cases this was less than 121. Applying the analysis of variance resulted in accep ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to their position wi thin the institution. This finding suggested that institutional personnel do not diffe r significantly in their perceived level

PAGE 18

18 of 26 of use in student affirmative action practices and policies grouped according to institutional department.Analysis Between Professionals Grouped by Instituti onal Percent of African American StudentsThe four groups analyzed represented institutions h aving an African American student body enrollment of less than 5 percent, within 5 pe rcent to 10 percent, between 10 percent and 15 percent, and above 15 percent. After determining that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, a One-way AN OVA was calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in the perceived level of use of student affirmative action practices and policies based on the percent of African American students within the institution. There was a significant difference between the prof essionals grouped according to institutional percent of African American students at the .05 level, F (3, 115) = 13.103, p < .001. (See Table 22)Table 22 ANOVA Summary TableVariabledfbgdfwgFp % of African American Students13.10311810.02.001 Note: Due to missing data the Ns for some responses do not sum to 121. The df is based on thenumber of responses provided; in some cases this wa s less than 121. Applying the analysis of variance resulted in rejec ting the null hypothesis for participants grouped according to the percent of Af rican American students within the institution. This finding suggested that institutio nal personnel do differ significantly in their perceived level of use in student affirmative action practices and policies based on the percent of African American students.Since the computed F value was significant, Tukey's HSD post hoc test was conducted to determine which groups significantly differed in their perceptions toward the use of student affirmative action policies and practices. Results are listed in Table 23.Table 23 Dependent Variable: Total; Tukey HSDVariable I% of AfricanAmerican Students Variable J% of AfricanAmerican Students Mean Diff.(I) (J) Std Error p below 5 % 5 10 %-.4341.1338<.008 10 15 %-.5432.2110.054

PAGE 19

19 of 26 15 % above.6968.2379<.021 5 10 %below 5 %.4341.1338<.008 10 15 %-.1090.2144.95715 % above1.130.2410<.001 10 15 %below 5 %.5432.2110.054 5 10 %.1090.2144.95715 % above1.240.2910<.001 15 % abovebelow 5 %-.6968.2379<.021 5 10 %-1.130.2410<.00110 15 %-1.240.2910<.001 Post hoc analysis using Tukey's HSD test was comput ed at the .05 level. Analysis revealed that professional with an African American student population of above 15 percent differed significantly ( M = 2.35, SD = .5778) from the professionals representing the additional three groups. Furthermore, the profe ssionals with an African American student population less than 5 percent ( M = 3.04, SD = .6876) showed a significant difference when compared to the professionals with a 5 to 10 percent ( M = 3.48, SD = .6870) African American student population in their respective institutions. Professionals with an African American student popu lation between 10 15 percent ( M = 3.58, SD = .4334), and professionals representing groups wi th less than 5 percent ( M = 3.04, SD = .6876), and between 5 10 percent ( M = 3.48, SD = .6870) indicated no significant difference at the .05 level. In some ca ses the percent of African American enrollment at an institution does have an effect on personnel's perception of levels in the use of student affirmative action practices and pol icies. Of the eight null hypotheses analyzed in this study the researcher accepted the null for hypotheses two, three, four, and seven. These hypot heses accepted are as follows: Hypothesis two: There are no significant difference s regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between participants g rouped by ethnicity. The analysis of the data revealed no significant differ ences existed between participants based on their ethnicity. Hypothesis three: There are no significant differen ces regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between participants g rouped by gender. The analysis of the data revealed no significant differences exi sted between participants based on their gender. Hypothesis four: There are no significant differenc es regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between Missouri insti tutions based on admission classification. The analysis of the data revealed n o significant differences existed between Missouri institutions based on admission cl assification. The four hypotheses rejected by the researcher incl uded hypothesis one, five, six, and eight. These hypotheses rejected by the researcher are as follows: Hypothesis one: There are no significant difference s regarding perception toward

PAGE 20

20 of 26affirmative action practices among Missouri personn el based upon the institution being public or private. The analysis of the data r evealed that a significant difference existed among Missouri personnel based o n their institution being public or private.Hypothesis five: There are no significant differenc es regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between Missouri insti tutions based on size of institution. The analysis of the data revealed that a significant difference existed among Missouri institutions based on their student population (i.e., size of institution). Hypothesis six: There are no significant difference s regarding perception toward affirmative action practices between participants b ased on number of years in position at institution. The analysis of the data r evealed that a significant difference existed among Missouri personnel based o n their number of years in current position within their respective institutio n. Hypothesis eight: There are no significant differen ces regarding perception toward affirmative action practices currently used by Miss ouri personnel when institutions are grouped according to the percentag e of African American student enrollment. The analysis of the data revealed that a significant difference existed among Missouri personnel based on their percentage of African American students. ConclusionsAnalysis of the data suggested that Missouri person nel are aware of the judicial scrutiny by the courts in the administering of student affir mative action. However, according to responses personnel in Missouri institutions are no t consistent in critiquing their student affirmative action practices and policies. Overall, student affirmative action program objectives serve two purposes: (a) remedy the prese nt effects of past discrimination, and (b) to advance campus diversity.Concerning financial aid, Missouri institutions occ asionally used race/ethnicity awards to attract students of color to their respective in stitutions. Provided race/ethnicity awards are used, the application of statistical data to su pport race/ethnicity awards are used occasionally by Missouri institutions. This finding contradicts with the fact that Missouri personnel are mindful of the judicial scrutiny by t he courts in the administering of student affirmative action. Race neutral alternativ es, such as socioeconomic statuses are currently being administered in place of race/ethni city financial awards at Missouri institutions.The issue of student diversity currently is a conce rn for Missouri institutions. Designed programs for retention, separate departments such a s Minority Affairs Offices, and the identification of faculty mentors for African Ameri can students are supported by Missouri institutions. Overall, Missouri institutio ns actively target and recruit prospective African American students for the speci fic purpose of campus diversity. The data revealed little indication that Missouri insti tutions are currently administering special allotments for admission. Missouri institut ions did not suggest that separate pools, subcommittees, and separate cutoff scores we re a part of current practice and policy.

PAGE 21

21 of 26Overall, Missouri institutions have taken steps to reduce the impact of currently used affirmative action practices on students not eligib le for participation. An overwhelming majority of Missouri institutions use a single proc ess for assessing all applicants for admission, without the reliance of a quota system. The recent Hopwood decision revealed limited impact on the decisions regarding professionals use of student affirmative action at Missouri institutions.There are several authors and researchers within th e context of higher education addressing questions regarding perceptions toward s tudent affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998). The United States Department of Educati on has provided guidelines for those in higher education to assist in developing p ermissible student affirmative action policies. However, it appears that most, if not all of these policies are not from the perspective of professionals in the field. The results of this study suggest a positive pictur e of student affirmative action practices and policies used by Missouri personnel. The overal l mean score for support in diversifying Missouri institutions was relatively h igh. Perceived differences among groups were at a minimum. In analyzing the perceive d difference between public and private Missouri institutions revealed a higher ove rall mean score for public institutions. This was expected due to the fact public institutio ns must comply with federal guidelines for affirmative action as set by the Off ice of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and the statement released by U. S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley in response to the passage of Proposition 209 (United States Department of Education press release, March 1997). Furthermore, a higher mean level for public institutions may reflect diversity initiatives take n by the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education in the late 1980s, and early 1 990s. Although the majority of all survey respondents wer e male (65%), and Caucasian (72% ), this group appeared to have no perceived differe nce in their level of use in student affirmative action. Overall, their responses were s imilar to those perceived levels by African American and Hispanic professionals. Clearl y, their perceptions of student affirmative practices and policies were positive. S imilarly the groups compared closely with gender used as a variable in this study. Women (35%) respondents displayed no difference in their analyzed perceived levels of st udent affirmative action when compared with male professionals.There are three levels of criteria for universities in selecting their student body based on admission requirements. According to Cross and Slat er (1997) the authors' assessments suggested that if standardized tests become the sin gle norm in admission decisions, African-American enrollment at some institutions wi ll drop dramatically. Most of the respondents represented moderately selective instit utions (56%), with professionals representing open admission 20 percent, and selecti ve as 24 percent. Overall, their responses were similar toward perceived levels of s tudent affirmative action. Interesting the data revealed selective institutions as having a slightly higher level in the use of student affirmative action. Although the researcher did not acquire individual institutional admission requirements, this finding suggested that admission criterion does not affect professionals perceptions toward po licies and practices in student affirmative action.Levels of perceptions in student affirmative action practices and policies were higher in

PAGE 22

22 of 26institutions with an enrollment of more than 10, 00 0 students. Concerning student support services, and strict scrutiny analysis, ins titutions with more than 10, 000 students had noticeable higher levels of perceived use in student affirmative action. The researcher can only offer two assumptions for this attained higher level. In the area of strict scrutiny, the majority of lawsuits against s tudent affirmative action practices have been directed toward large state institutions ( Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Bakke 1978; Podberesky v. Kirwan 1994; Texas v. Hopwood 1996). Secondly, there may be greater state allocations (i.e., funding) available for the se institutions toward recruitment, and retention of African American and other minority gr oups. Although most of the respondents had less than five years of experience in their current position (35%), the groups were closely distributed This group also displayed a higher level of perceived use in student affirmative actio n practices and policies. Clearly, the less number of years in position appeared to have a n impact on the perceptions of this group. This was an interesting and puzzling finding since the two areas of significant difference represented the financial aid analysis, and race neutral alternatives. The researcher expected this variable to have little di fference between the groups. This relationship may have been attributed more toward a greater responsibility of professionals following their institutional practic es based on position assurance. Professionals with more seniority may feel a greate r sense of security within the institution due to longevity or tenure. This was on e variable the researcher did not account for in this study. However, seniority and t enure could have an impact on perceptions toward institutional practices and poli cies. This statement would account for the differences in these two areas of practices and policies for professionals with less than five years in their current position.For professionals position within their institution the data revealed no significant difference between groups. Directors and Assistant Directors displayed a slightly higher group level of perceptions toward student affirmati ve action practices and policies. This higher level corresponds with this group of profess ionals since they are more actively involved in the conduction of student affirmative a ction policies and practices. Accordingly, when professionals were analyzed based on their department within the institution, the data revealed no difference betwee n groups. Understandably, since other variables analyzed were similar for perceived level s, analysis presented great consistency among the four departments represented by Central A dministration, Admissions, Financial Aid, and Student Support Services. Overal l, the groups exhibited a perceived level favorable toward student affirmative action.The final variable analyzed in this study investiga ted perceived levels toward student affirmative action based on the percentage of Afric an American students. Post hoc analysis revealed that professionals with an Africa n American student population of above 15 percent differed significantly from the pr ofessionals in the other three groups. This difference may be attributed to the fact that institutional personnel with less than 15 percent are more aware of their need to increase ca mpus diversity. Therefore, these groups' levels of perceptions were greater than tho se exhibiting a higher percentage of African American students on campus. This would exp lain the higher mean level for groups with less than 15 percent African American s tudent representation. The second explanation is that those institutions with less th an 15 percent represent areas with minimal community diversity. Therefore, the need fo r student affirmative action policies and practices becomes more urgent. In some cases, t he percent of African American

PAGE 23

23 of 26enrollment at an institution does have an effect on personnel's perception of levels of use of student affirmative action practices and policie s.ReferencesAlexander, Lamar. United States Secretary of Educat ion, Press Release Statement, March 20, 1991. Washington D.C.Bolden, V. A., Goldberg, D. T., & Parker, D. D. (19 99). Affirmative action in court: The case for optimism. Journal of Equity & Excellence in Education, 32 (2), 24-30. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long term consequences of considering race in college and university admissio ns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Bunzel, J. H. (1995). The California Civil Rights I nitiative: The debate over race, equality and affirmative action. Vital Speeches of the Day, 61 (17), 530-533. Burd, S. (1998). House votes down proposal to bar r acial preferences in admissions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44 (36), A35. Cross, T., & Slater, R. (1997). Why the end of affi rmative action would exclude all but a very few Blacks from America's leading un iversities and graduate schools. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 17 8-17. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). N J: Merrill Prentice Hall. Henry, A. R. (1998). Perpetuating Plessey v. Fergus on and the dilemma of Black access to public higher education. Journal of Law and Education, 27 (1), 47-71. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 116 S.Ct. 2581 (1996). Hopwood v. Texas, 861 F. Supp. 551 (W.D. Tex. 1994) rev'd, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.), cert. Denied, 116 S.Ct. 2581 (1996).Jones, T. (1998). Life after Proposition 209. Academe, 84 (4), 22-28. Kurlaender, M., & Orfield, G. (1999). In defense of diversity: New research and evidence from the University of Michigan. Journal of Equity & Excellence in Education, 32 (2), 31-35. Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education. ( 1988). Challenges and opportunities: Minorities in Missouri higher educat ion. Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE), Jefferson City, MO.Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Tit le 41 C.F.R. Section 60-2.1 (1978). Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Tit le 41 C.F.R. Section 60-2.13

PAGE 24

24 of 26 (1978).Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994), cert denied, 115 S.Ct. 2001 (1995). Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (19 78). Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 31 1-315 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.)About the AuthorAlfred R. Cade, Jr.School of EducationMissouri Southern State CollegeJoplin, MO 64801-1595Email: cade-a@mail.mssc.eduAl Cade, Ed.D., is currently the Assistant to the D ean for the School of Education at Missouri Southern State College. He is a former pre sident for the Missouri Association for Blacks in Higher Education (MABHE). His researc h and scholarship interests include policies in K-12 and higher education. As a n Assistant Professor in the Department of Teacher Education, his teaching speci alties include multicultural education, diversity, and social policies.Copyright 2002 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov hmwkhelp@scott.net Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University

PAGE 25

25 of 26 Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton apembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State University—Stanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven scriven@aol.com Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico roberto@servidor.unam.mx Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.angulo@uca.es Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx kentr@data.net.mx Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.br

PAGE 26

26 of 26 Javier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica simon@openlink.com.br Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 10issue 22series Year mods:caption 20022002Month April4Day 2525mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-04-25