Equity Impact & Equity Intentionality at Community Colleges

(A. Solano)

It’s critical that educators understand the difference between “equity impact” and “equity intentionality” and why community colleges and broad access institutions need both approaches. Successful institutional equity initiatives are grounded in clarity—relentless clarity—and quality implementation.

Consider the discourse surrounding a universal approach to student success. On one side of the divide, voices decry that working on an ‘all-students’ approach directly undermines racial equity. They posit, regardless of quality of implementation, that such a broad brush fails all students of color at open access institutions. Yet the data doesn’t support this claim. A universal approach at federally designated minority-serving institutions to improve practices along the educational continuum ultimately results in equity impact. I’ll explain how in a moment.

The other camp supports a universal, race agnostic approach, that focuses institutional resources to reach the greatest number of students. They argue with equal passion that well-intentioned, specialized programs impact too few students of color. What about the students of color who for whatever reason are unable to participate in specialized programs? Some believe the all-students approach to improve student success is the only approach. Yet, like their counterparts, the data doesn’t support their claim either. Campus-wide equity work and outcomes is largely compromised because of the lack of combined equity intentionality and equity impact approaches working hand-in-hand.

Let’s unpack equity impact first. An all-students approach such as developmental education reform—a corner stone of Guided Pathways—provides a good starting point as remediation has had a significant adverse impact on students of color achieving their academic goals. The evidence is clear.[1] When Guided Pathways is implemented well, there are more students, including students of color, completing transfer-level English and math and graduating or transferring with less wasted excessive units than ever before (i.e., for as long institutions have dumped students into remediation). I've yet to work with a campus that hasn't seen tremendous gains in English and math completion rates. (See the Citrus College story as an example).

Some prominent racial equity scholars, who continue to have influence on many college practitioners, never said a word or did anything about students of color languishing in expensive developmental education coursework and programs that provide zero progress toward degree and certificate completion. Now they can’t bring themselves to admit that student-centered frameworks like Guided Pathways—when implemented well—are benefitting students of color. Instead, these pundits have conducted unproductive webinars that have misinformed participants and caused unnecessary strife and confusion among college stakeholders. One such webinar stated that a race neutral approach such as Guided Pathways is a “deficit mindedness frame that focuses on what racially minoritized student lack.”

That claim is blatantly false, and unfortunately this misinformation has caused bullying and sabotage for many colleges’ Guided Pathway improvement initiatives. I would know. I was contacted by colleges, many from educators of color, to help them pick up the pieces after the webinar. Guided Pathways doesn’t focus on what racially minoritized students lack. It focuses on what institutions lack to better serve their students, who are primarily minoritzed populations at community colleges. I was called in for damage control again upon the release of an unproductive report on Guided Pathways that was riddled with assumptions about educators’ racial equity discourse at their campuses based on a word count analysis of college compliance documents.

Shifting to equity intentionality. Although there are more students of color completing college-level and transfer-level English and math than ever before, equity achievement gaps persist at many colleges. It’s worth noting that some academic programs have closed racial achievement gaps with an all-students approach, but as I have argued (and been vilified by a handful of people for saying), closing equity gaps is not enough. Closing equity gaps is a critical first step, but should we be content as educators when equity gaps are ameliorated and now all students experience a 30% success rate? Great that we raised success to 30% for all students, but that’s it? Mission accomplished? What about the 70% that remain?

Unfortunately, equity gaps persist at most campuses with an all-students equity impact approach. This is why equity intentionality is critical. We should celebrate that more students of color are completing English and math than ever before, but what are the specific practices that we can embrace that ultimately close achievement gaps in each academic program of study? The specific equity intentionality approach will obviously vary by program and by campus.

For example, the way colleges approach this work in politically ruby red areas is often different from how it’s approached in politically blue areas. There are many other factors to take into consideration, but at the end of the day, it takes leadership and political courage to ensure equity intentionality is thoughtfully planned and implemented. A good example is how culturally responsive teaching and learning is introduced to faculty, along with the necessary ongoing support beyond a drive-by workshop. It’s worth noting that external professional development providers who resort to theory-laden language while effectively yelling at faculty for their white supremacy and privilege doesn’t move these faculty to implement with equity intentionality. I’m not arguing that white supremacy and privilege doesn’t exist—it’s all too real—but should the target audience at community colleges and broad access institutions be called out or called in?

As one dismayed college educator shared with me, “We paid $95K for three workshops and six hours of technical assistance to have faculty we needed the most to change instead entrench themselves even deeper with their antiquated practices.” Effective professional development provides faculty with the critical context, tools, and resources to better serve students of color. External professional development providers scolding college instructors about systemic equity issues while beating the drum about being “unapologetic” is completely ineffective at advancing racial equity. It’s fine to be unapologetic—I encourage it—but realizing racial equity requires effective pedagogy to help change faculty attitudes and behaviors. Again, should the target audience be called out or called in? The approach matters.

For the sake of students of color, let’s stop with the rivalry nonsense. I’m in my 15th year as a full-time embedded coach having served 50+ institutions, over 90% of them community colleges to implement both approaches. I know that the true enemy in the critical work to improve student success and equity is often misunderstandings and egotistical, self-centered behaviors. We need both equity impact and equity intentionality approaches. But as I mentioned above, successful outcomes are dependent upon clarity and quality implementation. Quality implementation of an equity impact approach such as Guided Pathways is contingent on it not being actively sabotaged by equity intentionality forces. Likewise, quality implementation of equity intentionality approaches cannot work effectively when universal approach proponents actively work to undermine it. Let’s team up and implement both approaches well. As I’ve often said, institutions achieve student success when college educators help each other succeed.

***

[1] Bickerstaff, S., Beal, K., Raufman, J., Lewy, E. B., & Slaughter, A. (2022, October). Five principles for reforming developmental education: A review of the evidence. Community College Research Center.