Strategic Vision for Equity 2021-2025
Scope of Equity Work
One striking observation that surfaced during conversations with campus community was that we did not share a common understanding of equity.
This made it challenging to
- discern which students groups were being reached by our equity efforts;
- help each member of the Foothill community conceptualize how they contribute to these efforts, and
- demonstrate whether our myriad equity actions had local impact within a program and/or systemic impact across many areas of the college.
The process to developing such a definition brought together college feedback, a common industry understanding of equity as described in educational code and scholarship on race and equity. An equity definition was first proposed at College Opening Day 2019, later revised to an equity scope of work by campus leadership at a January 2020 retreat, and ultimately agreed upon as a campus at College Opening Day 2020.
It states: Believing a well-educated population is essential to sustaining a democratic and just society, we commit to the work of equity, which is to dismantle oppressive systems (structural, cultural, and individual) and create a college community where success is not predictable by race.
The learnings from the culmination of the aforementioned areas are elaborated in the Process of the Plan Construction section of this document.
Why Center Race?
At Foothill, when we talk about equity, we are intentional in our choice to center race. Since its inception, the system of education in the United States was never intended to serve all demographic groups and many continue to be marginalized, including but not limited to persons of color, women, LGBTQ, veterans, disabled persons, and the economically disadvantaged. And, like most other institutions, despite our ongoing efforts over the years, Foothill continues to have demographically predictable disparities in student success.
We are mindful, though, that when we as a college disaggregate our educational outcomes data by demographic group, we see racial disparity within all groups. For example, course completion is one indicator that is used to assess students’ progress in the classroom as well as on their educational journey. In 2019-20, our college’s course completion rate was 81%, with non-low-income students’ course completion at 84% and low-income students’ course completion at 74%. Students with less financial means may have fewer resources. These results, disaggregated by ethnicity, demonstrate that across all ethnic groups, students from low-income households complete their courses at a lower rate compared to those who are not from low-income households.
FIGURE 1:
|
FOOTHILL COLLEGE 2019-20 Course Completion by Ethnicity and Low Income Status |
|
Source: FH IRP, Credit Enrollment Low-income students are those whose household income is less than $25,000. |
However, while non low-income students may have access to more resources that aid in their course success, what is dishearteningly predictable is that even within this group, students don’t experience course success at comparable rates (Figure 2). Furthermore, when course completion is replaced with other metrics like course retention, graduation or transfer, our results do not differ. By “predictable”, we are not making a claim about our students’ intelligence or ability to attain their education goal. Instead, what is predictable is our college’s completion outcomes and how they continue to reflect a persistent pattern of what we have achieved, and fall short in achieving. If we view course completion as an indicator of our college’s collective effort in helping students progress on their educational journey, which ethnic student groups do we do a better job at serving? Conversely, which student groups are we not serving as well?
FIGURE 2:
|
FOOTHILL COLLEGE Course Completion Rates of Non-Low-Income Students by Ethnicity |
|
Source: FH IRP, Credit Enrollment Non-low-income students are those whose household income is $25,000 or more. |
By shifting from a deficit lens, which focuses on which students may be deemed not college ready, to one that questions how we may be creating barriers with our current approach to serving students, and who is harmed by those barriers, the responsibility is then on us as a college to instead be student ready. Identifying these racial disparities, and our hand in perpetuating them, allows us to make the shift to meet students where they are. By centering race, we do not suggest to ignore disparities for other marginalized groups. Instead, we suggest that as we attend to disparities for other groups we consistently and intentionally address students of color within those groups. We must center race in our work and discussions even as we act to mitigate other groups’ disparities.
We realize the topic of race is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable to discuss. As humans who have been socialized to avoid this topic, we recognize our strong predisposition to shift focus away from race in our dialogues and planning efforts. However, if we are to dismantle systemic barriers[1] at Foothill College, we must talk about race. Centering race is an attempt to focus rather than to exclude. By consistently centering race in our plan, even as we seek to eliminate inequity for all groups, we are holding ourselves unwaveringly accountable to our most historically underserved of groups. This college Strategic Vision for Equity is one step along the path of that purpose and vision for the Foothill College community.
[1]Systemic barriers are policies, practices or procedures that result in some people receiving unequal access or being excluded.