View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Advancing a Framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Advancing a Framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy
Language: English
Authors: Denisa Gándara (ORCID 0000-0001-5714-5583), Rosa Maria Acevedo (ORCID 0000-0002-6361-8735), Diana Cervantes (ORCID 0000-0003-3831-1122), Marco Antonio Quiroz
Source: Journal of Higher Education. 2024 95(6):718-746.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 29
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (DHHS/NIH)
Contract Number: P2CHD042849
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Educational Policy, Equal Education, Minority Group Students, Racial Factors, Barriers, Admission Criteria, College Administration, Administrative Principles, Higher Education, Student Attitudes, Policy Formation
DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2023.2251866
ISSN: 0022-1546
1538-4640
Abstract: Many policies in higher education are intended to improve college access and degree completion, yet often those policies fall short of their aims by making it difficult for prospective or current college students to access benefits for which they are eligible. Barriers that inhibit access to policy benefits, such as cumbersome paperwork, can weigh more heavily on members of marginalized communities, including racially minoritized students. Such administrative burdens can thus reinforce patterns of inequity. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework for examining administrative burdens embedded in higher education policies that can negatively affect prospective and current college students, especially those who are racially minoritized. With the use of our proposed framework for addressing racialized administrative burdens, researchers can improve the understanding of ethnoracial disparities in higher education, inform policymakers' design of racially equitable policies for higher education, and enable practitioners to implement those policies to promote racial equity.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1438695
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEx3xRfvvxo7ODdZcF5ovLyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLRE28MhB29nMRiF3AIBEICBm_2v28_yv5MZGOGpQJEzpLmHIPtXQxwuqmTIm9U0LEEY_7O3_ZeQq5ZDkrtFA6H_-rm86MhbMwoiK5Pp8EPqLuB9PtSaSEyA1vskB96S7tCWzcLIXJwj18nljbpKWDMRiu5Jh_rzRVURAETexP2pJ9elkeMmRrF98v-SSKeibsQNj348uClE08NgojITAm5TPm5uqo1rrJDoH7ZN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179435588;jhe01nov.24;2024Sep06.05:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179435588-1">Advancing a Framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy </title> <p>Many policies in higher education are intended to improve college access and degree completion, yet often those policies fall short of their aims by making it difficult for prospective or current college students to access benefits for which they are eligible. Barriers that inhibit access to policy benefits, such as cumbersome paperwork, can weigh more heavily on members of marginalized communities, including racially minoritized students. Such administrative burdens can thus reinforce patterns of inequity. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework for examining administrative burdens embedded in higher education policies that can negatively affect prospective and current college students, especially those who are racially minoritized. With the use of our proposed framework for addressing racialized administrative burdens, researchers can improve the understanding of ethnoracial disparities in higher education, inform policymakers' design of racially equitable policies for higher education, and enable practitioners to implement those policies to promote racial equity.</p> <p>Keywords: Educational policy; college students; policy design; policy implementation; racial equity; administrative burdens; racialized organizations</p> <p>Policies to increase educational opportunity have largely failed to reduce ethnoracial[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] disparities in higher education outcomes (Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref2">69</reflink>]). In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Higher Education Act, intended to expand postsecondary educational opportunity for those to whom it had been denied, including low-income and racially minoritized[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>] individuals. Over half a century later, however, educational attainment rates continue to vary significantly between ethnoracial groups (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref4">100</reflink>]). For instance, in 2021, 42% of White adults had completed at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28% of Black adults and 20% of American Indian/Alaska Native adults who had attained that level of education. Given the substantial benefits that individuals accrue with higher levels of formal education, these inequities remain a concern (Hout, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref5">72</reflink>]; Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref6">88</reflink>]), not only from a socioeconomic vantage point but also from a moral perspective, owing to the history of racial discrimination that has produced such disparate outcomes (Martínez Alemán, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref7">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>This systemic failure to close gaps in postsecondary educational attainment across ethnoracial groups is due in part to policy design and implementation. Policies, including those intended to expand educational opportunity, often impose unnecessary hurdles or administrative burdens on individuals eligible to benefit from the policy. Whether intentional or unintentional, these hurdles can reinforce patterns of inequity (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref8">71</reflink>]; Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref9">114</reflink>]). Administrative burdens such as income-verification requirements for student financial aid are often included in policy design to avoid or curb corruption (Goldrick-Rab et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref10">61</reflink>]), but they generate burdens for the individuals whom they target (e.g., students). These burdens can weigh more heavily on members of marginalized communities (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref11">71</reflink>]), including those who are racially minoritized (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref12">114</reflink>]). Yet the higher education literature lacks a cohesive framework for studying the racialized nature of these hurdles. In this paper, we focus on the problem of administrative burdens that make it harder for students to access benefits to which they are entitled, and on how these burdens may disproportionately affect racially minoritized students.</p> <p>This paper presents a framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy by leveraging the frameworks of administrative burdens (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref13">71</reflink>]) and racialized burdens (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref14">114</reflink>]). These frameworks, which originated in the field of public administration, have been used to explain phenomena in various domains (Campbell et al.,), but remain underemployed in higher education, despite their considerable academic purchase. Drawing on literature on the experiences of racially minoritized students in higher education, we extend the frameworks of administrative burden and racialized burdens and situate them in the higher education context.</p> <p>The experiences of racially minoritized individuals pursuing higher education, including their experiences with policy, are shaped by a historical and contemporary context of racial discrimination (Barber et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]). Higher education as an institution has played a crucial role in reproducing ethnoracial inequities while reifying the racial order itself. Rooted in the slave economies of the colonial world, higher education institutions were built on the backs of racially minoritized communities, as college founders used enslaved people to erect buildings, maintain campuses, and enhance their institutional wealth (Wilder, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref16">133</reflink>]). Further cementing the racial order, in the 18<sups>th</sups> and 19<sups>th</sups> centuries, university faculties collected and processed information about human differences from which they forged theories of biological supremacy and inferiority (Omi & Winant, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref17">105</reflink>]; Wilder, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref18">133</reflink>]). Today, White supremacy is ingrained in the fabric of higher education institutions and manifested in various ways, from the racial/ethnic composition of faculties (Colby & Fowler, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]) to the privileging of racially biased standardized tests in admissions (Miller & Stassun, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref20">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>This context is important for understanding students' experiences with higher education policies. While onerous requirements in higher education policies may have negligible effects on White students, they may be particularly harmful to students of color, who have been made to question whether they belong in higher education and may be less likely to receive supports to navigate those burdens. Given the historical and contemporary struggles of Indigenous, Black, Latinx, and Asian American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (AANHPI) students pursuing higher education,[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>] the proposed framework to examine students' experiences with higher education policy accounts for the racialized histories and social contexts shaping educational opportunity, experiences, and outcomes.</p> <p>Here we are interested primarily in <emph>public</emph> policy, especially at the state and federal levels, although our proposed framework can also be used to study institutional policies. Moreover, while administrative burdens in higher education policy can negatively affect numerous stakeholders, including those tasked with implementing policies (e.g., higher education professionals), our focus is on students — on the role of administrative burdens in thwarting college access and degree attainment. In the following sections, we introduce the concepts of administrative burden and racialized burdens that undergird the framework we propose for studying administrative burdens in higher education policy and how they may be racialized. We then examine literature on ethnoracial inequities in higher education to build the case for why administrative burdens in higher education policy might be experienced differentially across ethnoracial groups. Lastly, we present our proposed framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy, followed by a research agenda corresponding to our proposed framework. Policymakers and higher education practitioners can use insights from this research agenda to inform policy design and implementation that minimizes administrative burdens for racially minoritized individuals pursuing higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-2">Administrative burdens</hd> <p>Administrative burdens consist of bureaucratic rules and processes embedded within policy design and implementation that prevent the policy's intended beneficiaries from gaining access to public goods, resources, and services (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref22">71</reflink>]). They systemically create barriers that impinge on individuals' ability to reap the benefits of designated policies (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref23">71</reflink>]). In higher education, FAFSA is a paradigmatic administrative burden (Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]; Mungo & Klonowski, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref25">97</reflink>]), which we use here to explain the administrative burdens framework. The three types of administrative burdens, or "costs" that individuals incur when they learn about or seek access to benefits for which they are eligible, are as follows.</p> <p> <emph>Learning costs</emph> are the burdens associated with learning about a policy and determining one's eligibility for associatd benefits (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref26">71</reflink>]). Within higher education, these burdens include elaborate requirements for initial eligibility and renewal of eligibility for benefits, undisclosed opportunities , and insufficient information regarding potential benefits.</p> <p> <emph>Compliance costs</emph> refer to the specific steps one must take to access and maintain benefits — the palpable burdens of complying with rules and requirements (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref27">71</reflink>]). For prospective and current college students, compliance costs may include submitting the FAFSA form for Federal Student Aid eligibility, completing the income verification process for state or federal student aid, paying (even relatively minor) fees, maintaining a minimum grade point average, enrolling for a minimum number of credit hours, and reporting U.S. residency or citizenship. These requests, which can result in interruptions, delays, and loss of benefits due to noncompliance (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref28">84</reflink>]; Schudde & Scott-Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref29">120</reflink>]), reflect the institutional imposition of restraints on a student's time and personal agency (Barnes, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Psychological costs</emph> are emotional burdens manifested through the stigmatization, stress, or loss of agency associated with accessing and keeping benefits (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref31">71</reflink>]; Thomsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref32">130</reflink>]). In higher education, the processes of financing higher education and the prospect of or experience with debt can produce steep psychological costs (Collier & Fitzpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]; Hypolite & Tichavakunda, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref34">75</reflink>]). Notably, the three types of costs are not mutually exclusive (Baekgaard & Tankink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). For example, compliance costs can also constitute psychological costs when they produce stress or reduce people's autonomy by placing onerous demands on their time (Baekgaard et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>A prime example of administrative burdens embedded within the higher education system is represented by FAFSA, which produces and reinforces barriers to college access and student success (Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]; Mungo & Klonowski, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref38">97</reflink>]). Every year, a substantial share of students, especially those from lower-income backgrounds, forfeit financial aid funds (Kofoed, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref39">83</reflink>]; McKinney & Novak, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref40">92</reflink>]). Researchers and policymakers have argued that the FAFSA form generates high compliance costs (Dynarski et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref41">43</reflink>]; Murakami, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref42">98</reflink>]). The FAFSA form also produces psychological costs for some students and their family members from immigrant backgrounds, who may not be eligible for federal financial aid or are hesitant to share information due to low levels of trust in the federal government (Diaz, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref43">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>A related example of administrative burdens is the FAFSA income verification process. After completing the FAFSA form, some students are selected for a complex verification process to ensure the accuracy of the information they submit (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref44">84</reflink>]). During this process, students encounter compliance costs in completing the required steps, which include confirming individual and parental income (Graves, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref45">62</reflink>]; Guzman-Alvarez & Page, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref46">65</reflink>]). The verification process has adversely affected students' financial aid receipt and, ultimately, their college enrollment (Guzman-Alvarez & Page, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref47">65</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref48">84</reflink>]; Page et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref49">108</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-3">Theoretical tenets of the administrative burdens framework</hd> <p>Beyond identifying various types of burdens in policy design, Herd and Moynihan ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref50">71</reflink>]) posit three tenets on the effects, disparate allocation, and intentional creation of administrative burdens. First, administrative burdens can negatively affect take-up and related policy outcomes. This effect applies to students' experiences with higher education policies and how those experiences are related to their postsecondary outcomes. For example, interventions have shown that even small reductions in the steps required to access program benefits can have large positive effects on college access and degree completion (Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref51">44</reflink>]; Klasik, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref52">82</reflink>]; Pallais, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref53">109</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, administrative burdens are more likely to fall upon and negatively affect marginalized communities, even when they apply to all students equally prima facie. This is because individuals who are marginalized in a particular context (e.g., low-income students) may have less access to information, more limited resources to fulfill compliance requirements, and greater susceptibility to psychological burdens (Baekgaard et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]; Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref55">71</reflink>]). In higher education, scholarships requiring students to enroll full-time may impose greater burdens on students who must work multiple jobs or care for dependents.</p> <p>Third, administrative burdens are <emph>intentionally</emph> integrated into policy design to discourage take-up from certain populations perceived as undeserving (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref56">71</reflink>]). Policymakers often embed administrative burdens in policy designs because they make negative assumptions about target populations (Hancock, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref57">67</reflink>]; Schneider & Ingram, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref58">119</reflink>]; Soss et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref59">123</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref60">124</reflink>]). In one congressional hearing, for example, Felix et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>]) found that members of the U.S. Congress described student loan borrowers as financially illiterate, at risk of becoming dependent on the government and using student loans irresponsibly ("to buy [a] fancy cellphone;" p. 26). These portrayals led to paternalistic policy proposals in the hearing, which included requiring financial literacy courses and restricting the amount students could borrow (Felix et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref62">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-4">Racialized burdens</hd> <p>Emerging research offers empirical evidence that some administrative burdens are unequally distributed and intentionally target specific groups (Barnes & Riel, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref63">9</reflink>]; Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref64">71</reflink>]). Consequently, scholars have begun to theorize how administrative burdens create unequal access to services across ethnoracial groups at the organizational level (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref65">114</reflink>]). Although our framework reaches beyond the organizational level of administrative burdens to include policy design processes, policy language, and students' experiences with policy, we draw from Ray et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref66">114</reflink>]) racialized burdens frame to "unpack the mechanisms by which administrative practices are racialized" (p. 2). To this end, Ray et al. bring attention to cultural norms and resource distribution at the organizational level. With a primary focus on policy implementation, this framework helps "to document and explain why marginalized racial groups face more significant frictions when interacting with the state" (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref67">114</reflink>], p. 2). Thus, following Ray et al., our proposed framework considers how administrative practices within organizations, including colleges and universities, can perpetuate racial inequalities in public services.</p> <p>The organizational-level framework of racialized burdens sheds light on how and why racially minoritized students experience different types of administrative burdens, given the roles organizations play in shaping individuals' experiences. Specifically, the racialized burdens framework includes four tenets (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref68">114</reflink>]). First, racialized organizations can reduce the agency of racialized groups by imposing onerous requirements. Certain types of welfare programs that primarily benefit minoritized groups, for example, have higher compliance costs than those that primarily benefit Whites, such as social security and veterans' benefits (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref69">71</reflink>]; Soss et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref70">123</reflink>]). Requiring undocumented students, most of whom are racially minoritized, to complete additional paperwork is another example of how racialized organizations can diminish the agency of racialized groups by requiring those who already bear the burden of financial need to also grapple with challenging, onerous, time-consuming activities. As another example, there is suggestive evidence that Black and Latinx students are at higher risk of being chosen for FAFSA verification, which imposes compliance and psychological burdens, than students racialized as White (Douglas-Gabriel & Harden, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref71">41</reflink>]; Graves, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref72">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, Ray et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref73">113</reflink>]) propose that administrative burdens in racialized organizations justify the unequal distribution of goods and services. As one example in higher education, selective universities have long used ambiguous measures of "merit" to legitimate racialized college admissions patterns (Nichols, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref74">103</reflink>]; Rosinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref75">116</reflink>]). Research has shown that these criteria are negatively biased against Black students (Deil-Amen & Tevis, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref76">36</reflink>]). In addition, financial aid is often denied to students who cannot attend full-time, a requirement that can have disproportionate effects on racially minoritized students, who are less likely to attend school full-time (Shapiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref77">121</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, the framework posits that Whiteness is a credential that eases burdens. This could happen through policy design, whereby policies that primarily target those who are perceived as White impose fewer burdens. For instance, Ray et al. ([<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref78">114</reflink>]) note that, in the aggregate, immigration policies in the U.S. have always favored White immigrant groups (e.g., Moynihan et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref79">96</reflink>]). Alternatively, Whiteness can ease burdens within organizations implementing policies. As an example, a recent study found that Black students, especially those from lower- income backgrounds, received scant guidance related to college-going; the little messaging that they did receive was depersonalized and lacked specific, timely information on what was needed to apply for college (Gast, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref80">59</reflink>]). They were also subject to unclear expectations from adults in their high schools. Gast ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref81">59</reflink>]) described the learning and psychological costs that Black students encountered as "complex requirements" that led to "disempowerment and frustration" (p. 56). At the same time, legacy admissions allow Whites to benefit from college admissions policies and practices systematically. Indeed, universities often extend grace to the children of alumni through a streamlined legacy admissions process. This <emph>selective complexity</emph>, intentionally designed to benefit a particular group of students and burden others, reflects policymakers' ability to alleviate administrative burdens to benefit a particular group.</p> <p>Finally, the racialized burdens framework proposes that formal rules will be decoupled from organizational practice in racialized ways. When bureaucrats have discretion over the administration of a program, White individuals may receive more favorable treatment (Klain et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref82">81</reflink>]; Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref83">114</reflink>]). One example of the decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice in ways that can disproportionately burden racially minoritized students is the possibility of exceptions to waivers from policy requirements, particularly if officials are less likely to grant waivers to racially minoritized students (Grissom & Redding, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]). Moreover, formal rules may be decoupled from organizational practice because White students are more likely to ask for exceptions to the rules, as suggested by work on race privilege (Hagerman, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref85">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-5">The need for a new framework to study racialized higher education policy</hd> <p>There are numerous ways in which racially minoritized students may be disproportionately affected by administrative burdens in their interactions with higher education policy. Racially minoritized students continue to face unique barriers within the schooling system that hinder their educational attainment, including lower expectations from school adults (e.g., Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref86">38</reflink>]; Gándara & Contreras, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref87">54</reflink>]), within- and between-school segregation (Clotfelter et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]; Weathers & Sosina, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref89">132</reflink>]), teachers' implicit racial biases (Chin et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref90">27</reflink>]), racial discrimination in school discipline (Barrett et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>]; Owens, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref92">107</reflink>]), and inequitably distributed school resources (Weathers & Sosina, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref93">132</reflink>]). Racially minoritized individuals are also more likely to have other constraints on their time, which could make time-consuming requirements especially burdensome (Barnes, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref94">7</reflink>]; Ray, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref95">113</reflink>]; Wingfield & Alston, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref96">134</reflink>]). Furthermore, they are less likely to receive support from school adults that could help them navigate administrative burdens (Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref97">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Thus, administrative hurdles such as discipline-related criteria, requirements that impose substantial time costs (e.g., required completion of community service hours for free-college program eligibility), and prerequisite knowledge of the complex educational structures and systems in the United States can be especially burdensome for racially minoritized students. For example, owing to racial bias in schools (e.g., Owens, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref98">107</reflink>]), racially minoritized students may be subject to greater learning costs (e.g., if their teachers or counselors fail to recognize their eligibility for certain merit-based benefits). As another example, a student's undocumented or DACA status could be associated with substantially higher compliance costs (additional paperwork) and psychological costs (due to a distrust of the government; Zelaya, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref99">136</reflink>]). Racially minoritized students might also experience higher psychological costs when seeking financial aid since they tend to have lower levels of income and wealth (Hypolite & Tichavakunda, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref100">75</reflink>]). These students can also incur psychological costs when they experience microaggressions (e.g., in their interactions with bureaucrats, such as higher education staff members, when attempting to access benefits).</p> <p>Notwithstanding some exceptions (e.g., Bell & Gándara, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref101">12</reflink>]; Ching et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref102">26</reflink>]; Felix, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref103">47</reflink>]; Felix & Trinidad, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>]; Garces & Poon, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref105">57</reflink>]; Gillborn, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref106">60</reflink>]; Harper, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref107">68</reflink>]; Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref108">69</reflink>]; Iverson, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref109">77</reflink>]; McCoy-Simmons et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref110">91</reflink>]; Patton, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref111">111</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref112">128</reflink>]), the higher education policy literature has paid scant attention to ethnoracial inequities in policymaking processes, policy implementation, and the differential effects of policies on minoritized communities (for a thorough review and extended argument, see Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref113">115</reflink>]). Consequently, a dearth of higher education policy literature addresses the mechanisms that advance ethnoracial inequities through policy design and implementation. In addition, much of the research on higher education policy focuses on policymaking processes or effects, with limited attention to policy implementation and to the experiential core of higher education (i.e., students' experiences interacting with policy; Collier & Parnther, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref114">33</reflink>]). The framework we propose would offer a conceptual foundation to study student experiences with higher education policy, how such experiences differ across groups, and how student experiences relate to policy design and policy effects.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-6">Proposed framework: racialized administrative burdens in higher education policy</hd> <p>The proposed framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy extends the administrative burden framework, which recognizes that the impact of burdens varies across social groups but says little about the racialized dimensions of policy design and implementation (Herd & Moynihan, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref115">71</reflink>]). Since our interest is in policy design, implementation, and effects, our framework also expands beyond the meso level (organizational) that is the focus of Ray et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref116">114</reflink>]) racialized burdens framework. Similar to Michener's ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref117">94</reflink>]) racial equity framework for evaluating health policy, our framework considers how various policy dimensions (from policy design to effects) may contribute to ethnoracial disparities in educational attainment.</p> <p>The framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy is intended to answer the following questions related to policy design, policy implementation, and policy effects:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In what ways are racialized administrative burdens embedded in higher education policy <emph>designs</emph>? How and why are racialized burdens embedded in higher education policy designs?</item> <p></p> <item> How do students <emph>experience</emph> administrative burdens (i.e., learning, psychological, and compliance costs)? How do students' experiences with administrative burdens vary between racialized groups?</item> <p></p> <item> In what ways does policy <emph>implementation</emph> impose greater burdens on racially minoritized students? How and why are policies implemented in ways that impose greater burdens on racially minoritized students?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the <emph>effects</emph> of administrative burdens on students pursuing higher education, including their college access and degree or certificate attainment? How do these effects differ between racialized groups?</item> </ulist> <p>Figure 1 illustrates our proposed framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy, which links policy design (both the process of designing policy and policy design language), policy implementation, and policy outcomes with a focus on racialized administrative burdens. This section discusses each element of the framework, as presented in Figure 1, and its associated propositions in turn.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Proposed Framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy</p> <p>As depicted in Figure 1, each element of the framework is nested within a larger socio-historical and political context. This context shapes racialized ideas and ideologies, state actions, students' experiences with higher education policies, and policy outcomes.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref118">4</reflink>] For instance, racial progress in college access and success in one context (e.g., in a given state) could lead to backlash that permeates policy design, resulting in more limited educational opportunities for racially minoritized people (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>]; Baker, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref121">127</reflink>]). Moreover, as Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref122">127</reflink>]) argues, states controlled by the Right might be more likely to pursue higher education policies that effectively sustain the racial order, including those that censor teaching and discussion on race and racism. As such, research should consider the socio-historical and political contexts that have served to maintain the racial order within and through education systems in the United States. In addition, the framework calls for researchers to examine under what conditions (e.g., state political party control) each proposition holds. Next, we describe each element of the framework and its associated proposition.</p> <p>The first element of the framework <emph>emphasizes individual ideas and entrenched ideologies about racialized groups</emph>. This element underscores how the perceived supremacy of those racialized as White (and the practices, beliefs, and norms associated with Whiteness) influences state actions and students' experiences interacting with higher education policy (Leonardo, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref123">85</reflink>]). Those ideas and ideologies are embedded within a socio-historical and political context that has largely reified White supremacy (Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref124">69</reflink>]). Racialized ideas and ideologies, including policymakers' racialized perceptions of who is deserving of policy benefits — or their perceptions of their constituents' views on who is deserving or undeserving (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref125">11</reflink>]; Schneider & Ingram, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref126">119</reflink>]), will shape state actions (Bonilla-Silva, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref127">18</reflink>]; Harper et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref128">69</reflink>]; Jabbar et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref129">78</reflink>]; Schneider & Ingram, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref130">118</reflink>]; Soss et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref131">123</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref132">124</reflink>]). For example, the Model Minority Myth fuels and justifies the exclusion of AANHPI students from higher education policies that extend benefits to current or prospective students (Nguyen et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref133">102</reflink>]; Teranishi, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref134">129</reflink>]; Yi & Museus, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref135">135</reflink>]), even though 13 AANHPI ethnic groups have lower educational attainment rates than the U.S. average (Edlagan & Vaghul, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref136">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>In our proposed framework, state actions include two elements: policy design and policy implementation (Baekgaard & Tankink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref137">4</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref138">5</reflink>] Policy design comprises both the policy design process and policy language, which is the outcome of that process (Howlett, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref139">73</reflink>]; Howlett & Lejano, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref140">74</reflink>]). Policy designs often influence how policies are implemented by articulating administrative rules and processes and which actors are charged with implementation (Howlett, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref141">73</reflink>]). Starting with policy design, the first proposition of our framework is the following:</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-7">Proposition 1:</hd> <p>Policymakers will embed administrative burdens (compliance costs, learning costs, and psychological costs) in higher education policy design, especially when they perceive racially minoritized groups as the primary beneficiaries.</p> <p>To test this proposition, scholars might audit policy language for <emph>objective</emph> administrative burdens, which are elements of a policy that appear burdensome (e.g., application requirements; Baekgaard & Tankink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>]), and examine how the presence of burdens differ between different ethnoracial groups targeted by the policy (see, for example, Everett et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref143">46</reflink>]). Researchers could also examine policy processes qualitatively to discern how groups targeted by a policy are racialized and constructed as deserving or undeserving of policy benefits in policy discourse (e.g., Felix et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref144">49</reflink>]; Gándara & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref145">55</reflink>]). For an in-depth discussion of critical qualitative inquiry that seeks to scrutinize policy processes, see Jones ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref146">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>As illustrated in Figure 1, the relation between racialized ideas and ideologies and policy design should be examined within the context of socio-historical and political contexts. The framework recognizes that the inclusion of racialized administrative burdens in policy design depends on features of the political context, including the actors who are involved and influential in the process (Gándara et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref147">56</reflink>]; Michener, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref148">94</reflink>]; Rubin & Hearn, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref149">117</reflink>]) and the array of discourses embedded in the process (Berman, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref150">17</reflink>]). For instance, the extent to which policy actors recognize sociohistorical influences on ethnoracial disparities in education will shape policy design (Bensimon, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref151">15</reflink>]; Bonilla-Silva, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref152">18</reflink>]; Felix et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref153">49</reflink>]; Orphan et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref154">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>Drawing on Bonilla-Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref155">18</reflink>]) racial frames, we expect discourses in higher education policy contexts to avoid addressing race explicitly, to ignore socio-historical contexts, to lean into deficit-based, culturally racist justifications for ethnoracial inequality, and to reduce structural racism to an individual-level problem (of choice and opportunity). For instance, race-evasive policies that require students to enroll full-time or engage in time-consuming activities, such as community service, ignore the responsibilities of many racially minoritized students, including those who work and are caregivers (Crisp & Nora, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref156">35</reflink>]; Ramos et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref157">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, we draw from the concept of interest convergence (Delgado, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref158">37</reflink>]), which posits that policies benefiting marginalized groups are more likely to be supported by White people if they also serve White interests. We consider that administrative burdens may be omitted from policy designs if their inclusion is perceived as harmful to the interests of White people. For example, if a policy seeks to increase the attainment of degrees in high-demand fields to fill workforce needs, policymakers may opt to reduce administrative burdens, even if the targets of the policy are racialized as those from minoritized communities (Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref159">127</reflink>]). Correspondingly, the framework advances the following propositions:</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-8">Proposition 2:</hd> <p>The degree to which policymakers impose burdens on racially minoritized groups through higher education policy will depend on the representation and influence in policy processes of racially minoritized people and collectives and those with elevated critical consciousness.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-9">Proposition 3:</hd> <p>Policymakers will use race-evasive, ahistorical, culturally racist, and (neo-) liberal justifications for including administrative burdens in policies, including as a means of curbing abuse.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-10">Proposition 4:</hd> <p>Administrative burdens will be excluded from policy designs if their inclusion undermines White interests.</p> <p>To test propositions 1–4, which are related to racialized administrative burdens in policy design, scholars might conduct qualitative studies of policy processes (e.g., gleaning the role and power of various actors in policy processes and how they connect to the inclusion of racialized administrative burdens in policy design) or discourse analysis methods (e.g., to examine how policymakers justify the inclusion or exclusion of administrative burdens in policy design). Researchers could pay particular attention to the extent to which higher education policy designs and the discourses surrounding them explicitly recognize the sociohistorical context shaping racially minoritized students' opportunities and experiences. To test Proposition 4, research could examine under what conditions administrative burdens targeting racially minoritized students are ultimately included or excluded in policy designs.</p> <p>The next set of propositions focuses on students' experiences with higher education policy, including the degree to which they incur learning costs, psychological costs, and compliance costs when trying to access benefits for which they are eligible. Racial ideas and ideologies rooted in racialized socio-historical and political contexts, will directly influence students' experiences with higher education policies. As such, students' experiences with higher education policies will vary according to how they are racialized.</p> <p>For instance, Indigenous students might endure higher psychological costs from policies that ignore their history and knowledge. Since the late 1800s, the federal government has instituted colonial schooling disguised as education, stripping Indigenous Peoples of their tribal identities, unique histories, languages, and cultures (Brayboy & Lomawaima, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref160">20</reflink>]). Indigenous Peoples have advocated for a tribal education with increased financial support, recognition of other ways of knowing, including culture and tribal histories in the curriculum, locally embedded schools,[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref161">6</reflink>] and an expanded adult and childhood education. Contrary to their calls for autonomy, the federal government has forced the assimilation of 95% of tribal students into public schools and off reservations (Cai, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref162">22</reflink>]). As a result, policies that ignore this history (e.g., those that require students to attend non-tribal institutions or those that require interactions with the federal government) could impose unique burdens on these students (Lopez, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref163">86</reflink>]; Tachine, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref164">126</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, Latinx students' interactions with higher education policy could be influenced by racialized ideas and ideologies related to their immigration status and language (Flores et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref165">52</reflink>]; García & Torres-Guevara, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref166">58</reflink>]). For instance, Latinx students may incur disproportionately high psychological burdens from policies requiring U.S. citizenship for undocumented individuals or families with mixed immigration status (Diaz-Strong, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref167">40</reflink>]). They might also face unique learning costs in their interactions with various policies, such as those related to transfer because the information is unavailable in Spanish (Bensimon & Dowd, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref168">16</reflink>]; Chase et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref169">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>AANHPI students' experiences are likewise shaped by racialized contexts related to immigration and language. In addition, AANHPI students might be especially burdened psychologically by higher education policies that render them invisible (e.g., policies that name specific ethnoracial groups and exclude AANHPIs) or that propagate the Model Minority Myth (Museus & Park, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref170">99</reflink>]; Nguyen et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref171">102</reflink>]; Teranishi, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref172">129</reflink>]; Yi & Museus, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref173">135</reflink>]). Partly because of political decisions related to racial/ethnic categorizations, AANHPI students remain one of the most misrepresented groups in higher education (Edlagan & Vaghul, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref174">45</reflink>]; Maramba, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref175">89</reflink>] Museus & Park, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref176">99</reflink>]), which could impose psychological burdens on these students.</p> <p>Black students' experiences interacting with higher education policy are shaped by policies and practices that have robbed them and their families of the opportunity to pursue higher education or to accumulate wealth (Du Bois, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref177">42</reflink>]). The psychological costs of time may also be borne more heavily by Black students since Black people in the United States have historically been robbed of time through mass incarceration, constant struggles for Civil Rights, long wait times to receive benefits for which they are eligible, and shortened lifespans (Coates, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref178">30</reflink>]; Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref179">34</reflink>]). In addition, policies that require students to have "good behavior" or "good discipline" to receive benefits may disproportionately negatively affect Black students, given the racial discrimination that they face in school discipline due to teachers' biases and racialized school climates (Owens, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref180">107</reflink>]). Racial ideas and ideologies also impose psychological costs on Black students when they enroll in college, due to hostile campus climates, especially at Predominantly and Historically White Institutions (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref181">23</reflink>]; Gusa, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref182">64</reflink>]; Strayhorn, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref183">125</reflink>]), including experiences with racial slurs, avoidant behaviors, and racial invalidations in their interactions with other students, professors, staff, and administrators (Fields et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref184">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accordingly, the next proposition states the following:</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-11">Proposition 5:</hd> <p>Independent of policy design, racially minoritized students will generally experience policies as more onerous than their White peers, with variation between ethnoracial groups.</p> <p>To test this proposition, researchers could use either quantitative methodologies, qualitative methodologies, or both using surveys, interviews, focus groups, or secondary data to examine how students' experiences with higher education policy (i.e., the degree to which they report learning, psychological, or compliance costs) vary between ethnoracial groups. For instance, Slay and Glasener ([<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref185">122</reflink>]) conducted a longitudinal qualitative study to examine students' experiences with a financial aid program in Michigan. Scholars can build on this research to examine how such experiences differ between racialized groups.</p> <p>Next, we turn to the relationship between state actions and student experiences, which is shaped by policy implementation. The framework recognizes differences between <emph>objective</emph> administrative burdens, which are state actions that could be burdensome versus <emph>subjective</emph> burdens (those that students experience as onerous), as described by Baekgaard and Tankink ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref186">4</reflink>]). Specifically, we propose the following about the relationship between objective and subjective burdens:</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-12">Proposition 6:</hd> <p>Students' experiences with higher education policy (i.e., subjective burdens) will be shaped by features of the policy design, particularly the inclusion (or exclusion) of objective administrative burdens in policy.</p> <p>For example, AANHPI English learners may be forced to take remedial courses regardless of their abilities (Palmer & Jang, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref187">110</reflink>]). Such burdens may represent compliance costs and psychological costs since they require students to retake classes they have previously mastered and isolate them from the rest of the school (Palmer & Jang, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref188">110</reflink>]).</p> <p>To test this proposition, scholars could collect data on student reports of the degree to which they experience administrative burdens and examine how their experiences vary based on features of policy designs (e.g., the extent to which policies include objective burdens). To measure student experiences with administrative burdens, including learning costs, psychological costs, and compliance costs, scholars could turn to several validated instruments (e.g., Baekgaard et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref189">3</reflink>]; Madsen & Mikkelsen, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref190">87</reflink>]; Thomsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref191">130</reflink>]). Following Slay and Glasener's ([<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref192">122</reflink>]) study of a financial aid program in Michigan, research could evaluate differences in students' experiences across different financial aid programs with varying levels of objective burdens (e.g., renewal requirements).</p> <p>Next, we turn to Propositions 7–8, which relate to policy implementation. The framework posits that the degree to which students experience policy elements as onerous will depend on how the policy is implemented, which is influenced by racialized ideas and ideologies. In our framework, policy implementation occurs at the organizational level, within colleges or universities. Specifically, how a policy is implemented will constrain or enable students' access to resources and affect their level of agency (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref193">114</reflink>]).</p> <p>We further posit that students' experiences with policy implementation will depend partly on how they are racialized (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref194">114</reflink>]). Students racialized as White will have advantages that help them avoid or overcome burdens. Aspects of policy implementation that will affect students' racialized experiences with higher education policy include the organizational practices and norms of the higher education institution, including their commitment to racial equity (Byrd, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref195">21</reflink>]; Felix, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref196">48</reflink>]). Commitments to equity might be manifested as symbolic commitments (which can reduce psychological costs), as well as material, technical, and relational commitments (which can reduce compliance and learning costs) (Felix, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref197">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other important factors of policy implementation that will shape the degree to which administrative burdens are experienced differentially between ethnoracial groups are features of the implementing agents (e.g., Bell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref198">13</reflink>]; Nienhusser, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref199">104</reflink>]), including their levels of critical consciousness.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref200">7</reflink>] Prior research suggests that during the policy implementation phase, higher education practitioners' racialized ideas will influence how policy is implemented (e.g., for instance, through their willingness to grant waivers or share beneficial information) (Barnes & Gennetian, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref201">8</reflink>]; Felix, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref202">47</reflink>]; Gast, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref203">59</reflink>]; Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref204">114</reflink>]). Formal rules will be decoupled from organizational practice within higher education institutions in racialized ways. Stated differently, agents, like higher education practitioners, will make exceptions to the rules in ways that are racialized.</p> <p>Accordingly, we propose the following related to racialized administrative burdens through policy implementation:</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-13">Proposition 7:</hd> <p>Students' racialized experiences of administrative burdens will be shaped by higher education institutions' organizational practices and norms, including their commitment to racial equity.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-14">Proposition 8:</hd> <p>The extent to which students' experiences with policy are racialized will depend on who is charged with implementation, including how they understand and make sense of a policy and their role, their tolerance for administrative burdens, their social characteristics, and their degree of critical consciousness.</p> <p>To test these propositions, researchers could examine variations in students' experiences with policy between ethnoracial groups and how racialized experiences with policy differ across organizational contexts. Such studies could pay particular attention to institutions' commitments to racial equity (both symbolic and material; Byrd, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref205">21</reflink>]; Felix, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref206">48</reflink>]) as well as who is charged with implementing the policy, their racialized ideas, and their views on their roles as implementing agents (e.g., Bell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref207">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the framework posits that students' experiences with administrative burdens will affect policy outcomes (i.e., student outcomes). The degree to which students can access necessary resources for college success, their level of agency, and consequently, their other experiences with administrative burdens (e.g., psychological costs) will affect their educational outcomes (Ray et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref208">114</reflink>]). As such, the final propositions of our proposed framework are as follows:</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-15">Proposition 9:</hd> <p>Administrative burdens will negatively affect students pursuing higher education, especially racially minoritized students.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-16">Proposition 10:</hd> <p>The mechanisms by which administrative burdens will negatively affect students pursuing higher education are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref209">1</reflink>) causing them to lose agency and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref210">2</reflink>) reducing access to resources.</p> <p>To study these final propositions related to administrative burdens and their effect on student outcomes, researchers might quantitatively examine the causal impact of administrative burdens in policy design (e.g., a FAFSA requirement versus no FAFSA requirement) on students' outcomes, such as college enrollment or graduation. Furthermore, with sufficient data, scholars could examine the heterogeneous effects of such burdens across different ethnoracial groups. Using survey data, researchers could examine the mechanisms by which administrative burdens affect student outcomes, including through students' experiences with loss of agency and their loss of access to resources (e.g., financial aid).</p> <p>The proposed framework answers Gillborn's ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref211">60</reflink>]) call to look beyond superficial rhetoric of policies and interrogate who or what drives education policy, who wins and who loses as a result of education policy priorities, and what the effects of policy are. To complement the proposed framework, we advance 10 propositions, drawing primarily on the administrative burdens and racialized burdens frameworks, and building on existing conceptual frameworks used to examine policy design, implementation, and effects (e.g., Bradbury, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref212">19</reflink>]; Hearn & Ness, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref213">70</reflink>]; Institute for Higher Education Policy, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref214">76</reflink>]; Kingdon, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref215">80</reflink>]; Schneider & Ingram, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref216">118</reflink>]). The propositions, presented in Table 1, fall into three major facets of policymaking: policy design, policy implementation, and policy effects. The table also presents research questions corresponding to each proposition that can be pursued by using our framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy.</p> <p>Table 1. Propositions and research questions for the framework of racialized administrative burdens in higher education policy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Proposition</td><td>Research Questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Racialized Policy Design</td></tr><tr><td>1. Policymakers will embed administrative burdens (compliance costs, learning costs, and psychological costs) in higher education policy design, especially when they perceive racially minoritized groups as the primary beneficiaries.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What objective (potential) administrative burdens are embedded in higher education policy designs?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How are burdens distributed across different ethnoracial groups targeted by the policy?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do policymakers perceive and frame the groups targeted by a policy?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How are racialized perceptions of targets of policy related to the inclusion of administrative burdens in policy design?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>2. The degree to which policymakers impose burdens on racially minoritized groups through higher education policy will depend on the representation and influence in policymaking processes of racially minoritized people and collectives and those with elevated critical consciousness.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Under what conditions are administrative burdens disproportionately allocated to racially minoritized students?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Which actors are involved and influential in the policymaking process?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How does representation and influence of various actors in the policymaking process relate to policy design outputs (e.g., adopted legislation).</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>3. Policymakers will use race-evasive, ahistorical, culturally racist, and (neo-) liberal justifications for including administrative burdens in policies, including as a means of curbing abuse.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do policymakers justify the inclusion of administrative burdens in policy design?</p></list-item><list-item><p>To what extent do higher education policy designs and the discourses surrounding them explicitly recognize racialized differences in students' opportunities and experiences?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How does the recognition of racialized contexts relate to policymakers' decisions to include or exclude administrative burdens in policy design?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>4. Administrative burdens will be excluded from policy designs if their inclusion undermines White interests.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Which discourses are associated with the inclusion or exclusion of administrative burdens in policy design?</p></list-item><list-item><p>To what extent do justifications for excluding administrative burdens from policy design connect to White interests?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Racialized Policy Implementation</td></tr><tr><td>5. Independent of policy design, racially minoritized students will generally experience policies as more onerous than their White peers, with variation between ethnoracial groups.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do students' experiences with administrative burdens differ between ethnoracial groups?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>6. Students' experiences with higher education policy (i.e., subjective burdens) will be shaped by features of the policy design, particularly the inclusion (or exclusion) of objective administrative burdens in policy.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How do students', especially racially minoritized students', experiences with policy differ depending on the level and types of apparent administrative burdens embedded in the policy?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>7. Students' racialized experiences of administrative burdens will be shaped by higher education institutions' organizational practices and norms, including their commitment to racial equity.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How are students' experiences with administrative burdens conditioned by organizational practices and norms, including their commitments to racial equity?</p></list-item><list-item><p>To what extent are formal rules decoupled from organizational practice when implementing higher education policy?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How does this decoupling track with the perceived ethnoraciality of the students who are the target beneficiaries of a policy?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>8. The extent to which students' experiences with policy are racialized will depend on who is charged with implementation, including how they understand and make sense of a policy and their role, their tolerance for administrative burdens, their social characteristics, and their degree of critical consciousness.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What role do implementers (e.g., higher education professionals) play in the extent to which students experience apparent burdens in policy designs as actual (realized) burdens?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do students' experiences with administrative burdens differ depending on the characteristics of individuals charged with implementing the policy?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Racialized Policy Effects</td></tr><tr><td>9. Administrative burdens will negatively affect students pursuing higher education, especially racially minoritized students.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are the effects of different types of administrative burdens on students pursuing higher education, including their college access and degree or certificate attainment?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How do the effects of administrative burdens on student outcomes differ between ethnoracial groups?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>10. The mechanisms by which administrative burdens will negatively affect students pursuing higher education are (1) causing them to lose agency and (2) reducing access to resources.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are the mechanisms by which administrative burdens affect student outcomes?</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Higher education researchers can employ this framework to enhance the understanding of which elements of policy design might constitute administrative burdens; why burdensome elements of policies are included in policy design and whom they target; how administrative burdens are sustained, magnified, or ameliorated (and for whom) when policies are implemented; how students experience administrative burdens in policy design and how such experiences differ between ethnoracial groups; and the effects of such burdens on student outcomes and how these effects differ between ethnoracial groups. Findings from research employing this framework can be used to inform racially equitable policy design and implementation.</p> <p>Of course, as with all theoretical frameworks, we expect ours to be incomplete. The original administrative burden framework is nascent and constantly evolving (Baekgaard & Tankink, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref217">4</reflink>]). Our hope is that higher education policy researchers can improve and continue refining the framework through further theoretical and empirical undertakings.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>Policies can reduce inequalities only if they address the unique, diverse challenges that racially minoritized students experience at the intersection of various social categorizations, including their ethnoraciality (Bensimon, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref218">15</reflink>]; Leonardo, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref219">85</reflink>]). Often, policy provisions intended to advance equity not only fail to challenge the institutional and structural barriers that students face, but in fact magnify them through administrative burdens in policy design. Attending to the historical and social structures that have produced and exacerbated inequities in educational attainment across racialized groups, we present a conceptual framework for examining how policy design and implementation can impose disproportionately heavy administrative burdens on racially minoritized individuals pursuing higher education.</p> <p>With our proposed framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy, we bring the following into focus: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref220">1</reflink>) whether, how, and why higher education policies include administrative burdens that affect racially minoritized students disproportionately (racialized policy design); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref221">2</reflink>) whether, how, and why policies are carried out in ways that are especially burdensome for racially minoritized students (racialized policy implementation); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref222">3</reflink>) the effects of administrative burdens on educational outcomes for racially minoritized students (racialized policy effects). Research into these three currents can reveal how and why administrative burdens perpetuate inequities and their potential effects on different ethnoracial groups.</p> <p>This proposed framework and its accompanying propositions and research questions can propel scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to question the systemic nature of administrative burdens, including how policies and their outcomes may be racialized by design. A primary goal of our proposed research agenda is to enhance the collective understanding of how policy design and implementation produces and reproduces ethnoracial disparities in higher education. We must also ideate the means to change the systems that perpetuate racialized inequities in higher education. Beyond diagnosing factors that perpetuate ethnoracial inequities, this agenda is intended to yield recommendations for racially equitable policy design. By using the framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy, scholars, policymakers, and practitioners interested in racial justice can bring to light and address the intentional and unintentional consequences of administrative burdens in higher education policy design and implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-18">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We thank the William T. Grant Foundation for supporting this work through a Scholars Award (Grant ID #201035). This research was also supported by Project Grant P2CHD042849 awarded for the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0179435588-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0179435588-20"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We use <emph>ethnoraciality</emph> to refer to the interactions and ethnic structures that shape the lived experiences of social groups. This stands in contrast to more narrow understandings of racial and ethnic relations as unrelated to each other. Moreover, ethnoraciality requires greater awareness of a group's self-identification along with ways in which its members may distinguish themselves from other social groups within processes of racialization (Warren, [131]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> We use the term <emph>racially minoritized</emph> to acknowledge that minoritization is a social process shaped by power, where ethnoracialized communities are actively minoritized by others rather than naturally existing as a minority (Benitez, [14]). In referencing racially minoritized communities, we reject essentialist views of social groups as sharing an underlying, inherent, similar nature in immutable ways (Medin & Ortony, [93]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Within each of these racialized categories, there is large variation that we are unable to explore in this paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> While policy outcomes can include diverse effects across various domains such as social, economic, and cultural spheres, this paper focuses on the impacts of policies on student outcomes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref120" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> The policy design process is also known as "formal policy design," which is distinguished from "informal policy design," or policy implementation in the administrative burden literature (Baekgaard & Tankink, [4], p. 17).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Through locally embedded schools, tribal governments seek to directly serve Indigenous youth. Tribal organizations, like the National Congress of American Indians ([101]), aim to strengthen tribal control of education, preserve and revitalize Native languages, provide tribes with access to tribal member student records, and encourage tribal and state partnerships.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref30" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> We draw from Freire's ([53]) notion of conscientização to refer to a subject's awareness of oppression, which can motivate praxis through agency. In the context of this study, an agent's critical consciousness entails a critical understanding of historically oppressive structures and the policies positioned within.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0179435588-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Anderson, C. (2016). White rage: The unspoken truth of our racial divide. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2022). Of 'Welfare Queens' and 'Poor Carinas': Social constructions, deservingness messaging and the mental health of welfare clients. British Journal of Political Science, 53 (2), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342200031X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baekgaard, M., Mikkelsen, K. S., Madsen, J. K., & Christensen, J. (2021). Reducing compliance demands in government benefit programs improves the psychological well-being of target group members. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31 (4), 806 – 821. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baekgaard, M., & Tankink, T. (2022). Administrative burden: Untangling a bowl of conceptual spaghetti. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5 (1), 16 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baker, D. J. (2019). Pathways to racial equity in higher education: Modeling the antecedents of state affirmative action bans. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (5), 1861 – 1895. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219833918</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barber, P. H., Hayes, T. B., Johnson, T. L., Márquez-Magaña, L., & 10,234 signatories. (2020). Systemic racism in higher education. Science, 369 (6510), 1440 – 1441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnes, C. Y. (2021). "It takes a while to get used to": The costs of redeeming public benefits. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31 (2), 295 – 310. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref201" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes, C. L., & Gennetian, L. A. (2021). Experiences of Hispanic families with social services in the racially segregated southeast: Views from administrators and workers in North Carolina. Race and Social Problems, 13 (1), 6 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-021-09318-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref63" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes, C., & Riel, V. (2022). "I don't know nothing about that:" How "learning costs" undermine COVID-related efforts to make SNAP and WIC more accessible. Administration & Society, 54 (10), 1902 – 1930. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211073948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barrett, N., McEachin, A., Mills, J. N., & Valant, J. (2021). Disparities and discrimination in student discipline by race and family income. The Journal of Human Resources, 56 (3), 711 – 748. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.56.3.0118-9267R2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bell, E. (2021). Deserving to whom? Investigating heterogeneity in the impact of social constructions of target populations on support for affirmative action. Policy Studies Journal, 49 (1), 268 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bell, E., & Gándara, D. (2021). Can free community college close racial disparities in postsecondary attainment? How Tulsa Achieves affects racially minoritized student outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 58 (6), 1142 – 1177. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211003501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bell, E., Ter‐Mkrtchyan, A., Wehde, W., & Smith, K. (2021). Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street‐level bureaucrats' perceptions of administrative burden. Public Administration Review, 81 (4), 610 – 624. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benitez, M., Jr. (2010). Resituating culture centers within a social justice framework: Is there room for examining whiteness? In L. D. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (pp. 119 – 134). Stylus.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bensimon, E. (2020). The case for an anti-racist stance toward paying off higher education's racial debt. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52 (2), 7 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. (2009). Dimensions of the transfer choice gap: Experiences of Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways. Harvard Educational Review, 79 (4), 632 – 658. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.05w66u23662k1444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berman, E. P. (2022). Thinking like an economist: How efficiency replaced equality in U.S. public policy. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of inequality in the United States (5th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradbury, A. (2020). A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 23 (2), 241 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1599338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brayboy, B. M. J., & Lomawaima, K. T. (2018). Why don't more Indians do better in school? The battle between U.S. schooling & American Indian/Alaska native education. Daedalus, 147 (2), 82 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00492</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrd, D. (2022). How diversity fails: An empirical investigation of organizational status and policy implementation on three public campuses. Education Sciences, 12 (3), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cai, J. (2020, December 1). The condition of native American students: This significant minority student group continues to struggle. National School Boards Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.nsba.org:443/ASBJ/2020/December/condition-native-american-students">www.nsba.org:443/ASBJ/2020/December/condition-native-american-students</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, S. D., Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Battle, J. S. (2019). Campus climate comparisons in academic pursuits: How race still matters for African American college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22 (3), 390 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218823065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, J. W., Pandey, S. K., & Arnesen, L. (2022). The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta‐narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures. Public Administration Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.13527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chase, M. M., Dowd, A. C., Pazich, L. B., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Transfer equity for "minoritized" students: A critical policy analysis of seven states. Educational Policy, 28 (5), 669 – 717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812468227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ching, C. D., Felix, E. R., Castro, M. C., & Trinidad, A. (2018). Achieving racial equity from the bottom up? The student equity policy in the California community colleges. Education Policy, 34 (6), 819 – 863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chin, M. J., Quinn, D. M., Dhaliwal, T. K., & Lovison, V. S. (2020). Bias in the air: A nationwide exploration of teachers' implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 49 (8), 566 – 578. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen, J., Aarøe, L., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127-136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Clifton, C. R., & Turaeva, M. R. (2021). School segregation at the classroom level in a southern "new destination" state (Working Paper No. 230-0220-3). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20230-0220-3.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coates, T. (2015). Between the world and me. Spiegel & Grau.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby, G., & Fowler, C. (2020, December). Data snapshot: IPEDS data on full-time women faculty and faculty of color. American Association of University Professors. https://<ulink href="http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Dec-2020%5fData%5fSnapshot%5fWomen%5fand%5fFaculty%5fof%5fColor.pdf">www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Dec-2020%5fData%5fSnapshot%5fWomen%5fand%5fFaculty%5fof%5fColor.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collier, D., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2022). Jubilee and jubilation: An examination of the relationship between public service loan forgiveness and measures of well-being. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4288699</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collier, D. A., & Parnther, C. (2021). Conversing with Kalamazoo promise scholars: An inquiry into the beliefs, motivations, and experiences of tuition-free college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 22 (4), 572 – 596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118774561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, B. (2016). The racial politics of time. Ideas Worth Spreading. https://time-issues.org/cooper-the-racial-politics-of-time/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crisp, G., & Nora, A. (2010). Hispanic student success: Factors influencing the persistence and transfer decisions of Latino community college students enrolled in developmental education. Research in Higher Education, 51 (2), 175 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9151-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deil-Amen, R., & Tevis, T. L. (2010). Circumscribed agency: The relevance of standardized college entrance exams for low SES high school students. The Review of Higher Education, 33 (2), 141 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delgado, R. (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers' expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35 (1), 75 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1525/AEQ.2004.35.1.75</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diaz, S. M. (2021, March). The stress and mental and emotional health of undocumented students (Ethnic Studies Research Paper). California State University. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/esa_submissions/10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diaz-Strong, D. X. (2021). "She did not find one that was for me": The college pathways of the Mexican and Central American undocumented 1.25 generation. Harvard Educational Review, 91 (1), 83 – 108. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-91.1.83</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Douglas-Gabriel, D., & Harden, J. D. (2021, February 7). To protect taxpayer dollars, the education Department Is disproportionately auditing Black and Latino college students. The Washington Post. https://<ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/02/07/fafsa-verification-black-latino-college-aid">www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/02/07/fafsa-verification-black-latino-college-aid</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Du Bois, W. E. B. (2008). The souls of black folk (B.H. Edwards, Ed.). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dynarski, S., Page, L. C., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2022, July). College costs, financial aid, and student decisions (Working Paper No. 30275). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30275</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dynarski, S. M., & Scott-Clayton, J. E. (2006). The cost of complexity in federal student aid: Lessons from optimal tax theory and behavioral economics (Working Paper No. 12227). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edlagan, C., & Vaghul, K. (2016, December 14). How data disaggregation matters for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/how-data-disaggregation-matters-for-asian-americans-and-pacific-islanders/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everett, A., Rosinger, K., Baker, D. J., Kim, H. J., Kelchen, R., & Ortagus, J. (n.d.). Tennessee's burden: How students apply for state financial aid within one southern state. InformEd States Higher Education Policy Initiative Working Paper. Retrieved May 25, 2023, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d9f9fae6a122515ee074363/t/63eab6bfcb08812d2c3d93e2/1676326592566/ISPaper_TNAdminBurden.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felix, E. R. (2021). Improving racial equity in community college: Developing a plan, implementing the vision. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43 (3), 419 – 444. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721996729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felix, E. R. (2022, October 3). Implementation of equity-oriented change and organizational commitment [ Google Doc ]. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D0vOvpB4xzil1APlZlrwHg6qGKwS8md9-T5D3PvCibs/view#</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felix, E. R., Jones, S. M., & Gándara, D. (2022, November 18). "All students matter": The place of race in discourse on student debt in a federal higher education policymaking process [Paper presentation]. 47th Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felix, E. R., & Trinidad, A. (2020). The decentralization of race: Tracing the dilution of racial equity in educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33 (4), 465 – 490. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fields, V. L., Sebree, W., & Sober, W. (2022). Navigating an anti-Black campus climate: #black@pwi. Race, Ethnicity & Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2022.2088720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flores, S. M., Lyons, S. M., Carroll, T., & Zapata, D. (2022). Race, place, and citizenship: The influence of segregation on Latino educational attainment. Minnesota Journal of Law and Inequality, 40 (1), 69 – 97. https://doi.org/10.24926/25730037.639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gándara, P. C., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674056367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gándara, D., & Jones, S. (2020). Who deserves benefits in higher education? A policy discourse analysis of a process surrounding reauthorization of the higher education act. The Review of Higher Education, 44 (1), 121 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2020.0037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gándara, D., Rippner, J. A., & Ness, E. C. (2017). Exploring the "how" in policy diffusion: National intermediary organizations' roles in facilitating the spread of performance-based funding policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88 (5), 701 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garces, L. M., & Poon, O. (2018, October 31). Asian AmericaNs and race-conscious admissions: Understanding the conservative opposition's strategy of misinformation, intimidation & racial division. The Civil Rights Project. https://<ulink href="http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/affirmative-action/asian-americans-and-race-conscious-admissions-understanding-the-conservative-opposition2019s-strategy-of-misinformation-intimidation-racial-division">www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/affirmative-action/asian-americans-and-race-conscious-admissions-understanding-the-conservative-opposition2019s-strategy-of-misinformation-intimidation-racial-division</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O., & Torres-Guevara, R. (2021). Monoglossic language education policies and Latinx students' language. In E. G. Murillo Jr., D. D. Bernal, S. Morales, L. Urrieta, E. R. Bybee, J. S. Muñoz, V. B. Sáenz, D. Villanueva, M. Machado-Casas, & K. Espinoza (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 93 – 102). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gast, M. J. (2022). Reconceptualizing college knowledge: Class, race, and Black students in a college-counseling field. Sociology of Education, 95 (1), 43 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407211046053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of White supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (4), 485 – 505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500132346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldrick-Rab, S., Kelchen, R., Harris, D. N., & Benson, J. (2016). Reducing income inequality in educational attainment: Experimental evidence on the impact of financial aid on college completion. American Journal of Sociology, 121 (6), 1762 – 1817. https://doi.org/10.1086/685442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graves, D. L. (2022, July). Latinx community college students experiencing financial aid income verification: A critical race analysis (EdWorking Paper No. 22-599). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/e1sv-2k92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2 (1), 233285841562217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gusa, D. L. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of whiteness on campus climate. Harvard Educational Review, 80 (4), 464 – 490. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.p5j483825u110002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guzman-Alvarez, A., & Page, L. C. (2021). Disproportionate burden: Estimating the cost of FAFSA verification for public colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43 (3), 545 – 551. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211001420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagerman, M. A. (2018). White kids: Growing up with privilege in a racially divided America. New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hancock, A. M. (2004). The politics of disgust: The public identity of the welfare queen. NYU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper, S. R. (2006). Black male students at public flagship universities in the U.S.: Status, trends, and implications for policy and practice. The Joint Center Health Policy Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.nationalcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Black-Male-Students-at-Public-Flagship.pdf">www.nationalcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Black-Male-Students-at-Public-Flagship.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus), 80 (4), 389 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hearn, J. C., & Ness, E. C. (2018). The ecology of state higher-education policymaking in the US. In D. Palfreyman, T. Tapper, & S. Thomas (Eds.), Towards the private funding of higher education: Ideological and political struggles (pp. 19 – 47). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.7758/9781610448789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hout, M. (2012). Social and economic returns to college education in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 38 (1), 379 – 400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, M. (2014). From the 'old'to the 'new'policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47 (3), 187 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2012). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration & Society, 45 (3), 357 – 381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459725</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hypolite, L. I., & Tichavakunda, A. A. (2019). Experiencing financial aid at a historically White institution: A critical race analysis. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 49 (1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.55504/0884-9153.1696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2022, January). "Opening the promise": The five principles of equitable policymaking. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43 (5), 586 – 611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07307794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jabbar, H., Daramola, E. J., Marsh, J. A., Enoch-Stevens, T., Alonso, J., & Allbright, T. N. (2022). Social construction is racial construction: Examining the target populations in school-choice policies. American Journal of Education, 128 (3), 487 – 518. https://doi.org/10.1086/719159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S. M. (2023). Lifting the veil: Utilizing critical qualitative inquiry to demystify the public policymaking process. Qualitative Inquiry, 10778004231163161. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231163161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klain, H., Morris, K., Feldman, M., & Ayala, R. (2020). Waiting to vote: Racial disparities in election day experiences. Brennan Center for Justice. file:///Users/johnbellquist/Downloads/6_02_WaitingtoVote_FINAL.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klasik, D. (2013). The ACT of enrollment: The college enrollment effects of state-required college entrance exam testing. Educational Researcher, 42 (3), 151 – 160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12474065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kofoed, M. S. (2017). To apply or not to apply: FAFSA completion and financial aid gaps. Research in Higher Education, 58 (1), 1 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9418-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J. C., Dell, M., González Canché, M. S., Monday, A., & Klafehn, A. (2021). The hidden costs of corroboration: Estimating the effects of financial aid verification on college enrollment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43 (2), 233 – 252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721989304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopez, J. D. (2018). Factors influencing American Indian and Alaska native postsecondary persistence: AI/AN millennium falcon persistence model. Research in Higher Education, 59 (6), 792 – 811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9487-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen, J. K., & Mikkelsen, K. S. (2022). How salient administrative burden affects job seekers' locus of control and responsibility attribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. International Public Management Journal, 25 (2), 241 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1951905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. The College Board. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572548.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maramba, D. C. (2011). The importance of critically disaggregating data: The case of southeast Asian American college students. AAPI Nexus Journal: Policy, Practice, and Community, 9 (1–2), 127 – 133. https://doi.org/10.36650/nexus9.1-2_127-133_Maramba</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez Alemán, A. M. (2020). Reclaiming the moral case for educational equity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52 (2), 95 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy-Simmons, C., Orphan, C. M., & Gándara, D. (2022). Intermediary public policy organizations and the discursive evasion of systemic racism and racialized violence. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221120279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKinney, L., & Novak, H. (2015). FAFSA filing among first-year college students: Who files on time, who doesn't, and why does it matter? Research in Higher Education, 56 (1), 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9340-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179 – 195). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michener, J. (2022, January 20). A racial equity framework for assessing health policy [Issue brief]. The Commonwealth Fund. https://<ulink href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2022/jan/racial-equity-framework-assessing-health-policy">www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2022/jan/racial-equity-framework-assessing-health-policy</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, C., & Stassun, K. (2014). A test that fails. Nature, 510 (7504), 303 – 304. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7504-303a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moynihan, D., Giannella, E., Herd, P., & Sutherland, J. (2022). Matching to categories: Learning and compliance costs in administrative processes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32 (4), 750 – 764. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mungo, M. H., & Klonowski, M. (2022). When free ain't really free: The hidden barriers of the free application for federal student aid. Midwest Social Sciences Journal, 25 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.22543/0796.251.1064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murakami, K. (2020, September 18). A last push for simplicity. Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/18/alexander-prepares-leave-final-push-simplify-fafsa">www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/18/alexander-prepares-leave-final-push-simplify-fafsa</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & Park, J. J. (2015). The continuing significance of racism in the lives of Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 56 (6), 551 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, May). Price of attending an undergraduate institution. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cua</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Congress of American Indians. (2015). Fiscal year 2016 Indian country budget request: Promoting self-determination, modernizing the trust relationship. <ulink href="http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/tribal-governance/budget-and-approprations/FY2016%5fNCAI%5fBudget%5fBooklet.pdf">http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/tribal-governance/budget-and-approprations/FY2016%5fNCAI%5fBudget%5fBooklet.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, B. M. D., Noguera, P., Adkins, N., & Teranishi, R. T. (2019). Ethnic discipline gap: Unseen dimensions of racial disproportionality in school discipline. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (5), 1973 – 2003. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219833919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols, A. H. (2020, July 21). Segregation forever? The continued underrepresentation of black and latino undergraduates at the nation's 101 most selective public colleges and universities. The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/resource/segregation-forever</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nienhusser, H. K. (2018). Higher education institutional agents as policy implementers: The case of policies that affect undocumented and DACAmented students. The Review of Higher Education, 41 (3), 423 – 453. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orphan, C. M., Gildersleeve, R. E., & Mills, A. P. (2020). State of rhetoric: Neoliberal discourses for education in state of the state addresses and gubernatorial press releases. Journal of Education Policy, 35 (4), 394 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1509376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens, J. (2022). Double jeopardy: Teacher biases, racialized organizations, and the production of racial/ethnic disparities in school discipline. American Sociological Review, 87 (6), 1007 – 1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221135810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page, L. C., Castleman, B. L., & Meyer, K. (2020). Customized nudging to improve FAFSA completion and income verification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42 (1), 3 – 21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719876916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pallais, A. (2015). Small differences that matter: Mistakes in applying to college. Journal of Labor Economics, 33 (2), 493 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1086/678520</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, J. D., & Jang, E.-Y. (2005). Korean born, Korean-American high school students' entry into understanding race and racism through social interactions and conversations. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 8 (3), 297 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320500174432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher education. Urban Education (Beverly Hills, Calif), 51 (3), 315 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915602542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramos, J., Rodin, J., Preuss, M., Sosa, E., Dorsett, C., & Burleson, C. (2021). Work patterns and financing college: A descriptive regional report regarding students at Hispanic-serving institutions in New Mexico and Texas. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3 (1), 1 – 31. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.60</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84 (1), 26 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray, V., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. (2023). Racialized burdens: Applying racialized organization theory to the administrative state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, A., Dean, K. C., & Davis, C. H. F., III. (2021). Towards a framework of racialized policymaking in higher education. In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 47 – 59). Springer Nature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosinger, K. O., Ford, K. S., & Choi, J. (2021). The role of selective college admissions criteria in interrupting or reproducing racial and economic inequities. The Journal of Higher Education, 92 (1), 31 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1795504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, P. G., & Hearn, J. C. (2018). The policy filtering process: Understanding distinctive state responses to the national college completion agenda in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334 – 347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schudde, L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2016). Pell grants as performance-based scholarships? An examination of satisfactory academic progress requirements in the nation's largest need-based aid program. Research in Higher Education, 57 (8), 943 – 967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9413-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P. K., Yuan, X., Nathan, A., & Hwang, Y. (2017, April). A national view of student attainment rates by race and ethnicity–Fall 2010 cohort (Signature Rep. No. 12b). National Clearinghouse Research Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580302.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slay, K. E., & Glasener, K. M. (2022). Beyond admissions: Advancing equity and success for high achieving, low-income students through an institutional promise program. In O. A. Poon & M. N. Bastedo (Eds.), Rethinking college admissions: Research-based practice and policy (pp. 94 – 103). Lightning Source Inc. Tier 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2008). The color of devolution: Race, federalism, and the politics of social control. American Journal of Political Science, 52 (3), 536 – 553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00328.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Measuring race and gender differences in undergraduate students' perceptions of campus climate and intentions to leave college: An analysis in Black and White. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50 (2), 115 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tachine, A. R. (2017). Grandmothers' pedagogy: Lessons for supporting native students' attendance at universities. In J. Frawley, S. Larkin, & J. A. Smith (Eds.), Indigenous pathways, transitions and participation in higher education: From policy to practice (pp. 151 – 167). Springer Singapore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J. (2022). Wrecked: Deinstitutionalization and partial defenses in state higher education policy. Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.36019/9781978821453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, M., Turk, J. M., Chessman, H. M., & Espinosa, L. L. (2020). Race and ethnicity in higher education: 2020 supplement. American Council on Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.equityinhighered.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/REHE-2020-final.pdf">www.equityinhighered.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/REHE-2020-final.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teranishi, R. T. (2010). Asians in the ivory tower: Dilemmas of racial inequality in American higher education. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomsen, M. K., Baekgaard, M., & Jensen, U. T. (2020). The psychological costs of citizen coproduction. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30 (4), 656 – 673. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warren, K. C. (2020). Rethinking racial, ethnoracial, and imperial categories: Key concepts in comparative race studies in the history of education. History of Education Quarterly, 60 (4), 657 – 669. https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2020.42</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weathers, E. S., & Sosina, V. E. (2022). Separate remains unequal: Contemporary segregation and racial disparities in school district revenue. American Educational Research Journal, 59 (5), 905 – 938. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221079297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony & ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America's universities. Bloomsbury Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wingfield, A. H., & Alston, R. S. (2014). Maintaining hierarchies in predominantly White organizations: A theory of racial tasks. American Behavioral Scientist, 58 (2), 274 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213503329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yi, V., & Museus, S. D. (2015). Model minority myth. In The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and nationalism. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zelaya, J. L. (2019). Exploring the experiences of undocumented students who graduated with postgraduate degrees from institutions of higher education [ Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University ]. https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/189241</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Denisa Gándara; Rosa Maria Acevedo; Diana Cervantes and Marco Antonio Quiroz</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref215"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1438695
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Advancing a Framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Denisa+Gándara%22">Denisa Gándara</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-5583">0000-0001-5714-5583</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rosa+Maria+Acevedo%22">Rosa Maria Acevedo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6361-8735">0000-0002-6361-8735</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diana+Cervantes%22">Diana Cervantes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3831-1122">0000-0003-3831-1122</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marco+Antonio+Quiroz%22">Marco Antonio Quiroz</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 95(6):718-746.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 29
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (DHHS/NIH)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: P2CHD042849
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Factors%22">Racial Factors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Admission+Criteria%22">Admission Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Administration%22">College Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrative+Principles%22">Administrative Principles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Policy+Formation%22">Policy Formation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00221546.2023.2251866
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-1546<br />1538-4640
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Many policies in higher education are intended to improve college access and degree completion, yet often those policies fall short of their aims by making it difficult for prospective or current college students to access benefits for which they are eligible. Barriers that inhibit access to policy benefits, such as cumbersome paperwork, can weigh more heavily on members of marginalized communities, including racially minoritized students. Such administrative burdens can thus reinforce patterns of inequity. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework for examining administrative burdens embedded in higher education policies that can negatively affect prospective and current college students, especially those who are racially minoritized. With the use of our proposed framework for addressing racialized administrative burdens, researchers can improve the understanding of ethnoracial disparities in higher education, inform policymakers' design of racially equitable policies for higher education, and enable practitioners to implement those policies to promote racial equity.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1438695
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1438695
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00221546.2023.2251866
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 29
        StartPage: 718
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Admission Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrative Principles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Policy Formation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Advancing a Framework of Racialized Administrative Burdens in Higher Education Policy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Denisa Gándara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rosa Maria Acevedo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diana Cervantes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marco Antonio Quiroz
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-1546
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1538-4640
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1