This report is the third publication from iCount: A Data Quality Movement for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. In alignment with the efforts of iCount to bring awareness to the disparities that are concealed by vast generalizations about AAPI students, this study utilizes data from the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) and qualitative interviews to examine the experiences of AAPI students on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus. As one of a few studies focusing specifically on campus racial climate and AAPI students, this report brings to light the racialized experiences of AAPI students and the importance of utilizing disaggregated data for improving their experiences with regard to campus climate.
This 2015 CARE Report is the third of a series of reports that share results from PEER and explores the impact of scholarships on the educational experiences of AAPI students at community colleges.
Utilizing disaggregated data from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Educational Research Data Center (ERDC), this report offers a deeper and more nuanced perspective on the educational realities of AAPI students and reinforces the need for disaggregated data to unmask the hidden opportunity gaps of particular AAPI students in the State of Washington. The report aims to demonstrate why and how data disaggregation is a critical tool for closing the academic opportunity gaps through the advancement of equitable educational practices. It offers a foundational study on state-level efforts that is the first of its kind to utilize disaggregated data since it was first collected in the State of Washington in 2010.
Partnership for Equity in Education through Research (PEER): Measuring the Impact of MSI-Funded Programs on Student Success: Findings from the Evaluation of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions
The 2014 CARE Report is the second of a series of reports that share results from PEER, and responds to the call for research to measure the impact of funding from the federal minority serving institution (MSI) program on institutional performance. This report presents findings that highlight the effective role of AANAPISIs for increasing AAPI transition from basic skills to college-level courses, transfer to a four-year institution, higher degree attainment rates, and reducing disparities in educational outcomes.
The 2013 iCount Report was made possible through the generous funding from the Educational Testing Service (ETS). This report provides both the need and rationale for disaggregated data and discusses the extent to which AAPI students are a dynamic, heterogeneous, and evolving population and the implications for how measurement standards and techniques are factors in how their educational needs, challenges, and distribution are represented and understood. The report highlights how access to and use of these data increase and more influence higher education’s ability to be more responsive to the needs of AAPI sub-groups.
The 2013 CARE Report is the first of a series of reports that share results from PEER, and focuses primarily on findings from the first year of the project. To provide context, we begin by sharing baseline information about the AANAPISI program and AANAPISI institutions nationally. This report also presents findings from co-investigative inquiry activities with campus partners and discusses the extent to which being an AANAPISI improves institutional capacity to respond to the needs of AAPI students.
The 2011 CARE Report aims to raise awareness about the relevance of AAPI students to offer a broader vision of a higher education agenda that is inclusive of one of America’s most underserved communities.
The 2010 CARE Report focuses most intently on areas of emerging importance related to how AAPIs are positioned within the context of higher education policy priorities. Specifically, the report focuses on three areas of higher education that are critical for AAPIs and the nation looking forward: 1) education and workforce development needs of AAPIs, 2) AAPIs in the community college sector, and 3) AAPIs and minority-serving institution legislation.
The 2008 CARE Report seeks to improve U.S. education for all students by expanding the way education leaders, federal and state policy-makers, and the public understand the complexities, inequities, and strengths of the U.S. educational system. This report is intended to encourage realistic and actionable discussions about how societal distinctions of race, class, ethnicity, language, and other cultural factors are constituted in the day-to-day operations of American schools.
Asian Americans are increasingly a factor in the political life of the United States, which makes it important to gain an accurate rendering of their position on key social issues that impact the nation. One area where there is a lack of understanding about the position of Asian Americans is with the issue of affirmative action. The 80-20 National Education Foundation (“80-20”) submitted an amicus brief in the Fisher Supreme Court case on affirmative action,2 reporting that “47,000 Asian Americans revealed overwhelming support (by a more than 52:1 ratio) within the community for race-neutral, merit-based college admission policies” (p. 2). However, this is a significant difference from any other poll on Asian Americans’ attitudes toward affirmative action. This brief examines existing research on the attitudes of Asian Americans regarding affirmative action and compares these results to the poll conducted by 80-20.
A key argument for affirmative action is that college students benefit from engagement in a racially diverse student body.2 Because many students have few meaningful experiences with diversity prior to college, exposure to divergent viewpoints and perspectives is an essential part of spurring student growth and development.3 Engagement with diversity is also an important part of preparing students to be leaders in a diverse democracy and to participate in an increasingly competitive and global economy.4 However, is there evidence that Asian Americans college students themselves specifically benefit from engagement with diversity? This research brief examines the existing empirical work regarding benefits associated with diversity for Asian American college students. In this review of the literature, most of the studies referenced are empirical analyses of national, longitudinal datasets.
Opponents of affirmative action in the Fisher Supreme Court case2 claim that race-conscious admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants and impose a “higher bar”3 in college admissions than for other students. In their amicus brief supporting the plaintiff in the Fisher case, 80-20 states that, “Asian American enrollment rises dramatically when race-conscious admission standards are eliminated. When Californians ratified Calif. Const. art. I, § 31 (“Proposition 209”), barring all invidious racial discrimination in college admissions, [University of California] Berkeley saw Asian freshman enrollment rise from 37.3 percent in 1995, to 43.57 percent in 2000, to 46.59 percent by 2005.”4 Like 80-20, the Asian American Legal Foundation (AALF) also presents undergraduate enrollment data at California public universities as evidence that Asian Americans benefited from race-blind policies in their amicus brief.5 This research brief evaluates the claim that Proposition 209 caused an increase in Asian American enrollment numbers in the University of California (UC).6 An analysis of empirical data indicates there was no direct causal relationship between increased Asian American enrollment numbers in the UC and the implementation of race-blind admissions policies in 1998.
Our system of higher education must realize a fundamentally different approach to teaching and learning because of our nation’s rapidly changing demography. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders represent the fastest growing demographic in our country today.1 The federal government has responded to this 21st century reality by creating the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI) federal program. This program is a competitive grant process for institutions with at least a 10% enrollment of AAPI full-time equivalent students, a minimum threshold of low-income students, and a lower than average educational and general expenditure per student.
Our The stratification of opportunities and disparate outcomes for Black and Latino boys and men has been well documented. However, there remains a lack of awareness about the extent to which these issues are relevant for the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. This brief focuses on key status and leading indicators for the mobility and life course outcomes of AAPI boys and men, demonstrating the ways in which broad sweeping generalizations about the population miss incidences of differential access to educational opportunities and significant educational challenges. This brief reports on analysis of both differences between men from different AAPI subgroups, as well as differences between men and women within AAPI subgroups. Data reveal the need for greater inclusion of the AAPI community in efforts to address the educational challenges facing all men of color.