# data[].attributes.body
Key Themes & Takeaways:

Historical Context of HSIs & Policy

HSIs emerged due to demographic shifts and systemic underfunding of institutions serving Latinx students.

Unlike HBCUs and TCUs, HSIs were not originally designated based on historical mission but rather on enrollment demographics.

Federal recognition of HSIs came through the Higher Education Act (HEA) amendments, particularly Title V, which provides funding for institutional development.

# data[].attributes.body
Takeaways:

Historical Underfunding: TCUs were created to serve Indigenous students, but they continue to suffer from chronic underfunding at both state and federal levels.

Land Grant Inequities: Unlike other land-grant institutions, TCUs receive far less funding from state and federal sources.

Sovereignty & Policy Barriers: Federal policies often fail to recognize the unique governance structures of TCUs, leading to bureaucratic challenges in securing funding.

# data[].attributes.body
Takeaways:

Why is it Problematic for HBCUs?

HBCUs serve high proportions of first-gen, low-income, and underrepresented students, who often face systemic barriers to success.

PBF models do not account for structural inequities, putting HBCUs at a financial disadvantage.

Many HBCUs have fewer financial resources to invest in student support programs compared to predominantly white institutions (PWIs).

# data[].attributes.body
Takeaways:

Challenges of Dual Status:

Competing for Funding: Federal and state policies do not always provide separate funding streams, forcing institutions to prioritize one group over another.

Institutional Identity Conflicts: Colleges struggle to serve diverse student populations while maintaining eligibility for MSI-specific funding.

Accountability and Oversight Issues: Policymakers often fail to create clear guidelines on how institutions should navigate dual designation.

# data[].attributes.body
Takeaways:

·       Defining Financial Resilience at HSIs

Financial resilience refers to an institution's ability to adapt, sustain, and grow despite funding challenges.

HSIs often operate with limited financial resources, relying heavily on federal and state funding.

·       Funding Challenges for HSIs

Overreliance on Federal Funds: Many HSIs depend on Title V funding, but this support is not guaranteed and highly competitive.

State Disinvestment: In states with high Latinx populations, public funding has not kept pace with enrollment growth at HSIs.

Lower Endowments & Philanthropic Support: Compared to non-HSIs, these institutions receive less private funding and alumni donations.

# data[].attributes.body
The chapter explains how rules from the state and government affect Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), focusing mainly on money rules. The main issue is that Pell Grants don’t provide as much help anymore because college costs are rising and states aren’t giving enough money to schools. This makes it harder for poor students to attend college, forcing them to borrow more money. The rules seem to prioritize keeping college affordable rather than making it fair, which could make things worse. The chapter raises questions about the future of MSIs if these trends continue, how to fix the Pell Grants issue, and how MSIs can cope with less funding.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 13 (Challenges for TCUs), it explains how old policies still make things hard for TCUs, like not enough money and feeling left out. It says more support and working together with cultures is really important.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 3 (HBCUs & PBF), it talks about how performance-based funding (PBF) is bad for HBCUs because it doesn’t consider inequities and the special needs of students. The PBF models don’t think about these differences and need to be more fair.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 4 (Dual Designation at CSUs), it talks about the problem of being both HSI and AANAPISI at CSUs. This causes funding problems and issues with following rules. Managing grants and helping different students needs better data and policies.

# data[].attributes.body
HSIs are in a "double bind" because they need to help vulnerable students, but those students are expensive to teach, and HSIs don't have enough money. The situation gets worse with less money from the government, lower tuition, and not enough private donations, making it harder for them to provide good education. This systemic unfairness affects Latina/o students and makes it tough for them to succeed. There needs to be more support, new policies, and better fundraising. HSIs are hurt more by declining public investment and face big gaps in resources compared to other schools. The financial problems make it hard for them to serve vulnerable students, and the unfair funding affects Latina/o student success. The chapter asks what can be done to help HSIs, what the long-term impact is on Latina/o students, and what new ways HSIs can raise money to fix these problems. Understanding these issues is important to help Latina/o students do better in higher education.

# data[].attributes.body
Boland asks questions about the limitations of performance-based funding and calls for a restructuring of state and federal policies so they can provide better support services to MSIs. I wonder if some MSIs run on both qualitative and quantitative metrics, and if so, how does a combination of these metrics better support the institution?

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter looks at the progress of TCUs and looks at how old policies create structural barriers within their framework. This realization isn’t anything new since every university in the United States still incorporates a mindset and curriculum outlook that does not reflect the current times. TCU policies, while well-meaning, come with consequences because, according to the article, these policies were established to standardize higher education, but they include how important Native cultural history and community are to the foundation of TCUs.

# data[].attributes.body
Even with private corporations stepping in to assist with funding, HBCUs need to rethink their current funding models figure out how to stop PDFs from penalizing their institutions and create more equity-designed policies.

# data[].attributes.body
CSUs with multiple designations need to do better at advocating for reforms that challenge policymakers and educational leaders to rethink how to deal with competing demands and create more productive frameworks that will fulfill the mission statements and no longer create any conflicting situations that affect their students.

# data[].attributes.body
As the Latino/a population is set to become the new majority in the United States, how will HSIs continue to keep their MSI designation if their funding continues to be misappropriated and/or defunded?

# data[].attributes.body
o   Many economists, politicians, and critics of higher education began to question the validity of the state using public funds to pay for what many policymakers myopically defined as private benefits.

This mindset was a very intentional shift starting with Reagan to cut spending and push towards privatization. This shift has very specifically shifted the conversation around education to pretty much ONLY focus on career outcomes, rather than all the other outcomes we know to be true around education.

# data[].attributes.body
o   The long, destructive relationship between Native Americans and European settlers is beyond the scope of this paper.1 But this history informs the challenges TCUs face today, namely population loss, geographic isolation, under-resourced students, and under-resourced educational institutions.

These histories are important for all conversations around policy and sociology. I wish there were space in every paper to call out these histories in a meaningful way.

# data[].attributes.body
o   This theory is flawed when applied to a diverse range of postsecondary institutions, specifically HBCUs, as lower institutional resources and socio-economic factors faced by the student populations they serve may inhibit them from reaching state-instituted performance goals.

Especially when many of the PBFs intentionally create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in their system. Even if these schools are able to increase outcomes, if other schools do the same, it does not matter.

# data[].attributes.body
o   In addition we suggest that CSUs collect their own individual data so they will have accurate statistics of their student population. Therefore they will see which student population groups need academic support in order to be successful.

At DH, we started disaggregating data around AAPI students, but only after the students themselves forced the administration’s hand. The CSU has been collecting the necessary data to do this for years, but has still remained committed to almost exclusively viewing race through IPEDS categories.

# data[].attributes.body
o   Recommendation: The Federal Government Should Increase Funding for Title V and Other HSI-specific Grants at a Rate Proportional to the Increase in the Number of HSIs and Their Enrollment

What does the future of this recommendation look like? Even if we are able to maintain the existence of the DoE and all the other departments listed in this section, it will take decades for funding to return to what it looked like even in 2024.

# data[].attributes.body
Castro Samayoa & Gasman: Ch. 2 State and Federal Policy

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that public policy for MSIs often prioritizes economic and workforce needs over equity and social justice.

1. Policies on higher education funding and access focus on economic benefits rather than addressing systemic exclusion.

2. MSI students are often framed as a workforce resource rather than as individuals needing equitable educational opportunities.

2. I realize that MSIs are disproportionately affected by the declining purchasing power of Pell Grants and state disinvestment in higher education.

1. Pell Grants once covered a significant portion of tuition, but their purchasing power has dropped significantly.

2. Many MSIs serve low-income, first-generation students who rely heavily on financial aid, making these funding reductions particularly damaging

3. I understand that performance-based funding policies often disadvantage MSIs by failing to account for their unique student populations.

1. States like Florida and Texas tie funding to student outcomes like graduation rates, disproportionately hurting MSIs.

2. HBCUs in performance-funded states have seen a decline in completion rates, suggesting these policies do not support equitable student success.

# data[].attributes.body
Gasman, et al: Ch.3 Examining Performance-Based Funding and Historically Black Colleges

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that PBF models disadvantage HBCUs by failing to account for the unique challenges their students face.

1. HBCUs serve a large proportion of low-income, first-generation students who often require additional academic and financial support.

2. PBF rewards institutions based on metrics like graduation and job placement rates, but these measures do not account for socioeconomic barriers that impact HBCU student outcomes.

2. I realize that states with aggressive PBF policies have seen a decline in funding for public HBCUs.

1. In states like Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi, PBF has resulted in less funding for smaller regional universities and HBCUs while favoring flagship public institutions.

2. Florida A&M University lost state funding despite improving graduation rates, illustrating how PBF policies fail to support institutions that serve underprivileged students.

3. I understand that PBF pressures HBCUs to change admissions practices, which may negatively impact their historical mission.

1. Some HBCUs have increased admissions selectivity to improve graduation rates and secure more state funding.

2. This shift contradicts their historical mission of providing access to students who have been underserved by traditional education systems, potentially limiting opportunities for students in need.

# data[].attributes.body
Gasman, et al: Ch. 4 The Problematic Challenges faced by Dual Designation at CSUs

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that dual designation as both an HSI and an AANAPISI presents challenges in federal funding access for universities.

1. Institutions that qualify as both Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs) must choose between funding streams, as current federal regulations prohibit receiving multiple MSI grants simultaneously.

2. This forces universities to prioritize one minority group over another, creating tensions within campus communities.

2. I realize that demographic shifts in California make dual designation an increasingly relevant issue.

1. Latino and AAPI student enrollments in California’s CSU system have grown significantly, making it more likely that campuses qualify for both HSI and AANAPISI status.

2. Despite this, policies have not adapted to reflect the changing racial/ethnic composition of student populations, limiting institutional flexibility in serving all minority groups equitably.

3. I understand that legislative efforts, such as the MSI Fairness Act, aim to address these funding challenges but have yet to succeed.

1. In 2015, the MSI Fairness Act was proposed to allow institutions to receive multiple MSI grants at the same time, but it failed to pass.

2. Without policy reform, dual-designated institutions remain disadvantaged, as they must choose between funding sources instead of being able to fully support both Latino and AAPI students.

# data[].attributes.body
Ortega, N., Frye, J., Nellum, J, Kimimura, A., & Vidal-Rodriguez, A. (2015).

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that HSIs are disproportionately impacted by declining state and federal funding, making financial resilience a critical issue.

1. HSIs serve a large percentage of low-income, first-generation Latino students, yet they receive significantly less per-student state and local appropriations compared to non-HSIs.

2. Between 1999 and 2010, public four-year HSIs received on average $1,274 less per student in state and local funding than non-HSIs, making it harder for these institutions to invest in student success initiatives.

2. I realize that federal funding for HSIs has not kept pace with the rapid increase in HSI-eligible institutions, leading to intense competition for limited resources.

1. The number of HSIs more than doubled between 1996 and 2010, yet federal Title V appropriations have remained relatively stagnant.

2. In 2009, only half of federally recognized HSIs received Title V grants, and the funding amounts were significantly lower compared to investments in other MSIs.

3. I understand that HSIs’ reliance on tuition revenue makes them more vulnerable to financial instability and limits affordability for students.

1. HSIs are more dependent on government sources of revenue than non-HSIs, making them highly susceptible to public funding cuts.

2. As state appropriations decline, HSIs have had to increase tuition and fees, which disproportionately affects Latino students, who are more likely to come from low-income backgrounds and rely on financial aid.

# data[].attributes.body
Gasman, et al.: Ch. 13 Remnants of Past Policies Continue to Create Challenges for TCUs

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that the historical legacy of forced assimilation continues to shape the challenges faced by TCUs today.

1. TCUs were created in response to the failures of federal policies, which historically aimed to assimilate Native students into White culture through boarding schools and vocational training.

2. The Native American self-determination movement of the 1960s and 1970s pushed for the creation of tribally led higher education institutions, ensuring Native students had access to culturally relevant education.

2. I realize that TCUs operate under severe financial constraints due to the federal government’s failure to fully honor treaty obligations.

1. The U.S. government promised education funding for Native nations in exchange for land, but these commitments have largely gone unfulfilled, leaving TCUs chronically underfunded.

2. Federal funding per Native student at TCUs is below authorized levels, and state governments generally do not provide financial support, making it difficult for these institutions to expand programs and services.

3. I understand that TCUs serve as more than academic institutions; they provide essential community services to address socioeconomic disparities.

1. Many TCUs function as community hubs, offering services such as healthcare, childcare, workforce training, and food assistance in geographically remote areas.

2. Because reservations often have limited infrastructure, high unemployment, and lack access to basic services, TCUs play a vital role in improving the overall well-being of tribal communities.

# data[].attributes.body
What resonated with me the most was the discussion of the challenges and opportunities for policy reform. It’s inspiring to think that MSIs have the potential to be more than just places of education; they can be transformative institutions with the right backing. However, it’s frustrating to recognize how inconsistent funding and policies hinder their true potential. As someone passionate about education equity, this chapter deepened my commitment to advocating for more consistent, equitable policies that better support MSIs and their diverse student populations.

# data[].attributes.body
What stood out most to me was the deep, lingering effects of past policies—particularly assimilation efforts—that still shape the educational experiences of Native American students today. I had never fully understood how the historical mistreatment of Indigenous communities has impacted higher education, and this chapter helped me connect the dots between past policies and present struggles. I was especially moved by the conversation around underfunding and the constant tension TCUs face in balancing traditional Indigenous knowledge with the demands of the mainstream academic system. It’s clear that TCUs are doing critical work in preserving cultural heritage and empowering Native American students, yet they are often left to navigate systemic barriers that undermine their potential.

# data[].attributes.body
It was striking to see how well-intentioned policies, like performance-based funding (PBF), can unintentionally disadvantage institutions already grappling with historical underfunding and structural inequities. I had not fully grasped how PBF, which is often designed to incentivize institutional improvements, actually sets up HBCUs for failure by imposing standards that do not account for their unique student populations or missions. The discussion about how PBF metrics tend to favor predominantly white institutions (PWIs) with better resources, lower dropout rates, and wealthier student bodies really resonated with me. HBCUs tend to serve students who face more barriers, such as higher rates of poverty, less academic preparation, and greater family obligations, making it incredibly difficult for them to meet the same performance targets that PBF systems expect.

# data[].attributes.body
This provided valuable insight into the complexities of dual designation at CSUs. The chapter highlights the tension between institutional funding constraints and the need to equitably support multiple minority populations. One of the points that resonated most with me was the struggle of balancing priorities—CSUs must meet the needs of both Hispanic and Asian American/Pacific Islander students while working with limited resources. This often leads to unintentional marginalization of one group over the other. I found the discussion on faculty challenges particularly striking. Many educators are committed to student success but lack the institutional support needed to develop inclusive programs that cater to different cultural and academic needs. This reminds me of broader issues in higher education, where well-intended policies can sometimes create new obstacles rather than solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
I was particularly interested in the discussion on diversifying revenue streams. While HSIs have found ways to be resourceful, such as forming partnerships and seeking philanthropic funding, the systemic challenges in securing sustainable financial resources remain a major concern. The chapter made me reflect on how financial instability can impact not just institutional operations but also student success—limited resources often mean fewer academic programs, reduced support services, and higher financial burdens on students. This reinforced my belief that more attention needs to be given to funding equity in higher education. If HSIs are expected to serve a growing Hispanic student population effectively, there must be greater financial investment and policy changes to support their mission. Institutions should not have to struggle for basic resources while playing such a critical role in fostering educational opportunities for underrepresented communities.

# data[].attributes.body
“It is impossible to divorce higher education policy studies from the dominant narratives of their particular times and place”

MSIs are emblematic of an activist spirit and a communal desire to wrest the reins of education from a racist, hegemonic legacy

The article explores the impacts of federal and state public policies on MSIs

The three primary components of higher education finance at the state level are state appropriations, tuition setting and state financial aid

Most critical research on higher education finance discusses how most states fail to craft a coherent finance policy that coordinates each element into a harmonious union

Many critics of higher education public policy argue that state priorities rarely align with higher education finance policies

# data[].attributes.body
TCUs face obstacles created by the US government itself via its relocation policies and eventually failure to fulfill treaty promises and federal funding

The federal government led the missions and agendas of these institutions, but daily management was left in the hands of religious organizations who operated the schools, rarely if ever included NA in curriculum development or decision making (Carney, 1999)

37 - There are 37 members of AIHEC including one  Canadian institution

Serve students from 230 federally recognized tribes

These institutions operate 75 learning sites

TCUs use community-based research to identify and address tribal needs and creates and improves upon programs and interventions aimed at meeting these needs (Crazy Bull, 2015b)

# data[].attributes.body
The author explores the historical and present contexts of HBCUs. HBCU students, and performance based funding in relation to these institutions

The United States has fallen from first to twelfth place among developed nations (The White House, 2016)

Challenges of PBF

The intended outcomes are key metrics such as graduation and retention rates, student level, and types of academic programs within publicly funded institutions of higher education.

The resource dependency theory suggests that because of public institutions’ dependency on state appropriations, threatening to remove funding serves as an incentive for better performance.

This theory is flawed when applied to a diverse range of postsecondary institutions, specifically HBCUs, as lower institutional resources and socio-economic factors faced by the student populations they serve may inhibit them from reaching state-instituted performance goals. (pg. 41)

# data[].attributes.body
CSU system was established in 1960 under the California State Master Plan for Higher Education and is now the 4th largest public university system in the U.S

In case of the CSU  system, about half of its campuses are capable of becoming dual-designated AANAPISIs and HSIs

The authors relied mostly on qualitative data gained from speaking with others and the experiences faced at Sacramento State

# data[].attributes.body
Kraatz and Zajac (2001) examined the effects of institutional resources such as endowments on the prosperity for change at liberal arts colleges

Is this true though?

Indeed, it is a case of a double bind—the most vulnerable students are often the most expensive to serve adequately (Webber & Ehrenberg, 2009), and the most vulnerable institutions have the least resilience to withstand threats in their financial environments (Zumeta, 2005).

Latinas/os represent the largest group of students of color on postsecondary campuses, but even after increasing by an unprecedented 50% between 2006 and 2010, the share of Latina/o college graduates remains below that of their non-Latina/o peers (Fry & López, 2012).

This brings me to think about the lie that DEI initiatives are drowning the economy.

“It is also important to note that, in 2009, nearly half of all HSIs (44%) still did not receive any Title V federal grant awards.”

On the basis of our analysis we can, however, make a few unconditional statements with no fear of reasonable refutation: Latina/o students will increase their participation in U.S. higher education, and such participation is necessary to promote the country’s social, political, and economic vitality.