Policy implementation as a tool for advancing equity in community college Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 3/2/2021 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 3/3/2021 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 3/3/2021 SPECIAL ISSUE Policy Implementation as an Instrument to Achieve Educational Equity in the Community College Context education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 29 Number 25 March 8, 2021 ISSN 1068-2341 Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity in Community College Ángel de Jesus Gonzalez San Diego State University Luz Burgos-López University of Connecticut, Storrs Eric R. Felix San Diego State University H. Kenny Nienhusser University of Connecticut, Storrs United States Citation: Gonzalez, Á. D. J., Burgos-López, L., Felix, E. R., & Nienhusser, H. K. (2021). Policy implementation as a tool for advancing equity in community college. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(25). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6689 This article is part of the special issue, Policy Implementation as an Instrument to Achieve Educational Equity in the Community College Context, guest edited by Eric R. Felix, H. Kenny Nienhusser, Ángel de Jesus Gonzalez, and Luz Burgos-Lopez. Abstract: This special issue examines the role of policy implementation in the community college context and the ways reforms are enacted to achieve or advance educational equity. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6689 Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 2 In this introduction, we provide an overview of policy implementation, its current landscape within higher education, and the role it can and must serve for community colleges as a tool to advance equity efforts. The articles in this special issue provide a well - rounded overview of policy implementation efforts across various states and institutions. Authors examine promise programs, equity initiatives, articulation agreements, federally funded support programs, and race-conscious implementation. The community college context serves as a critical site of inquiry given that almost half of the undergraduate population is enrolled at a community college. Therefore, the following articles explore how to leverage policy implementation as a tool toward more equitable out comes. Keywords: policy implementation; community college; equity Implementación de políticas como herramienta para promover la equidad en los colegios comunitarios Resumen: Este número especial examina la implementación de políticas en el contexto de los colegios comunitarios y cómo las reformas logran o promueven la equidad educativa. En esta introducción, presentamos una descripción general de la implementación de políticas, su lugar dentro de la educación superior, cómo debe ser una herramienta para avanzar en los esfuerzos de equidad. Los artículos de este número especial brindan una visión equilibrada de la implementación de políticas en varios estados e instituciones. Los autores examinan programas de programas de promesa, iniciativas de equidad, acu erdos de transferencia, programas de apoyo, e implementación consciente de la raza. El colegio comunitario sirve como un sitio crítico de investigación, ya que casi la mitad de la población universitaria está matriculada en un colegio comunitario. Esta col ección explora cómo aprovechar la implementación de políticas como una herramienta para lograr resultados más equitativos. Palabras-clave: implementación de políticas; colegio comunitario; equidad Implementação de políticas como uma ferramenta para promov er a equidade na faculdade comunitária Resumo: Este dossiê examina a implementação de políticas no contexto de faculdades comunitárias e como as reformas alcançam ou avançam a igualdade educacional. Nesta introdução, apresentamos uma visão geral da implementação de políticas, seu lugar no ensino superior e como deve ser uma ferramenta para o avanço dos esforços de equidade. Os artigos neste dossiê fornecem uma visão equilibrada da implementação de políticas em vários estados e instituições. Os autores examinam programas de programas de promessa, iniciativas de capital, acordos de transferência, programas de apoio e implementação com consciência racial. A faculdade comunitária serve como um local crítico de investigação, já que quase metade da população universitária está matriculada em uma faculdade comunitária. Esta coleção explora como alavancar a implementação de políticas como uma ferramenta para resultados mais equitativos. Palavras-chave: implementação de políticas; faculdade comunitária; equidade Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 3 Introduction The purpose of this special issue is to further understand the role of policy implementation in the community college context and the ways reforms are enacted to achieve greater educational equity. This issue contains five manuscripts that highlight educational reforms and their policy implementation in the community college context and how they relate to educational equity. The five education reforms include: tuition-free programs and their ability to deliver on their promise of access and equity; transfer articulation agreements and their benefits to racially minoritized communities; degree reclaim strategies that seek to improve the educational attainment of the “some college, no degree” population; programs that improve STEM completion; and lastly, the role of race-conscious leadership in policy implementation. Our hope in curating this special issue was to generate critical scholarship to help us further understand the role of policy implementation to achieve greater equity in the community college sector. We focused on how policy implementation, an often-neglected element of the policymaking process, should be leveraged to achieve educational equity. It is also important to problematize the neutralizing of equity, which centers whiteness and white ways of knowing through color evasiveness in addressing barriers for racially marginalized students in education (Annamma et al., 2015; Cabrera & Corces-Zimmerman, 2017). Specifically, because “education policymaking does not always lead to sustainable progress” (Harper et al., 2009, p. 389). The call to problematize equity is also a call to center and focus on the role of policy implementation and the actors and stakeholders that play a role in ensuring and dismissing the needs of community colleges. This criticality is necessary given that community colleges reflect a “national movement intent on fundamentally transforming an elitist higher education into a democratic and socially efficient system of advanced learning” (Pedersen, 2000, p. 124). While community colleges continue to transform to meet the needs of students (Cohen et al., 2014), ultimately as a system, its foundation is rooted in providing greater access to communities and areas that were excluded from elitist higher education systems. As scholar-activists it is important we anchor our research on community colleges because they serve marginalized communities in metropolitan centers (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 33) and in rural communities (Koricich et al., 2018). In addition to attracting specific populations due to their locations, community colleges also provide educational opportunities that are more affordable and meet their workforce development needs (Cohen, 2014). Therefore, anchoring this special issue within the community college context and exploring the role of policy implementation in achieving greater educational equity implications is of utmost urgency. Impact of Dual Pandemic From the initial conceptualization of this special issue to its publication, we have witnessed historical events that have impacted us all. The dual pandemic of COVID-19 and racism has demanded us to reconsider the role of higher education and our work within it. We must also acknowledge that COVID-19 had a significant impact on the final outcome of our special issue, specifically exacerbating existing inequities in academic and publishing spaces. The pandemic has disproportionately affected Black and Indigenous communities, and women of color in particular. Gonzalez and Griffin’s (2020) report highlights faculty concerns about their ability to maintain research, grant, and publication activities. We shed light on the exacerbation of inequities for women of color and the double bind they exist in at the intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and gender along with other social identities (Crenshaw, 1989; Ong et al., 2011). These Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 4 pandemics have sparked public scholarship that emphasizes how women of color encounter additional challenges in their teaching, service, and research endeavors (Malisch, 2020). These dual pandemics resulted in some initial contributors from these communities withdrawing their critical work. Perhaps most disheartening was how the manuscripts these colleagues proposed brought a criticality that is urgently needed. We begin with a summary of the articles that comprise this special issue followed by an analysis of undergirding elements that comprise this volume--a historical overview of the policy implementation literature, policy implementation in higher education, community colleges, and equity and community colleges. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of these intersecting elements in our role as higher education researchers and implementers. Summary of Special Issue Articles As scholars, we are interested in the “promise” of policy implementation and the opportunity well-intended state and federal initiatives offer to address long-standing inequities in higher education. This is especially critical in the community college context, which has faced constant challenges to serving students equitably given historical unequal funding and expectations to enroll any and all students, especially minoritized communities that faced constant disadvantage in their educational trajectories. In this special issue of Education Policy Analysis Archives we called on scholars to center their work on examining how policy reform and its implementation in community college could lead to more equitable conditions for students. Our hope was to showcase research that critically investigated the ways policies are enacted in various settings to transform community colleges into more equitable institutions. Along with this introduction, the special issue includes five articles that explore topics like tuition-free programs and their ability to deliver on the promise of access and equity (Perna et al.), the development of degree reclaim strategies that seek to improve educational attainment of the “some college, no degree” population (Taylor et al.), how state-level transfer articulation agreements benefit racially minoritized communities (Worsham et al.), institutional efforts to implement new programs that improve STEM completion (Rodriguez et al.), and the role of race-conscious leadership in policy implementation (Felix). We highlight each article below and share findings and implications we believe are especially important to consider. Will Free Community College Improve or Reduce Equity? Understanding the Forces that Mediate Program Goals and Implementation The first article, by Perna, Wright-Kim, and Leigh, examines the implementation of promise programs across four community colleges. Using implementation fidelity research, the authors emphasize the importance of contextual conditions and understanding that community colleges may all be implementing a “promise program,” but the results of these efforts vary significantly as they are influenced by factors like geographic location, campus demographics, organizational capacity, and leadership in place. Their work raises important questions about the design and implementation of promise programs and the ways these initiatives can be used to improve equity in community college. Through their analysis, they find that eligibility criteria, such as enrolling full-time or level of academic readiness, may restrict who has access and participates in these programs potentially inoculating the ability of free-tuition initiatives to reduce inequity in community college. The findings drawing on implementation across four different states and over 153 interviews give policymakers and institutional implementers important insights into the enactment of promise programs. As the authors note, “to implement promise programs that improve equity, stakeholders should recognize how programmatic and organizational contextual conditions influence program coverage and content.” Implications from this research highlight the importance of eliminating the Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 5 barriers to full participation and ensuring that promise programs support and serve underserved populations and work to improve conditions, experiences, and outcomes for students in the community college sector. Following the Perna et al. research calling community colleges to lessen the barriers of participation of the underserved population, Taylor et al. explores how the Degrees When Due initiative as a response to reengage previously enrolled community college students. Unpacking Implementation Capacity and Contexts for Degree Reclamation Strategies: What Factors Move the Equity Needle? Taylor, Rubin, Kauppila, and Davis examine the implementation of an equity initiative helping states and colleges increase degree attainment among the “some college, no degree” population. Degree reclamation strategies are efforts designed to help colleges identify near completers, reengage them, and provide supports to finish their remaining units to earn a credential or degree. This study centers on the Degrees When Due (DWD) Initiative which specifically supports colleges in building their capacity, infrastructure, and expertise to reengage students of color, adults over 25, and Pell-recipients. Drawing from the implementation experiences of seven community colleges in Michigan, the authors explore how varying levels of individual and institutional capacity influence the ability to successfully launch degree reclamation strategies and achieve their intended purpose. Given the high concentration of racially minoritized, adult learners, and low-income communities served in community colleges, this study provides timely insights and implications for institutions seeking to reengage near completers. As the authors note, community colleges found to be more successful in implementing DWD reported having higher levels of individual and institutional capacity. In trying to advance equity in community colleges, the successful implementation of degree reclamation strategies can be one way to significantly reduce existing equity gaps in educational attainment. While Taylor et al. encourage community colleges to explore ways to reengage near completers who were largely students from racially minoritized, adult learners and low-income, Worsham et al. further explore the implications of the experiences of students from racially marginalized communities as it pertains to articulation agreements. Opportunity for All? The Differential Impacts of North Carolina’s Revised Comprehensive Articulation Agreement by Race/Ethnicity Worsham, Whatley, and Loss examine the implementation of North Carolina’s Comprehensive Articulation Agreement (CAA) enacted in 2014. These types of articulation efforts seek to decrease time to degree, lessen excess credit accumulation, and increase the likelihood of transfer and baccalaureate degree completion. A question researchers continuously ask is, if the articulation agreement is written in race-neutral terms, who actually benefits from these efforts? The authors employ critical policy analysis to interrogate the implementation of the policy and its varying impact for racially minoritized groups. Using a difference-in-differences analytic approach, the authors set out to examine if specific racial/ethnic groups like Black and Latinx are able to benefit from articulation agreements that seek to make transfer pathways more accessible in North Carolina. Their results find that the policy may have increased barriers to educational success, and associated economic mobility opportunities, among students identifying with certain racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, they found that the revised articulation policy may have increased time to degree for Black and Latinx students and increased excess credit accumulation for Black students. This research serves as a reminder that policies designed, written, and implemented to “serve all students'' may actually cause more harm to racially/ethnically minoritized groups, erasing the good intention with exacerbated inequities. The impact of policy and its implementation is crucial to Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 6 addressing equity in the community college sector from a race-conscious perspective, particularly if the goal is to address racial/ethnic inequality. For example, Rodriguez et al. research highlights that while reforms can enhance educational outcomes, they don’t necessarily address inequality, specifically for historically marginalized communities, and scholars must critically assess reform outcomes. The Influence of Policy Implementation in the Midwest: How an SSTEM Program Broadens Participation and Enhances STEM Identity for Community College Students The fourth article in the special issue, written by Rodriguez, Espino, Le, and Cunningham, addresses the implementation of a federally-funded student success initiative at a midwestern community college. The Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (SSTEM) program is a financial aid support program seeking to enhance student engagement, persistence, and completion in STEM fields. Directed towards community colleges, the program seeks to provide academic and financial support to low-income students in hopes of diversifying STEM fields. Using a phenomenological approach, the authors find that the implementation of the SSTEM program enabled student participants to have greater financial freedom and establish connections with STEM faculty and program staff. Students benefiting from the program also expressed a desire to have greater connections with the SSTEM program’s four-year transfer partner university. The results indicate that the implementation of SSTEM was successful in supporting students to develop their STEM identity and increase aspirations to transfer, but as you examine who participated and was positively impacted by the SSTEM program, it was predominantly white students. As scholars continuously document the significant barriers to accessing and persisting in STEM for minoritized communities (Espino et al., 2020; Malcom, 2010), participating in programs like SSTEM should not perpetuate the gatekeeping behavior that exists in these disciplines. The authors’ findings express the need for implementers at the institutional level to be more conscious of how the enactment of federal programs may have differential impacts on racially/ethnically minoritized communities. Although the reform, as implemented, achieved its intent of improving educational success, the magnitude was limited by who actually participated. Using the policy as a tool to achieve greater equity falls on the individual to recognize pre-existing barriers to participation and actively working to recruit racially/ethnically minoritized students into these types of programs and ensuring that these students can benefit from these efforts as well. For Latinx, By Latinx: Race Conscious Leadership in Policy Implementation The final article in our special issue argues the need for race-conscious approaches to policy implementation, especially when reforms seek to address educational inequities in community college. Felix conducts an in-depth case study to document how leaders of color at one community college implement state-level policy reform known as the Student Equity Policy. This particular reform requires institutions to develop an equity plan that identifies student inequities, establishes goals for improvement, and proposes interventions that work towards improving parity in outcomes. Through the use of a Trenza Policy Implementation Framework that draws on critical, cultural, and rational theories, the author highlights the factors that empowered practitioners to see state-level reform in race-conscious ways and use the policy to target and address one of the most pressing issues in higher education, the inequitable rates of transfer for Latinx students. Results from this study point to the importance of who the implementer is and how their identity, experience, and willingness shape their ability to recognize the racial possibilities of policy reform and carry out the implementation in ways that explicitly address racial inequity. Although Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 7 policies may seek to improve equity, they tend to be written in race-evasive ways that promote a “success for all” approach (Felix & Trinidad, 2020). As the author notes, “the eradication of educational inequity can only be addressed when racial inequality is acknowledged and addressed by practitioners through explicit and targeted policies, practices, and programs that are race-conscious.” In order to use educational reform to tackle racial disparities, implementers themselves must actively draw on their racialized-gendered experiences, cultural intuition, and local discretion in ways that influence the enactment process to actually benefit racially minoritized students in community college. Summary of Contributions Our goal with this special issue was to encourage authors to place a singular focus on policy implementation in community college and interrogate the ways these reforms unfold to achieve their intended goals of addressing educational equity. The five articles illuminate the complexity of the enactment of policy at the institutional level and the myriad factors that may constrain or enable implementers in carrying out the vision for equity-oriented change. The pieces by Perna, Wright- Kim, and Leigh and Taylor, Rubin, Kauppila, and Davis examined how contextual conditions influenced the implementation of equity-oriented efforts like Promise Programs and Degree Reclamation Programs seeking to expand access, success, and completion in community college. Drawing on multiple institutions nested in different states and social contexts, their scholarship adds nuance and clarity to how political, organizational, regional, and cultural conditions led to varied implementation. Worsham, Whatley, and Loss and Rodriguez, Espino, Le, and Cunningham highlighted the differential impact of race-neutral policy and its implementation on improving student success. Both the implementation of articulation agreements in North Carolina and the SSTEM program in community college illustrate the need for equity-oriented policies to be designed and written in race- conscious ways so that underserved communities can benefit from these efforts as well. In addition to race-conscious policy design, having race-conscious leaders overseeing and enacting policy is critical to using reform as a tool for equity. As Felix showcased, it is the convergence of good policy design, a supportive organizational environment, and individual leaders committed to equity that allows for educational reform to be used in ways that redress racial inequity. Taken together, these five articles in the special issue serve to expand our understanding of the forces that shape how policy is implemented in community college and the conditions that may allow for these reforms to achieve their intent of improving educational equity. In the next sections of this article, we detail the central elements that comprise the special issue: policy implementation literature, policy implementation in higher education, community colleges, and equity and community colleges. Overview of Policy Implementation Literature Policymakers and scholars alike have been examining how policy is carried out and what factors impact their implementation (Anderson, 2003; Lipsky, 1978, 1980; Matland, 1995; McLaughlin, 1987; Moulton & Sandfort, 2017; Rice, 2012). Policy implementation refers to how a law is applied and ultimately meets the desired outcomes of why it was developed in the first place. For varied reasons, how policy is developed through its lifetime towards implementation remains a labyrinth of power dynamics at every level (Moulton & Sandfort, 2017; Nienhusser, 2014, 2018). There have been various generations of how policy implementation has been conceptualized (Lipsky, 1978, 1980; Matland, 1995; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983; McLaughlin, 1987), theorized (Goggin et al., 2000; McCool, 1995; Montjoy & O'Toole 1979; O’Toole, 1986; Stewart et al., 2008), and understood (Lester & Goggin, 1998; O’Toole, 1996; Stoker, 1991). These generations of policy Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 8 implementation thought have helped us conceptualize and advance our understanding of policy implementation. Top-down policy implementation, arguably the most common and perceived rational system of command and control, relies on those in positions of power and authority deciding how the policy efforts should be communicated and executed (Matland, 1995). While policies may be carried out with the best interest in mind, it may lack direct input and perspectives from those who will directly be impacted by such policy efforts is a common trait of the top-down approach. Notable in framing this top-down approach, Meter and Horn (1975, as cited in Khan, 2016) conceptualized a model with six variables that helped understand the policy implementation: “1) policy standards and objectives; 2) resources; 3) intergovernmental communication and enforcement activities; 4) characteristics of implementing agencies; 5) economic, social and political conditions and 6) disposition of the implementers” (p. 5). Given this overview of top-down frameworks, we can see how policy implementation at every level is inherently biased (Felix & Trinidad, 2019; Young & Diem, 2018). The structures set and those who are tasked with carrying out policy efforts within these structures carry with them their own beliefs, thus, those with positions of power and privilege develop the policy with or without individual self-interest in mind (Matland, 1995; Meter & Horn, 1975). As higher education considers looking at why the needle has not moved far enough in equity work, we must pause and reflect who has led diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, who has played role in implementation of these initiatives, and how have impacted constituent groups at the bottom been involved if at all in policy implementation. Bottom-up policy implementation starts within the constituent groups in the development and execution of policy efforts (Matland, 1995). This approach begins at the street level as Lipsky (1978) suggested, where two major factors impact policy implementation. Street-level bureaucrats in this process of implementation are arguably those who are “the last link in the policy-making chain”, in our case higher education implementers (e.g., administrators, faculty, staff) interacting with other implementers and those who will be affected by the policy (Lipsky, 1980; Rice, 2012). Street-level bureaucrat at a conceptual level is the engagement between implementers and constituent groups, thus where the policy socially materializes (Rice, 2012). In this bottom-up approach, there are two major influential factors in implementation, (1) the organizational context and (2) the street-level bureaucrats’ values and beliefs (Rice, 2012). These factors interact with one another, where street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980) are impacted by their organizational context at every level (i.e., local, regional, statewide, national) and their belief in the efforts trying to be carried out. Therefore, to maximize policy outcomes, a bottom-up approach must align with the goals, strategies, and activities that the people who will be directly impacted by the policy have identified as priorities and needs (Lipsky, 1978; Matland, 1995; Rice, 2012). This process is contrary to top-down policy implementation and has been called “more realistic and practical” and “democratic” because it engages constituent groups, the people, who will benefit or be harmed from such policy efforts (DeLeon & DeLeon, 2002, p. 478). Yet, critiques of this approach have called for examining how then street-level bureaucrats are held accountable or not to the people they are claiming to support (Lipsky, 1980; Matland, 1995). Both these top-down and bottom-up approaches, however, lack focus on the implementation point of influence, meaning the analysis of how the implementation is experienced by those from the top and those from the bottom (Stewart et al., 2008). Therefore, scholars have called for a third wave policy implementation approach, a hybrid of both top-down and bottom-up efforts that consider various vantage points in implementation (Goggin et al., 1990; Khan, 2016). This third generation of policy implementation aims to bridge the gap between the other two approaches by applying theoretical foundations of the ways in which top-down and bottom-up implementation Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 9 work (Pulzl & Treib, 2007). Khan (2016) argues that this hybrid model of policy implementation aims to provide a more scientific or process oriented method of understanding and measuring policy implementation. Scholarship in the third-generation policy implementation is interested in how specific hypotheses are developed, how policy is operationalized, and “producing empirical observations to test the hypotheses'' (Khan, 2016, p. 6; Pulzl & Treib, 2007). Instead of focusing just on who the policy is created by or the policy itself, this hybrid wave of policy implementation pushes scholars towards theory development, where policy implementation as a process is examined (Khan, 2016; Stewart et al., 2008). The “lack of theoretical sophistication” is one of the biggest challenges that remain for policy implementation scholarship, where scholars urge the need to expand towards beyond theory building to theory testing (Khan, 2016, p. 6; O’Toole, 2000, p. 276). The research that has moved towards adopting third wave policy implementation scholarship has largely remained outside higher education, an item that will be highlighted later. Towards Centering Equity in Higher Education Policy Implementation As higher education scholars we have done a subpar job in embracing the study of policy implementation, understanding policy implementation in our practice, and embedding criticality in analyses as key competencies of our profession. We must reimagine our roles in a way that situates us as policy actors with agency and understand we are active in the policy implementation process. In all instances, policymakers, implementers, or those who are impacted by the policy become policy actors who play a role in the execution of policies (McLaughlin, 1987; Moulton & Sandfort, 2017). If we want to ensure policy efforts aimed at equity and moving towards eradicating equity gaps for minoritized students, there has to be a change in policy implementation. In higher education, there continues to be a paucity of policy scholars whose work focuses on how policy implementation impacts students, especially those from minoritized identities (e.g., Acevedo et al., 2015; Clotfelter et al., 2015; Felix, 2020; Felix & Ramirez, 2020; Felix et al., 2018; Gonzalez & Cataño, in press; Nienhusser, 2014, 2018). Furthermore, higher education policy implementation literature often frames minoritized students through a deficit perspective or focuses on the reasoning as to why a policy did not work. This lack of equity-mindedness in policy implementation analysis defaults to further harming minoritized students placing ownership of any lack of success on the student rather than holding institutions accountable. Often, policy efforts conveniently disregard higher education’s legacy of slavery, indigenous genocide, and exclusion of minoritized groups that leads us to our current higher education climate. We have moved across the semantics of, but not the actual root cause issues of equity, going from multiculturalism, pluralism, diversity and inclusion, equity, and racial equity. A critique that remains is that many of the efforts associated with advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education have been supported at a programmatic local level and not at a system-wide policy level. Additionally, the minimal equity policy efforts that exist have embedded in them the longstanding challenge with most policy initiatives, the ambiguity in the language and purpose that lends policy susceptible to inadequate implementation (Anderson, 2003; Matland, 1995; McLaughlin, 1987). This paired with continuous equity gaps provides urgency for us as scholars and practitioners on the importance of equity-mindedness as a framework to develop and implement policy with any type of sustainable outcome toward racial equity (Bensimon, 2007; Center for Urban Education, 2020; Felix et al., 2015). Equity work in policy has been criticized for its diluted description, vague understanding, and as a result no real transformation in conditions, experience, and outcomes for minoritized students (Ching et al., 2020). This is critical in all of higher education, especially within the Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 10 community college context. This sector of higher education enrolls the highest number of minoritized undergraduate students and face multiple barriers to advance equity efforts for these students’ needs due to organizational structures, funding, and multiplicity of missions all that are directly tied to policy (Boggs & McPhail, 2016). Shifting Our Understanding of Policy Implementation The higher education landscape is in dire need of a revitalized and deeper understanding of factors that shape how policies are implemented (Felix & Ramirez, 2020; Gornitzka et al., 2005; Kohoutek, 2013; Nienhusser, 2018). In this section, we argue that higher education scholars have largely neglected the study of policy implementation. We urge our discipline to reconceptualize the role of implementation in practice if we are committed to using policy as a catalyst to eradicate persistent higher education inequities. Paucity of Research Policy implementation in higher education has been largely understudied. A review of journal articles across three of the most cited journals in higher education (i.e., Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, and Review of Higher Education) and those focused on the community college sector (i.e., Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Community College Review, and Journal of Applied Research in the Community College) illustrate the dearth of research in relation to policy implementation. Between the years 2000 and 2019 across these six journals, a mere 40 journal articles contain the root word “implement” in its title (or 0.80% of all articles published in those journals; Authors’ calculations using data obtained from EBSCO and Scopus databases). During that same period, only 5.64% of all articles published in those journals contained that same root word in its abstract. This shortage of scholarship focused on implementation is especially pronounced in higher education journals (those not focused on community college) with only 0.36% and 2.56% of journal articles that contain the root word implement in its title and abstract, respectively. On the contrary, the community college journals analyzed are almost four times more likely to have journal articles that at least consider the topic of implementation (i.e., contain the root word implement in the title, abstract, or both). This analysis conveys an urgency for scholars, journal editorial teams, and funders to underscore research and its dissemination that focuses on policy implementation. While O’Toole (2000) has argued that policy implementation research has “transmogrified” (p. 263), transformed and ever-present in disciplines, this has largely not occurred in the higher education discipline. This absence has been noted by some higher education scholars who argue for the urgency to develop policy implementation theories (Kohoutek, 2013; Viennet & Pont, 2017), understand political factors that shape implementation (McLendon, 2003), center societal inequities in implementation efforts (Ching et al., 2020; Felix & Ramirez, 2020; Nienhusser, 2018; Santelices et al., 2019), and focus on the role of policy implementers (Mapesela & Hay, 2005; Nienhusser, 2018; Viennet & Pont, 2017). This is an especially urgent call in the community college literature given the central role this institution-type has in implementing policies that can shape minoritized students’ greater access to and success in postsecondary education (Cuellar & Gándara, 2020; Felix & Gonzalez, 2020). Expanding the Research Landscape We call on our colleagues (i.e., researchers, editors, funders) to consider and center the importance of policy implementation research in their work and decisions. Given the paucity of policy implementation research in higher education, we call on researchers to explore other Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 11 disciplines (e.g., environmental policy, K-12 education, organization studies, public administration, public policy) and international contexts to help us make deeper meaning of issues shaping US higher education policy implementation, especially within the community college sector. Furthermore, there is an urgency to emphasize policy implementation as a critical area of inquiry within the higher education literature. At times, researchers purport to be investigating policy implementation when in fact their scholarship is not centering that element in their work. This expansion of the higher education research landscape should uplift the strengths of our community college systems, institutions, nearby communities, leaders, staff, and students while highlighting the challenges and opportunities they may face when implementing policies, as recipients of policies, or both. The absence of rich higher education policy implementation scholarship will continue to perpetuate this intellectual neglect and stifle our deeper understanding of this essential stage in the policy process that has material implications on our most minoritized communities. In addition to a broad call for our discipline to more deeply explore this line of inquiry, there are specific elements of policy implementation that merit special attention, especially if our goal is to use public policies as a means to eliminate persistent higher education inequities. There are two elements that this special issue illuminates in relation to policy implementation in higher education— the importance of contexts (see Felix and Perna et al. in this special issue) and central role of higher education implementers (see Felix, Perna et al., Rodriguez et al., and Taylor et al. in this special issue) when unraveling and understanding policy implementation as an instrument to address inequities in the community college sector. Policy Implementation in Practice As former or current full-time higher education and student affairs professionals, we understand the critical role practitioners (i.e., policy implementers) have in addressing systemic institutional inequities. As such, we call for our higher education leaders and practitioners to critically reflect upon their current roles and shift their lens in understanding that they too are policy actors across the policy implementation process. With this in mind, reflect on how they support implementation efforts and implement policies while considering how to leverage those opportunities to address persistent educational inequities they face in their everyday work. Here we provide some recommendations for higher education implementation agents in relation to their role in leveraging policy implementation to meet an equity-focused agenda. Higher education professionals are charged with serving as policy implementers, but we do very little to support their development and work as implementers or implementation agents. Inadequate support of our higher education colleagues may result in their frustrations associated with role conflict (when their personal and professional values misalign with their implementation efforts) and may result in burnout and departure from the profession. Perhaps most pointedly, our failure to support higher education policy implementers to envision their role as inequity disruptors we may miss out on opportunities to challenge the status quo and address harmful and persistent educational inequities. A reconceptualization of policy implementation by higher education and student affairs professionals will first require an understanding of the significance that the execution of policies have in the policy process. More often than not, implementers’ attention is on swiftly enacting institutional policies and practices without careful attention to how their implementation may have disproportionate negative impacts on our minoritized communities. There is a persistent push in higher education for consistency in how policies are implemented, allegedly for the sake of equality. In doing so, we have stripped away the agency policy implementers to meet policy objectives and Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 12 goals that can address inequities (Felix et al., 2015). Policy implementers, you have agency (Viennet & Pont, 2017). We urge colleagues in higher education settings, especially in community colleges, to exert that agency and resist policy implementation mandates that further perpetuate educational inequities. Instead, we urge our colleagues to re-envision how they implement policies to center minoritized communities’ needs. We recognize investments in various forms of capital are needed to center equity-centered policy implementation efforts. More institutional resources, primarily in the form of staff, are needed to implement policies. With dwindling federal and state appropriations to institutions, financial constraints have crippled higher education institutions (Mitchell et al., 2019). Coupled with that reality are the increasing federal and state oversight mandates that consume the time of policy implementers and likely take them away from envisioning more equity-oriented reform goals. Overall, we do a poor job in higher education institutions to consider the ways in which policy implementation can disproportionately negatively impact our minoritized student populations. We often rely on top-down efforts forgetting how these seemingly well-meaning intentions are executed (Martland, 1995). When strategizing implementation efforts, it is imperative that higher education policy agents carefully consider how such intentions may perpetuate inequities. Similarly, higher education implementers fail to consider how policy implementation can be leveraged to achieve equity goals. Such a re-envisioned implementation mandate would allow implementers to embrace policy implementation as a tool instead of a liability in their daily work. Community Colleges The mission of community colleges has been constantly changing over time resulting in debates on its purpose and role in U.S. society (Shaw & Jacobs, 2003). The evolution of mission and role of community colleges has ranged from vocational training to access points toward postsecondary education (American Association of Community Colleges, 1988; Boggs, 2011). Their geographical spread positions community colleges to be institutions of opportunity for various rural and urban communities that often have embedded inequities across policies in the educational pipeline (Nienhusser & Ives, 2020) Waters-Bailey et al., 2019). However, criticism has remained on how completion efforts are advanced through equitable practices to support minoritized students, such as first-generation, low-income, Black, Indigenous, students of color, and others (Felix, 2020; Nevarez, & Wood, 2010; Taylor, 2015). Across all sectors of higher education, community colleges continue to enroll the majority of undergraduate students, representing 89.9% of all undergraduate student enrollment (Espinosa et al., 2019; Johnson & Cuellar Mejia, 2020). Given their open-access admissions policies, community colleges have been front and center in conversations of educational attainment for many students, especially those from minoritized identities (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Castro & Cortez, 2017; Nienhusser, 2014). Yet, literature has noted how constrained inclusion impacts persistence, completion, and outcomes for a majority of community college students (Negron-Gonzales, 2017; Sommer et al., 2020). Structural organizational factors have historically impacted community college students’ performance and outcomes. Overall, although community colleges enroll the highest share of undergraduate students (Espinosa et al., 2019), completion and outcomes remain scarce and drastically lower when disaggregated by race and gender (McNair et al., 2020). For Latinx/Hispanic students who started at a community college in the fall of 2014, 36% completed within six years and for Black students, it was 28% (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2020). Although different states have invested in policy efforts to mitigate this and work towards closing racial equity gaps, scholars have noted the challenges that exist in implementing these reforms (Felix, 2020; Jenkins et al, 2018). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 13 Racial equity efforts must continue to examine how implementation processes unapologetically address, center, and work towards advancing success for disproportionately impacted minoritized students. It is important to call out that minoritized do not complete at the rates as their white counterparts, not because of lack of aspirations and commitment, but rather due to the systemic inequities embedded in the educational pipeline (Aelenei et al. 2017; Huber et al., 2015). A recent report from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center on undergraduate degree earners noted further disproportionate impact on community colleges enrollment and undergraduate earners due to the pandemic (Huie et al., 2021). There is no doubt the urgency to consider how we can reimagine community colleges recognizing the key role policy implementation will play in the ongoing shifts needed to support those students enrolled in that sector. Funding at Community Colleges One of the many challenges that impact community colleges’ ability to advance initiatives is the sector’s funding models. Community colleges receive funding from a variety of stakeholders; state appropriations and allocations, federal grants, and local revenue (Hoagland et al., 2019). There are different funding methods used to determine the monies appropriated and allocated in higher education. Base-plus for example is where funding allocations are determined by increasing or decreasing from an existing base amount (Hoagland et al., 2019). Formula-based funding is where a formula with multiple variables as part of the equation such as full-time equivalent (FTEs) enrollment, institutional costs, or others are calculated and tied to the appropriations and allocations for funding (Hoagland et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018). Lastly, performance-based funding ties an institution’s monies from state financial appropriation based on student retention and completion rates (Burke, 2002; Burke & Minassians, 2004). Scholars across the nation have focused research on the relationship between these different funding models and their impact on minoritized students’ success (D’Amico et al., 2013; Hu, 2019; Hutchison, 2018; Melguizo et al., 2018). Researchers argue that funding models are complex where sometimes a certain type of funding model benefits some and not others, which depends on the region, single or multidistrict campuses, and state. Through critical policy analysis (CPA) we must continue to examine various policy efforts to understand what addresses inequities. We are not surprised however by the fact that only in the rise of performance-based funding models that the longstanding inequities in retention and completion for minoritized students at community colleges have become a priority. The commodifying of equity efforts is a common practice across institutions of higher education, therefore we must question how policies impact our students at the margins. Our minoritized student’s completion cannot only matter when funding is attached to their overall success. Community colleges are now being called to the challenge of ensuring they remove barriers towards completion for minoritized students in order to receive all or partial funding. This is great, however, it also possesses challenges. It has been over ten years since the great recession where higher education institutions were financially hit, where the projected deficit for 38 states totaled nearly $105 billion (de los Santos Jr. & Sutton, 2012; Lav & McNichols, 2009). Now, about a decade later, COVID-19 has brought forward a new financial burden onto higher education. According to the Pew Research Center, higher education comprises only 2% of the federal budget but third-largest budget category in state budgets (Trusts, 2019). This is key to consider as community colleges receive most funding directly from their state. Community colleges continue to remain as institutions under-supported that further translates into a direct disproportionate impact for minoritized students (Garcia, 2018). The COVID pandemic has Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 14 exacerbated these inequities once again for community colleges that receive inequitable funding juxtaposed with serving students with varying financial, academic, and social backgrounds. This is exemplified by the initial Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding formula that punished community colleges for enrolling students who attend part-time or primarily via distance education that resulted in that sector only receiving 27% of the funding allotted to higher education (Miller, 2020). This was further problematized by the fact that these funds were only made available to those students who qualified for federal financial aid, meaning undocumented students would not be eligible for support although they are of higher financial need (Nienhusser et al., 2021). In California, the community college system led by the system’s first-ever Latino, Chancellor Eloy Ortiz Oakley won a suit against the department of education for the illegal restrictions to CARES Act funding that impacted more that 800,000 students, including undocumented students (Zinshteyn, 2020). The CARES Act does not mention any restrictions on the classification of student eligible for funding, however the department of education played on the ambiguity of their bias and beliefs on who constitutes a student (Zinshteyn, 2020). Updated figures from the Center for American Progress shared that as of late November 2020, institutions had applied for and received $13 billion of the $14 billion available CARES Act funds (Anthony & Navarro, 2021). This here is a great contemporary example of how as a sector of higher education, community colleges continue to be impacted by a variety of policies, stakeholders, and renders the need for research policy implementation through an equity lens. Equity and Community Colleges Anderson (2012) acknowledged that many researchers and higher education scholars are “somewhat oblivious” to the vernacular within the realm of policy work and as a result are unaware of how policymakers’ beliefs and values are woven into not just the development of legislation but also in its implementation (p. 134). Therefore, the language and frameworks used in our research on equity and policy implementation is critical as many “higher education practitioners understand and enact equity along a continuum” (Felix & Ramirez, 2020, p. 6). Stewart’s Language of Appeasement (2017) highlights how frameworks matter, and it is important that higher education scholars are intentional about their questions and focus when researching policy implementation and equity. In both policy implementation and in higher education, researchers and implementers have fallen victim to interchangeably using diversity and equity. Specifically, policy implementation research often takes a quantitative approach with a diversity framework that “celebrates increases in numbers that still reflect minoritized status on campus and incremental growth” (Stewart, 2017, para. 7). From an equity framework when it comes to policy, we must collectively ask how can our implementation of policies reduce harm, revise “abusive systems,” and increase support for individuals’ life changes who have been historically excluded in higher education (Stewart, 2017, para 7). While a number of policies have been implemented to increase access and address inequity, historically marginalized and excluded populations continue to experience barriers to access, degree attainment, and hostile campus environment (Arbona & Nora., 2007; Carales, 2020; Crisp & Nora, 2010; Hoachlander et al., 2003; Wassmer et al., 2004). Multiple scholars in higher education have identified this phenomenon as “the two-steps-forward-one-step-back cycle of higher education instructions” addressing issues of equity and justice (Patton et al., 2019, p. 118). In this work, Patton et al. (2019) emphasized how the majority of research did not reflect a critical paradigm when analyzing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that continue to primarily benefit white students. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 15 In reflecting on this conclusion, how can we as researchers design, implement, and analyze policies outside of white ways of knowing. Similarly, Harper et al. (2009) discuss how many policies that are race-driven are “embedded within mainstream, racist, and hegemonic frameworks that consistently question the worthiness of African Americans as educated citizens and the legitimacy of their presence in higher education” (p. 403). Ultimately, highlighting the need to address the “gap between critical policy studies and analysis and the development of a sustaining equity” (Anderson, 2012, p. 135). Therefore, given the aforementioned, policy actors from a local, regional, state, and national level are critical in supporting leadership, finances, and student outcomes for community colleges that all vary by state (Boggs & McPhail, 2016; Nevarez & Wood, 2010). Some states have embedded policy reforms to address equity gaps, but often lack critical implementation efforts. California, for example, has been at the forefront with their Student Equity Policy (SEP) to specifically focus on mitigating equity gaps for disproportionately impacted students (Student equity plans, Ca. Stat. § 78220, 2014). Similarly, Washington state proposed House Bill 2059-2019-20, which seeks to establish criteria for using appropriated funds to address diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals within the community and technical colleges of the state, therefore institutions would need to report their DEI goals and how they achieved these through the funds used. Although community colleges have garnered attention from policymakers and the public, the momentum was largely lost during the Trump administration. Community colleges are looking at how they will be prioritized and supported given the nation's new administration and Dr. Jill Biden, First Lady of the United States, background in community colleges. With this in mind, why the exigent call for this special issue as a reminder that if not all, most of the policy implementation literature is within a larger public policy framework, minimally within higher education, and practically non-existent for community colleges. This crux of policy implementation within the community college context serves as a catalyst to focus on racial equity work that moves us towards eradicating equity gaps for minoritized students within higher education. Conclusion The dual pandemics of COVID-19 and racial injustice have impacted all of us in various capacities. Over the course of these pandemics, we have seen the fragility of social infrastructures-- healthcare, workforce, K-12 education, and higher education--inflict further harm on Black, Indigenous, and communities of color. These pandemics not only make existing disparities hypervisible, but further exacerbate the inequitable conditions and outcomes experienced by Black, Indigenous, and communities of color. According to the Economic Policy Institute (2020), during the second quarter of 2020, Black workers experienced the highest unemployment rate nationally, at 17.4%, Latinx/Hispanic workers at 16.9%, and Asian workers at 13.3% (Williams, 2020). Beyond economic loss, the loss of life due to COVID-19 has unsurprisingly impacted communities of color at disproportionate rates. Disaggregating the rates by race and ethnicity, deaths per 100,000 people, Black communities represent 168 deaths, American Indian or Alaska Native 163, and Latinx/Hispanic 144 (The COVID Tracking Project, 2021). Now, more than one year after the COVID-19 pandemic started and campus shut-downs began, first-time associate degree earners numbers dropped drastically compared to the pre- pandemic rates (Huei et al., 2021). For example, first-time associate degree earners rates dropped by only 0.2% between April and June 2019 compared to a stark drop of 6.7% during the same months in 2020 (Huei et al., 2021). Furthermore, international students have also been severely impacted by increasing xenophobia and shut down protocols that impacted student visas and student funding (Harper, 2020). International student enrollment drastically decreased by 43% in fall 2020 (Baer & Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 16 Mirka, 2020). These drastic changes across various systems must remind us of how interlocking structures of power, privilege, and oppression play and reflect on our role as scholars and practitioners in advancing racial equity in praxis. Amid uncertainty caused by the pandemic, higher education has had to pivot its ways of doing things at a rapidly ever-changing pace. A derivative of COVID-19 is the disentanglement of some systemic barriers towards higher education such as waiving of standardized testing (i.e. SAT/ACT, GREs) as admission requirements, access to resources (i.e., laptops and hot spots provided by institutions), and other online educational resources. However, for community colleges, the reality is that the pandemic has further impacted enrollment, completion, and transfer rates (Belfield & Brock, 2020). There is promise in how community colleges can bounce back and pivot to respond to this new online platform. For example, community colleges already have broader program offerings from online/remote modalities to short-term stacked certificate programs, which actually showed growth this year (Huei et al., 2021). Because community colleges are in tune with their regional needs, they will serve a key role in workforce development programs. Although these are great changes thus far, it raises the question, why could we have not removed such systemic barriers that perpetuate equity gaps prior to the pandemic? It is here where we hope this special issue aids us in positioning policy implementation as a gateway towards that answer. Over the last year, the response or lack thereof to COVID-19 has demonstrated that when there is an urgency at all levels, policy processes move quicker. Our hope is that we can continue to re-envision higher education to address inequities through the thoughtful, creative, and intentional implementation of educational reform that leads to the full participation of all. We must continue to ask ourselves; how can policy implementation be a tool toward educational equity? The various pieces in this special issue all provide a jump-off point to examine the convergence of equity within policy implementation efforts at community colleges. Lastly, we ask for you all to reflect on your disposition in this work. As we highlighted in our overview of policy implementation history, whether we recognize ourselves as such, we are policy implementers. Our intentionality and criticality to interpreting and responding to policy shape the possibilities for equitable change. Therefore, we must examine our own practices and employ critical approaches in our work if we truly desire to change the community college landscape for minoritized students. We must consider how exclusionary practices rooted in equality for all discourse harms the very students we often are trying to advocate for. Understanding the lexicon of policy implementation is key for all of us in order to position ourselves in ways that leverage our resources to advance equity efforts from our respective positions. We all have a piece in the process, and it is up to us how we come to activate our agency in order to critique, pause, and disrupt the inequities we encounter. How are you working toward equity-mindedness in your praxis? What would it look like to envision yourself as a policy actor in your work with agency? We hope you find guidance for these efforts in the manuscripts contained in this special issue, not direct answers, but guidance and perspective in moving towards racial equity through policy implementation in community colleges. Acknowledgements We would like to thank each scholar whose work is included in this special issue. We appreciate your scholarship and its ability to help us think more deeply about how the intersections of policy implementation and equity are manifested in the community college sector. We also want to acknowledge those scholars whose work was unable to make it into this issue, primarily due to COVID-19. We encourage you to continue to pursue this area of inquiry and we look forward to Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 17 learning from your important work. We would like to thank the EPAA editorial team for their encouragement and support in bringing this special issue to reality. Thank you to all the reviewers who provided thoughtful feedback during the review process. References Acevedo-Gil, N., Santos, R. E., Alonso, L., & Solórzano, D. G. (2015). Latinas/os in community college developmental education: Increasing moments of academic and interpersonal validation. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(2), 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715572893 Aelenei, C., Lewis Jr, N. A., & Oyserman, D. (2017). No pain no gain? Social demographic correlates and identity consequences of interpreting experienced difficulty as importance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.08.004 Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 Anderson, J. (2003). Public policymaking. Houghton Mifflin. Anderson, G. (2012). Equity and critical policy analysis in higher education: A bridge still too far. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0051 Anthony, M., & Navarro, M. (2021, January 28). The state of higher education spending from the CARES Act. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education- postsecondary/news/2021/01/29/495178/state-higher-education-spending-cares-act Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on Hispanic college degree attainment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 247- 269. https://doi:10.1353/rhe.2007.0001 Atlantic Monthly Group. (2020). The COVID tracking project. https://covidtracking.com/race Baer, J., & Mirka, M. (2020). Fall 2020 International Student Enrollment Snapshot. IIE. Belfield, C., & Brock, T. (2020, November 19). Behind the enrollment numbers: How COVID has changed students’ plans for community college. Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/covid-enrollment-community-college-plans.html. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032 Boggs, G. R. (2011). The American community college: From access to success. About Campus, 16(2), 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20055 Boggs, G. R., & McPhail, C. J. (2016). Practical leadership in community colleges: Navigating today’s challenges. John Wiley & Sons. Burke, J. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity, problems, and prospects. SUNY Press. Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2004). Implications of state performance indicators for community college assessment. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2004(126), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.154 Cabrera, N. L., & Corces-Zimmerman, C. (2017). An unexamined life: White male racial ignorance and the agony of education for students of color. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(3), 300- 315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1336500 https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715572893 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.08.004 https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0051 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/news/2021/01/29/495178/state-higher-education-spending-cares-act https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/news/2021/01/29/495178/state-higher-education-spending-cares-act https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0051 http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0001 https://covidtracking.com/race https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/covid-enrollment-community-college-plans.html https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032 https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20055 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.154 https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1336500 Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 18 Carales, V. D. (2020). Examining educational attainment outcome: A focus on Latina/o community college students. Community College Review, 48(2), 195 - 219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120903087 Castro, E. L., & Cortez, E. (2017). Exploring the lived experiences and intersectionalities of Mexican community college transfer students: Qualitative insights toward expanding a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1158672 Center for Urban Education. (2020). A movement towards equity: Tracing the impact of the Center for Urban Education’s student equity planning institute (SEPI). Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Ching, C. D., Felix, E. R., Fernandez Castro, M., & Trinidad, A. (2020). Achieving racial equity from the bottom-up? The student equity policy in the California community colleges. Educational Policy, 34(6), 819-863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1158672 Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Muschkin, C., & Vigdor, J. L. (2015). Developmental education in North Carolina community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 354-375. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714547267 Cohen, A. M., Florence, B. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college. Jossey- Bass. Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. (1988). Building communities: A vision for a new century. American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist Critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), p. 139-167. Cuellar, M. G., & Gándara, P. (2020). Promoting access and equity for underrepresented racial minorities? An examination of policies and practices in community college baccalaureate programs. Community College Review, 49(1), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120964877 D’Amico, M. M., Morgan, G. B., Robertson, S., & Rivers, H. E. (2013). Dual enrollment variables and college student persistence. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(10), 769- 779. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668921003723334 DeLeon, P., & DeLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467-492. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003544 De los Santos Jr, A. G., & Sutton, F. (2012). Swirling students: Articulation between a major community college district and a state-supported research university. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(12), 967-981. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903182641 Espino, M. L., Rodriguez, S. L., & Le, B. D. (2020). A systematic review of literature: Engineering identity and students with financial need in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1856218 Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. American Council on Education. Felix, E. R. (2020). Using state-equity reform to improve Latinx student transfer. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 14(1), 21-48. https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.14.1.332 Felix, E. R., Bensimon, E. M., Hanson, D., Gray, J., & Klingsmith, L. (2015). Developing agency for equity‐minded change. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2015(172), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20161 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120903087 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1158672 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1158672 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373714547267 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552120964877 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668921003723334 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003544 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903182641 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1856218 https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.14.1.332 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20161 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 19 Felix, E. R., & Castro, M. F. (2018). Planning as strategy for improving Black and Latinx student equity: Lessons from nine California community colleges. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26 (56). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3223 Felix, E. R., & Gonzalez, Á. (2020). Using institutional planning to support men of color in community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Advanced online, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1841043 Felix, E. R., & Ramirez, R. (2020). Counterstories of policy implementation: Using reform to address Latinx student equity. Journal of Latinos and Education, Advanced online, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2020.1782205 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 Felix, E. R., Trinidad, A., Ching, C. D., & Bensimon, E. M. (2017). California’s student equity plan policy: An unexploited opportunity among Hispanic-serving community colleges. In A. G. de los Santos Jr., G. F. Keller, R. Tannenbaum, & A. Acereda (Eds.), Hispanic college students move forward: Assessment, development, and achievement. Hispanic Research Center’s Bilingual Press, Arizona State University. Garcia, S. (2018, April 5). Gaps in college spending shortchange students of color. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education- postsecondary/reports/2018/04/05/448761/gaps-college-spending-shortchange-students- color/ Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. O. M., & Lester, J. P. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Scott Foresman & Company. Gonzales, L. D., & Griffin, K. A. (2020). Supporting faculty during & after COVID-19: Don’t let go of equity. Aspire Alliance. Gonzalez, Á., & Cataño, Y., (in press). Examining Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) policy implementation for LGBTQ+ Latinx students at California community colleges. Journal of the Alliance for Hispanic Institution Educators. Gornitzka, Å., Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2005). Implementation analysis in higher education. In Reform and change in higher education (pp. 35-56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020- 3411-3_3 Harper, S. R. (2020). COVID-19 and the racial equity implications of reopening college and university campuses. American Journal of Education, 127(1), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1086/711095 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, 80(4), 389-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779022 H.B.2059, 66th Legislature, 2019 Reg. Sess. (WA. 2019). Hoagland, C., Cramer, J., Hansen, J., & Fumia, D. (2019). Higher education funding: Models used in Washington and similar states (Document Number 19-03-2301). Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Hoachlander, G., Sikora, A. C., Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). Community college students: Goals, academic preparation, and outcomes (NCES 2003–164). Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Hu, X. (2019). Efficiency for whom? Varying impact of performance-based funding on community colleges in Louisiana. Community College Review, 47(4), 323-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119864409 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3223 https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1841043 https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2020.1782205 https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538 https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3411-3_3 https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3411-3_3 https://doi.org/10.1086/711095 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779022 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552119864409 Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 20 Huie, F., Liu, Q., Ryu, M., & Shapiro, D. (January 2021). Undergraduate degree earners. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Hutchison, A. (2018). The impact of performance-based funding on graduation rates at Texas State Technical College. (Published Doctoral Dissertation, Old Dominion University). https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/efl_etds/58 Jenkins, D., Brown, A. E., Fink, J., Lahr, H., & Yanagiura, T. (2018). Building guided pathways to community college student success: Promising practices and early evidence from Tennessee. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Johnson, H., & Mejia, M. C. (2020). Increasing community college transfers: Progress and barriers. Public Policy Institute of California. Khan, A. R. (2016). Policy implementation: Some aspects and issues. Journal of Community Positive Practices, (3), 3-12. http://catalactica.com/jppc/index.php/jppc/article/view/316 Kohoutek, J. (2013). Three decades of implementation research in higher education: Limitations and prospects of theory development. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00531.x Koricich, A., Chen, X., & Hughes, R. P. (2018). Understanding the effects of rurality and socioeconomic status on college attendance and institutional choice in the United States. The Review of Higher Education 41(2), 281-305. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0004 Lav, I. J., & McNichols, E. (March, 2009). State budget problems worsen. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-8-08sfp.pdf Li, A. Y. (2014). Performance funding in the states: An increasingly ubiquitous public policy for higher education. Higher Education in Review, 11(Online), 1-29. Li, A. Y., & Kennedy, A. I. (2018). Performance funding policy effects on community college outcomes: Are short-term certificates on the rise? Community College Review, 46(1), 3-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117743790 Li, A. Y., Gándara, D., & Assalone, A. (2018). Equity or disparity: Do performance funding policies disadvantage 2-year minority-serving institutions? Community College Review, 46(3), 288-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552118778776 Lester, J. P., & Goggin, M. L. (1998). Back to the future: The rediscovery of implementation studies. Policy Currents, 8(3), 1-9. Lipsky, M. (1978). Standing the study of public policy implementation on its head. American Politics and Public Policy, 16. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288305 Malcom, L. E. (2010). Charting the pathways to STEM for Latina/o students: The role of community colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.359 Malisch, J. L., Harris, B. N., Sherrer, S. M., Lewis, K. A., Shepherd, S. L., McCarthy, P. C., Spott, J. L., Karam, E. P., Moustaid-Moussa, N., McCrory Calarco, J., Ramalingam, L., Talley, A. E., Cañas-Carrell, J. E., Ardon-Dryer, K., Weiser, D. A., Bernal, X. E. & Deitloff, J. (2020). Opinion: In the wake of COVID-19, academia needs new solutions to ensure gender equity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15378-15381. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010636117 Mapesela, M., & Hay, H. R. (2005). Through the magnifying glass: A descriptive theoretical analysis of the possible impact of the South African higher education policies on academic staff and their job satisfaction. Higher Education, 50(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004- 6358-9 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/efl_etds/58 http://catalactica.com/jppc/index.php/jppc/article/view/316 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00531.x https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0004 http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-8-08sfp.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117743790 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552118778776 https://doi.org/10.2307/1288305 https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.359 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010636117 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6358-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6358-9 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 21 Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242 Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Scott Foresman. McCool, D. C. (1995). The theoretical foundations of policy studies. In D. C. McCool (Ed.), Public policy theories, models and concepts: An anthology (pp. 1-27). Prentice Hall. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002171 McLendon, M. K. (2003). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802239291 McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119428725 Melguizo, T., Witham, K., Fong, K., & Chi, E. (2017). Understanding the relationship between equity and efficiency: Towards a concept of funding adequacy for community colleges. Journal of Education Finance, 43(2), 195-216. Miller, B. (2020, May 11). A better formula for higher education's federal coronavirus funding. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education- postsecondary/reports/2020/05/11/484838/better-formula-higher-educations-federal- coronavirus-funding/ Miller, M., & Smith, E. (2021). Urban community college department chairs: A status report. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1876781 Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., Saenz, M. (2019). State higher education funding cuts have pushed costs to students, worsened inequality. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-higher-education-funding-cuts- have-pushed-costs-to-students Montjoy, R. S., & O'Toole, L. J. (1979). Toward a theory of policy implementation: An organizational perspective. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 465-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109921 Moulton, S., & Sandfort, J. R. (2017). The strategic action field framework for policy research implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 45 (1), 144-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12147 National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2020, November 12). Covid-19: Stay informed with the latest enrollment information. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610024.pdf Negrón-Gonzales, G. (2017). Constrained inclusion: Access and persistence among undocumented community college students in California’s central valley. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(2), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717697753 Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. L. (2010). Community college leadership and administration: Theory, practice, and change (Vol. 3). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1712-1 Nienhusser, H. K. (2014). Role of community colleges in the implementation of postsecondary education enrollment policies for undocumented students. Community College Review, 42(1), 3- 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113509837 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 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242 https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002171 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904802239291 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119428725 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2020/05/11/484838/better-formula-higher-educations-federal-coronavirus-funding/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2020/05/11/484838/better-formula-higher-educations-federal-coronavirus-funding/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2020/05/11/484838/better-formula-higher-educations-federal-coronavirus-funding/ https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1876781 https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-higher-education-funding-cuts-have-pushed-costs-to-students https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-higher-education-funding-cuts-have-pushed-costs-to-students https://doi.org/10.2307/3109921 https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12147 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610024.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717697753 https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1712-1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113509837 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0014 Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 22 Nienhusser, H. K., & Ives, J. (2020). Examining an urban district’s college-going culture: The role of magnet school designation. The Urban Review, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020- 00556-0 Nienhusser, H. K., Romandia, O., & Ruesta, K. (2021, January). Towards supporting our vulnerable students and faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Association of American Colleges and Universities Annual Meeting. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-209. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2 O’Toole Jr, L. J. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181-210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006486 O’Toole, L. J. (1996). Hollowing the infrastructure: Revolving loan programs and network dynamics in the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 225-242. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024308 O’Toole Jr, L. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263-288. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024270 Patton, L.D., Sanchez, B., Mac, J., & Stewart, D. L. (2019). An inconvenient truth about “progress”: An analysis of the promise and perils of research on campus diversity initiatives. The Review of Higher Education, 42, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0049 Pedersen, R. P. (2000). The origins and development of the early public junior colleges: 1900- 1940. (Published Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York). Pérez-Huber, L., Malagón, M. C., Ramirez, B. R., Gonzalez, L. C., Jimenez, A., & Vélez, V. N. (2015). Still falling through the cracks: Revisiting the Latina/o education pipeline. [CSRC Research Report. Number 19]. UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Pulzl, H. & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing public policy. In F. Ficher et. al. (Eds.) Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 89-107). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093192 Rice, D. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9), 1038-1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712451895 Santelices, M. V., Horn, C., & Catalán, X. (2019). Institution-level admissions initiatives in Chile: Enhancing equity in higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 733-761. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1398722 Shaw, K. M., & Jacobs, J. A. (2003). Community colleges: New environments, new directions. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586(1), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716202250198 Sommer, C. L. S., & Cuellar, M. G. (2020). Exploring student success courses with a Latinx perspective: A focus on students and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2020(190), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20385 Stewart, D-L. (30 March, 2017). Language of appeasement. Inside HigherEd. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-language-shift-not-one- you-think-essay Stewart, J. J., Hedge, D. M., & Lester, J. P. (2008). Public policy: An evolutionary approach (3rd ed.). Thomsom Wordsworth. Stocker, R. P. (1991). Reluctant partners: Implementing federal policy. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00556-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00556-0 https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006486 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024308 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024270 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0049 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093192 https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712451895 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1398722 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716202250198 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20385 https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-language-shift-no https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-language-shift-no Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 23 Student equity plans, Ca. Stat. § 78220. (2014 & rev. 2020) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division =7.&title=3.&part=48.&chapter=2.&article=1.5 Taylor, J. L. (2015). Accelerating pathways to college: The (in)equitable effects of community college dual credit. Community College Review, 43(4), 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552115594880 Trusts, P. C. (2019, October 15). Two decades of change in federal and state higher education funding: Recent trends across levels of government. The PEW Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades- of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404 Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework. OECD [Education Working Papers, No. 162]. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en Wassmer, R., Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2004). Effect of racial/ethic composition on transfer rates in community colleges: Implications for policy and practice. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 651-672. Williams, J. (2020, August). 2020Q1-Q2: State unemployment by race and ethnicity. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2017). Introduction: Critical approaches to education policy analysis. In Critical approaches to education policy analysis (pp. 1-13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-39643-9_1 Zinshteyn, M. (2020, June 17). California community colleges win suit on behalf of undocumented students. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2020/06/california- community-colleges-suit-betsy-devos-cares-act/ https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division%09=7.&title=3.&part=48.&chapter=2.&article=1.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division%09=7.&title=3.&part=48.&chapter=2.&article=1.5 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552115594880 https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404 https://doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39643-9_1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39643-9_1 https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2020/06/california-community-colleges-suit-betsy-devos-cares-act/ https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2020/06/california-community-colleges-suit-betsy-devos-cares-act/ Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 24 About the Authors/Guest Editors Ángel de Jesus Gonzalez San Diego State University agonzalez2426@sdsu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6361-7399 Ángel de Jesus Gonzalez is a third-year doctoral candidate in the Community College Leadership Ed.D. program at San Diego State University. Their research examines the conditions, experiences, and outcomes for LGBTQ+ students at community colleges, with a focus on Queer Latinx students and professionals. Luz Burgos-López University of Connecticut, Storrs luz.burgos_lopez@uconn.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2394-4456 Luz Burgos-López is a second year doctoral student in the Learning, Leadership, and Educational Policy Ph.D. program at the Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut. Her research explores anti-Black ideology in existing research pedagogy on the Latinx students and the role racial classifications in scholarship production and policy implantation within higher education. Her current research project uses critical analysis of the construction of Latinidad as a racial classification to examine the erasure of Blackness and the monolith representation of Latinidad. Eric R. Felix San Diego State University efelix@sdsu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6116-0214 Eric R. Felix is a critical policy scholar examining the ways policymakers craft higher education reform and how institutional leaders implement them. His research focuses on understanding how policy implementation may benefit, harm, or render invisible Latinx students and other minoritized groups in the community college context. H. Kenny Nienhusser University of Connecticut, Storrs kenny.nienhusser@uconn.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9013-0682 H. Kenny Nienhusser is an Assistant Professor in the Higher Education & Student Affairs Program in the Neag School of Education and Faculty Director of La Comunidad Intelectual at the University of Connecticut. His research examines the origins of public policies and their implementation environments that affect the postsecondary education access of minoritized youth in the United States. mailto:agonzalez2426@sdsu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6361-7399 mailto:luz.burgos_lopez@uconn.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2394-4456 mailto:efelix@sdsu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6116-0214 mailto:kenny.nienhusser@uconn.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9013-0682 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 25 SPECIAL ISSUE Policy Implementation as an Instrument to Achieve Educational Equity in the Community College Context education policy analysis archives Volume 29 Number 25 March 8, 2021 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 26 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Danah Henriksen, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Keon McGuire, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Madelaine Adelman Arizona State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Gary Anderson New York University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Aaron Benavot SUNY Albany Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell David C. Berliner Arizona State University Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 27 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Coordenadores: Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Editores Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao (EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia), Maria Margarida Machado (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Policy Implementation as a Tool for Advancing Equity 28 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Coordinador (Español / Latinoamérica): Ignacio Barrenechea, Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés Editor Coordinador (Español/Norteamérica): Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) Editor Coordinador (Español / España): Antonio Luzon (Universidad de Granada) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Cesar Lorenzo Rodriguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara), María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo-Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University- Cuajimalpa Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804')