Transcript Slide 1

If this is so Easy, Why is it
so Hard to Do?
John Lee
UNC Conference:
Student Success “A Campus-Wide
Commitment”
October 24, 2007
What is the Problem?
Grades and test scores, rather than
privilege, determine success today,
but that success is largely being
passed down from one generation to
the next. A nation that believes that
everyone should have a fair shake
finds itself with a kind of inherited
meritocracy.
New York Times, May 24, 2005
Research and theory on student
persistence have yet to influence,
on a national scale, student
persistence in higher education
According to a 2003 report by ACT,
the five-year graduation rates at
four-year institutions throughout
the past 20 years have ranged
from 50.9 percent to 54.6 percent
The enrollment gap between
low- and high-income students
has shrunk over the last 20
years, but rates of college
completion have not improved
for low-income students
According to the 2003 ACT report,
of those students starting at a 4year college, 48 percent of lowincome students graduate while 67
percent of high income students did
so
“There is no one specific type of
successful retention organization
and/or successful implementation
strategy”
-Vincent Tinto
There is Agreement on Some
Basic Principles
I. Have an institutional focus on
student retention and
outcomes, not just on
enrollment
Consistent Leadership



Strong leadership from top administrators
who create an institutional culture that promotes
student success. They talk about it, fund it, and
recognize success
A central person, office, or committee that
coordinates retention activities across academic
and student affairs
Use data about retention in the decisionmaking process, as well as to evaluate retention
programs
Institutional focus
on student outcomes




Make personnel decisions consistent with
improving student outcomes
Communicate the importance of student
success, and the expectations for each
participant, to the whole college
Be consistent in your efforts
Measure outcomes and report them to the
community
Institutional focus on student
outcomes




Gain faculty support
Explain that improving student success is
not an erosion of standards
Maintain high expectations for student
success
How do we engage students in their
education?
II. Offer targeted support for
underperforming students
Engage Students



Encourage high levels of student involvement
and engagement in campus activities and
programs.
Create well-developed first-year programs in
which student participation is mandatory or
high.
Improve instruction in “gatekeeping”
introductory courses, particularly in
mathematics.
Support for underperforming
students


Concentrate on the first year
Profile of an at-risk student





First generation college
Low income
Inadequate academic preparation
Older, with children
Attends part-time
Types of support

Proactive



Structured



Identify the problem early
Reach out to the student
Advising
Mentoring
Find the right help
III. Have well-designed,
well-aligned, and proactive
student support services
Support Students



Early warning and advising systems to
monitor student progress and to intervene when
student performance is low.
Academic and social support services that
students use due to proactive efforts to
coordinate services; these services must be
widely advertised. Faculty and staff should be
knowledgeable about the available services.
Special programs for at-risk student
populations, incorporating effective retention
practices.
Critique of student support
services

A common problem on many campuses is
that efforts directed towards helping firstyear students achieve success are “selfcontained, uncoordinated, and even
unknown to each other”
Be proactive with student
support services



Anticipate which students may have
problems, and help them before they drop
out
Reach out to high-risk students; they will
not come to you
Maintain an aggressive advising program
IV. Provide support for
faculty development focused
on improving teaching
What goes on in the classroom,
stays in the classroom



There is no one model for improving
teaching; it depends on content
Students must feel that they are learning
something worthwhile and are making
progress
Student engagement in the learning
process is critical
Some obvious solutions





Small classes
Reward good teaching
Regular academic reviews for students
Supplemental support
Develop a teaching/learning center for
new faculty
Elements of successful
developmental education
programs







Context-specific and valued by the learning community
Centrally structured and well coordinated with the
organization
Instructors committed to the students and the field
Provide multilevel curricula with credit options and exit
criteria
Integration of a variety of instructional methods
Integrate learning and personal development strategies
and services
An evaluation system focused on outcomes and
continuous program improvement
-McCabe & Day, 1998
Learning is facilitated when the
student participates responsibly
in the learning process.
— Carl Rogers
V. Experiment with ways to
improve the effectiveness of
instruction and support
services
Applied Experiments




Develop a hypothesis—why do you think
students drop out?
Run an experiment—make changes to the
program
Measure outcomes—did the change make
a difference in the outcome?
Accept or reject the hypothesis
Constant improvement


Marginal improvements in specific
operations add up
A continuous cycle
VI. Use institutional research to
track student outcomes and
improve program impact
Track student outcomes



Disaggregate student populations
Student unit record system
Use longitudinal data to identify problems
and evaluate outcomes
Soft data sources are
important



Student focus groups
Interviews with faculty
Individual class analysis


What are the characteristics of students that
drop out prior to the end of the semester?
Why did they leave?
Why is This so Hard to Do?
1. Mission conflict

Public universities are torn between an
impulse toward excellence that leads to
an emphasis on research and tighter
admission standards, and providing
access to a broad range of students
2. Structural problems



Universities are federations, with a
central government overseeing semiautonomous colleges/schools
The bigger the university, the less
attention is paid to student persistence
at the top levels of the administration
This makes it difficult to institutionalize a
consistent approach to improving
student persistence
3. No coordination among
offices


Efforts to improve persistence are often
program-specific, and in many cases
depend on available extra funding
The programs are often aimed at helping
minority and low-income students or
students with physical or learning
handicaps
4. Inconsistent data


Most universities do not systematically
use data to track their students and see
where they have problems
Universities depend on special studies or
occasional reports to evaluate their
overall success
5. Incentives

External factors influence the amount of
attention persistence receives. These
include:




Changes in state support
External accountability requirements
Numbers of student applications
Accreditation requirements
6. Inadequate Aid


Low-income students work a great deal
while they attend the university
Financial aid programs have competing
purposes, and may not provide a
coherent safety net
7. Low expectations and effort



With some exceptions, most students do
not work very hard in their classes. They
attend class sporadically and do not do
much work outside of class
If engagement is a key to persistence, this
lack of academic engagement may be an
important avenue to explore
Faculty should demand more of students
Conclusion






Persistence is a systemic problem, and no one
player can fix it
If you don’t change anything, nothing will
change
Keep focused on student outcomes -- that is all
that counts
Reengineer; don’t add on
Set priorities -- you cannot do it all at once
Keep at it
“Plans are only good intentions
unless they immediately
degenerate into hard work.”
-Peter Drucker
Thanks to


Jennifer Engle and Colleen O’Brien of the
Pell Institute
The Lumina Foundation, which has funded
so much of our work
Sources




Raising the Graduation Rates of Low-Income
Students, Pell Institute, 2004
Demography Is Not Destiny: Increasing the
Graduation Rates of Low-Income College Students at
Large Public Universities, Pell Institute, 2006
Moving From Theory to Action: Building a Model
of Institutional Success, Tinto and Pusser, for NPEC,
2006
Community College Management Practices that
Promote Student Success Jenkins, 2006 CCRC Brief
31