Raising the Graduation Rates of LowIncome Students

1
Raising the Graduation Rates of Low-Income
Students

• John Lee, Jerry Davis,
• and Jennifer Engle

2
Research Question

• What are the institutional factors that account
  for differences in graduation rates at four-year
  institutions that serve large populations of
  low-income students?

3
Previous Study - Method

• Examined policies and practices related to
  retention at 20 four-year institutions with high
  percentages of low-income students
• 10 institutions with higher than average
  graduation rates
• 10 institutions with lower than average
  graduation rates

4
Previous Study Design Limitations

• Sample of schools with high of low-income
  students weighted toward small public and private
  institutions (under 5,000)
• Fundamental differences between high and low
  performing institutions made comparisons
  problematic

5
Previous Study - Findings

• Common factors at 10 high-performing
  institutions
• A personal education
• A commitment to undergraduate education
• A shared sense of community
• A hospitable policy environment

6
Current Study - Purpose

• Are the conditions for success observed at the
  smaller institutions present or even possible to
  create at larger public institutions, which serve
  much greater numbers of low-income students?

7
Current Study - Method

• Conducted regression analyses to control for
  characteristics independently associated with
  graduation rates
• Conducted site visits at 15 institutions with
  large numbers of low-income students
• 10 with higher than expected graduation rates
• 5 with lower than expected graduation rates

8
The Institutions

• High Highs
• High Averages a.k.a. True Believers
• High Lows a.k.a. Strivers
• Low Lows

9
High Highs

• Student/institutional characteristics contribute
  to success
• Put high degree of responsibility for success on
  students
• Ample support services, but self-service not
  intrusive
• High participation in first-year programs, but
  most voluntary and/or decentralized in colleges
• Special programs for at-risk students provide
  structured support and serve as first-responders
• Administrative involvement in retention task
  forces, but low faculty involvement
• Strong data function

10
High Averages a.k.a. True Believers

• Student/institutional characteristics contribute
  to success
• Take a high degree of responsibility for student
  success
• Small school feel with high student engagement
• Caring, dedicated faculty as first responders
• Systematically monitor student progress with
  intervention
• Mandatory/high participation in first-year
  programs
• Few programs for special populations
• Institution-wide commitment to retention
  reinforced by leadership

11
High Lows a.k.a. Strivers

• Student/institutional characteristics contribute
  to attrition
• Exception student determination to succeed
• Mandatory or high participation in first-year
  programs
• At-risk programs reach high of students
• Systematic monitoring/intervention doesnt occur
  outside such programs, however
• Instructional innovations funded by outside
  grants
• New presidential leadership committed to
  improving retention, although recent high
  turnover
• Funding problems limit course offerings and
  services

12
Low Lows

• Student and institutional characteristics likely
  contribute to attrition, although more selective
  than High Lows
• Evidence of a blame the student mentality
• Focus on freshman year programs
• Strong support services/programs in place, but
  limited availability
• Administratively-led retention efforts underway,
  but history of failed previous efforts

13
Commonalities Among High Performing Institutions

• People and Place
• Student and institutional characteristics that
  contribute to success
• Student determination to succeed
• Faculty and staff as first-responders
• High student engagement on campus
• Small school atmosphere

14
Commonalities Among High Performing Institutions

• Practices and Programs
• Mandatory or high participation in first-year
  programming
• Systems to monitor student progress
• Innovations to improve instruction
• Ample student support services
• Special programs for at-risk students

15
Commonalities Among High Performing Institutions

• Policy Environment
• Leadership
• Campus-wide Commitment/Involvement
• Coordination
• Data and Evaluation

16
Comparing Small and Large Institutions

• Many of the same conditions for success are
  present at both the small and large high
  performing institutions, however, the context in
  which these conditions are implemented is
  considerably different due to factors such as
  state/system policy

17
Comparing Small and Large Institutions

• Admissions
• Funding and Financial Aid
• Mission

18
Does Success for All Mean Success for Low-Income
Students?

• Strategies that work for first-generation,
  low-income students are likely to be successful
  for the general student population, but
  strategies that are designed for general campus
  populations without taking into account the
  special circumstances and characteristics of
  first-generation, low-income students will not
  often be successful for the latter. (Thayer,
  2000)

19
Conclusions