In Black America; Black Student Retention; Part 3

Thank you, Mr. From the Longhorn Radio Network, the University of Texas at Austin, this is in Black America. 36% of all undergraduate students and 36% of all minority undergraduate students are enrolled at institutions which are members of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. And throughout the presentation, I'll probably just refer then to the Association as ASCUE. Their retention and graduation rates are of primary concern to the institutions that enroll these students.

To assist these institutions and their retention and graduation goals, ASCUE initiated a research project in 1991 and it surveyed its members for the four succeeding years to document retention and graduation. The National Retention Project, American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Although African Americans are in the greater pieces of the American pie, research indicates that over the past 16 years, there has been a decline in the number of African Americans graduating from four years, majority institutions of higher learning. Academics may not be the determining factor for African Americans graduating from these colleges and universities. This past November, Florida and M University celebrate its 10th anniversary National Higher Caching Conference on Black Student Retention in Washington, D.C. More than 200 University and College Administrators, faculty, minority and retention directors and students gather for five days to discuss issues that influence the retention of black students in higher education.

I'm John L. Hanson Jr. and welcome to another edition of In Black America. It's sweet. Retention projects with Dr. Edgar East, Dr. Pamela Arrington in Black America. ASCUE was aware of the lack of both comprehensive and institutional data on this subject. Because the project focuses on institutional capacity rather than student behavior, it adds a unique twist to the literature. And the approach also has the advantage of allowing schools to look at how to attack retention problems systemically and then to measure the consequences of those institutional changes. While the project was initiated soon in school, the project has had a broad impact on the American Higher Education C. Today the project is approximately 284 institutions in the data gathering component of the project. These institutions represent a cross section of ASCUE members by mission including urban, suburban rural schools, small, medium, large schools, small with enrollments as small as 400 FTEs to enrollments as large as 30,000.

In 1983, Dr. Kanita A. Ford as the director of the Title III Program at Florida and Immunity combines a special model for energy, increased minority student retention, searched at her to conclude that although many were concerned about African American student retention, she couldn't find a national form that addressed a problem. Last November in Washington DC, the National Higher Education Conference on Black Student Retention, celebrated its 10th anniversary. The conference in Tyler, minority student retention relates to Goals 2000, brought together some of the leading experts in the field of minority student retention. The conference also recognized and required new approaches to keep African American students in the educational ready mode. On this week's program, we present part one of a two-part segment that focus on the National Retention Project. Joining us today is Dr. Egg, the Director of College Retention Project, the Pew Jet, Dr. Pamela Arrington, Director of the National Retention Project, American Associates and Universities.

In Operation Public Broadcasting Service and Old Dominion University, ASCUE offered a nationally disseminated video conference last February. It was entitled Retention Strategies for Diversity, and to show the impact that the project is having, it subscribed about 328. Only 97 of those schools were ASCUE campuses. Included in that number were the 59 North Carolina community colleges. The project was so successful that we are planning a second for March 1996 to look at some of the recent legislation concerning affirmative action and how campuses can maintain their emphasis on access and quality. The project has also been cited in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

We have disseminated publications to 10 campuses that have benefited from the project activities. Each year we host an annual meeting to ask you presidents and we sponsor the session at those meetings. This is another way to reach the over 410 campus members. Dr. Clinita Ford has been the key speaker at one of those particular sessions. The project is also a national advisory panel. Dr. Ford is also a member of that panel. Other members of the advisory panel include Dr. Vincent Tinto and just this morning I've heard reference to his model on academic and social integration several times. Some of the other retention scholars and experts that are noted in the field.

I mentioned that there are two components to the project and one is the annual survey which is administered to all of the members and then of course the national dissemination campaign. The goal of the research dissemination efforts is to help facilitate this national dialogue about effective teaching and learning practices, particularly those practices with documented outcomes. The results of the annual survey are used to select institutions with significant experience in tracking and reporting student outcomes and providing campus conditions that facilitate undergraduate student success. The institutions are invited to come together at regional national conferences and to join in an effort to disseminate information about good retention practices that improve effectiveness and bringing minority students to graduation. In addition to using the survey data to select the project participants, the survey data also assist ask staff and presidents that host these regional conferences to plan conference themes program themes to date we've had about nine regional conferences so far.

We always try to refer to retention as an academic issue and a part of a broader issue such as the inclusive university. The respondents to the survey have grown over the years when we first started in 1992 there are about 172 respondents. Just recently to our 1995 survey we had about 259 respondents. Each year the survey is a little different. In 1992 we were just trying to get information on retention policies and practices, persistence and graduation rates. In 1993 we changed the instrument somewhat so that we could monitor institutions as they progress through Richardson's model and maybe you are familiar with this model of institutional adaptation to diversity.

We included 14 administrative and campus conditions from the literature on that particular survey. Something else that's significant about the 1993 survey it was our first attempt to advise schools about the upcoming student right to know legislation. Even though NCES will be palating that particular cohort format this fall in 1996 by beginning to use those standardized definitions in 1993 we were able to give the ask you members a leg up and trying to get the tracking systems in place for reporting that particular data. The 1994 survey comprised two parts. We continued to collect the trend and graduation data but we also asked institutions to submit information on model programs.

I have sample of many of the publications up here on the desk as well as in order form if you would be interested. I don't have with me the 1994 retention profiles. It's due from the press in about a week it will be released at our annual meeting. But we took all of those profiles about 253 of them and categorized them by program type administrative conditions instruction and advising faculty and student assessment. And we will be disseminating this to all ask you members as well as all of the participants at our nine regional conferences over the past three years. Just as an example of the kind of national dissemination campaign we are trying to pursue in order to promote the replication of good retention practices. There are several trends that have emerged from this database that we have.

While the growth in the project has been significant because of the extensive communication about the project and the individualized feedback reports that we submit to the campuses which is another benefit to participating in the research project. Once we receive your survey data then we are able to give to each campus then an individualized feedback report which shows how your persistence and graduation rates then compare with similar schools that that would be in your peer group by peer group. I'm referring to the Carnegie classifications of you know urban and rural and and based on size. Presidents and institutional research officers have found this information helpful in that it either you know affirms some of the initiatives that they are trying to promote on campus. It gives them comparative data and it also is a stimulus for conversation then on their campuses and they can use their campus data to facilitate that.

Several trends have emerged from the data though and it appears that retention programs with the best chance of success were found at institutions which understand the linkage between institutional culture, the learning environment and student success. These institutions recognize the need to assess organizational systems as an integral part of improving student success. Two often retention programs are not integrated into the total campus culture and so through our literature then we've been trying to promote that there needs to be this integration and more of a systemic approach to institutional change only when you have the systemic approach will that lead to significant increases in graduation rates. While a lot of the quote unquote isolated retention programs may in the short term increase retention and persistence rates.

It's not until the institution as a whole starts to adapt teaching and learning practices for diversely prepared students that they will see increases and their six year graduation rates. We've been collecting this data for about four years now and so we're just beginning to hear institutions say that they can can link certain campus climate indicators with certain indicators of retention and graduation rates. For example, campuses now because we've been talking about assessment and tracking and computerized tracking systems for so long are now trying to link specific programs with increases in persistence rates. The commitment to student success must take the long term comprehensive view and the majority of our respondents are not doing that yet but they are working on it and that has been one of the outcomes of the project perhaps.

The survey then has become an educational tool and the project publications then are educational in serving to heighten the awareness of asking presidents about the importance of campus culture to student success and also the need to routinely assess this progress on campus. Most of the comprehensive nature of this national dissemination campaign, presidents at very institutional types have said that they've benefited from this focus on campus climate conditions. The eight regional networks to federal policy makers, the project, the national retention project has become somewhat of a respected authority on student tracking systems.

Many more of our schools now are able to report six-year graduation rates overall by race, ethnicity, gender and also by community college transfer status. As you know, a significant percentage of minority students begin their higher ed career at community colleges. And so it's significant to get institutions to start to focus on transfer status issues and how to promote better articulation between two-year and four-year institutions. The project has also taken a teaming approach to this networking. When campuses are invited to the regional or national conferences, they must agree to send a team so that when the team goes back on campus then the senior administrators and the faculty that will be involved in implementing the project has had the benefit of attending the regional conference as a team. We also tell institutions when they join the project that they must agree to serve as a model or a mentor institution for their particular state or region.

Around 1994, we tried to organize a mentoring demonstration project where we linked similar institutions by mission and size, but perhaps they had very different graduation rates. And a number of those schools then have participated in cross-campus visits. They've established electronic male technical assistance networks. And so they are helping each other to, for those institutions that are doing fairly well with some of the retention projects, the mentoring project gives them a chance to look at moving to stage three of Richardson's model, which is the more advanced stage where you try to address teaching learning practices. And then for those institutions that have graduation rates below 20%. It gives them a chance to talk to someone who already has a tracking system in place and to benefit from program ideas that they might replicate. The project has taken the lead, as I said, in establishing this national database that gives state colleges comparative data on retention and graduation rates. And this coupled with the technical assistance resources, the information clearing house that we maintain at the association has been very helpful to campuses.

On a recent evaluation report, and we asked the president how we're doing each year, they reported that the institutional feedback reports where they get this comparative data, the publications, the survey and the regional conferences, they were rated as useful to very useful by the majority of the respondents. And again, they said that it wasn't the tools alone, they were helpful, but it served as a means for them to facilitate discussion on their campuses about how to integrate some of these retention strategies and activities into the total campus culture. Over the next two years, we will continue with the annual survey and maintaining that national database. But we also will initiate a couple of new activities.

We found from our data the significance of involving faculty and senior administrators and campus retention efforts. So we will be initiating what we call campus grants for change. And there will be two parts to this. In one part, we will try to, while we've been recognizing those institutions that are doing well, we're trying to provide some technical assistance funds for those institutions that are not doing well so that we can help get them ready for some of the emerging accountability requirements. And then again, for those institutions that are doing innovative kinds of things, we want to encourage and support that by presenting faculty grants for retention. And again, this is an opportunity for the total campus climate, total campus community to get involved. Often faculty are sometimes left out of the dialogue on retention efforts on campus. And so the many grants will give them a chance to experiment with some of the active learning and learning community models that we've been discussing across the country in our regional workshops.

It's been my pleasure to share some of this information with you. I have sample copies of the publications here and more literature about the project. And I'll be happy to entertain any questions later on. The third black colleges program is a Pew Trust initiated program built on the findings of a survey of 15 historically black colleges and universities, which I will refer to as HBCUs that was conducted in 1991 for the Pew Trust by the Southern Education Foundation or SCF as we know it. It's part of the final review of the trust initiated second black colleges program that Pew Trust has had three, has supported three black college programs, the one which we'll be talking about today represents that third.

The second program had provided $8,888,000 to 13 HBCUs between 1987 and 1991. The survey was conducted by four SCF by Dr. Ursula Wagner, Education Consultant and Lecturer on Education at the University of Pennsylvania and myself. It consisted of a review of proposals and progress reports and analysis of questionnaire data sent to the 13 funded colleges and universities as well as two non-funded institutions and selected site visits to 10 of the HBCUs. Now what were some of the findings of this survey? We found the following four areas of continuing need. One endowment funds endowments at the 15 HBCUs that were examined range from a high of at that time 85 million and 78.5 million at two of the institutions to lower 4.2 million to 6.1 million at a couple of other institutions. In almost all cases, the sums are insufficient to meet the demands for upgrading facilities and programs and keeping tuition low.

Second finding, building and renovations. Although many new buildings have been completed and renovations undertaken, most of these campuses are still underbuilt and face difficult problems and deferred maintenance as a former acting president and one of the institutions I can attest to that. Number three, recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty. The pool of African American faculty is small and many HBCUs lose outstanding faculty to majority institutions because of the low salaries, heavy teaching loads and limited opportunities for faculty development at their own colleges and universities. And the fourth finding, which is the one more significant as far as today's presentation is concerned, recruitment, academic achievement and successful graduation of students. HBCUs students often experienced inadequate elementary and high school preparation and suffer from limited financial support conditions that lead to dropping out. In addition, many of the more talented students require supportive programs to encourage high academic achievement.

Because of the Pew Trust practice of not funding endowment and the trust preference for our programmatic support rather than building construction and renovation, this study did not review endowment and building needs in detail. Because there is external support for faculty development from a variety of sources including the federal government, United Negro College Fund and foundations, the study concentrated on the HBCUs student needs. The following three groups of students were found to require focused support. One, students who suffer from inadequate elementary and secondary school preparation require quote bridge, unquote programs that help them make a successful transition from high school to college. And two, talented students require supportive structures that encourage them to pursue high achievement and subsequent graduate or professional school. And number three, students in academic and financial difficulty require programs that help them to continue college and graduate.

The survey found that supporting retention and high academic achievement is one of the most serious challenges facing the HBCUs. While most of the institutions had a lot of graduation rates in comparison to the national average, 28% for African American students in high education, over 40% of the students failed to graduate at even the most selective HBCUs. To date, they had been little systematic analysis at the HBCUs about their approaches to retention. With little endowments and a commitment to keeping tuition low, external funding for these endeavors becomes critical. Improved recruitment, retention and completion strategies emerged from the SCF review as a major unaddressed need of these institutions and one that was not being supported by other major foundations of government agencies. There can some of the recommendations therefore that flow from the survey was follows.

The report made the following recommendations, this is to Pew and the context of the express needs of the HBCUs, the priorities that the Pew Trust have established and the funding patterns of the federal government and other major foundations. Recommendation number one, the Pew Trust should initiate a third black colleges program for four years between 1992 and 1996, available to the HBCUs participating in the second black colleges program. Recommendation two, the new program should focus on improving academic success and increasing the graduation rate of students, along for both a common focus and individual institutional flexibility. Specifically, the grants competition should focus on three critical intervention areas, which are as follows. Number one, transition from high school to college, academic programs and enable high school students and graduates to better prepare for college.

This includes programs to recruit high school students and pre-freshment summer programs in specific academic areas. Dr. Edgar E. Smith, Director of Black College Retention Project. We will conclude Dr. Smith's presentation on next week's program. If you have a question or comment or suggestions asked your future in Black America programs, write us. Also let us know what radio station you heard us over. I would like to acknowledge Florida A&M University for their assistance in the production of this program. Views and opinions expressed on this program are not necessarily those of this station or the University of Texas at Austin. Until we have the opportunity again for IBA technical producer David Alvarez, I'm John L. Hansen, Jr. Thank you for joining us today and please join us again next week. Let copies of this program are available and may be purchased by writing in Black America cassettes, Communication Building B, UT Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712. That's in Black America cassettes, Communication Building B, UT Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712.

From the University of Texas at Austin, this is the Longhorn Radio Network. I'm John L. Hansen, Jr. Join me this week on in Black America. Also included in this database are 26 of the 45 historically black and minority servant campuses that belong to ASCUE. National retention projects this week on in Black America.