AT-RISK OF WHAT? DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION

JOANNE HARVEST KORENLECTURER-IN-LAW AND DIRECTOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAMUNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW

 

ALEX SCHIMELLECTURER-IN-LAW AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTORACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAMUNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW

AALS Section on Academic SupportAnnual Conference 2014www.law.miami.edu/aap

Definitional issues in academic support

Early Intervention At-risk students

We all agree

We are going to do something… At some point… For some group of students…

What are we going to do? When? For/to/by whom?

“At-Risk”

Definition #1

“At-Risk”

Two main risk categories: Risk of underperformance in law

school Risk of failing the bar exam

Why designate risk status?

We want to identify students who may encounter academic problems, before those problems arise and cause consequences.

Indicators of risk

Historical indicators: Low LSAT Low UGPA Low GPA first semester Low GPA first year Racial and ethnic

background

Additional indicators:

Racial and ethnic profiling replaced with “non-traditional student” designation

Socioeconomic indicators

Learning disabilities Foreign-education Prior educational

experiences/training

Indicators that are more difficult to identify early

Personal circumstances/life crisis Mental illness/substance abuse Reading/writing deficiencies Study skill deficiencies

How good are we at predicting risk?

Typically, there are consequences for “at-risk” status

Risk categories at the University of Miami: Academic Oversight: GPA between 2.0 -

2.499 Academic Probation: GPA below 2.0

Bar exam failers: 1L GPA

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3 3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

count failers

0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 4 3 3 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

Fre

quency

Outdated risk assumptions

The majority of our students who fail the bar have 1L GPAs between 2.5 and 3.5.

Our sub 2.5 cohort passes at a low rate (55%), but comprise only 25% of our bar failers.

“Intervention”

Definition #2

Intervention

Two models: Proactive

Provides baseline skills and support for students, before problems arise

Reactive Provides remedial support for students,

after problems arise

Assumptions about our students Assumption 1: Students arrive with

fundamental skills.

Assumption 2: Many students lack fundamental skills, but can obtain them through total and early immersion.

Assumption 3: We cannot assume that our students have all the necessary skills to succeed in law school, nor that they can acquire those skills through mere immersion.

“Early”

Definition #3

“Early Intervention”

Law schools should move from move from predominantly reactive intervention to predominantly proactive intervention.

“Early” means establishing a proactive intervention strategy at the very beginning of law school.

Remedial intervention strategies are still necessary, but proactive intervention will better serve our student populations.

Proactive intervention compensates for our inability to accurately predict risk.

Institutional support and involvement is critical.

Reactive intervention

Remedial support for students after problems arise.

Examples: Remedial curricular electives Required workshops Individual counseling

Reactive intervention

Benefits: Focuses on the most

needy students Can address specific

problems

Problems: Stigmatizing

Students feel punished or ashamed

Compounding problems associated with stigma

May inhibit participation in certain opportunities

It may be too late to fully resolve the problem

Proactive intervention

Support for students before problems are identified.

Examples: Pre-orientation programs First semester programs for all new students

Substantive peer teaching fellows (Dean’s Fellows)

Peer teaching fellows for legal writing Workshops on exam writing and study skills, for

all class levels One-on-one academic and personal counseling

Proactive intervention

Benefits: Captures students with

unidentified risk factors Provides benefits for

students at all levels of proficiency

Establishes relationships with students who will require remediation in the future

May prevent the need for reactive intervention

Inclusive; builds community

Problems: Students who need services

the most may not participate

Concluding thoughts

It is time to challenge the assumptions we make about the meaning of these words, and the students who are subject to these assumptions.