WHAT DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION JOANNE HARVEST

WHAT? DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION JOANNE HARVEST KOREN LECTURER-IN-LAW AND DIRECTOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW ALEX SCHIMEL LECTURER-IN-LAW AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW AALS Section on Academic Support Annual Conference 2014 www. 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?

Definition #1 “At-Risk”

“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: 1 L GPA 7 6 Frequency 5 4 3 2 1 0 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 3 1 1 4 3 3 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 0 0

Outdated risk assumptions The majority of our students who fail the bar have 1 L GPAs between 2. 5 and 3. 5.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.

Definition #2 “Intervention”

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.

Definition #3 “Early”

“Early Intervention” Law schools should 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 Problems: 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 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.