SACRAO Journal 2019 Volume 32

SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND ADMISSIONS OFFICERS

2019 VOLUME 32

THE SACRAO JOURNAL Graduate Student Retention: Examining Factors of Persistence Among Master’s Program Students SCOTT GORDON, WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY

One-Stop Student Service: Developing and Assessing Murray State University’s Model ASHLEY ROGERS, MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY

Identify Critical Issues in Student Retention TEXAS RÜEGG, NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY

DACA Students in Higher Education: A Comparative Policy Analysis RICARDO TAPIA, EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY

Information for Authors THE SACRAO JOURNAL is published annually by the Southern Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, a professional association to promote and advance the improvement of admissions, registration, records, data management, international education and financial aid management practices through study, education, and research; to advance professional knowledge and techniques by fostering the exchange of experiences and information; and to develop and advance standards of competence in the profession. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts which are the responsibility of the author. The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of SACRAO. SACRAO does not endorse the products or services described by authors.

Previous volumes of The SACRAO Journal are published online at: sacrao.org/?p=newsjournal

THE SACRAO JOURNAL

EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR Rheanna Plemons, Ed.D. Western Kentucky University Kentucky JOURNAL BOARD MEMBERS Karen Beckett, M.S.Ed. University of Miami Florida Blake Bedsole, Ed.D. Arkansas Tech University Arkansas Nichole Mancone Fisher, Ed.D. University of Texas – Arlington Texas Jennifer Hardy, M.A. University of Tennessee – Knoxville Tennessee Nicole Martin, M.A. East Tennessee State University Tennessee Lillian Owens, Ed.D. Jefferson State Alabama Cindy Peterson, M. Ed. Piedmont College Georgia Nanett Rojas, M.S. Florida International University Florida Ken Thompson, Ph.D. Millsaps College Mississippi Beth Wolfe, Ed.D. Marshall University West Virginia

The Editorial Board welcomes manuscripts for publication in SACRAO’s academic, refereed publication, The SACRAO Journal. Members of SACRAO are encouraged to submit articles which pertain to their professional and research experiences regarding issues and innovative practices in the profession.

Preference is given to articles authored by SACRAO members, but articles from outside the membership will be considered based on revelatory findings that advance the work of SACRAO members. Active Journal Editorial Board members may not submit articles for publication; book reviews and commentaries by Board members may be published at the discretion of the Editor.

Preparing Manuscripts The complete title of the article should be placed on the first pace of the text, with the author’s name excluded. The author should provide a phone and email address. Unless specified otherwise, the principal (firstnamed) author will be sent all correspondence.

Manuscripts should be submitted in accordance with the stylistic rules and guidelines delineated in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., 2010). For information, visit http://www.apastyle.org. Manuscript pages should be numbered consecutively. All manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that The SACRAO Journal Editorial Board reserves the right to edit for clarity, syntax, and style. At the discretion of the Editorial Board, authors may be asked to shorten or lengthen articles.

The Editor will acknowledge receipt of manuscripts and will forward them to members of the Editorial Board for review. The Board will consider the appropriateness of the articles for SACRAO’s membership and reserves the right to reject articles submitted for publication.

Manuscript Submission Manuscripts submitted for publication must be original material, which has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere.

Length of manuscripts, including references and tables, should range from about eight to 20 double-spaced, 8.5 x 11-inch pages. Abstracts are limited to 125 words. Authors should retain a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss.

First drafts of manuscripts are due August 1 annually, and revisions by the Editorial Board are generally returned to the author by the end of September. The final deadline for manuscripts is November 1 in order to meet the printing schedule.

Please email your manuscript to Dr. Rheanna Plemons at rheanna.plemons@wku.edu.

Copyright and Permission An author may reproduce an article for use. Other individuals must request permission from the Editor to reproduce tables, figures, and more than 500 words of an article text.

2019 VOLUME 32

THE SACRAO JOURNAL 2

Editor’s Reflections

RHEANNA PLEMONS, Ed.D.

3

The Margaret Ruthven Perry Distinguished SACRAO Journalism Award

4

Graduate Student Retention: Examining Factors of Persistence Among Master’s Program Students

SCOTT GORDON, WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY

11

One-Stop Student Service: Developing and Assessing Murray State University’s Model

ASHLEY ROGERS, MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY

15

Identify Critical Issues in Student Retention

19

DACA Students in Higher Education: A Comparative Policy Analysis

RICARDO TAPIA, EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY

TEXAS RÜEGG, NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY

Editor’s Reflections Part of the responsibility of serving as The SACRAO Journal editor is providing a riveting reflection on the past year. That task is difficult for me, because the past year has brought a whirlwind of changes with flurries of uncertainty and showers of encouragement. I am sure many of you can relate. Institutions faced or continue to face devastating budget cuts (or is that just Kentucky?). Morale feels low among many of our colleagues. Friends have retired or taken other jobs outside the post-secondary realm, while the work doubled or tripled on those left behind.

Debates abound on whether higher education is worth the investment. The common theme for all of this is—changes—changes in financial security—changes in leadership—changes in outlook. And, all of those changes have changed us personally and professionally as well. I choose to find the positive in these changes, and serving as The SACRAO Journal editor has helped me find some positivity in the midst of flux. Here are a few of the lessons I have learned through this journey.

Teamwork makes the dream work, but a vision becomes a nightmare when the leader has a big dream and a bad team. —John Maxwell The SACRAO Journal is a monumental chore if left to complete it alone. Authors have to be recruited.

Articles have to be vetted, reviewed, and edited in a timely manner. This would be a nightmare without a dream team of hard workers who volunteer their time to assist in our professional publication. These individuals quickly reviewed and returned revisions. I owe a special thanks to Ken Thompson, Blake Bedsole, Nichole Mancone Fisher, Karen Beckett, Jennifer Hardy, Nicole Martin, Lillian Owens, Cindy Peterson, Nanett Rojas, and Beth Wolf for being a dream team during this journal cycle.

Never be so busy as not to think of others.

—Mother Teresa In the midst of change, it is easy to get bogged down in details. However, remembering others is an important part of good leadership. When news of budget cuts from my state broke on national news, Sheryl Gray called to make sure my job was secure. She also took the time to check on me periodically. I owe a special thanks to her.

Changing the journal from a printed publication

to an online publication required a great deal of coordinating, facilitating, and organizing. I could not have completed the process without Sheryl’s interest and help.

Employers and business leaders need people who can think for themselves — who can take initiative and be the solution to problems.

—Stephen Covey Covey is a master when it comes to encouraging individuals to be successful. A few SACRAO members responded. These writers showed a great deal of initiative to submit an article and survive the revision process. They have added an accolade to their vitas and have shown an interest to solve problems plaguing higher education.

A common theme in the journal this year is the recruitment and retention of students.

Scott Gordon, from Western Kentucky University, discusses graduate student retention and the factors affecting the persistence of those students.

His qualitative study shows institutions tend to focus on the retention of undergraduate students, leaving graduate students to fend for themselves.

The students identified faculty interactions and peers as a determining factor in their persistence.

Ashley Rogers, from Murray State University, discusses the one-stop student service model adopted by her University. She addresses the implementation of the center and the assessment plan that is forthcoming. One-stop shops are geared toward providing exemplary customer service to students. Satisfied, happy students tend to remain in higher education meaning customer service has a correlation with retention efforts.

Texas Rüegg, from LeTourneau University, provides an overview of retention strategies in higher education. The article gives thoughtful discussion on the role of gender, variables affecting retention, remediation, first-year experience, brand and pricing, and engagement.

All institutions can find a useful retention gem in this article.

Ricardo Tapia, from East Tennessee State University, discusses DACA students in higher education and the policies pertaining to that population. His comparative analysis provides

an overview of how policies in Tennessee and the SACRAO region affect undocumented and DACA students. Since many states are switching to funding models based on recruitment and retention, research in recruiting diverse students is needed and worthwhile.

I am grateful for each of these authors who were willing to submit an article and return revisions during peak work times.

If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.

—Henry Ford And, finally, this year we are embracing the move from a printed copy of The SACRAO Journal to an online version. Many organizations have made this move to save mailing and printing costs. It will be different. It will be an adjustment for some.

However, it will save a few trees and hopefully increase viewership.

In conclusion, I hope you will continue to share your ideas and innovations through publication in The SACRAO Journal. I am happy to meet with you to discuss research you have conducted or answer any questions you may have about the publication process. If you have published an article, encourage your colleagues and staff to do so as well. I look forward to seeing you very soon in Baton Rouge.

Please enjoy this edition of The SACRAO Journal.

Dr. Rheanna Plemons is the Interim Registrar at Western Kentucky University. She is a previous winner of the Margaret Ruthven Perry Distinguished SACRAO Journalism Award. She is a past president of the Kentucky Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers (KACRAO) and won the KACRAO best presenter award for 2014 and 2015. She has also served on the Executive Committee for SACRAO.

Distinguished SACRAO Journalism Award This award is presented annually to the author whose article promotes and advances knowledge, techniques, and standards of competence in the profession. The award was initially established by Margaret Ruthven Perry, who served as the first editor of The SACRAO Journal. It was named in her honor following the completion of her service as editor. Listed below are the recipients of the award.

1989 Diane Freytag

2002 Paul Taylor

2011 Matthew P. McCrickard

The Evolution and Maintenance of an Enrollment Management Program

The Future of Higher Education in the 21st Century

1990 T. Luther Gunter

2003 Bradley W. Johnson and Sheldon L. Stick

Accentuate the Positive: Identifying Opportunities in Enrollment Services through Appreciative Inquiry

Image Technology in the Information Age: Is Microfilm Really Dead?

1992 Bruce W. Cunningham Students Versus Registrars: Opponents or Partners in the Educational Process

1994 David H. Stones On the Strategic Nature of SPEEDE/ ExPRESS: Scalability, and Applicability of EDI in the Workplace

1996 James Lynch African-American Undergraduate Recruitment Strategies

1997 Michael E. Malone SACRAO’s “50th”: A Tint of Gold

1998 Cynthia J. Farrier Electronic Grades: From Professor to Student Information System

1999 Edward L. McGlone Primer on Outcomes Assessment for Academic Administrators

2000 Rick Skeel How to Find Funding for EDI: Oklahoma’s State-wide Grant Approach

2001 Angela J. Evans Home School Education: Its Impact on a State University

Application of Strategic Planning to Enrollment in a Community College

2012 Reta Pikowsky Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

2004 Louis D. Hunt

2013 Rodney L. Parks and Jonathan W. Rich

What’s Your Social? Replacing the Social Security Number

Voices from the Past: Boomers Transition Back to College

2005 John Fletcher

2014 Rodney L. Parks and Ashley D. Edwards

Get Ahead and Stay Ahead: Summers at Auburn Creating a Program to Maximize Your Summer Enrollment

2006 Magdalena H. Williams Achievement and Retention Patterns in a Predominantly Hispanic Serving Institution of Higher Education

2007 Matthew P. McCrickard Adapting Solution Focused Advising: Effective Communication Strategies for Registrars

2008 Ronald G. White Experience Marketing: Putting Students on the Frontline...Again

2009 Lisa B. Harris The Enrollment Manager as a Change Agent

2010 Holly Swart

The SACRAO Journal

THE MARGARET RUTHVEN PERRY

Transgenderism and the College Experience: Transitioning Challenges During Higher Education

2015 Rheanna Plemons Staff Perceptions of Work-Environment Factors Affecting Morale in Southeastern Registrar’s Offices

2016 Mark Eister Serving Student Veterans

2017 Lorie Snyder Garrett Best Practices for Design of Admissions Offices and Welcome Centers

2018 Angela Brockelsby Best Practices for Communicating Online with Generation Z in Recruitment and Marketing for Undergraduate Admissions in Higher Education

Strategic Training and Communication: The Keys to Our Successful System Implementation

3

ABSTRACT This study focuses on persistence efforts at the master’s level at regional comprehensive public institutions, using interviews with current and former master’s program students and institutional document research as data sources. While Tinto’s Longitudinal Model of Doctoral Persistence is used as a guide, student retention models encompassing both undergraduate and doctoral persistence are examined. Challenges include the lack of retention models designed for master’s seeking students and the dearth of standardized graduate student persistence data collection.

This research identifies the importance of graduate faculty support, self-motivation, and peer support to graduate persistence.

Graduate persistence is not perceived as an institutional priority, compared to undergraduate persistence. Institutional emphasis on retention focuses much more on undergraduate students. The heterogeneity of graduate students makes retention more challenging.

Institutions have the opportunity for significant improvement regarding graduate persistence efforts.

Graduate Student Retention: Examining Factors of Persistence among Master’s Program Students Introduction Student enrollment plays a vital role at every postsecondary institution. As budgetary support for public institutions decreases and competition to enroll students intensifies, colleges and universities have emphasized the essential role of student retention as a way to maintain enrollment and increase tuition revenue.

As nonprofit entities, public postsecondary institutions historically have not been motivated by the same profit maximization focus as businesses, or private and for-profit universities.

However, in an era of increasingly reduced state funding, public universities have adopted more economies and efficiencies in an effort to ameliorate the effects of diminished support.

Reducing spending is an option, but there is only so much that can be cut. Another option is to increase enrollment. Enrollment increases at an institution through one of two mechanisms.

The first, recruitment, involves bringing new students to an institution. The second is retention, which involves maintaining enrollment from students already at an institution until graduation or completion.

College student retention has long been a topic of study, and most research focuses on undergraduate retention. Retention research at the graduate level predominantly focuses on doctoral programs (Greene, 2015). Very little scholarship exists that explores the factors that influence student persistence at the master’s level (Alexander, Kohnke, & Naginey, 2011; Cohen, 2012), despite the prevalence of enrollment at that level.

Students seeking master’s degrees comprise the majority of graduate students in the United States, with an increasing number awarded each year (Anderson, 2013; Borchert, 2005). In the 2012-2013 academic year, 522,350 master’s degrees, 70,920 doctoral degrees, and 34,416 graduate certificates were awarded across all institutional types. Specifically regarding public institutions, 312,380 master’s degrees were awarded, as well as 45,081 doctoral degrees and 17,156 graduate certificates (Allum, 2014). While there are fewer graduate students than undergraduates, it is puzzling that a growing cohort of students (i.e., those at the master’s level) continues to be ignored. Alstete (2014) identified retention as a strategy that enhances revenue income. Thus, institutions have a vested interest in retaining students. As competition among schools increases to recruit qualified students, it becomes more important to retain as many enrolled students as possible.

Of the existing models, many have components that can be used to describe or to predict certain aspects of master’s degree persistence (Cohen, 2012; Tinto, 1993). While it cannot be assumed that support needs of master’s students are the same as those of undergraduates, common themes exist, such as the “institutional commitment” variable first identified by Spady (1971), which is used to measure the level of a student’s commitment to an institution. Spady found that a higher level of commitment correlates to a higher chance of persistence.

Little to no research is available that has measured the reverse: institutional commitment to a student. Institutional commitment to a student could be defined as the level of support services for graduate students, or through the existence of institutional policies designed to be assistive to graduate students, or by other means. An examination of this variable would be similar to the non-traditional/adult student learner research conducted by Bean and Metzner (1985).

As institutions continue to refine retention models in order to maximize enrollment, graduate students – particularly those at the master’s level – are a forgotten piece of the enrollment management strategy. Master’s programs can serve as an area of growth for an institution that faces undergraduate recruitment issues, such as a declining number of high school graduates.

Master’s degrees offer a way for individuals to differentiate themselves from others who do not possess a graduate degree (Borchert, 2005).

This study is significant for faculty and staff at all – especially public – institutions that have graduate programs. First, it is imperative that graduate student persistence have equal importance as undergraduate student persistence. All students admitted to an institution deserve the best opportunity to succeed. Universities have a moral obligation to provide students the most supportive environment possible to ensure student success; without study of graduate student needs, this commitment cannot be accomplished effectively. Second, it is in the best interest of institutions to maximize graduate student retention as a source of revenue. Examining student desires and needs, versus that which is available, is an important first step in aligning these objectives.

Methods This exploratory qualitative case study employed multiple methods of data collection. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with students currently enrolled in master’s programs or who earned master’s degrees in the past year from one of two regional public comprehensive institutions studied.

The semi-structured interviews asked the same questions of

each participant, but also allowed for individualized follow-up questions based on previous answers.

Analysis of relevant policies and documents at these institutions was used to provide evidence regarding questions of demonstrated institutional commitment. Documents such as transcripts of institution-wide convocation speeches, committee meeting notes, and strategic planning documents were examined as an indicator of institutional importance of graduate retention.

The qualitative research method was selected as a result of how little study overall has been conducted on graduate persistence, especially in the areas of institutional commitment and student perception. Of the scant relevant scholarship available, most has been conducted from a quantitative perspective. Interviews yielded personal perspectives on the subjects such as the level of perceived institutional commitment to graduate student retention, whereas examining institutional policies allowed more objectivity than interviews.

Graduate Student Retention

Numerous models have been used to describe different aspects of undergraduate retention (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Spady, 1971; Tinto, 1975). As these models were refined, they incorporated more variables in an attempt to move beyond describing the phenomenon to predicting the likelihood of a student persisting.

However, the refinement of the models tended to make them even more undergraduate specific.

As this research was originally conducted for a doctoral dissertation, a survey instrument for the interviews was created and the study was approved by the Western Kentucky University Institutional Review Board. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and documents were parsed to allow data to be coded for qualitative analysis.

Limitations of the Study A limitation of this study is the transferability of the findings to different campus types. As an examination of public comprehensive institutions, it is unknown whether the same findings exist on private campuses or public research institutions.

Similarly, it is unknown whether for-profit schools face the same issues.

Current and former graduate students from the two institutions studied were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the factors that affect retention and persistence. Interviewing other constituencies, such as graduate faculty, university staff, or others outside the university in student support roles (i.e., family, friends, etc.) could have revealed different responses to the research questions.

Research Questions and Discussion Two research questions and responses are examined in the following sections.

Research Question 1: What factors influence persistence in master’s programs at comprehensive universities?

Three primary factors emerged as influencers of graduate persistence: graduate faculty support, student self-motivation, and peer support. Although others were identified, these factors were pinpointed as the most important through the results of the study.

5

Master’s programs differ fundamentally from undergraduate programs in many ways, but one commonly referenced was student interaction with faculty. All interviewees cited this factor multiple times as a primary influencer of their decision to continue and/or to complete their master’s degree. Interviewees also indicated a perception of greater individual contact with graduate faculty than they has as students in undergraduate programs. This finding appears to be intuitive, given that the institutions studied enrolled many more undergraduates than graduates, thus making it easier to focus on a smaller group. Other mechanisms of contact, such as research and graduate assistantships, also fostered greater interactivity.

Faculty acted as educators, as mentors, and as an important support system for students. Because of this closer association, faculty were in a position to know more about graduate students than anyone else on the university’s campus and, thus, served in a unique position with regard to graduate persistence. They had the most immediate access to students both in the classroom and in other non-classroom settings.

The relationships that students and faculty formed at this level were fundamental to student decisions to persist. This relationship-building was especially helpful to part-time students who often had other demands on their time (work, family, etc.), as they did not have other means of interfacing with a campus outside of their affiliation with their academic department.

Graduate faculty also served as conduits to connect students with resources that encouraged persistence. This activity was attributed to the more individualized knowledge of the students in their departments, which allowed faculty to be more cognizant of their needs. However, simply knowing an issue existed was insufficient to exert positive influence; faculty had to be willing both to recognize and to act upon their observations.

Students had different expectations and needs regarding graduate faculty support. Students more involved in online or on-demand programs needed more focus on responsiveness and facilitation than campus-based students required. Faculty teaching online courses play a vital role in ensuring that students are connected to appropriate support services as needed (Glazer & Murphy, 2015). As many students self-selected into online programs due to the convenience it afforded them, as well as the ability to schedule their coursework around other obligations, graduate faculty support that enabled students to fulfill academic obligations was appreciated.

All participants indicated that graduate faculty support was the most influential factor that encouraged (or was encouraging) them to persist. The importance of faculty interaction cannot be overstated, particularly when considering the relative dearth of student support services offered to graduate students in comparison to undergraduates. Graduate faculty were identified as indispensable elements of a public comprehensive university’s effort to foster persistence in master’s programs. This factor is consistent with Bain, Fedynich, and Knight’s (2010) finding that graduate “student/faculty interaction and connection is essential” (p. 5) and that “the professor assists in the facilitation of students believing in their own success” (p.

6), which is linked to the second primary factor.

The second most-referenced factor influencing graduate persistence was self-motivation. With one exception, all interviewees characterized their internal drive to complete their degree as a primary

reason for their persistence. The participants considered it a foregone conclusion that they would complete their academic programs and seemed surprised when the question arose. Interestingly, “motivation has received the least amount of attention in the literature” (Gilmore, Wafford, & Maher, 2016, p. 432).

Several possible reasons can explain the relative weight placed on self-motivation. Self-motivation is inherent to a degree in each student, but also can be developed further (Bain et al., 2010). One reason could have been the age and maturity level of the students, particularly when compared with undergraduates. As participation in master’s programs was more of a choice than an expectation, students who decided to enter graduate school effectively engaged in self-selection, while those who lacked the prerequisite self-motivation essentially opted not to enter in the first place.

For some, self-motivation to complete a graduate program transcended international borders. One respondent came to the United States from Nigeria in order to pursue their studies. This factor added an extra dimension to the self-motivation discussion, as it entailed the student not only persisting in a program, but also adapting to a different culture. For others, self-motivation was the only prerequisite to persistence. For this subset of students, additional retention activities were seemingly superfluous, as students perceived no additional value from the effort expended. While not the case for all, it was interesting to note that in some instances graduate student self-motivation trumped everything else.

Self-motivation served as an intrinsic element of graduate persistence for most students. As it was inherent in the student mindset, most did not consider it consciously when thinking about that which pushed them to continue and appeared to take it for granted when queried.

Self-motivation also appeared to be inherent in the decision-making process when students considered whether to attend graduate school, which further highlighted its importance. It was illustrative to note that participants referenced the converse of self-motivation – external motivation –only nine times, which further demonstrated the significance of self-motivation as a factor.

The participants in this study identified peer support as the third primary factor that influenced their decisions to persist and ranked it slightly below self-motivation.

With the inclusion of this factor, all human elements of a graduate course were accounted for: the professors (graduate faculty), the student (self-motivation), and the others in class (peers). These, then, were the primary components of persistence. Having others with whom to share similar academic experiences gave students additional opportunities to discuss and to digest course materials, apart from their interactions with faculty. Peers shared experiences and expertise not necessarily connected with the academic program that helped contextualize the material presented in class.

Peer support was a less formal method of interaction than that students had with faculty. Personal relationships between students also fostered a sense of mutual accomplishment that reinforced selfmotivation. In some cases, students maintained the peer relationships formed in graduate school beyond completion of the program, whereas faculty relationships more easily waned when students were no longer actively engaged in the department.

Peer support also resulted from relationships outside the classroom. Having connections to others who had experienced a graduate program had distinct value, as those peers could offer advice and guidance on how they handled similar situations previously. Peers who completed a program served as examples that the student could emulate in order to persist. This phenomenon was particularly evident for students who balanced a full-time job with a master’s program and, thus, had less direct interaction with peers in their program.

In contrast, students who were on campus full-time with classes and graduate assistantships in the department had a more immersive experience, as their interactions with their peers were much more frequent and involved. When students interacted with the same peers in both a classroom and a work environment, different connections were formed.

Clear delineations existed between the different types of peer support, with each student relying on a mode of support appropriate to the individual situation. In any case, no matter the form of peer support, it was an important element that influenced persistence, forming the “third leg of the stool” with graduate faculty support and self-motivation.

Research Question 2: Do or how do comprehensive public universities prioritize graduate persistence, and how do students perceive these efforts?

In contrast to the previous research question, where a relatively small number of factors were identified as the principal determinants, much greater parity was noted among the aspects of this component, which spoke to the individualized nature of institutional perception as focused through each participant’s observations and experiences. Perceptions also were mutable, and the timing of the question to participants (in relation to their progress in their programs) may have affected their assessments.

Responses in this theme were related to both graduate and undergraduate institutional experiences, as most participants compared and contrasted the two. As students first formed a sense of their interactions at the undergraduate level, it follows that using undergraduate experience as a gauge of later graduate experiences was a common metric. Student perception of institutional behavior was interesting in that it was highly subjective. Although institutions may have had a specific intent with regard to a policy or decision, students potentially had different interpretations. Perception also varied among students, which demonstrated that a particular institutional action was perceived in different ways by individual students.

Students routinely viewed their undergraduate institutions (or the undergraduate component of their education, if both degrees were earned at the same institution) as promoting retention as

an institutional priority. It was notable that, while all were enrolled in or graduated from one of two institutions at the graduate level, much more variation existed among the undergraduate institutions attended, which made this perception even more striking.

One possible reason for the commonly-held view that institutions placed significant emphasis on undergraduate retention was due to the visibility of undergraduate-focused programs. Schools track certain undergraduate persistence data, such as the oft-quoted freshman retention rate or the six-year graduation rate, thus making these measures a part of the vernacular for most students. As these were public schools, these metrics were collected for reporting to a state oversight board. Simply establishing a visible manifestation of a retention effort, such as a dedicated office, sent the message that undergraduate persistence was important institutionally.

Graduate Student Retention

Support of a peer group is an important part of the socialization process for graduate students, allowing them to become part of a group with a less-formal support structure than that found from faculty interactions (Zahl, 2015). It also extends learning outside the boundaries of the classroom (Terrazas-Carrillo, Hong, McWhirter, Robbins, & Pace, 2015).

Regardless of the reasons, students viewed their undergraduate institutions as placing high emphasis on undergraduate retention.

This interpretation potentially colored the perception of the way in which the same students saw (or did not see) institutional graduate-focused retention efforts when they enrolled in a master’s program.

Given that participants saw undergraduate retention as an institutional priority, it was unsurprising that these students perceived specific actions taken by institutions as supportive of undergraduate persistence. Schools publicized these mechanisms of support well, which made them well-known to students. Due to the attention given to undergraduate persistence, these mechanisms appeared to be beneficial to institutions that sought to preserve and to improve undergraduate student persistence, as these efforts potentially increased tuition revenue by keeping more students enrolled.

The inclusion of the factors relating to undergraduate support may have appeared odd initially, as this study focused on graduate retention. However, an examination of the undergraduate perception allowed the contextualization of the perception of the priority of graduate retention by comparing the two. In contrast to the almost unanimous view that undergraduate retention was an institutional priority, participants gave much more restrained assessments of graduate retention as an institutional priority.

This perception potentially resulted from the different expectations of both degree levels, with undergraduates viewed as needing more overt assistance – or, at least the offer of assistance – while graduate students were assumed to be more cognizant of their needs and better equipped to solve their own issues. Alternatively, due to the closer connection between master’s students and their departments, much of the traditional retention activity could have been seen as originating in the department (versus the institution) for graduate students. No matter the motivation, students perceived a significant difference in retention efforts by institutions at both degree levels.

7

Due to the tepid descriptions of institutional demonstrations of graduate retention as a priority, students expressed an equally held view that graduate retention was not an institutional priority.

Interestingly, this assessment was espoused both by participants who attended the same institution for both degree levels, as well as for those who did not. The fact that students saw this occurring in both instances spoke to the pervasiveness of the belief. Students recognized that some retention efforts happened at the graduate level, indicating that this could not be interpreted as students being blind to all sources and forms of support; rather, the attribution of the support to the source – departmental or institutional – was the crucial point of differentiation.

This phenomenon was independent of whether a student attended the same institution for both undergraduate and graduate degrees.

However, students who enrolled in both programs at the same institution had a better basis for a direct comparison, as they observed the school’s actions from both perspectives, which emphasized a key point: Did students truly see graduate retention not as an institutional priority, or was it just perceived as less of a priority in comparison to undergraduate efforts? This finding is one explanation for why perceptions were split on whether graduate persistence was an institutional priority.

A theme that emerged in relation to this research question – especially the document research – can be described as “unconscious exclusion.” This term can be defined in this examination as broad, sweeping statements found in the texts studied that purportedly applied to all students at an institution, but on closer examination referred to only undergraduate – not graduate – students.

Unconscious exclusion was evident in the interviewees’ perception of how institutions prioritized graduate versus undergraduate education, but was predominant when examining relevant documents.

This theme of (seemingly) assuming all students were undergraduates was prevalent in texts from both institutions. Although some of the documents mentioned graduate education, the most widespread topic throughout the entirety of the analysis was the assumption that institutional actions, decisions, and considerations were overwhelmingly (and unconsciously) slanted toward the viewpoint of undergraduate education.

Unconscious exclusion can be seen as a reaction to the fundamental differences between graduate and undergraduate retention, as well as a recognition that undergraduate enrollments are significantly greater at these institutions. Nevertheless, recognizing and ameliorating the unintentional lack of emphasis on graduate student issues at the institutional level would benefit graduate students.

Recommendations and Future Studies This study generated interesting and surprising data regarding persistence at comprehensive public institutions. Examining this data exposed related issues that can benefit from additional research on the topic. Also included are recommendations for changes in institutional practices regarding graduate persistence.

The first recommendation is to repeat this study at different types of institutions, particularly those where a greater emphasis is placed on advanced graduate studies. While many similarities were found between the two universities studied, how would the results be different at schools in which graduate research is more prevalent?

Similarly, would students at institutions offering more doctoral programs have different responses? By varying the institution type, the mix of respondents would be different, as schools with a greater research/doctoral emphasis may include more students pursuing a master’s degree as a waypoint toward a doctoral degree and, thus, would have different factors influencing their persistence. It would also be of interest to see if different types of institutions prioritize graduate education similarly. Studying institutions in different geographic areas would be another option.

A second recommendation is to replicate this study, but focus on students who have dropped out of a graduate program or otherwise failed to complete it. Determining the barriers perceived by the students would benefit institutions seeking to encourage graduate persistence. The points of view held by these students would be valuable, particularly when considering the factors that encourage - or discourage - persistence, as well as the challenges and barriers encountered. The study would be even more powerful when comparing the results to studies of students who completed programs.

The third recommendation is for schools to track graduate persistence in order to improve support for graduate student persistence to degree. Tracking student data would better inform the institutions regarding the support needed and the type of support that would be most helpful. As discussed, graduate data are more difficult to track than undergraduate data, but it is by no means impossible. Collecting and examining this information would lead to greater emphasis on graduate persistence, as the data would be accessible and easily compared longitudinally. Further, creating standards for comparing graduate persistence data across multiple institutions would bring an even greater emphasis to this data from numerous institutions, though this likely goes beyond the scope of any single institution’s influence.

A fourth recommendation is to identify and to celebrate the successes on campuses with regard to graduate persistence. Data collection could lead to the identification of effective strategies, allowing their implementation in other environments on campus. Acknowledging these efforts and attainments demonstrates graduate education as a more prominent part of the institutional mission.

Reducing or eliminating the “unconscious exclusion” phenomenon where university statements, programs, or processes that purport to apply to “all students” at an institution, but in reality only apply to “all undergraduate students” is an important step toward recognizing the different needs of graduate students, especially with regard to persistence.

Finally, the overall recommendation of this study is for institutions to examine the priority placed on graduate student retention. Although institutions such as the ones examined have a significantly greater number of undergraduate students, it is nevertheless imperative to ensure that graduate retention is valued and promoted institutionally.

The primary goal of this qualitative case study was to examine the factors that influence graduate student persistence and institution retention. Whereas significant research about undergraduate retention exists, comparatively little research has been done on graduate retention, especially focusing specifically on master’s students.

Graduate persistence differs significantly and fundamentally from undergraduate persistence. Students come in to each degree level with diverse experiences, expectations, and maturity levels, leading to different methodologies required for success at each level. Comprehensive public institutions typically have a strong focus on undergraduate programs and persistence, with a reduced emphasis on graduate persistence. Master’s degree programs comprise the bulk of graduate enrollments at comprehensive public institutions; thus, the advantage of studying how best to facilitate persistence to degree completion for these students is beneficial for all parties involved. Students benefit from earning a credential that can help them advance professionally, educationally, or personally, and public universities fulfill their mission of educational access and maximize tuition revenue in a time of decreasing state funding. Schools also assume a moral obligation to students they admit to provide a supportive environment that provides the greatest possible opportunity for student success.

This study was conducted at two regional comprehensive public universities. Data was collected via semi-structured interviews and document research. The interviews were conducted with current and former master’s program students from the two institutions, while the documents examined were university publications such as strategic planning materials, university fact books, annual reports, and published transcripts of convocation speeches. Relevant themes emerged through the data coding process that informed the study.

The primary conclusion of this study was that significant inequality exists between undergraduate and graduate persistence efforts at comprehensive public institutions. (The most prevalent example of this is the pervasive “unconscious exclusion” phenomenon.) However, due to the fundamental differences between students at these two educational levels, the magnitude of the inequality does not directly correlate with student persistence decisions. A comprehensive public institution that invests in and promotes graduate persistence would differentiate itself significantly from other similar universities and would provide a competitive advantage in student retention.

Although institutions must decide whether the effort is worth the cost, the opportunity exists for schools to distinguish themselves in the graduate enrollment area.

Graduate Student Retention

Conclusions

Students in master’s programs indicated their interactions with two groups – graduate faculty and their peers – are significant influences as they continually make decisions related to persistence. These students also report self-motivation as having a significant impact, allowing them to overcome barriers and challenges both internal and external to the university.

Graduate persistence is an extremely fragmented target for institutions that choose to support it, requiring a comprehensive portfolio of strategies rather than a concerted effort into one solution. Due to the numerous types of graduate students, a commensurate number of approaches must be adopted, requiring a more fine-grained methodology. Similarly, the effect of such efforts would not be immediate and would necessitate a long-term institutional commitment in order to be successful.

Graduate persistence, similar to individual graduate programs, is highly nuanced, and difficult to characterize in a grand, sweeping way. It represents a varied, individual challenge for both students and institutions, but it is a challenge worthy of much greater institutional effort.

References Alexander, C., Kohnke, M, & Naginey, A. (2011) Undergraduate and graduate retention: Two concepts, one outcome. Retrieved from http://earth.callutheran. edu/fact_book/documents/UndergraduateandGraduateRetention_ TwoConceptsOneOutcome.pdf Allum, J. (2014). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2003 to 2013. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Alstete, J. W. (2014). Revenue generation strategies: Leveraging higher education resources for increased income. ASHE Higher Education Report, 41, 1-138.

Anderson, N. (2013, May 25). Master’s degree programs surge at nation’s colleges and universities. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www. washingtonpost.com/local/education/masters-degree-programs-surgeatnations-colleges-and-universities/2013/05/25/938462fa-b726-11e2-92f3f291801936b8_story.html Bain, S., Fedynich, L., & Knight, M. (July, 2010). The successful graduate student: A review of the factors for success. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 3(7), 1-9.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.

Borchert, M. A. E. (2005). Master’s education: A guide for faculty and administrators. A policy statement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Cohen, K. E. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Development and testing of a conceptual model (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1220694051.

Gilmore, J., Wofford, A. M, & Maher, M. A. (2016). The flip side of the attrition coin: Faculty perceptions of factors supporting graduate student success.

International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 419-439. Retrieved from http://www. informingscience.org/Publications/3618 Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p501-518Greene0597.pdf Glazer, H. R., & Murphy, J. A. (2015). Optimizing success: A model for persistence in online education. American Journal of Distance Education 29(2), 135-144.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.1023093 Greene, M. (2015). Come hell or high water: Doctoral students’ perceptions on support services and persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 501-518.

Spady, W. G. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model.

Interchange, 2(3), 38-62.

9

Terrazas-Carrillo, E., Hong, J. Y., McWhirter, P. T., Robbins, R., & Pace, T. M. (2015). Placemaking and its impact on international graduate student persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Theory and Practice 19(1), 59-80. Retrieved from http:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1521025115611403 Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.

Chicago: University Press of Chicago.

Zahl, S. B. (2015). The impact of community for part-time doctoral students: How relationships in the academic department affect student persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 301-321. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume10/ IJDSv10p301-321Zahl0672.pdf

SCOTT GORDON currently works in graduate enrollment management at the Western Kentucky University Graduate School. He has worked in higher education for more than 24 years in student recruitment and retention at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and in a faculty role as an instructor. He earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in English from the University of Kentucky, an MFA in Creative Writing from Murray State University, and a doctorate in Educational Leadership from Western Kentucky University.

One-stop Student Service

ABSTRACT One-stop student service models have become a popular trend among higher education institutions. In an effort to remain competitive and meet the needs of a diverse student population, Murray State University implemented its own version of co-located student services, Racer One Stop, in January 2017. This article discusses the development of Racer One Stop and the creation of an assessment plan that directs the outcomes that should be measured, expected targets, and data collection and review.

One-stop Student Service: Developing and Assessing Murray State University’s Model Overview of Program Increasing choice regarding higher education options has contributed to the consumer culture where students are comparing postsecondary institutions to corporations like Disney, Amazon, and Netflix. Students expect institutions to offer high levels of customer service. As government funding toward higher education continues to decrease, many colleges and universities are preparing to meet those expectations by focusing on the student’s customer experience in an effort to win their tuition dollars.

Academics have long-standing and strong opinions on viewing students as customers and while the topic is frequently debated, little research exists to support a single viewpoint (Van Andel, Pimentel Botas, & Huisman, 2012). Institutional leadership may find themselves balancing the desire to address the mounting expectations of students while insuring that the fundamental purpose of postsecondary education is not lost in favor of quasi-commercialization (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2002).

Student feedback has long suggested that Murray State University allocate the necessary resources for a single service location where students can seek help with registration, billing, and financial aid issues. In an effort to better serve Murray State’s students, in the fall of 2016 the University began designing a one-stop service location, called Racer One Stop, that would be open to students during the first few weeks of the semester, with the goal of a soft opening during the first week of the spring 2017 semester. The implementation team was chaired by the Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management and included directors from four of the University’s key student service areas: financial aid, billing, registration, and scholarship. Additional directors from parking, housing, and veterans affairs joined the project for the fall 2017 semester.

As part of the initial design of a temporary Racer One Stop, the implementation team identified which services would be offered, designated a location for the temporary operation, created and provided training, and selected staff members from each area that would assist Racer One Stop visitors. The team also worked closely with employees from the Information Technology department to coordinate different types of tracking and surveying methods.

11

When Racer One Stop opened in January 2017, students who received services were asked to provide feedback using a short exit survey. Further information was provided through the tracking of information, entered in a Google document by Racer One Stop staff members, regarding students’ questions and requests. The collection and evaluation of this data led to discussion that prompted the implementation team to make some significant changes for the fall 2017 semester.

Services were expanded for fall to include representatives from parking, campus housing, and veterans affairs. The period of operation was lengthened from one week to two weeks, including weekend hours, and additional staff members were identified and trained. The exit survey and interaction tracking methods that were used in January continued to be used in August.

Value of Evaluation ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT Racer One Stop exists to fill the need for a centralized and streamlined delivery of student services during key time periods of the semester.

It seeks to provide a student-centered approach that aligns with the mission and strategic plan of the University. For administrative purposes, many of the student service offices on Murray State University’s campus are located in different buildings. Although this design may be appropriate from an administrative viewpoint, students generally find it much easier to navigate areas that are organized according to their needs (Supiano, 2011). Co-locating services allows students to receive assistance without the need to break down every aspect of their problem or question and shuffle between multiple areas of campus (Supiano, 2011). Racer One Stop provides the opportunity for students to meet with representatives from multiple offices at the same time in a single location, providing a more proactive approach to answering questions and addressing potential barriers to retention.

Additionally, Racer One Stop meets the needs of Murray State University faculty and staff members. Employees teaching or working throughout campus during Racer One Stop operation can refer students with time-sensitive issues or questions to a single location, without needing to contact multiple areas to determine which office can provide the needed assistance. Racer One Stop also funnels students away from the home offices so that employees can work in an environment that is not interrupted by walk-in traffic. Working without interruption allows home office staff to complete detailed and time-sensitive responsibilities faster and with higher levels of accuracy.

The goal of Racer One Stop is to provide outcomes that improve the student experience. Co-locating student service offices helps to prevent students from getting bounced from one area to another.

Providing a single service location that has cross-trained staff who can answer simple questions and perform quick services extends convenience into efficiency (Klein, 2006). This improved student experience is expected to increase retention and graduation. The data that is gathered should be assessed to make important decisions about the future operation of Racer One Stop.

RESEARCH CONTEXT Sustained budget cuts and declining enrollment have increased the need for assessment related to higher education initiatives. Evaluation provides value by demonstrating concrete measures of success and identifying opportunities for improvement and expansion. Evaluation can also be used to assess program impact. Impact assessment seeks to determine if certain changes can be attributed to the program or intervention that is being assessed (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). While it may be difficult at this early stage to determine the full impact of Racer One Stop, previous literature has drawn a strong parallel between one-stop student service locations and recruitment, retention, and graduation rates (Klein, 2006; Supiano, 2011).

Different models of one-stop locations are referenced throughout literature. Some institutions offer physical spaces where generalists can provide assistance to students or refer them to specialists for more complex issues (Klein, 2006). Other locations are structured similar to shopping malls. Students enter one building and have the option of visiting multiple offices that are only a few steps away from each other (Klein, 2006). Still other institutions forgo physical locations completely and offer an online-only one-stop location that requires “clicks, not bricks” (Klein, 2006, p. 58).

The success of the one-stop model has been proven by other institutions. Administration at Cuyamaca College in California saw their enrollment increase by 20% during the first few years of the one stop’s operation (Klein, 2006). Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland has used its one-stop location as a key recruitment tool, attributing increased enrollment, in part, to the convenience, responsiveness, accuracy, and welcoming atmosphere that the one-stop location provides (Klein, 2006). Anne Arundel has also reported increased student retention, which administrators hope to convert to graduates (Klein, 2006).

Data Collection and Analysis EXISTING ASSESSMENT METHODS Currently, there is no existing assessment plan for Murray State University’s Racer One Stop. Initial steps have been taken to collect data and track interactions with students, but a lack of standardization in data entry by employees is a limitation of the existing method that must be addressed. Student survey responses have been collected and provide a strong starting point for future evaluation and survey expansion.

ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL The first step in creating the assessment plan is to identify an objective. The primary objective of Racer One Stop is to streamline financial aid, scholarship, billing, and registration services – offering collaborative support at a single location for students to receive information, ask questions, and schedule appointments during the start of the fall and spring semesters. This objective aligns with the University’s strategic plan and helps to identify goals and outcomes for program evaluation.

The goals of Racer One Stop are to deliver high-quality service to parents and students; increase student utilization of technology, promoting a culture of self-service; and support retention through enhanced financial aid, registration, and billing services. These goals can be measured by assessing three outcomes. The first is that

The first outcome, approaching several administrative functions from a customer service perspective, will be measured by surveying students who participate in the Racer One Stop program. Students will be asked to complete an exit survey immediately upon leaving the One Stop. The survey will ask students to indicate if their question was answered or their issue was resolved. Students will also be asked to rate their customer service experience. A 90% satisfaction rating will be expected regarding students’ customer service experiences.

Providing effective communication will be assessed by determining the percentage of fully addressed issues, with the goal of 90% of student questions and issues being fully addressed during the beginning of the semester. Information regarding each student interaction will be tracked during the operation of Racer One Stop. When students sign in upon arrival, they will select their primary reason for visiting from a list of prefilled options. The interaction with the student will then be logged by Racer One Stop staff. The interaction log will be reviewed and categorized according to the primary reason for the visit and used in addition to the student survey feedback to determine the percentage of issues that were fully addressed.

This information will provide direction for future training for Racer One Stop staff. Training will be required to cover at least 90% of the issues identified.

The final outcome, enhancing service to increase retention and graduation, will be measured through long-term data collection and assessment. The retention and graduation rates of students who visit Racer One Stop will be compared to students who did not visit Racer One Stop and the student population as a whole.

Other student identifiers may be explored to enhance services offered at Racer One Stop, which may indicate a need to provide key groups with additional resources to assist with retention and graduation.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS The results of the student exit survey were collected and the Google document was reviewed to determine the primary issue that prompted the visit to Racer One Stop and problem resolution. The data showed that during the first week of the spring semester, 710 students visited Racer One Stop. Of those students, 312 completed the exit survey (a completion rate of 44%) and 99.36% of the students who completed the exit survey indicated that they were satisfied and were able to get their questions answered at Racer One Stop. Evaluation of the Google document indicated that of the 710 visitors, 589 entries were marked as “resolved,” demonstrating a resolution rate of 83%.

This reinforced the need to continue with some form of Racer

One Stop the following semester, as the majority of students who completed the survey were satisfied with their experience.

In determining if Racer One Stop staff were able to address 90% of the most common issues experienced during the beginning of the semester, the Google document was evaluated. It was determined that only three percent of the primary reasons for visiting Racer One Stop required the assistance of offices that were outside of the one-stop location. This feedback was used to make adjustments for the following semester which included adding representatives from campus offices such as parking, housing, and veterans affairs.

One-stop Student Service

Racer One Stop will approach the administrative functions of financial aid, scholarship, billing, and registration from a customer service prospective and strive for high levels of satisfaction regarding question and issues resolution. Secondly, the program will provide students and parents with an effective method of communication with key offices during the start of the semester.

Third, as a long-term goal, Racer One Stop will enhance service to the University community resulting in increased retention and graduation rates, and overall improvement of the student experience.

No immediate results were collected regarding graduation or retention rates, but the student ID numbers of visitors were collected and will be used for future cohort comparisons to determine if students who visit Racer One Stop are more likely to be retained and/or more likely to graduate than their peers.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES This assessment plan outlines the collection of data that will provide important information regarding the impact and success of Racer One Stop. The plan will help Murray State University leaders to make important decisions regarding the future operation and expansion of one-stop services. During the early stages of operation, this information and assessment will be critical to determining the direction of this program.

A weakness of this assessment is the limited amount of data that can be measured. Data for the program has only been collected for two semesters, which are only the first two semesters of operation, so the data could reflect the growing pains of implementing any major initiative. The data collection also involves a survey tool which relies on students to provide feedback.

The information collected and the assessment of the program outcomes are only useful if they are used to guide future operation decisions. A plan for ongoing review of the assessment should be implemented to ensure that the process remains relevant to the goals of Racer One Stop.

Conclusion It is suggested that Murray State University’s Racer One Stop continue to use the proposed assessment plan to collect data and evaluate outcomes. This information should be used to help make decisions regarding the direction of Racer One Stop. Even though the one-stop model is new to Murray State University, the practice has become increasingly common throughout higher education institutions in the United States since the 1990s (Klein, 2006). A one-stop service model can take many forms and the assessment conducted by Murray State University during these early stages of operation can help to determine which option will work best for this institution’s student population. Continued data collection and assessment will also help the program to remain relevant to the changing needs of a diverse student body.

13

References Klein, A. (2006). One-stop wonders. University Business, 9(3), 56-60. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). Responding to student expectations. Retrieved from http://www.edra.gr/pdf/8902041E-OECD.pdf Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Supiano, B. (2011, December 16). One-stop shops for student services aim to eliminate hassle. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A18.

Van Andel, J., Pimentel Botas, P.C., & Huisman, J. (2012). Consumption values and empowerment of the student as customer: Taking a rational look inside higher education’s ‘Pandora’s Box’. Higher Education Review, 45(1), 62-85.

ASHLEY ROGERS is an Assistant Registrar - Degree Audit at Murray State University in Murray, Kentucky. She has nearly ten years of experience in higher education, beginning as an Accounting Assistant in the Bursar’s Office at MSU in 2009 and transitioning to her current role in the Office of the Registrar in 2011. She was fortunate to work closely with the committee charged with designing and implementing the Racer One Stop model and looks forward to remaining involved in the future of the program. Rogers is originally from Terre Haute, Indiana and received her bachelor’s degree from Indiana State University. She received her master’s degree from Murray State University and is eagerly looking forward to completing her Ed.D. in P-20 and Community Leadership from Murray State University this spring.

The retention of students is a hot topic at all higher education institutions. This article looks at variables affecting retention along with how the role of gender, remediation, first-year experience, brand and pricing, and engagement play a role in retaining students.

While it is cheaper to retain students than recruit them, students must be retained for a specific period of time to prevent becoming an institutional liability.

Identify Critical Issues in Student Retention Introduction

Identify Critical Issues in Student Retention

ABSTRACT

In a perfect world every student who enrolls at an institution of higher education would persevere and successfully complete the requirements for the conferral of an academic credential (Gyamera, 2018; Ritchey, 2016). Unfortunately, not all students persist in their programs until they complete a degree. In recent years the number of students who drop-out of programs prior to completion (McFarland, Cui, Stark, 2018; Sparks, 2016) especially among minorities, at-risk demographic groups, and first-generation students (DeMarinis, Beaulieu, Cull, & Abd-El-Aziz, 2017; Vega, 2016), has risen to alarming rates.

With national enrollment trends continuing to decline, decreasing high school census (DeMarinis et al., 2017), and fewer working adult students going back to school (Favor & Kulp, 2015; Patterson, 2018) due to the prosperity of the current economy, retention is more important than ever as a strategy of enrollment management.

Enrollment has been on the decline in the United States since 2008 (McFarland, Cui, Stark, American Institutes & National Center for Education Statistics, 2018) which has left many institutions struggling to meet budgets. High school census numbers also continue to decline (DeMarinis et al., 2017) making the pool of students to recruit in to college programs more scarce and difficult to solidify as matriculated students. In the current booming economy and with unemployment numbers at an all-time low, the prospect of growing new student enrollment in online and adult education is also difficult because fewer adult students are going back to school to be retrained for new jobs (Favor & Kulp, 2015; Patterson, 2018). At this point, one of the more successful options for growing enrollment is to retain a greater number of students (Kurantowicz & Nizinska, 2013; Stephenson, Heckert, & Yerger, 2016; Sutter & Paulson, 2017).

Strategic enrollment management (SEM) as an industry was born out of the 2008 national decline in student enrollment in higher education to better understand, predict, and manage fluctuations in institutional enrollment (Kurantowicz & Nizinska, 2013; Webb, Wyness, & Cotton, 2017). Managing enrollments is important because of the direct financial dependence many institutions have on tuition revenue to offset expenses and keep the institution financially stable. One of the most important observations to come out of the study of enrollment management is the emerging significance of retaining students through the completion of their academic credential as a means of growing institutional enrollment (Jaeger & Eagan, 2011; Polatajko & Monaghan, 2017. For years the emphasis of enrollment management had been on recruitment and the importance of the size of the new incoming class. However, recent research suggests that financially, it is cheaper and more economically prudent to retain students at a higher rate rather than attempt to offset lost students with a larger incoming class (Polatajko & Monaghan, 2017; Schudde & Scott-Clayton, 2016).

Institutional enrollment managers who do not address lower rates of retention and higher levels of attrition may soon find themselves unable to meet the fiscal requirements necessary to remain in business (Frisbie & Converso, 2016). Previous studies have narrowed the scope of enrollment management and identified certain

15

factors that influence the retention of enrolled students; however, there is still a significant amount of mystery and speculation in the effective management of student enrollment relating to retention (Kurantowicz & Nizinska, 2013; Stephenson, et al., 2016; Sutter & Paulson, 2017). The problem appears to be that administrators in higher education are not certain which concepts are most effective at encouraging student to persist (Mertes & Jankoviak, 2016) through the completion of their academic credential (Sutter & Paulson, 2017).

While institutions across the country compete for student enrollment through massive recruiting efforts, many schools have failed to retain those students through the completion of an academic credential.

Today, with the emphasis on enrollment management, college and university administrators are beginning to see the importance of retention in the overall administration of student enrollment. Although recruitment continues to be the prominent topic among administrators when discussing enrollment management, the reality of the larger role of retention in the overall strategy of student completion has finally gained momentum (Kalsbeek, 2007; Seidman, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to analyze strategies of enrollment management, describe the variables that affect retention in higher education, and discuss various models and ideas that are currently being tested and reviewed across the nation.

Strategies of Retention in Higher Education VARIABLES THAT AFFECT RETENTION Surprisingly, in the data rich environment of higher education much of the available retention data have been historically ignored when making decisions about student retention. With the recent popularity of strategic enrollment management and the need to manage student retention, these data are finally coming to the forefront (Black, 1999; Kalsbeek, 2007; Seidman, 2012). College and university administrators will admit that they have been losing students at an alarming rate but have struggled to identify what is causing students to leave their institutions. To further frustrate matters, researchers have conducted extensive retention studies but rather than seeking variables that can be influenced, continue to simply restate the age, race, and gender statistics. This is not to say that those variables are not important, but age, race, and gender are not variables that can be directly changed and are not be granular enough to identify why students in those categories do not persist.

A more effective approach would be to identify variables driving retention that can be adjusted and modified by institutional administrators such as what courses are taught, when and how those courses are delivered, and who is teaching. One of the most underrated yet influential variables effecting retention is the academic course schedule and course rotation (College Board, 2011; Hagedorn, 2012). A chief complaint among students who transfer from one institution to another is that they were unable to register for the courses they needed due to conflicting course scheduling and lack of availability due to limited capacity or offerings. Confirmation of this is seen in the overwhelming popularity of online course and program offerings which remove the problem of conflicting time blocks (Miles & Fogget, 2016). Additional evidence of the emerging awareness of the influence of an institution’s course offerings on retention is the recent popularity and demand for data analytic tools specifically designed to identify “best fit” options for course scheduling and bottlenecks

within the enrollment and registration work flows (Hagedorn, 2012; Seidman, 2012).

THE ROLE OF GENDER Even though gender is not an enrollment variable that can be adjusted, it is important to understand why females tend to persist and complete at a higher rate than males (Hagedorn, 2012; Keiser, Sackett, Kuncel, & Brothen, 2016). One of the reasons for this trend is a greater historical pressure on males to prioritize work over education to support their families (Woodroffe, Kilpatrick, Williams, & Jago, 2017; Williams, & Luo, 2010). As the profile of the United States continues to become more heavily working class, societal priorities become even more evident with a higher number of male students dropping out of college to and go to work to support their families (Woodroffe, et al., 2017; Williams & Luo, 2010). Previously, traditional education models would have simply accepted these statistics as an unchangeable reality. However, non-traditional weekend and online educational programs have made it possible for students to both support their families and pursue academic credentials at the same time (Black, 1999; Cotton, Nash, & Kneale, 2017).

REMEDIATION AS A RETENTION STRATEGY Many may agree that college readiness is becoming a greater problem than ever before with secondary educational institutions failing to adequately prepare graduates for success in post-secondary learning environments (Sparks, 2016). Questions remain as to whose responsibility is it to remediate the student so that they can complete an academic credential. Many states have mandated that state-funded institutions provide remediation. Rates of student completion for students participating in remediation programs has increased, but when compared to the cumulative institutional completion counts these program effects are miniscule (College Board, 2011; Kalsbeek, 2007; Seidman, 2012). For a very small population, remediation can be a successful strategy to improve retention, although several schools are finding that proper advising, which sometimes directs students toward vocational certifications rather than academic degree completion, has had a more impactful effect on student persistence and completion (Woodroffe, et al., 2017).

THE FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE Several studies have pointed out the importance of the first-year experience on student persistence (DeMarinis, et al., 2017; Williams, & Luo, 2010). Although each school and study vary on the exact reason or implemented strategy, what is certain is that students who become more heavily engaged in their institution retain at a dramatically higher rate than those who simply complete course work (Cotton, et al., 2017; Kalsbeek, 2007). To promote student engagement, many institutions have developed elaborate welcome weeks and back-to-school celebrations to highlight the opportunities students have available to participate in clubs, events, and student government. These celebrations are a great way to promote student involvement, school pride, and connect students with peer groups and faculty through games, information sessions, and welcome dinners.

BRAND AND PRICING Marketing managers are also aware of the importance of branding, pricing, and promoting clear pathways to graduation. These concepts, however, are only now gaining traction in discussions of retention within enrollment management (Stephenson, et al., 2016).

Major universities promote their brands through the success of

ENGAGEMENT THROUGH PROGRAM DELIVERY DESIGN One possible solution to increase retention is to redesign program delivery to more effectively encourage student engagement (Stebleton & Diamond, 2018). A possible method for evaluating student engagement within the social and academic environments of a degree program is to compare cohort model and non-cohort model program delivery methods. Although the idea of a cohort model of program delivery is certainly not new, there is ongoing research that is attempting to specifically evaluate student engagement within the cohort model design.

While researchers appear to agree that student engagement

is the most significant indicator of student retention and completion, there seems to be a gap in the research as to what methods of program design most effectively encourage and foster that engagement (Kurantowicz & Nizinska, 2013; Sutter & Paulson, 2017).

Conclusion It is generally accepted, although still debated, that from a cost perspective, it is less expensive to retain a student than it is to recruit a new student. What many institutional leaders have failed to realize is that if a student does not retain at least two or more semesters, the original cost of recruitment becomes an institutional liability. There are many factors that affect student retention and those may vary between institutions.

With the popularity of strategic enrollment management, higher education administrators are finally beginning to utilize these data to determine which variables they can manipulate to bring a positive shift in those ratios (College Board, 2011; Kalsbeek, 2007; Seidman, 2012). Today retention is taking a larger role in the enrollment strategies and although there is not one single strategy that will fit every institution, it is encouraging that so much research and attention is being given to this concept.

Identify Critical Issues in Student Retention

their sports teams while others have gained incredible name recognition for specific programs such as Harvard Law (Cotton et al., 2017; Stephenson et al., 2016). While branding is hugely important, pricing has been largely overlooked in the strategy for retention. A new concept that is beginning to gain ground in strategic enrollment management circles is to use a price elasticity of demand study to evaluate the enrollment potential at an institution based on various pricing structures. Taking a cue from other industries, these studies are providing invaluable information on the effect of price on enrollment and retention (Hagedorn, 2012; Seidman, 2012).

References Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Sage.

McFarland, J., Cui, J., Stark, P., U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2014.

College Board. (2011). How four-year colleges and universities organize themselves to promote student persistence: The emerging national picture.

New York: The College Board Advocacy & Policy Center.

Mertes, S. J., & Jankoviak, M. W. (2016). Creating a college-wide retention program: A mixed methods approach. Community College Enterprise, 22(1), 9–27.

Cotton, D. R., Nash, T., & Kneale, P. (2017). Supporting the retention of nontraditional students in Higher Education using a resilience framework. European Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 62-79.

Miles, C. A., & Fogget, K. (2016). Supporting our students to achieve academic success in the unfamiliar world of flipped and blended classrooms. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(4), 1-14.

DeMarinis, M., Beaulieu, J., Cull, I., & Abd-El-Aziz, A. (2017). A mixed-methods approach to understanding the impact of a first-year peer mentor program.

Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 29(2), 93-107.

Patterson, M. B. (2018). The forgotten 90%: Adult nonparticipation in education.

Adult Education Quarterly, 68(1), 41-62.

Favor, J. K., & Kulp, A. M. (2015). Academic learning teams in accelerated adult programs. Adult Learning, 26(4), 151-159.

Frisbie, K., & Converso, J. (2016). Organizational resilience and enrollment trends of independent, for-profit higher education institutions. Work, 54(2), 295-308.

Gyamera, G. O. (2018). I just want to be somebody: Exploring students’ motivations and experiences in universities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 154-171.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2012). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: A Formula for Success). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 81–100.

Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2011). Examining retention and contingent faculty use in a state system of public higher education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 507.

Kalsbeek, D. H. (2007). Reflections on strategic enrollment management structures and strategies. College and University Journal, 82(3), 3–9.

Keiser, H. N., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., & Brothen, T. (2016). Why women perform better in college than admission scores would predict: Exploring the roles of conscientiousness and course-taking patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 569.

Kurantowicz, E., & Nizinska, A. (2013). How students ‘stay the course’: Retention practices in higher education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 45(2), 135-147.

Polatajko, M. M., & Monaghan, C. H. (2017). Performance funding of United States’ public higher education: Impact on graduation and retention rates. In Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership in Higher Education. IGI Global. 496-517.

Ritchey, K. (2016). Coming full circle: The road less traveled. Vermont Connection, 37, 111-118.

Schudde, L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2016). Pell grants as performance-based scholarships? An examination of satisfactory academic progress requirements in the nation’s largest need-based aid program. Research in Higher Education, 57(8), 943-967.

Seidman, A. (2012). College student retention: Formula for student success.

Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Sparks, S. (2016). High school; Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States. Education Week, 36(11), 5.

Stebleton, M. J., & Diamond, K. K. (2018). Advocating for career development and exploration as a high-impact practice for first-year students. Journal of College & Character, 19(2), 160.

Stephenson, A., Heckert, A., & Yerger, D. (2016). College choice and the university brand: Exploring the consumer decision framework. Higher Education, 71(4), 489-503.

Sutter, N., & Paulson, S. (2016). Predicting college students’ intention to graduate: A test of the theory of planned behavior. College Student Journal, 50(3), 409-421.

17

Vega, D. (2016). “Why not me?” College enrollment and persistence of high-achieving first-generation Latino college students. School Psychology Forum, 10(3), 307-320.

Webb, O., Wyness, L., & Cotton, D. (2017). Enhancing access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education: A review of the literature showing demonstrable impact. Higher Education Academy

Woodroffe, J., Kilpatrick, S., Williams, B., & Jago, M. (2017). Preparing rural and regional students for the future world of work: Developing authentic career focussed curriculum through a collaborative partnership model. Australian & International Journal of Rural Education, 27(3), 158-173.

Williams, J. E., & Luo, M. (2010). Understanding first-year persistence at a micropolitan university: Do geographic characteristics of students’ home city matter? College Student Journal, 44(2), 362-376.

TEXAS RÜEGG is a boomerang transplant to East Texas, returning to LeTourneau University after severing as Registrar at Tarrant County College in Fort Worth and as Registrar and Director of Institutional Research at Austin College in Sherman. He is a two-time alumnus of LeTourneau, earning both his graduate and undergraduate degrees in Business and is currently completing his dissertation at Northcentral University for the completion of a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration. Texas is an Eagle Scout, an avid cyclist, triathlete, and advocate for health and wellness as well as a certified Stephen Covey 7 Habits instructor and an award winning public speaker and leadership trainer.

After losing his first wife to cervical cancer at age 35, Texas discovered the power of Post Traumatic Growth, which has created the opportunity for him to share his testimony and the importance of work/life balance at leadership events and conferences around the country. Rüegg’s return to LeTourneau University brings an accumulation of personal and professional experience that spans both public and private higher education as well as significant leadership roles in state, regional, and national professional organizations. Texas is remarried to wife, Shana, who is a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) at the local hospital. They have two beautiful children at home, Lukas (6 years) and Vivian (3 years).

On June 15, 2012, President Obama implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that as of 2016, “there were 1.9 million unauthorized immigrants potentially eligible for the DACA program” (Capps, Fix, & Zong, 2017). Because this topic has been highly politicized, college-bound students and higher education administration have been left to navigate an unpredictable sea of policies and legislation. Guidelines for the classification of a student’s admissions status, which determines whether the student receives in-state or out-of-state tuition as well as financial aid eligibility, are going to differ from state to state.

This research will primarily focus on policies regarding undocumented and DACA students in the state of Tennessee and offer a glimpse on policies in some of the SACRAOmember states. In doing so, it will highlight the financial and legislative obstacles they face as they seek to complete the education pipeline.

DACA Students in Higher Education: A Comparative Policy Analysis Part I: Overview of Terms and Federal Legislation Plyler v. Doe, a landmark case, held that undocumented students could not be denied access to free public education and prohibited high schools from inquiring about the legal status of students (Plyler v. Doe, 1982). Though not prohibited, some colleges and universities either do not publish the number of enrolled undocumented and/or DACA students. Thus, it is difficult to provide an accurate count of DACA and undocumented students currently enrolled in high school or college. This caveat aside, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that of the 1.2 million immediately eligible to apply for DACA as of 2014, “close to one-third had either enrolled in college or completed at least some college. Five percent had completed at least a bachelor’s degree.” (Capps et al, 2017, p. 3).

DACA STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

DACA and undocumented immigrants are a contentious topic of conversation that has been highly politicized and fraught with misinformation. Before delving further, it is important to clarify key terms and policies related to this topic, such as DACA, Dreamers, and the DREAM Act. Firstly, an undocumented immigrant is a person residing in the country under no lawful status. It is important to avoid the term “illegal alien” as this can evoke an abrasive connotation towards the student with whom one is speaking. The term has become loaded with political partisanship, as explained by Jonathan Rosa, a linguistic anthropologist at the University of Massachusetts, who spoke on the effect that language has on our society. He stated, “‘it’s not simply a way of describing the world or representing the world; it’s a way of taking action in the world’” (Demby, 2013). Furthermore, the use of the term has prompted, “the Hispanic Leadership Network, a conservative group, to issue a memo to Republicans...calling for Republicans to stop using ‘illegal immigrant’” (Demby, 2013).

DACA DACA applicants must go through an extensive application process and a monthslong waiting period to determine eligibility for the program. Table 1 describes the requirements a potential applicant must meet in order to be granted DACA status.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS) webpage,

19

DACA ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Source: (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2018)

Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012 Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012 Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety (sic).

Table 1: DACA Eligibility Requirements Once applicants have been determined eligible, they are granted an employment authorization card, which allows them to seek legal employment. In order to differentiate between an individual who is undocumented and one who has been grated DACA status, both in contemporary culture and research, a DACA recipient is often referred to as being, “DACAmented.” Examples of this can be seen in an article found in the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences titled, “Undocumented, to DACAmented, to DACAlimited: Narratives of Latino Students with DACA Status,” or a page found on Yale University’s website titled, “DACAmented & UnDACAmented.” Some of the benefits of being granted this status are the ability to apply for a driver’s license in states in which undocumented individuals are prohibited to do so, receiving a social security number (that is only valid for work authorization purposes), gaining lawful presence, which is designed to serve as a two-year deportation reprieve.

So long as the DACA program is in place, a DACA recipient that met the initial 2012 requirements for eligibility in addition to the criteria indicated below, have to renew their DACA status and employment authorization document every two years.

• •

•

Did not depart the United States on or after Aug. 15, 2012, without advance parole; Have continuously resided in the United States since you submitted your most recent DACA request that was approved; and Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Renew Your DACA, 2018).

It is important to note that DACA status does not grant recipients access to government benefits, offer a path towards citizenship, and in most states, does not allow students access to in-state tuition rates. It is a temporary program that exists solely through an executive order and can be rescinded at any time, effectively stripping recipients of any protected status.

WHAT IS A DREAMER? In 2001, a bipartisan bill called the “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act” or DREAM Act for short was proposed (DREAM Act, 2001). Since then, there have been many versions of this bill that have failed to pass legislation. Requirements and stipulations such as the requirement of military service have changed. However, at the heart of it, its purpose has been to provide a path towards citizenship for people who were brought to the United States as children, have graduated from a US high school or received their GED, and have no criminal record (some versions have included a mandatory military service component) (American Immigration Council, 2017). These are essentially, the same requirements for a DACA recipient. As such, “Dreamer” or any variant of its form such as, but not limited to, “DREAMER” or “DREAMer,” is somebody who would benefit from the ratification of this bill. Because of the parallels between the DREAM Act and the DACA program, Dreamer is used to refer to people who benefit from DACA and those who would benefit from the ratification of the DREAM Act. There are some people who are ineligible for DACA but could qualify for the DREAM Act. The DACA program was rescinded by the Trump administration on September 5, 2017, which meant new applications would no longer be accepted and renewals would not be issued after March 5, 2018 (Feuer, 2018). On February 13, 2018, a federal court judge ordered an injunction, which required the DACA program to be treated as it was prior to the decision on September 5, 2017. However, the federal government does not have to accept new applications that were submitted after the date the program was rescinded (Feuer, 2018). At the time this article was submitted for publication, ongoing litigation regarding the DACA program is expected to be resolved during the fall of 2018. Because of pending rulings, DACA recipients are stuck in limbo, unsure of whether they will be able to renew their permits or if new applications will be considered.

Part II: State Legislation and National Trends in Higher Education Depending on the state where a DACA student resides, the outcome of the federal decision may present greater cause for concern because some states will only grant in-state tuition if a student is DACAmented. There are also scholarships that are awarded only if a student can verify their DACA status. Furthermore, there are colleges that will only allow admissions of non-US citizens if they are able to submit proof of their DACA status. For example, one of the admissions requirements for non-US citizens looking to apply at Berea College in Kentucky is that they must submit a copy of their approved DACA status (Berea College 2017).

The pending outcome raises the question of whether a student would maintain his/her in-state tuition status if the rescission is upheld.

Additionally, because DACA recipients are required to renew their status and work authorization permit every two years, and therefore will not be able to renew their status if the rescission is upheld.

Across the nation, states differ on whether DACA- only or both undocumented and DACA recipients are eligible for in-state tuition rates if they meet other in-state residency requirements.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) (2018) indicates that, “at least twenty states and the District of Columbia have ‘tuition equity’ laws or policies that permit certain students…to pay the same tuition as their ‘in-state’ classmates at their state’s public institutions…regardless of their immigration status” (p.1). Table 2 illustrates a breakdown of how states within the SACRAO region handle in-state tuition for undocumented and DACA recipients.

DACA ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Source: (National Immigration Law Center, 2018), (United We Dream, 2015)

States with laws or policies offering in-state tuition to undocumented students

Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas

States with laws, policies, where only DACA recipients can receive in-state tuition at any public college or only at select institutions

Virginia

States that offer financial aid to students who meet certain criteria regardless of immigration status

Texas

States with exclusive policies or laws denying in-state tuition to undocumented and/or DACA students

Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana

States that prohibit undocumented students from enrolling at any or some public postsecondary institutions

Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia*

*University System of Georgia prohibits selective public universities from enrolling undocumented students.

Table 2: Tuition and State Aid for Undocumented Students and DACA Grantees An anecdotal piece that highlights the disjointed policies in differing states, is an interesting dynamic between Tennessee students living in bordering counties to Kentucky. At a conference geared towards Latinos in higher education, a representative from a Kentucky public institution stated some Kentucky public institutions offer in-state tuition rates to bordering county students, but because Kentucky does not have exclusive policies towards DACA students, DACAmented Tennessee students are going to Kentucky to receive in-state tuition. Tennessee does not recognize undocumented and DACAmented students as in-state

residents; they are students who would otherwise meet all other classification requirements.

TENNESSEE In 2012, the Eligibility Verification for Entitlements Act (EVEA) was passed by the Tennessee legislature. The EVEA requires state public institutions of higher education to verify anyone seeking a “state public benefit” is a United States citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States (EVEA Act of 2012). DACA does not meet the criteria for “lawfully present” in the state of Tennessee, so both DACA and undocumented students fall under the same category. Because in-state tuition is considered a public benefit in Tennessee, neither DACA or undocumented students are eligible. Furthermore, scholarships awarded by a public institution also fall under this category of a “state public benefit” with the exception of those that are part of that institution’s endowment. Typically, at a public institution, scholarships that are part of the institution’s endowment are not going to be sizeable enough to mitigate out-of-state tuition rates.

TUITION OPPORTUNITY BILL In a poll conducted by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University, 66% of Tennesseans believe that children of undocumented immigrants who have graduated from a Tennessee high school deserve to be eligible for in-state college tuition (Vanderbilt University, 2017). For the past two years, the governor of Tennessee has demonstrated public support of this bill. Despite the national political rhetoric that has been taking place regarding immigrants, co-director of the Center, John Geer, stated that, “Tennesseans are pragmatic and caring people who want to take care of those who are working hard” (Vanderbilt University, 2017).

DACA STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS

However, if institutions are able to implement preventative measures such as policies that ensure a safety net for their DACA students, should the rescission be upheld, both students and the institutions will be able to plan accordingly.

Seemingly out of step with the majority of Tennesseans, the Tennessee Senate, on March 28, 2018, failed to move forward a bill that would have granted in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. HB 2429 and SB 2263, better known as the “Tuition Opportunity Bill” would have exempted DACA and undocumented students who met certain criteria from paying out-of-state tuition at public institutions (Tennessee General Assembly, 2018). In 2016, the bill failed in the House Education Administration and Planning Committee by a 7-6 vote; in 2015, after the Senate had passed the bill, the bill failed by only one vote in the House (Alund, Boucher, & Buie, 2018).

The passage of this bill would have brought Tennessee into step with the 17 other states that have passed legislation allowing undocumented students to be eligible for in-state tuition (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). This bill still leaves DACA or undocumented Tennessee students at a significant financial disadvantage since it does not address barriers that EVEA presents. If this bill is passed in the upcoming year, DACA and undocumented students will be considered in-state for tuition purposes; however, they will continue to be ineligible for scholarships awarded by public institutions according to the EVEA. Additionally, many companies and colleges offer tuition assistance programs as an employee benefit. This benefit attracts prospective employees who may be interested in furthering their education, since it incurs little cost to the university or employer but provides a great incentive to the employee. In Tennessee,

21

while a DACA recipient may be hired by a college or university using his or her Employment Authorization Document, he/she cannot utilize the “employee benefit” of tuition assistance due the EVEA regulation.

more activity regarding bills, 16 total, regarding in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants then the previous year, “where states introduced 21 bills across 12 states by July of 2017” (Ali, 2018).

Part III: National Trends in Higher Education

Part IV: Discussion and Conclusion

Across the country, undocumented and DACAmented students are not eligible for Pell grants or federal student loans because their legal status prohibits them from receiving any form of federal financial assistance. The former have no social security number and the latter have a social security number valid only for employment purposes.

This lack of access to federal student loans requires undocumented and DACAmented students to obtain riskier private loans with higher interest rates and more complications such as forgiveness and cancellation programs that can be offered through the former form of student loans. Often students without legal status cannot obtain private loans, which forces them to either take time off school to earn money or attend part-time while working full-time. This course has a negative impact on retention rates. As studies show, the longer it takes students to finish their degrees the less likely they are to do so. For example, a study conducted by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center looked at the yearly success and progress rates for individuals who began college in Fall 2011 as part-time degreeseeking students at four-year public institutions. The study found that, (by the end of year four, 19.7 percent had completed a postsecondary credential, while 46.4 percent were no longer enrolled. By the end of year six, 34.4 percent had graduated, while 51.1 percent had left college without earning a credential” (NSCH, 2018, p.4).

Support for pro-immigrant legislation has traditionally fallen along party lines, with Republicans not supporting and Democrats supporting pro-immigrant legislation. However, in a time of polarized partisanship this topic has historical bipartisanship support. As seen in Table 2, Texas, traditionally a red state, was the first in the country to propose a bill allowing any Texan, regardless of legal status, to pay in-state tuition rates.

There has also been rising support from university and college presidents. In fact, an article by Pomona College states that, “more than 700 college and university presidents from public and private institutions across the U.S. have signed the statement offering to meet with U.S. leaders on the issue” (College & University Presidents Call for U.S. to Uphold and Continue DACA, 2017). The article makes the argument that as educational leaders, they have a commitment to ensure that educational opportunities for all students. The article is a call to action as it makes the following statement: To our country’s leaders we say that DACA should be upheld, continued, and expanded. We are prepared to meet with you to present our case. This is both a moral imperative and a national necessity. America needs talent – and these students, who have been raised and educated in the United States, are already part of our national community. They represent what is best about America, and as scholars and leaders they are essential to the future (n.p.).

A report published in February 2018 by the Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education Foundation further indicated that at that point in time NASPA’s Policy and Advocacy Team had seen

This research was limited in scope in that it primarily focused on the state of Tennessee. To have a more accurate portrayal of undocumented and DACA students in SACRAO-member states would require an extensive analysis of the state policies therein. Additionally, this research served as a broad introduction to the dynamics affecting undocumented and DACAmented students. Consequently, this research did not explore socio-economic factors such as issues related to first generation students and cultural obstacles that would affect most of the students in this demographic. It is important to understand how these factors influence their decisions to pursue a higher education.

With every passing year, more students are left out of the education pipeline due to policies that bar them from continuing their education.

In the Supreme Court Case, Plyler v. Doe, one of the most notable arguments heard was the following: Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement.

(Plyler v. Doe, 1982).

This argument resonates louder now as the necessity for a postsecondary education becomes more evident—be it a technical degree, vocational degree, or college/university degree.

Ultimately, the goal of this research is to encourage educators and those in the higher education field to become knowledgeable of their respective state’s guidelines and understand the legislative obstacles that students have to encounter. Doing so will allow both parties to better formulate a strategic plan so the student can continue along their course in the education pipeline. DACA has presented new opportunities for students to gain lawful employment and in some states, put their postsecondary plans into action. In other states, the uncertainty of their future has motivated students to apply pressure on legislators in order to implement policies that allow students the opportunity to continue their education. Thus, it is up to everyone, especially those in higher education, to work together so that their efforts are not in vain.

457 US 202 (1982), Plyler V. Doe (United States Supreme Court June 15, 1982).

Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538

HB2429/SB2263 (2018). Tennessee General Assembly. Retrieved from http://wapp. capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2429&GA=110

Ali, D. (2018, February 15). Can states provide access? Update on in-state tuition policies for undocumented students. NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/can-statesprovide-access-update-on-in-state-tuition-policies-for-undocumen

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. (2018, May 21). Undocumented, to DACAmented, to DACAlimited: Narratives of Latino Students With DACA Status.

Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739986318776941

Alund, N. N., Boucher, D., & Buie, J. (2018, March 28). Tennessee Senate committee kills bill promising in-state tuition for undocumented students. The Tennessean.

Retrieved from https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/03/28/ tennessee-senate-committee-kills-bill-promising-state-tuition-undocumentedstudents/466477002/

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014, October 29). Undocumented student tuition: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/ education/undocumented-student-tuition-overview.aspx National Immigration Law Center. (2018, June 1). Basic facts about in-state tuition for undocumented immigrant students. Retrieved from https://www.nilc.org/ issues/ education/basic-facts-instate/

American Immigration Council. (September 6, 2017). The Dream Act, DACA, and Other Policies Designed to Protect Dreamers. Retrieved from https://www. americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-daca-and-other-policiesdesigned-protect-dreamers

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2018, March 19). Yearly Success & Progress Rates – 2018. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/SnapshotReport32.pdf

Berea College. (2017). Proof of non-citizen eligibility status. Retrieved 2018, October 28, from https://www.berea.edu/admissions/non-citizen/

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).) Retrieved 2018, July 31, from https://www.oyez. org/cases/1981/80-1538

Capps, R., Fix, M., & Zong, j. (2017, August). The education and work profiles of the DACA population. Migration Information Source. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/ education-and-work-profiles-daca-population

Pomona College. (2016, November 16). College & university presidents call for U.S. to uphold and continue DACA. Retrieved from https://www.pomona.edu/ news/2016/11/21-college-university-presidents-call-us-uphold-and-continue-daca

Demby, G. (2013, January 30). In Immigration Debate, ‘Undocumented’ Vs. ‘Illegal’ Is More Than Just Semantics. Retrieved from National Public Radio: https:// www.npr.org/ sections/itsallpolitics/2013/01/30/170677880/in-immigrationdebate-undocumented-vs-illegal-is-more-than-just-semantics DREAM Act, S.1291, 107 Cong. (20051). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/ bill/107th-congress/senate-bill/1291 Eligibility Verification for Entitlements Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-58-103 (Lexis Advance through the 2018 Regular Session). Retrieved from https://advance. lexis.com/document?crid=2f9c4e9b-8b45-495a-af43-a11a0bce01a8&pddocfullp ath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem% 3A55RB-8110-R03J-P0VM-00008-00&pdcontentcomponentid=234179&pdmfid =1000516&pdisurlapi=true.

Feuer, A. (2018, February 13). Second federal judge issues injunction to keep DACA in place. The New York Times, p.A17. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes. com/2018/02/13/ nyregion/ daca- dreamers-injunction-trump.html

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2018, February 14).

Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/ archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivalsdaca United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2018, August 3). Renew your DACA. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/archive/renew-your-daca United We Dream. (2015, June). Tuition and state aid for undocumented students.

Retrieved from United We Dream: https://unitedwedream.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/11/ DEEP_TuitionAidMap_June2015.pdf

DACA STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS

References

Vanderbilt University. (2017, May 30). Vanderbilt poll: Tennesseans cooling on Trump, favor ACA provisions. Retrieved from https://news.vanderbilt. edu/2017/05/30/vanderbilt-poll-tennesseans-cooling-on-trump-favor-acaprovisions/ Yale University. Accessed 2018, October, 25. DACAmented & undacamented.

Retrieved from https://oiss.yale.edu/immigration/dacamented-undacamented

RICARDO TAPIA graduated from East Tennessee State University (ETSU) with a major in International Affairs and a minor in Legal Studies. His interest in policy research stems from an honors thesis submitted at the conclusion of his undergraduate career. He has worked as an Admissions Counselor in the office of Undergraduate Admissions at ETSU since 2016. Part of his role is to create and implement recruitment strategies of Latinx students. He will start the Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis graduate program in the spring 2019.

23

Top 10 Reasons to use the SACRAO Job Board 10. Posting to the Job Board is easy.

9. The contact information can be different from the person posting the file.

8. You can cut-and-paste your job posting information into the online form.

7. You can provide a link to the job information and application on your own site.

6. You determine when you want the ad to start running.

5. No pre-set time limit for your ad — you determine how long it runs.

4. There is no limit to the number of jobs you may post, ever.

3. Making changes to your ad (or deleting it) is as simple as an email to the VP for IT. 2. Because the ad is on the web, it can be seen by professionals all over the world.

And the Number One Reason:

Absolutely free!

Get all the details at www.sacrao.org

SACRAO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2018–2019

Future Meetings

Andrew Green Director of Community Engagement Jacksonville State University Ginnifer Cie' Gee Director of Strategic Planning and Assessment University of Texas at San Antonio Louis D. Hunt Senior Vice Provost and Registrar North Carolina State University Ronnie Chalmers Associate Director of Admissions North Carolina State University Kimberly Kay Taylor University Registrar University of Kentucky Tennyson Smith Director of Recruiting Shelton State Community College

2019 72nd ANNUAL MEETING February 3-6, 2019 Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Barbara L. Rowe Associate University Registrar Washington and Lee University Jonathan T. Reece University Registrar University of North Carolina-Charlotte Kimberly Barber University Registrar Florida State University Dustin Duncan Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions East Tennessee State University Michele Forbes Law Registrar and Director of Student Academic Services Louisiana State University Sheryl M. Gray University Registrar Carson-Newman University

2020 73rd ANNUAL MEETING February 2-5, 2020 Alexandria, Virginia

Brandy Denise Piner University of Texas Hlth Sc Ctr-San Antonio Joseph R. DeCristoforo Associate Vice President and University Registrar University of Texas at San Antonio

sacrao.org

25