There are many reasons why American Indian/Alaskan Natives drop out of college. Below are some results of a study I have been working on. Please note that this is a first rough draft but one that needs to reach as many people as possible in the hopes of better explaining this continued problem.
There
is an established, historical literature indicating that individuals who obtain
a college degree have significant health improvements over their life span
compared to those without a college degree (1). They benefit from a College
Degree Health Booster! They can also transfer that Health Booster back to
their communities by completing college with a degree.
Regrettably,
underrepresented minorities, especially American Indian/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs),
have very high college dropout rates (2). They do not benefit from this college degree health booster. That
booster does not have the chance to be transferred back.
According
to the United States Census Bureau, minorities comprised approximately 28 percent
of the population (3). Minorities represent about the same rates in
student populations of U.S. colleges and universities.
Currently,
Whites make up about 60 percent of U.S. new college student enrollment, with
African Americans representing about 14 percent, Hispanics making up about 13
percent and AI/ANs consisting of only about 0.8 percent of all college students
nationwide (4).
Of
the approximate 19 million college students in the United States, AI/AN
students are the minority within the minority (5).
About
75 percent to 93 percent of AI/AN students drop out of college prior to degree
completion (6). The fact is, if AI/AN students do get a high school
diploma and begin attending college, they have the highest rate of dropping out
of college compared to any other student demographic.
What
happens during college is very important. Many studies try to explain college
failures in the context of events in childhood and/or during high school. While
those years are important, a very important factor is what is happening as
someone is being a current college student.
The
most powerful factor associated with college completion is being successful in college. What happening during the time when someone is a college students is much more powerful than before, or so I think.
There
is a distinct and reliable relationship between academic performance (e.g.,
GPA) and college completion (see, 7-10). When GPA decreases, students drop out
of college. On the other hand, if GPA is steady or rises, students are more
likely to continue on in college.
The
boundaries of academic and social activities create a context that promotes
success in college. A successful academic-social context (ASC) is one that best
serves the student in relation to academic performance – GPA.
For
example, full-time attendance increases the likelihood that students will
persist to graduation (9-15). If students can attend college full-time they can better focus fully on being a scholar. Full-time attenders have higher GPAs.
Students
who are NOT in a relationship living together or who will NOT of do NOT become
parents are more likely to graduate (7, 16). Again, the ASC is one that allows the student to be solely -- a student. Anything that takes the student away from being a fully focused student lowers the ASC and GPA. So, as this ASC continues, you will understand the relationship between a student's ASC and its impact on GPA.
Students
who live on campus are more likely than those who live off campus to socialize
as student learners, engage regularly with faculty, and have friends who are
students. They are more likely to succeed (17-19).
Employment
and hours worked per week are associated with college success (see, 20-22); the
more time students have dedicated to scholarly efforts, the more beneficial it
is to academic success.
Students
who volunteer benefit personally and academically from those experiences. Many
youth are eager to volunteer their time and make meaningful contributions to
their society (23). Having the opportunity to connect with and put into
practice their own values improves a student’s prospects both personally and
academically (24).
A
student’s health and wellness have been clearly linked to academic success
(25-29).
It
is important to understand the academic-social context (ASC) of the student. Having
a good ASC increases the likelihood of having a higher GPA thereby increasing
the possibility of remaining in, and successfully completing college. Again,
the college graduate has a lifetime health benefit!
The
present study used data with permission from the American College Health
Association (ACHA). These data were
collected via four administrations of the National College Health Assessment
(NCHA; Fall 2008, Spring 2009, Fall 2009, and Fall 2010), a bi-annual survey
the ACHA has administered since 2000.
There
were a total of 116,992 students responding to the surveys. On the race
question, students could check more than one response. The sample were broken
up into three groups, those checking as AI/AN only, those who checked AI/AN and
White only, and everyone else. Students who checked AI/AN mainly reports either solely AI/AN or AI/AN and White only. While there were a few AI/AN and Black or Latino, for example, just the two biggest groups are used here. Below is the table with responses and measures
of ASC.
All
Else
|
AI/AN
only
|
AI/AN & White
|
||
Sample
|
115,566
|
491
|
935
|
|
GPA
|
3.19
|
2.96
|
3.17
|
|
ASC
|
All
Else %
|
AI/AN
only %
|
AI/AN & White %
|
Effect size
|
Full-time
enrollment**
|
97.3
|
94.7
|
97.2
|
.011
|
Relationship involvement
***
|
.025
|
|||
Not in a relationship
|
53.7
|
43.8
|
47.8
|
|
In relationship, living
together
|
6.8
|
19.4
|
10.1
|
|
Current Residence***
|
.014
|
|||
On-campus
|
55.1
|
42.0
|
52.4
|
|
Paid Work***
|
.015
|
|||
None
|
46.8
|
48.8
|
42.4
|
|
1-9 hrs.
|
19.3
|
11.8
|
17.4
|
|
10-19 hrs.
|
19.5
|
17.1
|
22.3
|
|
20+ hrs.
|
14.4
|
22.2
|
17.8
|
|
No Volunteer Work
|
63
|
63.2
|
61
|
.006
|
Note.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p <
.001.
As
it relates to a positive ASC, those students who report being AI/AN or AI/AN
and White have a lower ASC. That is, percentage wise, they are attending college at a lesser rate than full-time, they are in a relationship, they are living away from campus, and they are working as well as going to college. They are in the context that does
not best promote higher GPAs and successful completion. And the differences are
statistically significant. The effect sizes are small, so there are other important
factors missing.
So,
I looked at other possible factors that impact GPA and what is happening within
the past 12 months in their lives, such as experiencing violence and/or emotional issues.
Below is the table showing those factors. The first column identifies the issue
and the impact on GPA. For instance, experiencing a physical fight lowers GPA
by .23. Looking at the first roll, a little over 8% (8.24) of all other groups in college report being in a physical fight in the past 12 months. Almost 12% (11.61) of AI/ANs report being in a fight in the past 12 months. And about the same amount (11.79) of AI/AN & White students report being in a fight in the past 12 months.
What this shows is that students who report being fully or partly AI/ANs experience significantly more physical fights than any other group on campus. And recall, students who have these experiences, results in the lowering of their GPA by almost a 1/4 point.
What this shows is that students who report being fully or partly AI/ANs experience significantly more physical fights than any other group on campus. And recall, students who have these experiences, results in the lowering of their GPA by almost a 1/4 point.
As you look down at the rest you will see the same pattern.
Rates and Impact of Violence past 12
months
Item Label (Impact on GPA)
|
All else
|
AI/AN
|
AI/AN & White
|
Total
|
ChiSq (pval)
|
||||
In
physical
Fight
(-.23)
|
9498
(8.24%)
|
57
(11.61%)
|
110
(11.79%)
|
9665
|
22.58
(.000)
|
||||
Physically
assaulted
(-.21)
|
5495
(4.77%)
|
41
(8.35%)
|
75
(8.05%)
|
5611
|
35.28
(.000)
|
||||
Verbally
threatened
(-.15)
|
26870
(23.32%)
|
138
(28.22%)
|
317
(34.01%)
|
27325
|
65.23
(.000)
|
||||
Sexually
touched w/o consent
(-.11)
|
8309
(7.21%)
|
38
(7.74%)
|
101
(10.83%)
|
8448
|
18.18
(.000)
|
||||
Sexual
penetration attempted w/o consent
(-.13)
|
3129
(2.72%)
|
17
(3.47%)
|
37
(3.97%)
|
3183
|
6.48
(.039)
|
||||
Victim
of stalking
(-.12)
|
8239
(7.17%)
|
57
(11.63%)
|
105
(11.27%)
|
8401
|
37.51
(.000)
|
||||
In
emotionally abusive relationship
(-.17)
|
11581
(10.06%)
|
71
(14.46%)
|
121
(12.97%)
|
11773
|
18.97
(.000)
|
||||
Physically
abusive relationship
(.23)
|
2691
(2.34%)
|
28
(5.70%)
|
26
(2.79%)
|
2745
|
24.79
(.000)
|
||||
Have you ever felt
|
|||||||||
Item Label
|
All else
|
AI/AN
|
AI/AN & White
|
Total
|
ChiSq (pval)
|
||||
things
were hopeless
|
54626
(47.62%)
|
254
(52.26%)
|
480
(51.61%)
|
55360
|
10.02
(.007)
|
||||
exhausted
|
93874
(81.63%)
|
396
(81.15%)
|
813
(87.14%)
|
95083
|
18.86
(.000)
|
||||
very
lonely
|
68200
(59.27%)
|
264
(54.21%)
|
602
(64.59%)
|
69066
|
16.08
(.000)
|
||||
very
sad
|
72380
(63.06%)
|
308
(62.99%)
|
642
(69.11%)
|
73330
|
14.45
(.001)
|
||||
so
depressed difficult to function
|
34637
(30.14%)
|
173
(35.52%)
|
335
(35.94%)
|
35145
|
21.35
(.000)
|
||||
overwhelming
anxiety
|
56289
(48.97%)
|
236
(48.66%)
|
502
(53.98%)
|
57027
|
9.30
(.010)
|
||||
overwhelming
anger
|
44895
(39.18%)
|
214
(43.76%)
|
426
(45.91%)
|
45535
|
21.67
(.000)
|
||||
Intentionally
injured self
|
6385
(5.55%)
|
34
(6.94%)
|
82
(8.80%)
|
6501
|
20.21
(.000)
|
||||
Seriously
considered suicide
|
7171
(6.23%)
|
35
(7.14%)
|
76
(8.15%)
|
7282
|
6.51
(.039)
|
||||
Attempted
suicide
|
1264
(1.10%)
|
11
(2.24%)
|
16
(1.72%)
|
1291
|
8.98
(.011)
|
||||
Within past 12 months have you been diagnosed or treated
for
Item Label
|
All else
|
AI/AN
|
AI/AN & White
|
Total
|
ChiSq (pval)
|
Depression
|
9944
(8.67%)
|
38
(7.79%)
|
106
(11.45%)
|
10088
|
9.40
(.009)
|
Insomnia
|
2920
(2.55%)
|
17
(3.50%)
|
44
(4.74%)
|
2981
|
19.36
(.000)
|
Panic
attacks
|
5163
(4.49%)
|
33
(6.76%)
|
69
(7.42%)
|
5265
|
23.94
(.000)
|
Within
past 12 months did <item> affect your academic performance
Item Label
|
All else
|
AI/AN
|
AI/AN & White
|
Total
|
ChiSq (pval)
|
Anxiety
|
48835
(42.70%)
|
205
(42.27%)
|
491
(52.91%)
|
49531
|
39.24
(.000)
|
Assault
(physical)
|
3898
(3.41%)
|
38
(7.84%)
|
48
(5.19%)
|
3984
|
36.96
(.000)
|
Assault
(sexual)
|
3983
(3.49%)
|
28
(5.79%)
|
49
(5.29%)
|
4060
|
16.22
(.000)
|
Depression
|
26623
(23.33%)
|
134
(27.69%)
|
283
(30.56%)
|
27040
|
31.78
(.000)
|
As
the tables show, again, AI/AN or AI/AN and White students experience significantly
more violence and emotional events compared to all other college students. Students
whose identify as being fully and partly AI/AN have a significantly poorer
context in colleges/universities. That is, they do not attend full-time, they
have the extra burden of being in a relationship, they live away from campus,
and they are working in addition to being a scholar. This ASC lowers GPA. Furthermore,
their ASC is one that experiences physical and sexual violence as well as
emotional problems. These additional issues greatly lower GPA – and overall
health and wellness.
References:
1.
Lleras-Muney A. (2005). The
relationship between education and adult mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 189-221.
2.
Patterson, D. A.
(2012). Three strategies to address Native American college dropout. Recruitment & Retention in Higher
Education, 6 (10), 5-6.
4.
O'Brien, E. M. (1992). American
Indians in higher education (Research Briefs 3). Washington, DC: American
Council on Education, Division of Policy Analysis and Research.
5.
U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2004. Postsecondary
Institutions in the United States: Fall 2002 and Degree and Other Awards
Conferred: 2001–02. NCES 2004-154. Washington, DC.
6.
Brown, L. L., & Robinson
Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing academic persistence of
American Indian college students. Journal of College Student Development 38(1),
3-12.
7.
Adelman, C. (1998). More than 13
ways of looking at degree attainment. National Cross-Talk 6(4), 6–10.
Washington DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
8.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the
Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree
Attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
9.
DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A.,
& McCall, B. P. (1999). An event history model of student departure.
Economics of Education Review 18, 375–390.
10.
DesJardins, S.L., McCall, B.P.,
Ahlburg, D.A. & Moye, M.J. (2002). Adding a timing light to the “Tool Box.”
Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 83-114.
11.
Bradburn, E. M. (2002). Short-Term
Enrollment in Postsecondary Education (NCES 2003-153), U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, DC.
12.
Horn, L. (1998). Stopouts or Stay
outs? Undergraduates Who Leave College in Their First Year. U.S. Department of
Education (NCES 1999-087), Washington DC.
13.
King, J. E. (2003). Nontraditional
attendance and persistence: The cost of students' choices. New Directions for
Higher Education, 121, 69-84.
14.
Metzner, B. S., & Bean, J. P.
(1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Research on Higher Education 27, 15-37.
15.
Starkey, J. B. (1994). The Influence
of Prices and Price Subsidies on the Within- Year Persistence by Part-time
Undergraduate Students: A Sequential Analysis. PhD dissertation, University of
New Orleans.
16.
Stratton, L.S., O’Toole, D.M., &
Wetzel, J.N. (2007). Are the factors affecting dropout behavior related to
initial enrollment intensity for college undergraduates? Research in Higher
Education 48, 453-485.
17.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education
and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuting
versus resident students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Bean, J.P., & Metzner, B.S.
(1985). A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition.
Review of Educational Research 55(4), 485-540.
20.
Alfred, R. L. (1973). Student
attrition: Strategies for action. Kansas City, MO: Metropolitan Junior College
District.
21.
Lenning, O. T., Beal, P. E., &
Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence for action and research.
Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
22.
Peng, S. S., & Fetters, W. B.
(1978). Variables involved in withdraw during the first two years of college:
Preliminary findings from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School
Class of 1972. American Educational Research Journal 15, 361-372.
23.
Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999).
Youth Service and Moral-Civic Identity: A Case for Everyday Morality.
Educational Psychology Review 11,361-376.
24.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991).
Social Cognition. New York: McGraw Hill.
25.
Buddington, S. A. (2002).
Acculturation, psychological adjustment (stress, depression self-esteem) and
the academic achievement of Jamaican immigrant college students. International
Social Work 45, 447-465.
26.
Case, A., Fertig, A. & Paxson,
C. (2005). The Lasting Impact of Childhood Health and Circumstance. Journal of
Health Economics 24, 365-89.
27.
Conley, D., & Bennett, N.G.
(2000). Is biology destiny? Birth weight and life chances. American Sociological
Review 65, 458-67.
28.
Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G.
S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict student success.
Journal of College Student Development 44, 18-28.
29.
Chee, K.H., Pino, N. W., &
Smith, W. L. (2005). Gender differences in the academic ethic and academic
achievement. College Student Journal, 39 (3), 604-618.
