| INTRODUCTION: Institutions of higher learning have policies related to academic performance and progress. Classifications that define student success range from good academic standing to academic warning, probation, suspension, management, and dismissal. The definition and criteria to reach individual taxonomy varies by institution. In July of 1997, significant changes were made to the Palmer College of Chiropractic institutional policy relating to academic progress. The decision was to mandate students serve a one-term suspension prior to being eligible for academic dismissal. The intent of this action was to allow a student the time to address and resolve impediments to their academic progress. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of student attrition that occurred prior to and after the implementation of the suspension mandate. This analysis may shed light on whether serving a term of suspension impacts retention of at-risk students. METHOD: An exploratory data analysis was conducted on student academic records comparing the attrition rate prior to the policy change (1989-1996) to that under the new policy (1997-2003). RESULTS: During the period from 1989-1996, 101 of 746 students (13.5%), meeting the criteria for Warning/Probation were dismissed or failed to return after a term of academic suspension. By comparison, during 1997-2003 after the imposed term of suspension, 103 of 559 (18.4%) students were dismissed or discontinued. DISCUSSION: Mandating Academic Suspension may not deter many students from continuing their academic struggles. Over the 14-year test period, one-third of suspended students fail to return from the term of suspension. The data suggest mandating a term of suspension may not be an effective academic strategy for retention of at risk student. It may suggest that the time a student spends under suspension is more punitive than productive. This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher. |
