AALS Section on Academic Support Annual Conference 2014 law.miami/aap

1. At-Risk of What? Definitional issues in Academic InterventionJoanne Harvest Koren Lecturer-in-Law and Director Academic Achievement ProgramUniversity of Miami School of LawAlex Schimel Lecturer-in-Law and Associate Director Academic Achievement ProgramUniversity of Miami School of Law AALS Section on Academic Support Annual Conference 2014 www.law.miami.edu/aap

2. Definitional issues in academic support • Early • Intervention • At-risk students

3. We all agree • We are going to do something… • At some point… • For some group of students… • What are we going to do? • When? • For/to/by whom?

4. Definition #1 “At-Risk”

5. “At-Risk” • Two main risk categories: • Risk of underperformance in law school • Risk of failing the bar exam

6. Why designate risk status? • We want to identify students who may encounter academic problems, before those problems arise and cause consequences.

7. Indicators of risk • Historical indicators: • Low LSAT • Low UGPA • Low GPA first semester • Low GPA first year • Racial and ethnic background • Additional indicators: • Racial and ethnic profiling replaced with “non-traditional student” designation • Socioeconomic indicators • Learning disabilities • Foreign-education • Prior educational experiences/training

8. Indicators that are more difficult to identify early • Personal circumstances/life crisis • Mental illness/substance abuse • Reading/writing deficiencies • Study skill deficiencies

9. How good are we at predicting risk? • Typically, there are consequences for “at-risk” status • Risk categories at the University of Miami: • Academic Oversight: GPA between 2.0 - 2.499 • Academic Probation: GPA below 2.0

10. Bar exam failers: 1L GPA

11. Outdated risk assumptions • The majority of our students who fail the bar have 1L GPAs between 2.5 and 3.5. • Our sub 2.5 cohort passes at a low rate (55%), but comprise only 25% of our bar failers.

12. Definition #2 “Intervention”

13. Intervention • Two models: • Proactive • Provides baseline skills and support for students, before problems arise • Reactive • Provides remedial support for students, after problems arise

14. Assumptions about our students • Assumption 1: Students arrive with fundamental skills. • Assumption 2: Many students lack fundamental skills, but can obtain them through total and early immersion. • Assumption 3: We cannot assume that our students have all the necessary skills to succeed in law school, nor that they can acquire those skills through mere immersion.

15. Definition #3 “Early”

16. “Early Intervention” • Law schools should move from move from predominantly reactive intervention to predominantly proactive intervention. • “Early” means establishing a proactive intervention strategy at the very beginning of law school. • Remedial intervention strategies are still necessary, but proactive intervention will better serve our student populations. • Proactive intervention compensates for our inability to accurately predict risk. • Institutional support and involvement is critical.

17. Reactive intervention • Remedial support for students after problems arise. • Examples: • Remedial curricular electives • Required workshops • Individual counseling

18. Reactive intervention Benefits: • Focuses on the most needy students • Can address specific problems Problems: • Stigmatizing • Students feel punished or ashamed • Compounding problems associated with stigma • May inhibit participation in certain opportunities • It may be too late to fully resolve the problem

19. Proactive intervention • Support for students before problems are identified. • Examples: • Pre-orientation programs • First semester programs for all new students • Substantive peer teaching fellows (Dean’s Fellows) • Peer teaching fellows for legal writing • Workshops on exam writing and study skills, for all class levels • One-on-one academic and personal counseling

20. Proactive intervention Benefits: • Captures students with unidentified risk factors • Provides benefits for students at all levels of proficiency • Establishes relationships with students who will require remediation in the future • May prevent the need for reactive intervention • Inclusive; builds community Problems: • Students who need services the most may not participate

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