Persisting on academic probation: implications of policy and practice for educational leaders

Community colleges serve as an accessible educational pathway for nontraditional students to achieve their educational goals. However, while California community colleges provide access to higher education, completion rates remain low. As a response, California passed several policy changes to address low completion rates and directed community colleges to create an infrastructure to increase retention and graduation rates. Yet, policy changes also limited access to financial aid for students on academic probation and further created barriers for these same students. Nonetheless, community colleges must increase retention and completion rates, including for students on academic probation, to fulfill future employment gaps. Review of the literature on student retention and persistence suggests the importance of student integration to the college, yet resources are limited for students on academic probation. Because most of the interaction with the college happens in the classroom, this study intended to explore from the student perspective, how faculty-student interactions influence student persistence for students on academic probation. This qualitative study captured five community college students on or previously on academic probation and their experiences with faculty. Participants were asked in a semi-structured interview, questions around (1) general and formal and informal faculty-student interactions, (2) student expectations, (3) faculty mattering, (4) other resources. Responses were analyzed and themed to identify patterns and draw conclusions. Some conclusions were drawn. 1) Recent policy changes removing financial assistance from students on academic probation may impact student persistence. The impact of these changes have not been documented and further research is needed. 2) Students perceive faculty as important to their academic success but do not use faculty to cope while on academic probation. Thus, faculty-student interaction is not a direct predictor of student persistence. 3) Faculty and student roles and educational norms are engrained; students did not expect faculty to reach out to them rather students felt they needed to reach out to the faculty member. 4) Students were engaged with the institution at some level; caring staff, learning community, student employment or used on-campus resources. 5) Students showed resiliency and took an active role in their academic probation status and persisted. 6) Educational leaders must act in transformational ways by analyzing policy and implementing practices that integrates students to the institution.