DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 093 436 JC 740 249

AUTHOR Muha, Joseph G.; Snyder, John H.TITLE Penalty-No Penalty Drop Policy.PUB DATE 14 Dec 73NOTE 19p.; A practicum report for the Doctoral Degree in

Education, Nova University

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ME-SO.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGE*Academic Records; *Dropout Rate; *Dropout Research;School Holding Power; *Student Enrollment

ABSTRACTThis study sought to determine what effect the

utilization of a penalty or no-penalty drop policy would have onretention of students at Pasadena City College. It was found thatthere was a significant difference both in grades received and theretention of students as a result of the adoption of a 16 weekno-penalty drop policy at the college. The attrition rate increased,but withdrawal from classes was gradual and distributed throughoutthe semester, rather than being all at the end of the semester.(SW)

F

PENALTY - NO PENALTY DROP POLICY

APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

AND

EVT,UATION

by

JOSEPH G. MUHA, M.A.

r-and

17> JOHN H. SNYDER, M.S.

Pasadena City College

John Dayitt, D.

Cluster Coordinator

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

A PRACTICUM PRESENTED TO NOVA UNIVERSITYIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

NOVA UNIVERSITY

Dec. 14, 1973

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE 1

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 1

HYPOTHESES 2

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 2

DEFINITION OF TERMS 6

LIMITATIONS 7

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS 7

PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING THE DATA 8

PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE DATA 8

RESULTS 8

Figure 1 10

Figure 2 11

CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS 13

TITLE

What effect does the utilization of a penalty or

no penalty drop policy have on retention of students in

classes at Pasadena City College?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In recent years enrollment at Pasadena City college has

been steadily climbing but the increased rate of attrition

is of continuing concern to faculty, administration, and

Board of Trustees.

Many theories have been proposed to explain the situation.

One that persists and is voiced repeatedly is class drop

policy. Between the years 1966-68 the following policy

was in effect:

A student in good standing may arrange withhis counselor to drop officially a course orcourses without penalty up to the last day ofthe sixth week of the semester. Any courseor courses dropped after the close of the sixthweek will be recorded with a grade of F.

In 1968-70 the policy read as follows:.

Date Class Drooped

During first three weeks (eithervoluntarily or by administrativeaction)During fourth, fifth and sixthweeksFrom the seventh week to finalthree weeks

a. If teacher reports studentpassing

b. If teacher reports studentfailing

Last three weeks of semester

Grade

No entry on permanentrecord

w

w

FNo drops permitted

(2)

Since 1970 the policy was changed to read as follows:

During the first three weeks of a semestera student may drop by filing an appropriateform. The class will not be recorded on thestudents transcript. Beginning with thefourth and extending through Friday of thesixteenth week, if the clerical proceduresare followed a grade of W will be recordedon the permanent record. Failure to followformal drop procedures will result in an Fbeing recorded.

HYPOTHESES

1. There is no significant difference between the %of drops during 1966-68 and 1969-72 in the re-tention of students at Pasadena City College

2. There is no significant change in the distributionof grades prior to and after 1968.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

This drop policy alteration brought forth significant

reaction from the faculty after the first year of

operation. Generally the questions centered in two

areas:

1. The philosophical desirability of such apractice

2. The effect on student retention

In the first instance the question of stated school objec-

tives as published in the College Bulletin come to the fore.

One primary objective is to provide an educational experience

that emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge and skills,

(3)

and the development of constructive attitudes that lead

to growth and development of the students so that, among

other things, he can take his place as an able and re-

sponsible citizen in the society.

A question posed by this objective is whether a policy

that permits a student to remain in a class sixteen weeks,

then drop without penalty, develops responsibility and

teaches one to make choices. Making choices is an essential

part of the educational process. According to Ruitenbeek,

"In contemporary mass society, individuals have not been

reared along lines that develop their powers of choice and

independence."

Many professors on the faculty contend that the necessity

to make a commitment and to pay some price for failing to

live up to such a commitment is valuable to ones' intellec-

tual development and the maturation process. (The assump-

tion is that those in the class are capable to succeed if

they apply themselves.) On the other hand, if it is not

required of the student to make a commitment, they may lack

motivation to stick to a task. The result can be a dete-

riorating classroom atmosphere.

Secondly, classroom retention of students is affected

1

1 Ruitenbeek, Hendrick M., The Individual and the Crowd.Thomas Nelsons and Sons, N.Y. N.Y. 1964.

(4)

unfavorably by such a policy because if one can drop at his

leisure a "so-what" attitude develops toward the class.

Students sometimes contend that the time spent is enough

of a price to pay but for many this is no price at all.

An exhaustive survey of the current educational litera-

ture was carried out at the extensive library facilities of

the University of Southern California. The researchers

were rather disappointed that little material was found

that vaguely resembled the hypotheses under study. Appar-

ently, the policy of the sixteenth week drop date is

latively new and it may not have been the topic of a system-

atic investigation.

In March of 1972, Boris Blai, Jr. of Harcum

Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania investigated the dropout rates of

two year colleges with the dropout rate of four year colleges.

The general conclusions formulated as a result of this

study was that small enrollment schools (250-750) whether

two year or four year schools enjoyed high retention of

students. Although the literature surveyed for this re-

port was not consistent, it was generally concluded that the

high dropout rate in two-year colleges is attributed pri-

marily to the low level of motivation and poorer academic

preparation of the student.

(5)

The Department of Health Education and Welfare spon-

sored a study by J. William Wenrich of San Mateo College

of San Mateo, California entitled "Keeping Dropouts In,

Retention of Students Identified as High Probability Drop-

outs." This study was to determine whether active partici-

pation in an individualized instructional program such as

the "Learning Center" would be related to a lower dropout

rate for freshmen, who were identified as high probability

dropouts. The study indicated that a one to one relation-

ship at the "Learning Center" was definitely helpful in

retaining students who otherwise would have been dropouts.

A study by J. Robert Thompson of McComb County com-

munity College in Michigan entitled, "Why Students Drop

Courses" was conducted by the use of questionaires sent

to 3568 students who had dropped a total of 6081 courses.

The 1434 respondents (40.19%) answered questions about

2190 courses they had dropped and gave their reasons for

doing so. The courses were dropped because of:

1. Job conflict

2. Lack of interest

3. Wrong program

4. ACademic difficulty

5. Teacher conflict

(6)

The study recommended early identification of the

problem and immediate counseling.

In 1967 John E. Rouesche of the University of Calif-

ornia at Los Angeles conducted a study of junior college

dropouts. Institutional research materials from sixteen

schools was used in the study. The findings showed little

relationship between attrition and ability as shown by grade

point average or entrance examination scores. A relation-

ship appeared to exist between dropouts and non-intellective

factors such as job conflict, family relationships, and

transportation problems.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Drop - officially terminate a class or classes but remainin school

Withdrawal - termination of all classes at the college;either voluntarily or through faculty initiateddismissal

Retention - receiving a letter grade (A through F) (/Erepresents a drop or withdrawal)

Late-dropping - drops recorded between the sixth andsixteenth weeks inclusive

Load - number of units in which a student is enrolled

Penalty Policy - period in which an F is recorded fordropping a course

NO penalty policy - dropping a class permitted any timethrough Friday of the sixteenth weekwith the recording of a W for a graderegardless of his performance up tothat time

(7)

LIMITATIONS

The study of drops and withdrawals is a very complex

subject. The authors are limiting their research to one

facet of the problem; penalty vs. no penalty drop policy

to see if it contributes to lack of retention of students.

Specific limitations which may have bearing on the results

of this study are as follows:

1. 20% of the student body is economicallydeprived; thus, they might opt for employ-ment and drop any time opportunity beckons

2. 85.5% of the students were working or desiredwork with 52% employed. These figures wereconsistent over the seven year period of thisstudy. This increases chances for class andjob conflicts leading to drops and withdrawals

3. Prior to 1970 students may have withdrawn fromall classes rather than drop a class or classesin which they were doing poorly

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

For purposes of this study we have assumed:

1. There is no relationship on retention ratesdue to race, ethnic, or national origin

2. Attrition rates affect all departments in thecollege but are not equally distributed

3. Time of day has little or no effect on drops

4. Drops are related to load carried

5. The vast majority of those in class are capableof success if they put forth the effort

(8)

PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING THE DATA

All data was collected from computer printouts and

institutional research files at Pasadena City College.

The research was done during the months of October and

November 1973.

The following data was collected:

1. All drops and withdrawals for the years 1966-72

2. All grades for the years 1966-72

This data was divided into two groups:

a. Grades between the years 1966-68, whenthe penalty drop policy was in effect

b. Grades between the years 1968-72, whena no-penalty policy was in effect

PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE DATA

Chi square (X2) for two independent samples was utilized.

RESULTS

Hypothesis #1

There is no significant difference between the % of drops

during 1966-68 and 1969-72 in the retention of students

at Pasadena City College.

Chi square X2

(9)

A B

42,577(43,452)

35,584(34,708)

49,417(48.541)

37,897(38,772)

1966-68 A = represents beginningenrollment

1969-72 B = represents endingenrollment

A X2 value larger than 3.8 with ldf is significant at the .05

level.

X2 = 75.26

Therefore we reject the null hypothesis and establish that

there is a significant difference between the % of drops

during 1966-68 and 1969-72 in the retention of students.

Hypothesis #2

There is no significant change in the distribution of grades

prior to and after 1968.fez

X2 =,>_fo -

66-68

69-72

fe

12.7(13.52)

25.1(19.93)

29.3(18.72)

8.5(4.94)

5.9(4.44)

33.1(21.02)

19.6(18.77)

22.5(27.66)

15.4(25.97)

3.3(6.85)

4.7(6.16)

17.1(29.17)

X 2 = 27.252

X2 greater than 11.1 at 5df at .05 level represents a signifi-

cant difference therefore, we reject the null hypothesis that

there is no significant change in the distribution of grades

prior to and after 1968.

.i

i-

I:.

II

I1

jI

.,

.-1---,

rI.

11ii

,,,41,

1i

.;

1

'-,,

, !'1;1'11Ill,

IIli;

I

11,

I1,

,---i''

'-...t

-i---1---1

,t,.,

1ii

1,,,

,,i;"i

;,____t__.____

--'-1--i-It t--:---

;,.I;

!'1.1-: , ,

11111.---t'.'.

II

I

1,

11

''

'Z

I. 6Ii

:ii.-IL

6Ii

1

T2.-O

L61

I0L

-6961I

69-961,

1I

,1

,,

---,,i ---,*Y 1

..' m- -4

. ...__1_

.,

s,

,:

i

.I,t

iI

1

.

1,

I

!I

I

tot4.--4. .. i

.4.,--4 ,,

,,,,7I

1

1

t.

ii

1

:- «

;-

,« ,;

__.1....

_ .t,_

I

....

1.

,,

.I

II

l.

I

;;

I1

-:.

_1__

"i___,, _;___.

._1

,11

,i,,111.1r r--,

..

i,

,,

i1

..1

._

_ I__:...

_1,

I1

-,I.,

4;

',-A

_,.__

_._«I

.,,_i----.-

t __---- ..-

. -- ,-- . -- dpt.__

i:

i1

1

1 7;

i1

1

,

i,

ii

.

___,

,I

i.i

.,

,,

......_._.

4

1

I--r

14-1

.,_.-__

1

,1-- -+

i.

--,-.1

-i

;1

II1

ti

11

,.._-.1. _ ,.

_ . _ _ _ -__ ,4.

41

-4-!.

.1

-4 .-

- . ..:

11

i

III

1

1r

,..

1

1

,,

i4

,I

:

,,

;

i:

:,

1:.

iI

1

i

1,

.

i

.

,1

-,1

1

i-

i

-r-

'1".....4

-1

;1

i.

if

1I

i1

!1

I,

1

.1

1

.--t

44

,t

1I

1i

41

,I

ii

!1

ti_...,_1,

!1

,

:.

..

It

tI

1

1t

'

!,

1I

11

1t

;,

,..-

:-t --

r-

,,

.I

It

t,

,t

.

I

,'

II

_ 4,......

'____

_ -___i______ _....-, ',...,.1+

4,,.

'N

It

, 1;

-H

111

11

t1

I

1

;I

1I

I1

I

t-

.,

t,

1f

-i;

1.,

,!

i.

.,

1,__,..1

..._,

.

1

,i

,1

1

1f

..

;,,

.,

,.

.

,.,

..

.

.I.

--

-I--;,

,,

1.

,.

.,

,___,..

,.......

..._

.- .1,L

---- ---

,i

11

I

:,

.i

1I

II

'

1

-

99-496I9-996T

;9961

I,

,

'0 i

t_t

__" -- --- ---

-1

--1 1

!1

,1

!

'.4 1 -

-- .,-,-- 4--

-, ttt - -- t-

1.

1I

1i

iI

''

1._.1/4.....

;i

!I

1

,.

4.:

.,_.,

....

____i______,____.__.._.___.._ _1_ _ .4

_.

_ _1, _

4.

I-

... - -.---r .......-

'- -ti

-'.

I

,,

,t,

ii

ii

i!

ii,

1.

i:

;

,4

,1

.1

*-:

ati---

'1

T,... __r___ ..... __i ___ - _.

.

..1

_..

.

.t__ . _ ..1._ __ _ 7.,..._,___t.../,!

41

tI

II

;t

tI:-

; - -lo

-,,,,,--

L_

_ i - 1 ..--I

.I

1I

I1

__+j

,i

1I

::

:1

II

i1

I

1:

Iri

1:

I'

1

I

,I

II

i1

7,---I

i1-7141-1-

,11_._______,,

iiil

1___,,_ ___,i,

_-1-----

r1

I,

r .T

41

i____r

i'

II

i

'1

Li

.I___I

i1

11

,.

1f

,.

i1

1I

14

'#-

.. t111 ;.

i.

I

Ij

1r

1

--,, _

I-

11 _t_

.....it_....11,,...............4

.I

Ii

I

11

......-4i

+-

--+1----1

I1----

I_'

_i__....4 -4 _,-

4-_

1t

t!

i1

t!

,

t

11

'1

,

,1

I1

I

I

i.11,1

-i

II

41

1., -r

,,

iT

-,:

',

11

1I

-

__if

_i_it

F.-1.--i4.

,I

1I

;i

,

'1

1

r;

-----I, _.

......_.__ 1,-1--1

11

11

1

i;

Li

,.

.,

........*1

i1

Ii!

IIR

+4

I+

..,_______i__ _____I___i___.___i___.1....___._

____ .

1,1----1--l'i

,

1111

1111ilit1

14

41111.1411I

--4I-

-1,

i

t---

-1......_, -

- --1-

.---.L

-,.-1---r-

1--

---.--i -a-9961

1. T

I1

' -1-11

'1

i

,,

ii

_,,-_4___,,,..______.1

11

______,

1.

I,

,

.;11,1

__I,

-,_. ,

i __,_1

1

'

I1

-.4.

iI

I1

11

..

.i

It)

t1--

11

4L

I,SIY11=

11". M. ST

(10_71Y1.0.1,-- -4 ---4--- t- --4- -- --4-- --1 -

t"1r 7--r-----t--- -....,...

.,,111r

i1

11

i,

..1,

_i

ii

1,

i

'

!i

,i

it

il1

i____,_1

,4

.4.__.--1 II 4

-!. ;

it

I11

i/

h_iiH

lit1

1i

II

I

,,

'

ri

2 ,/

1I

tI

..i'//

i

,1111

....,, - , ...,"1/....tM

IIII7

i

I

1I

1I

:I

1

I1

11

1(

I:

i,4......., ...--4...i.-,..-ifi

I,I

i;

1-1-1

iI

ET

1

-

-;.--

COMPARISON OF

-1---1--),--- -4-1---1.-- -4-4-----t 1 1

I

1 1 I I

.... --.. - ..- - i -... -

L I ,:;.,

II

11 I- .... . .....................4-

, ri.-.AN COLLEGE GRAD Y. DISTRDUTION,

I I I-1- - -1--- -----1 ----i-----,

1

35

1966-68 [/,

i

P 125

C

_E

29

10

B

1

D

,

.

ti

(12)

This research indicates that the policy of extending the

withdrawal date to the end of the sixteenth week, without a

grade penalty, had a significant effect upon increasing the

attrition rate. In addition, the study showed that grades

differed to a significant degree. While the statistical analyses

Indicated in both instances a significant relationship between

policy and withdrawal and policy and grades, it does not answer

why.

Some increased withdrawals and grade changes were expected

when the policy was inaugurated. One could have predicted a

reduction in D and F grades. It is logical for students pre-

paring to enter finals week with a grade of F to withdraw when

there is no penalty. We still have nearly 4% who are either

eternal optimists, those unaware of policy, or careless; otherwise,

F grades should be reduced to near zero. In the case of D grades

many students are willing to accept a D and others are hopeful of

receiving a C. The 3% drop in B grades is difficult to account

for but may be unrelated to policy. It is in the C grade area

with a 10% drop that raises questions, which at this point, only

speculation could attempt to answer. Further research in this

area is indicated.

The overall withdrawal rate is probably subject to many

complex individual and societal factors in addition to school

policy. Some of these are discussed in one of the sections on

Recommendations - conclusions.

(13)

CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS

Joseph G. Muha

The conclusion to be drawn from this research project is

that there is a significant difference both in grades received

-and the retention of students due to the adoption of a sixteen

week no-penalty drop policy at Pasadena City College. As stated

in the study, this sixteen week no-penalty policy is a factor

in a very complex problem.

Community college students are commuters and as such are

affected by other factors in their efforts to acquire their lower

division or terminal education. Further study in the areas of

student economics, acade7-'c preparation, size of school, and

peer group pressures as they relate to grades and student re-

tention would contribute much to clarify this complex dropout

problem.

Recommendations:

1. Re-examine the original premise for the sixteen week

no-penalty drop policy.

The rationale for extending the drop period was to enable

students to broaden the base of their education. This

permitted a Business Major to take courses in other

areas without jeopardizi.ng his grade point average in

his major. This premise may have had merit, but the

eventual outcome of the policy significantly affected

(14)

all grades and lowered the final college enrollment.

2. Consider re-instituting the six-week penalty drop policy.

The desirability of making a commitment and making a

effort to fulfill that commitment should be strongly

emphasized as a major educational goal.

3. Coordinated efforts by teachers and counselors to

identify students with problems.

Student attendance and grade sheets can be duplicated

and sent to counselors periodically for scanning to

pick up impending difficulties.

4. Establishment of "Learning Centers"

Tutoring on a student to student basis has been found

to be a very effective technique for alleviating many

academic problems. Locating such centers in very pro-

minent places on campus would be highly desirable.

(15)

CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS

John H. Snyder

In the process of making this study, all information

assimilated, whether directly part of the investigation, in-

fluences to some extent conclusions and recommendations.

Clearly, the extension to the sixteenth week of dropping

classes without grade penalty, affects attrition and grades,

with attrition the major area of concern. This may not be as

serious as it first appears. Several purposes may be served

by this policy, which the attrition rate should not be allowed

to dominate, to wit:

1. Since the college has no system of auditing, because

of the nature of funding, the withdrawal without penalty

may serve an educational purpose for some who have no

interest in grades, tests, or credits.

2. Many students may now withdraw in greater numbers from

classes after the sixth week for excellent reasons.

In the past this option was not available to them and

if circumstances forced withdrawal, they received F

grades. They didn't fail the course, they failed be-

cause of health, economics, death in the family, the

draft, the family moved, etc.

3. Presently, many students may withdraw completely from

school, when circumstances arise necessitating such

action, without the penalty of several F grades that

often proved academically disastrous in the past.

(16)

4. The community college is often a place of "last resort"

in salvaging previous academic failures. This has re-

mained one of our great and distinguishing traits.

The current policy will prevent excessive penalties to

those who attend and for a variety of reasons do not

achieve. They may leave, find themselves, and return

years later. Then, they will not be confronted with

almost insurmountable low grade point averages because

the F penalty grades for withdrawing after a certain

arbitrary date will no longer be operative.

The attrition in classes is gradual and distributed

throughout the semester and does not represent a sudden

"bailing out" of large numbers of students near the end

of the semester. Granted there is a problem of commit-

ment that may be lacking, but the reasons stated above

tend to outweigh serious alteration of the current

policy.

Considering all the complexities related to attrition

in a large comprehensive commuter community college, we

might turn our attention to further research that is

oriented toward changes in student populations -- who

is going to college? For what reasons? What do they

hope to achieve? How soon? etc. We may also need

to recognize that larger less personal colleges in

(17 )

areas of highly mobile populations are going to have

higher attrition rates than in the past for many obvious

reasons.

If funding policies change Which is a virtual certainty

in California in the next two years) we will need to

weigh with extreme care a change of policy related to

withdrawals.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.LOS ANGELES

AUG 23 191,1

CLEARINGHOUSE FORJUNIOR COLLEGE

INFORMATION