1. AT-RISK OF WHAT? DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION JOANNE HARVEST KOREN LECTURER-IN-LAW AND DIRECTOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW ALEX SCHIMEL LECTURER-IN-LAW AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM UNIVERSITY 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. “At-Risk” Definition #1

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 Outdated risk assumptions  The majority of our students who fail the bar have 1L GPAs between 2.5 and 3.5.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. “Intervention” Definition #2

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. “Early” Definition #3

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.