iJournal Article

By Lijuan Zhai, Ph.D. and Reynaldo I. Monzon, Ph.D.

March 2004

Synopsis

This research focused on student retention issues particular to community colleges. Based on when students left the college, three types of withdrawing students were identified: those who left before the semester started, those who left during the semester, and those who did not return in the following semester (non-persisters). Demographic profiles for each type of student withdrawal were analyzed. In addition, a retention survey was designed and sent out to random samples of each group soliciting information about why they left their community colleges. Overall, community college students withdrew for very diverse reasons. Conflict with work schedule tended to be the most profound withdrawal reason for community college students.

Article

Colleges and universities are facing more intense pressures to demonstrate their accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency (Wolkwein, 2003). Under this pressure, higher education institutions are expected to perform, to document their performance, and to be accountable for producing return on taxpayer and student investment (McCleeney, 1998, cited in Alfred, Ewell, Hudgins, & McClenney, 1999). One of the results of these developments is to broaden the scope of assessment of institutional effectiveness. Student retention has been suggested as one of the major performance indicators for community colleges nation wide (Alfred, Ewell, Hudgins, & McClenney, 1999). Although student retention has been investigated extensively in the past decades, the focus was primarily on four-year institutions. Research on the most diverse student populations in two-year colleges is relatively sparse, where attrition is the highest (Grimes & Antworth, 1996). The profile of the typical community college student, a person who has a full- or part-time job, lives off campus, and is taking classes on a part-time basis, makes retention a particular challenge for community colleges (Bonham & Luckie, 1993). Unlike residential university students, community college students are constantly balancing the social and academic demands of the college campus with the responsibilities of family and work. Therefore, retention issues in community colleges are different from those in 4-year universities.

To better understand unique community college student retention, this study is designed to identify and describe characteristics of community college student withdrawals and reasons for students’ decision to leave. Student demographic information was analyzed and compared. Additionally, a surveys was also sent out to those who left to determine the reasons for leaving. It is hoped that this research will yield some important information that can serve as the foundation for any effort to improve student retention and success at community colleges.

Review of Literature

The results of many studies suggested that retention is a complex issue that involves different factors (Umoh, Eddy, & Spaulding, 1994). Recognized variables include various student characteristics and student-institutional interaction, academic aptitude and performance, level of aspiration and motivation, institutional type, student services offered, using of student counseling, and student involvement-plus the development of a sense of belonging or degree of fit that results from student and institution interactions (Beal & Noel, 1980; Lenning, Beal, & Sauer, 1980; Turner & Berry, 2000). Furthermore, retention, student satisfaction, and student success appeared to improve when retention efforts were geared toward integrating the students’ total educational experience (Umoh et al., 1994).

Researchers also believed that variables related to prior academic performance, socioeconomic background, and educational goals may influence student retention. For example, Kinnick and Kempner (1988) found a significant association between student retention and the following variables: high school GPA, socioeconomic background, parental income, type of college first attended (two- or four-year), educational aspiration, and high school preparatory programs. Those more likely to complete a bachelor’s degree were those with a higher high school GPA, higher socioeconomic status, initially attended a four-year institution, higher degree aspirations, and completed a college preparatory program in high school (Kinnick & Kempner, 1988).

The campus environment can also affect students’ decisions to stay in or drop out of school, particularly developmental education students. Studies indicated that developmental education students who withdrew from college often rate the presence of a hostile racial climate as an important reason for their withdrawal (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Observers reported that faculty, especially in senior colleges and research institutions, often had negative attitudes toward remedial students and were poorly prepared to teach them (Gross, 1981). Increasing the presence of representative group faculty members on campus has been recommended as a fundamental step toward improving campus environments. As early as the 1970s, the shortage of African-American and Hispanic instructors at two-year colleges was noted as a particular problem (Olivas, 1979). In a recent study, Braxton, Milem, and Sullivan (2000) found that faculty classroom behaviors played a role in the student departure process. The authors indicated that faculty classroom behaviors in general and active learning in particular may constitute an empirically reliable source of influence on social integration, subsequent institutional commitment, and departure decisions (Braxton et al., 2000).

Many researchers have examined the relationship between retention and student demographic characteristics. Glass and Garrett (1995) found that retention and college GPA were not related to age, gender, race, employment status, college major, or college attended. However, Tinto (1993) pointed out that older students were more likely to drop out because typical adult students were more likely to be married, to have children at home, to live off campus, and/or to be employed while attending college. Therefore, they were more likely to encounter greater problems in finding adequate on-campus time to study in order to meet the minimum academic standards of the institution (Tinto, 1993). Furthermore, many of these students either take one or two courses at a time or leave for a semester or two and then return. Because the average community college student is generally older than students attending four-year universities, they are more likely to fit the profile of the adult student described by Tinto.

Several researchers have examined retention issues specific to community colleges. Voorhees’s 1986 study employed a log-linear modeling approach to explore the conceptual relationships between community college student persistence and several variables, including student demographics, purpose for enrolling, intentions to return, frequency of informal interaction with faculty, and satisfaction with the institution in general. Results of this study revealed that full-time female students had greater persistence rates than their male counterparts, while GPA, number of hours spent studying each week, and frequency of interaction with faculty, had independent effects on student persistence. Daniels (1990) also found students’ academic goals and intentions tended to significantly influence retention. In other words, the higher the level of one’s educational goals, the greater the likelihood of college completion. This was because the goal of occupational attainment became the motivating force for undertaking and completing a particular academic degree program (Tinto, 1993).

Research Methods

The population of this study was defined as those who dropped out of San Diego Community College District during fall semester of 2000 and those who did not return for the following spring semester of 2001. Three types of student withdrawals were identified based on withdrawing time frames: 1) students who left before the semester started: those who filed an application for fall 2000 semester, but did not enroll in any classes (n = 5,459), 2) students who left during the semester: those who withdrew from all classes during fall 2000 semester (n = 7,481), and 3) non-persisters: those who completed fall semester of 2000 but did not return in spring semester of 2001 (n = 10,968). Survey questionnaires were sent out to random samples of these three types of student withdrawals to assess their reasons for leaving. Surveys were administered in fall 2000 and spring 2001 with an overall response rate of 10.7% (see Table 1). Due to the limited funding, no follow-up efforts were made to non-respondents.

Table 1
Survey Response Rates

	Surveys mailed	Surveys returned	Response rate
Left before semester started	2,004	193	9.6%
Left during semester	3,501	413	11.8%
Non-persister	5,000	515	10.3%
Total	10,505	1,121	10.7%

The following two research questions were developed to guide this study:

1. What are the demographic differences among students who withdrew at three different time frames and to what extent do they differ from the general student population?

2. What factors influenced students’ decision of withdrawing and do these factors differ among students who withdrew at different time frames?

Results

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic information and survey results. Results are presented below:

Research Question 1. What are the demographic differences among students who withdrew at three different time frames and to what extent do they differ from the general student population?

Table 2 presents the gender, ethnicity, and age distributions of three types of student withdrawals. Characteristics about the student population (N=45,498) are also included as a basis for comparison. As can be seen in Table 2, a slightly higher percentage of male students (50.7%) left before the semester started when compared to the general student population (48.1%). For students who left during the semester, the proportion of females was slightly higher (54.1%) than the general population (51.7%). Gender distribution of non-persisters was similar to general student population.

Table 2
Student Demographics by Type of Withdrawals

Demographics	General population		Left before semester started		Left during semester		Non-persister
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Gender
Female	23,502	51.7%	2,702	49.2%	4,049	54.1%	5,731	52.3%
Male	21,896	48.1%	2,786	50.7%	3,420	45.7%	5,224	47.6%
Not reported	100	0.2%	7	0.1%	12	0.2%	13	0.1%

Ethnicity
American Indian	524	1.2%	86	1.6%	92	1.2%	121	1.1%
Asian	4,945	10.9%	419	7.6%	742	9.9%	1,111	10.1%
African American	4,470	9.8%	821	14.9%	846	11.3%	1,012	9.2%
White	2,0012	44.0%	2,194	39.9%	3,340	44.6%	4,963	45.2%
Latino	7,814	17.2%	1,084	19.7%	1,248	16.7%	1,832	16.7%
Filipino	2,830	6.2%	251	4.6%	443	5.9%	683	6.2%
Pac Islander	431	0.9%	60	1.1%	73	1.0%	94	0.9%
Other	1,976	4.3%	358	6.5%	313	4.2%	483	4.4%
Not reported	2,496	5.5%	222	4.0%	384	5.1%	669	6.1%

Age
17 or under	2,234	4.9%	290	5.3%	96	1.3%	634	5.8%
18 – 24	21,030	46.6%	2,838	51.6%	3,040	40.7%	4,961	45.3%
25 – 34	12,120	26.6%	1,324	24.0%	2,490	33.3%	2,954	27.0%
35 or over	10,114	22.2%	1,043	19.0%	1,855	24.8%	2,419	22.1%

Total	45,498	100%	5,495	100%	7,481	100%	10,968	100%

With regard to ethnicity, it should be noted that of the students who left before the semester started, there was a higher proportion of African Americans (14.9%) and Latinos (19.7%) as compared to the proportions in total student population. The ethnic distribution of the students who left during the semester and non-persisters was similar to the general population.

Finally, when compared to the general population, students who left before the semester started had a higher proportion of students between the ages of 18 and 24 (51.6% vs. 46.6% in the population). Thus, students who left before school started tended to be younger. However, for students who withdrew during the semester, they tended to be older since there was a higher proportion of them between the ages of 25-34 (33.3% vs. 26.6% in the population). No notable difference was found between non-persisters and student population.

Table 3
High School GPA by Type of Withdrawals

High School GAP	General population		Left before semester started		Left during semester		Non-persister
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
< 2.0	402	0.9%	70	1.3%	80	1.0%	90	0.8%
2.0-2.5	5,079	11.2%	744	13.5%	935	12.5%	1,053	9.6%
2.6-2.9	10,297	22.6%	1,280	23.3%	1,689	22.6%	2,242	20.4%
3.0-3.5	10,219	22.5%	1,069	19.5%	1,539	20.6%	2,657	24.2%
> 3.5	6,670	14.7%	539	9.8%	842	11.3%	2,004	18.3%
Not reported	12,831	28.2%	1,793	32.6%	2,396	32.0%	2,922	26.6%

Total	45,498	100%	5,495	100%	7,481	100%	10,968	100%

Self-reported high school GPA information is summarized in Table 3.Data show that students who left before the semester started and those who withdrew during the semester had a smaller percent of them with a high school GPA over 3.5, as compared to the population.Non-persisters had a higher proportion with high school GPA’s over 3.5 than the general population (18.3% vs. 14.7% in the population).

Table 4
Educational Objective by Type of Withdrawals

Educational Objective	General population		Left before semester started		Left during semester		Non-persister
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Transfer	20,858	45.9%	2,181	39.7%	3,300	44.1%	4,672	42.6%
Obtain AA/AS/Certificate – No Transfer	3,015	6.7%	474	8.6%	492	6.6%	656	6.0%
Career Related	8,141	17.9%	1,074	19.5%	1,422	19.0%	2,222	20.2%
Other	3,188	7.0%	548	10.0%	641	8.6%	977	8.9%
Undecided	9,142	20.1%	1,116	20.3%	1,428	19.1%	2,098	19.1%
Not reported	1,154	2.5%	102	1.9%	198	2.6%	343	3.1%

Total	45,498	100.0%	5,495	100.0%	7,481	100.0%	10,968	100.0%

Educational objective was identified to be related to student retention in previous research; therefore, this variable was also examined in this study (See Table 4). Results show that the educational objective for 45.9% of the general population was to transfer.This rate is similar for students who withdrew during the semester (44.1%), but slightly lower for non-persisters (42.6%) and even lower for those who left before school started (39.7%). It is also noted that non-persisters had a slightly higher proportion of students who reported their educational objective was career related.

Table 5
Annual Family Income by Type of Withdrawals

Annual Income	General population		Left before semester started		Left during semester		Non-persister
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
$0-2,999	1,137	2.5%	203	3.7%	215	2.9%	240	2.2%
$3,000-5,999	683	1.5%	82	1.5%	145	1.9%	100	0.9%
$6,000-9,999	2,000	4.4%	237	4.3%	390	5.2%	364	3.3%
$10,000-14,999	4,076	9.0%	594	10.8%	738	9.9%	823	7.5%
$15,000-20,999	4,370	9.6%	606	11.0%	830	11.1%	1,047	9.5%
$21,000-26,999	2,821	6.2%	355	6.5%	506	6.8%	666	6.1%
$27,000-32,999	2,691	5.9%	343	6.2%	492	6.6%	712	6.5%
$33,000 or over	10,417	22.9%	1,035	18.8%	1,548	20.7%	2,633	24.0%
Not reported	17,303	38.0%	2,040	37.1%	2,617	35.0%	4,383	40.0%

Total	45,498	100.0%	5,495	100.0%	7,481	100.0%	10,968	100.0%

Table 5 reports family income by withdrawal types.Results reveal that there was a slightly smaller percent of students who left before the semester started had a family income of $33,000 and above (18.8%), when compared to the general population (22.9%). The other two groups were very similar to the student population.

Table 6
Employment Hours by Type of Withdrawals

Working Hours/Week	General population		Left before semester started		Left during semester		Non-persister
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Not working	10,654	23.4%	1,283	23.3%	1,529	20.4%	2,620	23.9%
Part-Time (1 – 39 hours/week)	20,456	45.0%	2,501	45.5%	3,287	44.0%	4,526	41.2%
Full-Time (40 hours or more/week)	13,819	30.4%	1,636	29.8%	2,551	34.1%	3,721	33.9%
Not reported	569	1.3%	75	1.4%	114	1.5%	101	0.9%

Total	45,498	100.0%	5,495	100.0%	7,481	100.0%	10,968	100.0%

One of the major characteristics of community college students is that most work part-time or full-time.Student employment information is summarized in Table 6.As expected, a majority of the general student population is working either part-time (45.0%) or full-time (30.4%).In comparison with the student population, students who withdrew during the semester and non-persisters had slightly higher proportions of students working full-time (34.1% and 33.9% respectively).However, employment hours for students who left before semester started were very similar to the population.

Table 7
Enrollment Status by Type of Withdrawals

Enrollment Status	General population		Left before semester started		Left during semester		Non-persister
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Current High School Student	1,465	3.2%	172	3.1%	57	0.8%	379	3.5%
First-Time Student	4,569	10.0%	2,296	41.8%	723	9.7%	1,049	9.6%
First-Time Transfer Student	6,718	14.8%	1,850	33.7%	955	12.8%	2,847	26.0%
Returning Transfer Student	1,933	4.2%	380	6.9%	397	5.3%	671	6.1%
Returning Student	3,211	7.1%	797	14.5%	737	9.9%	884	8.1%
Continuing Student	27,349	60.1%			4,556	60.9%	5,052	46.1%
Not Reported	253	0.6%			56	0.7%	86	0.8%

Total	45,498	100.0%	5,495	100.0%	7,481	100.0%	10,968	100.0%

Table 7 shows enrollment status across the different types of withdrawals.Data suggest that first-time freshmen and first-time transfers constituted a higher percentage (75.5%) of the students who left before the semester started (24.8% in the general population).However, of the students who withdrew during the semester, only 22.5% were first-time freshmen or first-time transfers, as compared to 24.8% in the general population.There was a larger percent of first-time transfers among non-persisters (26.0% vs. 14.8% in the population).

Table 8
Cumulative College GPA and Cumulative Units Earned

	General population	Left before semester started	Left during semester	Non-persister
Cumulative GPA
Mean	2.46	N/A	1.81	2.27
Std Deviation	1.22	N/A	1.48	1.89
Minimum	0	N/A	0	0
Maximum	4	N/A	4	4
Cumulative Units
Mean	26.4	N/A	21.5	21.3
Std Deviation	29.3	N/A	30.3	29.3
Minimum	0	N/A	0	0
Maximum	388	N/A	288	302

Table 8 shows students’ cumulative college GPA and units earned. Results suggest that students who withdrew during the semester tended to have the lowest GPA (mean =1.81) when compared with the general student population and other groups. Non-persisters also had a slightly lower GPA than that of the general student population. Student who left during the semester and non-persisters earned fewer units than the population.

Research Question 2: What factors influenced students’ decision of withdrawing and do these factors differ among students who withdrew at different time frames?

A survey designed to assess students’ withdrawal reasons was sent to a random sample of students from each of the three types of withdrawal groups described above. In the survey, a list of possible reasons was provided and students were asked to indicate their primary reasons for leaving the college. Survey results are summarized in the following Table 9.

Table 9
Top Withdrawal Reasons by Type of Withdrawals

Left before semester started (n =193)

Left during semester

(n=413)

Non-persister

(n=515)

Reasons for leaving

(survey results)

1. Financial difficulties (22.8%)

2. Conflict with work schedule (22.3%)

3. Enrolled at another school (21.8%)

4. Courses were not available (14.5%)

5. Family obligations (11.4%)

6. Changed place of residence/moved (8.8%)

7. Chose to work for a few years before attending college (7.3%)

8. Desired course or program was not offered (6.7%)

9. Transportation problems (6.2%)

10. Registration process was too difficult (5.7%)

11. Parking problems (5.7%)

1. Conflict with work schedule (31.0%)

2. Other personal reasons (21.1%)

3. Parking issues (16.5%).

4. Family obligations (16.0%).

5. Financial difficulties (14.5%)

6.Dissatisfaction with instruction (14.3%)

7. Lack of interest or motivation (11.4%)

8. Course schedule was not flexible (9.2%)

9. Transferred to another school (7.3%)

10. Couldn’t get first choice of classes (7.3%)

1. Transferred to another school (28.5%)

2. Conflict with work schedule (19.2%)

3. Course scheduling issues (11.5%)

4. Completed educational goal (10.7%)

5. Other personal reasons (10.7%)

6. Completed degree or certificate (10.1%)

7. Family obligations (9.5%)

8. Parking problems (8.5%)

9. Financial difficulties (7.6%)

10. Course was not available (7.2%)

Results show that the reasons for withdrawal were very diverse for community college students. There were some differences and similarities between the three withdrawal groups, for example, students who left before the semester started listed financial difficulties (22.8%), conflict with work schedule (22.3%), enrolled at another school (21.8%), courses were not available (14.5%), and family obligations (11.4%) as the top 5 reasons for their decision to leave. However, conflict with work schedule (31.0%), personal reasons (21.1%), parking issues (16.5%), family obligations (16.0%), financial difficulties (14.5%), and dissatisfaction with instruction (14.3%) were identified as major reasons for withdrawal by students who withdrew during the semester. Non-persisters indicated that transferring to another school (28.5%), conflicts with work schedule (19.2%), course scheduling issues (10.7%), personal reasons (10.7%), and completed educational goals (10.7%) as their reasons for not returning. All groups felt that conflict with work schedule was a significant barrier in their academic pursuits.Family obligations, financial difficulties, campus parking, and other personal problems also influenced students’ decisions to leave for all groups.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions are reached:
1. When compared to the general student population:

a. Students who leave before the semester started tend to
- be younger
- be African American or Latino
- be first-time freshmen or first-time transfers
- have lower high school GPA’s
- be less likely to transfer to four-year institutions
b. Students who withdraw during the semester tend to
- be older
- be full-time workers
- have a lower college GPA
- earn fewer credit units
c. Students who don’t persist in the following semester tend to
- have higher high school GPA’s
- be full-time workers
- be first-time transfers
- have a lower college GPA
- earn fewer credit units

2. Conflict with work schedule, enrollment at another school, personal reasons, financial difficulties, family obligations, campus parking, and inflexible course scheduling are cited as top reasons for community college students to withdraw from higher education.

Discussion

The first objective of this study is to identify characteristics of community college students who left the colleges and reasons for leaving. Based on the previous research, several demographic variables were examined. These variables included gender, ethnicity, age, high school GPA, educational objective, family income, employment hours, enrollment status, and cumulative college GPA and units earned. Of the three withdrawal types, students who left before the semester started appear to differ the most when compared to the general student population. In particular, these students tended to be younger, African American or Latino, and first-time students (including first-time freshmen and first-time transfers). In addition, they tended to have a lower high school GPA and were less likely to transfer. On the other hand, students who withdrew during the semester tended to be older, full-time worker, and have a lower college GPA, while the students who did not persist in the following semester tended to have a higher high school GPA, be full-time workers, and have a lower college GPA.

The results suggest that there are characteristics unique to all three types of withdrawals. To explain the higher rates of younger students among those who left before school started, it should be noted that many graduating high school students apply on average to 3 or 4 different colleges and universities, including community colleges. Therefore, when a student applies to a four-year university and community college, the community college is more likely to be the fallback college in case he or she doesn’t get accepted into the university. Moreover, most students who are not confident of their chances of getting into a four-year university will also apply to their local community college as a capstone to the four-year institutions. It is interesting to note that the students who applied but didn’t enroll tended to have lower high school GPA’s, which is typically considered as the major factor contributing to a students’ chances of being accepted to four-year universities.

Students who withdrew during the semester seemed to be struggling the most between work, family, and school because they tend to be older students, full-time workers, and have a lower college GPA. Therefore, they experience more pressure from work place, family obligations, and academic demanding from school, hence, their dropping out of the college during the semester should surprise few people.

In terms of students who did not persist, the results suggest that these students have more options open to them. In other words, because they have higher high school GPA’s and they are more academically prepared for going to four-year institutions; therefore, they are more likely to leave the community colleges and transfer to four-year institutions. In addition, this group also had a higher proportion of full-time workers (relative to the general student population), which would suggest that they would leave for schools that provided a better selection of courses in the evening or weekend.

The second objective of this study focused on the reasons stated by the students as to why they withdrew. A survey questionnaire was sent to random samples of students to assess their reasons for leaving. In considering the results, the top reasons for leaving were different among the three types of withdrawal groups. For example, many students left before the semester started because they could not afford the enrollment fees; thus, it is not surprising that financial difficulty was cited as the first reason for leaving. The top reason cited by students who withdrew during the semester was the conflict with work schedule. Again, this result seems plausible because when students initially enroll in courses, many encounter problems with not only getting the courses they want and/or need, but also getting the courses offered during the times they can attend. Therefore, scheduling becomes the number one issue for these students, particularly since most of them are either working part-time or full-time. Finally, the primary reason for leaving cited by students who did not persist was that they transferred to another school. This is consistent with the previous explanation. With the exception of these students, the next most cited reason for not persisting was the conflict with work schedule. This could be explained by the fact that higher percentage of non-persisters are full-time workers; therefore, scheduling issues would be their major concern for balancing work and school.

In summary, the results of this study support the notion that community college students are more diverse than university students, particularly in terms of employment status. Consequently, when community college students do decide to leave, regardless of timing of leaving, it is primarily the result of the students’ struggle to maintain a balance between the academic and social demands of the campus and the responsibilities of off-campus life (e.g., work and family). Given the relative ease for students to leave and then re-apply at community colleges, their off-campus life usually wins out in this constant struggle for balance.

Recommendations

This research generated important information for community college administrators, faculty, and student service personnel related to community college student retention. These findings have implications on retention strategies which address community college students’ needs, especially for urban community colleges. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that to improve retention rates of community college students, the following practices should be considered:

Offer more flexible class schedules
Results of this study reveal that the conflict with work schedule is the single most important reason cited by community college students for leaving higher education. As we discussed earlier, most community college students work part-time or full-time so they have to balance work and school as well as family obligations. Therefore, it is critical that community colleges offer a variety of class schedules to meet diverse needs of their students. Short-term, evening, weekend, and online classes can all serve this purpose.
Make financial aid information more readily available to students
Financial difficulty was also one of the most important factors cited by community college students as their primary reason for leaving higher education. Therefore, offering more financial aid would be an effective means to retain more students. Community college students are very diverse in terms of social economic status, thus, providing more financial aid would help many disadvantaged students stay in school. It is recommended that information about financial aid possibilities should be made available to all students.
Strengthen academic counseling service
Most community colleges are operating differently than 4-year universities where there are no academic advisors for students. Counseling is the single most important student service for community college students to get information about course offering, transfer, and other resources. Hence, improving and strengthening counseling service is critical to improve student retention and success in community colleges. Counselors can help students understand what is expected of them in order to complete their college degree programs or educational goal and where to find assistance when it becomes necessary to do so.
Monitor Academic Performance
Data of this study reveal that students who dropped tended to have a lower college GPA, suggesting that the community college staff should monitor student academic performance closely to prevent dropping out. Special attention and support should be provided for students with lower high school GPA’s as well as students with lower college GPA’s. It is recommended that this monitoring be implemented once each semester and an “early warning” should be issued to the students before it is too late to help them.
Follow-Up of Withdrawal Students
It is recommended that attempts be made to follow up students who withdrew from the community colleges. Personal interviews, phone calls or other personal contacts should be conducted immediately after students left the college. This may allow the college to determine reasons for students giving up their college career. Results can be used to evaluate and improve the retention programs for future community college students. Meanwhile, the college should encourage them to re-enroll in the college or another institution.
Improve on-campus parking
Many of the students cited difficulty in finding an on-campus parking space as their primary reason for leaving higher education. This issue is more significant in urban community colleges located in big cities, especially central cities. A majority of community college students are commuters; therefore, transportation or parking could be a significant issue for them. Improving on-campus parking, providing additional transportation means or partnership programs with local public transportation systems could be useful for retaining students at community colleges

References

Alfred, R., Ewell, P., Hudgins, J., & McClenney, K. (1999). Core indicators of effectiveness for community colleges. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.

Beal, P. E. & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention: The report of a joint project of the American college testing program and the national center for higher Education management systems. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.

Bonham, L. A., & Luckie, J. A. (1993). Community college retention: Differentiating among stopouts, dropouts, and optouts. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17, 543-554.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on college student departure process. Journal of Higher Education. 71(5), 569-590.

Daniels, G. (1990). Student intention and retention in a community college setting. ERIC document reproduction number: ED 325 165

Glass, J. C., & Garrett, M. S. (1995). Student participation in a college orientation course, retention, and grade point average. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 177-132.

Grimes, S. K. & Antworth, T. (1996). Community college withdrawal decisions: Student characteristics and subsequent enrollment patterns. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20, 345-361.

Gross, F. L., Jr. (1981). Teaching the whole mind: A developmental structural approach. Journal of General Education, 33(3), 175-188.

Kinnick, M. K., & Kempner, K. (1988). Beyond “front door” assess: Attaining the bachelor’s degree. Research in Higher Education, 29 (4), 299-318.

Lenning, O. T., Beal, P. E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence for action and research. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Olivas, M. A. (1979). The dilemma of access: Minorities in two-year colleges. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.

Wolkwein, J.F. (2003). Implementing outcomes assessment on your campus. RP Group eJournal, 1, May 2003, Retrieved on September 22, 2003 from: http://www.rpgroup.org/publications/eJournal/Volume_1/volume_1.htm

Pascarella, E. T., & Terezini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college – Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Turner, A. L., & Berry, T. R. (2000). Counseling center contributions to student retention and graduation: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of College Student Development, 41(6), 627-636.

Umoh, U. J., Eddy, J., & Spaulding, D. J. (1994). Factors related to student retention in community college developmental education mathematics. Community College Review, 22 (2), 37-47.

Voorhees, R. A. (1986). Toward Building Models of Community College
Persistence: A log-liner analysis. ERIC document reproduction number: ED 317 242