University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Probation And Dismissal Policies In California Community Colleges

(USC Thesis Other)

Probation And Dismissal Policies In California Community Colleges

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 70-25,017
DIETZ, Merle Arlington, 1914-
PROBATION AND DISMISSAL POLICIES IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
University of Southern California, Ed.D. ,
1970
Education, higher
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
PROBATION AND DISMISSAL POLICIES IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Merle Arlington Dietz
June 1970
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
D ate I Q . J . . Q ....... .......
..
/ Dean
Guidance Committee
LIST OF
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLES ................................... v
THE PROBLEM
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Questions
Hypotheses
Procedure
Assumptions
Delimitations
Limitations
Definitions of Terms
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................. 16
Basic Concepts of the Community College
Philosophy and Objectives of California
Community Colleges
Community College Goals and the
Probationary Student
The Attack on the Traditional Grading
System
State-Wide Studies of Probation,
Dismissal and Readmission
Institutional Research on Probation
and Dismissal
Doctoral Dissertations on Probation
Summary
THE PROCEDURE........................... 51
Delineating the Area of Study
Searching the Literature
Developing and Circulating the
Questionnaire
ii
Chapter
IV.
V.
VI.
Summarizing the Findings from the
Questionnaire
Collecting the Data for the Statistical
Study
Analyzing the Probationary Statistics
at Harbor College
Organizing the Conclusions
Summary
FINDINGS RELATED TO PROBATION POLICIES IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES ..........
Purposes of Probation
Effectiveness of Probation Policies
Counseling and Guidance
Regulation of Load
The Third Chance
Readmission
Summary
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CHANGES IN GRADING
SYSTEMS THAT WILL ALTER PROBATIONARY
STATISTICS .............................
Liberalized Withdrawals
Credit/No-Credit
Forgiveness of Penalty Grades
Elimination of "F" Grades
Replacement of Penalty Grades by
Repetition of Courses
Summary
STATISTICAL FINDINGS RELATIVE TO LOAD
LIMITATION, A SEMESTER'S ABSENCE,
AND THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ..........
The Effect of a Change in Load upon the
Grade Point Average of Probationary
and Nonprobationary Students
The Effect of a One Semester Interruption
on Achievement in College
The Effect of Interruption after Two
Semesters in College
Probability of "C" or Better Grades as
Related to SCAT Scores and Majors
Summary
iii
Page
67
87
101
Chapter Page
VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 156
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................... 175
APPENDIXES
A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE........................ 189
B. QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER............... 192
C. CONVERSION TABLES FOR THE SCHOOL AND
COLLEGE ABILITY TEST................... 194
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Number and Percentage of Students on
Probation in California Community
Colleges, Fall Terms, 1965 and 196 7 .... 36
2. Change in Status of Probationary Students in
California Community Colleges Resulting
from Fall Term Grades, 1965 and 1967 ... 37
3. Purposes of Probation Policies as Stated by
Deans of Admissions..................... 69
4. Assessment by Deans of Admissions of the
Effectiveness of Probationary Policy
in California Community Colleges ........ 73
5. Forms of Counseling and Guidance Available
to Probationary Students in California
Community Colleges ..................... 75
6. Methods of Regulating the Load of Proba
tionary Students as Stated by Deans of
Admissions............................. 77
7. Factors upon Which Readmission Is Based as
Stated by Deans of Admissions ............ 83
8. Change in Grade Point Average of Probationary
Students Carrying 15 or More Units in
Fall '66 as Related to Units Attempted
in Spring '67........................... 105
9. Change in Grade Point Average of Nonproba-
tionary Students Carrying 15 or More
Units in Fall '66 as Related to Units
Attempted in Spring '67................. 106
10. Change in Grade Point Average of All Students
Carrying 15 or More Units in Fall '66 as
Related to Units Attempted in Spring '67 . 107
v
Table Page
11. Change in Grade Point Average of Probationary
Students Carrying 12.0-14.5 Units in
Fall '66 as Related to Units Attempted
in Spring '67............................. 109
12. Change in Grade Point Average of Nonproba-
tionary Students Carrying 12.0-14.5 Units
in Fall '66 as Related to Units Attempted
in Spring '67............................. 110
13. Change in Grade Point Average of All Students
Carrying 12.0-14.5 Units in Fall '66 as
Related to Units Attempted in Spring *67 . Ill
14. Change in Grade Point Average of Two Levels
of Probationary Students Carrying 12.0-14.5
Units in Fall 166 as Related to Units
Attempted in Spring 1 6 7 .................... 113
15. Change in Grade Point Average in Spring '67
of Six Levels of Students Carrying 12.0
or More Units in the Fall 16 6 ............ 114
16. Change in Grade Point Average of Probationary
Students Carrying 9.0-11.5 Units in
Fall 166 as Related to Units Attempted
in Spring '67............................. 115
17. Change in Grade Point Average of Nonproba-
tionary Students Carrying 9.0-11.5 Units
in Fall '66 as Related to Units Attempted
in Spring *67............................. 116
18. Change in Grade Point Average of All Students
Carrying 9.0-11.5 Units in Fall '66 as
Related to Units Attempted in Spring '67 . 117
19. GPA of Interrupted Students as Compared to
Average of Continuing Students, Spring 1967
Interruption ........................... 121
20. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 0.0-8.5 Units
Attempted............................... 123
vi
Table
Page
21. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 0.0-8.5 Units
Attempted ...............................
125
22. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 9.0-11.5 Units
Attempted ...............................
126
23. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 9.0-11.5 Units
Attempted ............................... 12 7
24. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 12.0-14.5 Units
Attempted ...............................
12 8
25. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 12.0-14.5 Units
Attempted ..................... ........
129
26. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 15.0 or More Units
Attempted ............................... 130
27. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 15.0 or More Units
Attempted ...............................
131
28. GPA of Interrupted Students as Compared to
Average of Continuing Students, Fall 196 7
Interruption ...........................
133
29. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 0.0-17.0 Units
Attempted ...............................
135
30. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 0.0-17.0 Units
Attempted........' .....................
vii
136
Table Page
31. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 18.0-23.0 Units
Attempted............................... 137
32. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 18.0-2 3.0 Units
Attempted............................... 138
33. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 24.0-29.0 Units
Attempted............................... 139
34. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 24.0-29.0 Units
Attempted............................... 140
35. GPA of Interrupted Probationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 30.0 or More Units
Attempted............................... 141
36. GPA of Interrupted Nonprobationary Students
Compared to That of Similar Students in
Continuous Attendance— 30.0 or More Units
Attempted............................. . 142
37. Probability of "C" or Better Grade as Related
to SCAT-T and Major..................... 147
38. Average Units Attempted, Grade Point
Averages, and SCAT Means for Certain
Major Classifications................... 151
39. Significance of Difference in SCAT Scores of
Major Groups........................... 152
viii
o O
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Background of the Problem
Minimum standards of scholarship as reflected in
the probation and dismissal policies of the California com
munity colleges are of growing concern as problems of in
creased enrollment and the desire to serve students of dif
fering abilities are tempered by rising costs of college
operation and resistance to further taxation.
In 1964 the Coordinating Council for Higher Educa
tion in order to implement the Master Plan for Higher Edu
cation advised that the State Board of Education study
probation-dismissal policy with the view of establishing
comparable standards in all segments of public higher edu
cation. As a result of the work of various ad hoc commit
tees, the California Junior College Association, and the
Junior College Committee of the State Board of Education
the California Administrative Code, Title 5, was amended,
effective July 1, 1967 (18).
The governing board of each junior college district
is charged with establishing standards of scholarship for
the continuance of students in the college. Title 5,
1
2
Section 131, sets forth the minimum standards. It states
that a student shall be placed on probation "and immedi
ately notified that his performance is deficient, if his
grade point average for the units herein designated for a
student in his status is less than 2.0 . . ." (18:84.2).
Title 5 further states that if the student trans
fers into the junior college, all units in any college or
university must be included in calculating the grade point
average. The grade point average of a full-time student is
based upon the units attempted during the immediately pre
ceding semester or quarter. However, a college may use the
student's cumulative average, and most of them do. The
minimum standards for a part-time student are based upon all
units attempted in any college or university, but probation
is only invoked after twelve units have been attempted.
Thus it is mandatory that students be placed on
probation when their grade point average falls below 2.0,
dependent only upon their status and units designated as
applicable. Title 5 requires dismissal if the grade point
average of "all units attempted in each of 3 consecutive
semesters (5 consecutive quarters) is less than 1.75"
(18:84.2). However, it is common practice to dismiss a
student after two semesters on probation. The varying
applications of this section are of interest in this study
since there has been no in-depth analysis of the effects of
various policies on students' achievements.
3
Two further parts of Section 131 relate to this
study. The first of these is that a student who has been
dismissed shall not be reinstated until one semester (or
two quarters) has elapsed after dismissal, unless the stu
dent comes within the exceptions adopted by the governing
board. It is presumed that students are more successful
after a semester of enforced absence, but their very ab
sence from college prevents any direct measurement of the
effects of the policy.
Section 131 also requires that each junior college
shall provide individual counseling and guidance service
to students on probation, including the regulation of the
student's program according to his aptitude and achievement.
It is generally accepted that the limitations placed upon
the load of a student are largely the result of a subjec
tive judgment made by a counselor based upon the student's
objectives, motivations, financial support, health, matur
ity, and a multitude of other intangible factors. No
studies of the comprehensive community college relate the
grade point average and load in the first semester to the
success of limited second semester programs.
Given these minimum legal standards, the community
colleges open their doors to all people over eighteen years
of age who can profit from college experience. One-third
of those who come did not take a secondary school course of
4
study that would permit them to enter a four-year college
(38:50). As a group they have lower educational and occu
pational aspirations. Their emphasis is upon practicality,
yet their vocational objective is often unsettled. While
their academic abilities are acknowledged to be less than
those of the students who enter the state colleges or uni
versities, they are evaluated with a traditional grading
system largely based upon the standards in the four-year
institutions. Even in the terminal or two-year curriculum
the influence of senior colleges is felt, particularly in
general education courses.
Thus the community college student with lesser aca
demic abilities, but with unknown nonacademic abilities, is
caught up in a traditional and lecture oriented education
very similar to the one in which he was unsuccessful in
high school. Graded on a traditional scale designed for
the academically oriented student, he soon joins the largest
"fraternity" on campus, the probationary students.
Solution to the problems of this group seems to lie
in four directions. First, the community college could
change its goals— it could become selective and choose stu
dents who can profit in the system as it now operates.
Second, the community colleges can increase their efforts
in remediation and development and thus prepare a larger
number of students for successful completion of existing
curricula. Third, the community colleges may accept the
5
more practical and less symbolic abilities of their stu
dents and alter their educational practices to suit the
reality of the situation. And last, the junior colleges
may take seriously their stated objective of educating each
student to the fullest extent of his abilities and alter
the evaluative system in the light of this goal.
Statement of the Problem
The need for this study results from the large num
ber of students in the California community colleges on
probation and subject to dismissal. The latitude allowed
by the California Administrative Code, the variations in
grading philosophy and practice in individual colleges, and
the increasing number of students of low academic ability
necessitate a clearer understanding of probation and dis
missal policy.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study of California community
colleges is fourfold:
1. to review the literature and research on
grading systems and probation,
2. to determine the purposes and effectiveness of
probationary and dismissal policies through a
survey of expert opinion,
3. to review changes that are occurring in student
•
6
evaluation that will alter probationary
statistics, and
4. to investigate certain probationary practices
by an analysis of the grades of a large sam
pling of students subject to probation at a
comprehensive community college.
Questions
The purposes of the study were accomplished by
seeking information from experienced administrators in com
munity colleges and by analyzing empirical data gathered
from the records of probationary students. To focus the
investigation, answers to the following questions were
sought.
1. What is the prevailing opinion of experts as to
the purpose of probation in the community
colleges?
2. How effective are current practices in accom
plishing the goals of probationary policies?
3. How is the legal requirement of counseling
students on probation provided?
4. How are the community colleges regulating the
load of probationary students?
5. What is the current practice in dismissing
students of poor academic achievement?
6. What changes are occurring in student evalua-
tion that will alter the number of students
subject to probation in future semesters?
7. Does limiting the load of probationary students
improve their grade point averages?
8. Do probationary students who withdraw from
college for one or more semesters achieve as
well as similar students whose education is
uninterrupted?
9. Will a judicious selection of a major increase
the probability of success for the poor student?
Hypotheses
For increased precision in the investigation, the
last three questions suggest these null hypotheses:
1. There is no significant difference between a
student's first and second semester grade point
average when (a) his load is maintained at the
same level, (b) his load is increased, or (c)
his load is decreased.
2. Among students on probation, there is no sig
nificant difference between the achievement of
those whose attendance is interrupted and those
whose attendance is uninterrupted.
3. There is no significant difference in the
achievement of students in selected groups of
majors when achievement is measured by (a) grade
8
point average, (b) SCAT-T scores, (c) SCAT-Q
scores, or (d) SCAT-V scores.
Procedure
To promote a thorough, description and understanding
of the problem, a careful review of the literature pertain
ing to probation and dismissal in two-year colleges was
conducted.
The survey of the literature and discussion with
admissions officers in eight colleges resulted in the prep
aration of the survey instrument. The questionnaire was
mailed to all of the eighty-three public community colleges
in California and all responded. Study and tabulation of
the data followed, and the findings were charted and con
clusions drawn.
In order to test three common probationary prac
tices that appeared in the literature and in the responses
to the questionnaire, information was gathered on approxi
mately two thousand students at Los Angeles Harbor College.
Units attempted, grade points earned, and other data were
transferred to one data card. Six programs written for the
IBM 1620 computer were used in the analysis of the data.
The t-values calculated permitted the acceptance or rejec
tion of the hypotheses posed in the preceding section.
The information obtained from the survey of the
literature, the questionnaire, and the analysis of the
9
student data resulted in the conclusions and recommenda
tions found in the last chapter.
Assumptions
The design and importance of the study are based
upon a number of assumptions. These are as follows:
1. The deans of admissions and guidance in each
college are in the best position to know the
current policy and practice and to render the
best judgment on the results of the college
policy.
2. With respect to the analysis of probationary
student data, it is assumed that Harbor College
would be representative of the majority of com
prehensive community colleges. Its proportion
of ethnic minorities and the economic status of
surrounding communities are not far from Cali
fornia averages.
3. The open-door policy permitting the entrance
of all high school graduates and all persons
eighteen years of age or older who can profit
from instruction will continue in the community
colleges.
4. That as enrollments increase and costs rise,
the value of keeping probationary students in
college will be attacked.
10
5. That teachers, administrators, and governing
boards, desirous of dismissing students who are
not achieving a certain academic standard, can
only base dismissal on grade point averages,
achievement test scores, semesters on probation,
units achieved, and similar objective data.
While many subjective elements may cause poor
achievement, the criteria for continuation of
the student in college will be grades achieved.
Delimitations
The scope of this study was delimited in the fol
lowing ways.
1. The questionnaire was sent to the eighty-three
public tax-supported community colleges in
California.
2. The data on students were gathered at one com
prehensive community college with an enrollment
of approximately 7,000.
3. Only students beginning their college work in
the fall of 1966 were included in the group
studied. The data on students transferring
into the college with credits earned in other
colleges were not included.
4. The study does not deal with causes of low aca
demic achievement or with withdrawal problems.
11
Many studies in the past, and large studies
presently in progress, seek these causes and
recommend changes. This investigation is lim
ited to current probation policies, the changes
occurring in student evaluation, and the analy
sis of three common probationary practices.
Limitations
The accuracy of the survey of probation policy and
practice is limited by the change that is occurring in
student evaluation. While the formal policy for placing
students on probation and the rules for dismissal and re
admission are now fairly stable, they are being made in
creasingly ineffective by the elimination of penalty grades.
The change in the grading system is thought to be
understated because official school policy lags behind
classroom practice. Instructors are giving nonpenalty
grades instead of "D's" and "F's" even though the school
grading policy has not sanctioned the change.
In studying the records of probationary students at
Harbor College, two limitations exist.
1. No single college is quite representative of all
California community colleges.
2. When a group of students is dismissed, the re
maining population is different, and there is
no control group with which to compare subse-
12
quent achievement of the dismissed students.
Definitions of Terms
Some terms used in the study have meanings peculiar
to the community colleges. Wherever possible, definitions
are those used by the State Department of Education or the
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.
Freshman.— A student who has completed fewer than
thirty units (forty-five quarter units).
Sophomore.— A student who has completed at least
thirty units (forty-five quarter units) but has not yet
been granted the Associate or higher degree.
Special students in the junior colleges.— Those
students who have been granted an Associate or higher
degree.
First-time freshman.— A student enrolled in college
for the first time in a regular session.
First-time transfer students.— A student enrolled
in the college for the first time in a regular session and
who has earned college credit at another institution.
Full-time student.— A student enrolled in twelve or
more units.
13
Part-time student.— A student enrolled for less
than twelve units.
Day student.— A student enrolled in one or more
classes which meet between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Evening student.— A student enrolled exclusively in
classes meeting after 4 p.m.
Actively enrolled student.— A student enrolled on
the Census Date in at least one course scheduled to meet
during the Census Week.
Census Date or Day.— Monday of the fourth week of
regularly scheduled.classes.
Census Week.— The fourth week of regularly sched
uled classes.
Drop student.— A student who has initiated action
to cancel his enrollment in a course, or who has had such
action initiated on his behalf by the instructor or other
college authority in accordance with college policy.
Withdrawal student.— A student who has initiated a
complete withdrawal from college canceling his enrollment
in all classes in which he has enrolled, or who has had
such action initiated on his behalf by an instructor, coun
selor, or other college authority, in accordance with col-
leqe policy._____________________________________________
14
Probation.— The term "probation" as used in this
study means academic probation and is the result of un
satisfactory scholarship.
Dismissal.— Involuntary separation of a student
from the institution because he has not met academic re
quirements. This is sometimes referred to as "academic
disqualification."
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Six chapters comprise the remainder of this disser
tation. Chapter II is a review of the literature, covering
institutional, doctoral, and published research on the
subject.
The procedures used in gathering information for
the study and analyzing the data are related in Chapter III.
Chapter IV is an accounting of the answers to the
questionnaire. The purpose is to describe current proce
dures used by experts in dealing with problems of probation,
dismissal and readmission.
In Chapter V the changes in grading systems that
will affect probationary statistics in the near future are
discussed.
The application of selected policies to two thou
sand first-time freshmen and an analysis of the effects of
these policies comprise Chapter VI.
15
Chapter VII consists of a summary of the findings
of the study and the conclusions and recommendations re
sulting therefrom.
o
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The community college is the latest institution in
the great American experiment in universal education. Our
national purposes of perpetuating a viable democracy, of
improving society, of providing equality of opportunity,
and of fostering human rights and individuality are basic
to its specific goals. This chapter reviews these concepts
t?
and goals and relates them to current practices of grading
and scholastic probation. The chapter continues with a re
view of institutional research and state-sponsored studies
and closes with summaries of the very few doctoral disser
tations on probation.
Basic Concepts of the Community College
The junior college movement began with the theories
of men such as Tappan of Michigan, Folwell of Minnesota,
White of Cornell, and Harper of Chicago who felt that the
American colleges of the late nineteenth century were little
more than the equivalent of German secondary education
(17:248). Harper believed that the first two years of col
lege should be provided by extensions of the high school or
16
17
by institutions separated from the university. He felt
that the junior college might attract students who would
otherwise not attend college and that it might lend re
spectability to the termination of education at the four
teenth year. In California, Dean Alexis F. Lange strongly
advocated the redistribution of growing freshman and sopho
more classes to junior colleges, normal schools, and six-
year high schools (133:48).
The classical college in America was established
and structured primarily to preserve and transmit culture
and tradition (114:6). However, the economic needs of a
growing nation demanded solutions to practical problems.
With the passage of the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1862, a
giant step was taken in the extension of educational oppor
tunity to a section of society that had not previously as
pired to higher education (17:62-64). The land-grant col
leges, after initial difficulties of breaking with the
classical tradition of higher education and aided by the
Hatch Experiment Act, developed into great institutions of
agriculture and industrial research. The land-grant col
leges did much to give America the principle that every
citizen is entitled to access to higher education if he can
profit from its offerings. Precedents were established in
the land-grant colleges for making vocational education be
yond the high school respectable, for establishing labora
tories and practical pursuits on the campus, and for
18
providing service to the community. The junior college
movement has built upon these concepts.
College enrollment grew rapidly following World War
II, spurred on by the returning veterans and their educa
tional benefits. Four-year colleges and universities be
came more selective, while the junior colleges enrolled all
high school graduates and generally anyone over eighteen
years of age who could profit from instruction. In Cali
fornia the open door of the community college has become
the only avenue of public higher education for two-thirds
of the high school graduates (25:15). New demands were
placed upon an institution that was just beginning to find
its place in higher education (88:27).
In its early years, the chief function of the ju
nior college had been the preparation of students for
transfer to the university. As science and technology be
came more sophisticated, the need for people trained beyond
the level of the high school and trade school increased.
The President's Commission, in its study of higher educa
tion, concluded that the community colleges should give
more attention to occupational curricula and less to trans
fer education (103:68). Adult education and general educa
tion were also recognized in this report as major functions
of the junior college. Thus the stage was set for the
phenomenal growth of recent years that today finds two
19
million students in nearly a thousand junior colleges
scattered throughout the United States (52).
The community college with its open door has popu
larized higher education as has no previous institution.
It has provided a diversified curricula and developmental
courses so that students with widely-ranging abilities can
find some measure of success. Medsker notes the enviable
record of the community colleges in terms of the quality of
programs and the success of its transfer and terminal stu
dents (88:22). Knoell and Medsker in their national study
of the transfer student conclude:
Junior colleges are making it possible for increasing
numbers of high school graduates to begin work for
baccalaureate degrees— students who would not otherwise
be able to do so for reasons of academic or economic
deficiency or for lack of family encouragement. The
large number of successful teachers, engineers, busi
nessmen, government workers, and other useful citizens
who began programs in two-year colleges is impressive.
(76:87)
Yet the open door fails to attract many young peo
ple of superior ability. Medsker and Trent report that
"one quarter of the men and one third of the women in the
top quintile of ability did not continue their education"
(89:99). Havighurst points out that these are usually
children of people who have less than a high school educa
tion. Their families participate in a culture which has
little contact with higher education. They do not regard
college as really within the reach of their aspirations or
their financial means (65:162). Knoell states that even
20
college deadlines, minimal fees, forms, and lack of in
formation "may close the open door" for disadvantaged
students (73).
The history of education has been a struggle against
elitism— the elitism of birth and title, the elitism of
wealth and position, the elitism of color (11). The strug
gle continues with the spotlight shifted to the latter.
The goal of universal educational opportunity has been
reached at the elementary and secondary level. The Ameri
can people have recognized the value of education both to
society and the individual. They believe that a democratic
society cannot move forward without a well-educated citi
zenry, and they have been willing to devote a good share of
the nation's resources to public and private institutions
for that purpose.
Proponents of the open-door concept insist that the
community college, with its comprehensive curriculum, has
played a large part in the democratization of higher educa
tion (38:48). Nevertheless, spokesmen for the large urban
colleges point out the challenges of reaching the reluctant
student in the urban ghetto, of developing his latent tal
ents when he does come to the college, and of making the
college relevant to his needs (79,112).
Foremost in meeting these challenges is the class
room teacher. The junior colleges are learning-centered
institutions. Developing as extensions of the secondary
21
schools, and staffed by many former high school teachers,
they value excellence in teaching to a greater extent than
other segments of higher education (77). O'Connell points
out the basic difference in community college and upper
division and graduate schools. Teacher-scholars are re
quired in the more elementary and general classes of the
junior colleges and research-scholars in the university
(96:25). However, he maintains that research in how to
teach is a part of junior college teaching and that re
search by some members of the faculty should be encouraged.
Recognizing the dominance of the teaching function
in . . t h e community colleges, many writers support increased
training in methodology and flexible graduate education
requirements for community college teachers (58:70;23).
The community colleges may be looked upon as laboratories
for the development of operational goals, and the research
center for the community in its search for relevance and
meaning for today's youth.
Philosophy and Objectives of California
Community Colleges
Inspection of current catalogs reveals a close
agreement in the philosophy and purposes of the community
colleges in California. They generally commit themselves
to broadening the educational opportunities of the commu
nity they serve, strengthening democratic institutions
22
through education, and producing free men whose lives are
rewarding both to themselves and to society.
Grossmont College exemplifies philosophical state
ments with the following:
Grossmont College accepts and is committed to these
philosophic premises:
a. The democratic way of life allows each individual
the personal freedom and initiative consistent
with his responsibilities to his fellow man.
b. The college recognizes the worth of the individual
and the fact that individual needs, interests, and
capacities vary greatly.
c. Maximum development of the personal, social, and
intellectual qualities of each individual must be
encouraged.
d. All segments of the college community are encour
aged to contribute and participate in the operation
of the college. (62:21)
The inclusion of the phrase, "participate in the operation
of the college," is significant if it commits the adminis
tration, faculty, and students to democratic practices in
policy formation and day-by-day operation, thereby making
the college a laboratory of democracy.
A statement of philosophy is usually followed in
current catalogs by the college's objectives, purposes, or
functions. These always include general education, trans
fer education, occupational education, guidance, develop
mental education, and community service. These function
are reviewed in the following paragraphs.
23
General education.— General education appears ei
ther as a part of all programs or, in some colleges, as a
two-year curricula, often labeled Liberal Arts (81:60-63).
Barstow College spells out its general education objectives
by stating that the faculty shall "enable a student to work
toward any or all of the following objectives:
1. To see his cultural heritage in its historical
perspective.
2. To live effectively in accordance with the condi
tions of his biological and physical environment.
3. To recognize and guard the rights and responsi
bilities of citizenship in a free society.
4. To guide his life by sound moral and spiritual
values.
5. To achieve satisfactory personal, social, and
community relationships.
6. To apply critical and discriminating thought to
the solution of problems.
7. To accept responsibility for his decisions.
8. To develop the basic skills of communication.
9. To enjoy the benefits of a rewarding and produc
tive vocation.
10. To appreciate and participate in creative
activities. (5:12)
The fact that about two-thirds of the junior col
lege students declare themselves to be transfer students,
yet less than one-third actually transfer (88:91), empha
sizes the importance of general education in the function
of the colleges.
Transfer education.— Transfer education is the
oldest of the functions of the junior colleges (133:63).
The courses in these curricula parallel those of universi
ties and four-year colleges and are fully transferable in
California. The public, faculty, and students tend to____
24
emphasize the transfer function because of the higher value
placed upon the baccalaureate degree and the social and
parental pressures to attain it. Clark discusses the "la
tent terminal student" in his study of San Jose Junior Col
lege. He concludes that students "with transfer intentions
do not transfer nor do they complete terminal curricula"
and that "the battle of the production line in the junior
college is to hold on to a good share, if not all, of these
students long enough to train them for an occupation or to
add to their general education" (30:84).
Occupational education.— Occupational education,
now called career education in national circles, provides
semiprofessional training for persons preparing to enter
the technical or business occupations and courses designed
for retraining or occupational advancement for persons al
ready employed. Collins claims that the distinction be
tween terminal and transfer curricula is artificial and
frequently overemphasized (35). The academic requirements
of electronics, nursing, numerical control, law enforcement,
or computer programming may well be as high as most trans
fer courses. Many students do eventually transfer from
these terminal courses to the state colleges because the
four-year institutions have developed programs in indus
trial technology, industrial education, public school nurs
ing, public administration, and other fields that build
25
upon the two-year program of the community college.
However, occupational education, as well as trans
fer education, is troubled by the students who leave col
lege before their program is completed. The large number
of drop-out studies found in the literature attest to the
importance of this problem (120,121). Terminal education
provides increasing levels of skills as the student pro
gresses through the curricula, and the student who leaves
may have taken employment that satisfies his goals even
though the more advanced courses in the curriculum are not
complete. Ford argues that society, in order to cope with
the drop-out problem must seek to provide a variety of "ad
mired and socially-valued" educational avenues— that empha
sis must be placed upon new, less symbolic forms of higher
education (53:92).
Guidance.— Guidance is an important function in all
community colleges. The wide diversity of experience and
ability of incoming students accentuates the need for ef
fective guidance programs that enable the student to assess
his capabilities and adjust his career plans to realize his
maximum potential. The open door is well established in
California community colleges, but students may or may not
be allowed an unrestricted choice of fields of study.
Roueche and Sims argue that "the basis for admission to
programs in a junior college is a professional decision
26
that should be determined for each student by utilizing the
best information available to educators" (115).
The concurrent existence of a diverse curricula in
transfer, vocational/ and developmental education and the
enrollment of thousands of students who are unsuccessful in
courses they pursue is tragic. The student's "right to
fail" in any field of study is only slightly restricted in
most community colleges by prerequisites and low minimum
scores on entrance tests. That the community colleges
range from highly restrictive administrative placement of
students in academic levels (72) to extreme liberality in
the student's choice of curriculum or subject indicates the
lack of a solution to this problem.
Developmental education.— Preparatory and remedial
education is a corollary of the open door. The Scope study
of 35,000 students shows that 25 per cent of the lowest
third of the high school graduating class are found in ju
nior colleges the following fall (38:12). The community
college, in its willingness to offer courses below the col
legiate level, has been the academic salvation of low
achievers (114:2). Developmental programs in the community
colleges are designed to provide each student who can
profit from instruction the opportunity to remove his scho
lastic and course deficiencies and thus to pursue his indi
vidual educational goals.
27
Community service.— Community colleges have re
sponded to community needs by providing facilities and
leadership for cultural, political, and esthetic enrichment
(31). Short courses, public forums, lecture series, insti
tutes, concerts, and athletic programs are a few of the
activities supported from funds provided by the Community
Service Tax. The community service function is a natural
outgrowth of the close association of junior colleges and
the people who support them.
Community College Goals and
the Probationary Student
The statements of philosophy and purposes of most
community colleges commit the institution to the maximum
development of each individual's potential. However, it is
common knowledge that this goal is seldom achieved.
O'Banion contends that the rules and regulations, largely
plagiarized from four-year institutions, often contradict
the stated philosophy of the community college and really
shape the way in which the college operates (95) . A study
of probation and dismissal regulations in twenty-seven ju
nior colleges made by the Florida State University Office
of Institutional Research (123) fails to support the as
sumption that these regulations foster growth in academic
potential. Schultz, in reporting this study, stated that
35 per cent of the students placed on probation failed to
return within a five-year period, that over half of those
28
who returned following probation did not recover in their
initial period of attendance, and that fewer than 10 per
cent of the students placed on probation graduated within a
five-year period. O'Banion cites the studies of Dula and
Schultz (45) as evidence that the probation and dismissal
system, as it exists, "is probably a thinly disguised
scheme for getting rid of unwanted students."
Collins (34) claims that the catalog statements of
aims and objectives promise the "healing fruits" of educa
tion to all who enroll but that probation and disqualifica
tion rulings require that everyone be "above average in the
digestion of this fruit or be in jeopardy of being driven
from the garden." For the student grading, probation, and
disqualification practices may define the real, as opposed
to the stated, purposes of the college.
Defining the purposes of the probation-dismissal
system in California community colleges is one of the
objectives of this study, and the results are reported in
later chapters. The rationale that the student who earns
less than a "C" needs more time to study results in rules
disqualifying him from leadership in campus organizations
and participation in extra-class activities that may be
more meaningful than the formalized part of the curriculum.
The same rationale results in the limitation of the class
load. In part, this study is concerned with the relation
ship between load and recovery from probationary status,
29
and the findings are set forth in Chapter VI.
The Attack on the Traditional Grading System
Community colleges, four-year colleges, and univer
sities are questioning the traditional grading system (43).
It is somewhat difficult in reviewing the literature to
give a fair assessment of current thought because the pub
lished articles are largely liberal in philosophy. This
may simply mean that change is more newsworthy than main
taining traditional forms. The grading system, "A," "B,"
"C," "D," "F," and "W," is nearly the universal language in
the evaluation of academic achievement. While this tradi
tional system is being changed in many community colleges,
the vast majority of students are still being graded in
this way at the present time.
Although nearly universal in its use, the tradi
tional grading system lacks universality in the precision
of its terms. Community college faculties and deans main
tain that "A's" and "B's" in transfer courses are equiva
lent to those given by four-year institutions and point to
yearly reports from state colleges and universities to sup
port the claim that the junior colleges maintain academic
standards. These statements may be valid when dealing with
students in groups, but, philosophically, the community
college is vitally concerned with the individual. From the
individual's point of view, the lack of precision in the
30
meaning of a specific grade is attested to by the compari
son of the grading practices of individual instructors.
One institutional study shows two classes in the
same subject, using the same textbook and course outline,
and composed of students who chose the classes, in which
the one instructor gave 57 per cent "A's," "B's," and "C's,"
and the other instructor gave 12 per cent nonprobationary
grades (61). While this case is extreme it is not an iso
lated instance. A student's grades are related to the in
structors and courses he selects as well as to the ability
and effort he brings to the classroom.
The community colleges in California aim at state
college parity of grades. Junior college faculties are
highly sensitive to maintaining college standards as though
there were some intrinsic, quantified, and universal mean
ing to "college standards." The recent revelation that
one-third of the students at San Francisco State College
received "A" grades in the spring of 1969, that 30 per cent
received "B's," and that only 13 per cent earned "C's" un
derscores the relationship of the grading system to factors
other than the academic abilities of the students. The
academic standards at San Francisco State, if measured by
grades, rose from 2.57 in 1964 to 3.22 in 1969 during the
college-wide strike (9 3).
The chief target of those attempting to change the
31
grading system is the double penalty attached to "F's" and
"D's" by the grade point method of determining probation.
Evaluative systems are in use that have eliminated the pen
alty grades, that have extended the withdrawal date to the
end of the semester, that permit the erasure of previous
grades when courses are repeated, or that allow the drop
ping of failing grades with a change of major.
Grossmont College points out that the high proba
tion and disqualification figures found in most colleges
result from the accumulation of non-qualifying grades.
Their study showed that 43 per cent of all students com
pleting the semester went on probation or were disqualified,
yet only 24 per cent of the day and 18 per cent of the
evening enrollment earned grades below "C." This study
demonstrates the "cumulative nature of academic mortality"
over the normal four or more semesters required for gradua
tion (34) .
The grading system of the College of the Mainland
is illustrative of liberal policy. Starting as a new in
stitution in September of 196 7, it was unencumbered by a
previous grading system. Its basic philosophy was to "help
citizens develop those habits and dispositions required for
effective living in a society of free men and to wage a
constant emotional and intellectual war on authoritarianism
in all of its forms" (132:3). A grading system directly
32
tied to the behavioral objective approach to teaching was
adopted. The symbols "D" and "F" are not included. Incom
plete ("I") means that the student has not completed the
minimum objectives of the course and the teacher contracts
in writing with the student for completion of the require
ments within a specified period of time. "W" and "I" are
used liberally and the only penalty grade is Withdrawal In
complete ("IW") which is computed as zero in the student's
grade point average. The College of the Mainland, after
two years of using this system, feels that it meets the
basic requirements of a "humane" grading policy— that it
has quality control, that it is based on behavioral learn
ing objectives, and that it "encourages students of all
levels of achievement and all conditions of life to attend
the college" (132:5).
Glasser, in Schools Without Failure, maintains that
no student should be labeled a failure or led to believe
that he is a failure through the grading system.
There is nothing radical about not labeling people as
failures. In the armed forces, in athletics, in the
arts, and in fact in most jobs, simple or complex,
total failure is rarely of concern. Rather, we concern
ourselves with levels of success? almost everyone suc
ceeds to some degree in any job. Only in school are
we so definitely labeled failure. (51:95)
While Dr. Glasser's experience is largely on the elementary
and secondary level, he speaks from a wide experience as
an engineer, physician, psychiatrist, and school consultant.
33
There are many valid arguments for the traditional grading
system— incentive, fairness, control of the non-conformist,
parents, and articulation with other institutions. Glasser
maintains that "the price of failure associated with the
present system outweighs even the most valid of these argu
ments" (51:97).
In contrast to the trend, Washington City College
is returning to the traditional forms of grading. In its
first year, 196 8-69, the College had a failure-free system.
Students who traditionally would have failed were given
"deferred" grades that could be changed to passing by addi
tional work. Under this year's grading system, failing
students will be given incompletes with two semesters al
lowed for the removal of the incomplete. The change to the
traditional form occurred because of criticism from the
Washington community that the liberal system was unfair to
the thousands of students that did not get into the college.
The Chairman of the Board states that the decision to re
establish traditional grading was made because all students
could not be accommodated (124). It is significant that
the decision was not made on the basis of the educational
welfare of the students who were enrolled.
In this section on liberalized grading, the litera
ture was reviewed for changes in the grading system that
may effect future probationary and dismissal statistics.
Chapter V of this dissertation records in greater detail
34
the changes in California community college student evalua
tion that were given in response to the questionnaire.
State-Wide Studies of Probation,
Dismissal and Readmission
In the September Report— 1966, subtitled The Flow
of Students into, among and through the Public Institutions '
of Higher Education in California, the Coordinating Council
staff reported statistics on enrollment, probation, and
dismissal from all public segments of higher education in
California (125). This was the first of annual reports
planned to present historical trends in segmental practice.
However, the advisory nature of the Coordinating Council
(99:37) and lack of uniformity of probationary standards
caused difficulties in the collection and interpretation of
the data.
The California Administrative Code in effect at
that time set the minimum standards of scholarship for con
tinuance in the junior colleges at 1.5. Probationary sta
tus was mandated for any student not achieving this grade
point average and any student on probation not achieving a
1.5 average in his next semester was subject to dismissal.
However, of the sixty-four colleges reporting, one-half
based probation upon a GPA of 2.0, one-third upon a GPA of
1.5, one-eighth upon a GPA of 1.75, and two colleges upon a
GPA of 1.6. Furthermore, some colleges used only the pre-
vious semester in calculating GPA and some used accumulated
35
units attempted (125:21).
The recognition of these discrepancies had prompted
the Coordinating Council in October, 1964, to recommend
that the State Board of Education, with the advice of rep
resentative bodies, study probation and dismissal policy in
the junior colleges (108). This eventually resulted in the
revision of the Code into the form set forth in Chapter I
of this dissertation.
The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 are obtained
from the September Report— 1966 and from the unpublished
summaries gathered in November 196 8 by the Coordinating
Council for Higher Education. Since many colleges sub
mitted no data or incomplete data in both 1965 and 196 7,
the tabulated data represents an estimated 90 per cent of
the enrollment in the colleges. However, the proportion in
the various categories in Table 1 and the fractions given
for the change of status as a result of fall-term grades
set forth in Table 2 are of value.
Inspection of Table 1 shows that the fraction of
the total population on probation dropped from 18.6 per
cent in 1965 to 17.9 per cent in 1967. This despite the
fact that the 1965 figure includes the colleges that placed
students on probation at lower grade point averages— as low
as 1.5 in twenty-one colleges. The 196 7 figures follow the
changes in the Code that mandates a 2.0 grade point average
as the lower limit for nonprobationary status. It is note-
36
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS ON PROBATION
IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
FALL TERMS, 1965 AND 1967*
Classification
of Probationary
Student
Number
Enrolled
Number
on
Probation
Per Cent
on
Probation
First-Time Transfer
Fall 1965
Fall 196 7
29,553
32,898
7,289
8,191
24.7
24.9
First-Time Freshmen
Fall 1965
Fall 1967
129,600
146,111
12,636
10,111
9.8
6.9
Special Students
Fall 1965
Fall 1967
16,536
19,858
769
1,559
4.6
7.9
Total
Fall 1965
Fall 1967
340,317
411,478
63,332
73,844
18.6
17.9
*The Fall 1965 information is from September Re
port— 1966. The data for the Fall 1967 were obtained from
unpublished information gathered by the Coordinating Coun
cil for Higher Education in November, 196 8.
TABLE 2
CHANGE IN STATUS OF PROBATIONARY STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
RESULTING FROM FALL TERM GRADES, 1965 AND 1967
Probationary
Status During
Fall Term
Per Cent
Removed from
Probation
Per Cent
Dismissed
Per Cent Not
Completing
Term
Per Cent
Continuing
on Probation
First-Time Transfer
Fall 1965 24.2 20.5 12.7 42.6
Fall 1967 27.7 12.8 16.1 43.4
First-Time Freshman
Fall 1965 26.8 21.2 16.9 35.1
Fall 196 7 25.9 17.2 18.1 38.7
Special Students
Fall 1965 26.4 16.9 10.5 46.2
Fall 1967 19.5 7.3 25.1 '48.1
All Probationary
Students
Fall 1965 20.8 23.7 14.0 41.5
Fall 1967 23.5 18.3 16.5 41.7
u>
38
worthy that one out of four students transferring to the
junior colleges enter on probation. This represents in
part the salvage function of the junior colleges with re
spect to students who have attempted work at four-year col
leges and universitites. Also shown is the fact that one
out of every ten entering freshmen was placed on probation
in 1965 and that this category decreased about 30 per cent
in 1967.
Table 2 gives the results of the fall term grades
on the status of the students who began the term on proba
tion. Approximately a quarter of these students were re
moved from probation in 1967, a slightly better record than
the 20.7 per cent in 1965. Fourteen per cent in 1965 and
16.5 per cent in 1967 did not complete the term. About one
student in four was dismissed for academic reasons bringing
the total attrition from drop-outs and dismissal to about
36 per cent of the total fall enrollment. The remaining
students, about 40 per cent, continued on probation.
The trends that seem to be shown by the data are:
fewer probationary students are being dismissed; more stu
dents are recovering from probation, even though the proba
tionary ceiling has been raised; and the number of students
that withdraw is rising. Dr. Washburn commented in the
September Report— 1966 as follows:
It is significant that almost 20 per cent of the first
time transfers and almost 18 per cent of the first
time freshmen in the 64 junior colleges included in
this analysis were dismissed at the end of the fall____
39
term. This means that some 3,000 junior college
students were dismissed after only one— their first—
semester of attendance. (125:26)
Two studies that appeared in 1965 and 1966 must be
noted for their contribution toward the revision of Title 5
in 196 7. The first of these was produced by the California
State Department of Education (109) and set forth its find
ings in the following areas: requirements for graduation,
probationary and dismissal standards, readmission after
academic dismissal, the permissible load of a probationary
student, and the basis for readmission. The recommenda
tions of the Department are germane to this dissertation
and important because most of them were enacted into law
with the revision of Title 5.
The staff recommended that first-time freshmen be
admitted as provisional students and given adequate and
appropriate counseling, including limitation of load, if
their grade point average in the last three years in high
school was less than 2.0 or if their scores on a college
aptitude test were below an acceptable minimum. It was
also recommended that any student who has at the end of a
semester a grade point average of less than .2.0 for that
semester be placed on probation in the next semester of
attendance. The staff also recommended that a student who
has been on probation two consecutive semesters be subject
to dismissal and that a student dismissed for academic rea
sons not be reinstated until one term has elapsed.
40
The State Department study revealed that 65 per
cent of the colleges gave a student who was on continuous
probation two or more semesters before he was subject to
dismissal. Title 5 as revised has the effect of giving the
poor student three semesters to succeed.
The second study that appeared prior to the Title
5 revision was conducted by the California Junior College
Association Office of Research and Development (90) . In
this study Dr. Merson concludes that "probation-dismissal-
retention standards constituted a complex problem which
probably will not be solved by regulations." He states
that the junior colleges have given sustained attention to
these problems for years and supports this fact with sum
maries of research conducted in twenty-one California col
leges. Some reference will be made to these studies in the
next section of this review of literature under institu
tional research.
Institutional Research on
"Probation and Dismissal-
Annual surveys of the results of probation, reten
tion and disqualification policy are numerous in California
community colleges. These are more meaningful when they
contain comparable data covering several years because the
effect of a change in policy can be shown in the data that
results. Illustrative of this type of institutional re-
search are the reports of Santa Monica (56), Southwestern
41
(24) and El Camino (101).
El Camino's report covers the last ten years and
shows a range of percentage on probation from a low of 11
per cent to a high of 19 per cent. In 196 7 the change in
Title 5 that raised the grade point average to 2.00 for
nonprobation is shown dramatically in a rise in the number
of students on probation— from 12 to 17 per cent of the
total enrollment. El Camino classifies its probationary
students in six ways for further analysis and determines
the fraction of each category that withdraws, recovers from
probation, is disqualified, or is continued on probation.
Southwestern adds an analysis of the number of
units completed and the rank in high school to its study of
probationary students. The charts found in Santa Monica's
survey show the effects of two changes in policy— the elim
ination of the policy of placing students on probation be
cause of poor high school records and the change in policy
which placed students on probation for any grade deficiency
rather than eight or more grade points below a "C" average.
These three surveys are excellent in content and format,
but contain no conclusions or recommendations and the ex
tent that the information is used may be questioned.
Undem and Muck in their analysis of the records of
students entering El Camino on probation from other col
leges clearly stated their purpose of determining the
42
salvage effect of the probation program (134). In the
four-year period of the study, 55 per cent of the proba
tionary transfer students achieved success by either re
moval from probation or graduation. Seventy per cent of
these students transfering from four-year colleges were
successful while only 33 per cent of the junior college
transfers achieved a "C" or better average.
The conclusions of Undem and Much of special inter
est to this doctoral study are: a set rule requiring
transfer students entering on probation to take a reduced
load does not necessarily contribute to their success; the
evidence is inconclusive in showing that time out of school
has any effect on achievement; and the college, with its
flexible policies and procedures, is accomplishing the sal
vage function of the junior college. The last conclusion
agrees with Kintzer (71) who adds that the junior college
"repairs" a defeatist attitude which frequently accompanies
failure and redirects the university drop-out into a cur
riculum in which he can succeed.
Many institutional reports testify to the efficacy
of developmental and remedial programs in the community
colleges (15,39.60). Bakersfield's Program O is reported
to retain 47 per cent of the students for one year (90:3)
while Compton's Three Level Plan results in an 85 per cent
retention for one semester among the lowest level of stu
43
dents. Retention alone is considered a high indicator of
success since proponents of developmental programs state
that several semesters are required to overcome initial
handicaps (72) . Kipps sees a trend from remedial type pro
grams which tend to direct students toward unrealistic
goals to developmental programs in reading, writing, spell
ing and arithmetic which lead directly to employment.
Persistence is the subject of other California com
munity college research. In a four-year study ending in
June 196 8, Los Angeles Valley College (84) found that 15
per cent of the Fall 196 4 class had graduated. The dis
tribution of graduates' SCAT scores roughly paralleled the
SCAT distribution of the original sample with "slightly
fewer students graduating in the lower aptitude groupings"
but with even the lowest represented by some graduates.
The same study reports that 10 per cent of the full-time
students of the original sample were close to graduation
but were unable to graduate because they lacked required
subjects or were deficient in grade points.
Shasta College in a study of persistence did not
find the "undeclared" or "general education" major the high
risk that is generally attributed to indecision (15). This
finding agrees with Baird's study of the undecided student
in which he found no notable difference in academic apti
tude, self-confidence, and aspirations between the decided
and undecided participants. He concludes, "At this age,
44
vocational indecision should be expected" (3).
In a study of retention as related to withdrawal
policy, Vail found that retention was better under the more
liberal of three withdrawal plans. He concluded that the
purpose of the penalty grade system, the encouragement of
and early commitment by the student, was not achieved and
that the more liberal policy would result in fewer student
failures (136) .
Many other institutional studies relate to counsel
ing. Stein in studying the concepts of Los Angeles City
College entrants on probation found them vocationally ori
ented and generally nonsupportive of academic skills and
interests. She concluded that her findings indicated a
need for "effective counseling, with careful planning and
assignment of courses aimed at educational and self-evalua
tive progress" (129). However, in her doctoral study (128)
she found that group counseling and developmental studies
produced few significant shifts in concepts and "no measur
able improvement in academic performance." Kingsley and
Scheller also found that short term forced counseling was
not effective in dealing with underachievement problems
(7) .
In a study of readmitted students at Los Angeles
City College, Birsiri found that the chances of success was
slightly better for a readmitted student than for a regular
45
freshman. Those students who did well in high school but
who did not succeed at the California state colleges or the
University of California, had a high level of success when
admitted to Los Angeles City College. There was no rela
tionship between grade point deficiency and success after
readmission. No value was shown by the data in the common
practice of requiring a student to stay out of college for
a semester before readmission (7).
However, the evidence on the effect of forced ab
sence from school for a semester or more is contradictory.
Campbell and Hahn (22) found that "there is a definite
likelihood of an academic improvement following a period of
absence from the campus." Whether or not this improvement
would have occurred had the students remained in school is
unknown. Students who are readmitted immediately on the
basis of counselors' judgment following academic dismissal
are not typical of all dismissed students and studies of
the success of this group are not valid in answering the
question of the value of forced absence. No study was
found of matched groups in which one group was dismissed
and the other reinstated. Chapter VI of this dissertation
is a report on the success of probationary students who
were absent from college for one semester as compared with
a similar group who continued their college education un
interrupted.
46
Doctoral Dissertations on Probation
Dula studied the probation and suspension policies
and practices of one hundred forty-nine public junior col
leges of the United States for the purpose of determining
if the application of varying policies and practices re-
suited in different educational outcomes. He found that
the relative degree of restrictiveness of policies had
little to do with survival of the student in college. It
appeared that more stringent requirements were placed on
students in academic difficulty than on the general school
population. His findings indicated that placing a student
on probation constitutes a "freeze out" process. Fewer
than 10 per cent of the students placed on probation gradu
ated within a four-year period. Dula states that "the very
act of placing a student on probation was, in itself, tan
tamount to dismissal for over one-third of such students."
Due to the low survival rate and the small number of semes
ter hours earned by students subject to probation, he draws
the conclusion that the study provides little evidence that
policies and practices of academic probation cause students
in difficulty to do better work-(44).
The progress of students subsequent to their place
ment on academic probation was the subject of Kersh's work
at the University of Arkansas (69) . He found that of the
60 per cent of the population under investigation who con
tinued their studies after having been placed on probation,
47
52 per cent recovered from the conditions of probation and
36 per cent subsequently graduated. He concludes that pro
bationary status does have a desirable effect in salvaging
students at the University.
Evidence revealed that changing major or college
was generally followed by improved academic achievement and
probably enhances the chances of graduation. In studying
the effects of permitting two semesters for recovery from
probation, Kersh found that students at the University of
Arkansas did not earn a GPA that was significantly higher
during the second semester following probation than that
which they earned during the first. However, he agrees
with Dula that the students who did return deserved a rea
sonable opportunity to recover and suggested that serious
attention be given to less restrictive regulations concern
ing probation and dismissal policies in an effort to help
conserve worthy students who might otherwise drop out be
fore they had sufficient time to prove themselves.
Kersh states that, using the variables in his study,
it cannot be predicted whether a particular student who is
placed on academic probation will recover from probation,
be dismissed, withdraw, or graduate. Upon readmission, the
dismissed students progressed the same academically whether
readmitted immediately, after one semester, or after one
year. Kersh recommends that students placed on probation
be given academic counseling and apprised of their chances
48
of success in specific curricula.
Wharton studied the students that returned to the
University of Florida after a period of absence that may
have been either voluntary or the result of dismissal.
Among his "implications" are the following that are perti
nent to this research:
Students whose college attendance is interrupted for
scholastic reasons may be expected to achieve at an
improved level, on the average, after they reenter the
University.
No objective measures were discovered that can be used
exclusively to predict success of returning dropouts.
Non-objective judgments gained by counselors and ad
mission officers through interviews and other tech
niques should be given considerable weight in deciding
readmission of students. (140)
Dula and Kersh came to opposite conclusions as to
the benefit of probation, the former finding little evi
dence that probation helped students' scholarship while the
latter.found that probationary status had a desirable af
fect. They agreed that students returning following dis
missal needed a reasonable period for recovery and that less
restrictive probation and dismissal policies might give
deserving students sufficient time to prove themselves.
Summary
It was the purpose of this chapter to present an
overview of the literature and research relating to proba
tion and dismissal policies and practices. In this regard,
three topics are worthy of summation:______________________
49
1. The community colleges in their stated phil
osophy and objectives commit themselves to
broadening the educational opportunities of the
entire community, to strengthening democratic
institutions through education and democratic
practices, and to producing free men whose
lives are rewarding both to themselves and to
society.
2. While the objectives of the community colleges
may be attained by the majority of students, it
is maintained by many writers that the proba
tion and dismissal policies do not fulfill the
purposes for which they are designed. Institu
tional research, state-wide surveys, and doc
toral studies are inconclusive and sometimes
contradictory.
3. The probation system is based upon a tradi
tional grading system adopted from the four-
year institutions. Very little of the recent
literature supports the traditional grading
system. The chief target of those attempting
to change student evaluation is the double pen
alty that a grade of "D," "F" or "WF" causes.
Proponents of change maintain that the grade
point system does not foster greater academic
50
achievement. The use of non-penalty grading
systems is of recent origin in community col
leges and very little data are available, thus
generalization based upon experimental data is
not possible at this time.
CHAPTER III
THE PROCEDURE
The procedures for organizing and implementing this
study of academic probation in California community col
leges included these steps: (1) delineating the area of
study, (2) searching the literature, (3) developing and
circulating the questionnaire, (4) summarizing the findings
from the questionnaire, (5) collecting the data on proba
tion at Harbor College, (6) analyzing the statistical find
ings, (7) organizing the conclusions. These procedures are
discussed in this chapter.
Delineating the Area of Study
The study was concerned with the probation and dis
missal policies in California public community colleges and
the determination of the effectiveness of certain practices.
The complete roster of community colleges operating during
the 196 7-6 8 school year was obtained from the Directory of
California Public Junior Colleges (41). Eighty-three col
leges constituted the complete list and the questionnaire
was mailed to all of these. All colleges responded and
correspondence beyond the questionnaire was carried on with
many of the colleges.
51
52
The effect of three common probationary practices—
the limitation of load, the dismissal of students for one
or more semesters, and counseling a change of major— is the
subject of the statistical analysis carried on at Los
Angeles Harbor College. The College is of medium size,
approximately seven thousand students, with a comprehensive
program covering transfer and terminal curricula, general
and developmental education, and community services. Its
ethnic minorities are about 10 per cent Black, 10 per cent
Mexican-American and 3 per cent Oriental. It draws its
student body from communities that range from disadvantaged
to highly affluent. While no one college is typical of all
California community colleges, it is felt that Harbor Col
lege would represent the middle sector of these institu
tions in most characteristics.
Searching the Literature
The literature was searched for the purpose of de
veloping a thorough understanding of probation and dismis
sal policies, to sharpen the goals of the research, and to
discover methods previously used.
The search for pertinent literature began with the
Education Index and progressed with Psychological Abstracts,
Review of Educational Research, Dissertation Abstracts,
Research Studies in Education, and the Reader's Guide to
Periodical Literature. The Clearinghouse for Junior Col-
53
lege Information (ERIC) at the University of California at
Los Angeles was the source of several institutional studies.
The California State Department of Education and the Coor
dinating Council for Higher Education contributed valuable
data and also the studies which led to the change in Title
5 in 1967.
The search soon revealed that there was little of a
conceptual nature in published literature under the titles
of probation or academic dismissal. Probation policies
were traditional and current literature was either an
attack on the system or reports of research into specific
effects of certain policies. The literature attacking the
system dealt largely with changes in the evaluation of stu
dents, and this resulted in the decision to include changes
in the grading system in this study. These proposed
changes will drastically affect the number of people on
probation and dismissed if the movement grows, therefore it
was deemed pertinent to this study to explore the nature
and extent of these changes in California.
Probation and dismissal research is largely con
fined to studies made within institutions. These ranged
from yearly compilations of the numbers of students in var
ious categories of probation to well designed research
projects yielding valuable findings and recommendations.
The California Junior College Association report on proba-
54
tion-dismissal studies in twenty-one colleges was more com
prehensive .
The doctoral studies in the area were few in number.
Dula (44) studied the effect of restrictiveness on survival
of students placed on probation. The academic progress of
students after being placed on probation was the subject of
Kersh1s work at the University of Arkansas (69). Wharton
(140) studied the students that returned to the University
of Florida after a period of absence.
The search of the literature revealed a divergence
of opinions on the purposes of probation and conflicting
conclusions as to the effects of probationary policies. As
a consequence, it was decided to develop a questionnaire
that would survey the opinions of admissions and guidance
officers in all the California community colleges. It was
further decided to test three common probationary practices
by an analysis of data obtained from Los Angeles Harbor
College.
Developing and Circulating the Questionnaire
From a study of the literature and the author's
experience in community colleges, a preliminary set of
questions dealing with probation, dismissal and readmission
was developed. These topics were discussed in personal in
terviews with admissions and guidance officers at four Los
Angeles colleges— City, Valley, Harbor, and Southwest— and
55
deans at El Camino, Glendale, Long Beach, and Mount San
Jacinto.
This professional counsel led to the development of
the questionnaire in its final form as shown in Exhibit A.
The questionnaire is concerned with three areas. The first
is the purpose or purposes of probation. The admissions
officers agreed generally that counseling, regulating,
"shaping up" the lagging student, and "weeding out" the un
wanted student were the major purposes of probation. The
dean's opinion of the effectiveness of his college policy,
the special counseling and guidance given probationary stu
dents , and the regulations imposed on these students com
plete this area of the survey instrument.
The dismissal policies and the factors considered
when a student applies for readmission after dismissal con
stituted the second major area of inquiry in the question
naire. The third and last section was concerned with
changes in the grading system that would affect the number
of students placed on probation. This section proved to be
an abundant and valuable source of information. Subsequent
correspondence with the colleges dealt almost entirely with
this subject.
The questionnaire and covering letter, Exhibit B,
were mailed to eighty-three colleges on April 16, 1969. A
follow-up letter three weeks later and two telephone calls
brought the responses to 100 per cent.____________________
56
Summarizing the Findings from
the Questionnaire
The data returned by the questionnaire were tabu
lated and the raw scores changed to per cent. Five tables
were required to display the data. These tables are:
1. Purposes that probation policies are designed
to achieve.
2. Assessment of effectiveness of probationary
policy.
3. Forms of counseling and guidance available to
probationary students.
4. The means of regulating loads.
5. Factors determining readmission following
academic dismissal.
The information returned on the question relative
to changes in the grading system (Question number 10) was
extensive and many respondents asked for the results as
soon as available. For these reasons, this material was
placed in a separate chapter titled "Findings Relative to
Changes in Grading Systems That Will Alter Probationary
Statistics."
The objective of the questionnaire was to survey
the purposes and practices of California community colleges
in dealing with students of low achievement. As such the
results are descriptive of current practice and no tests of
statistical significance or validity were applied to the
findings. ___________________________________
57
Collecting the Data for the
Statistical Study
The sample studied consisted of all the students
who entered Harbor College in the fall of 1966 excluding
transfers with experience in other institutions of higher
education. These students were given identification num
bers extending from 48849 to 51683 when they enrolled. The
transfer students were scattered among these in the number
ing system but their data cards were not included in the
analysis. The subtraction of the transfer students left
1998 students in the sample.
The information was collected from a minimum of
three cards for each student in attendance for only one
semester to a maximum of ten cards for those students who
were still in college in June 1969. All the data for each
student was transfered by data processing machines to one
card. The final format and the data accumulated are as
follows:
Columns Data
2 Day or evening student
3-7 SCAT Quantitative and Total score
19 Probationary status on entrance
20-23 Major
2 8-32 Identification number
Units attempted and grade points earned
33-38 Fall 1966
39-44 Spring 1967
45-50 Summer 1967
51-56 Fall 1967
57-62 Spring 1968
63-68 Summer 196 8
69-74 Fall 1968
75-80 Spring 1969 _____________
58
Additional information including birth date, high
school and date of graduation, veteran status, sex, and
previous college attendance was entered on the data card
but was not used in this study. The units attempted and
the grade points earned were entered in six columns for
each semester. For example, columns 33-38 might contain
the numbers 115320 which would mean that the student at^
tempted 11.5 units in the Fall '66 semester and earned 32.0
grade points. The production of the data card involved the
sorting of about 70,000 cards and the transfer of the data
from ten source cards to the final data card described in
the preceding paragraph.
Analyzing the Probationary Statistics
at Harbor College
The survey of the literature and the responses to
the questionnaire prompted the analysis of data on the pro
bationary students at Harbor College. The answers to three
questions were sought.
1. Does limiting the load of probationary students
improve their grade point averages?
2. Does forcing the probationary student to remain
away from college a semester improve his schol
arship?
3. Will a judicious selection of a major increase
the probability of success for the low achiever?
59
Expert assistance was obtained from Dr. Stuart
Friedman, Director of Institutional Studies, California
Polytechnic College, Kellogg-Vourhis Campus, both in the
general plan of the study and in the tests of significance
to be applied. He recommended that the statistical analy
sis be kept as simple as possible.
The first analysis of the data was made to deter
mine the effect of a change in load upon the grade point
average of probationary and nonprobationary students. A
program was written for the IBM 1620 computer which calcu
lated the grade point averages for the Fall 1966 and Spring
196 7 semesters for each of the students in the sample. A
new card was punched with this information and in addition
the units attempted for the same semesters and the students
identification number were transfered to this card. The
new cards were then sorted into five groups according to
the units attempted during the first semester. The groups
were: 15 or more units, 12.0 to 14.5 units, 9.0 to 11.5
units, 6.0 to 8.5 units, and less than 6.0 units. Each of
these groups were in turn sorted into those who had at
tained a 2.00 average during the first semester and those
who had .not. The twelve subgroups were then sorted into
the same unit categories as previously enumerated but ac
cording to the units attempted during the second semester.
To clarify, the first sort produced five major
categories, one of which was all students taking 15 or more
60
units during the fall semester. This group, as well as the
other four, was sorted into probationary and nonprobationary
subgroups as determined by the grade point averages at the
end of the first semester. To carry on the illustration,
the probationary group who carried 15 or more units the
first semester was sorted for the third time into subgroups
according to the units attempted in the second semester.
A second program was written for the IBM 1620 which
counted the number in each subgroup, calculated the mean of
the units attempted, calculated the grade point average for
the subgroup, and calculated the values of t for the change
in the grade point average from semester one to semester
two. All of these data were printed out in approximately
the format found in Tables 8-18 in Chapter VI.
The significance of the difference between the mean
for the first semester and the second semester for all the
subgroups was calculated by a method called the difference
method as given by Ferguson (50:169) and Guilford (63:220).
This test of significance for correlated means, called the
t test, is the ratio between the mean difference over all
the pairs in the subgroup and the standard error. The fol
lowing convenient computational formula for t was used
^[NED2 - (ED)2]/(N-1)
61
where D is the difference between each pair of means and N
is the number of paired samples. The t value so obtained
was compared with critical values of t found in Table B of
Ferguson (50:406).
Tables 8 to 18 in Chapter VI show the effect on the
scholastic average of increasing, decreasing, or maintain
ing the same load for both probationary and nonprobationary
students. The same analysis was run on all the students
without separating them into probationary and nonprobation
ary categories and the data included in the same tables.
The purpose of the second section of the statisti
cal study was to determine the effect of an absence of one
semester on scholastic achievement by comparing the grade
point average of students whose work was interrupted with
the record of students who were in continuous attendance.
The IBM cards of the 199 8 students in the sample were
divided into three groups:
1. Students in attendance in the fall 1966 semes
ter, absent in the spring of 196 7, and back in
the fall of 1967.
2. Students in attendance both fall and spring,
1966-67, absent in the fall of 1967, and back
in the spring of 1968.
3. Students in attendance continuously for three
or more semesters.
The students who did not persist after the first semester
62
did not qualify in any one of these three groups and were
not used in the study.
Each of the three groups was sorted into four sub
groups according to the units attempted during the first
semester. The subgroups were: below 8.5 units, 9.0 to
11.5 units, 12.0 to 14.5 units, and 15 or more units. At
this point the original sample had been divided into twelve
subgroups according to attendance pattern and units at
tempted.
A computer program was written that calculated and
printed out all of the following data:
1. Mean grade point average before and after in
terruption.
2. Average units attempted before and after inter
ruption.
3. Number of students in the group (N).
4. Value of t as calculated by the method for cor
related means as explained in the previous
section.
5. Values for the following which were used to
calculate the significance of the difference
between uncorrelated means.
a. EX1 and EX2— the sums of the grade point
averages for all the students in the sub
groups. (1 and 2 in all symbols will indi-
cate data before and after interruption.)
63
b. EXX1 and EXX2— the sum of the square of the
grade point average for each individual
before and after interruption.
c. BARX1 and BARX2— the mean for the subgroup
calculated by dividing EX1 and EX2 by the
respective N's.
Within each of the twelve subgroups obtained by sorting as
outlined above, a further subdivision was made by the com
puter program. This process divided the students in each
subgroup into four levels of GPA: 0-1.74, 1.75-1.99, 2.00-
2.24, and 2.25-4.00. A clearer understanding of the sub
sets may be gained by study of Tables 20 to 36.
The purpose of the analysis was to compare two sets
of students who were very similar in their initial period
of attendance but differed in that one set skipped a semes
ter and the second set continued in attendance. If an ab
sence for one semester affected the academic achievement of
the students, their GPA should be significantly different
from those students who were in school continuously. To
test this significance, the procedure discussed in Ferguson
(50:16 7) was used. Since these were independent samples,
the unbiased estimate of the population variance was ob
tained by adding together the two sums of squares of devia
tions about the two sample means and dividing this by the
total number of degrees of freedom. From the unbiased
variance estimate, the standard error of the difference
64
between the two means is obtained, which in turn leads to
the calculation of the t ratio. The critical values of t
required for significance at the .05, .01, and .001 levels
will vary, depending on the number of degrees of freedom,
and were obtained by reference to tables of critical values
of t.
Another program was written which accomplished the
purpose outlined above by using the following computational
formulas:
S2 = SXX1 - N1 • BARXl • BARX1 + EXX1 - N2 • BARX2 • BARX2
N1 + N2 - 2
+ _ BARX1 - BARX2
^S2/N1 + Sz/N2
The meaning of the terms and the source of the data is ex
plained on pages 62 and 63.
If the t ratios obtained by this process showed
that the difference between the GPA of interrupted and con
tinuing students is significant, this fact is noted in
Tables 20 to 36 which set forth the grade point averages
and the mean units attempted for all subgroups.
The third and last section of the statistical anal
ysis dealt with the question of whether or not a judicious
selection of a major increases the probability of success
for the student with a low score on the SCAT entrance test.
This analysis determined the chance of obtaining a "C" or
65
better grade with a given SCAT-T score in each of eleven
major subject areas.
The entire sample, 1924 students who had indicated
a major on their original card, was divided into eleven
major categories. Each category was then sorted into the
increasing order of the SCAT-T score. A program was writ
ten for the computer which took each major group and per
formed the following:
1. Separated the group into quarters according
to the SCAT-T score.
2. Calculated the grade point average for each
student.
3. Determined the per cent of students within the
quarter that obtained "C" or better averages
(labeled CHNS 2 in the program and in the
tables).
4. Calculated the mean (X) of the grade point
averages for all the students within the
quarter.
5. Calculated the mean units attempted and the
mean grade point average both during the first
semester and for the entire period of atten
dance for each major category. These are la
beled AUAl, AUA2, GPA1, and GPA2 in the program
and in Tables 37 and 38.
66
6. Printed out all the data approximately in the
format found in the tables.
Organizing the Conclusions
Based upon the findings of the study, conclusions
were drawn relative to the purposes of probation policies
in California community colleges, the implementation of
those policies, and changes that have occurred in grading
practices that will reduce the penalizing effects of the
grade point system. Other conclusions were drawn from the
study of the probation data gathered at Harbor College.
These conclusions and the recommendations formu
lated from them are presented in Chapter VII.
Summary
This chapter on procedures has outlined the tasks
performed in the study. A questionnaire was designed, dis
tributed, and the results analyzed. A statistical study
was made on a large sample of students at one college. The
statistical study related to three common practices in
dealing with students of low achievement— regulating their
load, dismissing them for a semester, and advising them to
change majors. From the findings in the study, conclusions
and recommendations were drawn.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS RELATED TO PROBATION POLICIES IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Probation policy is in the process of change in
California community colleges. The increasing number of
educationally inadequate students on campus and the pres
sure of minority groups in some institutions have caused
the faculty and administrators of many colleges to reassess
their probation policies and practices in the light of
their avowed educational goals.
The purpose of the questionnaire distributed to the
admissions officers of all California junior colleges was
to survey current practices in handling problems of proba
tion, dismissal and readmission. In this chapter the an
swer to each question on the survey will be considered and
the results summarized.
Purposes of Probation
Preliminary discussions with the deans of eight Los
Angeles and Orange County colleges identified the major
purposes of probation as (a) to "weed out" inadequate stu
dents, (b) to "shape up" lagging students, (c) to "identify"
67
68
low achievers for counseling and (d) to "regulate" the pro
gram of low achievers. The terms "weed out" and "shape up"
were objectionable to one respondent. However, they cap-
sulate two thoughts common among college faculties. The
first implies that the probation system should eliminate
students who cannot profit sufficiently by attendance to
warrant continuation in college. The second term, "shape
up," suggests that the student has the ability to do satis
factory work if he so desired.
How did the deans rate the purposes of probation in
their colleges? Reference to Table 3 shows that the
greatest number, 61 per cent, saw identification for coun
seling as the major purpose of their probation policy.
This is not unexpected, since Title 5, Section 131, re
quires that each junior college shall provide individual
counseling and guidance service to students on probation.
Identification for counseling is also the most socially ac
ceptable reason for operating a probation system.
Other responses to the question of which purpose is
of major importance were: to "shape up" lagging students—
17 per cent; to "regulate" the program of low achievers— 15
per cent; and to "weed out" inadequate students— 7 per cent.
Eleven of the respondents did not select a major purpose.
When considering each of the purposes as one of
several purposes, the admissions officers rated them closely
with "shape up" leading with 31 per cent of the responses.
TABLE 3
PURPOSES OF PROBATION POLICIES AS STATED BY DEANS OF ADMISSIONS
' ■ .... “ 1
Per Cent of Deans
Stating that the
Purpose Is:
Major
One of
Several
Not
Important
(No
Response)
Total
To "identify" low
achievers for
counseling
53**
61*
42
21
2.5 2.5 100
To "shape up"
lagging students
14
17
62
31
6 18 100
To "regulate" the
programs of low
achievers
13
15
54
27
11 22 100
C T i
VO
TABLE 3— Continued
Per Cent of Deans
Stating that the
Purpose Is:
Major
One of
Several
Not
Important
(No
Response)
Total
To "weed out"
inadequate students
6
7
42
21
27 25 100
Total*** 100 100
*The number in the lower left corner of each rectangle indicates the rela
tionship between the factors.
**The number in the upper right corner of each rectangle is the per cent
answering major purpose, one of several purposes, not important, or not responding.
***Eighty-three colleges responded to the questionnaire.
-o
o
71
If the total favorable toward a purpose (the sum of major
purpose and one of several purposes) is considered, identi
fication for counseling leads the field and "weeding out"
poor students is of least importance. Twenty-two respon
dents said that the elimination of poor students as a pur
pose of probation was not important. Two people thought
that identification for counseling was of no importance.
Two respondents spoke of probation and consequent
dismissal as a means of reducing enrollment and solving the
space problem. However, write-in comments emphasized the
salvage aspect of probation and dismissal. Two deans noted
that their probation policy prevented a student from fall
ing so low that he could never recover. By counseling the
student, regulating his load, or forcing him to remain out
of school for a semester, these deans felt that the low
achiever could be prevented from accumulating an insur
mountable grade point deficiency. Two respondents noted
that their identification of low achievers gave them the
opportunity to encourage the students and emphasize the
positive aspects of their experience.
The identification of low achievers for counseling
was seen as the major purpose of their probation policy by
six out of ten of the deans of admissions responding to
this question. Only 7 per cent thought the elimination of
poor students of major importance, while 27 per cent said
72
it was not important as a purpose of probation policy. The
respondents recognized the identification of low achievers,
the stimulation of lagging students, the regulation of the
program of low achievers, and the "weeding out" of inade
quate students as the several purposes of probation.
Effectiveness of Probation Policies
How did the admissions officers view the effective
ness of their probation policies? Inspection of Table 4
shows that identification for counseling as a purpose of
probation was adequately or fully achieved according to the
responses of 87 per cent of the respondents. Of those who
saw the elimination of poor students as a purpose of proba
tion, 84 per cent thought this purpose was fully or ade
quately achieved. Seventy per cent thought their probation
system designed for "shaping up" the lagging students was
successful. Eighty-five per cent of the colleges that use
their probation policy to regulate the program of low
achievers stated that their policy fully or adequately
achieved its purpose.
The overall response is 82 per cent for adequate or
full achievement of the purpose of probation. This would
seem to indicate that most admissions officers are well
satisfied with the implementation of policy. The fraction
who thought their policy fully achieved its purpose was
rather low, ranging from none to 15 per cent.
73
TABLE 4
ASSESSMENT BY DEANS OF ADMISSIONS OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBATIONARY POLICY
IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES •
Fully
Purpose Achieved
(per cent)
Adequately
Achieved
(per cent)
Not
Achieved
(per cent)
"Identify" for
counseling 15 72 13
"Shape Up" 0 70 30
"Regulate" 9 76 15
"Weed Out" 13 71 16
•
74
Counseling and Guidance
From Table 5 it can be seen that counselors are
available upon the students’ request in all the colleges
responding to the question. Forty-seven colleges require
students to see a counselor when on probation, while thirty-
six colleges replied negatively or did not respond. Thus
about two-thirds of the colleges take positive steps to
bring the poor students in for help.
A check on the forty-four colleges stating that the
major purposes of probation was the identification of stu
dents for counseling showed that seven felt that they were
fully achieving their goal, that thirty-one assessed their
effectiveness as adequate, and six were dissatisfied with
their achievement. All seven of the colleges fully achiev
ing this purpose require counselor interviews, while of the
six not achieving their goal, two required counseling and
four did not.
Seventeen out of sixty-two colleges responding in
dicated some group counseling. The achievement of individ
ual counselors in working with small groups was noted.
Practices mentioned in response to the questionnaire include
guidance classes, special group counseling for disqualified
and readmitted students, and group counseling for evening
students. El Camino, seeing a need for more effective
counseling, is starting a new approach. Advanced psychology
75
TABLE 5
FORMS OF COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE AVAILABLE
TO PROBATIONARY STUDENTS IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Yes No No Response
Counselors are
available to
those who request
appointments 73* 0 10
Probationary
students are
required to see
the counselor while
on probation 4 7 24 12
Probationary
students are
counseled in
groups 17 45 21
*Numbers indicate checks in each category by re
sponding deans of admissions.
76
students, counselors and some instructors plan to work with
entering students who appear to need help. It is hoped
that the student advisors and the informal group sessions
will be more valuable in relating to the needs of the
students.
In summary, it would seem that about two-thirds of
the colleges require that probationary students see their
counselors and that the rest urge their students in trouble
to avail themselves of counseling help. Three colleges re
ported that counseling sessions are required in theory but
not in practice, that follow-up was inadequate and that
students needing counseling often go without by their own
choice.
Regulation of Load
Section 131 of Title 5 mandates that each junior
college shall provide individual counseling and guidance
service to students on probation, including the regulation
of the student's program. Table 6 shows the responses of
the sixty-one colleges that regulate the load of probation
ary students in some way. Forty-six, or 75 per cent of
those who regulate, restrict the unit load of poor students.-
Twenty-five per cent require that probationary students
take developmental or remedial courses, while only 21 per
cent deny access to certain courses.
Inspection of Table 6 seems to indicate that the
77
TABLE 6
METHODS OF REGULATING THE LOAD OF
PROBATIONARY STUDENTS AS STATED
BY DEANS OF ADMISSIONS
Number of Number of
Colleges Using Colleges Not
Each Method Responding*
Probationary students are
restricted in the number
of units they can take 46 37
Probationary students are
required to take certain
developmental courses 15 6 8
Probationary students
cannot take certain
courses 13 70
*Twenty-two colleges did not regulate probationary
students' loads in any way.
78
junior colleges do not strongly regulate loads of proba^
tionary students. The comments of admissions and guidance
officers on regulation of load ranged from disdain to
strong support.
Paul C. Gould of Sacramento City College wrote in
replying to the questionnaire,
We have found that it doesn't make a bit of difference
whether a student carries the magic load of 12 units
(which used to be our limit for a student on probation)
or 16, or 18 units. He will succeed as quickly with
16 as he will with 12. Some of your other choices on
this sheet, for example, developmental courses, don't
develop any more than remedial courses remediate.
On the other hand, Compton College, after five
years of experience, strongly supports its three-level pro
gram. Students are tested at matriculation and assigned by
counselors to one of three levels:
Level I: students scoring 89 and below on the Purdue
University English examination, and 10% and
below on the total SCAT score; or non-high
school graduates; or high school graduates
with 2.0 or less grade point average.
Level II: students scoring 90-119 on the Purdue and
11-39% on the total SCAT score.
Level III: students scoring 120 and above on the Purdue
and 40% and above on the total SCAT score.
(114:32)
Level I students, if they score below 90 on the
Purdue test, are placed in Communications 200, a remedial
English course. The program is planned to provide an op
portunity for exploration in an interest field in addition
to remedial work in basic skills. Level I courses are
79
offered in speech, psychology, social problems, arithmetic,
painting, biology, and geography. In its effort to salvage
students of low academic potential or meager achievement,
the Level I program relies heavily upon its broad curricu
lar offerings to stimulate academic endeavor. At the same
time, the course work in English is strictly prescribed,
dependent on grades and test scores, and the student is
limited to courses designed for young adults but taught at
the educational level that will maximize learning.
The Level II program provides for those studying
for an associate in arts degree and a temporary place for
those attempting to qualify for the transfer program by
taking remedial courses and necessary prerequisites.
The Level III student is ready for any transfer or
vocational program offered by the college (72).
The El Camino probation program is unusual in that
a student who earns a grade point average below 2.0 during
his probationary semester is placed on "Continued Proba
tion." Under this classification, he is limited to the
number of courses passed in his probationary semester with
"C" or better grade (48:36). This practice is based on the
belief that the student will do better at a reduced load, a
hypothesis that is tested in this study and reported in
Chapter VI.
Thus it can be seen that opinions on regulation of
80
the load of poorer students is widely divergent. The pic
ture is clouded in some colleges by charges that the track
system is "racist." As a result of the questionnaire, it
can be said that responses indicate that forty-six colleges
restrict probationary students in the number of units they
can take, fifteen colleges require enrollment in develop
mental courses, while in thirteen colleges poor students
cannot take certain courses.
The Third Chance
California community colleges are committed to the
open-door policy and the salvage function. This section
deals with the third chance— the opportunity of the dis
missed student to return and the factors that determine his
acceptance.
Five admissions officers stated that none of their
probationary students was dismissed. Sixty-five (or 94 per
cent) indicated that some with grade point deficiences were
disqualified. Title 5 of the California Administrative
Code declares that a student who has a grade point average
of less than 1.75 for units attempted in each of three con
secutive semesters is subject to dismissal unless circum
stances relating to that student warrant an exception. It
is mandatory that the governing board adopt rules setting
forth the circumstances that warrant exceptions. It was
the intent of the State Board of Education to establish
81
minimum standards and encourage the local colleges to give
a student up to three semesters to succeed. Catalog state
ments show that many colleges allow only two semesters be
fore classifying students as subject to dismissal.
However, this seemingly stricter interpretation of
dismissal standards is negated by the responses of forty-
nine colleges (78 per cent) who immediately readmit some
students following dismissal. Fourteen respondents de
clared that they readmitted no dismissed students immedi
ately .
Sixty-seven admission officers stated that dis
missed students who were not immediately readmitted were
required to stay out of college one semester. Two colleges
on the quarter system required only a one-quarter lay out,
while three colleges dismissed students for two quarters.
Four colleges disqualified students for a full academic
year. One large suburban college stated that the dismissed
student cannot re-enroll until he has earned eight units of
"B's" in extension courses.
Readmission
The factors determining readmission following aca
demic dismissal included in the survey were: relationship
of units completed to grade point deficiency, high school
history, major at time of dismissal, a change of major,
employment while dismissed, socioeconomic factors, draft
82
status, and "other factors" to be named. These factors
were selected after consultation with the eight deans of
admission interviewed preliminary to the writing of the
questionnaire.
One area, the change in the student's attitude and
motivation, is noticeably lacking, not because it is un
important— all would agree that it is very important— but
no one can suggest a practical and quantitative measure of
this change. Thus it is left to the subjective judgment of
counselors or academic standards committees where the ex
perience of the staff and the depth of the discussion may
raise the probability of successful selections above that
of chance.
Consideration of the factors that respondents
thought very important, as shown in Table 7, indicates that
a change to an academically easier major was most important
in readmitting a dismissed student (26 per cent). Close
behind in importance was the major at the time of dismissal
(2 3 per cent) and the relationship of units completed to
grade point deficiency (20 per cent). Few deans of admis
sion consider the student's high school history or draft
status as very important in readmitting him after dismissal.
Of the factors listed, the draft status was not
considered by 57 per cent. That 43 per cent of the respon
dents should consider the draft at all may surprise some,
83
TABLE 7
FACTORS UPON WHICH READMISSION IS BASED
AS STATED BY DEANS OF ADMISSIONS
Relative Importance
of Factors
Very
Important
(Per Cent)
Considered
(Per Cent)
Not
Considered
(Per Cent)
(a) Relationship of
units completed
to grade point
deficiency 20*
30** 61
17 7
9
(b) High school
record
4
7
62
14 21
31
(c) Major at time
of dismissal
23
39 55
13 9
6
(d) A change to an
academically
easier major 26
40 57
15 2
3
(e) Employment
while dismissed
11
17 58
15 18
25
(f) Socioeconomic
factors
11
18 74
17 6
8
(g) Draft status
5
8 35
9 ' 41
57
*The number
tangle indicates the
in the lower left corner of each
relationship between the factors.
rec-
**The number in the
rectangle indicates the per
sidered, and not considered
upper right corner of each
cent answering important,
for the factor.
con-
84
but no more than the one dean who replied that athletic
eligibility was considered. Thirty-one per cent do not
consider high school record, probably because it is super-
ceded by the student's college record. That 25 per cent
did not consider the employment of the student while dis
missed may be an omission of a valuable indicator of change.
Several references to summer school grades and work
at adult schools, extension division and other institutions
indicate the importance of these in the student's attempt
to be reinstated. One dean proposed that only the with
drawal record be considered in reinstatement. He would
place on probation students who did not complete two-thirds
of all the units that they were enrolled in at the census
week. A student not completing two-thirds of his program
during a second semester would be dismissed. Reinstatement
would presumably be made on the extent of his withdrawal
record during these two semesters.
Seven respondents indicated that they allowed the
dismissed student to return, regardless of the factors
listed, after a period out of college. Sacramento City
College responded,
We consider all the factors you have listed. Again,
we have found through experimentation that when we
take a certain number of students and readmit them
immediately after disqualification, and make another
group of students sit out a semester, the group we
readmit does better than the group that sits out for
the semester. Therefore, there must be a better way
to do it than having students stay out of school for a
length of timebecause it simply does not do the job.
85
In summary, the questionnaire revealed that admis
sions officers consider a change to an academically easier
major, the major at the time of dismissal, and the rela
tionship of units completed to grade point deficiency most
important when readmitting a student after a period of
forced absence. Draft status, high school record, and em
ployment while dismissed seem to be less important as cri
teria of readmission. While the socioeconomic condition of
the student was considered by more admissions officers than
any other factor, it ranked fourth as a very important fac
tor in being readmitted to school after academic dismissal.
Summary
This chapter summarizes the results of the ques
tionnaire sent to the deans of admissions of all California
community colleges. The questionnaire was designed to
probe the purposes and effectiveness of probation and dis
missal policies.
The identification of low achievers for counseling
was seen as the major purpose of probation policies by six
out of ten colleges responding. Only one in ten said that
the elimination of poor students was of major importance.
The respondents were well satisfied with the effectiveness
of their probation policies, four-fifths stating that their
policies were completely or adequately achieved.
Counseling is required of probationary students at
86
the majority of colleges. The rest urge students on proba
tion to seek the help of counselors. Three colleges re
ported that counseling sessions are required in theory but
in practice many students avoid counseling even though it
is readily available.
The majority of colleges do regulate the load of
probationary students. Forty-six colleges limit the number
of units that can be taken, fifteen require enrollment in
developmental classes, while thirteen colleges restrict
enrollment to certain classes.
When readmitting students following academic dis
missal, college deans of admissions placed greatest weight
on the academic major and the relationship between units
completed and grade point deficiency. Socioeconomic fac
tors do play a part in readmission, while high school rec
ord, draft status, and employment while dismissed are of
lesser importance.
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CHANGES IN
GRADING SYSTEMS THAT WILL ALTER
PROBATIONARY STATISTICS
Many California community colleges have moved from
the traditional grading system and have implemented non
penalty plans. It is the purpose of this chapter to report
the answers to the question, "Are you now pursuing or ex
perimenting with a grading policy that will change the num
ber of students on probation (for example, giving only "A,"
"B," "C," and "W" grades or allowing students to drop cer
tain grades upon a change of major)?"
Eighty-one college deans of admissions responded to
this question. Fifty-five answered in the affirmative—
that they either had a policy or were experimenting with
one that would reduce the number of penalty grades. Their
answers fall into five general categories: liberalized
withdrawal, credit/no-credit grading, forgiveness of pen
alty grades, elimination of "F" grades, and replacement of
penalty grades by repetition of courses.
Liberalized Withdrawals
The proponents of liberalized withdrawal claim a
8 7 _______________ _________
88
number of advantages for the system. They say that the
student is not irrevocably locked into a grading system
over which he has no control— that it places the responsi
bility on the student for the grade he receives in the
class. It is maintained that fear of failure in a student
already uncertain of his ability is a poor means of motiva
tion and acts to reduce his chances of success. Proponents
add that a single neutral withdrawal grade would clarify
misinterpretations of "WU" and "WF" and end the confusion
on withdrawal deadlines.
Furthermore, it is claimed that unlimited with
drawal would encourage the exploration of courses in which
the student has had no previous work and thus no way of
determining his ability to succeed. Supporters of unlim
ited withdrawal claim that successful students cannot be
produced from unsuccessful ones in one or two semesters,
and that punitive grades encourage drop-outs and negate the
salvage function of the community colleges (100).
The arguments against a liberalized grading system
are usually of a more practical nature (15:14). It is
argued that many community colleges will not be able to en
roll all applicants, and thus it is unwise to retain stu
dents whose progress is questionable when better students
are turned away. It is felt that such a system would
greatly increase the withdrawal rate which would accentuate
the problem of full teaching loads at the beginning of the
89
semester and a lack of students in the later weeks. It is
the opinion of opponents of unlimited withdrawals that
irresponsibility would be encouraged and that students
capable of doing acceptable work would take the easy with
drawal route out rather than do a reasonable amount of
study.
In spite of the sound arguments against liberalized
withdrawal policies, at least twenty colleges have moved
the deadline of withdrawal without penalty from early in
the semester to the eighth, twelfth, or even the twentieth
week. Three colleges indicated non-penalty withdrawal
deadlines from the fifteenth to eighteenth weeks. Eight
colleges allow unrestricted withdrawal up to the final ex
amination. Barstow College (26) has discarded the arbi
trary "drop period" and is permitting "free rein to the in
structors on dropping students without prejudice at any
time." Grossmont College policy (137) is similar in that
"the 'W' may be 'instructor assigned' at the close of the
semester."
Going even further, Laney College policy mandates
that all students who drop officially or unofficially at
any time during the semester must receive a "W" grade. A
student may drop a class even after taking the final exami
nation. Santa Barbara indicates it is studying the Laney
policy. Gavlin College operates its grading system on a
90
similar nonpunitive basis and does not issue grades of
"F." "W" grades are substituted for "F's" or for "Incom-
pletes" that are not made up.
San Jose City College has a unique policy of giving
a student the option of receiving a grade of "N" (equiva*-
lent to a "W") for any particular letter grade he might
otherwise receive. A form submitted to the instructor by
the student requests that an "N" grade be recorded on the
permanent records if the final grade falls below a specific
grade. The student signs that he understands that no
credit will be received and attendance meets no prerequi
site for other courses. It must be recognized that a stu
dent may choose to receive a "D" grade to meet a prerequi
site or to satisfy the load requirements for draft defer
ment, veteran benefits, or other obligations. Thus a sys
tem that does not include the grade of "D" may be punitive
for a student who earns a "D" and needs it.
Napa College gives "W" grades to all students who
do not take the final examination. Thus a student may
choose not to receive a low grade by simply not taking the
final. This policy "will eliminate the confusion that now
exists because a student is never certain he has been with
drawn from class and at times receives a surprise 'F' for a
course he has never attended" (100).
When Shasta College moved to a liberalized with
drawal policy, allowing withdrawal up to the final examina-
91
tion, the faculty was concerned that the number of with
drawals would increase alarmingly. A study completed in
June 1968 of the grades of 12,000 students showed an in
crease of withdrawal grades from 18 per cent in Fall 1966
to 25 per cent in Fall 1967. However, the penalty grades
("D," "F," and "WF") fell from 11 per cent to 5 per cent.
As a result, the percentage of withdrawal and penalty
grades combined changed only from 29 per cent to 30 per
cent when the liberalized withdrawal system was implemented.
The grade point average for first-time and full-time fresh
men rose from 1.96 in Fall 1966 to 2.37 in Fall 1967.
Brooks concludes that the unlimited withdrawal policy was
successful, that students did not use the option of with
drawal irresponsibly, that there was no significant de
crease in the percentage of "C" or better grades, and that
the faculty supports the liberalized policy (15:19).
Credit/No-Credit
Many colleges are offering credit/no-credit grades
under a variety of circumstances. The University of Cali
fornia at Los Angeles allows an undergraduate in good
standing to enroll in one course each quarter on a "passed/
not passed" basis. A grade of "passed" is awarded only for
work which would otherwise receive a grade of "C" or better.
Courses taken on a passed/not passed basis are disregarded
in determining a student's grade point average. Even
92
though the University and State College systems have given
academic respectability to credit/no-credit, and Title 5
officially permits this practice, the junior colleges have
not moved rapidly in this field.
Seventeen colleges indicated that they are using
credit/no-credit plans. Rio Hondo Junior College exempli
fies credit/no-credit policies, allowing any student to en
roll in one course each semester on a credit/no-credit
basis. Its policy is designed to encourage students to ex
plore courses in areas of special interest but in which
they feel they may lack competence. Credits earned on this
basis count toward graduation requirements but are not com
puted in the grade point average. The designation "Credit"
is substituted for letter grades "A," "B," "C," and "D"
assigned by the instructor; "F" and "Incomplete" are desig
nated "No-credit" on the permanent record. Students re
questing a credit/no-credit grade may elect at a later time
in the semester to receive a letter grade in the course, but
must notify the Admissions and Records Office approximately
five weeks before the end of the semester. The student may
be permitted, at the discretion of the Admissions Office,
to change a "Credit" grade to the letter grade originally
awarded by the instructor.
Grossmont College permits the student to choose
credit/no-credit grades after the final examination. At
Sacramento City the teacher reports both letter grades and
93
credit/no-credit grades for those students electing the
latter. If the letter grade is a "B" or better, the stu
dent may request that the "Credit" be changed to the letter
grade.
The credit/no-credit policy not only allows a stu
dent to explore subjects in which he is uncertain of suc
cess, but, in those cases in which the evaluation can be
changed to a letter grade after the final test, it allows
the student to retain the benefit of "B" or better grades
and to reject "D's" and "F's" which would reduce his grade
point average. The A, B, C, No-Credit policy used in some
courses at Orange Coast and tried experimentally at Harbor
and other colleges accomplishes this same purpose. This
policy does penalize the student who needs a passing "D"
grade for athletic eligibility, draft deferment, etc.
While some colleges warn of the danger that "Credit'
courses may not be accepted at other colleges, the Univer
sity of California gives full credit to junior college
credit grades upon transfer. Junior college transfers who
were scholastically ineligible at the time of high school
graduation are limited to only fourteen units on a credit/
no-credit basis. Forty-two units must have letter grades
from which the grade point average can be calculated. Thus
the minimum requirement at the University of California of
fifty-six semester units of transferable work with at least
a 2.4 grade point average can be met with forty-two units
94
with letter grades and fourteen units on a credit/no-credit
basis. Departments within the University may require repe
tition of courses in preparation for their major if those
courses are taken on a credit/no-credit basis (135) .
The California State Colleges state that the "na
ture of grades assigned or the means by which credit is
earned will have no bearing on our credit-granting policies
so long as credit is awarded by the junior college for its
own courses" (19).
While some state colleges may count "No-Credit"
grades as "F," Los Angeles, Fullerton, Long Beach, San Fer
nando, and Dominguez do not. These five simply line out
"No-Credit" classes, counting neither units nor grades in
the calculation of grade point average.
Credit/no-credit grading policies are usually
adopted to permit an average or better student to explore
fields of knowledge in which he is uncertain of his ability
to obtain a grade that will not lower his grade point aver
age. For the student of lower ability who may anticipate a
"D," it is not only a nonpunitive grade, but it may be the
deciding factor in his exploration of unknown areas.
Forgiveness of Penalty Grades
Changes in the California Administrative Code,
Title 5, in 1966 opened the door to the forgiveness of "F"
grades. Section 131.7 of the Code reads:
95
(a) The governing board of a school district maintain
ing a junior college shall confer the degree of
associate in arts upon the satisfactory completion
in grades 13 and 14 of from 60 to 64 semester hours
of work in a curriculum which the district accepts
toward the degree (as shown by its catalog) . . .
(18:84.2)
This paragraph is interpreted to mean that a student can
exclude penalty grades received in courses not included in
the curriculum in which he wishes to graduate.
It was the intent of the advisory committee to the
State Board of Education that the forgiveness clause apply
only to two-year curricula, but the law as actually written
can apply to transfer majors as well (20). The California
State Department of Education clarified this point in a
communique to all colleges. It stated that while Section
131.7 makes forgiveness of "F" grades mandatory with change
of major, the college maintains control of the curricula in
which the law is applicable. The State Board of Education
in writing the Code felt that a student who tried a trans
fer program and failed should not be penalized to such an
extent that he would never be able to get a two-year ter
minal degree (21). Ten colleges indicated on the question
naire that they were implementing this legislation.
In the application of this forgiveness clause, a
college may restrict the number of major changes, as Mt.
San Jacinto does, and usually warns the student that failing
grades will not be forgiven by four-year institutions.
Nevertheless, many students in California junior colleges
96
are raising their grade point average by changing the ma
jors in which they graduate.
Elimination of "F" Grades
Five colleges report that they have eliminated "F"
grades. The College of Marin has only four grade symbols—
"A," "B," "C," and "NC"— while Gavilan and Contra Costa use
only the letters "A," "B," "C," "D," and "W." The elimina
tion of the "D" grade may be punitive for students who need
a full load for athletic eligibility or draft deferment.
Porterville gives no failing grades until the final
examination. If a student does not take the final, the
instructor has the option of ruling that the grade be "F."
However, during the trial semester, Spring 1969, no "f 's"
were given to withdrawing students (6 8).
Barstow College gives "A," "B," "C," "W," with a
student option of an earned "D" in non-transfer courses.
The Dean of Students at Barstow College writes:
I feel strongly that this trend (in nonpunitive
grading) is important in breaking an arbitrary and
puritanical rigidity that is inimical to the basic
needs and purposes of the community college. I be
lieve that ideally a grade should indicate that a
given student achieved a given level of competence in
a specific area at a given point in time. An "F" is
simply a negative indication. We need to know the
positive elements. The wide range of preparation of
our incoming students alone would predict the possi
bility of myriad negative measurement points. As
part of a permanent record these are useless if not
damaging. (2 7)
Many colleges report that they are studying grading
97
systems that do not include "F's." Four colleges stated
that they are experimenting in limited areas with non
penalty grading to test the reaction of the faculty and
students to the elimination of "D's" or "D's" and "F's."
The Advisory Committee on Afro-American and Mexican-
American Studies of Los Angeles Community Colleges states
the case for the abolition of "F" grades in a recommenda
tion to the Council of Presidents:
Many minority students have faced enough failure in
life without having them receive enforced "F's." The
"F" grade should be done away with, keeping the "A,"
"Bf" "c," "D," and non-accreditation or NO CREDIT
(N.C.) system instituted. The latter is favored over
the present "Incomplete" grading system, which auto
matically turns into an "F" after a year's time,
thereby also continuing to punish students. The con
sensus of the committee is that punitive grades are
pointless, e.g., "F" grades encourage college dropouts.
It is^ time to reevaluate the total grading system in
contemporary America in our educational system. (W6)
Replacement of Penalty Grades by
Repetition of Courses
When students at Hartnell College repeat a course
in which they have earned a "D" or an "F" grade, the grade
received upon repetition is accepted in place of the estab
lished earlier grade. The first grade is lined out, not
erased, on the transcript. Neither the units nor grade
associated with the first attempt will be included in com
puting the student's grade point average. A student cannot
erase a poor grade earned at another college, nor can
course work transferred to Hartnell replace grades earned
98
at Hartnell. A course may be repeated only once.
Four other colleges follow similar policies, with
the most liberal allowing students to repeat any course and
count the better grade. The junior colleges are not alone
in this practice. Students at Sacramento State College may
repeat courses in which they have earned penalty grades.
The grade earned in the second or last enrollment will be
used to determine the grade points earned for that particu
lar course. Courses may be repeated more than once only
with the permission of the advisor, instructor, department
head, and school dean or division chairman (116).
In the University of California system, an under
graduate who repeats a course in which he received a "D" or
"F" will have his grade point average computed on the most
recently earned grades and grade points. Only sixteen
quarter units can be used for replacement of penalty grades.
In the case of further repetition, the grade point average
is based on all grades assigned and total units attempted.
A regulation adopted by the Board of Admissions and Rela
tions with Schools extends this privilege to courses taken
in the community college by transferring students (94:22).
Summary
The California community colleges are pursuing or
experimenting with nonpenalty grading systems that will
reduce the number of students on probation. Sixty-eight
99
per cent of the respondents were trying some form of lib
eralized withdrawal, credit/no-credit grading, forgiveness
of penalty grades, elimination of "F" grades, or replace
ment of penalty grades by the repetition of courses.
The greatest number of changes seem to be in the
area of liberalized withdrawal. While some colleges have
made modest changes, moving the withdrawal-without-penalty
date to the eighth, twelfth, or sixteenth week, other col
leges have made drastic changes that allow the student to
choose a withdrawal rather than a penalty grade, even after
the final test results are known. Obviously when "D's" and
"F's" are replaced with non-penalty "W's," the student's
grade point average will be higher. Respondents who sup
port liberalized withdrawal stress the advantages to the
student in allowing him to explore courses in which he
fears failure without jeopardizing his grade point average.
Opponents of liberalized withdrawal point out that poor
students may remain in college while better students are
turned away because of increasing enrollment and inadequate
budgets.
Credit/no-credit plans are in operation in many
colleges and have received the academic blessing of the
university and state college systems in California. Penalty
grades are being forgiven when students change their major.
Five colleges report that they have eliminated "F" grades,
retaining only the symbols "A," "B," "C," and "NC" or "A"
100
"B," "C," "D," and "W." And, lastly, penalty grades are
being replaced, upon the repetition of courses, in several
community colleges, the state college system, and the Uni
versity of California.
CHAPTER VI
STATISTICAL FINDINGS RELATIVE TO LOAD
LIMITATION, A SEMESTER'S ABSENCE,
AND THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS
This chapter reports the answers to three questions.
Does limiting the load of probationary students improve
their grade point averages? Do the probationary students
who remain away from college a semester improve their schol
arship when they return? Will a judicious selection of a
major increase the probability of success for poorer stu
dents?
Over half the deans of admissions reported that
their college limited the load of probationary students .
This reflects the intuitive feelings of many faculty mem
bers and students that if a student is doing poorly with a
load of fifteen units, he will do better if his load is re
duced to twelve. In the first part of this statistical
study, students taking a given range of units, for example,
twelve to fourteen and one-half, and getting probationary
grades in their first semester, were grouped in their sec
ond semester according to whether they had increased their
load three units, retained the same load, or reduced their
101
102
load. The effects of this change in load on grade point
average is reported in the next section.
Finding an answer to the second question is diffi
cult. How can the effect of a one semester absence be as
sessed? If a policy is followed which dictates that all
students who do not achieve a 2.00 GPA in two semesters are
dismissed, there is no group left of comparable character
istics with which to compare them. When they return, they
may be different, but would they have been different had
they remained in school? The problem is similar to assess
ing the rehabilitation value of the death penalty. Either
the experimental or the normative group is eliminated.
Recognizing these limitations, a group that would
be subject to dismissal in some colleges but were not sub
ject to dismissal at Harbor College was analyzed. Within
this group there were many students who did interrupt their
education. An assumption is made that if a forced inter
ruption is of academic value, some part of this value should
appear among students who interrupt their work for other
reasons and be reflected in an improved grade point average
after the interruption.
It must be emphasized that the data are used only
to determine if an interruption improves subsequent grades.
Probationary students may be dismissed for other valid rea
sons. They may be displacing better students when class
rooms are crowded. They may be lowering the academic level
103
of the course or the curriculum. However, this analysis
tests only the hypothesis that an interruption will improve
the academic achievement of the student.
The last section of this chapter deals with the
relative accomplishments of approximately two thousand stu
dents in eleven categories of majors. Besides listing the
average units attempted and the mean grade point average in
these eleven categories, the data are analyzed to give the
probability of obtaining a "C" or better average in each
major category and in each SCAT quartile within that cate
gory.
The Effect of a Change in Load upon the
Grade Point Average of Probationary
and Nonprobationary Students
This section of the study was designed to determine
if a decrease in the units a probationary student carries
results in an improved grade point average. The null hy
pothesis was stated as follows: "There is no significant
difference between a student's first and second semester
grade point average when (a) his load is maintained at the
same level, (b) his load is increased, or (c) his load is
decreased."
The two thousand students in the study were first
divided into five groups according to the load carried in
their entering semester, the fall of 1966. The five groups
were: 15 or more units, 12.0 to 14.5 units, 9.0 to 11.5
104
units, 6.0 to 8.5 units, and less than 6.0 units. Five
subgroups are found in each table. These represent the
units attempted during the second semester and are grouped
in the same unit categories as noted above.
Table 8 sets forth the data on probationary stu
dents attempting fifteen or more units during their first
semester. When these students carried the same load the
second semester, their grade point average improved .24
grade points. When they decreased their load three units,
their improvement was .31 grade points. Decreasing the
load six units resulted in an improvement of only .06
grade points. Further decreases in the second semester
load resulted in lower grades during that semester. Thus
probationary students who carried the same load or reduced
their load only three units improved their grade point
average, with the latter making slightly greater improve
ment.
To determine if this improvement of grade point
average during the second semester was common to all stu
dents, the records of nonprobationary students were ana
lyzed in the same way. Table 9 shows that the reverse is
true. All subgroups received lower grades during the sec
ond semester. The 102 students carrying fifteen or more
units dropped .25 points, a drop significant at the .001
level.
In Table 10 the change in the grade point average
TABLE 8
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF PROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING 15 OR MORE UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup Values of
Spring '67 Fall *66 Spring '67 Fall *66 Spring '67
t
< 6.0 8 15.9 3.8 1.48 1.33 - .26
6.0 - 8.5 9 16.2 7.5 1.57 .96 - 2.02
9.0 - 11.5 24 16.0 10.5 1.43 1.49 + .51
12.0 - 14.5 46 16.0 13.3 1.65 1.86 + 3.39^
>15.0 29 16.1 16.0 1.47 1.71 + 2.24^
♦Significant at the 5 per cent level.
♦♦Significant at the 1 per cent level.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
105
TABLE 9
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING 15 OR MORE UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
= ■ ■ - — t--“
Values of
t Spring 16 7 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
< 6.0 3 16.0 3.3 2.24 1.00 - 2.04
6.0 - 8.5 9 15.8 7.7 2.60 2.10 - 2.25^
9.0 - 11.5 16 15.9 10.5 2.40 1.95 - 3.43^
12.0 - 14.5 69 16.1 13.5 2.42 2.25 - 2.55^
>15.0 102 16.2 16.3 2.55 2.30 - 5.19***
*Significant at the 5 per cent level.
♦♦Significant at the 1 per cent level.
♦♦♦Significant at the 0.1 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester .
106
TABLE 10
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF ALL STUDENTS CARRYING 15 OR MORE UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t
Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
<6.0 11 15.9 3.6 1.69 1.25 - 1.23
6.0 - 8.5 18 16.0 7.6 2.08 1.54 - 3.06**
9.0 - 11.5 40 16.0 10.5 1.81 1.67 - 1.27
12.0 - 14.5 115 16.1 13.4 2.11 2.09 - .47
>15.0 131 16.1 16.2 2.31 2.17 - 2.88^
♦♦Significant at the 1 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
H
o
10 8
for all students, both probationary and nonprobationary, is
summarized. It shows that a decrease of three units in the
load does not improve the grade point average. However,
this subgroup did drop less than any other subgroup.
The data on students carrying twelve to fourteen
and one-half units (Tables 11-13) are the most important in
answering the question posed in the first section of the
study. This group represents the most numerous and most
typical of full-time junior college students. It also in
cludes data on the effect of increasing the load.
Inspection of Table 11 reveals that maintaining the
same load or increasing the load three units improved the
grade point average a statistically significant amount.
Decreasing the load three units produced only a four hun
dredths change, which was not significant. Decreasing the
load six units did improve the GPA but the t test for cor
related means did not show significance.
Table 12 deals with the nonprobationary student and
shows that this group consistently dropped in grade point
average during their second semester. The negative change
is significant at the .05 level for students who took three
units more, the same load, or three units less.
To investigate the fact that the poor students im
proved their grade point average in the second semester,
the probationary students carrying 12.0 to 14.5 units were
further subdivided into those achieving a 1.75 GPA and
TABLE 11
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF PROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING 12.0-14.5 UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Siab group
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
< 6.0 12 13.1 4.3 1.25 1.18 - .45
6.0 - 8.5 27 13.3 7.1 1.33 1.57 + 1.48
9.0 - 11.5 56 13.4 10.3 1.48 1.52 + .45
12.0 - 14.5 71 13.4 13.3 1.56 1.73 + 2. n**
>15.0 32 13.5 16.0 1.54 1.75 + 2.24^
*Significant at the 5 per cent level.
♦♦Significant at the 1 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
109
TABLE 12
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING 12.0-14.5 UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
< 6.0 1 13.5 3.0 2.15 .00 .00
6.0 - 8.5 9 12.9 7.3 2.61 2.51 - .33
9.0 - 11.5 41 13.3 10.6 2.37 2.21 - 2.25*
12.0 - 14.5 76 13.4 13.4 2.36 2.23 - 2.37*
>15.0 64 13.4 16.2 2.40 2.29 - 2.05*
♦Significant at the 5 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
110
TABLE 13
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF ALL STUDENTS CARRYING 12.0-14.5 UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall *66 Spring '67
< 6.0 12 13.1 4.3 ,1.25 1.18 - . 45 •
6.0 - 8.5 36 13.2 7.12 1.65 1.81 + 1.18*
9.0 - 11.5 97 13.4 10.4 1.86 1.81
-
. 92 •
12.0 - 14.5 147 13.4 13.4 1.97 1.99 + . 26 •
>15.0 96 13.4 16.1 2.11 2.10
-
.11*
*No statistically significant change in grade point average.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
Ill
112
those below 1.75. The results of this analysis are given
in Table 14. While all the subgroups improved their grades,
those students that were carrying more than twelve units
but were below 1.75 in grade point averages made statisti
cally significant improvements.
When all full-time students (12 or more units) were
arranged in groups according to their grade point average
for the first semester, irrespective of their units at
tempted the second semester, the probationary students im
proved and the good students dropped in grade point average.
Table 15 shows that the greatest change was at the extremes,
above 2.50 and below 1.50. The poorest students bettered
their GPA by .28 points and the best students lost .32
points.
Tables 16 through 18 record the data on students
who attempted 9.0 to 11.5 units in the fall of 1966. The
probationary students in this category improved their grade
point average significantly only if they maintained the
same work load the second semester. However, those who in
creased their load three or six units did improve their GPA
while those who dropped in units attempted declined in GPA.
Table 17 records the characteristic noted previ
ously— that the good students do not obtain as good grades
during their second semester as they did during their first.
Inspection reveals that this negative change is significant
at the .05 level in two cases and more significant when____
TABLE 14
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF TWO LEVELS OF PROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING
12.0-14.5 UNITS IN FALL ’66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Levels of
Probationary
Students
Number
in
Groups
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values
of t Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall *66 Spring '67
9.0 - 11.5 <1.75 42 13.4 10.4 1.37 1.39 + .13
1.75 - 1.99 14 13.4 10.2 1.82 1.91 + .65
12.0 - 14.5 <1.75 45 13.3 13.3 1.39 1.58 + 2.34*
1.75 - 1.99 26 13.5 13.5 1.84 1.99 + 1.45
>15.0 <1.75 19 13.5 15.9 1.33 1.59 + 1.98*
1.75 - 1.99 13 13.4 16.0 1.84 1.99 + 1.05
♦Significant at the 5 per cent level.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
f —■
u >
TABLE 15
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE IN SPRING '67 OF SIX LEVELS OF STUDENTS
CARRYING 12.0 OR MORE UNITS IN THE FALL *66
First Semester
Grade Point
Average
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
<1.50 120 14.2 11.1 1.14 1.42 + 3.87***
1.50 - 1.74 98 14.4 11.9 1.62 1.73 + 1.45
1. 75 - 1.99 96 14.5 12.6 1.84 1.89 + .47
2.00 - 2.24 156 14.6 13.7 2.09 1.98
-
3.19**
2.25 - 2.49 89 14.9 14.0 2.36 2.26 - 2.73**
>2.50 145 14.9 14.0 2.86 2.54
-
7.22***
**Significant at the 1 per cent level.
***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
H
TABLE 16
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF PROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING 9.0-11.5 UNITS
IN FALL *66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring 16 7 Fall *66 Spring '6 7
< 6.0 16 10.5 3.4 1.03 1.13 - .38
6.0 - 8.5 23 10.2 7.3 1.27 1.19 - .41
9.0 - 11.5 29 10.5 10.3 1.32 . 1.66 + 3.24^
12.0 - 14.5 28 10.6 13.1 1.40 1.51 + .97
>15.0 14 11.0 15.9 1.36 1.59 + 1.95
♦♦Significant at the 1 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
H
tn
TABLE 17
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS CARRYING 9.0-11.5 UNITS
IN FALL '66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Spring 16 7 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
< 6.0 6 10.1 4.3 2.43 1.92 - 1.02
6.0 - 8.5 12 10.1 7.5 2.24 1.65 - 2.16^
9.0 - 11.5 27 10.1 10.3 2.41 2.16 - 2.11*
12.0 - 14.5 25 10.2 13.2 2.39 2.00 - 3.56^
>15.0 30 10.9 16.1 2.47 2.14 - 3.62^^
♦Significant at the 5 per cent level.
♦♦Significant at the 1 per cent level.
♦♦♦Significant at the 0.1 per cent level.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
116
TABLE 18
CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGE OF ALL STUDENTS CARRYING 9.0-11.5 UNITS
IN FALL *66 AS RELATED TO UNITS ATTEMPTED IN SPRING '67
Range of Units
Attempted
Number
in
Subgroup
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Average
of Subgroup
Values of
t Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67 Fall '66 Spring '67
< 6.0 22 10.4 3.7 1.40 1.38 - . 96'
6.0 - 8.5 35 10.1 7.3 1.60 1.35 - 1.67*
9.0 - 11.5 56 10.3 10.3 1.83 1.90 + .51*
12.0 - 14.5 53 10.4 13.2 1.86 1.74 - 1.62•
>15.0 44 10.9 16.1 2.11 1.97 - 1.71*
*No statistically significant change in grade point average.
- Sign indicates decrease in grade point average during second semester.
+ Sign indicates increase in grade point average during second semester.
118
twelve and fifteen units were attempted.
The purpose of this part of the study was to deter
mine if a lighter load improved the grade point average of
probationary students. The null hypothesis read as follows:
there is no significant difference between a student's
first and second semester grade point average when (a) his
load is maintained at the same level, (b) his load is in
creased, or (c) his load is decreased.
For students with a load of fifteen or more units
the first semester who reduced their load three units the
second semester, there was a significant improvement of
grades. However, this was the only statistically signifi
cant improvement of grades when the load was reduced.
Since eight other categories did not show significant
change with reduction of load, and in fact, five categories
lowered their average when the load was reduced, the null
hypothesis with respect to reduced load is supported. For
those probationary students who maintained the same load
level the second semester, all showed statistically signif
icant improvement. Probationary students who increased
their load the second semester improved their grades. Half
of the changes were significant at the .01 level.
The question to be answered in this section was:
does limiting the load of probationary students improve
their grade point average? The best evidence for a nega
tive answer is found among those students taking 12.0 to
119
14.5 units, where those carrying the same load the second
semester made the greatest improvement and students in
creasing their load did nearly as well. The students who
decreased their load made an improvement, but it was small
and not statistically significant.
The data indicate that decreasing a probationary
student's load in order to improve his grades has no sta
tistical support.
The Effect of a One Semester Interruption
on Achievement in College
The purpose of this section of the study was to
determine the effect of an absence of one semester on the
achievement of junior college students by comparing that
achievement with the record of students in continuous
attendance.
The study consists of an analysis of the records of
199 8 students who entered Harbor College for the first time
in the fall of 1966. They had no previous college experi
ence. They were unselected with respect to age, sex, en
trance examination, major or load. For the purposes of the
study they are sorted into three nearly equal groups.
First there are those who attended college in the fall of
1966 but were absent the following semester. The second
group consists of students who attended two semesters, the
1966-67 school year, but who missed the Fall 1967 semester.
120
The last group attended continuously through three semes
ters or more. The units attempted and the grade point
average each semester, including summer sessions, for the
period extending from the fall of 1966 through the spring
of 1969 are used in the analysis. In the tables that fol
low, the students who were absent either in the spring or
fall semester of 1967 are termed "interrupted students."
Group three, termed "continuing students," was used for
comparison with the "interrupted students."
Was the subsequent grade point average of the in
terrupted students better than the grade point average of
students in continuous attendance? Stated in the form of
a null hypothesis so that the statistical significance may
be tested, the question became this hypothesis: among stu
dents on probation, there is no significant difference be
tween the achievements of those whose attendance is inter
rupted and those whose attendance is uninterrupted.
The data on the students who missed the Spring *67
semester are contained in Tables 20 through 27; that of the
students who missed the Fall '67 semester are in Tables 29
through 36, Within each of the two major classifications
the students are categorized according to the units they
attempted during the first semester and the grade point
average they achieved during that period.
121
TABLE 19
GPA OF INTERRUPTED STUDENTS AS COMPARED
TO AVERAGE OF CONTINUING STUDENTS,
SPRING 1967 INTERRUPTION
' GPA
Units
0-1.74 1.75-1.99
0.0- 8.5
9.0-11.5
12.0-14.5
15.0 and above
higher
lower*
lower
lower
higher
no cases
higher
higher
*GPA of interrupted students significantly lower
(.001 level).
Table 19 shows that in four subsets the grade point
average of the interrupted students was higher than that of
the continuing students while in three subsets the reverse
was true. Only in one subset, students carrying 9.0-11.5
units and having a first semester GPA below 1.74, was there
a statistically significant difference and in this case the
continuing students were better than the interrupted stu
dents. Table 22 shows that the subsequent GPA of the con
tinuing students was 2.13 as compared with 1.16 for the
eighteen students who missed the Spring '67 semester. This
was statistically significant at the .001 level. The GPA
within parenthesis in some subsets is the mean of individ
ual student's GPA. In some cases this GPA differs mate
122
rially from the GPA calculated by dividing the total grade
points of all students within the set by the total units
attempted. The t ratio used to determine the level of con
fidence uses the former GPA calculation. However, in most
cases there was no material difference in the means. At
tention is called to this difference in Table 20.
It can be noted in the same table that among the
students with lowest GPA that the average of interrupted
and continuing students was significantly different during
the first semester, yet their subsequent average was nearly
the same. It should be noted that the mean of the number
of units subsequently attempted by the interrupted students
was approximately thirteen units below that of continuing
students. There is a consistent pattern throughout these
data showing that the interrupted students never catch up
to the continuing students, even when their initial grade
point average and units attempted are equal.
Although it is not germane to the immediate ques
tion, a relationship between the initial GPA and the subse
quent GPA is noteworthy. With few exceptions, the poorer
students significantly improved their GPA, whereas the bet
ter students, particularly those above 2.25, did not do as
well after their initial semester or semesters.
Tables 24 and 26 can be used to illustrate the det
rimental effect of a dismissal policy that would force a
student to remain out or completely drop out of college
TABLE 20
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 0.0-8.5 UNITS ATTEMPTED3
Fall Semester, 1966 Subsequent Record1 3
N
Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Category: 0-8.5 units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first semester
Interrupted 0.70
students (0.60)c
4.9 2.15*
(1.96)
17.7 27
Continuing 1.34**
students (1.25)
6.1 2.09*
(1.98)
30.6 23
Category: 0-8.5 units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.99 during first semester
Interrupted 1.88
students
6.5 1.79
(2.26)
8.3 2
Continuing 1.81
students
8.0 1.55 34.3 2
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
CGPA in parenthesis is mean of individual student's GPA. All other GPA's are
calculated by dividing total grade points of class by total units attempted.
*Both interrupted and continuing students' GPA improvement are significant at
the .001 level of confidence.
**First semester GPA of continuing students is significantly higher (.001 leveL)
than interrupted students._________________________________________________________
123
124
after one semester if his GPA is not above 2.00. While
this policy is not common in California community colleges,
the probation-dismissal statistics furnished by the Coordi
nating Council for Higher Education show that 17 per cent
of first-time college freshmen on probation— about 1700
students— were dismissed after one semester of attendance.
The- data in Tables 24 and 26 show that 131 students brought
their combined average from well below 2.00 to well above
that figure. At the same time only eleven of the very
poorest students failed to secure a nonprobationary average.
In order that the effect of a one-semester lay-out
might be more completely revealed, the records of inter
rupted and continuing students with GPA's of two or better
were investigated and completely tabulated in Tables 21,
23, 25 and 27. Here again the results were mixed with four
interrupted groups having better grade point averages than
the continuing students and three interrupted groups having
poorer records.
The students involved up to this point missed the
Spring '67 semester for reasons other than academic dismis
sal since Harbor College does not apply dismissal policy to
first semester students.
The total number of students that missed the second
semester and then returned was only 102. Five hundred four
more who attended in the fall of 1966 did not return. To
TABLE 21
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 0.0-8.5 UNITS ATTEMPTED3
Fall Semester, 1966 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 0-8.5 units attempted, GPA 2.00-2.24 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.00 3.9 2.49^ 22.4 14
Continuing students 2.02 5.2 2.33** 31.1 37
Category: 0-8.5 units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.94 4.5 2.41 13.6 8
Continuing students 2.99 5.1 2.51^ 28.5 74
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
♦Improved GPA is significant at approximately the .05 level.
*improved GPA is significant at the .01 level.
♦♦♦Negative GPA differential is significant at the .001 level.
TABLE 22
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 9.0-11.5 UNITS ATTEMPTED3
Fall Semester, 1966 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted
Category: 9.0-11.5 units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first semester
Interrupted students . 88 10.5 1.58 12.4
(1.16)c
18
Continuing students 1.47** 10.3 2.13** 19.0 19*
Category: 9.0-11.5 units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.99 during first semester
Interrupted students None
Continuing students 1. 88 10.7 2.27 33.1 8
ainterrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
CGPA in parenthesis is mean of individual student's GPA. All other GPA's
are calculated by dividing total grade points of class by total units attempted.
*GPA of continuing students significantly improved (.001 level) over first
semester record.
**Continuing students were significantly higher (approximately .001 level)
than interrupted students.
126
TABLE 23
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 9.0-11.5 UNITS ATTEMPTED3
Fall Semester, 1966 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted
Category: 9.0-11.5 units attempted. GPA 2.00-2.24 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.12 10.3 1.90 23.4 4
Continuing students 2.08 10.3 2.13 39.3 32
Category: 9.0-11.5 units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.94^ 10.8 3.62** 11.3 3
Continuing students 2.61 10.5 2.33 43.1 42*
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
♦Subsequent record of these students significantly lower (.001 level).
♦♦Interrupted students GPA was significantly higher than continuing students
(.001 level).
H
to
- j
TABLE 24
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 12.0-14.5 UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Fall Semester, 1966 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 12.0-14.5 units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first semester
Interrupted students 1.08 12.9 1.77 11.1 8
Continuing students 1.40 13.1 2.08 40.6 30*
Category: 12.0-14.5 units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.99 during first semester
Interrupted students 1.88 12.5 2.27 26.8 4
(1.76) c
Continuing students 1.84 13.4 2.14 48.2 35*
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
CGPA in parenthesis is mean of individual student's GPA. All other GPA's are
calculated by dividing total grade points of class by total units attempted.
♦Subsequent record of these students is significantly higher (beyond .001 £
level) . o o
TABLE 25
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 12.0-14.5 UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Fall Semester, 196 6 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Category: 12.0-14.5 units attempted, GPA 2.00-2.24 during first semester
Interrupted students None
Continuing students 2.07 13.4 2.23* 47.3 62
Category: 12.0-14.5 units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.57 13.2 2.70 53.8 3
Continuing students 2.63 13.4 2.52** 46.4 78
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
*Subsequent record of these students significantly higher (beyond the
.001 level).
**Subsequent GPA slightly lower (significant at .05 level).
t o
VO
TABLE 26
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 15.0 OR MORE UNITS ATTEMPTED9
Fall Semester, 1966 Subsequent Record*3
Grade Point Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units N
Average Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 15.0 or more units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first semester
Interrupted students 1.16 16.2 .51 13.5 3
Continuing students 1.47 16.0 2.04 46.2 35*
Category: 15.0 or more units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.99 during first semester
Interrupted students 1.85 15.6 2.64 31.2 5
Continuing students 1.84 16.1 2.20 47.3 22*
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
t>Data cover period from Spring '67 through Spring '69.
♦Subsequent record of these students significantly higher (beyond .001 level).
M
Co
o
TABLE 27
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 15.0 OR MORE UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Fall Semester. 1966 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 15.0 or more units attempted, GPA 2.00-2.24 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.00 15.5 1.51 22.5 1
Continuing students 2.10 16.1 2.13 46.0 63
Category: 15.0 or more units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first semester
Interrupted students 2.85 16.3 2.80 36.0 2
Continuing students 2.69 16.1 2.47 49.5 107*
interrupted students missed Spring '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Spring'67 through Spring '69.
♦Subsequent record of these students significantly lower (.001 level).
131
132.
summarize, of the 2000 first-time college students that
entered Harbor College in the fall of 1966, 600 did not
attend the following spring semester and 500 never returned
during the three year period covered by the study.
In the next section of the report, the records of
students who may have been subject to dismissal are consid
ered. Under the policy in effect in the fall of 196 7, a
student who had been on probation for two semesters was
dismissed. If he applied for readmission, his case was
reviewed, and he was readmitted at the discretion of the
reviewing officer.
The Effect of interruption after
Two Semesters in College
The records of 135 students who were absent from
the Fall '67 semester are tabulated in Tables 29 to 36.
The question under consideration is whether or not an in
terruption is beneficial when compared to the records of
similar students who are in continuous attendance. In the
following summary of results, the word "higher" means that
the subsequent record of the interrupted group is higher
than the subsequent record of the continuing group.
Inspection of Table 2 8 shows that among the proba
tionary students the interrupted students' subsequent rec
ord exceeded the continuing students' record in five of the
subsets. However, the number of interrupted students with
initial GPA's of 1.75-1.99 was only three or four in each
133
category. In the 0-1.74 GPA range, the number of inter
rupted students was sufficient to give meaningful data. In
this group, students taking less than nine or more than
14.5 units made significantly better grades than did the
continuing students. However, in the 9-14.5 unit range,
which would be the more typical load for probationary stu
dents , the interrupted students made lower subsequent
grades, although the difference was not statistically sig
nificant.
TABLE 2 8
GPA OF INTERRUPTED STUDENTS AS COMPARED
TO AVERAGE OF CONTINUING STUDENTS,
FALL 1967 INTERRUPTION
GPA
Units
0-1.74 1.75-1.99 2.00-2.24 2.25-4.00
0.0- 8.5 higher* higher lower higher
9.0-11.5 lower higher lower higher
12.0-14.5 lower lower lower higher**
15.0 higher* higher higher lower*
*Significant at the .01 level.
**Significant at the .05 level.
To return to the null hypothesis, it can only be
said that two out of eight subgroups, those with initial
GPA's below 1.75 and loads less than nine or more than 14.5
134
units significantly improved their grades following a one
semester interruption.
These students' records were subject to review at
the end of their first school year and those students with
a greater chance of success, in the judgment of the review
ing counselor, were readmitted. Thus a factor is at work
that was not present in the previous section. The continu
ing students have gone through a selection process that
should increase their chances of success. On the other
hand, the interrupted students may have been spurred on to
better grades by the penalty of forced absence for one
semester.
Consideration of the students who had a grade point
average between 2.00 and 2.24 and who are thus not subject
to dismissal may shed some light on the effectiveness of a
one semester lay-out. In this category the subsequent rec
ord of the interrupted students was lower than that of the
continuing students in all but one of the four subgroups
but none of the differences was statistically significant.
Attention is called to the data on probationary
students in Tables 29, 31, 33, and 35 wherein the signifi
cant improvement between the grade point average of the
initial year and the subsequent record is noted. Only five
out of the sixteen subgroups failed to achieve a grade
point average in excess of 2.00. This means that over half
of the 231 students included in these groups raised their
TABLE 29
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 0.0-17.0 UNITS ATTEMPTED3
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record1 3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Category: 0.0-17.0 units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first year
Interrupted students 1.23
(1.22)c
17.8 2.04*
(1.90)
14.9 15
Continuing students 1.54 16.1 1.73
(1.46)
18.5 18
Category: 0.0-17.5 units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.99 during first year
Interrupted students 1. 85 19.3 2.65 12.8 3
Continuing students 1.86 16.5 1.78 19.4 11
^Interrupted students missed the Fall '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
CGPA in parentheses is mean of individual student's GPA. All other GPA's are
calculated by dividing total grade points of class by total units attempted.
*These students' improved grade point average after being out of college one H
semester was significant at the .01 level. w
TABLE 30
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 0.0-17.0 UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record* 3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted
Category: 0.0-17.0 units attempted, GPA 2.00-2.24 during first year
Interrupted students 2.00 14.7 2.00 4.3 3
Continuing students 2.08 14.2 2.39 24.1 23
Category: 0.0-17.0 units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first year
Interrupted students 2.70 10.0 2.57 10.4 7
Continuing students 2.82 11.3 2.55 22.6 84*
aInterrupted students missed the Fall '67 semester.
t>Data cover period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
♦Subsequent record of these students significantly lower (.001 level).
136
TABLE 31
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 18.0-23.0 UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record*5
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Attempted Average Attempted
Category1 18.0-23.0 units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first year
Interrupted students 1.39 21.4 1.96 15.6 20*
Continuing students 1.55 20.4 2.07 26.8 13*
Category: 18.0-23.0 units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.,99 during first year
Interrupted students 1.81 27.7 2.20 15.5 3
Continuing students 1.87 21.4 2.15 27.9 25
aInterrupted students missed the Fall .'67 semester.
bData cover period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
*Subsequent record improved when compared to first year GPA (.05 level).
i —■
00
TABLE 32
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE-18. 0-23 . 0 UNITS ATTEMPTED*
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Category: 18.0-23.0 units attempted. GPA 2.00-2.2 4 during first year
Interrupted students 2.13 23.0 2.00 13.0 1
Continuing students 2.12 23.2 2.19 28.0 25
Category: 18.0-23.0 units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first year
Interrupted students 2.68 22.0 2.78 10.0 5
Continuing students 2.53 22.8 2.54 29.0 35
interrupted students missed the Fall '67 semester.
bData cover period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
138
TABLE 33
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 24.0-29.0 UNITS ATTEMPTED3
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record* 3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 24.0-29.0 units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first year
Interrupted students 1.24 24.9 2.08 18.5 27*
Continuing students 1.52** 25.5 2.15 32.3 23*
Category: 24.0-29.0 units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.,99 during first year
Interrupted students 1.83 27.9 1.88 17.3 4
Continuing students 1.87 26.4 2.14 33.1 47
^Interrupted students missed the Fall '67 semester.
bData covers period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
*Subsequent record of these students significantly higher (.001 level).
**Statistical difference between interrupted and continuing students signifi- h>
cant at the .01 level. (£
TABLE 34
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 24.0-29.0 UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Grade Point
Average
Mean of Units
Attempted
Category: 24.0-29.0 units attempted, GPA 2.00-2.2 4 during first year
Interrupted students 2.11 26.9 2.21 16.1 10
Continuing students 2.10 26.3 2.23 34.0 56^
Category: 24.0-29.0 units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first year
Interrupted students 2.50 24.0 2.94 6.8 5
Continuing students 2.60 27.4 2.62^ 31.4 78
^interrupted students missed the Fall ' 67'.semester.
^Data cover period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
♦Subsequent record of these students slightly higher (.05 level).
♦♦Continuing group GPA lower than that of interrupted students (.05 level).
o
TABLE 35
GPA OF INTERRUPTED PROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 30.0 OR MORE UNITS ATTEMPTEDa
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record*3
N
Grade Point Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 30.0 or more units attempted, GPA 0-1.74 during first year
Interrupted students 1.44 29.0 2.20* 23.0 25
Continuing students 1.51 28.4 1.91 30.3 25**
Category: 30.0 or more units attempted, GPA 1.75-1.99 during first year
Interrupted students 1.83 27.7 2.39 22.5 3**
Continuing students 1.88 30.3 2.16 34.4 47*
interrupted students missed the Fall '67 semester.
^Data cover period from Fall '67 through Spring '69.
*GPA significantly higher (.001 level) after interruption.
**GPA significantly higher (.01 level) in subsequent semesters.
141
i
TABLE 36
GPA OF INTERRUPTED NONPROBATIONARY STUDENTS COMPARED TO THAT OF SIMILAR STUDENTS
IN CONTINUOUS ATTENDANCE— 30.0 OR MORE UNITS ATTEMPTED9
Two Semesters, 1966-67 Subsequent Record^
N
Grade Point Mean of Units Grade Point Mean of Units
Average Attempted Average Attempted
Category: 30.0 or more units attempted, GPA 2.00-2.24 during first year
Interrupted students 2.02 30.5 2.70 30.5 1
Continuing students 2.12 30.0 2.32 33.2 49
Category: 30.0 or more units attempted, GPA 2.25-4.00 during first year
Interrupted students 2.55 32.7 1. 98^ 13.8 3
Continuing students 2.61 31.0 2.49 34.1 103^
interrupted students missed the Fall '67 semester.
bData cover period from Fall '67 through Spring *69.
♦Subsequent record of these students slightly lower (.01 level).
♦♦Interrupted students subsequent record lower than continuing students
(.05 level).
143
average to "C" or better in work taken after their initial
probationary year. In contrast to this, inspection reveals
that those students above a 2.25 GPA tended strongly to
have lower grade point averages in the second and third
year of the study.
Do probationary students who withdraw from college
for one or more semesters achieve as well as similar stu
dents whose education is uninterrupted? Unfortunately an
unqualified answer cannot be given to the question.
An analysis of the data and application of the null
hypothesis showed that there was no significant difference
in the achievement of thirteen of the sixteen subgroups who
were absent for one semester when their achievement was
compared with similar groups in continuous attendance. Of
the three interrupted groups showing a significant differ
ence in the means when compared with similar continuous
groups, one was significantly lower and two were higher.
In the analysis of students who were absent for the
spring semester of 196 7 the data would seem to favor con
tinuous attendance for those who were below 1.74. In the
1.75-1.99 category, the interrupted students were slightly
better. However the small numbers of interrupted students
in the latter category would make the results doubtful.
In the second part, where the students had attended
for a full year before interruption, the students below
2.00 were subject to a selective process which would tend
144
to give those in continuous attendance some advantage.
Nevertheless, the interrupted students seemed to show
greater improvement than the continuing students.
With the results divided as they are, it can only
be stated that this analysis could not support the exclu
sion of a probationary student for the purpose of improving
his academic achievement when he returns to college.
Probability of "C" or Better Grades as
Related to SCAT Scores and Majors
This section of the study reports the probability of
a student receiving a "C" or better in various categories
of majors. The question to be answered is as follows:
will a judicious selection of major based upon the entrance
aptitude test increase the probability of success for the
poor student? To aid in answering this question, a hypoth
esis was formulated which states that there is no signifi
cant difference in the achievement of students in selected
groups of majors when achievement is measured by grade
point averages, SCAT-T scores, SCAT-Q scores or SCAT-V
scores.
The students were first sorted into eleven cate
gories. The majors grouped within each category were as
follows:
1. Undeclared or undecided transfer major
2. Undeclared or undecided two-year major
145
3. Four-year accounting, business education trans
fer, business administration transfer
4. Two-year accounting, two-year business adminis
tration, merchandising, office machines, real
estate, secretarial science
5. Health education, physical education, recrea
tion, nursing transfer, professional nursing,
dental hygiene, physical therapy
6. Liberal arts, art, English, journalism, speech
theater arts, Spanish, French, philosophy,
music, home economics (four-year), education
7. Bacteriology, biology, zoology, mathematics,
astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, archi
tecture, dentistry, forestry, medicine, phar
macy , veterinary
8. Anthropology, economics, history, political
science, psychology, social welfare, law, social
studies, sociology
9. Instrumentation, machine technology, printing,
air conditioning, engine technology, drafting,
electronics engineering technician
10. Fire and police science
11. Home economics, nursery school education,
fashion design and merchandising, home furnish
ing merchandising, vocational nursing
Within each group of majors, the students' data
cards were arranged in the ascending order of their total
score on the Cooperative School and College Ability test
(SCAT-T) and divided into four equal groups. Note that
these groups are related to the Harbor College scores and
not to national norms. The groups were labeled first, sec
ond, third and fourth quarter according to the ascending
order of their SCAT-T scores. The mean of the SCAT-T (X)
within each group was calculated. Six of the means in the
146
second quarter, eight of the means in the third quarter and
seven of the means in the top quarter did not fall within
the corresponding quarters on the national norms. Harbor
College SCAT-T means were generally found near the lower
limit of the group in which they should have fallen on the
national norms.
The probability of obtaining a "C" or better grade
is simply the decimal fraction of those whose grade point
average while at Harbor College was two or above. The mean
within each quarter and the probability of "C" or better
grades (labeled CHNS 2) for each group of majors is re
corded in Table 37.
Each major cannot be discussed completely but cer
tain categories can exemplify the meaning and usefulness of
the data. Group seven, the science and mathematics majors,
consisted of 204 students or fifty-one cases in each quar
ter. The SCAT-T score for the lowest quarter was forty.
Reference to the Test Score Profile, Appendix C, shows that
this score is also near the median within the lowest quar
ter of the national norms. Thirty-one per cent of the stu
dents within this quarter received "C" or better grades.
This fraction of successful students rose to 38 per
cent, 55 per cent, and 69 per cent in the second, third,
and fourth quarters. As in the first quarter, the mean
within the upper groups corresponded closely with that of
the national profile. It is noteworthy that 31 per cent of
TABLE 37
PROBABILITY OF "C" OR BETTER GRADES AS RELATED TO SCAT-T AND MAJOR
Major
Groups
N
SCAT-T Scores Arranged in Ascending Order
First
X
Quarter
CHNS 2*
Second
X
Quarter
CHNS 2
Third
X
Quarter
CHNS 2
Fourth
X
Quarter
CHNS 2
1 196 40 .36 56 .44 67 .65 81 .63
2 217 31 .24 49 .55 60 .68 75 .73
3 170 38 .26 55 .33 68 .57
81
.64
4 252 33 .18 47 .52 57 .55 71 .67
5 102 30 .32 47 .38 60 .54 76 .67
6 294 38 .32 51 .57 63 .56 69 .67
7 204 40 .31 58 .38 70 .55 84 .69
8 186 35 .19 53 .47 65 .50 82 .60
9 219 31 .38 47 .61 58 .43 71 .60
10 81 31 .47 45 .33 55 .25 72 .70
11 80 31 .50 44 .44 52 .56 62 .82
♦Probability of "C" or better grades in all work attempted.
148
the best students in science and mathematics left the Col
lege with probationary grade point averages.
While in general the chances of success rose as the
SCAT-T mean rose, there are several exceptions. In Group
10, fire and police science majors, the twenty students
with the lowest scores were 47 per cent successful. The
fraction earning a. "C" or better was less in both the sec
ond and third quarter, falling to a low of only 25 per cent
in the third quarter.
Attention is directed to the undeclared or unde
cided transfer majors, Group 1. These students were not
significantly different from the mathematics and science
students, Group 7, in their SCAT-T or SCAT-V means. In
spection of Table 37 shows that the SCAT-T mean and the
chance of obtaining "C" or better grades is nearly the same
in each quarter for the two groups. This would support the
findings of Baird (3) who found no differences in academic
aptitude between the decided and undecided student. Abel
(1) found that students with low SCAT scores and undeclared
majors achieved significantly higher grades. Inspection of
Table 38 shows that the undecided transfer students were at
or near the top in total units attempted, grade point aver
age achieved and SCAT entrance test scores. The data indi
cate that indecision in the choice of a major is not a
handicap among junior college transfer students as measured
by GPA and units achieved.________________________________
149
In Group 6, which includes the liberal arts, human
ities and education majors, the SCAT-T means for the second,
third and fourth quarters do not fall within the corre
sponding quarters on the national profile. For example,
Table 37 shows that the mean of the fourth quarter is
sixty-nine. This is at the fifty-eighth percentile on the
national scale. However, only two-thirds of the people in
the fourth quarter had a grade point average in excess of
1.99 when they left Harbor College. It is to be noted that
the students in the second and third quarter, while differ
ing significantly in their SCAT-T score, had about the same
chance of receiving a successful grade point average.
Inspection of the technology majors, Group 9, shows
that the chance of averaging "C" or better is not posi
tively related to the SCAT-T score. In fact, students in
the second quarter had a considerably better chance of re
ceiving a "C" grade than those in the third quarter and
approximately the same chance as those students in the
fourth quarter. It would appear that the SCAT test does
not measure qualities that make for success in technical
subject areas.
Despite the anomalies observed in Table 37, the
chance of receiving a 2.00 or better GPA varies signifi
cantly from one major to another when the SCAT-T is used as
the independent variable. For example, a science student
with a SCAT-T score of 5 8 and 38 per cent chance of making
150
"C" or better grades would raise his chances to approxi
mately 55 per cent in health education or the two-year
business curriculum.
Table 38 records the average units attempted, the
grade point averages, and the SCAT means for the same
groups as used in the quartile study. AUA1 and AUA2 are
the averages of the units attempted in the first semester
and in the entire three year period. GPAl and GPA2 are
the grade point averages for the same periods calculated by
dividing the total grade points earned by the whole group
by the total units attempted. These averages are slightly
different than XI and X2 which are the means of the grade
point averages earned by all the individuals within the
major group. "1" refers to the first semester and "2" in
dicates the three year span of the study in all of these
abbreviations.
A t test comparison of each major group, a total of
fifty-five comparisons, showed no statistical differences in
the grade point averages. However, when the means for the
SCAT total, SCAT quantitative and SCAT verbal scores were
subjected to the same analysis, the variations in the means
were significant. There are fifty-five possible pairs of
means available for comparison among the eleven major
groupings. As shown in detail in Table 39, 64 per cent of
the pairs of SCAT-T means were significantly different at
the .05 level, 58 per cent of the SCAT-Q pairs were signifi-
TABLE 38
AVERAGE UNITS ATTEMPTED, GRADE POINT AVERAGES, AND SCAT MEANS FOR
CERTAIN MAJOR CLASSIFICATIONS*
Major*
Groups
N AUAl** AUA2 GPA1 GPA2 XI X2 T
Q V
1 177 10.8 35.3 1.85 2.12 1.77 1.90 61.29 30.25 31.03
2 160 6.4 17.1 1.83 2.07 1.88 1.82 53.61 24.79 28.83
3 170 11.9 35.8 1.87 2.02 1. 82 1.84 60.08 30.89 29.11
4 252 8.5 23.4 1.95 2.09 1.84 1.82 52.88 26.34 26.54
5 102 11.7 39.9 1.90 2.11 1.78 1.81 54.44 27.06 27.38
6 294 11.4 34.4 1.92 2.12 1.86 1.89 57.12 27.12 30.00
7 204 11.8 38.0 1.87 2.04 1.73 1.73 62.66 32.37 30.30
8 186 11.2 36.0 1.82 2.05 1.74 1.78 58.91 26.74 32.17
9 219 8.6 24.2 1.89 2.07 1.83 1.76 52.32 26.17 26.15
10 80 9.4 23.2 1.71 1.97 1.72 1.71 51.61 26.35 25.25
11 80 9.9 27.8 1.97 2.16 1.75 1.74 47.49 20.12 27.38
*See page 144 and 145 for groupings of majors.
**An explanation of the abbreviations is found on page 150.
TABLE 39
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE IN SCAT SCORES OF MAJOR GROUPS
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 T
Q*
T
Q
V T
Q
T
Q
T V V V
3 T
Q
T
Q V T
Q Q Q V T
Q V T
Q V
4 T
Q V
V T
Q V T V T
Q
V T V
5 T Q V
T
Q V
T
Q
V V
6 T
Q
T
Q Q
T V V T
Q
V T V T V
7
Q
T
Q
T
Q
V T
Q V T
Q
T
Q
T
Q V T
Q V
8
Q
T V
Q V T V V V T
Q
T V T V
9 T
Q V
V T
Q V T V T
Q
V T V
10 T
>
a
V T
Q V T V T
Q V T V
11 T Q V
T
Q
T
Q
T
Q
T
Q
T
Q V T
Q V T
Q V T
Q
*The presence of T, Q or V in the chart indicates that the scores for the
SCAT-Total, SCAT-Quantitative and SCAT-Verbal are significantly different. "TQ" at
the intersection of Column 1 and Row 2 means that the SCAT-T and SCAT-Q raw scores
for Group 1 (undeclared or undecided transfer majors) and Group 2 (undeclared or un
decided two-year majors) are significantly different at the .05 level.
152
153
cantly different at the same level, while 53 per cent of
the pairs of verbal averages were statistically different.
The data in this section seem to indicate that a
judicial selection of major based upon SCAT scores and the
probabilities set forth can enhance a probationary stu
dent's chances of receiving a "C" or better grade. It also
shows that the eleven major categories do differ signifi
cantly in SCAT-T, SCAT-Q and SCAT-V means. In spite of
this difference, the average grades of all divisions were
very nearly the same with no significant differences among
them.
Summary
This chapter reports on the analysis of the data on
the first-time college students beginning at Harbor College
in the fall of 1966. Three questions were considered rela
tive to the effect of load limitation, absence from college,
and the choice of major.
The first question was, "Does limiting the load of
probationary students improve their grade point averages?"
It was discovered that probationary students generally im
proved their GPA whether they reduced their load, took the
same number of units, or increased their load. However,
the improvement in GPA with reduced load was significant in
only one category, that in which students carrying fifteen
or more units their first semester decreased their load
154
three units. For those probationary students who main
tained the same load level the second semester, all showed
statistically significant improvement. Probationary stu
dents who increased their load the second semester improved
their grades, half of them significant at the .01 level.
The analysis of the data indicates that decreasing a proba
tionary student's load in order to improve his grades has
no statistical support. •
What effect does an absence of one semester have on
the achievement of junior college students? A definitive
answer cannot be given but when students who were absent
for the spring semester of 196 7 were compared with continu
ing students of the same ability, the data favor continuous
attendance for those whose GPA was below 1.74. In the 1.75
to 1.99 category, the interrupted students were slightly
better but their small number makes the results unreliable.
The grade point average of the students who missed the fall
semester of 1967 was not significantly different from the
scholastic standing of those who remained continuously in
college.
The data presented in the last section of this
chapter indicate that the eleven major categories of stu
dents studied do differ significantly in their SCAT-T,
SCAT-Q and SCAT-V means, yet the grade point averages of
all divisions were very close with no significant differ
ences among them. It was shown that a student with a given
155
SCAT score would have highly varying chances of receiving
"C" or better grades depending on the major selected. The
data indicate that a judicious selection of major would
increase the probability of successful grades for the poor
student.
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Background of the problem.— Probation systems have
traditionally been used in colleges and universities to
spur capable but reluctant students to satisfactory achieve
ment or to provide a system of dismissing those who would
not work. Because entrance into college was a highly se
lective process, the number of low ability or inadequately
prepared students was usually small. With the advent of
the community college and its widely publicized open-door,
thousands of students enrolled who previously would not
have aspired to higher education.
The community colleges now face large numbers of
students whose abilities are frequently inadequate and
whose interests are not academic or traditional. Answering
this divergent demand, the junior colleges have developed
transfer and occupational curricula, remedial and develop
mental programs, student counseling and community services.
Yet one out of five students in California community col
leges does not successfully do the work he has chosen and
is labeled probationary.
156
157
Purpose of the study.— The purpose of this study
was to gather information from the literature and officials
in the colleges on probation policies and practice, to re
port the changes that are occurring in student evaluation,
and to test certain common probationary practices.
Procedure.— From the survey of the literature and
discussions with eight deans of admissions a questionnaire
on probationary practices and policies was developed. The
questionnaire was mailed to all of the eighty-three public
community colleges in California and all responded. Study
and tabulation of the data followed, and the findings were
charted and conclusions drawn.
In order to test three common probationary prac
tices that appeared in the literature and in the responses
to the questionnaire, information was gathered on approxi
mately two thousand students at Los Angeles Harbor College.
Programs were written for the IBM 1620 computer and the
data analyzed. From these findings, two hypotheses were
supported and one rejected.
Findings. The findings of the study are organized
to answer the nine questions set forth in Chapter I.
1. What is the prevailing opinion of experts as to
the purpose of probation in the community colleges?
Preliminary discussions with the deans of eight
158
community colleges identified the major purposes of proba
tion as: (a) to "weed out" inadequate students, (b) to
"shape up" lagging students, (c) to "identify" low achiev
ers for counseling, and (d) to "regulate" the program of
low achievers. The questionnaire that was mailed to all of
the community colleges in California revealed that six out
of ten of the deans in charge of admissions and guidance
thought that identification of the low achiever for coun
seling was the major purpose of their probation policy.
Only 7 per cent thought the elimination of the poorer stu
dents of major importance, while 27 per cent rejected this
as a purpose of probation.
When considering each of the purposes as one of
several purposes, the admissions officers selected "shaping
up" the lagging student most frequently. If the total re
sponses favorable toward a purpose (the sum of major pur
pose and one of several purposes) is considered, identifi
cation for counseling is most important and the dismissal
of the poorer students of least importance.
2. How effective are current practices in accom
plishing the goals of probationary policies?
Identification for counseling as a purpose of pro
bation was adequately or fully achieved according to the
answers of 87 per cent of the respondents. Of those who
saw the dismissal of the poor student as a purpose of pro-
bation, 84 per cent thought this purpose was fully or______
159
adequately achieved. Seventy per cent of the colleges
thought that their probation system designed for "shaping
up" the lagging students was successful, while 85 per cent
that use their probation policy to regulate the program
of low achievers stated that their policy fully or ade
quately achieved its purpose.
3. How is the legal requirement of counseling stu
dents on probation provided?
Counselors are available upon the student's request
in all of the colleges responding to the question. Forty-
seven colleges make counseling mandatory for students on
probation. Seventeen deans indicated that some form of
group counseling is used.
About two-thirds of the colleges require that pro
bationary students see their counselor and the rest urge
students in trouble to avail themselves of counseling help.
Colleges report that counseling sessions are required in
theory but not in practice, that follow-up is inadequate
I
and that students needing counseling often go without by
their own choice.
4. How are the community colleges regulating the
load of probationary students?
The California Administrative Code. Title 5 re
quires that each junior college shall provide individual
counseling and guidance service to students on probation,
including the regulation of the student's program. Of the
160
sixty-one colleges responding to the question, forty-six,
or 75 per cent, restrict the unit load of poor students.
Twenty-five per cent require that probationary students
take developmental or remedial courses, while only 21 per
cent deny access to certain courses.
The comments of admissions and guidance officers
indicate a wide divergence of opinion relative to the ef
fectiveness of regulating the loads of students. It ap
pears from the questionnaire that twenty-two colleges do
not regulate the load of probationary students in any way.
On the other hand, some colleges have highly structured
programs that direct the probationary students into reme
dial and developmental courses. Others strictly limit the
number of courses that such a student can take. The low
response on this question and the wide divergence of opin
ion are noteworthy.
5. What is the current practice in dismissing stu
dents of poor academic achievement?
The Coordinating Council for Higher Education re
ports that there were 73,844 students on probation in the
fall semester of 1967— about 18 per cent of the total com
munity college enrollment. During the fall term 16.5 per
cent of these probationary students dropped out of college.
At the same time, 23.5 per cent were removed from probation
as a result of improved grades at mid-year. Of the remain
ing probationary students, 18 per cent, or over 13,000,____
161
were dismissed and 41.7 per cent were allowed to continue
in college on probation.
Title 5 of the California Administrative Code de
clares that a student who has a grade point average of less
than 1.75 for units attempted in each of three consecutive
semesters is subject to dismissal unless circumstances re
lating to that student warrant an exception. The catalog
statements of nearly all the colleges indicate a more
stringent policy of dismissal. However, five admissions
officers stated in response to this question that none of
their probationary students was dismissed. While most of
the colleges disqualify students with grade point deficien
cies , forty-nine stated that they readmit some of the dis
missed students immediately. Sixty-seven colleges require
that dismissed students who were not immediately readmitted
were required to stay out of college one semester. Four
colleges disqualified students for a full academic year.
In readmitting dismissed students, admissions offi
cers consider a change to an academically easier major, the
major at the time of dismissal, and the relationship of
units completed to grade point deficiency as the most im
portant factors in their decision. Draft status, high
school record and employment while dismissed are of lesser
importance as criteria of readmission. While the socio
economic condition of the student was considered by more
162
admissions officers than any other factor, it ranked fourth
as a very important factor in readmission after academic
dismissal.
6. What changes are occurring in student evalua
tion that will alter the number of students subject to
probation in future semesters?
The California community colleges are pursuing or
experimenting with non-penalty grading systems that will
reduce the number of students on probation. Sixty-eight
per cent of the respondents were trying some form of lib
eralized withdrawal, credit/no-credit grading, forgiveness
of penalty grades, elimination of "F" grades, or replace
ment of penalty grades by the repetition of courses.
The greatest number of changes are in the area of
liberalized withdrawal. Some colleges have made modest
changes, moving the withdrawal-without-penalty date to the
eighth, twelfth or sixteenth week. Eight colleges allow
unrestricted withdrawal up to the final examination,
whereas three more permit instructor assigned withdrawals
at any time. One college mandates that any student that
drops officially or unofficially at any time during the
semester must receive a grade of "W." Another college has
a unique policy of giving the student the option of receiv
ing a grade of "N" (equivalent to a "W") for any praticular
letter grade he might otherwise receive. The student sub-
mits a form specifying that he requests the "N” if his_____
163
grade falls below a specific letter grade.
Seventeen colleges report that they are offering
credit/no-credit grades in some classes. The University of
California and the state colleges have led the way in pass/
fail or credit/no-credit evaluation, typically allowing one
out of four courses on such a basis. The community col
leges have moved slowly in accepting credit/no-credit grad
ing although there are notable exceptions.
The forgiveness of penalty grades upon a change of
major followed an interpretation of the California Adminis
trative Code which allows a student changing majors to
delete for graduation purposes those courses not included
in the curriculum in which he wishes to graduate. Thus a
student who fails in one major can change to another, drop
the courses not in the new major, and thus improve his
grade point average. Ten colleges indicate that they are
implementing this legislation.
Nine colleges report that they have eliminated "F"
grades or are experimenting with the system to test student
and faculty reaction. Six colleges are allowing students
to replace penalty grades by the repetition of courses. In
this case, when the course is repeated the original grades
are lined-out on the transcript and neither the credit nor
the grade points counted in the student1s grade point aver
age .
Changes are occurring in student evaluation that
164
will alter the number of students on probation, not only in
the community colleges, but the state colleges and the Uni
versity as well.
7. Does limiting the load of probationary students
improve their grade point average?
In only one category out of nine did probationary
students with reduced load improve their grades a statisti
cally significant amount. Five subgroups who decreased
their load, decreased their grade point average. Thus the
answer to the question would be that a reduction in the
load, which is implied in load limitation, is not statisti
cally supported as sound practice in dealing with proba
tionary students at the community college level.
Further evidence shows that those probationary
groups that maintained the same load level the second se
mester all showed statistically significant improvement
while among those that increased their load, all bettered
their GPA, half of the subgroups making a statistically
significant improvement.
An analysis of the data indicates that (a) proba
tionary students whose loads are reduced do not improve
their grades but instead usually lower them and (b) that
the probationary students who carry the same load or in
crease their load average higher grades.
8. Do probationary students who withdraw from col
lege for one or more semesters achieve as well as similar
165
students whose education is uninterrupted?
An analysis of the data and the application of the
null hypothesis showed that there was no significant dif
ference in the achievement of thirteen of the sixteen sub
groups who were absent for one semester when their achieve
ment was compared with similar groups in continuous atten
dance. Of the three interrupted groups showing a signifi
cant difference in means, one was lower and two were higher
than the comparable continuous group.
In the analysis of students who were absent the
second semester and returned the third, the data would seem
to favor continuous attendance for those who were below
1.74 in GPA. The interrupted students were slightly better
in the 1.75-1.99 GPA category, but the number was small
making the results doubtful.
The students who interrupted their education for a
semester after attending for a full year showed a slight
superiority in their GPA in subsequent semesters when com
pared with similar students in continuous attendance.
9. Will a judicious selection of a major increase
the probability of success for the poor students?
Analysis of the data showed that there was no sig
nificant difference in the grade point averages of the stu
dents in the eleven categories of majors. However, when
the SCAT-T, SCAT-Q and SCAT-V scores for the majors were
compared, many significant differences were found. Thirty-
166
five out of the fifty-five possible combinations were found
to be significantly different in terms of SCAT-T scores.
Thirty-two of the SCAT-Q and twenty-nine of the SCAT-V
means were significantly different. Thus it can be seen
that while the majority of major categories differed sig
nificantly on the SCAT test of abilities, the grades that
the students received do not reflect these differences
since the average grades were not significantly different
in the various majors.
Within each group of majors the students were
ranked in ascending order according to their SCAT-T scores
and divided at the quartiles. The chance of a student re
ceiving a "C" or better grade within each quarter was cal
culated. Generally the probability of obtaining a suc
cessful grade rose as the SCAT-T for the quarter rose but
there were exceptions. Apparently the SCAT-T score is not
a predictor of success in the technologies, police and fire
science, home economics, merchandising, and vocational
nursing since the fraction of successful students did not
rise regularly with the rise in SCAT scores.
The analysis indicated that a student with a given
SCAT score has different probabilities for success in the
eleven categories of majors.
Conclusions
The study of the literature, the answers to the
16 7
questionnaire and the analysis of the data on probationary
students leads to the following conclusions:
1. Identification for counseling is the major pur
pose of probation policies in the majority of community
colleges. This is in keeping with and probably results
from the admission of all high school graduates and all
applicants over eighteen years of age who can profit from
instruction. Faced with such a diverse student body and
charged with providing opportunity for higher education to
nearly all youth, the community colleges have large numbers
of students who are unsuccessful in achieving a satisfac
tory grade point average. The identification and subse
quent counseling of these students is logically the major
purpose of probation.
2. The dismissal of the poor student is of least
importance as a purpose of probation policy. The deficien
cies in ability of the probationary student cannot be over
come quickly. The California Administrative Code gives the
student three consecutive semesters to recover from proba
tionary status before he is dismissed. At this time most
colleges are more stringent than the Code in their require
ments, yet the trend is in the direction of retaining stu
dents for longer periods. Thus it follows that dismissal
of students is of least importance as a function of proba
tion policy.
168
3. The colleges see their practices as highly
successful in accomplishing the purposes of probationary
policy. The report of the Coordinating Council for Higher
Education shows that approximately five out of each twenty-
five students, a typical class, are on probation. Of these
five students one will recover from probation, one will
leave the college during the semester, another will be dis
missed at the end of the semester for academic reasons, and
two will be continued on probation. Since the purpose of
probation is generally to salvage the student, yet only one
out of five recover, it is concluded that the success of
probationary practices is not as high as the responses to
the questionnaire indicated.
4. California community colleges assume that coun
seling is one of their major functions. The majority of
colleges require that probationary students receive coun
seling regularly during their probationary period, yet
there are many indications that students do not avail them
selves of such services. The conclusion is that positive
steps to bring the student and counselor together is more
effective in achieving the goals of probation than merely
providing counseling upon demand.
5. The community colleges are moving toward the
elimination of "penalty" grades. It would seem that the
colleges are rejecting fear of failure as a motivating fac-
tor in education. Probationary students generally have a
169
history of failure or poor achievement in elementary and
secondary schools. It is prudent to seek alternates to a
system that has not contributed to their success.
6. The experimental group at Harbor College was
free to decrease, maintain or increase their study load.
Since the findings indicate that on the average poorer
grades were earned by those, students who chose a lower load
and better grades resulted when equal or greater loads were
chosen, it is concluded that faculty or counselor imposed
limitation of load will not promote better academic achieve
ment among probationary students. It seems that the time a
student has to devote to each of his subjects is not the
limiting factor in his scholarship. If it were, then re
ducing the number of subjects attempted would give the stu
dent more study time, which should result in better grades.
One can only conclude that there are other factors than
time that determine the grades achieved. Since moderate
deficiencies in academic background and aptitude could be
overcome by the expenditure of more time on each subject,
this too seems not to be the limiting factor.
The evidence of the study indicates that the limi
tation of the student's load by the college will not serve
to increase his achievement as measured by the grades he
receives.
7. The probationary students who withdrew from
college for one or more semesters were subdivided into_____
170
groups according to the units attempted and the grade point
average earned during the first semester. Thirteen of
these sixteen groups were not scholastically different from
comparable groups that continued uninterrupted. The con
clusion is that the interruption of a college program for
the purpose of improving the poor student's grades cannot
be statistically defended.
Two other factors of note appeared in the analysis.
First, the interrupted students never caught up to the con
tinuous students in units attempted. Second, the proba
tionary students, and particularly those whose GPA was be
low 1.75, showed a marked improvement in their scholarship
as they continued in school. In contrast, the good stu
dents' GPA decreased as they progressed in college.
8. The SCAT entrance test does not measure the
qualities that contribute to success in many vocational
majors. In academic majors there is a positive correlation
between SCAT scores and the probability of success.
9. The students who are undecided or do not de
clare a major are as successful as any other major category
in terms of their grade point average. Indecision in
choice of major is to be expected of many students. While
it is the function of counseling to aid the student in the
selection of a suitable major and the undecided student may
take some courses that do not count toward his final selec
tion , the findings indicate that the undecided student is
171
as successful in the courses he takes as any other student.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are proposed on the
basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions:
1. Probationary policy should be designed to stim
ulate achievement rather than to dismiss students with
academic problems.
2. Probation and dismissal policies for the Cali
fornia community colleges should not be the same as those
for the University or state colleges but the policies of
each segment of higher education should relate to the ob
jectives of that segment.
3. A state-wide committee composed of community
college faculty and administrators appointed by the Chan
cellor of the California community colleges should regu
larly study the probationary statistics gathered by the
Chancellor's office. This committee should be charged with
enunciating community college academic standards at the
state level.
4. At each college a committee composed of stu
dents, faculty and administrators should periodically study
the purpose or purposes of probation and dismissal policy
and provide guidelines for the implementation of policy.
5. Measurable goals should be established within
each college relative to probationary policy. If identifi
172
cation of the probationary student for counseling is the
goal of probationary policy, it is recommended that the
accomplishment of this goal be measured in terms of the
success of the students following counseling. Thus success
can be related to counseling techniques and result in im
proved counseling.
6. Each semester the dean of admissions should
report to the college faculty the number of students on
probation, the number recovering from probation, the number
withdrawing during the semester, the number disqualified,
and the number continued on probation. This information
should be available on certain groups of students, for ex
ample, vocational students, transfer students, first semes
ter freshmen, and various majors.
7. Probation and dismissal policies have distinct
educational and economic aspects. Decisions based upon the
academic welfare of the student may not be in keeping with
decisions based upon the ability or desire of the district
to support further education for low achieving students.
The purpose or purposes of the probation and dismissal
-policy should be made clear to the faculty, the students,
and the people who support the schools.
8. It is recommended that probationary students
not be dismissed from college for the purpose of improving
their academic achievement.
173
9. The lack of measurable predictors of success
of probationary students dictates that decisions of dismis
sal cannot be arbitrary but must be made largely on a sub
jective basis by trained and experienced counselors.
10. The continuation in college of a student on
probation should be contingent upon a minimum of one coun
seling session per semester devoted to the evaluation of
the student's progress and the planning and approval of his
succeeding courses.
11. Counselors should encourage students to commit
themselves to a course of action by providing test results,
employment data, and curricular information but should not
force students to select a major since undecided students
in community colleges do as well academically as students
with declared majors.
12. A more effective instrument than the School
and College Ability Test should be sought for use in place
ment and prediction of success in vocational areas.
13. Liberalized grading systems are in keeping
with the objectives of the community colleges. Therefore,
it is recommended that the student be permitted to choose a
nonpenalty grade upon withdrawal from class at any time
during the semester.
14. A choice of credit/no-credit grades should be
permitted in one-fourth of the courses outside of the stu
dent's major. ____
174
15. When courses are repeated, only the latest
grade should be used in calculating the student's total
credits and grade point average under the conditions that
not over four replacements are permitted toward an Associ
ate in Arts Degree and that not over one repetition of each
class be permitted.
16. A doctoral study to determine why the grade
point average of good students declines during the second
and succeeding semesters is suggested.
17. A state-wide committee composed of junior col
lege instructors and administrators should be appointed by
the Chancellor of the California community colleges and
charged with the responsibility of evaluating non-penalty
grading systems with respect to (a) the academic achieve
ment of students and (b) the long range effect on articula
tion with four-year colleges and universities.
18. Community colleges should search experimentally
for instructional practices which would increase the value -
of higher education to those students for whom traditional
programs are ineffective.
175
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Abel, W. H. "Attrition and the Student Who Is Cer
tain." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44:1042-45,
June, 1966.
2. The Academic State. Sacramento: Joint Committee on
Higher Education of the California Legislature,
1967.
3. Baird, Leonard L. The Undecided Student— How Differ
ent Is He? Iowa City, Iowa: American College
Testing Program, Report Number ACT-RR-22, 1967.
(ERIC: ED 017 230)
4. Bakersfield College Catalogue, 1969-1971. Bakers-
field, California: Bakersfield College, 1969.
5. Barstow College Catalog, 196 9-70. Barstow, Califor
nia: Barstow College, 1969.
6. Basham, G. A. "Legalized Loitering in California
Junior Colleges." Journal of Secondary Education,
36:203-205, April, 1961.
7. Birsiri, August. "Disqualified Students Admitted to
the Fall, 1965 Semester." Los Angeles: Los
Angeles City College, 1966. (Mimeographed.)
(ERIC: ED 010 734)
8. Blai, Boris, Jr. "Expectancy Tables and College Ad
mission." Junior College Journal, 36:27,
February, 1966.
9. Blocker, Clyde E., Plummer, Robert H., and Richardson
Richard C. The Two Year College: A Social Syn
thesis . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1965.
10. Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community College. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co~ 1950.
11. Bond, Julian. "The Campus and the Racial Crisis."
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4:4, October 20,
176
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
177
Borg, Walter R. Educational Research; An Introduc
tion. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965.
Boxhill, Carlton J. "A Special MMPI Scale Related to
the Retention and Dismissal of Freshman College
Students on Academic Probation." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1965.
Brick, Michael. Forum and Focus for the Junior Col
lege Movement. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 196 4.
Brooks, Walter L. "A Study of Penalty Grading and
Probation Practices at Shasta College." Redding,
California: Shasta College, 196 8. (Mimeographed.)
(ERIC: ED 124 376)
Brown, James W., and Thornton, James W., Jr. College
Teaching. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 196 3.
Brubacher, John S. and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education
in Transition. New York: Harper & Row, Pub
lishers, 195 8.
California Administrative Code, Title 5. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education, 196 0.
California State Colleges, Office of the Chancellor.
Letter from Robert O. Bess, Director, to Albert
Caliguiri, Los Angeles Junior College Curriculum
Coordinator. Los Angeles, October 7, 196 8.
California State Department of Education. Communica
tion from Arthur Jenson, Bureau of College Educa
tion, to Los Angeles Junior College District.
Sacramento, March 16, 196 7.
________. Communication from Paul F. Lawrence, Chief,
Division of Higher Education, to all community
colleges. Sacramento, March 22, 196 7.
Campbell, L. H. and Hahn, W. "Readmission of Former
Students after Absence from the Campus: Problems
and Opportunities." College and University,
37:126-134, Winter, 1962.
178
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Cashin, Harold John, Jr. "Programs for Professional
Preparation for California Public Junior Colleges."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1968.
Cassady, Lloyd R. "Summary of Probationary and Dis
qualified Students." Chula Vista, California:
Southwestern College, 1967. (Mimeographed.)
The Challenge of Achievement. Sacramento: Joint
Committee on Higher Education of the California
Legislature, 196 8.
Chamberlin, R. Letter to the author. Barstow Col
lege, Barstow, California, July 3, 1969.
_______ . Letter to the author. Barstow College,
Barstow, California, October 9, 1969.
Chansky, Norman M. "A Note of the Grade Point Average
in Research." Education and Psychological Measure
ment, 26:94-99, Spring, 1964.
Clark, Robert M. "Effectiveness of Special Counseling
on a Group Basis, Fall Semester, 1967." Reedley,
California: Reedley College, 1968. (ERIC:
ED 019 944)
Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College, A Case Study.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960.
Cohen, Wallace Firman. "Community Service Programs in
California Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1967.
College of San Mateo Catalog, 1969-70. San Mateo,
California: College of San Mateo, 1969.
Collins, Charles C. "Grading in the Community College:
A Proposal." Junior College Journal, 36:33-36,
December, 1965.
_______ . "A Point of View on Grading Standards."
Junior College Journal, 37:21-23, April, 1965.
_______ . "The Transfer Myths: An Heretical View."
CJCA News, 15:2, September, 1969.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
179
Crane, William J. "Scholastic Probation: Motivation
or Weeding-Out?" The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 42:8, 811-814, April, 1964.
Cronbach, L. J. Educational Psychology. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962.
Cross, K. Patricia. The Junior College Student: A
Research Description. Princeton: Educational
Testing Service, 196 8.
Davidoff, Foster. "The Opportunity to Succeed."
Compton, California: Compton College, September,
1967. (Mimeographed.)
Dessent, Shirley C. "Group Counseling— Plus— Increas
ing School Success of Junior College Students."
Glendale, California: Glendale College, 1964.
(ERIC: ED 014 955)
Directory of California Public Junior Colleges—
1967-68. Sacramento: California State Department
of Education, 1967.
Dole, A. A. "Prediction of Academic Success upon
Readmission to College." Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 10:169-175, Summer, 1^6 3.
"Downgrading the Grade." Newsweek, 68:103-104,
November 7, 1966.
Dula, Thomas C. "A Study of Academic Probation and
Suspension Policies and Practices and the Outcomes
of These Policies and Practices in Representative
Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahas
see, Florida, 1961.
_______ , and Schultz, Raymond E. "Academic Probation
and Suspension Practices in Public Junior Colleges,"
Junior College Journal, 32:78-83, October, 1961.
Dye, V. C. "A Study of Academically Dropped Students
Who Were Readmitted to the University of Illinois."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVI, 6510.
Eckland, B. K. "Sources of Error in College Attrition
Studies." Sociology of Education, 55:219-227,
1964.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
180
El Camino College Catalog, 1969-70. Torrance, Cali
fornia: El Camino College, 1969.
Feeney, T. J. "Academic Suspension: Harvest Time
for Vegetables." Journal of Secondary Education,
37:216-221, April, 1962.
Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychol
ogy and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1966.
Fields, Ralph R. The Community College Movement.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962.
"Finch Promises Junior College 'Career' Plan." The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 4:4, October 13,
1969.
Ford, D. H. and Urban, H. B. "College Dropouts:
Successes or Failures." Educational Record, 46:77-
92, Spring, 1965.
Forrest, D. V. "High School Underachievers in Col
lege." Journal of Educational Research, 61:147-
150, December, 196 7.
Fox, Logan. "Study of Relationships Between Grades
and Measures of Scholastic Aptitude, Creativity,
and Attitude in Junior College Students." Unpub
lished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 196 7.
Fugle, James B., Jr. "Survey of the Results of the
College Probation-Retention-Disqualification
Policy." Santa Monica: Santa Monica City College,
March, 1969. (Mimeographed.)
Gardner, John W. Excellence: Can We Be Equal and
Excellent Too? New York: Harper & Row, 1961.
Garrison, Roger H. Junior College Faculty: Issues
and Problems. Washington, D.C.: American Associa-
tion of Junior Colleges, 196 7.
Glasser, William. Schools Without Failure. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969.
Gold, Ben K. "The Developmental Studies Program:
Some Scholarship and Persistence Statistics." Los
Angeles: Los Angeles City College, 1968. (Mimeo
graphed.) (ERIC; ED 026 043)
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
181
"Grades Report, Fall Semester 1968, Day Division."
Los Angeles Harbor College. Wilmington, Califor
nia: Los Angeles Harbor College, March 28, 1969.
(Mimeographed.)
Grossmont College Catalog, 1969-70. El Cajon, Cali
fornia: Grossmont College, 1969.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1956.
Hall, Lincoln H. Performance of Average Students in a
Junior College and in Four-year Institutions.
California State Department of Education, Report
Number CSDE-RB-16, January, 196 7. (ERIC:
ED 013 106)
Havighurst, Robert J. and Rodgers, Robert. "The Role
of Motivation." In Bryon S. Hollingshead Who
Should Go to College? New York: Columbia Univer
sityT?rei¥7—195^ Chap. VII.
Hoyt, D. P. "Predicting Grades in Two-year Terminal
Programs." Junior College Journal, 36:20-23,
February, 1966.
Humphreys, Lloyd G. "The Fleeting Nature of the Pre
diction of College Academic Success." Journal of
Educational Psychology, 59:375-380, 1968.
Kercher, Paul R. Letter to the author. Porterville
College, Porterville, California, June 27, 1969.
Kersh, George Kenneth. "Academic Program of Univer
sity of Arkansas Students Subsequent to Placement
on Scholastic Probation." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1966.
Kingsley, G. Gordon and Scheller, Thomas G. "The
Effect of Forced Counseling— Individual and Group—
with Students Transferring into the General College
on Probation." University of Minnesota, General
College, 1966. (ERIC: ED 019 073)
Kintzer, F. C. "Admission of Students to California
Public Junior College Who Are in Academic Diffi
culty at the University of California." College
and University, 41:221-230, Winter, 1966.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
182
Kipps, Carol. "Progress Report on the First Semester
of the Level I Program at Compton College."
Compton, California: Compton College, 1966.
(Mimeographed.)
Knoell, Dorothy M. "Are Our Colleges Really Acces
sible to the Poor?" Junior College Journal,
39:9-11, October, 1968.
_______ . "Focus on the Transfer Program." Junior
College Journal, 35:5-9, May, 1965.
________. Toward Educational Opportunity for All.
New York: State University of New York, 1966.
________, and Medsker, Leland L. From Junior to
Senior College: A National Study of the Transfer
Student. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1965.
Lee, Calvin B. T. "Open-Door Classrooms for Open-Door
Colleges." Junior College Journal, 37:11-13,
February, 19 6 7.
Liaison Committee of the Regents of the University of
California and the State Board of Education. A
Master Plan for Higher Education in California,
1960-1975. Sacramento: California State Depart
ment of Education, 1957.
Lombardi, John. "The Challenge for the Future."
Speech given at the Developmental Studies Workshop,
Los Angeles City College, June 3, 196 7.
Los Angeles City College Catalog, 1969-70. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles City College, 1969.
Los Angeles Harbor College Catalog, 1969-70. Wilming-
ton, California: Los Angeles Harbor College, 1969.
Los Angeles Soutwest College Catalog, 1969-70. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles Southwest College, 1969.
Los Angeles Valley College Catalog, 1969-70. Van
Nuys, California: Los Angeles Valley College,
1969.
Machetanz, Fred. A Follow-Up Study of the Entering
Freshman Class. Van Nuys, Calxfornia: Los
Angeles Valley College, 196 8.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
183
Malcolm, Richard Ward. "An Analysis of Selected Con
ditional Admissions at the University of Southern
California." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1966.
Mclnnis, Noel F. "Students Are a Lot Like People."
Junior College Journal, 38:44, March, 196 8.
McKibbin, Eugene F. "Round Two for College Dropouts."
Junior College Journal, 37:22-25, December, 1966.
Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and
Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1960.
_______ , and Trent, James W. The Influence of Dif
ferent Types of Public Higher Institutions on
College Attendance from Varying Socioeconomic and
Ability Levels" Berkeley, California: Center for
the Study of Higher Education, University of Cali
fornia, 196 5.
Merson, Thomas B. "Report of Student Retention-
Dismissal Practices in Selected California Junior
Colleges." Sacramento: California Junior College
Association, 1966. (ERIC: ED 014 949)
Mira Costa College Catalog, 1969-70. Oceanside,
California: Mira Costa College, 1969.
Monterey Peninsula College Catalog, 1969-70. Monterey,
California: Monterey Peninsula College, 1969.
Moskowitz, Ron. "Grading Scandal Hits San Francisco
State; Accreditation Threatened." The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 4:6, November 3, 1969.
"New Rule on Repetition Affects Transfer Students."
California Notes, 14:6, March, 1969.
O'Banion, Terry. "Rules and Regulations: Philosophy
and Practice." Junior College Journal, 39:11-15,
April, 1969.
O'Connell, Thomas E. Community Colleges. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 196 8.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
184
O'Donnell, Patrick Ian. "Predictors of Freshman
Academic Success and Their Relationship to Attri
tion." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Uni
versity of Southern California, 1969.
Ohlone College Catalog, 1969-70. Fremont, Califor-
nia: Ohlone College, 1969.
Paltridge, James G. California's Coordinating
Council for Higher Education^ Berkeley: Center
for Research and Development in Higher Education,
University of California, 1966.
Pedler, A. "Establishment of a New 'W' Policy."
Napa, California: Nap College, 1969. (Mimeo
graphed.)
Poe, Robert D. "Enrollment Data--Probationary Stu
dents." Torrance, California: El Camino College,
196 8. (Mimeographed.)
Porterville College Catalog, 196 9-70. Porterville,
California, Porterville College, 1969.
President's Commission on Higher Education. Higher
Education for American Democracy. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1948.
Pullias, Earl V. A Search for Understanding.
Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Company, Publishers, 1965.
________, and Lockhart, Aileene. Toward Excellence
in College Teaching. Dubuque: William C. Brown,
Publishers, 196 3.
"Recommended Abolition of F Grade." On Record, 1:31,
May 15, 196 9.
Reedley College Catalog, 1969-70. Reedley, Califor-
nia: Reedley College, 1969.
"A Report of a Consideration of Student Probation-
Dismissal Standards Among the Segments of Public
Higher Education." Sacramento: Coordinating
Council of Higher Education, October 20, 1964.
(Mimeographed. )
"A Report to the California State Board of Education
on Standards for Graduation, Probation, and
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
185
Dismissal in California Public Junior Colleges."
Sacramento: California State Department of Edu
cation, June, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
A Report on the Low Ability Student at Mira Costa
College" Oceanside, California: Mira Costa
College, 1966. (ERIC: ED Oil 384)
Robinson, Eugene E. "The Decision Making Process of
a University Readmission Committee." Dissertation
Abstracts, XXIV, 4069-79, 1964.
The Role of the Junior College in the Urban Revolu
tion. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by
Los Angeles City College, April 27, 196 8. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles City College, 196 8.
Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore F. "Teacher
Expectations for the Disadvantaged." Scientific
American, 218:19-23, April, 1968.
Roueche, John E. Salvage, Redirection, or Custody?
Washington, D.C.: American Assocxation of Junior
Colleges, 1968.
________, and Sims, David M. "Open-Door College or
Open-Door Curriculums?" Junior College Journal,
38:18-19, February, 1968.
Sacramento State College General Catalog, 196 8-69.
Sacramento, Calxfornxa, 196 8.
Sgan, Mathew R., "First Year of Pass-Fail at Brandeis
University." Journal of Higher Education, 40:135,
February, 1969.
Schmelzlee, Robert. "A Follow-Up Study of Freshmen
on Probation After the First Semester at the
University of Portland." The Journal of Educa
tional Research, 57:374-375, March, 1964.
. "Are We Losing Bright Failing Students?"
School and Society, 92:189-190, April, 1964.
School Dropout: What's Being Done for Him? National
Education Association, Research Division, NEA
Research Bulletin, 45:35-36, May, 196 7.
Schreiber, D. "School Dropout." National Society
for the Study of Education Yearbooks, 66:211-236,
T5ST *• — __________________
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
186
Schultz, Raymond E. "The Inqoact of Academic Proba
tion and Suspension Practices on Junior College
Students." Junior College Journal, 32:271-275,
January, 1962.
Scully, Malcolm G. "After a Year of Crises, Federal
City College Drops Experiments for Traditional
Forms.1 1 The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4:3,
October 2 7, 1969.
September Report 1966. Sacramento: Coordinating
Council for Higher Education, 1966.
Smith, Lawrence G. "Non-Punitive Grading in Califor
nia Junior Colleges." El Cajon, California.:
Grossmont College, 1969. (Mimeographed.)
Stallings, William M., Smock, H. Richard, and Leslie,
Elwood K. "The Pass-Fail Grading Option." School
& Society, 96:179-180, March 16, 196 8.
"State Schools Exclude Poor Students.1 1 Phi Delta
Kappan, 46:302, March, 1965.
Stein, Ruth S. "An Approach to Modifying College
Concepts and Improving Academic Performance of a
Group of Low Testing Junior College Students."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of
California at Los Angeles, 1966. (ERIC: ED 021
534)
_______ . "Some Concepts Held by Los Angeles City
College Entrants on Probation Because of Low SCAT
Scores." Los Angeles: Los Angeles City College,
1966. (ERIC: ED 104 274)
Summary of Probation and Disqualified Students.
Southwestern College Faculty Bulletin, 7:22,
September, 1967. Chula Vista, California: South
western College, 1967.
Taylor, Fred A. Student Evaluation System. Texas
City Texas: College of the Mainland, 1969.
Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior Col-
lege. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
Trent, J. W., and Ruyle, J. H. "Variations, Flow and
Pattern of College Attendance; the High School
187
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
Graduate Study." College and University, 41:61-
76, Fall, 1965.
Undem, Jan and Muck, Steven J. "An Analysis of the
Records of Students Entering El Camino College on
Probation from Other Institutions of Higher Learn
ing." Torrance, California: El Camino College,
January 7, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
University of California, Office of Relations with
Schools. Letter from Vem W. Robinson to Albert
Caligiuri, Los Angeles Junior College Curriculum
Coordinator. Los Angeles, September 30, 1968.
Vail, Evan. Retention of Students Over a Three Year
Period (Fall Semesters, 1962, 63, 64) Under Three
Different Drop Policies. Riverside, California:
Riverside City College, 1966. (ERIC: ED 014 286)
Vander Poll, C. Letter to the author. Grossmont
College, El Cajon, California, July 14, 1969.
Vaughan, R. P. "College Dropouts: Dismissed vs.
Withdrew." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
46:685-689, March, 1969.
Warriner, Clell C., Foster, Dorothy, and Trites,
David K. "Failure to Complete as a Family Char
acteristic: A College Sample." Journal of Edu
cational Research, 59:466-468, July, 1966.
Wharton, William Louis. "Factors Associated with
Success of Returning College Dropouts." Unpub
lished Doctoral dissertation. University of
Florida, 1965.
Whitehead, Alfred North. The Aims of Education. New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1929.
Whitla, Dean. "Admission to College: Policy and
Practice." Phi Delta Kappan, 46:303-306, March,
1965.
Wise, W. Max. They Come for the Best of Reasons—
College Students TodayT Washington, D.C.: Aineri-
can Council on Education, 1958.
Yonge, G. D. "Students; Persistence." Review of
Educational Research, 35:256-257, October, 1965.
188
APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
189
A SURVEY OF EXPERT OPINION
CONCERNING PROBATION, DISMISSAL AND READMISSION
IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES
It is the purpose of this questionnaire to survey current practice in handling
problems of probation, dismissal and readmission. Your statements as an ex
perienced admissions officer are valuable to the study and the time you give is
appreciated. No information that you provide will be identified with you or
your College without your expressed permission.
1. What purpose or purposes is probation designed to achieve in your college?
(Check one or more) The Major
Purpose
One of Several
Purposes
Not
Important
(a) To "weed out** inadequate students.
(b) To *'shape up" lagging students.
(c) To identify low achievers for
"counseling."
(d) To "regulate" the program of low
achievers.
(e) Other. Please specify.
2. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of your policy?
If this is a purpose, it is: Fully Achieved Adequately Achieved Not Achieved
(a) ‘ Weed out"
(b) '*Shape up"
(c) Identify for
"counseling"
(d) “ Regulate"
(e) Other. Please specify.
3. What form of counseling and guidance do probationary students receive?
Yes No
(a) Counselors are available to those who request appointments.
(b) Probationary students are required to see the counselor
while on probation.
(c) Probationary students are counseled in groups.
(d) Other. Please specify.
h. If you regulate the load of probationary students, how is this accomplished?
Check True Statements
(a) Probationary students are restricted in the number
of units they can take.
(b) Probationary students are required to take certain
developmental courses.
(c) Probationary students cannot take certain courses.
(d) Other regulatory measures. Please specify.
-2-
5. Are some of your probationary students dismissed? Yes ____No .
For how long must a dismissed student remain out of college before reinstate
ment? semesters (or quarters).
Do you immediately readmit some students following dismissal? Yes __ No _ _ _ _ _ _
6. What factors do you consider when a student applies for readmission after
dismissal?
Very Important Considered! Not Considered
(a) Relationship of units completed
to grade point deficiency.
(b) High school history.
(c) Major at time of dismissal.
(d) A change to an academically
easier major.
(e) Employment while dismissed.
(f) Socioeconomic factors.
(g) Draft status.
(h) Others.
(i)
7. Which of the following combinations of grade point deficiencies and total units
completed would definitely cause dismissal of a student subject to dismissal
tinder your present policy? Check those dismissed.
Grade Point Deficiency
1 2
3
b
5
6 7-15 16-30
Total 12
Units 30
Completed b5
8. Several colleges have indicated that they have "scholastic standards committees"
to rule on dismissal and readmission. If your college has such a committee, and
it operates from written guidelines, can a copy be included for this study?
9. Would you like a summary of this questionnaire? Yes No .
10. Are you now pursuing or experimenting with a grading policy that will change
the number of students on probation (for example, giving only A, B, C, and W
grades or allowing students to drop certain grades upon a change of major)?
Yes No ___. Please describe in some detail on the back of this sheet
any such plans that you are using.
________________ ' Merle A. Dietz
Name of Respondent Assistant Dean, Evening Division
Los Angeles Harbor College
Position • n n r y l I
Wilmington, California 90744
School
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER
192
193
The enclosed questionnaire is concerned with the purposes and the
operation of probation and academic dismissal in California Community
Colleges.
Your experience in the formulation of policy and in its day-to-day
operation will be of value to the study. The questionnaire requires
no search for statistics. Only one optional question, number ten,
asks for an answer beyond a check or a single word.
This information, along with a statistical analysis of a large sample
of student grades at one institution, will provide material for my
doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California under
the guidance of Dr. Pullias, Dr. Wilbur, and Dr. Carpenter.
In addition to the questionnaire, may I have a copy of your policy
on academic probation and any written guidelines you use in dismissal
and readmission. Also, related institutional research that you have
conducted in recent years will be of value.
While this, like all questionnaires, consumes a few minutes of your
valuable time, I hope that the results will be of sufficient interest
that you will allow me to send you a summary.
Sincerely yours,
Merle A. Dietz
Assistant Dean, Evening Division
Los Angeles Harbor College
1111 Figueroa Place
Wilmington, California 907^
MD/dn
enc
APPENDIX C
CONVERSION TABLES FOR THE SCHOOL
AND COLLEGE ABILTY TEST
194
COOPERATIVE SCHOOL AND COLLEGE ABILITY TESTS
CONVERTED SCORE EQUIVALENT TO SCAT 1A RAN SCORES*
Number
Right V Q
5 251 253
6 251 256
7 251 258
8 , 251 260 '
9 251 262
10 251 264
11 254 266
12 257 268
13 260 270
14 263 272
.15 266 - 274
16 269 276
17 . 271 278
18 273 279
19 275 281
20 277 283
21 279 284
22 281 286
23 283 288
24 284 289
25 286 291
26 287 292
27 288 294
28 290 296
29 291 297
30 292 299
31 293 300
32 294 302
33 295 304—
34 296 305
35 298 307
36 299 308
37 300 310
38 301 311
39 302 313
40 303 314
41 305 316
42 306 317
43 307 319
44 ' 308 321
45 309 323
46 311 324
47 ' 312 327
48 313 330
49 314 333
50 316 336
51 317
52 319
53 320
54 322
55 324
56 326
57 328
58 331
59 334
60 338
T
Number
Right T
61 296
62 296
63 297
64 297
65 298
66 299
67 299
68 300
69 301
70 301
71 302
255 72 303
256 73 303
258 74 304
259 75 304
260
262 76 305
263 77 306
264 78 306
265 79 307
266 80 308
81 308
268 82 309
269 83 310
270 84 311
271 85 311
272
273 86 312
274 87 313
275 86 314
276 89 315
276 90 315
91 316
277 92 317
278 93 318
279 94 319
280 95 320
280
281 96 321
262 97 322
283 98 323
284 99 324
284 100 325
101 326
285 102 32/
286* • . 103 323
286 • 104 329
287 105 330
288
289 106 331
289 107 332
290 108 333
291 109 334
291 110 335
292
293
294
294
295
*Table of values found on SCAT 1A Test Scoring Key, Catalog No. 151-01-3
published by Cooperative test Division, Educational Testing Service,
Los Angeles 27, California
196
COOPERATIVE SCHOOL AND COLLEGE ABILITY TESTS
PERCENTILE RANKS FOR CONVERTED SCORES OF STUDENTS
IN T1IK NORMS GROUP: GRADE 13*
Converted
Score Verbal Quantitative Total
340-341 99.8
338-339 99.5
336-337 99.7 99.2
334-335 99.6 99 99.6
332-333 99.2 98 99.3
330-331 99.1 96 99.2
328-329 99 94 99
326-327 98 9? 98
324-325 97 90 97
322-323 96 88 96
320-321 95 85 94
318-319 94 82 93
316-317 92 77 92
314-315 91 73 89
312-313 89 70 87
310-311 86 66 84
308-309 83 61 80
306-307 78 57 74
304-305 75 52 68
302-303 71 47 62
300-301 66 43 55
298-299 60 39 48
296-297 54 35 42
294-295 49 31 37
292-293 43 27 32
290-291 37 23 28
288-289 32 20 24
286-287 28 17 20
284-285 24 15 16
282-283 21 14 14
280-281 18 12 1 1
278-279 16 1 1 9
276-277 14 10 8
274-275 1 1 9 7
272-273 10 8 6
270-271 8 7 5
268-269 7 6 4
266-267 6 5 3
264-265 5. 4 2
262-263 4 3 1
260-261 3 2 0.7
258-259 2 1 0.5
256-257 1 0.8 0.3
254-255 0.9 0.5
252-253 0.5
* T ak cn from SCAT T e c h n i c a l R e p o rt , C a t a l o g No. 1 5 0 - 0 0 - 0 9 ,
C o o p e r a t i v e T e s t D i v i s i o n , E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e ,
Los A n g e le s 2 7 , p ag e 4 2 .

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The Church Related College In California

PDF

Non-Intellective Characteristics Of Selected Students Of Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher Preparation And Experience To The Appraisal Of Classroom Effectiveness By The Principal

PDF

Community Service Programs Of California Community Colleges: An Analysis Of Recent Developments

PDF

The Remedial Mathematics Curriculum In Selected California Community Colleges

PDF

A Study Of Undergraduate Education In Selected Seventh-Day Adventist Colleges

PDF

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Student Personnel Services Of Small Junior Colleges In California

PDF

Sabbatical Leaves And California Certificated Public School Employees

PDF

The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

PDF

The Organization And Administration Of Special Counseling Programs For Adult Women In Colleges And Universities

PDF

Conflicts In Role Expectations For Academic Deans In Church-Related Colleges

PDF

A Suggested Journalism Curriculum For California Junior Colleges

PDF

Art Education Programs Of The California State Colleges For Elementary Teachers

PDF

The Image Of Higher Education In American Novels, 1920-1966

PDF

Selective Variables In The Achievement Or Nonachievement Of Junior College Students From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds

PDF

A Historical Analysis Of Vocational Education: Land-Grant Colleges To California Junior Colleges, 1862-1940

PDF

Grievance Procedures And Disciplinary Actions In Classified Personnel Administration In California Public Schools

PDF

The Selection, Training And Evaluation Of School Bus Drivers In California

PDF

The Impact Of Selected Colleges On Students' Values

PDF

Major Concerns Of Music Education: Content Analysis Of The Music Educators Journal, 1957-1967

Asset Metadata

Creator Dietz, Merle Arlington (author)

Core Title Probation And Dismissal Policies In California Community Colleges

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee chair), Nelson, D. Lloyd (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-422906

Unique identifier UC11361089

Identifier 7025017.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-422906 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7025017.pdf

Dmrecord 422906

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dietz, Merle Arlington

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA