Factors Affecting the Retention of Immigrants at Public Four-Year Higher Education Institutions

1. Factors Affecting the Retention of Immigrants at Public Four-Year Higher Education Institutions This research was supported by a grant from the Association for Institutional Research and the National Science Foundation Kevin B. Murphy University of Massachusetts Boston kevin.murphy@umb.edu 617-287-5425 Available online at www.oirp.umb.edu/ProfessionalPapers.html

2. This study grew out of an institutional retention study in which the results were unexpected. For example, the pattern of one year retention by race/ethnicity did not follow the literature.

3. The relationship of Verbal SAT scores to one year retention was also different than expected.

4. The percentage of U.S. residents who were born outside the U.S. has grown dramatically.

5. Of the 37.5 million immigrants in the U.S. in 2006, approximately 3.6 million were in the traditional college age group of 18 to 24.

6. In 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that in 17 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. as a whole, 10% or more of the population had been born outside the U.S.

7. Assimilation Theory . . . immigrant youth who remain firmly ensconced in their respective ethnic communities, may, by virtue of this fact, have a better chance of educational and economic mobility through access to the resources that their communities make available. Alejandro Portes

8. Current assimilation theory values the support students receive from maintaining close ties with family and community. • Spatial concentration • Preservation of a value system • Regulation of the pace of acculturation • Greater social control over the young • Access to community networks for moral and economic support Sizable co-ethnic culture • Supports family control • Filters racial discrimination through supportive community networks (Portes & Rumbaut) • Staying “ethnic” and resisting …Americanization can be a key to upward social mobility (Waters) • Peer support may help alleviate acculturative stress (Gray, Rolph, and Melamid) • Avoidance of downward assimilation

9. Retention Theory . . .the lower the degree of one’s social and intellectual integration into the academic and social communities of the college, the greater the likelihood of departure. Vincent Tinto

10. Major theories regarding, persistence, and degree attainment. • Tinto’s student integration model • Institutional Commitment • Student leaves his/her community for citizenship in the higher education institution’s community • Living with family is a disadvantage for “integration into the social and intellectual life of the college”. • Subject to ability, SES, opportunity, etc. • Bean’s student attrition model • Students leave college for the same reasons people leave jobs • Institutional Commitment • Based on student perceptions of quality, practical value, fair treatment • More focus on prior academic performance • Students are one size fits all

11. Student living arrangements varied by locale and immigrant status.

12. Verbal SAT scores varied by language, immigration status, and locale.

13. I constructed a model that used a number of attributes from the retention literature and interacted them with immigrant status, and tested it using BPS:96/01. Y = f(B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + B4X4 + B5X5 + B6X6 + B7X7 + (Bn+1(X7*X1) + …Bn+1(X7* X7)) + E Where: Y = A dependent variable representing one year retention to the same institution. X1 = Demographics X2 = Language

14. The model continued X3 = Ability X4 = Institutional Commitment X5 = Risk Index X6 = Locale X7 = Immigrant status Bn+1 ((X7*X1) …(X7* X6)) = Other variables interacted with Immigrant Status E =Random Variation Factor

15. The attributes were operationalized in a number of different ways. • Demographics • Race/ethnicity • Age • Gender • Use of a language other than English at home • Ability • Verbal SAT scores • Math SAT Scores • High School GPA • Remedial course taking

16. Attributes, continued • Institutional Commitment • Living with family • Distance from permanent home to school • Working for pay • Working more than 20 hours a week • Working on campus • Locale • Urban (central city of > 250,000 population) • Other

17. Attributes, continued • Risk index (risk index 0 to 7) • Attending school part time • Delayed entry • Dependents other than spouse • Financially independent • No HS diploma • Single parenthood • Working full time • Immigrant Status • Immigrant • U.S. born • No international students

18. Attributes, continued • Socio-economic status • 1995 family income as a percentage of the federal poverty level • Receipt of food stamps • Educational level of the best educated parent. Each of the variables under the various attributes was interacted with the Immigrant variable

19. Several of the variables were related to retention in the expected ways, but others that are important in the literature had no significant relationship to retention.

20. Several variables were differently related to retention for immigrants, many in unexpected ways.

21. Many behaviors were related to success differently and in some unexpected ways for immigrants compared to the U.S. born. • Living with family in the first year was positively related to success for immigrants for retention and third year persistence. • Verbal SAT scores were negatively related to success for immigrants • Positive parental educational measures tended to be negatively associated with success for immigrants. In general, immigrants often behaved differently and were affected differently.

22. Limitations of the data sets • Failure to identify the children of immigrants • Will be rectified in the current round of data collection (BPS:04/09) • BPS:96/01 was the last data collected without this information • Disproportionate numbers of immigrant observations with missing data • Standard problem in data collection • Balance the need for information with the individual’s right to privacy • Perceived threat to refugee populations • Forcing an identification the student does not wish to make • Have co-ethnic or multilingual workers collect the data • Inability of collectors to keep information confidential from other workers.

23. Limitations of the data sets, continued • Failure to identify when the student or family immigrated • Will be rectified in the current round of data collection (BPS:04/09) • Does not identify the type of immigration • Human capital • Labor migrant • Political refugee • Lack of ESL information • Institutional locale does not differentiate institutional mission

24. Immediate policy implications • Recognize that maintaining close contact with family and ethnic community provides important support for immigrants. • Allow immigrant students to live with family rather than requiring them to live on campus. • If they are required to live on campus, consider having dormitories that have large numbers of co-ethnic students. • Understand that acculturation is a process undergone not just by individuals, but by families and communities. • Outreach for the families and ethnic communities of students by providing ESL classes on campus. • Help immigrant students become integrated into campus life by targeting on campus employment for the immigrant students who must work. • Discontinue the use of Verbal SAT scores for college admissions for immigrants or develop different cutoffs based on language status

25. Further research • Duplicate this study using BPS:04/09 data that will become available in 2010. • Identify the children of immigrants • Similarities to and differences from the immigrants • Time in U.S. • For immigrant students • Parents of U.S. born • Collect information on ESL class utilization • Track transfers • Lateral or downward • With more observations, include institutional selectivity • Conduct a similar study on community college students

26. Thank You Kevin B. Murphy kevin.murphy@umb.edu 617-287-5425 Factors Affecting the Retention of Immigrants at Public Four-Year Higher Education Institutions is available online at: www.oirp.umb.edu/ProfessionalPapers.html