This qualitative research project focused on the interviews of 27 low socio-economic students at a research university in the southwestern United States. The students had already withdrawn from the university or were in the process of withdrawing. The study seeks to provide increased understanding of how students negotiate the decision-making process to withdraw from the first university they attended after high school. The theoretical lenses of student departure theories (Astin, 1993; Bean, 1983; Tierney, 1992; and Tinto, 1993) and decision-making theories (Becker, 1976; Frank, 1987; Kahneman, 2003; March, 1994; Scott, 2000) were combined. The Decision-Making Process Model of Student Departure is offered as a new theoretical framework that combines decision-making theories and student retention theories. This conceptualization is unlike other student departure models because it includes the proposition that forces push at the student from within the institution and forces pull them from outside the institution. In addition, it is different from other student departure models because it includes the discussion about how students think about their process to withdraw - it is not meant to describe their behaviors. Financial, academic and psychological stresses (from both within and outside the institution) influenced how the students negotiated the decision-making process to leave the institution. The students did not seek out institutional agents (advisors or faculty members) for advice when they were struggling academically. They developed their own strategies or went to their family members for advice, many of whom had never been to college.

No description available.

This study provided information for policymakers and practitioners by comparing performance of eighth grade students in 2007 on state standardized reading assessments and by the four census-defined regions identified by NAEP. NCLB required states to set their own performance standards and to create their own data collection instruments resulting in increased transparency of student performance data and a lack of uniform accountability systems. The inability of educators, policy-makers, and the general public to make state-by-state comparisons in the area of reading was the catalyst for the study. NAEP data were collected from NCES and state performance data were collected from the USDOE SY 2006-2007 CSPR to determine if a relationship existed between eighth grade students' state scores and NAEP scores in the four census-defined regions. Data were further disaggregated by low socioeconomic students and by nonwhite students. A regression analysis was statistically significant in predicting: a) the state proficient and above scores from the NAEP proficient and above scores, b) the low socioeconomic state proficient and above scores from the NAEP proficient and above scores in the West census-defined region, and c) the nonwhite state proficient and above scores from the NAEP proficient and above scores in all regions. A regression analysis was not statistically significant in predicting low socioeconomic state proficient and above scores from the low socioeconomic NAEP proficient and above scores in the Midwest, South and Northeast regions.