ACT 101 SUMMER BRIDGE PROGRAM: AN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT SUCCESS FOLLOWING ONE YEAR OF PARTICIPATION

Abstract

This quantitative study assessed student success by examining the academic progress of Act 101 summer bridge program subjects who completed two semesters in a suburban mid-Atlantic community college. The study compared qualified students who participated in the Act 101 program to Act 101 students who did not participate in the seven week academic experience in order to determine whether the program made a significant difference in the academic progress of these first year participants by reviewing the number of developmental courses required, assessing their semester one and semester two grade point averages, end of year credits, and retention rate over a five year period of time. A third group of students who did not qualify for the Act 101 program but met the admission requirements because of similar socio-economic and academic demographics were included for comparison purposes. The study also determined whether there were any significant differences in the level of success among the three groups based on student demographics including age, gender, ethnicity, and educational attainment of both the mother and the father. The outcomes of the study provide insight and infer policy implications: whether Act 101 students are likely to increase or reduce the prevailing pattern of proclivity for social reproduction. Act 101 summer bridge programs, targeted at college-bound freshman who are not college-ready, has a long history. Over forty years ago Honorable K. Leroy Irvis, then majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, recognized that many residents of the Commonwealth were unable to pursue higher education due to prevailing social conditions. With the support of the State Black Conference on Higher Education, he created the 1971 Higher Education Equal Opportunity Act, frequently referred to as Act 101, to provide additional assistance. The summer experience is focused on academics including writing, reading, mathematics, study skills, time management, counseling and computer literacy. Act 101 bridge students are low-income, mostly first generation learners who have experienced limited success in high school and must enroll in two or more developmental classes. Research data documents that the more barriers that students face, the more unlikely it is that they will obtain a credential. Many of these students lack adequate high school preparation which will inhibit them from attaining their goals. The more developmental courses these students take, the less likely these students will earn a degree as they expend their finances and lengthen their timeline. The ethical question is raised as to whether these students should incur indebtness if they are at high risk for non-completion of their goals. However, going to college represents the best option for escape from poverty and it increases opportunity for upward mobility. The findings of this study show that the semester 2 grade point average for the summer bridge students was significantly higher compared to the grade point average of the non-summer bridge students. The summer bridge subjects also had significantly more credits at the end of year 1 compared to subjects in the non-summer bridge group. In addition, the summer bridge students had the highest rate of retention among the three groups. Among other findings, the Act 101 subjects were older, predominately African American and female whose parents had graduated from high school. Older students needed more developmental courses. Subjects in the non-summer bridge group, all of whom elected not to participate in the SBP, needed the most developmental courses among the three groups. Their year 1 credit total of 3.57 credits suggested that their decision to decline the tuition-free summer opportunity was not in their best interest. The outcomes support policy implications that subjects in the summer bridge group took a small step forward in reducing the prevailing pattern of proclivity for social reproduction but subjects in the non-summer bridge group did not make enough strides by the end of year one to indicate that their educational experience thus far is impacting their social mobility status.