Seven Myths about Developmental Education.

Abstract

Abstract This article identifies seven myths or misconceptions commonly held on college campuses regarding developmental education. The authors refute each myth and offer arguments in support of developmental education. Introduction Along with athletic departments, state coordinating boards, and college presidents, developmental education programs share the unwanted distinction of being among the more maligned agencies in higher education. Unlike other agencies, however, they seldom have the resources, the power, or a public platform available to respond to their malefactors. This is indeed unfortunate since most of the unfavorable comments directed toward developmental education programs are based on myths and misunderstandings. They are built upon faulty perceptions which, once established, are difficult to refute without substantial documentation. The purpose of this article is to refute some of the most common myths and misperceptions about developmental education through the use of facts readily available in the research and literature of the field. It is hoped that this will be beneficial to developmental program staff and institutional policy-makers by providing factual information to replace the mythology often used in making judgments about developmental programs. The mythology Among the many myths surrounding developmental education, those described below are the most common. They are widely held by many in academe and, unfortunately, are often used to make decisions regarding the nature, purpose, goals, resources, and facilities of developmental education programs. MYTH #1 - WE DID NOT HAVE UNDERPREPARED STUDENTS JN THE GOOD OLD DAYS. A persistent belief exists among many academicians that, at some bygone point in history, American colleges and universities were filled with students who were all fully prepared to read college textbooks, write college-level essays, think critically, reason accurately, and do advanced mathematics. If we could only return to the good old when such students populated our campuses in great numbers, everything would be all right and we would not need developmental education. As in most good old scenarios, such days never existed except in the minds of those who are too young to know better and those (of whatever age) who imagine a past that never was. As far back as the middle 1800s, American colleges and universities admitted large numbers of underprepared students. In 1849, the number of underprepared students at the University of Wisconsin was so large that an entire college preparatory division had to be established to serve them (Brier, 1985). The innovation of the college preparatory program was widely replicated throughout American higher education. By 1889, fully 80% of the nation's colleges and universities had established preparatory programs (Canfield, 1889). In an attempt to make college admissions standards more uniform and, thereby, reduce the need for preparatory programs the College Entrance Examination Board was established in 1890 (Maxwell, 1985). Nevertheless, 25 years later in 1915, the U.S. Commissioner of Education reported that about 80% of American postsecondary institutions had college preparatory programs (Maxwell, 1985). In the mid-1970's, Roueche and Snow (1977), surveyed American postsecondary institutions and found that approximately 80% still had some form of college preparatory program. Similar results were found in a 1985 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (1985) and in a 1991 study by the National Center for Developmental Education (Bonham, 1992). It seems reasonable to assume that American colleges and universities would not establish programs to serve underprepared students unless such students were present in sufficient numbers to warrant these programs. For over 140 years, therefore, underprepared students have been present in American higher education. …