Refocusing developmental education

Abstract

Each fall, thousands of new students unable to read at the college level, unable to write standard academic English, unable to compute algebra problems, and unaware of the amount of time and effort required to master these skills arrive on college campuses (McCabe, 2000; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1996; THE INSTITUTE, 1998). Although many students are motivated to overcome the barriers that stand between them and their educational goals, many more fail to engage this sometimes daunting task. The resulting question-Are educational institutions responding correctly to this challenge?-is echoed on many fronts.Developmental education can be and has been defined in many different ways. During cycles of the profession, various aspects have come under scrutiny and attack from government officials, school boards, parents, and even students themselves (Arendale, 2003). The resulting uncertainty contributes to the discouragement that can arise from teaching courses to students who are not ready for college. The articulation of a common set of core values may counter this uncertainty and help developmental educators think about ways to create positive momentum in the field.The traditional core of developmental education has been remediation. Although educators and institutions at all levels have often agreed that the task of student development is shared across campus (Cross, 1971; Spann & McCrimmon, 1998), skill development courses remain the tool most commonly used by developmental educators. Some researchers argue in favor of the effectiveness of remedial coursework (e.g., McCabe, 2000), and others argue against it (e.g., Levin, 1999). The result has been further division within the field. In addition, remedial courses have not stimulated the most research but have drawn the most criticism from policymakers (Boylan, 1999; Saxon & Boylan, 2001). A only approach also contrasts with the broader view of developmental education as academic support for all students (Higbee, 1996; Lundell & Collins, 1999) delivered by all faculty (Tinto, 1993). If the unification of professionals in the field is dependent upon finding a common voice and value set underlying their work with students, it is imperative to move forward with discussion and research to better define our foundations.Remediation: Historic Contexts and Current IssuesThe principle that no student should be denied the chance to attend some form of postsecondary education may be supported by the American ideal of equal educational opportunity for all, but the public has also voiced the belief that 4-year colleges should be selective (Caravale & Rose, 2003). The large numbers of students applying to colleges in the 1960s and 1970s together with the proliferation of open-admission colleges during the same time frame made it possible for increasing numbers of 4-year colleges to be selective in their admission processes (Grubb, 1999), But, for many reasons, 4-year schools have continued to admit underprepared students, and institutions have often adopted stand-alone courses designed to remedy skill deficits to serve such students. For example, Bader and Hardin (2002) described how a state system of higher education created developmental studies programs centered on remedial courses for, among others, underprepared minority students brought into 4-year colleges and universities via alternative admissions standards (p. 36).Recently, many public 4-year colleges have been pressured to discontinue traditional course-based remediation (THE INSTITUTE, 1998), and many state legislatures or higher education boards are moving to restrict it (Arendale, 2003). This movement to reduce remedial courses in colleges continues despite the fact that nearly every community college, 4-year college, and university in the United States admits students who are not ready for the level of academic work expected of them (NCES, 1996). …