Webinar Update on Developmental Education Practices for Counselors, Faculty, and Student Affairs Staff

On October 28, 2011 I conducted a webinar with faculty and staff at Austin Community College (TX) on a wide range of current topics confronting the field of developmental education. I began with an overview of what I thought were the forces at work on the field, both good and bad. I especially focused on the recent event in Ohio banning developmental-level courses at public four-year institutions. Previously postings to this blog explained my thoughts on this issue recently.

Following an overview of the trends impacting the field, I moved into the heart of the webinar with identifying promising and best practices of developmental education applied to counselors, faculty members, and student affairs staff. Go to the top menu bar in this web site and click on "my talks" and then click on "narrated PP presentations." This webinar is the first presentation listed. A handout of the key slides from the webinar is the next item. You can also reach this web site by clicking on this sentence. Your comments are welcome.

Language Frames the Way People Think About Learning Assistance and Developmental Education

A variety of terms have been used to describe the field of learning assistance over the past two hun­dred years: academic preparatory programs, remedial education, compensatory education, learning assistance, developmental education, and access programs, just to name the major terms. In most areas of higher education, the progres­sion of names is a historical process, with one term dominating the literature. In this field, these terms are frequently used simultaneously and interchange­ably (Arendale, 2005b). Language reflects culture and confusion existing in the culture (Rice, 1980). I use the term “learning assistance” since it best describes this broad and highly diverse field.

Terms that were generally accepted in the past or present such as “compen­satory,” “remedial,” or “developmental” become stigmatized later (Arendale, 2005b; Jehangir, 2002; Pedelty, 2001). Some words assume new and different meanings based on the personal agenda of a few (Clowes, 1980; Rubin, 1987). Words are politicized by accepting a different meaning or value because a small group in society affixes negative status to the word. A power­ful display of this phenomenon is local or state policymakers who promote a negative stereotype of remedial education and compensatory education (Clowes, 1980; Higbee, 1996; Payne and Lyman, 1996; Soliday, 2002). Neg­ative perceptions grow with use of the term “developmental education.”

A careful review of the history of learning assistance reveals that terms used to describe it fifty years ago are now increasingly viewed negatively.

It is not surprising that some policymakers are confused about a profes­sion seemingly unable to name itself consistently and clearly advocate for the field. Learning assistance professionals must be clear and proactive about defin­ing the field, or it will be subject to definition and labeling by ill-informed outsiders often using antiquated and inaccurate words to define the practice (Rubin, 1987). In recent years, collaborative work among several professional associations produced several glossaries of key terms related to learning assis­tance (Rubin, 1991; Arendale and others, 2007; Arendale, 2009).

Language used initially for students served by learning assistance changed and was later interpreted to label them negatively (Ignash, 1997). Nor were the leaders of learning assistance programs immune to the negative label. Some perceived students in terms of their deficits (Tomlinson, 1989). The result of such language choices led some education leaders to no longer support learn­ing assistance services, especially developmental courses (Jehangir, 2002). Espe­cially at four-year institutions, campus leaders were hard-pressed to enroll large numbers of “remedial students” or “developmental students.”

I follows an admonition from the American Psychological Asso­ciation in the sixth edition of its publication style manual (2010) to avoid labeling people and to put the person first when describing a characteristic about him or her. Therefore, the term “developmental student,” is inaccurate and is not used. Rather, the phrase “students academically underprepared in one or more academic content areas” is a better descriptor for those enrolled in developmental courses. This phrase does not judge their academic readi­ness for other college-level courses. Use of terms like “developmental student,” “remedial student,” “compensatory student,” and the like imply lack of capac­ity or competency. A wide range of students from varying levels of academic preparation use noncredit learning assistance services. In addition to supple­menting courses, learning assistance can also enrich undergraduate and grad­uate learning. Labeling students accessing such noncredit services is impossible, as any member of the student body can—and often does—use them.

I prefer the term “learning assistance” because of its inclu­siveness and accurate depiction of the purpose and activities employed. It is not limited to particular student population groups based on their level of aca­demic preparation. Another term used to describe this field (particularly in the United Kingdom) is “access education” (Burke, 2002; Fulton and others, 1981).Through this frame, access programs incorporate traditional learning assistance activities such as tutoring, developmental courses, and others that prepare students for success in rigorous college-level courses. Learning assis­tance centers support success in rigorous classes as well as supplemental learn­ing venues for any learner to deepen knowledge of academic content through computer-based learning modules, study groups to deepen knowledge and skill in a course, and other activities. Access activities not typically included in the current learning assistance paradigm are first-year experience programs, new student orientation, services for students with disabilities, TRIO pro­grams, instructional professional development for the teaching staff, and other services promoting student success. A challenge with the term “access educa­tion,” however, is the inaccurate perception that it focuses only on activities serving students entering the institution and not supporting and enriching their college experience through timely graduation.

Forgetting Our History of Learning Assistance Leads to Access Denied at Four-Year Institutions

There has been considerable converation on the Internet recently about the decision of Ohio to eliminate most or all developmental-level (they use the outdated term "remedial"). The state hopes students will take the necessary courses at a (hopefully) nearby community college. Listening to the leaders in Ohio and other states talk, you would get the impression that the offering of developmental-level courses is a rather recent invention. Actually, tutorial programs have existed on the college campuses when they began as early as the 1700s. Harvard University was the first institution to offer developmental-level courses in the late 1800s and other colleges -- public and private -- quickly followed suit. While the White students attending college in the 1800s might have been coming from families of wealth and influence, their academic preparation was weak in English, math, reading, or some combination of the three. Colleges had to offer developmental-level courses to provide a chance for success for these students.

Although learning assistance has been a significant and sometimes controversial element in higher education, it is underreported by many historians of postsecondary education. Developmenatl-level courses are just one example of learning assistance. Others would be tutoring, mentoring, drop-in learning centers, study skill workshops, and the like.

A review of the professional literature demonstrates that some higher education historians ignore and others lightly record histor­ical events concerning learning assistance in U.S. postsecondary education. Although the learning assistance community has published numerous articles, dissertations, and monographs (Lundell and Higbee, 2002), those writing broad histories of higher education in the United States have paid little atten­tion to this area and the students involved (Arendale, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Brubacher and Rudy, 1976; Lucas, 2006; Jeynas, 2007; Rudy, 1996; Stahl and King, 2009).

A review of this component of higher edu­cation documented that many students throughout U.S. history were involved with learning assistance activities such as academic tutoring, enrollment in remedial or developmental courses, and participation in learning assistance cen­ter services. At times, learning assistance programs involved more than half of all college students at an institution (Canfield, 1889; Ignash, 1997; Maxwell, 1997; Shedd, 1932). The lines become blurred as students simultaneously enroll in courses at the developmental and college level in different academic subjects. Academic preparedness is not a characteristic of the student; rather, it is a condition relative to a particular academic course during the same academic term. It is inaccurate to designate students as “remedial” or “developmental,” for they may be competent or expert in one academic content area and need­ing learning assistance credit and noncredit services in another.

Kammen (1997) provides an explanation for underreporting the history of learning assistance, identifying “historical amnesia” as a potential cause. Quoting Ralph Ellison, he says, “Perhaps this is why we possess two basic ver­sions of American history: one [that] is written and as neatly stylized as ancient myth, the other unwritten and as chaotic and full of contradictions, changes of pace, and surprises as life itself” (p. 164). Distortions of memory occur for a variety of reasons, not only for cynical or manipulative motives (Kammen, 1997). The researcher engages in a long discussion concerning the similarities and differences between the “heritage syndrome” and true history: “The her­itage syndrome, if I may call it that, almost seems to be a predictable but cer­tainly nonconspiratorial response—an impulse to remember what is attractive or flattering and to ignore all the rest. Heritage is comprised of those aspects of history that we cherish and affirm. As an alternative to history, heritage accen­tuates the positive but sifts away what is problematic. One consequence is that the very pervasiveness of heritage as a phenomenon produces a beguiling sense of serenity about the well being of history” (p. 220).

Acknowledging the role and importance of learning assistance presents uncomfortable statements about higher education:

1. Academic bridge programs are necessary for many students to adjust to a college environment for which few are prepared academically or emotionally.
2. Developmental-level courses were necessary for the White students from priveledged families in the 1800s due to poor academic preparation.
3. Student subpopulations today other than the most privileged often need academic support systems to increase their chances for success resulting from dis­advantaged and deprived backgrounds. The same reason developmental-level courses were offered to White students of affluence in the 1800s is now denied to underrepresented and first-generation college students.
4. The need for learning assistance indicts the efficacy and effectiveness of ele­mentary and secondary education.
5. Scarce financial resources and personnel are necessary to meet the needs of students who are academically underprepared. Some students who drop out of college could have been retained through an effective learning assistance program.

Lack of knowledge about the history of learning assistance also contributes to current challenges for the field. For example, it is easier to curtail or eliminate learning assistance activities (especially developmental-level courses) if its historic importance for support and access to postsecondary education is not understood. As explored in the next chapter, learning assistance was an essential asset for colleges to support student achieve­ment and persistence. During the current period of financial emergency con­fronting many institutions, nonessential services are subject to reduction or elimination. It is not a surprise what Ohio higher education is doing since half a dozen other states have already enacted similar policies. Access to college just became that much more difficult for the "new" students to higher education.

• Arendale, D. R. (2002). A memory sometimes ignored: The history of developmental edu­cation. Learning Assistance Review, 7(1), 5–13.
• Arendale, D. R. (2002). Then and now: The early history of developmental education. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 18(2), 3–26.
• Kammen, M. (1997). In the past lane: Historical perspectives on American culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mission Differentiation: Code Language for Cutting Programs at Schools No Longer Wanted

The following is excerpted from my recent book, Access at the crossroads: Learning assistance in higher education (2010, Jossey Bass). Several of my recent blog posts have been about the elimination of developmetnal-level courses in Ohio. I also posted the message to the LRNASST email listserv and received reports from half a dozen other states that had previously enacted the same policy. I was disappointed to read that some people welcomed the decision since the students were better served at the two-year instiutions. I don't disagree about that result (as diappointing as that is). The issue I am concerned about is what happens when four-year institutions engage in "mission differentiation" and discontinue services and programs that had previously provided for more than 100 years. The following is my analysis of the practice and supported by research studies of others concerning the dramatic and negative outcomes as a result. -- David Arendale

Impact of Institutional Mission Differentiation on Learning Assistance

Economic challenges since the 1970s, especially among public institutions, have intensified. Land-grant institutions debate how to balance their historic egalitarian mission serving all state residents while curtailing programs and raising admission standards. Institutional leaders increasingly employ institu­tional “mission differentiation” to reign in costs and focus resources on the institution (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). Mission differentiation recognizes institutions with special programmatic offerings and targeted student popu­lations. Selective college admission policies lead some to question the need for comprehensive learning assistance services, especially developmental courses.

Preliminary analysis of mission differentiation reveals unannounced and unanticipated outcomes for learning assistance (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). Analysis of learn­ing assistance policy in Massachusetts and New York confirmed that mission differentiation led institutions to terminate academic programs, eliminate remedial or developmental courses, and promote honors colleges. The result is stratification of academic program opportunity in the state. Prestigious and high-demand academic programs were offered at fewer institutions than before. For students, stratification encouraged higher admissions standards at upper-tier institutions. As a result, students had fewer choices for postsec­ondary education (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004).

Another result was curtailment of developmental courses at upper-tier institutions in the state system (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001). Developmental courses are often a key ingredient in providing access and success for historically underrepresented students. Bastedo and Gumport (2003) concluded that more intense analysis is warranted before sys­temic changes occur to avoid or at least predict major changes in the stratifi­cation of students’ opportunity to attend postsecondary education and the student support systems needed for their success.

As more historically underrepresented students from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds seek admission, important learning assistance infrastructures are dismantled (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003). Mission differ­entiation assumes incorrectly that college aspirants are more academically pre­pared, and institutional leaders therefore conclude that developmental credit courses and other traditional learning assistance activities are not needed. Increasingly, public four-year institutions curtail or eliminate developmental courses with the expectation that students needing such instruction easily access them at a community college (Bastedo and Gumport, 2003; Gumport and Bastedo, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). This option requires a local community college. Most students do not have the financial resources or time to commute long distances for such classes. These students often are finan­cially disadvantaged and possess little free time. They cannot commute to mul­tiple institutions for courses while maintaining a job (or two) to pay for college and support a family. Based on a national dataset, students who attend mul­tiple institutions are less likely to graduate from college than those who begin at the intended degree-awarding institution (Adelman, 2006).

Mission differentiation raises a new set of questions and conflicts in post­secondary education (McPherson and Schapiro, 1999). Access to higher edu­cation shifts to access to what form of education and under what conditions. Differentiation among institutions increases stratification in society (Anderson, Daugherty, and Corrigan, 2005).

• Bastedo, M. N., and Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and aca­demic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education, 46(3), 341–359.
• Gumport, P. J., and Bastedo, M. N. (2001). Academic stratification and endemic conflict: Remedial education policy at CUNY. Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 333–349.
• Slaughter, S., and Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation: Institutional and student needs in higher educa­tion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Reoccurring Themes for Historically-Underrepresented Students

A review of the history of academic access and learning assistance in American higher education validates the following reoccurring themes. Understanding these can help predict future trends and proactive actions to take.

1. Institutions often admit students from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds but do not effectively deal with that reality.  Most institutions do not report their academic success with the media.
2. Many do not place sufficient resources in place to effectively deal with the oppressive and academically-deprived backgrounds of the students.  Many institutions target academic resources for upper division students who have survived.
3. College admission standards favor the dominant power culture.  Standardized admission tests are culturally biased in a variety of ways to favor of the dominant culture.  This has erected severe barriers for access of students to many institutions of choice.
4. No significant attention is placed on widespread reporting of college outcomes.  The dropout rate from college has remained at 50 percent for the past 100 years.  There is no significant tie between institutional funding by the state and its rate of academic success.
5. Educational leaders and faculty members have always complained about the academic preparation level of prospective students.  Academic expectancy always rises mores quickly than the academic preparation level of students.  The creation of admission standards guarantees that some students will be excluded and some will be admitted provisionally and need developmental education.  The quickly growing database of knowledge in the academic disciplines doubles every five to fifteen years, yet the number of lecture periods to deliver the information has remained fixed for hundreds of years.  Since employers expect more of college graduates, increased pressure is placed on college faculty to prepare students at higher levels of knowledge and skill mastery.
6. While learning assistance activities and approaches permeate the history of higher education in the U.S., it is nearly universally ignored by education historians.  There is little mention of learning assistance, students in general, or faculty members in histories.
7. While the name for learning assistance may change over time, the need persists.  Some institutions deal with the need by renaming courses.  Harvard University renamed it “Remedial Reading” course to “The Reading Course.”  Later they renamed “Basic Writing” to “Introduction to Expository Writing.”  Enrollment soared.   Other institutions simply renumber their courses to a higher level to make them more politically acceptable to campus or state officials.
8. Students with learning assistance needs are recruited for economic gain by institutions during times of low student enrollment.
9. Rising high school exit standards do not eliminate the need for learning assistance.  The College Board was created in 1890 for such a purpose.  The 1970's were dominated by A Nation At Risk Report. Two reasons explain why this has occurred.  The first is that expectation levels by the college faculty have risen more quickly.  The second is the number of students who enter or reenter college after a decade and have forgotten some of what they learned in high school.  The third is that more students enter college from high school (nearly two-thirds) than those who enrolled in college preparation course in high school (approximately half).  And of those students who enrolled in college prep courses, what proportion earned high marks?
10. Academic enrichment activities, based upon best practices of learning assistance, have been offered at privilideged schools for hundreds of years.  These institutions have used other language to describe their activities and have a campus value system and culture than support and nurture this orientation.