More questions about moving developmental courses to community colleges

I have been thinking more about my previous blog posting about Ohio's decision to join a growing list of other states with eliminating developmental-level (they call them "remedial") courses at four year institutions. I posted that message to a listserv populated by people who either teach those courses or are in another role in the field of learning assistance. Some have commented community colleges may do a better job or the shift to the 2 year is good. As someone who spent his first decade in community colleges, I understand their point. We often prided ourselves as able to devote more energy and attention to teaching than our counterparts at four-year institutions who also had heavy responsibilities for reserach, grant acquistion, and publishing.

A few questions to consider about passively watching state and institutional policies lead in that direction.

1. Why can't four year schools do the job? Who has more resources?
2. Why would we not hold four year institutions to the same if not much higher expectations than two-year institutions? I seem to remember a quote from President Kennedy about the decision to place a person on the moon, "we don't do this because it is easy, but because it is hard."
3. Is this issue really about effectiveness of DE courses and the best venue for them, or just another opportunity for the four year colleges to shift financial burden to the often modestly funded community colleges so they can invest in better skyboxes at the stadiums and pay more outlandish salaries to the CEOs?
4. Is this issue about best place for DE courses to be offered or is this part of the historic movement to get "those" students off the campus so as not to contaminate the "best and brightest" and negatively impact their national rankings since the DE course takers may have lower ACT or SAT scores?
5. What happened to the REQUIREMENT that all land grant institutions be open for the children of state residents? I don't remember any exemptions passed by Congress on this historic federal legislation?
6. Why was it the norm for colleges in America in the 1700s through much of the last century to offer DE courses but now things have changed? Could it be the change in demographics for who needs one or more DE courses due to poorly funded public schools or returning to college?
7. Finally, whatever happened to choice in America? Why should our children and young people not have the opportunity to begin their education wherever they want, especially with the public four year colleges we support through our ever increasing tax dollars?

What do you think? Please post a reply below and lets keep up the conversation.

Kicking the can down the road: Ohio four-year institutions to ban remedial courses. Tells K-12 to fix the problem.

The Hamilton Journal-News reported by 2015 nearly all remedial (also called developmental level) courses would be eliminated at public four-year colleges in Ohio. "The nearly 40 percent of college freshmen in Ohio who are not ready for college-level work will take most of their remedial courses at community colleges under a statewide plan that dramatically changes how four-year schools provide instruction to those needing extra help." The newspaper reporter stated, "Ohio is following a national trend that critics say could limit access to the four-year degrees many need for high-paying jobs. Some fear it may discourage some students from attending college at all." State education leaders, at least those at the four-year institutions, said the long-term solution was for elementary and secondary education to do a better job. "By the end of 2012, university and college presidents must develop standards of what it means for a student to be “remediation free.”

Critics of the plan said “A lot of the students who need remediation are the same students who have already been marginalized by the system because they attended the worst high schools and are the least prepared,” said Tara L. Parker, a University of Massachusetts professor who studies developmental education. “There is no evidence community colleges do remedial courses any better or cheaper.”

The "Ohio Solution" is the same one that has been talked about since the mid 1970s with the "Nation At Risk" report. Elementary and secondary education must do a better job. Better articulation agreements need to be developed between secondary and postsecondary education. An endless number of education commissions made up of leaders from K-12 education, postsecondary education, corporate world, public advocacy groups, and the rest have been talking and experimenting for years to make "this problem" go away.

It appears the intense fiscal pressures facing public four-year colleges due to decreasing financial support from state government has renewed the desire to "save costs" and eliminate remedial or developmental-level courses. State officials claim offering these courses at the four-year public four-year colleges costs $130 million annually. While to the average taxpayer this seems considerable, what is the combined budget for these public colleges? National studies on this issue report the funds devoted to offering these courses is between one and five percent. Most faculty who teach these courses are part-time and paid considerably less than full-time and especially tenured faculty members at the same four-year institution.

The "Ohio Solution" has been implemented previously in many other places. They all share the same problems with achieving their stated goals:

1. Changing K-12 education curriculum does nothing to meet the needs of returning adults to education. While their exit from high school might have given them adequate skills for immediate entry to college, the long period out of school has led to atrophy of their skills and need for basic level instruction to bring them back to college-readiness.
2. Even if a school district wanted to change its curriculum, if it has less economic resources, how can it be expected to do the same level of quality as the better-funded suburban schools?
3. Changing K-12 education curriculum does nothing for the students who are not enrolled in rigorous college-bound curriculum. Some students and their parents have other future plans that initially do not include college. Maybe they plan to begin a family. Maybe attend a trade school or continue in the family business. Do we want to only have one track choice for students in high school?
4. Changing K-12 education curriculum does nothing for the students who do not fully focus on their classes, read their textbooks with great intensity, and complete all homework to perfection. If everyone earned A's in their classes, achieved to highest level of proficiency with all high risks tests, and in general, were "on task" all the time, they might not need the developmental-level courses. Assuming that they immediately enter postsecondary education immediately after successful completion of high school. With skyrocketing tuition costs, family members out of work or working low-wage jobs, and difficulty for high-school students to earn much at part-time jobs that now are sought by the out-of-work adults, it is not so easy to immediately attend college. Some have to earn some money first.

A wise person once said, "complex problems require complex solutions." The "Ohio Solution" fails on this account.

David Arendale, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education, University of Minnesota. Post comments to this blog or contact the author directly at arendale@umn.edu

Illinois Establishes Performance-Based Funding for Colleges

Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois signed a bill establishing performance-based measures to determine funding for public universities, community colleges and other state education agencies. Metrics such as student success in degree and certificate completion will be developed to influence a portion of state funding for higher education institutions.This matches our approach this year to budget for results for all appropriations in the Illinois Senate and extends it to Illinois universities," Maloney said. "Officials from WIU and other state institutions have been involved in setting the parameters for our initial measures. This has been a priority for me as Chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and the opportunity to improve academic results and ensure funds are spent most efficiently make it one of the most important bills passed this year.House Bill 1503 will take effect in 2013 and begin with metrics to affect a small percentage of funding that would increase over time. Allocations would be based on academic milestones, retention, and time to completion. Statistics on students who are academically or financially at-risk, first-generation students, low-income students, and those traditionally underrepresented in higher education will also be measured to affect funding. [Click to read the entire press release.]

This provides a great opportunity for leaders in college access and student success programs to highlight their activities, approaches, and services increasing positive outcomes for students. Colleges in Illinois will be redoubling their efforts to increase access and college completion. The answers can come from their own college TRIO, learning assistance, and developmental education programs. They have solutions that could be scaled up for wider implementation.

Social capital and learning assistance

Certain groups of students bring less social capital with them to college— students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, first-generation college stu­dents, and historically underrepresented students of color. Learning assistance services, especially developmental courses, are essential for overcoming disad­vantaged backgrounds. Learning assistance is essential for providing access to a broad range of institutions. This was certainly the case for me. I was the first person in my family to graduate from college (eventually my oldest brother would also graduate from college after a long and distinguished career in the military). My parents twere supportive of my decision to attend college, but had no prior experiences to share with me and provide guidance. On the other hand, there were many other supports they provided for me that helped me in college and life, but that is for another blog posting in the future.

The student groups that had not traditionally attended college before have a variety of overlapping identities, some of which pose barriers that impede success in college. Walpole (2007) analyzed this population and names one group “economically and educationally challenged.” “All [economically and educationally challenged] students, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity, face challenges in accessing, persisting, and graduating from college. The intersec­tions of these identity statuses and educational processes and outcomes are non-linear and deserve additional attention” (p. x). Walpole states that chal­lenges for these students are not the result of a failure to try or that they are somehow inferior to the students from dominate cultures. “Rather these stu­dents must cope with a structure and a system that defines merit in ways that do not privilege them” (p. 15).

Learning assistance can help these new students overcome the barriers that might limit their chances for succeeding in postsecondary education. Deciding whether to curtail or eliminate credit-based learning assistance such as developmental courses does not just affect campus economics or perceptions of institutional prestige. It is not a race- and class-neutral deci­sion. My report illustrates how a wide range of students at most institu­tions, regardless of their classification, use noncredit learning assistance activities such as tutoring, study groups, learning assistance centers, and the like. Lack of access to credit-based learning assistance, however, raises issues of class, race, and culture.

It is a serious decision to tell essentially an entire group of students who share common demographic identities such as first-generation college students, students of color, and low socioeco­nomic students to begin their college career at a two-year college, while privileged students can begin wherever they want. No one quite says it that way. The impact is the same, however, if the needed resources are not avail­able and the campus culture is not welcoming to the new students. The risk is de facto resegregation of postsecondary education in the United States and all the disastrous results for individuals and society that would occur (Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 2009). A later blog posting will investigate this issue more indepth and raise the issue of civil rights violation for providing services to previous genrations but denying them to the new students attending college. Social and culture capital must be available for all students, not just those from the privledged classes.

• Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., and McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Walpole, M. (2007). Economically and educationally challenged students in higher education: Access to outcomes. ASHE Higher Education Report, volume 33, number 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

This posting was excerpted and expanded from my recent book, Access at the crossroads: Learning assistance in higher educationpublished by Jossey-Bass/Willey. For more inforamtion about the book, click this link.

No such thing as a developmental student

A myth persists that learning assistance serves only “developmental stu­dents.” Actually, no such thing as a “developmental student” exists.

Rather, it is more accurate to say that some students are not academically prepared for college-level work in one or more academic content areas (English, mathe­matics, or writing) or in specificskills such as reading or study strategies. The relative need and usefulness of learning assistance for an individual student depends on the overall academic rigor of the institution, the subject matter studied, or even how one faculty member teaches a particular course compared with another from the same academic department.

Therefore, the same indi­vidual could be a major consumer of learning assistance at one institution and not at another or even in one academic department and not another in the same institution. The need for learning assistance services is not a character­istic or universal defining attribute of the student; it depends on the condi­tions and expectations of the specific learning environment for a particular course. All college students are on a continuum between novice and master learner. Learning assistance serves students located along this continuum through a wide range of activities and services. The same student is often located at different places on multiple continuum lines simultaneously, one for each academic context and skill area.

Another way to look at this issue is to say that ALL students are "developmental". All people are "developmental". We are all changing and "developing". We are all at different stages in all aspects of our lives. To be human is to be developmental. However, I do not advocate for this perspective since the word "developmetnal" has been steroetyped by so many in a negative way. The argument has been lost among the public and many with the academic world. Therefore, I argue there is no such thing as a "developmental student."

This posting was excerpted and expanded from my recent book, Access at the crossroads: Learning assistance in higher education published by Jossey-Bass/Willey. For more inforamtion about the book, click this link.

Developmental Education is More Than Remedial Classes

Reading the popular and professional press reports about developmental education and learning assistance would suggest the only service provided is enrollment in remedial and developmental-level courses. I use those two terms interchangeably in this blog posting, but most of the time I will use "learning assistance" for reasons revealed in future entries to this blog. There is so much more in terms of services and so many more students participating in academic assistance and enrichment. The stereotype that the only service is nongraduation credit college courses is wrong and harmful to the field and the wide variety of students served. With the President's priority to raise college graduation rates dramatically, this field is more vital than ever.

Learning assistance meets the demands of rigorous col­lege courses through highly varied activities and approaches. The historic role of learning assistance in the larger scope of U.S. higher education is sig­nificant though sometimes low profile. Learning assistance bridges access for a more diverse student body. From students’ perspectives, it helps them meet institutional academic expectations and achieve personal learning goals. From the institution’s perspective, it expands access to the institution and supports higher expectations for academic excellence.

There is no universal manifestation of learning assistance. On some cam­puses, it expresses itself through noncredit activities such as tutorial pro­grams, peer study groups, study strategy workshops, computer-based learning modules, or drop-in learning centers. Other institutions add to these activities by offering remedial and developmental courses, study strat­egy courses, and other services. A few colleges support learning assistance for graduate and professional school students through workshops on disser­tation writing and effective studying, strategies for graduate school exami­nations, and preparation for licensure exams at the conclusion of their professional school programs. Students from broad demographic back­grounds access one or more of these services from all levels of academic preparation and at various times during their academic career. The diverse language used to describe learning assistance depends on institutional cul­ture and history. Some terms associated with these activities throughout his­tory include preparatory, remedial, compensatory, developmental, and enrichment, to name just a few.

Learning assistance provides a universal description for this wide variety of expressions, activities, and approaches. It is the term used most generally in the report, Access at the Crossroads: Learning Assistance in Higher Education. I will be sharing excertps from this recent publication by Wiley/Jossey-Bass. For more information about the book and how to obtain a copy, click on this link http://z.umn.edu/bookinfo Enjoy.

Learning Assistance Often Ignores Impact of Culture on Learning of Students

Too often learning assistance and developmental education conferences and publications treat the issue of cultural and ethnic diversity as only an issue of demographics and not of pedagogy. Decades ago it was believed that sensitivity in this area was observing and honoring cultural events and including people of various cultures in class materials. This was a good start after that the previous focus only on dominant culture examples.The next step is required in learning assistance, teach multiculturally. WHile this has been widely adopted in education, the learning assistance community is far behind. Following is a good reader to illustrate practical ways to meaningfully engage students of different cultures in the classroom, honor their expertise, and make the classroom a richer and more productive environment for students of all cultures and backgrounds.

Higbee, J. L., Lundell, D. B., & Duranczyk, I. M. (Eds.) (2003). Multiculturalism in developmental education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education, General College, University of Minnesota. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://tinyurl.com/2e5wa23

The first three chapters of this monograph provide models for integrating multiculturalism in developmental education. The remaining chapters focus on conversations related to multiculturalism in developmental education, reported by our colleagues in the General College of the University of Minnesota. The work of these authors reflects the General College's efforts to implement its multicultural mission. The following chapters are included in this monograph: The Centrality of Multiculturalism in Developmental Education (Karen L. Miksch, Patrick L. Bruch, Jeanne L. Higbee, Rashné R. Jehangir, and Dana Britt Lundell); Walking the Talk: Using Learning-Centered Strategies to Close Performance Gaps (Donna McKusick and Irving Pressley McPhail); Creating Access Through Universal Instructional Design (Karen S. Kalivoda); Multicultural Legacies for the 21st Century: A Conversation with James A. Banks (Patrick L. Bruch, Jeanne L. Higbee, and Dana Britt Lundell); Is there a Role for Academic Achievement Tests in Multicultural Developmental Education? (Thomas Brothen and Cathrine Wambach); The Triumphs and Tribulations of a Multicultural Concerns Committee (David L. Ghere); MultiCultural Development Center (MCDC): Sharing Diversity (Ghafar A. Lakanwal and Holly Choon Hyang Pettman); Summary Report on the Third National Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education: Grants, Research, Diversity, and Multiculturalism (Dana Britt Lundell); Report of the Future Directions Meeting Multicultural Themes Track (Jeanne L. Higbee and Holly Choon Hyang Pettman); and appendices.