Institutional Mission Differentiation, Academic Stratification, and Reduced Access for Historically Underrepresented Students

Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 46(3), 341-359. This article analyzes developmental education policy in Massachusetts and New York to examine recent policy decisions regarding the termination of academic programs, elimination of remedial education, promotion of honors colleges within each state system. A result of these policy decisions has been to increase stratification of programs and students within a public state higher education system as well as with individual institutions within the state system. The authors argue that more intense analysis needs to be conducted before systematic changes are made within education systems to avoid or at least forecast major changes in the stratification of student opportunity to attend postsecondary education.

Contextualizing the historic role of learning assistance, those who work in learning assistance programs neither determine admission criteria nor set aca­demic standards (Boylan, 1995a). Admissions officers, administrators, fac­ulty committees, and state higher education executive offices are responsible for those decisions. Once standards are set, however, it is the job of learning assistance faculty and staff to ensure students meet or exceed them. The need for learning assistance was created as soon as the first college opened its doors to those prepared to pass the admissions examination and those who were not. These criteria de facto divided students into two groups: those admitted normally and those admitted provisionally. Provisional students need addi­tional academic assistance and enrichment. As the upcoming history chap­ter documents, many students attending U.S. colleges in the 1700s and 1800s participated in learning assistance activities before admission as well as throughout their academic career (Boylan and White, 1987; Brier, 1984).

Nearly all institutions historically offered developmental courses. During the past twenty years, eight states have or are in process of eliminating devel­opmental courses at public four-year colleges. At the same time, thirty states rejected similar legislation (Abraham and Creech, 2000). These mixed results indicate that some states are mandating the shift of the courses from public four-year institutions to community colleges (Hankin, 1996). Shifting the developmental courses often occurs at the level of the campus or state system. For example, in Missouri no state legislation required shifting these courses. Three decades ago, the University of Missouri system eliminated the courses. State four-year and two-year institutions informally assumed them.

During the past quarter century, community colleges assumed primary responsibility for vocational programs, workplace literacy, displaced worker retraining, certificate programs, and others. Their primary role of preparing students for transfer to senior institutions expanded. Traditional boundaries between commu­nity and technical colleges blurred as costly technical programs were offered at community colleges. These expanded curricular responsibilities required community colleges to invest in more buildings, equipment, and faculty mem­bers for expensive high-demand certificate and associate degree programs in response to local needs of citizens and employers. Increased prestige of com­munity colleges and heightened stigma concerning developmental courses led a growing number of community college leaders to reject increased responsi­bility for them (McGrath and Spear, 1994; Oudenhoven, 2002). Community colleges are placed in a double bind to maintain their traditional open admis­sion access and increase academic standards necessary for the new curricular offerings. Some leaders question how both can be maintained while dealing with a large influx of students needing developmental courses formerly offered at four-year colleges (Perin, 2006).

Some policymakers direct students with academic preparation requiring developmental courses to begin their college career at junior and community colleges. These students might be accepted for transfer to the senior institu­tion if their junior college academic profile warrants. The transfer process from community colleges to senior institutions has numerous challenges. As a result, the students are placed at higher risk for academic failure than those who begin their careers in four-year schools (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).

Considerable effort has been made with articulation agreements among two-year and four-year institutions. The transfer process is not transparent, however, and the rate of completing an undergraduate degree is lower for stu­dents who begin at a two-year institution than for those beginning at a four-year institution, even when controlling for other variables (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Barriers to success for transfer students include not accepting or requir­ing them to repeat courses previously completed and the turbulence experi­enced by students as they move from one academic environment to another. It is common for students to experience academic difficulty and earn lower grade averages as a result at the senior institution (Eggleston and Laanan, 2001).

With institutional resources, including learning assistance, students from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds can be accepted and supported for academic success. Learning assistance, especially developmen­tal courses, have been significant resources for students of color (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994). These services along with other institutional sup­ports increase the likelihood of higher student achievement and persistence toward graduation.

• Abraham, A. A., and Creech, J. D. (2000). Reducing remedial education: What progress are states making? Educational Benchmark 2000 Series. Atlanta: Southern Regional Educa­tion Board. Retrieved August 19, 2004, from http://www.sreb.org.
• Boylan, H. R. (1995a). Making the case for developmental education. Research in Develop­mental Education, 12(2), 1–4.
• Boylan, H. R., and White, W. G., Jr. (1987). Educating all the nation’s people: The historical roots of developmental education. Part I. Review of Research in Developmental Education, 4(4), 1–4.
• Brier, E. (1984). Bridging the academic preparation gap: An historical view. Journal of Devel­opmental Education, 8(1), 2–5.
• Eggleston, L. E., and Laanan, F. S. (2001). Making the transition to the senior institution. In F. S. Laanan (Ed.), Transfer students: Trends and issues. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 114, pp. 87–97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• McGrath, D., and Spear, M. B. (1994). The remediation of the community college. In J. L. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, and L. H. Ebbers (Eds.). Community colleges (pp. 217–228). Need-ham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
• Oudenhoven, B. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues, uncertain solutions. In T. H. Bers and H. D. Calhoun (Eds.), New steps for the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Perin, D. (2006). Can community colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of remediation. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 339–373.

Are even community colleges to join many four-year institutions as gated communities as well?

Barton, P. E. (2002). The closing of the education frontier? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/ PICFRONTIER.pdf

The author makes an implicit analogy with a theory that early America was defined by the opportunity presented by Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis of the 'opening of the American west'. The Turner thesis was, "Up to our own day American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West. The existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward explain American development". Accordingly, America changed when the West was closed and opportunity ended in 1893. Using this concept as a counterpoint, Barton questions whether the frontier of educational opportunity has already closed, and thereby changing American culture. He argues that there is empirical evidence that postsecondary educational opportunity has closed, and therefore changing the nature of American society. Barton's data challenges the conventional wisdom that educational attainment has continued to increase during the last quarter century. He paints a picture of an educational system that is not producing more high school graduates, that continues to display great social inequality, and that is not able to support greater proportions of students through to degree in four-year college programs.

I was visiting with a colleague yesterday in a larger community college in the Twin-Cities area. She remakred how high-level college administrators were voicing the desire to apply admissions criteria to "weed out" students deemed unlikely to be successful at college. These officials often relish the limelight brought when media report on their technical and health-science programs, but are frustrated with devoting larger amounts of funds to support growning numbers of students who need developmental-level courses, especially in mathematics.

It is easy to say that students with severe preparation issues attend community Adult Basic Education or General Education Degree programs. However, the barriers are enormous. How is the issue of stigma going to be overcome by telling students who aspire to college to attend programs designed for apiring high school graduates? How do these community-based programs absorb the enormous numbers of new students when their funding is inadequate for their current clients?

A solution could be to place these ABE and GED programs within local college learning centers with a significant increase in funding. That would help some with the stigma issue, but much more needs to be done with providing seamless academic enrichment and support for students. While the national debate decries the lack of adequately-trained college graduates, we seem to erect new barriers for their success each day.

Stigma for Enrolling in Developmental-Level Courses

I have commented recently about how the state of Ohio is the latest to ban the offering of developmental-level courses at the four-year college level, instead reserving those offerings for the community-college system. While it initially appears to be a good policy decision to differentiate offerings among different types of public institutiohns, the discussions nearly always fail to take into account the psychological consequences of such decisions.

Scholars at several institutions conducted research studies concerning students’ perceptions of learning assistance programs, especially developmental credit courses. Research indicated negative stigma was attached, regardless of volun­tary or mandated enrollment (Higbee, Lundell, and Arendale, 2005; Pedelty, 2001; Valeri-Gold and others, 1997). Perceptions of stigma have plagued learning assistance throughout history. Some believe stigma increases restric­tions and curtails programs, especially at public four-year institutions (Barefoot, 2003; Jehangir, 2002; Martinez, Snider, and Day, 2003).

Various factors contribute to stigma: (1) mandatory enrollment in devel­opmental courses; (2) new students placed in cohorts identified for academic risk; (3) use of terms such as “at-risk students,” “high-risk students,” “devel­opmental students,” and “academically disadvantaged students,” all of which represent a negative condition characterizing students’ academic abilities and potential; (4) public policy fights over admission of students perceived to be academically underprepared; and (5) memories of emotional hazing in previ­ous schools.

Students often experience two concurrent emotions regarding learning assistance. They appreciate the help of learning assistance personnel to strengthen their academic skills, are grateful the institution admits them, and appreciate varied learning assistance activities. On the other hand, contact with these activities inadvertently leads to self-stigmatization because they recog­nize that not all students use the same learning assistance activities, especially developmental courses. Students enrolled in developmental courses recognize their academic profile is lower than that of other students at the institution. Diminished self-esteem and believing they do not belong often emerge. Some­times anger is directed at others and themselves, leading to self-sabotaging aca­demic behavior. This chain of events results in premature academic failure and departure from the institution (Higbee, Lundell, and Arendale, 2005).

When stigma attaches itself to language describing learning assistance and the students served by it, institutional leaders can lose interest and curtail these programs, especially at four-year institutions (Jehangir, 2002). Insufficient ser­vices diminish students’ academic success. A future blog entry will explore the question whether students’ rights are abridged by institutions’ failing to provide them the same services provided to students in previous generations?

References:

• Barefoot, B. O. (2003). Findings from the second national survey of first-year academic practices. Brevard, NC: Policy Center for the First Year of College. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/survey2002/findings.htm.
• Higbee, J. L., Lundell, D. B., and Arendale, D. R. (Eds.). (2005). The General College vision: Integrating intellectual growth, multicultural perspectives, and student development. Min­neapolis: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.
• Jehangir, R. R. (2002). Higher education for whom? The battle to include developmental education at the four-year university. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Developmental education: Policy and practice (pp. 17–34). Auburn, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.
• Martinez, S., Snider, L. A., and Day, E. (2003). Remediation in higher education: A review of the literature. Topeka: Kansas State Board of Education. Retrieved July 1, 2004, from http://www.ksde.org/pre/postsecondary_remediation.doc.
• Pedelty, M. H. (2001). Stigma. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), 2001: A developmental odyssey. Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmen­tal Education.
• Valeri-Gold, and others. (1997). Reflection: Experience commentaries by urban developmen­tal studies students. In J. L. Higbee, and P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Enhancing student retention (pp. 3–18). Carol Stream, IL: National Association for Devel­opmental Education.

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.