CHANGING EQUATIONS: How Community Colleges Are Re-thinking College Readiness in Math

Complete Report available to download, http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/LWBrief_ChangingEquations_WEB.pdf

From the Executive Summary:  Because of their high enrollment and generally low completion rates, community colleges have been identified as central to efforts to improve higher education outcomes. But that improvement won’t be realized unless more students succeed in math. Together, the high proportion of community college students requiring math remediation, and the relatively low proportion who succeed in required remedial sequences, make placement in developmental math one of the single greatest barriers to college completion. Only 20 percent of students who place into remedial (also known as developmental) math courses ultimately complete the remedial sequence and pass a college-level math course - such as college algebra or statistics - that is required to graduate or transfer.

An increasing number of colleges in California and nationally are involved in experiments aimed at improving, reforming, or even eliminating math remediation in community colleges. This includes a new movement to construct alternative pathways for the majority of community college students, those whose educational goals may not require a second year of algebra. Through LearningWorks’ efforts to strengthen student achievement in the California Community Colleges, it has become clear that practitioners involved in such experiments are eager to learn about parallel efforts, and those not yet involved are curious about the work underway, whether in California or elsewhere in the nation.

LearningWorks commissioned this report, Changing Equations, to address those needs.  Critics argue that intermediate algebra unnecessarily hinders some students pursuing degrees in fields such as English, history, art, and political science from ever graduating. The new pathways for non-STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) students are course sequences including both remedial-level courses as well as credit-bearing gatekeeper math courses. Many of these new sequences stress skills in statistics or quantitative reasoning, which proponents say serve most students better in their lives and careers than does high-level algebra. While the de-emphasis on intermediate algebra remains controversial, the math pathways movement resonates with other initiatives to focus community college students’ education around structured pathways leading toward careers.

These experiments are informed by findings emerging from both research and practice that are starting to shift the understanding of math readiness. At the heart of that evolution are four key insights:

1. Math is a hurdle for the majority of community college students. Roughly 60 percent of community college students are placed in developmental math courses.
2. Most students deemed “unready” in math will never graduate. Only 20 percent of students who place into developmental math complete a required gatekeeper course in math.
3. The tests used to determine readiness are not terribly accurate. Research has estimated that as many as a fifth of students placed into remedial math courses could have earned a B or better in a college-level course without first taking the remedial class.
4. The math sequence required by most colleges is irrelevant for many students’ career aspirations. According to research, about 70 percent or more of people with bachelor’s degrees do not require intermediate algebra in their careers.

In sum, the reformers argue that, on the basis of a weakly predictive test, large numbers of students are being prevented from completing college unless they pass a challenging course that may be irrelevant to their futures. Nevertheless, until recently there have been very few experiments with alternatives, leaving intermediate algebra as an effective proxy for determining whether students are “college material.” Various national policy and disciplinary organizations, aware of the gravity of the remedial math dilemma, are urging colleges to re-think this approach and try out alternatives. These include the Developmental Math Committee of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, Complete College America, and the National Center on Education and the Economy.

Saving Developmental Education - Huffington Post Online

"....The national dialogue exclaiming that developmental education programs do not work is not only a false declaration but a futile approach to improving student persistence and ultimately degree completion. A number of states have withdrawn support for developmental education courses based on the notion that they are expensive, ineffective, and do not belong in four-year colleges and universities. In a few instances, state scholarship programs no longer allow funds to be used to take developmental education courses. Improving degree completion, however, will require institutions to serve students more effectively and a policy environment that does not marginalize developmental education or attempt to relegate it to community colleges...." [Click on this link for the entire article from the Huffington Post.]

Civil Rights, Equity Issues, and Learning Assistance

Do students have a right to sufficient academic support at every higher edu­cation institution? Are students’ civil rights abridged when the services are not offered? This controversial issue probes the need for learning assistance, credit and noncredit, at all institutions because of issues of equity and equal access. Reframing learning assistance for this purpose expands the need for compre­hensive services. Because education is considered a reserved right of the states, federal civil rights laws do not currently apply, but the question of whether this equity issue is covered by the equal opportunity clause of the U.S. Con­stitution is open to debate and potential litigation. In addition, the original federal charters for land-grant institutions specified service to all students resid­ing in a state. Many such colleges and universities have instituted selective admission policies excluding automatic admission of any resident student, and it raises similar equity issues (Ancheta, 2007).

Learning assistance services such as developmental courses are essential for students experiencing extreme academic difficulty in one or more academic content areas. These students are often from low socioeconomic or other groups that have been historically underrepresented in postsecondary education. Walpole (2007) names them “economically and educationally challenged.” This controversy changes the issue from whether these students benefit from learn­ing assistance to a question of whether failure to provide access programs violates their civil rights because they need these services for success (Miksch, 2005, 2008). A legal term describing absence of services for one population while available to another is “disproportionate impact.” Does failing to provide essen­tial learning assistance services at the institution of choice for these students affect them more negatively than the larger student population that is better academically prepared because they come from privileged backgrounds?

When students attended U.S. colleges in the 1700s and 1800s, academic preparatory academies and remedial and developmental courses were offered at all institutions, even elite private colleges. These offerings were necessary as a result of nonexistent or poor-quality private or public education. When privi­leged students were able to access quality public or private education before col­lege, many institutions curtailed or eliminated developmental courses. The “new students” often represent first-generation college students, students of color, and those underprepared academically because they attended poorly funded and underperforming urban or rural public school districts (Kozol, 1991).

Based on the largest national study on learning assistance, one-third of stu­dents enrolled in developmental courses are students of color, mostly African Americans and Hispanic Americans (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994). At two-year institutions, 29 percent of students enrolled in these courses were African American and Hispanic American. The proportion grew to 37 percent at four-year institutions. The removal of these courses at four-year colleges and universities significantly affects students of color, as they are more likely to enroll than white students (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994). African American stu­dents are more than twice as likely to enroll in these classes at two-year insti­tutions, compared with their proportion of the student population. At four-year institutions, the rate soars to three times more likely to enroll in the courses (Boylan, Bonham, and Bliss, 1994).

If students from economically and educationally challenged backgrounds are admitted to an institution with selective admission policies, they are often denied the same services previously provided to an earlier generation of priv­ileged students at the same institution. Why is it acceptable to treat these two student populations differently? Both had the same need because of inade­quate secondary school education. Why was it necessary to provide develop­mental courses for the first group in the past but deny those same services to the second group from economically and educationally challenged back­grounds in this generation?

Failure of these students to complete higher education is a concern not only for them and their families. Society pays a heavy price economically and socially for their failure (Belfield and Levin, 2007; Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, 2009). This failure is another reason that learning assistance is a public policy issue.

Miksch (2005) investigates unequal availability of college preparatory and Advanced Placement programs in U.S. high schools. The majority of well-funded suburban public schools offer these programs, while less than half of high schools in rural and urban areas do. These courses are essential for suc­cessfully passing AP examinations that colleges use for awarding free college credit and fulfill other first-year classes without expense or time. This advan­tage is denied to those not taking or passing AP examinations because of inac­cessibility to college preparatory classes. A trained attorney and education policy expert, Miksch concludes, “this access to AP is a critical civil right issues” (2005, p. 227). The same principle applies to learning assistance. Curtailment or elimination of learning assistance activities, especially developmental courses, is not a neutral decision by four-year institutions. Providing these ser­vices, including developmental courses, to an earlier generation of privileged white students and then eliminating them for first-generation students from low socioeconomic backgrounds effectively closes the admissions door to them or neglects their needs if they are admitted (Boylan, Saxon, White, and Erwin, 1994). In either case, postsecondary education becomes more stratified and segregated. Cross (1976) argued these courses are essential for affirmative action and educational opportunity.

When access to essential learning assistance services is diminished, new access and equity questions arise. Who belongs in college? Where should they begin their academic career? Should some applicants be permitted to attend college, regardless of its location or level?

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.

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.