Table Of Content

DOCUMENT RESUME HE 034 616 ED 461 336 Arendale, David AUTHOR Trends in Developmental Education. TITLE 2001-00-00 PUB DATE NOTE 7p. AVAILABLE FROM For full text: http://www.nade.net/documents/Articles/trends.in.de.pdf. Descriptive (141) PUB TYPE Reports EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. *Developmental Studies Programs; Educational Finance; DESCRIPTORS *Educational Policy; Educational Trends; *High Risk Students; Higher Education; *Remedial Programs; Skill Development; Standards; Strategic Planning ABSTRACT This paper contaihs an overview of policy decisions being made at the state and national levels about learning assistance activities in higher education and developmental education. The principles driving those decisions are also outlined. Some policymakers want to fine the high schools from which under prepared students have graduated; others want to make individual students pay more for developmental education courses. Policymakers in many states believe that the national movement for increased requirements for high school graduation has eliminated or lessened the need for postsecondary academic support and developmental courses. Economic factors are most frequently cited as reasons to reduce or cut developmental course,offerings and academic assistance programs, and policy decisions are being driven by some beliefs about developmental education. One such belief is that developmental education is equivalent to affirmative action, a belief that is not true. Nor is it true that developmental education courses water down the academic standards of all courses on campus. Raising admission standards will not eliminate the need for academic assistance and developmental studies, since faculty expectations rise with rising standards, and students will continue to need academic support. It is false to assume that developmental education and academic support programs cost too much; the cost of ignorance and dropouts is much higher. It is also not correct to assume that the temporary increase in the total number of high school graduates means that developmental students are no longer a high priority for recruitment and retention. Nor is it cost-effective to assume that all developmental course work can occur at the two-year college level. The massive education cuts resulting from the federal budget crisis mean that individual institutions will need to develop relationships with their state departments of education in order to pursue the limited grant dollars available. Responding to the current education environment is going to require commitment by developmental educators, commitment that might be advanced by the seven principles of Steven Covey's book "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People." (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Trends in Devellop entail Education, David Arendalie, University of Missouri-Kansas City 7)' PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS Office of Educational Research and Improvement BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) liefriis document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent 1 official OERI position or policy. BESTCOPY AVAILABLE Trends in Developmental Education, David Arendale, University of Missouri-Kansas City The U.S. press is filled with news reports detailing attempts and actions by postsecondary institutions and state and national policy makers to limit or eliminate learning assistance activities and developmental education courses, especially at the four-year college level. An overview of principles driving the current educational environment is needed. Following is an overview of policy decisions being made on the state and national level with the principles driving those decisions. Overview of Policies at the Institutional, State and National Level Many federal education grant programs that have historically provided grants to establish and nurture learning assistance centers will soon end. An example of a program that will probably be phased out is the Title III Strengthening Institutions grant program. It has been the most important program for establishing campus-wide learning assistance programs. TRIO programs will face increased scrutiny and funding battles over the next few years as a massive multimillion dollar national evaluation study is conducted concerning the effectiveness of its programs. Seeking a party to blame, some policy makers want to fine the high schools from which they graduated. Plans are being considered in Florida, Montana, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia to require a high school district to pay for the cost of providing developmental course work at a state institution. Casper College in Wyoming has already implemented such a plan. Seeking a party to blame, some policy makers wish to make individual students pay more for developmental education courses. Florida is considering a policy to require that students who enroll for a third time in developmental courses pay the "true" cost of the course so that state funds are not used to subsidize it. Since student tuition traditionally only pays for one-third the cost of instruction, this policy would require that developmental courses be charged at a rate as high as three times that of college-level courses. Policy makers in many states believe that the national movement for increased requirements for high school graduation has eliminated or lessened the need for postsecondary academic support and developmental courses. For example, Georgia's Boards of Regents have recently approved policies that will raise admissions standards and reduce enrollments in developmental studies at both the two and four-year level. 3 .0:44 ??!.i The need to cut or redirect the budget is the most often cited reason to reduce or eliminate developmental course offerings and academic assistance programs. Rather than banning developmental courses directly, some states plan to indirectly eliminate them through financial starvation by refusing to provide individual institutions the traditional state reimbursements for credit hours or head count generated through the courses. Policy makers within the 22 campus California State University system wish to end all developmental education. Even though the CSU system admits only the top one third of graduating high school students, 60 percent of incoming first year students fail placement exams and enroll in various remedial courses. Eliminating developmental studies courses would save $10 million, less than 1 percent of the system's operating budget. Proponents of the plan say that CSU cannot effectively "fix" the mistakes created by local school districts. Some institutions want to limit the scope of developmental education course offerings by limiting them to the first twelve months of enrollment at the institution. City College of New York and the California State University system has proposed that if developmental courses are offered to entering students, they must be successfully completed within the first year of enrollment. Students would not be allowed to enroll in developmental courses after twelve months of attending the institution. Reports that the state coordinating boards of higher education from many states wish to shift all developmental education courses out of four-year colleges to the two-year college system. Some four-year institutions are already subcontracting developmental course work that is conducted on their campus to a neighboring community college. Examples include Northern Arizona University and Iowa State University. Beliefs and Trends Driving Specific Actions The previously mentioned individual actions stem from beliefs and trends that have become prominent with the national education scene. Belief #1. Developmental education is viewed by some as another form of affirmative action. False. With the current fervor by some to eliminate affirmative action and its proactive programs, it is untrue to cast developmental education's target population as students of color. Developmental studies have existed for more than 100 years at some of the nation's most prestigious campuses. And far before those campuses regularly admitted students of color or of low socioeconomic status. TRIO supporters have noted that 42 percent of their program participants are white, 35 percent are African-American, 15 percent are Hispanic and 4 percent each are Native American and Asian. Belief #2. Developmental education courses help to water down the academic standards of all courses on campus. False. Dr. Hunter Boylan from the National Center for Developmental Education stated, "Those who work in developmental programs determine neither admission 4 criteria nor set academic standards. These are done by admissions officers, administrators, faculty committees, and state higher education 'executive offices. Once these standards are set, however, it is the job of developmental educators to insure that students meet them." Developmental education programs permit professors teaching college-level courses to maintain high academic standards since students can develop the requisite skills needed in a separate developmental course or an adjunct academic support activity that is paired with the college-level course. Without such learning services colleges would admit the same students, and professors would be forced to teach classes with a much wider range of abilities represented but without any resources for students needing extra help. This in turn would lower the quality of education offered to the entire student body. Belief #3. Raising admission standards will eliminate the need for academic assistance and developmental studies. False. On the contrary, as entrance standards are raised, faculty expectation levels rise even more quickly. Recently when entrance standards were raised for the California State University system, the mathematics department on one campus raised their required pass rate for the departmental screening test even higher. More students were placed into the developmental courses AFTER the increased entrance standards than before. Academic assistance and developmental courses have always been offered at American colleges for the past 100 years. In addition, academic assistance centers are generally designed to help all students, regardless of their previous academic performance levels, to improve their learning mastery and grades in present courses. Belief #4. Developmental education and academic support programs cost too much. False. The cost of ignorance and drop outs is higher. Good academic support and developmental education programs promote higher reenrollment and retention rates for students. For example, data studies at the University of Missouri-Kansas City suggest that for every dollar invested in the Supplemental Instruction (SI) program, the institution receives between $1.5 and $2 due to a higher rate of reenrollment on the part of SI participants. Often learning centers should be center pieces for effective campus-wide student retention programs. Belief #5. With the temporary rise in the total number of high school graduates, developmental students are not a high priority for recruitment and retention anymore. False. The increase in high school graduates is temporary. Some college administrators want to recruit the higher number of average and above average high school graduates who are being produced by a temporary increase in the number of high school graduates. These administrators reason that they can theoretically recruit the average and above students and eliminate the need to deal with developmental level students. National reports from various sources agree that one-third to one-half of all first-time, full-time first year students need developmental courses in reading, writing and/or math. What institution can afford to send away or attempt to replace one-third of its entering class? 5 Belief #6. It is more appropriate, cost-effective, and efficient if all developmental course work is conducted at the two-year college level rather than at the four-year institutions. False. While a nice theoretical concept for state legislators, most students cannot afford to move or commute long distances to community colleges for the needed course work. The nontraditional student of five to ten years ago IS the traditional student of today. At UMKC the "average" student is 29 years old, has one or more dependents, enrolls in nine credit hours, and works half to full- time. Belief #7. Blaming and punishing the people or parties responsible for producing developmental students will help the situation. False! It is very popular to blame the high schools and parents for producing a generation of developmental students. As a culture, America spends a great deal of time in affixing blame for social ills. However, blaming does not solve problems. Rather than directing energy to fixing the problem, it fuels more anger. Requiring students to pay triple tuition for developmental courses or sending invoices to pay for the cost of providing developmental courses of students back to high schools from where they graduated will generate more anger among all parties rather than bringing them together to solve the problem. Belief #8. The Federal Government will no longer be the driving force for providing policy leadership and financial funding of grants for education. True! Due to massive education cuts to help ease the federal budget crisis and the decision by the new Republican majority to make block grants to states of the remaining federal funds, individual institutions will need to develop relationships with their state departments of education in order to pursue the limited grant dollars available. Responding to the Current Education Environment Rather than reacting to others, we must choose own actions. But, before considering what specific actions to take, an understanding of the principles that are driving the current environment is needed. That is what the first portion of this article addressed. After developing some level of understanding of the current environment, the next place to turn is to see if there are basic principles that can guide my choice of future actions. That is where Steven Covey's book, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People fits with this discussion. Covey interviewed many successful people in order to understand if there were basic principles that helped guide their lives. His qualitative research identified the following seven: 1. Be proactive 2. Begin with the End in Then to be understood mind 3. Put first things first 4. Think win-win 5. Seek first to understand . . . 6. Synergize 7. Sharpen the saw Developmental educators can use these seven principles to help guide our actions as we improve our ability to provide access, equity and success for our students. David Arendale, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 5014 Rockhill Road, SASS #210, Kansas 6 City, MO 64110-2499, (W) 816-235-1197, (F) 816-235-5156, E-mail address: [email protected] Return to main NADE page. (-tt3c1 ("Li) U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) E 11C National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Educallonal Resources Int onnallon Center REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: CerraNbEs- 1;) Title: -c)iFit-OP416-5(4)711e- -CIttC1472'64) ateD- j 2- 146Qr500)/ie- Author(s): Per0 ID Publication Date: Corporate Source: II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document. If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom of the page. The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 2B documents affixed to all Level 1 documents PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, BEEN GRANTED BY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY ,zpe 'cC*S TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2B 2A 1 Level 28 Level Level 2A Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival and dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media for and dissemination in microfiche only media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy. ERIC archival collection subscribers only Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1. I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by librafies and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries. 41, Sign here, &INA,. Cyr q Organization/Address: t4-145.4s FAX: NeM35 please Asont4 cr.Ar-mce_ 334,r spe& -G35 105,0 51 E-MaillddressuQz.10 Date: 12/i 7/01 Vdro.s4E. Cir./ 44-0 (0`"1 6 cer-,eni estci (Over) III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE): If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiay available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.) Publisher/Distributor: Address: Price: IV.REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER: If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address: Name: Address: V.WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM: Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being contributed) to: ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 4483-A Forbes Boulevard Lanham, Maryland 20706 Telephone: 301-552-4200 Toll Free: 800-799-3742 FAX: 301552-4700 e-mail: ericfac@ineted:gov WWW: http://ericfacility.org EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2001)