The State of Developmental Education

Higher Education and Public Policy Priorities

T. Parker, M. Barrett, Leticia Tomas Bustillos

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781349480241, 9781137382887
• eBook ISBN: 9781137367037
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Amministrazione nella didattica

The State of Developmental Education is the first book to provide a thorough, comparative picture of how developmental education is carried out at higher education institutions and investigate how different state-level policies and priorities change the availability, types, and quality of developmental education available.

1

Introduction—The State of Developmental Education

Developmental education, as a course of study, has been a presence on US campuses of higher education since the opening of Harvard, and in the years that followed, many college and university administrators witnessed large proportions of students entering their institutions underprepared for college-level work—at times, unexpectedly. Today, developmental education is most often viewed as a function exclusive to two-year or community colleges; yet, as we have seen at some of the country’s most elite four-year colleges and universities, developmental education permeates all institutional types and has done so throughout the 400-year history of American higher education.

Questions concerning the appropriateness of developmental education in college campuses and its impact on higher education excellence have been asked repeatedly throughout its history, eliciting a tension-filled debate about what is and is not the purpose of higher education. In the past two decades, this debate has intensified, yielding policies that have curtailed and outrightly eliminated developmental education from some postsecondary settings. Indeed, increased attention to college completion, as opposed to college access, has led many states to reconsider serving students with developmental academic profiles at all.

Although the issues surrounding developmental education have been contentious, there remains some confusion as to what developmental education really means. Therefore, it is important that we take a moment to have a brief discussion on terminology and language. Although we recognize developmental education as a field of practice and research,¹ we use the term to refer to specific courses, regardless of whether they are credit-bearing courses. Once commonly known as remedial education, our use of developmental education refers to those courses designed to support college-readiness and academic preparedness. The term “remedial education,” however, is no longer used by developmental education practitioners and scholars because remedial tends to refer to academic deficits and “academic content taught previously in middle or secondary school.”² Developmental education, however, focuses on building skills and knowledge required for a college curriculum. These distinctions, while clear to those who study or work in developmental education, are much less clear for state policymakers and the general public. In states where developmental education courses are under attack, for example, policymakers tend to use the term remedial education. We choose to use the term developmental education throughout this book to help further public understanding about the need for these courses and their relevance to academic success. Because this book is focused on public policy, we do use the terms remedial education and developmental education interchangeably in the state chapters (chapters 4 through 8) in accordance with the language used by the policymakers and institutional actors who participated in this study. Indeed, the tendency of some policymakers to prefer the term remedial education may be indicative of its unpopularity in some states.³

A recent report by the Southern Education Foundation found that in 2012, 14 states had formal policies limiting developmental education to two-year colleges or that limited or reduced public funding for developmental courses at four-year colleges.⁴ The state of Louisiana, for example, prohibited public universities from admitting students who need developmental education coursework; Connecticut has passed a law embedding developmental skills in college bearing courses arising concerns that students with varying academic skill levels may be at greater risk of not successfully completing coursework. Ohio recently ended funding for developmental courses in the state’s four-year institutions causing concerns that students of color and low income students will be the most affected by the state policy. Perhaps the most unique is Florida’s decision to consider any student “college-ready” if they entered the ninth grade in a public Florida high school (as of 2003) and graduated. Therefore, in Florida, high school graduates are no longer required to enroll in developmental education courses or even take a placement exam.

In states where formal, written policies do not exist, legislative debates such as those that have taken place in North Carolina have discouraged four-year institutions from offering developmental education courses. In addition to state policies, some university systems such as the City University of New York (CUNY) and the California State University have enacted system-wide policies that prohibit or discourage four-year colleges and universities from offering developmental education. In states where limits have been placed, policymakers often argue that developmental education reduces educational quality and baccalaureate degree completion and is best located at community colleges. Some community colleges, however, seem to disagree. Arizona’s Pima Community College, for example, no longer permits students who test at the lowest developmental education levels to take classes at the college. Instead, these students are redirected to adult basic education programs where their chances for transitioning to college or earning a degree are further reduced simply because it is an additional barrier required to reach their degree goals. Similar strategies were implemented in the state of South Carolina and Baltimore City Community College.

Despite these policy shifts, renewed public attention on student success has led a few states to rethink their approaches to serving students who are considered underprepared. In light of President Obama’s goals to increase college degree completion, several states, like Kentucky, and university systems, like the Tennessee Board of Regents, have begun to consider developmental education as playing a role in increasing educational attainment and improving workforce development. The fact that developmental education impacts students from all walks of life, regardless of socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and residence (urban/suburban/rural), suggests that no state can afford to ignore developmental education.⁵ Further, while national attention on college completion is often front and center at the educational policy stage, college access remains a growing concern of the American public, particularly for students who are African American, Latino, and/or low-income.⁶

To be sure, developmental education in college is a question of access and equity as low-income students, first-generation college students, and students of color are most likely to enroll in these courses.⁷ Complete College America found that among students at two-year colleges, 67.7 percent of African Americans, 58.3 percent of Hispanics, 46.8 percent of whites took developmental education courses.⁸ Among students at four-year colleges, 39.1 percent of African Americans, 20.6 percent of Latinos, and 13.6 percent of whites enrolled in at least one developmental course. Furthermore, 64.7 percent of low-income students at two-year colleges and 37.9 percent of low-income students at four-year colleges require some developmental education. The significance of developmental education to people of color, however, is not limited to enrollment. In fact, 50 percent of black baccalaureate degree holders and 34 percent of Latinos who earned a bachelor’s degree took at least one developmental education course during college.⁹ In other words, one-half of blacks who completed a baccalaureate degree and more than one-third of Latinos who did the same, had some developmental education while in college. If developmental courses were not available in four-year institutions, it is highly likely that these students, if admitted, may never have persisted to graduation. Perhaps worse, they may never have had the opportunity to enroll in college at all. Given the high need evident among matriculating college students, serving students who are considered underprepared through developmental education is not just an academic necessity; it is a social and economic imperative. Because to limit students, who are more likely to be students of color or low income, to begin their college careers in one sector of postsecondary education (community colleges) while white and high-income students have greater freedom to choose any college sector raises important questions of equity. As Arendale argued, “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.”¹⁰

Despite the increased attention that policymakers have given developmental education, there is very little in the literature that examines the role that policy plays in the implementation and execution of developmental education on campuses, particularly at four-year institutions. We therefore know little about the ways state policies influence institutional behaviors (i.e., policies, practices, instruction), and we know even less about the role of four-year colleges in developmental education reforms. We hope to fill this gap with this book. While research on developmental education effectiveness is increasing and states and institutions are experimenting with various educational reforms, we are still unable to conclusively explain why these courses and/or programs are or are not effective. A detailed analysis of how state policies influence institutional behaviors, however, could help inform the discussion on developmental education effectiveness as well as its value in meeting states’ college access and equity goals.

Developmental Education as a Critical Policy Issue

In debating educational reform, state policymakers deliberate over Common Core State Standards, college readiness and alignment, and the need to improve educational outcomes to maintain economic competitiveness. Because developmental education is intertwined with all of these issues and these issues have not yet been conclusively resolved, developmental education remains important to the success of students and higher education systems. Yet, as we struggle to resolve these long-term dilemmas, critical policy questions emerge, including: How do we pay for developmental courses and academic support services? In what type of institutions should developmental education be offered? How can we measure its effectiveness?¹¹ What compromises are we willing to make in terms of college access and success? In other words, are we continuing to engage in a futile debate about access and quality? The ways in which higher education systems respond to these policy questions today are likely to help determine whether we will reach President Obama’s goal to have the most educated citizenry in the world by 2020.

The Cost of Developmental Education

Policy debates in the past 20 to 30 years have questioned whether developmental education is a drain on resources or a “best buy” in higher education. National estimates on the cost of these programs range from US$1 billion to nearly US$3 billion.¹² Existing research on this issue has inadequately responded to this debate, due in part to studies that primarily focus on developmental education in individual states, disagreements about how to measure cost, and data that are no longer current.¹³ Although scholars such as Breneman and Haarlow conducted a survey of the states, and Strong American Schools analyzed institutional data originally collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Survey (IPEDS) to assess costs associated with developmental programming, the data gathered are unreliable as states and institutions measure costs differently. In the Breneman and Haarlow study, for example, some states only included funding allocated for developmental instruction, but failed to include actual expenditures. Further, some states included the “true” costs of offering developmental services (including overhead) while others only included the cost of instruction.¹⁴

The Strong American Schools analysis used higher education expenditures reported in IPEDS to determine the cost per student in public two- and four-year institutions.¹⁵ They estimated that two-year colleges spent between US$1,600 and US$2,000 and four-year institutions spent between US$2,000 and US$2,500 per student on developmental education. Cost estimates included direct and indirect instructional costs. Assuming students took at least two developmental courses, the report concluded that US$2.89 billion were spent in total educational costs for developmental courses.

The Alliance for Excellent Education took a somewhat different approach in estimating the cost of developmental education by focusing on savings, rather than expenses. The analysis was based on combined estimates of direct and indirect costs for developmental instruction and additional earnings that would be realized if such instruction was reduced.¹⁶ The analysis suggests that the United States would save more than US$1.4 billion a year if fewer students enrolled in developmental education courses. Additionally, it was estimated that the nation would benefit from increased revenue of approximately US$2.3 billion annually, earned from wages of college graduates whose contributions would otherwise be de...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1 Introduction—The State of Developmental Education
• 2 A History of Developmental Education
• 3 Developmental Education as a Strategy Toward State and Institutional Goals
• 4 South Carolina
• 5 Oklahoma
• 6 Colorado
• 7 North Carolina
• 8 Kentucky
• 9 Rethinking Developmental Education Policy and Practice
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index