Arendale, D. R., Bader, C., Bollman, L., Otte, G, & Williams, L. (2000). Innovation and expansion in the breadth of programs and services. In D. B. Lundell, & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Intentional Meeting on the Future Directions in Developmental Education (pp. 31-33). (original) (raw)
Related papers
2000
Overview Developmental education is the fastest growing academic component of postsecondary education today. The role of the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) and its members will become even more crucial in the future as the need for our services grows. About three-quarters of higher education institutions that enrolled first year students offered at least one developmental reading, writing, or mathematics course. All public two-year institutions and 81 percent of public four-year institutions offered developmental courses. The percent drops to 63 percent of private two-year and private four-year institutions. The lower the mean socioeconomic status (SES) of student body and the more open the admissions' standards of the institution, the higher the percent of institutions of a specific type offering developmental courses (Lewis & Greene, 1996). Twenty-nine percent of first-time first year students enrolled in at least one developmental reading, writing, or mathematics course in Fall 1995. Of the 2,128,000 first-time first year students, 445,220 first year students enroll in one or more developmental courses. This does not include: sophomores, juniors, seniors or graduate students who enroll in developmental courses; students who participate in non-credit academic enrichment activities such as tutoring, Supplemental Instruction, learning strategy workshops, or similar activities; students of any classification who enroll in developmental courses in science and other content areas not covered by the survey; and students of any classification who enroll in study strategy courses. About half of institutions offering developmental courses said that the number of students enrolled in developmental courses at their institution had stayed about the same in the last five years, 39 percent said enrollments had increased, and 14 percent said they had decreased (Lewis & Greene, 1996). I am optimistic for the future of developmental education. The form of service will adapt to meet the future needs of students and the college educational environment. Even with secondary education improving the academic quality of more high school graduates, the expectation level of many college professors and future employers will still require the "value-added" availability of developmental education and learning assistance programs with improving the academic skills of many college students. However, I believe that developmental education and the professional associations that provide leadership are facing critical choices. The choices that developmental educators make in the next few years will decide whether the professionals are change agents for the next phase of service or whether other policy makers assign them tasks. It is exciting to see what some institutions are already doing to transform their departments and centers to more effectively meet new needs. The issue of accountability in higher education has never been higher than it is now. Legislators, tax payers, parents, policy makers and students want to know why they are getting
The Future of Developmental Education.
The future of developmental education, 2001
This paper discusses current issues and trends in developmental education. The biggest trend is expected to be the concurrent development of learning strategies while students are enrolled in graduation-credit content courses. Separate developmental education courses will be mainstreamed into the traditional college course work in a variety of ways, just as there are a variety of ways to embed study strategies into course content. At present, the predominant approach today is based on a medical model of diagnosing students and then prescriptively placing them in separate developmental education courses or mandated activities, but there are trends forming nationwide to eliminate developmental education from public four-year institutions. Part of this effort is based on the belief that developmental education courses help water down the academic standards of all courses on campus. In fact, developmental education programs permit professors to maintain high academic standards, since students can develop the requisite skills in a separate developmental course or an adjunct academic support activity. It is not correct to think that raising admission standards would eliminate the need for developmental education, nor is it correct to think that developmental students need not be a high priority for colleges. Nor can developmental education be left to the community colleges. The nontraditional student of 5 to 10 years ago is the traditional student today, and these students did not move or commute to attend a two-year college exclusively. An ideal academic support program could be developed to focus on learning and academic enrichment for all students.
Trends in Developmental Education
2001
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.
Theory, Practice, and the Future of Developmental Education
Journal of Developmental Education, 2005
The guiding premise of this article is that developmental education and learning assistance programs will continue to be undervalued and vulnerable as long as there is no overarching, shared theoretical framework that practitioners can (and want to) call their own. The traditional approach to addressing this theory crisis has been to import theories from outside the field. This article presents an alternative approach. Advantages and benefits of a practice-oriented approach are identified and briefly discussed. Given that 30% of all students entering postsecondary institutions in this country require some form of "developmental" coursework (Boylan, 1999; Breneman & Haarlow, 1998), it seems reasonable to presume that developmental education and learning assistance would be thriving. However, as Boylan, Saxon, and Link (1999) document, developmental education is, overall, presented to the public as a "necessary evil" (p. 17) that exists due to the poor education students receive in high school, that requires an exorbitant proportion of taxpayer dollars, and that ought to be limited in scope (Hebel, 1999; Healy, 1998). Clearly there are economic, political, and historical factors contributing to this oversimplified picture that are beyond anyone's control. And yet the question remains, when budget cuts occur or the political climate changes, why are the status, legitimacy, and perceived value of developmental education programs so quickly and so easily challenged? The guiding thesis of this article is that part of the answer to this question involves the paucity of theoretical discussions and the lack of a shared theoretical framework among developmental education and learning assistance professionals. This lack of theory and its negative consequences have been noted by a number of commentators. In an interview, Hunter Boylan asserts "The most successful programs are theory based. They don't just provide random intervention; they intervene according to the tenets of various theories of adult intellectual and personal development" (Stratton, 1998, p. 33). Collins and Bruch (2000) also stress the importance of theory: "Given the gains to be made through the pro
Symposium on the Future of Developmental Education
2000
This paper summarizes themes arising from a symposium on the future of developmental education in the United States. In recent years, public financial support of developmental education has been declining and is projected to decline further. Participants in a symposium on developmental education agreed on some trends that are emerging. Mainstreaming, the removal of developmental education from four-year institutions, and increased professionalism of developmental educators seem likely to continue. Increased professionalization in the ranks of developmental educators will be a helpful approach to combating the negative attitudes toward developmental education in the public, political, and academic arenas. (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
Harvard Symposium 2000: Developmental education: Demographics, outcomes, and activities
Journal of Developmental Education, 2000
Developmental education incorporates a wide range of interventions designed to help under prepared students be successful in higher education. These interventions include tutoring programs, special academic advising and counseling programs, learning laboratories, and comprehensive learning centers. They also include remedial and developmental courses which represent the developmental intervention most commonly used in higher education.
2003
This annotated bibliography provides an overview of selected recent publications related to issues that will impact developmental education in the future. The document is divided into six sections: (1) interviews by national leaders in the field; (2) changing values in higher education; (3) culture and demographics; (4) educational theory and its implications; (5) institutional, state, and national policies; and (6) model practices in developmental education. Many of the documents are available online, as noted. Because future trends are often detected in five states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, and Texas), the reader is encouraged to pay particular attention to events in these states. (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.