Dismantling the Developmental Education ... - Wiley Online Library

COMMENTARY

Dismantling the Developmental Education Pipeline: Potent Pedagogies and Promising Practices That Address the College Readiness Gap Laurie A. Henry, Norman A. Stahl

In the era of the Common Core, there are far too many graduating secondary students not considered college ready and thus needlessly destined to be pulled into the developmental education pipeline amid a growing number of support programs in high schools designed to promote successful postsecondary transition.

I

and Australia (Hourigan & O’Donoghue, 2007; Yorke & Longden, 2004). In response, countries around the globe have implemented developmental programming (Boylan, 2008). Thus, we argue that college/career readiness is a global challenge worthy of focused attention. Collectively, our research and teaching experiences have centered on access to highly engaged literacy practices for all students, with an emphasis on college/ career readiness and successful transitions between secondary and postsecondary institutions. We have extensive knowledge of secondary and postsecondary literacy instruction, the plight of students placed in college developmental education, and the discouraging college completion rates of youths who often fall between the cracks in secondary classrooms.

n this commentary, we seek answers to paramount questions related to the college and career readiness movement. First, we examine the intersection between college/career readiness and transitions from high school to postsecondary institutions. Then, we peel back the multiple pedagogical, societal, and political layers of complexity related to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards for students who have traditionally been underserved in U.S. secondary classrooms. We complete our dialogue with a snapshot of promising practices suggesting a path forward for the future of college/career readiness and success for all students. Although we focus on education reform in the United States, challenges related to college/career readiness and transition to postsecondary education are found across the globe. Kantanis (2000) demonstrated that societal and higher education changes have impacted student success at an Australian university (see also Evans, 2000). Similarly, social competency has been identified as an important variable for high school to university transition in Ontario, Canada (Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004; see also Looker & Lowe, 2001). Additional studies have shown similar trends in the United Kingdom, South Africa,

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 60 No. 6 pp. 611–616

LAURIE A. HENRY is the associate dean of clinical preparation and partnerships at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA; e-mail lauriehenry@uky. edu. NORMAN A. STAHL is a professor emeritus of literacy education at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, USA; e-mail [email protected].

611

doi: 10.1002/jaal.640 © 2017 International Literacy Association

COMMENTARY

College Readiness Gap Across the past decade, there has been a definitive call to reduce the number of students requiring developmental education and remediation. Although college completion rates are increasing somewhat, there are deep differences across demographic groups, among economically disadvantaged students, and among those who have been underserved historically (Baum, Ma, & Payea, 2013; Carey, 2004). These are the students who are most likely enrolled in developmental education, which places a pedagogical monkey on their backs from day 1. “Students who begin their college careers in developmental education are substantially less likely to complete a degree or certificate (Adelman, 2006; Attewell et al., 2006)” (Barnett & Cormier, 2014, p. 2), and “for the least prepared students, placement into multiple levels of developmental education upon entry into college has become the norm (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010)” (Barnett & Fay, 2013, p. 2). Nearly 60% of first-year college students enter postsecondary education required to complete some level of developmental education (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006). In two-year colleges, nearly 75% of incoming students need remediation in more than one academic area (most commonly mathematics and English) and enroll in at least two remedial courses to prepare for college-level coursework (Scott- Clayton, Crosta, & Belfield, 2014).

Developmental Education Pipeline The developmental education model has been compared with a leaky pipeline, a pedagogical conduit with numerous exit points that are both curricular and structural. The longer the pipeline (i.e., number of remedial classes required), the greater likelihood an individual will leave college before completion. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, postsecondary faculty and administrators welcomed the pipeline effect so colleges could promote societal mandates for diversification and access to higher education yet keep struggling and underprepared students out of real college classes where they were seen as not belonging. Developmental education, although widely despaired, was welcomed either explicitly or implicitly first and foremost as a gatekeeper of academic standards. Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, with colleges evaluated by economic models focused on not only access but also retention, benchmarking at mileposts and earning of degrees/credentials are the norm. The failed basic-skills stepladder models of developmental education are being abandoned in favor of programming that reduces time to degree, thus reducing the number of noncredit courses required.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Vol. 60 No. 6

It is through this lens that we pose a series of critical questions stemming from the implementation of yet one more education reform movement designed to lessen or even prevent the need for developmental education, in this case, the Common Core State Standards and the implicit promises that were formulated.

Why Was the Common Core State Standards Initiative Developed? The Common Core was born out of a bipartisan initiative with support from the National Governors Association and members of the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop a common higher standard for K–12 student achievement. One of the main tenets of this initiative (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) was for states to align instruction to a common set of college/career readiness goals that would engender increased student achievement and global competitiveness through public education reform.

What Are the Educational, Pedagogical, and Societal Promises? As of 2013, 46 states and the District of Columbia agreed to adopt the Common Core as a guidepost for college/ career readiness with the promise of raising student achievement. This initiative presented a push for increased levels of rigor focused on higher order thinking skills, reflective inquiry, and deeper learning while understanding complex academic concepts. Indeed, the Common Core is seen by some advocates as a silver bullet to better prepare K–12 students and lead to dramatically higher levels of student performance for college/career success (McShane, 2013; Noguera, 2013). Supporters have argued that “if American children were to master the Common Core, they would fare better in international comparisons, the American economy would receive a boost, and the literacy achievement gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children might narrow somewhat” (Haskins, Murnane, Sawhill, & Snow, 2012, p. 3). Much of the focus on the implementation of the Common Core has rested on the view that the Standards would increase student achievement, help close the achievement gap, and by implication, lessen the need for college developmental/remedial education.

Will There Be Success for All? Many believe that the Common Core “holds promise for playing an important role in an overall strategy

612

May/June 2017 literacyworldwide.org

COMMENTARY

for improving literacy skills for all students, including those from poor families who suffer from a striking literacy deficit” (Haskins et al., 2012, p. 2). Such an argument is not particularly different from the underlying hopes associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) and policies/reforms of previous decades. Yet, it is clear from history that standards can contribute only so much to fixing more complex literacy problems or addressing widening literacy gaps between high-and low-income students (Haskins et al., 2012). Reardon (2013) argued that the U.S. income achievement gap continues to grow and is now wider than the gap between black and white students (see also Stanovich, 1986). Other studies have indicated the Common Core has little to no impact on student l earning, while identifying factors more influential in closing the achievement gap, including the need to ensure high- quality teaching by skilled teachers in high-p overty schools (Loveless, 2012). Indeed, secondary education still has miles to go. Although the national dropout rate has decreased from 2008 to 2012 by roughly 25%, 4,000 students drop out of high school daily, and approximately 1,235 secondary schools have failed to graduate at least one third of their enrollees (Wise & Gomperts, 2016). Fostering high educational expectations and stimulating college/career aspirations is critical to the success of students often left in the shadows of educational reform efforts and fundamental to the assurances made by the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

What Is the Likely Impact of College/ Career Standards on College Readiness and Completion Rates of the Underprepared? Although students may be college eligible with high school diploma in hand, high school completion does not equate to preparation for college-level work, resulting in a college readiness gap (Katz, Cline, Bissell, & Hafner, 2007). Meeting basic eligibility requirements for college entrance does not ensure the development of higher order thinking skills, such as critical thinking or reflective inquiry, expected by postsecondary institutions (Conley, 2007). The Common Core State Standards were designed to close achievement and college readiness gaps between high school and college entry requirements, but underprepared students continue to struggle, and they are destined to be funneled into developmental coursework before enrollment in credit-bearing coursework. To borrow and then slightly reformulate a sage observation from Mikulecky as he originally talked about


adult literacy (L.J. Mikulecky, personal communication, February 23, 2017), we believe that developmental education has been a form of triage when the profession should have provided a form of adoption for the underprepared students who enter higher education. Of course, adoption begins at birth, and the metaphoric pipeline with its leakage is actually a pre-K–16 issue. The effects of being underprepared and/or misprepared for the next step grow exponentially across many years. The other reform, then, with the potential for promoting academic success and well-b eing for underprepared students, is fixing the problem before postsecondary education. We must acknowledge that it will be at least a decade before the promised benefits of the Common Core can fully impact the pipeline for all students. Furthermore, history as a judge has not been kind to other top-down programs (viz., Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Right to Read, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind) with promises of closing achievement gaps. It is clear that a better path forward for college readiness leading to student success is needed, especially for students falling through the cracks in K–12 classrooms. Standards alone cannot meet this challenge.

What Promising Practices Support College and Career Aspirations? Our position is that each secondary school should have a carefully formulated program focused on repairing the leaky pipeline to provide greater opportunities for success in postsecondary education, whether on a traditional academic track or within career technical education programs. We propose that secondary literacy specialists (with their understanding of specific disciplinary literacy practices) must be change agents in the development, support, and evaluation of such programming. They, too, must be catalytic forces in crossing borders to work in tandem with college literacy specialists in promoting the successful transition to and success in postsecondary education for every student. Programs designed to enhance college readiness and provide early college opportunities have evolved over the past half-century. These programs include a myriad of different models, but most important, those that provide a transitional bridge from secondary to postsecondary contexts are viewed as the most successful.

Accelerated Learning Accelerated curricular programs that shorten the time spent in the developmental education pipeline are a staple of reform movements on community college campuses (Hern, 2012). Many secondary schools are

613


COMMENTARY

level writing expectations and academic discourse practices of postsecondary education (McCurrie, 2009). Such programs often focus on “enhancing students’ cultural and social capital” (Stolle-McAllister, 2011, p.12) by providing on-campus experiences, thus easing entry to the first year of college. Participating students have reported higher levels of self-efficacy regarding their own beliefs about their ability to succeed in college with increased academic skills (Strayhorn, 2011). Finally, innovative staffing designs partner secondary educators with college faculty to promote greater linkage between the curricular offerings and instructional practices between the educational entities.

also turning to accelerated learning options providing college credit not only to students who are traditionally expected to move seamlessly into postsecondary education but also for those students on the fringes of the college track. Dual enrollment and early college models (Fowler & Luna, 2009) provide secondary students with opportunities to transition to college-level work while maintaining support from the K–12 school/district. Dual-credit programs permit students to earn college credits, most often during the senior year of high school. In the past, these options targeted the more academically elite students but are now offered to a wider population. Early college programs, as another option, focus on secondary students who historically would not be on a college track, by enrolling them in a curriculum with added supports leading to both a high school degree and either an applied associate’s degree or a career-oriented credential in a career technical education field. These models develop much stronger partnerships between high schools and postsecondary institutions, thus easing the transition by moving toward a K–16 framework to better support students (Hoffman, 2005). Students’ experiences with true college-level material and attainment of college credit during high school have been shown to be strong predictors of future postsecondary success and college completion (Hoffman, Vargas, & Santos, 2009). Accelerated learning opportunities result in “increasing college credentialing rates and building a better-educated workforce” (Hoffman, 2005, p. 6).

Alliance Programs Alliance programs are formal partnerships between colleges and their identified feeder school districts. Given the nature of service regions, collaborations between community colleges and their feeder districts seem to bear the greatest fruit. One long-standing national exemplar recently granted the Bellwether Award for innovation in higher education, and national honors for its programming by ACT is housed at Elgin Community College in Illinois. The goal of the Alliance for College Readiness between Elgin Community College and the four feeder public school districts is to ensure that graduates are ready for academic and social demands of a college education. Faculty and staff from partner institutions work in teams in the areas of English language arts, English learners, mathematics, science, technology, student services, and so forth to “establish a common understanding of college and career readiness, to better align curriculum and instruction and to foster effective communication systems between students, educators, and parents” (Elgin Community College, n.d., para. 1). Shared professional development for all partners is provided regularly, based on needs identified by an advisory council. The success of the partnership comes from acceptance that positive results take time, require trust, and demand tenacity in shared purpose. Furthermore, equality in membership is imperative in Summer Bridge and Transition Academy programs, which employ instructional staff from the community college and the feeder schools.

Summer Bridge and Transition Academy Programs Although Summer Bridge programs have been offered by postsecondary institutions for over four decades (Lauridsen & Myers, 1982; Maxwell, 1979), there has been a scaling up of such initiatives as part of the developmental education reform movement. These short-term, intensive intervention programs are rooted in curricula designed to better prepare students who are underprepared or those underrepresented in targeted career pathways (e.g., STEM fields). The goal is to provide catchup or refresher instruction, leading students to demonstrate increased performance on college placement tests and avoid or lessen time in developmental education. Summer Bridge programs also help facilitate the transition from high school to college by easing the adjustment to campus life, improving academic performance, promoting enrollment in higher level courses, and increasing persistence rates (Ackermann, 1991; Bir & Myrick, 2015; Walpole et al., 2008), as well as meeting the higher


Are the Promising Pedagogies Game Changers? As a concerned literacy educator, you may be asking whether these sample programs are game changers. To

614


COMMENTARY

enter a community college. Thus ‘underpreparedness’ is relative” (p. 3). The best way, in our view, to determine the requirements of college/career readiness is to understand the local or regional context and cross- institutional curricular and instructional demands through an audit procedure, as suggested by Simpson (1993, 1996). In a nation that regularly launches grand plans to reform education with a goal to support and expand the achievement levels and, hence, the life opportunities of all students, one must accept the fact that in no case has there been overwhelming success in meeting such goals. With the Common Core, we must ask whether another top-down scheme will serve the U.S. college-going population. It is imperative that the current proponents of education reform, whether they are from policy groups, foundations, governmental agencies, corporations, or universities (entities that are often intertwined in the 21st century), move their reform agenda forward by including the voices and knowledge of educators at the grassroots levels. Furthermore, educators in the field must abandon long-e xisting silos and band together to develop and deliver programming through partnerships that can and will provide all students with opportunities promoting college/career readiness. Then, we must provide those literacy experts and content specialists who make a commitment to cross-t raditional academic lines of demarcation with a shared model of and experience with professional development. Finally, partnerships bringing together educators from secondary schools, community colleges, and (when appropriate) four-year institutions to design, implement, support, and evaluate programs reflecting the strengths of the local culture and the needs of the community will provide greater opportunities for all students to achieve the dream of college and/or career success.

answer this query, we must accept the premise that for over a century, the secondary literacy field (if not secondary education as a whole) has been looking for, if not longing for, a pedagogy that will serve a diversity of students. Furthermore, when it comes to underprepared students, as members of the literacy profession, we have been complicit, at least to some degree, in a system that has pushed them out the door, ignored their needs, and failed to serve them adequately. We have always longed for magic bullets, but we should not expect to find one, no matter how convincing your district’s professional development office or the consultant of the moment. The reason that we are intrigued with the preceding programs is found in this folk adage, which, although overworked, has great wisdom: “It takes a village to raise a child.” We are simply revising the message to read, “It takes a village to teach an individual to be literate,” which implies college/career readiness. These programs call for partnerships among groups that have not always communicated well with one another. With such partnerships and the crossing of borders, there is a synergistic promise of stakeholders learning and appreciating new cultures to design programming serving all students as they actually progress along their educational paths rather than while housed in a solitary institution operating within a narrow cultural milieu and pedagogical framework. All facets of formative and summative evaluation, then, rest on the shoulders of a greater circle of stakeholders that hopefully see one another as equals, with a shared mission of providing all students with opportunities for an expanded and more successful education, leading to a potential for a richer and fuller life.

Final Thoughts One should not assume that national standards, regardless of philosophical, theoretical, policy, or assessment underpinnings, will or can actually reflect the literacy demands at any particular institution across the great breadth of higher education nationally or globally. Given the sheer number of postsecondary institutions in the United States, whether public, private, or proprietary universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, or technical schools, it is quite impossible for a wide swath of measurement or policy to determine exactly what the demands will be on students graduating from secondary schools as they transcend to postsecondary education environs with varying entrance requirements, faculty expectations, and characteristics of the matriculating student. As Maxwell (1979) stated, “students who are underprepared for the University of California or the University of Wisconsin may be adequately prepared to


REFERENCES Ackermann, S.P. (1991). The benefits of Summer Bridge programs for underrepresented and low- income students. College and University, 66(4), 201–208. Attewell, P.A., Lavin, D.E., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886–924. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0037 Barnett, E.A., & Cormier, (2014). Developmental education aligned to the Common Core State Standards: Insights and illustrations [Discussion paper]. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/ media/k2/attachments/developmental-education-alignedto-the-ccss.pdf Barnett, E.A., & Fay, M.P., (2013). The Common Core State Standards: Implications for community colleges and student

615


COMMENTARY

Loveless, T. (2012). The Common Core Initiative: What are the chances of success? Educational Leadership, 70(4), 60–63. Maxwell, M. (1979). Improving student learning skills: A comprehensive guide to successful practices and programs for increasing the performance of underprepared students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McCurrie, M.K. (2009). Measuring success in Summer Bridge programs: Retention efforts and basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 28(2), 28–49. McShane, M.Q. (2013). The controversial Common Core (Policy Brief No. 8). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from https://www.aei. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/-the-controversial-commoncore_085833646971.pdf National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002). Noguera, P. (2013, April). Education, racial inequality and the future of America democracy. Distinguished lecture at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Parker, J.D.A., Summerfeldt, L.J., Hogan, M.J., & Majeski, S.A. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 163–172. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00076-X Reardon, S.F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16. Scott-Clayton, J., Crosta, P.M., & Belfield, C.R. (2014). Improving the targeting of treatment evidence from college remediation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 371–393. doi:10.3102/0162373713517935 Simpson, M.L. (1993). Cutting edge: Reality checks as a means of defining ourselves. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(1), 36–37. Simpson, M.L. (1996). Conducting reality checks to improve students’ strategic learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(2), 102–109. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.21.4.1 Stolle-McAllister, K. (2011). The case for Summer Bridge: Building social and cultural capital for talented black STEM students. Science Educator, 20(2), 12–22. Strayhorn, T.L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation for college through a Summer Bridge program. The American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 142–159. doi:10.1177/0002764210381871 Walpole, M., Simmerman, H., Mack, C., Mills, J., Scales, M., & Albano, D. (2008). Bridge to success: Insight into Summer Bridge program students’ college transition. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 20(1), 11–30. Wise, B., & Gomperts, J. (2016). Six ways for state governors to help raise the nation’s high school graduation rate. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport. org/six-ways-for-state-governors-to-help-raise-the-nationshigh-school-graduation-rate/ Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2004). Retention and student success in higher education. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

preparedness for college. New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research. Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2013). Education pays 2013: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, DC: College Board. Retrieved from http:// trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays2013-full-report-022714.pdf Bir, B., & Myrick, M. (2015). Summer Bridge’s effects on college student success. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(1), 22–28, 30. Boylan, H.R. (2008). How research contributes to access and opportunity around the world. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(1), 2–3. Carey, K. (2004). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rates in four-year colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Retrieved from http://edtrust.org/%20wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/highered.pdf Conley, D. (2007). The challenge of college readiness. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 23–29. Elgin Community College. (n.d.). Alliance for College Readiness. Retrieved from http://elgin.edu/community.aspx?id=2664 Evans, M. (2000). Planning for the transition to tertiary study: A literature review. Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/articles/volume9-no-1/9-1-planning-for-the-transition-to-tertiary-study-aliterature-review Fowler, M., & Luna, G. (2009). High school and college partnerships: Credit- based transition programs. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 62–76. Haskins, R., Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Can academic standards boost literacy and close the achievement gap? [Policy brief]. Princeton, NJ: The Future of Children. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2016/06/Child-Literacy-Policy-Brief.pdf Hern, K. (2012). Acceleration across California: Shorter pathways in developmental English and math. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 60–68. Hoffman, N. (2005). Add and subtract: Dual enrollment as a state strategy to increase postsecondary success for underrepresented students. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. Hoffman, N., Vargas, J., & Santos, J. (2009). New directions for dual enrollment: Creating stronger pathways from high school through college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(145), 43–58. doi:10.1002/cc.354 Hourigan, M., & O’Donoghue, J. (2007). Mathematical underpreparedness: The influence of the pre- t ertiary mathematics experience on students’ ability to make a successful transition to tertiary level mathematics courses in Ireland. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(4), 461–476. doi:10.1080/00207390601129279 Kantanis, T. (2000). The role of social transition in students’ adjustment to the first- year of university. Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1), 100–110. Katz, M.L., Cline, Z., Bissell, J., & Hafner, A. (2007). Closing the college readiness gap: Aligning high school and college curricula. Leadership Magazine, 37(2), 30–33. Lauridsen, K.V., & Myers, C. (Eds.). (1982). Summer program for underprepared freshmen: New directions for college learning assistance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Looker, E.D., & Lowe, G.S. (2001, February). Post-secondary access and student financial aid in Canada: Current knowledge and research gaps. Background paper for a workshop of the Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa, ON, Canada.


616
