Courses serve useful purpose Maryland follows national norm with catch-up instruction

Debating remedial education: Two views on the value of providing basics for underprepared college students.

June 07, 1998|By Henry B. Reiff

Recently, the trustees at the City University of New York voted to eliminate remedial education programs at its 11 four-year schools. Mayor Giuliani heralded the trustees for their "courageous vote." Meanwhile, a number of Maryland legislators have become vocal critics of remedial education in two-and four-year state institutions of higher learning. The CUNY decision undoubtedly will heat up this smoldering debate on the role of colleges in preparing unprepared students who wish to attend college.

On the surface, the decision seems reasonable, if not exactly courageous. Why should colleges have the responsibility to remediate - that is, to deliver curriculum and instruction that students have had in high school? Why shouldn't CUNY return to its glory days 50 years ago when it was known as "the proletarian Harvard"? Why admit students whose likelihood of graduation is lower, who require additional resources, who foster the perception of falling standards?

In Maryland, the Remedial Eduction Subcommittee of the Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K-16 Work Group has spent the last year attempting to provide a cogent set of responses to these issues. The subcommittee, composed of representatives from school systems, two-year and four-year colleges and universities, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges and the Maryland Higher Education Commission, spent the last year examining and conducting research on remediation at the post-secondary level. The subcommittee sought to identify factors contributing to underprepared students entering college, to suggest approaches to reduce the need for remedial education, and to determine the role of colleges in providing remedial programs.

Like all colleges and universities across the nation, all of Maryland's community colleges and many of its four-year institutions offer some form of remedial course work. Placement tests for entering community college students in Maryland indicate that approximately 60 percent need remedial work in English and reading or math, or both. Remedial courses in four-year colleges place more emphasis on math.

Students who complete remedial courses do well in college and graduate at about the same rate as their adequately prepared peers. Clearly, remedial efforts can serve a useful purpose, providing a pathway to graduation that might otherwise be inaccessible.

Not surprisingly, the less prepared students are when they enter college, the less likely they are to complete remedial course work, particularly if they are deficient in more than one area. While increasing the number of prepared entering students is vital to raising graduation rates, it is equally important to consider ways to improve the completion rate of students who are enrolled in remedial course work.

The first argument against eliminating remedial education is philosophical. In the glory days of CUNY, despite its proletarian leanings, college education was for the few. The majority of high school students were not encouraged to attend college. It was not necessary. The work force did not place much of a demand on college-educated employees. But, as the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education concluded in 1996, "Education beyond high school is I becoming more of a necessity to make a living and ensure our well-being in a highly technological society."

In fact, the proliferation of community colleges in the 1960s and 1970s was a response to a social and economic mandate to broaden access to higher education.

The CUNY decision begs the question of whether we wish to return to an era of limited educational access. Critics of remedial education would argue that the CUNY plan only limits opportunities to unqualified students. After all, students needing remedial education have had the same opportunities as all other students and should be prepared for college. But this assertion is based on the assumption that candidates for remedial course work either have squandered opportunities or lack the ability to take advantage of those opportunities. Many students exiting high school have not been on a "college prep" track; yet critics of remedial education seem to presume that every high school graduate should be (and has had the opportunity to be) prepared for college. Even some students who successfully complete college prep tracks find themselves deficient when faced with the demands of college.

Rethinking 'remedial'

Clearly, gaps exist between expectations of high school and college. In fact, this disparity caused the subcommittee to reconsider the term "remedial course work." Many students graduating from high school need further development - not a repetition of previous material. Students demonstrate competence as defined by their high school programs but do not meet standards when they enter two-and four-year colleges.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.