I’m still stunned...

I mostly understand remediation for adults who are coming back after having been away from a formal classroom setting for 10 years or more. And as this country strives to become more educated by increasing the proportion of adults with bachelor’s degrees in an effort to keep up with the rest of the world, I think that remediation of adults is going to be with us for a while.

But I do not understand remediation for recent high school graduates, and I never will. Even if it were possible to make success a virtual certainty, I would still wonder how these folks had earned a high school diploma in the first place.

The worst part is, these young people are paying for courses that do not count toward graduation and typically are not counted in their GPA calculation. If they have to take multiple courses or take the course multiple times, that is more money out of their pocket. And taxpayers, who contribute to both K-12 and the community colleges, and are essentially being asked to pay for the same education twice. There are costs to institutions as well. Remedial courses take classroom space and faculty load away from college-level courses. This may lead to hiring more part-time faculty and/or building projects (which carry maintenance costs). It’s a vicious cycle.

Don’t get me wrong. I think open enrollment institutions serve an incredibly important function in society. I believe in giving people second chances. But with state appropriations to higher education decreasing from year to year, is it right to ask higher ed to allocate resources to do the job that K-12 failed to do?

JB, at 11:35 am EDT on June 17, 2008

This is not a recent development

As much as I agree that our educational priorities have been misguided recently, this is not a recent problem. A large portion of CC education has been remedial/developmental for decades. Part of the problem is that while in HS, mids do not care and hence do not put forward the necessary effort. Of course some drop out and hence do not get the background.

The true problem is that many of the faculty that teach the basic skills and developmental course are adjuncts. Before I get flamed, I agree that many of the adjunct are wonderful teachers, but they are not paid much (an understatement) and hence are understandably not willing to put the sort of time into preparation that these “best practices” would require. Many are or were HS teachers who approach the education the same way that they do in HS, the same way the students did not get it the first time.

Unfortunately, the current political atmosphere (NOT jut the right) is one where the state complains about the success rate in courses, and then reduces the budget. All of this in a time where enrollments are increasing to respond to layoffs as the economy change from production to service.

Skip, at 3:35 pm EDT on June 17, 2008

remediation

Alas, an old story and the first comment gets it right. Why is such a situation allowed to continue? Having taught at various levels of higher education, from college preparation classes for the “disadvantaged” to community college and graduate courses, I have understood the various levels of questionable preparation, even at the graduate level.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful, more efficient, and more just if some association of educators acknowledged this situation and took steps to make the “jump” from secondary school to college level work less of a huge leap that frustrates teacher and student alike? Open admissions should not be interpreted as permission to give students in high school an undeserved “pass;"those teachers at the secondary and college level need to collaborate so that their students come to understand that there are standards held in common, and that individual assessment of student capacities must be normed.

Not to do something like this (along with rewarding teachers sufficiently) is to allow a situation, which those of us who are older professionals have long been familiar with, to persist.

George K, at 5:10 pm EDT on June 17, 2008

High school is not necessarily pre-college

As someone who taught high school for 17 years (the majority of my students went on to be very successful in colleges and universities across the US — including Yale and Northwestern, as well as the local community college), I feel the need to address a topic all the commenters seem to be missing. Many of my students did not go on to college...and should not have. Although we in higher ed all may feel or even know that students NEED to attend college after high school, only a percentage of them do. Some can’t afford it, but many choose not to — with or without the skills to succeed in college. High school serves many needs — and college success is JUST ONE of these. Until the US follows the successful European “un-egalitarian” mode of separate schools for college-prep students and vocational/trade students, the system will remain as it is — “One size fits none.”

Former high school teacher, at 11:15 am EDT on June 18, 2008