Under-Prepared Students - A Continuing Challenge for Higher Education

Introduction According to numerous reports and studies, American education is, and has been, in crisis. In 1983 the widely publicized report, "A Nation at Risk," sounded the alarm about American "mediocre educational performance" (Mortenson, May 2003, p. 10). Poor student performances on national, state, and local assessments continue to predict a dismal future. The decline of scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is frequently cited as a cause for serious concern. College and university professors bemoan a woeful lack of preparation on the part of an increasing number of students. According to Markus and Zeitlin (1992), the open admissions policies that began in the 1960s meant, "inadequate academic preparation was no longer a barrier to college access" (p. 17). Furthermore, as access to higher education increased, the number of postsecondary students enrolled in remedial and developmental classes also increased, and this trend is ongoing. Surely, the issue of under-prepared students is a critical one for higher education. It is not, however, a new issue but, rather, a longstanding challenge that continues to demand our attention. Definition of Terms Basically, students who are admitted to college or university without the skills needed to successfully complete a degree require additional services. Often these students are also labeled "at risk" - a label that implies a precarious position in the higher education community. According to Maloney (2003), under-prepared and so "at risk" students are "portrayed as unwilling or unable to manage rigorous academic tasks [and] presented to the public as undeserving of the benefits of higher education" (p. 1). The extra attention these students require has been called by many names: developmental education, preparatory studies, remedial education, academic support programs, compensatory education, learning assistance, and basic skills programs, etc. These terms are often used interchangeably. For the purpose of this discussion, however, a distinction will be drawn between the terms "remedial" education and "developmental" education. Although both "remedial" education and "developmental" education refer to course work for under-prepared students, there are important differences in implications and attitudes. According to Brier (1978), a "remedial approach [assumes] that the student has failed to grasp the specific skill when it was first presented" (p. 6). Furthermore, remedial education reverberates with images of a medical model. The courses will "remedy" the student's weakness. This "curative connotation" is offensive to many educators (Clowes as cited by Kozeracki, 2002, p. 83). For example, Higbee (1996) retorts, "Pardon me if I bristle every time I hear someone refer to what I do as remedial. My students are not sick, and they do not need to be cured. They are evolving and the possibilities are limitless" (p.3). In addition, M.E. Casazza (1999) as cited by Kozeracki (2002) makes the point that a remedial approach "zeroes in on one aspect of an individual and assumes that represents the whole" (p. 84). On the other hand, "developmental" education takes a more holistic approach to students and their learning. Rather than seeing the learner as deficient or impaired in some way, developmental education uses learning theory to support its focus on the growth of each learner. At base, there is a belief that all learners possess innate abilities and that these abilities should be used to support growth in other areas. Moreover, the concept of developmental education applies to a broad range of learners and levels (Kozeracki, 2002, p. 84). According to McCabe and Day (1998), "most successful developmental programs offer a wide variety of comprehensive instructional support services, including assessment, placement, orientation, tutoring, advising, counseling, peer support, early alert programs, study skills training, and support groups" (p. …