Theory, Practice, and the Future of Developmental Education. (2005)

that 30% of all students entering postsecondary institutions in this country require some form of coursework (Boylan, 1999; Breneman & Haarlow, 1998), it seems reasonable to presume that and would be thriving. However, as Boylan, Saxon, and Link (1999) document, is, overall, presented to the public as a necessary evil (p. 17) that exists due to the poor 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 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 among and professionals. This lack of and its negative consequences have been noted by a number of commentators. In an interview, Hunter Boylan asserts The most successful programs are based. They don't just provide random intervention; they intervene according to the tenets of various theories of adult intellectual and personal (Stratton, 1998, p. 33). Collins and Bruch (2000) also stress the importance of theory: Given the gains to be made through the process of vigorously theorizing our practice, 'developmental as simply a hodgepodge of contingent local practices guided by inexplicit and largely unintentional theoretical frameworks is no longer good enough (p. 19). Finally, Spann and McCrimmon (1998) characterize the importance of as follows:The field of currently faces an identity crisis. For the most part, it has little of its roots or a widely understood and articulated philosophy, a body of knowledge, or a commonly accepted set of theoretical congruent with that philosophy, (p. 44)The theory in is, however, not straightforward. There are differing interpretations of what exactly the crisis is and what might solve it. There is some support for the notion that the theoretical resources already exist from the definition of education, for example (National Association for Developmental Education, 2001). Theories of human and development provide a suitable foundation and for the work of educators and professionals (Boylan, 2002), and the real challenge is getting practitioners to embrace and apply these theories.In contrast to Boylan, Collins and Bruch (2000) stress the critical importance of an interdisciplinary theoretical framework (p. 20). For Collins and Bruch, theories of human development are among the ingredients that need to be combined in order to form a theoretical that can bring coherence to the befuddling terrain of 'developmental education' (p. 21) and its many subdisciplines. Finally, I interpret Spann and McCrimmon's (1998) call to identify a body of common knowledge and common theoretical assumptions (p. 44) to imply that establishing a theoretical base for the field is about more than adopting existing theoretical resources or creatively combining them. It is about forging a new theoretical perspective.Although issues and problems surrounding have plagued higher in the United States since the 190Os (Lagemann, 2000), the subdisciplines that can be clustered together under the labels developmental education and learning assistance have more at stake. More specifically, without a firm theoretical foundation, educators and professionals will continue to have a hard time articulating a clear professional identity (Boylan, 2002; Casazza, 1999; Casazza & Silverman, 1996), legitimating their work in the face of ongoing criticism (Lundell & Collins, 1999), communicating effectively among subgroups, and enhancing the overall quality of both practice and scholarship (Boylan, 2002). …