ERIC review: issues in developmental education.

In recent years, much public attention has been paid to the issue of developmental education. A 1996 report released by the Department of Education revealed that 41% of first-time community college freshmen, and almost 30% of all first-time college freshmen, enroll in one or more developmental courses (Lewis & Farris, 1996). High schools have been heavily criticized for failing to prepare students academically, and four-year colleges and universities across the nation are exploring policies that would shift the responsibility for developmental education almost exclusively to the community colleges. Despite these figures, a number of states are considering or have already implemented policies that limit the availability of, or funding for, developmental courses at the college level.

This paper discusses the meaning and extent of developmental education in community colleges and higher education; presents some of the current controversies being discussed at institutional, state, and national levels; examines some of the data related to outcomes of developmental education; and addresses the issue of faculty training in the field. As will be presented later in this article, one of the central controversies being debated is the issue of which term is appropriate for these courses. While "remedial education" and "developmental education" are often used interchangeably by the general public, and even by many scholars, those in the field draw distinctions between these terms and strongly prefer the use of "developmental education." Therefore, except in quotations, this article will use the term "developmental education" to discuss courses taken and support services utilized by students to prepare them to enter college-level courses.

Defining Developmental Education

Any discussion of developmental education must be based on an understanding of the concept of literacy because students who are required to enroll in developmental reading and writing courses have been determined to not meet the literacy standards of the college or university in which they are enrolled. Harman (1987) reminds us that literacy "derives its definition from different conditions among different groups at different times" (p. 2). There is no universal standard of literacy; rather, each community determines the definition of, and value assigned to, literacy. Functional literacy depends on one's status, occupation, and interests, as moderated by one's environment. What is literate in one context is not literate in another; literacy on the factory floor is not the same as literacy in the college classroom. Furthermore, the standards for what counts as developmental coursework can vary tremendously between community colleges and more selective four-year institutions (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1983; Merisotis & Phipps, 2000). Clearly, in the increasingly technological and globally competitive environment of contemporary America, the standards for functional literacy are higher now than they were at a time when agrarian- and industrial-based economies were dominant. As such, it should not be surprising that significant numbers of college-age and adult students are still undergoing the transition to functional literacy by the time they attend college.

For several decades, developmental education scholars and instructors have debated the appropriate designation and scope of their field. Over the years, a number of terms have been used to describe developmental education: preparatory studies, remedial education, academic support programs, compensatory education, learning assistance, and basic skills (Payne and Lyman, 1996). Many people in the field have moved away from the use of the term remedial, with the "curative connotation" (Clowes, 1980, p. 8) of a medical model that posits the courses as a remedy that will fix the student or some weakness exhibited by the student (Gordon, Hartigan, & Muttalib, 1996; Casazza, 1999; Roueche & Roueche, 1999; Boylan, Bonham, & Rodriguez, 2000). Higbee (1996) exemplifies this attitude. "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, a remedial approach "zeroes in on one aspect of an individual and assumes that represents the whole" (Casazza, 1999, p. 4). In 1984, the title of the official journal of the National Association for Developmental Education was changed from the Journal of Developmental and Remedial Education to the Journal of Developmental Education.

The concept of developmental education, with its more holistic approach to student learning, began to evolve almost 50 years ago. "In the late 1950s, we considered developmental education a philosophy that applied to any student and assumed that all could improve their learning skills, and, in my university, we worked with a range of students from the weakest to the best" (Piper, 1998, p. 35). Developmental education incorporates human development theories, is intended to bring together academic and student support services to assist students in preparing to make choices appropriate to their current stage in development, and is viewed as being appropriate for all students. "Developmental education emphasizes a series of major life choices and processes through which all students must pass" (Clowes, 1980, p. 9). Casazza (1999) defines four underlying assumptions of developmental education that differentiate it from remedial education: (1) it is a comprehensive process, looking at the learner holistically; (2) it focuses on the intellectual, social, and emotional growth of the learner, using learning theory to inform the process; (3) it assumes all learners have talents, and educators should identify and use them to support other areas; and (4) it is not limited to learners at any particular level. This conception of developmental education as being appropriate for a wide range of students is especially appropriate in light of the differing standards and criteria that each institution uses to determine which courses and what students are categorized as "remedial" (Lewis & Farris, 1996; The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998).

Keimig (1983) envisions remedial courses as the bottom level of a "hierarchy of learning improvement programs," which also includes learning assistance for individual students (tutorial programs and learning assistance centers that are sought out by the student), course-related services (such as small-group learning experiences and tutoring linked to a specific course), and comprehensive learning systems designed according to the principles of learning theory. Other services that can be considered to fall under the umbrella of developmental education include freshmen seminars, critical thinking courses, study strategies courses, orientation courses, and even freshmen composition classes (Boylan, Bonham, & Rodriguez, 2000). "Most successful development 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" (McCabe & Day, 1998, p. 21).

Ideally, the switch from "remedial" to "developmental" education reflects both a broadened approach to teaching and a different attitude about the student who enrolls in these courses. "Implicit in any remedial approach is the assumption that the student has failed to grasp the specific skill when it was first presented ... From the developmental point of view, the underprepared student was not one who had failed, but rather one who could succeed" (Brier, 1978, p. 6). However, some people have expressed a concern that one term has simply been substituted for another in an attempt to avoid the negative connotations associated with "remedial" courses. Martha Maxwell (cited in Piper, 1998, p. 35) says, "Today, students taking developmental courses are stigmatized; they usually resent taking the courses and both the students and the teachers suffer." Thus, although the scholars who publish articles in the field of developmental education have differentiated the two concepts, it is still unclear whether these differences are understood or accepted by the students and instructors.

Extent of Developmental Education

While developmental courses that assist students in preparing for college-level courses have been offered to some degree in higher education institutions since the mid-19th century (Breneman & Haarlow, 1998; Payne & Lyman, 1996), the open admissions policies that began in the 1960s meant that "inadequate academic preparation was no longer a barrier to college access" (Markus & Zeitlin, 1992/1993, p. 17). The community colleges, with their commitment to increasing access to higher education for individuals who did not have the money or academic preparation to attend a four-year college, were affected more than other higher education institutions by these changes in the college-going population. "The disparity in ability between students entering community colleges and those in the senior institutions was not nearly as great in the 1920s as in the 1980s" (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 23).

Today, every community college in the United States, and the majority of all higher education institutions, offers at least one developmental course. Two recent studies provide detailed information about the availability and organization of developmental education programs. One study, conducted in 1995 by NCES (Lewis & Farris, 1996), indicates that 100% of community colleges and 78% of all higher education institutions offer at least one developmental course in reading, writing, or mathematics. Not surprisingly, these proportions are lower (63%) in the private two-year and four-year sector. Forty-one percent of the first-time freshmen enrolled in community colleges, compared to 22% of first-time freshmen at public four-year colleges and universities, enrolled in at least one developmental course in fall 1995. Fifty-five percent of the community colleges reported that the number of students enrolled in developmental courses had increased over the previous five years, while 40% indicated that the number had stayed about the same. Between 62% (for reading classes) and 70% (for writing courses) of community colleges require that students who were determined to need remediation were required to enroll in the appropriate course.

A more recent national study conducted by the American Association of Community Colleges (Shults, 2000) largely confirmed these results, reporting that an average of 36% of entering students at responding institutions enrolled in at least one developmental course in fall 1998. Data from individual community colleges are even more dramatic. At Prince George's Community College in Maryland, 68% of new students who took placement tests in math, reading, and writing were found to be in need of developmental assistance in at least one area; one-fifth needed to enroll in a developmental course in all three subjects (Bickford, Clagett, James, & Taibi, 1998). One South Carolina community college reported that 10% of all courses offered were considered to be developmental (Thornley & Clark, 1998). Clearly, developmental education, especially at community colleges, makes up a significant portion of the curriculum and affects a substantial number of students.

Current Controversies about Developmental Education

There are a number of concerns and questions about developmental education that have been raised by scholars, politicians, and the general public. These issues, which have begun influencing the development of state policies for developmental education, include the following: Does developmental education belong in higher education at all and, if so, should it only be taught at the community college? Should developmental education be privatized? Is it in the public's best interest to support developmental courses financially?

A number of arguments have been put forward to discourage higher education institutions from offering developmental education programs. One example is the claim that developmental education drains resources from other academic priorities, such as transfer, and turns colleges into overpriced high schools (Ikenberry & Stix, as cited in Davis, 1999). A second often-mentioned reason is that the state should not have to pay a second time for a student to learn in college what he or she was supposed to learn in high school (Lazarick, 1997). A related criticism is that participation in developmental programs demotivates college students and contributes to higher attrition rates because developmental students are stigmatized (Boylan & Bonham, 1994). Another reason is that the existence of developmental courses lowers the standards and academic quality of higher education institutions by encouraging students with inadequate skills to enroll (Clowes, 1979).

Responding to these concerns requires an understanding of the context in which American higher education exists. "Issues of academic excellence and cost to the public need to be balanced with issues of access and student and societal benefits derived from remedial/developmental education" (McMillan, Parke, & Lanning, 1997). Thus, advocates of developmental education offer rationales that are based on economic outcomes, societal benefits, and issues of fairness. The recognition that businesses are grappling with an underskilled workforce is often cited as a reason for offering developmental education. McCabe and Day (1998) specifically point to the increasingly technological and global work environment, the decrease in the number of unskilled jobs available, and the difference in employability and earnings that accrues from more education as reasons for increasing the need for developmental education.

From a societal perspective, the costs have to be weighed against benefits. Astin (2000) offers the following assessment: "Educating everyone is a whole lot less expensive, both monetarily as well as socially and emotionally, than to carry along in society large numbers of people with minimal skills, with minimal educational development" (p. 2). The Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998), in a study investigating the costs of developmental education, concluded that, from a societal perspective, developmental education is less costly than the alternatives, which can include unemployment, low-wage jobs, welfare participation, and incarceration. The contribution made by developmental education to increasing the number of students who persist in college can lead to multiple benefits, such as increased tax revenue, greater productivity, increased consumption, greater workforce flexibility, reduced crime rates, increased community service, and better quality of civic life.

Breneman and Haarlow (1998) found that developmental education costs the nation's public colleges and universities about $1 billion annually, which is less than 1% of the institutions' current fund revenue of $115 billion. In individual states, developmental education costs ranged from $1.4 million in Kentucky to $178 million in Texas and more than $300 million in California, including figures for ESL training, basic skills, and other noncredit community college courses. Despite these relatively low costs, some states' legislatures are considering requiring students to pay back the cost of their developmental coursework or charging school districts for graduates who enroll in these courses (Lazarick, 1997; Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, as cited in Michigan Department of Education, 1999). Not surprisingly, in most states, the amount of money spent at the community college level is much higher than at the universities. For example, California community colleges estimated that their basic skills, ESL, and noncredit budget totaled $300 million in 1993-94, while the California State University expenses for developmental education came to $9.3 million in 1995. In Illinois, 1.1% of direct faculty salary costs at the university were allocated to remediation, compared to 6.5% at the community colleges. In Washington, 97% of the public higher education institutions' developmental expenses were at the community and technical colleges (Breneman and Haarlow, 1998).

One of the recurring criticisms of developmental education is that these programs encourage students not to put forth their best effort in high school because they can make up the work when they get to college. This, in essence, forces taxpayers to pay twice for students to learn the same thing. However, a report on developmental programs in Nevada indicated that only 19.6% of students enrolled in developmental courses in higher education in summer and fall 1999 were recent high school graduates (University and Community College System of Nevada, 2000). A report issued by the Institute for Higher Education Policy indicates that those involved in developmental education are as likely to be over age 22 as 22 or younger, and more than a quarter are over age 30 (Woodham, 1998). Clearly, developmental courses are serving populations beyond the recent high school graduates who failed to apply themselves in high school (Merisotis & Phipps, 2000).

Assuming that a clear argument can be made in favor of offering developmental programs in higher education, there still remains the question of where these courses should be offered. In a number of states, pressure is being exerted on the public higher education system to restrict developmental courses to the community college. According to the NCES study of developmental education (Lewis & Farris, 1996), twice as many community colleges as four-year public institutions (71% vs. 35%) were required to offer developmental courses, while more public four-year than two-year institutions (29% vs. 5%) were discouraged from offering these courses or were restricted in what they could offer. A well publicized battle has been taking place in New York, with the mayor and the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York requiring that all developmental coursework be moved to the community colleges by 2001 (Healy, 1998; The Mayor's Advisory Task Force, 1999). Colorado, Missouri, Florida, and South Carolina prohibit developmental education at four-year institutions, and Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia are considering similar statutes (Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, as cited in Michigan Department of Education, 1999; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).

Some people assert that community colleges are best equipped to teach these courses. Adelman (1996) concludes that while four-year colleges can successfully offer developmental writing and intermediate algebra courses, "community colleges are better suited than four-year colleges to address a combination of multiple developmental needs and lingering adolescent attitudes toward education" (p. A56). Similarly, Ignash states that "community colleges have a greater role in addressing existing needs for remediation, whereas public universities, especially those with strong teacher education programs, have a greater role in reducing the need for further remediation" (1997, p. 15). However, some of the leading scholars in the field take the opposite position. Roueche and Roueche (1999) protest that moving all developmental education to the community college will strengthen the notion that community colleges are for less able students, and, further, that banning developmental courses from four-year colleges and universities would significantly decrease the diversity of these institutions. Boylan and Bonham (1994) conclude that no evidence exists to suggest that community colleges' efforts at remediation are any more effective than those of four-year institutions, and that the lack of involvement opportunities at community colleges are likely to depress the academic achievement of weak students even further. Astin worries that, "we have the poorest equipped and poorest funded institutions for the least well prepared. And what the educational rationale for that is, I don't know" (2000, p. 2). Whether the evidence supports this policy or not, states are clearly moving in the direction of concentrating developmental education in the community colleges.

As an alternative, some policy makers have suggested that developmental education should be offered by private companies rather that the higher education institutions themselves, presumably with the goal of eventually requiring the students to pay for taking these courses (Blumenstyk, 1999; Gose, 1997; Instructional Systems Inc., 1998; Vespo, 1999). The results from these experiments in privatization are as yet unclear. As with many of the other controversies being discussed about developmental education, there are insufficient data available to inform policy decision making.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Developmental Education

The two most recent national studies that have examined developmental education in the community colleges concur that there has been insufficient attention paid to assessing the effectiveness of developmental education. "The majority of community colleges do not know how effective their remediation is because they do not assess their effectiveness very well, do not know how to assess it, or do not want to know" (Roueche & Roueche, 1999, p. 27). McCabe (2000) complains that most assessment studies examine the numbers of degrees awarded after a relatively short period of time, usually three or four years for an associate degree, and this is not in keeping with the largely part-time schedule of most community college students. Additionally, most of these studies do not look at success rates in terms of certificates earned or job success.

Studies that have examined the outcomes of developmental education "seem to indicate that remediation is, in fact, quite effective at improving the chances of collegiate success for underprepared students" (McCabe, 2000; Merisotis & Phipps, 2000). Success for developmental students is often defined as completion of the developmental course; more than 90% of responding community colleges in one study have utilized this method, as opposed to less than 30% that use standardized exit exams or have students retake collegewide assessment tests (Schults, 2000). Some colleges have reported more detailed evaluation results: degrees awarded and transfers made, promotion to sophomore standing, persistence rates, special needs advising patterns, student GPAs, student satisfaction with learning communities, and faculty evaluations (McCabe & Day, 1998). Adelman's examination of 2.5 million student transcripts revealed that "the extent of a student's need for remediation is inversely related to his or her eventual completion of a degree ... 55% of those who took no remedial courses, and 47% of those who took only one remedial course, had earned a bachelor's. However, only 24% of those who took three or more remedial courses had earned a bachelor's" (1996, p. A56). The NCES study (Lewis & Ferris, 1996) determined that 46% of community college students are finished with developmental courses in less than one year, and 90% finish in one year. On average, about 70% of community college students in developmental classes pass or successfully complete the course.

In developing a series of recommendations for improving the status and effectiveness of developmental education in higher education, most recent studies have focused on the program components. Following are a list of some of the commonly cited elements that are associated with student success in developmental programs (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; Levine, 1978; McCabe, 2000; Morante, 1989; Neuberger, 1999; Roueche & Roueche, 1982; Roueche & Roueche, 1999; Spann, 2000):

1. Orientation, assessment, and placement are mandatory for new students.

2. Clearly specified goals and objectives are established for courses and programs.

3. Adult learning theory is applied in the design and delivery of these courses.

4. A high degree of structure is provided in these courses.

5. A centralized or highly coordinated program exists.

6. Counseling, tutoring, and supplemental instruction components are included.

7. Attention is paid to the social and emotional development of the students.

8. Regular program evaluations are conducted and findings disseminated widely.

9. Graduation or certificate credit is awarded.

10. Literacy activities are required across the curriculum.

11. The students and the programs receive adequate financial support.

12. Faculty that are eager to teach these courses are recruited and hired.

13. Staff training and professional development are provided.

Research is available to demonstrate that colleges are following some, but not all, of these recommendations. National data are available about the proportion of institutions that mandate assessment and placement: about 60% of institutions mandate assessment testing for new students, and three-quarters of these require that students enroll in needed courses (Lewis & Farris, 1996). Some studies have tracked the percentage of institutions that offer centralized programs, with the figures varying from 38% at community colleges (Shults, 2000) to 52% at all institutions (National Center for Developmental Education, 1998). Finally, on a national basis, researchers have found that most colleges and universities award institutional credit, but not degree credit, for enrolling in developmental courses (Lewis & Farris, 1996). For the remaining recommendations, available data either come from single institutions, where the research is often conducted by an individual involved in administering or teaching in the program (Adams & Huneycutt, 1998; Brien, Duffy, Fulwiler, Neill, Siegrist, & Mott, 1998; Houston Community College System, 1998; Klicka, 1998; McClenney & Flores, 1998; Moriarty et al, 1998), or the recommendations remain in the realm of the hypothetical.

The Role of the Faculty

Unlike at the elementary and secondary school levels, where many of the suggestions offered to improve student performance are related to teacher qualifications and training, few of the recommendations for improving developmental education focus on the faculty. A few scholars have offered general recommendations for developmental faculty. Roueche and Roueche (1999) call for a mandate to "recruit, develop, and hire the best faculty" (p. 32), and Gruenberg (1983, p. 30) states, "While maintaining a supportive, nurturing attitude toward students, skills teachers must also foster high academic standards." O'Banion (cited in Cooper, 1979) recommends that instructors' discipline should be developmental studies. Spann (2000) suggests that community colleges should require initial training and ongoing professional development for educators working with underskilled students and that community college developmental educators should collaborate with secondary school leaders to reduce the need for remediation. Whether these general recommendations, which do not tend to be supported by specific steps to follow or criteria to meet, have been widely implemented has not been tracked. The few pieces of national data that are available to us are as follows:

1. Approximately 49,500 faculty are engaged in the teaching of developmental courses (National Center for Developmental Education, 1998).

2. The majority of colleges indicate that proportionally more part-time faculty are hired to teach developmental courses than to teach any other programs or courses (Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, as cited in Roueche & Roueche, 1999).

3. Twenty percent of community colleges require that full-time faculty possess training specific to remediation before teaching developmental courses, and 17% have such a requirement for part-time faculty (Shults, 2000).

4. Four universities in the country offer graduate degrees in the field of developmental studies.

Grubb and Worthen, in their recent book about teaching in the community college, conclude that, "We can see that developmental education is one of the most difficult teaching challenges and needs to be rescued from its second-class status" (1999, p. 174). The realization is dawning that literature and English composition instructors are not automatically able to teach developmental students and that individuals require special training to properly address the needs of students with basic reading and writing skills problems. Currently, the number of programs available to offer this education is inadequate, and the colleges may have to develop more in-service faculty development programs to prepare their faculty to teach these courses.

Conclusions

More than 40% of first-time community college freshmen enroll in at least one developmental reading, writing, or math course. Astin (1998) states that "the education of the `remedial' student is the most important educational problem in America today.... Providing effective `remedial' education would do more to alleviate our most serious social and economic problems than almost any other action we could take" (p. 12). Despite the demonstrated need and the recognition of the downsides of not addressing the problem of underpreparation, numerous states, politicians, and higher education systems are reluctant to financially support developmental education. The reasons for this position include the claims that the availability of developmental courses demotivates students and forces the public to pay twice for student learning. Some who are willing to concede the necessity of offering developmental education in higher education wish to limit it to the community college or to private sources. Advocates of developmental education have not yet done enough to generate reliable regional or national data about the value of offering developmental education, and universities still have more work to do in terms of developing graduate programs that focus on preparing faculty to teach these students in the most effective ways.

References

Adams, S., & Huneycutt, K. (1998). Developmental education at Sandhills Community College: A community of support. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 89-96). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

Adelman, C. (1996, October 4). The truth about remedial work. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A56.

Astin, A. (1998). Remedial education and civic responsibility. National Crosstalk, 6 (3), 12-13.

Astin, A. (2000). An interview: Alexander W. Astin. National Crosstalk, 8 (1), 2-3.

Bickford, R.I., Clagett, C.A., James, D.P., & Taibi, M.A. (1998). Innovation and achievement in educational development at Prince George's Community College. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 79-87). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

Blumenstyk, G. (1999, March 12). Sylvan Learning Systems moves into the higher-education market. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A36.

Boylan, H., Bliss, L., & Bonham, B. (1997). Program components and the relationship to student performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20 (3), 2-10.

Boylan, H.R., & Bonham, B.S. (1994). Seven myths about developmental education. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 10 (2), 5-12.

Boylan, H.R., Bonham, B.S., & Rodriguez, L.M. (2000). What are remedial courses and do they work: Results of national and local studies. The Learning Assistance Review, 5 (1), 5-14.

Breneman, D.W., & Haarlow, W.N. (1998). Remediation in higher education. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422779)

Brien, R., Duffy, C.A., Fulwiler, M., Neill, P.A., Siegrist, C., & Mott, C.S. (1998). Delgado Community College. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 53-58). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

Brier, E. (1984). Bridging the academic preparation gap: An historical view. Journal of Developmental Education, 8 (1), 2-5.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (1983). Promises to keep: Remedial education in California's public colleges and universities. Sacramento, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED230087)

Casazza, M.E. (1999). Who are we and where did we come from? Journal of Developmental Education, 23 (1), 2-7.

Clowes, D. (1979). Form and function. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 3 (1), 2-3, 13.

Clowes, D.A. (1980). More than a definitional problem: Remedial, compensatory, and developmental education. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 4 (1), 8-10.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1996). The American community college (3rd edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cooper, L. (1979). An interview with Terry O'Banion. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 3 (2), 14-15, 30.

Davis, J.L. (1999). Developmental course-taking in community colleges. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430624)

Gordon, C., Hartigan, P., & Muttalib, N. (1996, November 22). Developmental learning at four-year colleges [Letter to the editor]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B11

Gose, B. (1997, September 19). Tutoring companies take over remedial teaching at some colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B11.

Grubb, W.N., & Worthen, H. (1999). Remedial/developmental education: The best and the worst. In W.N. Grubb (Ed.), Honored but Invisible (pp. 171-209). New York: Routledge.

Gruenberg, D.E. (1983). College basic skills programs: A national survey. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 6 (3), 2-4, 30.

Harman, D. (1987). Illiteracy: A national dilemma. New York: Cambridge Book Company.

Healy, P. (1998, June 5). CUNY's 4-year colleges ordered to phase out remedial education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A26.

Higbee, J.L. (1996). Defining developmental education: A commentary. In J.L. Higbee & P.L. Dwinell (Eds.), Defining Developmental Education: Theory, Research, & Pedagogy. Annual Monograph of the National Association for Developmental Education, 1996. [Online]. Retrieved February 1, 2002 from: http://www.umkc.edu/cad/nade/nadedocs/96monpap/hjmpap96.htm.

Houston Community College System. (1998, November). A self-evaluation of the developmental studies program. Report on phase one of the evaluation. (1998). Houston, TX: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED437103)

Ignash, J. (1997). Who should provide postsecondary remedial/developmental education? New Directions for Community Colleges, 25 (4), 5-20.

Instructional Systems Inc. (1998). Remediation Focus [Online]. Retrieved November 28, 1999 from: http://www.isinj.com/remediate.

Keimig, R.T. (1983). Raising academic standards: A guide to learning improvement. ASHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 4. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED235696)

Klicka, M.A. (1998). Developmental education services at Bucks County Community College. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 37-43). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

Lazarick, L. (1997, October/November). Back to the basics: Remedial education. Community College Journal, 11-15.

Levine, A. (1978). Handbook on undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1996). Remedial education at higher education institutions in fall 1995 (Publication No. NCES 97-584). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED402896)

Markus, T., & Zeitlin, A. (1992/1993). Remediation in American higher education: A "new" phenomenon? Community Review, 13 (1,2), 13-23.

McCabe, R.H. (2000). No one to waste: A report to public decision-makers and community college leaders. Washington, DC: Community College Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448813)

McCabe, R.H., & Day, P.R., Jr. (Eds.). (1998). Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

McClenney, B.N., & Flores, R.M. (1998). Community College of Denver developmental education. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 45-52). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

McMillan, V.K., Parke, S.J., & Lanning, C.A. (1997). Remedial/developmental education approaches for the community college environment. In J.M. Ignash (Ed.), Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education (pp. 21-32). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 100. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413965)

Merisotis, J.P., & Phipps, R.A. (2000). Remedial education in colleges and universities: What's really going on? The Review of Higher Education, 24 (1), 67-85.

Michigan Department of Education. (1999). An analysis of developmental education at Michigan's associate degree-granting institutions. Lansing, MI: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445741)

Morante, E.A. (1989). Selecting tests and placing students. Journal of Developmental Education, 13(2), 2-6.

Moriarty, D.F., Naigus, N., Whckoff-Byers, J., Greenfield, T. & Mulligan, D. (1998). Education that works: Portland Community College. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 73-77). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

National Center for Developmental Education. (1998). Facts about developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 21 (3), 40.

Neuberger, J. (1999). Executive board position paper: Research and recommendations for developmental education and/or learning assistance programs in the state of New York. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 16 (1), 5-21.

Payne, E.M., & Lyman, B.G. (1996). Issues affecting the definition of developmental education. In J.L. Higbee & P.L. Dwinell (Eds.), Defining Developmental Education: Theory, Research, & Pedagogy. Annual Monograph of the National Association for Developmental Education, 1996. [Online]. Retrieved February 1, 2000 from: http://www.umkc.edu/cad/nade/nadedocs/96monpap/ hjmpap96.htm.

Piper, J. (1998). An interview with Martha Maxwell. The Learning Assistance Review, 3 (1), 32-39.

Roueche, S., & Roueche, J. (1982). Literacy development: Foundation for general education. In B.L. Johnson (Ed.), General education in two-year colleges (pp. 31-37). New Directions for Community Colleges, no 40. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED222236)

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1999). High stakes, high performance: Making remedial education work. Washington, DC: Community College Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454939)

Shults, C. (2000), Remedial education: Practices and policies in community colleges (Research Brief No. AACC-RB-00-2). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproductin Service No. ED448811)

Spann, M.G. (2000). Remediation: A must for the 21st century learning society. Policy paper. Denver, CO: Education Commisstion of the States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439771)

The Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). College remediation. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429525)

The Mayor's Advisory Task Force on The City University of New York. (1999, June 7). The City University of New York: An institution adrift. New York: Author.

Thornley, M., & Clark, T. (1998). Trident Technical College developmental studies. In R.H. McCabe & P.R. Day, Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A twenty-first century imperative (pp. 107-114). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421176)

University and Community College System of Nevada. (2000, April). Remedial/developmental enrollments summer and fall 1999. Revo, NV: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443475)

Vespo, M. (1999, May 21). Kaplan's role in remedial education [Letter to the editor]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B11.

Woodham, F. (1998, December 1). Report says remedial classes are cost-effective. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A54.

Carol A. Kozeracki is the assistant director of the ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges and a project manager in the office of institutional research at Santa Monica College. [e-mail]