Hey, they did NOT ban Developmental Education! And a call to arms …

Florida.

In case you have not heard about this, Florida (meaning the legislature) passed a law which requires colleges to cease requiring courses prior to college level for many (perhaps most) students.  A summary of the bill (which has other interesting components) is at http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2013/html/501

One way this has been reported is that ‘Florida has banned developmental courses’.  In basic ways, this seems to be the intent and the effect.  As is typical for many states in this era, the process involves an outcome designed with little professional input with a process based on no patience (or perhaps based on the attention span of the legislators).

Relative to other states, and our profession, here is the risk I see: The law changes the basic definition of ‘developmental education’.  We can have developmental education without having any courses (or credits).

Historically, ‘developmental education’ has two related meanings:

1. Remedial courses (perhaps done with more student support)
2. Student development as learners (secondary goal of student success in general)

The new definition in Florida is that “developmental education is the extra service provided to enable all students to begin in college level courses” (my paraphrasing).  Most of us would call this ‘just in time remediation’.

If you read the Florida law, and the reports of it, you will see the word ‘flexibility’ repeatedly.  I am sure that this was actually a goal in the process.  However, the new ‘developmental education’ is a risk to our students.  Flexible enrollment does not mean reasonable opportunity; access for all does not mean equality.

We could agree, I hope, that a significant portion of students referred to remediation (old developmental) do not need it — either they have no meaningful gap to fill, or the gap is small enough that they would do fine with a little bit of help (new developmental).  This is a valid criticism.

We could also agree, I hope, that we have been too quick to have more developmental courses (old developmental).  It is not reasonable that a student who passed Algebra II or AP Statistics would need 2 or 3 courses before college math.  Inefficiency was a fatal flaw in the automotive industry, and it is a fatal flaw in developmental education.

Florida has declared, in effect, that the old developmental education is bankrupt and going out of business.  No bailouts.  No loans.  No recovery.  Just gone.

That is the risk raised for all of our students.  Other states have similar pressures and political forces, and read the same reports that were read in Florida.  “We don’t need to waste all that money, and we can solve this problem at the same time.”

We need to rise up.

We need to be clear that we know of problems in our work, and that we are willing to make basic changes; further, we need to show evidence of better ideas so the ‘bankrupt and out of business’ model is not so easily taken.  Yes, we even need to become involved in the political process.

Do YOU know where your state legislator is?

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Attacks on Access

Do high school students decide not to study hard because they know their local community college provides developmental classes?

You may have seen some articles (opinion, more than articles) about the use of Pell grants for developmental courses.  Michael Petrilli wrote one recently, basically saying: If students knew that Pell grants would not cover developmental courses, they would study harder in high school to avoid that later economic problem.  Fortunately, most articles like his are not well crafted, so that only those who already agree before they read it will agree with it when they are done reading it.  (See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/pell-grants-shouldn-t-pay-for-remedial-college.html)

We seem to live in an era of simple ‘solutions’ to complex problems.

In talking to my students, quite a few worked as hard as they could in high school.  Sometimes, there is a learning challenge involved that remains undiagnosed.  Other students describe situations in which the daily decisions are more about survival in the now than thoughtful consideration of the future; education is often the first casualty of both poverty and family disruptions.  In more urban regions like mine, the high school environment is ‘challenging’; crime and safety compete with academics, and students often attend schools with a long history of problems.

We need to keep our voices raised for those who may not have a voice in the discussion at all — our students.  Those attacking the use of financial aid for developmental courses often lack an understanding of the factors that result in students ending up in our courses.

It is true that we place too many students in developmental courses.  It is also true that our curriculum needs some work.  Attacks on access will not solve these problems.

Here is my simple solution for a complex problem: All politicians and policy makers must begin every speech with an articulate statement on the value of learning in their own lives; further, all politicians and policy makers must complete another degree (at least at the bachelor’s level) every 10 years at risk of losing their job.

 Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

Remediation as Cheese, Remediation as Fishing

You may have noticed that the emphasis on completion, combined with a high priority on getting a job right away, has resulted in pressures on colleges to provide training and skills development … with less emphasis on the subtler goals of intellectual development, curiosity, and liberating arts.  In both developmental and gateway mathematics courses, we have become the epitome of the completion/job methodology; to the extent that this is true we have failed as educators and mathematicians.

My thinking on this got a boost from a short piece on “Habits of Mind” by Dan Berrett (see http://chronicle.com/article/Habits-of-Mind-Lessons-for/134868/).  Dan’s main point is that the current focus on measurable outcomes applied to a college ‘education’ results in using simplistic measures, where these measures miss the most powerful advantages of an education.

Earlier this year, I was in a conversation with a group discussing placement tests and diagnostic tests.  The predominant approach was summarized by a food metaphor:  Our goal is to fill in the ‘swiss cheese holes’ for our students, so that they do not have any gaps.  The ‘remediation as cheese’ metaphor is very much the common approach, whether a college uses modules or emporium or traditional classes; we measure success by counting holes (or lack thereof).  I’d like to think that education in general and mathematics in particular is more than the absence of holes.

Compare the cheese metaphor with this:  Remediation as fishing.  According to a quote, often cited as a Chinese proverb:

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

“To fish” is the “remediation”; we are not about holes … we are about building capacity as well as building ability … we are about attitudes about learning as well as learning about attitudes … we are about enabling students to become more than they intended at the start of our course.  Remediation succeeds when students are fundamentally different when they leave our classrooms; the ‘lack of holes’ with arithmetic and algebra does not improve a student’s preparation for education or for employment as much as the habits of mind that can be developed.

Let’s help our students learn how to fish.  The broader goals of education are just as important as discrete skills and immediate performance measures.  We can, and should, contribute to our student’s capabilities within our developmental mathematics classes. 

Nobody makes a greater mistake then he who does nothing because he could only do a little.  [Edmund Burke]

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

What the Experts Say … about Remediation

In our profession (developmental mathematics), the most common phrase this year seems to be “remediation is a failure”; states consider banning all developmental courses, and organizations call remediation a ‘bridge to nowhere’.  What is the validity of these statements?  What is the true status of developmental education in 2012? 

To start with, take a look at a recent article by Hunter Boylan and Alexandros Goudas called “Knee-Jerk Reforms on Remediation”   see      http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/06/19/essay-flawed-interpretations-research-remedial-education#ixzz1yG6A5hL2.  Boylan and Goudas review the largest studies that are cited for the ‘failure’ statement, and easily point out the limitations of the research involved.  Some studies employ a discontinuity analysis around the cut score for placement into developmental courses as an estimate of the effects of remediation.  Other studies employ large data sets over a period of time to produce a demographic summary of who is referred to developmental math, who completes developmental, and who completes a college course.  Like other demographic work, these studies can not prove causality.  Neither type of study is a scientific basis for measuring the effect of developmental courses; both are valid estimates to determine the presence of a problem.

Now, I need to address two things … first, why the ‘failure’ message is the default position for so many people inside and outside of the profession; second, what is the true condition of developmental mathematics. 

The failure message is most heard from two sources:  the non-profits advocating for change and a completion agenda, and the foundations funding much of our experimentation.  Neither of these sources is unbiased.  However, sheer repetition from apparently independent sources creates the impression that the failure message is valid.  I think the use of certain metaphors (like ‘bridge to nowhere’) creates an impression of certainty of conclusions, and suggests a cultural acceptance of ‘failure’.  One problem we face is that we have used similar tactics ourselves, as in ‘drill and kill’ and ‘guide on the side’; proof by metaphor …or proof by rhyming … is not scientifically valid.

The true condition of developmental mathematics is much more subtle, which brings with it opportunities and challenges.  A simple ‘failure’ message is easier to interpret and act upon (basically, throw it out!).  The fact is that developmental mathematics delivers some benefits to many students.  The problem is not a total failure of the concept but a lack of an appropriate model to implement the mission and goals.  Developmental mathematics has its roots in remedial mathematics, which was a deliberate repetition of school mathematics; this, in turn, was based on a selective admissions college or university approach.  The vast majority of developmental mathematics is currently carried out in the community college setting, with a diverse population of students; many of these students have an occupational goal … although they may eventually consider a university, their current education is employment based.  Of course, many other students have a university goal.

We have not had a model appropriate for our population of students.  We need to create a deliberate sequence of mathematical experiences to prepare students as quickly as possible for places they will have quantitative needs, whether STEM-bound or not.  Even for STEM students, our existing curriculum is not a deliberate model; the current model presumes that exposure to a topic at a simple level will enable more advanced thinking in a complex setting.  We need a model that emphasizes basic mathematical ideas from the beginning (the ‘good stuff’, as I call it), and let go of making sure that students can produce volumes of correct answers to symbolic questions with fractions and percents … or equations with fractions or radicals.  Mathematical reasoning is far more important than a bag of 100 symbolic tricks and procedures.

The true condition of our profession is that we have become confused by the combination of our own frustrations and these external failure messages.  Ours is a noble calling … if done correctly, developmental mathematics can be part of the process that enables people to be upwardly mobile; instead of the younger generation having a lower standard of living, we can part of the process that creates a better life for the next generation.  Developmental mathematics can also be part of the process of major adjustment for adults who find that their occupation is no longer available.

The true condition of developmental mathematics is an opportunity for the transformative change to sound mathematics to help our students succeed in college and in society (quantitatively).  We face great opportunities; we are not a failure.  We need to look past the external messages to examine our profession with honesty and vision.  Together, we can meet this opportunity with pride and enthusiasm.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook: