Can We Even Say “Developmental” Anymore?

Some of us say “remedial mathematics”, others say “developmental mathematics”.  Do you feel like you can’t say either one now?

You may have heard that “NADE” changed its name from National Association for Developmental Education to “NOSS” … National Organization for Student Success.  You can understand why this was done, with the recent attacks on all things developmental.  Being understandable, however, does not make this type of thing “right”.  As far as NADE/NOSS is concerned, I think the name change will make it difficult for the organization to articulate a clear identity … since ‘student success’ is an over-arching concept, suggesting that the group will focus on the universe of higher education.  Who will speak on the behalf of students who need advocates for over-coming weak preparation?

Clearly, this avoidance of the word developmental is a systemic problem — a symptom of massive denial — a denial being offered as a “solution”.  Obviously, remedial education (aka developmental education) has had significant problems in the past with our focus on too-many courses, and not providing enough benefit.  However, multiple measures and co-requisite courses will also be a failure in coping with the gaps in preparation that our students bring to us.  We could debate whether a high-school graduate SHOULD need coursework in college before being able to succeed in mathematics; ‘should’ is a very weak design principle for an educational system.  We must succeed in the real world.  Why should we penalize students by pretending that we have some magic that will somehow enable students with an SAT Math of 420 to succeed in a college curriculum with only added support to their ‘college math’ course?

If leaders don’t want to use labels like ‘developmental’, I encourage them to use the new replacement phrase “black magic”.  It would take some serious black magic to help students succeed in their college program with serious deficiencies in mathematics without doing some direct (prolonged) work on the problem.  In some cases, what is being done to avoid developmental math courses comes across as smoke & mirrors.  People implement grand plans, which (according to them) produce great results for all kinds of students.  Sign them up for “America’s Got Talent!” 🙂

I think we are better off using an accurate word like “remedial” and then have an honest discussion about identifying students who need one or two courses in order to be ready for success in their college program.  We need to think more about the whole college program, and less about passing a particular ‘college’ math course.  The opportunity for second chances and upward mobility are at the center of a stable democracy.

Language is important.  Not using a word (like “developmental”) does not solve the set of problems we face.  There is no magic in education; progress is made by applying deep understanding and critical thinking across a broad community committed to helping ALL students achieve their dreams.

2 Comments

• 

  By Eric Neumann, April 3, 2019 @ 11:06 am

  I whole-heartedly agree. While many students feel stigmatized by being labeled as “remedial students,” it is simply confusing to not label our courses as remedial courses. When my own department was created a few years ago, we were given the name “Department of Foundational Mathmatics” The adjective Foundational was chosen explicitly because it was vague and allowed for us to include remedial AND credit-bearing courses with a very unclear demarcation between our purview and that of the (newly diminished) math department. But when anyone sks me, “oh, college professor, huh? Whaddaya teach?” I respond with “remedial math.” Especially because the credit-bearing Intermediate Algebra course in our department is barely beyond the content of a typical high school Algebra I course.

  One downside to the “remedial” label, though is the persistence among our colleagues in thinking that our mandate must only ever be: redo 2-10th grade faster and better. It’s been such a hard battle to convince others that the content of remedial education can and should be reformed (but not eliminated). Keep up the fight, Jack!

• 

  By Susan Jones, April 3, 2019 @ 1:03 pm

  Thank you. Once again, their “solutions” with “evidence backing” still have the overwhelming majority of students left in the lurch. Getting from 8 to 10 % passing college level courses and calling that success is denial.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.