This article was originally posted on The Huffington Post on May 8, 2013.

Last February, The National Center for Education reported that 50 percent of the 3 million students who begin college annually require some level of remediation. This trend costs students, parents, institutions, and taxpayers nearly $7 billion a year, while remedial students fail to earn a single college credit.

The high volume and costs of remediation have policymakers and education leaders scrambling to stop this financial hemorrhage. While reform in remedial education is inevitable, the unintended consequences of swooping changes can be harmful to students, institutions, and the economy at a time when the U.S. is struggling to fill the 21st century workforce with high-skilled workers.

Who are remediated students?

A report released today by the National Center on Education and the Economy states that many community college career programs demand little or no use of math, and high school students are taking math courses they will likely never use. In reading and writing, the group noted incoming college freshmen had simplistic and academically unchallenging skills. Finally, NCEE discovered that very little writing is required of community college freshmen, and when it is, there are low expectations for making a cogent argument and employing basic rules for writing, punctuation, and grammar. The report calls for the bar to be raised if students are to succeed in college, career, and life. Some of these same patterns exist for freshmen admitted to open admission four-year colleges.

Policymakers believe the solution to plugging up the remedial financial drain is to stop offering remedial classes in college, cut funding, or hold high schools accountable. Yet, these all-or-nothing solutions oversimplify who is entering remedial courses and how they got there. The spectrum of today’s remedial students includes:

• Nontraditional, returning students who’ve been out of school for years and need to brush up on learning skills while pursuing a degree or certificate.
• Students with undiagnosed learning disabilities.
• Low-income, minority, and first-generation students.
• Misplaced students who were misidentified as needing remedial classes.
  Multiple studies indicate up to 20 to 30 percent of remedial students are misidentified and don’t belong in developmental classes.
• Students who failed to master high school material due to a lack of focus, emotional/social maturity, home support, poor instruction, or a combination of these factors.

As funding plummets, remedial students still remain, as does the need to fill many of the 3.9 million U.S. job openings that require a college degree. Realizing remediation will be anything but a quick fix, many people and organizations are offering cost-saving strategies.

What does remedial reform look like?

Mike Petrilli, executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, recently argued that Pell grant funding — a need-based grant that helps qualifying students afford college — should not be available for students who require remedial education. Instead, he believes this $40 billion annual federal aid should only be awarded to students who take credit-bearing classes. The argument has merit. Statistically, the 35 percent of students who require remediation in four-year institutions complete a degree within six years, and worse, less than 10 percent of students enrolled in one or more developmental classes in community colleges graduate within three years.

Petrilli’s solution raises many questions. Is limiting college access to low-income students really a solution to remediation? Will high schools have the bandwidth to take accountability for the underprepared students who are denied grant-funding because they don’t possess basic skills? Are college-ready students more deserving of federal dollars than those who are underprepared for college?

Already, a recent change to Pell grants is negatively impacting developmental students. In the past, students were allowed to receive funding for up to 18 semesters. Now, they are limited to 12 semesters. For many students who work while going to school or are required to take several semesters of remedial education, this reduction in aid is a huge barrier to degree attainment.

Institutions, as well as people like Petrilli, are evaluating their best response to the remediation crisis. For example, in Ohio, only 25 percent of residents hold a college degree. The state hopes to improve the number of grads by adopting a new formula that aligns the amount of funding four-year colleges receive with the amount of graduates they produce. The community colleges are also seeing a shift to performance-based funding but not at as high a rate as four-year colleges. Like Ohio, more states than not have transitioned, are transitioning, or are discussing transitioning away from enrollment-based funding to performance-based funding.

Another solution for some states is to simply get rid of remedial funding. In addition to Ohio’s performance-based funding, the state government will start phasing out funding for remedial classes in the 2014-15 school year and completely end funding by 2020. In Connecticut, a bill attempted to cut remedial courses and put those students who would have been placed in a remedial courses in college-level, credit-earning courses. A bill was ultimately signed into law which allowed students to take one remedial course.

There are a number of different strategies being proposed by states and colleges to cut costs in remedial education. Until the pipeline to college improves, however, the need for remediation will remain. Without careful analysis of tradeoffs, cutting funding, courses, and opportunity is not reform: it is giving up and hoping someone else will pick up the slack. We need a holistic solution for the short and long term. As the NCEE stated in their report this morning:

“The logical conclusion might be for community colleges to raise their expectations and for high schools to step up the rigor… but that would not help today’s large proportion of high school graduates who do not meet the criteria to enroll in credit-bearing college courses.”

What are solutions which impact pipeline preparation before college?

Remediation may never be completely eradicated, but improvement can be made in the K-12 to college pipeline to better prepare students for college from the start.

Continue reading at The Huffington Post

Thirty years ago this summer, I was finishing my first unpaid internship in Washington, D.C with Common Cause, a lobbying  group run at the time by Archibald Cox, John Gardner of Stanford, and, at times, Ralph Nader. The next year, the report,  A NATION AT RISK¹, was issued as I began my internship in New York City at the Academy for Educational Development. During both summers, I waited on tables at night to be able to work for no pay at my valuable internships. This report was commissioned by the then President Ronald Reagan. I distinctly remember one of the most defining lines of that document:  The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.

In 1984, I graduated into one of the worst job markets since that the one we are experiencing today.  Little did I know then that almost thirty years later, I would look back on a career in education which has, in the last decade specifically, become devoted to reversing America’s underdeveloped, undereducated and underemployed.

Fast forward almost thirty years beyond the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND legislation, the largesse of people like Bill and Melinda Gates and the global picture of students around the world compared with the students learning here in the United States. Students who were born in and around that time now make up some of the college graduates who are in their twenties during one of the most difficult recessions for young adults. According to this week’s New York Times², youth advocacy groups designed to galvanize the efforts of graduates, in a more effective way than the Occupy Movement, are emerging. These graduates are required to be resourceful about creating their future work, facilitating networks where they can help each other, and developing a strong psychological personal outlook which will help them endure any economic turbulence.

When I wrote my first book, now in its fifth edition, MAJORING IN THE REST OF YOUR LIFE:  Career Secrets for College Students, I explored all of the workplace realities which few people bothered to share with undergraduates so that they could actually prepare for success once they earned their degree and landed their first job. The keys to the hidden job market are now as they were in the mid to late 1980s –a willingness from mentors and managers whom students have met on internships to pick up the phone, write a specific letter (or email)  or set up a meeting for a former intern who has demonstrated not just what they know, but what they know how to do; a college student who is willing to forego partying during the week to dig earnestly and wholly into their academics through facilitating a study group, reaching out to the professor or clarifying subject matter with a teaching assistant; a freshman who starts college by spending his summer truly learning what is ahead and preparing fully for a successful transition, including honestly evaluating his own strengths and weaknesses. Students with this kind of foresight can navigate the hidden job market as well as the transparent one.  They know how to tirelessly pursue opportunities and they know how to add real value once they are given the chance to show both their knowledge and their skills. These are the graduates who will not just get a job this season after they graduate. Indeed, they will be forging a promotion path no matter where their gifts and talents take them.

In the coming days, I will explore initiatives we’ve tried and the academic performance, graduation rates and graduation prospects compared with our past, as well as developing and developed nations around the world.

__________________________________________________________________________________

^1 “A Nation at Risk,” by the National Commission on Excellence in Education.” April 1983. http://reagan.procon.org/sourcefiles/a-nation-at-risk-reagan-april-1983.pdf

^2 “Jobs Few, Grads Flock to Unpaid Internships,” by Steven Greenhouse. 6 May 2012. The New York Times. Accessed on 7 May 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/business/unpaid-internships-dont-always-deliver.html

Dropping out of high school doesn’t only effect the individual. While students who drop out of high school will personally have less chances of employment, make lower incomes, and are most likely just a piece in the poverty cycle, they also represent a huge drain on our economic potential. On a larger scale, high school graduates and dropouts shape our economy, define the abilities of our workforce, and set the stage for our leaders of the future in business, industry, and government.

Even though “bridging the gap” has become a familiar phrase in education reform, the attention alone won’t  solve anything: we need action. Decades of research strongly suggests that the most effective education reform starts when kids are in preschool, where they are fed and taught in small groups, get home visits by teachers and have meetings with parents, and have teachers who make higher salaries, according to the article.

Our future depends on not only more graduates, but more successful graduates who are ready to succeed in the world of work and their lives as a whole. Starting early, staying consistent, and holding the bar high as students progress will provide a society with the brain potential, talent, and follow through to negotiate and leverage the global challenges that lie ahead.

The economy has done more than take away jobs. It’s forced families from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds to be homeless, hungry, and lose the comfort of  having other basic needs. Nearly three-quarters of all U.S. households with income below the federal poverty line spend over 50 percent of monthly household income on rent (Endhomelessness.org.)

We are often reminded of the number of Americans losing jobs, or graduating into a bad economy, or taking low-level, minimum wage jobs just to get by. However, what about the students in these families? We also hear a lot about poor student performance on standardized tests, college grads who graduate without critical skills, decreases in school budgets, and the lack of student proficiency in literacy and STEM subjects. We’ve known for decades that students don’t do well if they are hungry, sleep-deprived, or stressed. As more families hit the poverty line, is it any wonder that more students aren’t successful?

“The results are plain to see,” writes Mark Naison in his article “America’s Teachers See Growing Poverty Up Close.” “After ten years of No Child Left Behind, three years of Race to the Top, and twenty years of Teach for America, we have seen no change in the global standing of America’s schools and no reduction in the test score gap between racially and economically disadvantaged groups and the rest of the population.”  Teachers on the frontline of teaching kids in “generational poverty” or those “made newly poor by the economic crisis” are an untapped resource in finding an answer to education reform.

Naison illustrates the picture that many educators see in today’s schools, a perspective he believes many “education reformers” don’t have:

• Many students who live in poor and working class neighborhoods don’t have a secure place to stay, moving from apartment to apartment, experience bouts of homelessness, and move in and out of foster care.
• Students may disappear from school for days or weeks at a time, sometimes not returning altogether.
• Those who attend class often fall asleep in class from sleep deprivation due to crowded homes and homelessness.
• Many students go hungry, and fear the weekend when they don’t get school meals.
• Many live without healthcare.

As many questions about education reform remain unanswered, consider what you can do to give legislators the perspective of a teacher. Is there more you can do to illustrate the struggles and achievements of your students? What would you do to solve the problem of poverty in the classroom? What can you do with your resources to make a difference in a child’s life? How can you use academic coaching to coach a child who is having a hard time at home and in school?

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Source:

“America’s Teachers See Growing Poverty Up Close,” By Mark Naison. 17 January 2012. Beyond Chron. Accessed on 18 January 2012. http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9812#more