Change the System, Not Just the Problem : Cal State: The trustees are working toward elimination of the need for remedial programs, not just the programs.

Much has been written lately about the subject of remedial education and a California State University committee’s approach to addressing the issue. The reaction to the panel’s most recent proposal, which would dramatically reduce the need for remedial instruction at Cal State by the year 2007, raises a number of important issues, but reaches conclusions that are open to serious question.

The criteria for admission are relatively simple: Under California’s Master Plan for Higher Education, students who graduate in the top one-third of their high school class are eligible for admission to the 22 campuses of the Cal State system. Disturbingly, even though they meet admission requirements, roughly 60% of the incoming freshmen do not have adequate mathematics or language skills for college level work.

The roots of this problem are complex but they cannot be avoided. The board of trustees has chosen to tackle it rather than sweep it under the rug.

The greatest challenge for the board of trustees, indeed for all serious public policymakers in the state, is to find a constructive balance between strong and timely sanctions that force the improvement of precollege education, and the honest confrontation of systemic difficulties in the very systems that prepare our students for college.

The basic concern of critics is that the trustees, by allegedly softening a proposal made in July, which would have eliminated all remedial courses by 2001, will be easing pressure on elementary and secondary schools “to set more ambitious academic goals.” They insist that this would hamper Cal State’s ability to prepare students for the competitive national and global marketplace.

That is indeed our primary mission. It is one that many observers have increasingly recognized as a responsibility essential to California’s and the country’s future and one that the university carries out well.

One thing we have learned from our success is that the ability to work in this new global marketplace is based on one’s experience at college and university, and as an adult at home and at work.

Our responsibility is to add value to our students’ prior experiences so that they can compete in any setting. But in doing so, we are not substituting for high school. Our goal should be to take students of great potential and commitment but with varying backgrounds and early skills--exactly the profile of California’s future--and to make them even better. That objective can be accomplished only if we actively engage the K-12 community. Since Cal State will prepare the next generation of K-12 teachers and school administrators, this responsibility must be accepted.

Rather than taking the politically easy road of quick action on the proposal, the trustees set out to learn from a variety of constituencies and potential employers how these preliminary recommendations would affect not only students and their families, but also those hiring in the work force and those in K-12 and community colleges who are preparing these students. In a rare model of public policy leadership, our trustees listened carefully, asked tough questions and survived verbal abuse and physical threats.

From these difficult but thoughtful conversations, the trustees discovered important points ignored or denied by others. First, a full phase-out by 2001 presumes that the high schools could be fundamentally transformed in time to help students who are just now completing elementary school. As I read them, the recommendations now suggest that a slightly more patient but equally forceful direct engagement with K-12 education by CSU experts will both assist those preparing for college work and will make our own faculty and staff more capable of adding even greater value to our students’ college experience.

The only real solution to deficient skills is prevention. The goal is not the elimination of remedial programs but the elimination of any need for remedial programs. To accomplish that, we need early diagnosis, creative intervention and consistent monitoring for improvement. Only a close alliance between CSU and K-12 can accomplish that objective for the next generation. Tough sanctions, if approved standards are not met, are mandatory, but so is understanding and support. To eliminate remedial programs completely and abruptly would be like throwing patients out of a hospital because they seemed too sick to help.

Our 22 campus presidents are enormously proud of their success in building a reputation for academic excellence. But they also recognize that their role is to address problems of remediation before they get to our campuses, not to impose sanctions that punish those who were unable to access the privilege and the support available only to some in this state.

The strength of the California State University system is what it does for its students when they arrive at our classrooms. I read the revised proposal to demand stronger performance at the K-12 level, but also to insist that Cal State assist that effort. That is our responsibility, and we will accept that challenge if our full board approves the report in 1996.

The board’s continued work is anything but a failure to address the problems of remediation, as critics contend, and our trustees’ careful listening and learning during the past fall indicates that our own board members have been the best students of all.