The Myths About Remedial Help

The controversy about the appropriateness of the California State University system providing remedial education in English and mathematics to CSU students makes me think of the personal story of a woman who is now an instructor of developmental mathematics here at California State University, Northridge.

Her name is Paulette Cole. And it is her story as much as any other statistical survey that convinces me that by offering remedial courses to our students, we are not abandoning our mission as an institution of higher education. To the contrary, we are honoring that commitment.

In high school, Paulette was an honors student and a member of the California Scholastic Federation in recognition of her high marks in a college preparatory program. But unable to afford college, Paulette went to work at the phone company.

After 17 years, Paulette had become a manager. By all conventional standards, she was a success. But Paulette wanted a college education. She wanted a new career. So she left the security of corporate life and returned to school.

But 17 years away from school--particularly, she recalled, 17 years away from a math classroom--left Paulette anxious. “I knew,” she said, “that if I were to succeed, I needed a refresher course in math.”

Paulette’s story is instructive, for it puts the lie to several of the myths now circulating about the issue of remedial education at the college level.

Myth No. 1: Students who need remedial education in English or math are remedial students. Not true. Typically, these students are intelligent, competent adults who simply need skills remediation before they can successfully tackle college-level courses in that subject.

Myth No. 2: Students who need remediation are all immigrants, minorities or graduates of inferior schools in low-income communities. Wrong again. While 1993 CSU statistics showed a slightly higher correlation between limited-English backgrounds and enrollment in developmental English classes, all such correlations disappeared in relation to math readiness. Insignificant statistical differences exist between white and nonwhite, regularly admitted, first-time freshmen in their readiness to tackle college-level math.

Myth No. 3: Students who participate in remedial courses are less likely to succeed in college and are, therefore, wasting scarce economic resources. Not so. A 1992 study of graduation rates at Cal State Northridge found no difference in the graduation rates of students who were required to enroll in one developmental class and those who were not required to do so.

Myth No. 4: Developmental education has no place in the CSU system; students who need it should attend junior college. An irrelevance. If students don’t receive the help they need in high school, they should be given that help in junior college, or at the Cal State, or the University of California, or at a private university. Developmental education should be offered whenever and wherever someone recognizes the need for it.

Of course it is distressing that the number of California’s college-bound students who need remediation keeps growing. Yes, it’s frustrating that the state’s high school graduates are less prepared for college than they were in past years. And yes, we must do something to reverse those trends.

CSUN has initiated a number of innovative programs in English and math that already are bearing fruit. We have moved our placement testing program into three local high schools, so that students can be placed in appropriate classes at the earliest opportunity. Enrollment in developmental classes is now mandatory for all students whose test scores indicate the need for remedial education.

Our Technology Now program gives all incoming Cal State Northridge freshmen the skills to use word processing and e-mail systems. The use of an interactive computerized algebra program in our developmental math classes has resulted in improved student performance.

The Cal State system has entered into a partnership with the state’s K-12 schools to provide assessment and early intervention programs that will improve students’ academic performance. These programs will ensure that California’s students know what they must learn, and learn it, before they graduate from high school and head to one of our college campuses.

Finally, we have set as a systemwide goal that no more than 10% of entering CSU freshmen will require remedial education by the year 2007.

But, no matter how many students need developmental education, I remain convinced that it is our job as educators in the CSU system to provide it. It doesn’t really matter why students need remediation--whether they’re from a non-English-speaking home or an inferior school, whether they goofed off in high school or had to delay college entrance, or whether they must split their time among school, work and family obligations.

What matters is that they receive the help they need to acquire the knowledge and skills expected of a university graduate. For if they succeed in college and become productive, income-earning, tax-paying members of society, we all win.