Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College
By Hunter R. Boylan, D. Patrick Saxon, and Loretta C. Link
National Center for Developmental Education
Public perceptions of any given issue are often reflected in as well as influenced by the popular news media. The news media report on issues that have captured public attention. As such, the media reflects popular perception. The media also influences this perception by the topics it selects for reporting and by the way in which reports on these topics are presented in the media.
The issue of remediation on college campuses is no exception. Public perceptions of remedial courses are both reflected in and influenced by the print media, particularly newspapers.
National television and radio news media have, thus far, largely ignored the issue of remediation in higher education. To the extent that the average American citizen is informed through the media about issues in college-level remediation, that citizen is informed by reading newspapers.
This may be due to the fact that remedial courses are, for the most part, a local state issue. The federal government has a very limited role in college-level remediation. The only federal legislation that provides funding for any kind of remediation is Title III of the Higher Education Act that provides funding for developing institutions. The Title III legislation targets funds to strengthen institutions with high percentages of low income and first generation students. Such students are more likely than others to require remediation. Title III legislation allows funds designed to strengthen target institutions to be used for college learning centers and other activities that may contribute to remediation of student underpreparedness.
The only other federal role in remediation is the provision of financial aid under the Higher Education Act. This aid may be used to pay for a limited number of remedial courses taken at the college level. These two segments of the Higher Education Act, strengthening developing institutions and student financial aid, are the only areas of federal involvement in college-level remediation. In fact, these are the only areas of federal legislation where the term remediation is even mentioned.
On the other hand, the largest item in any state
budget is education, with postsecondary education representing a substantial
portion of this budget. Any funds for
remedial courses offered in state supported colleges and universities will come
from this budget. Consequently a great
deal of all legislation debated and voted upon in state legislatures has to do
with postsecondary education, and some of those votes and debates will, of
necessity, consider college-level remediation.
Because of the high level of
state involvement and low level of federal involvement, the issue of
remediation very rarely becomes a national one. Most of the money allocated in support of remedial courses is
allocated by state legislatures. Most
of the issues related to remedial courses are debated in state legislatures or
state higher education executive offices.
As a result of these factors, most of the news appearing in print on the
topic appears in local newspapers.
With the exception of USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, almost all newspapers are designed to appeal to local audiences. Several, however, have national circulation, the New York Times and the Washington Post being examples. To the extent that national newspapers and local newspapers having national circulation influence or are influenced by public opinion, these media are the best available source of information on public perceptions of remediation or, more specifically, what the public knows about remediation. This report, therefore, explores public perceptions of remediation as reflected or influenced by stories in major newspapers.
In order to develop some sort of national picture of newspaper reports on remediation, the nation’s ten largest newspapers were identified using the 1999 issue of The World Almanac and Book of Facts. The nation’s 10 largest newspapers and their circulation are identified in Table 1. In addition, 6 other newspapers in the top 20 were included in the study because they featured one or more articles on remediation. These included the Atlanta Constitution, Boston Globe, Detroit News, St. Louis Post Dispatch, San Diego Union-Tribune, and San Francisco Chronicle.
Using a topical index to these newspapers, articles or editorials appearing in them were identified and then reviewed to determine: (a) the number of articles or editorials on college remediation that had appeared, and (b) the positions taken in these articles or editorials. Each of the articles
1. Wall Street Journal (1,774,880)
2. USA Today (1,629,665)
3. New York Times (1,074,741)
4. Los Angeles Times (1,050,176)
5. Washington Post (775,894)
6. New York Daily News (721,256)
7. Chicago Tribune (653,554)
8. Newsday (568,914)
9. Houston Chronicle (549,101)
10. Chicago Sun Times (484,379)
Source: World
Almanac and Book of Facts, 1999, p. 185
identified was also reviewed to determine local political positions on remediation as well as any legislative or other proposals dealing with remediation.
A checklist was then developed to summarize and categorize findings from newspaper reports. The checklist indicated whether articles or editorials were positive, negative, or neutral toward remediation. A sampling of the opinions expressed to the public was drawn from these newspaper quotes. A listing of proposals for dealing with remediation was also developed. This information was then reviewed to develop an overall “snapshot” of print media reporting on the topic of college-level remediation.
The review indicated that a total of 48 articles or editorials on remediation appeared in the nation’s largest newspapers since January of 1995. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times published the greatest number of pieces, 12 and 5 respectively. The Boston Globe, New York Daily News, San Diego Union-Tribune, USA Today, and Washington Post each published at least two articles or editorials on the topic during this period.
Most of these pieces were, indeed, news items. A total of 30 news articles published since January of 1995 were identified that reported the existence of remedial courses on college campuses and discussed the pros and cons of remediation. These articles typically described the fact that large numbers of students entering colleges and universities required remediation, defined college level remediation, identified various approaches to it, and discussed its advantages and disadvantages.
An additional 18 editorials appeared on the topic. These editorials typically described various proposals for responding to issues in remediation and either supported or critiqued these proposals. Frequently, these editorials accepted the existence of remediation on college campuses but responded to proposals designed to either eliminate it or strengthen it. Only two of the editorials reflected complete opposition to college-level remediation.
What appeared to be most newsworthy for the majority of the media was the fact that so many students require remediation at the college level (Naylor, 1997). The National Center for Education Statistics (1996) report on college level remediation in the Fall of 1995 stated that 29% of all incoming college students are enrolled in one or more remedial courses. This report was quoted most frequently as the source of information on this subject. Fifteen of the articles reviewed cited this report; three other articles mentioned it, but did not cite the source. Other articles described the number of students in remedial courses as large but did not quote specific statistics.
Although most of the articles on remediation were neutral, among those taking a position on remediation, most were favorable. Of those taking a clear position on college-level remedial courses, 12 articles supported the concept of remediation for underprepared students and 6 opposed it. Essentially, information appearing in the print media was either neutral or favored remediation by a two to one margin.
Those pieces reporting favorably on remediation usually cited its contributions to helping underprepared students graduate from college. Typical was a St. Louis Post Dispatch (Thomson, 1998) issue reporting that:
They started college behind and caught up – and even came
out ahead in some cases. They’re roughly 600 of the 1,200
students graduating from St. Louis Community College this
month, the ones who made the grade by first taking remedial
courses. (p. B1)
Favorable reports also cited the opportunity remedial courses provide for adults who have been away from school for many years. A Los Angeles Times report (“Remedial Classes,” 1996) quoted a former remedial student who became a college professor:
The opportunity to return to college and obtain a degree is the foundation of a second start in my life down a new pathway, which I am most grateful to be on… one of the most critical guideposts to this journey was the humility, and ultimate triumph, of a remedial English class. (p. 4)
Other favorable reports emphasized the egalitarian philosophy of American education and the role of remediation in educational opportunity. The Los Angeles Times (Bond, 1996) quoted Blenda Wilson, the President of California State University at Northridge, as saying:
Remedial courses prepare students for higher levels of learning. We cannot afford to lose the potential of the next generation by retreating to an outmoded view of who is worthy to attend our public universities. (p. B3)
Unfavorable reports on remediation typically argued that colleges
should not have to re-teach high school material. A May 12, 1998 issue of USA Today (Estrich, 1998) stated that “the business of colleges should be providing a college education, not teaching students what they should already know.” (p. 13A) This represented a fairly typical refrain among those in the press who criticized remediation.
Other unfavorable reports cited the cost of remediation as a negative factor. The Houston Chronicle (Ackerman, 1995), for instance pointed out that the costs of remediation in Texas had almost quadrupled in six years and that this represented a highly inefficient use of higher education resources. Texas officials claim to have spent a higher percentage of its state budget on remediation than most states (Boylan et al., 1996). Although other states may have spent a lower percentage of their higher education funds on remediation, newspaper critics in these states argued that any money spent on college-level remedial courses was unjustified.
Unfavorable perspectives of remediation also focused blame on public schools for not doing a better job of preparing high school graduates. The majority of newspaper articles discussing remedial courses included some comment on the lack of college-level academic preparation provided by public schools. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution editorial (Wooten, 1995) was typical. It argued that high schools throughout the nation were “sending inadequately prepared students out into the world” and that “efforts must be undertaken to reverse this continued slide into mediocrity” (p. 10A). This was a particularly popular theme among critiques of remediation reporting in the print news media.
During the last 4 years, the issues most often discussed in newspapers were various state proposals to either limit remediation in universities or relegate it to community colleges (Russell, 1998). Other issues frequently considered were the cost of remediation, the causes of underpreparedness among college students, and the improvement of preparation of high school graduates.
Almost all newspaper articles addressed the issue of remedial courses. Very little attention was paid by the print media to other sources of remediation such as tutoring, learning laboratories, or learning assistance centers.
The issue of privatization was also discussed in half a dozen newspaper articles, most of these in the educational press. These articles described the activities of commercial providers of remediation such as Kaplan Learning Services and Sylvan Learning Centers. Such articles typically discussed the services offered in terms of cost-effectiveness (Gose, 1997). A handful of institutions had already subcontracted remediation from these providers and their experiences were discussed in the news media (Gose, 1997). The general impression created by these articles was that commercial providers of remediation were, as yet, an untested but potentially promising option.
A substantial amount of newspaper print was also devoted to identifying the reasons why remediation is needed at the college level. As noted above, most newspapers blamed the need for college level remediation on the poor quality of public education, particularly high schools. Many of the articles and editorials reviewed suggested that high schools were not turning out college-ready graduates. Typical was a comment from Herman Badillo, City University of New York Trustee, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, “I think we should change the standards at the high school level so we give the kids a real high school diploma” (Wessell, 1998, p. 1).
Low teacher expectations of students, weak curricula, lack of uniform standards, and inadequate preparation of teachers were all cited as factors contributing to the poor quality of high school graduates. The vast majority of newspaper articles on remediation proposed the improvement of public schools as a major factor in reducing the need for college-level remediation. The Christian Science Monitor, for instance, cited news reports from six states describing their governors’ advocacy of various reforms designed to improve high school preparation (Chaddock, 1999)).
An understandable pattern seemed to exist for newspapers: They reported on remediation when it was the subject of some upcoming or recently passed local policy or legislation. The Los Angeles Times (Chandler, January, 1995; Chandler, July, 1995; Wilson, 1996), the San Diego Union-Tribune (No more training wheels, 1995; Ristine, 1995), and the San Francisco Chronicle (Right direction on remedial education, 1995), for instance, all reported various sides of the remediation issue while the University of California System was exploring ways of reducing remediation in the System. The New York Times (Knowlton, 1995; Remedial education at college, 1997; Solving the remedial problem, 1998), the New York Daily News (Gendar, 1999; Wasserman & Moritz, 1998) and the Wall Street Journal (Wessel, 1998) reported on remediation issues while the City University of New York (CUNY) Trustees were debating the elimination of open admissions and remedial courses within the CUNY system. The Boston Globe (Dembner, 1996) reported various sides of the remediation debate as Massachusetts higher education officials discussed limiting the amount of remediation to be offered in state universities. Texas newspapers tended to report legislation dealing with the Texas Academic Skills Program (Ackerman, 1995), a statewide assessment and remediation system, but only when this was the subject of bills introduced during legislative sessions.
In addition to news and opinions regarding remediation, proposals to reduce the need for it, improve it, or eliminate it have been widely reported in the media (Ritter, 1997). For the most part, these proposals originated either with legislators or higher education executive officers. Although some of these proposals had more or less merit than others, the print media were seemingly reluctant to endorse any of these proposals. In most cases newspaper articles simply reported various proposals without comment, and only a few editorial sections either supported or criticized these proposals.
To the extent that newspapers have reported on the topic of remediation, they appear to be doing a credible job of informing the public without attempting to overtly influence public opinion. Of the 48 pieces appearing on the topic in major newspapers during the past 4 years, only 18, or 37.5%, took a clearly stated position on remediation.
However, to the extent that the print news media has taken a position on college-level remediation, that position is generally positive. Editorials and articles supporting the need for some level of remediation in college have appeared twice as frequently in newspapers since 1995 as those opposing it.
Newspaper reports tend to see remedial courses at the college level as something of a necessary evil. They typically make statements indicating it is unfortunate that high school level material has to be taught in colleges. However, these reports also usually explain that there are a variety of complex factors making this necessary. Such reports usually note factors that are also featured in the professional literature such as:
(a) inadequate emphasis on college preparation in public schools,
(b) lack of direction among high school students,
(c) increasing
numbers of adults returning to college, and
(d) increasing numbers of students seeking a college education (Boylan, 1999).
The general sense to be obtained from newspaper reports is that remedial courses meet a current need on college and university campuses, although it is to be hoped that this need is temporary.
Newspapers have also done a good job of reporting possible options to remediation. Almost every known proposal describing alternatives to remediation or solutions to the problems of remediation have been discussed somewhere in the print media. Although the depth to which these proposals is discussed may leave something to be desired, newspapers have certainly covered a broad range of proposals to end, revise, modify, or strengthen college-level remediation.
Although newspapers have reported a wide range of proposals on remediation, they generally appear to be opposed to the more punitive of these proposals. Our review of newspaper reporting on these proposals indicates that they usually describe reasons why they are unlikely to be effective in reducing the need for college-level remediation.
Print media reports suggest that there is also little support for the complete elimination of college-level remediation. The most popular opinion expressed by the print news media is that remedial courses should be limited to community colleges and to the less selective state universities (Dembner, 1996; Chaddock, 1998). We found only one newspaper report advocating the complete elimination of remediation at all levels of higher education (Cohen, 1998).
Most articles favor some form of remediation at the university level although many favor limiting it to some degree. The idea of limiting university-level remediation as opposed to eliminating it is presented in approximately two-thirds of the articles and editorials reviewed. This strategy is usually referred to as “containment” (Dembner, 1996, p. 1). Typical, was an editorial from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, claiming that although colleges and universities should aim to reduce remediation, they should also “beware of foreclosing access for bright but poorly prepared students for whom some remedial education will always be necessary” (Robinson, April 1, 1997, p. 8B).
It
is interesting to note, however, that although legislation relegating remedial
courses to the community colleges is frequently reported in the proposal stage,
it is rarely enacted. A review of
newspaper reports on the issue indicates that some version of a proposal to
place all remedial courses in community colleges has been brought up by
legislators or higher education coordinating officers in at least 32
states. Although Florida relegated
remedial courses to the community colleges in the mid-1980s, in the decade of
the 90s such proposals have actually been implemented in only three of these
states, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Virginia (Marklein, 1998).
Newspaper reports suggest that, instead of eliminating remedial courses at universities, most states are moving toward some sort of compromise. The compromise will designate community colleges as the primary providers of remediation while allowing universities to continue offering some limited number of remedial courses. Frequently, this compromise is also accompanied by efforts to improve the quality of high school preparation. Most newspaper articles discussing remediation devote about as much space to high school reform as they do to discussing college- level remediation.
As judged by the increased amount of newspaper coverage of the topic, college-level remediation has become much more of a public issue in the past 5 years than ever before. It is worthy of note, however, that the “public” debate newspapers report appears limited exclusively to politicians and educational policy makers. Almost all articles appearing since 1995 limit their reporting to the comments of legislators or educators. There has been almost no reporting of public opinion on this issue.
Only a single news report published since 1995 attempts to identify public perceptions regarding the issue of college-level remediation. Following efforts by the CUNY Trustees and Mayor Giuliani to eliminate remedial courses in the City University of New York, the College Polling Institute has surveyed New York residents to determine their reactions. The Institute’s report 71% of New Yorkers support the continuation of remedial courses and oppose efforts to eliminate them (Jamiliah, 1999). The only scientific report of public opinion appearing in the media, therefore, suggests that the public supports college-level remediation.
To the extent that the print news media either reflects or influences public opinion on the topic, the public is now aware of at least five factors in the debate over remediation.
Factor 1: A large number of American college students participate in remediation. Nearly a third of U.S. entering college students require remediation in at least one subject area, and it is not unusual for 50% or more of entering community college students to enroll in one or more remedial courses (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996).
Factor 2: The majority of students requiring remediation are found in community colleges, and these institutions are the leading providers of remediation in the U.S. About two thirds of the nation’s remedial courses are offered through community colleges (Knopp, 1996).
Factor 3: Remediation is necessary at the college level because many students graduate from high school without the prerequisite skills for college work. In addition, an increase in the number of adults returning to college also necessitates a certain amount of remediation (Boylan, 1999).
Factor 4: There appears to be no consensus among legislators or higher education coordinating agencies as to the best ways of dealing with the issue of college-level remediation. The most popular strategies involve improving the preparation of high school graduates while attempting to either limit the number of remedial courses or find more cost-effective alternatives to them (Dembner, 1996).
Factor 5: Newspapers often create the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that a large amount of money is spent to provide remedial courses at the college level. The costs of remediation in any given state are frequently described as millions of dollars. At the same time, most sources readily admit that, whatever amount is spent, it represents a very small percentage of any state’s outlays for higher education (Breneman & Haarlow, 1998). Nevertheless, to the uninformed public, news media descriptions of the costs of remediation would appear to be high.
Given the complexity of the issue, knowledge of these factors alone does not represent a particularly sophisticated understanding of the topic. Newspaper coverage of issues in college-level remediation is commendably broad; however, it is not very deep. In fact, a number of critical issues remain unexplored by the print news media and, therefore, unrecognized by the public.
Only two newspaper articles, for instance, acknowledged the fact that
the majority of those participating in remediation are white (Boylan, Bonham,
& Bliss, 1994). Newspaper articles
do little to contradict the popular impression that ethnic minorities are the
primary targets of remediation.
Similarly, newspaper reports do little to dispel the notion that
remediation represents an unreasonably large expenditure of public funds. Only one article reported that the nation’s
total outlay of public higher education funds spent on remediation was only
about 1% of the U.S. higher education budget (Breneman & Haarlow, 1998).
Newspapers apparently have done little to note that eliminating
university remediation is not a trend in American higher education. For instance, none of the articles reviewed
reports the fact that, in spite of all the various state proposals to relegate
remedial education to the community colleges, only four states actually have
implemented these proposals (see Boylan, Saxon, and Boylan, report on state policies
elsewhere in this volume).
Only one newspaper article addresses the negative financial and
economic consequences of failing to provide remediation (Benning, 1998). The failure of newspapers to look at the
social and economic repercussions of not providing remediation represents
another weakness of news coverage on this issue.
It is unfortunate that many aspects of the debate on remediation remain
unreported by the nation’s print news media.
Also notable is that even this limited amount information on remedial
education, although probably widespread among the newspaper reading public, is
also still limited among the general population. This is because television, radio, and the national news
magazines have been relatively silent on the topic of remediation.
This review, therefore, suggests that although print media represent
the public’s major source of information on remedial education in colleges and
universities, this source is limited.
The information provided to the public via newspapers thus far is
probably insufficient to enable voters to make informed judgments on the future
of college-level remediation. To the
extent that the nation’s citizens understand the many issues involved in
college-level remediation as a result of newspaper reporting, they do not
understand them very well.
Ackerman, T. (1995, January 5). Proposed bill would realign universities, limit boards. The Houston Chronicle, p. A24.
Benning, V. (1998, December 12). Curtailing of remedial classes is opposed; courses benefit society, study says. The Washington Post, p. C10.
Bond, E. (1996, April 2). On the issue; informed opinions on today's topics; should colleges offer remedial education? Los Angeles Times, p. B3.
Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & Bliss, L. B. (1994). Who are the developmental students? Research in Developmental Education, 11(2), 1-4.
Boylan, H., Bonham, B., Morante, E., Bliss, L., Abraham, A., Ramirez, G., Anderson, J., Allen, B., & Vadillo, M. (1996). An evaluation of the Texas Academic Skills Program. Austin, TX: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
Boylan, H. (1999, in press). Harvard symposium 2000: Developmental education: Demographics, outcomes, and activities. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(2), 2-8.
Breneman, D.W., & Haarlow, W.N. (1998, July). Fordham report: Remediation in higher education: A symposium featuring remedial education: Costs and consequences, 2(9). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Chaddock, G.R. (1999, February 9). Big money, Big battles. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 20.
Chandler, J. (1995, January 26). CSU moves to scale back remedial classes; Report: Study shows that fewer incoming freshmen than last year at
Northridge campus are academically prepared for college-level courses. Los Angeles Times, p. B1.
Chandler, J. (1995, July 17). Cal State to consider tightening admissions; education: Trustees will weigh proposal to deny admittance to students who lack college readiness in math and English. Such a policy would disqualify up to 60% of today's freshman class. Los Angeles Times, p. A3.
Cohen, L.D. (1998, May 31). College is no place for remedial education. The Hartford Courant, p. B3.
Dembner, A. (1996, March 18). States sifting strategies for remedial education; the learning gap. The Boston Globe, p. 1.
Estrich, S. (1998, May 12). It's not who goes to college; it's who can stay there. USA Today, p. A13.
Gendar, A. (1999, January 26). CUNY board scraps remedial classes. New York Daily News, p. 26.
Gose, B. (1997, September 19). Tutoring companies take over remedial teaching at some colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. p. A44-A45.
Jamiliah, E. (1999, July 8). Tempest in a task force. Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(10), 23.
Knopp, L. (1996). Remedial education: An undergraduate student profile. American Council on Education Research Briefs, 6(8), 1-11.
Knowlton, S. (1995, June 7). Questions about remedial education in a time of budget cuts. The New York Times, p. B11.
Marklein, M. B. (1998, May 28). Stand on 3 R's earns colleges mixed grades. USA Today, p. D1.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). The condition of education: 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Naylor, J. (1997, July 23). Hot at college: High school level classes; remedial courses are taken by 40% or more Metro Detroit students. The Detroit News, p. A1.
No more training wheels. State universities can't afford remedial classes. (1995, December 5). The San Diego Union-Tribune, p. B6.
Remedial classes for Cal State students. (1996, June 3). Los Angeles Times, p. B4.
Remedial education at college. (1997, March 19). The New York Times, p. A20.
Right direction on remedial education. (1995, July 29). The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A20.
Ristine, J. (1995, September 22). Remedial English, math called needed bridge to college career. The San Diego Union-Tribune, p. A4.
Ritter, J. (1997, June 5). Who gets bill for remedial classes? USA Today, p. A1.
Robinson, S. (1997, April 1). Review before cutting remedial course funding. The Plain Dealer. p. 8B.
Russell, A. (1998, February). Statewide college admissions, student preparation, and remediation policies and programs: Summary of a 1997 SHEEO survey. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Solving the remedial problem. (1998, February 7). The New York Times, p. A16.
Thomson, S. C. (1998, May 18). Grad excelled after starting college taking remedial class; community college salutes "emerging scholar." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1.
Wasserman, J., & Moritz, O. (1998, August 11). Remedial phaseout at CUNY is on hold. New York Daily News, p. 5.
Wessel, D. (1998, November 9). Who will teach Johnny to read? Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
Wilson, B. J. (1996, May 24). Perspective on education; the myths about remedial help; pay less attention to why many Cal State freshmen need it--some are late bloomers--and more to the beneficial outcome. Los Angeles Times, p. B9.
Wooten, J. (1995, June 21). Remedial education; use colleges to fix problems in high school. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p. A10.