Publisher's Synopsis
In 1894, forty percent of college freshmen enrolled inpre-collegiate programs to prepare for regular college coursework.In Fall 1995, twenty-nine percent of entering freshmen enrolled inat least one remedial course. The debate over the need for, andappropriateness of, remedial and developmental education at thepostsecondary level has spanned a century. The 1998 Reauthorizationof the Higher Education Act has added fuel to the debate.Legislators, educators, and the general public are asking questionsand raising accountability issues. Who needs remedial anddevelopmental education? Why does the need for it appear to beincreasing? How much does it cost? Who should pay for it? Areremedial and developmental programs effective? Who should provideit? Legislators and the public are upset over the perception thatthey are paying twice for the same education--once in high schooland once again in college. Educators are concerned about thepotential devaluation of higher education through the provision oflarge amounts of remedial and developmental education. Andstudents, too, are unhappy with the time and expense necessary todevelop English and math skills that they should have learned inhigh school. Each chapter of this volume addresses a specificpolicy question involved in the debate over remedial anddevelopmental education and uses national and state data, as wellas information from case studies of individual institutions, toprovide insights into effective approaches to remedial anddevelopmental education.
This is the one hundredth issue of the quarterly journal NewDirections for Community Colleges.
