The goals of developmental education include promoting educational opportunity through efforts that enhance both access and retention. Although the measures taken and the issues related to access and retention may overlap, they are not synonymous and must be addressed separately. Defining access is more complicated than it might appear. Traditionally, access has been viewed as opening the door to postsecondary education. With the proliferation of public community colleges and technical institutions in many states, some educators and legislators alike have assumed that the problem of access has been addressed because relatively low-cost programs are available to anyone with a high school diploma or its equivalent. However, numerous other issues related to access are overlooked

Arendale, David R.

Casazza, Martha

Highbee, Jeanne L

Stahl, Norm

University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy

40 
Enhancing Student Access and Retention

Jeanne Higbee, Convener

David Arendale, Martha Casazza, Norman Stahl

Heidi Barajas Howarth, Recorder

Summary compiled by Jeanne Higbee

The goals of developmental education include promot­ing educational opportunity through efforts that en­
hance both access and retention. Although the measures 
taken and the issues related to access and retention may 
overlap, they are not synonymous and must be addressed 
separately. Defining access is more complicated than it 
might appear. Traditionally, access has been viewed as 
opening the door to postsecondary education. With the 
proliferation of public community colleges and techni­
cal institutions in many states, some educators and leg­
islators alike have assumed that the problem of access 
has been addressed because relatively low-cost programs 
are available to anyone with a high school diploma or its 
equivalent. However, numerous other issues related to 
access are overlooked. 
Factors related to access to postsecondary educa­
tion include proximity, financial considerations, the avail-
ability of child care, and testing and placement policies. 
A prospective student may meet admissions criteria and 
may have the academic ability to be successful, but may 
not be able to pursue postsecondary education due to 
distance to the closest institution, lack of transportation, 
inability to pay, loss of potential income, family com­
mitments, or other obstacles. Barriers such as these may 
be exacerbated by testing and placement policies that 
require students to complete what are considered pre-
college, noncredit courses in order to eventually pursue 
a degree. When faced with the possibility of spending 
up to a year attending and paying for courses that are 
considered “remedial,” it is understandable that some 
prospective students consider their access denied. 
Another critical question in any discussion of ac­
cess is “access to what?” There is growing concern that 
socio-economically disadvantaged students, for example, 
may have access to local two-year institutions, but that 
there may not be equal access to four-year colleges and 
universities. In several states developmental education 
programs in public institutions are now restricted to two-
year institutions; in these states developmental educa­
tion has been eliminated from research universities, thus 
further limiting access to those institutions. Legislators 
have decided that underprepared students have no place 
in four-year institutions. One of the problems with this 
position is that a student who is gifted in one discipline 
may require academic assistance in another. Is it appro­
priate to deny the admission of a talented musician, for 
example, to the institution with the strongest music pro-
gram because the student is considered underprepared 
in another area, such as English composition? Of per-
haps greatest concern may be whether policies such as 
these result in the under-representation of protected 
groups, such as students of color, in public four-year 
colleges and universities, especially when the cause of 
these students’ inadequate preparation may be institu­
tionalized racism, even if unintended. 
Partnerships between elementary, middle, and sec­
ondary schools and postsecondary institutions can en­
hance both access and retention (American Association 
for Higher Education, 1999; Tompkins, 1999; Wiseman, 
1999). Projects that promote seamless educational pro-
grams for students are rare. Further communication is 
needed between officials at all levels of public educa­
tion. Postsecondary educators cannot approach partner-
ships with the attitude that their role is to “fix” problems 
in the K-12 system. Educators can also become more 
involved in other opportunities for partnerships, includ­
ing workplace literacy projects (e.g., Longman, Atkinson, 
Miholic, & Simpson, 1999) and educational programs 
provided by the military (e.g., Griffith, 1999). 
Retention 
Just as the term access requires a more thorough defi­
nition, retention may be measured in so many different 
ways that an accurate definition is elusive. There are 
numerous issues that surround perceptions of academic 
success, which is often equated with retention. Gradua­
tion rates are perhaps the most commonly accepted mea­
sure of retention, but they generally fail to take into ac-
Meeting on Future Directions 
brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
provided by University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy
41 
count other factors such as: (a) students who transfer to 
other institutions, including students who ultimately earn 
degrees elsewhere; (b) students who “stop out” and re-
enter later; (c) students who leave due to factors over 
which the institution has no control (e.g., personal rea­
sons such as illness, financial problems); (d) students 
for whom traditional higher education is not the most 
productive form of learning; and (e) students who achieve 
alternative forms of success without graduating. Is a 
student who drops out to perform an award-winning role 
in theater or film, for example, unsuccessful? Gradua­
tion rates of collegiate athletes are commonly criticized 
without considering those student athletes who choose 
to pursue professional careers. What is needed is an 
inclusive definition of retention that fosters cooperation 
among institutions, at least within public systems of 
higher education, to account for transfers. Furthermore, 
measures of retention must be longitudinal, allowing for 
stopping out and reentering. Some policies developed 
to encourage retention, such as placement and exit test­
ing and sophomore or junior year proficiency testing 
(e.g., in reading and writing) can have the opposite ef­
fect. 
Inconsistencies in the definition and measurement 
of retention may be responsible for why retention statis­
tics often appear so low. However, another problem is 
that retention programs are often aimed only at the stu­
dents at the two ends of the continuum, high-risk stu­
dents and honors students. Interventions such as Supple-
mental Instruction that target high-risk courses rather than 
students can be effective in enhancing retention among 
all students. In his talent development model, Alexander 
Astin (1985) encourages an approach that promotes the 
academic growth of each student, regardless of where 
he or she starts. What is important is what each indi­
vidual student achieves. When viewed from this per­
spective, graduation is not the ultimate measure of suc­
cess. 
Good instruction promotes retention, as do programs 
that provide a supportive learning environment, such as 
learning communities. Educational climate, both within 
and outside the classroom, can have a significant impact 
on student satisfaction and retention. Developmental 
education can play a critical role in student retention, 
but developmental educators must be in agreement re­
garding the scope and mission of our profession. The 
National Association for Developmental Education’s 
(NADE) definition refers to providing academic assis­
tance and learning support for all postsecondary learn­
ers. However, many developmental education practitio­
ners and programs have not embraced this definition and 
continue to focus their efforts only on students consid­
ered at risk. One of the current problems of develop-
mental education as a profession is a bifurcated identity. 
Although the topic of this session was access and reten­
tion, definition issues brought the discussion back to not 
only the definition of developmental education, but also 
the terminology. Can the profession flourish when its 
name is embedded in “at risk” rhetoric? 
Recommendations 
1. Develop definitions of access and retention that 
will meet with the approval of legislators, administra­
tors, and developmental educators and at the same time 
take into account the needs of individual students. 
2. Determine the role of developmental education 
in enhancing access and retention. To accomplish this 
goal may first require a redefinition and perhaps a re-
naming of developmental education. 
3. Explore other lenses for viewing access and re­
tention, including critical pedagogy. 
4. Conduct and reward research related to access 
and retention. Create new approaches that are theoreti­
cally sound and reflect research findings regarding best 
practices. 
5. Provide professional development opportunities 
to explore strengthening the profession of developmen­
tal education and responding to the revolving door of 
developmental education faculty. How can the profes­
sion hope to achieve its goals when turnover occurs so 
frequently? Retention of developmental education fac­
ulty and staff is a separate issue that must be addressed. 
References 
American Association for Higher Education (1999). 
Making a place in the faculty rewards system for work 
with K-12: A project report of four universities. Wash­
ington, DC: Author. 
Astin, A.S. (1985). Achieving educational excel­
lence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Griffith, J. (1999). The effect of study skills train­
ing on United States Air Force allied health students. In 
J.L. Higbee & P.L. Dwinell (Eds.), The expanding role 
of developmental education (pp. 21-30). Morrow, GA: 
National Association for Developmental Education. 
October 1999 
42 
Longman, D., Atkinson, R., Miholic, V., & Simpson, 
P. (1999). Building long-range workplace literacy 
projects: The ABC reading apprenticeship and task analy­
sis. In J.L. Higbee & P.L. Dwinell (Eds.), The expand­
ing role of developmental education (pp. 31-41). Mor­
row, GA: National Association for Developmental Edu­
cation. 
Tompkins, D. (1999). Solving a “higher ed tough 
one.” AAHE Bulletin, 51(6), 11-13. 
Wiseman, D.L. (1999). The impact of school-uni­
versity partnerships on reading teacher educators: Im­
portant conversations we must have. In J.R. Dugan, P.E. 
Linder, W.M. Linek, & E.G. Sturtevant (Eds.), Advanc­
ing the world of literacy: Moving into the 21st century 
(pp. 81-93). Commerce, TX: College Reading Associa­
tion. 
Meeting on Future Directions 


Enhancing student access and retention

http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/11299/200457/3/Enhancing%20Student%20Access.pdf

Enhancing student access and retention

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy