I have been an educator in colleges and universities with liberal admission policies for the past 10 years.

During this time, I have often encountered students who were wholly unprepared for the rigors required of college work. In some instances they succeeded—in some instances they did not.

The question then becomes whether it is worth the time, effort, and cost to attempt remediation. I believe the answer has to be “Yes.” I have witnessed students not only improve their math and reading skills, but also gain confidence in themselves and their abilities, which only increases their likelihood of success after college. What more could we ask of public education?

Mathematical and communication skills are not optional traits in today’s complex and data driven society. Even if our students never develop into the next Einstein or Shakespeare, we will have served them well if they can personally flourish and contribute to our shared culture. Locking away access to the means of betterment propagates the problem and continues to separate us into the haves and the have-nots, the educated and the ill-prepared.

Often those who arrive needing developmental coursework better reflect the diverse nature of our society. Not everyone grew up attending schools that were adequately funded, came from families that encouraged scholarship, or were provided safe learning environments.

A classroom filled with students of varied backgrounds contributes to the development of all students. Our graduates will be living in a complex and ever-changing world. This is but one way to assist in their preparation.

*Michael J. Hall is a psychology instructor at Iowa Western Community College in Council Bluffs, Iowa, vice-chair of the ISEA Higher Education Standing Committee, and a member of his local’s executive committee. He is a graduate of NEA’s first Emerging Leader Academy.

---

No, institutions that do not abide by their own standards lose their credibility.
Daniel L. Yazak*

Colleges and universities present themselves to various publics—students, accreditation agencies, and funding sources—through their mission statements and admission standards.

As each campus develops these statements and standards based on a set of unique characteristics, including background, culture, and experience, they define how they will come to be seen in the eyes of the public.

Allowing pervasive, individual exceptions to those standards does not match the purpose in those mission statements and admission standards. Accepting students who meet its standards is consistent with the purpose a campus presents to the public. The “match” between campus and student is appropriate in that regard. When a “match” is not present, the response to a request for admission should be “no.”

Students who do not meet that institution’s standards—especially in the subject areas of English and math—have several options. The first option should not be “acceptance with remediation”—at least not at this time.

That option is inconsistent with what the campus holds itself out to be and what others have come to expect of it. There are other options, too. These can include asking the student to attend another campus whose mission includes tutoring, reviewing specific deficiencies and strengthening them with individual programs of study, and considering alternative post-secondary education programs. After remediation through any (or a combination) of those options is completed, the admission process can be re-examined.

* Daniel L. Yazak is an associate professor at Montana State University-Billings and teaches undergraduate courses in human services and graduate courses in counseling education programs. He is researching effective teaching methods for writing styles. Dan is a graduate of NEA’s first Emerging Leader Academy.