Delusion of Diversity in Developmental Education, The

Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, Fall 2003 by Cramer, Bruce

I recently suggested to a colleague, a reading professor, that she read the article, "How Should Reading be Taught?" in a recent issue of Scientific American (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky & Seidenberg, 2002). The article, I warned her, would not make progressive, whole-language enthusiasts happy since it promotes robust phonics instruction in reading programs. Without reading the article, she sent me the following curt e-mail: "Scientific American has no business meddling in an epistemology it knows nothing about" (Name withheld, March, 2002). I found this a troubling but all too common response in the world of education: If research does not conform to current dogma, ignore it, disparage its authors, and be sure to include some impressively clever jargon.

This got me thinking about diversity. Does diversity simply refer to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and the like, or does it also include diversity of opinion and belief? If divergent opinions and beliefs are not truly welcomed in developmental education, some may find it expedient to publicize a narrow, selective body of research and keep the lid on research results which are not congruent with fashionable doctrine. Do college campuses and developmental educators promote true diversity, or a "skin-deep" variety? Certainly, it is not difficult for administrators to confirm their pro-diversity stance: They can simply point to the rainbow of colors and ethnicities on their campuses. But a campus may boast a supposedly diverse mix of people without achieving true diversity; one set of beliefs may dominate the campus culture to such a great extent that it is actually risky for an individual to broach an iconoclastic view.

One would think that divergent views would be encouraged in the world of developmental education and on campuses in general. Are they? Let us look at developmental education first. In the fall 2001 edition of Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, we see five articles listed under the heading "columns." Each of these five columns lays out a progressive view of education. The first promotes multiculturalism in developmental education (Higbee, 2001); the second suggests the use of teaching portfolios as "alternative outcomes assessment[s]" (Zayani, 2001); the third and fourth both support learning communities (Testone, 2001; Cantone, 2001); and the fifth documents student interpretations of their developmental education experiences (Carranza, 2001). Actual empirical evidence supporting the progressive ideas that these columns favor is skimpy at best. And nowhere among these columns are the benefits of traditionalism, or any conflicting approach, enunciated. It is as if traditionalism has been so universally discredited by educationists that its mention only occurs for the formality of belittling it. One might expect that an occasional contrarian or divergent view might appear among these columns. One would be disappointed.

However, if traditionalism is considered moribund by the vast majority of education professors and those they have influenced, that does not mean we should be intoning its last rites. Far from it. Some respected researchers are still telling us what many educators simply refuse to hear. For example, Jean Chall, in the final publication of a fruitful career in educational research, provides reams of data to support her ultimate statements:

The major conclusion of my study in this book is that a traditional, teachercentered approach to education generally results in higher academic achievement than a progressive, student-centered approach. This is particularly so among students who are less well prepared for academic learning-poor children and those with learning difficulties at all social and economic levels. (Chall, 2000, p. 182)

Compare this statement to the gist of the five columns referred to above. Each, with the exception of the article about teaching portfolios, promotes a studentcentered approach to learning without recognizing that other successful approaches may also exist. What does this suggest about diversity in Research and Teaching in Developmental Education and in the culture of the developmental education world? (Even the column about teaching portfolios takes a progressive approach, although it is not about students, so it cannot be student-centered.)

Progressivism in developmental education is not limited to one journal, of course; it is pervasive. For example, the theme of the National Association for Developmental Education's 27lh Annual Conference, in February 2003, is "Harmony in Diversity: An Exploration in Developmental Education." This title tells us much about the political correctness of the conference organizers but very little about the substance of the conference. Even if it could be proven empirically that "harmony in diversity" actually exists, which is highly debatable, one still must wonder: Why should developmental educators devote an entire conference to it? Will exploring the vague notion of harmony in diversity help educators teach their students to write coherent sentences, improve their vocabulary, learn simple algebra concepts, or find Iraq on a map? Can anyone seriously suggest that a conference with the aforementioned title will engage in any in-depth, unbiased exploration of the possible value of traditional educational pedagogy versus the fashionable progressive approaches currently taken for granted on campuses as "best practice"?