Removing remedial courses: mixed results

There was a recent study that I can't find right now that showed slight improvement in retention when remedial courses are removed. The study results that I'm linking to below found that removing remedial courses initially results in students completing more courses the first couple of years, but the improvement is wiped out the last couple of years. In the end, replacing remedial courses with co-requisite courses did not result in a higher graduation rate for associate or bachelor degrees. When students do graduate, they are not graduating faster without the remedial courses.

A director at the Teachers College at Columbia University argues that, just because the co-requisite model is not working, does not mean that we should go back to the old model. Here's my opinion - other than the waste of money, there's nothing wrong with students being weeded out in developmental courses. Not everyone is cut out for college. Currently, college instructors are complaining about pressure to lower standards because their students are illiterate and/or innumerate.

Sadly, some people probably would have been successful in college if their K-12 schools had been better, but it should not be colleges' job to redo 13 years of grade school. I think students needing remediation should be directed to free and low cost resources, such as the Khan Academy, so they can come back and score higher on placement tests. This will allow them to work at their own pace instead of paying for non-credit, developmental courses.


https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-tenn-study-corequisite-courses/

 

My school had both remedial and co classes. They also offered remedial classes the summer session before school started. I think more often than not it “punished” students who did not have the means to have a better high school education or didnt have access to resources to do as well. It was also demotivating for students to have to take classes that did not count towards their degree.

The problem I see with this “at your own pace” model is that students dont always have the time or resources. If, for example they dont place into a required class, but need to take it first semester, then they are already behind.

I think instead of suggesting one style over another, schools should offer all types and students can decide on what works for them. Some people need structure and some do not. Also to note, Kahn Academy is great, but it doesnt teach everything.

 

If they don't have time for free, self-paced courses, then they don't have time for college. Remediation should be done before starting a degree program.

Khan Academy doesn't need to teach everything. Placement tests determine competency in math, reading, and writing. Those are the only three areas that need to be at a minimum level for someone to be successful in other college courses.

 

When I taught at the University of Phoenix for three years more than 20 years ago, they had a dilemma. Initially, UoP required 2 years of undergraduate study for admission. As they bumped into this limitation, it became clear that they needed to teach more lower-division courses and admit people with fewer credits. So, the did that, and lowered the number of required credits for admission to 20. And, when they bumped up against that, they decided to start admitting people with zero college credits. And then the trouble began.

Working adults who have been out of school for years--or decades, even--are often not prepared for college. The dropout rate for these people--"open admission" candidates--was horribly high. This was a problem for the school's reputation, of course, but also for the operation of the school. It's expensive to recruit, process, and then educate people, only to have them drop out after generating very little revenue in return. (I'll return to that in a minute or two.) So, UoP developed a 5-course series of introductory courses designed to get the zero-credit people better prepared for the rigors of college study. (And yes, UoP was quite rigorous.) These courses covered topics like writing, speaking, math, social sciences, etc. And they were all for-credit, counting towards students degrees.

I was a General Studies College Campus Chair when this was implemented. I recruited faculty to teach these courses, and taught quite a few of them myself over the three years I was there (one full-time and two as an adjunct). This series was very successful, measured in two distinct ways. First, retention for this population went way up. Everyone benefitted from that. Second, since the break-even point (where revenues caught up with up-front costs and where marginal revenues exceeded marginal costs) was four courses. That's right. If we could retain a student for four courses, he/she became profitable. I suspect it was no coincidence that the introductory series was, thus, 5 courses long.

NB: Regarding marginal costs, most of that was dedicated to administration and student retention. Specifically, costs for academic activities were not to exceed 8 percent of operating revenue. That's why they could get to the break-even point so quickly. It also gives you an idea of just how little academics played into the overall operation. (But again, UoP courses and the learning methodology employed was HARD. Students who walked across the stage to receive a UoP diploma really earned it. (And paid for it!)

 

UoP sent their zero credit students to Axia College, which was under Western International University and later moved to UoP. Axia College split algebra into two courses. The first half was equivalent to developmental math. Even though this course was for credit, not one college that I sent my transcripts to would grant credit for the course because it was obviously developmental.

For me, this was a total waste of money, and I wish I had discovered Central Texas College earlier, which already had a lot of experience in distance education. I had above average SAT scores and was in honors and AP classes, so no traditional college would have required me to take remedial courses. This is the con for making everyone take developmental courses based on number of earned credits. I paid for a non-transferable course that I did not need because I was already an above average math student.

 

It all comes down to readin', writin', and 'rithmetic.

 

There's a number of articles about the remedial course trap, for example this opinion article (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/cuny-ending-the-curse-of-remedial-math.html?unlocked_article_code=1.N04.CxUw.3pSWl3uw-CZt&smid=url-share

Essentially, because students who take remedial courses take longer to graduate, they can run out of money or have changed circumstances and end up dropping out. In addition to the much higher dropout rate, they leave with far less credit than they otherwise would, because the remedial courses don't count. The issue is, of course, that many students actually need those remedial courses. Separating those who need them from those who are incorrectly streamed in is part of the issue schools need to correct.

 

The students who are streamed into remedial courses definitely need them or at least a co-requisite course. University of Phoenix was atypical. Most schools place students in remedial courses based on their test scores, not the number of previous college credits earned. Plus, University of Phoenix, technically, did not have remedial courses, at that time. They built the developmental courses into the general education section of the associate's degree program. For-profits, generally, do not have a process for evaluating test scores because they don't expect to have too many applicants who have taken the SAT or ACT or who have scored well on those exams. University of Phoenix came up with a one-size-fits-all solution to their low graduation rate instead of assessing the levels of individual applicants.

At community colleges, if you didn't take the SAT or ACT, or if you scored low on those exams, the applicant would take the Accuplacer, Compass, or a similar placement test. Central Texas College, the Alamo Community Colleges, and University of Houston - Victoria looked at my SAT scores and told me I was ready to enroll in English Comp and College Algebra. This is the norm. They did not accept my writing courses from Axia College as equivalent to English Comp I and II just like they didn't accept Axia College's Algebra IA course. TESU accepted the writing courses as equivalent to English Comp, but they determined that Algebra IA was developmental.