Remedial Courses: Estimates of Student Participation and the Volume of Remediation in U.S. Community Colleges

 

Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College

By Hunter R. Boylan and D. Patrick Saxon

National Center for Developmental Education

 

Introduction

 

          Remedial education in basic skill subjects represents one of the largest curriculum areas in the nation’s community colleges.  A substantial percentage of students entering almost any community college will find themselves enrolled in one or more remedial courses (McCabe & Day, 1998).  

Although remedial courses represent a major curriculum commitment for U.S. community colleges, little data is available to identify the actual numbers of students participating in these courses.  Furthermore, relatively few efforts have been made to explore the volume of student participation in various community college remedial courses.

          This report explores basic information on the scope of remedial education in U.S. community colleges.  It attempts to identify the number of institutions offering remedial courses, the number of community college students enrolled in remedial courses, the volume of student participation in various remedial courses, the average number of different courses offered in various remedial subjects, and the percentage of U.S. community colleges providing remediation.  Using data from available national studies, it develops a series of estimates of the extent of remediation in U.S. community colleges.

Method

For the purposes of this study, remedial courses were defined only as those in the subject areas of reading, writing, and mathematics.  English as a second language (ESL) was not considered as a remedial course.  Although study skills courses were often included as part of a typical battery of remedial courses, they were not included as remedial courses for the purpose of this study.  

The decision to exclude these courses was made for the purpose of maintaining consistency with other studies.  The major sources of national data on remediation were databases developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).   The NCES considered neither ESL nor study skills courses to be remedial.

A review of the literature was conducted in order to identify sources of data on remedial courses and student participation in them.   Based on this review, it was determined that the National Center for Education Statistics, the American Council on Education, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the National Study of Developmental Education contained the only national level data on the topic.

Because some of the specific information called for in this study was not provided in the literature, a variety of methods, described in the appropriate sections of the report, were used to extrapolate figures from available data. 

Essentially, these methods involved estimation based on assumptions.  Such methods were far from scientific and the findings of this report were, therefore, highly speculative.  However, the data used was considered to be the best available from credible sources.  The assumptions made were considered to be reasonable based on the researchers’ experience with community colleges and knowledge of the community college literature.  Furthermore, these estimates were submitted to several experts in the field for review.  The experts consulted considered them to be reasonable approximations of the actual scope of community college remediation.

Findings

Number of Students Taking Remedial Courses Community Colleges

 

A review of the literature revealed that no study had yet identified the actual number of students taking remedial courses in U.S. community colleges.  Although the National Center for Education Statistics studied college level remediation extensively (NCES, 1991; 1996), their studies did not identify a specific number of students participating in community college remediation.  An American Council of Education study of remedial education (Knopp, 1996) did not attempt to identify the number of community college students participating in remedial courses.   Similarly, the National Study of Developmental Education (1992) did not measure the number of students taking remedial courses.  However, by extrapolating from existing data, an estimate of the number of students typically enrolled in remedial courses was made.  Admittedly, the extrapolation involved a considerable amount of guesswork.  Consequently, the figures presented here should be considered as “best estimates” rather than hard data.

          The National Center for Education Statistics (1996) survey of remedial education in higher education during the Fall of 1995 was generally regarded as the most reliable recent study on this topic.  Using the Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS), NCES surveyed 847 randomly selected institutions representative of all American higher education institutions.  A major finding of this study was that 41% of the students entering public community colleges in the Fall of 1995 were enrolled in one or more remedial courses.  In private 2-year colleges, 26% of entering students were enrolled in one or more remedial courses.

NCES (1998) data also indicated that in the fall of 1995 a total of 963,000 first-time students were enrolled in U.S. public community colleges and 56,000 first-time students were enrolled in private community colleges.  Forty-one percent of students attending a public community college for the first time, therefore, yielded a total of 394,830 enrolled in at least one remedial course during the Fall of 1995.  Twenty-six percent of the 56,000 students entering a private community college for the first time yielded a total of 14,560.  Adding these two figures, a total of 409,390 first-time, community college students took one or more remedial courses in the Fall of 1995.

According to the American Council on Education, however, first-time students made up only about 56% of those taking remedial courses at any given time.  A large number of those enrolled in remedial courses also included students repeating a remedial course from a previous term, those who were unable to register for a remedial course in their first semester, or those who deliberately delayed taking remedial courses until later in their college careers.

Assuming that 409,390 first-time students represented only 56% of the total enrollment in remedial courses, a division of 409,390 by .56 yielded an estimate of the total number of students enrolled in one or more remedial courses.  This resulted in an estimated total of 731,054 students taking at least one remedial course in the Fall of 1995. 

Figures for spring enrollments in 1996 were not available from any of the sources consulted.  A total number of students taking remedial courses in the Fall and Spring of 1995-96, therefore, was estimated.  Observation and experience suggested that slightly more community college students took remedial courses in the fall than in the spring.  A reasonable estimate was that of those taking remedial courses in community colleges, 60% did so in the Fall and 40% in the Spring.  Granted this assumption, an estimate of the number of students taking developmental courses during the year was obtained by dividing 731,054 by .60.  The resulting total of 1,218,422 represented an estimate of the number of students taking one or more remedial courses at some point during the fall and spring of 1995-96.  It should be noted that this estimate included an unknown number of students who took one or more remedial courses in the fall and had to repeat one or more of them during the spring.

Bearing in mind that these 1,218,422 students were taking one or more remedial courses, the actual number of registrations (duplicated head count) for community college remedial courses during this period was probably somewhat higher.   It should also be noted that this estimate included only those students participating in remedial courses in reading, writing, and mathematics. 

In actuality, a variety of additional remedial courses were taught in other subjects.  NCES (1996) reported, for instance, that 36% of the nation’s public community colleges offered remedial courses in subjects such as general science, biology, chemistry, and physics.  This information was consistent with the National Study of Developmental Education, which found that remedial science courses were found in about a third of U. S. community colleges (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992).   

Although the structured remedial course was the most common method used by community colleges to deliver remediation, several other methods were also used frequently.  Examples included tutoring programs, computerized learning laboratories, or learning assistance programs that featured a variety of individualized instructional programs.  According to the National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992) over 90% of U.S. community colleges used these methods to either support remedial courses or serve as a substitute for them.   In addition, an estimated 700,000 students, many of these attending community colleges, were served by federally funded TRIO Programs which frequently provide some form of noncourse-based remediation (Boylan, 1995).  Consequently, this study’s estimated number of students participating in remedial courses understated the total number of students that participated in some form of remediation in the nation’s community colleges, perhaps by a significant margin.

Participation in Community College Remediation by Subject Area

Table 1

Number and Percent of First Time Community College Students

Taking Remedial Courses in the Fall of 1995

 

Institution Type	Subject Area			Total Enrollment
	Reading	Writing	Math
Public 2-Year	20% 192,600	25% 240,750	34% 327,420		760,770
Private 2-Year	11% 6,160	18% 10,800	23% 12,880		29,840
All	198,760	251,550	340,300		790,610

*N = 1,019,000 first-time students

Sources:  National Center for Education Statistics (1996); National Center for Education Statistics (1998)

 

As these figures show, 198,760 first-time community college students enrolled in remedial reading, 251,550 enrolled in remedial writing and 340,300 enrolled in remedial mathematics in the Fall of 1995.  Mathematics was clearly the remedial course with the highest enrollment followed by writing and reading.  The total duplicated head count for first-time student enrollment in remedial courses at community colleges during the Fall of 1995 was estimated, therefore, at 790,610 with the largest percentage of this total being enrolled in remedial mathematics.  

Community colleges typically offered several different levels of remedial courses in each subject area (NCES, 1996).  This was necessary due to the varying degrees of academic preparation brought to their institutions by entering community college students (Roueche & Roueche, 1999).  Some students, for instance, entered the community college having a sound grasp of arithmetic but either forgot or never learned algebra.  Others were unable to perform even simple arithmetic operations such as finding percentages or manipulating fractions.  Multiple levels of remedial courses enabled the institution to respond to this wide diversity in the academic backgrounds of underprepared students.  Ideally, the availability of several levels of remediation allowed students to be placed appropriately along a continuum of skill levels according to course content (Boylan, Bonham. Claxton, & Bliss, 1992). 

 

As part of its survey of remediation in higher education during the Fall of 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics asked institutions to identify the number of courses offered in the same subject representing different levels of remediation.  The findings of this survey are reported as averages in Table 2.  Two things are obvious from this table.  The first is that public community colleges tended to offer more different levels of remedial courses than private community colleges.  This is, perhaps, due to the greater selectivity of private 2-year colleges.  The second thing obvious from Table 2 is that community colleges generally offered a variety of levels of remedial courses.

__________________________________________________________________

Table 2

Average Number of Different Level Remedial Courses Offered

By Community Colleges in the Fall of 1995

Institutional Type	Subject
	Reading	Writing	Mathematics
Public 2-Year	2.7	2.7	3.6
Private 2-Year	*	1.2	1.3

* Inadequate data

 

          The figures cited in Table 2 were based on averages and appear, therefore, as fractions expressed in the table.  In reality, it appeared that the typical public community college offered two or three different remedial reading courses, two or three different remedial writing courses, and three or four different remedial mathematics courses.

          These findings are consistent with information obtained from the National Study of Developmental Education.  This study indicated that community colleges tended to offer at least two remedial reading courses and a study skills course, at least two levels of remedial writing, and at least three levels of remedial mathematics (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992).

The review of remedial course descriptions undertaken for the National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992) indicated that the content of these courses covered a considerable range of skills.  The content of remedial reading courses ranged from word recognition to vocabulary development to critical thinking.  The content of remedial writing ranged from basic grammar to basic composition to term paper writing.  In remedial mathematics the content ranged from basic arithmetic up to intermediate algebra.

Percentage of Community Colleges Offering Remedial Courses

          It is a widely held belief that all community colleges offer at least some remedial courses.  After all, providing opportunities for students to develop the skills necessary for collegiate success is a frequently stated component of the mission of U.S. community colleges. 

The available data supported this belief.  The National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan, Bonham, Claxton, & Bliss, 1992) reported that 95% of community colleges offered at least some remedial courses.  The National Center for Education Statistics (1996) reported that 99% of public community colleges offered remedial courses in at least one subject.  There were, however, substantial differences in the number of public and private community colleges providing remedial courses. 

Comparing data reported in Table 3, it is apparent that private 2-year community and junior colleges were less likely to offer remedial courses than public community colleges.  Fewer than one in three of these institutions offered remedial reading and fewer than two of three offer either remedial writing or remedial mathematics.  As

---

                                              Table 3

Percent of Public and Private Community Colleges

Offering Remedial Courses in the Fall of 1995

 

Institution Type	Subject
	Reading	Writing	Mathematics
Public 2 Year	99%	99%	99%
Private 2 Year	29%	61%	62%

 

 

As noted earlier in this report, private 2-year colleges tended to be somewhat more selective than public 2-year colleges and would, therefore, have perceived themselves as having less need to provide remediation. 

          Although these differences may be worth noting, they are unlikely to have much impact on the overall scope of remedial education in U.S. community colleges.  In 1996 there were only 116 private community or junior colleges in the U.S. comprising only 9.5% of the nation’s 2-year institutions.     

Discussion

 

          It is clear from the data presented here that remediation is a widespread endeavor in U.S. community colleges.  Forty one percent of first-time community college students enroll in remedial courses.  Over 1.2 million students participate annually in community college remedial courses and 99% of the nation’s public 2-year institutions offer at least some remedial courses. 

It should also be noted that these are conservative estimates.  The data used to arrive at these estimates is based on students actually enrolled in community college remedial courses.  Even though placement in remedial courses is mandatory at the majority of the nation’s community colleges, there are still a large number permitting voluntary placement.  According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers (Russell, 1998), only about half the states in the U.S. require assessment and placement of entering college students.  As a consequence, the figures cited here include only those students who placed into remedial courses and took them, not those who may have placed into remediation but avoided it.

In addition, as noted earlier, remedial courses are also offered in subject areas other than reading, writing, and mathematics.  Also, remediation is accomplished in a variety of ways other than participation in remedial courses.  In Texas alone, an estimated 10,000 community college students have participated in noncourse-based remediation provided by tutoring programs and learning assistance centers in 1995 (Boylan, et al., 1996).  The figures cited here, therefore, neglect an unknown but probably substantial number of community college students.  In essence, the findings of this report definitely understate the actual level of student participation in community college remediation.  Given all these factors, a more accurate estimate of the number of community college students participating in some form of remediation (including course-based and noncourse-based remediation, remedial science courses, and lower level study skills courses) would probably be higher than our original estimate of 1,218,422. 

          It should also be noted that the volume of students participating in remediation appears to have increased in the decade of the 1990s.  The National Center for Education Statistics (1991) reported that 36% of students entering public community colleges enrolled in one or more remedial courses in the Fall of 1989.  By 1995, that figure had increased to 41% (NCES, 1996). 

In 1989, community colleges offered an average of three different remedial mathematics courses (NCES, 1991).  By 1995, the average had increased to 3.6 (NCES, 1996).  The NCES report did not cite the average number of reading and writing courses offered by community colleges in 1989.  One might reasonably assume, however, that these also increased.

The 5% increase in the number of students taking remedial courses represents a rather substantial increase for a period of only 6 years.  The increase in the average number of levels of remedial courses during this period is also significant.

          One fact that has not changed in the 1990s is that the greatest need for remediation is still in the area of mathematics.  Almost half again as many students participate in remedial mathematics courses as participate in either remedial reading or remedial writing.  Mathematics has remained the remedial course with the largest enrollments since data was first collected on this topic in the 1983-84 academic year.

          The fact that one of five entering community college students needs remedial reading and one of four needs remedial writing is also important.  A substantial number of students entering community colleges in the U.S. clearly need to develop basic skills if they are to be successful in academe. 

          It is widely known that large numbers of those entering U.S. community colleges are not prepared to pursue college-level work without some form of remediation.  This report adds to that body of knowledge by providing estimates of how just how extensive the enterprise known as remedial education is in U.S. community colleges.

References

 

          Boylan, H. (1995).  The scope of developmental education:  Some basic information on the field.  Research in Developmental Education, 12(4), 1-4.

 

          Boylan, H., Bonham, B., Abraham, A., Morante, E., Anderson, J., Ramirez, G., Allen, R., Vadillo, M., & Saxon, P.  (1996).  An evaluation of the Texas Academic Skills Program.  Austin, TX:  Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

 

Boylan, H., Bonham, B., Claxton, C., & Bliss, L. (November, 1992).  The state of the art in developmental education:  Report of a national study.  Paper presented at the First National Conference on Research in Developmental Education, Charlotte, NC.

 

The Nation:  Students.  (1992, August 26). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 5.

 

Attitudes and characteristics of freshmen, Fall 1995.  (1992, September 2). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 10.

 

          Knopp, L. (1996).  Remedial education:  An undergraduate student profile.  American Council on Education:  Research Briefs, 6(80), 1-11.

 

          National Center for Education Statistics.  (1991).  College level remediation in the Fall of 1989.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

 

          National Center for Education Statistics.  (1996).  Remedial education at higher education institutions, Fall, 1995.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.     

 

          National Center for Education Statistics.  (1998).  Digest of education statistics.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

 

          Russell, A. (1998).  Statewide colleges admissions, student preparation, and remediation policies and programs.  Denver, CO:  State Higher Education Executive Officers.

 

Resources Consulted

 

          Adelman, C.  (1995).  The new college course map and transcript files.  U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

 

          Institute for Higher Education Policy (December, 1998).  College remediation:  What it is, what it costs, what’s at stake.  Washington, DC:  Author.

 

          National Center for Education Statistics (1985).  The condition of education.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

 

          National Center for Education Statistics (1990).  The condition of education.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

 

          National Center for Education Statistics (1998).  The condition of education.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.