State Policies on Remediation at Public Colleges and Universities
Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College
By Hunter R. Boylan, D. Patrick Saxon, and Heather M. Boylan
National Center for Developmental Education
Introduction
As this report notes elsewhere, the role of the federal government in remedial education is minimal. The only federal legislation dealing with remediation is the Higher Education Act (Higher Education Act of 1984, 1985). Provisions of this act impact only upon the amount of Title IV federal financial aid that can be applied to paying for enrollment in remedial courses and funding for remedial education activities at developing institutions supported by Title III grants. There is no national policy on remediation in U.S. higher education, only state policy.
The nation’s public higher education activities are typically organized into some sort of statewide higher education system. These systems are generally coordinated by an administrative agency established by the legislature to oversee higher education. These bodies are referred to as state higher education executive offices (SHEEOs). They frequently act on behalf of the state legislature to ensure compliance with state laws or establish their own policies based on what is considered to be in the best interest of the state higher education system as a whole. Consequently, the fate of remedial education in the U.S. is almost entirely determined by state higher education system policy or legislative policy.
To develop an understanding of the status of remedial education nationally, therefore, state policies must be analyzed. This study attempts to accomplish this through the collection and analysis of policy statements generated by state higher education executive offices.
Method
Information for
this study was gathered through a telephone survey of state higher education
executive offices in the United States.
All state higher education coordinating agencies or governing bodies
were identified through the State Higher Education Executive Officers
organization in Denver, Colorado. Staff
members of the National Center for Developmental Education (NCDE) then made
telephone calls to all state higher education executive offices and: (a) identified the officer responsible for
academic policies, (b) asked that officer a series of questions about policies
governing remedial courses, and (c) requested copies of any written policy
statements concerning remedial courses.
For each telephone contact, a written record was kept of: (a) the contact person responding, (b) the
date of contact, and (c) a summary of the conversation. Follow-up calls and email conversations were
then used to clarify policy information where necessary. Of the 50 States contacted, 44 responded to
the telephone survey and 20 provided copies of state policy documents.
Replies
to telephone inquiries for each state were categorized by topic. Several general patterns of state policy
regarding remediation were identified through these categories. This information was then organized
according to response patterns and included in a database. NCDE staff also reviewed these statements
and a similar process was used to classify and categorize these for
analysis. Analysis of state policy
documents was then conducted to identify typical issues, policies, and trends
influencing developmental education. A
review of available research on state-level higher education policy was also
conducted as a guide to analysis of telephone survey results and higher
education coordinating agency documents.
Findings
Providers of Remediation
Of the states providing information for this survey, the vast majority permitted remedial courses to be offered at both universities and community colleges. Twenty-seven of 44 respondents permitted both universities and community colleges to offer remedial courses without restrictions (see Table 1). Eleven of these states had written policies stipulating that, although universities were free to offer remedial courses, community colleges were considered to be the primary providers of remediation in that state.
Table 1
States Permitting Remedial Courses To Be Provided
By Community Colleges and Universities
Without Restriction
_________________________________________________________
Alaska *Alabama
*Arkansas *Connecticut
Delaware *Illinois
Indiana Iowa
Kansas Kentucky
Louisiana Maine
*Maryland Michigan
Minnesota Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey North Carolina
Ohio Oklahoma
*Oregon Pennsylvania
South Dakota *Tennessee
Vermont West Virginia
___________________________________________________________
*
Although these states permit remedial courses to be offered at the university
level, their state higher education coordinating agencies still consider
community colleges to be the primary provider of remediation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ten additional states permitted both universities and community colleges to offer remedial courses with some restrictions (see Table 2). These restrictions included limiting the percentage of entering university students requiring remediation, limiting the number of remedial courses universities were permitted to offer, requiring university students to pay additional fees for remedial courses, or restricting remediation to less selective state universities. One state, Wisconsin, permitted universities to offer
_____________________________________________________________
Table 2
States Permitting Remedial Courses To Be Provided
By Community
Colleges and Universities With Some
Restrictions
|
State |
Type of Limitation |
|||
|
|
Targets Limits
for Remedial Enrollment |
Limits
Number of Courses Allowed At
Universities |
Limits
Remediation to Less-Selective Institutions |
Does Not
Provide State Funding For Remedial Courses |
|
California |
X |
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts |
X |
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
|
X |
|
|
|
Missouri |
|
|
X |
|
|
New York |
|
X |
|
|
|
New Mexico |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Texas |
|
X |
|
|
|
Utah |
|
|
|
X |
|
Washington |
X |
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
|
X |
remedial courses but specified that they must be offered as extension courses or on a “fee recovery” basis (University of Wisconsin System, November, 1991).
When those states permitting remedial courses to be offered at universities with and without restrictions were aggregated, a total of 38 or 86% of respondents permitted remediation at both the college and the university level. Most states, however, still considered community and technical colleges to be the primary providers of remedial courses regardless of whether or not they permitted remedial courses to be offered at state universities. No state reported prohibiting or limiting remedial courses among community or technical colleges.
Survey responses indicated that seven states relegated or planned to relegate remedial courses exclusively to community and technical colleges (see Table 3). Five states, Arizona, Florida, Montana, South Carolina, and Virginia specifically prohibited universities from offering remedial courses. Colorado did not specifically prohibit universities from offering remedial courses but it refused to provide state funding for such courses offered at the university level (Sharon Samson, personal communication, June 12, 1999). Although Virginia law stated that universities should make arrangements with local community colleges to provide remediation, this stipulation was qualified by indicating it should be done “to the extent practicable” (Russell, 1998). Georgia had made plans to phase out remediation in its state universities by the year 2001 (General Accounting Office, 1997).
In addition to state policies relegating remediation to community colleges, the City University of New York (CUNY) Trustees also voted to eliminate remediation as part of recent efforts to put an end to open admissions at CUNY universities (Roueche & Roueche, 1999). Although the legality of this policy was still being tested in court, if implemented, it would require those students needing remediation to resolve their deficiencies through attending community colleges, participating in summer programs, or enrolling in remedial programs provided by private contractors of learning services (Renfro & Armour-Garb, 1999).
_____________________________________________________________
Table
3
States Requiring
That Remedial Courses Be
Offered Only in Community or Technical Colleges
_____________________________________________________________
Arizona **Colorado
*Georgia Florida
Montana South Carolina
Virginia
_____________________________________________________________
* Plans to phase out remediation in
universities by 2001.
**Does
not specifically prohibit remedial courses at universities but does not provide
state funding for them.
Source:
Russell (1998).
Assessment and Placement of Students in Remedial Courses
Most experts in the field have recommended mandatory assessment and placement for incoming students in order to determine who needs remediation and to insure they receive it in a timely manner (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; Casazza & Silverman, 1996; Morante, 1989). The assessment of entering students and their placement into appropriate courses has been established as a major foundation of successful remediation at all levels.
Roueche and Roueche (1999), for instance, pointed out that “colleges in states that require assessment and placement report that student retention and success levels improved when mandatory policies were enforced” (p. 47). In spite of this, just over half of the states have actually implemented policies that require colleges and universities to engage in the assessment of incoming students.
This does not mean that it is standard practice in colleges and universities to ignore the assessment of incoming students. It only means that, in about half of the states in the U.S., assessment is not required by state policy. This study’s telephone survey of state higher education agencies indicates that colleges and universities in practically all states assess incoming students.
Furthermore, practically every university in the country requires students to take either the SAT or the ACT test as part of the admission process. These scores are frequently used for placement purposes or, at least, to determine which students are required to participate in further assessment testing. In most states, however, issues such as the use of assessment, the types of instruments employed, and whether placement based on assessment is mandatory or voluntary are left up to individual institutions.
According to a recent SHEEO survey (Russell, 1998), 26 states have some state policy encouraging or requiring assessment of incoming students by all state colleges or universities. Of these, 15 states specify that students are to be assessed using some measure beyond ACT or SAT scores (see Table 4).
Four states, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Texas, have worked with major testing companies to develop their own assessment instruments for placement purposes. These states, along with Arkansas, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia have also mandated that students are to be placed on the basis of their assessment. Eleven states have required that either the SAT or the ACT test be used for assessment purposes, at least for university students. Nevada is the only state that has required that the SAT or ACT test be used for both community college and university assessment and placement purposes.
Table 4
Policies of States Requiring Assessment and Placement
|
State |
Type of Assessment and Placement Policy |
|||
|
|
Requires Assessment |
Requires Placement |
Specifies Tests to be Used |
Have Developed State Tests |
|
Arkansas |
X |
X |
|
|
|
California |
X |
|
|
|
|
*Florida |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
Georgia |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Illinois |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Mississippi |
X |
X |
|
|
|
*New Hampshire |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
New Jersey |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
New York |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
*North Carolina |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Oklahoma |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Texas |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Tennessee |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
Virginia |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
West Virginia |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Washington |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
|
||||
*Applies
to Community Colleges only.
Source: National Center for Developmental Education
survey of SHEEOs (1999) and Russell (1998).
_____________________________________________________________
Credit Provided for Remedial Courses
According the National Center for Education Statistics (1991), colleges and universities typically deal with the issue of credit for remedial courses in one of four ways.
1. They offer regular credit counting toward degree requirements for remedial courses.
2. They offer elective credit counting toward degree requirements for remedial courses.
3. They offer institutional credit not counting toward a degree.
4. They offer no credit for remedial courses.
A recent SHEEO study (Russell, 1998) reported that 25 states had policies specifying what form of credit could be offered for remedial courses at state colleges and universities. Of these 25 states, only one, Montana, permitted individual institutions to determine what type of credit could be offered for remedial courses. The other 24 states stipulated that remedial courses could neither be counted toward degree requirements nor applied as transfer credit to another institution.
A general trend during the past 25 years has been to eliminate regular credit toward either degree requirements or electives for remedial courses. A survey conducted more than a decade ago by the National Center for Education Statistic’s (1985) reported that 30% of U.S. institutions offered remedial courses for degree or elective credit. Ten years later, the National Center for Education Statistics (1996) reported that only 16% of U.S. institutions offered remedial courses for degree credit. Apparently, a substantial decline in the practice of offering remedial courses for credit took place in American higher education during the 1980s and 1990s.
In recent years, institutional credit has emerged as the most typical form of credit provided by colleges and universities for remedial courses. Community colleges have shown a particular inclination to move from degree credit to institutional credit for remedial courses over the past 30 years (see Table 5). In 1970, 32% of U.S. community colleges offered some form of regular academic credit, frequently transferable credit, for remedial courses. By 1995, only 9% of community colleges offered remedial courses for either subject requirements or elective credit and very few offered these courses for transfer credit. At the same time, the percentage of community colleges offering non-transferable institutional credit for remedial courses increased from 63% to 81%. The percentage of community colleges not offering remedial courses for credit also doubled between 1970 and 1995, from 5% to 10%. A very clear trend has existed, therefore, for remedial courses to carry institutional credit. This trend has been particularly apparent in the decade of the 1990s.
Table 5
Types of Credit for Remedial Courses in Community
Colleges,
1970-1995
|
Year |
Type of Credit |
||
|
|
Degree Credit |
Institutional Credit |
No Credit |
|
1970 |
32% |
63% |
5% |
|
1984 |
25% |
67% |
8% |
|
1995 |
9% |
81% |
10% |
Source for 1970 data: Cross, (1976)
Source
for 1984 data: Wright, (1985)
Source for 1995 data: NCES, (1996)
_____________________________________________________________
Financial
Aid for Remedial Courses
Federal guidelines under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1984 (1985) permit financial aid to pay for remedial courses provided students who take them are accepted to the institution, enrolled in a recognized program of study, and making reasonable progress toward a degree (Goldstein, 1997). Students receiving federal loans may use this money toward remedial courses as long as they are enrolled at least half-time. Students accepted to institutions on the condition that they take remedial courses may receive federal financial aid for up to a year while completing remediation (Goldstein, 1997).
Several members of Congress have expressed disapproval of this policy because they consider remedial courses to represent pre-postsecondary level work. Providing financial aid for remedial courses, therefore, has compromised “Title IV’s primary public policy objective: funding postsecondary education” (General Accounting Office, 1997, p. 1).
In 1996, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) was asked to explore the extent to which federal financial aid is being spent to support remedial courses. Using a survey of 758 community colleges and universities combined with case studies of nine colleges and universities, the GAO developed an estimate of the amount of federal financial aid spent on remedial courses. The report (General Accounting Office, 1997) concluded that:
our calculations show that no more than 4 percent
of the financial aid granted to underclassmen could
have paid for remedial courses. Consequently… it
is unclear whether eliminating financial aid assoc-
iated with remedial education would have presented
any meaningful opportunities to reprogram Title IV
funds. (p. 10)
These findings effectively put an end to the debate over federal financial aid for remedial education. With such a small amount of federal funds involved, few members of Congress felt that the situation warranted legislation to eliminate federal aid for remedial courses.
Because their colleges and universities rely heavily on federal financial aid, few states are eager to establish restrictions that would keep students taking remedial courses from receiving it. In fact, 22 states have policies specifically counting remedial course credit toward full-time status for financial aid purposes. Texas counts remedial courses for financial aid purposes but stipulates that this may only be done for the equivalent of one full academic year. Only one state, Kansas, specifically prohibits counting remedial courses toward full-time status for financial aid purposes (Russell, 1998). The remaining 26 states have no policies regarding remedial course credit and financial aid, thus leaving the matter up to individual institutions.
Efforts to Reduce the Need for Remedial
Courses
The most common state policy response to the need for remediation among entering college students is to encourage better high school preparation. A recent SHEEO report (Russell, 1998) categorizes these responses as follows:
(a) early outreach programs,
(b) precollege communications with high school students,
(c) counseling programs for college-bound students,
(d) summer bridge programs for college-bound students,
(e) high school students taking college courses for credit,
(f) high school feedback systems,
(g) articulation between high school and college faculty,
(h) professional development for K-12 personnel, and
(i) resource sharing among high schools and colleges.
The most popular of these approaches is that of sending communications to high school students informing them of college requirements, admission procedures, and other expectations of state colleges and universities. Three quarters of the states utilized this method of promoting better college preparation among high school students. Interestingly enough, most respondents to a recent SHEEO survey indicated that they consider this method to be only marginally effective in improving high school preparation (Russell, 1998).
Other popular approaches to reducing the need for college level remediation are:
(a) outreach programs providing motivational and learning opportunities to high-risk high school students,
(b) feedback programs reporting to high schools the number of their graduates who required remedial courses in college, and
(c) school/college articulation programs in which high school teachers work with college faculty to improve instruction at all levels.
About 30 states provide one or more of these programs.
The least common approach to reducing the need for remediation is that of resource sharing. In this approach colleges and universities provide mobile laboratories or distance learning targeted to high school students in economically depressed or rural areas. California, Idaho, Kentucky, and Nebraska appear to be the states most active in this area. Although this approach is relatively uncommon, it, along with school/college articulation and early outreach efforts, is considered to be among the most promising techniques for improving the academic preparation of high school graduates (Russell, 1998).
Discussion
It is worth noting that much of the current debate over provision of remedial courses at the college level has followed the efforts of various states to require mandatory assessment. New Jersey was the first state to require assessment in the early 1980s (Morante, 1989). New Jersey was quickly followed by Florida and Texas. Until states required that all entering college students be assessed no one knew exactly how many of these students required remediation.
Once statewide data from assessment was available, it became apparent that a rather substantial number of entering college students required remediation. The National Center for Education Statistics (1996), for instance, estimated that about 30% of the nation’s entering college students had participated in remedial courses.
Perhaps when states administrators decided to mandate assessment, no one realized how many students would indicate a need for remediation as a result of this assessment. Certainly the numbers of students who ended up in remedial courses was probably larger than anyone expected. The resulting surprise at the large numbers of remedial courses required as a result of assessment testing might have been a major stimulus to the debate over college-level remediation.
Several questions have emerged as a result of this debate. For example, who should be tested, who should offer remedial courses, how should they receive credit, and what should be done to reduce the need for remediation?
It is interesting to note that, contrary to popular opinion, there does not appear to be a general movement among states toward relegating remedial education to community colleges. A movement does exist to identify community colleges as the primary providers of remedial courses in most states. This is not, however, accompanied by major efforts to eliminate remedial courses in universities. Instead, many states are implementing plans designed to improve the preparation of high school graduates while allowing universities to make their own decisions about the provision of remedial courses.
Apparently, the assumption behind such moves is that if high school graduates are better prepared, the need for remedial courses will decline at all levels of postsecondary education. Universities will then reduce or eliminate remedial courses of their own volition.
From the policy-making standpoint, most states also recognize that improvement in the preparation of high school graduates still will not reduce the need for adult learners to participate in remedial courses. Restrictions placed on remediation for recent high school graduates generally do not apply to adult learners, typically defined as those 25 years of age or older.
Another finding of this study is that almost all states encourage or require assessment testing for incoming students. However, only half require that students be placed on the basis of this assessment. This certainly runs contrary to the opinions of experts regarding the importance of mandatory placement on the basis of assessment (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; Casazza & Silverman, 1996; Morante, 1989; Roueche & Roueche, 1999).
A trend toward eliminating academic credit for remedial courses appears to have developed over the past 15 years. National Center for Education Statistics’ (1996) data makes it clear that institutions permitting regular cre