Reprinted from the Journal of Developmental Education, Volume 25, Issue 2, Winter, 2001.
The Cost of Remedial Education in Higher
Education
Using the available research, those who work in this professional area
can begin to examine the service they offer in light of the cost of providing
it. This research base may simply
provide information which can be used to measure the monetary value of
remediation efforts on a broad scale, or it may provide a basis for the
formulation of a model by the individual educator to analyze the cost of
delivering remediation at the institutional level. Readers should note that this discussion
has and will continue to use the terms “remedial” and “remediation” as
population and profession descriptors.
It is understood that the term “developmental” is preferred due to the
more comprehensive nature with which it describes the efforts of those in this
profession; however, the primary research on this topic refers to these services
and the students that benefit from them as “remedial,” hence they will be
referred to as such in this discussion.
Method
The research examined in this study
was collected through: (a) searches
of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and ERIC Document
Reproduction Service databases, (b)
searches of the literature in the National Center for Developmental
Education Resource Library, (c)
informal consultation with nationally recognized experts in the field,
and (d) searches of the LEXIS-NEXUS
Academic Universe database of news media.
The research base on this topic is
very limited. In spite of any
claims made about the cost of remediation, it appears that few states or
government agencies have engaged in systematic data collection to determine
these costs. Consequently,
considerable attention in this review is given to discussion of the studies
cited.
The Studies
Study #1, Remediation in Higher
Education: Its Extent and Cost, Breneman, 1998
Study #1 used two approaches to estimate the annual cost of remedial
education in U.S. colleges and universities nationwide. Both approaches used data from states
that have actually collected information on the costs of remediation to make
national projections of these costs.
One method used data representing legislative appropriations from the
state of Texas to project national estimates. These appropriations amounted to 2.25%
of the total Texas higher education budget. Based on national higher education
appropriations of $40.5 billion, spending for remediation among U.S. colleges
and universities was estimated to be $911 million (obtained by taking 2.25% of
$40.5 billion).
Another method used expenditure data collected from a survey of Maryland
colleges and universities. In that
state remedial education accounted for 1.2% of the total expenditures for all
campuses combined. Based on the
total educational and general expenditures for public institutions of $87
billion, the national projection came to $1.05 billion (1.2% of $87
billion).
Although the two approaches yielded quite similar results, some obvious
caveats were noted. Foremost was
the assumption that Texas and Maryland were representative states with regard to
the cost of providing remedial education.
This was not known to be the case.
The data from Maryland was self-reported and, in many cases, estimated
and therefore subject to the limitations of such methods (Breneman, 1998). Revenues received from the delivery of
remediation (which of course, should be considered as an offset to costs) were
not reported. It should also be
noted that the expenditure figures cited in this report reflected only the cost
of delivering remedial courses. It
did not reflect costs of other methods of delivering remediation such as
learning laboratories, tutoring, or learning assistance programs (see Table
1).
Table 1 Breneman’s (1998) National Remedial Education Cost Projections |
|
National Cost Projection |
|
Texas education appropriations |
$911 million |
Maryland education expenditures |
$1.05 billion |
| Note: Data are from 1993-94
|
|
Study #2, Remediation in Higher
Education, Breneman and Haarlow, 1998.
This was a
follow-up to the aforementioned Breneman (1998) study. Although the methodology used in this
study was not described in great detail, it involved a survey of all 50
states. Site visits were also made
to states identified as those that regularly maintained remedial education cost
data. Fifteen states provided data,
and the reported cost of remedial education at community colleges and
universities ranged from as little as 1.2% in Maryland to as much as 7% in
Washington (see Table 2).
Five states provided remedial education cost data as a percentage of the
total community college budget.
These were California (11%), Illinois (6.5%), Texas (academic instruction
costs only; 18.8%),
Washington (6%), and Wyoming (8.8%).
Given that remedial education was more prevalent and served larger
numbers of students in community colleges, spending at these institutions
constituted a higher portion of the total budget than at universities. The study did not report on revenues
generated from remediation activities.
The authors concluded that the national spending estimate for remedial
education of about $1 billion--as Breneman (1998) projected--remained intact
after this investigation. The
authors found no evidence to contradict their original estimates. It was noted that this figure
represented quite a small percentage of the total public higher education
budget. Combining all sources of
higher education revenue from state allocations, federal support, and student
tuition this was estimated at $115 billion (Breneman & Haarlow, 1998).
Table 2 Breneman and Haarlow’s State Remediation Cost Data |
||||
State |
Remedial Cost (in millions) |
Remediation as % of Total Budget |
Remediation as % of CC Budget
|
Year |
Alabama |
$15.9 |
-- |
-- |
1995-96 |
California |
$ 9.3 |
1% |
11.0% |
1995 |
Florida |
$57.5 |
2.3% |
-- |
1995-96 |
Georgia |
$20 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Hawaii |
$1.5 |
2.1% |
-- |
-- |
Illinois |
$26.9 |
1.1% |
6.5% |
1996 |
Kentucky |
$1.4 |
-- |
-- |
1994-95 |
Maryland |
$17.6 |
1.2% |
-- |
1995 |
New Jersey |
$50 |
5.0% |
-- |
-- |
New York |
$90.7 |
-- |
-- |
1996 |
Ohio |
$32 |
-- |
-- |
1995 |
Texas |
$172 |
-- |
18.8% |
1998-99 |
Virginia |
$24-26 |
1.7% |
-- |
-- |
Washington |
$30 |
7.0% |
6.0% |
1995-96 |
Wyoming |
$7.4 |
-- |
8.8% |
1995-96 |
| Note: Costs were computed using different methods. California estimates were for the California State University System only and included ESL costs. Illinois estimates included only direct faculty salary costs. Ohio estimates included only the amount of state subsidy. Texas reported education appropriations. Kentucky and Wyoming reported their community college budgets. |
||||
Study #3, “Discussant for ‘Remediation in Higher Education: Its Extent and Cost’ by David Breneman,” Abraham, 1998
In method two, cost was computed as a function of education funds
committed to remediation. Here, a
portion of total national education expenditures that could be attributed to
remediation was calculated. Based
again on national higher education instructional expenditures ($87.1 billion)
and using estimates of the percentage of first-time undergraduate enrollment
(17%) and an estimate of the percentage of students taking remedial courses
(33%), cost projections of $407.2 million and $542.9 million were made. Again, the estimates were calculated for
an average of 9 and 12 courses, one of which was remedial, taken per year by
freshmen.
In method three, cost projections were made based on per pupil
expenditures. Based on an estimated
per student expenditure of $14,000 and a percentage of first-time freshmen
needing remediation (33%), cost projections based on one remedial course in a
schedule of 9 and 12 classes were calculated. These projections came to $260.3 million
and $347 million, respectively. (Abraham, 1998). In each of the three estimates, the
total costs of remediation were estimated to be well below $1 billion (see Table
3).
Abraham’s Remedial Education Cost Analysis |
|
Cost Estimate |
|
Freshmen remedial enrollment |
$435.5 to $580.7 million |
Funds committed to remediation |
$407.2 to $542.9 million |
$260.3 to $347 million |
|
| Note: |
|
It bears noting that Abraham’s methodology was based on averages from
both community colleges and universities.
At community colleges, the per student expenditures are considerably less
than $14,000, students typically take fewer than 12 hours of credit, and they
are often enrolled in more than one remedial course (McCabe, personal
communication, September 3, 1999).
Study #4, College
Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What’s at Stake, The Institute for
Higher Education Policy, 1998
This research examined the cost of remedial education using a case study
of the state of Arkansas. Arkansas
was chosen because it had a mandatory remediation policy and a program that
tracked student and institutional costs.
The study sought to determine the total cost of remedial education
(without regard to revenue), as well as the amount to which it was subsidized by
the state. The data were collected
by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education.
The total cost of remediation in Arkansas was reported to be $27 million
or 3% of total education expenditures for the state. Remedial education accounted for 9% of
total expenditures for community colleges and 2% for 4-year institutions. Of the total cost of remediation, the
portion represented by state subsidy was reported to be $14 million.
A comparison of costs per FTE (full-time equivalents) for remediation
versus core academic programs was made as well (see Table 4). At community colleges, the cost per FTE
for remediation was $6,709. Only
general studies programs, with a cost per FTE of $6,163, were less expensive than
remediation. Other subjects, such
as business and nursing with costs per FTE of $7,730 and $8,235 respectively,
were significantly higher (The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998).
Table 4
The Institute for Higher Education Policy Remedial Education Cost Analysis |
|
State Remediation Cost |
|
$27 million or 3% of total expenditures |
|
Community College FTE Cost Comparisons |
|
Academic program |
Cost per FTE |
| Remedial education | $6,709 |
| General studies | $6,163 |
| Computer information systems | $6,760 |
| Business management | $7,730 |
| Nursing | $8,235 |
| Note: Data were for 1996-97 for the state of Arkansas | |
Study #5, Financial
Analysis of Remedial Education at The City University of New York, City of
New York, Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on the City University of New York,
1999
CUNY reported spending $124 million on remediation from a $1.5 billion
budget, or approximately 8% of the total fund expenditures. Remediation accounted for 23% of
expenditures at community colleges, but only 5% at 4-year colleges.
For all types of institutions, CUNY spent approximately one-third less
per FTE for remediation than for other academic programs as a whole. At community colleges, $4,660 was spent
on remediation per FTE, whereas $7,079 was the overall average cost per FTE for
all academic programs. At 4-year
institutions, $6,350 per FTE was spent on remediation, compared to $9,754
overall (see Table 5).
Table 5
City University of New York Remediation Cost and Revenue Analysis |
|
Total Remediation Spending |
|
$124 million or 8% of total expenditures |
|
23% of community college expenditures |
|
Community college |
Cost per FTE |
Remediation |
$4,660 |
Average of all academic programs |
$7,079 |
Revenue source |
Percent of Total Revenue |
Tuition and student aid |
62% |
City and state funding |
33% |
| Note: Data were for the 1996-97 year CUNY system colleges |
|
For the CUNY system as a whole, tuition, state, and federal student aid
combined provided 62% of the revenue from remedial education services; city and
state funding provided 33%. At
community colleges, revenues generated from tuition and fees accounted for 40%
of revenues generated for the purpose of remediation. Revenues from various forms of state aid
accounted for 42% of remediation funding sources and federal funding was
estimated to be about 4% of revenue.
At 4-year institutions, tuition and fees comprised 53% of revenue. State and federal funding was 42%
and 3%, respectively of the revenue base (City of New York, 1999).
In response to the aforementioned data on remedial costs at the City
University of New York, the CUNY University Faculty Senate (1999), provided an
alternative analysis. The Faculty
Senate report indicated a significantly lower cost of remedial instruction and
cited several flaws that distorted the data published by the Mayor’s Advisory
Committee on CUNY (City of New York, 1999). The actual cost of remedial instruction
as indicated in the Faculty Senate report was $30 million or 2.3% of the
total budget. The discrepancy
between these figures and the $124 million reported by the City of New York was
explained in two ways. First,
English as a Second Language (ESL) and continuing education costs were combined
with remedial costs, even though these programs were distinguished and
self-supporting in all aspects of their operation. It should also be noted that the
inclusion of ESL and continuing education costs is not the standard practice for
evaluating the costs of remediation.
The federal government, for instance, does not include ESL or continuing
education in its studies of remediation (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1996). Neither did any
of the other studies of remediation costs cited in this article.
Second, in the City of New York report remedial education was also
assigned a percentage of the indirect costs of all university operations. The Faculty Senate argued that although
this may have been a valid cost-accounting technique, it did not reflect the
actual cost of delivering remediation.
That is, a large portion of the City of New York’s reported remedial
education cost ($124 million) could not be reduced if remedial education were
eliminated entirely. It was
suggested that the reason for purposely inflated remedial education cost data
was to support unsubstantiated assertions that academic standards were
declining, that open admissions were harmful to these standards and should be
eliminated, and that remediation should be privatized (University Faculty
Senate, 1999). This was but one
example of the difficulty in assigning valid and reasonably accurate cost
estimates to the delivery of remedial education services.
Limitations of
Collecting Cost Data
Several limitations to collecting reliable remedial education cost data
apply in any such study. As shown
in the CUNY example, accounting techniques can lead cost estimates in any
direction for which there is a politicized agenda. In addition, readers should consider the
following.
The lack of a consistent definition of what constitutes remedial
education poses challenges to both data collection and comparison of costs (City
of New York, 1999). Programs such
as ESL serve underprepared students, yet they may or may not be defined as
remedial. The cost of services such
as advising, tutoring, and testing should be, but are not always, considered,
since they serve both remedial and non-remedial students (The Institute for Higher Education
Policy, 1998).
Remedial standards also vary across institutions and states. Those with a broad definition of what
constitutes academic deficiency would serve a larger percentage of students and,
therefore, would report higher relative costs (The Institute for Higher
Education Policy, 1998).
Instructional issues further complicate cost calculations. Many faculty teach both remedial and
college-level courses (The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1998). This complicates the accounting process
by requiring that salary and benefit costs be allocated accordingly for the two
activities. There are also
complexities involved with identifying and accounting for the expense of the
ongoing instruction of underprepared students who “slip through the
cracks.” This is sometimes the case
at institutions where placement into remediation is not mandatory. It is not uncommon for faculty to spend
extra time and effort modifying their course materials and instruction
techniques to accommodate these students.
This is also speculated to be the case for some students who pass basic
skills screening tests, yet still struggle with academic deficiencies (City of
New York, 1999).
Program logistics also present problems in the collection of cost
data. Remedial courses for a
particular subject are frequently housed in their respective academic
departments. National data suggests
that this is the case for about half of all remedial programs (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994). Decentralized
program structures probably require greater effort to separate out remedial
costs.
There is also speculation that, for various reasons, institution
officials actually understate the true cost (and extent) of remediation. They prefer to do this in order to avoid
the potential for increased public scrutiny. There is also motivation to avoid the
possibly misplaced perception that remedial education sacrifices the academic
quality standards of the institution (Breneman, 1998).
Revenue from
Remedial Education Activities
Does remediation pay for itself?
For every case in which revenues generated by remedial education were
reported, the revenues fully covered, if not exceeded, the costs of delivering
the service. There were no reports
of remedial programs that operated at a loss. Some examples
include:
•
Onondaga Community College in New
York reported that each $1 million spent on remediation generated $1.3 million in revenue for the college
(Testone, 1997).
•
The state of Kentucky reported that
remediation at its universities was fully covered by tuition revenue (Breneman
& Haarlow, 1998).
•
A moderately sized midwestern
community college reported that tuition revenue generated significantly more
than the salary costs of remedial instruction. When combined with state aid revenue,
the program generated $580,000 in revenue over and above remedial instruction
salaries (McGinley, 1999).
•
In a proposal on financing
remediation at CUNY, the average revenue per FTE generated at community colleges
was reported to be $9,130 in 1997.
Compared to an average cost of remediation per FTE of $4,660, it was
inferred that remedial education was generating as much as $4,500 in net
revenues (Hauptman, 1999).
Discussion
In addition to the limitations of collecting remedial education cost
data, several issues preclude a comparison of the cost estimates cited in the
literature. Some of these include
scope (e.g., state versus college system), size of data set, type of data
reported (appropriations or expenditures), and time period of reported
data. Therefore, the data from
individual studies should not always be taken at face value. And, given these limitations and
inconsistencies, it is not recommended that any wide-sweeping strategic
decisions about delivering, modifying, or eliminating remedial education be
based solely on these data.
However, one similarity can be noted from remedial education cost
studies. In this literature,
statewide remediation costs are always measured in single digits. That is, remediation typically costs
less than 10% of education as a whole and, in most cases, this figure is in the
1% to 2% range. This might suggest,
given the 41% of incoming community college and 30% of incoming university
students participating in remedial courses (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1996), that a relatively small amount is being spent on remediation
services and that funding growth in this area is stagnant. Of course, this is speculation; there
are noted problems with the reported estimates and no ongoing research tracking
growth in remedial education services has been identified. However, if any credibility at all is
given to the available research, it appears that relatively little money is
being invested in raising the academic standards of a significant number of
entering college students. Many of
the arguments made in the literature support the notion that this is positive
and that any public scrutiny of this activity is unwarranted due to its
negligible cost. Nonetheless, the
main criticism lies in the use of federal and state funds, whatever the amount,
for college remediation.
A typical opposing argument is offered in a commentary by Laurence
Steinberg published in Breneman and Haarlow’s (1998) study. Steinberg agrees that the cost estimates
available for remedial education are understated. He suggests that underestimating the
extent and cost of remedial education offers several benefits to education
administrators and instructors.
For administrators, the low estimates mask the weak performance of
secondary schools. The cost of
teaching basic skills is also being passed to colleges, again benefiting
secondary schools. Postsecondary
institutions benefit by filling seats in their remedial courses and college
remedial education instructors reap the benefit of continued employment. Steinberg also argues that accepting
remedial students “dumbs down” the college curriculum, and directs scarce
college resources away from bona fide college programs.
A supporting argument characterizes remedial education spending as an
investment. The hypothesis made
here is that, in the long run, educating individuals will decrease the
likelihood of their future dependency on social programs. McCabe (n.d.) shows how a
relatively small investment (of $720 per remedial student) made by the state of
Florida may negate significantly higher costs of social dependency in the
future. This investment appears
quite favorable when compared to the cost of 1 year of prison ($25,400) or 1
year of supporting a dependent family ($30,000 to $40,000). No research was identified which
suggests that there is either successful remediation or a life of dependency for
underprepared students, but the point is made that educating underprepared
students may lower their potential for social dependency.
Abraham (1998) also supports spending on college remediation but
addresses it from a productivity standpoint. Using calculations of earning potential
from the Census Bureau and speculating that if 30% of remedial students earn
bachelor’s degrees, he calculates that these students would contribute as much
as $87 billion in federal and state taxes over a lifetime of work. This figure is more than double the
estimated $43 billion that would be contributed should these students be denied
access to higher education. At a
national cost of $1 billion per year for remedial education, an additional $44
billion in tax revenues covers the cost of remedial education for all students
for 44 years!
References
Abraham A.A. (1998). Discussant for "Remediation in higher
education: Its extent and cost" by
David Breneman. In D. Ravitch
(Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Boylan, H.R., Bonham, B. S., & Bliss, L.B. (1994). Characteristic components of
developmental programs.
Research in Developmental Education, 11(1). Boone, NC: National Center for Developmental
Education.
Boylan, H.R., & Saxon, D.P.
(1999). Perceptions as
reflected in print media reporting.
Unpublished manuscript prepared for the League for Innovation in the
Community College, Mission Viejo, CA.
Breneman, D.W., & Haarlow, W.N.
(1998, July). Remediation in higher
education: A symposium featuring
remedial education: Costs and
consequences. Fordham report, 2(9). Washington,
DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.
Breneman, D.W.
(1998). Remediation
in higher education: Its extent and
cost. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education
policy (pp. 359-382).
Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
City of New York, Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on the City University of
New York. (1999). Report I: Financial analysis of remedial education
at the City University of New York (Final Report: Revised). New York: Author.
Hauptman, A.M. (1999). Financing remediation at CUNY on a
performance basis: A
proposal. New York: The Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on the
City University of New York.
McCabe, R.H. (n.d.). Remedial education in Florida’s
community colleges: Cost effective
for Floridians. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Community
College.
McGinley, L. (1999). [1998/1999 Remedial course
analysis]. Unpublished raw
data.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Remedial education at higher
education institutions in Fall 1995 (Statistical Analysis Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
Testone, S. (1997). Balancing the critical need for
developmental education with budget priorities. Research & Teaching in Developmental
Education, 14(1), 71-74.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). College remediation: What it
is, what it costs, what's at stake.
Washington, DC:
Author.
University Faculty Senate. (1999). CUNY: An institution affirmed. Response to the report of the Mayor’s
Task Force, “CUNY: An institution adrift.”
New York: The City University of New York.