! Interpret data with caution; coefficient of variation greater than 50 percent.

‡ Reporting standards not met; too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Data reported for fall 2000 are based on Title IV degree-granting institutions that enrolled freshmen in fall 2000. Data reported for fall 1995 are based on degree-granting institutions that enrolled freshmen in fall 1995. Percentages are based on institutions that offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course in that year. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and not reporting where there are too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS), "Remedial Education in Higher Education Institutions," PEQIS 6, 1995; and "Remedial Education in Higher Education Institutions: Fall 2000," PEQIS 12, 2001. (Originally published as table 5 on p. 19 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)

Institutions were asked about the following strategies for organizing and delivering remedial programs: the approach for selecting students who need remedial coursework, whether enrollment in remedial courses is mandatory or optional for students who were determined to need remediation, the kinds of restrictions placed on remedial coursetaking, the types of credit awarded for remedial coursework, and the primary provider of remedial courses at the institution.

In fall 2000, the most common approach to select students for remedial coursework was to give placement tests to all entering students; 57 to 61 percent of institutions used this approach for remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses. Institutions also tended to have mandatory placement policies for students who were determined to need remediation. In fall 2000, 75 to 82 percent of the institutions required students who were determined to need remediation to enroll in remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses.

Most institutions have some kind of restrictions on the extent to which remedial students can participate in regular courses and the type of credit awarded for remedial coursework. In fall 2000, 82 to 88 percent of institutions placed some restrictions on the regular courses that students could take while they were enrolled in remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses. In addition, the most frequent type of credit given for remedial courses was institutional credit (e.g., counts toward financial aid, campus housing, or full-time student status, but does not count toward degree completion); 73 to 78 percent of the institutions most frequently gave institutional credit for remedial reading, writing, or mathematics coursework, 10 to 14 percent most often gave elective degree credit, and 2 to 4 percent most often gave subject degree credit.

In fall 2000, about one-fourth (26 percent) of the institutions reported that there was a limit on the length of time a student may take remedial courses at their institution. Time limits on remediation were set by institutional policy in 71 percent of these institutions, and by state policy or law in 24 percent of institutions with such limits. Finally, institutions tended to rely on their traditional academic departments as the primary providers of remedial education in fall 2000; a majority of institutions cited their traditional academic departments as the most frequent providers of remedial writing (70 percent), mathematics (72 percent), and reading courses (57 percent).

Between 1995 and 2000, institutions tended to move toward more restrictive remedial policies on student participation in regular coursework during remediation. For each subject area, there was an increase in the proportion of institutions that had some restrictions on the regular courses that students could take while they were enrolled in remedial courses. In addition, between 1995 and 2000, there was an increase in the proportion of institutions that required students who needed remedial mathematics to participate in such courses (from 75 to 81 percent).

The institutional strategies for delivering remedial education courses examined in this report include the use of advanced technology in the delivery of remedial courses through distance education and on-campus instruction. In fall 2000, 13 percent of the institutions offered remedial courses through distance education, compared to 3 percent in 1995, and about one-third (31 to 35 percent) of the institutions reported that computers were used frequently by students as a hands-on instructional tool for on-campus remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses (table E).

Public 2-year colleges were the primary users of advanced technology in remedial education. In fall 2000, public 2-year colleges were more likely than other types of institutions to offer their remedial courses through distance education (25 percent vs. 8 percent or less). Public 2-year colleges were also more likely than public or private 4-year institutions to report that they frequently used computers as a hands-on instructional tool for their on-campus remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses (table E).