PDF & Related InfoThe place of remediation in postsecondary curricula is a contentious issue and the focus of ongoing debate in policy-related literature and the media.1 Central to this debate is the question of whether remedial course offerings are appropriate at the college level, and whether those courses should be offered at all colleges or be restricted to 2-year colleges (Ignash 1997; Levin 2001; McCabe 2000; Roueche and Roueche 1999; Shults 2000). In recent years, concerns about the costs of remedial course offerings and the academic standards at 4-year institutions have become the focus of debate. These concerns have reportedly led some state education departments to take steps to try to reduce or eliminate remedial course offerings at 4-year institutions and to restrict the use of public funds for such courses (Hoyt and Sorenson 2001; Kozeracki 2002).
Research on postsecondary remediation has been diverse, ranging from case studies to national surveys. Between 1984 and 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted three national studies to provide data on the prevalence and characteristics of postsecondary remediation.2 Those NCES surveys are the most widely cited sources of national data on remedial education at postsecondary institutions.3 This NCES survey, conducted in fall 2000, was designed to provide new national data on postsecondary remediation and changes from 1995. While several definitions exist, the NCES studies provide a working definition of postsecondary remedial education as courses in reading, writing, or mathematics for college-level students lacking those skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required by the institution.4
Proponents generally agree that remedial education is necessary to provide expanded educational opportunities for entering postsecondary students who lack the appropriate academic skills, although there is considerable disagreement among educators, policymakers, and the public over whether remediation should be provided at all postsecondary levels or whether it should be restricted to 2-year institutions (Crowe 1998; Ignash 1997; McCabe 2000; Phelan 2000; Roueche and Roueche 1999; Spann 2000). Some argue that remedial course offerings are inappropriate for the curricula of 4-year institutions, and they suggest that the remedial needs of underprepared students might best be served at community colleges because of the mission of those colleges to provide access to postsecondary education (Ignash 1997).
Advocates for the provision of remedial education at all institutional levels argue, however, that shifting remedial education solely to 2-year colleges could drain these institutions' financial and human resources, reduce educational opportunities for remedial students, and create revenue problems for 4-year colleges that cannot afford the enrollment loss (Roueche and Roueche 1999).
Much of the recent opposition to postsecondary remediation comes from cost concerns (Hoyt and Sorenson 2001), although some proponents argue that remedial education accounts for a small fraction of the current fund revenue of public colleges (Brenneman and Haarlow 1998; Saxon and Boylan 2001). Critics contend that remedial education diverts human and financial resources from other academic priorities (Kozeracki 2002), and uses public funds to pay a second time for training in academic skills that students should have acquired in high school (Hoyt and Sorenson 2001). Based on these arguments, some educators and policymakers suggest alternatives such as shifting the cost of postsecondary remediation to high schools (Ignash 1997) and improving student preparation for college through increased collaboration between colleges and high schools (Crowe 1998).
Recent media reports indicate a tightening of remedial policies in some states, including policies aimed at reducing or eliminating remedial course offerings at public 4-year postsecondary institutions and shifting the responsibility for postsecondary remediation to community colleges or private colleges. For example, after a monitoring period of 3 years, the Board of Regents of the City University of New York (CUNY) approved its new remediation plan in 2002; this plan is aimed at raising admission standards for baccalaureate programs and eliminating most remedial courses from the system's senior colleges, while continuing them in community colleges, immersion courses, and other programs (Hebel 2003a). Some states have also tightened existing policies, such as limitations on the time that students are permitted to spend in remediation and the use of public funds for remedial education. For example, in 1999, the California State University system implemented more restrictive time limits on remediation as part of its push to reduce the number of entering students who enroll in remedial courses to 10 percent by 2007 (Hebel 2003b).
Research on the prevalence of postsecondary remedial education focuses on the extent to which institutions offer remedial courses and the extent to which students enroll in such courses. Past NCES surveys indicate that about three-fourths (74 percent) of higher education institutions offered remedial education courses in 1989, and 30 percent of freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course (Mansfield and Farris 1991).5 In fall 1995, 78 percent of higher education institutions offered remedial education courses, and 29 percent of freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course (Lewis and Farris 1996). The NCES studies also found that remediation at most institutions was typically limited to one or two courses, and students generally spent 1 year or less in those courses. Past NCES studies suggest that the primary providers of remedial education are public 2-year institutions (Mansfield and Farris 1991; Lewis and Farris 1996). Compared to other types of institutions in 1989 and 1995, public 2-year colleges were more likely to offer one or more remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses, and they were more likely to offer remedial courses or services to local business and industry. Public 2-year colleges also offered more remedial courses, enrolled higher proportions of freshmen in remediation, and reported longer average time periods that students spend in remediation. In addition, the role of public 2-year institutions in offering remedial services to local business and industry is also consistent with the policies of those institutions to provide community services, adult learning, and workforce training and retraining (Phelan 2000).
Institutional strategies for structuring remedial programs include the ways in which remedial needs are determined and served, such as policies for the assessment and placement of students in remedial courses, and procedures for the delivery of those courses. Approaches may differ considerably, reflecting the missions and types of institutions, the types of students served, and the extent to which remedial education is integrated into college-level curricula and traditional academic departments (Perin 2002).
Accurate assessment of students' remedial needs has been an ongoing concern as changes in state legislation during the 1990s called for increased emphasis on the assessment of incoming students (Russell 1997), and as educators raised questions about the validity of placement tests (Berger 1997) and the lack of consensus on what constitutes college-level work across institutions (Merisotis and Phipps 2000). Critics of placement policies for remedial students also contend that although most institutions have established assessment procedures, the procedures for evaluating students' academic skills vary considerably across institutional missions and types (Merisotis and Phipps 2000). Past NCES studies suggest, for example, that while the most common approach to assessment or placement is to give all entering students placement tests to determine the need for remediation, these strategies are found more often at public 2-year colleges (Mansfield and Farris 1991; Lewis and Farris 1996).
Strategies for serving students' remedial needs reflect the extent to which remedial education is embedded or separate from the regular academic system.6 Potential strategies for institutions that take an integrative approach to serving students' remedial needs include mainstreaming remedial education (i.e., offering remedial courses through traditional academic departments) and organizing remedial courses as an integral part of collegelevel curricula. For example, to integrate remedial education into college-level curricula, institutions could permit students to simultaneously enroll in remedial and regular academic courses; they also could offer degree credit for remedial courses. In contrast, institutions seeking less integrative strategies could offer remedial courses through a separate remedial department or division, require underprepared students to complete a separate program of basic skills prior to any other collegelevel work, and offer only institutional credit for remedial coursework (e.g., credit that counts toward financial aid, campus housing, or full-time student status, but does not count toward degree completion).
Some educators and policymakers suggest that the integration of remedial education into traditional academic departments and college-level curricula could have positive influences on remedial students' attitudes and expectations (McCabe 2000), and it could provide opportunities for underprepared students to interact with their higher achieving peers and participate more fully in college life (Perin 2002). Critics of integration contend, however, that mixing prepared and underprepared students might result in a "watering down" of regular courses and prove to be a disservice to both types of students (Roueche and Roueche 1999). Others argue that the level of cross-disciplinary communication among faculty teaching remedial students might influence student performance regardless of whether remedial programs are embedded or separate from the regular academic system (Boylan, Bliss, and Bonham 1997; Boylan 2002).
Past NCES studies (Mansfield and Farris 1991; Lewis and Farris 1996) suggest that although remedial education was most often provided by the institutions' traditional academic departments, institutions tended to organize remedial education as distinct from their regular college curricula. For example, most institutions placed some kind of restrictions on the extent to which students could participate in regular courses while they were taking remedial courses, and most did not award degree credit for remedial courses. The NCES studies on remediation also found that while institutions generally made it mandatory for students who need remedial education to enroll in such courses, most did not impose limits on the length of time that a student could spend in remediation.7
This NCES survey was designed to investigate the prevalence and nature of remedial education in postsecondary institutions in fall 2000, and to examine changes from fall 1995. The current study allows for comparisons with the 1995 data because it revisits almost all of the issues addressed in that study. This study also examines additional issues—the types of technology used in the delivery of remedial education through distance education courses, and the use of computers as a hands-on instructional tool for oncampus remedial education. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions about remedial education at postsecondary institutions:
The study was conducted through the NCES Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS). The PEQIS is designed to collect small amounts of policy-relevant data on a quick turnaround basis from a previously recruited, nationally representative sample of 2- year and 4-year postsecondary institutions. The survey was mailed to PEQIS survey coordinators, with the request that the person at the institution who was most knowledgeable about the institution's remedial education courses complete the questionnaire. Of the 1,242 eligible institutions, 1,186 completed questionnaires. The unweighted survey response rate was 95 percent, and the weighted response rate was 96 percent. The questionnaire responses were weighted to produce national estimates that represent all Title IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions in the United States that enrolled freshmen. All comparative statements in this report have been tested for statistical significance using t-tests adjusted for multiple comparisons8 and are significant at the 0.05 level. However, not all statistically significant differences are reported. Throughout this report, some differences that appear large may not be statistically significant because of the large standard errors surrounding the estimates or the small size of the analysis sample.
The data are presented by institutional type: public 2-year, private 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4-year, and differences by institutional type are reported only when they are statistically significant. Type was created from a combination of level (2-year, 4-year) and control (public, private). As defined by NCES, 2-year institutions are institutions at which the highest level of offering is at least 2 but less than 4 years (below the baccalaureate degree); 4-year institutions are those at which the highest level of offering is 4 or more years (baccalaureate or higher degree).9 To retain comparability with the 1995 NCES study, the current study included 2-year and 4-year degree-granting institutions that enrolled freshman students and asked some questions about freshman students, even though remediation is not entirely a freshman phenomenon. Institutions were asked to provide information about their remedial programs if they provided any remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses in fall 2000.10
This report presents information about postsecondary remedial education in fall 2000 and changes from fall 1995. The discussion is divided into chapters that reflect the major topics addressed in the questionnaire. Chapter 2 describes remedial course offerings, including remedial courses offered to undergraduates and to local business and industry. Participation in remedial education is reported in chapter 3, including the average length of time students spent in remedial education. Chapter 4 describes the ways in which institutions structure their remedial programs, including the selection of entering students for remedial coursework, the requirement status of remedial courses, restrictions on remedial coursetaking, types of credit earned from remedial courses, and providers of remedial education at the institution. Chapter 5 reports on the use of advanced technology in remedial education, including the delivery of remedial education through distance education, technology use in distance education, and the use of computers as a hands-on instructional tool for on-campus remedial courses. The concluding chapter summarizes the findings of the study. A detailed discussion of the survey methodology (appendix A) and tables of standard errors for all data presented in this report (appendix B) are included as technical appendixes. The 1995 and 2000 PEQIS questionnaires are presented in appendix C.
1 According to Saxon and Boylan (2001), remedial education had
been the topic of 48 newspaper articles in the nation's largest
newspapers between 1995 and 1999. In addition, remedial issues
have been debated in policy-related literature published by various
national organizations such as the American Association of
Community Colleges (e.g., Shults 2000) and state organizations
such as the California League for Innovation in the Community
College (Saxon and Boylan 2001).
2 The data from the 1984 study are not comparable to the data from
the later NCES studies because of changes in definitions and
analyses. The data for the 1989 and 1995 studies as presented by
Mansfield and Farris (1991) and Lewis and Farris (1996) are not
comparable to the data for the current (2000) study because of a
change in the way that NCES categorizes postsecondary
institutions, and the inclusion of institutions in Puerto Rico in the
earlier studies. The data for the 1989 and 1995 surveys represent 2-
year and 4-year higher education institutions that enroll freshmen.
At the time those surveys were conducted, NCES defined higher
education institutions as institutions that are accredited at the
college level by an agency recognized by the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Education (ED). Higher education institutions were
a subset of all postsecondary institutions. The data for the 2000
survey represent 2-year and 4-year Title IV-eligible, degree-granting
institutions that enroll freshmen. This change was necessary
because ED no longer makes a distinction between higher education
institutions and other postsecondary institutions that are eligible to
participate in federal Title IV financial aid programs, and thus
NCES no longer categorizes institutions as higher education
institutions. In order to make comparisons between the 1995 and
2000 studies for presentation in this report, the data from the 1995
study were reanalyzed with the definition of eligible institutions
changed to match the definition for the 2000 study as closely as
possible. The sample for the 2000 survey and comparisons between
the 1995 and 2000 surveys are discussed in more detail in the
survey methodology section presented in appendix A.
3 NCES collects limited data on remedial education as part of other
large-scale studies. These studies are not comparable to the PEQIS
studies in methodologies and populations of interest. For example,
the annual Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) "Institutional Characteristics" survey provides data
annually on the number of institutions that offer remedial services,
and the "Postsecondary Education Transcript Study" (PETS) of the
High School and Beyond Survey (HS&B) provides student-level
data on remedial education. Postsecondary transcript data were
also collected as part of three other surveys—the National
Longitudinal Study (NLS) of the High School Class of 1972, the
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, and the
Undergraduate Transcript Study (i.e., the first follow up of the
Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B) for the 1992–93 cohort of
bachelor's degree recipients).
4 Respondents were asked to include any courses meeting the definition,
regardless of the course name. Other names for remedial
education include "developmental education," "compensatory
education," and "basic skills."
5 Because all postsecondary institutions do not test all entering
freshmen and some do not label their remedial courses as such, the
numbers of entering students who need remedial education and the
number of remedial courses offered are probably higher than
reported in studies that address prevalence. Additionally, the
PEQIS studies asked for the percentage of entering freshmen
enrolled in remedial courses, which may differ from the percentage
of students who were determined to need remediation.
6 Some educators use the terms "mainstreaming" to describe the
integration of remedial education into regular academic
departments and "centralization" to describe the housing of
remedial education in separate organizational units. In practice,
institutions may use a combination of approaches (Perin 2002).
7 Students may also choose to limit the time they spend in remediation
in order to qualify for federal student aid. Based on federal
policy, students may not be considered eligible for federal financial
aid if they are enrolled solely in remedial programs or if remedial
coursework exceeds one academic year (Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended).
8 See discussion of the Bonferroni adjustment in the methodology
section, appendix A.
9 Definitions for level are from the data file documentation for the
NCES Institutional Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
Institutional Characteristics file. A detailed description of the
institutional categories is provided in the methodology section,
appendix A.
10 The sample for the 2000 survey and comparisons between the 1995
and 2000 surveys are discussed in more detail in the survey
methodology presented in appendix A.
