PDF & Related InfoIn fall 1995 and 2000, postsecondary institutions were asked about the way they structured remedial programs.21 Institutions reported
Institutions may differ in the way they select students who need remedial coursework—they may give all entering students placement tests to determine the need for remediation, they may give entering students who meet various criteria (e.g., low SAT/ACT scores or low grade point averages) placement tests to determine need, they may require or encourage entering students who meet various criteria to enroll in remedial courses, or they may use some other selection approach. In fall 2000, the most common selection approach for remedial coursework was to give placement tests to all entering students; a majority of institutions (57 to 61 percent) used this approach for remedial reading, writing, and mathematics (table 6). The second most common selection approach was to give placement tests to entering students who meet various criteria; 25 to 29 percent of institutions used this approach for remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses. Ten to 12 percent of the institutions reported that they required or encouraged entering students who met various criteria to enroll in remedial courses, while 2 to 4 percent reported some other approach to select students for remedial coursework.22
The proportion of institutions that gave all entering students placement tests to determine the need for remedial coursework differed by institutional type in fall 2000 (table 6). This approach was reported more often by public 2-year than public 4-year institutions to select students for remedial reading (63 vs. 44 percent). It was also reported more often by private 2-year colleges than private and public 4-year institutions to select students for remedial writing (86 percent vs. 54 and 50 percent, respectively), and it was reported more often by private 2-year than all other types of institutions to select students for remedial mathematics (87 percent compared with 54 to 64 percent). One possible reason for the differences is that 4-year institutions tend to rely more than 2-year institutions on SAT, ACT, and GPA scores to determine remedial needs. For example, past data show that a higher proportion of 4-year than 2-year institutions used admission test scores as an admission criterion (Snyder 2001).
Differences by institutional type were also observed in the proportion of institutions that required or encouraged entering students who meet various criteria to enroll in remedial courses in fall 2000 (table 6). For each subject area, this approach was reported more often by public and private 4-year institutions than public 2-year colleges. For example, this approach was used to select students for remedial writing courses by 21 percent of private 4-year institutions, 18 percent of public 4-year institutions, and 5 percent of public 2-year colleges.
Between 1995 and 2000, the proportion of institutions overall that gave reading placement tests to entering students who met various criteria increased from 23 to 29 percent, and the proportion of institutions that required or encouraged entering students who met various criteria to enroll in remedial mathematics courses increased from 8 to 11 percent (table 6).
Institutions were asked whether remedial courses for students needing remediation were required, or if they were recommended but not required. In fall 2000, most institutions (75 to 82 percent) required remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses (table 7). Differences in the requirement status of remedial courses by subject area suggest that the requirements for students enrolled in remedial writing and mathematics were more stringent than the requirements for remedial reading (table 7). In fall 2000, a higher proportion of institutions required remedial writing and mathematics (82 and 81 percent, respectively) than reading courses (75 percent).
The proportion of institutions that required students to participate in remedial writing and mathematics courses differed by institutional type in fall 2000, with private 4-year institutions more likely than public 2-year colleges to report this requirement for both subject areas (table 7). For example, 88 percent of private 4-year institutions compared with 75 percent of public 2-year colleges reported that students who needed remedial mathematics were required to participate in those courses.
Between 1995 and 2000, there was an increase (from 75 to 81 percent) in the proportion of institutions overall that required students who were determined to need remediation in mathematics to participate in such courses (table 7). No changes were observed in the proportion of institutions that had this requirement for students who were determined to need remediation in reading or writing.
Changes in the proportion of institutions that required students who were determined to need remediation to participate in such courses were also observed for public 2-year colleges (table 7). Between 1995 and 2000, the proportion of public 2-year colleges that had this requirement increased for remedial reading (from 62 to 71 percent), remedial writing (from 69 to 76 percent), and remedial mathematics (from 67 to 75 percent). In addition, the proportion of private 4-year institutions that required students to participate in remedial mathematics increased from 79 to 88 percent.
In fall 1995 and 2000, institutions reported the most frequent type of credit they gave for remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses from among the following options: degree credit that counts toward subject requirements, degree credit that counts toward elective requirements, institutional credit (e.g., counts toward financial aid, campus housing, or full-time student status, but does not count toward degree completion), or no credit.
Institutional credit was most often given for remedial courses in fall 2000; 73 to 78 percent of the institutions indicated that institutional credit was most frequently given for remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses (table 8). Fewer institutions reported elective degree credit (10 to 14 percent) or subject degree credit (2 to 4 percent) as the most frequent type of credit for remedial courses. Nine to 10 percent of institutions did not give any credit for remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses. The proportion of institutions that most frequently gave institutional credit for remedial courses differed by the type of institution (table 8). For each subject area, private 4-year institutions were less likely than other types of institutions to most frequently award institutional credit in fall 2000. For example, institutional credit was less frequently given by private 4-year institutions than public 2-year and 4-year institutions for remedial reading courses (51 percent vs. 87 and 78 percent, respectively).
There were also differences by institutional type in the proportion of institutions that most frequently offered elective degree credit in fall 2000; for each subject area, this type of credit was more frequently awarded by private 4-year institutions than public 2-year or 4-year institutions (table 8). For example, elective degree credit for remedial mathematics was the most frequent type of credit in one-fourth of private 4-year institutions compared with 4 percent of public 2-year and 4-year institutions. Between 1995 and 2000, the proportion of institutions overall that most frequently offered elective degree credit for remedial reading declined from 15 to 10 percent (table 8). Changes were also observed in the proportion of public 2- year and 4-year institutions that most frequently offered elective degree credit and institutional degree credit. Between 1995 and 2000, the proportion of public 2-year colleges that most frequently gave elective degree credit for remedial reading courses declined from 8 to 4 percent, while the proportion that most frequently gave institutional credit for remedial mathematics increased from 80 to 87 percent. For public 4-year institutions, there was a decrease in the proportion that most frequently offered elective degree credit for reading (from 16 percent in 1995 to 8 percent in 2000), but an increase in the proportion that most frequently offered institutional credit for remedial writing (from 70 to 82 percent) and remedial mathematics (from 75 to 83 percent) during the same time period.
In fall 1995 and 2000, institutions indicated whether there was a limit on the length of time students may spend on remedial courses. Institutions that had time limits on remediation also indicated whether those limits were set by state policy or law, institutional policy, or some other mechanism.
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 in fall 2000 (table 9). Public and private 4-year institutions were more likely than public 2-year colleges to report time limits on remediation (29 and 31 percent vs. 20 percent, respectively).
Time limits on remediation were typically set by institutional policy (table 9). In fall 2000, 71 percent of the institutions with time limits on remediation indicated that those limits were set by institutional policy. Fewer institutions with time limits reported that those limits were set by state policy or law (24 percent), and only 5 percent of the institutions reported some other approach to setting time limits on remediation.
In fall 2000, differences by institutional type were observed in the use of various approaches to setting time limits on remediation (table 9). For example, the use of institutional policy to set time limits on remediation was more common at private 4-year institutions than at other types of institutions, and it was least common at public 2-year colleges. Among institutions with limits on remediation, such limits were set by institutional policy at 94 percent of private 4-year institutions, 70 percent of public 4-year institutions, and 43 percent of public 2-year colleges. The use of state policy or law to set limits on remediation also varied by institutional type. Among institutions with limits on remediation, state policy or law was more commonly used by public 2-year colleges than public 4-year institutions (46 vs. 27 percent).
Between 1995 and 2000, no differences were detected in the proportion of institutions overall that reported a limitation on the length of time that students may spend on remedial courses, or in the proportion of institutions that reported various approaches for setting those time limits (table 9). However, among public 4-year institutions, the proportion that used institutional policy to set limits on remediation decreased from 94 percent in 1995 to 70 percent in 2000, while the proportion that used state policy or law increased from 6 to 27 percent.
Institutions may employ a number of strategies to restrict the extent to which students can take regular academic courses while they are taking remedial courses. Some institutions do not place any restrictions on the regular academic courses students can take while they are enrolled in remedial courses, while others do not allow students to take any regular academic courses while they are taking remedial courses. Other institutions allow students enrolled in remedial courses to take selected regular courses (e.g., a student may simultaneously enroll in remedial mathematics courses and regular English courses). In fall 2000, most institutions (82 to 88 percent) placed some restrictions on the regular academic courses that students could take while they were enrolled in remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses (table 10). Relatively fewer institutions (12 to 18 percent) reported that they did not impose any restrictions on regular academic courses for students enrolled in remedial writing, mathematics, and reading courses. One percent or less of the institutions did not allow students to take any regular academic courses while they were enrolled in remedial courses. Between 1995 and 2000, institutions tended to move away from having policies that place no restrictions (and move toward policies that enforce some restrictions) on the regular academic courses that students could take while they were enrolled in remedial courses (table 10). These changes were observed for remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses. For example, in the area of remedial mathematics, the proportion of institutions that placed no restrictions on students' participation in regular coursework declined from 35 percent in 1995 to 14 percent in 2000, while the proportion that placed some restrictions increased from 64 percent to 86 percent.
In fall 1995 and 2000, institutions indicated whether the most frequent providers of remedial education were a separate remedial division/department, the traditional academic department, a learning center, or some other location within the institution.
In fall 2000, the institution's traditional academic department was the most frequent provider of remedial courses in each subject area; a majority of institutions reported their traditional academic department was the most frequent provider of remedial writing (70 percent), mathematics (72 percent) and reading courses (57 percent) (table 11). Fewer institutions (19 to 28 percent) indicated that a separate remedial division/ department was the most frequent provider of remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses. Seven to 13 percent of the institutions reported learning centers as the most frequent provider of remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses, while 1 to 2 percent of the institutions reported some other location as the most frequent provider of remediation in the three subject areas.
The proportion of institutions that reported a separate remedial division/department as the most frequent provider of remedial writing and mathematics courses differed by institutional type in fall 2000 (table 11). Public 2-year colleges were more likely than private 2-year and 4-year institutions to report a separate remedial division as the most frequent provider of remedial writing courses (29 percent vs. 7 and 10 percent, respectively). Public 2-year colleges were also more likely than public and private 4-year institutions to report a separate remedial division/ department as the most frequent provider of remedial mathematics courses (28 percent vs. 18 and 10 percent, respectively).
Differences by institutional type were also observed in the use of a traditional academic department as the most frequent provider of remedial writing and mathematics courses (table 11). Compared with public 2-year colleges in fall 2000, a higher proportion of private 4-year institutions cited their traditional academic departments as the most frequent providers of remedial writing courses (76 vs. 64 percent), and a higher proportion of private 2-year and 4-year institutions cited their traditional academic departments as the most frequent providers of remedial mathematics courses (87 and 81 percent vs. 64 percent, respectively).
Between 1995 and 2000, no differences were detected in the proportion of institutions overall that used a particular location (i.e., a traditional academic department, a separate remedial division, or a learning center) as the most frequent provider of remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses (table 11). However, the proportion of public 4-year institutions indicating that a learning center was the most frequent provider of remedial reading courses increased from 6 percent to 13 percent.
21 As with previous chapters, the data are presented by institutional
type: public 2-year, private 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4-
year.
22 Other selection approaches include faculty or staff referring
students for enrollment in remedial/developmental courses, and
students referring themselves for enrollment in such courses.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}