Summary and Conclusions

Postsecondary remedial education has been the subject of an ongoing debate among educators, policymakers, and the public. Central to this debate are issues regarding the extent to which entering students are underprepared for collegelevel work, the financial and human resource costs of remedial education to institutions, the negative impact that remedial education may have on the quality of regular course offerings, and, in general, the role of remediation in the curricula of 2-year and 4-year institutions (Hoyt and Sorenson 2001; Ignash 1997; Kozeracki 2002; Levin 2001; McCabe 2000; Roueche and Roueche 1999; Shults 2000).

This study, conducted by NCES in the fall of 2000, investigated the prevalence and characteristics of remedial education at degreegranting 2-year and 4-year institutions that enroll freshmen, and changes from 1995. Specifically, the data presented in this report address four broad questions:

• How prevalent is postsecondary remedial education?
• How is remedial education organized and delivered?
• How do institutional types (public 2-year, private 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4- year) differ in the provision, organization, and delivery of remedial education?
• What changes have occurred in remedial education from 1995?

How Prevalent is Postsecondary Remedial Education?

The survey findings provide information on the prevalence of remedial education in reading, writing, and mathematics based on four indicators: the proportion of institutions that offer remedial courses, the proportion of entering freshmen who enroll in remedial courses, the average number of remedial courses offered, and the average time that students spend in remediation. In fall 2000, about three-fourths (76 percent) of the institutions that enrolled freshmen offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course, and 28 percent of entering freshmen enrolled in at least one of those courses. The data further show that, on average, institutions offered 2.0 to 2.5 different remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses in fall 2000. In addition, the majority of institutions reported that students spent an average of 1 year or less in remediation; in fall 2000, 60 percent of the institutions indicated that the average time a student spent in remediation was less than 1 year, 35 percent indicated that the average time was 1 year, and 5 percent reported an average time of more than 1 year.²⁸

How is Remedial Education Organized and Delivered?

Institutional strategies for organizing and delivering remedial programs include the ways in which remedial needs are determined and served (Perin 2002). The survey data addressed remedial policies and practices regarding the assessment of remedial needs, student enrollment in remedial courses, and the organization of remedial courses. The 2000 survey findings indicate that while the most common strategy to assess students was to give all entering students placement tests (57 to 61 percent of the institutions used this approach), some institutions used more selective assessment procedures. For example, 25 to 29 percent of the institutions gave placement tests to entering students who met various criteria (e.g., low SAT/ACT scores or low grade point averages). Strategies for serving students' remedial needs reflect the extent to which remedial education is mainstreamed (i.e., embedded in traditional academic departments) and integrated into college-level curricula. The survey findings indicate that although remedial education is typically embedded in the institutions' traditional academic departments, the general tendency is for institutions to organize and deliver remedial courses as separate from their regular college curricula. In fall 2000, a majority of institutions indicated that the traditional academic department was the most frequent provider of remedial writing (70 percent), mathematics (72 percent) and reading courses (57 percent). However, the data suggest that institutions typically do not integrate remedial education into their regular college curricula. For example, in fall 2000, most institutions (73 to 78 percent) cited institutional credit (as opposed to degree credit) as the most frequent type of award for remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses, and most institutions (82 to 88 percent) placed some restrictions on the regular courses that students could take while they were enrolled in remedial courses.

The surveys explored other enrollment policies that may restrict freshman participation in remedial education. The findings suggest that while institutions generally make it mandatory for students who need remedial education to enroll in such courses, most do not impose limits on the length of time that a student can spend in remediation.²⁹ In fall 2000, 75 to 82 percent of the institutions reported mandatory policies for students who needed remedial reading, writing, or mathematics education to enroll in such courses. However, about one-fourth (26 percent) reported that there was a limit on the length of time a student may take remedial courses at their institution.

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, 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, or mathematics courses.

How Do Institutions Differ in the Provision, Organization, and Delivery of Remedial Education?

The survey findings indicate that public 2-year colleges were more likely than other types of institutions to provide remedial education. In fall 2000, almost all public 2-year colleges (98 percent) offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course, compared to 59 to 80 percent of other types of institutions. Public 2- year colleges enrolled a higher proportion of entering freshmen in remedial courses (42 percent) than did other types of institutions (12 to 24 percent). In addition, public 2-year colleges offered more remedial courses, on average, and they reported longer time periods that students spend in remediation. The relatively short time that students spend in remediation at public and private 4-year institutions may be associated with the survey finding that these institutions were more likely than public 2-year institutions to impose limits on the time that students are permitted to spend in remediation.

Public 4-year institutions are also significant providers of remedial education. In fall 2000, public 4-year institutions were more likely than private 4-year institutions to offer one or more remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses (80 vs. 59 percent), and they enrolled a higher proportion of entering freshmen in such courses (20 vs. 12 percent). Public 4-year institutions also offered more remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses, on average, than did private 4-year institutions.

Public 2-year colleges differed from other institutional types in the delivery of remedial education courses. In fall 2000, for example, public 2-year colleges were more likely than other types of institutions to deliver remedial education through a separate entity from the traditional academic department, although those differences did not show clear patterns across subject areas. Specifically, public 2-year colleges were more likely than private 2-year and 4-year institutions to cite a separate remedial division as the most frequent provider of remedial writing (29 percent vs. 7 and 10 percent, respectively), and they were more likely than public and private 4-year institutions to report a separate remedial division as the most frequent provider of remedial mathematics (28 percent vs. 18 and 10 percent, respectively). In addition, compared to public and private 4-year institutions, public 2-year colleges were more likely to offer remedial courses through distance education (25 percent vs. 8 and 4 percent, respectively), and they were more likely to report that computers were frequently used as a hands-on instructional tool for on-campus remedial reading, writing, and mathematics courses.

Private 4-year institutions differed from some other types of institutions in the extent to which remedial education was integrated into the college-level curricula, although those findings tend to show mixed patterns. For example, private 4-year institutions were more likely than public 2-year institutions to require underprepared students to enroll in remedial writing and mathematics courses, and they were more likely than public 2-year and 4-year institutions to offer elective degree credit for remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses. In addition, private institutions tend to have their remedial programs embedded in the traditional academic department. Compared with public 2-year colleges in fall 2000, a higher proportion of private 4-year institutions cited the traditional academic department as the most frequent provider of remedial writing courses (76 vs. 64 percent), and a higher proportion of private 2-year and 4-year institutions cited their traditional academic department as the most frequent provider of remedial mathematics courses (87 and 81 percent vs. 64 percent, respectively).

What Changes Have Occurred in Remedial Education From 1995?

Data from the 1995 and 2000 surveys indicate that no differences were detected in the proportion of institutions overall that offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course, or in the proportion of entering freshmen who enrolled in at least one of those courses during that time period. However, during this time period, there were declines in the proportion of institutions that offered remedial writing courses (from 71 to 68 percent), and in the proportion of entering freshmen who enrolled in those courses (from 16 to 14 percent).

Institutions were more likely to report mandatory enrollment policies for students in need of remedial mathematics education in 2000 than in 1995 (81 vs. 75 percent). Between 1995 and 2000, institutions shifted also toward less integrative strategies for organizing remedial education by imposing more restrictive policies for remedial education. For example, 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.

---

²⁸ As indicated earlier in the report, 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).

²⁹ 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).

Top