Highlights
The Survey on Remedial Education in Higher Education
Institutions was requested by the Planning and Evaluation Service
of the Office of the Under Secretary within the U.S. Department of
Education. This survey was designed to provide current national
estimates about the extent of remediation on college campuses. The
study examined participation in college-level remedial education,
characteristics of remedial courses and programs, and policies or laws
that affect remedial education. Institutions provided information
about their remedial program if they provided any remedial reading,
writing, or mathematics courses in fall 1995. For purposes of this
study, remedial courses were defined as courses in reading, writing, or
mathematics for college students lacking those skills necessary to
perform college-level work at the level required by the institution.
Thus, what constituted remedial courses varied from institution to
institution. Data were collected in fall 1995 from 2-year and 4-year
higher education institutions that enroll freshmen and were weighted to
provide national estimates.
- About three-quarters (78 percent) of higher education
institutions that enrolled freshmen offered at least one remedial
reading, writing, or mathematics course in fall 1995 ( table 1). Remedial courses were especially common at public 2-year
institutions (100 percent) and institutions with high minority
enrollments (94 percent). Public 4-year institutions also were
important providers of remediation, with 81 percent providing
at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course.
- Remedial reading courses were offered by 57 percent and
remedial writing and mathematics courses by about three quarters
of higher education institutions that enrolled freshmen
( table 1). Almost all (99 percent) public 2-year institutions
offered remedial courses in each subject area.
- Most institutions that offered remedial reading, writing, or
mathematics courses offered one or two different courses in a
subject area in fall 1995 (
figure 1). The average (mean)
number of courses offered was 2.1 for reading, 2.0 for writing,
and 2.5 for mathematics ( table 2). Public 2-year institutions
offered a much higher average number of courses than other
types of institutions.
- Twenty-nine percent of first-time freshmen enrolled in at least
one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course in fall
1995 ( table 3). Remedial courses in mathematics were taken by
more freshmen than were remedial reading and writing courses.
There was a general pattern of higher remedial enrollments and
lower remedial pass rates at public 2-year and high minority
enrollment institutions. In general, about three-quarters of the
students enrolled in remedial courses pass or successfully
complete those courses (
table 6).
- About half (47 percent) of institutions offering remedial courses
indicated that the number of students enrolled in remedial
courses at their institution had stayed about the same in the last
5 years, 39 percent said enrollments had increased, and 14
percent said they had decreased ( table 4). A greater percentage
of public 2-year than of other types of institutions indicated that
remedial enrollments had increased.
- At most institutions, students do not take remedial courses for
long periods of time: two-thirds of institutions indicated that
the average time a student takes remedial courses was less than
1 year, 28 percent indicated that the average time was 1 year,
and 5 percent indicated that the average time was more than 1
year ( table
5). Students were more likely to take remedial
courses for a longer time at certain types of institutions than at
others, with fewer public 2-year and high minority enrollment
institutions reporting that students take remedial courses for
less than 1 year.
- Among the 22 percent of institutions that did not offer remedial
reading, writing, or mathematics courses in fall 1995, the most
frequent reason given was that remedial courses were not
needed by students at the institution (66 percent; figure 3).
About a quarter of the institutions indicated that students at the
institution who need remediation take remedial courses offered
by another institution (22 percent), and/or that institutional
policy does not allow the institution to offer remedial courses
(27 percent).
- Institutional credit (e.g., credit that counts toward financial aid,
campus housing, or full-time student status, but does not count
toward degree completion) was the most frequent type of credit
given for remedial reading, writing, or mathematics courses,
with about 70 percent of institutions giving this type of credit in
each subject area ( table
7).
- The most frequently used approach for selecting students who
need remedial coursework was to give all entering students
placement tests to determine the need for remedial coursework;
about 60 percent of institutions used this approach in each
subject area ( table 9).
- Remedial education services/courses were provided to local
business and industry by 19 percent of institutions that enroll
freshmen ( figure 7). However, among these higher education
institutions, public 2-year institutions were the primary
providers of remedial services/courses to local business and
industry: half of public 2-year institutions provided these
services, compared with only about 5 percent of other types of
institutions.
- A third of institutions offering remedial courses reported that
there were state policies or laws that affected the remedial
offerings of their institution, with many more public than
private institutions reporting that they were affected (57 percent
and 40 percent of public 2-year and 4-year institutions
compared with less than 10 percent of private institutions; table 13). The major ways in which state policies or laws affected
the remedial offerings was to require or encourage institutions
to offer remedial education.
- About a quarter of institutions reported that there was a limit on
the length of time a student may take remedial courses at their
institution (
table 14). Time limits on remediation were set by
institutional policy at 75 percent of the institutions with time
limits, and by state policy or law at 21 percent of the
institutions.
Top