The
topic of college remediation is an important one given the economic state in
higher education. However, it is also a topic about student success.
Remediation is most common at two year institutions that serve a diverse
student population. These students range from highly underprepared students to
students who are adequately prepared for college level work. Due to tight
educational budgets, the extent to which remedial courses are effective is a
topic of debate. In the end, there
are positive and negative aspects of remedial education for both society and
for students.
A
commonly cited negative aspect of remedial education is the fact that offering remedial
courses requires substantial money and resources. Research shows that almost
ten percent of classes at community colleges are remedial, meaning that
approximately $3,200 is spent on each new student per year, which averages out
to $4 billion per year (Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2012). Opponents of college remediation look
at numbers like this and wonder why we are spending so much to offer classes
that have little return on investment.
Stakeholders
want to see that resources are used effectively, and that remediation is worth
the time, effort, and money. Some research shows that remediation does not
positively or negatively affect student success; remedial courses do not lead
to a high level of development or preparation for college
level work, nor do they lead to student discouragement regarding academic
ability (Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2012). If remedial courses do not necessarily
serve a valid purpose, the question stands: Why are we spending money on these
courses?
We are spending money
on remediation because many students need remedial support. These courses are
essential in preparing students for courses that require higher skill level and
greater intellectual reasoning. In
this way, remedial courses are often an important retention effort (Fike & Fike, 2008). On
the other hand, opposing research indicates that students who enter remedial
courses often do not continue past remedial coursework (Scott-Clayton &
Rodriguez, 2012). Perhaps this is because inadequate performance in remedial
classes discourages students from continuing to higher levels. Scott-Clayton
and Rodriguez (2012) state that "An unadvertised but implicit function of
remedial assignment may be to signal students about their likelihood of college
completion; it may be efficient to both the student and the institution to
realize this and adjust their investments sooner rather than later." This
statement suggests that because not all students will pass remedial education
and get a college degree, institutions must take this fact
into account in order to use resources effectively and help students
accordingly.
If
remediation does not contribute to student learning or encourage persistence, this
is a problem given the current economy and budget for education. What should be
taught in remedial courses? Given the fact that students rarely move past
remedial courses, should colleges still offer them? Should two year colleges instead focus their time and
resources on teaching more relevant skills, to students whose plans do not
include a degree? If so, then what
about those students who enter two year colleges highly underprepared and in
need of developmental courses to succeed?
While remediation is not only a higher education issue, but a K-12 issue
as well, colleges still have a duty to set students up for success. Not all
students in remedial courses are at risk of dropping out, but not all will
matter-of-factly earn a college degree either. The most important thing is for institutions, especially two
year institutions, to have an understanding of the different students they
serve, recognize students’ diverse needs and goals, and at the same time use
their resources wisely.
Fain, P. (2012). Broken but
useful. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/21/remediation-may-serve-useful-purposes-study-finds
Fike, D.S., & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first year student retention in the community
college. Community College Review, 36(2),
68-88. doi:
10.1177/0091552108320222
Scott-Clayton, J. & Rodriguez, O. (2012) Development, discouragement,
or diversion? New
evidence
on the effects of college remediation. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18328
It is interesting that many times, researchers only look at remediation at community colleges. There are remediation courses at many 4-year colleges and universities. However, at 4-year institutions, students in remedial courses receive additional resources so that they can be successful. How do we expect students who need to complete remedial education to do so without additional resources? At community colleges, advising is not mandated. If a student does go to advising, he or she has a 15 minute appointment with a different advisor each time. Additional resources to help students be successful are scarce to none at community colleges. Community colleges are open access institutions. If they stop offering remedial, GED, and ESL courses, they need to change their mission.
ReplyDeleteLiz,
ReplyDeleteYou raise up great points about remediation courses. It certainly is something that is useful, and necessary for a number of students. Though helpful, what does it say about our society at large? The fact that we need to invest money and resources into this kind of education to bring this special population to a higher skill level and greater intellectual reasoning? Where does their education get lost? With remediation courses, I think it is important to be mindful of not enabling these students when providing this kind of help. But to foster greater levels of independent learning. If that truly was the outcome of remedial education, there would be no question as to the usefulness of it.
Remediation courses and underprepared college students is a very interesting topic. As a K-6 teacher, it seems that many elementary schools, in an attempt to deal with budget, funding, and class size issues, continue to pass students a long even if they are not meeting that standards when it comes to grade level expectations of subjects as important as literacy (reading/writing/comprehension). This cycle continues all the way through middle and high school so the student becomes "someone else's problem" because the previous teacher did not want to stop, assess the student, and meet their needs. How can universities address this issue if K-12 does not?
Delete-Erica Wasserman
I agree with Katrina. It would be impossible to do away with remedial classes at community colleges, because they are teaching essential skills to people who lack the foundation necessary to participate and succeed in college. While the cost for these courses are high, and they may not positively affect every student, they are still teaching the skills that allow for greater access to higher education, bith two-year and four-year programs. We cannot consider the idea of not offering these courses until our K-12 education system consistently creates students with the proper foundation to succeed in higher education. While I like the idea of saving an incredible amount of money, I can't help but wonder how much cutting these programs would "cost" our students.
ReplyDeleteLike many of you, I also agree that remedial courses are crucial to a student development because these courses teach students some of the basic skills they need to succeed in college. Katrina made a great point about 4-year institutions providing remedial coursework, and how they have a lot more resources than community colleges. As a product of the community college, UC, and Private school system, I agree that four year institutions have a lot more resources to increase student success. Public and Private institutions have an abundance of resources and services that community colleges lack.
ReplyDeleteRemedial courses has been a topic of high interest as of late because of its costs. But I agree that, it can not be done away with until there is no need for it. Many students are underprepared because of their K-12 education and until there is a change in that education or a better working relationship between K-12 education and higher education, there will still be a need for remediation. Community colleges have a high population of these students but so do a significant amount of four-year institutions. Students need these classes to better prepare for the skills needed for college course work. We can't do away with the remediation because some students don't make it past remedial courses. I agree with Christa that saving money would be great but what would be the repercussions for our students.
ReplyDelete-Rosalynn Ayala
Remediation is [sometime] seen as a knee jerk reaction for students who didn't score high enough on a standardized test. As stated in the blog-there is no empirical data that suggests a correlation between remedial courses and student success. Albeit anecdotal, in my opinion, many students flourish mainstream classes while keeping pace with classmates. Many teachers push students to remediation, because they [the teacher] lacks the skill-set and/or temperament to teach said student. I see remediation as the "flip-side-of-the-coin" of affirmative action. I think it should be reconstructed, or disregarded. Remediation is too antiquated in its current format.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the comments above that remedial education will continue to be a necessity until K-12 schools and higher education institutions can collaborate to ensure more students are adequately prepared. Though removing these remediation programs could help save institutions a lot of money, there are plenty of colleges and universities in which removal would negatively impact a large portion of the student body. For example, at the CSU and community college levels many students take some form of remedial education before entering college level courses. Getting rid of remediation would mean that students requiring these courses would either no longer have access to higher education (if institutions become more selective and only took in students who can perform at the college level)or students would enter courses that they are not sufficiently prepared to complete (which would cause many to drop-out). Instead of cutting back on remediation, I think institutions should be more focused on how to ensure these courses are serving their purpose and finding ways of improving student outcomes (with additional resources or through reformation of their curriculums, as was previously mentioned).
ReplyDelete