A large number of community college students have difficulty with postsecondary-level reading, writing, and math demands, necessitating remedial education. A qualitative case study was conducted to investigate state and institutional practices for remediation in 15 community colleges selected for region, size, and urbanicity. The six states in which the colleges were located varied on the level of regulation of institutional remedial policy and were placed on a spectrum ranging from laissez-faire to micromanagement. Most of the states and all the institutions in the study required the assessment of students’ academic skills, and the institutions mandated assessment even when the states did not require it. The types of assessment instruments varied, and subjective measures such as institutional tests, course grades, and student self-report played an important role in placement decisions. The colleges tended to require that low-scoring students attend remedial courses even in the absence of a state mandate. A wide variety of practices were used to determine student readiness to advance in or exit from remediation. Many of the institutions had procedures designed to require remediation early in the student's program, but both assessment and placement mandates appeared to be softened either at the state or institutional level, with the effect of reducing the number of students who were required to enroll in remedial courses. This trend is discussed as a struggle between the access mission of the traditionally open-door community college, and the drive to protect educational standards.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. E. (2003). Public policymaking (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
BaileyT. R., and MorestV. S. (Eds.). (in press). Missions accomplished? Multiple perspectives on access and equity at the community college. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
BoylanH., BlissL., and BonhamB. (1997). Program components and their relationship to student performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3), 2—9.
4.
BoylanH., and SaxonD. P. (2001, September). An evaluation of developmental education in Texas public colleges and universities (Technical Report). Austin: Texas Higher Education Board. Retrieved March 5, 2003, from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports.
5.
CarnoyM., and LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305—332.
6.
CasazzaM. E. (1999). Who are we and where did we come from?Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 6—8, 10, 12.
7.
DoughertyK. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
GrubbW. N., WorthenH., ByrdB., WebbE., BadwayN., and CaseC.. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge.
9.
GumportP., and BastedoM. (2000). The remedial education controversy at CUNY: Perspectives on system design and endemic conflict. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
10.
HaworthK. (1999, January 22). Many 2-year colleges impose tougher academic standards. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, p. A33.
11.
HebelS. (1999, April 9). As need for remediation grows, 2-year colleges must fill the gap, officials agree. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45. Retrieved April 9, 1999, from http://chronicle.com/daily/99/04/99040902n.htm
12.
HowardJ., and ObetzW. S. (1996). Using the NALS to characterize the literacy of community college graduates. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 462—467.
13.
HoytJ. E. (1999). Remedial education and student attrition. Community College Review, 27, 51—72.
14.
ImmerwahrJ. (1999). Taking responsibility: Leaders’ expectations of higher education. Washington, DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
15.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). (2000). Fall enrollment, 2000 [Data file]. Available from the National Center for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds
16.
JenkinsD., and BoswellK. (2002). State policies on community college remedial education: Findings from a national survey (Technical Report No. CC-0201). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, Center for Community College Policy.
17.
JohnsonL. F. (1996). Developmental performance as a predictor of academic success in entry-level mathematics. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20, 333—344.
18.
LipsonM. Y., and WixsonK. K. (2003). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing disability (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
19.
MazzeoC. (2002). Stakes for students: Agenda setting and remedial education. Review of Higher Education, 26, 19—39.
20.
McCabeR. H. (2000). No one to waste: A report to public decision-makers and community college leaders. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
21.
McGrathD., and SpearM. B. (1991). The academic crisis of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press.
22.
McLaughlinM. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171—178.
23.
MerisotisJ. P., and PhippsR. A. (2000). Remediation education in colleges and universities: What's really going on?Review of Higher Education, 24, 67—85.
24.
MerriamS. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
MilesM., and HubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Remedial education at higher education institutions in Fall 1995 (Technical Report, NCES 97–584). Washington, DC: Author. (Post-secondary Education Quick Information System [PEQIS])
27.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in Fall 2000: Statistical analysis report (Technical Report, NCES 2004–0101). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Science.
28.
NoraA. (n.d.). Community colleges in the 21” century: Revisiting and reexamining their mission. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved December 14, 1998, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu
29.
OudenhovenB. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues, uncertain solutions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 117, 35—44.
30.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
PerinD. (2002). The location of developmental education in community colleges: A discussion of the merits of mainstreaming vs. centralization. Community College Review, 30, 27—44.
32.
PerinD. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 559—582.
33.
PerinD., and CharronK. (in press). “Lights just click on every day”: Academic preparedness and remediation in community colleges. In BaileyT., and MorestV. (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
PhippsR. (1998). College remediation: What it is, what it costs, what's at stake (Technical Report). Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
35.
PressmanJ., and WildavskyA. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
RhoadsR. A., and ValadezJ. R. (1996). Culture capital and border knowledge: A case study of developmental education. In RhoadsR.A., and ValadezJ.R. (Eds.), Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community college (pp. 139—164). New York: Garland.
37.
RichardsonR. C., BraccoK. R., CallanP. M., and FinneyJ. E. (1999). Designing state higher education systems for a new century. Phoenix, AZ: The American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
38.
RouecheJ. E., and RouecheS. D. (1999). High stakes, high performance: Making remedial education work. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
39.
RouecheJ. E., ElyE. E., and RouecheS. D. (2001). In pursuit of excellence: The Community College of Denver. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
40.
SalviaJ., and YsseldykeJ. E. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
ShawK. M. (1997). Remedial education as ideological battleground: Emerging remedial education policies in the community college. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 284—296.
42.
ShawK. M. (2000). Reframing remediation as a systemic phenomenon: A comparative analysis of remediation in two states. Paper presented to American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
43.
ShultsC. (2000). Institutional policies and practices in remedial education: A national study of community colleges (Technical Report). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
44.
SpannM. G.. (2000). Remediation: A must for the 21st century learning society (Policy Paper). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
45.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
SwansonC. B., and StevensonD. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 1—28.
WeissmanJ., BulakowskiC., and JumiskoM. K. (1997). Using research to evaluate developmental education programs and policies. In and and IgnashJ. (Ed.), Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education (pp. 73—80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49.
ZeitlinA. N., and MarkusT. C. (1996). Should remediation be mandatory in the community college?Community Review, 14, 27—33.
