Research Report Remedial Education: An Inventory of SUNY Community College Programs and Procedures

Transcription

1 Research Report Remedial Education: An Inventory of SUNY Community College Programs and Procedures By Richard M. Romano Introduction The community colleges in the State University of New York (SUNY) are designed to be open access colleges that provide post-secondary opportunities for a wide range of students. Compared with their four-year counterparts, they attract greater numbers of under-prepared students, those with lower incomes and other under-served populations such as students of color and recent immigrants. The success of these students often depends on the provision of remedial/developmental courses and a range of special student services designed to improve student success. Despite the widespread acceptance of the importance of remediation in community college mission statements, conversations with a number of faculty teaching in these programs reveal that most feel that they are a relatively isolated subculture within their colleges. They seem to have little opportunity to interact with colleagues at other colleges who work in the remedial area. Some of the directors, if they have one, are loosely tied together through the New York College Learning Skills Association but few teaching faculty are familiar, for instance, with the National Center for Developmental Education at Appalachian State University which publishes the Journal of Developmental Education. All of those whom we talked to expressed an interest in knowing what other campuses were doing and in sharing ideas with their colleagues. As far as we can tell, no state-wide meeting of this SUNY group has ever been held. Given the current lack of collaboration among those involved in the remedial effort at the SUNY community colleges, the goal of this study is modest and informational. This study is not an attempt to examine whether remedial education works or not; nor does it present a model for assessing remedial education at the institution or state level. It is simply a descriptive inventory of what the SUNY community colleges are doing in the area of remedial education. It does not make any judgments about what is good or bad about particular programs or procedures. Its primary purpose is to provide baseline information designed to stimulate conversation among the colleges about their own policies and procedures. Perhaps it will serve as a first step in the process of assessing and improving these efforts. Our Data The State of New York has two public community college systems. The smallest is part of the City University of New York (CUNY) and includes 6 colleges with approximately 75,000 students. The largest covers the rest of the state and is part of the State University of New York (SUNY). SUNY has 30 community colleges with approximately 200,000 students. Although SUNY sometimes lists the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), in 1

2 Manhattan, as one of its 30 community colleges, it is a very specialized institution that offers associate through graduate degree work. For that reason it was left out of this study. Data for this Report was obtained from a survey sent to the remaining twenty nine directors of institutional research of the community colleges of the State University of New York. CUNY was not included. A number of the questions on the survey were adapted from a U.S. Department of Education survey of all postsecondary institutions released in Mailed along with the survey, was a copy of the answers submitted by one of the SUNY colleges (used as a model and simply identified as Upstate College ) so that the respondents could have an idea of what we were looking for. In addition, an FAQ was included to provide further clarification on some of the questions. A copy of the survey form, cover letter and FAQ can be found in Appendix A. The survey form was mailed at the end of April 2006 and, when necessary, follow-up calls were made to augment it and to verify certain answers. Usable surveys were received from 26 of the 29 colleges (90%). The respondents were a representative mix of small, medium and large sized colleges from both urban and rural areas. Of the remaining three colleges, we were able to obtain answers to a few of the survey questions from their college website. A spreadsheet with the final results was provided to each campus. Campus names are coded (A,B,C, etc.) but each campus was provided with its own code so that it could see where it stands in relation to the other colleges. The spreadsheet in Appendix B is a summary of the answers submitted by each college. Limited data from the three non-respondents are the last three entries in the spreadsheet. The written comments provided by the respondents are not included but did influence the narrative in this Report. This survey represents the first of its type done for the SUNY community colleges. The narrative in this Report provides a quick summary of the answers grouped by topic, such as Credit Policies or Placement Procedures and Policies. The narrative also provides a very brief discussion of the national research that relates to each question. Where appropriate, comparisons are made with the data from the U.S. Department of Education (NCES, 2003) survey on remedial education and with an AACC survey on the same topic (Shults, 2001). Less frequently cited are a Report done for the New York State Board of Regents on remedial education (NYSED,1999) and one done by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) in Definition of Remedial Education The box below is taken from the cover sheet of the survey. It provides the definition of remedial education that was used for this study. Courses in reading, writing or math offered to college students lacking the skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required by your college. Throughout this questionnaire, these courses are referred to as remedial ; however, your college may use other names such as developmental, or basic skills, or some other term. Please answer the survey for any courses meeting the definition above, regardless of the name; however, do not include courses that are only partially remedial. * Do not include English as a second language (ESL) courses. Do not include remedial courses offered by another institution, even if students at your college take these courses. 2

3 In the definition specified above, respondents were asked to report only on courses that were 100% remedial. A number of colleges not only offer remedial courses but also offer courses which are partially remedial. That is, they might have a four credit math course and count two of the credits toward the degree. These mixed courses are often referred to as developmental courses within the SUNY system. Follow-up calls were necessary to verify that developmental courses were not included in this survey. The results show that this was true except for question 2 (i) as explained later in this report. Extent of Remedial Offerings Questions #1 and #2 (a,b,c) and #7 refer to the type, number and level of reading, writing, math or other remedial courses offered in the fall 2004 semester. Nationally, a majority of community colleges do not classify English-as-a-second language courses as remedial so ESL was excluded from this survey. Question #9 (f) asks about the types of supplemental remedial services offered. Survey Results Answers to question #1 and information from the three non-respondents websites indicate that all (100%) of the SUNY community colleges offered some remedial courses in the fall 2004 semester. Most (86%) offered courses in all three areas queried (reading, writing and math). Three of the smaller rural colleges did not offer any reading instruction and one of them did not offer writing. In addition, four colleges (14%) offered remedial courses in science, most often biology, physics or chemistry, and one offered a remedial nursing course. The answers to question #2 (b) indicate that the median number of reading courses offered is two, with only two colleges offering three or more. With writing, most colleges offered one or two courses, with only four colleges offering three or more. The number of math courses offered ranged from one to eight, with eleven colleges offering three or more. In general the SUNY colleges, reflecting national averages, offered more remedial courses in math than in writing or reading. Figure 1 shows the number of distinct credit courses offered in each of the three areas. 3

4 Figure 1. Percentage distribution of number of remedial reading, writing and math courses offered by SUNY community colleges (fall 2004) READING MATHEMATICS 7% 11% 22% 45% 37% 0 Course 1 Course 2 Courses 3 or more Courses 41% 37% WRITING 14 % 4% 32% 50% Question #2 (c) asks about levels and not numbers. Levels are distinguished by prerequisites. If one remedial course in math is a prerequisite for another remedial course in math, that counts as two levels. The assumption is that the most under-prepared students start at the bottom level and work their way up the remedial ladder before entering the regular academic level courses. Results indicate that one or two levels of reading and writing, and two or three levels of math are the norm. Again, more levels of math are offered than either reading or writing. Question #9 (f) asks about supplemental remedial services offered to students. Here tutoring, math labs and writing centers are the norm. Predictably, the smaller rural colleges in SUNY offered fewer of these services than the medium and larger size colleges in urban areas. Other Research As might be expected, almost all community colleges in the U.S. offer some remedial courses. The national survey done by AACC (Shults, 2001) asking about the fall

5 semester, found that 95% of the colleges surveyed offered courses in math, reading and writing. Thirty percent (30%) offered remedial science courses compared with 14% in the SUNY community colleges. The survey done by the NCES indicated that, in the fall 2000, 97% of public 2-year colleges offered remedial mathematics, while 96% offered remedial reading and writing but only 37% of the colleges offered remedial courses in other subjects (NCES, 2003, Table 1, p.8 and Figure 3, p.12). It appears that SUNY community colleges are very much in line with national averages in taking on the mission of remediation. When looking at the number of courses and the distinct levels-- Shults (2001) reported that, for public 2-year colleges offering remedial education in the fall 1998, half offered more than three levels of remedial math, two levels of remedial reading, two levels of remedial writing and one level of remedial science (p.6). For the fall 2000, the NCES survey reported that public two-year colleges offered an average of 2.5 courses in reading, 2.6 courses in writing and 3.4 courses in math (NCES, 2003, Table 2, p.11). Nationally, community colleges seem to offer a greater number and more levels of reading, writing, math and science than the SUNY community colleges. But, national comparisons on numbers and levels may not be meaningful. Fewer courses may simply reflect a different program mix and/or level of preparation of entering students. We have made no attempt to assess this issue. On the question of the supplemental services offered to remedial students, research (Perin, 2004; Rouche, 1999) indicates that a holistic approach which integrates supplemental services with remedial studies, benefits students. Although limited evidence exists on the extent of these additional services, nationally, it appears from the answers to question #9(f) that the SUNY colleges rank at or above the national average in offering these services. It should be noted that a mere count of the remedial courses offered may not do justice to the extent of remediation going on in community colleges. As Grubb (2001) points out, a good deal of remediation may be going on in regular college level courses that are in effect converted to remedial classes because the majority of students are not ready for what the instructor considers college level work (p.10 and Grubb and Associates, 1999, Ch. 5). This study makes no attempts to measure the extent of this hidden remediation. Credit Policies Survey Results Questions #2 (d,e,f) refers to the type of credits given to remedial courses, whether placement is required or recommended and whether students are allowed to take academic courses while enrolled in remedial courses. 5

6 Answers to question #2 (d) indicate that only one SUNY college awards general elective degree credit for what they list as remedial reading, writing or math. All other colleges (97%), award only institutional credit, which means that the credits count toward financial aid, athletic eligibility, etc. but are not counted toward graduation. Slightly more liberal patterns can be found in the national data. Question #2 (e) asked whether remedial courses were recommended or required. The responses indicate that only 16 out of 25 colleges (64%) make all three (reading, writing and math) a requirement for those students needing them. As can be seen for the actual responses in Appendix B, only 4 colleges make all three a recommendation with the remaining colleges using a mix of required and recommended. Follow-up telephone conversations indicate some possible errors in these responses. While the official policy may be to require a particular course, students are sometimes able to get around this requirement. One college indicated that the courses were required but that students escape because the computer does not block them from registering in regular academic courses for which the remedial course is a prerequisite. This is probably more common than the responses to this survey reveal. In question #2 (f) we find that the norm for SUNY colleges is to allow students to take regular academic courses, with certain restrictions, while undergoing remediation. Only one college indicated that no restrictions of any kind are put on registration in regular academic courses, when either remedial writing or math were recommended. Other Research A national survey done by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) in 2001, found that no states would accept remedial credits toward the bachelors degree and that with few exceptions only institutional credit was given for remedial courses at the community college. The exceptions were limited to occupational and non-transferable degrees (Jenkins and Boswell, 2002). In the same ESC study, Maryland was the only state that would not allow students into regular college level courses before completing their remedial courses. New York does not have a state-wide policy on the latter issue and leaves that decision to the discretion of the individual colleges. The AACC survey indicated that 76% of the colleges surveyed offered institutional credit, while 5% offered degree credit and 5% offered no credit for remedial courses. The remaining 14% offered a mix of the three options (Shults, 2001, p.6). The NCES survey for the fall 2000 showed that for public 2-year colleges 87% gave only institutional credit for reading and math while 86% did so for writing (NCES, 2003, Table 8, p.25). On the question of whether the course are required or recommended, colleges in the NCES survey reported that about 75% of them required remedial courses for those students who needed them with the other 25% saying that they are recommended but not required (NCES, 2003, Table 7, p.23). 6

7 When looking at whether students could take academic courses while enrolled in remedial courses, the AACC survey indicated that 99% of the colleges allowed students to take college level courses while they were enrolled in remedial studies (Shults, 2001, p.8). The NCES survey did not report the results for this question by college type. However, considering all colleges in 2000, 18% placed no restrictions on taking academic courses for students enrolled in remedial reading, but only 12% and 14% had no restrictions for students taking remedial writing and math respectively (NCES, 2003, Table 10, p.27). The NCES study also noted that the trend since 1995 had been away from the no restriction policy and toward a policy where more restrictions are put on what students are allowed to enroll in while taking remedial courses. The national results on the question of required placement in remedial courses should be interpreted with caution. The results of our SUNY survey indicate that the word required may not mean mandatory, as in no way to escape, once the student is placed into a remedial course (see above). Most often a variety of formal and informal methods exist which allow students to by-pass remedial courses. Exit Requirements In question #9 (e), respondents were asked what the most common exit requirement was for moving from remedial to regular academic courses in reading, writing and math courses. Nationally, there is some concern over allowing unlimited repeating of remedial courses. So, in a related question, # 6, we asked if their college put a limit on the length of time a student could take remedial courses (neglecting financial aid rules such as the 150% rule for students on financial aid). Survey Results The majority of colleges (56%) reported that only a passing grade in the course was required to exit remedial courses. Respondents were asked to enter the passing grade but only 64% answered this part of the question. Of those that did, C was the most common grade; but 8 colleges allowed a grade of D in reading, 7 allowed a D in writing and 5 allowed a D as a passing grade in math. Beyond this, 2 colleges indicated that a passing grade of C was required in addition to a common exit exam, with very few indicating that college or departmental exams were the most common exit requirement. Other variations in the answers to this question can be found by looking in Appendix B. On question #6, 21 out of 24 (88%) said that their college placed no limit on the number of times a remedial course could be taken. Two colleges said that courses could be taken up to three times and two colleges responded that they had either a one year or a two year time limit. Other Research Information on the exit requirements from remedial courses is very sparse. Ninety-one percent of the institutions in the AACC survey reported that a passing grade in a remedial 7

8 course was a necessary exit requirement (but they did not report the grade). However, 56% used an additional measure, most frequently an exit exam (30%) or retaking the assessment test (30%) (Shults, 2001, p. 8). The literature on time limits is more plentiful and increasing. The NCES report states that some states are putting limitations on the time that students are permitted to spend in remediation and the use of public funds for [this purpose] (NCES, 2003, p. 2). The AACC reported that 23% of the institutions in their survey placed some restrictions on taking remedial courses. Of those, 20 % did so by increasing tuition after multiple attempts, 32% by restricting students from taking additional remedial courses, 30% by ending non-federal funding, and 19% by other methods (Shults, 2001, p. 8). The ESC survey of state policy toward remediation, reported that seven states limit the number of times a student can repeat a remedial course, or at least the number of times the state will pay for course repeats, as follows (number in parentheses is the number of repeats after the first try) : California (1), Florida (2), Illinois (1), Louisiana (2), Tennessee (1), Virginia (2) and Washington (2) (Jenkins and Boswell, 2002, p. 4). New York/SUNY currently places no limit on the time allowed for remediation. That decision is left to individual colleges and, as we have seen from our survey, 88% of the colleges do not exercise this option. Centralized or Decentralized Organizational Structure Question #2 (g) probes into the campus organizational structure used to deliver remedial education. At issue is whether it is better to locate remedial courses within academic departments such as English and math, or to centralize them in a separate unit that is responsible for offering pre-collegiate courses. Survey Results The survey results show that 17 out of 23 (74%) colleges reporting on this question used a totally decentralized model with only two centralizing all three in a separate department or learning center. Follow up calls indicated that some colleges reporting a decentralized model, nevertheless, did place the lowest level of remedial reading and math courses in a separate unit. Other Research In terms of student learning, is it more effective to centralize or decentralize campus remedial education programs? Roueche argues that most community colleges mainstream their programs. Our survey found this to be true in the SUNY colleges. However, frequently cited research by Boylan (2002) on both 2-year and 4-year colleges indicates that student success is enhanced by a centralized organizational structure. Delores Perin (2002a, 2002b), at the Community College Research Center at Columbia University, has done a careful review of all of the literature related to 2-year colleges and has concluded that studies on the desirability of either model are not definitive. 8

9 Perin discusses the possible advantages and disadvantages of each model. She reviews the arguments that decentralizing the effort within academic departments might be better because those departments are more likely to use full-time faculty to teach some of the courses and to pay more attention to integrating the remedial courses with those in the regular academic program. According to Perin, student reactions to the mainstream model also seem to be more positive. Among the disadvantages of mainstreaming, Perin suggests that many full-time departmental faculty may not be trained to teach remedial courses and may resent the teaching assignment. Centralizing the effort might allow for the hiring of specialists who may be more inclined to integrate other student services (tutoring, etc.) into the process and who might be more motivated to help remedial students. Both models, according to Perin, suffer from low esteem within the campus environment, but this is especially true for the centralization model. In the end, Perin concludes that "it appears that the lower-level remedial student, marked by the need for reading instruction, is best served in a centralized department while the higher functioning student may benefit most from [remedial] courses in a mainstreamed department (Perin, 2002b, p.2). Although perhaps not by conscious design, a few of the SUNY community colleges may be following this recommendation. Since very few colleges would have a reading department, the teaching of that skill is more likely to be left to something resembling a remedial center that also coordinates other student services. Students at the lowest level, who need reading, therefore get the centralized model. If the students who don t need reading are the ones at the higher level, they are served by the decentralized model where the academic departments control the remedial courses. Are full-time or part-time faculty used? Question #2 (h) asks about the type of faculty used to teach remedial courses. Respondents were asked to count the number of sections of remedial reading, writing and math taught by permanent, full-time faculty. Permanent faculty were defined as those having tenure or holding tenure track positions. It was assumed that the rest of the sections were taught by adjunct faculty. Survey Results Figure 2 shows the percentage of full-time and part-time faculty used to teach remedial courses by subject. 9

10 Figure 2 Percentage of remedial sections taught by full-time (F-T) and part-time (P-T) faculty, by subject. READING 44% F-T 56% P-T MATH WRITING 49% 51% 53% 47% The individual colleges answers to this question can be found in Appendix B. Respondents were asked to show the numerator and denominator used in their calculation so that we could get a more accurate, system wide percentage. Only 14 of 23 colleges reporting this data did so and these are reflected in the data reported in Figure 2. Thus, we can draw the conclusion that, for the system as a whole, about 50% of the remedial courses are taught by adjunct faculty. Only 10 colleges reported that a majority (over 50%) of their remedial reading sections were taught by full-time faculty; while 8 reported that a majority of their writing courses were and 7 reported that a majority of their math courses were taught by full-time faculty. Other Research On this question it is difficult to make comparisons with national averages because the data are slightly different. Nationally, the AACC estimates that in 2001 approximately 66% of all faculty at community colleges were adjuncts (Phillippe and Sullivan, 2005). The AACC survey on remedial education indicates that 66% of the colleges reported having a majority of part-time faculty teaching remedial courses (Shults, 2001, p. 4). So, it may be that adjunct faculty are a little less commonly used to teach remedial courses within the SUNY community colleges than they are nationally. Whether the high 10

11 percentage of adjuncts teaching these types of courses has a negative impact on student learning, or not, is still an open question. Percentage of students enrolled in remedial courses. Questions #2(i) and #3 ask about the percentage of students on each campus that were enrolled in remedial courses in the fall 2004; and question #4 asks if this number has increased, decreased or stayed the same since fall The answer to these questions depends on what cohort of students is being measured (see Dellow and Romano, 2002 on the importance of cohorts.) Survey Results Question 2(i) asks about the percentage of first time (both full-time and part-time) students enrolled in remedial reading, writing and math courses. Respondents were asked to draw from the data already calculated for a New York State Education Department (NYSED) reporting form that each campus is required to submit. (For calculation, see instructions in FAQ in Appendix A). In this NYSED report the definition of remedial is slightly broader than the definition being used in our survey. The NYSED asks colleges to include not only courses that are 100% remedial (our definition) but also courses that are partially remedial (more broadly called developmental). Since very few of these partial (mixed) courses are offered at the SUNY community colleges, the percentages given will not be much different from the answers to question #3 which excludes all of these mixed courses. The range of answers given to question #2(i) are instructive in themselves. For reading, the range for those colleges that offered remedial reading was from 1 to 77 percent. For writing, it was from 3 to 72 percent and for math, it was from 2 to 76 percent. As shown in Figure 3, the average for the colleges reporting this data tells us that 13.1% of the new students entering in the fall 2004 were enrolled in remedial reading; 22.1% were enrolled in writing; and 31.2% were enrolled in math. Of course, many of these students were enrolled in more than one remedial course, so in question #3 we asked about the unduplicated headcount. 11

12 Figure 3 Average percentage of first-time students enrolled in remedial reading, writing and math (yes) (fall 2004) Reading 13.1% Yes No 88.1% Writing Math 22.1% 31.2% 77.9% 66.8% Question #3 asks about the percentage of unduplicated first-time students who were enrolled in any remedial (not developmental) course for the fall The range reported on this question was from 10 to 89 percent. The average reported by the 24 colleges that responded to this question was 37.5%. This roughly speaking is the percentage that would be most often quoted in media reports, as in, X percentage of entering students were placed into remedial courses in Y college. When asked in question #4 (see Figure 4) whether this percentage had increased or not from fall 1999 to fall 2004, 12 (52%) reported that it had increased, 8 (35%) that it had remained the same, and only 3 (13%) reported that the remediation enrollments had decreased. 12

13 Figure 4 Percentage of colleges reporting that remedial enrollments had increased, remained the same or decreased from fall 1999 to fall % 35% 52% Increased Same Decreased Other Research When asked what percentage of community college students are enrolled in remedial courses, the most common answer, nationally, is about 50% (Roueche and Roueche, 1999, p. 5). The study of remediation done for the New York State Education Department in 1999, using a small sample and an atypical cohort of students, reported that SUNY 2- year colleges had 16.5% of freshmen in remediation while CUNY 2-year colleges had a 82.8% rate in (NYSED,1999, Table2). More typically, the AACC survey reported that 36% of new students in fall 1998 were enrolled in at least one remedial course (Shults, 2001, p.1). The NCES study reported a 42% rate for a comparable cohort for fall 2000, which was a slight increase from the 40% reported in fall 1995 (NCES, 2003, pp.17-18). The comparable rate from our survey was 37.5%. This puts the SUNY community colleges at or just below the national average in terms of the percentage of new entering students who enrolled in at least one remedial course. Distance Learning Courses Respondents were asked if they offered any remedial courses in total via audio, video or computer technologies. Survey Results Answers to question #5 indicate that the SUNY community colleges are not very active in offering remedial courses totally through distance learning. Only 6 colleges (24%) reported doing so. Moreover, in discussions, some questioned the wisdom of using this method of delivery for remedial education. 13

14 Other Research Nationally, we do not have good data on this question or on the success rate of students using this approach. The AACC survey indicated that 95% of responding colleges used computers in remedial courses. This doesn t really address our survey question. However, in the same survey, 26% of colleges said that they offered remedial education through distance education; but we are unable to tell whether the courses were delivered in-total or in-part using this method (Shults, 2001, p. 9). The same can be said for the NCES survey. Here 25 % reported that they offered remedial education through distance education, but it was not clear if this was in-total or in-part. NCES also reported that public 2-year colleges were more likely to use computers as a hands-on instructional tool for their on-campus remedial reading, writing and especially math courses than either public or private 4-year colleges (NCES, 2003, p ). Although data on this question is incomplete, from the best that we have it appears that the SUNY community colleges mirror the national averages on the use of distance learning for remedial courses. Service to local businesses In question #8 respondents were asked if they offered any remedial courses or services to local business or industries. Survey Results As can be seen in Appendix B, only 5 (19%) checked yes to this question. Follow-up calls showed that these were most often non-credit contract courses offered through community education rather than the regular credit style courses which were the main focus of this survey. A few colleges wrote on the survey form that they would offer these courses if needed. Other Research The AACC study indicates that 47% of responding colleges offered this service to local businesses through contract training (Shults, 2001, p.9). Likewise the NCES reported that 56% of public 2-year colleges offered such services. Of those who provided such services, 85% did so, on campus and 85% did so, at business and industry sites (NCES 2003, p.14). On this question, it appears that the SUNY community colleges offer fewer remedial courses and/or services to local businesses than 2-year colleges nationally. We did not investigate whether this was due to an unwillingness to meet this need or to a lack of demand. 14

15 Placement Procedures and Policies Question 9(a,b,c,d) explores the important area of placement testing. Colleges struggle with this issue all the time and we wanted to provide information to them on what tests were being used and what the cutoff scores were for placing students into regular academic courses. Survey Results Selection process-- In question 9(a) respondents were asked if placement tests were used and whether all students or only some were tested. All colleges (100%) indicated that some type of placement test was given to entering students, although as Appendix B shows, college G indicated that testing was voluntary for math. However, only 50% said that all full-time and part-time students were tested for all three subject areas. The rest indicated that most full-time, degree seeking, students were tested but that others might not be tested. When asked whether exemptions were given 9(b), 8 colleges said no (33%) with the majority saying, yes. The most common exemptions mentioned (some in the comments section not reported here) were college transfer and high school grades or scores on the New York State Regents subject area exams. Tests used-- Next respondents were asked about the placement test they used (question 9c). Six choices were given including a local exam designed by the college faculty or one of the national exams offered by the American College Testing Service (ACT-Asset or Compass) or the College Board (Accuplacer). Accuplacer was the most common test used but four (15%) indicated that ACT-Asset was used exclusively, with 2 (8%) using ACT-Compass for all three subject areas. The rest (31%) used a mixture of the national tests and/or local exams for the purposes of placement. Of these, a local exam was most commonly used in the writing and math areas. The details can be seen in Appendix B. Cutoff scores-- When asked about cutoff scores in question 9(d), the responses were so varied that they are impossible to summarize here. Among the colleges that used Accuplacer, for instance, the range of scores reported for placement into regular academic courses, is wide. For reading it ranges from 36 to 91; for writing the range is from 60 to 86; and for math, from 34 to 120. These numbers should be read with great caution. Follow-up calls indicated a great deal of confusion over, what appears to be a simple question, especially with regard to the math placement scores. Individual colleges interested in comparing their scores with others are directed to the answers in Appendix B. Colleges should first look to see what test is given and then at the cutoff scores used to place students into the lowest level of regular academic courses. In conversations with individual colleges over their cutoff scores, a number of issues were opened up that are not reflected in our data. For instance, college A, a medium size suburban college, and college C, a smaller rural college, both use the Accuplacer placement test. College A has a cutoff score of 56 for reading but college C uses a score of 75; a seemingly wide difference. With its cut off score, college A places 8% of its first 15

16 time entering students into remedial reading while college C places only 4% of the same cohort into remedial reading (see question 2i). One would think that with a higher cutoff score, college C would be placing more of its students into reading than college A. But, a multitude of reasons might explain the difference. Perhaps college C attracts better prepared high school students. Or perhaps college A has fewer transfer programs and finds that a lower level of reading is sufficient to get students through their vocational AAS degree programs. Or, perhaps college C has higher levels of hidden remediation in its regular academic courses. Or perhaps, etc. etc. The placement of students into remedial courses, determined by the wide variation of cutoff scores, may or may not be based on sound research. However, it most certainly reflects the struggle that each college goes through in adjusting its curriculum to the incoming students and the level of expectation of its faculty. Other Research The ESC survey indicated that in twenty states, policies regarding placement in remedial courses are determined by state level statute, board policy or some combination thereof (Jenkins and Boswell, 2002, p.3). On the other hand, only seven states had statemandated placement exams. In New York neither of these conditions exists. State Education/SUNY policy does not allow remedial credits to be counted toward the degree but leaves the rest to the individual campuses. As our survey shows, this has allowed college s wide latitude in setting remedial placement policies. In the AACC survey, 58% of the colleges reported that they required assessment of all students but allowed a variety of exemptions to that rule. The exemptions most commonly mentioned were college entrance scores, high school grades, advanced placement (AP) scores and transfer status (Shults, 2001, p.5). AACC also reported that 16% of the colleges used state developed measures of assessment while 23% of the colleges had the cutoff scores set by the state rather than the institution itself (Shults, 2001, p. 5). In the NCES survey for fall 2000, 63% of public 2-year colleges said that they gave all entering students a placement test in reading, writing and math and that this percentage had dropped since the 1995 survey (NCES, 2003, Table 6, p. 22). Nationally, there is a great deal of disagreement over whether uniform state policies are appropriate concerning the entry and exit from remedial programs. Increasingly states are putting a limit on the amount of remedial education they are willing to pay for. This is a particularly sensitive political issue as many of the students needing remediation are minority, low-income or disadvantaged students who are less likely to complete a degree (Jenkins and Boswell, 2002, p. 1). The SUNY community colleges have few restrictions on the method of selecting and placing students in remedial courses. All seem to value this freedom but are also curious about what others are doing in this area. We hope that this survey will fill part of this 16

17 information gap. Although expenditures for remediation are probably not a very significant share of the average college budget, state intrusion on this freedom could be avoided if colleges could point to sound research that showed positive outcomes of their remediation efforts. Comments on Assessment Despite the importance of remedial education at the community college, little effort has been made to assess its effectiveness. Perhaps the most astute observer of the remedial efforts at the community college, John Roueche from the University of Texas, has said that: We still do not know very much about the actual success of remedial programs because colleges do not evaluate them very well. They frequently collect inappropriate or poor-quality data and use inappropriate criteria for measuring effectiveness [the fact is] they do not know how to assess it (Roueche & Roueche, 1999, p. 27). Accurate assessment of these programs is an important step toward improving the quality of remedial programs and advancing student success. We hope that this inventory of remedial programs within the SUNY community college system will assist in this effort. What s Next? During the process of conducting this survey, we have received the strong message that faculty and administrators in the remedial area are eager for information about what each campus is doing, especially in regards to testing, placement and assessment. In response the Institute for Community College Development will undertake the following actions. Determine the feasibility of convening a SUNY-wide meeting for the sharing of ideas and planning future activities. Consider the possibility of establishing a system-wide remedial education Evidence-Based Inquiry Council, a learning community of professionals with a structured process for defining the problem, gathering data, and proposing and testing solutions. Explore outside sources of funding to support these efforts. 17

18 References Boylan, H. (2002). What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in Developmental Education, Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement Network, National Center for Developmental Education. Dellow, D. and Romano, R. (2002). Measuring Outcomes: Is the First-time, Full-time Cohort Appropriate for the Community College? Community College Review, 30(2): Grubb, W.N. & Associates. (1999). Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community Colleges. New York: Routledge. Grubb, W.N. (2001). From Black Box to Pandora s Box: Evaluating Remedial/Developmental Education. New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University. Jenkins, D. and Boswell, K. (2002). State Policies on Community College Remedial Education: Findings from a National Survey. Denver: Education Commission of the States. NCES. (2003). National Center for Education Statistics, Statistical Analysis Report. Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall Washington, DC: US Department of Education. NYSED. (1999).Remedial Education: New York and the Nation A Report to the New York State Board of Regents. Perin, D. (2002a). The Location of Developmental Education in Community Colleges: A Discussion of the Merits of Mainstreaming vs. Centralization. Community College Review, 30(1): Perin, D. (2002b). CCRC Brief: The Organization of Developmental Education: In or Out of Academic Departments? New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University. Perin, D. (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(7), Phillippe, K.A. and Sullivan, L.G. (2005). National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends and Statistics. Washington, DC: Community College Press. 18

19 Roueche, J. and Roueche, S. (1999). High Stakes, High Performance: Making Remedial Education Work. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Shults, C. (2001). AACC Research Brief: Remedial Education: Practices and Policies in Community Colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Richard M. Romano is director of the Institute for Community College Research, Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY and Research Associate at the Institute for Community College Development, Cornell University. Comments may be directed to him at He is grateful to the following people for reading drafts of this report: Barbara Viniar (Cornell), Gary Blose (SUNY Central), Tom Wright (Columbia Greene), Tim Millard (Broome), Dave Michalak (Broome), Sally Weglinski (Dutchess), and Ted Szymanski (TC3). 19

20 APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM SENT TO 29 SUNY COMMUNITY COLLEGES 20

21 The Institute for Community College Development (A SUNY and Cornell University Partnership) Cornell University, 403 ILR Extension, Ithaca, NY Remedial Education: An Inventory of SUNY Community College Programs (SURVEY FORM) We are asking for your cooperation in completing this survey. It is the first step in a project to improve the remedial effort at SUNY community colleges. We will be applying for funding for participating colleges to assist in this effort. Your cooperation is critical if the results of this survey are to be comprehensive, accurate and timely. Results will be distributed to all campuses. Definition of Remedial Education Courses for the Purposes of this Survey Courses in reading, writing or math offered to college students lacking the skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required by your college. Throughout this questionnaire, these courses are referred to as remedial ; however, your college may use other names such as developmental, or basic skills, or some other term. Please answer the survey for any courses meeting the definition above, regardless of the name; however, do not include courses that are only partially remedial. * Do not include English as a second language (ESL) courses. Do not include remedial courses offered by another institution, even if students at your college take these courses. This survey focuses on your regular academic degree programs. Do not include community education and business and industry courses (except for question 8). If exact data are not available, give your best estimate. For questions with an asterisk (* ), refer to the attached FAQ for help. AFFIX ADDRESS LABEL HERE If the college information above is incorrect, please correct it directly on the label. Name of Person Completing this Form Phone number Title/Position address Thanks for your help. Return Completed Form to: The Institute for Community College Development At the address above If you have any questions, call Richard Romano or rmr46@cornell.edu 21

22 A number of the questions on this survey were adapted from a U.S. Department of Education survey of all postsecondary institutions done in Where * appears, refer to FAQ for help. 1. Did your college offer remedial reading, writing, or math courses (as defined on the front of this questionnaire) in fall 2004? Yes No (skip to questions 7 & 8-- then stop) 2. Enter information requested in Parts a-i for the remedial courses in each subject area. For those subjects (reading, writing, math) in which you have not offered any remedial courses in the last three years, enter no in part (a) and skip parts (b)-(i). Remedial course question Reading Writing Math (a) Did your college offer remedial courses in this subject in fall 2004? (Enter yes or no.) (b) What is the number of remedial courses with different catalog numbers, listed in your college catalog? * (c ) How many different levels of remediation in each area does your college offer? (Enter a number) * (d) What is the most frequent type of credit earned from remedial courses? (Enter one.) 1 = Regular degree credit (counts toward degree) 2 = Institutional credit (e.g. counts toward financial aid or full-time student status) 3 = No credit of any kind (e) What is the college policy toward students needing remedial courses? (Enter one.) 1 = required; 2 = recommended but not required (f) While students are taking remedial courses, are there any restrictions on the regular academic courses they can take? (enter one) 1 = Students are blocked from taking any regular academic credit courses. 2 = Some restrictions (e.g. cannot take courses for which the remedial courses are prerequisites). 3 = No restrictions on regular academic courses. (g) What unit most often provides remedial education? (Enter one.) 1 = Separate remedial department or learning center 2 = Traditional academic department 22

23 3 = Other (specify) (h) What percent of your remedial sections in fall 2004 were taught by permanent full-time faculty? (Count sections not registrations.) * Remedial course question Reading Writing Math (i) In fall 2004, about what percent of first time students enrolled in remedial courses in each area? * (Use NYSED data; see FAQ for calculation.) Comments on any of the above: 3. Give your best estimate of the total, unduplicated percent of first time students who enrolled in any remedial reading, remedial writing, or remedial math courses in fall % 4. Has the number of students in question 3 above increased, stayed about the same, or decreased in the last 5 years? (Compare fall 1999 to fall 2004.) (Estimate if necessary.) (Check one.) Increased 1 stayed about the same 2 decreased 3 5. Did your college offer any remedial courses off campus through distance education in fall 2004? (Include any remedial courses delivered in total via audio, video, or computer technologies.) Yes 1 No 2 6. Is there a limit on the length of time a student may take remedial courses at your college? * Yes 1 (length of time: ) No 2 7. Does your college offer remedial courses in academic subjects other than reading, writing, or math? (Do not include ESL) Yes 1 (specify the subject(s) ) No 2 23

24 Comments: 8. Does your college currently provide remedial education courses or services to local business or industry? Yes 1 No 2 Comments on any of the above: 9. The last question is concerned with how students are selected and placed into remedial reading, writing, and math courses. Remedial course question Reading Writing Math (a) How are students selected for remedial courses? (enter one) 1 = All entering students both part-time and full-time are given a placement test. 2 = Most degree seeking full-time students are given a placement test but others may not be tested. 3 = Placement tests are voluntary. 4 = Placement tests are not used. (Skip questions (b-e) and answer (f).) (b) Are exemptions given for the placement test? (enter one) 1 = No 2 = Yes, high school grades, SAT/ACT scores, etc. are used. 3 = Other (specify) (c ) What placement test do you use? (enter one) * 1 = Local exam 2 = ASSET (ACT) 3 = ACCUPLACER (College Board) 4 = COMPASS (ACT) 5 = Other (specify) 6 = A hybrid (specify) 24

25 (d) What is the cutoff score that students must achieve to be placed into the lowest level of regular academic courses. (Write in the number or range.) (e) What is the most common requirement for moving from remediation to regular college courses. (Enter one.) 1 = Passing grade. (write in the grade) 2 = Passing grade (write in the grade) plus common exit exam 3 = College/department exit exam 4 = Other (f) What supplemental remedial services does your college offer? (Enter all that apply.) 1 = Writing center 2 = Math lab 3 = Tutoring 4 = Special counseling 5 = Other (specify) We would be happy to have any additional comments that you have. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THE COMPLETED SURVEY FOR YOUR RECORDS. 25