Review of the Literature About Remediation in Higher Education

Martinez, S., Snider, L. A., & Day, E. (2003). Remediation in higher education: A review of the literature. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Board of Education. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://www.ksde.org/pre/postsecondary_remediation.doc
This national survey of developmental education dealt with the following issues: reason for DE enrollment levels; strategies to reduce need for DE; institutional type to provide DE; financial responsibility for DE; factors that make DE more effective; and suggested DE research topics. The report concludes with a state by state analysis of DE by identifying the following features: annual cost, enrollment percentage, state laws and policies or proposed changes, and restrictions on provision of DE.

Access Policies in Massachusetts

Lizotte, R. (1998). Access and quality: Improving the performance of Massachusetts Community College developmental education programs. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Community College System. The Massachusetts Community College Developmental Education Committee was charged to identify practices and models for adoption by the state's community colleges. Some of the recommendations include the following four areas. Assessment and Placement: mandatory comprehensive assessment of all incoming students; mandatory placement into appropriate courses. Curriculum Design and Delivery: comprehensive developmental curriculum; exit criteria for each developmental course; conduct continuous outcome research to measure program effectiveness. Support Services: monitor student success through intrusive advising; provide tutors and Supplemental Instruction program. Organizational Structure: professional development of faculty; fund full-time faculty to teach developmental courses.

Access Policies at Public Community Colleges

Jenkins, D., & Boswell, K. (2003). State policies on community college remedial education: Findings from a national survey. Washington, D.C.: Center for Community College Policy, Education Commission of the States. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://www.communitycollegepolicy.org/pdf/FINAL%20REMEDIAL%20POLICY.pdf These changes have increased enrollment in remedial education at public community colleges. Most states have instituted evaluation programs to monitor such enrollment at the community college and transfer to four-year institutions.
Ten states currently prohibit or discourage remedial education at public four-year institutions: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Louisiana will prohibit such coursework beginning in 2005. Remedial education is being curtailed with the City University of New York System and the California State University System. Massachusetts restricts such enrollment to a smaller percentage.

Access Programs and Four-Year Universities

Jehangir, R. R. (2002). Higher education for whom? The battle to include developmental education at the four-year university. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, & I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Developmental education: Policy and practice (pp. 17-34). Auburn, GA: National Association for Developmental Education. This article was an early one that forecast of increased pressure for access programs and developmental educaiton at large public four-year universities. This would eventually occur at the University of Minnesota when the General College was closed after a strategic restructuring of the institution.
This chapter examines the debate regarding the role of developmental education at public four-year universities, and will focus on the following topics: discussion of the historic and political forces that have shaped perceptions regarding DE; a description of DE and developmental students; an examination of the debate around its place in higher education with specific attention to current state legislative action against DE at the public four-year university; and recommendations for developmental educators who seek to challenge the merit of such legislation and create a paradigm shift around perceptions of DE.

Links Between Community Colleges and Four-Year Institutions

Furlong, T., & Fleishman, S. (2000). College preparatory program agreements between state universities and community colleges: A Level 1 review. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Board of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440716). There is increased discussion among state policy makers to differentiate missions of public two-year and four-year institutgions. Some of these discussions include placing access programs and developmental education primarily with two-year institutions. Such an arrangement occured decades ago in the Florida public higher education system.
This report reviews the long history of college preparatory programs offered to state university students in Florida through partnerships with local community colleges. Courses are offered either at the community college or by the community college on the university campus. Results of the study suggest that: (1) administration of the college-university agreements are sound; (2) communication between sectors is adequate; (3) there are not problems with delivery of services to students; (4) community colleges are perceived to be best suited for delivery of remedial instruction; and (5) the majority of students successfully perform college-level coursework after completing college preparatory courses.

Models of Preparing Students for College

Cunningham, A., Redmond, C., & Merisotis, J. (2003). Investing early: Intervention programs in selected U.S. states. Montreal, Canada: The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www.millenniumscholarships.ca/images/Publications/investingeng_web2.pdf More attention is placed on earlier academic preparation programs for potential college students. Rather than focusing on high school juniors and seniors, the research clearly suggests reaching into middle school to begin the preparation and transition process for college, especially those students who would be first-generation college or from historically-underrepresented backgrounds.
This study focused on 17 pre-college intervention programs offered in 12 states that are targeted for middle-school or high-school students. Effective programs had the following characteristics: they were comprehensive involving multiple areas (college awareness, financial aid counseling, academic enrichment, financial incentives); academic development (tutoring, mentoring, coursework) were important components; linkage with area postsecondary institutions. One of the biggest problems cited among the programs was that many eligible students did not participate in the programs for a variety of personal reasons and also that the programs limited their size due to budget constraints.

Unclear National Trends Concerning Developmental Education

Boylan, H. R., Saxon, D. P., & Boylan, H. M. (2002). State policies on remediation at public colleges and universities. Unpublished manuscript, National Center for Developmental Education, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://www.ced.appstate.edu/centers/ncde/reserve%20reading/state%20 Policies.htm This is probably the most comprehensive and accurate national survey of current policies regarding access education and developmental education. It illustrates how mixed the state policies are across the U.S. regarding opportunities for students.
The authors conduced a survey of higher education officials of all 50 states. States where developmental courses are restricted at state two and four-year institutions: California, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. States where developmental courses are restricted to only two-year institutions: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Other survey results include regulations concerning mandatory testing and placement, impact upon financial aid, type of academic credit awarded, and state efforts to reduce the need for developmental education coursework by changes with high school curriculum.