CONTACT: Colleen O’Brien
Tuesday December 1, 1998                                                    4:30 p.m.  202-861-8223

NEW NATIONAL REPORT:
COLLEGE REMEDIAL EDUCATION THREATENED BY INACCURATE INFORMATION, “CONJECTURE”; REPORT SAYS REMEDIATION IS A CORE FUNCTION OF COLLEGES
• Report Debunks Myths of Remedial Students, Costs
• 46% of Remedial Students Are Over Age 22; 1/4 Are 30 or Older
• Costs Generally Lower Than Core Academic Programs Like Math and English
• Strategies to Reduce Need for Remediation, Improve Effectiveness Proposed

WASH, DC....A new report says that college remedial education is being threatened by “conjecture and criticism” that portrays remediation as inappropriate or costly.  The report refutes these criticisms and the widely-held notion that all remedial students are poorly prepared recent high school graduates, instead citing remedial education as a “core function” of colleges.
Remedial education has been at the center of a firestorm of criticism and blame-placing in the last year, with critics describing remediation as too expensive, inappropriate for college-level work, and “double billing” for skills that should have been learned in high school.  The national debate has been fueled in part by the decision of the Trustees of the City University of New York (CUNY) to phase out most remedial education in the system’s four-year colleges.

But the report points out that 46% of freshmen taking remediation are over the age of 22, the traditional age of bachelor’s degree completion.  More than one-quarter of freshmen enrolled in remedial courses are over the age of 30.  These findings defy the stereotype of remedial students as unprepared recent high school graduates.

Moreover, while almost $2 billion is spent annually on college remediation nationally, this represents only 2% of higher education spending.  A case study of the costs of remedial education in Arkansas indicates that spending per student on remediation is generally lower than the costs of core academic programs such as English and math.

College remediation is a core function of higher education, and has been for several centuries, according to the study.  Rather than focusing on who should pay for remediation, or where it should take place, public policy needs to emphasize strategies to reduce the need for remediation while enhancing its effectiveness.

One problem in the public policy discussions, says the report, is that there are no consistent standards about what constitutes “college-level” work.  Most students who are classified as remedial are simply those who have the lowest scores on an assessment exam.  The line separating those who need remediation from those who do not is arbitrary and can vary greatly from institution to institution.

The report, “College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs, What’s at Stake,” was prepared by The Institute for Higher Education Policy, a non-profit research group in Washington, DC, and sponsored by the Ford Foundation.

Colleges and universities also contribute to misperceptions of remediation.  Many institutions do not find it in their interest to acknowledge that they enroll students who require remediation because they believe their “reputation” may be hurt.  The report states that the percentage of students receiving remediation, and the number of institutions that offer remedial education, is probably higher than reported.

However, there is no evidence that remediation is expanding in size or scope, as the intense public scrutiny and attention suggests.  Approximately 29% of college freshmen enrolled in remedial reading, writing, or math in 1995, about the same percentage that enrolled in 1989.

Remediation is a good investment for society, the report argues.  The alternatives—unemployment, low-wage jobs, welfare participation, and even incarceration—are far more expensive for society.  The modest financial costs combined with the high individual and societal payoffs associated with going to college make the investment worthwhile.

“It’s time to move beyond the finger pointing and jockeying over who should pay for remediation and get at the important educational and social issues,” said Jamie Merisotis, President of The Institute for Higher Education Policy.  “College education is simply too important for the nation and individuals to walk away from these underprepared students.  The public debate needs to move forward and focus on what works in remedial education, for which students, and at what cost.”

The report proposes several strategies to reduce the need for remedial education and improve its effectiveness.  Strategies include: aligning high school requirements with what colleges expect students to know and be able to do; developing early intervention and financial aid programs targeted at K-12 students that link mentoring and academic support with a guarantee of college aid; improving teacher preparation; making remediation a comprehensive program that encompasses more than just tutoring and skills development; and using technology to enhance the teaching-learning process.

In addition to the CUNY case, several states, including Massachusetts, New York, and Florida, have taken steps to reduce the amount of remedial course-taking at four-year colleges or shift remedial coursework to community colleges.  Others, including Virginia, New Jersey, and Montana, have discussed proposals to “warranty” college freshmen and force school systems to pay for remedial work that graduates take in college.

The report compiles data and information from numerous state, national, and institutional studies.  The findings are designed to inform government policymakers, institutional leaders, and the public about the broad range of issues associated with what remediation is, who it serves, and what it costs.

==========
MEMBERS OF THE PRESS who wish to obtain the report may contact Colleen O’Brien at 202-861-8223.  A full copy of the "Remediation"  (160k)  report is available for download.
 #####