I try to vary these posts to avoid over politicizing and also to avoid writing about (generally) depressing events in higher education. I have to admit it’s hard. It seems like every day brings more bad news—cuts in funding, hasty retirements, rising tuition, devastating changes in pay and benefit structure for many state college workers, and the list could just continue. But today, I can’t offer variety. The numbers are too significant to overlook.
I’ve written before about the link between remedial course work and retention and I bring it up again because I recently saw unofficial data on the number of new students (true freshman) at my institution that have enrolled in remedial math courses. From 2006 until the present, the numbers have increased each year. This year, it could be as many as 1 in 5.
The numbers are significant for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, studies have shown that students who place into remedial courses do not graduate at the same rate as students who do not require remedial courses. It’s not that these students simply take longer to finish a degree; many do not finish at all. This is alarming, especially since the numbers are going in the wrong direction. If there is bright spot here, it’s that related studies show that completing remedial course work in the first year of college increases both retention and completion rates. Getting students into the right courses and doing everything possible to make sure students successfully finish those courses is critical.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. Courses fill and students are able make scheduling changes well into a semester. So, while we know it’s important that students complete any needed remedial work, there is currently no mechanism to ensure that they do. Is it time for a policy change? Perhaps.
Maybe students should be required to complete remedial course work during the first year of enrollment. That would mean a close watch on available seats and raise a lot of questions about what to do once those seats are gone. Maybe a credit limit should be considered, too. Many students feel pressured to take more than the minimum for full time enrollment, but for the less academically prepared, is this really wise? I am sure some college administrators would even argue that students simply should not be admitted with test scores below a certain level, both for math and English placements as well as ACT or SAT scores.
Since I am not a fan of using placement scores to determine whether or not an individual will be successful, I hope that doesn’t happen. On the other hand, an awful lot of evidence suggests that certain test scores are red flags. It would be easy for colleges to “blame” secondary education, but finger pointing does not solve the problem. The university must be committed to helping students succeed if the university is willing to admit them. Students must also take a fair share of this responsibility once they arrive on a college campus. For both parties then, if it means different polices, so be it. A revolving door helps no one.
