U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS JUNE 1991 SURVEY REPORT COLLEGE-LEVEL REMEDIAL EDUCATION IN THE FALL OF 1989 Contractor Report Wendy Mansfield Elizabeth Farris Westat, Inc. MacKnight Black Postsecondary Education Statistics Division National Center for Education Statistics Remedial education has been an enduring, integral part of higher education, as has the concern about the place of remediation in college-level education. That concern has led to a long-standing debate which encompasses issues of equity--providing adequate preparation for a diverse student population--and issues of quality--ensuring high standards at colleges and universities. As early as the late 1800s, colleges and universities in America operated programs to prepare students for undergraduate work. Often, however, the students enrolled in such preparatory program were barely teenagers. Therefore, they did not have the same number of years of elementary and secondary school education as today's college-level remedial students. Over 40 percent of entering students in colleges in the United States in 1894 were preparatory students.[1] Preparatory programs were considered pre-college and generally were found at 2-year colleges from the 1920s until the late 1960s. In the 1970s, remedial education at 2-year and 4-year colleges became more common in response to changing enrollment patterns of entering freshmen, declining high school achievement levels, and adoption of open admission standards on the part of many institutions. The state of remedial education in higher education institutions as the 1990s begin is the topic of this report. This report presents the findings of a Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) survey of colleges on remedial/developmental programs offered during fall 1989. The survey was conducted to meet the need for information at the national level on the extent of remedial education and the characteristics of remedial programs. The survey provides national estimates on the following: o Institutions that offered remedial courses; o Reading, writing, and mathematics remedial courses offered; o Students enrolled in and passing remedial courses; and o Faculty teaching remedial courses. It also provides information on characteristics of remedial courses and programs, such as the type of credit given, requirement status, use of placement tests, most frequent provider of remedial education, evaluations conducted, support services offered, activities engaged in to reduce the need for remedial education, and maintenance of retention and baccalaureate degree graduation rates for students who enrolled in remedial courses. This study provides the first data collected at the national level since a 1983-84 FRSS survey on the same topic. In addition to updating the national picture of college remedial education, the current survey attempted to furnish estimates of racial/ethnic participation in remedial education in order to determine the extent of remedial education provided to minority students by higher education institutions. Racial/ethnic breakdowns are not reported, however, because the percentage of institutions that maintained and could provide these data was too low to serve as the basis for the computation of national estimates. The survey first asked whether institutions offered a remedial course in reading, writing, or mathematics. "Remedial studies,"for the purposes of this study, were defined as any program, course, or other activity (in the area of reading, writing, or mathematics) for students lacking those skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required by the institution. Throughout the questionnaire, these activities were referred to as "remedial/ developmental." However, respondents were asked to include any activity meeting the definition, regardless of name. Colleges may have used one of a variety of names such as compensatory and basic skills, all of which meet the definition for remedial studies. The report presents all of the data for all institutions, by control (public and private), type (2-year and 4-year), geographic region (Northeast, Central, Southeast, and West), enrollment size of institution (less than 1,000; 1,000 to 4,999; and 5,000 or more) and minority status (student body less than 50 percent white and student body greater than or equal to 50 percent white). Some of the characteristics are interrelated. For example, only 22 percent of 2-year institutions are private, compared to 70 percent of 4-year institutions. Similar patterns generally emerge for public and 2-year colleges; likewise, private and 4-year colleges often have similar patterns. Survey findings in this report are organized into three main sections. The first section discusses the number of institutions, courses, freshmen, and teachers involved in college-level remedial education; the second describes remedial courses and programs; the third compares data from this survey to data from the 1983-84 survey. Highlights o Three out of four colleges and universities offered at least one remedial course in fall 1989. Sixty-eight percent offered mathematics, 65 percent writing, and 58 percent reading. o Both in institutions with a predominantly minority student body (less than 50 percent white) and institutions with a predominantly nonminority student body (greater than or equal to 50 percent white), 74 percent of the institutions offered at least one remedial course. o At least one remedial course was offered in 91 percent of public colleges, 90 percent of 2-year colleges, 64 percent of 4-year colleges, and 58 percent of private colleges. o On average, colleges with remedial courses provided two different courses in a given remedial subject; on average, 15 people per college taught one or more remedial courses in fall 1989. o Thirty percent of all college freshmen took at least one remedial course in fall 1989. Twenty-one percent took mathematics, 16 percent writing, and 13 percent reading. o At institutions with a predominantly minority student body, 55 percent of freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial course; at institutions with a predominantly nonminority student body, 27 percent of freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial course. o Approximately 17 percent of institutions were unable to provide enrollment data for freshmen in remedial courses. About 30 percent of institutions that provided remedial course enrollment data were unable to provide racial/ethnic breakdowns. o Remedial courses were passed by 77 percent of those taking remedial reading, 73 percent taking remedial writing, and 67 percent taking remedial mathematics. o Approximately one-fourth of institutions were unable to provide passing rates for freshmen in remedial courses, and about one-half were unable to provide passing rates by racial/ethnic breakdowns. o About 20 percent of colleges offering remedial education had a separate remedial department or division; 98 percent offered at least one support service, such as peer tutoring and counseling; and 97 percent of institutions conducted at least one evaluation of remedial programs, such as reviewing student completion rates of remedial courses. o Approximately 20 percent of colleges awarded degree credit for remedial courses. About two-thirds awarded institutional credit, which counted in determining full-time status but not toward degree completion. One-tenth awarded no credit at all for such courses. o Remedial courses were required for students not meeting institutional standards in 68 percent of collegs offering remedial writing, 63 percent offering remedial mathematics, and 54 percent offering remedial reading. o About 90 percent of institutions providing remedial courses used placement tests to select participants for remedial courses; remedial-course exit skills were based on regular academic-course entry skills by 86 percent of institutions for remedial mathematics courses, by 81 percent for remedial writing courses, and by 70 percent for remedial reading courses. o One-third of colleges providing remedial education allowed students to take any regular academic courses while taking remedial courses; in only 2 percent could students take no regular academic courses while taking remedial courses. o Forty percent of colleges providing remedial courses were not engaged in any activities to reduce the need for remedial education. Fifty-four percent communicated with high schools about skills needed for college work, and 19 percent participated in or organized workshops for high school faculty. o Forty-seven percent of institutions were unable to provide retention rates to the second year for freshmen who had enrolled in at least one remedial course, and approximately 66 percent of institutions were unable to provide these rates by race/ethnicity. o Eighty-one percent of colleges did not maintain baccalaureate degree graduation rates for entering freshmen who enrolled in at least one remedial course, and 87 percent did not maintain graduation rates by racial/ethnic group for these students. o Institutions offering one or more remedial courses in reading, writing, or mathematics decreased from 82 percent in 1983-84 to 74 percent in 1989-90. [1] Arthur Levine, Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978. A Copy of the report COLLEGE-LEVEL REMEDIAL EDUCATION IN THE FALL OF 1989 is available for $3.00 from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9325 GPO PUBLICATION ORDER FORM 1. PUBLICATION REQUESTED NAME: College-Level Remedial Education in the Fall of 1989 GPO STOCK NUMBER: 065-000-00456-9 COST: $3.00 per copy NUMBER OF COPIES: 2. REQUESTOR INFORMATION (Please type or print) NAME: NAME OF ORGANIZATION: MAILING ADDRESS (include number, street, city, State, and zip code): DAYTIME PHONE (include area code): TOTAL COST OF ORDER IS $ (International customers please add an additional 25%.) All prices include regular domestic postage and handling. Please call Order and Information Desk at 202-783-3238 to verify prices, which are subject to change. 3. ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS To obtain a copy of this publication, complete the order form, and choose method of payment: [ ] Check payable to Superintendent of Documents [ ] GPO Deposit Account [ | | | | | | ]-[ ] [ ] VISA or [ ] MasterCard Account [ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ] ------------------------------------ --------------------------- Signature Credit Card Expiration date Mail to: Superintendent of Documents Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402-9325 Thank you for your order