A Descriptive Study of Remedial Policy at Broad-Access Four-Year Public Universities

• In Event: 72.028 - Examining California State University Remediation Policies and Practices: Implications for Students, Faculty, and Staff

Abstract

Objectives
Variation across remedial programs presents challenges to researchers interested in its effect on student outcomes. Quasi-experimental studies have provided some of the best evidence available; however, findings are largely limited to students at the margins of failing placement exams (Bettinger, Boatman, & Long, 2013; Boatman & Long, 2010; Martorell, & McFarlin, 2011). This paper takes a close look at remedial policy within a diverse university system towards the aim of understanding how programmatic details affect students' experiences. It will answer the following research questions:
(RQ 1) What have been the CSU’s remediation policies?
(RQ 2) How do ESP courses address the stated goal of moving students into general education courses at the end of summer?

Framework
Much debate exists about the consequences of remediation (Avecedo-Gil, Solorzano, and Santos, 2014; Bettinger & Long, 2009; Jenkins, 2009; Jaggars, & Roksa, 2009; King, Mcevoy, & Teixeira, 2011; Martorell, & McFarlin, 2011). Scott-Clayton and Rodriguez (2012) operationalize three possible outcomes: “development”, “discouragement”, and “divergence”. This paper maps how remedial policy and structures: (1) facilitate improved academic skills and preparation for the rigors of general education course (development), (2) indicate to a student that she is not ready for college and will likely do poorly (discouragement), or (3) put remedial students on a lower-tract that impacts the possible benefits from undergraduate education (divergence).

Data
Iloh & Tierney collect publicly available published materials to analyze how policies facilitate student choice. This paper takes a similar approach. To answer RQ1, I used Executive Orders (EO); these prove an excellent data source since they specify the governance and management of remedial policy and identify likely impacted parties. In response to RQ2, I collected documentation on the ESP from the Chancellor's Office websites, the “CSU Success” website, and relevant individual campus offices. I focused my data collection on the availability of courses at each campus, mode of course offerings, number of units, and consequences for non-compliance.

Results
In responding to RQ1, I describe the creation and evolution of a remedial education at CSU. In 1980 the need to identify and remediate entering students was made policy by Executive Order 338. While individual campuses still have much autonomy in course content, today all campuses have the same policy in regards to which students are to be placed in remediation, when/how undergraduates are able to move into general education courses, and what the consequences are for non-compliance. Findings in regards to RQ2 indicate that variation in ESP means some campuses promote development outcomes while others promote divergence and discouragement (Scott-Clayton and Rodriguez, 2012).

Scholarly Significance
Remediation is difficult to research because of variations in structure and policy (Zachry Rutschow, & Schneider, 2012). That each institution uses its own placement exams means there is no “one” remedial student (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006); the same student might be deemed ready for general education courses at one institution and remedial at another. This paper attempts to understand how details, structure, and implementation of remedial policy impact whether students benefit from remediation.

Author

• Carolina Ramirez, University of California - Davis