The Impact of Shifting to Corequisite Support in Nevada Higher Education

• In Event: Structural Solutions for Student Success: The Impact of Alternative Course Models at Community Colleges

Abstract

Corequisite models have proliferated in higher education because they are thought to be a more efficient and effective way than the prerequisite model to provide academic remediation support to underprepared students. Under the prerequisite model of remediation, students are required to take and pass lower-level developmental/remedial math and English courses before enrolling in college-level courses. However, studies of the prerequisite approach show it does not help students complete college-level coursework and instead operates more like a barrier than a support (Valentine et al., 2017).  

In contrast, the corequisite model allows students to enroll directly in college-level courses while receiving support through concurrent coursework (e.g., embedded support or a lab course). These changes are expected to reduce students’ time in remediation, the cost of college coursework, and provide timely support that can help students complete gateway math and English courses. Overall, studies of the corequisite model have largely shown positive benefits in the short-term, with corequisite students more likely to complete college-level math and English courses, but somewhat mixed effects on persistence and degree attainment in the long-term (Boatman et al., 2021; Logue et al., 2016, 2019; Meiselman & Schudde, 2022; Miller et al., 2022; Ran & Lin, 2022). 

Adding important evidence to these impact evaluations of the corequisite model, the present study is set in Nevada, one of four states that mandates corequisites. We draw upon student-level records housed within Nevada’s statewide longitudinal data system to analyze the effect of shifting from a prerequisite model to a corequisite model in both two- and four-year colleges beginning Fall 2021. Our analysis of impact over time focuses on the Fall 2017-Fall 2020 cohorts who were subject to prerequisite remediation, and the Fall 2021-2023 cohorts who were subject to corequisite remediation. 

NSHE colleges used ACT score cutoffs to determine placement into prerequisite coursework prior to the policy change (other test scores are also accepted). In the shift to the corequisite model, these cutoffs have not changed – only the “treatment” that students experience has changed (prerequisite vs. corequisite remediation). We therefore estimate the impact of the corequisite mandate using a difference-in-regression discontinuity (DIRD) design, comparing students above and below the placement cutoffs, before and after the policy change. Since NSHE colleges may use other scores (SAT or in-house placement tests) to place students, there is a threat to the validity of the DIRD estimates. One contextual feature that strengthens the design is that all Nevada high school students also take, free of charge, the ACT test in their junior year in order to be eligible for graduation. We therefore estimate the impact of corequisites using a fuzzy RD design, with 11th grade ACT score as an instrument for prerequisite/corequisite enrollment. With outcome data through Spring 2024, we examine the impact of the policy change on important early outcomes of interest, including completion of college-level math and English, persistence, credit completion, and grades. The findings of the study add important evidence to the existing research on developmental education reform. 

Authors

• Federick Ngo, University of Nevada - Las Vegas
  Presenting Author

• Stefani Relles, University of Nevada - Las Vegas
  Non-Presenting Co-Author