1 / 26

Postsecondary Remediation: How can we serve the needs of Underprepared Students?

Postsecondary Remediation: How can we serve the needs of Underprepared Students?. Prof. Eric Bettinger stanford University, NBER. The Academic Gatekeeper: Remedial & Developmental Postsecondary Courses.

bernad
Download Presentation

Postsecondary Remediation: How can we serve the needs of Underprepared Students?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Postsecondary Remediation:How can we serve the needs of Underprepared Students? Prof. Eric Bettinger stanfordUniversity, NBER

  2. The Academic Gatekeeper:Remedial & Developmental Postsecondary Courses  Lack of academic preparation is a significant barrier to college success – How should we address this problem?  Nationally approx.40% of 1st year students are placed into college remediation (55-60% at CCs)  The bulk of remediation is provided at non-selective publics colleges & universities, the point of entry for 80% of 4yr students and 99% of 2yr students  The remediation placement exam taken once arriving on campus has become the key gatekeeper to a college-level education (often a surprise to students)

  3. Debates about Remediation • CUNY phased remediation out of its 4yrs (1999) “CUNY university system currently devotes far too much money and effort to teaching skills that students should have learned in high school.” • Proponents: opportunities for underprepared, many of whom did not have the chance to take in HS • Critics: Provides disincentives for high school students; Double dipping; Not the appropriate place • $1 Billion each year at publics (conservative estimate) • CSU: Fall 2001 “kicked out more than 2,200 students – nearly 7% of the freshman class – for failing to master basic English and math skills.”

  4. The Continuing Debates about Remediation… • CT and AZ do not allow remediation at publics • 8 states, incl. FL and IL, restrict remediation to 2yrs • VA: Some High Schools “guarantee” their diplomas – pay remedial expenses of their students • FL: Legislature elected to have students pay the full (unsubsidized) cost of their remediation (4 times the regular tuition) • Limits on funding of remediation: CA, TX, TN, & UT

  5. Difficulties in Studying Remediation • Comparisons are Different. How do you compare remedial to non-remedial students? • Historically, researchers focused on descriptive studies often without looking at college outcomes. • Policies are Often Inconsistent • True over time and true across schools • Heterogeneity in Remediation • Among students • Among class offerings • Lack of Data

  6. Why Don’t Raw Comparisons Work? • Dramatic Differences Between Remedial and Non-Remedial Students • Average ACT Scores Ohio 4-Year Colleges • Math: 23.3 for Non-Remedial , 17.4 for Remedial • English: 22.8 vs. 15.8 • Reading: 23.8 vs. 16.9 • Average HS GPA • Math: 3.3 vs. 2.5; English: 3.4 vs. 2.8 • 5-year Dropout Rate • 31 Percent for Non-Remedial; 66 Percent for Math Remediation; 67 Percent for English Remediation

  7. How Inconsistent are the Policies? • Ohio Non-Selective Colleges • Ohio Non-Selective Colleges

  8. How Inconsistent are the Policies? • Ohio Non-Selective Colleges • Ohio Non-Selective Colleges

  9. How Inconsistent are the Policies? • Ohio 2-Year Colleges

  10. How Heterogeneous are the Students?

  11. Heterogeneity Among Students • Recommended Curricula • Bottom Half: • practice and apply estimation and computation using whole numbers and decimals • choose the appropriate method of computation to solve multistep problems (e.g., calculator, mental, or pencil and paper) • calculate length of a line • Top Half: • solve routine arithmetic problems that involve rates, proportions, and percents • do multistep computations with rational numbers • calculate area and perimeter of triangles and rectangles; use geometric formulas

  12. Heterogeneity in Delivery • Almost half taught by Adjunct (31%) or Graduate Students (17%) • 63% taught by non-tenure track faculty • 42% taught by faculty with doctorates; 31% have masters; remaining 27% by other degrees (mostly bachelors)

  13. Lack of Data • National data has low sample sizes • System-wide data is important • 15 percent “transfer down” • 16 percent “transfer up” • All of these students would look like dropouts

  14. State Administrative Data to the Rescue • System-wide data from Florida, Texas, and Ohio have helped develop new strategies • Identify “bubble” students • Discontinuities • Similar students across campuses

  15. Florida Administrative Dataset • Sample: All first-time, degree-seeking CC students who began in Fall 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000 (over 100,000 records) • Term-by-term transcript data through Spr 2006 • All test scores (CPT, SAT, ACT) plus other controls • Outcomes: passing Algebra/English 101, retention, certificate, associate degree, transfer to state 4-year college, credits earned (remedial and non-remedial)

  16. Beth and Becky both take the College Placement Test (CPT) Beth scores just above the cut-off score Becky scores just below the cut-off score Beth to college-level courses Becky to remediation Compare the outcomes of Beth & Becky RD Design: The Intuition Beth and Becky are observationally similar Crossover: Beth takes remediation anyway No Show: Becky never enrolls in remediation

  17. Beth and Becky both take the College Placement Test (CPT) Beth scores just above the cut-off score Becky scores just below the cut-off score Beth to college-level courses Becky to remediation Compare the outcomes of Beth & Becky RD Design: The Intuition Beth and Becky are observationally similar Crossover: Beth takes remediation anyway No Show: Becky never enrolls in remediation Endogenous Sorting: Beth retests to place out of remediation

  18. Endogenous Sorting around the Cutoff Expect to see larger number who barely exceed the cutoff than those who barely failed  discontinuity of the conditional density at the threshold Density of Reading CPT for Institution E

  19. Figure 4: Outcome by Reading CPT Score and Estimated Discontinuity Passing First College-Level Course (negative)

  20. Figure 4: Outcome by Reading CPT Score and Estimated Discontinuity Total Credits Earned (positive)

  21. The Florida Remediation StudyConclusions – Overall Sample • Being assigned to remediation appears to increase the total number of credits completed for students on the margin of passing out of the requirement… • But it does not increase the completion of college-level credits or eventual degree completion.  Remediation might promote early persistence in college, but it does not necessarily help students on the margin of passing the cutoff to make long-term progress toward a degree How do these results compare to other studies?

  22. Texas Study • State with a single cutoffs and placement exam  RD methodology similar to Florida study • Sample: students who took all three placement exams (math, reading, and writing) and passed the writing section • Remediation appears to have little effect on a wide range of educational and labor market outcomes. The estimates are small and statistically insignificant but suggest that students are neither harmed nor greatly benefited by remediation

  23. The Ohio Study • Nearly 66,000 first-time freshman in Fall 1998 (FT, traditional age, 4yr degree intent) for 6 years  Compares observationally-similar students: one placed into remediation because his nearby college has a stringent policy while the other student does not because his school has a lax policy • Students in remediation had better subsequent outcomes – Reduced the likelihood of dropping out and increases the likelihood of completing a degree • Discouragement effect from certain Majors

  24. Reconciling the Results? • Single placement exam and cutoff versus autonomy • Different locations of the cutoff (where should it be?) • Different student samples (all versus traditional-age, degree seeking) and institutions (only CCs vs. 2yrs and 4yrs)  Could the effects of remediation differ by type of student?

  25. Does remediation work for students with far less preparation? • The FL, OH and TX studies focus on students on the margin of needing remediation -- they do not investigate the effects of remediation on students who are extremely under-prepared (i.e. don’t have an appropriate control group) • The Tennessee Case • Remediation at two-years and four-years • Multiple cutoffs and changes in placement policy over time  Can investigate the effects of different types of remediation for students of different abilities

  26. Policy Implications and Remaining Questions • Costs of remediation should be given careful consideration in light of the limited benefits. • Explore noncompliance and retesting practices and consider potential consequences • What is the best way to offer remediation? Characteristics of strong remedial programs? • What are the effects of limitations states impose on remedial course-taking (e.g., only at CCs, time limits)? • Early Placement Testing – a preventative measure?

More Related