To the Editor:
A recent article (“The End of the Remedial Course,” The Chronicle, February 18) and essay (“Replacing Remedial Courses? Be Careful,” The Chronicle, February 18) report some misconceptions about remediation (particularly in math), points not supported by evidence.
First, corequisite remediation, when correctly delivered, consists of a standard college-level course with standard evaluation criteria, along with additional support for students. Such courses by definition maintain standards. Further, similar to any college course, there is no expectation that all students in a corequisite course will succeed. The goal with corequisite courses is to increase student success (e.g., increase course pass and graduation rates above the dismal rates obtained with traditional remediation), and the evidence clearly supports the achievement of this goal.
Second, the only controlled evidence on the longer-term outcomes of students taking corequisite math remediation is quite positive. Students who took corequisite remediation with college-level statistics subsequently took and passed as many or more science and advanced math courses, and graduated at higher rates, than did students who took traditional prerequisite, algebra-based traditional remediation. Further, students who did not start college as STEM majors were highly unlikely to switch to STEM fields, whether they were exposed to traditional or corequisite remediation.
Third, recent evidence indicates that corequisite remediation benefits students with a wide range of assessed preparedness levels. Yes, students who are assessed as needing more remediation will sometimes receive lower grades in corequisite courses than will students in traditional college-level courses, but the question is whether the students in corequisite courses are more likely to pass college-level math and graduate if they experience corequisite as compared to traditional remediation. The answer is clearly yes.
Fourth, students who take statistics or quantitative reasoning in college instead of algebra (which most had in high school) will likely do fine in their careers. Algebra is not needed for most college graduates’ jobs. One analysis showed that less than 10 percent of people in bachelor’s-degree-level jobs reported using more math than is required to calculate square footage. The majority of people in such jobs reported using calculation skills somewhere between simple addition and “balancing a checkbook.” In the same study, an analysis of U.S. workers showed that only 13 percent made use of “advanced mathematics or statistics” more than once per week. In contrast, another study showed that female college students who took statistics earned more after graduation.
Finally, the success of CUNY’s ASAP program (which an MDRC randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed doubles associate-degree graduation rates for students assessed as needing remediation) is not proof that traditional remediation (as compared to corequisite remediation) is the best method for students. That RCT did not involve any students with significant remedial needs, there was no corequisite comparison group, and other research shows higher graduation rates for ASAP students with no assessed remedial needs than those required to take traditional remediation.
Decisions about whether to deliver traditional or corequisite remediation should be based on evidence. The evidence clearly favors corequisite remediation.
Alexandra W. Logue
The City University of New York
Daniel Douglas
Trinity College
Hartford, Conn.
Mari Watanabe-Rose
The City University of New York
