Remedial Education

The Cost of Catching Up

By Laura Jimenez, Scott Sargrad, Jessica Morales, and Maggie Thompson

September 2016

W W W.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG

Remedial Education
The Cost of Catching Up
By Laura Jimenez, Scott Sargrad, Jessica Morales, and Maggie Thompson
September 2016

Contents

1 Introduction and summary

5 Defining remedial education in context
16 The way forward: Recommendations for
eliminating the need for remedial education
for recent high school graduates
19 Conclusion
20 About the authors
21 Endnotes

Introduction and summary

Across the country, millions of students enroll in college every year only to learn
that they need to take classes that will not count toward their degrees because
they cover material that they should have learned in high school. According to the
authors analysis for this report, these remedial courses cost students and their
families serious moneyabout $1.3 billion across the 50 states and the District of
Columbia every year. What is more, students who take these classes are less likely
to graduate.1 Simply put, remedial educationor developmental education as it is
also knownis a systemic black hole from which students are unlikely to emerge.
After defining remedial education, the authors briefly review the typical methods that institutions employ to identify students in need of remediation and
the resulting national demographics of remediated students. Then, the report
touches on national rates of progress through remedial education for major
racial or ethnic and socioeconomic student groups before focusing on how
much money students spend on these courses that do not count toward a
degree. While there are certainly reforms to the design of remedial education in
higher education institutions that could improve student retention and completion, the recommendations that conclude this report focus on other ways for the
K-12 and higher education systems to eliminate the need for remedial education
for recent high school graduates.

I felt the remedial

courses were a waste
of time. If I was
taught and learned
how to think more
critically and pushed
to achieve more or
reach higher standards
in high school, I think I
would be doing much
better in college, and it
would be easier.

The national rates of remediation are a significant problem. According to college

enrollment statistics, many students are underprepared for college-level work.
In the United States, research shows that anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent of first-year college students require remediation in English, math, or both.3
Remedial classes increase students time to degree attainment and decrease
their likelihood of completion.4 While rates vary depending on the source, ontime completion rates of students who take remedial classes are consistently less
than 10 percent.5

1 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Courtney, a first generation

college student from Texas
Courtney dropped out of
college but had reenrolled by
the time of the interview for
this report.2

Moreover, the problem is worse for low-income students and students of color,
whose rates of remedial education enrollment are higher than for their white and
higher income peers. According to a recent study, 56 percent of African American
students and 45 percent of Latino students enroll in remedial courses nationwide,
compared with 35 percent of white students.6
In addition to remedial educations impact on students academic success, its
financial costs are significant and quantifiable. The total figure is staggering:
According to the authors analysis, students paid approximately $1.3 billion for
remediation in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A detailed description of
how the authors calculated these costs is included in the Methodology.
While there may always be a need for remedial education, especially for those
students returning to school after years in the workforce, the need for remedial
education for recent high school graduates can be eliminated by ensuring that high
schools do a better job preparing students for college and careers. The failure to do
so is costing students and the country in so many ways.
The good news is that there is a way forward. By advocating for implementing
higher academic standards such as the Common Core State Standards, students
know that by meeting them, they will not need remediation in college. Raising
standards is only one strategy to eliminate the need for remediation for recent
high school graduates. This report touches on additional efforts that the K-12
and higher education systems and the federal government can undertake to ease
the burden of remedial education on students. The higher education and K-12
systems together can increase academic continuity between high school and college by aligning the requirements for both and being transparent with students
about what knowledge, skills, and coursework are needed to succeed in higher
education. These two systems should also collaborate to reform remedial education by creating consensus around a definition of remedial education, placement
practices, and structures for remedial education in public higher education
institutions. The federal government can increase accountability for remedial
education by tying the receipt of federal student aid dollars to the reporting of
better data on remedial programs, including enrollment, placement, progress,
and completion rates.

2 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Because of having to
take remedial classes that
dont count toward your
degree, along with taking
the classes that you are
allowed to take, you
always feel like you are
trying to catch up.
Victor, who dropped out of
University of Texas at El Paso.7

Methodology
There is no national standardized data on remedial

the actual enrollment data for just remedial English,

education enrollment, progress, completion, or cost.

the authors applied a remedial rate of slightly more

To conduct the analysis for this report, the authors

than 8 percent for two-year institutions to each

used two data sets to derive remedial education

institutions total enrollment for a multiplier of 0.0814;

enrollment rates. The first data set is from Complete

slightly more than 1 percent for four-year very high

College America, or CCA, and includes actual total and

research institutions for a multiplier of 0.0107; and

remedial education enrollment for the first-time, full-

almost 5 percent for other four-year institutions for a

and part-time fall 2010 cohort, with the exception of

multiplier of 0.0471. Estimated remedial math enroll-

the Florida data, which is from the fall 2009 cohort,

ment rates are consistently higher for each institution

and the Rhode Island data, which is from the fall 2011

type, at a rate of almost 26 percent for two-year insti-

cohort. The CCA data set provides actual enrollment

tutions, with the multiplier equaling 0.256; 4 percent

numbers in three mutually exclusive groupsreme-

for very high research institutions, with the multiplier

dial math, remedial English, and remedial math and

equaling 0.04; and slightly more than 18 percent for

Englishfor three types of public institutionstwo-

other four-year institutions, with the multiplier equal-

year, four-year very high research, and other four-

ing 0.181. Estimated remedial math and English rates

year institutionsfor full and part-time students who

are generally lower than math remediation rates alone:

are U.S. residents, as well as actual remedial rates for

slightly more than 25 percent for two year institutions

these groups based on actual enrollment.

for a multiplier of 0.253; not quite 1 percent for very

high research four-year institutions for a multiplier of

For the same institution types in states outside of this

0.006; and almost 8 percent for other four-year institu-

data set, the authors first determined total enroll-

tions for a multiplier of 0.0755. In those institutions

ment using the U.S. Department of Educations 2014

that do not offer remedial education in either math,

release of its Integrated Postsecondary Education

English, or both, the authors used a remediation rate

Data System, or IPEDS, by combining two figures for

of zero percent. For example, South Dakotas two-

U.S. residents, in order to be consistent with the CCAs

year institutions do not offer remedial education and

data: full-time first-time degree/certificate seeking

neither do very high research four-year institutions in

students and part-time first-time degree/certificate

Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and South

seeking students for the fall 2013 cohort.9 These

Dakota. Likewise, Tennessees rates are zero percent at

figures come from the data set labeled IPEDS sector

other four-year institutions. Additionally, due to the

2-year and 4-year or above institutions, as well as

quality of the data from a specific sub-set of New York

from the very high research institutions within the

public institutions, the enrollment rates in remedial

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Educa-

education exclude students in the City University of

tion for 2010.

New York system, which comprises 22 total institutions, seven of which are two-year institutions and col-

To get an estimated remedial education enrollment

lectively enrolled 97,751 students and 15 of which are

rate, the authors derived a multiplieragainst total

four-year institutions and collectively enrolled 174,146

enrollment for each institution typeby reviewing

students in the fall of 2013the year for which this

actual enrollment from the CCA data set. In reviewing

analysis is primarily based.10

3 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Student profiles

To find the remedial education course cost per

institution type per state and then the total cost per
state, the authors estimated that students take eight

To identify the students profiled in this report, the

college courses per year on average, which breaks

authors used several methods. First, the authors

down to four classes per semester, and assumed that

administered a survey using SurveyMonkey and fol-

of these, each remedial course costs the same as

lowed up with the respondents via phone interviews.

each nonremedial course at a single institution. The

Two individuals responded to the survey. Then, the

authors multiplied estimated or actual enrollment, as

authors reached out to their own former classmates

applicable, by the average course cost for each institu-

and requested submissions of stories about their

tion type found in the 2014 IPEDS data, average net

remedial education experiences. The responses to

11

pricestudents receiving grant or scholarship aid.

the following survey questionsverbatim from the

Specifically, the authors multiplied the number of

survey instrumentinform the profiles:

remedial math or English courses taken at each institution by the price of one course and then calculated

What year did you begin to attend college?

the total by multiplying both types of courses by the

Where did you attend or are attending college?

price of two courses. This resulted in nine subtotals

How many remedial courses have you taken or will

for each state, as applicable: remedial course cost for

you need to take?

English, math, and both English and mathfor mutu-

How are you paying for those courses?

ally exclusive student countsfor each public institu-

Important part (feel free to add other information):

tion type: two-year, four-year very high research, and

Do you feel like your high school did not prepare

other four-year institutions. These sum into a unique,

you for college? Why or why not? Tell us about your

single total per state.

experience with catching up in college through

remedial education and any issues you may have

Then, the authors divided the summed estimated or

encountered.

actual remedial education enrollment numbers by the

total enrollment numbers to derive the percentage of

The survey and follow up interviews were conducted

remedial enrollment by state.

in October and November 2015.12

4 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Defining remedial education

in context
Not all postsecondary institutions use the same definition or process for determining who needs remedial education coursesalso referred to as developmental
education or basic skills courses. In general, however, remedial education consists
of below-college-level noncredit courses and trainings in reading, writing, and
math that are aimed at teaching students the academic competencies necessary to
succeed in college-level coursework.13

A single measure for determining remedial education placement

There is no uniform approach within a state to determine who qualifies for
remedial education. Higher education institutions assess applicant eligibility for
credit-bearing coursework in a variety of ways. For most institutions, a students
performance on a college placement or admissions exam determines, or is at
least a factor, in remedial placement. Most four-year institutions rely on a specific
performance standard to determine which students possess the academic knowledge to pass a credit-bearing college-level course. This performance standard
commonly known as a cut scoreis set for tests such as the ACT and SAT to
determine whether or not a student possesses the skill set to succeed in college
level courses.14 Community colleges, which are typically two-year institutions, rely
on placement exam cut scores on tests such as the ACCUPLACER or COMPASS
exams to determine the need for remedial placement. A students score on
the aforementioned tests dictates whether or not the student will need to take
remedial coursework and at what course level the student should be placed in the
remedial course sequence. States, college systems, and institutions can set their
own cut scores for these tests, so that a score placing students into credit-bearing
coursework at one institution may place them in remedial education at another.15

5 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

The ACCUPLACER is a suite

of exams developed by the
College Board that are used
to assess reading, writing,
math, and computer skills.
Thousands of institutions
use ACCUPLACER results to
inform placement decisions
in remedial education and
credit-bearing course work.16

Profile: Courtney, a first generation college student

from Texas
Courtney started college directly out of high school in 2011. She took the ACCUPLACER
exams before she enrolled in college courses. These tests assessed her basic skills in
English and math and determined readiness for college-level work in these subjects. Her
scores on the exams left her ineligible to take credit-bearing courses, instead placing her
into two remedial courses, which she paid for using her financial aid money.
As the first in her family to go to college, Courtney did not understand the impact of
these tests on her college experience: My parents didnt graduate from college or
have any information to help with figuring out that process. If I had known, I would
have prepared myself for the exam[s]. She had relied on her high school for that
preparation, but it failed her.
Courtney dropped out of college but had reenrolled by the time of the interview for
this profile.17

A combined measure for determining

remedial education placement
Some states and institutions have committed to using multiple variablessuch as
students high school course-taking patterns, grade-point average, or a combination of exam scores and high school recordsto identify college readiness and, if
necessary, remedial placement.

6 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

TABLE 1

Examples of states, higher education systems, or colleges

and their respective assessment and placement practices
Single measure
State, higher education
system, or college

Remedial education assessment and placement practice

City University of
New York, or CUNY

CUNY relies on cut scores for the ACT, SAT, or New York Regents Exams for assessing college readiness and placement.

Kentucky

Kentucky relies on minimum cut scores from either the ACT or equal scores for the SAT, or else COMPASS or Kentucky
Online Testing, or KYOTE, for college standards of readiness. If students do not meet the necessary cut score on the ACT
they have the opportunity to take any of the other tests mentioned above to determine course placement.

Combined measure
Davidson County
Community College,
North Carolina
Ivy Tech Community
College, Indiana
Massachusetts

This system and these colleges use Multiple Measures for Placement. This means they assess students college readiness
by using a combination of variables such as grade point average and high school course-taking patterns to determine
college readiness and, if necessary, the need for placement assessments. Students meeting GPA and high school course
requirements are considered college ready; they therefore do not need to take a placement exam and instead may enroll
in college credit courses. Those who do not meet high school transcript requirements can submit ACT or SAT test scores to
determine course placement. If students do not meet the minimum cut scores on the ACT or SAT, the student will take a
placement exam to determine remedial placement.
Of the states public colleges, 18 out of 19 launched pilot programs using students high school GPA or a combination of
using their high school GPA and scores on exams like the SAT to determine course placement.

Sources: Maryland Department of Legislative Services, College and Career Are Maryland Students Ready?, Presentation to the Senate Education, Business, and Administration Subcommittee and the
House Education and Economic Development Subcommittee, February 2015; Council on Postsecondary Education, College and Career Readiness in Kentucky, available at http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/
E1DA3E91-E750-4A3F-AF1B-DFD858079CC7/0/ACTandSystemwidePlacementStandards.pdf (last accessed July 2016); Kentucky Department of Education, Assessments (2015), available at http://education.ky.gov/AA/Assessments/Pages/default.aspx; Kathy Reeves Bracco and others, Core to College Evaluation: Exploring the Use of Multiple Measures for Placement into College-Level Courses, Seeking
alternatives or improvements to the use of a single standardized test (San Francisco: WestEd, 2014), available at https://www.wested.org/wp-content/files_mf/1397164696product55812B.pdf; Center for
Community College Student Engagement, Expectations Meet Reality: The Underprepared Student and Community Colleges (2016), available at http://www.ccsse.org/docs/Underprepared_Student.pdf.

Local variations in remedial education course structure

Postsecondary institution design of remedial education courses varies. Students
may be placed in courses that range from one to as many as four sequential levels,
or courses, below college level. These remedial courses can consist of multiple
sequences spread out over multiple semesters or often multiple years. Accordingly,
those who score higher on the admissions or placement exams but still fail to meet
the minimum requirements are placed in higher-level remedial classes, while those
who score lower are placed in lower-level classes. Based on decisions made at the
state or institutional level, some students may be allowed to take remedial courses
alongside credit-bearing courses. However, it is more likely that they must complete their remedial courses with a passing grade before advancing to the next level
or enrolling in credit-bearing courses in those subjects. In addition, some higher
education institutions may restrict the number of remedial courses in which a
student can enroll or the amount of time that students can spend on remedial
courses. For example, students in remedial education in Nevada must complete all
of their remedial courses within their first year of college.18

7 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Magnitude of out-of-pocket costs for remedial education

Profile: Victor, a college student from Texas

In the fall of 2009, Victor was an entering freshman at the University of Texas at El
Paso, or UTEP. He was informed by the university that he needed to take remedial
math classes to prepare him for college level courses. He was surprised and a bit
agitated by the requirement because he believed that his high school should have
prepared him better. According to Victor, The remedial classes are a repeat of the
information [I] should have learned in high school. Over time, however, Victor found,
It was too difficult for me to pay for these remedial courses that I feel were costing
me extra time and money.
Victor dropped out of UTEP and plans to reenroll in the fall of 2017.19

In total, the authors estimate that across the United States, it costs students in
remediation and their families close to $1.3 billion in yearly out-of-pocket costs.
These costs range from slightly more than $1 million in the District of Columbia*
to more than $205 million in California.

8 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

TABLE 2

Out-of-pocket costs for remedial education by state

State
California

Out-of-pocket costs
$205,488,000

State

Out-of-pocket costs

Arkansas

$18,244,000

Texas

$98,749,000

Iowa

$17,684,000

Florida

$61,178,000

Kansas

$16,631,000

Ohio

$57,426,000

South Carolina

$15,552,000

New York

$48,216,000

Washington

$13,247,000

North Carolina

$45,530,000

New Mexico

$13,099,000

Pennsylvania

$44,528,000

Wisconsin

$12,526,000

Virginia

$37,036,000

Nevada

$11,801,000

Illinois

$35,827,000

Connecticut

$10,553,000

Georgia

$35,274,000

New Hampshire

$9,509,000

New Jersey

$32,795,000

Utah

$8,912,000

Michigan

$32,493,000

West Virginia

$7,426,000

Indiana

$30,719,000

Nebraska

$6,943,000

Minnesota

$30,438,000

Idaho

$6,499,000

Maryland

$30,107,000

Maine

$5,973,000

Missouri

$27,269,000

Montana

$4,548,000

Oregon

$27,043,000

South Dakota

$3,936,000

Arizona

$26,913,000

Hawaii

$3,772,000

Alabama

$26,624,000

Vermont

$3,534,000

Colorado

$24,642,000

North Dakota

$3,523,000

Oklahoma

$22,192,000

Rhode Island

$3,102,000

Mississippi

$21,454,000

Delaware

$2,760,000

Kentucky

$20,985,000

Wyoming

$2,432,000

Massachusetts

$20,743,000

Alaska

$1,179,000

Louisiana

$19,693,000

District of Columbia*

$1,131,000

Tennessee

$19,605,000

Grand total

$1,287,483,000

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, the District of Columbia is considered a state.
Sources: CAP analysis of 2014 data files from National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System,
available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ (last accessed October 2016); Complete College America, Co-requisite Remediation: Spanning the
Completion Divide (2016), available at http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#home.

9 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Differences in costs within and between states may be due to several factors. The
first is that remedial courses offered at public two-year and four-year institutions
cost different amounts due to the differing costs of attending those institutions.
Nationally, based on the authors analysis, students at two-year colleges collectively paid $920 million for remediation. Students at four-year public very high
research institutions paid $33 million, and students at other four-year public
institutions paid around $333 million in total for the 2013-14 school year, with
the exceptions noted in the Methodology.
A second factor in the variation of costs for remedial education is the placement
rate at two-year institutions versus four-year institutions. Most two-year postsecondary institutions have open enrollment policies, enrolling high numbers of
students with fewer selectivity factors when compared with most four-year institutions. As a result, the pool of students needing remedial courses is higher at community colleges than at four-year institutions. In a recent report, the Community
College Research Center estimated that 40 percent of 2012 high school graduates
who entered a four-year college or university within a year of graduation were
placed into remedial classes. This proportion increases to more than 68 percent
of students entering two-year colleges.20 The authors of this report found similar
trends in their calculations. For example, students at two-year institutions were
more likely to be enrolled in remedial coursesat a median rate of nearly 60 percentthan at four-year institutionsat approximately 30 percentand four-year
research institutions, at a median rate of about 4 percent.
A third factor for these cost differences is that the number of remedial education
courses required for individual students varies. According to the Department of
Educations National Center for Education Statistics, or NCES, graduates from
a two-year institution who required remediation took an average of two to three
remedial courses.21 This is consistent with other researchers who have found that
students who graduated from a postsecondary institution and required remediation took an average of two remedial courses.22 Those two or three remedial
courses translate to a semester or more devoted to remedial course work, and this
time added comes with a cost.
Despite these high figures for remedial education, what students and their families
pay is only a portion of what it costs to provide remedial education.

10 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

TABLE 3

Remediation rates by state**

First-time students enrolled in remediation as a share of total estimated or actual enrollment
State

Remediation rate

State

Remediation rate

FL

56%

NH

40%

MA

54%

LA

39%

MD

50%

TX

39%

HI

50%

VA

39%

AR

48%

IA

37%

DC

48%

MI

36%

NM

48%

WV

36%

CA

47%

MT

36%

OH

46%

PA

36%

OK

46%

RI

35%

NJ

45%

GA

35%

NV

44%

ID

35%

MS

43%

NE

34%

CT

43%

OR

34%

WY

43%

VT

34%

NC

43%

SD

33%

TN

43%

AK

31%

MO

42%

CO

31%

KY

42%

NY

31%

AL

41%

SC

31%

IN

41%

WA

30%

MN

41%

DE

26%

ME

41%

ND

25%

IL

40%

WI

24%

KS

40%

UT

22%

AZ

40%

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, the District of Columbia is considered a state.
Source: See Methodology.

11 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Table 3 lists in descending rank order the actual or estimated enrollment in

remedial education as a percentage of total enrollment for all 50 states and the
District of Columbia; for the purposes of this report, the District will be considered a state. According to this calculation, 27 states fall in the national range of 40
percent to 60 percent annual remediation rates. Twenty-four states fall below this
range. Of those below this range, rates for all span from 22 percent to 39 percent.**

Profile: Jennifer, Colorado, college graduate

At a University of Colorado campus, the dean of the engineering department called
Jennifer into his office to explain that she may have a hard time catching up to her
peers. No other students from her community had elected to pursue the engineering
program. Although she was a stellar student in her home town, Jennifer said the dean
was sure that my rural Colorado schooling left me behind.
Jennifer, who was the first person to attend college in her family, said that she was
determined to prove him wrong. However, she said that she soon found herself
failing classes and receiving the worst grades of [her] life and that her exemplary
hometown academic record did not prepare her for the rigors of college.
I worked hard and spent scarce resources to catch up and eventually went on to
graduate and have a successful career, Jennifer said. But I was one of the lucky ones,
and it was harder than it should have been.23

The cost of remedial education on student success

While the fiscal costs of remedial education are high, the impact on student outcomes might be even greater. Research shows that in any given year, anywhere
from 40 percent to 60 percent of all U.S. college students are placed into remedial
education.24 Furthermore, studies have found that many students drop out before
completing their remedial sequences and never even start credit-bearing college
coursework. Researchers estimate that less than 50 percent of students persist past
their remedial courses to take credit-bearing courses.25 This national statistic mirrors what is happening within states. In Texas, for example, only 50 percent of the
2010 cohort of community college students who received remediation in reading
completed their remedial courses. (see Table 4) Of that 50 percent, only 37 percent
completed their first college-level course. In math, only 33 percent of Texas students
who enrolled in a remedial math course successfully completed the course, and of
this group, only 18 percent went on to complete their first college-level course.26

12 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Ultimately, students who enroll in remedial courses are far less likely to complete
college than their peers who do not need remediation.
The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates that less than 25 percent
of students who need to take remedial courses in community college complete
their academic programs within eight years.27 Other figures show that less than 10
percent of students who are placed in remedial education complete a degree
whether two-year or four-yearon time.28
TABLE 4

Rates of progress at Texas public two-year colleges

Percentage of fall 2010 cohort of students below state standard
Progression levels

Reading

Writing

Math

Enrolled in remedial education

65%

60%

76%

Passed remedial education courses

50%

45%

33%

Successfully completed first

college-level course

37%

34%

18%

Note: Cohort total is 125,853.

Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2016 Higher Education Almanac, available at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.
cfm?objectid=A44B548A-E50C-8417-E09BF83FC11EA1EF (last accessed July 2016).

Table 4 shows that fewer students successfully complete each successive level of
progression in and through remedial education. The trends are worse for so-called
gateway courses, or foundational courses in mathematics and writing that introduce students to the analytical thinking and early research methodology that are
key to pursuing a degree major.
FIGURE 1

Percent of students in remedial courses who complete gateway courses

Two-year colleges
Passed remedial education courses

Four-year colleges
20%
36%

Successfully complete subject-specific

gateway course within two years
22%

Math

22%

English

Source: Complete College America, "Spanning the Divide," available at

http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#far-too-many-students-start-in-remediation (last accessed July 2016).

13 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Similar trends are seen in a recent report by Complete College America, which
indicates that 20 percent of students placed in remedial education at two-year
colleges and 36 percent of their counterparts at four-year colleges complete a
remedial education course within two years. Additionally, only 22 percent of students who complete remedial education courses complete the associated gateway
subject course: for example, a first-level English or math course.29
This reality is disproportionately true for low-income students and students
of color. According to the Complete College America report, 42 percent of all
students in its study states enroll in remedial education, and this rate is higher for
low-income students and students color.30
FIGURE 2

National rates of remedial education enrollment by student groups

All students
White

42%
35%

Black
Latino

56%
45%

Pell Grant recipients

55%

Note: Pell Grants are awarded based on demonstrated financial need.

Source: Complete College America, "Spanning the Divide," available at
http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#far-too-many-students-start-in-remediation (last accessed July 2016).

The disproportionate rates of students of color and low-income students who

recently graduated and took remedial education courses are a result of disparities in K-12 academic preparation. According to a report from the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board, among Texas students that continued on to higher
education in Texas, those who had participated in the free lunch programwhich
is based on financial needwere 14 percent less likely than their higher-income
peers to meet college-ready state standards in math, writing, and reading. Students
who qualified for reduced lunch were 10 percent less likely to meet the collegeready standards.31
Other national academic indicators point to similar trends of disparate rates of academic proficiency among students of color, who, along with low-income students,
scored lower on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP; the
SAT; and the ACT. In 2015, for example, 43 percent of white eighth graders were
proficient in math, compared with only 19 percent of Latino eighth graders and
13 percent of black eighth-grade students.32 The results are similar in reading.33

14 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

The same trends hold true in regards to the ACT and the SAT. Based on scores
from students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT, white students were 20
percent more likely than Latino students and 30 percent more likely than black
students to meet the ACT college readiness benchmark.34 Of the students who
took the SAT, only 23 percent of Latinos and about 16 percent of black students
met the SAT college and career readiness benchmark.35

15 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

The way forward:

Recommendations for eliminating
the need for remedial education
for recent high school graduates
The implementation of higher academic standards in English and math, such as
the Common Core State Standards, is an important step in reducing the need
for remediation. Through the Common Core, students are taught to understand
underlying concepts, improve their critical thinking skills, approach problems
from different perspectives, and apply what they learn to real-world problems,
according to a report from the Center for American Progress.36 The Common
Core standards represent the culmination of decades of research into how students learn.
States that are implementing the Common Core have already shown positive
outcomes. According to another report from the Center for American Progress,
A Look at the Education Crisis: Tests, Standards, and the Future of American
Education, low-income students in Massachusetts are now among the nations
highest performing.37 The District of Columbia is another district that has
increased high school graduation rates and observed a jump in student outcomes
by reforming standards.38 States must continue to implement and improve the
Common Core standards and their aligned assessments.

What are Common Core State Standards?

The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State

than 40 states that chose to adopt the Common Core in 2010. The

School Officersin response to the shared call from educators,

standards were designed to ensure that all students, including those

policymakers, parents, and other stakeholdersdeveloped the

with disabilities and nonnative English speakers, would be taught

Common Core State Standards to raise academic standards in

with high expectations so that they would have the opportunity to

schools. They created a consistent set of stronger achievement

be academically prepared to succeed in college, as well as the global

benchmarks in math and English language arts for students in more

workforce, upon graduating from high school.39

16 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

While multiple steps are necessary to close the gaps in educational achievement
and attainment between students of color, as well as those from lower-income
households, and their white and/or wealthy peers, higher expectations of schools,
teachers, and all students are a much needed and important step in the right direction. By increasing rigor through higher standards for all, states can better prepare
students for educational success and college readiness. There are roles for students, institutions of higher education, and states alike to play in eliminating the
need for remedial education.

Students should:
Encourage their state governments to maintain and improve college- and careerready academic standards so that all students attain the knowledge and skills
needed to be ready for college. Each student who enters college or the workforce unprepared has a unique story of how lower expectations at various stages
of their K-12 experience prevented her or him from being prepared for the next
step after completing high school. Sharing these stories with education leaders
and legislators through student voice groups or individual outreach is a simple
and effective way to convey the importance of higher standards.

State K-12 and higher education institutions

working togethershould:
Effectively implement rigorous standards at the elementary and secondary
levels to decrease the need for remediation immediately following high school
graduation.
Create academic continuity between the K-12 and postsecondary systems so
that the standards and tests necessary to complete high school are aligned with
entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in postsecondary education; further create academic continuity so that units and course level requirements are the same for high school graduation and college admission.
Clearly communicate what knowledge and skills are needed for students to
be prepared to succeed in college. This includes providing accurate and timely
information to students about the state academic standards, as well as high
school graduation and college entrance requirements. Students should receive
this information well before their final year of high school in order to allow them
to plan their high school coursework and activities so that they can ensure that
they are college and career ready by the time they graduate.

17 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

 Create common definitions, structures, and placement practices for remedial

education within each state to eliminate variations that can cost states and students time and money.

The federal government should:

Require state institutions to have a common definition of remedial education as
a condition of receiving federal financial aid funds. It should also require better
reporting of data on remedial programs, including enrollment, placement, progress, and completion. The absence of consistent and updated national and state
data regarding cost, the number of students in remedial programs, the level of
remedial sequences students are placed in, demographic breakdowns, and student successor lack thereofin remediation make it impossible for schools
to identify issues with their programs.

18 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Conclusion
Graduating with a postsecondary degree or other postsecondary credential has
become a necessity in order to successfully compete for stable, middle-class jobs
in todays economy. Unfortunately, too many students head to college underprepared for the rigor of college coursework.
Once in college, students can ill afford the additional time and resources
demanded by the remedial courses required to complete their degrees, and as a
result, too many of the most vulnerable students drop out. While there currently is
a need for remedial classes, states, higher education institutions, and K-12 education systems must do more to successfully prepare students to complete college
and eliminate that need altogether. Higher standards and collaborative efforts
across higher education and K-12 education are essential steps in creating a stronger education system for all students.

* Correction, November 29, 2016: This report has been updated to include enrollment

data for students enrolled in 2-year programs in the remedial cost calculation for the
District of Columbia.
** Correction, November 29, 2016: This report has been updated to include part-time

students in the calculations for all state remedial education rates.

19 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

About the authors

Laura Jimenez is the Director of Standards and Accountability for the K-12

Education Policy team at the Center.

Scott Sargrad is the Managing Director of the K-12 Education Policy team at the

Center for American Progress.

Jessica Morales is a former Policy Advocate at Generation Progress.
Maggie Thompson is the Executive Director of Generation Progress.

20 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Endnotes
1 Alliance for Excellent Education, Saving Now and Saving Later: How High School Reform Can Reduce the Nations Wasted Remediation Dollars (2011), available at
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SavingNowSavingLaterRemediation.pdf.
2 Courtney Paredes, email interview with authors,
November 9, 2015.
3 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
Beyond the Rhetoric: Improving College Readiness
Through Coherent State Policy (2010), available at
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/college_
readiness/CollegeReadiness.pdf; Alliance for Excellent
Education, Saving Now and Saving Later; National
Conference of State Legislatures, Hot Topics in Higher
Education: Reforming Remedial Education, available
at http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/improvingcollege-completion-reforming-remedial.aspx (last
accessed June 2016).
4 Ibid.
5 John Armstrong and Katie Zaback, College Completion
Rates and Remedial Education Outcomes for Institutions in Appalachian States (Washington: Appalachian
Regional Commission, 2014), available at http://www.
arc.gov/assets/research_reports/CollegeCompletionRatesandRemedialOutcomesforAppalachianStates.pdf.
6 Complete College America, Corequisite Remediation:
Spanning the Completion Divide, available at http://
completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#home (last
accessed May 2016).
7 Victor Vargas, email interview with authors, October 19,
2015.
8 The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education at the Center for Postsecondary Research
at the Indiana University School of Education classifies
degree-granting institutes of higher education that are
eligible for federal higher education funds by various
descriptors, including instructional programs and research activity. Very high research is one such classification an institution can receive. For more information,
see The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education, Definitions, available at http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/definitions.php (last accessed August
2016).
9 National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (U.S. Department
of Education, 2013), available at http://nces.ed.gov/
surveys/npsas/; National Center for Education Statistics,
2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09) (U.S. Department
of Education, 2013), available at http://nces.ed.gov/
surveys/npsas.
10 City University of New York, Trends in Total Enrollment:
Fall 1990 - Fall 2015 (2016), available at http://www.
cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0012_
ALLYR_TRND.rpt.pdf.
11 National Center for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study; National Center
for Education Statistic, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up
(BPS:04/09).

12 Complete College America has been collecting data

for each of the twelve Common College Completion
Metrics from the Alliance of States in the spring of each
year since 2010. For detailed definitions, see Complete
College America, Complete College America Common
College Completion Metrics Technical Guide (2016),
available at https://ccacollection.sheeo.org/CCA/ho
meattach/2016/2016MetricsTechnicalGuide.pdf. It is
important to note that South Dakota data only include
institutions that are part of the states Board of Regents;
Massachusetts data do not include any University of
Massachusetts campuses; Florida data only include
institutions that are part of the Florida College System;
and Wisconsin data only include the University of
Wisconsin System.
13 National Conference of State Legislatures, Hot Topics in
Higher Education.
14 Katherine L. Hughes and Judith Scott-Clayton, Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community Colleges (New York: Community College Research Center,
2011), available at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/
k2/attachments/assessing-developmental-assessmentbrief.pdf.
15 Deanna L. Morgan and Michalis P. Michaelides, Setting
Cut Scores for College Placement (New York: The
College Board, 2005), available at https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/
researchreport-2005-9-setting-cut-scores-collegeplacement.pdf.
16 Cindy L. James, ACCUPLACER OnLine: An Accurate
Placement Tool for Developmental Programs?, Journal
of Developmental Education 30 (2) (2006), available at
http://search.proquest.com/openview/2910036b38b19
2f6ea9b8f9d68e29f24/1?pq-origsite=gscholar.
17 Courtney Paredes, email interview with authors.
18 Nevada System of Higher Education Office of Academic
and Student Affairs, 2013-14 Remedial Placement &
Enrollment Report (2014), available at http://system.
nevada.edu/tasks/sites/Nshe/assets/File/BoardOfRegents/Agendas/2014/jun-mtgs/asa-refs/ASA-8a.pdf.
19 Victor Vargas, email interview with authors.
20 Elisabeth A. Barnett, Maggie P. Fay, and Lara Pheatt,
Implementation of High School-to-College Transition
Courses in Four States (New York: Community College Research Center, 2016), available at http://ccrc.
tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/high-schoolcollege-transition-four-states.pdf.
21 Authors analysis of three sources: National Center
for Education Statistics, 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09); Judith
Scott-Clayton, Peter M. Crosta, and Clive R. Belfield,
Improving the Targeting of Treatment: Evidence from
College Remediation. Working Paper 18457 (National
Bureau of Economic Research, 2014), available at http://
www.nber.org/papers/w18457.pdf.
22 Mary Nguyen Barry and Michael Dannenberg, Out
of Pocket: The High Cost of Inadequate High Schools
and High School Student Achievement on College
Affordability (New York: Education Reform Now, 2016),
available at http://educationpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EdReformNow-O-O-P-v7.pdf.

21 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

 23 Jennifer Mayer-Sandoval, phone interview with authors, October 19, 2015.

24 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
Beyond the Rhetoric.
25 Brenda Bautsch, Reforming Remedial Education
(Washington: National Conference of State Legislatures,
2013), available at http://www.ncsl.org/documents/
educ/REMEDIALEDUCATION_2013.pdf.
26 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2016
Texas Public Higher Education Almanac (2016),
available at http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.
cfm?objectid=A44B548A-E50C-8417-E09BF83FC11EA1EF.
27 Bautsch, Reforming Remedial Education.
28 Armstrong and Zaback, College Completion Rates
and Remedial Education Outcomes for Institutions in
Appalachian States.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Annual
TSI High School Summary Report (2014), available at
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/5608.PDF?CF
ID=30110123&CFTOKEN=64901581.
32 The Nations Report Card, 2015 Mathematics & Reading
Assessments: Both fourth- and eighth-grade students
score lower in mathematics than in 2013; scores higher
than in 1990, available at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics?grade=4
(last accessed August 2016).

33 The Nations Report Card, Average reading for fourthgrade students not significantly different in comparison
to 2013; eighth-grade students score lower than
2013, available at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=4 (last accessed
August 2016).
34 ACT, The Condition of College & Career Readiness
2014 (2014), available at https://www.act.org/research/
policymakers/cccr14/pdf/CCCR14-NationalReadinessRpt.pdf.
35 College Board, 2014 College Board Program Results:
SAT, available at https://www.collegeboard.org/
program-results/2014/sat (last accessed June 2016).
36 Max Marchitello and Catherine Brown, Math Matters:
How the Common Core Will Help the United States
Bring Up Its Grade on Mathematics Education (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2015), available
at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/08/12095408/Marchitello-CCSSmathreportFINAL.pdf.
37 Ulrich Boser, Perpetual Baffour, and Steph Vela, A
Look at the Education Crisis: Tests, Standards, and the
Future of American Education (2016), available at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/
report/2016/01/26/129547/a-look-at-the-educationcrisis/.
38 Ibid.
39 Common Core State Standards Initiative, Frequently
Asked Questions, available at http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-askedquestions/ (last accessed June 2016).

22 Center for American Progress | Remedial Education

Our Mission

Our Values

Our Approach

The Center for American

Progress is an independent,
nonpartisan policy institute
that is dedicated to improving
the lives of all Americans,
through bold, progressive
ideas, as well as strong
leadership and concerted
action. Our aim is not just to
change the conversation, but
to change the country.

As progressives, we believe
America should be a land of
boundless opportunity, where
people can climb the ladder
of economic mobility. We
believe we owe it to future
generations to protect the
planet and promote peace
and shared global prosperity.

We develop new policy ideas,

challenge the media to cover
the issues that truly matter,
and shape the national debate.
With policy teams in major
issue areas, American Progress
can think creatively at the
cross-section of traditional
boundaries to develop ideas
for policymakers that lead to
real change. By employing an
extensive communications
and outreach effort that we
adapt to a rapidly changing
media landscape, we move
our ideas aggressively in the
national policy debate.

And we believe an effective

government can earn the
trust of the American people,
champion the common
good over narrow self-interest,
and harness the strength of
our diversity.

1333 H STREET, NW, 10TH FLOOR, WASHINGTON, DC 20005 TEL: 202-682-1611 FAX: 202-682-1867 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG