While remedial education and the impact of its elimination on educational quality remains in debate, state policy-makers continue to consider proposals to phase out college remediation. This section discusses some of the choices state policymakers have made regarding remedial education in California and New York. A brief discussion about the policy changes at CSU and CUNY helps to reveal the consequences of reducing or eliminating remedial education and the ways in which future policy may be affected. If you asked someone i need someone to write my essay for me, you will see that changes in state remediation policies over the past decade have ranged from requiring specific scores on placement exams to eliminating public funding for remedial courses. Some proposals considered charging high schools for the cost of “remediating” their graduates in college. Others charge remedial students the “full cost” of instruction, including overhead such as physical plant and maintenance expenses, for remedial courses.
This may equate to three or four times more than standard in-state tuition. Most policies, however, prohibit four-year colleges from offering any courses that are not “college level.” Such policies designate the community college as the appropriate place for remediation and underprepared students.
Scores on standardized placement tests are a common way of identifying remedial students. However, the minimum passing scores to distinguish between college-ready and remedial are not uniform across states or institutions. A student might, therefore, be deemed remedial at one institution but fully prepared at another institution. In fact, one study- controlling for social, demographic and academic backgrounds— found that students with similar ability were more likely to be identified as remedial at a two-year institution than at a four-year college.
The two university systems used different policies in attempts to reduce or eliminate remedial education, but both emphasized the need for community colleges to provide remedial courses. Both systems required students to take placement exams after admission but before enrollment to determine college-readiness. At CSU, students identified as remedial were given one year after enrollment to complete required preparatory coursework. At CUNY, however, students with low test scores were ineligible to enroll in four-year colleges. Both situations present many implications for access, educational opportunity, and attainment. CSU students who failed to complete remedial courses within their first year were subsequently subject to dis-enrollment from the university. These students were referred to one of California’s community colleges with the option of re-enrolling in CSU upon completion of required remedial courses.