Remedial rates in Tennesee Date sent: Mon, 05 Jan 98 13:20:53 LCL From: JOLENE CLARK Subject: REMEDIAL WORK FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS To: EDUCATION CLEARINGHOUSE About a year ago I began compiling statistics regarding the % of entering freshmen taking remedial courses at public universities and 2-yr colleges in TN. I am an institutional researcher for the University of Tennessee System. I have changed positions within the university since starting this project so it has sat unfinished for several months unfortunately, but some of the early data are quite interesting. I hope to re-initiate the effort for proceeding with this shortly. My intent was to track students within the state of TN to determine if they eventually graduated after having begun their college career in need of remediation. This might be used as an indicator of success or non- success of college-level remedial efforts. As an already frustrated and greatly concerned parent of two children in the public secondary system, I was furthered concerned by the numbers I generated on this subject. I plan to complete an analysis of entering freshmen classes for Fall 1986 through Fall 1990, tracking each year of students through 6 or 7 years of subsequent grad- uation files to see if they eventually graduate from a TN institution (not necessarily the one where they began). As of now I have only had the opportun- ity to run complete matches for the Fall 1986 group. However, as far as per- centages of students participating in remedial work, some recent stats lead me to believe there may not be much change in the number enrolled. Graduation rates remain to be seen. At any rate, some tidbits from the Fall 1986 cohort group reports ---- % Entering Freshmen taking Remedial and/or Developmental Courses (4-YR univ): TBR institutions: APSU - 37.0% UT Institutions: UTC - 60.3% ETSU - 33.7% UTM - 43.7% MTSU - 57.4% UTK not included because only TSU - 70.4% 1 developmental and no remedial TTU - 38.1% courses are offered UM - 27.5% % of Freshmen group that took remedial Courses AND graduated (4-YR): TBR institutions: APSU - 16.1% UTC and UTM had less than 3 students ETSU - 22.6% enrolled in Remedial-level courses MTSU - 24.0% TSU - 16.0% TTU - 11.8% UM - 26.4% % of Freshmen group that took Developmental Courses AND graduated (4-yr): TBR institutions: APSU - 29.1% UT institutions: UTC - 30.5% ETSU - 40.4% UTM - 24.9% MTSU - 35.8% TSU - 17.3% TTU - 39.3% UM - 22.4% % of Freshmen group that took NO Remedial/Develop. Courses AND graduated: TBR institutions: APSU - 24.5% UT institutions: UTC - 47.6% ETSU - 42.7% UTM - 53.4% MTSU - 48.2% UTK - 54.0% TSU - 32.0% TTU - 55.7% UM - 39.1% There are so many variables here to consider in making comparisons that interpretation of these stats is difficult. However, in almost every case it is noticeable that those students requiring remediation below the develop- mental level are statistically less likely to graduate than those requiring only developmental work or no remediation at all. And certainly, even with remediation, there is still a significant gap between graduation rates of remediated students and those who came to college well enough prepared to re- quire no remediation. Some of the questions in this state have involved whether it is a finan- cially sound decision to fund remedial education at the college level. Tax- payers have paid for a secondary system that should have provided appropriate education -- why should they pay a second time for the same students to be taught secondary skills. In this state, the taxpayer provides approximately 60% of the monies required to send a student to college with the student paying only 40% directly. The percent paid by the state is even higher for 2-year schools and the graduation rates alarming (in my opinion). For example, the graduation rates for freshmen under 20 years of age (recent HS grads) range from a high of 37.3% to a low of 7.2% at 2-yr schools. (14 schools: grad rates ; 32.2%; 21.2%; 18.9%; 16.5%; 14.1%; 20.0%; 37.3%; 19.7%; 18.8%; 7.2%; 18.8%; 22.1%; 26.5%; 26.8%). For students over 20 years of age at either 4- or 2-yr institutions the graduation rates were even lower. At most 4-year schools higher percentages of older students required remediation than younger students but still represented the smaller portion of the freshman enrollment. At 2-year schools the percent of older students requiring remediation was similar or often lower than the younger student (4 exceptions). I had wondered if the older, more mature students would have a greater success rate, but can only surmise from the stats that perhaps the burden of responsibilities other than school is greater and hampers their opportunity to stay in school. No doubt there are some interesting questions buried here. I have discovered that some institutions (not in TN) charge their students a higher rate for remedial courses in order to have the student bear the cost rather than the state. Of course, that scenario does not help certain other aspects of funding. For instance, though TN has formula funding (based on enrollment) there is a portion of monies that are distributed based on perfor- mance funding measures -- one of which is graduation and retention rates! We could raise a few more questions about that and the potential for it to negatively or positively impact the quality of education! From a personal standpoint in regards to the remedial courses at the college level, I firmly believe we have to hold secondary education and the individual more accountable for such deficiencies for recent graduates. Older students can claim a more legitimate need for remediation a bit, but even those programs may need to look for alternatives to administering remediation as part of university programs. Beginning this year, high school principals in this district had to pen performance goals as part of their contract for the year. If the goals are not reached their contract could be revoked. The high school in my community sought such goals as more parent involvement (PTA membership?), improved appearance of school grounds, etc. Not one word about academic quality. I say -- Where's the Beef? EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE