Get documents about "BACKGROUND
Document Sample
Office of Internal Audit
Program Review
UW Remedial Education Policies
November 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary i
Scope of Review 1
Background 1
History of Remedial Education 1
Current Issues in Remedial Education 2
National Developments 2
Findings and Recommendations 4
Reducing the Need for Remedial Education 4
Trends in the Size of the UW Remedial Population 4
Alignment of High School and College Requirements 5
Other Efforts to Collaborate with High Schools 6
Remedial Education Policy Implementation 6
Cooperation with DPI to Assess High School Students 8
Information About University Placement 8
Development, Distribution, and Update of Basic Competencies 9
Distribution of Assessment Instruments and Performance Criteria 9
Information
Assessment Instruments and Performance Criteria 10
UW System Placement Tests 10
Performance Criteria 12
Mandatory Testing and Enrollment 14
Placement Tests and Enrollment in Remedial Courses 14
Successful Completion of Remedial Coursework 15
Appropriate Credit Load 16
Remedial Course Content, Instruction and Delivery 16
Course Offerings and Instruction 16
Other Basic Skills Course Offerings 17
Course Delivery 18
Remedial Education Funding 18
Evaluation of Program Effectiveness 19
Evaluation in the UW System 20
National Research on Evaluation and Effective Remediation 21
Conclusion 21
Appendix 1 - Assessment Instruments at UW Institutions 23
Appendix 2 - Response from Office of Academic Affairs 24
Bibliography 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Remedial education programs have been the subject of public policy discussions in recent years,
and significant work has been done to more closely align high school graduation requirements
with the skills needed for entry-level college courses. In light of the recent focus on remedial
education, the University of Wisconsin (UW) System Administration Office of Internal Audit
reviewed: 1) methods for reducing new students' need for remedial education; 2) the
implementation status of the UW System's remedial education policy, Regent Policy Document
(RPD) 88-16; and 3) methods for evaluating the effectiveness of remedial education.
At least one UW System institution has a history of providing remedial education that extends
back to the mid-1800s. UW System institutions offer or direct students to remedial education
when the students demonstrate the potential for success in college but need to develop basic
English and math skills required for college-level study. The UW System is among a majority of
higher education institutions in offering remedial education; a 1995 survey found that 78% of
higher education institutions offered at least one remedial reading, writing, or mathematics
course. The UW's history of access to education, combined with increases in the number of high
school students expecting to attend college and the number of returning older students, suggests
that the need for remedial education at the UW will continue.
Reducing the Need for Remedial Education
The 1990s saw a decline in the proportion of new UW freshmen needing remedial education, but
there remains a need to align high school requirements with college content and competency
expectations. The percentage of new freshmen in the UW System needing English remediation
decreased from 10.1% to 7.1% between 1990 and 2000; the percentage needing math
remediation decreased from 20.6% to 10.3% during the same period. Both English and math
percentages compare favorably with national statistics. Nevertheless, placement test results
indicate that students who meet high school graduation requirements and standard UW
admission requirements may not necessarily possess the English or math skills needed to succeed
in college.
Efforts to reduce the number of new freshmen in need of remedial education have emphasized
collaboration between high schools and the UW System. Steps taken to increase the extent to
which new freshmen are prepared for entry-level college requirements include the following: 1)
ACT, Inc. annually provides feedback to high schools about their graduates in need of
remediation; 2) the Wisconsin Alignment Project has examined the degree of alignment between
the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction's Wisconsin K-12 Model Academic Standards
and UW System admission competencies and placement test objectives; 3) the Wisconsin
Advanced Placement Advisory Council and other strategies are used to bring high school and
college faculty together; and 4) the Early Math Placement Test is used in Wisconsin high schools
to encourage students to improve basic skill levels.
i
Implementation of Board of Regents Remedial Education Policy
The Board of Regents' remedial education policy, RPD 88-16 describes various requirements
linked to student success. These include: required entry-level testing, mandatory student
placement into remedial courses, and the availability of information about placement testing and
remedial courses. This review found that UW System institutions have made significant
progress in implementing RPD 88-16. Steps that have been taken include: 1) UW System has
developed basic competencies in English and math and has updated them in conjunction with the
Competency-Based Admission Project; 2) a systemwide placement test has been developed as an
assessment instrument; 3) UW System institutions have adopted cut-off scores to identify
students who need remediation; 4) each UW System institution has developed remedial courses,
tutorial support, or agreements with technical colleges to provide remedial instruction; and 5)
remedial fee recovery procedures have been established.
Implementation of the remedial policy is an ongoing process, and the review also identified areas
in which further progress or improvement is needed. Recommendations for future actions that
could enhance the effectiveness of the UW institutions' remedial programs include: 1)
expanding opportunities for the assessment of high school students' English and math skills; 2)
ensuring information about assessment instruments and performance criteria is effectively
communicated to high school students; 3) determining whether greater uniformity in placement
practices and test cut-offs among the UW System institutions would be desirable; 4) ensuring
that all UW System institutions track whether new freshmen take placement tests and enroll in
appropriate remedial courses; and 5) examining whether current fee recovery practices are
adequate.
Evaluation of Program Effectiveness
Evaluation of program effectiveness is considered a key issue related to remedial education
programs. The UW System already prepares systemwide statistical reports on retention rates
among students identified as needing remedial education. The Institute for Higher Education
Policy also has suggested that remedial programs must be "continuously scrutinized," just as
other educational programs are. A 1990 Office of Academic Affairs policy memo proposed that
each UW institution conduct evaluations of specific courses. However, RPD 88-16 does not
include an evaluation component. This report recommends that UW System incorporate
program evaluation requirements into the RPD or establish administrative guidelines for
evaluating the effectiveness of the remedial courses offered by the UW institutions.
ii
SCOPE
The Office of Internal Audit reviewed the implementation status of Regent Policy Document
(RPD) 88-16, "Remedial Education Policy," which provides direction in such areas as the type
of remedial courses the UW System institutions are to offer, appropriate credit loads for students
in remedial courses, and fee recovery. Also reviewed were methods for reducing the need for
remedial education and for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of remedial education.
We conducted on-site reviews at a sample of the UW System four-year institutions and UW
Colleges during late 1999 and early 2000 and used survey documents to collect information from
most of the other UW institutions. We interviewed various campus staff about aspects of the
remedial education program; these staff included administrators, student support services staff,
English and mathematics faculty, and registrar and testing services staff. We also reviewed
remedial program documentation at the UW institutions we visited.
BACKGROUND
Remedial education is academic work required to develop basic skills needed for entry-level
college study. UW System institutions provide remedial education programs for those students
who demonstrate potential for success in college but may lack required skill levels in English
and math. Remedial education includes activities such as assessment and placement, curriculum
design and delivery, support services, and evaluation.
HISTORY OF REMEDIAL EDUCATION
The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) notes in a 1998 report that remedial education
has always been a part of American higher education, beginning in the 17th century when
Harvard University provided tutors in Greek and Latin
for under-prepared students. IHEP also credits the Remedial education at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison with having the first University of Wisconsin dates
remedial education program, beginning in 1849. In the back to the mid-1800s.
twentieth century, veterans taking advantage of the GI Bill increased the need for remediation.
In addition, as universities implemented open door admission policies and government funding
was provided as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Higher Education Act of 1965,
the need for these programs expanded.
A 1995 survey on remediation by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), through
the Department of Education, found that 78% of higher education institutions offered at least one
remedial reading, writing, or mathematics course. National statistics show that as of 1995 almost
30% of first-time freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial course.
The UW System has established a tradition of providing access to Wisconsin residents who
demonstrate a potential for success in college. Access has been accomplished by combining
admission standards with additional efforts to assist students in their educational objectives.
1
Also, the UW System is expanding its role in serving non-traditional students, such as older and
part-time students, some of whom may need remediation.
CURRENT ISSUES IN REMEDIAL EDUCATION
Educators are concerned about balancing access to higher education against high academic
standards, since imposing higher admission standards might limit access. While some argue that
the cost of remediation at the university level is high and responsibility for teaching basic skills
rests with the K-12 school system, others cite the social costs of not providing remediation, such
as unemployment and low-wage jobs. IHEP reported that the underlying assumption is that if an
institution admits a student, it has an obligation to help that student succeed, and it must have
policies and procedures in place to help those students who are experiencing academic difficulty.
Statistics suggest that the need for remedial education will continue to be a core function at many
universities as higher education institutions serve an increasing proportion of both traditional and
non-traditional students. For example, returning older
students may need remediation to renew skills. The The need for remedial
NCES study found that the over-40 age cohort increased education is likely to continue.
from 6% of total enrollments in 1970 to 11% in 1993. A
1996 Illinois Board of Higher Education study on the scope and effectiveness of remedial
education notes that substantial numbers of students who return to college several years after
high school graduation are in need of remediation. These students' needs related to curriculum,
advising and support may be different from those of traditional-aged students.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy suggests that good public policy should focus on
implementing strategies to reduce the need for remediation, as well as improving the
effectiveness of remedial education programs. The UW System is working to reduce the number
of students in need of remediation through extensive collaboration with the Department of Public
Instruction, secondary schools, and the Wisconsin Technical College System on various PK-16
partnerships and initiatives. The extent of remediation may be reduced somewhat for traditional-
aged students through collaboration with secondary schools and other initiatives. However, with
more high school students planning to attend college, some recent graduates may need
remediation to improve their skills in selected areas.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
Remedial education has received much attention in recent years. Some states have attempted to
shift responsibility for remedial education away from
institutions of higher education to secondary schools and Some states have acted to shift
community colleges. A fall 1995 NCES report found that responsibility for remedial
state policies discouraged or restricted remedial education education to secondary schools
at 29% of public four-year institutions. A recent and community colleges.
Chronicle of Higher Education article notes that 35 state
legislatures have debated policies to shift remedial classes to community colleges. California,
Massachusetts, and Texas are among states that have seen proposals emerge for public debate
that would charge public schools or otherwise hold them responsible for the cost of remedial
courses.
2
Some states have already made significant changes. Examples of states that have changed their
policies or practices include the following:
Colorado and Georgia have discontinued or are in the process of phasing out remediation at
the four-year institutions.
An Illinois statute puts the primary emphasis on post-secondary remedial programs at public
community colleges and also directs that the role of state universities be reduced.
Minnesota policy allows a public school to bill a student's high school for English
comprehension, composition and math courses if the student scores below the eighth grade
level in any of these areas.
In New York, privatization of remedial services at CUNY and elimination of remedial
education at senior colleges were proposed. However, CUNY offers free summer immersion
programs to more than 20,000 students. The Chronicle of Higher Education notes that the
results of the immersion program in New York may serve as a case study for remediation
reform. Public institutions in Arizona, Texas and other states also offer multi-week summer
programs.
The California State University system received $9 million from its Legislature to provide
training workshops for high-school teachers, to increase the number of college students who
tutor in high schools and to give university placement tests to high school students to identify
their skill needs earlier. The university targeted about one-fifth of public high schools to set
up preparation programs.
Some states, such as Maryland, have turned to private, for-profit organizations. The
Chronicle of Higher Education notes that colleges in Connecticut, Ohio and South Carolina
are also considering outsourcing.
Since remediation is a continuing challenge for higher education institutions, several computer-
aided instruction programs have been developed for use in providing remedial curricula to those
students who are not academically prepared for college-
level work. Several community college systems, as well Computer-aided remedial
as four-year public institutions, have implemented these instruction programs have
technology-based systems. The California State been developed.
University system uses commercial on-line courseware
for its remedial mathematics program. Its Board of Trustees has credited the use of the
interactive-multimedia mathematics software as one strategy that has improved the number of
freshmen completing mandatory remedial courses.
While the cost of remedial education is of concern, some research suggests that these costs
represent a small portion of state budgets. It has been suggested that remedial education costs
relatively little to maintain, unlike other programs that may require full professors and expensive
technology. The UW System has minimized its costs by offering remedial education programs
on a fee recovery basis.
3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the attention surrounding remedial education, the objectives of this review were to
determine the status of the UW System's efforts to implement the Board of Regents policy on
remedial education and to identify whether there are activities that could strengthen the
effectiveness of the various remedial education programs. To analyze UW System's remedial
education policies and programs, we reviewed three areas:
the extent of the identified need for remedial education at the UW System institutions and
efforts to reduce the need for remedial education;
the status of the implementation of Regent Policy Document 88-16, Remedial Education
Policy, which sets forth the elements of the UW System's remedial education program; and
strategies identified in national literature for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of
remedial education programs.
A discussion of each of these three areas follows.
REDUCING THE NEED FOR REMEDIAL EDUCATION
We reviewed the extent of the identified need for remedial education at the UW System
institutions. The review included: trends in the proportion of freshmen needing remedial
education; efforts to align high school and college requirements; and other collaborative efforts.
Trends in the Size of the UW Remedial Population
The UW System determines the need for remediation after students have been admitted. The
UW System placement scores or other performance
measures are not used for admission decisions but as a The UW System's remedial
diagnostic tool to assist the faculty in determining the population has declined.
most appropriate course level. UW System remedial
enrollments have decreased in the years since the inception of the Board of Regents remedial
education policy, as shown in Table 1 on page 5.
The number of students reported as needing remediation varies widely among the UW System
institutions. For the fall 2000 new freshman class, percentages ranged from .8 % at UW-
Madison to 38.3% at UW-Whitewater. This range may be attributed to various differences
among the UW institutions, such as differences in institutional mission, in admission
requirements, in the performance measures UW institutions use to identify the need for
remediation, and in the extent of the non-traditional student population. A 1998 report by the
4
Table 1
Percentage of Incoming Fall New Freshmen Identified as Needing Remedial Education
UW System: 1990-2000
SUBJECT 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000*
English 10.1 9.3 7.7 8.4 6.9 6.8 7.1 7.0 6.7 6.7 7.1
Math 20.6 16.8 17.5 14.4 14.2 12.8 12.1 12.4 12.0 12.6 10.3
Composite* 25.4 21.6 21.2 19.1 17.7 16.4 15.9 16.0 15.4 16.2 14.1
*Either English or math, or both English and math
Source: UW System Central Data Request
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) notes that many states develop a tiered
system of college admissions in which flagship institutions offer the most restrictive admission
requirements, comprehensive universities are moderately
selective, and the remaining institutions employ minimal The percentage of new
selectivity or open admissions. The report suggests that freshmen identified as needing
by connecting admission requirements to institutional remedial education varies
roles and missions, states can maximize access while widely among the UW System
supporting greater selectivity at some institutions. institutions.
The UW remedial student population, as a percentage of total new freshman enrollments, is
small compared to national statistics. At the same time, a higher percentage of incoming
freshmen have been identified as needing math remediation rather than English remediation,
which reflects national patterns. Approximately 23% of the students in the remedial population
for Fall 2000 need both math and English remediation.
Alignment of High School and College Requirements
It might be expected that meeting institutional admissions requirements would minimize the need
for remedial education. However, placement test results indicate that not all students who meet
the requirements for high school graduation and UW admissions are prepared for entry-level
English or math courses. More than half of the new
freshmen identified as needing remediation in fall 2000 Not all students who meet high-
had met standard admissions requirements. This kind of school-graduation and UW-
result is not unique to Wisconsin; IHEP cited a Maryland admissions requirements are
study that showed that students who have taken college prepared for entry-level
preparatory courses still need remediation. Nevertheless, English or math.
this result does suggest the need for alignment of high school requirements with college content
and competency expectations.
The Board of Regents has raised the issue of high school feedback by asking whether students
from some high schools were in greater need of remediation than others and whether the
university reports back to the schools on their students' status. UW System Office of Academic
Affairs staff indicated that in a joint effort with the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(DPI), the UW System contracts with ACT, Inc. to provide feedback to high schools that have
5
more than five students enrolling in a UW System institution. ACT provides success reports to
Wisconsin high schools, indicating whether their high school graduates need remediation.
The UW System also is working with the K-12 system to improve student performance. After
DPI adopted the Wisconsin K-12 Model Academic
Standards in 1998, faculty from K-12 and post-secondary The UW System is working
education began working together on the Wisconsin with the K-12 system to
Alignment Project. This project addressed continuity improve student preparation.
between what students are expected to learn in high
school and what is necessary to succeed in college. In
part, it examined the degree of alignment between the Model Standards and UW System
admission competencies and placement test objectives. A Curriculum Articulation Project will
use the results of the alignment project to compare K-12 curricula with entry-level course content
in post-secondary institutions in a number of areas, including math and English.
Other Efforts to Collaborate with High Schools
The 1998 SHEEO report credits Wisconsin with using a variety of other recommended methods
to bring high school and college faculty together. Among these are the Wisconsin Advanced
Placement Advisory Council and workshops in advanced placement, the Competency-Based
Admission Project, and the Advisory Committee to the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction. This report also recognizes the Eisenhower federal program and annual workshops
for high school guidance counselors as adding to the professional development of secondary
school staff in the areas of math and science.
Many other collaborative programs between post-secondary institutions and feeder high schools
are in use around the nation and within the UW System to improve student preparation for
college. Examples include high school students taking college courses for credit; high school
feedback systems; professional development for K-12
staff; and early outreach, counseling and bridge Collaborative programs are
programs. Other strategies include early intervention and designed to reduce students'
financial aid programs targeted at students at the K-12 need for remediation.
level that link mentoring, tutoring, and academic
guidance. Early intervention programs are used to facilitate the transition from secondary to
higher education, as well as to reduce the need for remediation in higher education. As Table 1
shows, the need for remediation among UW freshmen has been reduced during the past ten
years.
REMEDIAL EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Although the proportion of new freshmen needing remediation has declined, there remains a
need for an effective remedial program. We reviewed the
Board of Regents' "Remedial Education Policy" (Regent The UW System Board of
Policy Document 88-16), which was adopted in 1988 to Regents adopted its remedial
address the need for remedial courses for those students education policy in 1988.
whose placement or proficiency tests indicate a low
6
probability for success in college-level courses. The UW institutions implemented the policy in
1990 and began offering remedial courses on a fee recovery basis in fall 1991.
We reviewed the progress in each area of the Board policy, using UW System Office of
Academic Affairs memos and work group recommendations as guidance in interpreting the
policy. The UW System Office of Academic Affairs
issued several memoranda in 1990 that have served as Office of Academic Affairs
policy implementation guidelines. In addition, UW memoranda have served as
System work groups established to develop basic implementation guidelines for
competencies and review placement practices have issued RPD 88-16, and UW System
reports that include recommendations. workgroups have further
interpreted the policy.
RPD 88-16 includes several requirements that have been
linked to student success, such as required entry-level testing, mandatory student placement into
remedial courses, and early enrollment in required remedial courses. Specific policy
requirements include the following:
UW System is to cooperate with the Department of Public Instruction in developing a plan
for the assessment of high school students to improve their competency and lessen the
possibility of the need for remediation;
UW System is to develop a detailed statement of the minimum college-level skills and
competencies students are expected to have in math and English upon entry to the university;
UW institutions are to select placement instruments and establish performance criteria in
order to identify students who have a low probability
for success in college-level courses and to satisfy this The Board of Regents policy
need by offering non-degree credit remedial courses includes requirements linked to
in English and mathematics; student success.
information about the assessment instrument and performance criteria is to be made available
to secondary schools, as well as to potential UW students;
UW System faculty are to control the content, standards, and methods of instruction of all
remedial offerings;
students needing remediation are to successfully complete necessary remedial work prior to
completing 30 credits;
UW institutions are to establish an appropriate credit load for those students enrolled in
remedial courses; and
UW institutions are to offer remedial courses on a fee recovery basis.
Our review findings showed that progress has been made in implementing RPD 88-16, but in
some areas improvements are needed. We grouped the RPD requirements into seven categories:
7
1) cooperation with DPI to assess high school students; 2) information about university
placement; 3) assessment instruments and performance criteria; 4) mandatory testing and
enrollment; 5) appropriate credit load; 6) remedial course content, instruction and delivery; and
7) remedial education funding. A discussion of each area follows.
Cooperation with DPI to Assess High School Students
RPD 88-16 provides that the UW System will cooperate with the state Department of Public
Instruction (DPI) in developing a plan for assessing the English and mathematics skills of high
school students throughout the state. Early math placement testing and writing assessment have
been identified as methods for early identification of skill deficiencies. Students whose scores
suggest they are unlikely to place into college-level English and math are to be encouraged to
take courses in high school designed to improve competencies and lessen the possibility of
placement into remedial courses.
In 1994 the Board of Regents discussed the benefits of an early math placement test administered
in the junior year of high school to encourage students to remove deficiencies prior to high
school graduation. This statewide Early Math Placement Test (EMPT) program was
implemented in 1997-98. The UW-Madison Center for Placement Testing coordinates the
program. According to Center for Placement Testing data, approximately 9,800 high school
juniors took advantage of the testing for 1998-99; this represented only about 13% of the high
school junior population. This program is partially funded through a fee from the Center to the
school for each student tested. According to a Center for Placement Testing newsletter, the
results of early testing are compelling in that students who participate in EMPT do considerably
better on the Math Placement Test (MPT) than do those who had not taken the EMPT.
In the 1999-01 biennial budget, Governor Thompson proposed $195,000 for the Early Math
Placement Test/Early Writing Assessment Project. The EMPT funding was intended to cover
the entire cost to administer the program, with the goal of increasing the number of students
taking the test. The proposal also included funding early writing assessment for high school
students, using automated scoring software. An Electronic Essay Rater program (E rater) was to
be procured from Educational Testing Services. The Joint Finance Committee did not fund the
proposal. However, UW System will be funding a pilot of the essay rater program at four
Wisconsin high schools during the 2001-02 academic year. In accordance with RPD 88-16, we
recommend that UW System continue to develop plans for assessing the English and math
skills of high school students throughout the state and for using the results to encourage
students to take appropriate English and math courses while still in high school.
Information about University Placement
Board of Regents policy includes several requirements to provide information to Wisconsin high
schools and potential UW students in order to ease the transition between secondary schools and
post-secondary institutions. Better preparation for post-secondary requirements can reduce high
school graduates' need for remediation. SHEEO notes that raising the level of student
preparation for college "can only be successful to the extent that high school students, parents,
teachers, and counselors are aware of what is required for acceptance and success in college and
8
are motivated to act accordingly." It is important that both secondary schools and potential UW
students are made aware of UW requirements.
Development, Distribution and Update of Basic Competencies
The RPD requires that the UW System develop a detailed statement of the minimum college-
level skills and competencies that students are expected
to have upon entrance to the UW and that this statement Potential UW students are to
be widely circulated and periodically updated. This be made aware of the
requirement was intended to provide assistance to competencies they are expected
secondary schools and to potential UW students, as well to have upon entrance to the
as to provide the basis for designing new or restructuring UW System.
existing remedial courses within the UW System. This
would allow UW institutions to work toward greater comparability in the content of remedial and
introductory courses in English and math.
In 1989, UW System work groups developed basic competencies in math and English that
formed the basis for a report published for distribution to the secondary schools in 1991. The
work group noted that comparability in course content among the UW System institutions would
send a clearer message to secondary schools and to the general public, as well as alleviate
transfer problems. The work group recommended that
the competencies be incorporated into brochures for Basic competencies were
secondary schools and potential UW students and that originally developed in 1991.
students in middle school and junior high be made aware
through the UW System "Gearing Up for College" publication. A review of this brochure
indicates that minimum required high school courses are identified, but basic competencies are
not addressed.
RPD 88-16 requires periodic updates to the basic competencies. Math and English competencies
developed in conjunction with the Competency-Based Admission Project have replaced those
competencies developed for remedial purposes. These competencies are scheduled to be
reviewed on a three-year basis. The Curriculum
Articulation Project, a collaborative effort between the English and math competencies
UW System and the Department of Public Instruction, have been updated as part of
will use the competencies developed for the Competency- the Competency-Based
Based Admission Project as a basis to compare K-12 and Admission Project.
post-secondary course content. The competencies are
posted on the UW System Administration web site. However, at the time of our review, we
found at several institutions that staff who design course curricula were not aware of the new
competencies. This suggests more may need to be done to disseminate information about the
availability of the revised competencies to the appropriate UW System institution offices.
Distribution of Assessment Instruments and Performance Criteria Information
RPD 88-16 states that information about each institution’s assessment instrument and
performance criteria shall be made available to secondary schools and to potential UW students.
One purpose of this requirement is to assist secondary schools in communicating college-level
9
expectations while advising their students. While it appears that secondary schools are aware of
the need for UW System placement tests, there has not been a concentrated effort to provide
updated performance criteria to Wisconsin high schools. UW System has not provided this
information, since changes are periodically made at the institution level to performance criteria.
The UW System web site also does not mention required placement or proficiency tests in its
information to students or in the on-line application.
Based upon staff interviews at a sample of UW System institutions, it appears that some UW
institutions also have not provided updated information to secondary schools about their
assessment instruments and performance criteria.
Although many UW institutions refer to the need for UW Information about assessment
System placement tests in their catalog or on web sites, measures and performance
we found only one UW institution that published its criteria needs to be more
performance criteria. UW institution staff indicated that widely circulated to secondary
students are made aware of the need for placement testing schools and potential UW
through the admission acceptance process or through students.
orientation. In contrast, the California State University
system web site provides admission requirements in math, topics covered in the math test,
sample questions, and frequently asked questions. It also correlates the math competencies to
math test topics. Since enrollment in remedial courses affects progress towards a degree, it is
important that UW institutions make all incoming students aware of the significance of an
assessment of basic skills in English and math. We recommend that: 1) UW institutions
communicate their performance criteria to secondary schools; and 2) assessment and
placement policies be disseminated and clearly explained through a variety of media, such as
UW institution web sites, to ensure that students clearly understand the purpose, content,
scoring procedures and placement implications of the assessment program. Several UW
institutions have indicated since our review that their Web sites will be enhanced to include
various placement information, such as a description of placement procedures and performance
criteria.
Assessment Instruments and Performance Criteria
Although RPD 88-16 directs each UW System institution to determine the specific assessment
instruments and performance criteria used for placement in college-level courses, systemwide
assessment tests in English and math have been developed. We reviewed the extent to which the
UW System test is used, as well as the range of performance criteria established by the UW
institutions.
UW System Placement Tests
Placement tests are used to identify the need for remediation and also to provide necessary
information to faculty to ensure students are placed into
the most appropriate course within a given sequence of UW System standard
instruction. The UW System has developed standard placement tests are for optional
placement tests for assessing basic competencies in use by UW institutions, which
English and math. These tests are for optional use by the may develop their own tests.
UW institutions. As of fall 2000, most have opted to use the system tests; three do not use the
10
English test, and one does not use the math test. Several UW institutions noted that writing
samples are useful to supplement and/or replace the results of the English Placement Test.
The standard placement tests have several parts. Currently, the English Placement Test (EPT) is
comprised of several sub-tests that result in the English Placement Test score and the Reading
Comprehension (RC) score. The Math Placement Test (MPT) consists of a variety of content
areas and is developed into three separate sub-tests, which measure prerequisite skills in such
areas as algebra, geometry, and trigonometry.
RPD 88-16 also allows exemption from assessment based on System-established levels for the
ACT math and English test scores. However, we found
that the UW institutions do not use ACT scores to exempt UW institutions have not used
students. Institution staff have concluded that ACT ACT scores as a screening tool
scores cannot adequately measure minimal expected for placement, although RPD
competencies and the ACT measure needs to be 88-16 would allow this.
augmented.
The UW-Madison Center for Placement Testing supports all UW institutions by providing
placement test development, test administration, test scoring and research. The Center is
partially funded by UW System and receives funding from the UW institutions, allocated on a
headcount basis. The Center provides information to the faculty to enable them to place students
into the most appropriate course level. Faculty committee work groups update the tests, and the
Center conducts pilot tests to monitor standard score scales and to assist institutions in
developing validity studies of the placement testing program. The Center for Placement Testing
has also begun to review software for computer-based testing, at the same time that other testing
programs nationally are exploring implementation of computerized testing as an adjunct to or a
replacement for existing traditional testing methods.
At the time of the review, we identified several areas of Placement test administration
concern with respect to the UW institutions' and scoring is inconsistent
administration and scoring of the placement tests: among UW System institutions.
Scoring methods vary. Only two UW institutions
used the Reading Comprehension (RC) score as part of their performance criteria to measure
English skills. A composite of the EPT and RC scores was developed for use by UW-
Madison in the 2000-01 academic year.
Incoming students must take either of two test parts for math, based on their own assessment
of their skill level. Several UW institutions did not have cut-offs, or performance criteria,
established for the more difficult test set and, as a result, students may not be properly
evaluated.
Students may take UW System placement tests at regional test sites, which include
Minnesota and Illinois locations, or on a residual basis at each UW institution, as determined
by the institution. Test scores for all regional tests are stored in a central database, the
Placement Score System, which was developed, in part, to facilitate transfer among the UW
institutions. However, test scores for residual tests are not submitted to the Center for
11
Placement Testing by all UW institutions to provide a more complete record of incoming
UW freshmen. Additionally, at the time of our review, two UW institutions did not use the
Center’s scoring, although this is among the costs allocated to each institution.
Most UW System institutions established a small fee assessment for new freshmen to cover
the costs of placement tests, either through the student accounts receivable system or through
freshman orientation. At least two UW institutions were not assessing this population for the
costs of placement testing.
Until fall 2000, scoring methods for the Math Placement Test were also a concern. Each UW
institution was previously allowed to select different
components within each of the tests for scoring purposes. Greater uniformity in English
This resulted in different test scores from different assessment and appropriate
institutions for the same test. The Center for Placement performance criteria for both
Testing recently developed a new scoring mechanism that math placement tests would
all UW institutions were required to use for fall 2000. improve consistency among
The new scoring methodology will create a more UW System institutions.
informative base of information, re-standardize test
scores to better reflect current educational trends, and provide uniformity among all UW
institutions to facilitate transfer. To further improve consistency, we recommend that UW
System: 1) review the use of uniform scoring methodology for the English assessment; and 2)
ensure UW institutions establish appropriate performance criteria for both math placement
tests.
Performance Criteria
Performance criteria, or placement cut-off scores, are used for determining the courses into
which students should be placed; and criteria vary significantly, even among institutions using
the same test. In 1991 UW System identified the performance criteria the UW institutions were
using and found that the range of performance criteria was fairly wide. In English, the test cut-
offs ranged from 400 to 522 for those institutions using standard EPT scores. (Since the
assessment tool for math varied for each institution due to use of different components of the
placement test, math placement scores could not be compared.) We obtained current
performance criteria to determine whether the range has narrowed since 1991. We compiled a
list of the assessment instruments and performance criteria used by the UW institutions in fall
2000, and they are presented in the Appendix. Overall, the information from the institutions
shows the following:
For institutions using the EPT, the test cut-off score for remedial placement ranged from 400
at UW-River Falls to 503 at UW-Milwaukee for the
2000-01 academic year, indicating that the range has Placement cut-off scores vary
slightly narrowed since 1991. widely among UW institutions
using the same test as an
Since the MPT scoring methodology was revised for assessment instrument.
fall 2000, UW institutions continue to use a variety of criteria to determine remedial
placement. Some institutions make the assessment based only on the results of the
elementary algebra test, while others use a combination of elementary and intermediate
12
algebra or ACT results. For example, the cut-offs for the elementary algebra test ranged
from 416 at UW Colleges to 509 at UW-Parkside.
With the wide range of performance criteria, students with identical placement test scores may or
may not be required to enroll in remedial courses, depending on which UW institution they
attend. The percentage of students at each institution identified as needing remediation is shown
in Table 2.
Table 2
Percentage of Students Identified as Needing Remedial Education
English and/or Math: Selected Years
UW INSTITUTION FALL 1990 FALL 1995 FALL 2000
Eau Claire 20.2 11.1 6.5
Green Bay 27.6 16.8 17.0
La Crosse 34.6 8.1 4.9
Madison 2.3 .9 .8
Milwaukee 48.1 38.2 32.5
Oshkosh 27.5 17.1 4.4
Parkside 50.7 50.4 37.2
Platteville 19.7 12.6 10.4
River Falls 21.9 3.5 12.6
Stevens Point 26.0 7.8 8.2
Stout 24.0 25.4 25.7
Superior 65.3 42.5 33.1
Whitewater 18.4 28.1 38.4
Colleges 34.0 23.5 10.0
Composite 25.4 16.4 14.1
Source: UW System Central Data Request
While different admission standards account in part for the wide variation in the need for
remedial education at the UW institutions, another factor
could be the institution-established performance criteria. Percentages of remedial
The distribution of recent high school graduates and non- students vary due to variations
traditional older students among the UW institutions may in placement criteria,
also affect remedial enrollments. institutional mission, student
demographics, and admission
Variation in the need for remedial education is not unique standards.
to the UW System. The Institute for Higher Education
notes that there are no consistent standards for "college level" work and that remedial education
needs often are determined by the admission requirements of a particular institution. It further
notes that the line to distinguish remedial students is often arbitrary and can vary considerably
among a set of institutions with similar missions. A 1996 Maryland Higher Education
Commission study found that policies, instruments and standards vary widely among its
institutions; and a study by the Southern Regional Education Board identified nearly 125
combinations of 75 different tests used to place students in remedial courses.
13
Although the variation is not a unique concern, there has long been interest in addressing it. In
1993, the Report on Remedial Education presented to the Board of Regents showed substantial
variation among institutions in the percentage of freshmen that needed remediation. Two work
groups, in math and in English, were appointed to address the issue. In 1994 reports, the work
groups acknowledged that substantial variation in the percentages of remedial students at
different UW System institutions would continue to exist due to various factors beyond
placement criteria, such as institutional mission, student demographics and admission standards.
Both the English and math groups concluded, however, that more consistency and a common
rationale for placement procedures across the UW System were desirable. For example, the
math report noted the following needs: 1) replacement of
institutions' ad hoc methods for setting remedial scores A greater degree of consistency
with methods that correlate test scores with historical in placement procedures could
evidence of success in college-level courses at each be desirable.
institution; 2) reports from the institutions to the UW
System on remedial placement procedures and the derivation of the range of scores used; and 3)
technical support and advice from UW System in implementing the methods for determining
remedial cut-off scores. We did not find that UW institutions had performed the recommended
analyses after the 1994 placement work group reports. We recommend that UW System review
the 1994 Work Group recommendations and determine whether a more consistent method for
determining remedial placement can be achieved. A range of acceptable performance measures
could be established to achieve greater commonality in placement procedures.
Mandatory Testing and Enrollment
RPD 88-16 states that new freshmen whose scores on English and math placement or proficiency
tests indicate a low probability of success in college-level courses shall be required to
successfully complete the necessary remedial course prior to the completion of 30 credits. The
policy indicates that institutions may grant, and clearly document, exceptions to individual
students. We reviewed institutions' methods for ensuring students take placement tests and their
definitions of successful completion.
Placement Tests and Enrollment in Remedial Courses
Although Board policy indicates that all freshmen are to be tested, it appears that this is not
uniformly enforced. Most UW institutions have
Procedures to ensure that
procedures in place to publicize the need to take UW
students identified as needing
placement tests; and most perform follow-up through
remediation enroll in required
orientation, registration or other means. However, at the
remedial courses are not
time of our review we found only two UW institutions
always adequate.
that had established automated controls to ensure that all
incoming new freshmen had taken the mandatory test. Placement test scores were not on record
for some students sampled. At some institutions students who did not take the placement test
were defaulted to a "no remediation necessary" reporting category.
14
In addition, although the RPD requires that students enroll in and successfully complete required
remedial work prior to earning 30 credits, the 30-credit requirement is not uniformly enforced.
Our review indicates that some students: 1) enroll in entry level courses rather than the required
remedial coursework; 2) do not enroll in and successfully complete the remedial work before
earning 30 credits; or 3) obtain undocumented approval from instructors to enroll in entry-level
courses. Many of the UW System institutions use the advising function to direct students into
required remedial course offerings; however, only two UW institutions had established an
automated control in the registration process to ensure students who need remediation register
for the required remedial work within a specified time period.
RPD 88-16 does not dictate whether students who fail to complete remedial work before earning
30 credits may no longer be enrolled. Even though the consequences are not specified, the value
of remedial education suggests institutions should monitor compliance with RPD 88-16. The
1994 Report to the Board on remedial education shows
that both 1990 and 1993 new freshmen that completed All UW System institutions
remediation had higher retention rates than those students need to track whether new
who needed but did not take remedial courses. The freshmen take placement tests,
California State University system recently implemented enroll in appropriate remedial
a policy to require students to complete remedial work courses, and complete remedial
before entering their sophomore year in school. If work before earning 30 credits.
remedial coursework is not completed by this time, students are no longer eligible for enrollment
or may be permitted to return only on a "conditional" basis. To enhance the prospects for new-
freshman retention and academic success, we recommend all UW System institutions track
whether new freshmen have: 1) taken placement tests; 2) enrolled in appropriate remedial
courses; and 3) completed remedial work before earning 30 credits.
Successful Completion of Remedial Coursework
While RPD 88-16 does not define successful completion of remedial courses, UW System policy
memos indicate that each UW institution will be responsible for developing its own definition of
successful completion of remedial courses. Successful
completion as defined by the UW System institutions A UW-Whitewater study
includes grades ranging from C+ to above an F, as well as showed that students who
a "pass" in a course offered on a pass/fail basis. Since the earned a C or better in
definition of successful completion significantly differs remedial math coursework
among the UW institutions, it is not possible to draw were more successful in entry-
overall conclusions from passing-grade statistics. A level math courses.
study at UW-Whitewater found that a group of students
who earned a C or better in remedial coursework was more successful in the entry-level course
than students who earned less than a C. Similar studies could also be helpful for other
institutions in evaluating the link between remedial-course grades and success in entry-level
courses.
Successful completion of remedial education can also be examined using national and UW CDR
data. National statistics from 1995 indicate that 81% of those students who needed English
remediation at public four-year institutions successfully completed the requirement, while 71%
of students in need of math remediation successfully completed the required coursework. UW
15
statistics, excluding UW Colleges, obtained through the CDR reporting process compare
favorably to the national averages; 77% and 69% of a 1994-95 cohort population successfully
completed the English and math requirements, respectively, within a six-year period. These
statistics provide a useful comparison of completion rates; however, they do not provide
information about a possible link between success in remedial courses and success in entry-level
English and math, as the UW-Whitewater study did. We recommend the UW institutions
examine students' remedial-course grade, entry-level English and math grades, and other
relevant information to help assess whether successful completion of remedial coursework is
providing adequate preparation for entry-level coursework.
Appropriate Credit Load
RPD 88-16 requires UW institutions to establish an appropriate credit load for students enrolled
in remedial courses. The Regent policy had originally called for a 12-credit load for those
students taking remedial coursework to ensure that
students are provided time for concentrated development Most UW institutions have not
of skills and competencies necessary for success in established or enforced an
college courses. This was amended in 1991 to allow the appropriate credit load for the
institutions to set their own credit load limits. Most of period of remedial enrollment.
the UW institutions have not established or enforced
credit load limits for students enrolled in remedial courses. Several of the institutions suggested
that remedial students should not be restricted to a lesser credit load than other students.
The 1995 NCES survey notes that there is variation in institutional policies on students taking
regular academic courses while they are taking remedial courses. About two-thirds of reporting
institutions placed some restrictions on the regular academic courses that students could take
while they were enrolled in remedial courses.
Remedial Course Content, Instruction and Delivery
RPD 88-16 directs that the faculty of the UW System shall control the content, standards, and
methods of instruction in the System's remedial courses. We reviewed typical remedial course
offerings, other developmental courses, and course delivery methods.
Course Offerings and Instruction
Remedial course content and the number of remedial courses vary across the UW System. The
1994 work groups for placement concluded that UW
System institutions design different programs of college- Remedial course content varies
level courses and, as a result, the content of remedial among the UW institutions,
offerings is necessarily different. The number of because entry-level college
remedial course offerings also varies among the UW courses vary.
institutions. Some institutions offer two levels of English
remediation and/or two or three levels of math remediation. Even among the UW Colleges, the
number of courses and the associated number of credits varies. This is not uncommon, for the
1995 NCES survey found that most institutions that offer remedial coursework might have more
than one course offering.
16
We also identified two UW institutions that do not offer remedial English courses but provide
assistance through alternate means. UW-Madison indicates that it offers assistance in its entry-
level English course to those students identified as needing remediation by referring them to
additional tutorial help. UW-Stevens Point also did not
offer a remedial English course at the time of our review. Two UW System institutions do
UW-Stevens Point determines the need for English not offer remedial English
remediation through a writing sample and mainstreams courses; they provide other
students who need remediation into regular courses. assistance.
These students are provided with regular tutoring by the
campus Tutoring Learning Center or a graduate assistant. Similarly, the University of South
Carolina System places students into "enriched" sections of entry-level courses. This approach is
part of a plan for phasing out remedial courses at four-year institutions, based on a consultant's
recommendation that students be mainstreamed into regular courses as soon as possible.
In most instances, remedial course instruction is provided through the English and math
departments at UW institutions. Several institutions deliver the remedial offerings through a
student support services area. In these instances, student support services works closely with the
English and math departments to ensure that remedial courses provide an adequate foundation
for entry-level coursework. The 1995 NCES survey found that 70% of institutions provide
remedial writing and mathematics through traditional academic departments, 20% of institutions
use a separate remedial division, and a small percentage use learning centers. A 1997 Illinois
Board of Education study on remediation credits one of Illinois's universities with establishing a
learning community model that links remedial reading and writing courses with selected general
education courses. Among the advantages are opportunities for closer study relationships among
students and instructors and supplemental support from remedial instructors.
Other Basic Skills Course Offerings
While the UW System remedial policy focuses exclusively on English and mathematics, the UW
institutions also offer other basic skills courses. The nature and extent of these other offerings
varies. Some UW institutions offer reading, study skills, and other developmental work.
Additionally, some have made English as a Second Language (ESL) programs available; these
courses can be remedial in nature in that they can serve as a prerequisite to enrollment in an
entry-level English course.
Much of the resource information relating to remedial
At some colleges and
education indicates that other colleges and universities
universities other
offer courses in reading and ESL. The 1995 NCES study
developmental courses, in
considered reading a standard remedial offering. One
addition to English and math,
Department of Education study indicated that students
are considered remedial
entering college in need of remediation in reading were
courses.
more likely to fail than those requiring work in
mathematics or writing. NCES found that 35% of public four-year colleges consider all ESL
courses to be remedial, while another 17% consider some of their ESL courses to be remedial.
17
We found several UW institutions that currently fund other basic skills courses on a fee recovery
basis, in the same manner as remedial English and math. Only UW Colleges received approval
from UW System to administer all of its developmental courses on a fee recovery basis. We
recommend that UW System reexamine whether other, non-English or non-math,
developmental courses should be considered remedial courses for funding purposes.
Course Delivery
To provide necessary flexibility, RPD 88-16 allows each campus to select an appropriate way to
offer remedial courses, such as through existing faculty, through UW-Extension or through
contractual arrangements with local Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) units. At the
time of our review, only two UW institutions, UW-
Platteville and UW-Waukesha, had elected to use Most UW System institutions
contractual arrangements with the local technical college. provide remedial courses
Both units indicate they have worked closely with the directly, rather than
technical college staff to control the course content, contracting with the WTCS or
standards and methods of instruction. At the time of our other sources.
review, the fees assessed to these UW institutions by the technical colleges were significantly
less than the regular fee assessed for remedial coursework.
Other states have moved to outsourcing remedial education to private, for-profit organizations.
Two of the most notable sources for outsourcing are Sylvan Learning Systems and Kaplan
Educational Centers, which work in partnership with institutions to improve the success rate of
those students who need remediation. However, the Chronicle of Higher Education noted that
the effectiveness and efficiency of such courses is not conclusive. The Institute for Higher
Education Policy noted that private vendors can bring extensive expertise to the remedial effort
and can adapt one or more instructional methods to meet the needs of individual learners. A
study by the Maryland Higher Education Commission on privatization of remedial courses
concluded that success would be dependent on the extent of collaboration between the two
parties.
Publications on remedial study reveal a growing interest in other innovative delivery systems.
SHEEO identified 16 states that offer innovative delivery
systems other than courses, such as computerized delivery Some universities are
or tutoring. As more is learned about the success of these exploring innovative delivery
efforts, UW System institutions also may wish to examine systems for remedial
innovative or alternative methods of delivering remedial education.
education.
Remedial Education Funding
RPD 88-16 established the principle that remedial courses would be self-supporting (not
subsidized by GPR funds) and that UW institutions would implement remedial fee recovery by
1991-92. Further guidance was provided through a UW
System Financial and Administrative Policy #44, which The remedial fee covers only
addresses how remedial fees are assessed in conjunction direct costs.
with regular instructional fees. A 1990 UW System policy memo to UW institutional business
18
representatives presented a methodology for “full cost recovery.” This memo addressed
recovering only direct costs, such as salary and fringe benefits costs of course instructors, student
tutors, and program coordinators; portions of administrative staff salaries; and supplies and
expenses. While the policy indicates that a separate assessment can be developed for the
remedial fee, most of the UW campuses assess a regular per-credit fee for remedial credits. At
the same time, we identified various fee assessment policies:
Two institutions assess a remedial fee other than the regular per-credit fee.
Several institutions do not assess a non-resident fee as part of the remedial assessment. The
fee assessment associated with a three-credit remedial course would differ by at least $1,250
per student between resident and non-resident students.
The two institutions that contract with the local Remedial fee assessment
technical colleges for remedial courses pay practices vary among UW
significantly less to the technical college than the System institutions.
per-credit fee assessed to their remedial students.
One UW institution with a small remedial population does not assess a separate remedial fee
but uses GPR to cover remedial costs.
One UW institution noted that an indirect cost rate is now included in its remedial fee
assessment, beginning in Spring 2000.
All but one of the UW institutions have established a pro rata allocation methodology and have
deposited the remedial fees to Fund 136 accounts. Several UW institutions reported that
balances have accumulated in these accounts. Although
UW System does not have a reserve policy for the A policy to address remedial
accounts, most of these institutions have planned how reserve balances has not been
the balances will be reduced, such as through additional developed.
tutorial support or learning centers.
Generally, UW institutions have been able to adequately support the remedial education
program, as well as to provide some support for tutorial and other support services. These
services may be invaluable to under-prepared students who need individualized attention. At the
same time, the differences in application of the policy, as well as the equity questions raised by
some institutions' assessment of remedial fees to non-residents at the resident rate, suggest that
the fee policy be reviewed. We recommend UW System examine the policy on fees for
remedial education and provide guidance on: 1) the extent to which indirect costs may be
recovered; 2) the appropriate level of and uses for remedial fee reserves; and 3) whether non-
resident students' remedial fees should be assessed at the non-resident or resident rate.
EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
A final area that we reviewed was evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial courses.
Evaluation is not covered in RPD 88-16. However, along with reducing the need for
19
remediation, evaluation of program effectiveness is considered one of the two key public policy
issues related to remedial education programs. We
reviewed existing evaluation efforts in the UW System, RPD 88-16 does not address
as well as national research on evaluation of remedial evaluating remedial programs
education. for effectiveness.
Evaluation in the UW System
Although RPD 88-16 does not require UW System institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of
remedial programs, one 1990 UW System policy memo indicated that there is a need to evaluate
the impact of remedial coursework on retention and While UW System reports
graduation rates. The memo proposed evaluations of system-level statistics, most
specific courses be conducted by each UW System individual UW institutions
institution. While we did not find any recent individual have not recently evaluated
UW institutional program effectiveness studies, UW their remedial efforts.
System does compile statistics and reports to the Board of
Regents on the outcomes for students who have been identified as needing English and/or math
remediation.
Six-year graduation statistics for fall 1991, fall 1992, and fall 1993 new freshmen have been
presented to the Board, as has an evaluation of the academic success of a fall 1990 cohort
population conducted in 1994. The results of the cohort study were as shown in Table 3. The
purpose of the 1994 study was to evaluate whether students who successfully completed
remedial coursework had a higher retention rate than their peers who did not successfully
Table 3
Retention Rates for Selected Groups of Fall 1990 Freshmen in 1994
PERCENTAGE STILL
REMEDIATION STATUS ENROLLED IN 1994
Students who did not need remediation 64%
Students who needed remediation, enrolled in required remedial
course, and successfully completed the course 47%
Students who needed remediation but never enrolled in required
remedial course 39%
Students who needed remediation and completed remediation
through alternative means, such as technical college and tutoring 56%
Students who needed remediation, enrolled in required
coursework, but did not successfully complete course 19%
Source: 1994 Report to the Board of Regents
complete the remedial work. The study defined retention as enrollment for a four-year period.
This analysis provides assistance in evaluating the effectiveness of the remedial program
systemwide, as well as serving as a useful tool for ensuring that the UW institutions are properly
reporting remedial data elements. Research suggests that one method for universities to use to
assess the effectiveness of remedial programs is to measure four aspects of program
effectiveness: 1) course completion success rate; 2) movement of students from remedial to
20
college-level courses; 3) successful completion of college-level coursework; and 4) student
persistence over a designated period. The UW System measures some of these areas, using the
systemwide Central Data Request. National research also indicates that the needs of English and
math remedial students differ; one UW institution suggests that retention of these groups should
be separately compiled to provide a more useful analysis.
National Research on Evaluation and Effective Remediation
While national reports emphasize the importance of evaluation, they also point to a lack of
evaluation research. SHEEO indicated that data collection efforts are often of a routine
descriptive nature and do not serve to evaluate the effectiveness of a program. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy reported in 1998 that there is little research about the effectiveness of
remedial programs and it is unclear if many states know whether their programs work.
SHEEO noted that as states face greater demands for accountability and more states publish
performance indicators, data collection efforts might be improved. These efforts could assist in
providing answers to what works and what is cost-efficient. SHEEO cites several noteworthy
research efforts, such as Texas's annual report on the effectiveness of remediation, Maryland's
research on remedial education and the relationship between high school and college
performance, and Florida's research on the relationship between admission requirements and
retention.
Various strategies have been offered to improve the effectiveness of remediation. Among the
suggestions in the Institute for Higher Education Policy's
December 1998 report are: 1) creating inter-institutional More research may be needed
collaboration among colleges and universities in a state or to determine what remedial
system, allowing best practices and ideas to be shared or strategies are most effective.
replicated; 2) making remediation a comprehensive
program that encompasses more than just tutoring and skills development; and 3) using
technology to enhance the teaching-learning process. IHEP notes that remediation must be
"continuously scrutinized and revised to meet prevailing conditions and needs," as are other
educational processes. More research would be necessary to identify the strategies that could
improve the effectiveness of remedial education in the UW System. We recommend program
evaluation requirements be incorporated into RPD 88-16 or that administrative guidelines be
established to provide evaluation guidance to UW institutions.
CONCLUSION
Remedial education has been the subject of active public policy debate in recent years. Efforts
are being made, both in Wisconsin and elsewhere, to reduce the need for remedial education at
four-year institutions. In Wisconsin, aligning high school and college requirements and other
collaborative programs should enhance the extent to which new freshmen are prepared for
college-level work.
At the same time, recent trends suggest a continuing need for an effective remedial education
program. A higher proportion of recent high school graduates expect to attend college, and the
21
number of non-traditional students has grown. Some of these students may need further
preparation for college-level work.
The UW institutions have made progress in implementing the Board of Regents' remedial
education policy. A systemwide placement test has been developed, UW System institutions
have devised cut-off scores, and institutions are offering remedial courses. Basic competencies
in math and English have been developed. Some of the policy directives, however, such as
establishing an appropriate credit load or using the ACT scores as a screening tool, have not been
implemented. Greater consistency in performance criteria may be desirable. The Curriculum
Alignment Project may affect the implementation of still other directives. In addition, research
suggests a need to evaluate remedial programs to discover strategies that are most likely to lead
to students' success. We have recommended that UW System:
continue to develop plans for assessing the English and math skills of high school students
throughout the state;
review the use of uniform scoring methodology for the English assessment and ensure UW
System institutions establish appropriate performance criteria for both math placement tests;
review recommendations by the 1994 work groups on placement and determine whether a
more consistent method for remedial placement can be achieved;
re-examine whether other, non-English or non-math developmental courses will be
considered remedial courses for funding purposes;
clarify the extent to which indirect costs of remedial education may be recovered, the
appropriate level of and uses for remedial fee reserves, and whether non-resident students'
remedial fees should be assessed at the non-resident or resident rate; and
develop program evaluation requirements to be incorporated into RPD 88-16 or establish
administrative guidelines to provide evaluation guidance to the UW institutions.
In addition, we have recommended that UW System institutions:
communicate performance criteria to secondary schools and disseminate and explain
assessment and placement policies through a variety of media;
track whether new freshmen have taken placement tests, enrolled in appropriate remedial
courses, and completed remedial work before earning 30 credits; and
examine remedial-course grades, entry-level English and math grades, and other relevant
information to help assess whether successful completion of remedial coursework is
providing adequate preparation for entry-level coursework.
22
APPENDIX 1
Assessment Instruments and Criteria
for Placing Students in Remedial English or Math*
at UW System Institutions
Fall 2000
UW INSTITUTION ENGLISH PLACEMENT MATH PLACEMENT
(A/B TEST ONLY**)
Eau Claire UW EPT (English Placement Test) score A/B algorithm score of 422 or lower;
of 449 or lower and ACT English score (423-468 on A/B algorithm, either
of 16 (SAT verbal score of 429 or lower) remedial or entry level)
Green Bay ACT score of 16 or lower (SAT verbal Elementary Algebra (EA) score of
score of 440 or lower) 449 or lower and Intermediate
Algebra (IA) score of 150-850, or
EA 450 to 524 and IA 150-389
LaCrosse UW EPT score of 474 or lower and ACT EA score of 447 or lower and ACT
English score of 19 or lower (SAT verbal math score of 21 or lower (SAT math
score of 470 or lower) 500 or lower)
Madison English Composite Score (ECS) of 406 EA score of 432 or lower and ACT
or lower math score of 21 or lower (SAT
math score of lower than 540)
Milwaukee UW EPT score of 503 or lower EA score of 476 or lower
Oshkosh UW EPT score of 429 or lower EA score of 454 or lower and ACT
math score of less than 19
Parkside UW EPT score of 473 or lower EA score of 509 or lower
(implemented fall 2001***) (implemented fall 2001***)
Platteville UW EPT score of 464 or lower EA score of 450 or lower
River Falls UW EPT score of 400 or lower EA score of 424 or lower and ACT
math lower than 20
Stevens Point Writing sample EA score of 449 or lower, or
EA score of 450 to 530 and IA score
of 365 or lower
Stout UW EPT score of 485 or lower EA score of 419 or lower, or
EA score of 420 to 850 and IA score
of 150 to 274
Superior UW EPT 478 or lower EA score of 459 or lower
Whitewater English ACT score of 17 or lower ACT math score of 20 or lower
Colleges UW EPT score of 454 or lower EA score of 416 or lower (417 to
478, either remedial or entry level)
*Scores reflect the cut-offs below which students were directed to attend remedial courses.
**Test has multiple parts. Table reflects Elementary/Intermediate Algebra test scores only.
***UW-Parkside began using a comparable test in fall 2001.
23
APPENDIX 2
Response from UW System Administration Office of Academic Affairs to
Office of Internal Audit Review of UW Remedial Education Policies
The Office of Academic Affairs appreciates the opportunity to respond to this review. The
background material provided in the review is very helpful. The report content and
recommendations have generally been favorably received among the UW institutions.
The Office of Academic Affairs expects to work with the UW institutions and the UW System
Office of Budget and Planning to address issues of communication of performance criteria,
examination of the scope of remedial courses for funding purposes, tracking of timely remedial-
course completion, examination of the policy on fees for remedial education, and examination of
the assessment of remedial coursework as preparation for entry-level courses.
The assessment of English and math skills of high school students is a very worthwhile
recommendation that we strongly support, and will continue to work to implement with the
assistance of the Department of Public Instruction.
Finally, some aspects of the review require careful consideration in light of individual campus
missions. While review of the 1994 work group recommendations may be useful, we may
discover that legitimate institutional differences hamper implementation of a uniform scoring
methodology for English assessment or a more consistent method for remedial placement.
24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelman, Clifford. "The Truth About Remedial Work." The Chronicle of Higher Education.
1996.
Blumenstyk, Goldie. "Sylvan Learning Systems Moves Into the Higher-Education Market."
The Chronicle of Higher Education. 1999.
Breneman, David W.; and Haarlow, William N. Remediation in Higher Education: A
Symposium Featuring Remedial Education Costs and Consequences. Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation. 1998 http://www.channel1.com/users/hudson/library/remed.html.
Breneman, David W.; and Haarlow, William N. "Establishing the Real Value of Remedial
Education". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 1999.
California State University System. Remediation Rates.
http://www.asd.calstate.edu/remrates98sys.htm.
CSU Newsline. "More Than 79 Percent of CSU Remedial Education Students Become
Proficient in First Year." http://newsline.calstate.edu/Archive99-00/99991122-CO-
RemEd.shtml. 1999.
Commission on Higher Education. Policies on Remedial Education in South Carolina.
http://www.che400.state.sc.us/web/Adm/a7.htm.
Gose, Ben. "Colleges Contract With Private Firms for Remedial Teaching". Education Week.
1997.
Healy, Patrick. "Cal State Reports Success in Reining in Students' Remediation Needs."
Chronicle of Higher Education. 1999.
Healy, Patrick. "Using 6 Weeks in the Summer to Offset 4 Years of Poor Training in High
School." Chronicle of Higher Education. 1998.
Hebel, Sara. "Georgia Strives to Raise Standards Without Leaving Students Behind." Chronicle
of Higher Education. 1999.
Hebel, Sara. "In CUNY Remediation Debate, the Numbers--and the Strategy--Are in Dispute."
The Chronicle of Higher Education. 1998.
Ignash, Jan. "Who Should Provide Postsecondary Remedial/Developmental Education?" New
Directions for Community Colleges. Winter '97.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy. College Remediation, What It Is, What It Costs,
What's at Stake. Washington D.C. 1998.
25
Kelly, Patrick; and Sugarman, Roger. An Analysis of Remedial Education Policies At
Kentucky's Public Community Colleges and Universities. Kentucky Council on Postsecondary
Education. Forum 98 Session Papers.
Keup, Jennifer Rinella. "Using Technology in Remedial Education." Education Research
Information Center. http://www.gse.ucla.edu/ERIC/digests/dig9810.html.
Maryland Higher Education Commission. "A Study of Remedial Education At Maryland Public
Campuses." 1996.
Minnesota Issue Watch October 1997. http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/SCANS/1997/9710e.htm.
1997.
National Center for Education Statistics Statistical Analysis Report. Remedial Education at
Higher Education Institutions in Fall 1995. US Department of Education Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. 1996.
Olsen, Florence. "California State U. Learns to Rely on Online Remedial-Math Courses." The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 2000.
Ponessa, Jeanne. "Cuts in College Remedial Courses Proposed." Education Week. 1995.
Russell, Alene Bycer. Statewide College Admissions, Student Preparation, and Remediation
Policies and Programs. State Higher Education Executive Officers Summary of a 1997 SHEEO
Survey. 1998.
Sandham, Jessica L. "Massachusetts Plan Would Make Districts Pay for Remediation."
Education Week on the Web. 1998.
Selingo, Jeffrey. "Cal State Puts Remediation on an 'Or Else' Basis." Chronicle of Higher
Education. 2000.
State of Illinois Board of Higher Education. The Scope and Effectiveness of
Remedial/Developmental Education in Illinois Public Universities and Community Colleges.
1997.
Woodhams, Fred. "Report Says Remedial Classes Are Cost-Effective." The Chronicle of
Higher Education. 1998.
Wright, Scott W. "Virginia Hopes High Schools Will Pay for Graduates Who Need
Remediation." Community College Week. 01/25/99, Vol. 11, Issue 13.
Yamasaki, Erika. "Effective Policies for Remedial Education". Educational Resource
Information Center. ED416940 98.
26
