articles, articles

Posted on January 27, 2023


I looked at more of the articles that those “five principles for reforming developmental education” said they were based on. Basically, the *only* place that’s done co-reqs successfully is CUNY per “Should Students Assessed as Needing Remedial Mathematics Take College-Level Quantitative Courses Instead? A Randomized Controlled Trial.” That’s included in the 17 articles.

For example,

 Barnett, E. A., Kopko, E., Cullinan, D., & Belfield, C. R. (2020). Who should take college-level courses? Impact findings from an evaluation of a multiple measures assessment strategy. Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness.  

When using multiple measures instead of just assessment tests, more students took and passed college level English.  “In math, gains in college-level enrollment and completion were small and short-lived.”   

So… folks, that’s it! … and…. they did not include the folks most underprepared. It noted that “more intensive global remedation is avaiable for students with multipleremediation needs” so they’re not just ignoring them. I updated the Google Doc (okay, I need to prune it some). There were several other CUNY reports of success, including accelerated developmental writing course (NOT co-req) and comprehensive 3-year program with intensive support (NOT co-req). Dare I suggest that a school having so much support at so many levels is more likely to have success with co-requisites — it would seem they are providing different kinds of support for different learners and not in any way shape or form cutting back on developmental learning options. Dare I suggest that schools where they do NOT have the other kinds of support who DO cut back on developmental learning options in favor of co-requisite courses might have less success with it?

(Update: they canceled school Wednesday, it snowed a little but didn’t stick b/c it was too warm, but it froze Thursday so I’m on the bus.)

Posted in: Uncategorized