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. https://postsecondaryreadiness.org/multiple-measures-impact-findings/
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.)
Resource Room Dot Net Blog 
Posted on January 27, 2023
0