Remedial education revisited: Brainstorming solutions to the status quo

In response to Naomi’s first blog entry, Matt teased at the possibility that everyone and everything is being blamed for under-prepared college-bound students except the students themselves. If greater accountability should rest with the students, what if anything should educational systems do to encourage and support the college-bound of the future? Perhaps it is time to devise a new system. But first, I would like to mention several elements from previous blog entries: under-prepared students, tax payers, school districts, and the most recent addition posited by Matt- billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on other educational needs and opportunities for all students (not just those in remediation). For now let us ignore the billions of dollars and focus on the living entities, the stakeholders in this conundrum. Taxpayers want at a minimum, return on investment. There is a lot of subjectivity here though. What is the return on investment? I am not sure that is of relevance for this discussion; for me, the roi might be more educated, well-intentioned members of society, and for someone else it may be greater business growth in a particular city or state. Under-prepared students – some want a shot, and some are forced by parents or guardians to pursue post-secondary education. School districts want to graduate there students and it is no doubt a bonus to have a high percentage go on to college.

I still believe that everyone should have the opportunity to go to college. Not everyone has to take advantage of that opportunity, but it should be an option. In light of our current spending on remedial education, more than 3.7 billion dollars a year, and the stakeholders involved, is there a better solution? I am torn. Matt suggested that high school students need to be held more accountable. I am inclined to agree, though I believe school districts also need incentive to be more responsible as well. My first thought was that school districts should be responsible for paying for any remedial course work that students would require, though I am not sure this would help taxpayers any. And, to paraphrase Matt’s response to my first blog entry, there are basic needs that come before post-secondary education that are not being met: food and shelter being two of the most fundamental. Perhaps it is unjust to focus more government spending on education that the government already helped pay for at the K-12 level.

My second idea is that we create a new high school graduation system. Students can graduate high school with a standard diploma, or a diploma with college endorsement. If a student does not do well enough, the school grants a standard diploma. On the other hand a school that grants a student a diploma with college endorsement would be required to pay any remedial costs if that student is under-prepared. That seems like a self-correcting system. Districts will not be able to afford to make the mistake of endorsing under-prepared students too many times, yet districts will feel the pressure if their college-bound numbers are too low. In being true to my belief that all people ought to have the opportunity to go to college, there must be a third option. Students who are not college-endorsed by their high schools and place into remedial classes would be responsible for the costs of their remedial education. After passing, they would be eligible for any government aid options as any other student. I think this is one possible approach to remedial education that may be more equitable to colleges and all their students. The incentive to be prepared for the rigors of higher education is put where I believe it belongs – on school districts and students, not post-secondary facilities. Students have to want to do well. I get that. But, schools need to provide a quality education to college-bound youth. According to the Department of Education, the rigor of high school education is a better predictor for college success than test scores or GPA (Gose, 1999). In other words high schools set students up for success or failure. Again I ask, why then are college and universities responsible for remedying high school failures?

According to Eduardo J. Martí, President of Queensborough Community College in Bayside, New York, high schools should be held more accountable for graduating students that are not ready for college. Although Eduardo does not offer any solutions to the predicament, he does make clear that the Queensborough Community College system, remedial education is 19% of the budget – 22 million dollars a year. Eduardo wishes that money could be used on other institutional needs (Chronicle, 2006). There is no paucity of articles out there that are filled with praises to the successes of remedial programs. The majority of these programs are remedying a weak K-12 system, but if society is not careful, the majority of colleges could in effect become high school 2.0 – watered down by necessity, in the name of equity and opportunity, and at the expense of new knowledge, of pushing boundaries, and innovation.

Gose, B. (1999). Study says rigor of high-school course work is the best predictor of college graduation. The Chronicle. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Study-Says-Rigor-of-High-Sc/8973.

(2006). The challenges of remedial education: Views of 3 presidents. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com /article/The-Challenges-of-Remedial-/32361/