1. STUDENT SUPPORTS: Developmental Education and Other Academic Programs
Eric Bettinger, Stanford University School of Education
Angela Boatman, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Bridget Terry Long, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Postsecondary Education in the U.S.
Future of Children
April 27, 2012

2. The Need for Student Supports
Academic preparation is an important predictor of college success, BUT only 26.8 percent of high school seniors in the spring of 2004 had completed “high-level” academic coursework (NCES)
Lack of information/skill to navigate course selection and performance
Other demands (dependents; concurrent employment)
Remedial/developmental courses to address the needs of under-prepared college students
Learning Communities, Summer Bridge
Academic counseling and tutoring
Childcare, Employment-related programs

3. Remedial and Developmental Courses
 Focuses on HS-level skills (not college competencies) – does not include “Freshman Seminars”
 Nationally 35% to 40% of 1st year students (55% at community colleges)
 Bulk of remediation is provided at non-selective public colleges, the point of entry for 80% of 4yr students and 99% of 2yr students
 The remediation placement exam taken once arriving on campus has become the key academic gate-keeper to postsecondary study
In 2006, estimated cost of remediation was $2.8 billion (Alliance for Excellent Education)

4. Recent Research on the Effects of Remediation on Student Academic Outcomes
Bettinger and Long (2009): Using variation in remediation policies across colleges in Ohio, students placed into remediation (compared to similar students) were:
Less likely to dropout (larger effects for English)
More likely to complete a four-year degree
Negative effects on original major choice
Calcagno and Long (2011): Using cutoffs in assignment to remediation in CCs in Florida:
Being assigned to remediation increased the total number of credits completed for students on the margin of the cutoff
Remediation promoted early persistence in college, but it did not necessarily help students make long-term progress toward a degree
Differences in the impact of remediation by gender, race, age, income, and English proficiency—greatest differences are by age and income (separate paper)

5. Remediation in Tennessee
What are the effects for students with different preparation levels?
Remediation in Tennessee
Go to College-level courses
ACT/SAT score determines which placement exam (if any)
Take Developmental Algebra II
Take COMPASS Algebra exam
Take Developmental Algebra I
Take COMPASS Arithmetic exam
Take Remedial Arithmetic 5

6. How does remediation influence the outcomes of students at different ability/preparation levels?
Boatman and Long (2011): Using multi-tiered placement policy in assignment to remedial courses in Tennessee:
Negative effects for those students on the margins of needing any remediation (similar to other research)
However, at the other end of the academic spectrum, the negative effects of remediation were much smaller and occasionally positive, especially in Writing
 Remedial and developmental courses help or hinder students differently depending on their level of academic preparedness

7. Recent Efforts to Reform Remediation
Mainstreaming
Acceleration
Contextualized instructional models
Supplemental supports
Boatman (2012): Tennessee Developmental Studies Redesign Initiative in Fall 2008:
Students exposed to redesigned developmental math courses had more positive outcomes than their peers in non-redesign institutions during the same period and also compared to the previous version of traditional remediation within their institution in prior years.

8. Other Student Supports Aimed at Retention
Peer mentoring
Learning Communities
Early academic progress/warning monitoring
Faculty mentoring
Freshman seminar course
Proactive and intrusive advising
Time management workshops
Tutoring
Childcare supports
Employment-related programs

9. TRIO Transition Programs
Most common programs (with the least rigorous evaluations)
Chaney (2010) uses propensity score to estimate impacts
Effects are positive; however, they depend on students’ path of services
Much of the effect comes from services after the first year
Attrition and endogeneity make it hard to know whether the results are causal

10. Other Rigorous Studies
Opening Doors: Enhanced advising
Lorain CC and Owens CC
Scrivener, Weiss, and Teres (2009): Short run effects on persistence but nothing after services ended
More Opening Doors: Student Success Courses
Chaffey College: Focused on students on academic probation
Short-run effects on academic outcomes were positive but no long-run effects.
Even More Opening Doors: Mentoring
South Texas College and the Beacon Mentoring Program
Mentors for students who are in developmental education
Short-run academic gains but no long-run effects.
Bloom and Sommo: increased academic performance, but not necessarily increased persistence.
Scrivener and Weiss: increased counseling layered with financial incentives students registered for more classes, though effects dissipated after the program ended.
Angrist, Lang and Oreopoulos: three treatment groups (financial support, academic support and both): the combined treatment was the most effective.

11. Other Rigorous Studies
Layering Advising and Incentives
Brock and Richburg-Hayes (2006): Short-run effects on credits attempted, earned and persistence
Angrist, Lang and Oreopoulos (2010): Improved academic performance even after the end of the program
Proactive Coaching - Bettinger and Baker (2011)
Individualized coaching induced 12% increase in persistence in 1st year
Effects persisted after service was provided.

12. The Need for Additional Research
Why does remediation work for some students and not for others?  Implications for course design?
States and schools need not treat remediation as a singular policy but instead consider it as an intervention that might vary in its impact according to student needs
Collect information on program costs to enable more cost-benefit analysis