[Originally published on Brookings]

Judith Scott-Clayton, an Associate Professor of Economics and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, writes about the lack of evidence surrounding the effectiveness of traditional remedial placement and delivery practices in “Evidence-based reforms in college remediation are gaining steam – and so far living up to the hype.” She describes the calls for less collegiate remediation, the reforms that have occurred, and how those reforms are working.

Scott-Clayton has conducted research showing that “misplacement into remediation was far more common than misplacement into college-level courses.” She documents questions surrounding the quality and validity of entrance exams to determine placement. Additionally, her research indicates that an estimated “one-quarter to one-third of students assigned to remediation could have earned a B or better in college-level coursework, had they been given the chance.”

Scott-Clayton goes on to detail specific, state-level reforms that have been instituted because of research on remedial placement. She ends by describing ongoing research that, so far, has largely indicated the benefits of co-requisite support as opposed to the traditional pre-requisite model of remediation.

Read this article on Brookings

Scott-Clayton, Judith. “Evidence-based reforms in college remediation are gaining steam – and so far living up to the hype.” Brookings, Brookings, 29 March 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/research/evidence-based-reforms-in-college-remediation-are-gaining-steam-and-so-far-living-up-to-the-hype/. Accessed 29 August 2018.