Access Education in Massachusetts

Task Force on Remedial Education. (1997). Report of the task force on remedial education. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://cit.necc.mass.edu/mccdec/Report%20of%20the%20Task%20Force.htm
In this document, the Task Force on Remedial Education examines the issue of remedial education, describes the scope of remedial education at the University,
The report offers recommendations for policies and administrative procedures that will foster student learning through remedial education: 1. The University of Massachusetts should continue to offer limited remedial programs to address the needs of its admitted students. 2. The University and the Community Colleges should explore additional avenues of collaboration that might improve or enhance the quality and cost-effectiveness of remediation available to students enrolled in both sectors. 3. All entering first-time freshmen and transfer students should continue to be assessed by each campus to determine appropriate course assignments for mathematics and writing. 4. Campus faculty and administrators responsible for remedial programs at UMass campuses should increase their levels of communication and collaboration with each other. 5. The University should develop better methods for assessing the outcomes of remedial instruction, working collaboratively with other sectors of higher education as necessary.

Access Policies in Illinois

Task Force on Remedial Education. (2001). Collaborating to strengthen student preparation. Springfield, IL: Illinois Community College System. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http//www.hcc.cc.il.us/staff/padriacs/taskforcereport.pdf
The Remedial Education Task Force identified priority needs for remedial education in Illinois.
Strategies identified for implementation included further alignment of standardized student assessment instruments; agreement on student placement parameters; reinforce current P-16 collaborations; promote earlier awareness of rising academic and workplace standards; development of strategies for earlier intervention in P-12 pipeline; intervene with students while still in high school; align high school graduation and college entrance requirements; provide more feedback to high schools concerning their graduates needing remediation; provide alternatives to academic term length developmental courses to remediate weaknesses; coordinate Adult Education, ESL, and college developmental programs; track students who enroll in remedial courses to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention; develop comprehensive student support systems that address both academic and nonacademic needs; provide remedial education via alternative educational delivery systems; provide professional development for full- and part-time remedial instructors to improve their skills and integrate technology within the classroom; and develop state-wide standards for remedial education courses.

Changing Access Policies in Community Colleges

Shaw, K. M. (1997). Remedial education as ideological battleground: Emerging remedial education policies in the community college. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 284-296.
The author describes the current debate about the appropriate location of remedial education classes and their frequent placement with public community colleges. The ideological underpinnings for the debate are examined. Distinctions are drawn between developmental and remedial education and the appropriate implementation by community colleges. Some institutions are strongly controlled by state-level policy making that strictly dictates the implementation of policy down to the individual institution regarding testing, admissions, placement into remedial courses, and the curriculum of such courses. Other states provide guidelines that are open for interpretation by the individual institution. Still other states are not directive regarding such matters which are left for local control. This represents three distinct policy models used by public community colleges in the U.S.

Access Participation Rates Vary Greatly Across the U.S.

Ruppert, S. S. (2003). Closing the college participation gap. Washington, D.C.: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http//www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/47/84/4784.pdf
This national report examines the college participation rates of each state. The policy implications of this report is that a higher percentage of Americans could benefit from college education and the requirements required of the publicly-funded institutions and the states.
The report states that the challenge is not only to accommodate a greater number of students, but also to increase the proportion of the population that goes to college and successfully completes its learning goals. The consequences for academic access programs would dramatically increase with a corresponding increase in the entering student body which would naturally represent a wide range of academic preparation levels. Developmental education is one of the interventions recommended by a companion report, Narrowing the gaps in educational attainment within states A policymaker's guide to assessing and responding to needs for community college services available from http//www.communitycollegepolicy.org/html/Issues/Access/pdf/ NCHEMSReport.pdf

Fall 2000 National Study Concerning Access Programs in the U.S.

Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in Fall 2000 Statistical analysis report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http//nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004010.pdf
This study was conducted through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS). It was designed to provide current national estimates of the prevalence and characteristics of remedial courses and enrollments in degree-granting 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions that enrolled freshmen in fall 2000, and to report changes in remediation from fall 1995.
For the purposes of this study, remedial education courses were defined as courses in reading, writing, or mathematics for college-level students lacking those skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required by the institution. This report presents data on remedial course offerings, student participation in remedial programs, institutional structure of remedial programs, and the delivery of remedial courses through distance education. This study examined two issues not covered in the 1995 survey types of technology used in the delivery of remedial education through distance education courses, and the use of computers as hands-on instructional tool for on-campus remedial education. The data are presented by institutional type: public 2-year, private 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4-year.

Access Issues for Low-Income and Historically Underrepresented Students

O'Brien, C., & Shedd, J. (2001). Getting through college: Voices of low-income and minority students in New England. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Nelliemae.pdf This research study employed surveys and in-depth interviews with currently enrolled low-income and minority students in the New England region concerning their feelings about the obstacles they face in succeeding in college and what strategies they are employing to deal with the environment.
Findings from the study include: 1. Pre-college academic preparation programs were rated highly as supporting current college success though only one-fourth of eligible students are able to participate at the high school level. 2. Financial aid was a key factor in college attendance though one-third indicated that their financial aid package was inadequate and caused other hardships in their lives. 3. Minority students were more likely to participate in pre-college programs than their counterparts. Recommendations offered by the report include: increased awareness of pre-college academic preparation programs; increased offerings of grants in lieu of loans; increased efforts to establish a "campus community" for students who live off-campus, have families, off-campus employment, and other responsibilities away from the campus.

New England Access Policies and Success Stories

NERCHE. (2002). Developmental education and college opportunity in New England: Lessons for a national study of state and system policy impacts. Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Higher Education Policy and New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from: http://www.nerche.org/IHEP/FinalRep/NERCHEfinal.pdf
This pilot project does not evaluate New England’s state policies or compare New England public institutions, but rather provides important clues and lessons on how developmental education policies are being implemented in a specific geographic region, and what questions need to be considered in a national study or project.
Common characteristics of developmental education (DE) programs were: formation of two-year/four year partnerships; outsourcing of DE to local community colleges; transfer of priority of DE to two-year colleges; centralize DE programs at four-year colleges; providing summer bridge DE programs; and using ACT Accuplacer for assessment of students. Numerous recommendations were made for a national study on developmental education: examine both centralized and decentralized state system policy approaches to DE; financial implications of statewide DE policy; curriculum impacts of DE policies; admissions decisions and enrollment yields impacted by DE programs and policies; and examine student responses and perspectives as a consequence of changing statewide policies related to DE.