Section A-7

Commission on Higher Education

Policies on Remedial Education in South Carolina

Background

Providing appropriate remedial education has been a long-time concern for policymakers in South Carolina. The Cutting Edge (Act 629) legislation, which became law in 1988 was in part an outgrowth of these concerns and represented a desire by the General Assembly to implement remedial education in an economically efficient and educationally effective manner. Under the authority granted to it by Act 629, Section 59-104-30, the Commission on Higher Education was specifically entrusted to develop provisions, procedures, and requirements for remedial (also known as "developmental") education programs in public higher education. The Commission on Higher Education has defined remedial education at four-year institutions as sub-collegiate level preparatory courses in English, mathematics, and reading, which are the only fields in which remedial coursework is offered. However, it recognized that in the two-year sector, remedial education also includes a sub-collegiate level of preparation in science disciplines.

In 1989 the Commission adopted policy under the provisions of Act 629 that 1) required tests to determine entry skills of students whose past performance indicated they might have difficulty with college-level work; 2) required an identified minimum threshold of achievement to qualify for college degree credit courses; 3) prohibited remedial courses from being used at public institutions for awarding degree-applicable credit; 4) called for the establishment of agreements for the supplying of remedial coursework for students at four-year institutions by neighboring two-year public institutions where possible; and 5) required that each institution develop a tracking system for determining satisfactory progress in remedial studies. All institutions reported by 1991 that they were in compliance with the institution-specific provisions of these policies. Some of the institutions developed two-year/four-year agreements for serving four-year students with remedial needs.

Funding strategies have been an issue in remedial education. The lack of consistency in reporting courses as "remedial" and the method used by the Commission to fund remedial courses led to inconsistencies in institutional responses to the Commission’s policies on remedial education. Historically, under the formula of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the state funded remedial education at ½ the contact hours reported; degree credit courses have been funded at the level of credit hours generated.

Because it cost more to offer courses in four-year institutions than to offer those same courses in two-year institutions, the funding issue was also connected with the level of the institution. In January 1994, then-Governor Carrol Campbell drew attention to this fact in his final state of the state address. He noted that the state was then spending considerably more public funds to support remedial education in our four-year institutions. In December 1994, the Commission on Higher Education adopted funding polices which prohibit state funds from flowing to the three research institutions for remedial education and which limit funding of remedial education at four-year teaching institutions to the level of funding which they were receiving in 1993-1994 for remedial course work.

As part of its obligation under The Cutting Edge, the Commission conducted a statewide review of all remedial education programs in the state in 1993-1994. As proposed by the institutions, an external team of consultants was brought to the State to conduct on-site review of twelve of the thirty-one public institutions with remedial programs. This team issued a report in October 1994. (Contact the Commission’s Division of Academic Affairs for a copy of this report.) The consultants confused the definition of remedial or "developmental" education with "student academic support services." Despite this confusion, many of their recommendations are fully consistent with Commission policy. Others are useful for the institutions to consider on an individual basis, although they do not have statewide policy implications.

The consultants’ report also offered an opportunity to compare the other states’ policies on remediation with those of the Commission. That examination of current practice showed that the policies adopted by the Commission were consistent with those of other states (i.e., California and Florida) particularly with respect to channeling these courses to the two-year sector. Staff determined in 1995 that the State of South Carolina could be saving approximately $1.73 million per year by placing all remedial coursework under the auspices of the two-year institutions. Furthermore, a recent SHEEO study report (September 1998) by Edward Crowe shows that South Carolina’s statewide policy of the Commission on remediation is similar in scope to policies in other states in the region and the country.

Although the consultants noted exceptions, they were generally critical of the following elements at the individual institutions: the organization and delivery of remediation on the campuses (especially the heavy reliance on some campuses of self-paced, computer assisted courses); the lack of systematic assessment of need; the lack of mandatory placement in remedial courses; the lack of coordination of remedial services; the lack of training in personal development skills in remedial programs; the lack of systematic program evaluation. Two statewide issues were noted by the consultants: the lack of a clearly defined statewide mission for remedial education and the lack of coordination of remedial education activities at the state level.

However, some institutions have made impressive strides relative to remedial education. To this end, the Commission thinks it important to recognize the efforts of the following institutions:

A. Lander University and Piedmont Technical College for their cooperation in the teaching of remedial courses by Piedmont Technical College personnel; these institutions should complete the scope of the project by adding Piedmont’s teaching of remedial English to Lander students by the 2002-2003 academic year.

B. College of Charleston on the operation of its student learning and support laboratory for all students.

(C) The staff of the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education and participating personnel at the technical colleges for the development of a statewide tracking system for students in remedial courses.

The Commission’s efforts to implement policy for remedial programs are designed to minimize cost, maximize successful learning outcomes, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and provide the coordination of remedial education activities at the state level as called for by the consultants. The following policies, adopted by the Commission on Higher Education in November of 1995, integrate the requirements of the legal authorization and obligations imposed by The Cutting Edge, the consultants’ report, and Commission decisions since 1989 in developing statewide policy for remedial education.

Policies

1. The following recommendations, which are found in the 1994 report of the Commission’s consultants, are commended to the institutions for their consideration:

• The assessment process should add instruments measuring student’s affective characteristics (e.g., attitudes, emotions, perceptions).
• Each public South Carolina institution of higher education which offers remedial education should have an individual specifically assigned to coordinate all remedial education. (Note: This policy will not apply to four-year institutions after 2002.)
• All remedial programs in South Carolina should develop statements of missions, goals, and objectives and insure that these are shared with all faculty, staff, and students participating in these programs.
• Critical thinking, reasoning, and learning-to-learn skills should be integrated into all remedial courses.
• Greater attention should be paid to the individual learning styles of students in all remedial courses.
• All South Carolina remedial programs should have an established professional development component for their faculty and staff.
• All remedial courses should meet at least four times per week regardless of institutional calendars or schedules.
• All remedial courses should emphasize mastery learning.
• Where appropriate South Carolina institutions should consider mainstreaming remedial students and using supplemental instruction to support them in regular college courses.

2. The technical colleges and two-year campuses of USC and appropriate faculty and administrators at four-year institutions should develop a common course system for remedial education courses in English, reading, and mathematics to be instituted for students assessed with need throughout public higher education in South Carolina. This system should include such issues as:

A. Common criteria for student competencies that are based upon common assessment instruments designed to assess eligibility for mandatory placement and for exiting from all remedial courses;

B. A common and simplified course numbering system below the 100 level;

C. Common course syllabi;

D. Elimination of all "bridge" courses in English, mathematics, and reading, so that any courses at or above 100 level must be applicable to some associate degree;

E. Development of a common system for evaluation for student performance in all remedial courses; and

F. Both classroom and laboratory work for all classes in remediation.

2. The technical colleges and all other institutions should grant institutional credit in remedial courses not to exceed 3 credits per course regardless of whether contact hour time exceeds three hours per week in semester courses.

3. Successful exit from the highest level of remedial education coursework in a discipline as determined by the Advisory Committee on Academic Programs will be a necessary and sufficient condition for a student’s acceptance into a first college-level course in that discipline (if English or mathematics) or, for reading , in a reading-intensive course (e.g., history or literature) without further validation or testing at any public two-year or four-year institution in South Carolina.

4. The technical colleges should consider elimination of all bridge courses in English, reading, and mathematics to fulfill requirements for any certificate or diploma program that has a related, cognate associate degree to avoid unnecessary duplication of costs and time for students.

5. All students who are residents of South Carolina should be limited to a total of 30 credit hours of remedial coursework, consistent with federal limitations for eligibility for student financial aid.

6. All students in remedial studies should be limited to taking any remedial course not more than twice at the cost of tuition. Thereafter, any re-taking of the course will be at the full cost of the course.

7. A common statewide tracking system should be implemented by all public institutions offering remedial education for purposes of program evaluation; the tracking reports should be a part of the developmental/remedial education section of Institutional Effectiveness reports submitted to the Commission.

8. A plan for the orderly phasing-out of all remedial courses was filed by each public four-year institution with the Commission by June 30, 1996. Each of these plans contained a timetable for the coursework to be eliminated and the dates by which this will be accomplished. These plans included all other elements necessary for orderly elimination of these offerings and the development of an interinstitutional agreement with a nearby two-year public institution to supply whatever remedial coursework students at four-year institutions may need. The phase outs are in accord with the following timetable, which recognizes that some institutions will require longer than others owing to factors such as the numbers of students currently served and previous experience with agreements with neighboring institutions.

Institution Phase-out to be completed by:

MUSC not applicable

USC-Columbia, Clemson Fall 1997
The Citadel, College of Charleston
Winthrop

USC-Aiken, Coastal Carolina Fall 1999

Francis Marion, Lander Fall 2002
SC State, USC-Spartanburg

10. In support of the "Responsiveness" section in the Report of the Committee to Study Two-Year Evaluation (1994), all remedial studies at the co-located sites of Beaufort and Sumter should continue to be organized and coordinated through a formal written agreement under a single administrator whose responsibility shall include assuring a seamless web into both institutions for students in these programs and conducting longitudinal analysis of student performance.

(Note: In 1996, the University of South Carolina agreed to implement the single administrator concept at Sumter and Beaufort. However, prior to this implementation, the University decided that no USC campus, whether two-year or four-year, would offer any remedial coursework. Instead, all remedial students would be placed in "enriched" sections of entry-level courses that count towards degrees. The rationale for this change was based on the Commission consultants’ report urging that eligible students be "mainstreamed" into regular coursework as soon as possible.

Since the USC System has made this change, at least three other four-year institutions (Coastal Carolina, Francis Marion, and Lander) have followed the same path. This practice has substantially reduced the numbers of remedial courses in South Carolina per se, but has increased greatly the number of "enriched" sections of introductory English and mathematics.)