The text (sans attachments) of the second draft of a report by the Office of
Academic Affairs on Remediation (Posted February 24, 1998)


DRAFT revised 2/20/98


Remediation


Introduction

In an effort to develop a comprehensive policy concerning remediation at
the City University of New York and to ensure the effective implementation
of all relevant Board of Trustees' resolutions, the Office of Academic
Affairs and the Office of Student Affairs have engaged in discussions
concerning the inter-connection of current University policies, admissions
criteria at different colleges, the concerns of college administrators,
faculty and trustees, and the goals and needs of under-prepared students.

In addition, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs has had parallel
discussions with individual faculty members and representatives of the
University Faculty Senate. This draft attempts to reflect those
discussions, but remains at this time an Office of Academic Affairs/Office
of Student Affairs document. The document is being distributed, along with
relevant data, for comments and suggestions.


Framing the Discussion

At the heart of the discussion concerning remediation are three main issues:

1.    Raising admissions standards
2.    Ensuring the adequate preparation of high school students for
college-level work
3.    Limiting remediation to what can appropriately and successfully be
achieved within a University system

Current University & College Policy

The implementation of Board of Trustees' resolutions passed in June 1995
has resulted in several distinct approaches to establishing admissions
criteria and remedial course offerings and policies (e.g., the number of
times students are permitted to repeat a single remedial course) among the
CUNY undergraduate colleges. For planning purposes, the colleges, as they
currently operate may be categorized as follows:

1.    Colleges with baccalaureate degree programs that limit enrollment to
students who require no remediation. All matriculated students must be
prepared for college-level work.

2.    Colleges with baccalaureate degree programs that limit enrollment to
students who require no more than one semester of remediation. Students are
expected to complete minimal work at the pre-college level and progress to
college course work. Students are not permitted to repeat a remedial course
more than once.

3.    Colleges with baccalaureate degree programs that limit enrollment to
students who require no more than two semesters of remediation. Students
are not permitted to repeat a remedial course more than once.

4.    Colleges with associate degree programs that enroll students
irrespective of the number of semesters of remedial work they require
before engaging in college-level course work. Some colleges limit the
number of times a remedial course may be repeated; others do not (footnote 1).

(See Attachment A 1-2)

While there are some important general statements to be made concerning
readiness for college course work (as was done, in part, in the enumeration
of the academic competencies underlying the College Preparatory
Initiative), the evaluation of student preparedness or lack of preparedness
needs to be conducted on a college-by-college basis. Specifically,
preparedness needs to be evaluated in light of:

-    an individual college's historically defined mission;

-    a college's current admissions requirements (academic units; high school
average or (3ED Tests score; SAT scores);

-    the Freshman Skills Assessment Test scores and/or performance on other
assessments required for collegiate-level placement or for placement in the
remedial and developmental course offerings;

-    the remedial and developmental course offerings available at the college,
since different colleges offer more or fewer levels of reading, writing,
math and ESL courses.

Thus, while students' readiness for collegiate level work is measured by
performance on the FSATs, it is also determined by offerings and
expectations at the individual colleges and


footnote: it should be kept in mind that four colleges have both
baccalaureate and associate degree programs. In those cases, the colleges
use both the third and fourth approaches--depending on the enrollment
status of individual students.


the differing requirements of individual programs. The concept of
"preparedness" for college course work thus is defined through several
indicators rather than through any single overarching criterion. It is
essential that the University and the colleges be able to distinguish
reliably and validly among students who do not need remediation, those
whose remedial needs can and should be met by enrollment in a college's
remedial/developmental courses and those whose needs are more considerable
than a particular college can meet. The Writing Assessment Test has been
effective in placing students in initial courses. Additional diagnostic
measures are taken early in the semester at individual colleges once
students enroll in classes, but, given the small amount of redistribution
in composition classes, the WAT seems to be a good screening device. The
redesigned five-part Math Assessment Test, in use since February, 1997
allows for more accurate placement (than did the previously used two-part
test) in both general mathematics courses and higher level math courses for
those students who plan to major in technical and scientific areas. The
Reading Assessment test is being examined as part of a general review,
mandated by the board of Trustees, of the Freshman Skills Assessment
program. The reviews underway of the Freshman Skills Assessment tests will
help to better determine students' needs. The use of SAT scores, beginning
in Fall 1998, as an alternative measure of student preparedness, may also
be helpful.

Notwithstanding some excellent and innovative programs across the
University designed to prepare students for collegiate work, and the
effects of the College Preparatory Initiative which requires students to
complete an increasing amount of academic course work, students continue to
enter the University with different levels of preparation. It has become
increasingly clear that at least some of the individuals seeking to enroll
at the University have remedial needs that may best be met outside the
remedial/developmental course sequences offered by any college. Data on
retention of students with serious deficiencies in preparation (See
Attachment B 1-8) suggest that the needs of some students who begin an
educational career at CUNY are not being satisfied through our programs and
practices.

It is also essential that the University be able to advise all students
properly concerning the extent of their remedial needs and concerning the
implications of University policy. The University must also be able to
identify the form of participation that holds out the greatest likelihood
of eventual success for students with different needs and goals. To some
extent, the possibility of that success also depends on the development of
new models of effective remediation. Those models can and should be
developed on the basis of proven programs and faculty initiatives.

MANAGING REMEDIATION

Proposals

The following proposals suggest a ways in which the needs of under-prepared
students may best be accommodated within a University system such as CUNY.
They relate to full and part-time degree seeking students. In order to be
effective, these programs should be initiated in concert.

Proposal 1: Improve Pre-Enrollment Assessment

1.    Currently, applicants to the University are encouraged to submit SAT
scores. Effective for the class entering in the fall of 1999, applicants to
baccalaureate programs will be required to do so. Scores will be used to
supplement the evidence concerning the need for remediation obtained from
results on the Freshman Skills Assessment Tests.
2.    Currently, all students are required to take the Freshman Skills
Assessment Tests in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics prior to enrolling at
the University. In some cases, however, testing is completed just before
the start of the semester. Effective in 1999, all students admitted by June
1st for the Fall semester will take exams prior to July 1st. All students
admitted by December 1st for the Spring semester will take exams prior to
January 1. Students admitted after June 1st (for the Fall semester) and
after December 1st (for the Spring semester) or who do not complete
freshman skills testing by July 1st or January 1st respectively will be
permitted to enroll only if they meet the remedial limitations of the
college they have selected. They would, however, be able to choose
reallocation to another college.

Rationale

Each college will be better able to plan for an appropriate mix of remedial
offerings and to advise entering students of their needs and options if
more assessment information is available and if that information is
available in a timely manner. The above proposal will serve to enhance the
quality of the information we have concerning remedial needs and will make
it available sufficiently early to allow students to make good decisions
and colleges to plan courses.

Proposal 2: Link College Enrollment to Pre-Collegiate Intensive Skills
Opportunities

Current University policy and practice mandate that freshman skills testing
is conducted after acceptance into a college. As a result, an individual
may be accepted to a college before it is determined whether he or she has
greater remedial needs than that college can accommodate. Students accepted
conditionally based on their high school records whose FSAT outcomes are
not aligned with the college to which they have been admitted have several
options.

1.    Effective for the dais entering in the Fall of 1999, students who do not
meet the criteria for placement in the college to which they have been
admitted must attend a Summer Skills Immersion Program for Fall admissions,
an Intercession Immersion Program for Spring admissions, or a summer cycle
of a Language Immersion Program.
2.    Students who fail to meet the criteria of the college to which they have
been accepted after completion of the requisite summer or intersession
immersion program may:

    1)    choose reallocation to another college whose criteria they do meet;

    2)    defer admission for one semester and continue to participate in an
immersion program, including a Language Immersion Program. footnote 2

3.    Students who fail to meet the criteria of the college to which they have
been accepted after completion of a semester-long intensive skills program
may choose reallocation to another college whose criteria they do meet.

Rationale

Data relating to student achievement and progress suggest a positive
correlation between participation in the Summer, Intercession or Language
Immersion Programs (a pre-collegiate immersion experience) and progress
through ESL and Basic Skills and subsequent academic outcomes. (Attachment
C 1-6). Linking participation in such programs to enrollment in a given
college for students not fully prepared for that college's offerings will
improve the likelihood of success. Moreover, making students aware of
deficiencies that may prevent them from succeeding at a particular college
will enable them to make appropriate choices about their educational options.

While the current policy at the community colleges does not set any
limitation on the number of semesters of remedial work a student can engage
in, it is essential that the students complete remedial requirements as
quickly as possible. It is recommended that the calendars of each community
college be fully utilized to allow successful completion of a sequenced
basic skills course within a one year period. (See also Proposal 3 on
repeat remedial course-taking)

Proposal 3: Develop Consistent Policy on Repeat Remedial Course-Taking

1.    The Board of Trustees Resolution #17 (June 26,1995) prohibits senior
college students from repeating a remedial, developmental or ESL course
after receiving a failing grade twice in that course. Effective in the Fall
of 1999, all students, including those in associate degree programs, would
be prohibited from repeating a remedial course after receiving a failing
grade twice in that course.

2.    Students who fail a course twice but who are otherwise in good academic
standing at their colleges (GPA > 2.0) would be referred to an intensive
skills program for further remedial work and would be readmitted if
successful in eliminating remedial

footnote 2 Current policies allow Language Immersion Program participants
to attend up to one year.

deficiencies. These students would be eligible for a reduction or waiver of
intensive skills program tuition.

3.    Students who fail a course twice and who are not in good academic
standing (GPA <2.0) would be permitted to enroll in an immersion program,
but would be required to pay tuition for the program. These students must
reapply to the appropriate college's Committee on Academic Courses and
Standing.

Rationale

CUNY-wide data indicate that students who repeat remedial course work are
far less likely to succeed in college than those who do pass. For example,
among associate degree program students who took any basic skills course
and failed to pass all of them, the eight year retention/graduation rate is
14.9%; among students who took and passed those courses, the
graduation/retention rate is 36.5% (see Attachment D). In this context, the
rationale for focusing limited resources on offering repeated opportunities
within the CUNY colleges for remedial course work is weak, at best.
Additional data on repetition in CUNY basic courses suggest that some
students needs cannot be met in a collegiate setting (see Attachment E).
Although CUNY should continue to make every effort to prepare students who
meet our admissions criteria for college-level work, resources should not
be directed towards students who are not in good academic standing at the
University.

Proposal 4: Mainstream "high failure" students.

1. In cooperation with faculty, during the 1998-1999 academic year, we will
pilot enhanced freshman composition courses that will allow, based on
criteria to be determined, selected students who earned less than the
required passing score on the Reading or Writing Skills Tests to begin
college level work immediately.

Rationale

Several pilot projects at CUNY indicate that students whose scores on the
Freshman Skills Assessment Tests are borderline may be successful in
college-level courses, provided they are given specific, targeted
enhancements. A description of one possible model for this type of course
is found in Attachment F.

Proposal 5: Require passage of an appropriate test or some measure of
competence at the end of the remedial sequence in each skills area.

Proposal 6: Supporting Initiatives

A. Pilot Intensive Basic Skills Programs

1.    In cooperation with faculty, during the 1998-1999 academic year, design
and pilot five basic skills intensive programs, housed on one campus in
each borough, for English-proficient students with the most substantial
remedial needs and for those unable to meet the remediation-related
criteria of the college they wish to attend. The purpose of these programs
would be to enable the students to either eliminate the need for subsequent
remedial course work or reduce that need to a level where it can be
realistically met as part of the collegiate experience.

Rationale

The full implementation of the recommendations contained in this document
will require that the colleges be able to design and operate highly
effective intensive basic skills programs for substantial numbers of
students. The operation of several pilot programs will allow the University
to draw upon faculty expertise in curriculum, instruction and assessment in
order to develop program models which both meet the needs of students and
prepare them for success upon college enrollment. In addition, piloting
will allow us to identify any administrative issues which might affect the
efficient referral of students to immersion programs and back to the
colleges. (See again attachment C 1-6.)

B.    Exchange Effective Practices Across the University

CUNY faculty members and staff have developed or adapted a rich variety of
curricular and instructional models, both in remedial/developmental and
compensatory courses and in special programs such as the immersion programs.
In response to a request from the chair of the CUNY Faculty Senate as to
"what works," faculty with expertise in remediation have suggested a number
of effective or promising interventions. In order to support the adaptation
and replication of these effective practices and the design of new ones,
the OAA will work with faculty members to:

1.    Review these practices and identify others that have proven effective,
with an eye to possible replication.

2.    Expand the University's faculty development offerings to provide
additional opportunities for faculty members to learn about practices that
have been successful on other campuses and to develop strategies that will
work well on their own campuses.

Rationale:

Analysis of curricular and instructional strategies that have proven
effective on CUNY campuses suggests that many of them share some essential
characteristics:

-    the integration of instruction in reading and writing (sometimes with the
addition of speaking and listening);

-    the integration of remedial or ESL instruction with instruction in
substantial content-area knowledge (content-based instruction);

-    the coordination of remedial or ESL language instruction with regular
college course work (e.g., enhanced composition courses, paired or linked
courses, block programming);

-    the incorporation of substantial support services into instruction (e.g.,
in-class tutoring provided by trained tutors);

-    the design of instruction in immersion programs, in both language and
mathematics, that anticipates and prepares for the actual demands students
will encounter in regular college course work.

While instructors can often find much to learn from one another,
instructional models are rarely transferable without some modification or
adaptation to local needs, mission, and population. In addition to the
characteristics already noted, the examination of a wider range of
effective practices will undoubtedly reveal other critical characteristics
which can form the basis for the informed design and adaptation of models
that will meet the needs of specific campuses and groups of students.

To further this process, the University can turn to a range of faculty
development initiatives already in place, which can be enhanced and expanded.


C.    Strengthening Advisement

In light of the needs of students to make informed choices at various point
in their educational careers we will build upon the advisement now
available and put in place an infrastructure that will provide
opportunities for advisement from peers as well as faculty and staff. With
respect to peer models there are some now in operation which can be
replicated and we would consider expanding the successful CUNYCAP program.

Rationale

The complexities, both educational and personal, that students encounter as
they advance through their educational careers necessitate the expansion of
advisement opportunities at the colleges. Advisement can be done by
interested faculty and staff as well as peer counselors. Because in many
ways they are closer to the process and can understand their peers'
concerns, and because they are available when faculty may not be, such as
during the summer or intercession when decisions often need to be made,
upper division students can often be effective in serving as advisors to
lower division students.

Conclusion

The issue of remediation at CUNY goes to the heart of many of our most
serious concerns: raising admissions standards at the senior colleges,
retention/graduation rates, performance on certification and licensure
examinations, etc. This document is an attempt to suggest some answers to
those concerns. Data collection as well as anecdotal evidence from various
quarters suggests that the needs of some students who begin their
educational careers at CUNY are not being met by our current programs and
offerings. It may well be the case that there are some students whose needs
cannot be met in a collegiate setting, and that we seriously need to
rethink the ways in which we deliver remedial and/or ESL course work. It
may also be the case that solutions to problems have been found on some
campuses, but that reports of "what works" are not always shared among the
colleges, with the result that opportunity to emulate successful programs
is more limited than it ought to be within a university system.

Some caveats do apply to the initiation of proposals set forth in this
document. For example, the systematic implementation of a segmented
university system on the basis of restrictions to remediation must not have
the result of filling some colleges with more under-prepared and
discouraged, if not embittered, students. If this were to become the case,
it would be even more difficult to succeed in our aim of helping these
students meet their-educational goals. At all levels and stages of
planning, representatives of all CUNY colleges must be deeply involved and
care must be taken to rely on the expertise of those closest to our
students, whose background, experience, and sensitivity are key.

It is recognized that a careful review of the impact of the above proposals
must be conducted. Work also needs to be done on the costs, savings, and
differential impact on the colleges.

Those who have shared in the development of this document hope that it will
contribute to a fresh dialogue across the University and stimulate new
thought and ideas among knowledgeable and concerned people.