If there is an acid test for K-12 education, it is whether high school graduates are prepared to take college classes without needing remediation.
Aurora fails that test in a big way. So does Denver. More than half the college-bound students in both big urban districts need remedial help in at least one basic subject area – reading, writing or math.
And the state as a whole has nothing to brag about: Its remediation rate stands at 32 percent. That’s right: Nearly one out of every three Colorado high school graduates enrolled in a Colorado college or university in the fall of 2008 had to take at least one remedial class last year. Statewide, the remediation rate has held steady for the past five years. (See the numbers for yourself in our new data center.)
Students enrolling in community colleges need a lot more remedial help than those going to four-year schools. Some 53 percent of community college enrollees needed remediation, compared to 20 percent entering four-year schools. Since community college students tend to be disproportionately low-income kids of color, it’s easy to see where the biggest problem resides.
The numbers are sobering, the trend depressing. Despite the state’s avowed focus on improving K-12 education, nothing anyone has tried has moved this most important needle.
Looking at a list of the state’s large districts, one is hard-pressed to find rays of sunshine. One exception might be Jefferson County – the state’s largest district – where the remediation rate has dropped by 4.7 percentage points over the past five years. Still, better than one in four Jeffco graduates needs remediation.
Elsewhere, though, the rate has stayed flat or has climbed. Aurora? Up 11 percentage points in five years. Denver? Up 5.7 percentage points. Cherry Creek? Up 3.6 percentage points. Douglas County? Flat.
Are these districts enrolling higher percentages of low-income kids? Yes. Does this explain the flat or increasing remediation rates? No one can say with certainty.
Some districts point out that significant innovations in the past couple of years don’t show up in this data. What is called 2009 data actually comes from the fall of 2008. This may be true. But name a school district that doesn’t, at any given point in time, claim to be in the midst of significant new reforms. I’ll look for next year’s results to be better. But I won’t hold my breath.
Where have we gone wrong? Are the steps we are now taking – Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, new state standards, new assessments – finally going to make a difference? How long will it take for the results to appear in the form of lower remediation rates?
Anyone who tells you he or she knows the answer to any of those questions is deluded. All we can do is hope. Well, actually, we can do more than hope. We can hold ourselves to a higher standard – literally and figuratively.
A first step would be to stop the practice of boasting about increased high school graduation rates unless and until remediation rates drop. Pawning the problem off on someone else and then claiming to have solved it is the worst sort of cynical, statistical sleight of hand.
Jettisoning jargon and vague platitudes, and getting clear about what we expect would also help. Diane Ravitch, in her new book (“The Death and Life of the Great American School System”) traces the malaise in our school systems to the abandonment of meaningful content standard development; this in the wake of a political controversy over history standards in the mid-1990s. Following the controversy, Ravitch writes,
“…with a few honorable exceptions, the states wrote and published vague documents and called them standards. Teachers continued to rely on textbooks to determine what to teach and test…Business leaders continued to grouse that they had to spend large amounts of money to train new workers; the media continued to highlight the mediocre performance of American students on international tests; and colleges continued to report that about a third of their freshman needed remediation in the basic skills of reading, writing and mathematics.”
Will setting the bar higher – and being specific about what clearing the bar entails – make a difference? In our fractured and dysfunctional political climate, is such an achievement even possible, on either a statewide or national basis? Color me skeptical.
But we have to keep trying – and to demonstrate the courage to make hard and unpopular choices. The alternative is to continue living with remediation rates like these:
West High School, Denver: 87 percent
North High School, Denver: 75 percent
Montbello High School, Denver: 73 percent
Aurora Central High School, Aurora: 71 percent
Abraham Lincoln High School, Denver: 69 percent
McLain Community High School, Jefferson County: 67 percent.
You get the picture.
Popularity: 5% [?]
We have a much higher rate of remediation in our New York City University system. I believe part of the problem is not in the teaching, but how reading and math is now taught. Emphasing how to read a paragraph on a test in order to find the right answer on a standardized reading test in the quickest time possible is not teaching students the skills they need for college level reading in very specific content areas. Many teachers and principals are doing a great job getting students to do this and the test results fly off the charts. But in the long run….?
I can make several suggestions for Colorado
1. state wide graduation requirements-I recommend a college prep list of requirements and a “job ready” list
2. Money to fund the above. Currently seniors can start the year only needing one credit to graduate. It will cost money to put all those students in desks.
3. Meaningful business education. Currently business education isdying.
4. End of course tests that are meaningful and rigorous, BUT
5. NOT teaching to the tests to the extent that students do not knowi how to think critically or how to have lively arguments about academic and real life topice.
The remdiation statistics seem to be based only on numbers of graduates who attend Colorado public colleges/universities. If that is the case, it results in artificially high remediation rates for schools like George Washington HS in Denver, which sends well over 70 students per year either out of state or to private colleges in Colorado. I would be surprised if students accepted into those programs were in need of remediation.
This problem starts well before high school. Students are not meeting standards in Elementary and Middle School. Schools have few resources to do anything about this failure especially in subjects other than math and language arts, where growth now “matters” since it is reported to the public. End of course assessments in all classes would give teachers in all grade levels and in all subjects the data needed to remediate effectively along the way so that high school teachers are not left as the only accountable parties in this measure of effectiveness. Add to this some sort of accountability for parents who don’t make their children come to school, and accountability for students who do not pass their classes (as they have in many other countries with “better” systems) and we might have a fighting chance to change this.
For anyone who has been teaching for the last 30 or 40 years, the issue of college students needing remedial help is no big surprise. At the risk of bringing up the “whining and excuses” comments from those who have not spent their careers in a classroom (other than maybe some sporadic volunteer hours), let me offer some observations.
Sometime in the early seventies a transformation in parenting seemed to take place. This was the “children can do no wrong,” “why put limits on things like bedtime, behaviors, diets, etc.”, “no one has a right to discipline my child but me” era. Anyone who has ever watched Super Nanny can see how this technique has mutated into children (and I’m not talking poor kids) who do not understand the concept of expectations.
If “reform” minded citizens who want to place all the blame on schools not educating kids would bother to spend a few moments (or longer) listening to quality veteran teachers who have been frustrated in their attempts to maintain high standards, thwarted by students AND their parents, we might be looking at different solutions to our problems. Oh, and have a chat with current teachers at some of our highest performing schools whose students and parents are worried more about getting high marks than learning anything. These are kids who score high on standardized tests because they have grown up in literate homes, but consider themselves entitled to good grades because they show up to class, not because they have done excellent work.
Then, couple this with the negative press about public schools that has been rampant since the seventies, funded by interests pushing vouchers, charters and choice. All the negative press has created parents who blame the schools when their children aren’t succeeding rather than looking at the possibility that it might include the fact that their kid isn’t putting out any effort.
Add to this the fact that in Colorado, a state that ranks 7th in per-capita income (we’re not poor, in other words), the expenditure for public schools is now almost $2,000 below the national average in per pupil expenditure. How can citizens unwilling to support their schools financially demand excellence? You get what you pay for.
Sally, I so enjoy your thoughtful comments and insights. I taught with you in the early 70s at Lakewood High school and am so excited to see your commitment to Colorado students and quality education continues. A veteran teachers’ think tank could contribute a lot to educational reform!
Let’s look at what is in our control.
At my school we have investigated the remediation issue. We recently spent thousands of dollars to have our Math and English courses audited by the University of Oregon’s Center for Educational Policy Research. The purpose of the audit was to identify the degree to which the mathematics and English curriculum of our high school was aligned, and at an appropriate challenge level, to prepare the maximum number of students for success in postsecondary education.
What we found was what exists in many high schools. Teachers, especially in English, tended to focus more on content than skill. So, English teachers were more concerned with teaching specific novels versus the skills necessary for students to access the content of the novel. Because of this, one area of specific weakness for our school was technical writing and reading.
This experience was very helpful for us to align our curriculum. This experience emphasizes the need for K-12 and postsecondary discussions on what needs to be in the high school curriculum. Our experience with CU has been frustrating in this regard. We are told that some of our students need remedial English at CU, yet when we’ve asked for a breakdown of the skills being assessed, we’ve hit a wall of silence.
One could look at this cynically and claim that CU is fine with students taking remedial courses since the students receive no credit for the remedial course, yet have to pay for it. Leading may to believe that cash-starved CU is in it for the money.
A great book for high school educators: “College Knowledge: What it Really Takes for Students to Succeed and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready” by David Conley.
Sally –
I completely agree. It’s so frustrating to always hear the media and the public blame schools for what are usually more the shortcomings of the public’s disinterest in supporting quality education.
Mark –
You’re right. We have to focus on what is in our control. But when we do that, we also have to recognize that the funding we receive now and many of the students we receive now (those from broken homes and little to no understanding on how to behave in a classroom) will inevitably limit us in making the gains the public will always expect.
Poor reform:
Is it the middle schools? The greed of community colleges? The increased number of low SES students in Colorado high schools? Student behavior?
The problem with determining what potential causes exist and the reform initiatives to implement in an effort to reduce the impact of said causes is the lack of actual data.
Consider this: what unknown factors must be addressed before we can determine why some school districts have an increase in remediation rates? Have we determined whether these school have corresponding increases in college attendance rates? Is longitudinal data available regarding college attrition rates? If not, how can we possibly make assumptions or provide recommendations?
It pains me to see inferences based upon such incomplete information. It’s similar to the recent reports of the increases in students who do not pass the AP exams that fail to recognize the corresponding increases in number of students taking these exams.
I do not argue that these remediation rates are acceptable – only that referring to them as “acid tests” implies that no other data are necessary to inform action.
A couple points on the data we have:
We did look at whether schools with increased remediation rates had increased numbers of students going to a Colorado college or university – they did not. Statewide, the number of Colorado public high school graduates attending a state college or university in 2005 was virtually the same as in 2009. In districts such as Aurora, which had the 11 percentage point increase in remediation rates, the number of its graduates attending a state college or university in 2005 was 523 and in 2009, it was 513.
We also have data about the college attrition rates of students who need remediation in college and those who do not. In general, students who need remediation are more apt to drop out. At 2-year schools, the retention rate for all first-time freshmen is 47 percent – it’s 51 percent for those not assigned to remediation and 46 percent for those assigned to remediation. At 4-year schools, the overall retention rate is 74 percent – 78 percent for those not assigned to remediation and 60 percent for those assigned to remediation.
As for the AP reports, certainly Ed News and major national media, New York Times, etc., reported on the increases in the numbers of students taking the exams.
We could always use more data but we also could make better use of the information we do have.
Thanks Linda – that is a wonderful response with some excellent information.
I DO appreciate that you are better informed regarding this issue than many of us responding to this post, and I did not imagine that such data have not been collected. What concerns me is the fact that people who may not be as informed as you are willing to make recommendations based upon the information shared in this posting alone.
I think we have all seen the effects of such uninformed decisions – one very common example occurring in the filtering approaches (i.e. letters of intent, previous teacher signatures, etc.) utilized for the AP programs of many schools, used to increase pass rates with little regard to the access limited to many students. Again – the data are available, but not being used to inform policy decisions.
I also have 2 questions if you have the time:
1. In what academic areas are the majority of these students receiving remediation?
2. Is the first sentence of your posting meant to be read as 0 schools with increased remediation rates had increased college attendance? If not, shouldn’t this corresponding figure accompany the school’s remediation percentage in the data center?
I like how everybody is putting this in perspective of other things, and it’s interesting how we’re doing that as a society. Linda, I like how you pointed out another shortcoming in the data. Mark, it’s good to know that colleges are saying, “We want you to align with us,” but they’re realigning their curriculum at the same time. Greg, you’re right that a high school’s success is dependent on the 12 years proceeding it (which made it so much better and easier when growth was added to CSAP analysis as well as absolute). So we should be ashamed looking at these numbers and want to do something differently, and we should use this as part of the conversation, but this is just another piece of data.
I read something recently that talked about how science rhetoric is certain and absolute when it’s presented to the public but more cloudy in the scientific community. That’s what this data is — it’s cloudy and qualitative, but it’s presented in mostly absolute terms.
Another problem is the measuring sticks. For the last few years, graduation rates, “college readiness” classes and college enrollment have been measures for success, so some schools might have been using that type of data as a way to “teach to the test.” On the other hand, the focus on success on another measuring stick has its own problem: my junior year of high school, my AP English teacher called my mom in mid-April to tell her I shouldn’t take the AP test — after I had already paid the $90 for it and couldn’t get it back — because she said I wouldn’t do well. And I did get a 4! no thanks to her.
As a community newspaper media member, I hope I’m not negative like Sally suggested as one group to blame. I try to show some of the positive programs (which are published in our paper and reprinted on my blog). But we do have to call a spade a spade, and the mainstream seems to pick on the negative a lot and the big districts too much. Does anybody have any ideas some of the ways to cover this complicated issue of remediation? One of our papers has West, JFK and Kennedy in Denver, which are among the highest areas that need remediation. Our other paper comprises the Littleton and Cherry Creek school districts. Any suggestions? Thanks.
I just did a timeline search for “college ready” and it appears to have a long and undistinguished history going back a century. Just like every other rhetorical canard in education reform, CR has become more common recently, I’m betting, because in an increasingly consumerist social order, turning children into something that sounds like a commodity makes sense, sounds good, tastes, great, less filling.
It has also become the latest bludgeon with which the masters of the political universe use to beat into submission urban public schools. I’m not buying it. Don’t tell me schools are somehow failing colleges. It has always been thus–not the failing but the relative achievement rates and skill sets of high school graduates. The difference is, our whole society seems bent on getting more young people into college as if the effort and the accomplishment of that task will solve a lot of our problems. It won’t.
I propose that we all of the sudden wake up and realize our public schools should be “Grad School Ready™. Without grad students we would have no affordable undergraduate education and without grad students, we would have no professors in the making and no high tech workers and no genetic engineers and engineers in general and, and…no country at all! See, if our urban high schools can’t manage something as simple as preparing kids for college and then, naturally, graduate school why, then we have failing public schools and they should be scrapped for vouchers and charters and really just turn education over to corporations who know how to run a consumerist economy anyway.
JJ,
Sounds like you might enjoy Chris Hedges new book, “Empire of Illusion: the end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle”–especially Chapter 1, “The Illusion of Literacy;” and Chapter 3, “The Illusion of Wisdom,” which lays all America’s current disastrous problems at the doors of the elite universities we’re trying to get “everybody” into. It’s pretty heavy handed, but somebody’s got to blow the whistle on this whole notion that the purpose of education is to screen and prepare young people to be Human Capital. Why stop at “Grad School Ready?” Let’s just go for “Lehman Brothers Ready” or “Health Insurance Corporation Ready” or “Hedge Fund Manager Ready?”