Is remediation the responsibility of colleges?

Education is considered “remediation” if it involves re-teaching subjects to students that was originally taught in secondary education. The subjects most often taught in remediation are high school math and English. Roughly 33% of all incoming students require remediation. The burden on colleges to provide remedial education has increased with enrollments and the cost of teaching the same subject twice has some administrators wondering if colleges should even engage in remedial course work.

The debate surrounding remedial education hits on ethical and social obligations of colleges. Public colleges have a variety of constitutes and responsibilities. First, colleges have a responsibility to provide an education to the students. Second, there is also a responsibility to the public to use tax dollars effectively and to support the state’s interest in its future populace. If the declining public aid to colleges is any indication, the public wants colleges to spend less and students want them to spend more. This delicate balancing of constituencies may lead to conflicting responsibilities. Remedial education is one example.

The public pays secondary educators to teach high school-level math and English. When student enter college without having adequately grasped the concepts in high school, the college is forced to spend public dollars to teach the same subject again. The college is stuck deciding between two constituencies—preserving public dollars and providing a second chance to students.

If colleges side with public demands of more efficient use of tax funds, students are worse off. When a college refuses to provide remedial education it punishes students for attending high schools that do a poor job of preparing them for college. Additionally, studies have shown that not having remediation significantly increases the risk of dropping out of college. The public fails the student, not once, but twice, when it does not provide remediation.

The problem can be softened by removing the artificial distinction between secondary and higher education. The very question “is remediation the responsibility of colleges” implies a sharp distinction between colleges and high schools. This distinction may be rooted in American history and tradition, but it may hurt rather than help in this instance. Colleges should become more involved in helping students finish the senior year of high school and bridging the jump to college. Partnering with high schools will more efficiently use public dollars as well as meet the obligation to help student succeed. As the curriculum of high schools more closely aligns to expectations of colleges students will be better prepared to make the jump to higher education.

Remedial education is not only the responsibility of colleges, but of the entire public. The focus should not be to put students in a antithetical position to the public, but rather to collaborate together to find the best solution. Surely we must expect more of student in high school. The expectations of colleges must be clearly communicated. Students must be given the opportunity to meet those expectations. But to frame the question as a “us versus you” and trying to shirk a public responsibility because of money only side-steps the question. It’s our kids we’re talking about; it’s our future.