By Nikki Edgecombe, Julia Raufman and Ellen Wasserman
The community college sector is a vital pathway to postsecondary education and economic opportunity for learners of all types: those who were identified as struggling academically, who have been unenrolled for a long time or whose education was interrupted before they immigrated to the U.S. just to name a few. The sector has changed since the 1960s when the community college as we know it began its expansion. Today’s community colleges look like their communities and nationally enroll more women, non-white students and immigrants than at their founding. At the same time, the sector remains anchored in its open-access mission, accepting all students who strive to learn. Perhaps no recent practice change reflects this ethos more than the expansion of the corequisite model of developmental education.
The corequisite model, in which students deemed academically underprepared simultaneously enroll in an introductory college-level math or English course and a support course or lab, began as a practitioner-inspired innovation at a single college. It has grown to be one of the most widespread modern higher education reforms. According to a 2023 Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness survey, 78% of two-year public colleges offered corequisite courses in English and 77% offered corequisite courses in math. The research suggests this large-scale adoption is warranted: A higher percentage of students enrolling in the corequisite model are completing transferable college math and English courses (when compared to the older model, whereby students would enroll in a series of prerequisite courses). Select studies show other positive outcomes, including higher credential completion rates and positive impacts for some Latino students. To be clear, there’s more work to do.
What the Evidence Says
While some press coverage of a recent research study cast doubt on the effectiveness of corequisite models for students with lower ACT scores, our close reading of the study leads to different conclusions. Corequisite courses deliver on what they’re supposed to do: increase gateway course completion. This is true even for students with the lowest ACT scores. The null and negative effects for longer term academic outcomes — such as persistence and earning a credential — are admittedly perplexing and generally consistent with other developmental education reform research.
Corequisite courses mostly affect students at the start of their college careers; therefore, it’s not surprising that impacts may fade over time. Perhaps by embedding comparable supports in other coursework and helping students clarify their goals and programs of study, we can address the obstacles that derail students after they leave developmental education.
We need more answers, but we certainly don’t need to return to traditional remediation approaches. According to the lead author of the study, Florence Xiaotao Ran: “I don’t think people should use the study to say we should go back to prerequisites for the students with the lowest placement test scores … There is no one magic model that will solve the problem for everyone. The colleges need to invest their resources to provide more tailored support for students to really help them succeed.”
Ran’s point is important. Momentum around the corequisite model was slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, lagging momentum should not be confused with ineffectiveness. Recent rigorous studies of both the corequisite model and multiple measures assessment, in which colleges use high school GPA, placement test scores, and other measures to assign incoming students to developmental or college-level courses in math and English, show positive effects. Myriad other factors (e.g., budget pressures, enrollment declines and stress) put downward pressure on innovation and change. But we’re not reversing course. This is the time to rely on the evidence and to continue to innovate.
How Leaders Can Act on This Evidence
State and system officials have tools at their disposal to continue the progress we’ve made in developmental education reform. Here are a few suitable for the present moment:
Reform networks, such as Strong Start to Finish and Complete College America, are positioned to accelerate change, drawing on existing infrastructure and tools developed and refined over time. Both organization have provided states and systems a roadmap for developmental education reform. They and others have built the implementation tools and resources needed to guide reform.
Legislation and system policies remain powerful levers to increase adoption. Though colleges don’t want to be told what to do, it’s clear that legislation and system mandates have expanded corequisite adoption in many states. Today’s legislation can better articulate policy goals and implementation roadmaps than ten years past and can link reforms to other institutional improvement efforts.
Homegrown exemplars should be elevated. Practitioners skeptical of the evidence on corequisite models often cite unique circumstances for their institutions. Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean corequisites won’t work. As the survey data suggests, even states without policy mandates have corequisite adopters. State and system officials can support and highlight these colleges to show what’s possible closer to home. In fact, these exemplars may very well be the next reform leaders.
The coalition of policymakers, practitioners, researchers and advocates who worked tirelessly to advance developmental education reform and scale the corequisite model is facing headwinds. The outlook for higher education is uncertain. Let’s let the evidence guide us.
Nikki Edgecombe is a senior research scholar at the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University and the principal investigator of the Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness. Julia Raufman is a research associate at the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Ellen Wasserman is a research associate at the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
