Community Colleges: New Federal Research Center May Enhance Current Understanding of Developmental Education
Published: 2013-09-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Education reported that approximately 42 percent of entering community college students were not sufficiently prepared for college-level courses and enrolled in at least one developmental education course. Researchers also estimate that fewer than 25 percent of developmental education students will complete a degree or certificate. Improving developmental education is key to increasing degree and certificate completion. Some community colleges and states are instituting various initiatives to improve the outcomes of students placed into developmental education.
GAO was asked to examine current developmental education efforts. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What strategies are selected states and community colleges using to improve developmental education for community college students; and (2) what challenges, if any, have community colleges identified while implementing these developmental education strategies? GAO conducted site visits to community colleges and state education offices in Texas, Virginia, and Washington, which were identified by experts and the literature as states initiating innovative changes in developmental education coursework. GAO interviewed Education officials, as well as stakeholders from non-profit and research organizations focused on community college issues. In addition, GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and guidance.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: States and community colleges GAO visited have implemented several strategies to improve developmental education--which is remedial coursework in math, reading, or writing for students who are assessed not to be ready for college-level classes. Many initiatives involved shortening the amount of time for developmental education and better targeting material to an individual student's needs. For example, two community colleges have implemented fast track classes that enable students to take two classes in one semester instead of in two semesters. One developmental education program in Washington places students directly into college level classes that also teach developmental education as part of the class. Community colleges are also using tools such as test preparatory classes to help students prepare for placement tests that determine if they will need to take developmental education courses. According to community college officials GAO spoke with, these classes help familiarize students with prior coursework and, in some cases, help them place directly into college level courses. Additionally, most community colleges GAO visited have worked to align their curriculum with local high schools so that graduating seniors are ready for college. Little research has been published on these developmental education initiatives and whether they are leading to successful outcomes.
Most community college officials with whom GAO spoke noted that the limited availability of research in this area is a challenge to implementing strategies to improve developmental education programs. Specifically, they noted that it is difficult to determine whether new programs are working, and to gain faculty support for unproven models of teaching. Department of Education (Education) officials confirmed that research regarding successful developmental education strategies is insufficient. In response, Education has announced the availability of grant funds for a National Research Center on Developmental Education Assessment and Instruction. The Center will focus exclusively on developmental education assessment and instruction to inform policymakers and instructors on improving student outcomes. The Center is expected to launch in 2014.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making no recommendations in this report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Education (Education) estimated that 42 percent of  entering community college students were not sufficiently prepared for  college-level courses and enrolled in at least one developmental  education course—also known as remedial education. Researchers  have also reported that fewer than 25 percent of developmental education  students will complete a degree or certificate in 8 years. The President  has set a national goal of increasing the number of community college  graduates by 5 million by the year 2020, which likely cannot be  accomplished without improving current developmental education  outcomes. To help improve outcomes for students in developmental  education, some community colleges and states have begun instituting  various initiatives to improve their developmental education courses. In  light of these activities, you asked us to examine current developmental  education efforts. For this report, we examined (1) what strategies  selected states and community colleges are using to improve  developmental education for community college students; and (2) what  challenges, if any, community colleges have identified while implementing  these developmental education strategies?
To address these objectives, we conducted site visits in Texas, Virginia,  and Washington, which were identified by experts and the literature as  states that had initiated innovative changes in their developmental  education coursework. While on these site visits, we interviewed officials  from 10 community colleges and representatives from each state’s  education office. We also visited a community college in California, which  brought the total number of schools we visited to 11. In addition, we  spoke with community college officials and other knowledgeable  stakeholders in a group interview at a national conference focused on  reforming community college student outcomes. Stakeholders we  interviewed, both in the group and individually, included representatives  of nonprofit and research organizations focused on community college  issues. Lastly, to better understand the federal context for developmental  education, we interviewed Department of Education officials and reviewed  pertinent agency documents. We also reviewed relevant laws,  regulations, and guidance.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to August 2013  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more details on our scope  and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Community colleges serve almost 40 percent of undergraduate students  in the United States. Because most community colleges have a  commitment to open access admissions policies—allowing anyone to  enroll in classes—their student populations often have varied needs. For  example, community colleges have a long history of serving older and  part-time students by offering affordable tuition, convenient locations, and  flexible course schedules (see table 1). Among their many goals,  community colleges aim to prepare students who will transfer to 4-year  institutions, provide workforce development and skills training, and offer  noncredit programs ranging from English as a second language to skills  retraining. Upon enrollment, students typically take a placement test in  reading, writing, and math so that community college administrators can  assess their skill level. Depending on their performance on the test,  students who are not considered college-ready in these subject areas are  placed into developmental education courses. Based on their assessed  skills, students could be placed in one developmental education course or  several. If placed, these courses will add to the time it takes these  students to complete their certificate or degree, and generally do not  qualify for college credit.
While developmental education is a category of coursework and not a  specific federal program, community colleges use a variety of federal  funding sources, such as federal grants, to help fund their programs.  Additionally, many community college developmental education students  access federal student aid to pay for these and other classes. Generally,  a student enrolled in developmental education courses is eligible for  federal student aid for up to 1 academic year’s worth of courses in a  program leading to a degree, credential, or certificate at an eligible  institution.  Education, the federal agency that is responsible for  overseeing programs authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965,  as amended (HEA) provided approximately $2.2 billion in the 2007-2008  academic year in federal student aid to community college students. In  the 2007-2008 school year 36 percent of community college students who  were enrolled in developmental education courses were receiving federal  student aid.Education provides national statistics and conducts national research on  various outcomes related to post-secondary education.
section_title: Community Colleges and States Are Using Several Strategies to Improve Developmental Education
paragraphs: All of the community college and state education officials we interviewed  described strategies that they have used related to curriculum,  placement, and working with high schools to help improve developmental  education outcomes for students. Curriculum changes were focused on  efforts to shorten the total amount of time students spend in  developmental education and making developmental coursework relevant  to a student’s career or academic area of study. Several officials and  stakeholders with whom we spoke told us that, based on their experience,  the longer students spend in developmental education, the less likely they  are to move onto college-level classes. Additionally, these officials and  stakeholders stated that they often observed that students who spent  multiple semesters in developmental education dropped out, in large part  because the students did not see the immediate benefits of the  developmental coursework on their academic or career goals.  Accelerating developmental coursework could also result in reduced  financial costs for students, since they will potentially finish their  coursework in a shorter period of time. Reducing the time spent in  developmental education is particularly important given some of the  recent changes to federal financial aid that shorten the amount of time  certain aid is available to students.officials told us that initiatives related to better placement of students and  working with high schools on preparing students can lead to less time in  developmental education or perhaps prevent the need for it altogether.
Lastly, most of the community college  The following provides examples of strategies that are being implemented  by some states and community colleges we visited:
Shortening the time in developmental education: All of the states and  community colleges we visited implemented a number of initiatives to  shorten the amount of time students spent in developmental  education. Nearly all of the community colleges we visited  implemented initiatives that broke up the developmental education  classes into smaller, shorter component modules that would otherwise  last a full term. Virginia officials described their statewide  developmental math redesign as one that segmented classes into  one-credit modules requiring students to take only those modules that  they needed based on the results of an assessment. Prior to the  redesign, a single developmental education math course carried a  credit load of four or five credits, which could have led to students  taking coursework they did not need over a longer period of time.  Another initiative used to shorten the amount of time students spend  in developmental education, involved compressing the developmental  curriculum to allow students to complete more than one class in a  single term. For example, two community colleges we visited offered  fast track math classes that allowed students to complete two classes  in one semester. Additionally, officials in two states we visited told us  that they had implemented a statewide curriculum combining  developmental education reading and writing coursework, thus  reducing a two-class requirement to one during a term. Lastly, several  community colleges we visited had reexamined the developmental  education content needed to prepare students for college-level  classes in order to reduce the number of required courses. For  example, one community college did this by eliminating the overlap  between developmental math classes and the college-level classes,  which led them to reduce the number of developmental education  math classes in the sequence from five classes to three.
Making coursework applicable to academic or career goals: One state  and most of the community colleges we visited were making their  developmental education coursework more applicable to students’  academic or career goals so that students could see the relevance of  the developmental course content immediately, while also earning  college credits. All of the community colleges we visited in  Washington are integrating developmental education instruction into  their college-level classes. Washington’s Integrated Basic Education  and Skills Training (I-BEST) program places students directly into  career and technical or college-level academic classes with two  instructors: one to teach the subject matter and the other to teach  developmental education in the context of the class. Another initiative  used by a few of the community colleges we visited to make the  coursework more relevant to students’ goals involved linking college- level and developmental education classes. For example, in one  community college we visited, students can enroll in a college-level  history or psychology class while concurrently taking a developmental  reading class that integrates the content of the college-level class into  its coursework. Lastly, several of the community colleges we visited  offered alternative pathways for developmental math students  because traditional developmental math prepares students for higher  levels of college math they may not need for certain fields. In one  community college, the developmental math coursework has several  pathways for students: students in Science, Technology, Engineering,  or Mathematics (STEM) fields could take a path that leads them to the  types of math they need for their field, such as calculus, while  students in the social sciences or liberal arts could take a path that  leads them to different types of statistics courses that may be more  relevant to their fields of study.
Rethinking Placement: Community colleges we visited are changing  how students are placed into developmental courses so that students  might spend less time taking such courses. Several of the community  colleges we visited are providing preparatory classes or online test  preparation software to better prepare students and sharpen their  skills for the placement test. A few community college officials told us  that students may need only a quick refresher on material they have  already mastered but may not have used in some time. With the  refresher course, students could place into a higher-level  developmental education class or be placed directly into college-level  courses. Several officials told us that these refreshers provided by  preparatory classes or online test preparation are especially helpful  for students who have been out of an academic setting for an  extended amount of time. Additionally, several community colleges we  spoke with are also considering a student’s high school grades or  grade point average when determining placement. For example, one  community college we visited reviews students’ transcripts and uses  students’ grades in specified math classes at local high schools—or  the results of their placement test, whichever was higher—to  determine their direct placement into a developmental or college-level  math class.
Preventing the need for developmental education: Most of the  community colleges we visited partnered with local K-12 schools to  align their curriculums to help ensure that students graduating from  the local high schools were ready for college. For example, one Texas  community college established vertical teams that brought together  high school and community college faculty in science, math, and  social studies to discuss students’ academic needs. In another  example, Washington state officials told us that, starting in 2015, the  state plans to offer a college assessment test in the 11th grade to  identify and provide additional instruction to students who may have  remediation needs so that when these students graduate, they will be  ready for college.
Researchers are reviewing some of the initiatives that community  colleges are instituting to improve outcomes for developmental education  students, but the evidence base is limited. One program that is showing  early promise is Washington’s I-BEST. In a study conducted by the  Community College Research Center (CCRC), an independent research  organization housed at Columbia University’s Teachers College, I-BEST  was regarded as an effective model for increasing the rate at which  students enter and succeed in postsecondary career education overall.  Additionally, a few community college officials told us they are planning to  conduct evaluations of their initiatives in the future to understand the  outcomes of their activities. However, according to a few stakeholders  and a community college official we spoke with, there is limited  information available on a national basis for community colleges to have  confidence in the impacts of their initiatives.
section_title: Education’s Planned Research Center Could Help Community Colleges Overcome Challenges
subsections: section_title: Community College Challenges
paragraphs: Most of the community colleges and other stakeholders with whom we  spoke stated that more research is needed to determine if developmental  education initiatives work. (See fig. 1.) Some stakeholders told us that  additional research is needed to help community college officials  understand the context in which community colleges and states are using  developmental education models and how they are resolving issues, such  as helping students transition into regular credit-bearing courses more  quickly. Community college officials also expressed concerns with  promoting some strategies without fully understanding the long- term  outcomes, particularly on certain populations. For example, a few  community college officials worried about the impact of using accelerated  developmental education classes. These officials were concerned that the  fast-paced nature of an accelerated program would increase a student’s  risk of not completing a course or program. For example, part-time  students enrolled in an accelerated program may have additional stress  when trying to balance personal responsibilities, such as child care or  work demands, while enrolled in an accelerated course and may end up  dropping out of the college altogether. Additionally, another official told us  that knowing how to scale up pilot initiatives was a challenge because  initiatives that were successful with one population of students may not  be successful with other students.
Obtaining faculty support for unproven reforms was also cited by several  community college and state officials as a challenge. Officials at one  community college told us that it was difficult for staff to buy into changes  to developmental education at their community college because there  was not much training provided and initiatives were unproven. A literature  review conducted by a stakeholder organization on acceleration  strategies, for example, noted that faculty may resist working on reforms  and that there is limited research to help “quell the skepticism.” Recent  literature also suggests that faculty support is a key factor to bringing  effective practices to scale. Officials at one community college explained  that new models of learning can be a radical change for some faculty and  many find it difficult to change their teaching styles to adapt to the  unproven curriculum. Officials at this community college also told us that  some faculty members at their college are resistant and skeptical  because they may have different philosophical views about how courses  should be taught. To address these issues, officials in one state we  visited created a task force that included community college and K-12  representatives and sought input from faculty, students, and staff.  Additionally, they relied on the limited research available to help guide  their discussions with faculty and make decisions about the redesign, all  of which helped move the statewide redesign forward with little  resistance.
The Department of Education is taking steps to address some of the  challenges cited by community colleges and states in improving  developmental education by funding a new research center on this topic.  Education officials confirmed that not enough information was available  about successful developmental education strategies. Education officials  further explained that most initiatives did not yet have sufficient data—2  years worth of data or less—to determine what worked. In its Annual  Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2013, Education stated that one of its  goals is enhancing the U.S. education system’s ability to continuously  improve through better and more widespread use of data, research and  evaluation, transparency, innovation, and technology. In light of this goal  and to help further community colleges’ understanding of what works in  developmental education, in May 2013, Education requested proposals  for a National Research Center on Developmental Education Assessment  and Instruction. Education plans for this research center to focus  exclusively on developmental education assessment and instruction in  order to help policy makers and practitioners improve student outcomes.  The goals of the research center are (1) to convene policy makers,  practitioners, and researchers interested in developmental education  reform; (2) to identify promising reforms and support further innovations;  (3) to conduct rigorous evaluations on the effectiveness and cost- effectiveness of models that have the potential to be expanded; and (4) to  bolster efforts by states, colleges, and universities to bring effective  developmental education reforms to scale. An Education official stated  that the Department, through the Center’s research, will first collect a  nationwide inventory on what approaches are being used and then  evaluate different approaches to teaching developmental education. The  Center could address the research needs cited by community college and  state officials to improve developmental education and help  administrators with obtaining faculty buy-in. The research center is  expected to launch in 2014.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Meeting the national goal of increasing the rates of attainment of post- secondary degrees and certificates may be hampered by the significant  numbers of students who enter developmental education and fail to move  toward that outcome. Community colleges and states are initiating new  strategies to address this problem, but the limited research available to  them on what strategies work and for whom is proving challenging.  Education’s research center will serve as a much needed resource for  community colleges and states as they continue to experiment with new  strategies, but only if it is successful in uncovering what works and  helping colleges to put into practice what the Center learns through its  research. Otherwise, community college students entering developmental  education will continue to face hurdles in reaching their goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for  review and comment. Education provided technical comments, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to determine (1) what strategies select  states and community colleges are using to improve developmental  education for community college students and (2) what challenges, if any,  community colleges have identified while implementing these  developmental education strategies.
To address the first objective, we interviewed nonprofit stakeholders with  knowledge of community college issues. We conducted site visits to  Texas, Virginia, and Washington, which had been identified by experts as  doing innovative work in improving developmental education. They also  represent regional diversity. While on those site visits, we interviewed  officials from 10 community colleges as well as representatives from each  state’s education office. We also visited a community college in California,  which brought the total number of schools to 11. These 11 community  colleges were identified by state officials and our own research as  colleges that were implementing changes to developmental education.  Since school officials were selected based on their school’s participation  in developmental education reform efforts, the high incidence of these  initiatives among the interviewed schools should not be interpreted as an  indicator of the incidence of such programs among community colleges  broadly. In addition, we conducted a group interview with community  college officials and other knowledgeable stakeholders—who were  identified by the conference sponsors as being knowledgeable about  developmental education—at a national conference focused on reforming  community college student outcomes. (See table 2 for a full list of  stakeholders, state offices, and community colleges we interviewed  individually and as part of our group interview.) Additionally, we reviewed  selected literature on the topic.
To address the second objective, in addition to the information gathered  in the interviews and literature review addressed above, we interviewed  officials at the Department of Education. The officials were from the  following offices within the Department of Education: the Office of  Vocational and Adult Education; the Office of Federal Student Aid; the  National Center for Education Statistics; and the Office of Planning,  Evaluation, and Policy Development. Additionally, we reviewed pertinent  agency documents, including budget proposals, Requests for Application,  and a list of Education’s current initiatives for community colleges, as well  as relevant laws, regulations, and guidance.
Given that we were examining strategies of a few selected states and  schools, we do not intend for the options and challenges identified by the  stakeholders, state, or community college officials we interviewed to be  an exhaustive list. In addition, we did not assess or evaluate the initiatives  that were proposed to improve developmental education, nor do we  necessarily recommend any such initiatives.
We use indefinite quantifiers when describing the number of stakeholders  or community colleges whose representatives mentioned the topic  referenced in the respective sentence. In using the indefinite quantifiers,  we are only including the 11 community colleges we visited directly as  part of our site visits and the 11 stakeholder organizations whose  representatives we spoke with individually. The community colleges or  stakeholders referenced in the indefinite quantifiers were not part of our  group interview. The indefinite qualifiers categories are listed in table 3:  We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to August 2013  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual above, Janet Mascia (Assistant Director),  David Reed, Vernette Shaw, and Anjali Tekchandani made significant  contributions to this report. Kirsten Lauber, Jessica Botsford, Deborah  Bland, and Holly Dye also contributed to this report.