The CUNY Remediation Debate and Coalitions: Information Matters

Abstract

This single case study uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Multiple Streams Framework to understand the ways higher education policy actors at the city-, state-, and system-level used information to build coalitions and change admission standards during the remediation debate at the City University of New York. By examining what information was used, when it was presented, by whom, and for what purposes, this study helps improve our understanding of the policymaking process and the role information can play in high-stakes debates with major consequences, including limiting student access to baccalaureate degrees. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.

Academic interventions and students’ success for conditionally admitted students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study at one university

“…CA students and other academically unprepared students by definition show some skill deficit or a categorically low score on an entrance exam (Parker & Richardson Jr., 2005;Russell, 1998). Some of the earliest research used terms like "educationally marginal students" (Richards & Casey, 1975), based on variables that included: "(1) personality measures from the Test of Effective Academic Motivation (TEAM); (2) overall measures of fluency, flexibility, and originality from selected items of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; (3) verbal and numerical SAT scores; (4) high school GPA; and (5) sex" (Richards & Casey, 1975).…”

“…Pizzolato (2004) discussed at-risk being more associated with attributes a student does or does not have and high-risk being more associated with a student's risk of withdrawing from an institution or failing courses. Institutions sometimes tag students upon admission with similar labels, such as academically at-risk or academically underprepared (Parker & Richardson Jr., 2005;Russell, 1998).…”

“…Literature in other categories, such as studies on developmental education, overlaps some with the literature on CA students. The overlap between developmental education and CA students is seen in that many institutions see developmental education as an opportunity to support students who do not meet the full admissions standards (Hodges & White Jr., 2001;Parker & Richardson Jr., 2005;Turk, 2019;Yue et al, 2018). Developmental education and remediation are sometimes used interchangeably (Rodriguez et al, 2018).…”

“…Conditional admission programs often have a higher percentage of students of color, first-generation students, and students with a lower socioeconomic status than the general institutional population (Bulger & Watson, 2006;DeVilbiss, 2014;Gentsch, 2016;Heaney & Fisher, 2011;Laskey & Hetzel, 2011;Parker & Richardson Jr., 2005). The rates of developmental education enrollment are also higher for minoritized students and low-income students, with 56% of African American students enrolled in a developmental education course, 45% of Latinx students enrolled in developmental courses, and 35% of white students enrolled in a developmental education course (Engelman, 2021).…”