How remediation and transfer policies increase structural racism in higher education (opinion)

[ad_1]

Like many others, I entered higher education administration with the aim of making the university equally accessible to all. Ultimately, as the academic director of the New York City University system for six years, I have had the opportunity to establish and maintain many academic policies for hundreds of thousands of students – all aimed, I thought, at providing the best possible education for every student. However, I now understand, through my own research and that of others, that some of the current policies that I initiated, maintained and promoted were, and are, structurally racist.

While we recognize that some classroom instruction and other direct human interactions are racist, how can higher education policies be racist? Especially in a public institution such as CUNY with a place for every high school graduate, low tuition fees and significant financial support, as well as plenty of data showing that it promotes social mobility.

Racism does not only occur in the behavior of one individual towards another. Racism can also be embedded in institutional policies and practices, which is called structural racism. Specifically, structural racism exists when institutional policies and practices make people from under-represented racial groups more likely to be disadvantaged, even unintentionally. And we have found that (at least) two characteristics of higher education can be characterized as structural racism: remediation (requiring students to take pre-university courses in math and / or reading / writing, intended to prepare them for the future). (university-working level) and the lack of transfer of credits from associate’s programs to bachelor’s programs.

Remediation

First, consider remediation. Large percentages of college students in the United States (59 percent in associate programs and 33 percent in undergraduate programs) take at least one remedial course; many others had to take such courses but did not. Students assigned to such courses are more likely to be black, Latin, and poor.

Evidence shows that assignment to remediation does not just depend on what a student knows or can do. For example, college counselors are more likely to assign Latinx students to remediation than white students with similar credentials. On tests such as the placement tests often used to determine remediation assignment, students from under-represented racial groups score worse if the tests ask them to indicate their racial status.

Additionally, these tests often underestimate students: a quarter to a third of students who fail them would score a B or better if they took college-level courses. Additionally, when colleges only use placement tests to assign remedial measures, students from under-represented groups score relatively worse than when colleges use high school grades, and high school grades predict generally better college performance than test scores. Yet many colleges continue to use test scores for placement in remediation.

And being assigned to sanitation is a bottomless pit. Less than 50 percent of students complete their assigned remedial courses, either because they don’t pass or simply because they don’t. Moreover, the evidence shows that such internships stigmatize students and undermine their motivation. Colleges require students in remedial classes to repeat what they already did in high school and essentially tell them that they are not yet ready for college work. If students do not pass these remedial courses, they cannot graduate.

There is a better way: co-requisite remediation (also known as co-requisite support). In this approach, students are placed in college-level classes, with additional and targeted academic support as needed. There is abundant and rigorous evidence that concomitant remediation improves academic performance and even increases graduation rates – by nearly 50 percent in our research. California and Tennessee, for example, have had significant success with this approach.

Yet despite all the evidence, traditional remediation continues at many colleges, such as South Carolina, and especially community colleges, which consist primarily of associate’s degree programs and host higher percentages of students from under-represented groups. In all colleges, faculty members generally control the programs and some faculty oppose the removal of traditional remediation because of their belief, despite evidence to the contrary, that this is the best route to recovery. student success. As a result, many students are disadvantaged, but especially students from under-represented groups.

Community colleges are home to over 30% of U.S. students, and 80% of community college freshmen intend to earn at least a bachelor’s degree – an appropriate goal, as a bachelor’s degree is increasingly required to earn a bachelor’s degree. use. However, six years after starting college, only 17 percent of community college freshmen graduated with a bachelor’s degree. Remediation is a big part of it.

Credit transfer

Even if a community college student overcomes the barrier of remediation, credit transfer, our second example of structural racism in higher education, threatens the transition from a community college to a bachelor’s degree program. The US Government Accountability Office has estimated that, on average, transfer students lose 43% of their credits. Even when the credits are transferred, they can be transferred as elective credits, which do not apply to any general education or major baccalaureate requirements. Thus, transfer students often have to retake classes, accumulating more total credits than their degrees require. During this time, financial aid may not cover these excess credits.

Since students in associated community college programs are more likely to come from under-represented groups, they are more likely to be harmed by the lack of credit transfer. This harm is largely a consequence of the actions of the colleges. If two students, equivalent in all respects, both want a bachelor’s degree and one starts at a community college and the other starts in a bachelor’s program, the one starting at a community college will be less likely to get the bachelor’s degree. At least part of the reason is the lack of credit transfer.

Colleges can tackle such problems, but doing so is cumbersome. Colleges generally receive income based on the number of credits they teach, and therefore have an incentive to decline transfer credits. Professors usually decide which credits are transferred, and they are encouraged to decline credits for several reasons, including pressure from an administrator and / or the faculty member’s desire to continue teaching the same courses – which must be sufficiently registered. As a result, often only a higher authority – such as a central office of the college system, the state legislature (as in the case of Minnesota) or an independent third party such as the American Council on Education, with its equivalency guides. of course – can facilitate policies that guarantee credit transfer.

Related structural issues

The connection between the problems associated with traditional remediation and credit transfer is the fact that faculty members at some colleges do not award transfer credits to college-level courses taught with concomitant remediation. Thus, students assessed as needing remediation can either take a course that they are likely to fail or take a course that will not be transferred.

As Academic Director of CUNY, I have supported traditional remediation including its assignment on placement tests and teaching (at CUNY) only in community colleges. I thought giving everyone the same test at the same time was the best and fairest way to assess their academic skills. (It doesn’t.) And I thought confining remediation to community colleges was an efficient use of resources, allowing them to specialize in remedial courses while bachelor colleges specialize in non-remedial courses. . I did not understand that such policies make it particularly difficult for underrepresented students to obtain a bachelor’s degree. I now understand how such practices constitute structural racism.

These inequalities have already been pointed out. For example, remediation has been described as a civil rights issue, and obstacles to transfer have been characterized as a violation of educational justice. But they both constitute structural racism.

Higher education does not always imply equal opportunities. It is not immune to the structural racism that permeates other areas of our lives. We can reduce structural racism in higher education by replacing all traditional corrective measures with complementary support and ensuring a credit transfer applicable to degrees. These concrete steps will help ensure that everyone has access to the many rewards that come with earning a university degree. And those actions should be taken by whoever has the capacity to make change – preferably, by the faculty, but if they don’t, by presidents, provosts and deans. And if they don’t, such action should be taken by boards of directors, and if they don’t, by lawmakers or accreditation agencies. Equity in higher education is at stake.

[ad_2]