Infographic by Michael Uribes / The Collegian
Fresno State reported an estimated 60 percent of incoming first-time freshman have not attained college-level proficiency in English or math during high school, requiring them to take remedial courses once they get to the university.
To help lower the number of those who need remediation, the California State University (CSU) board of trustees initiated an “early start” program that will help categorize those students who will need remediation and get them on the path to proficiency before they enter college.
Paul Oliaro, the vice president for student affairs who co-chaired the initiative, said he is hopeful that this early assessment program will lower the percentage of students who are falling behind in the fundamental skills of learning.
Oliaro said math and English remediation is important, because they are lifelong skils.
“Hopefully, this will provide motivation to acquire proficiency in English and math in their high school years,” Oliaro said.
Oliaro said that high school students will be able to take several tests as early as their junior year to determine their proficiency in both English and math. Taking several exams through the Early Assessment Program (EAP), students will learn what subjects they are either deficient or proficient in.
Oliaro said students who do not score 550 or higher on the SAT math, reasoning or critical reading sections will be required to take the entry level math exam or the English placement test to determine if they are proficient.
“All students who are not proficient in math would have to do remediation before enrolling in 2012,” Oliaro said. “In English only, the students most at risk would do it [remediation] by the year 2012. By 2014, all remediation should begin before students enroll.”
Most of the deficient students at Fresno State, Oliaro said, took remediation courses at the university. Under the new system, all students would have to become proficient at their high school or in the summer before enrolling for their freshman year. The program is planned to affect freshman entering in the fall of 2012.
“What it does is put a little more emphasis on preparation in high school,” Oliaro said. “One of the ways students won’t have to worry about taking remedial courses is by being proficient in high school.”
Oliaro said when the program is in full effect, students who do not become proficient after their freshman year will have to look elsewhere for their education.
“If you do not complete remediation in either math or English then you can’t continue at Fresno State,” Oliaro said. “You would then have to go to a community college.”
Oliaro said that one of the goals of this initiative, besides increasing proficiency, is increasing the graduation rates.
“Once this is in place and has a chance to get implemented, it should increase graduation rates,” Oliaro said.
Oliaro said that only 48 percent of Fresno State students graduate in six years or less due to changing of majors, and Fresno State is ahead of the average.
“Fresno State is above average in the CSU [system],” Oliaro said. “We have a whole plan in place to raise our graduation rates by 6 percent, by 2015.”
Vivian Franco, the director of admissions, said that more Fresno State students need remediation than the CSU average, but the faculty and administration have taken the steps to counteract that number.
“In English and math we have been slightly higher than the average systemwide,” Franco said. “But, for remediation we have a 98-percent success rate at the end of one year, so nearly all of our students remediated after one year.”
Franco also said asking high schools and their students to be able to become fully proficient in the summer before entering college is an out-of-reach expectation in these times.
“I think the board of trustees would really like that, but at the same time I don’t think, realistically, we are there yet,” Franco said. “A lot of students are accepting jobs and contributing to their families in these hard economic times.”
Franco said instead the CSU opted to discover what kind of activities can be offered to students in the summer to be ready for university coursework, such as remediation during their freshman years or taking online courses over the summer that will count as remediation.
Stefaan Delcroix, the chair of the mathematics department, said he hopes these measures will greatly reduce remediation, but he remains realistic.
“Sure, I would hope that at some point we will have fewer students [needing remediation], but the reality is that we will need remedial math for a long time,” Delcroix said.
Delcroix said the mathematics department has been doing its part to help in remediation, and students already have options to obtain proficiency at the university.
“We believe that those students who are not ready to do college coursework must be prepared,” Delcroix said. “That’s mostly why we have two kinds of math remediation.”
According to the CSU Web site, 25,000 freshman are required to take remediation courses every year learning things that should have been taught in high school. Also according to the Web site, “the cost in time and money to these students and to the state is substantial.”
Phil Zastrow • Oct 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Oh there it is again. The spector of “graduation rates” is among us. So, what is a rate? A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity. So, what is wrong with increasing the graduation ‘rate?’ Well, the problem is that the rate is not tied to the total population of college age individuals in the state. It is tied to the input only. So, if we increase eligibility requirements, the input goes down, but the ‘rate’ is predicted to go up. Using real numbers – 200 input, with 50% completion rate means 100 students graduate. But if there is 100 input and 60% completion you get a yield of 60 graduates. Whoops! Should we be looking for increasing the ‘rate’ of graduation of students in college, or the rate of college completion in our total population. If we don’t want to have a revolution, or the no less dire outcome, an undereducated population, I think the latter is smarter.
Margaret Rustick • Apr 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm
There are a few inaccuracies in your article on the Early Start initiative that will force students to begin remediation in the summer. This misinformation is particularly disturbing when it comes from Paul Oliaro, co-chair of the statewide Early Start task force. The article states, “Under the new system, all students would have to become proficient at their high school or in the summer before enrolling for their freshman year.” That is completely untrue. Students must begin but not complete remediation in the summer. Granted, Oliaro is not quoted as saying that exactly, but I’m curious what he did say that gave the author that impression.
Oliaro is quoted as saying this program will hopefully “provide motivation to acquire proficiency in English and math in their high school years,” and will “put a little more emphasis on preparation in high school.” Oliaro seems to assume that remediation is caused by students’ lack of motivation, and that if high school students just tried harder, they would be proficient when they arrive. However, those students have earned a minimum 3.0 high school GPA. Many of them have taken AP classes. They have already done everything their high school teachers asked of them. How can anyone assume they are unmotivated?
The article also states, “Oliaro said when the program is in full effect, students who do not become proficient after their freshman year will have to look elsewhere for their education.” In fact, Executive Order 665, which went into effect in fall 1998, already requires CSU campuses to disenroll students who have not completed remediation. Furthermore, as Vivian Franco, the director of admissions, notes, 98% of Fresno students currently complete remediation by the end of the first year without Early Start. Early Start does nothing beneficial that isn’t already being done.
Finally, Oliaro says, “Once this is in place and has a chance to get implemented, it should increase graduation rates.” There is absolutely no evidence that forcing students to take summer courses improves graduation rates. In national studies over the last several years, the only factor that consistently correlates to graduation rates is parents’ income. The more money your parents have, the more likely you are to graduate.
Early Start does not solve any problems that existing programs have not already solved, as evident in the 98% success rate of students who complete classes during their regular freshman year. Instead, Early Start is a barrier, another obstacle for students who have satisfied all admissions requirements. Forcing them to start in the summer will cost students and the school money that no one can afford. It does not help students, and it will not reduce the need for remediation. A student who starts remediation in the summer is still a student who needs remediation. Why not let them start in the fall like every other student? Early Start is a bad idea that creates more problems than it solves.
Margaret Rustick • Apr 16, 2010 at 10:19 am
There are a few inaccuracies in your article on the Early Start initiative that will force students to begin remediation in the summer. This misinformation is particularly disturbing when it comes from Paul Oliaro, co-chair of the statewide Early Start task force. The article states, “Under the new system, all students would have to become proficient at their high school or in the summer before enrolling for their freshman year.” That is completely untrue. Students must begin but not complete remediation in the summer. Granted, Oliaro is not quoted as saying that exactly, but I'm curious what he did say that gave the author that impression.
Oliaro is quoted as saying this program will hopefully “provide motivation to acquire proficiency in English and math in their high school years,” and will “put a little more emphasis on preparation in high school.” Oliaro seems to assume that remediation is caused by students' lack of motivation, and that if high school students just tried harder, they would be proficient when they arrive. However, those students have earned a minimum 3.0 high school GPA. Many of them have taken AP classes. They have already done everything their high school teachers asked of them. How can anyone assume they are unmotivated?
The article also states, “Oliaro said when the program is in full effect, students who do not become proficient after their freshman year will have to look elsewhere for their education.” In fact, Executive Order 665, which went into effect in fall 1998, already requires CSU campuses to disenroll students who have not completed remediation. Furthermore, as Vivian Franco, the director of admissions, notes, 98% of Fresno students currently complete remediation by the end of the first year without Early Start. Early Start does nothing beneficial that isn't already being done.
Finally, Oliaro says, “Once this is in place and has a chance to get implemented, it should increase graduation rates.” There is absolutely no evidence that forcing students to take summer courses improves graduation rates. In national studies over the last several years, the only factor that consistently correlates to graduation rates is parents' income. The more money your parents have, the more likely you are to graduate.
Early Start does not solve any problems that existing programs have not already solved, as evident in the 98% success rate of students who complete classes during their regular freshman year. Instead, Early Start is a barrier, another obstacle for students who have satisfied all admissions requirements. Forcing them to start in the summer will cost students and the school money that no one can afford. It does not help students, and it will not reduce the need for remediation. A student who starts remediation in the summer is still a student who needs remediation. Why not let them start in the fall like every other student? Early Start is a bad idea that creates more problems than it solves.