Corequisite remediation works, regardless of creator’s arguments (letter)


To the Editor:

The opinion piece entitled “Remediation is Not the Enemy” argues that reforming conventional remediation, particularly the corequisite mannequin, deprives college students of studying alternatives in pre-requisite developmental programs. Among the many information the creator cites are two studies from a randomized managed trial performed on the Metropolis College of New York in 2013.

Together with Mari Watanabe-Rose, we’re the co-authors of these research. The creator of the opinion piece makes an attempt to leverage our statistics to argue {that a} sub-group of scholars assigned to conventional remediation have been the truth is extra profitable than these college students randomly assigned to corequisite programs. There are each factual and interpretive points with these claims.

The crux of the issues with the creator’s claims is that he’s making them primarily based on a restricted subgroup from an RCT (right here, college students who handed conventional remediation and faculty stage math), and this isn’t an applicable approach to analyze such information. These are college students who, if assigned to corequisite, would probably have been much more profitable.  Certainly, in the event you move a course that’s tough to move, a course that’s notably alienating and discouraging for a lot of college students, and then you definitely move one other course, that definitely says one thing about who you might be as a pupil. It doesn’t say that the remedial course made you higher. This can be a basic instance of spurious reasoning, and of “swapping trigger for impact.”

If we may randomly assign individuals to move (not simply take) remedial programs, that will enable us to infer the true impact of passing a remedial course on subsequent outcomes. However such a random project shouldn’t be attainable.

What we observe causally in our RCT is that college students assigned to corequisite programs have been extra prone to move this primary assigned math course; and that this additional prompted many constructive short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes, together with increased degree completion and wages.

What “studying alternative” did corequisite college students miss? If there was such a missed alternative, it might have manifested sooner or later within the follow-up evaluation. Corequisite college students would have proven decrease course move charges, decreased commencement charges (affiliate or bachelor’s), decreased persistence, and/or decreased wages after faculty. However in our seven-year follow-up, we present that corequisite college students carried out higher on all of those metrics than did college students assigned to conventional remediation.

A closing level issues the declare that corequisite reform is an elimination of developmental schooling. The co-requisite – which in our experiment was peer tutoring, however has since taken many other forms – is developmental schooling. What corequisite does is present faculty college students with just-in-time, focused help to do effectively in faculty, reasonably than make them repeat work they already accomplished in highschool as a hurdle to full participation as faculty college students. Our examine demonstrates that this can be a more practical means of supporting college students with long-lasting advantages.

–Daniel Douglas
Teacher of sociology and director of Social Science Analysis
Trinity Faculty

–Alexandra W. Logue
Analysis Professor
Middle for Superior Examine in Training
Metropolis College of New York


Our names are Fareedah and Kamilah Amoo. We are seven and five year’s old sisters and live in Ontario, Canada, with our parents and little brother, Awad. We love writing stories, painting on canva, coding, reading books, and enjoying arts and crafts. Our goal is to motivate every child worldwide to read more books.

Related Posts



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected


Recent Stories