Is subscription-based online education a successful strategy for remedial education? Burck Smith, co-founder of SMARTHINKING argues in a September publication that “call center” style online courses would prove more affordable for both students and colleges.
“According to one recent report, the cost of offering these courses exceeds $2 billion a year, of which approximately $800 million is borne by students and families in tuition and fees,” writes Burck for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Educational Outlook. He was referring to the 2008 Strong American Schools Diploma to Nowhere report, which was based on 2004-05 Department of Education data and measured the costs of remedial education at public two- and four-year schools.
The SAS study, a program of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, found that during the 2004-05 academic year blacks, hispanics, low-income students and students whose parents had a “High school diploma or less” were more likely to be enrolled in remedial courses.
Demand for remedial education is more prevalent at community colleges, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data shows. Forty-two percent of freshman students at public 2-year colleges enrolled in remedial courses in the Fall of 2000. In contrast, between 12 and 24 percent of freshmen at public 4-year colleges enrolled in remedial courses that semester.
“Of students taking developmental courses, data suggest that 40–50 percent will not complete the developmental sequence,” writes Burck. “Of those who do, only 29 percent will complete a bachelor’s degree.”
“According to these numbers, any student who places into developmental education has only a 13 percent chance of eventually receiving a bachelor’s degree.”
If 40 percent or more of students will fail to complete their remedial coursework—and some of them do so because they are bored by the slow academic pace—then it makes little sense to “punish” those who end their courses early, Burck argues. Instead, a $100-per-month college subscription provides a cost-incentive for good academic behavior and spares early dropouts from unnecessary debt.
However, Burck’s calculations focus more on decreasing academic costs rather than raising academic proficiency. “Based on these assumptions, a subscription model can deliver savings of over 50 percent, and many students who would otherwise be poorer with little or nothing to show for it will have spent only $100 to test the postsecondary waters,” he writes.
Burck’s estimated “savings” charts also show the “drop, fail, withdraw” as remaining at 40 percent under this model, in order to make the comparison relevant. However, one might question whether controlling costs—or increasing the number of disadvantaged students able to succeed in college-level studies—constitutes a better emphasis for remedial education.
Bethany Stotts is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.
