Skip to content

Supporting Students Across Readiness Levels in Corequisite Models

By Florence Xiaotao Ran

Over the past decade, developmental education has experienced major changes. More than 20 states and higher education systems have moved away from traditional prerequisite models to adopt corequisite remediation. This innovative approach enables students to enroll directly in college-level courses while receiving the additional developmental support they need, all at the same time. Research has shown encouraging results, particularly for students near college-readiness thresholds.

What remains less understood, yet critically important for community colleges, is how students with less academic preparation are adapting in this new era, where nearly all incoming students are placed directly into college-level courses from the start.

These are the questions I explored with my co-author, Hojung Lee, a doctoral candidate in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware, in a forthcoming paper in Education Finance and Policy. Below, I share some of our key findings and their implications for developmental education, especially in math.

I. Corequisite remediation drives greater success in college-level math across all levels of academic preparedness

One of the most exciting findings from our study is that corequisite remediation significantly increased the number of students completing college-level math courses, across all levels of academic preparedness. On average, students experienced a 76% improvement in first-year gateway math completion rates from the prerequisite cohorts. The strongest gains were among students with higher standardized test scores, whose likelihood of passing a gateway math course within their first year—a critical milestone for earning a credential at community colleges—increased by 21 percentage points.

Even for students with the lowest standardized test scores entering college, the chances of completing a gateway math course within the first year rose by 15 percentage points under the corequisite approach. Additionally, we observed a modest 4-percentage-point improvement in the likelihood of earning credits in more advanced math courses.

Why is this happening? Direct access to college-level courses reduced delays caused by lengthy prerequisite sequences. Students with lower test scores particularly benefited from such mainstreaming effects: under the traditional prerequisite model, fewer than 20% of students with the lowest test scores had attempted a college-level math course within two years of enrollment. In contrast, under the corequisite model, more than half of these students were able to take on college-level math—marking a significant step forward in equitable access to college-level curricula.

II. Understanding mixed downstream outcomes for students with lower incoming test scores

While the corequisite model helps more students complete gateway math courses, the story is more complicated for students with the lowest incoming test scores. These students experienced higher dropout rates, lower transfer rates to four-year universities, and lower credential completion rates compared to similar-scoring peers under the prerequisite model.

We want to note here that the rise in dropout rates wasn’t limited to lower-scoring students; it was also observed among higher-scoring remedial students—a phenomenon commonly reported in developmental education research. Nonetheless, the overall negative trends in downstream outcomes for the lowest-scoring students warrant deeper investigation to identify strategies for supporting these learners.

While our study does not answer this question definitively, we offer some potential explanations. Mainstreaming students into college-level courses, especially math, presents challenges for some less academically prepared students. Our data showed that average grades in college-level math courses, including both gateway and advanced courses, declined for students below the college-readiness threshold after the corequisite reform. (It’s worth noting that under the prerequisite model, very few remedial students ever reached college-level math courses, so we lack a direct comparison for their potential performance in those courses.) Struggling with low grades or failing a course early in their college journey can lead to discouragement, disengagement, and even financial setbacks, as many need-based financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants and the Tennessee Promise, require students to maintain a minimum GPA. Colleges should consider ways to combine academic, social-emotional, and financial support to help students stay on track.

III. Supporting instructors to navigate classrooms under corequisite models

Corequisite reform has also transformed the classroom experience. By mainstreaming students of all readiness levels into the same college-level courses, the reform has created more diverse academic environments. Mixing underprepared students with higher-achieving peers has the potential to promote collaborative learning opportunities. However, it also introduces new challenges. Instructors must now address a broader spectrum of student preparedness within a single classroom, which requires adapting teaching strategies to meet diverse needs effectively.

Interestingly, our findings showed that students below college-readiness levels achieved higher gateway math completion rates when their classes included more similar-ability peers. This suggests that classroom dynamics matter, and colleges may need to consider peer composition when structuring corequisite learning support sections and gateway courses. Additionally, instructors need support to meet the demands of teaching such diverse groups. Colleges should consider investing in professional development or training to equip faculty with strategies to manage varied readiness levels, use inclusive teaching practices, and ensure all students have the tools to succeed.

I want to close with an important clarification: the corequisite model is not about eliminating remediation. Instead, it challenges developmental education practitioners and researchers to rethink the timing, structure, curriculum, and pedagogy needed to deliver more effective support to developmental education students. As our findings highlight, corequisite remediation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Students with the lowest levels of preparation still face significant hurdles on the path to success. In this evolving landscape of developmental education reform, institutions must reimagine their support systems to ensure that all students, regardless of their starting point, are equipped to succeed in college-level coursework from the outset.


Dr. Ran is an assistant professor specializing in higher education policy in the School of Education at the University of Delaware. She is also a research affiliate with the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research examines how education resources and policies affect student outcomes in postsecondary institutions, particularly in community colleges, and labor market.