Student Support and Remediation

Student Support and Remediation

As states continue to implement expanded graduation requirements – including additional Carnegie unit requirements and exit exams – it is becoming increasingly important to provide students with opportunities to catch up when they're behind. It's also becoming increasingly important to quickly identify when students begin to get behind to reach out with help before they fail. The information below describes state high school remediation requirements as defined by state statutes and regulations. ECS conducted a comprehensive review of state policies on remediation, and found existing policy for some but not all states. States with no statewide policy are not listed below.

1. Do states require remediation for low-performing high school students?

Why does it matter?
  • States benefit when more of their citizens graduate with a high school diploma, and students benefit when they earn a high school diploma.
  • States, students and the business community benefit when students graduating from high school have adequate skills to succeed on the job.
  • States and students benefit when students are prepared prior to enrollment in postsecondary studies.
  • Students benefit when academic deficiencies are addressed as early as possible in their high school career.
  • Students and schools benefit when student participation in needed remediation is mandatory, and not left to a student's choice to participate.

  • Currently, state-level policies in 33 states focus on the remediation of high school students meeting specific criteria (this number does not include states with blanket remediation policies addressed at low-performing schools and districts).  Policies in these 33 states require districts or schools to do one or more of the following at the high school level: (1) provide remediation , (2) have a program of remediation in place or (3) determine a plan for remediation. Michigan does not explicitly require that remediation be provided to students, but does require that data from the Michigan Merit Examination be provided to allow parents and teachers to prepare remediation plans. Policies explicitly requiring student participation in remediation are noted below. (States shaded in blue currently have relevant remediation policies.)



2. Do states have a process in place for identifying students for remediation?

Why does it matter?
  • Students benefit when schools are provided with clear direction on when and in what subjects to provide remediation.
  • Students benefit when academic deficiencies are caught and addressed early.

How:
 
States commonly use a combination of state and locally adopted measures to identify students in need of remediation. Thirty states use state assessments - including high school exit exams - to determine student eligibility for remediation. Seventeen states direct districts to use locally determined indicators, including locally-adopted assessments, promotion policies or classroom performance. Five states identify other indicators. For example, students identified in Mississippi are those who have failed two ore more grades or have been suspended or expelled for 20 or more days.

When:

Thirty-one states specify a grade level at which students are first identified through one or more of the above measures as in need of remediation.
  • 9th grade: 21 states
  • 10th grade: 5 states
  • 11th grade: 5 states
In interpreting these numbers, it is important to note that individual state policies may identify students prior to high school - as is the case in Utah and Nevada - and that many states have multiple remediation policies aimed at different grade levels.

Subject areas:
Listed below are the number of states that require remediation for underperformance in specified subject areas:

  • English/language arts: 30 (Although many states specifically indicate reading or writing, for the purposes of this database, English language arts includes reading, writing and literacy.)
  • Mathematics: 29
  • Science: 22
  • Social studies: 9

3. Do states encourage or require individual learning plans for at-risk students?

Why does it matter?
  • Low-performing students benefit from personalized learning plans that address their specific area of deficiency.
 
Nineteen states currently require what can be termed "individual learning plans" for identified students. (This is distinct from state policies requiring such plans for all students; interested readers may find information on individual learning plans for all students here.) These policies include Arkansas' requirement that personal education plans be implemented for students identified as at-risk for academic failure and New Mexico's requirement that identified 8th graders be retained or provided with a graduation plan.

4. Do states allow alternative paths to standard high school diplomas?

Why does it matter?
  • States and students benefit when there are alternative pathways for at-risk or out-of-school youth to earn standard diplomas.


ECS has identified policies in 16 states that provide alternatives for at-risk or out-of-school youth to work toward graduating from high school with a standard diploma. These policies are distinct from traditional alternative schooling options in that they feature an emphasis on returning students to the regular classroom, provide options for students to earn their diploma at postsecondary institutions, allow for flexibility in a student's schedule or allow students to earn credit through demonstrated mastery of content.

Listed policies do not include competency-based credit programs aimed at all students, early college high schools or programs that lead to a GED or an adult high school diploma. (An upcoming ECS database will examine early college high schools in the states.)

5. Do states require that remedial programs be evaluated?

Why does it matter?
  • Students benefit when districts (or states) are held accountable for providing high-quality remediation programs.
  • Policymakers and practitioners – not to mention parents and taxpayers – need to know if resources and time are being put to good use.


Policies in 10 states explicitly require districts to evaluate their remediation programs - Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Georgia's department of education is required to annually evaluate the state's remedial education program.

Methodology: This information was collected from state statutes, rules and regulations, and will be updated as new policies and programs are enacted. Additions or corrections to listed policies are welcome.

Last updated: June 25, 2007
 
Please contact Jennifer Dounay Zinth with questions or comments about the database. Email: jdounay@ecs.org



Louisiana

Student Support and Remediation
State requires remediation for low-performing high school students Yes, districts must offer remediation, students may opt out with written documentation.
State specifies a process for identifying students to receive additional subject time in certain subject areas How: Student performance on the state Graduation Exit Examination (GEE) tests.
When: State's GEE exit exam is first administered in the 10th grade.
Subject Areas: English language arts, mathematics, social studies and science.
State requires individual learning plans for at-risk students No. (Although students must be provided with 50 hours of instruction in the subject in which they failed to achieve proficiency on the Graduate Exit Exam.)
State provides alternatives for at-risk/out-of-school youth to earn a standard high school diploma Yes, 2006 legislation directs the state board and the board of supervisors of community and technical colleges to establish a means for schools to award postsecondary technical college credit and high school credit for units taken at either a community college, technical college or high school. Encouraging the participation of students who appear to be likely dropouts is a goal and main focus of partnerships between local boards and community and technical colleges.

The state board is directed, during the 2007-08 school year, to select at least two partnerships to undertake sharing at least 10% of potential dropouts identified by a local board and providing for their dual enrollment. Participating schools and institutions are required to report the effect of the implementation on students and difficulties encountered during the partnership. Based on information gathered during the pilot year, the board is authorized to extend the pilot and increase the number of partnerships for a second school year, or scale dual enrollment partnerships up to include any number of partnerships that appear viable and supportable.
State policy requires district or state to evaluate student remediation program Yes, districts are required to annually submit an evaluation to the state board.
Sources Remediation: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17:24.4, LA. ADMIN. CODE TIT. 28, § XXXIX.911, LA. ADMIN. CODE TIT. 28, § XXXIX.913
Remediation Evaluation: LA. ADMIN. CODE TIT. 28, § XXXIX.913
Individual Learning Plans: LA. ADMIN. CODE TIT. 28, § XXXIX.911
Alternatives: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17:187.1 - LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17:187.5

© 2018 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide, nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education. 700 Broadway #810, Denver, CO 80203-3442

To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please contact the Education Commission of the States’ Communications Department at 303.299.3609 or askinner@ecs.org.

Your Education Policy Team  www.ecs.org