Corequisite Math Might Be Less Effective Than Thought

New research by the Brookings Institution out of Kentucky raises questions about how effective corequisite support—in which an underprepared student takes a college class while also receiving additional support—really is, the think tank reported this week.

In English classes, corequisite support proved effective; students who were assigned corequisite support were five percentage points more likely to pass college English in their first year than students who came in with similar scores who didn’t receive the remedial support. It was also more effective than prerequisites, in which students must complete non-credit-bearing courses before they can take the college-level class. But in math, corequisites and prerequisites alike had no significant impact on students.

These findings challenge the commonly help notion that corequisite courses are an effective strategy to help underprepared students succeed in college-level English and math. But the study, which analyzed academic performance in the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, indicates that the so-called corequisite effect in math shows students completing gateway math courses at higher rates because they’re taking courses other than college algebra. Still, the findings note that corequisites are still better than prerequisites, and adding prerequisites on top of corequisite support does not help the least prepared students.

“Delaying access to college-level coursework, even with good intentions, tends to hold students back rather than prepare them for future coursework,” the report says.

The report says that it’s not yet clear what is the most effective strategy for preparing these students for college coursework, but it may come down to how different corequisite models are designed.