Who gets placed in which courses and whether they succeed as a result is a major educational and racial equity issue for California’s community college students. After passing two laws (AB 1705 and AB 705) in recent years to rectify problematic approaches to remediation, California Community Colleges are now at a crossroads, facing two distinct paths. One leads forward by continuing to implement those laws, cementing a landmark step in educational equity and student success. The other path leads backward by reverting math courses for students pursuing a STEM (science, technology, engineering, or math) major to the old status quo of ineffective and detrimental remedial and prerequisite courses. Research consistently shows that remedial and prerequisite courses hold students back—especially students of color—by denying them access to credit-bearing coursework, extending their journeys to a degree, costing them more in tuition, and sending the message that they can’t succeed.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of incomplete information going around that doesn’t reflect what the research says, especially regarding the racial equity implications for students. Here are some of the most common myths and what you need to know about why they’re false:
Myth #1: Remedial and prerequisite courses help students stay on track to complete college.
Truth: Remediation and prerequisite courses are ineffective and lead to high dropout rates.
While remedial and prerequisite courses were initially designed to help students succeed in general education, they have the opposite effect in practice. The truth is remedial and prerequisite courses uphold low expectations, are a gatekeeping tactic, maintain structural racism, and are a driver of racial achievement gaps for Black and Latinx students. For instance, students placed into prerequisite college math courses as “preparation” for calculus had higher attrition and reduced success in calculus, a finding that aligns with research on remedial education overall. This is crucial for any student who aspires to pursue medicine, tech, engineering, data science, environmental science, or STEM education, as calculus is almost always the first step to pursuing a major in computer science, biology, chemistry, physics, or engineering. In other words, lengthy sequences of remedial courses create numerous opportunities for students, including would-be STEM majors, to disengage and drop out.
Myth #2: Students pursuing STEM majors can’t succeed if they go straight into credit-bearing calculus courses.
Truth: Remedial courses actually harm students’ chances of succeeding in calculus.
Students who take remedial math are less likely to succeed in calculus than if they had gone straight into calculus—even with no academic support. AB 705 and AB 1705 ensure they get that chance, supplemented by research-backed academic support strategies. As a result, direct access to transfer-level coursework is proven to narrow equity gaps and help students transfer to four-year universities. Statewide research found that enrolling in calculus right away benefits all student groups—good news for students of color, who often face much greater barriers to success. Students who started in STEM calculus (introduction to calculus for STEM majors) not only completed the course successfully but also progressed to the second STEM calculus course at higher rates. Early implementers of AB 1705, such as Cuyumaca College, are seeing promising results for students with no precalculus experience who enroll in STEM Calculus with two units of support. Twice as many students successfully passed the calculus course in half the time, compared to those taking precalculus. Another early adopter, Chaffey College, found that allowing more students to enroll directly in calculus with the option of additional support (known as corequisites) led to a 70% increase in calculus completion in half the time.
Myth #3: AB 1705 is too rigid and burdens community colleges.
Truth: Community colleges have a range of implementation support options available, including dedicated funding and flexibility.
AB 1705 doesn’t prohibit colleges from offering pre-requisite courses—if they work. Colleges simply must demonstrate that they are effective at helping students pass calculus. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office also offered flexibility by granting colleges an additional two years to innovate and develop effective prerequisite courses that meet that burden of proof. In 2022, every college received funding to support the implementation of AB 1705, amounting to an investment of $64 million from the state.
Myth #4: AB 1705 isn’t working.
Truth: AB 1705 works—when it’s implemented.
Policy victories without effective implementation fall short of achieving their intended outcomes. Unfortunately, some interest groups are advocating against implementing the law, seeking to undermine its benefits to students. This situation feels all too familiar. We saw similar resistance seven years ago, when a related law, AB 705, was signed to address the harmful effects of remedial education on California Community College students. However, when colleges and faculty embraced the challenge and committed to implementation, something remarkable happened: real progress was made. AB 705 implementation produced large completion gains in English and math for every group examined, including those most marginalized by our higher education systems like Black and Latinx students, students over the age of 35, low-income students, students with disabilities, STEM students with weaker math preparation, foster youth, and veterans. To replicate the remarkable progress achieved with AB 705, colleges must fully commit to implementing its sister law, AB 1705.
Students of color and other marginalized groups deserve the chance to participate in California’s powerful STEM economy. At this fork in the road, California Community Colleges and policymakers must choose progress—not regression. EdTrust-West, alongside a coalition of advocates, is calling for the full implementation of AB 1705, which protects students from having their educational careers derailed by remedial courses and ineffective course sequences. We request that the legislature hold an oversight hearing on course placement policies to ensure districts and colleges are implementing AB 1705 with fidelity.
