This 50-State Comparison examines state and systemwide developmental education policies. Developmental education, sometimes referred to as remedial education, is designed to develop foundational knowledge in reading, writing and mathematics for students whom the institution deems underprepared for college-level course work based on placement policies and readiness assessments.
Traditional developmental education practices have frequently acted as barriers to student success, most notably for racially minoritized students, adult learners and low-income students who are overrepresented in these courses. These non-credit courses extend time to graduation, increase dropout rates and leave students with debt but no credentials. Over the past three decades, colleges and universities have implemented reforms to create more equitable outcomes in first-year English and courses, also known as gateway courses.
The Strong Start to Finish framework builds on these developmental education reform efforts by emphasizing four key evidence-based areas of reform:
These approaches focus on diversifying placement criteria with multiple measures beyond standardized assessments, replacing traditional remedial courses with corequisite models for accelerated credit earning, aligning first credit-bearing mathematics courses with degree pathways and prioritizing momentum metrics alongside localized and disaggregated data. Evidence shows that these strategies improve student outcomes by helping students earn more credits and progress toward credential completion.
Note: Depending on the higher education governance structure in each state, a state may have several policies included in this resource. System-level initiatives, collaborations and programs are excluded. Consequently, while the Strong Start to Finish framework informs this scan, Alignment — which focuses on aligning first-year credit-bearing mathematics courses with degree pathways — is excluded, as these reforms typically occur through system initiatives or transfer agreements, which are not uniformly tracked as state policy.
Click on the questions below for a 50-State Comparison showing how states and postsecondary systems approach these policies. Or view a specific state’s approach by going to the individual state profiles page.
Placement reform policies use multiple measures beyond standardized test scores to predict student success in gateway courses regarded as credit-bearing English and mathematics classes more accurately.
Key Terms
Cut Score: The lowest scores a student can receive on an assessment to be considered college ready.
Multiple Measures: Evidence beyond an assessment score that a student may present that can be used to determine if they are ready to be placed into a college-level course. High school GPA is recognized as the best predictor and can be used in conjunction with other methods. In this resource, the following categories are used:
Acceleration reform policies aim to replace long sequences of developmental education courses with accelerated corequisite models. These models are known to increase the chances of students completing gateways courses in their first year, thus accelerating their progression towards graduation. Instructional methods and corequisite support are essential data points for acceleration reforms because they demonstrate how states ensure students succeed in credit-bearing gateway courses while receiving targeted academic assistance.
Key Terms
Corequisite Support: Sometimes referred to as corequisite remediation, corequisite support is a model that provides students with immediate access to credit-bearing, college-level courses, while concurrently offering targeted academic support. State and system policies were examined to determine whether corequisite support is proposed and, if so, whether it is allowed or required.
Instructional Methods: The strategies used to design and implement corequisite support models. If corequisites are allowed or required, the instructional formats were reviewed. They include, but are not limited to:
Data reform policies involve collecting, reporting and using disaggregated student data to support successful completion of credit-bearing English and mathematics courses within the students’ first year of enrollment.
Key Terms
Reporting Requirements: Effective data practices emphasize reporting momentum metrics, localized information and disaggregated data to address gaps among racially minoritized students, adult learners and low-income students. In this resource, the following reporting requirements were reviewed:
View individual state profiles on developmental education policies by selecting a state below or view 50-State Comparisons on each data point.
View individual state profiles by selecting a state below, or view 50-State Comparisons on each data point.
School accountability systems serve many purposes, including sharing information, measuring progress toward state and local goals, highlighting gaps in performance between student groups, and identifying schools for support and additional resources. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states were directed to update their school accountability systems to comply with federal law.
ESSA was viewed as an opportunity for additional flexibility for state leaders to measure priorities beyond achievement and growth as measured by state assessment results, including English language proficiency, graduation rates, college and career readiness, student engagement and school climate. Most states updated their existing state accountability systems to comply with ESSA, while others opted to maintain separate federal and state accountability systems relying on different measures and reporting mechanisms for each.
Since state ESSA plans were approved, COVID-19 pandemic school closures resulted in a two-year pause on state accountability. Additionally, states have amended their ESSA plans to account for shifting priorities and legislative changes, challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and implementation lessons.
This 50-State Comparison will offer comprehensive information on state systems for federal accountability — as captured in state ESSA plans and state education agency resources — and identify states that maintain a separate accountability system. Each state’s accountability system is unique, so some nuances may not be represented in this 50-State Comparison.
Click on the questions below to access 50-State Comparisons for each of the data points or choose to view a specific state’s approach by going to the individual state profiles page.
Related Resources
View individual state profiles by selecting a state below, or view 50-state comparisons on each data point.
Updated: June 4, 2024
View individual state profiles on state longitudinal data systems by selecting a state below or view 50-State Comparisons on each data point.
The rising cost of postsecondary education is a barrier many students face, and it may be felt even more acutely by individuals impacted by the justice system. While the FAFSA Simplification Act restored federal Pell Grant eligibility for students with drug convictions and those in carceral settings, Pell Grants often do not cover the full cost of attendance. State financial aid programs might help fill the gap but are sometimes unavailable to students impacted by the justice system.
Education Commission of the States researched state financial aid student eligibility policies for 98 state financial aid programs, representing the largest programs in each state, to identify disqualifying factors that affect justice system-impacted students. While the disqualifying factors in state policy vary in their specificity, they generally fall into one of two categories: incarceration and criminal convictions. Use the link below to learn more about these programs.
States use different allocation methods to distribute K-12 funding to school districts. These policy choices impact how much funding districts receive to provide services for students. This 50-State Comparison summarizes some of these key choices, including: the primary funding model, base funding, student counts, funding for special education services, English learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented students, and small and rural school districts.
This resource identifies which states provide these funding supports and how states use different funding mechanisms to allocate resources.
Click on one of the metrics below to see how all states approach various aspects of K-12 funding.
View a specific state’s approach by going to the state profiles page.
Click the items below to see data for all states.
Click here to see all data points for all states.
The information has been collected from state statute, policy regulations, enacted state budgets and state education agency documents. To classify funding models and mechanisms that appear under different terms across states, Education Commission of the States created definitions for the terms used. Those definitions are found within the relevant pages for each data point. For information on funding amounts, see the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of School System Finances.
States provide money to school districts to cover basic costs of education, such as teacher salaries and instructional materials. However, not all states take the same approach. Some states allocate money based on student or district characteristics, while others allocate funds for resources such as school positions, classroom resources or a combination of both.
These approaches are:
At least 32 states and the District of Columbia provide a minimum guaranteed dollar amount, called a base amount, that is allocated through the primary funding model to support each student in every district.
States also take different approaches to how they count students for funding purposes. There are 44 states and the District of Columbia that use enrollment and 6 states that use attendance to count students to determine funding allocations. These counts may be done on a single day, multiple days or an average across all or a portion of the school year.
States also allocate funding for specific student populations to provide additional support.
Copyright 2025 / Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved.
