Supporting Faculty Is the Missing Link in College Math Reform

Earlier in my career as a math instructor, I thought I could predict which students would succeed in my College Algebra course and which wouldn't. I watched students struggle with what I saw as the basics: solving linear equations, working with fractions, and keeping track of negative signs. Each stumble seemed to confirm my belief that these students couldn't handle what lay ahead. My training and experience led me to believe they were not ready, and I trusted that assessment.

As it turns out, I was wrong. Students I had quietly dismissed in my own mind persisted. My assumptions began to quickly crumble. Unfortunately, my initial way of thinking is not unusual among even the best-intentioned faculty. Worse yet, that faulty logic funnels millions of students into standalone prerequisite remedial courses that do more harm than good. While these courses are designed to help, they often serve as roadblocks that delay or even halt progress. However, there is another approach: the corequisite model.

It was in a corequisite College Algebra course that I had my reckoning, and I've been excited to see so many colleges and universities embrace the model to great success. But lately the momentum behind this approach has slowed. This is not because it doesn't work, but because the model's success depends on how deeply faculty and institutions are ready rethink ingrained beliefs about what "prepared" really means.

Traditional remedial education is built on deficit thinking. When a student struggles to solve a linear equation, the message quickly becomes: if you don't know this, you belong somewhere else. Colleges reinforce that belief by placing students into separate prerequisite courses, often with no clear path forward. Corequisite models seek to disrupt this pattern by enrolling students directly into college-level classes while providing structured support alongside the coursework.

As transformative as this approach can be, it is not a simple fix. Faculty often struggle with corequisite reform because it asks them to unlearn long-held assumptions about readiness, ability, and who belongs in college-level work. It is a mental hurdle I had to clear as an instructor. Now, as a dean, my role is to help faculty do the same hard work and see students' capacity more clearly.

I tell my faculty members that my thinking did not change because of a single training session or a revised syllabus, and neither will theirs. It changed because I was teaching in a system that no longer allowed me to sort students out before they reached my classroom. Because students were enrolled directly in college-level math, they had the chance to try. Many did, and enough succeeded that I could no longer explain away their progress.

Importantly, I work with faculty to redesign gateway courses rather than simply bolting on support to existing structures. Math classes, for example, traditionally begin with a review meant to diagnose gaps. In the past, when I saw students struggle during this process, I assumed they didn't know the material. Over time, I realized something else was happening. Students were trying to imitate my methods, even when those methods conflicted with approaches that had worked for them in the past. Now we use these reviews less as a sorting mechanism and more as an opportunity for students to explain their thinking.

I also had to let go of the familiar narratives I once used to explain student outcomes. At the same time, I had to let go of the story I had told myself about my own limits. My confidence grew as I realized that I can be an effective teacher for students who have spent years carrying the weight of other people's low expectations. These are the lessons I now try to impart to my faculty.

Instructors should not be expected to make this transition on their own. College leaders should give instructors time and space for reflection. They should plainly state that the process will be messy, slow, and iterative. They should provide faculty with ongoing professional learning that focuses not just on the logistics of adopting the model, but also on teaching practices, course design, and the assumptions we bring into the classroom.