Higher education institutions are rethinking the role of gateway math in improving student retention and completion. By redesigning placement practices, developmental education and course pathways, colleges are creating more effective and equitable routes to student success. In this interview, James Gray discusses how colleges can redesign gateway math courses and align math pathways with students’ academic and career goals to improve persistence and completion.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): How can colleges redesign the first-year math experience to really build student momentum and improve their completion outcomes?
James Gray (JG): There are several things colleges can do. First, make sure students are taking the right math course for their program or degree. That sounds simple, but it’s incredibly important. Second, improve placement by using multiple measures rather than relying solely on a placement exam. That helps more students start in the right place.
Another major change is moving away from standalone developmental math courses. We’ve seen that students who begin in those sequences are much less likely to make it through to a college-level math course. The corequisite model has really changed that by placing students directly into a college-level course while providing a paired support course. That approach has been a real game changer.
The last piece is course design. Simply putting students into a college-level class isn’t enough if the course wasn’t built with them in mind. The most effective programs redesign the experience around student strengths and provide the support they need to succeed, rather than expecting students to sink or swim.
Evo: What barriers in the first year most often prevent students from progressing, and what can institutions do to remove them?
JG: The biggest barriers are really the bottlenecks in the system. At Pima, one of the first changes we made was ensuring students only took the math course required for their program. That alone removed a major barrier for many students. We also moved to multiple measures for placement, which allowed more students to begin in college-level math instead of developmental courses.
The other major change was adopting the corequisite model. For several years we offered both corequisite and traditional standalone developmental courses. Once we fully transitioned, the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing college-level math increased dramatically—from roughly 300 students to nearly 900. Just as importantly, those students performed just as well as students who placed directly into college-level math through traditional placement methods.
The results have been significant. About ten years ago, roughly 60% of our math enrollments were in standalone developmental courses that didn’t count toward a degree. Today, that number is under 10%. Those three changes made the biggest difference.
Evo: How can colleges ensure gateway math courses support student success rather than act as this bottleneck or barrier for them to keep persisting?
JG: It starts with the design of the college-level courses themselves. We found students coming from different school districts had learned the same math in very different ways. Some were told, “You should know this already,” but when we talked with the K–12 math coaches, we realized they did know it. They had just learned it differently.
So, the question isn’t whether students are prepared. They’re prepared for something. The question is whether we’re prepared. Do we understand how they’ve been taught, and are our courses designed to build on those strengths? What’s encouraging is that, as we’ve moved more students into college-level math, success rates have gone up.
Evo: What role does aligning math pathways with student academic and career goals play in improving retention and completion rates?
JG: It plays a couple of important roles. One is making sure students are taking the math course that aligns with their program. Requiring college algebra for every pathway just didn’t make sense for many career and technical fields.
The other piece is being willing to rethink tradition. We need to look at our curriculum instead of assuming the way we’ve always done it is the best way. That mindset shapes course design. If courses align with students’ pathways, strengths and abilities, they’re much more likely to support success instead of becoming another barrier.
Evo: What is the most impactful change that colleges can make to help first-year students stay on track and continue throughout their goal?
JG: Making those structural changes to remove bottlenecks is important, but we need to challenge the idea that students simply aren’t prepared. If I believe students aren’t prepared, the design of my course is going to reflect that and not in a positive way.
One of the biggest light bulb moments for me came from talking with K–12 math coaches. I realized students often know the material, but they’ve learned it differently. Take factoring trinomials, for example. Students may come into class knowing five or six different methods. If I only teach it the way I learned it, many of those students won’t connect with the instruction, even though they’re capable.
So, the question becomes: Why do I believe students aren’t prepared, and what am I doing to prepare myself for them? I actually find today’s students are some of the hardest-working students I’ve taught. They hear all the stereotypes—that they’re unprepared or don’t work hard—but when you tell them, “I know you can do this. I believe in you,” they respond. If we build courses around students’ strengths instead of their perceived deficits, they’re far more likely to persist and succeed.
Evo: Is there anything you’d like to add?
JG: One statistic ’because it really shows the scale of the impact. About 15 years ago, students placed into developmental math had roughly an 11% chance of completing a college-level math course within a year. After removing developmental bottlenecks and accelerating students into college-level math with support, that completion rate increased to nearly 65% in a single semester. Those results really make you question the traditional developmental math model.