Executive Summary

The corequisite implementation gap is the disconnect between policy decisions and operational execution. Many institutions have adopted corequisite models, but the systems and routines needed to make those decisions real remain inconsistent across departments. This explains why corequisite results vary dramatically between sections, terms, and institutions, even when the policy commitment exists.

This starts as a systems and access problem, not a teaching-style critique. The first priority is cross-functional alignment that makes corequisites easy to find and easy to get into. Once that is stable, institutions can address course design and classroom supports with far better results. Closing the gap requires cross-functional alignment across registrar, advising, student affairs, financial aid, and academic departments. The framework for sustainable corequisite implementation focuses on policy to practice: making corequisites the default pathway students can easily access, with aligned experience before, during, and after the classroom.

This article provides higher education leaders with concrete diagnostic tools and a priority list for the first year implementing corequisites. The goal is to help leaders name the problem, understand why results are uneven, and take immediate action toward consistent student outcomes. At scale, corequisites are part of the institution’s DNA. They are the default way students get support, they are easy to find on the schedule, and they are easy to explain. A good corequisite is easy to sell to students, staff, and faculty because it is attractive, effective, and simple to access.

Definitions

Policy to practice: The operational work of translating corequisite policy decisions into seamless student experiences. This means corequisites become the default offering, placement routes students directly into college level courses, advising scripts align with registration processes, and supports are accessible before, during, and after the classroom.

Implementation gap: The disconnect between having a corequisite policy and having the systems, routines, and cross-functional coordination to execute that policy consistently. Decisions exist, but operational execution is missing or uneven.

Default offering: Corequisite courses are the primary pathway students see and access. Standalone developmental courses are minimized or eliminated. Students enroll directly in college-level coursework without navigating hidden prerequisites or specialty sections.

Coreq 1.0: Institutions building corequisite models from scratch, often in response to state mandates. Focus is on initial design, curriculum development, faculty preparation, and first-term rollout.

Coreq 2.0: Institutions where corequisite courses exist but need improvement. Coreqs may have stalled, results may be uneven, or scaled implementation has revealed operational breakdowns. Focus shifts from building to refining and iterating.

Key Takeaways

• The corequisite implementation gap explains why results vary at scale. Policy adoption is not the same as operational execution.
• Corequisites can and should serve the vast majority of students, not just borderline cases where students are nearly college ready. The “bubble student” mindset limits impact and perpetuates equity gaps.
• Cross-functional coordination is required. Registrar, advising, student affairs, and financial aid must align with academic departments or execution breaks.
• Leading indicators matter more than final grades for rapid course correction. Track who is unhappy, section fill patterns, and week four student satisfaction.
• Scale is not the end. Scale creates the critical mass needed to improve consistency through iteration and shared learning.

What “Policy to Practice” Means in Corequisite Reform

Policy to practice describes the operational work of making corequisite implementation real for students. The framework spans three phases: before the classroom, during the classroom, and after the classroom.

Before the classroom includes placement policies, advising scripts, catalog updates, and registration processes. Students should be routed directly into corequisite courses without navigating legacy developmental pathways. Placement and routing should reflect that corequisites are for the vast majority of students who need support. If the model is designed only for “bubble” students, it will never reach scale and results will remain uneven.

During the classroom includes scheduling, faculty supports, and instructional coordination. Corequisite sections should be visible and accessible in the schedule. Faculty should have clear expectations and support once the model is accessible and running as the default. Classroom and course design refinements land best after the operational pieces are in place and the right students are consistently in the courses.

After the classroom includes tutoring access, communications, data iteration, and continuous improvement processes. Students should know where to find additional support. Institutions should track completion rates and use data to refine the model.

Concrete examples clarify the connection between policy decisions and practice changes:

The goal is a student experience that feels seamless. If corequisite courses are hard to find or hard to register for, they are not implemented well. Policy to practice means students can get into corequisites easily, with an aligned experience across every touchpoint from placement through completion.

For institutions working on gateway course redesign, the policy to practice framework provides a roadmap for operationalizing changes at scale.

What the Corequisite Implementation Gap Looks Like in Day-to-Day Operations

The implementation gap shows up in concrete operational examples that provosts and VPAAs can observe directly.

Schedule Visibility Problems

Corequisite sections may exist, but legacy standalone developmental courses dominate the schedule. Students see remedial courses first and assume they must complete them before accessing college level classes. A schedule audit often reveals that standalone developmental sections outnumber corequisite offerings, despite policy commitments to phase out prerequisite remediation.

Registration Friction

Students attempting to enroll in corequisite courses encounter hidden prerequisites, registration holds, or confusing catalog language. The registration system may still require completion of developmental education before allowing enrollment in gateway courses. Even when policy says corequisites are the default, the system routes students into legacy pathways.

A quick diagnostic is whether corequisites feel like a specialty offering. If students need a “magic registration code,” a special advising appointment, or the “right advisor” to get in, the model is not implemented well. Corequisites should be easy to find, easy to register for, and treated as the normal pathway.

Placement Inconsistencies

Placement rules may reference corequisite support, but actual routing sends students into standalone remedial courses. Advisors may not have updated scripts explaining the corequisite model. Financial aid staff may be unaware that corequisite credit hours count toward aid eligibility. The decision to use corequisites at scale exists, but the operational system does not execute it consistently.

Departmental Confusion

Students receive conflicting information from different offices. Advising says one thing, the registration system shows another, and faculty expectations differ from both. Cross-functional silos mean that changes in one department do not propagate to others. Students get misrouted into legacy developmental pathways because the communication breakdown goes undetected.

Decision to Practice Example

A community college adopts a placement policy stating that students with certain scores enroll directly in college level math with corequisite support. However:

• Advising scripts still recommend completing developmental mathematics first
• Registration requires manual overrides for corequisite enrollment
• The catalog lists corequisite sections as specialty offerings rather than the default
• Student-facing communications describe corequisites as “extra help for struggling students”

The policy decision to scale corequisites exists. The operational execution does not match.

Why Corequisite Results Vary Across Sections and Terms (Systems Reasons)

Often, inconsistent corequisite results stem from systems-level problems, not individual instructor performance. Understanding root causes helps leaders target interventions effectively.

Lack of Holistic Implementation

Many institutions adopt corequisite models focusing mainly on curriculum and pedagogy while overlooking critical elements such as placement, advising, registration, and post-enrollment support. It is essential to emphasize that supporting student success requires attention to every touchpoint in the student experience, not just the classroom. If the wrong students are in a corequisite, no matter how well designed it is, they won’t have success.

Bubble Student Mindset

Some institutions design corequisite courses for a narrow band of borderline students rather than the vast majority who need them. This mindset limits scale and perpetuates equity gaps for Black and Latino students, low-income students, and other historically marginalized populations. Corequisite education works best when it serves broad student populations, not just those on the bubble.

Missing Cross-Functional Coordination

Corequisite implementation involves registrar, advising, student affairs, financial aid, and academic departments. When these functions operate in silos, execution breaks. Advisors may not know about placement policy changes. Registrars may not update systems to reflect new pathways. Financial aid may not understand how corequisite credit hours affect eligibility. The result is inconsistent student routing and uneven student success.

Absence of Systematic Iteration

Many institutions treat scaled implementation as the end rather than the beginning. They do not build processes for tracking leading indicators, gathering feedback, or refining the model based on data. When problems emerge, they lack the information and routines needed for rapid course correction. Results plateau because there is no mechanism for continuous improvement.

Connection to Student Experience

These systemic problems directly affect students. A student who cannot easily find or enroll in corequisite courses may give up and take the legacy developmental pathway. A student who receives conflicting advice may lose confidence in the institution. A student who completes gateway math but cannot access support for gateway English faces unnecessary barriers. Inconsistent systems produce inconsistent completion rates.

Research shows that staff perceptions of corequisite implementation vary widely, with some viewing the model as transformative and others seeing it as an unfunded mandate. This variation reflects the implementation gap: the policy exists, but the operational conditions differ dramatically across institutions and even across departments within the same institution.

Coreq 1.0 vs Coreq 2.0: Different Gaps, Same Need for Alignment

Institutions at different stages of corequisite implementation face different challenges, but both require operational alignment to succeed.

Coreq 1.0: Building from Scratch

Coreq 1.0 institutions are designing corequisite courses for the first time. Coreq 1.0 is like a blank sheet of paper. You are still creating courses, getting them into the catalog, and solving scheduling and credit-hour logistics. They face challenges including:

• Curriculum development delays as faculty design new paired courses
• Training deficits as instructors prepare for different corequisite models
• Registration system updates to accommodate corequisite enrollment
• Catalog and schedule changes to make corequisites visible and accessible
• Cross-functional communication to ensure advising, registrar, and financial aid understand the new pathway

The primary risk at this stage is hasty implementation without buy-in and broad communication to using corequisites as holistic student success strategy. Faculty may resist changes framed as top-down mandates. Staff may lack clarity about their roles. Students may be confused by new options appearing mid-year.

Coreq 2.0: Refining and Scaling

Coreq 2.0 institutions have corequisite courses in place but see uneven results. Full scale implementation has revealed operational breakdowns that were invisible at pilot scale. Coreq 2.0 is more like a rough draft. Corequisites exist, but you are editing and improving what is already in place. Common issues include:

• Persistent standalone developmental sections competing with corequisite offerings
• Advisor misinformation routing students into legacy pathways
• Registration friction blocking easy access to corequisite courses
• Equity gaps persisting despite policy commitments
• Faculty dissatisfaction that the support is not serving students, or that the course structure and expectations are confusing for students.

The primary risk at this stage is stagnation. Leaders may assume that having corequisites means the work is done. Without iteration and shared learning, problems persist and results plateau.

Shared Need for Alignment

Both Coreq 1.0 and Coreq 2.0 institutions need cross-functional alignment. The specific tasks differ, but the framework is the same: align systems before, during, and after the classroom to create a seamless student experience. Whether building or editing, the goal is making corequisites the default offering that students can easily access.

For institutions in either phase, corequisite support implementation resources can help diagnose gaps and prioritize fixes.

Leading Indicators to Track Before Final Grades

Waiting for final grades to assess corequisite implementation means learning too late what is not working. Leading indicators help leaders detect problems early and make rapid course corrections.

Who Is Unhappy and Why

Track complaints and their sources. Are students frustrated with registration? Are advisors confused about placement? Are faculty receiving students they believe are unprepared? The pattern of complaints reveals where the implementation gap is widest. Fewer complaints with clearer reasons is a sign of progress.

Use regular satisfaction surveys with staff and faculty, at least once per semester after implementation. Ask how the model is working day in and day out, what feels better, and what is not better. Patterns in satisfaction help leaders diagnose whether the issue is access, routing, logistics, course design, or more than one of these.

Section Fill Patterns

Monitor how corequisite sections fill relative to standalone developmental courses. If specialty sections overflow while corequisite sections have empty seats, demand signals are mismatched. If corequisites fill quickly and evenly, students are finding and accessing them as intended. Uneven fills indicate schedule visibility or registration friction problems.

Week Four Student Check-In

Survey students by the fourth week of the semester. Ask about:

• Ease of finding and enrolling in corequisite courses
• Clarity of advising received
• Access to support resources like tutoring and lab time
• Satisfaction with the support course experience

Week four is early enough to make adjustments and late enough for students to have formed impressions. Low satisfaction scores flag issues before they affect completion rates.

Schedule Audits and Inventory

Conduct a schedule audit to count standalone developmental sections versus corequisite offerings. A high volume of standalone developmental courses indicates incomplete phase-out. The goal is for corequisite courses to dominate the schedule, with standalone remedial courses minimized or eliminated.

Placement Approach Review

Examine actual routing data, not just policy documents. What percentage of students with placement indicators are being sent into corequisites versus standalone developmental courses? If placement rules say 80 percent should go to corequisites but routing data shows 50 percent, the gap is in execution. This review reveals whether placement policies are translating into practice.

Connection to Iteration

Leading indicators only matter if leaders use them for course correction. Build routines for reviewing indicators mid-semester and making adjustments for the next term. Scale creates the critical mass needed to improve consistency, but only with systematic iteration and shared learning.

How to Close the Implementation Gap: A Priority List for the First Year

Leaders who recognize implementation gap challenges can partner with their teams to drive measurable transformation. This strategic roadmap guides institutions through proven, results-oriented actions during the critical first year.

1. Start with the schedule and what is actually being offered
   
   1. Review the schedule and determine whether corequisites are the default or a specialty offering.
   2. Count how many standalone developmental sections are still running. Identify where legacy options are dominating enrollment.
   3. Ask a simple question: what are students actually enrolling in and why?
2. Shift the default and remove access friction
   
   1. Pull back standalone developmental offerings so college level courses with support becomes the normal pathway.
   2. Review placement rules and actual routing. Compare what the policy says to what students experience in registration.
   3. If systems are not ready, use a temporary bridge. Allow students to elect into corequisite support with clear advising language while routing logic and systems catch up.
3. Align the operational system across offices
   
   1. Update advising scripts, catalog language, and student facing messaging so every office describes the pathway the same way.
   2. Remove hidden prerequisites and manual workarounds that make corequisites hard to access.
   3. Bring the right people to the table, including registrar, catalog, advising, student affairs, financial aid, and academic departments, so execution does not break across handoffs.
4. Create feedback loops and set up iteration
   
   1. Run a week four student check in to learn if the support is useful, clear, and easy to access.
   2. Use staff and faculty satisfaction checks at least once per semester to identify what is working and what is not.
   3. Build a simple heat map of where students are getting bogged down and use it to set the next term priorities.

Note: A practical tool is a heat map of what is being offered and where students are getting bogged down. If large numbers of students are sitting in standalone developmental courses, that is a signal to change the schedule and placement so more students start in college-level courses with support. This shift also creates the scale needed for faculty and staff to have meaningful conversations about what improves consistency.

Accountability Measures

Assign owners to each priority. Set specific deadlines and review dates. Track progress in leadership meetings. Use this list as a checklist for next term planning conversations.

If multiple items on this list reveal significant gaps, consider how gateway course redesign support can accelerate your progress.

Systems and Processes That Must Align for Corequisites to Work at Scale

Corequisite implementation is not only a faculty conversation; it’s an institutional initiative. Multiple systems and processes must align for consistent student outcomes.

Registrar and Catalog Systems

The registration system must allow direct enrollment in corequisite courses without hidden prerequisites. Catalog language should describe corequisites as the primary pathway, not a specialty option. System updates should propagate to student-facing portals and advising tools.

Advising Scripts and Routing Procedures

Advisors need updated scripts explaining the corequisite model. Routing procedures for student intake, placement, and registration should direct students to corequisites unless a specific exception applies. Advising technology should surface corequisite options prominently. Regular training ensures advisors understand and communicate the pathway consistently.

Student Affairs Coordination

Student affairs staff interact with students outside academic advising. They should understand how corequisites work and where to direct students with questions. Orientation materials should introduce the corequisite model. Student success coaches should reinforce the pathway.

Financial Aid Implications

Financial aid staff must understand that corequisite credit hours count toward aid eligibility. Students should not receive conflicting messages about whether corequisite courses affect their aid. Aid packaging should account for corequisite enrollment without creating barriers.

Faculty Coordination and Communication

Faculty teaching corequisite courses need clear expectations and comprehensive support. Professional development should address pedagogical approaches for corequisite instruction. Faculty should understand how their courses connect to the broader college-level curriculum. Communication channels should allow faculty to flag issues and share effective practices.

Cross-Functional Stakeholder Map

Create a map identifying:

• Key stakeholders in each functional area
• Their specific roles in corequisite implementation
• Communication channels between functions
• Decision rights and escalation paths
• Regular meeting cadence for coordination

Alignment Checkpoints

Establish checkpoints to verify alignment:

• Schedule audit (monthly in first term, once per term thereafter)
• Placement routing review (annually, with updates as needed)
• Advising script review (annually, with updates as needed)
• Student satisfaction surveys (week four each term)
• Cross-functional team meetings (biweekly in first year)

When these systems align, the proof is observable: corequisite courses dominate the schedule, enrollment is easy, standalone developmental courses are reduced or eliminated, routing is consistent, sections fill evenly, and complaints decrease with clearer reasons when they occur.

For comprehensive guidance on aligning these systems, explore corequisite support implementation resources.

FAQs

What is the “implementation gap” in corequisite programs?

The implementation gap is the disconnect between having a corequisite policy and having the systems, routines, and cross-functional coordination to execute that policy consistently. Decisions exist at the policy level, but operational execution is missing or uneven. This gap explains why corequisite results vary across sections, terms, and institutions even when the policy commitment is the same.

What does “policy to practice” mean in higher education reform?

Policy to practice describes the operational work of translating policy decisions into seamless student experiences. In corequisite reform, it means making corequisites the default pathway students can easily access, with aligned experience before the classroom (placement, advising, registration), during the classroom (scheduling, faculty supports), and after the classroom (tutoring access, communications, data evaluation and program iteration).

Why does success in corequisite programs plateau after going to scale?

Corequisite programs plateau when institutions treat full scale implementation as the end rather than the beginning. Without systematic iteration, leading indicator tracking, and cross-functional coordination, problems go undetected and unaddressed. Scale creates the critical mass needed to improve consistency, but only with processes for shared learning and continuous improvement.

What are the most common reasons corequisite results vary across sections?

The most common reasons are systems-level problems: schedule visibility that hides corequisite options behind legacy offerings, placement rules that misroute students into standalone developmental pathways, advising that lacks unified scripts, registration friction that blocks easy access, and measurement that ignores leading indicators. These are not faculty problems; they are operational conditions that must be addressed cross-functionally. If all of these issues are addressed and results still vary, more attention is needed at the classroom level.

What are leading indicators of successful corequisite implementation (before final grades)?

Leading indicators include: who is unhappy and why (pattern of complaints), section fill patterns (corequisites filling evenly vs. empty seats), week four student satisfaction surveys (enrollment ease, advising clarity, support access), schedule audits (ratio of corequisite to standalone developmental sections), and placement approach reviews (actual routing vs. policy intent). These indicators enable rapid course correction before final grades reveal problems.

How do you close the implementation gap in corequisite reform?

Close the gap by: auditing the schedule and reducing standalone developmental sections, reviewing and fixing placement routing to send 80 to 90 percent of students to coreqs, updating advising scripts and removing registration friction, forming a cross-functional team with registrar, advising, faculty, student affairs, and financial aid, and launching week four student check-ins for rapid feedback. The first year priority list provides a roadmap for immediate action.

What systems and processes must be aligned for corequisites to work at scale?

Corequisites require alignment across: registrar and catalog systems (direct enrollment, no hidden prerequisites), advising scripts and routing procedures (updated language, consistent direction), student affairs coordination (orientation, student success coaching), financial aid (credit hour eligibility, no conflicting messages), and faculty coordination (expectations, professional development, pedagogy, communication channels). A cross-functional stakeholder map and regular alignment checkpoints ensure these systems work together.

Use this as a checklist for your next term planning conversation. If multiple items reveal significant gaps, your institution may benefit from focused support on gateway course redesign or corequisite support implementation. Reach out if you are seeing red flags and want to discuss how to close the implementation gap at your institution.