Incorrect; this is not granting credit for existing remedial courses, it is eliminating the existing set of remedial courses, and the testing and other policies aruoud them, and requiring new models (but not dictating one single model for all campuses.)

There area number of alternative remediation models that have been used in other institutions without the problems experienced by the current CSU remedial ed program that campuses may be guided by. This is all expressly laid out in the article.

You're right that there is some flexibility, but the basic move is to grant credit for remediation [see below]. Whether that means turning the intro courses into multiple semester courses or giving credit for summer prep. The problems with basing placements on high school grades is why they had to create the assessments in the first place. The better solution is the early assessment program, but since California has eliminated the high school graduation exam requirement, it gets harder to see which college bound student needs help in the 11th/12th grade level.

"Freshmen who would usually be directed to developmental English or math will instead enroll in the same general education classes as their peers, but they might receive additional tutoring or take the course at a slower pace, stretched over multiple semesters. A summer program for incoming freshmen who need extra preparation will be redesigned to count for credit." http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...

> but the basic move is to grant credit for remediation [see below].

Your quote does not really support that description; it suggests that they will be directed into either non-remedial for-credit courses with additional tutoring or other support, or courses with the same content (and credit) as non-remedial courses but a stretched timeframe. The former is clearly not credit for remediation (the only “remediation” is outside of the for-credit classwork), the latter arguably could be described that way but the content is not remedial, only the manner of presentation.

> since California has eliminated the high school graduation exam requirement, it gets harder to see which college bound student needs help in the 11th/12th grade level.

It was suspended through 2018, and there is a recommendation to repeal it, but the exit exam wasn't based on current curriculum standards and the other assessments (including several in eleventh grade) that are aligned with those standards aren't being eliminated. So I don't think it has any bearing on how hard it is to identify students falling behind.

I think the point is- courses that cover material that used to be considered below college level will now be given college credit. Or courses that cover college material will now be stretched into two semesters, doubling their credit. The logical result of this is that the material level that is covered in college will go down, as people will be using up credits on lower level courses.

HS graduation exams are useful feature of most successful school systems. That so many people were passing those but still requiring remedial instruction indicates that there was something lacking. However, if graduation rate is the metric you are optimizing for, there is no need to pull those in.