Objective: Changing how community colleges deliver developmental education has become a key policy lever to increase student achievement. Alternative development education models reduce the amount of time a student spends in remediation, provide students with supplemental instruction and support, and contextualize content to align with student academic and career interests. While some states mandate the use of alternative delivery models, other states, such as California, give discretion to colleges over how developmental education should be delivered. We investigated how community colleges from one California district with particularly high remediation rates have responded to external pressures to revamp the traditional delivery model for developmental math. We did so by studying which delivery models they used, where they allocated alternative delivery models in the math sequence, and the extent that they adopted alternative delivery models over time. Method: We employed content and descriptive analytic methods to examine descriptions of developmental math courses sections. Results: First, colleges employed commonly known alternative models but also utilized unfamiliar ones, such as extending the developmental math sequence. Second, more academically prepared students had greater access to course sections offering alternative approaches in contrast to less academically prepared students. Third, despite the push for alternative approaches, the traditional model prevailed in the delivery of developmental math over time. Contributions: We provide hypotheses to explain why community colleges failed to adopt alternative models at scale, and argue that inequitable access to these approaches is a missed opportunity to alter the educational experiences of the least prepared.