Dual enrollment: Getting students to a degree more efficiently?

I was recently asked whether there's any research indicating that dual enrollment program participants ultimately earn fewer total credits when completing a postsecondary degree. A 2009 Florida study does provide at least a partial response to this question.

The report notes that 40% of students surveyed at Florida's largest universities believed that "acceleration credits" (dual enrollment, as well as IB, AP and other options) allowed them to "progress through college in a shorter time period". Data support these students' perceptions. Students graduating from Florida's state universities in the 2006-07 academic year who had completed acceleration credits attempted an average of 128 credit hours of college courses, whereas their average peer who had not earned acceleration credits attempted 140 credit hours.

Unfortunately, the study doesn't separate the results by the type of accelerated credit students earned. Nor do the authors speculate why students earning acceleration credits of any kind finished a college degree with fewer credits. And granted, this is just one study in just one state. However, it's hard not to be at least a little interested reading that "This difference equates to almost a semester of college courses, which represents a substantial savings in higher education costs to both the state and students. The state benefits from the freed instructional slots and classroom space that allow other students to progress through these classes."

One might argue that students earning acceleration credits are more academically motivated--but on the other hand, there are various ways academically motivated students might earn more college credits than the average student. Academically motivated students might choose double majors (or even triple-majors--this author was one of those crazy people)--although students in the Florida report noted that acceleration credit allowed them to pursue double majors and dual degrees. Students in general--including academically motivated students--might also earn more total college credits by switching majors mid-college careers (been there, done that, too), turning all those credits that once went towards a major into a mighty expensive minor, with a lot of excess credit hours in tow. More academically motivated students might even have greater motivation to switch colleges (transitioning to a more selective college, for example), resulting in credits that are only recognized as "electives" at College #2.

Another thought might be that dual enrollment courses allow students to "try on" different academic disciplines at a more rigorous level before starting college, so that students are less likely to accumulate too many credits in one discipline before switching degree areas, if they decide to change majors at all. And--particularly when students complete dual enrollment courses on a college campus---dual enrollment allows students to "try on" a college at the same time they "try on" a discipline, so that students may decide to apply at (or decide to avoid!) the postsecondary institution where they had their dual enrollment experience, again avoiding those credit hours not recognized at College #2 after things at College #1 don't work out.

I would love to see more research on this point--are dual enrollment students less likely to change majors once they enter college? Are they more likely to enroll in the postsecondary institution partnering in the dual enrollment experience than their peers in the same geographic area who did not participate in dual enrollment? Are there other factors that lead dual enrollment students to complete a college degree in fewer credit hours? Or in fact, will studies in other states not bear the same results as those in Florida? In an era where states are trying to simultaneously raise college completion and attainment rates and keep postsecondary costs down, such research would be extremely valuable.

P-20: Where are we now?

As part of an American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) event here in Denver last month, I was invited to host a small conversation with attendees on the idea of P-20. Below are a few of the points I thought we might cover in the conversation--they will likely be fleshed out in a forthcoming ECS publication:

Where are we with the whole idea of P-20 councils? We have seen a substantial amount of attrition in the number of P-20 councils since ECS launched its national database on state-level P-16 and P-20 councils in 2008. However, we have seen pockets of growth, as a new council has been created in Vermont, and councils are under consideration elsewhere.

What about P-20 governance? This seems to some degree to be the policy successor of the P-20 council, as a number of states considered efforts this year to consolidate agencies.

Is there another way to improve alignment besides a P-20 council or P-20 governance? Some states have adopted legislation to mandate collaboration among agencies with authority for various components of the P-20 pipeline. Ohio 2009 H.B. 1 is one example--while the legislation did away with the state's erstwhile P-16 council, the Partnership for Continued Learning, it mandated collaboration on oversight and implementation related to early learning, strategic planning, data sharing, high school assessments, teacher recruitment and preparation, and more. These initiatives have undergone further refinement in subsequent policymaking.

What else is out there on this issue? I think this is where attendees' eyes rolled back in their heads, as I rattled off a list of the all the ECS resources on P-20. Sorry attendees! At any rate, if readers of this blog have questions on any of this, feel free to contact me directly at 303.299.3689 or jdounay@ecs.org.

Texas: Tackling postsecondary remediation

Texas legislators this year sent a clear message to public postsecondary institutions--fix remediation. And certain terms--evidence-based, best practice, modular, online--surfaced again and again in enacted 2011 legislation in the Lone Star State.

H.B. 1244, for example, requires institutions of higher education to offer a range of developmental coursework, including online coursework, or instructional support that integrates technology, to effectively address students' particular developmental needs. H.B. 1244 also requires developmental education to be based on research-based best practices (hooray!) that include assessment, differentiated placement and instruction, faculty development, support services, program evaluation, integration of technology with an emphasis on instructional support programs, non-course-based developmental ed. interventions, and course-pairing (allowing a student to simultaneously take a developmental and a credit-bearing course). The bill also calls for the higher education coordinating board to provide professional development programs, including on differentiated instruction methods to address students' diverse needs, to faculty and staff who provide developmental courses.

But wait, there's more! H.B. 1244 also requires learning outcomes to be developed for developmental ed. courses, and for these to be used to determine when a student is ready for credit-bearing coursework. These learning outcomes are to be developed by the higher education coordinating board based on established college and career readiness standards and student performance on assessments. The legislation likewise permits an institution of higher education to waive tuition for a student participating in a non-semester-long developmental education intervention, including course-based, non-course-based, alternative-entry/exit, and other intensive developmental education activities).

Unfortunately, while modular remediation targeted at student need can be found at individual institutions, it is rare for these approaches to be adopted in legislation. More on Texas' remediation innovations in future posts.

Dual enrollment: Another possible explanation for participation rates

As I mentioned in yesterday's post, U.S. Department of Education data suggest that in the 2007-08 school year, just under 7 out of 10 public high schools offered "dual enrollment for high school and college credit". The theory for this 30% non-participation rate put forward in yesterday's post was that these high schools may be in rural areas, in which collaboration between high school and postsecondary faculty may be complicated by long distances for staff to travel to collaborate face-to-face.

Another theory may be that these high schools are in states in which students do not automatically receive both high school and postsecondary credit for completing a dual enrollment course. While researching the ECS 50-state dual enrollment database launched December 2008, I was surprised to discover that in 13 states, state policy does not specify whether students automatically earn both high school and college credit. In several other states, students earn only high school or postsecondary credit automatically, and must go through an application process to earn credit from the other education "silo". In still other states, one type of dual enrollment program automatically awards both high school and postsecondary credit, while another program does not, which must create confusion for students and parents, and a headache (and loads of paperwork) for school counselors and postsecondary staff.

Given that many states have put processes in place to ensure the quality of dual enrollment offerings (i.e., requiring teachers to meet adjunct faculty criteria, requiring postsecondary institutions to approve course syllabi, textbooks, or requiring high school instructors teaching dual enrollment courses to use the same syllabi, textbooks, end-of-course exams and grading practices as used when the course is taught to traditional postsecondary students), it would seem that any state requiring dual enrollment courses to undergo both high school (or district) and postsecondary approval and/or meet clear standards of quality should automatically award both high school and postsecondary credit. There are enough other issues to go around to save our headaches and paperwork for.