Policy makers and K-20 educators attempt a range of structural and programmatic solutions for combating the issue of academically underprepared students entering colleges and universities. Options exist in high schools to increase academic rigor including programs such as Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB); however, the focus primarily remains on dual credit (DC) as the primary strategy to address these challenges.
“Dual credit programs offer high school students the option of taking college-level courses that award both college and high school credit at the same time. Courses range from either academically oriented to career and technical education (CTE)” (Miller, Kosiewicz, Wang, Marwah, Delhommer, & Daugherty, 2017). Dual credit, also referred to as dual enrollment (DE), program delivery extends through partnerships between high schools, colleges and universities. Instructional delivery may either reside on the high school campus or the college/university campus. Unlike AP and IB courses, DC students do not take a standardized exam to receive course credit. College credit hours for dual enrollment remain based on grades and course completion rather than an end of course test. Students taking dual enrollment courses receive credits to fulfill both high school and college graduation requirements (Thomas, Marken, Gray & Lewis, 2013).
Since 2000, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2011), dual credit in the State of Texas witnesses a 650 percent growth in high school student enrollment. The growth exists in part as a result of legislative action and a concerted effort among Texas high schools and colleges to offer opportunities to earn college credits prior to students graduating high school (Miller, et al., 2017). However, stakeholders remain divided on the effectiveness of dual credit programs. Arguments suggest dual credit courses lack rigor setting students up for failure upon entering college or the workforce. Programmatic variations exist including teacher eligibility, institutional type and content and course quality—particularly dual credit courses offered in a traditional high school setting taught by high school instructors (Tobolowsky, 2016). To support the State’s strategic plan to reach goals of 60x30TX, programmatic reforms remain necessary.
Dual credit holds a lack of extensive literature and empirical research. Dual enrollment programs are decentralized by institution or system and one single repository of data does not exist for large scaled, controlled studies (Wyatt, Patterson & Di Giacomo, 2015). State statute establishes minimum quality standards for the administration of DC courses with substantial freedom and discretion, allowing universities to adopt additional standards of their own to ensure high school students benefit from DC courses (Miller, et al., 2017). Ironically, dual credit, swarmed with legislative attention, action and focus, continues to remain inconsistent, sparking debate. The College Board’s AP Course Audit, governing the Advanced Placement program, maintains strict standards for ensuring quality instructors and rigorous course content linked to higher education course standards. Advanced Placement continues to follow added structure and consistency with proven, desirable college outcomes for students (Wyatt, Patterson & Di Giacomo, 2015). No single governing body exists for dual credit oversight and regulation.
A primary concern from critics of dual credit programs remains a lack of rigor and often an absence of college preparation. This stems from varying instructional strategies and content delivery between school districts, colleges and universities. High schools located in a city with a university may opt to send dual enrollment students to the campus under the instruction of full-time doctorate faculty. Rural high schools; however, often employee secondary teachers with a master’s degree to adjunct for a local community college in a neighboring town. In other cases, students take on-line dual credit courses, often proctored by a paraprofessional, and the rate of student academic dishonesty escalates. Therefore, inconsistencies in dual credit content and delivery develops. DC instructors, while held to a syllabus approved by the college, may veer from required course content due to inconsistent monitoring and supervision by the higher education institution. Often, no on-site monitoring occurs, even though the SACSCOC requires departmental and institutional policies on supervision and evaluation. No instrument or evaluation tool for dual credit instructors exists.
The delivery of dual credit courses varies and changes over time. According to (Miller, et al., 2017), faculty teaching DC courses remain significantly less likely to hold doctoral degrees and significantly more likely to serve as adjunct professors. An estimated 41 percent of DC course seats remain taught by a faculty member of a K-12 school, while half of dual credit courses continue instruction on a high school campus with 15 percent of DC classes taught online (Miller, et al., 2017).
“Partnership agreements between higher education institutions and one or more school districts or private secondary schools to deliver DC education are developed independent of government oversight that remain required by state rule to define how they will administer DC instruction and support services” (Miller, et al., 2017, p. 15). Memorandum of Understanding approval between partnering institutions remains a requirement prior to course delivery. Because the state does not mandate uniformity across dual credit partnership agreements, college and school district collaborations may customize arrangements according to specific needs and circumstances (Miller, et al., 2017). Dual credit course content lacks standardization; therefore, students taking the same content may not cover similar material (Tobolowsky & Allen, 2016). Additionally, dual credit curriculum does not offer a standardized measure of knowledge or accountability such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or the Texas STAAR or End-of-Course Exams in K-12 schools. Advanced Placement establishes a level of rigor and the courses stand identified with a reputation exemplifying excellence. The quality of dual credit courses remains difficult to measure; however, AP courses, in contrast, stay judged on a more consistent standard—the national exam. Tobolowsky and Allen (2016), posit students who take dual credit coursework in the same subject enter into college classrooms unequally prepared.
How can consistency be regulated with no single entity monitoring and regulating dual credit programs? With no set standards established or monitored, allowing colleges significant leeway in determining course structures, content delivery and instruction programmatic inconsistencies result. No wonder dual credit draws critics and scrutiny. The states must inspect what they expect; yet, a governing body for dual credit programs remains obsolete, at both the state and federal level. Has the consideration for a dual credit governing board not remained a consideration? Why? Improvements cannot occur without set, consistent expectations and accountability. Why do we not inspect what we expect?
Einstein states, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them.” Dual credit programs, in theory, remain the bridge to college and career readiness; yet, fall short of reaching the goal—college and career readiness. Legislation, enacted in Texas, defines dual credit, offers funding options, and removes restrictions on the number of dual credit hours high school students may take. However, nowhere in statute do specific guidelines exist requiring a governing board to oversee consistent dual credit delivery across the state or country. While regulation remains stated, the enforcement and implementation of accountability measures stays lacking. The goals that led to the rise in popularity of dual credit—access, cost and college completion—will continue to spur growth. However, the lack of uniform standards complicates dual credit delivery raising concern that dual credit exists as bad credit.
Pam Hailey, M. Ed.
Doctoral Student, Doctorate in Leadership Program, Hardin-Simmons University
Secondary Principal, TLCA Midland
References
Miller, T., Kosiewicz, H., Wang, E., Marwah, E., Delhommer, S., & Daugherty, L. (2017). Dual credit education in Texas: Interim report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from www.rand.org.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2011). Dual credit report. Austin, TX.
Tobolowsky, B., & Allen, T. (2016). On the fast track: Understanding the opportunities and challenges of dual credit. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(3), p.7-106.
Wyatt, J., Patterson, B., & Di Giacomo, T. (2015). A comparison of the college outcomes of AP and dual enrollment students. The College Board Research Report (2015-3). Retrieved from www.collegeboard.org.
Ponderings 