NEW YORK, NY (December 8, 2011) - Two new studies from the National Center for Postsecondary Research have found that participation in dual enrollment – in which high school students take college classes for credit - has strong positive effects on college enrollment and completion, but where students take dual enrollment classes and what classes they take are critical in driving these effects.

The first study, which tracked all of Florida’s 2000-01 and 2001-02 high school seniors, found that students who participated in dual enrollment (DE) were 12% more likely to go to college and 7% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than similar students who did not participate.  However, these strong effects were driven entirely by dual enrollment classes taken on college campuses.  Students who took dual enrollment classes exclusively on the high school campus showed no statistically significant gains.

The study also compared the impact of Advanced Placement (AP) and dual enrollment classes on college outcomes.  Contrary to popular assertions that AP classes are more beneficial than dual enrollment, the study found that DE and AP participation had similarly positive impacts.  DE students were more likely than AP students to first enroll in two-year rather than four-year colleges, but they went on to earn bachelor’s degrees at a comparable rate.

The second study, which tracked a subset of Florida’s 2000-01 and 2001-02 high school seniors who took a college algebra placement test, found that students who passed the test and enrolled in a rigorous dual enrollment college algebra class were 16% more likely to go to college and 23% more likely to earn a college degree than similar students who did not take the class. 

Interestingly, participation in dual enrollment in general had no effect on marginal students whose GPA was just above the minimum necessary to participate.  These students were no more likely to enroll in or complete college than statistically similar students who did not participate in DE.  The combined findings suggest that, at least for some students, the benefits of dual enrollment are driven by the type of class they take.

The two studies offer important insights into how dual enrollment can best be structured to deliver maximum benefits for students.  Previous studies of dual enrollment programs in Florida and New York City, conducted by the Community College Research Center, found positive impacts for participating students on a range of college outcomes.  However, the studies did not disaggregate the effects of course location and content which – as the new studies demonstrate – vary significantly.

States across the nation have increasingly embraced dual enrollment as a promising intervention to help students of differing abilities and backgrounds gain college knowledge and a head start in obtaining a degree.  Almost one million American high school students took a college course in 2002-03 (the last numbers available), and since then the numbers have grown. 

The new studies confirm that dual enrollment can be advantageous for students, but also contain a note of warning: dual enrollment programs and experiences vary significantly in the extent to which they benefit students.  Districts and colleges should track outcomes for dual enrollment students and use the data to adjust program structure for maximum impact.   

For more information, please contact georgia.stacey@tc.columbia.edu.  To read the studies, please visit http://tinyurl.com/d93mmkn.

The National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) is housed at the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, and is operated in collaboration with partners MDRC and the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, and with a professor at Harvard University. Established in 2006, with a grant  from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education, NCPR measures the effectiveness of programs designed to help students make the transition to college and master the basic skills needed to advance to a degree.  NCPR is currently pursuing research in dual enrollment; postsecondary remediation; and financial aid.

Getting Ready for College: An Implementation and Early Impacts Study of Eight Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Programs

Heather D. Wathington, Elisabeth A. Barnett, Evan Weissman, Jedediah Teres, Joshua Pretlow, and Aki Nakanishi, with Matthew Zeidenberg, Madeline Joy Weiss, Alison Black, Claire Mitchell, and John Wachen

October 13, 2011

In 2007, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) funded 22 colleges to establish developmental summer bridge programs. Aimed at providing an alternative to traditional developmental education, these programs involve intensive remedial instruction in math, reading, and/or writing and college preparation content for students entering college with low basic skills. In 2009, NCPR launched an evaluation of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas (seven at community colleges and one at an open-admissions four-year university), the early findings of which are described in this report.

Students who participated in the study were randomly assigned to the program group or the control group. Program group students participated in the developmental summer bridge programs, while control group students received colleges’ regular services. All developmental summer bridge programs had four common features: accelerated instruction in math, reading, and/or writing; academic support; a “college knowledge” component; and the opportunity for participants to receive a $400 stipend.

The main findings of this preliminary report are:

• All eight programs in the study were implemented with reasonable fidelity to the model framed by the THECB, but they varied on some key dimensions.
• Program costs averaged about $1,300 per student but varied widely.
• Program group students did not enroll in either the fall or spring semester at significantly different rates than control group students; enrollment rates were high for both groups.
• There is evidence that the program students were more likely to pass college-level courses in math and writing in the fall semester following the summer programs. The findings also suggest that program students were more likely to attempt higher level reading, writing, and math courses compared with control group students.

By: Carrie B. Kisker, Richard Wagoner, & Arthur M. Cohen

Implementing Statewide Transfer & Articulation Reform:

Executive Summary

In recent years, the federal government and several major philanthropic organizations have focused attention on the need to dramatically increase the number of bachelor‘s and other postsecondary degrees in order to retain the United States‘ economic competitiveness in a global marketplace. Improving what is often a complex community college-to-university transfer process, many analysts argue, is key to improving bachelor‘s degree production. Thus, over the past few years, several states have engaged in systemic transfer and articulation reforms, creating transfer associate degrees that allow students to both earn an associate degree and transfer seamlessly into a state university.

The purpose of this project—which was generously funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates and Walter S. Johnson Foundations—was to examine the development of transfer associate degrees in four states: Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, and Washington. We utilized case study analysis (including site visits, analysis of relevant documents, and roughly 60 in-depth qualitative interviews) in order to describe implementation strategies that may be utilized in states that are currently embarking on or planning for systemic transfer reforms.

Transfer associate degrees can be understood as a grouping of seven curricular and policy-related elements. The first four, listed below, are essential to the creation of significant statewide improvements in transfer and articulation. The final three elements are also important but may be more or less necessary, depending on each state‘s unique history, policy goals, capacity issues, and the academic cultures and traditions of its institutions.

1. A common general education (GE) package

2. Common lower-division pre-major and early-major pathways

3. A focus on credit applicability

4. Junior status upon transfer

5. Guaranteed and/or priority university admission

6. Associate and/or bachelor‘s degree credit limits

7. An acceptance policy for upper-division courses

In the pages that follow we summarize the five primary themes that emerged from our data, as well as early positive outcomes and the likely future of transfer associate degrees. We conclude with implications of this study and recommendations for those advocating or developing similar transfer reforms in other states.

To access the full report, click here.

Please click on the link to view the Center for the Study of Community College's most recent publication on reforming transfer and articulation in California's community colleges.

The National Council of Instructional Adminstrators, which (like CSCC) is an
affiliate council of AACC, has put together an interesting annotated
bibliography entitled, "Useful Information for Community College Leaders."
It highlights recent journal articles, dissertations, and ERIC documents on
11 topics, including adjunct faculty, technology and distance education,
developmental education, and student retention. The bibliography is
available as a link from their home page (www.nciaonline.org) or as a PDF
file at http://www.nciaonline.org/docs/project_7000.pdf .

Read the "Invited Panel Report On The Community College: Challenges And Pathways American Education Research Association 2002 Convention." (pdf format)