Postsecondary Institutions: Building Bridges with Dual Credit Course Integrity

to Ensure Course Transfer, Student Transition/Retention, and College-to-

Career Success through Standards-Based Dual Credit Programs

A STATE & NATIONAL UPDATE

Your Presenters

• E. Gayle Rogan, Ph.D., 1818 Advanced College Credit Program Director, Saint Louis University

• C. Lynne Clawson-Day, Manager, Arts & Sciences Continuing Education, University of Missouri-Kansas City

•Mary Ellen Fuquay, Director of EXCEL, Missouri Baptist University

With special thanks to our Moderator: Bette Ramirez, Program/Project Coordinator, Advanced Credit Program, University of Missouri-St. Louis

Roles

•Dual Credit Administrators?•Registrars?•Transfer/Articulation Directors?•Transcript Analysts?•Other?

Goals

• To update you on the status of dual credit in federal legislation• To inform you about what other states

besides Missouri are doing with dual credit and • To engage you in a conversation about the

specific benefits to your institution from standards-based dual credit programs and program guidelines

Agenda

• Lynne - What NACEP’s Government Affairs Committee is achieving at the federal level.• Mary Ellen - What other states have done and

are doing at the state level in terms of standards- based program requirements for dual credit providers.• Group - Smaller conversation groups to share our

insights and experiences with the benefits to in-coming students and to our institutions from standards-based dual credit programs.

Federal Legislative UpdateNational Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships

The National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) is a professional organization for high schools and colleges that advances seamless education through secondary and post-secondary collaborations. Established in 1999 in response to the dramatic increase in concurrent enrollment courses throughout the country, NACEP fosters student success and achievement by supporting standards of excellence that promote program and professional development, accreditation, research and advocacy. NACEP members share a common belief that institutions of higher education should follow certain best practices to ensure the quality of college classes taught by high school teachers. [http://nacep.org/about/mission-and-history/]

NACEP’S Platform: Government Relations Committee: What’s the purpose?

• Support language in the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to include Concurrent Enrollment programs (CEP) as a viable form of access to college for all students.

• Support CEPs ensuring that ALL students in good standing have equal access to engage in college classes providing academic rigor for a more meaningful high school experience.

• Support access to federal appropriations funding for CEPs.• Support partner institutions in ongoing professional development of

high school CEP instructors in a continuous improvement process.• Support adherence to an accepted set of national standards that

ensure quality CEPs.• Support ongoing, documented research and evaluation of students,

faculty, schools and colleges/universities in CEPs to provide continuous program improvement and the most effective state and federal policies.

http://nacep.org/research-and-policy/federal-legislation/

NACEP’S Governmental Affairs Committee supports a level playing field…through consistent language regarding standards-based CEPs

Access, college readiness, assurance of completion and college-to-career success through professional oversight and accountability in the areas of:

• Course Integrity • Faculty Qualifications• Student Engagement and Access• Outcome-based Assessments• On-going Evaluation

How does NACEP Governmental Affairs Integrate, Educate and Inform?

• Through public forums held in conjunction with the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), a non-profit, non-partisan professional development organization for legislators and Policymakers on issues affecting youth.

• Day on the Hill events to connect key staffers and NACEP Board members.

• AYPF Forum Panel Partnerships: “An exploration of concurrent enrollment as a strategy to support college and career readiness and success”

• Participation in the following DC events for policymakers:• (continued on next slide)

--participation continued• Complete College America• School Connect• National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future• Gannon Center for Higher Achievement• Meetings with the Secretary, US Department of Education• Office of the Under Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development• Office of English Language Acquisition• Office of Elementary & Secondary Education—A High School Graduation Initiative• Department of Labor (National Office of Job Corps)• National Association of State Directors of Career & Technology Education Consortium• Council of Chief State School Officers• Office of DC State Superintendent of Education• Offices of various Congress members, staff from the US House Committee on Education and the

Workforce• US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions• House Education & Workforce Committee Democrats and Republicans• Senate HELP Committee Democrats and Republicans• Breakfast with Senators Hagan (NC) and Franken (MN)• Re-connection with staff in follow-up conversations from Day-on-the-Hill\• Follow-up Conversations with Jobs for the Future

An Example: Inside No Child Left Behind (Access to High Standards Act)

THEN

• To support State and local efforts to raise academic standards through advanced placement programs…

• To encourage students who take advanced placement courses to demonstrate their achievement by taking the exams

• To build on the many benefits of advanced placement programs

• To increase the availability of advanced placement• To demonstrate a more diverse group to participate in

advanced placement programs• To provide greater access to advanced placement courses• To provide access to advanced placement courses for

secondary school students at schools that do not offer advanced placement programs

• To increase the participation of low-income individuals in advanced placement tests through payment or partial payment of costs of the test fees

• To increase the number of individuals that achieve a baccalaureate or advanced degree and to decrease the amount of time such individuals require to attain such degrees

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg14.html

NOW

• To ensure high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum and instructional materials aligned with challenging academic standards

• To meet the educational needs of low-achieving children…• To close the achievement gap between … disadvantaged children

and their more advantaged peers• To hold schools, educational agencies and states accountable for

improving the academic achievement of students and provide alternatives to students to ensure a high-quality education

• To distribute and target resources sufficiently to make a difference. . . Where needs are greatest

• To improve and strengthen accountability, teaching and learning using assessment systems designed to ensure students are meeting challenges of academic achievement

• To provide greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance

• To provide enriched and accelerated educational programs and quality instructional time

• To significantly elevate the quality of instruction• To promote school-wide reform to ensure the access of children

to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec1001

Examples of NACEP’s Greatest Victory: The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008--federal policy in support of dual credit partnerships between secondary and post-secondary institutions:

• Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM), and Critical Foreign Language Education Act [20 USC 9863]

• Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP) [20 USC 1070A-24]

• Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 [20 USC 2344-2355]

• Carl D. Perkins of 2009

• Race to the Top Fund—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)

• Supports dual enrollment programs offering STEM and foreign language courses

• Provides funds to establish partnerships encouraging and supporting low-income students to take rigorous courses providing a high school-to-college bridge.

• Funding for career and technical education to support concurrent enrollment partnerships and alignment of vo tech programs with post-secondary degree completion.

• Allowed state and local agencies to use CTE funds to support college transition initiatives including dual credit programs.

• Creates a State Incentive Grant Fund to compel state DOEs to

Race to the Top: NACEP• Adopt standards for assessment

that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and compete in the global economy

• Build data systems that measure student growth and success in order to better inform instructors on how they may improve instruction

• Recruit, develop, reward and retain effective teachers and administrators, especially where they are needed most

• Turning around our lowest-achieving schools

• NACEP-modeled standards for Curriculum, Student and Assessment

• NACEP-modeled standards for Faculty, Assessment and Evaluation that mandate one and five-year follow-up student surveys

• NACEP-modeled standards for Faculty and Program Evaluation

• NACEP-modeled standards for Curriculum, Faculty, Student, Assessment and Evaluation

Examples of bills introduced with dual credit language in 111th CongressLearn more at: http://nacep.org/research-and-policy/federal-legislation/

• Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (SAFRA) [HR 3221, Sec. 503)

• Blueprint for Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, “college Pathway and Accelerated Learning Program”

• Fast Track to College Act of 2009 [HR 1578/S627]

• Secondary School Innovation Fund Act [HR 2239/S968]

• Reengaging Americans in Serious Education by Uniting Programs Act [HR 3982/S1608]

• “Building or enhancing linkages, including the development of dual enrollment programs and early college high schools.”

• Provides competitive grants to, “increase access to college-level dual credit and other accelerated courses in high-need high schools and support college-going strategies and models that will help students succeed.”

• Authorizes Secretary of Education to make grants to support early college high schools and other dual enrollment programs.

• Award competitive grants to eligible partnerships to implement innovative strategies at secondary level to improve achievement and prepare at-risk students for postsecondary education & workforce.

• Prepare young people in disadvantaged situations for a competitive future.

NACEP Government Relations Committee Plans for 2012

Government Relations figures into the NACEP Strategic Plan in a vital way in 2012:• Continued Washington DC re-commitment visits to report

program improvements and distribute accreditation data• Hold an event for state policymakers with other student-

success targeted organizations• Focus on connecting with key groups at an annual conference• Constant diligence focusing on the reauthorization of ESEA• Incorporating strong supportive language for concurrent

enrollment/dual credit in the piecemeal bills sponsored by the House

Learn More about NACEP Governmental Affairs

Congress has not approved the budget for fiscal year 2011.These and other pieces of legislation remain “in committee.”You can track progress of legislation on several sites, including:

www.govtrack.us/congress/legislation.xpdwww.opencongress.org/bill/allthomas.loc.gov/

http://nacep.org/research-and-policy/federal-policy/

NACEP in State Policies• A 2008 report by the Education Commission of the States shows

that a number of states have passed legislation addressing NACEP standards.

• A 2010 report by the Executive Secretary of NACEP, Adam Lowe, shows, however, that

few states have established systems for overseeing dual credit programs to encourage institutions to align with the best practices

of quality standards.

• Various state legislative and policy changes, coupled with an ever increasing cost for public post-secondary education, have resulted in a rapid expansion of dual enrollment programs, making it even more imperative that the quality of the programs be monitored with adequate quality assurance mechanisms in place [American Youth Policy Forum, 2006; Jobs for the Future, 2008]

Seven Strategies for Overseeing Dual Credit Programs

• Initial program approval

• Periodic program reviews

• Student outcome analysis

• Regular collegial meetings

• Course approvals

• Review of district/college MOUs

• Annual reporting

Require It?

• Some states, including Arkansas and Indiana, required accreditation and set deadlines by which programs had to be approved.• According to Lowe, “. . . requiring isn’t always

right.” In NACEP, “we have plenty of institutions that are applying because they are required to, not because they have modeled our standards” (Lowe).• In states that provide incentives, institutions may

see value in pursuing accreditation, rather than seeing accreditation solely as a mandate.

A Look at Two Kinds of Oversight

South Dakota

• Saw students’ problems after earning credit for courses that were not college level

• Responded by creating policies that were among the most highly restrictive in the nation

• Took at least a decade for the state’s Higher Ed Board to become comfortable once again with dual credit

Virginia

• Also saw problems with course quality• Audited some programs• Created a report without naming institutions• Shared report with presidents• Began series of collegial meetings between state agencies and dual

credit administrators to discuss issues and propose changes• Atmosphere remains collegial

States and Dual Credit Accreditation: Require It? Provide Incentives for It?

NACEP accreditation• respects institutional autonomy and control.• requires that an institution – and specifically

faculty in the discipline – take responsibility for faculty standards and oversight and for ensuring curriculum and assessments are in place in the high school setting.

Types of Possible Incentives

• Policy incentives • Guaranteed transfer of credits• Points on the high school accountability

system• Exemption from state review

• Financial incentives• Membership costs for national organization

and conference attendance• Student costs for dual credit fees

A Possible Outcome

In states that provide incentives, institutions may see value in pursuing accreditation, rather than seeing accreditation solely as a mandate.

Conversation Groups

• How would students be best served in the transfer, retention, degree completion process if all institutions in the state honored the same set of standards in their dual credit and concurrent programs?

• How would institutions be best served in the transfer,

retention, degree completion process for matriculating students if all institutions in the state honored the same set of standards in their dual credit and concurrent programs?

STUDENT STANDARDS GROUP• Benefits for students if NACEP Student standards adopted: (1)

Less confusing program admission standards and less likely to duplicate classes. (2) Avoid being set up for failure if taking a course that is not college level.

• Benefits for post-secondary institutions if NACEP Student standards adopted: (1) More seamless retention; (2) Placement; (3) Know students are prepared; (4) Consistency

FACULTY STANDARDS GROUP• Benefit for students when programs adopt NACEP Faculty

standards: Elevated perception of quality--no longer steer dual credit students into retaking courses because receiving institutions perceive dual credit courses as inferior.

• Benefit for institutions when programs adopt NACEP Faculty standards: East transition to college/university—students get exposed to college-level instruction, expectations; they learn how to perform at a college level while still in the comfortable high school environment.

CURRICULUM STANDARDS GROUP

Why Accredit? Incentive?• Prestige of being accredited• Reinforcement by an external agency• Quality of program• Already accredited if the state legislature eventually requires

NACEP accreditation

ASSESSMENT STANDARDS GROUP

The “Assessment” Discussion Group reported no identifiable benefits to either students or post-secondary institutions should a common standard for dual credit course assessment be adopted.

COMMENTS FROM INACTIVE ATTENDEES

Eleven of the 52 attendees in the session chose not to join any of the five discussion groups. Participants in discussion held at these tables provided the following input:• Some institutions would still choose to ignore program

standards as a determining factor when awarding general education credits in transfer.

• Doesn’t serve students well because they still do not have a clear understanding of the transfer process.

• Students do not know how to navigate the transfer of credits from one post-secondary institution to another and this is frustrating for parents who have paid for dual credit courses.

EVALUATION STANDARDS GROUP

• Feedback is good, helpful, etc. (Follow-up is challenging)• Improves what we’re doing.• A way to report to the public, the assembly, etc., that this is a

quality program = surveys provide data.• The data is needed to prove the quality and effectiveness of

the program• Professor tells them up front that the class is giving them a

foundation beyond a grade—part of their later evaluation.