Dual Enrollment Policies, Pathways, and Perspectives E-Book

Jason L. Taylor

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B CC Single Issue Community Colleges
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 226

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

Looking to develop new dual enrollment programs or adapt and revamp an existing dual enrollment programs at a community college? This volume addresses the critical issues and topics of dual enrollment practices and policies, including: * state policies that regulate dual enrollment practice and the influence of state policy on local practice, * the usage of dual enrollment programs as a pathway for different populations of students such as career and technical education students and students historically underrepresented in higher education, and * chapters that surface student, faculty, and high school stakeholder perspectives and that examine institutional and partnership performance and quality. This is the 169th volume of this Jossey-Bass quarterly report series. Essential to the professional libraries of presidents, vice presidents, deans, and other leaders in today's open-door institutions, New Directions for Community Colleges provides expert guidance in meeting the challenges of their distinctive and expanding educational mission.

Leseprobe

New Directions for Community Colleges

Arthur M. Cohen EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Caroline Q. Durdella Nathan R. Durdella ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Amy Fara Edwards MANAGING EDITOR

Dual Enrollment Policies, Pathways, and Perspectives

Jason L. Taylor

Joshua Pretlow

EDITORS

Number 169 • Spring 2015

Jossey-Bass

San Francisco

DUAL ENROLLMENT POLICIES, PATHWAYS, AND PERSPECTIVES Jason L. Taylor, Joshua Pretlow (eds.) New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 169

Arthur M. Cohen, Editor-in-Chief Caroline Q. Durdella, Nathan R. Durdella, Associate Editors Amy Fara Edwards, Managing Editor

Copyright © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; [phone]; fax [phone]. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; [phone], fax [phone], www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES (ISSN 0194-3081, electronic ISSN 1536-0733) is part of The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published quarterly by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery St., Ste. 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to New Directions for Community Colleges, Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery St., Ste. 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104.

SUBSCRIPTIONS cost $89 for individuals in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and $113 in the rest of the world for print only; $89 in all regions for electronic only; $98 in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for combined print and electronic; $122 for combined print and electronic in the rest of the world. Institutional print only subscriptions are $335 in the U.S., $375 in Canada and Mexico, and $409 in the rest of the world; electronic only subscriptions are $335 in all regions; combined print and electronic subscriptions are $402 in the U.S., $442 in Canada and Mexico, and $476 in the rest of the world.

Cover design: Wiley Cover Images: © Lava 4 images | Shutterstock

EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, Arthur M. Cohen, at 1749 Mandeville Lane, Los Angeles, CA 90049. All manuscripts receive anonymous reviews by external referees.

New Directions for Community Colleges is indexed in CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Contents Pages in Education (T&F), Current Abstracts (EBSCO), Ed/Net (Simpson Communications), Education Index/Abstracts (H. W. Wilson), Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), and Resources in Education (ERIC).

Microfilm copies of issues and articles are available in 16mm and 35mm, as well as microfiche in 105mm, through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346.

Contents

Editors' Notes

A Definitional Note on Dual Enrollment

Introduction

Reflecting on the Past

Purpose and Organization of the Volume

References

Chapters 1: State Dual Credit Policy: A National Perspective

Prior Policy Reviews

State Policy Review Methodology

Results

Implications for Community Colleges

Notes

References

Chapters 2: Operating Dual Enrollment in Different Policy Environments: An Examination of Two States

State Dual Enrollment Policy Context: Ohio and Virginia

Methods and Limitations

Findings

Recommendations for Policy

References

Chapters 3: Eliminating Barriers to Dual Enrollment in Oklahoma

Program Development

Program Results

Challenges and Solutions

Future Considerations

Conclusion

References

Chapters 4: Emerging Early College Models for Traditionally Underserved Students

The Michigan Experience

The New York Experience

Final Thoughts

References

Chapters 5: The Challenges of Career and Technical Education Concurrent Enrollment: An Administrative Perspective

Program Background and Context

Challenges Specific to Career and Technical Education

Recommendations

References

Chapters 6: Dual Enrollment Participation From the Student Perspective

Research Site and Participants

Data Collection and Analysis

Findings

Conclusion and Implications

References

Chapters 7: Principal, Teacher, and Counselor Views of Concurrent Enrollment

Concurrent Enrollment Program at Kirkwood Community College

Survey Methods

Impact on Schools

Impact on Students

Discussions, Implications, and Conclusions

References

Chapters 8: Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Rigor in Dual Enrollment, Accelerated Programs, and Standard Community College Courses

Programmatic Descriptions

Faculty

Methods and Procedures

Findings

Summary of Findings

Implications

Reference

Chapters 9: Strengthening Concurrent Enrollment Through NACEP Accreditation

History

Implementing the NACEP Standards at Lewis and Clark

Accreditation Benefits and Challenges

Summary

Note

References

Chapters 10: Dual Enrollment, Structural Reform, and the Completion Agenda

The College Completion Pipeline

Addressing the Leaky Pipeline: Dual Enrollment as a College Completion Strategy

Dual Enrollment Is a Structural Reform

Dual Enrollment and the Equity Challenge

Conclusion

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 3

Table 3.1

Chapter 7

Table 7.1

Table 7.2

Chapter 8

Table 8.1

List of Illustrations

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1 Response Frequencies, Course Offerings, and Student Eligibility

Figure 1.2 Response Frequencies, Instructor Eligibility, and Quality Assurance

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

1

Pages

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

77

78

79

80

81

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

113

114

115

116

Editors' Notes

A Definitional Note on Dual Enrollment

We elected to use the term “dual enrollment” in the title of this volume and throughout the Editors’ Notes. Dual enrollment is used in this volume to describe the general phenomenon of high school students enrolling in college-level courses other than exam-based courses such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate. However, this term varies across state and institutional contexts and does not necessarily have the same meaning in every context. Alternative terms include “concurrent enrollment,” “dual credit,” and “postsecondary enrollment options.” Although we use the term dual enrollment in the Editors’ Notes of this volume, we purposefully requested that chapter authors use the term most relevant to their state and local contexts. The variation of terms used in this volume reflects the reality that multiple terms are used in policy and practice throughout the United States.

Introduction

There is no time like the present to take stock of dual enrollment programs in community colleges and institutions of higher education. This volume is timely for a number of reasons, including the evolving interest in dual enrollment by state policymakers, the increasing number of students participating in dual enrollment, and the relationship between dual enrollment and the college completion agenda.

It has been nearly 15 years since Robertson, Chapman, and Gaskin (2001) edited a volume of New Directions for Community Colleges (NDCC) on dual enrollment in which they identified dual enrollment as an emerging and powerful form of collaboration that has the potential to transform students’ educational experiences and outcomes. As highlighted in this volume, the dual enrollment landscape has drastically transformed since 2001. Even since we began writing this volume in 2013, policy and practice have evolved in unique and somewhat unexpected ways at the federal, state, and local levels. For example, in spring 2014, the United States Department of Education released a solicitation of ideas for experimental sites for federal financial aid, and one example provided in the solicitation suggested that high school students could access federal financial aid for dual enrollment (as of January 2015, the financial aid experiments have not included dual enrollment). At the state level, the policy interest in dual enrollment is arguably at its highest point in history. The American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ analysis of Gubernatorial State of the State addresses in 2014 found that dual enrollment and early colleges were the fourth most commonly discussed issue, just below college affordability/tuition policies (Harnisch & Parker, 2014).

The popularity of dual enrollment is partially grounded in an accumulating body of evidence that suggests dual enrollment is an effective strategy to support students’ transition to and success in college. Rigorous evidence from several states (e.g., Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas) and one nationally representative study shows that relative to students who do not participate in dual enrollment, dual enrollment students are more likely to graduate high school (Karp, Calcagno, Hughes, Jeong, & Bailey, 2007), be prepared for college and participate in fewer remedial courses (An, 2013; Kim & Bragg, 2008), enroll in college (Karp et al., 2007; Struhl & Vargas, 2012; Taylor, 2013), persist in college and progress toward degree completion (Allen & Dadgar, 2012; Karp et al., 2007; Struhl & Vargas, 2012), and even complete college (An, 2013; Speroni, 2011; Struhl & Vargas, 2012; Taylor, 2013). Similarly, experimental results from the national early college impact study showed that students participating in early and middle college high schools had higher high school graduation and college enrollment rates than nonparticipants (Berger et al., 2013). Several of these studies elevate issues of equity, and we are learning more about how dual enrollment impacts different groups of students and may be a viable pathway for low-income students, students of color, first-generation students, and English language learners. This accumulating body of evidence is promising and has not gone unnoticed by educational leaders and policymakers. This body of rigorous evidence was nonexistent in 2001 when Robertson, Chapman, and Gaskin edited their NDCC volume, so the research base for dual enrollment has drastically expanded. Further, this research provides compelling evidence for strengthening and perhaps expanding dual enrollment programs, so a larger and more diverse group of students participate in and benefit from dual enrollment.

Despite this promising evidence, many of these studies make claims about dual enrollment without regard to variation in design and implementation. Whereas some studies account for key design dimensions and variation (e.g., course location, course type, course dosage, etc.), many studies disregard these design features and make broad claims about dual enrollment. Indeed, it is not uncommon for scholars and policymakers (ourselves included) to extrapolate research findings and make broad-based claims about dual enrollment's effectiveness without accounting for program design and state policy differences. This omission is not necessarily intentional but more likely reflects poorly designed data collection systems that preclude researchers from investigating the effects of various dual enrollment models on student outcomes. After all, dual enrollment operates at the junction between the secondary and postsecondary education systems in which many state and local data systems are structurally and legally separate. Implications for practice are that the research-based evidence regarding the relative impact of various dual enrollment models is largely absent when leaders and administrators consider how to design and execute dual enrollment programs and courses.

We believe the evidence on the impact of dual enrollment is critical to understanding program and policy effects, but this evidence is not the focus of this volume. Rather, the purpose of this volume is to examine dual enrollment models and contexts by highlighting diversity and variation in state policy and implementation, reviewing dual enrollment models and pathways for various student populations, surfacing key stakeholder perspectives, and considering issues of quality and institutional performance.

Reflecting on the Past

Before introducing the volume content to readers, it is valuable to briefly review the evolution of dual enrollment from a macro perspective. Early dual enrollment programs and courses predominately targeted students who were academically advanced. These programs and courses were often perceived and implemented as a pathway for academically gifted students who had exhausted their high school course options by senior year or before (Andrews, 2001; Andrews & Marshall, 1991). While academic dual enrollment courses were being delivered to academically gifted students, federal legislation supported the delivery of career and technical education (CTE) dual enrollment. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act was passed in 1990, and this legislation for the first time integrated Tech Prep, a program designed to support CTE students’ transition into postsecondary education and the workforce. Future reauthorizations of Perkins in 1998 and 2006 further strengthened Tech Prep and in particular the role of dual enrollment in Tech Prep programs.

Local implementation and federal Perkins legislation strengthened and expanded dual enrollment, but so did state policy. Andrews (2001) and the Education Commission of the States (2001) documented states’ dual enrollment efforts at the turn of the century and found that nearly all states had some dual enrollment efforts at the state or institutional level. Karp, Bailey, Hughes, and Fermin's (2004) analysis of state policies revealed that 40 of the 50 states developed state policies that govern dual enrollment by 2003.

The first national estimate of the number of students participating in dual enrollment was documented during the 2002–2003 academic year when the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) surveyed a nationally representative sample of public secondary schools and estimated there were 1.2 million students participating in dual enrollment (Waits, Setzer, & Lewis, 2005). NCES recently reproduced this survey, and, in the past decade, this number grew 66% to about 2.0 million dual enrollment students by the 2010–2011 academic year (Thomas, Marken, Gray, & Lewis, 2013).

Throughout the growth and evolution of dual enrollment, community colleges have been integral to the design and delivery of dual enrollment. Many state community college systems are the primary providers of dual enrollment (e.g., Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Virginia, Washington, etc.), and community colleges continue to be the largest postsecondary provider of dual enrollment nationally. NCES data show that 98% of community colleges provide dual enrollment courses to high school students, a percentage that is higher than any other postsecondary sector (Marken, Gray & Lewis, 2013). Further, community colleges are logical postsecondary partners for the delivery of dual enrollment because of their proximity to high schools and existing partnerships with high schools.

Purpose and Organization of the Volume

As dual enrollment policies and enrollments expand, so have the dual enrollment models, practices, and purposes. As a result of dual enrollment's expansion and maturation, dual enrollment is no longer exclusively a pathway for academically gifted students nor is it exclusively a pathway for CTE students under the guise of Tech Prep. Dual enrollment is not a monolithic phenomenon, but one that is characterized by variation in state policy intention, course and program design and focus, course location, course type, eligibility requirements, and its focus on the affective and noncognitive domain, among others. A primary purpose of this volume is to highlight this variation and feature a range of dual enrollment models that are designed to serve different student populations and create new pathways. In doing so, we hope this volume illustrates for readers how dual enrollment has matured and can serve as a pathway for both a greater number and more diverse group of students.

The volume is organized according to four major dimensions of dual enrollment: state policy, student pathways, stakeholder perspectives, and performance and evaluation. In Chapter 1, Taylor, Borden, and Park introduce readers to state dual enrollment policies and illustrate major policy dimensions and variation based on a national study. They point out that a majority of states have an explicit policy framework for dual enrollment that guides local policy and practice. Chapter 2 further illustrates how state policy influences local practice as Pretlow and Patteson draw from the experiences of a dual enrollment administrator to compare how state policies in Ohio and Virginia shape local actors and programs.

Chapters 3 through 5 feature how dual enrollment programs have created unique pathways for various student populations. Roach, Gamez Vargas, and David highlight Tulsa Community College's EXCELerate dual enrollment program in Chapter 3 and illustrate how the college navigated state and local policies to provide access to dual enrollment for students who are below state-mandated eligibility requirements. Their data on students’ success support their efforts and have implications for how state policy, intentional or not, can prevent students in the academic middle from accessing college courses in high school. Chapter 4 introduces readers to Early and Middle College High School (E-MCHS) models in Michigan and New York and reviews how the states have created new pathways for students who historically have not accessed college, such as students of color, low-income students, English language learners, and first-generation college students. As Barnett, Maclutsky, and Wagonlander demonstrate, E-MCHSs themselves have evolved, yet they continue to embrace core principles that support students not only academically but also socially, psychologically, and behaviorally. In Chapter 5, Haag explores CTE dual enrollment and narrates her experiences as a dual enrollment administrator. This chapter draws attention to many of the unique dimensions of CTE dual enrollment, an understudied but large segment of many dual enrollment programs.

The next two chapters, Chapters 6 and 7, surface the voices and perspectives of key dual enrollment stakeholders: students and secondary representatives. In Chapter 6, Kanny reports results from a qualitative study of dual enrollment students in an urban charter school. Student perspectives often bring clarity to educational programs and policies, and Kanny's results help us better understand how students experience dual enrollment, what value students place on dual enrollment, and the challenges students experience with dual enrollment. In Chapter 7, we learn about the secondary perspective, a perspective overshadowed in the often postsecondary-dominated conversations related to dual enrollment. In this chapter, Hanson, Prusha, and Iverson share results from survey data that explore the perspectives of high school faculty, counselors, and principals.

The focus of the next two chapters shifts to issues related to student and program performance and evaluation. In Chapter 8, Ferguson, Baker, and Burnett unpack the construct of course rigor based on an analysis of faculty perspectives and course syllabi. In Chapter 9, Scheffel, McLemore, and Lowe draw from their experience at Lewis and Clark Community College to illustrate how dual enrollment accreditation through the National Association of Concurrent Enrollment Programs has strengthened local partnerships and how they navigated particular challenges associated with gaining and maintaining accreditation.

The final chapter in the volume is a thought piece written by Melinda Mechur Karp of the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. Karp has written and published extensively on dual enrollment and uses this chapter to argue that dual enrollment is a structural reform that can support the college completion agenda and contribute to more equitable educational outcomes.

Collectively, the chapters are a sampling of the landscape of dual enrollment research and practice in community colleges across the nation. Given the new developments in dual enrollment practice and policy over the past decade, we are eager to observe how dual enrollment continues to evolve and how dual enrollment might offer more pathways into higher education for a larger and more diverse group of students.

Jason L. TaylorJoshua PretlowEditors

References

Allen, D., & Dadgar, M. (2012). Does dual enrollment increase students’ success in college? Evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis of dual enrollment in New York City. In E. Hoffman & D. Voloch (Eds.),

New Directions for Higher Education: No. 158. Dual enrollment: Strategies, outcomes, and lessons for school–college partnerships

(pp. 11–19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

An, B. P. (2013). The impact of dual enrollment on college degree attainment: Do low-SES students benefit?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

,

35

(1), 57–75.

Andrews, H. A. (2001).

The dual-credit phenomenon! Challenging secondary school students across 50 states

. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Andrews, H. A., & Marshall, R. P. (1991). Challenging high school honor students with community college courses.

Community College Review

,

19

, 47–51.

Berger, A., Turk-Bicakci, L., Garet, M., Song, M., Knudson, J., Haxton, C., . . . Cassidy, L. (2013).

Early college, continued success: Early college high school initiative impact study

. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from

http://www.air.org/resource/early-college-early-success-early-college-high-school-initiative-impact-study-2013

Education Commission of the States. (2001).

Postsecondary options: Dual/concurrent enrollment

. Retrieved from

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/28/11/2811.pdf

Harnisch, T. L., & Parker, E. A. (2014).

The 2014 Gubernatorial State of the State addresses and higher education

. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from

https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?message_id=3817560&user_id=AASCU

Karp, M. M., Bailey, T. R., Hughes, K. L., & Fermin, B. J. (2004).

State dual enrollment policies: Addressing access and quality

. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Karp, M. M., Calcagno, J. C., Hughes, K. L., Jeong, D. W., & Bailey, T. R. (2007).

The postsecondary achievement of participants in dual enrollment: An analysis of student outcomes in two states

. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Kim, J., & Bragg, D. D. (2008). The impact of dual and articulated credit on college readiness and retention in four community colleges.

Career and Technical Education Research

,

33

(2), 133–158.

Marken, S., Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2013).

Dual enrollment programs and courses for high school students at postsecondary institutions: 2010–11

(NCES 2013-002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013002.pdf

Robertson, P. F., Chapman, B. G., & Gaskin, F. (Eds.). (2001).

New Directions for Community Colleges: No. 113. Systems for offering concurrent enrollment at high schools and community colleges

. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Speroni, C. (2011).

Determinants of students’ success: The role of advanced placement and dual enrollment programs

. New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Struhl, B., & Vargas, J. (2012).

Taking college courses in high school: A strategy for college readiness—The college outcomes of dual enrollment in Texas

. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Taylor, J. L. (2013).

Community college dual credit: Differential participation and differential impacts on college access and success

(PhD dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

Thomas, N., Marken, S., Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2013).

Dual credit and exam-based courses in U.S. public high schools: 2010–11

(NCES 2013-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013001.pdf

Waits, T., Setzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005).

Dual credit and exam-based courses in U.S. public high schools: 2002–03

(NCES 2005-009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005009.pdf

Jason L. Taylor

is an assistant professor of higher education in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Utah

.

Joshua Pretlow

is an assistant professor of community college leadership at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA

.

1

This chapter reports results from a national policy study that examined state dual credit policies and how state policies address the quality of dual credit courses.

State Dual Credit Policy: A National Perspective

Jason L. Taylor, Victor H. M. Borden, Eunkyoung Park

Historically, the practice of offering college courses to high school students emerged from local practice in many states and was often initiated between local school and community college districts. In many states, this practice proceeded without clear state policy guidelines, regulations, or direction resulting in variation in local practice. Other states, such as Minnesota in the 1980s, were early adopters of state dual credit policy whereby state policy provided a framework for offering college courses to high school students. As dual enrollment, dual credit, and concurrent enrollment programs and courses grew, so have the state policies that regulate these courses and programs (we use the term dual credit in this chapter). Thus, local practices and programs described in several chapters in this volume are often contextualized, shaped, and constrained by the policies of the state in which they are located. Prior research has explored issues of access addressed in state policy components (Bragg, Kim, & Barnett, 2006; Education Commission of the States, 2001; Karp, Bailey, Hughes, & Fermin, 2004, 2005), but few have comprehensively examined issues of quality.

This chapter provides a national perspective on states’ dual credit policies and reports results from a study that explored how state policies address quality.1 The impetus for the study and interest in quality was based on the regional accrediting agencies’ increasing interest in how quality is assured for dual credit courses. We sought to examine state policies to understand whether and how they regulate and ensure quality for the purpose of informing regional accrediting agencies.

General efforts to regulate and ensure dual credit quality have been approached in at least two ways. First, a national organization, the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP), is a voluntary organization from which high school and college partnerships seek accreditation status based on meeting quality standards through a process similar to program accreditation. According to NACEP's website, 92 “concurrent enrollment programs”2 are NACEP-accredited (NACEP, 2014). Second, state policies have a role in maintaining the quality of dual credit programs. Karp et al.'s (2004, 2005) reviews of state dual credit policies illustrated how quality can be maintained via policies on student eligibility and through regulating course offerings. However, Karp et al. (2004, 2005) found less evidence of policies that address dual credit faculty professional development or academic and student support services for dual credit students (e.g., mentoring, study skills centers, and library facilities) that parallel those available to matriculated college students.

Despite the expansion of dual credit and growing concerns and attention to state policy ensuring the quality of dual credit, there is relatively little empirical research concerning the role of state policy in regulating and ensuring quality. The few studies that have been conducted at the national level found that there are large variations in dual credit policies ranging from nonexistent to extensive (Bragg et al., 2006; Education Commission of the States, 2001; Karp et al., 2004, 2005; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education [WICHE], 2006). However, these studies did not provide an empirical analysis of dual credit state policies from a quality perspective. Toward this end, the purpose of this study is to address the following broad research questions regarding state dual credit policy: