Secondary-Postsecondary Learning Options: Statewide Policies

A Forum — December 15, 2006

American Youth Policy Forum's newest compendium, The College Ladder: Linking Secondary and Postsecondary Education for Success for All Students, highlights the growing number of programs that allow high school students to enroll in college courses. These programs, which AYPF refers to as Secondary-Postsecondary Learning Options (SPLOs), are rapidly growing and expanding. For this compendium, AYPF focused on SPLOs that are engaging first generation, low-income, and low-performing students and underrepresented minorities. The College Ladder describes the outcomes for these SPLOs, highlights the best practices in the field, and also raises a number of issues for both policymakers and practitioners to consider as the field continues to grow.

Jennifer Brown Lerner, AYPF Program Associate and co-author of the compendium, explained that SPLOs are schools and programs that link secondary education with two- and four-year institutions of higher education and allow high school students to participate in college-level courses for credit and not for credit. The compendium covers 22 SPLOs grouped into four categories: dual enrollment, Tech Prep, middle or early college high schools, and programs serving disadvantaged youth.

In searching the existing literature for evaluative data, AYPF found significant data limitations, such as few third party evaluations, more qualitative than quantitative data, and evaluations with mainly short-term outcomes only (i.e. following students only through high school graduation or after one semester of postsecondary education).

The 22 programs looked at various student outcomes, including credits earned during high school, performance on high school standardized tests, high school graduation rates including other high school outcomes, college-going rates, college placement test/remediation, college course grades/GPAs, college retention, degree attainment/time to degree, and job market outcomes. Most SPLOs had documented three to six of these nine potential outcomes. For the evaluations that were able to compare SPLO participants to their peers who had not participated in a SPLO, results indicated that SPLO participants had, on average, better outcomes.

The compendium also discusses the following characteristics of SPLOs:

• Type of student served: SPLOs are viewed as a strategy to increase access for underserved populations.
• Sources of funding: Funding formulas must distribute dollars fairly, so that institutions are paid based on the amount of services they provide to students.
• Course rigor: SPLOs need to ensure they provide college-level courses and work. Several program elements to consider include: location, faculty preparation, prerequisites for participation, and program length.
• Extra supports: For students to be successful, SPLOs need to provide students with appropriate experiences and supports based on their individual needs. Most common extra supports are: caring adult advisors, academic assistance and tutoring, college success classes, and peer support networks in a safe environment.
• Formal sanctioning: While many states have some state framework to support SPLOs, many SPLOs have grown as a result of flexible local policies
• Transferability of credit: Very little data is available on what courses transfer for credit or how students use credit earned from participation in a SPLO.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between secondary and postsecondary teachers and administrators helps create a supportive environment for SPLO participants.

In addition, The College Ladder flags a number of issues that education and policy leaders need to consider as SPLOs grow and expand. These include: funding, alignment of programs and systems, equitable access to SPLOs, transferability of credits, quality and accountability, data collection, evaluation, and research.

Following the overview of The College Ladder, state officials from Washington and Florida described state legislation and policy that support SPLOs.

Livia Lam, Legislative Assistant to Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, introduced the presentation on the Running Start program in the state of Washington. She highlighted the Senator’s commitment to ensure all students can access college, as Senator Cantwell, herself, was the first  in her family to attend college.

Sally Zeiger Hanson, Assistant Director, Education Services, State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, gave an overview of the Running Start program including results from the most recent evaluation and policy issues the state is hoping to address.

Enacted in 1990, the “Learning by Choice” legislation aims to put students and families in the driver’s seat by providing options for students’ education. Running Start, one of the options created by the law, allows high school juniors and seniors to take college courses on college or university campuses or through distance learning for both high school and college credit. Students do not pay for these courses or for other fees, but are responsible for purchasing books and providing their own transportation to the college campus. Currently, all of Washington’s 34 community and technical colleges as well as four of the six state universities participate in Running Start.

The statutes governing Running Start provide that colleges receive 93% of Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding and that school districts maintain 7% for administrative costs. Running Start students’ ADA is divided through this formula on a per credit basis. Colleges and universities are not able to consider Running Start students in their funding counts.

As Running Start participants, students have an opportunity to experience college early. Once on campus, they are treated as traditional college students and are integrated into college courses. Running Start students primarily take courses to meet their high school graduation requirements. Typically, Running Start students take courses in the social sciences or humanities (80% of all courses), although Hanson noted that 8% of Running Start students take vocational/training courses. A small percentage of Running Start participants (5%) are able to earn both their high school diploma and associate’s degree.

Running Start has grown significantly since its inception with enrollment doubling in the past 10 years. Hanson stated that 10% of all the state’s juniors and seniors participate in the program. Data from 2005-2006 indicate cost savings to families and taxpayers. Students and families would have paid $27.5 million if they had to pay tuition for the courses accessed through the program, and taxpayers would have had to pay $43.8 million if students were simultaneously considered in the funding headcounts at the participating institutions of higher education. According to Hanson, the cost savings aspect of the program resonates with state legislators.

Results from Running Start participants indicate the program is successful: students finish more credits attempted with higher grades than traditional students, Running Start students continue to perform well when they transfer to the University of Washington, and Running Start students earn bachelor’s degree with 33 fewer state-supported credits. Running Start students who have enrolled in career and technical courses to earn a workforce credential have higher employment rates. 

Hanson discussed the type of student that Running Start is currently serving. They are “well-networked, B-average students who are prepared to do college-level work.” The state has been considering ways to increase the diversity within the program and make this opportunity available to a wider range of students.  

The funding formula, Hanson stated, does not promote collaboration between high schools and colleges, rather it requires these institutions to compete for funding. Thus, high schools are responding by changing graduation requirements, so that students are required to be in their building for coursework and activities such as culminating senior year projects. While the funding structure creates a competitive situation, the K-12 education, technical and community college, and the state university systems have joint rulemaking authority over the program, which promotes collaboration at the administrative level.

Hanson concluded her presentation by raising questions about a number of policy areas with which the state is currently struggling. These include “no harm” funding agreements that would promote collaboration, multiple admissions criteria to open the program to more students, and expanding locations of dual enrollment classes so that all students have access. At the federal level, Hanson recommended that dual enrollment classes be considered part of a rigorous course of study under the Academic Competitiveness grants, that more flexibility be given to home-schooled students participating in these programs, and that the highly qualified teacher requirement have reciprocity with the credentials required to teach in postsecondary education.

Dr. Patricia Windham, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Evaluation, Florida Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges spoke about the extensive acceleration mechanisms in the state of Florida and presented the results from dual enrollment with community colleges.

Florida’s legislation recognizes multiple mechanisms for acceleration, including: dual enrollment, early admission, Advanced Placement, credit by examination, International Baccalaureate, and Advanced International Certificate of Education, the international examination program of the University of Cambridge. Statutes also set the participation criteria for these acceleration mechanisms. For academic, credit-bearing dual enrollment courses, students must pass a College Placement Test and have an unweighted GPA of 3.0 and for career certification dual enrollment courses, students are able to participate with an unweighted GPA of 2.0. Windham noted that 94% of all dual enrollment in the state is creditable to an associate’s degree.

The key to Florida’s success in ensuring transferable credit for the dual enrollment program is the state’s common course numbering system. The requirement that dual enrollment courses offered by community colleges be a part of this system is contained in  the inter-institutional agreements between the community colleges and the school districts they serve. These agreements govern courses offered, ensure the provision of guidance and information to students and families to advertise the program, screening tests and additional eligibility requirements, criteria for judging quality of dual enrollment courses (for courses offered in high school classrooms), cost and transportation responsibilities. At the state-level, there are also measures to guarantee quality and rigor. To ensure all courses are college-level instruction, the state requires that all students meet the eligibility requirements demonstrating they are academically-capable, that all faculty meet the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation requirements for teaching college-level courses, and that course content meets the specification of the statewide course numbering system. The statewide course numbering system is used by all state-sponsored institutions of higher education and details the content taught in each course. This also ensures that courses offered at community colleges are directly transferable to state universities.

Participation in Florida’s dual enrollment with community colleges is available to all qualified students at no cost, as stipulated in the legislation. Both the high school and college are able to consider students in their funding headcounts. Thus, high schools maintain the full ADA for students while colleges are also able to consider these students as part-time FTE. While many call this practice “double dipping,” Windham referred to it as “pay it forward, or paying would-be future costs in today’s dollars, rather than tomorrow’s dollars.” Windham also noted that Florida is one of six states that pay for students to participate in dual enrollment; most other states require either the school district or student to pay to participate.

Windham also shared some the recent research on dual enrollment with community colleges. In 2005-2006, 32,759 students participated in dual enrollment with community colleges and took 113,894 courses with 83% earning passing grades (A, B, or C). Participants were 72% White, 10% Hispanic, 10% African-American, and 8% other. A typical dual enrollment student takes three dual enrollment courses, which earns one and half high school credits and nine college credit hours. In addition, statewide data indicate 86% of dual enrollment students are eligible for college credit compared to 73% of International Baccalaureate students and 54% of Advanced Placement students. Research on Florida’s dual enrollment program with community college has also demonstrated increased attendance in postsecondary education for participants, higher grades in commonly taken college courses, and higher graduation rates from community colleges.   

Florida is committed to provide the highest quality experience for dual enrollment students and currently is working on a number of projects to strengthen the programs across the state. Currently, the state is working on a dual enrollment handbook for school districts and colleges as well as promotion of best practices and ongoing discussions between participating institutions. At one community college, Florida is piloting the use of its state-mandated tests (FCATs), instead of a College Placement Test for admissions into the dual enrollment program. The goal is to decrease the number of tests that students have to take.

Windham cautioned there might not need to be a federal role in dual enrollment as the Florida program has existed and thrived for many years without any involvement at the federal level. Windham hopes that if there is federal involvement in dual enrollment programs that it will continue to allow for diverse options, such as those offered within Florida, and that it not impede any well-prepared student’s ability to continue to move forward.

Highlights from the Question and Answer Session

Both presenters from Washington and Florida categorized their dual enrollment program as not simply alternatives to high school, but rather structured opportunities for qualified students to participate in rigorous, college-level work.

Both presenters commented on the limited diversity of the current programs and felt that their states needed to take more responsibility in ensuring equal access for all students.

Since Florida and Washington approach funding for their dual enrollment programs differently, there was much discussion regarding politically-viable funding systems for states. Florida remains committed to paying for students through both systems (K-12 and postsecondary) to ensure students receive the appropriate services from both. Hanson suggested states might consider a “super FTE rate.” This would be a larger per pupil allowance to the K-12 system that would allow the funds to be shared between both systems. It was noted that any funding formula needs to consider additional costs to students, such as books, fees, and transportation, which could potentially price some students out of participation.

Presenters Bio

Dr. Patricia Windham is Associate Vice-Chancellor for Evaluation for the Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education, Florida Department of Education.  She has worked with Florida’s data systems for over twenty-five years. She is a member of various research organizations including the Association for Institutional Research and the National Community College Council for Research and Planning.  She is a past president of both the Florida Association for Institutional Research and the Southeastern Association for Community College Research.  She has been published in several journals including the Journal of Applied Research in the Community College and Community College Review, and presented at numerous research association conferences.  She is the recipient of the National Community College Council for Research and Planning 2002 Outstanding Journal Contribution for articles published in the Journal of Applied Research in the Community College.

Sally Zeiger Hanson, Assistant Director, Education Services, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges is the policy lead for the three dual enrollment programs at Washington state’s 34 community and technical colleges: Running Start, Tech Prep and College in the High School. Sally provided leadership to a statewide taskforce that developed College in the High School guidelines, writes and publishes the annual Running Start report and played a role in developing Washington’s unique direct transfer agreements. These transfer agreements have resulted in more than 16,000 students each year earning free college credits through Tech Prep.

Over the last seven years, Sally and two colleagues have been researching and teaching about generational differences and the implications for education.  Their lively presentations have become an annual part of the national League for Innovation conferences.

Sally Zeiger Hanson holds a Baccalaureate of Arts degree in International Public Relations from the University of Washington.  In 1998, she earned her Masters in Education degree in Student Development from Seattle University.

Jennifer Brown Lerner, Program Associate, identifies and researches education-related issues, policies, and programs for AYPF’s publications and learning events -- Capitol Hill forums, site visits, and roundtable policy meetings. She served as an Education Policy Fellow at the Institute for Educational Leadership in 2005-06. 

Prior to joining AYPF, Ms. Lerner was at Teacher’s College, Columbia University. There, she pursued a concentration in leadership, policy, and politics and drafted a policy brief for the National Center for Schools and Communities at Fordham University entitled “Measuring and Defining Social Capital.”

Ms. Lerner has also worked as a teacher and development officer for two independent schools in the Boston area, prior to which, she was active in the creation of a school-supplement program called Summerbridge (now Breakthrough Collaborative) in Atlanta, Georgia, that engages middle school students in year-round academic enrichment with high school and college students serving as teachers and mentors. Ms. Lerner received her BA from the University of Pennsylvania and her MA from Teachers College, Columbia University.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org