Dual Enrollment Requires Sustainable Funding to Promote High School and College Success

Table of Contents show

Download PDF

Overview

Dual Enrollment presents an opportunity to better prepare students for success in both high school and college. Soon most jobs will require some level of postsecondary education.[1] Dual Enrollment prepares students for the transition between secondary and postsecondary education and helps students get to and through their chosen higher education paths and career goals. By adequately funding Dual Enrollment and designing smart policies to promote student success, more high school students will enter college ready to learn, develop and graduate.

Dual Enrollment allows qualifying high school students to take college courses for free while earning both high school and college credit. The program helps address concerns about college affordability while increasing college access and success. State funds for public colleges and universities have fallen and led to tuition and fee increases.[2] Many families worry about affording a postsecondary education even as it becomes more necessary. During this period, policymakers have pursued ways to increase college access, especially for students who face barriers to a degree. These avenues include accelerated learning opportunities such as Dual Enrollment, Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses.

This report analyzes increased Dual Enrollment participation and identifies the program’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. We offer recommendations for Georgia lawmakers based on these factors. Any discussion of changes to the funding amount or structure for Dual Enrollment must consider the consequences for Georgia’s students.

Key Findings:

  • Private colleges lead cost growth, and technical colleges lead student growth
  • Dual Enrollment participation is growing faster among smaller and underrepresented student groups
  • Dual Enrollment’s strengths include its no-payment structure for students, flexibility in course delivery and fully funding high schools and colleges
  • Weaknesses include a lack of data on student outcomes and dropped, withdrawn and failed courses that pose a risk to students
  • Dual Enrollment acts as a crucial onramp to college, especially in districts with weak access to Advanced Placement courses
  • Program threats include funding uncertainty, participation by colleges that spend small shares of tuition dollars on instruction and postsecondary barriers that can dampen Dual Enrollment’s long-term benefits for Black and Latino students

Key Recommendations:

  • Provide consistent, predictable and adequate funding for Dual Enrollment
  • Continue to include Dual Enrollment students in public K-12 and postsecondary enrollment counts for funding and study the costs of providing Dual Enrollment
  • Prioritize funding to institutions that spend larger shares of tuition dollars on instruction
  • Maintain flexibility in eligibility requirements
  • Collect, analyze and publish data to evaluate effectiveness and inform program rules
  • Standardize policies by academic year or total credit hours
  • Provide more clarity and guidance around course transferability and applicability
  • Consider effects of policy change on rural school districts, high school models that rely on Dual Enrollment funds and differing impacts by student grade level

Dual Enrollment Basics

The state appropriates general fund dollars to the Georgia Student Finance Commission (GSFC), which reimburses colleges and universities for costs associated with providing classes for high school students. All public, private and homeschooled students can participate. Dual Enrollment is a voluntary program for colleges, and students can take courses at colleges throughout the state, including public colleges in the university or technical college system, private non-profit and for-profit colleges.

By law, students do not pay for tuition, fees or books, though they might be responsible for course-related fees. GSFC pays public colleges and universities the same tuition rates that regular college students pay but does not pay for fee-supported services or books. Colleges and universities must provide books and services at no charge to students.[3]

State Dual Enrollment Payment Rates to Colleges
Technical Colleges $100 per credit hour
University System of Georgia $95 to $342 per credit hour, depending on tuition rate of college.
Private Colleges $250 per credit hour (semester courses)
$187 per credit hour (quarter courses)

Source: Georgia Student Finance Commission. See full payment table at https://gsfc.georgia.gov/award-amounts

Total Growth in Dual Enrollment High, But Varies by College Type, Student Demographics and Other Key Characteristics

Appropriations for Dual Enrollment grew from $49 million in fiscal year 2016 to a projected $123 million in FY 2021.[4] Recent data show that more than 50,000 students total, and 8.5 percent of all Georgia public high school students, took college courses through the program in 2019.[5] This program has expanded so that in 2019 one out of every five high school 12th grade students took one or more dual enrollment courses. Participation rates in 2019 in Georgia are now similar to the national average in 2015-16. In 2016 Georgia lagged the nation with a 4 percent participation rate.[6] Total FY 2020 spending on education was $10.6 billion for Georgia’ K-12 public education system, $2.4 billion for the University System of Georgia and $374 million for the Technical College System of Georgia.[7] Dual Enrollment represents less than 1 percent of total public K-12 and higher education spending.

Private Colleges Lead Cost Growth, Technical Colleges Lead Student Growth

It is important to distinguish growth among costs, students and credit hours. Because the state pays colleges different amounts, both the number of participating students and payment rates drive cost growth.

Georgia’s Dual Enrollment spending grew faster in private colleges than public colleges.

State spending on Dual Enrollment in private colleges grew 224 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2019, compared to 108 percent for technical colleges and 67 percent for the university system. Private colleges get the highest average payment from the state of $3,103 per student, compared to $1,297 for technical colleges and $2,358 for the university system.[8]

Dual Enrollment Growth by Higher Education Sector, FY 2016-2019
   Private Colleges    Technical College System of Georgia University System of Georgia  
Dollar Growth,
FY 2016-2019 
$22.1 million
224%
$20.3 million
108%
$13.5 million
67%
Student Growth, FY 2016-2019   6,548 students
176%
14,693 students
95%
5,194 students
57%
Average Dollars per Student, FY 2019 $3,103 $1,297 $2,358

Source: GBPI analysis of Georgia Student Finance Commission data.

More than half of enrollment growth (14,693 students) comes from Dual Enrollment participation in technical colleges.

Since FY 2016, Dual Enrollment participation in the university system grew by 5,194 students, and by 6,548 students in private colleges.[9]

Students are taking more core academic courses in technical colleges.

Technical colleges are the state’s largest provider of both technical and core academic Dual Enrollment courses. Core courses include mathematics, science, English, social science and foreign language. Technical courses include career, technical and agricultural education (CTAE) courses. Sixty-one percent of credit hours taken at technical colleges are core academic courses.[10] The most popular courses at technical colleges are English 1101 (Composition and Rhetoric), Math 1111 (College Algebra), English 1102 (Literature and Composition) and Psychology 1101 (Introductory Psychology).[11]

Most Dual Enrollment courses (76.4 percent) are core academic courses, but more students are enrolling in courses that are neither core academic nor technical.

In FY 2019, 19.4 percent of Dual Enrollment courses were technical and 4.2 percent were neither core nor technical.[12] “Other” courses can include fine arts, health and physical education, for example. Though these courses represent a small share of credit hours, they grew the fastest.

Most students (72 percent) take at least one Dual Enrollment course on a college campus, but more students are taking online or hybrid courses.

Georgia leads the nation on offering Dual Enrollment opportunities on a college campus. Nationally, only 17 percent of Dual Enrollment students took courses on a college campus.[13] Georgia students take only 15 percent of Dual Enrollment credit hours on a high school campus, down from 20 percent in 2016.[14] Rural high school students are more likely to take Dual Enrollment courses on high school campuses. In more rural school districts, 28 percent of credit hours were taken on a high school campus, versus 10 percent for more urban districts.[15] Online courses represent 10 percent of credit hours in 2019, up from 6 percent in 2016.[16]

Students in rural school districts are more likely to participate in Dual Enrollment, but participation is growing slightly faster in more urban areas.

School systems in the least populated areas of the state enroll the highest percentage of students in Dual Enrollment courses. The seven most rural counties in Georgia average 25 percent of their high school students taking at least one Dual Enrollment course in 2019, compared with 5 percent of high school students in metro Atlanta systems.[17]

Nearly 20 percent of credit hour growth from 2016 to 2019 comes from one college.

Between FY 2016 and FY 2019, Dual Enrollment credit hours grew by about 347,000 credit hours, or 52 percent. Nineteen percent of the growth came from Georgia Military College (GMC). GMC’s unique structure contributes to its large Dual Enrollment load: It has 14 campuses serving students in 73 counties and, unlike most colleges, the school offers five terms per academic year. Dual Enrollment students average 23 credit hours per fiscal year at GMC, compared to 14 credit hours for all private nonprofit colleges.[18]

Dual Enrollment Participation Is Growing Faster Among Smaller and Underrepresented Student Groups

Most Dual Enrollment students are in 11th and 12th grade (81 percent), but more 10th grade students are participating.

Ninth-grade participation grew 92 percent; 10th grade participation, 238 percent; 11th grade participation, 137 percent; and 12th grade participation, 69 percent. The average course load increases with grade level. Ninth-grade students take an average of 6.5 credits per year; 10th grade students average 9.3; 11th grade students take an average of 10.6, and students in 12th grade average 13.5 credit hours per year.[19]

Public high school students represent most Dual Enrollment students (87 percent), though participation is growing across public school, private school and homeschooled students.

Homeschooled students are the fastest growing group of Dual Enrollment participants, though they remain a small share (4 percent). Homeschooled participation grew 110 percent, compared to 70 percent for students in private high schools and 90 percent for students in public high schools. Homeschooled students take the highest average number of credit hours: 15.2 credit hours per year, versus 12.8 for public high school students and 10.7 for private high school students.[20]

Black and Latino students are underrepresented in Dual Enrollment, but their participation rates have grown quickly.

Latino students and those who identify as biracial or multiracial have the fastest growing participation, though they still make up small shares of Dual Enrollment students. White students make up 40 percent of public high school students and 54 percent of public high school Dual Enrollment students. Black students represent 37 percent of high school students and 29 percent of Dual Enrollment students. Latino students represent 16 and 9 percent of students, respectively.[21]

Male students are underrepresented in Dual Enrollment, and the proportion remains constant.

In 2016, 62 percent of public high school Dual Enrollment students were female, and 39 percent were male.[22] In 2019, the proportion was unchanged. Analysis of Dual Enrollment students in Florida found that both male and female students were more likely to enroll in college and earn better grades, and male students benefitted even more, especially those in Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs.[23] In Georgia, 62 percent of male high school graduates enroll in college, compared to 74 percent of female high school graduates.[24]

Students from economically disadvantaged families are underrepresented, but more recent data are necessary.

In 20152016, 58 percent of public high school students qualified for free/reduced lunch and enrolled in 52 percent of Dual Enrollment courses. This is up from 44 percent of students eligible for free/reduced lunch attempting 39 percent of courses in 2007-2008.[25]

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Dual Enrollment can benefit students in multiple ways, including better grades in college, improved high school graduation, college enrollment and graduation rates, and saving students time to complete their degrees.[26] Evidence shows that when students are successful in Dual Enrollment courses, the benefits are even greater for students historically at risk for worse education outcomes, including students from low-income families and male students.[27] When students are not successful, the risks are even greater for academically underprepared students and students from low-income families.[28] Nationwide, Dual Enrollment students are more likely to be female, more likely to be white and more likely to have parents with higher levels of educational attainment.[29] Ensuring equitable access to Dual Enrollment opportunities while providing rigor and student supports is critical to student success and poses challenges for policymakers.

Strengths

Dual Enrollment’s no-payment structure makes courses accessible to students from a range of family economic backgrounds.

Students who participate in Dual Enrollment nationwide are more likely to attain a college degree than non-participants, and students from lower-income families and those whose parents did not graduate from college benefit more.[30] In some other states, student-borne costs for fees and books can pose a barrier to participation for students from lower-income families. Because the state covers the cost of Dual Enrollment courses for students, motivated students who want to participate are not held back by family income.[31]

Flexibility in course delivery makes Dual Enrollment accessible across rural and urban school districts.

Transportation to a college campus can be a barrier. Students might rely on their parents, drive on their own, pay for rideshare services or use public transportation to attend class. Some districts allocate money to pay for buses, but this can be expensive.[32] Teaching courses on a high school campus, whether through college faculty or a high school instructor certified to teach a college-level course, removes this barrier. In Georgia, students in rural areas are more likely to take courses online or on their high school campus, though most students still participate on a college campus.[33]

Fully funding high schools and colleges for Dual Enrollment students encourages participation and helps maintain quality in colleges and universities.

When states penalize school district budgets for Dual Enrollment participation, schools might act in ways to discourage participation, but few Georgia districts encounter that problem. Enrollment-based state funding for higher education covers only a portion of colleges’ costs to educate their students, so funding colleges for Dual Enrollment students is necessary to provide instruction and support for additional students without hurting existing college students.

Weaknesses

Lack of data on student outcomes.

Lawmakers and constituents lack public, accessible and regular data on key aspects of Dual Enrollment to evaluate its effectiveness. Important data include how many students from lower-income backgrounds participate, high school graduation rates, college enrollment and graduation rates and whether students graduate college faster or at lower cost. This makes it difficult to evaluate effectiveness and change policies based on evidence.

Dropped, withdrawn and failed Dual Enrollment courses pose a risk to students.

Statewide, students earn As or Bs in more than 74 percent of Dual Enrollment courses. Georgia students also dropped 11 percent of courses and earned a D or F in 5 percent of courses.[34] Students who drop classes early enough can enroll in another high school course. But high schools can struggle to enroll students in another class if schedules do not align. In rare instances, withdrawing or failing a course can hurt a student’s path to on-time high school graduation, disqualify a student for HOPE or risk future federal financial aid eligibility, since Dual Enrollment courses count as attempted credit hours in Satisfactory Academic Progress standards. These risk factors can hurt the chances of college enrollment and completion for academically underprepared students and students from low-income families.[35] Further analysis is required to identify common factors in dropped, withdrawn and failed courses, including eligibility requirements and course delivery methods. Counselors report skepticism about the appropriateness of online college courses for high school students, and evidence shows that students who take online courses face greater risk of failing compared to those who take traditional, face-to-face format.[36]

Opportunities

Dual Enrollment acts as a crucial onramp to college, especially in districts with weak access to Advanced Placement courses.[37]

Both Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment participation increase the likelihood of attaining a college degree.[38] In Georgia, school districts with a lower percentage of students in AP courses have higher participation in Dual Enrollment, and vice versa.[39] This relationship suggests that schools with less access to AP courses and teachers are more likely to partner with colleges to offer Dual Enrollment courses.

Threats

Funding uncertainty.

The state funds Dual Enrollment through a fixed appropriation, meaning it does not vary based on enrollment numbers, so a mismatch between enrollment and funding means that resources needed to execute Dual Enrollment well can fall short. Students register for Dual Enrollment courses in February before program and funding decisions are made for the fall.

Participation by colleges that spend small shares of tuition dollars on instruction.

Through Dual Enrollment, the state sends public dollars to colleges as tuition. Georgia should expect a high “bang for its tuition buck” from participating schools. Some participating colleges spend low shares of tuition dollars on instruction. For example, DeVry University, a for-profit college participating in Dual Enrollment, spends about 12 cents on instruction for every dollar collected in tuition. In contrast, the state’s technical colleges spend more than $1.00 on instruction for every tuition dollar collected.[40]

Postsecondary barriers that dampen Dual Enrollment’s long-term benefits for Black and Latino students.

Financial and other barriers can overwhelm the positive effects of Dual Enrollment when it comes time to complete a postsecondary degree, especially for students of color. In Texas, for example, participation increased both bachelor’s and associate degree graduation rates for white students, associate degree graduation rates for Latino students but did not increase Black student graduation rates.[41] To maximize Dual Enrollment’s benefits, the state, K-12 schools and colleges should continue to undertake reforms to improve K-8 academic preparation and remove financial and administrative barriers for college students.

Policy Change Considerations

Dual Enrollment connects high schools and colleges across a diverse state to provide a more seamless transition through high school, college and career. Before making changes to Dual Enrollment, policymakers should consider the following:

Effect on rural school districts.

Rural Georgia school systems take greater advantage of Dual Enrollment. In the most rural counties in Georgia, one in four high school students participate.[42] Ending the “hold harmless” principle by reducing district budgets for Dual Enrollment students would hurt these and other small districts more. Smaller school districts have higher administrative costs.[43]

High school models that rely on Dual Enrollment funds, such as college and career academies and early college high schools.

Georgia is home to 11 early colleges, which are formal school partnerships between the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) and the University System of Georgia. These high schools are partially funded through Dual Enrollment but operate as separate schools with their own principals, some with independent buildings. Georgia is also home to 46 college and career academies, which are partnerships between GaDOE, the Technical College System of Georgia and local business and community leaders. These high schools are partially funded through Dual Enrollment but are more structured programs where students choose specific college and career pathways, such as culinary arts or engineering, to begin in high school. Research on early college high schools shows that these students are more likely to enroll in and complete college.[44] Some Dual Enrollment legislation in other states exempt these schools from changes.

Differential impact by grade level.

Dual Enrollment opportunities become more important the closer students are to high school graduation, and 81 percent of Dual Enrollment students are in 11th or 12th grade.[45] Any changes should minimize barriers for high school students in 12th grade.

Recommendations

Dual Enrollment fulfills a strong desire of Georgia’s high school students to take free college courses and enhance their education beyond the traditional high school experience. Access to college courses while in high school improves college enrollment and graduation rates and smooths the transition from high school to college and career. The program also holds the potential to narrow gaps in high school graduation, college enrollment and graduation rates by race/ethnicity, economic status and gender, if students are provided adequate access, preparation and support.

A cost-benefit analysis of Dual Enrollment in Texas found that the benefits—measured in reduced time to degree, increased postsecondary attainment, lifetime earnings and tax revenues and decreased spending on public benefits—were more than five times the costs.[46] Georgia has shown a willingness to invest in education, including a $534 million increase to teacher pay in the FY 2020 budget and $100 million in tax credits for private school subsidies. Total K-12 spending is more than $10 billion, and TCSG and USG funding is nearly $3 billion.[47] Georgia must now fund the growing initiative in a sustainable way and design policies to promote student success.

There are clear steps the state can take to support Dual Enrollment in Georgia.

Provide consistent, predictable and adequate funding for Dual Enrollment.

Georgia is at a crossroads where lawmakers must make wise decisions to fund education priorities. Though Dual Enrollment has grown, a $123 million total expected appropriation in FY 2021 remains a relatively small and targeted way to benefit more than 50,000 students. Evidence shows Dual Enrollment opportunities can benefit students’ high school and college performance, and the appropriation represents less than 1 percent of total public K-12 and higher education spending. To provide more predictability, legislators might consider linking appropriations to enrollment or credit hours for students in public high schools, colleges or universities. In Iowa, districts use enrollment-based K-12 funds to pay for Dual Enrollment, but Dual Enrollment students generate an extra weight in the funding formula. In Utah, lawmakers base the appropriation on credit hours earned the previous year, and split funding based on who taught the course (60 percent of the allocation goes to the system providing the instructor).[48] Georgia could cut administrative costs by adding per-student funding for Dual Enrollment students in the K-12, TCSG and USG funding formulas to cover the cost of the courses at public colleges and universities, and leave a smaller and separate program for students who participate in private colleges.

Continue to include Dual Enrollment students in public K-12 and postsecondary enrollment counts for funding and study the costs of providing Dual Enrollment.

Dual Enrollment requires additional resources from participating districts and colleges. Both high schools and colleges dedicate staff and facilities to work with students, families and coordinate across agencies. Some districts cover transportation costs for students and required supplies for technical education courses. Across the country, states identify funding for high schools and colleges as important to the integrity and quality of Dual Enrollment.[49] But because Dual Enrollment is flexible and education systems in Georgia are diverse, costs likely vary by course model, based on factors like who teaches the course (full-time college, adjunct college, high school teachers), course type (technical, academic) and district size. The state should study these costs to school districts and colleges.

Prioritize funding to colleges that spend larger shares of tuition dollars on instruction.

To ensure the state’s Dual Enrollment dollars are spent on student instruction, Georgia should prioritize funding to schools that spend most tuition revenue on instruction. Some private colleges spend small shares of tuition dollars on instruction.

Maintain flexibility in eligibility requirements.

Appropriate student eligibility criteria are critical to student success but difficult to define uniformly across diverse high schools, colleges and courses. High school staff report that some students who were at first below eligibility cutoffs but worked to become eligible performed well in courses, while other students who initially met eligibility requirements struggled. Colleges and universities set their own grade point average, standardized test score, age and grade level requirements, and some require endorsement from high school counselors to participate.[50] Many high school and college administrators report that “student maturity level” is also critical to a successful Dual Enrollment experience. Local school counselors should be given flexibility to advise the most appropriate action for individual students.

Collect and publish data to evaluate Dual Enrollment, provide accountability and inform program rules.

Policymakers lack critical information on Georgia’s Dual Enrollment students. The state should regularly collect and report data on participation rates among student groups by race/ethnicity, gender, economic status and geography and set targets for participation of underrepresented students. It should collect and report data on high school and college enrollment and graduation rates and time to degree and analyze how these outcomes vary with number of credit hours taken. Finally, the state should also analyze common factors in dropped, withdrawn and failed courses, including course and student characteristics. Many states such as Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and West Virginia require data collection and reports to ensure that their programs meet stated goals.[51]

Standardize policies by academic year or total credit hours.

The current 15-hour cap applies per term for a maximum of four terms per year, but schools vary in number of terms per academic year. To provide greater consistency, the state should also standardize policies by academic year or total credit hours.

Provide more clarity and guidance around transferability and applicability of credit hours.

Dual Enrollment is an opportunity to help students better understand their path through college. The most popular courses are core academic courses. Colleges can build on the General Education Course transfer agreement between USG and TCSG and provide clarity around transfer from private colleges, which represent more than 20 percent of Dual Enrollment credit hours.[52] Colleges can also build on ongoing initiatives to provide students with more structured degree pathways to save students on time to graduation.[53] Lastly, colleges can also provide more information to students and high school counselors on how Dual Enrollment participation might affect admissions decisions.

Appendix: Dual Enrollment’s History of Funding Changes, 2004-2019

Dual Enrollment in its current form started in 2015, but the program has existed in some form since at least the early 1990s. Over the years, the funding sources and details and program have evolved to become what is thought of today as Dual Enrollment.[54]

Program Name Funding Source Program Details Funding Details
2004-2011, Three Dual Enrollment Programs
Accel Lottery (Funds count against HOPE cap)
  • Academic core, degree-level courses
  • 9th-12th grade, part-time
School districts do not keep full QBE funds.QBE is the formula used to allot state money for K12 public education. Instead, they receive a per-segment administrative fee.
HOPE Grant Lottery (Funds count against HOPE cap)
  • Technical certificate and diploma level courses
  • 9th-12th grade, part-time
School districts do not keep full QBE funds. Instead, they receive a per-segment administrative fee.
Move On When Ready (created in 2009) QBE
  • Full-time college enrollment
  • 11th-12th grade public high school students only
DOE pays school districts a per-student administrative fee for MOWR students.
2011-2015, Funding Changes
Accel State general funds** (Credit hours no longer count against HOPE.)
  • Academic core, degree-level courses
  • 9th-12th grade, part-time
School districts keep QBE funds, minus an administrative fee.**
HOPE Grant

 

Lottery (Credit hours no longer count against HOPE.)
  • Technical certificate and diploma level courses
  • 9th-12th grade, part-time
School districts keep QBE funds.**

 

Move On When Ready

 

QBE
  • Full-time college enrollment
  • 11-12th grade public high school students only
School districts do not keep QBE funds.
2015-current, Simplification Facilitates Growth
Dual Enrollment* State general funds Consolidates Accel, HOPE Grant and Move On When Ready

*Note: Name changed from Move On When Ready to Dual Enrollment in 2017. The terms “Joint Enrollment” and “Dual Enrollment” were also used. Dual Enrollment refers to students earning both high school and college credit, while in Joint Enrollment, students earned only college credit. Joint Enrollment referred to the HOPE Grant or student self-pay, and credit hours counted against the HOPE cap.

** Note: Denotes major change to program.

Endnotes

[1] Complete College Georgia. The University System of Georgia. https://completega.org/

[2] State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. State Higher Education Finance FY 2018 report. https://sheeo.org/project/state-higher-education-finance/

[3] Georgia Student Finance Authority. Dual Enrollment Program Regulations, 2019-2020 Award Year.

[4] Georgia’s FY 2016 Budget and FY 2021 Agency Requests.

[5] Dual Enrollment student data from Georgia Student Finance Commission, FY 2019. Nearly 52,000 public, private and homeschooled students participated in Dual Enrollment. About 45,000 out of 522,000 public high school students took Dual Enrollment courses.

[6] Community College Research Center. (2018, Nov 5). How does access to Dual Enrollment and Advanced Placement vary by race and gender across states? The Mixed Methods Blog. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/access-dual-enrollment-advanced-placement-race-gender.html

[7] GBPI analysis of Georgia’s FY 2020 Budget.

[8] GBPI analysis of GSFC data, FY 2016-FY 2019.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Technical College System of Georgia data, AY 2019.

[12] GBPI analysis of GSFC data, FY 2016-FY 2019.

[13] U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019 Feb). Dual Enrollment: Participation and characteristics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019176. Eighty percent of U.S. students took courses on a high school campus, but students can report takings course in multiple locations.

[14] GBPI analysis of GSFC data, FY 2016-FY 2019.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid. Counties are classified by county using the Census definitions of Completely Rural and Mostly Rural, versus Mostly Urban.

[17] GBPI analysis of GSFC data. Geographic designations based on United States Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx  

[18] GBPI analysis of GSFC data for FY 2016-FY 2019.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] GBPI analysis of GaDOE data, 2016-2019.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Karp, M.M., Calgano, J.C., Hughes, K.L., Jeong, D.W., and Bailey, T. (2007). The Postsecondary Achievement of Participants in Dual Enrollment: An Analysis of Student Outcomes in Two States. St. Paul, Minnesota: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University of Minnesota.

[24] GBPI analysis of GOSA data, 2017-2018 Post-secondary C11 report. https://gosa.georgia.gov/report-card-dashboards-data/downloadable-data

[25] Rauschenberg, S. & Chalasani, K. (2017 Nov). Georgia Dual Enrollment and postsecondary outcomes: A longitudinal analysis of Dual Enrollment outcomes from 2008 to 2016. The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. For additional context on the relationship between district Direct Certification rates and Dual Enrollment participation, see Bond, K., & Chalasani, K. (2018 Nov). Georgia Dual Enrollment and postsecondary outcomes: 2016-2017 analysis of Dual Enrollment outcomes. The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement.

[26] American Institutes for Research. (2018 Oct). Dual-Credit education programs in Texas. http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/board-v-a-air-thecb-study-on-dual-credit-education-in-texas-10-18/ and Karp, M.M., Calgano, J.C., Hughes, K.L., Jeong, D.W., and Bailey, T. (2007). The Postsecondary Achievement of Participants in Dual Enrollment: An Analysis of Student Outcomes in Two States. St. Paul, Minnesota: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University of Minnesota.

[27] Karp, M.M., Calgano, J.C., Hughes, K.L., Jeong, D.W., and Bailey, T. (2007). The Postsecondary Achievement of Participants in Dual Enrollment: An Analysis of Student Outcomes in Two States. St. Paul, Minnesota: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University of Minnesota.

[28] American Institutes for Research. (2018 Oct). Dual-Credit education programs in Texas. http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/board-v-a-air-thecb-study-on-dual-credit-education-in-texas-10-18/

[29] U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019 Feb). Dual Enrollment: Participation and characteristics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019176. And https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/access-dual-enrollment-advanced-placement-race-gender.html

[30] 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.

[31] Rauschenberg, S. & Chalasani, K. (2017 Nov). Georgia Dual Enrollment and postsecondary outcomes. The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement.

[32] Dual Enrollment used to include dollars for transportation grants, but the state cut these grants in FY 2018.

[33] GBPI analysis of GSFC data, FY 2016-FY 2019. Counties are classified by county using the Census definitions of Completely Rural and Mostly Rural, versus Mostly Urban.

[34] GBPI analysis of 2019 GaDOE data.

[35] American Institutes for Research. (2018 Oct). Dual-Credit education programs in Texas. http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/board-v-a-air-thecb-study-on-dual-credit-education-in-texas-10-18/

[36] Jaggers, S., & Xu, D. (2010). Online Learning in the Virginia Community College System. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

[37] Karp, M.M., Calgano, J.C., Hughes, K.L., Jeong, D.W., and Bailey, T. (2007). The Postsecondary Achievement of Participants in Dual Enrollment: An Analysis of Student Outcomes in Two States. St. Paul, Minnesota: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University of Minnesota.

[38] Speroni, C. (2011). Determinants of Students’ Success: The Role of Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Programs. An NCPR Working Paper. National Center for Postsecondary Research.

[39] GBPI analysis of GaDOE data.

[40] Hall, S. (2019, April 18.) How far does your tuition dollar go? The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/how-far-does-your-tuition-dollar-go/

[41] American Institutes for Research. (2018 Oct). Dual-Credit education programs in Texas. http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/board-v-a-air-thecb-study-on-dual-credit-education-in-texas-10-18/

[42] GBPI analysis of GSFC data.

[43] American Institutes for Research. (2018 Oct). Dual-Credit education programs in Texas. http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/board-v-a-air-thecb-study-on-dual-credit-education-in-texas-10-18/

[44] American Institutes for Research. (2019, Sep 12). Early college, continued success: Longer-term impact of early college high schools. https://www.air.org/resource/early-college-continued-success-longer-term-impact-early-college-high-schools

[45] GBPI analysis of GSFC data, FY 2019.

[46] American Institutes for Research. (2018 Oct). Dual-Credit education programs in Texas. http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/board-v-a-air-thecb-study-on-dual-credit-education-in-texas-10-18/

[47] Georgia’s FY 2020 budget.

[48] Zinth, J. (2015, May). State approaches to funding Dual Enrollment. Education Commission of the States.

[49] Ibid.

[50] In the university system, students must have a 3.0 grade point average, though some colleges have even more stringent requirements. Technical colleges have no minimum GPA requirements, but they do require certain scores on the Accuplacer. Private colleges can set additional requirements, including endorsement from a guidance counselor, parent or other school staff.

[51] Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO. (2006). Accelerated learning options: Moving the needle on access and success. A study of state and institutional policies and practices. ERIC Clearinghouse.

[52] General Education Course Transfer Chart for the Technical College System of Georgia and the University System of Georgia. https://www.usg.edu/assets/academic_affairs_handbook/docs/Gen_Ed_TCSG_Transfer_Chart.pdf; GBPI analysis of GSFC data, FY 2019.

[53] For more information, see University System of Georgia, Complete College Georgia, Focus Areas Overview. https://completega.org/focus-areas-overview

[54] Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts. (2011 Dec.) Postsecondary programs: Accel, HOPE Grant, and Move on When Ready. Special Examination 11-36, and Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts. (2018 Jan.) Dual Enrollment. Special Examination 17-09.

Support GBPI Today

The Georgia Budget & Policy Institute is a 501(c)3 organization. We depend on the support of donors like you. Your contribution makes the work that we do possible.
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

Related Posts

1 thought on “Dual Enrollment Requires Sustainable Funding to Promote High School and College Success”

  1. Catherine F Hogan

    I just wonder with high school students doing dual enrollment, outside activities like sports and clubs when do they have time to be teenagers. Are they going to reach 20 and look back at the teenage years as stress ridden. I know that extracurricular sports takes up most of the daylight hours left after school. Then homework and if in college more homework, where does sleep and rest come in. Not only is this stress on the student but on the parents as well. I just read of some Christian based programs that recommend a gap year where students learn more about being mature and responsible and not easily led by professors. They learn skills that they need outside of work, about finance, helping others and becoming a well-rounded individuals. We need to work on the whole person not just their academic side.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to our Newsletter