2011 Dual Credit Survey Summary Report

Missouri Department of Higher Education• December 2011•

Contents

• Background on Early College Programs • Why a Dual Credit Survey?• DC Survey• Findings• 2008 Comparison• Future Directions• Update on DC Work Group

Background on Early College:Workforce

Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce, 2010 p. 14

http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf

Bachelor’s Degree 23%

Graduate Degree10%

Some College 12%

Associate’s Degree17%

High School Graduate28%

Less Than High School 10%

The Value of Dual Credit

• Enriches and extends high school curriculum

• Offers challenging materials• Cost-effective• Promotes collaboration

Purpose of the DC Survey

• Measuring compliance to Dual Credit Policy

• Looking at areas of DC policy that may need to be revised or clarified

• Checking for current policy gaps

• Revisiting guidelines for Best Practice

• To provide a list to DESE of dual credit programs in compliance with dual credit policy

DC Survey

• Electronic survey distributed to 52 public and independent institutions

• 56 questions addressing the following topics:– Student eligibility– Program structure and administration– Faculty qualifications– Assessment of student performance– Transferability of Credit

DC Survey Findings

• 33 institutions offering dual credit submitted a survey and all were in general compliance with major policy indicators

• Several institutions did not meet each of the sub-units of the indicators, most visibly in the areas of discipline-specific training, pedagogy and faculty mentoring

• None of the levels were significant enough to cause concern with the quality of programs

As it was in 2008

• Access to qualified instructors continues to be a significant obstacle, particularly in rural communities.

• Due to online resources and formats, professional development and mentoring has improved. However, there is still a lot of work to do.

Future Directions and Policy Recommendations

• Address recurring concerns• Improve Depth of Compliance• NACEP accreditation• Review policy in context of early college

programs• Increased accountability from out-of-state

institutions• Develop instrument for annual reporting

Update on the Dual Credit Data Collection Work Group

• Purpose and Timeframe• Group Membership• Areas of Concern• Data

Discussion

• Efficient Use of Time and Resources• Measures of Quality Programs

– Student Eligibility– Program Structure and Administration– Faculty Qualifications and Support– Others?

Discussion

• How might remote locations with few to no qualified instructors participate in dual credit programs?

• How can schools with less resources use collaboration and technology to offer dual credit programs?

• Do you have any questions?