Hubbry Logo
Dual enrollmentDual enrollmentMain
Open search
Dual enrollment
Community hub
Dual enrollment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dual enrollment
Dual enrollment
Dual enrollment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In the United States, dual enrollment (DE), also called concurrent enrollment, programs allow students to be enrolled in two separate, academically related institutions. Generally, it refers to high school students taking college or university courses. Less commonly, it may refer to any individual who is participating in two related programs.

History

[edit]

Dual enrollment was first started in 1955 by the University of Connecticut under the direction of Provost Albert Waugh. It was his belief that the senior year in high school was not challenging enough for many students, resulting in student boredom and disinterest in learning - now called senioritis. He believed that it was the University's responsibility to engage with the high schools to offer introductory University courses at the high school, allowing a more rigorous academic experience and giving students a head start for college.[1]

In the mid-1990s a movement started to formalize a national accreditation body for concurrent and dual enrollment programs. In March 1997 the first national meeting of concurrent enrollment professionals was convened by Syracuse University at the American Association for Higher Education conference. Two years later, in 1999, 20 institutions of higher education officially established the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships - NACEP - by adopting bylaws and a mission statement.[2]

Examples

[edit]

Students enrolled in secondary school may be simultaneously enrolled at a local institution of higher learning, such as a community college or university.[3] If students pass their college classes, they receive credit that may be applied toward their high school diploma and toward a college degree or certificate.[4] Many state governments within the United States have recognized the benefit of dual enrollment and have consequently instructed their public universities to begin collaborating with local schools. Some private universities also participate. A 2011 study concluded that student experience differs dramatically from one program to the next.[5]

Dual enrollment can be advantageous to students because it allows them to get a head start on their college careers. In some cases, the student may even be able to attain an Associate of Arts or equivalent degree shortly before or after their high school graduation. Furthermore, participation in dual enrollment may ease the transition from high school to college by giving students a sense of what college academics are like.[6] In addition, dual enrollment may be a cost-efficient way for students to accumulate college credits because courses are often paid for and taken through the local high school.

A number of different models for dual enrollment programs exist,[7] one of which is concurrent enrollment. Concurrent enrollment is defined as credit hours earned when a high school student is taking a college course for both high school and college credit, during the high school day, on the high school campus, taught by a qualified high school instructor. Many prominent universities started the movement of concurrent enrollment - UConn Early College Experience and Syracuse University Project Advance. In the George Washington Early College Program (GWECP-AA), students at the School Without Walls Senior High School are enrolled at the George Washington University and take a full course-load at the university, along with other undergraduate students. These college courses are used to fulfill the students' high school graduation requirements for District of Columbia Public Schools.

Concurrent enrollment in states such as California allows students to enroll in college courses while simultaneously attending their high school or even a lower grade which differs from dual-enrollment which is for high school students.[8] In California, with permission from the school's principal, middle schoolers may enroll in college classes typically taught at local community colleges.[8]

Cost

[edit]

Dual enrollment-like programs come with a cost, whether paid for by the student, school district or a combination of other state funded programs. Out of the fifty states in the United States, parents of students interested in the program are primarily responsible for the tuition cost in nine of those states. In Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee, the states themselves are responsible for student tuition payment and in other states like Florida, the school district is responsible for the student dual enrollment program tuition. States may choose to go into a contract with a secondary institution and may be reimbursed upon students' satisfactory grade achievement. States and school districts may also choose to cover all or part of the tuition cost with a max college credit limit before the student is responsible for payment.[9]

Running Start or Expanded Options (Oregon) [10] programs allow students to take college classes at their local community college. One of the main differences between Running Start and a regular dual enrollment program is the cost. The Running Start program makes tuition rates lower for high school students. Since FAFSA does not allow high school students to receive student aid.[11] Running Start removes some of the barriers high school students face in taking college courses.

There are some online learning platforms that allow high school students to take college classes fully online through their platform. These classes are typically asynchronous and a lower cost dual enrollment option. [12]

Parents of students who are enrolled in a dual enrollment program may qualify for a tuition and fees tax deduction for up to $4,000 per year.[13]

Criticism

[edit]

From a financial stand point, in the United States some aspects grant funding to both the high school and colleges per student. It can be hard, unless explicitly stated by law, to determine which institution should receive the funding. There have been cases in the past where both institutions claimed the state funds leading to the state paying for the student twice.[14]

Students

[edit]

A study on students in dual enrollment where participants were given pseudonyms and interviewed on their thoughts on what dual enrollment offered revealed some positive and some negative themes that appeared across the interviews.[15] Among the positives, students mentioned “exposure, learning the hidden curriculum, and independence and freedom.”[16]

Students further explained each theme during their interviews. Exposure referred to the general atmosphere of the college experience. Students were able to become more comfortable with being in a college setting and were more prepared for attending college once they graduated high school. “Learning the hidden curriculum” referred to students learning that college was not just about learning the material a class was teaching them. They also needed to learn study habits, how to ask professors for help, and other beneficial student practices, all of which contrast to high school experiences. A student (whose pseudonym is Carmen) noted that high school teachers tend to hold the student's hand and give them as much help as they can. This contrasts to college professors who only help students when asked to do so. “Independence and freedom” was often used by the students to describe themselves overcoming fear and maturing. Most students explained how they had much more freedom and often thought to themselves “I can do whatever I want.” These students then realized the consequences of doing whatever they felt like, and learned from their mistakes, and learned. One student even reflected on the actions of her past and said, “I feel so disrespectful now, now that I think about it.”[16]

The students did not have only positive things to say about dual enrollment. Three themes were found in their interviews: “issues in credit and grades, negative interactions with others, and limited support systems.”[16]

The biggest problem brought up by students was “issues in credit and grades.” Students often lamented how their grades in college classes would affect their overall high school transcript and quite often result in a lower GPA.[17] They were worried how it would affect their acceptance rate in other colleges later on. Poor grades in dual enrollment courses can hurt students’ chances of receiving financial aid as well as their eligibility to enroll in a four-year college or university.[18] However, colleges also consider a student's dual enrollment classes as a demonstration that a student has taken initiative to get a head start on their college education as well as possesses the ability to handle college-level coursework.[19] “Negative interactions with others” was described by students with how they were treated. The students felt cast out as many college students would treat them differently and would even get remarks that made them felt threatened. The dual enrollment students reflect on their past actions might have warranted such treatment as Roger says, “we weren't very mature.” The final negative theme – “limited support systems” – stems to both the college and the high school. Students described that, once enrolled in dual enrollment, their high school counsellors and other faculty seemed to work with the students less. They felt like they were no longer a part of the general group of the high school. In the college setting, where they were expected to know material from courses they may have not taken yet. The college tutoring sessions were held during times that the dual enrollment students could not make. As Alicia says, “I didn't feel like an actual student.”[16]

Faculty members

[edit]

A survey taken by teachers, counselors, and principals from 35 high schools was held to learn the opinions of faculty on dual enrollment (the term concurrent enrollment was used in the study). When asked how the school was impacted, the responses were positive all around. Many of the responses focused on students being able to earn college credit and be introduced to a college atmosphere. When asked how the students were impacted, most of the responses were positive as well, except the survey item “the student considered for the first time going to college.” Many respondents were neutral with only 35% agreeing. Students were thought to have already planned to move on to college before trying dual enrollment. The faculty commented on how dual enrollment gave students the opportunity to gain college credit. Teachers focused on how the increased difficulty of college courses prepared them for later. Counselors and teachers both noticed personal gains in students as well. Students had an increase in confidence and were willing to participate in more challenging studies.[16]

Students of color and low income students

[edit]

Although dual enrollment generally has a positive success rate in relation to college enrollment and completion, the results for low-income students and students of color displays a major difference. As a whole, college completion rates among dual enrollment students and non-dual enrollment students is higher at 22 percent as well as college enrollment rates being 34 percent higher. When looking exclusively at dual credit students of color enrollment and completion rates compared to non-dual credit the numbers show an obvious positive outcome with a 26 percent higher enrollment rate and 14 percent higher completion rate. Looking at those success rates against the success rates of other students researchers found a gap ranging from 4 to 8 percent. A study that took place in Florida was able to combat these results with their own when they found the number of dual credit students of color and non-dual credit to enroll and complete college was both equal.[20]

A University of Connecticut study (2016) indicated that students in middle-income and lower-income family quartiles had higher participation rates in concurrent enrollment programs than students in higher-income family quartiles. One attributing factor for these findings is that an increasing number of first-generation students and middle income families see the value of high-access low-cost opportunities because attending college is still aspirational and not guaranteed for students in these groups.[21] Concurrent and dual enrollment programs that waive or reduce fees to students participating in the Federal Free & Reduced Lunch program can positively impact participation rates for these students.

In college

[edit]

Colleges may create partnerships with schools that allow high school students to enroll in college classes or programs. Most universities have some degree of interdepartmental dual enrollment coordination. Arizona State University, for example, partnered with a group of Phoenix, Arizona charter schools called ASU Preparatory Academy.[22] The partnerships grants students the ability to enroll in one of ASU's online Global Freshman Academy courses as either independent study electives or while taking a similar higher level high school course.[23]

High schools might also have a partnerships with a group of colleges, such as Five Colleges (Massachusetts),[24] Seven Sisters (Northeast), or Five Colleges of Ohio.[25] That allows students to benefit from the collective knowledge of all universities and prevent them from duplicating unnecessary course offerings at each institution. Most universities have some degree of interdepartmental dual enrollment coordination.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dual enrollment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Dual enrollment is an educational arrangement primarily in the United States whereby high school students enroll in college-level courses offered through partnerships between secondary schools and postsecondary institutions, earning credits that count toward both high school graduation requirements and future college degrees. These programs, often involving community colleges, enable students to experience rigorous academic content earlier, potentially accelerating their path to postsecondary credentials while reducing long-term tuition costs. Participation in dual enrollment has surged in recent years, with nearly 2.5 million high school students—about one in three—taking at least one such course during the 2022-23 , up from 1.5 million a prior. Empirical analyses consistently link involvement to improved outcomes, including higher high school graduation rates, elevated college GPAs, increased enrollment in four-year institutions, and greater likelihood of degree completion within six years, even after accounting for student demographics and prior achievement. For instance, dual enrollment participants demonstrate postsecondary rates up to 17 percentage points above non-participants in some state-level studies. Despite these advantages, dual enrollment faces scrutiny over uneven access and implementation challenges. Disparities persist, with lower participation among , , and low-income students compared to their and affluent peers, potentially exacerbating educational inequities despite program expansions. Concerns also include variable instructional quality in high school-based courses, inadequate student preparation leading to higher failure rates for underprepared enrollees, and inconsistent credit transferability that can undermine the perceived value of earned credits at selective universities. State policies vary widely, with some mandating free access to broaden equity while others tie funding to enrollment numbers, raising questions about and rigorous oversight.

Overview

Definition and Core Mechanisms

Dual enrollment constitutes an acceleration mechanism in wherein high school students concurrently enroll in postsecondary-level courses, earning credits that satisfy both high school mandates and postsecondary degree or certificate prerequisites. This framework, also termed concurrent enrollment in certain contexts, facilitates advanced academic progression by integrating college rigor into the high school , thereby mitigating postsecondary remediation needs and expediting credential attainment. At its core, dual enrollment operates through inter-institutional partnerships that establish course equivalencies, enrollment protocols, and credit articulation standards between secondary and higher education providers. Eligibility hinges on students demonstrating postsecondary readiness via criteria such as a minimum high school GPA (frequently 3.0 or equivalent), standardized placement assessments, or prior academic performance indicators, ensuring participants can handle college-level demands without disproportionate failure risks. Upon course completion with passing grades, the postsecondary institution issues official transcripts for college credit, while the high school converts these—typically at a ratio of three college semester hours equating to one high school unit—toward requirements, with transferability to other colleges governed by state policies or alignments. Delivery mechanisms encompass multiple formats to align with logistical constraints and student demographics: traditional on-campus attendance at colleges under supervision; high school-based instruction by college-affiliated or credentialed secondary teachers dually authorized to award postsecondary ; and virtual modalities via approved platforms. These options, often stipulated in memoranda of understanding between partners, prioritize instructional integrity through adherence to postsecondary syllabi, assessments, and faculty qualifications, though variations persist across states and districts.

Distinctions from Similar Programs

Dual enrollment differs from (AP) and (IB) programs primarily in that it requires students to enroll formally as matriculated students, taking courses instructed by college faculty at a postsecondary , with credits awarded upon passing the course (typically a grade of C or higher) and recorded on an official college transcript. In contrast, AP and IB courses occur within the high school setting, taught by certified high school instructors following standardized curricula developed by the or IB Organization, respectively, with potential college credit contingent on performance in end-of-course exams (AP scores of 3–5; IB higher-level scores of 5–7). IB further distinguishes itself as a cohesive two-year program incorporating interdisciplinary elements such as of Knowledge, an extended essay, and Creativity, Activity, Service requirements, emphasizing global perspectives over isolated course credits. Terminology like concurrent enrollment and dual credit often overlaps with dual enrollment but carries nuances depending on state policies and institutional definitions; concurrent enrollment generally permits high school students to take postsecondary courses for credit alongside their high school load, while dual enrollment specifically denotes earning transferable credits applicable to both high school graduation and degrees. Some programs differentiate "dual credit" as courses taught by high school faculty with postsecondary approval—often on the high school campus—versus true dual enrollment, which mandates instruction by accredited professors, ensuring alignment with college-level rigor and accreditation standards. Early college high schools (ECHSs) represent a more intensive variant, functioning as standalone or affiliated institutions where students follow a structured pathway to earn an or 60+ college credits by high school graduation, typically involving full- or near-full-time college coursework integrated into the high school experience. Dual enrollment, by comparison, offers flexibility for students to select individual courses—often part-time—without committing to a degree trajectory, allowing integration into a traditional high schedule rather than replacing it. This distinction highlights ECHSs' emphasis on cohort-based progression and support services tailored for acceleration, as opposed to the elective nature of standard dual enrollment.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Adoption (1970s–1990s)

Dual enrollment programs originated in the early 1970s as localized initiatives primarily offered by community colleges to provide advanced high school students with opportunities to earn college credit, addressing gaps in rigorous secondary coursework. One of the earliest examples was the establishment of the Middle College High School at in in 1974, which integrated high school and college curricula on a college campus to foster seamless transitions for underprepared students. These initial programs were sporadic and varied in structure, often limited to select districts or institutions without widespread state coordination, reflecting a response to demands for accelerated learning amid concerns over high school curriculum limitations. State-level formalization began in the mid-1970s, with enacting the first dual enrollment policy in 1976 through a in the Code permitting high school students to enroll as special part-time students at community colleges for credit applicable to both secondary and postsecondary levels. This was followed by Minnesota's Post-Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program in 1985, recognized as the pioneering statewide that allowed eligible juniors and seniors to attend postsecondary institutions tuition-free, earning dual credits while fulfilling high school requirements. These policies emphasized for motivated students but initially served small cohorts, with participation constrained by eligibility criteria focused on academic readiness and institutional capacity. Adoption expanded modestly through the 1980s and into the 1990s, as additional states introduced enabling legislation or guidelines, though programs remained unevenly implemented and primarily targeted gifted or at-risk youth rather than broad populations. By the early 1990s, dual enrollment operated in fewer than two dozen states, often through partnerships between high schools and colleges, with enrollment numbers in the low thousands nationally, prioritizing enrichment over systemic reform. Early evaluations highlighted benefits in motivation and credit accumulation but noted challenges in and equity, as access favored suburban or higher-achieving districts.

Nationwide Expansion (2000s–Present)

Dual enrollment programs experienced substantial nationwide growth beginning in the early 2000s, driven primarily by state-level policy expansions aimed at enhancing high school students' college readiness and accelerating postsecondary credential attainment. Participation rates surged from roughly 300,000 students in the early 2000s to approximately 1.5 million by 2021, reflecting increased availability through partnerships between high schools and postsecondary institutions. By the 2022–23 academic year, an estimated 2.5 million high school students—about 20.4% of public enrollees—participated in dual enrollment courses, marking a more than eightfold increase over two decades. This expansion correlated with broader adoption, as nearly 70% of U.S. high schools offered dual enrollment options by 2015, up from limited availability in prior decades. State legislatures played a pivotal role in this proliferation, enacting policies to subsidize tuition, loosen eligibility criteria, and incentivize program delivery models such as on-campus, online, and concurrent high school-college courses. By the , 48 states plus the District of Columbia had established state-funded dual enrollment initiatives, often prioritizing access for underrepresented or lower-achieving students to address postsecondary completion gaps. Examples include expansions in states like , where dual enrollment enrollment grew rapidly alongside legislative mandates for credit transferability, and , which in 2015 increased credit limits and enabled tuition-free options for participants. These reforms were informed by early evidence of positive outcomes, such as higher college persistence rates, prompting governors and education commissions to integrate dual enrollment into broader workforce and agendas. Federal involvement remained supplementary, focusing on research and targeted grants rather than direct mandates, though bills like the proposed Jumpstart on College Act sought to allocate funds for equitable expansion. Data from the indicate that by 2015–16, 34% of public high schools with grades 9–12 facilitated dual or concurrent enrollment, with higher participation in schools serving economically disadvantaged students. Post-2020, growth accelerated amid pandemic-related disruptions to traditional pathways, with community colleges reporting 73.5% of dual enrollees in public institutions by 2022–23, underscoring the program's role in maintaining continuity in credit accumulation. Despite this momentum, disparities persist, as rural and low-income districts lag in program density due to logistical and funding barriers.

Program Structures and Operations

Variations in Delivery Models

Dual enrollment programs vary in their delivery models, which differ primarily by instructional site, faculty type, and format, influencing , cost, and student experience. These models are shaped by partnerships between high schools and postsecondary institutions, with two-year colleges favoring high school-based delivery to broaden participation, while four-year institutions often prioritize campus-based instruction. Concurrent enrollment, a common variant, involves college-credit courses taught directly on high school campuses by high school instructors approved as adjunct faculty by the partnering college. This model minimizes transportation needs and integrates seamlessly into the school day, thereby increasing enrollment among local students. Among two-year institutions offering dual enrollment, 93% deliver courses on high school sites, typically employing a mix of high school (50%) and college instructors to meet standards. State guidelines, such as those from the , require concurrent instructors to hold specific educator licenses and undergo college oversight to align with postsecondary rigor. In the college-site model, students commute to the postsecondary for classes taught by institution , providing exposure to college facilities and peer dynamics but potentially restricting access due to . This approach predominates at four-year nonprofit , where 83% of dual enrollment occurs on , often limiting eligibility to upperclassmen (grades 11-12 in 85-98% of programs). Online and hybrid delivery models enable remote access via virtual platforms, addressing rural or instructor shortages by leveraging technology for credit-bearing courses. About 68% of two-year and 42% of public four-year institutions offer such distance options, with adaptations like videoconferencing or co-teaching—where college faculty remotely supervise high school instructors—expanding STEM access in under-resourced areas. In systems like Montana's, online formats fall under broader "early college" provisions, allowing dual or college-only credit while mandating faculty qualifications equivalent to on-site delivery. These variations reflect institutional priorities, with blended approaches increasingly used to balance and equity.

Funding, Costs, and Eligibility Requirements

Dual enrollment programs in the United States are funded through a mix of state appropriations, local budgets, postsecondary institution allocations, and occasional student fees, with models varying significantly by state to cover tuition, instructor stipends, and administrative expenses. As of spring 2024, approximately 19 states provide full tuition reimbursement via state funding for eligible courses, such as (state covers community college rates) and (Dual Enrollment Grants up to $459 per course), ensuring no tuition costs to students or districts. Eleven states shift primary responsibility to local districts, including (districts pay standard per-credit rates for on-campus courses) and (districts fund College Credit Plus programs). Partial models combine state and district contributions in places like (state adjusts K-12 funding formulas to include dual enrollment weights), while reduced-fee approaches in states like and require students to pay $5–$25 per credit hour, often with waivers for low-income families. Student costs are minimized in most programs, with tuition waived in fully or district-funded states—covering about 30 states total—but participants often bear expenses for textbooks (averaging $100–$200 per course), transportation, and potential lab or technology fees not reimbursed by public sources. In 26 states, programs are entirely publicly funded and free to students, though postsecondary partners like colleges may absorb unreimbursed operational costs, leading to net losses in half of Ohio's institutions when factoring instructor time and facilities, per a 2024 state . Nominal fees persist in partial models, such as Utah's $5–$30 per or South Dakota's $40 per , with equity measures like Missouri's Dual Credit Scholarship providing up to $1,500 annually for low-income enrollees to offset such barriers. Eligibility criteria, specified by policy in 41 states, emphasize academic readiness and administrative safeguards, typically requiring students to be in grades 10–12 (mandated in 33 states), maintain a minimum GPA of 2.5–3.0, and secure approvals from parents, counselors, and sometimes postsecondary admissions offices. Twenty-six states tie access to scores or placement exams meeting college-level benchmarks, such as Georgia's requirement of a 1200 SAT or 26 ACT for advanced courses. Additional common hurdles include school official recommendations (in 19 states) and limits on credit hours, like Tennessee's cap at 60 transferable credits, aimed at preventing overload while prioritizing high-demand fields. Variations exist for equity, with some states like offering the FAST program to waive fees for underserved students meeting basic criteria, though open-access policies in states without strict GPA thresholds can broaden participation at the risk of higher failure rates in rigorous courses.

Empirical Benefits and Outcomes

Academic Performance and College Readiness

Dual enrollment participation has been linked to improved high school academic performance, including higher grade point averages (GPAs), in multiple empirical analyses that account for students' prior achievement levels. For instance, one study of students found that dual enrollment and similar early college programs positively affected high school GPA and graduation rates after controlling for baseline academic factors. Exposure to college-level coursework through dual enrollment enhances readiness by building skills in time management, independent learning, and rigorous academic expectations, which facilitate smoother transitions to postsecondary . Research consistently shows that participants earn college credits that reduce future remediation needs and accelerate degree progress, with dual enrollees less likely to require developmental math courses upon . In terms of early college outcomes, dual enrollment students demonstrate stronger persistence and completion rates. National data indicate that dual enrollment participants are 11% more likely to persist into their second year of compared to non-participants. College completion rates for these students reach 66%, versus 54% for those without prior dual enrollment experience. Systematic reviews of over 100 studies affirm these patterns, with positive associations persisting across quantitative analyses of enrollment, performance, and attainment, though effects vary by program quality and student demographics.
Outcome MeasureDual Enrollment EffectSource Comparison
High School GPAPositive increaseControlled studies show gains over peers
College Persistence (Year 2)+11% likelihoodVs. non-participants
College Completion Rate66%Vs. 54% for non-dual students
Immediate College EnrollmentHigher rates post-HSCompared to non-participants
These benefits hold in quasi-experimental designs addressing , suggesting causal links beyond self-motivated students, though outcomes are strongest for those completing multiple credits.

Long-Term Economic and Workforce Impacts

Participation in dual enrollment programs correlates with enhanced long-term earnings potential. Analysis of Texas high school graduates from the class of 2011, using on administrative data, revealed that dual enrollment participants earned 4% to 9% more annually than comparable non-participants from the sixth through twelfth year post-graduation, offsetting early lower earnings attributable to extended postsecondary enrollment. These gains stemmed from higher completion rates and credential attainment, though participants accrued modestly higher debt in initial years, particularly among African American and economically disadvantaged subgroups. Earnings differentials varied by demographics: students experienced 8% to 13% higher earnings, while African American and students showed smaller or insignificant gains in early years; economically disadvantaged participants, however, realized 7% to 14% increases by years 7–12. In , of cohorts from 2009–2010 demonstrated causal effects, with dually enrolled students earning $2,100 more in wages six years post-high school and exhibiting higher workforce participation rates (67% versus 62% for non-participants). These effects were pronounced for , , and other minority students relative to peers. Workforce entry accelerates for dual enrollment alumni, contributing to broader economic returns. In , concurrent enrollment linked to approximately 10% higher earnings five years post-graduation, reflecting earlier labor market integration. A Texas evaluation estimated that each dollar invested in dual credit yields $1.18 in immediate returns, escalating to nearly fivefold through long-term tax revenues from expedited participation and productivity gains. Such outcomes underscore dual enrollment's role in bolstering , though heterogeneous benefits highlight the need for targeted implementation to maximize equity in labor market advantages.

Criticisms and Limitations

Concerns Over Academic Rigor and Quality Control

Critics of dual enrollment programs have raised alarms about inconsistent academic standards, particularly when courses are delivered in high school settings by non-college faculty, potentially diluting the rigor expected in postsecondary education. Faculty associations, such as the Faculty Advisory Council to the Intersegmental Coordinating Committee, argue that dual credit courses taught in high schools often exhibit lower educational quality compared to those on college campuses, with variations in curriculum depth and instructional expectations leading to mismatched student preparation. This concern stems from the rapid expansion of programs, where high school teachers—frequently lacking advanced degrees or college-level teaching —may adapt content to suit younger learners, resulting in simplified assessments and reduced intellectual demands. Quality control mechanisms vary widely by state and institution, exacerbating risks of substandard offerings; for instance, accreditation bodies like the Commission of Higher Education have identified pitfalls such as inadequate oversight of dual enrollment, where institutions partner with high schools without robust vetting of instructor credentials or course syllabi alignment to college norms. Postsecondary faculty have expressed apprehension that dual enrollment coursework, especially in concurrent high school models, fails to replicate the analytical and independent learning required in traditional college environments, with some empirical analyses revealing lower performance metrics for dual enrollees upon full-time college entry. Reports highlight logistical challenges in ensuring instructor qualifications, as qualifying high school educators for college-level teaching often involves financial burdens and compromises on expertise, potentially prioritizing enrollment growth over scholarly standards. Credit transfer disputes further underscore rigor deficits, as dual enrollment credits are sometimes rejected by four-year universities due to perceived inconsistencies in course content and grading severity, prompting debates over whether programs inflate high school GPAs without conferring equivalent postsecondary value. instructors have voiced opposition to unchecked partnerships, citing insufficient involvement in design and evaluation, which can lead to and erode public trust in the college credential. Despite some studies affirming comparable or higher rigor in select dual enrollment formats, the proliferation— with over 1 million U.S. high school students participating by 2020—has amplified calls for standardized , including mandatory college oversight and periodic audits to mitigate these systemic vulnerabilities.

Potential Drawbacks for Student Development

Dual enrollment programs can impose significant stress on participating students due to the intensified academic demands of concurrent high school and coursework, with 66% of surveyed students identifying college class workloads as their primary stressor. This dual burden frequently leads to burnout, characterized by physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion, as participants report sustained pressure without adequate breaks, exacerbating feelings of overwhelm and reducing motivation. Family expectations contribute further, affecting 61% of students and prompting unhealthy coping mechanisms such as ignoring stress, which correlates with and diminished academic performance. The transitional nature of dual enrollment creates a "liminal space" that disrupts social-psychological development, as students navigate conflicting high school and role expectations, potentially causing disorientation and reduced confidence from course failures or mismatched preparation. Socially, participants often miss age-appropriate high school experiences, including peer interactions and extracurriculars, leading to isolation, lack of belonging—particularly in online formats—and formation of insular "cliques" that hinder broader interpersonal growth. Dual-enrolled students exhibit statistically lower compared to non-participants (M=50.16 vs. M=52.63, p<0.05), suggesting adverse effects on emotional from academic pressures that outpace typical adolescent maturation. These developmental challenges may accelerate emotional maturity unevenly, with students feeling compelled to forgo social activities and "life experiences" like parties, resulting in long-term regrets over curtailed adolescence. While some adapt through peer support (82% report feeling aided by friends), limited engagement with counselors (<6%) indicates insufficient institutional safeguards against these risks, particularly for those in under-resourced settings. Empirical evidence remains preliminary, often drawn from small-scale qualitative studies, underscoring the need for broader longitudinal research to quantify long-term psychological outcomes.

Equity, Access, and Participation

Demographic Disparities in Enrollment

Participation in dual enrollment programs exhibits notable disparities across demographic groups, with students disproportionately represented relative to their share of the high school population. In a national analysis of the Fall 2015 high school cohort, students comprised 61% of dual enrollment participants compared to 52% of all high school students, while students accounted for 7% of participants versus 10% of the overall population, indicating underrepresentation among students. Hispanic students showed near parity at 15% of participants versus 16% of all students, though national participation rates reveal lower engagement: students at 27%, Latino students at 30%, and /Asian students at 38%. Asian students were slightly underrepresented at 4% of participants versus 5% of the population. Socioeconomic status further accentuates inequities, as low-income students participate at lower rates than higher-income peers, despite some programs aiming to broaden access. Schools serving high concentrations of low-income students (defined as 75% or more eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) are less likely to offer dual enrollment, with only 71% providing programs compared to 84–93% in lower-poverty schools during the 2017–18 school year. These gaps persist due to barriers such as tuition costs in schools where families cover fees (up to 51% in low-poverty settings versus 28% in high-poverty ones) and limited program availability in resource-constrained districts. Gender differences are modest but consistent, with females comprising 56% of dual enrollment students versus 53% of the overall high population in the 2015 cohort. Geographic factors compound disparities; while 90% of rural schools offered dual enrollment in 2017–18 (higher than 73–83% in urban/suburban/ areas), rural programs more frequently relied on family funding (50% versus 26% in cities), potentially limiting access for lower-income rural students. Overall, these patterns reflect systemic barriers including academic prerequisites, transportation, and institutional priorities that disproportionately affect underrepresented groups.
Race/Ethnicity GroupParticipation Rate (%)Source (Data Year)
White/Asian38NCES (2015–16)
Latino30NCES (2015–16)
Black27NCES (2015–16)

Strategies and Evidence for Broader Inclusion

Targeted outreach initiatives, often conducted through partnerships between high schools and community colleges, represent a primary strategy for expanding dual enrollment participation among underrepresented groups, including low-income students, racial and ethnic minorities, and English language learners. These efforts involve proactive recruitment at under-resourced schools, informational campaigns highlighting program benefits, and integration with college access programs to build student awareness and confidence. The Dual Enrollment Equity Pathways (DEEP) framework, developed by researchers at the Community College Research Center, structures such collaborations by emphasizing contextualized course offerings aligned with students' backgrounds, alongside embedded advising and transportation support to address logistical barriers. Policy interventions at the state level further promote inclusion by redesigning funding models and eligibility criteria to prioritize equity. For example, some states allocate supplemental funding to serving high proportions of students, waive tuition and fees for qualifying low-income participants, and relax prerequisites in favor of alternative assessments, thereby reducing academic gatekeeping. Additional supports, such as dedicated counseling for course selection and academic remediation, are integrated in under-resourced settings to ensure retention and success. Empirical evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of these strategies in narrowing demographic gaps. A Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education analysis found that dual enrollment participation yields magnified benefits for underrepresented minority and low-income students, including higher postsecondary enrollment and completion rates compared to non-participants from similar backgrounds. Evaluations of equity-focused expansions, such as those removing financial barriers, show increased enrollment among and students by up to 20-30% in participating districts, with sustained gains in persistence. Community College Research Center studies confirm that DEEP-implemented programs not only boost access but also maintain or enhance academic outcomes for diverse cohorts, countering initial disparities in program uptake. Overall, these approaches have contributed to statewide participation growth, with some regions reporting doubled representation of underserved students post-intervention.

Systemic Impacts

Influence on K–12 and Higher Education Integration

Dual enrollment programs foster integration between and higher education systems primarily through formalized partnerships between high school districts and postsecondary institutions, enabling shared course delivery, credit transfer, and aligned academic standards. These collaborations often involve community colleges or universities providing faculty oversight for courses taught on high school campuses or virtually, which streamlines administrative processes and reduces silos between educational levels. For instance, in 2022–23, nearly 2.5 million high school students participated in such programs via college partnerships, representing a 67% increase from 1.5 million in prior years, indicating widespread adoption of integrated delivery models. This scale reflects systemic efforts to embed higher education elements into frameworks, such as joint curriculum design and co-developed assessments, which enhance vertical alignment from secondary to postsecondary pathways. Empirical evidence demonstrates that these integrations improve transitional outcomes, with dual enrollment participants showing higher persistence rates—11% more likely to advance to the second year—due to early acclimation to college rigor and accumulation that bridges institutional gaps. Data-sharing initiatives, like California's Cal-PASS system, further support integration by linking and higher education records to track student progress and inform policy adjustments, promoting evidence-based refinements in program alignment. Such mechanisms have led to redefined boundaries, where high schools increasingly adopt postsecondary pedagogical practices, and colleges extend outreach to secondary students, fostering a continuum of learning rather than discrete stages. At the policy level, dual enrollment drives broader systemic convergence, including state-mandated funding for partnerships and protocols that standardize instructor credentials across sectors—requiring college-level qualifications for high school teachers delivering dual courses. About 25% of dual enrollment in recent cohorts occurs through four-year institutions, expanding integration beyond colleges and influencing diversification in settings. However, uneven implementation highlights ongoing challenges, as resource constraints in districts can strain partnerships, yet successful models, such as those evaluated in , underscore potential for scalable, equitable integration through targeted administrative support. Overall, these dynamics position dual enrollment as a catalyst for reorienting educational pipelines toward seamless progression, supported by longitudinal data linking participation to reduced remediation needs upon entry.

Policy and Legislative Frameworks

Dual enrollment programs operate within a decentralized framework dominated by state-level policies, with federal support primarily indirect and facilitative rather than prescriptive. As of 2022, 48 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes or regulations governing dual enrollment, defining key elements such as student eligibility (typically requiring minimum GPA thresholds like 3.0 or equivalent), course approval processes, tuition reimbursement or waivers, and partnerships between K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions. These policies vary widely: for instance, 28 states maintain multiple distinct dual enrollment programs, often differentiating between academic, career-technical, and early college models, while others centralize under a single framework. State laws commonly mandate quality controls, such as requiring instructors to hold faculty credentials equivalent to those at the host and aligning courses with postsecondary standards, though enforcement mechanisms differ, with some states relying on bodies and others on local agreements. At the federal level, no comprehensive legislation dedicates funding exclusively to dual enrollment, but existing statutes enable its expansion through flexible allocations. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 permits states and local agencies to use Title I funds for dual enrollment to support and readiness, particularly for students, with allowable expenditures including for dual enrollment implementation. Similarly, the Carl D. Perkins and Technical Act (Perkins V) of 2018 supports dual or concurrent enrollment in career-technical pathways, funding consortia models that integrate high school and coursework. Proposed bills, such as the Making Affordable and Accessible Act (S.1092) introduced in 2023, seek to amend the to explicitly expand dual enrollment access, including grants for low-income students, though these have not yet passed. In 2025, initiatives like the DUAL Act aim to enhance equitable access for specific populations, such as rural high school students, by authorizing federal incentives for program participation. Funding mechanisms underscore the state-federal interplay, with states often subsidizing costs to promote access— for example, many waive tuition for eligible students via appropriations or reimbursements to colleges, covering an estimated 80-100% of fees in fully funded programs. Federal grants under programs like GEAR UP and TRIO supplement state efforts, targeting underserved groups, but scalability remains limited without dedicated streams, leading to calls for a national strategy emphasizing "intentional" dual enrollment—structured pathways aligned with student goals rather than course-taking. Legislative trends post-2020, influenced by recovery, include equity-focused reforms, such as California's 2022 Dual Enrollment Opportunities Competitive Grant Program, which allocates funds to expand access in under-enrolled districts, though outcomes depend on local implementation fidelity. Overall, frameworks prioritize expansion but face challenges in standardizing rigor across jurisdictions, with policy evaluations highlighting the need for data-driven adjustments to balance access and .

Post-Pandemic Growth and Innovations

Following the , dual enrollment participation in the United States continued its upward trajectory, reaching approximately 2.5 million high school students in the 2022–23 academic year, a significant increase from pre-pandemic levels of around 1.5 million students. This growth represented a 25% rise from 2021 to 2023, adding roughly 390,000 participants, driven by sustained demand for accelerated college credit amid disrupted traditional high school experiences. By fall 2024, enrollment expanded another 7%, even as overall higher education enrollment stabilized, with community colleges reporting dual enrollment comprising 22.1% of full-year students in 2023–24, up from 20.4% the prior year. Innovations in program delivery accelerated post-2020, particularly through expanded and hybrid formats necessitated by pandemic-related school closures. In Hawaii's dual credit program, the abrupt shift to virtual instruction revealed challenges in student engagement but prompted enhancements in digital supports and recovery strategies, with performance trends stabilizing by 2022. Nationally, institutions leveraged digital tools for admissions and course access, enabling broader participation among underserved groups, including lower-income and minority students, by reducing logistical barriers like transportation. Hybrid models in programs like California's Concurrent Enrollment also incorporated programmatic adjustments, such as improved advising, yielding sustained pass rates comparable to pre-pandemic levels. Policy advancements further fueled growth, with states introducing funded pilots to target workforce-aligned credentials. West Virginia's 2023 state-funded initiative, for instance, subsidized dual enrollment in high-demand fields like healthcare and IT, aiming to align courses with regional job needs and increase completion rates. Post-pandemic eligibility reforms, including relaxed in some regions, prioritized access over strict prerequisites, though evidence suggests these changes boosted enrollment without proportionally increasing failure rates. Concurrently, alignments between dual enrollment curricula and transferable pathways gained traction, as seen in recommendations to integrate courses into associate degrees, enhancing credit portability and long-term attainment. These developments reflect a causal link between pandemic-induced flexibility and scalable innovations, though ongoing is needed to verify equity in outcomes across demographics.

Ongoing Research and Debates

Recent studies indicate that dual enrollment participants exhibit higher postsecondary enrollment and completion rates compared to non-participants, with a Research Center (CCRC) analysis of national data showing dual enrollees 15-20% more likely to enroll in immediately after high school and achieve credentials within six years. However, these associations may reflect selection effects, as participating students often enter with stronger academic preparation and motivation, complicating causal attribution; a Report review of longitudinal data questions whether programs genuinely expand college access for underrepresented groups or primarily benefit already college-bound peers. Equity in outcomes remains a focal point of , with 2024 research from New America highlighting persistent disparities: low-income and minority students comprise under 30% of dual enrollees in many states despite targeted policies, due to barriers like transportation, counseling shortages, and course availability at under-resourced high schools. A Rutgers Policy Lab study of data corroborates robust short-term gains but notes uneven long-term persistence, attributing gaps to inadequate support structures rather than program design alone. Critics argue that subsidizing credits for advantaged students diverts resources from K-12 remediation, potentially exacerbating inequality, while proponents cite evidence from states like , where universal access initiatives boosted enrollment among underserved demographics by 25% between 2020 and 2024. Quality and rigor debates intensify amid rapid expansion to 2.8 million participants in 2023-24, a 12.7% year-over-year increase, raising concerns over instructor qualifications and transferability; a 2024 American Educational Research Journal study found that 20-30% of dual credits fail to articulate seamlessly to four-year institutions, undermining perceived value. Ongoing evaluations, such as a EdWorkingPaper examining 12-year trajectories, probe whether early credits yield sustained economic returns or merely accelerate paths for high-achievers, with preliminary findings suggesting modest premiums (5-10%) confined to completers. Faculty governance bodies like the AAUP advocate for stricter oversight to prevent dilution of college-level standards, contrasting with policy pushes for broader inclusion that risk prioritizing volume over depth. Emerging explores post-pandemic adaptations, including virtual dual models, which a 2025 Inside Higher Ed synthesis links to sustained gains in scholarships and grants for participants but warns of widened digital divides in rural areas. Debates persist on systemic trade-offs, such as whether dual enrollment erodes high school curricula or fosters seamless K-12-higher education pipelines, with RTI International's 2024 evaluation of partnerships emphasizing that robust faculty training correlates with 15% higher success rates, yet implementation varies widely across states. These tensions underscore calls for randomized trials to disentangle program effects from confounders, informing future scaling amid enrollment pressures on higher education.

References

  1. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020125.pdf
  2. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/understanding-dual-enrollment.html
  3. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/how-many-students-are-taking-dual-enrollment-courses-in-high-school-new-national-state-and-college-level-data.html
  4. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/postsecondary-outcomes-dual-enrollment-national-state.html
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10169146/
  6. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/2024/04/12/datapoints-dual-enrollment-and-postsecondary-outcomes/
  7. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/press-releases/dual-enrollment-boosts-college-success-but-gaps-remain.html
  8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2023/05/16/the-dual-credit-risk-in-high-schools/
  9. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/are-dual-enrollment-programs-overpromising/2016/09
  10. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019176/index.asp
  11. https://dpi.wi.gov/wise/data-elements/dual-enrollment
  12. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/docs/interventionreports/wwc_dual_enrollment_022817.pdf
  13. https://www.motlow.edu/students/high-school/dual-enrollment/index.html
  14. https://www.tn.gov/education/students/early-postsecondary/dual-enrollment.html
  15. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598308.pdf
  16. https://www.mus.edu/dualenroll/learn.html
  17. https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/help-center/difference-ap-dual-enrollment
  18. https://www.cmich.edu/blog/all-things-higher-ed/the-difference-between-ap-courses-and-dual-enrollment-programs
  19. https://admissions.usf.edu/blog/how-to-choose-between-ap-ib-and-dual-enrollment
  20. https://www.msudenver.edu/dual-enrollment-vs-concurrent-enrollment-whats-the-difference/
  21. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/early-college-programs-what-to-know
  22. https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/dual-enrollment-versus-early-college/
  23. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495242.pdf
  24. https://collegeinhighschool.org/resources/new-york-dual-enrollment/
  25. https://www.acteonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Techniques-April2015-HybridCTEDualEnrollment.pdf
  26. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/595668
  27. https://www.educationnext.org/rise-dual-credit-more-students-take-college-classes-high-school-degree-attainment-rigor/
  28. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-higher-education/chpt/dual-enrollment.pdf
  29. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-dual-enrollment-national-analysis/
  30. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2025/09/08/dual-enrollment-research-shows-far-reach-strong-outcomes
  31. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/2024/08/30/datapoints-new-data-on-dual-enrollment/
  32. https://www.clasp.org/blog/expanding-dual-enrollment-with-federal-state-support/
  33. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstreams/3efa78ce-558e-4f03-ba19-daf85375b0a5/download
  34. https://jfforg-prod-new.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/Dual_Enrollment_Working_Paper_101018.pdf
  35. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2023/10/16/understanding-policy-issues-in-dual-enrollment/
  36. https://newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/whos-participating-dual-enrollment/
  37. https://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Dual-Enrollment-Models-Practices-and-Trends.pdf
  38. https://www.mus.edu/dualenroll/documents/MUS-DE-Guidelines.pdf
  39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590462.pdf
  40. https://collegeinhighschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Funding-for-Equity-Designing-State-Dual-Enrollment-Funding-Models-to-Close-Equity-Gaps-2025-Update.pdf
  41. https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-dual-concurrent-enrollment-policies/
  42. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/community-colleges/2023/02/15/dual-enrollment-can-be-costly-community-colleges
  43. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/community-colleges/2024/01/09/ohio-audit-says-dual-enrollment-comes-cost-colleges
  44. https://www.gafutures.org/hope-state-aid-programs/scholarships-grants/dual-enrollment/eligibility/
  45. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/CTER/v33n2/pdf/kim.pdf
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262583370_Dual_Enrollment_Credit_and_College_Readiness
  47. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/15260/15260.pdf
  48. https://www.nacep.org/resource-center/research-on-dual-and-concurrent-enrollment-student-outcomes/
  49. https://nacep.org/docs/briefs/An%2520&%2520Taylor%2520%282019%29.pdf
  50. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15210251231170331
  51. https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai25-1137.pdf
  52. https://mldscenter.maryland.gov/egov/Publications/ResearchReports/DE_PSM_71718.pdf
  53. https://coloradolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Concurrent-Enrollment-Policy-Brief.pdf
  54. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Dual-Credit-Education-Programs-in-Texas-Phase-II-July-2018.pdf
  55. http://facibhe.org/documents/position/2020dualCredit.pdf
  56. https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/17/16/11716.pdf
  57. https://www.neche.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Pp128-Policy-on-Dual-Enrollment-Programs-1.pdf
  58. https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312241257453
  59. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/quality-control-dual-enrollment
  60. https://whatkidscando.org/pdf/Dual%20Enrollment%20Stress%20Booklet%20-Final.pdf
  61. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=etds
  62. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1363&context=gradprojects
  63. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=jcrp
  64. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED661434.pdf
  65. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019176.pdf
  66. https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/dual-enrollment-increasing-college-access-and-success-through-opportunities-earn
  67. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/revamping-dual-enrollment-equitable-college-degree-paths_1-1.pdf
  68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cc.20637
  69. https://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/FINAL-EIA-Dual-Enrollment-comp.pdf
  70. https://cpe.ky.gov/data/reports/dualcreditreport.pdf
  71. https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Prioritizing_Equity_in_Dual_Enrollment.pdf
  72. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/revamping-dual-enrollment-equitable-college-degree-paths.html
  73. https://usprogram.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-insights/articles/maximizing-the-potential-of-dual-enrollment
  74. https://www.jff.org/blog/dual-transformation-in-dual-enrollment/
  75. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bridging-college-careers.pdf
  76. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Carnegie-Postsecondary-Commission-Action-Paper_v.12.pdf
  77. https://rtipress.scholasticahq.com/article/133673-strengthening-dual-enrollment-partnerships
  78. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=efl_etds
  79. https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Advancing-Dual-Enrollment-Equity-Through-State-Policy.pdf
  80. https://collegeinhighschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/College-in-High-School-Alliance-FEDERAL-PLAYBOOK.pdf
  81. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1092/text
  82. http://aderholt.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-aderholt-introduces-dual-act-expand-college-credit
  83. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2023/12/17/aligning-state-policies-federal-law-and-the-needs-of-todays-student-through-a-national-dual-enrollment-strategy/
  84. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/duenconstgs.asp
  85. https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=cer
  86. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/john-fink-b2352492_high-school-dual-enrollment-grew-25-from-activity-7283173168754622465-hGil
  87. https://www.ccdaily.com/2025/10/datapoints-recent-enrollment-trends/
  88. https://www.rti.org/rti-press-publication/rapid-changes-teaching-learning-response-teachers-students-dual-credit-courses-online-learning-covid
  89. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/leveraging-digital-innovation-in-college-admissions-and-dual-enrollment/
  90. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584251327161
  91. https://completecollege.org/news/amplification-lab-west-virginia-takes-dual-enrollment-to-the-next-level/
  92. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/rethinking-dual-enrollment-eligibility-policies-post-pandemic.html
  93. https://www.ppic.org/publication/improving-college-access-and-success-through-dual-enrollment/
  94. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/high-school-dual-enrollment-grows.html
  95. http://newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/unpacking-dual-enrollment-benefits-barriers-and-opportunities-for-expansion/
  96. https://policylab.rutgers.edu/publication/dual-enrollment-student-outcomes-in-new-jersey-recent-research-highlights/
  97. https://insightintoacademia.com/dual-enrollment-study-shows-success-inequities/
  98. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/00028312241257453
  99. https://edworkingpapers.com/ai25-1137
  100. https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/105-1/state-profession-maintaining-academic-standards-dual-enrollment-courses
  101. https://www.rti.org/rti-press-publication/strengthening-dual-enrollment-partnerships
  102. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2025-05-09-dual-enrollment-numbers-are-rising-colleges-want-them-to-keep-growing
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.