7-17-07 Draft: Not yet approved by Task Force members
Summary of UEE Task Force on Dual Credit Programs
Provided to UEE on June 13, 2007
Date of meeting: May 25, 2007
Members in attendance:
K-12
Patti Hoffert Salem/Keizer SD, Asst. Dir. Secondary Education
Marla Gesford Lebanon HS, Instr’l Connections Coordinator
Jim Schoelkopf ODE, Ed. Specialist PTE and Perkins Grant Mgt.
CC
Reine Thomas, Ch. PCC, Dean of Instruction
Carol Schaafsma LBCC. Dir. Curric. & Instr. Prog.
Jill Rupert CCC, Professor of English
OUS
Duncan Carter PSU, Assoc. Dean of Lib. Arts & Sci., Dir. Challenge
Tom Dick OSU, Professor of Mathematics
Members unable to attend:
John Gage UO, Professor of English
Also in attendance:
Elaine Yandle-Roth Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Connie Green Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Karen Sprague UO and Chancellor’s Office
Judy Moll Chancellor’s Office
Bob Kieran Chancellor’s Office
Robert Mercer Chancellor’s Office
Margie Loew Office of the Governor
Joanne Truesdell Clackamas Community College
I. Background Information
A large packet of materials reflecting “what is” was distributed to members before the meeting and was reviewed and clarified at the meeting. The packet included the following:
Inventories of Dual Credit Programs
1. Accelerated Options (4-11-07)
2. Post Enrollment of College Credit Now Students in College Credit Courses(F2005-F2006)
Policies for Dual Credit Programs
3. Summary: Considering Policy for Dual Credit Programs (4-4-07)
OUS Policy
4. 1985 Guidelines for College Courses Taught for Credit in High Schools
Community College Policy
5. OAR – Chapter 581: Dual Credit Programs (7-19-91)
6. Survey of Community College Compliance (10-5-90)
7. 2006-2007 Oregon College Now Faculty Qualification & Grading Policies
Other Policy
8. NACEP Statement of Standards (April, 2002)
Academic Performance Data
9. 1993 Pilot Study of Student Performance in “College High” programs and in Colleges and Universities (9-27-93)
10. Chemeketa CC: The Success Rate in Regular College Classes of students who were previously enrolled in the High School College-Credit-Now Program (10-31-03)
11. Chemeketa CC (11-30-06 & 12-12-06):
Matriculation of CCN High School Graduates at Chemeketa Community College (11-30-2006)
CCN and Non-CCN C or Better Grade Comparison 2005-06 Year
(12-12-2006)
Students who took CCN in 2005-06 and then Registered in Non-CCN
Chemeketa Credit Courses during Summer or Fall of 2006
12. College Now Student Success (5-13-05)
II. Goals for Task Force
Members shared their goals for participation in the task force. Primary among these were building confidence in the quality of the program and enhancing its usefulness to students. Suggested means to accomplish these goals included:
§ Standardizing and clarifying program policies and expectations
§ Considering policy recommended nationally by NACEP (National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships)
§ Recommending means of gathering and sharing data systematically, in order to discover what evokes student interest and achievement in college-level work.
III. Specific questions related to transcripting, data, program evaluation, the NACEP process , registration, faculty qualifications, and internal inconsistencies.
The following questions and responses emerged during the discussion:
A. Is nomenclature confusing? Many different names are in use. There is strong attachment to these local brands, but would there be greater value in using a single name?
B. Should cost to students be standardized? At present, the variation in tuition or fees is substantial. The typical cost for community college courses is $25/course, but it varies from 0 to $57/credit. The cost for OUS courses ranges from $25/credit to $210/credit.
C. Should the qualifications required for instructors be uniform? The intent of the policy governing this aspect of dual enrollment programs probably does not vary greatly, but a literal reading of policy differences between CC and OUS, as well as among CCs, can create frustrating inconsistencies. For example, the same individual might be allowed to teach an identical college-level writing class in a university, or in a high school as an AP class, but not in a high school as a dual credit class. One source of difficulty is that different kinds of master’s degrees are required by TSPC (Teacher Standards and Practices Commission) for the “highly qualified” designation and by community colleges for teaching in Dual Credit programs. Community colleges require a master’s degree in the discipline being taught, whereas a master’s degree in education suffices for ”highly qualified” status.
D. Do students throughout the state have equal access to the full range of courses offered by dual-enrollment programs?
Geographic distribution: Although geographic distribution has been a concern in the past, recent surveys suggests that it is less so now.
Subject/discipline availability: There is variation in the number and kind of courses available through individual College now programs, depending on the expertise of local HS teachers and the level of interest of CC faculty in the appropriate disciplines.
E. How can program effectiveness be ensured?
1. Quantitative measures of effectiveness
§ OUS/CC joint study 1993 (Doc #9 listed above)
§ Chemeketa CC studies 2003/06 (Docs #10, 11 listed above)
§ Linn-Benton CC study 2005 (Doc #12 listed above)
Approach: Measured “College High/Now” students’ subsequent
academic success in a community college or university.
Overall result: College High students did as well as or better than students who had taken the same courses at a college or university. Note remedial language result.
Should interpret with caution: College High students are not typical of CC or OUS freshmen. They are top students, likely to perform well regardless of the nature of previous coursework.
Possible improvements/additions to future analyses
ú Gain insight into program effectiveness, rather than simply into the kind of student attracted to the program, through comparisons that control for overall academic achievement.
ú Determine whether participation in dual credit programs increases the likelihood of going to college.
ú Determine whether participation in dual credit programs decreases the time and/or number of credits used to complete a baccalaureate degree.
ú Carry out systematic follow-up in the form of longitudinal case studies.
2. Qualitative contributors to effectiveness
§ Sustained and substantive interaction between HS teachers and college/university faculty teaching the same courses helps maintain rigor. Grading papers together, for example, is effective.
§ The proportion of students who are taking a particular class for college credit strongly influences the character of discourse in the classroom and thus whether or not it is “college-level”.
IV. Key issues identified by the Task Force
A. Current inconsistencies in policy
§ Registration Process: This varies considerably. Some schools require students to register for college credit at the beginning of the course (as is done in regular college courses); others allow students to request college credit later – after they’ve been successful in the course.
§ Course repeatability and withdrawals: Should standard college/university restrictions apply?
§ Designation on transcript
§ Instructor qualifications
B. Develop and implement methods for systematic program evaluation
Next steps (before next meeting on September 20, 2007)
To address A. Current inconsistencies in policy:
§ Compile current registration procedures (E. Yandle-Roth + UEE staff – C. Green, R. Mercer)
§ Compile current instructor qualifications (E. Yandle-Roth + UEE staff – C. Green, R. Mercer)
To address B. Develop and implement methods for systematic program
evaluation:
§ Compare current Oregon standards and methods of program evaluation with their counterparts used nationally by NACEP in detail (UEE staff – K. Sprague)
§ Discuss NACEP standards, identification of internal inconsistencies, and program evaluation with coordinators of Oregon high school programs (J. Schoelkopf)
§ Estimate resources that would be needed to pursue national accreditation
§ Design data collection and analysis to be done during Summer 2007, ensuing that the approach is statistically sound and satisfactory to all 3 sectors, including the Inter-institutional Faculty Senate (B. Kieran, M. Kolodziejczyk, E. Yandle-Roth, M. Carson, K. Sprague).
Terms clarified during the meeting included:
Unduplicated Headcount -
The number of individual students who participated in the program in a single year, regardless of the number of courses taken. That is, a student enrolled in two or more courses would be counted only once.
The Next Meeting will be held from 2-5p.m. on September, 20, 2007.