High School Dual Enrollment Programs: Benefits and Limits

Introduction: The Case for High School Reform

Current social, political, and cultural concerns have hastened the call for high school reform and have intensified an interest in producing high school graduates who are college ready (Kuo, 2010). Competition from up-and-coming economies such as China and India has challenged traditional American economic world dominance and is forcing policymakers to consider substantive changes in the educational system (Kuo, 2010). However, when positive attempts are made to reform high schools, they often are not sustained because the people who initiated the changes move on and the system reverts to its prior state (Hamann, 2005). Thus, there is a need for wider-ranging changes in education.

Twenty-first century educational reform efforts will need to address three emerging issues related to the American educational system: globalization, the continuity of the system, and the wasted senior year. One answer to these issues is the implementation of early college programs in schools. Early college programs — also called dual enrollment programs — are a comparatively new reform effort and a rapidly growing option that currently enrolls more than approximately 47,000 students nationwide (Steinberg, Johnson, & Pennington, 2006). These programs were originally created to offer a head start for academically advanced students; however, more recent programs also target underrepresented and underserved students in an effort to provide them a path to a postsecondary degree (Kuo, 2010). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been a major backer for early college programs and has provided funding for many early college schools throughout the nation. Dropout rates have been a particular concern, and the hope has been that downsizing schools and offering more practical dual programs will combat this problem.

Dual Programs and Dropout Rates

Transitions represent a vulnerable time, and this is particularly true for middle-school-aged adolescents. The move from a smaller, personalized school to a larger, more impersonal high school environment can trigger the beginnings of a student's disengagement from school. The high school dropout problem is especially acute between the ninth and tenth grades (Cohen & Smerdon, 2009). National figures indicate that more students fail ninth grade than any other grade, and students from low-income populations demonstrate dropout rates as high as 40% after ninth grade (Steinberg et al., 2006). Schools that provide summer programs designed for students who need additional academic support before entering high school are more successful in decreasing course failures and dropout rates (Cohen & Smerdon, 2009). Smaller, more intimate classroom environments may therefore protect against dropping out (Steinberg et al., 2006).

Patterson, Beltyukova, Berman, and Francis (2007) examined potential ways to address the "freshman bulge" — the increase in freshmen who are held back in many urban schools. This phenomenon leads to higher dropout rates and greater frustration, tension, and poorer attitudes among incoming freshmen. Patterson et al. randomly placed 50 freshmen in smaller learning communities (SLCs), where students spent their school day with their cohort of 50 and shared the same four core teachers and the same gym teacher. Results indicated that significantly more SLC students reported being rarely bored at school and said their teachers helped them when they did not understand material, compared to the rest of the freshman class. Significantly fewer SLC students disagreed that teachers blamed students when they did not understand, and fewer felt that teachers treated students unfairly when they broke rules. SLC students also had significantly fewer in-school suspensions, fewer unexcused absences, and higher promotion rates than the control group. Science GPA was higher for SLC students (though it fell over the term), social studies GPA was higher for the control group, and math and English GPAs did not differ. The SLC program therefore appeared to affect discipline, promotion, and attendance, but not grades overall. Nonetheless, the program was considered a relative success.

Despite the recognized need for these programs and the funding available for them, the research has been mixed regarding their effectiveness. Many urban high schools suffer from high dropout rates, poor academic performance, a sense of alienation between students and teachers, and overall institutional decline. Huebner and Corbett (2004) noted that national graduation figures indicated that only 68% of students entering high school earn a diploma — a rate even lower for students from underserved groups. Black and Hispanic students have slightly more than a 50% chance of graduating from high school (see also Jackson, 2004). After examining five different smaller school programs, Huebner and Corbett characterized the features of more intimate programs that were fostering better teacher-student relations and increasing graduation rates:

1. The programs were socioeconomically and ethnically diverse.
2. They were highly sought after by students of all abilities (some preliminary data indicated that low-ability students were improving their reading skills).
3. Programs were reengaging and rigorous.
4. They offered supportive learning environments.
5. Students were highly engaged in learning.
6. Standardized test results indicated students were performing well academically.

Regarding the last point, studies of students in the Boston program indicated a dramatic rise in the number of students whose reading and math skills reached grade level after only a short time in the program (Huebner & Corbett, 2004); however, other programs demonstrated more modest or no such gains.

Huebner (2005) reported on the New Schools Initiative in New York City, funded in part by the Gates Foundation, which attempted to downsize many high schools into smaller, more intimate schools. The transition from larger to smaller public schools in New York City was designed to facilitate leadership supporting more effective instruction, create a shared mission for students, teachers, and administrators, foster high and clear expectations for all students, build caring relationships between students and teachers, and utilize qualified teachers (Jackson, 2004). Preliminary data from the early initiative indicated significantly higher attendance rates and a meaningful increase in the rate of students being promoted from ninth to tenth grade. However, reading and math achievement scores still remained below expectation. Further research was needed to follow students and to understand how to address issues such as English as a second language (ESL) instruction, cultural competency, and building relationships with large state and city organizations.

Lewis (2004) discussed the difference between many of the goals of small school programs — such as relationship development and attendance rate increases — and the Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts report released by the American Diploma Project. This report defined student success solely in terms of meeting high academic standards applicable to all states. The report claimed that a high school diploma in the U.S. lacks value because it does not prepare students for careers or for college. Lewis pointed out that students taking college courses in high school may require more time to graduate from high school, which would officially place these programs on the government's "needs improvement" list. Moreover, the grades of students in these programs were not shown to be better than those in traditional high school programs.

Other Benefits of Dual Programs and SLC-Type Programs

Toch, Jerald, and Dillon (2007) reviewed the findings of the Gates Foundation regarding its development and funding of small learning communities. Findings indicated improvements in creating a personalized, caring climate, but only mildly positive increases in reading scores and no other measurable academic gains. Other benefits, such as better-prepared students, were noted; however, dropout rates did not appear to be significantly affected. The research also suggested that more rigorous curricula and higher graduation standards might be beneficial rather than detrimental to students.

According to Jordan, Cavalluzzo, and Corallo (2006), the Education Commission of the States and the Bridge Project at Stanford University have supported dual enrollment programs as practical methods to improve the quality of a student's high school experience and to help students bridge the transition from high school to college. Jordan et al. conducted two-day visits to five sites in the U.S. where students take both high school and community college classes. Based on their background research, the benefits of these programs appeared speculative, with no mention of increased grades or skills for students. The reported mean GPAs for students entering these programs were not impressive (Jordan et al., 2006). The remainder of the data was qualitative in nature — an interesting choice given the limited quantitative evidence that these programs benefit student learning (Rycik, 2007). At each site, the authors conducted individual interviews or focus group discussions with faculty, administrators, counselors, teachers, students, and parents and examined a number of district, program, and college documents. They described the components of a successful program as being located on a community college campus, having caring relationships between staff and students, being smaller in size, and focusing on activities clearly related to higher education or students' later career choices. Variables associated with effective schools in general — including solid leadership, an environment conducive to learning, clear goals, high expectations, collaborative planning time, collegial relationships, and a strong sense of community — were also noted. The researchers found a strong belief among interviewees that dual programs improved student achievement and motivation; however, rigorous statistical evidence was largely nonexistent. Thus, the qualitative research lacked a solid quantitative foundation.

Conclusion: The Need for Outcome-Based Research

It is clear that more targeted research on how dual programs and SLCs actually affect grades, college preparation, and dropout rates is needed. The current body of research indicates that students generally like these programs and rate them favorably; however, objective, outcome-based evidence is still largely lacking. Future research should move beyond qualitative perceptions and employ rigorous quantitative methods to determine whether dual enrollment and early college programs produce the measurable academic gains that policymakers and funders expect.