DUAL CREDIT REPORT In Satisfaction of Rider 33 of the Appropriations Act March 2012 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Accountability

Transcription

1 DUAL CREDIT REPORT In Satisfaction of Rider 33 of the Appropriations Act March 2012 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Accountability

2 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Fred W. Heldenfels IV, CHAIR Harold Hahn, VICE CHAIR Durga D. Argawal, Ph.D Dennis D. Golden, O.D. Robert Bobby Jenkins, Jr. Munir Abdul Lalani James H. Lee Wanda Janelle Shepard David D. Teuscher, M.D. Amir H. Barzin, STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Austin El Paso Houston Carthage Austin Wichita Falls Houston Weatherford Beaumont Denton Raymund A. Paredes, COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION Mission of the Coordinating Board The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board s mission is to work with the Legislature, Governor, governing boards, higher education institutions and other entities to help Texas meet the goals of the state s higher education plan, Closing the Gaps by 2015, and thereby provide the people of Texas the widest access to higher education of the highest quality in the most efficient manner. Philosophy of the Coordinating Board The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will promote access to quality higher education across the state with the conviction that access without quality is mediocrity and that quality without access is unacceptable. The Board will be open, ethical, responsive, and committed to public service. The Board will approach its work with a sense of purpose and responsibility to the people of Texas and is committed to the best use of public monies. The Coordinating Board will engage in actions that add value to Texas and to higher education. The agency will avoid efforts that do not add value or that are duplicated by other entities. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age or disability in employment or the provision of services.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary. 1 Key Observations and Conclusions. 1 Recommendations. 3 Introduction. 5 Background Information. 5 Section I Dual Credit Demographics. 7 Section II Student Outcomes. 12 Section III Dual Credit Finance 16 Section IV Planning, Advising, and Curriculum. 19 Section V Rigor, Quality, and Consistency 21 Section VI Efficiency and Effectiveness 23 Section VII Conclusions and Recommendations 25 Key Observations 25 Recommendations 26

4 FIGURES Figure 1 Fall Dual Credit Enrollments by Institution Type 8 Figure 2 Dual Credit Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity 9 Figure Public HS Graduates who Enrolled in Texas Public Higher Education. Percent of Eligible Students who Enrolled in Dual Credit Figure 4 Percent of Eligible * FY 2010 HS Graduates who Attempted Dual Credit by Ethnicity and Economic Status.. 11 Figure 5 Baccalaureate Degree Rates of Full- and Part-Time Students Entering Texas Public or Private Two- and Four-Year Higher Education Institutions in 2004 by Number of Dual Credit SCH Attempted While in High School*. 14 Figure 6 Four Year Baccalaureate Degree Rates of Full- and Part-Time Students at Texas Public or Private Two- and Four-Year Institutions by Year Entered and Number of Dual Credit SCH Attempted While in High School.. 14 Figure 7 Dual Credit Tuition Exemptions, Enrollments, and Formula Funds.. 17 Figure 8 Approximate Percent of Dual Credit Courses* that can be Classified as Core, Foreign Language, or Workforce/ Technical.. 23 Appendix A - Text of Rider 33 Dual Credit Glossary of Terms APPENDICES Appendix B - Dual Credit Enrollment and Participation Percentages by Ethnicity Appendix C - Dual Credit Participation by Region Appendix D Texas Public High School Graduates Enrolling in Texas Public Higher Education / Percentage Eligible to Take Academic Dual Credit Courses Based on TSI Status at Time of Enrollment in Higher Education Appendix E-1 - FTIC Students Who Attempted Courses for Dual Credit Prior to Enrollment in a Texas College or University by Number of Dual Credit Hours Attempted Appendix E- 2 - FTIC Students Who Attempted Courses for Dual Credit Prior to Enrollment in a Texas College or University by Fall Semester Enrollment and Type of Enrollment Appendix F - Dual Credit Enrollments, Formula Funding, and Tuition Exemptions/Waivers

5 Executive Summary This report in fulfillment of the requirements specified in the General Appropriations Act, House Bill 1, 82nd Texas Legislature, Section 33 (page III-52, and hereafter referred to as Rider 33 in this report) provides analysis of data, research studies, and reports related to dual credit courses in order to determine the most efficient and effective methods of delivery. The text of Rider 33 is available in Appendix A of the report. Key Observations and Conclusions Currently, over 100,000 high school students a year enroll in dual credit courses at Texas public colleges and universities. A detailed study of dual credit in Texas, containing data and analysis of student enrollment and funding patterns, was conducted in March 2011 by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and is recommended for further reading 1. National studies indicate that participation in dual credit correlates positively with college enrollment, persistence in college, and higher college grade point averages. Data from Texas show higher persistence and completion rates for dual credit students, although to date no dual credit outcome studies have controlled for student characteristics. This is an important consideration because dual credit eligibility standards limit participation to those who are deemed ready to attempt college-level work while in high school (a group more likely to have better outcomes). Statewide data are available, however, which show that for the population of students who have met state eligibility standards and chosen to enroll in dual credit courses, increased degree completion and a decrease in the time it takes to earn a degree are associated with higher levels of dual credit course taking. The process of determining the most efficient and effective delivery of dual credit courses to students, as directed by Rider 33, will require more extensive research using more comprehensive data than were available at the time of this report. To do a thorough analysis, it will be necessary to track cohorts of students who took dual credit and students who did not take dual credit over time. The ability to control for student characteristics and student performance, using more detailed measures such as student course selection and student grades, will greatly enhance researcher ability to determine if dual credit participation is truly associated with better college outcomes. This level of data will also provide information about 1 This study was commissioned by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to meet a 2009 legislative requirement under HB 3646, 81st Texas Legislature. The Research Study of Texas Dual Credit Programs and Courses is located at 1

6 differences in dual credit delivery across programs and institutions. Specific information about future studies is included in the Recommendations section of this report. Although further research on dual credit is warranted, a considerable amount of Texas-specific information about dual credit participation, funding, and outcomes has been compiled in the last few years. This report will attempt to summarize what has been learned, as it relates to providing efficient, high-quality courses. The AIR dual credit study estimates that Texas spent approximately $100 million during in support of dual credit programs, mostly through formula funding for institutions of higher education and state funding of school districts 2 (a more detailed explanation of funding is provided in Section III of this report ). The study found that institutions of higher education and school districts spent approximately $32 million in in local funds in support of dual credit, and students and parents spent approximately $33 million in for dual credit tuition, fees, and textbooks 3. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) data indicate that of the estimated $100 million spent in state support of dual credit programs, higher education institutions receive approximately $50 million in formula funds. Texas public higher education institutions waive $63.3 million of student tuition payments for dual credit courses, an effort which has likely contributed to the steady growth in dual credit course taking rates and the increased diversity observed in the dual credit student population. Funding for dual credit courses is a complex topic, and levels of efficiency and effectiveness vary across campuses and institutions. Because dual credit participants are now a substantial percentage of Texas public higher education enrollments (dual credit students made up 7.8 percent of all undergraduate enrollments in fall 2010), it is an appropriate time for the state to revise dual credit policies to better ensure the quality and consistency to the programs. The following recommendations were developed based on review of the research studies, available outcome data, and current state policies that support the efficient and effective provision of dual credit to Texas students. 2 AIR study, page The AIR study was an exploratory assessment of how the delivery of courses for dual credit is funded in Texas and the costs associated with delivering dual credit courses to high school students in Texas. These estimates should be viewed with caution because of the relatively small sample size and the assumptions that were required to reconstruct the costs and revenue structure of dual credit programs at the institution of higher education (IHE), local education agency (LEA), and campus levels. For a better understanding of the AIR study s limitations, see page 45 of that study. 2

7 Recommendations THECB and Texas Education Agency (TEA), in partnership with local school districts and institutions of higher education, should explore and develop ways to encourage increased dual credit participation by African Americans, Hispanics, and low-income students. Although participation has increased substantially over time, typically these students are still under-represented in dual credit programs. Studies indicate that underrepresented students can benefit from dual credit in terms of college preparedness, enrollment, persistence, and cost savings. Such efforts would likely contribute towards the THECB s Closing the Gaps goals. Public institutions of higher education should improve their oversight of dual credit programs and should include those improvement procedures in their written partnership agreements with school districts, paying particular attention to monitoring and assisting dual credit instructors and ensuring that dual credit courses are rigorous and consistent across locations. THECB and TEA should cooperatively develop a statewide dual credit equivalency chart that can be used by school districts to determine what high school credit to award for dual credit courses. Currently, there is no statewide consistency in the awarding of high school credit for college courses, and this chart would help alleviate that inconsistency by creating a crosswalk between courses at the secondary and post-secondary levels. This would require legislative action to provide the authority to TEA and THECB and to provide the necessary funding to support the involvement of high school and higher education faculty teams in the development of the equivalency chart. THECB should continue to support efforts to assure rigor and consistency in dual credit courses by developing student learning outcomes for all lower-division courses used for dual credit. This will help ensure that courses with substantial dual credit enrollments have consistent learning outcomes to guide instruction and provide a framework for the development of a course equivalency chart. Additional funds will be needed in order to continue this work. The Legislature should consider taking steps to restrict the range of courses offered for dual credit that can be eligible for formula funding. In order to ensure value for the state and students, the state should fund only academic dual credit courses that are part of the core curriculum, a THECB-approved Field of Study Curriculum, or part of a Voluntary Statewide Transfer Compact. The state should only fund technical dual credit courses applicable to workforce certificate and degree programs (See Appendix A for a glossary of terms used here and in other sections of this report). This would encourage institutions to offer academic dual credit courses that are guaranteed by the THECB to be applicable to baccalaureate degrees at public institutions and would reduce unnecessary course taking on the part of students, thereby improving statewide time-todegree rates. More comprehensive studies of the efficiency and effectiveness of dual credit programs, including delivery differences and type of dual credit (academic or technical), should be 3

8 conducted by TEA and THECB using the more comprehensive student performance and dual credit participation data that will be available beginning in FY To allow time to collect cohort data as students move from high school to and through higher education, initial studies cannot be conducted until at least three years of the comprehensive performance data have been collected. This research should be designed to control for student characteristics, since dual credit and non-dual credit populations differ due to statewide eligibility standards. Additionally, the research should focus on student outcomes including: performance of dual credit students in subsequent, related college courses; college enrollment, persistence, completion, and graduation rates; and time-to-degree rates for certificate, associate s and baccalaureate completers. This research will require additional resources. 4 As part of a new State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) initiative, THECB and TEA are expanding the amount of student-level data they collect to include more detailed data about student coursework and affiliated student performance. Through this new data-collection initiative, THECB will have, beginning FY2012, more specific data about students who take dual credit courses than was available in the past, including course location (high school or college campus) and student grades in dual credit and subsequent college courses. 4

9 Introduction This report fulfills the requirement specified in the General Appropriations Act, House Bill 1, 82nd Texas Legislature, Section 33, page III-52 ( Rider 33 ) to analyze data, research studies, and reports related to dual credit courses in order to determine the most efficient and effective methods of delivery. This report provides a brief history of dual credit in Texas with an overview of the laws and rules that govern the delivery of dual credit courses, descriptions of the methods by which institutions and school districts provide these courses to students, explanations of dual credit funding, a longitudinal demographic analysis of dual credit students, educational outcome data for dual credit students, and recommendations for improvements to dual credit policy and practices. In order to create this report, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) utilized Coordinating Board Management (CBM) data, which are derived from regular data submissions made by public institutions of higher education, and Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data, which are provided to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) by public school districts. Data, conclusions, and recommendations found in previous state and national studies and reports on the topic of dual credit were also reviewed and used as part of this report, with emphasis placed on the research and findings from two recent state-funded studies, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) study published in March and the State Auditor s Office (SAO) report released in These two documents are recommended for those interested in more information about dual credit in Texas. Two additional documents that offer information about dual credit in Texas are a survey and a best practices document developed by community colleges in conjunction with the Texas Association of Community Colleges (TACC). The survey, which was conducted by South Texas College, was titled Dual Enrollment and Early College High Schools: Findings from a Survey of Texas Community Colleges. This survey provides a statewide snapshot of dual credit programs at Texas public community colleges (STC, 2010). The Best Practices Guidelines contains recommendations for creating and maintaining successful dual credit partnerships between public colleges and schools districts. Background Information Dual credit is defined in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 19, Part I, Chapter 4, Subchapter D, Rule 4.83 as A process by which a high school student enrolls in a college course and receives simultaneous academic credit for the course from both the college and the high school. It is important to note that this definition sets the standard for dual credit as college-level work, even though the instruction may occur in a high school setting and is given to high school students. This point is reinforced in another section of the TAC, which states 5 This study can be found on the TEA website: 6 This report can be found on the SAO website: 5

10 that to be eligible to count toward high school graduation, a dual credit course must provide advanced academic instruction beyond, or in greater depth than, the essential knowledge and skills for the equivalent high school course (TAC 74.25). Dual credit courses may be either academic, meaning the courses are intended to transfer and apply to academic associate degrees and baccalaureate degrees at public institutions of higher education, or technical, meaning the courses are intended to apply to a workforce certificate or degree program at a public two-year institution. Public two-year institutions offering dual credit courses must choose their academic course selections from the Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM), which is published yearly by THECB, and they must choose their technical course selections from the Workforce Education Course Manual (WECM), another THECB-approved yearly publication, in order to receive formula funding for instruction 7. In order to take dual credit courses, students must be ready for college-level work, as evidenced by their performance on a THECB-approved assessment, such as the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), the SAT, the ACT, or one of several tests allowed under the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) such as the Texas Higher Education Assessment (THEA) test (TAC, Title 19, Part I, Chapter 4, Rule 4.85(b)). Dual credit eligibility standards are higher for academic dual credit than for technical dual credit 8. Instructors for dual credit courses must be qualified to teach at the college level. They must either be regular college faculty, or must meet the same standards (including minimal requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) and approval procedures used by the college to select faculty responsible for teaching the same courses at the main campus of the college (TAC, Title 19, Part I, Chapter 4, Rule 4.85(e)). According to the Texas Administrative Code, dual credit instructors must be supervised and evaluated using standards equivalent to those used for regular faculty at the main campus of the higher education institution which is offering the courses. Dual credit programs are created locally through the process of a college or university partnering with one or more independent school districts (ISDs) through a written agreement, usually referred to as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Dual Credit Partnership Agreement. The state provides a framework for these local agreements by requiring that each MOU address at least the nine elements listed in THECB rules 9 (TAC 4.84(b)). The Coordinating Board does not monitor these agreements, but reviews of the agreements reveal a wide range of variability, most likely attributable to differing local circumstances and needs. Some of the most common variances in dual credit programs are: location of instruction (high school campus or college campus), provenance of instructor (high school faculty or college faculty), 7 THECB rule 4.85 (a)(1). 8 THECB rule 4.85 (2) and 4.85 (3). 9 The nine required elements of MOUs are: Eligible Courses; Student Eligibility; Location of Class; Student Composition of Class; Faculty Selection, Supervision, and Evaluation; Course Curriculum, Instruction, and Grading; Academic Policies and Student Support Services; Transcripting of Credit; and Funding. 6

11 student finance (tuition and fees are waived/discounted or full tuition and fees are charged), and institutional finance (money transferred in either direction between the ISD and the college). The impact of these variances will be discussed at greater length in later sections of this report. Once the framework for a dual credit program has been created through an institution s MOU, qualified high school students may be enrolled once they reach their junior year; younger students may enroll only if allowed by the terms of the MOU, and in such cases, they must demonstrate outstanding academic performance and capability and must be approved for enrollment by the chief academic officer of the college and the principal of the high school (TAC) 4.85(b)(6)). According to the same state rule, high school juniors and seniors in a dual credit program are limited to no more than two dual credit courses per term unless students demonstrate the outstanding academic performance and capability that would enable them to handle a heavy college course load without detriment. Although dual credit has long been offered in many public high schools in Texas, it has not been universally available. There was no state law or agency rule that required college-level instruction to be offered to high school students. That changed in 2006 when the 79th Legislature, Third Called Session, modified Section of the Texas Education Code (TEC). The new language requires that each school district shall implement a program under which students may earn the equivalent of at least 12 semester credit hours of college credit in high school. On request, a public institution of higher education in this state shall assist a school district in developing and implementing the program. This equivalent college credit may take several forms. Some ISDs do not offer dual credit as an option for their students, but may offer instead other advanced coursework, such as Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), or articulated credit courses, in satisfaction of TEC Section I: Dual Credit Demographics The THECB began receiving data on dual credit programs from public institutions in the fall of 1999 when just 11,921 students were enrolled. At that time, only community and technical colleges reported dual credit activity. Texas has seen a huge increase in dual credit activity since 1999, both in terms of student enrollment and the number and type of institutions that offer it (see Figure 1). During Fall 2010, the most recent term for which data have been reported, there were 90,364 students engaged in dual credit at public colleges and universities, accounting for 7.8 percent of all undergraduate enrollments. Community and technical colleges still supply the vast majority of dual credit, offering instruction to approximately 95 percent of all students (85,880 enrollees). Public universities served about 5 percent of the dual credit population (4,484 students). 7

12 In addition to fall enrollment data, THECB collects and publishes data about dual credit enrollments and SCHs earned in spring and summer semesters (see Annual by Semester Report at Enrollments are unduplicated by semester in this report, with fall enrollments generally the highest. To best understand full year dual credit enrollment patterns, providing an unduplicated total can be helpful. For example, in fall 2009, 91,303, students attempted dual credit courses. The following spring, 87,140 students attempted dual courses, and in summer 2010, 20,771 students attempted dual credit courses. When these enrollments are unduplicated across the three semesters, a total of 124,877 students were enrolled in one or more dual credit course(s) during the 2010 fiscal year (see Figure 7 on page 17). 10 The demographic make-up of dual credit participants has changed substantially as the program has grown. As seen in Figure 2, the majority of dual credit students has been and continues to 10 Both TEA and THECB collect data about enrollment in dual credit courses. This report provides dual credit enrollment statistics taken from the THECB CBM001 report. The AIR study used TEA dual credit enrollment statistics for some frequency counts. There are differences in how dual credit data are collected by the agencies. For example, THECB collects data for all dual credit enrollees, including those attending private high schools or home schools; TEA collects data about dual credit completed at private and out-of-state institutions, if high school credit is awarded for those courses. The majority of dual credit courses are taken by Texas public high school students at Texas public colleges and universities. 8

13 be White, followed by Hispanic, Asian and Other, and African American. However, the percentage of each population has shifted. For example, in fall 2000, 72 percent of the dual credit population was White. This dropped to 60 percent in 2005 and 46 percent in Hispanic dual credit participants have grown from 20 percent of the dual credit population in 1999 to 30 percent in 2005 and 37 percent in Figure 2 also illustrates the percentage growth for each segment of the dual credit population: White participation increased over 300 percent from 2000 to 2010, Hispanic and African American participation increased more than 900 percent each (additional data about participation changes by ethnicity are available in Appendix B). Looking at the most recent year, 2010, we can see that White students still attempt a plurality (though no longer a majority) of the dual credit courses attempted in the state, even though Hispanics are now a larger proportion of the 15- to 19-year-old population in Texas than they were in According to U.S. Census 2010 data, Hispanics now represent 45 percent of this age cohort, Whites represent 37 percent, and African Americans account for 13 percent. Therefore, Whites are still over-represented relative to their proportion of the cohort (accounting for 46 percent of dual credit enrollments), while Hispanics are under-represented 9

14 (accounting for 37 percent of enrollments), as are African Americans (who make up 6 percent of enrollments). To better understand demographic differences in dual credit participation, a proxy for eligibility status was used to consider differences in the participation of eligible students by gender and ethnicity. A cohort of 2010 Texas public high school graduates who enrolled in Texas public higher education in summer or fall 2010 was tracked. Because THECB cannot determine dual credit eligibility for students who did not take dual credit, for the purposes of this analysis TSI status at the time of higher education enrollment was used as a proxy for readiness to take academic dual credit courses. Public high school graduates who were determined to be TSI ready in math and/or ready in reading and writing upon enrollment in a Texas public higher education institution were considered eligible to take dual credit while in high school. Students who met TSI upon entry will be referred to as simply qualified or eligible in the remainder of this section. Figure 3 As shown in Figure 3, approximately 31 percent of male students who were qualified to take academic dual credit actually took dual credit courses, versus 37 percent of the female students who were qualified. This parallels a similar trend in general college attendance that has arisen in recent years, where women have surpassed men in rates of college attendance and graduation. The data by ethnicity show that approximately 39 percent of all White high school graduates who were qualified for academic dual credit participated, a higher rate than the 22 percent of 10

15 African American graduates and the 34 percent of Hispanic graduates. White students continue to have the highest dual credit participation numbers, even though their share of the agecohort is diminishing (in 2010, 39 percent of all public high school graduates were White, 43 percent were Hispanic, and 13 percent were African American). One strategy for increasing Hispanic and African-American participation in higher education in the THECB s Accelerated Plan for Closing the Gaps by 2015 is to actively engage with local school districts to provide access to rigorous, high quality, dual credit opportunities for qualified high school students (THECB, 2010, p. 13). Figure 4 Data about enrollment in dual credit courses by economic status (see Figure 4) show that, for eligible students, there was a six percentage point difference in enrollments of qualified White students who were not economically disadvantaged versus those who were, with about 40 percent who were not economically disadvantaged attempting dual credit versus 34 percent of those who were disadvantaged (note that the economically disadvantaged group makes up only about 9 percent of the White population). For African Americans, the difference based on economic status is only 2 percentage points, with 23 percent of the qualified African American students who were not economically disadvantaged taking dual credit courses versus 21 percent of the students who were. Notably for those who are qualified, economically disadvantaged Hispanics are just as likely to take dual credit as those who are not (34 percent for each population). This may be attributable to the very high percentage of dual credit participation in South Texas (see Appendix C), an area with a large Hispanic population and a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students. It is encouraging that access to and participation in dual credit has increased for 11

16 Hispanic students who meet eligibility standards, including those who are economically disadvantaged (See Appendix D for more information). Section II: Student Outcomes Rapid growth in dual credit participation has occurred not only in Texas, but in many other areas of the country. Clifford Adelman, in his well-known The Toolbox Revisited (2006), calls attention to the increase in dual enrollment activities since his original toolbox publication (Adelman, 1999). A primary finding of the 2006 study is that students who complete the freshman year of college with fewer than 20 semester credit hours (SCHs) are much less likely to have successful outcomes than those with 20 SCH or more. To better ensure student progress to and through higher education, Adelman recommends that high school students take a minimum of 6 SCH of dual enrollment. He states: If all traditional-age students entered college or community college with a minimum of 6 credits of "real stuff," not fluff, their adaptation in the critical first year will not be short-circuited by either poor placement or credit overload (Adelman, 2006, p. 108). He further emphasizes that taking up to 12 SCH of dual enrollment is even better than 6, with 12 SCH providing assurance that a student will have forward momentum once entering college. The alignment of student participation and success data from high school to college has been a priority in Texas. As part of those efforts, the THECB has collected data about dual credit participation since Florida, another state with advanced longitudinal student data tracking capabilities, was the location for the first major study of dual credit outcomes. This study, The Postsecondary Achievement of Participants in Dual Enrollment: An Analysis of Student Outcomes in Two States (Karp et. al., 2007) which included control variables to minimize the influence of student characteristics on outcomes, found that dual enrollment was positively related to: enrollment in college (including students taking career and technical courses); full-time versus part-time enrollment (for those who did enroll in college); higher two-year persistence rates than non-dual students; and higher grade-point averages than non-dual students (2007). Although a study of this magnitude has not been done on Texas dual credit program outcomes, in November 2010 the THECB provided the Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) with longitudinal outcomes data for 2004 to 2009 Texas public higher education enrollees who participated in dual credit prior to their matriculation into a Texas public or private higher education institution. The data included one-year persistence rates, time to degree, and baccalaureate and associate degree completion rates (for this and other dual credit data, see As part of its dual credit data request, the LBB asked for comparison data for students who did not participate in dual credit courses. Analyses of the data produced for the LBB show that 12

17 students who enrolled in dual credit courses had significantly higher persistence and completion rates (as shown in Figure 5) than non-dual participants. However, because Texas has eligibility standards for enrollment in dual credit (students must meet the state s TSI standards or dual credit permission standards to participate), comparing dual credit student outcomes to non-dual credit student outcomes can be misleading, since lower performing students often do not have the option of participation in dual credit programs. Studies which control for student characteristics, such as the Florida study mentioned above, are planned for Texas but have not yet been conducted due to present unavailability of the necessary data. However, state data that show differences in outcomes based on the number of dual credit hours a student attempts before high school graduation provide an excellent means for considering the influence of dual credit participation on college outcomes for more similar populations than the dual/non-dual groups. Considering outcome data by the number of hours attempted in dual credit courses provides a feasible means for exploring how dual credit coursetaking frequency affects college outcomes for students who have met dual credit eligibility standards. For this report, the 2004 to 2009 dual credit cohorts tracked for the 2010 LBB data request were updated to include fall 2010 data. Both full- and part-time students who took dual credit within four years of college enrollment were included. Tables showing statewide results are provided in Appendix E-1 and E-2, with highlights of the data discussed below. Differences in outcomes for students taking between 1-11, 12-30, and over 30 dual credit SCHs are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 6 shows that four-year baccalaureate completion rates are consistently higher for students who attempted SCHs of dual credit as compared to students who attempted fewer than 12 SCHs. For example, of the 18,701 students who enrolled in 2006 with fewer than 12 SCHs of dual credit, 28.2 percent earned a bachelor s degree in four years or less. Of the 11,457 students attempting SCHs of dual credit, 38.7 percent earned a baccalaureate in four years or less. Finally, although only a small segment of the population, of the 331 students who attempted over 30 SCHs of dual credit, 54.4 percent earned a bachelor s degree in four years or less. As shown, these patterns are consistent for 2004, 2005, and 2006, with little change in results, despite an increase in participants. 13

18 Figure 5 Figure 6 *Includes high school students who attempted dual credit at a Texas public higher education institution four or fewer years before first-time-in-college (FTIC) enrollment at a Texas public or private college or university. Non-Dual SCH includes all FTIC students who enrolled in higher education within two years of TX public high school graduation or who were Texas residents and were no older than 20 at time of enrollment. Students who attempted NO dual credit, but took AP and/or IB courses, are included in the non-dual credit category. 14

19 Figure 5 shows comparisons of the time it took students to earn a degree, by different levels of dual credit participation. Note that as the dual credit SCH range increases, the percentage of students earning a bachelor s degree in four, five, or six years also increases. A small but growing population of students attempt over 30 SCH of dual credit while in high school. This group earns bachelor s degrees in three years or less at much higher rates than students who have attempted fewer semester credit hours of dual credit (for details, see the chart in Appendix E-1). For the 2004 cohort, about 13 percent of students who attempted over 30 dual credit hours earned a bachelor s degree in three years or less; of the 2007 entering cohort who attempted more than 30 SCH (506 students), 17.4 percent had earned a bachelor s degree in three years or less. The number of courses attempted per student is increasing along with overall dual credit participation rates. Students taking 12 to 30 hours almost tripled from 2004 to 2010, and the number of students taking over 30 hours was approximately 13 times larger in 2010 than in 2004, increasing from 177 to 2,304 students. It is of note that of those 2,304 enrollees in 2010 who attempted over 30 hours of dual credit in high school, over 17 percent (405 students) had earned an associate s degree by the time they enrolled in college. The outcomes data show that as the number of students taking dual credit has increased over time, one-year college persistence rates have gradually dropped (this measure tracks dual credit students who enrolled in college after high school graduation and who were still enrolled the subsequent fall). A total of 89.1 percent of the fall 2004 enrollees who took dual credit persisted to fall 2005, whereas the persistence rate for 2009 enrollees persisting to fall 2010 was 85.9 percent. The size of the cohort doubled from 2004 to 2009, with the number of early college-high school and under-represented minority participants growing during this time. The persistence rates for dual credit participants were, for all cohorts, higher than the rates for nondual credit cohort participants. In summary, the outcomes data related to degrees earned and time to degree show that students who attempt more dual credit hours are more likely to graduate and to graduate in a more timely fashion than those that attempt fewer than 12 SCH or do not participate in dual credit programs at all. These data do not consider the impact of Advanced Placement (AP) courses, which have also been shown to improve time-to-degree. Because these data include both full and part-time students, the completion rates should not be compared to graduation rates for first-time-full-time undergraduates (the cohort traditionally tracked in THECB data). Also, students who leave the state to attend college are not included in these data. Since dual credit students are often high performing students, the percentage that enrolls in college outof-state is likely to be higher than the percentage of non-dual credit students who leave Texas to pursue higher education elsewhere. Although the completion rates for dual credit participants who enroll as part-time or full-time students are not optimal and could be improved, these data indicate that students taking higher numbers of dual credit courses are earning degrees faster and at higher rates than those taking fewer or no dual credit courses. One argument for dual credit courses is that it helps avoid 15

20 duplication of work and effort for students who are ready to handle college work and who will benefit from more rigorous college-level material while still in high school. These data support that claim. However, ensuring that dual credit courses are authentic college-level work and providing students a quality experience that will advance their college learning and progression are critical goals for the state s dual credit programs. Section III: Dual Credit Finance As mentioned previously, there are aspects of the financial arrangements for dual credit programs that vary based on the MOU or other financial arrangements between the institution of higher education (IHE) and the high school or ISD. There are also some areas of dual credit finance that are common to all programs. In this section of the report, we will examine the common and variable aspects of dual credit finance. There are two aspects of state funding that are common to all dual credit programs. The first common aspect is formula funding for reimbursement of contact or credit hours to the IHE that delivered the instruction. This reimbursement system allows the IHE to recoup some fraction of the cost of instruction and is based on a formula that changes with each biennium. IHEs report data on each course, including the number of contact or credit hours provided, to the THECB, and subsequently receive funds proportional to their instructional efforts. Because formula funding is tied to the number of instructional hours delivered to students, the total amount of reimbursement received by IHEs for dual credit has been steadily increasing over the past 10 years, although the amount reimbursed per course has decreased as has all state funding for lower-division courses. For example, in FY 2001, 163,185 SCH of dual credit were funded through the formula at a cost of approximately $12.7 million dollars (approximately $78 per SCH, with different reimbursement rates for community colleges, state technical colleges, and universities). Ten years later in FY 2010, 941,283 SCH were earned and institutions were reimbursed with slightly over $50 million dollars (approximately $53 per SCH, with different reimbursement rates for the different institutional types). Figure 7 shows the number of dual credit enrollments unduplicated by institution type, the total dual credit SCHs earned in 2010, and the FY 2010 General Revenue Fund Reimbursements. Note that the amount allowed for formula funding estimated in the AIR report ($44 million) was determined by identifying state appropriations for community colleges in Texas for FY2010, determining the proportion of total community college contact hours that were courses for dual credit, and applying the percentage to the overall state appropriations. The slightly higher estimate ($48 million) for community colleges shown in Figure 7 was determined by applying specific reimbursement rates to the total number of dual credit SCHs generated statewide for the 2010 fiscal year. 16

21 Figure 7 Type of Institution Number of Students Dual Credit SCH Exempted Students Amount Exempted Average Exemption per Student Community Colleges 112, ,085 $48,262,571 91,791 $53,115,120 $579 Lamar State Colleges 830 5,654 $313, $129,010 $970 Texas State Technical Colleges 4,629 23,944 $1,328,145 7,154 $3,092,762 $1,925 Public Universities 6,731 41,600 $154,336 5,105 $6,977,707 $1,367 Total 124, ,283 $50,058, ,183 $63,314,599 $607 Source: CBM001, Integrated Fiscal Reporting System Total Dual Credit Enrollment FY 2010 FY 2010 Formula General Revenue Funds Dual Credit Tuition Exemptions FY 2010 The second common funding element is state money provided to ISDs. Examples of state funding sources used for dual credit programs include: Foundation School Program, State Compensatory Education, High School Allotment, formula and discretionary grants. Because such funds are not specifically designated for use in dual credit programs, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how much school districts are spending towards this specific purpose statewide. In the AIR report commissioned in 2010 by the TEA in response to Legislative requirement, it was estimated that ISDs spent almost $65 million on dual credit programs during the FY (AIR study, page 51). A breakdown of those costs is included in Appendix F of this report. There are four program structure- and program finance-related issues affecting dual credit finance that are highly variable throughout the state: tuition and fee waivers (also called exemptions 11 ) for dual credit courses, pay for dual credit instructors, location of instruction, and payment for textbooks. Tuition and fee waivers for dual credit students are an important and highly variable piece of the dual credit financial picture. Texas Education Code, , as amended by the 78th Legislature (2003), allows a public institution of higher education to waive or discount the tuition and fees associated with dual credit courses. Some community colleges offer dual credit instruction for free to students within the college s service area, and offer it at a discount to students outside the service area by charging them only the lower, within-theservice-area rate. Other institutions offer all students free dual credit courses, or offer all students the same discounted rate for instruction. During 2010, the most recent fiscal year for which data are available, Texas public two-year colleges gave discounts and waivers worth approximately $56 million, while universities did so at a value of almost $7 million. Figure 7 shows the number of waived (exempted) students, the amount exempted, and the average exemption per student by institution type. Exemption/Waiver and general revenue funding amounts by institution, in addition to dual credit enrollments and SCHs attempted, are provided in Appendix F. 11 It is difficult to differentiate an exemption from a waiver as both are commonly used interchangeably, even in statute. Distinctions in the definitions are sometimes made, but are not relevant for this discussion. 17

22 A closer analysis of tuition waivers for dual credit students shows that this practice is common at institutions with large dual credit enrollments. Many of the schools providing tuition waivers, such as South Texas College, are located in areas with large populations of low-income students. The data also indicate that several of the smaller, rural colleges in Texas do not waive tuition. The size of the local tax base and other financial factors contribute to an institution s ability to waive or discount tuition. Economic exigencies which reduce an institution s tax base or state funding resources may limit an institution s ability to offer tuition waivers. Trends in the expansion or contraction of tuition waivers statewide should be carefully monitored in relation to enrollment demographics, as such trends could have an impact on the accessibility of dual credit for low-income and traditionally-underrepresented students. Instructor pay is another financial issue that varies from one dual credit program to another. Instructors of dual credit programs may be regular IHE faculty or may be collegequalified, high school faculty. IHE faculty who teach on their own campus are unlikely to receive extra pay, but those who must travel to teach at the high school location often receive extra money as reimbursement of their travel expenses. High school faculty teaching dual credit courses sometimes receive no extra money, but in some cases they receive an additional stipend beyond their regular salary. This additional pay may come from the ISD or from the IHE. In some instances, particularly when the high school teacher has not added additional courses to his or her teaching load to instruct a dual credit course on the high school campus, the college pays the high school a direct sum to help cover instructional costs. The location of instruction has a large impact on the costs of dual credit programs, with courses typically offered at either the IHE campus or the high school campus. This is a more complex factor than instructor pay, because there can be many ways that the location can impact program finances. If the instruction is taking place at the IHE campus, then the IHE is most likely to bear the higher costs for providing instruction. The IHE must provide a classroom with all the physical plant expenses that entails: lighting, heating/cooling, cleaning services, etc. However, there could be significant costs for the ISD, too. The high school may be providing bus service to bring the participating students to and from the IHE campus. If the instruction is taking place on the high school campus, then the district will generally bear those physical plant costs. The final factor is the cost of textbooks. At the secondary level, the school (supported by the state) provides textbooks free of charge to all students. By contrast, post-secondary institutions expect students to purchase their own textbooks, and those books are often quite expensive. School districts sometimes regard the purchase of textbooks for dual credit as problematic. They must either strain their own budgets by providing the books (which may not even be possible for poorer school districts), or they must put the burden on students and their parents (with many low-income families likewise unable to afford them). The survey of dual credit practices conducted by South Texas College revealed considerable variability in textbook purchasing policies, and confirmed that in most cases, either the student or the ISD bore the 18