NACEP Accreditation: Advancing Quality College Courses in High School and Improving Credit TransferKent Scheffel, President-Elect

National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnershipskscheffe@lc.edu

Kathleen Burns, Director, Advanced Credit ProgramUniversity of Missouri - St. Louisburnska@umsl.edu

Who Said This?

“I am a huge fan of dual enrollment.”

NCES Reports on Dual Enrollment

2002-03 and 2010-11

For those who like stats, this is a table which shows the numbers of high school grads that earned some college credit.

Students taking dual enrollment courses

2002-03 2010-11

1,413,500

812,700

7.2% annual growth

10% of high school students nationwide

High schools offering dual enrollment

2002-03 2010-11

82% of high schools nationwide

11,700

14,600

Location of courses by enrollment

77%

18%

6%

SecondaryPostsecondaryDistance

Type of courses by enrollment

70%

30% Academic

focusCareer/Tech-nical

Rapid enrollment growth in high minority schools

<6% 6 to 20% 21 to 49%

>50%0.8%

6.2%

10.6%11.8%

High school % minority

7.2% annual growth overall

Rapid enrollment growth in urban and rural schools

City Suburban Town Rural

8.8%

2.7%

7.4%

12.0%

High school community type

7.2% annual growth overall

% of postsecondary institutions with

dual enrollment programs

Publi

c 2-ye

ar

Publi

c 4-ye

ar

Nonpro

fit 4-y

ear

For-p

rofit 4

-year

96.0%

75.0%

35.0%

6.0%

53% of all degree granting institutions

Share of 2,030 institutions with

dual enrollment programs

47%

26%

25%

2%Public 2-year Nonprofit 4-year Public 4-year For-profit 4-year

Importance of Standards and Quality

NYU Downgrades Dual Enrollment

Not all colleges accept dual-credit hours amassed by Texas high school students

Report Shows Dual Enrollment Best When on College Campus

Quality Standards: NACEP in State Policy

~ State standards modeled on NACEP standards ~ State requires or incentivizes NACEP accreditation

NACEP Standards: Guiding Principles

College courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus

CEP students are held to the same expectations and standards of achievement as on campus students

CEP instructors meet the same requirements for on campus adjunct instructors, and are provided support by faculty in their discipline

CEP program oversight is sufficient to ensure the academic integrity of its courses, regardless of where they are taught and by whom

A high quality concurrent enrollment program (CEP) is one where:

Faculty Collaboration is Critical Instructors must be approved by the

academic department Instructors must receive course-specific

orientation prior to teaching the course Ongoing annual, discipline-specific

professional development Mechanisms for alignment of curriculum,

assessments, and grading scales Faculty site visits to ensure that the college

course taught in the high school is the same as the course offered on campus

Consistent Expectations Students meet the same academic criteria to

enroll in course (placement testing, course prerequisites)

Courses must include same course content, learning outcomes, and grading scales

Students must be assessed using consistent methods

Course registration and transcripting is consistent with on campus procedures

Displaying Greater Accountability

Conducting end of course student evaluations for every CEP course section each term, regardless of the frequency of on-campus evaluations

Preparing program evaluations through surveys of participating instructors, guidance counselors, and principals

Research longitudinal student success, including student alumni surveys

Because of the added scrutiny that concurrent enrollment faces, programs can display greater accountability by:

Practitioner Perspective on the Value of Standards

Give students assurance that they enroll in true college courses

Aids students seeking credit recognition by adding legitimacy to their transcripts

Ensures that the college follows best practice Enhances reputation of college and high school partners Leverage to gain commitments from college faculty & staff Deepens high school/college partnership and enhances

communication among stakeholders

Purpose of accreditation: program improvement and quality assurance

Evaluative, yet collegial, assessment of evidence Burden of proof is on the institution Each CEP uses unique language & operates in

unique institutional and state policy contexts Accreditation Guide is a resource used by the

institution and by reviewers There are many ways to meet a standard Standards are reviewed both individually and

holistically

Peer Review Process

Shared GoalTo ensure that college courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus

NACEP 2011

Standards

Other Missouri

RulesMDHE Rules

Comparing NACEP Standardsto Missouri Dual Credit PolicyCommon Elements Instructors meet the same academic credential

requirements (both) Instructors must receive course-specific orientation

prior to teaching the course (both) Courses must include same course content and

learning outcomes (both) Students must be assessed using consistent

methods (both)

Comparing NACEP Standards, cont.

Course must be evaluated by students as course is completed (both) NACEP requires evaluations 1 and 4 years after

Students meet the same academic criteria for the course (both), but MO also requires a 3.0 GPA for all students

Transcripts (both) Evidence supporting meeting policy/standards (both)

MO does not provide a list for any specific evidence NACEP is very specific as to the evidence that is required to

meet each of the 17 standards Professional Development

MO states that it should be the same as on-campus (typically no requirement)

NACEP requires that PD occurs at least once per year Procedures for handling instructor non-compliance (NACEP)

Contact UsKent Scheffel

kscheffe@lc.edu(618) 468-5000

Kathleen Burnsburnska@umsl.edu

(314) 516-7005