2011 Dual Credit Survey Summary Report
Missouri Department of Higher Education• December 2011•
Contents
• Background on Early College Programs • Why a Dual Credit Survey?• DC Survey• Findings• 2008 Comparison• Future Directions• Update on DC Work Group
Background on Early College:Workforce
Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce, 2010 p. 14
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf
Bachelor’s Degree 23%
Graduate Degree10%
Some College 12%
Associate’s Degree17%
High School Graduate28%
Less Than High School 10%
The Value of Dual Credit
• Enriches and extends high school curriculum
• Offers challenging materials• Cost-effective• Promotes collaboration
Purpose of the DC Survey
• Measuring compliance to Dual Credit Policy
• Looking at areas of DC policy that may need to be revised or clarified
• Checking for current policy gaps
• Revisiting guidelines for Best Practice
• To provide a list to DESE of dual credit programs in compliance with dual credit policy
DC Survey
• Electronic survey distributed to 52 public and independent institutions
• 56 questions addressing the following topics:– Student eligibility– Program structure and administration– Faculty qualifications– Assessment of student performance– Transferability of Credit
DC Survey Findings
• 33 institutions offering dual credit submitted a survey and all were in general compliance with major policy indicators
• Several institutions did not meet each of the sub-units of the indicators, most visibly in the areas of discipline-specific training, pedagogy and faculty mentoring
• None of the levels were significant enough to cause concern with the quality of programs
As it was in 2008
• Access to qualified instructors continues to be a significant obstacle, particularly in rural communities.
• Due to online resources and formats, professional development and mentoring has improved. However, there is still a lot of work to do.
Future Directions and Policy Recommendations
• Address recurring concerns• Improve Depth of Compliance• NACEP accreditation• Review policy in context of early college
programs• Increased accountability from out-of-state
institutions• Develop instrument for annual reporting
Update on the Dual Credit Data Collection Work Group
• Purpose and Timeframe• Group Membership• Areas of Concern• Data
Discussion
• Efficient Use of Time and Resources• Measures of Quality Programs
– Student Eligibility– Program Structure and Administration– Faculty Qualifications and Support– Others?
Discussion
• How might remote locations with few to no qualified instructors participate in dual credit programs?
• How can schools with less resources use collaboration and technology to offer dual credit programs?
• Do you have any questions?