Dual Enrollment or AP English?

I have been pondering the impact of dual enrollment for years and have heard all of the arguments for and against.  I know the dividing line. It seems that those who express concern or suggest alternatives are not heard over the roar of the dual enrollment train as it speeds ahead at breakneck speed. Many see it as the only train on the only track available for linking lower and higher educational systems. 

The Department of Education declared in its report "Other attempts to help students enter and succeed in college are based on a body of research demonstrating that postsecondary success is predicated on both rigorous academic preparation and a clear understanding of the expectations in college (cf. Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio, 2003). This approach suggests that high schools and colleges should work together, and that blurring the distinction between the two education sectors may help students to be more successful. As such, policymakers should seek to promote programs and policies that help link secondary and postsecondary education.  Dual enrollment is one type of program that does just this, and which appears to have grown rapidly at the program level." ("State Dual Enrollment Policies: Addressing Access and Quality," 2004) (italics added for emphasis)

Here at Yavapai College, it is full speed ahead with our dual enrollment classes, with more and more disciplines being asked, or forced, to get on board. Our website says that dual enrollment allows "college ready students to participate in accelerated college level coursework." But is that true? Are our offerings on high school campuses truly "accelerated"?  Our website says we offer the "same challenging college curriculum." What I see in ENG 101 and ENG 102 offerings is more of what the Department of Education calls "blurring the distinction between the two education sectors," rather than promoting "a clear understanding of the expectations of college."

I am not opposed to allowing high school students to attempt college credit courses, but is that what we are offering?  I did some basic math. The students on our college campus receive 37.5 hours of seat time in ENG 101 classes to achieve our learning outcomes. Students on the high school campuses are receiving more like 72 hours of seat time (18 weeks x 4 hours/week, plus or minus), nearly double the amount of time to achieve the same outcomes. Yes, these high school students assess at the same level as on-campus students. Of course they do! They have twice the amount of time to learn what they need to learn. Would those students be as successful in 15 weeks on our campus? I wonder. Would our on-campus students be more successful with twice the amount of class time? Surely they would.

Are we are giving these high school students "college experience" in the true sense of the word? No. We need to be honest about what we are doing: we are giving them an AP writing course that receives college credit. Even the atmosphere speaks to a high school class.  The students are sitting in high school rooms, with high school instructors, taking ENG 101 during regular high school hours. And ENG 101 is linked to senior English. If the students don't pass ENG 101, they have lost high school credit as well. How much pressure does this put on those high school English instructors? Are they able to maintain the rigor, or do they find themselves trying to help students pass at all cost in order to meet graduation requirements?

How many high school seniors are actually ready for college?  According to my estimates based upon the numbers of seniors in our high schools and the number of ENG 101 sections we are offering (18 throughout the county), about 1/4 of our high school seniors are ready to take college-level writing classes. That is 25% of all the students who have completed their junior year. Perhaps, if so many are ready for college courses, we should let them graduate after their junior year and come on over to Yavapai. This would be the "accelerated" approach we promise on our website. 

As the Department of Education says, "Dual enrollment, particularly when it is located at the high school, is often criticized for not offering students a true postsecondary experience. Policymakers must find ways to address this criticism and ensure that dual enrollment courses are more than watered-down college courses. Although some states seek to do this by regulating course offerings, requiring dual enrollment teachers to undergo professional development or by requiring that high school students attend class with matriculated college students, such regulations are not common. Ensuring the quality of students’ dual enrollment experiences is important not only for the students themselves, but because it serves to maintain the integrity of postsecondary education throughout the state system. Dilution of quality may reflect poorly on postsecondary credit generally." (italics added for emphasis) This is our dilemma here at Yavapai College. If the high school students have twice the time to achieve the same outcomes, is that not "watered down"? Is that truly as rigorous as a regular college class? We seem to be promoting the old "Yavapai High" reputation in these classes. 

One of the past arguments for promoting dual enrollment was that our college needed to offer this valuable service to our taxpayers. I never sensed an angry mob outside our doors demanding dual enrollment, but somehow the state legislature decided that the outcry was so strong it mandated it. Even so, every college gets to decide what will be offered and how, and yet, the college faculty concerns go unheard or ignored. For example, we in the English department have argued for having the high school students who take ENG 101 on their own campus come to our campuses to take ENG 102 to ensure a real college experience. This has been met with resistance year after year as being inconvenient for the students. What is a little inconvenience in comparison with maintaining the "integrity of postsecondary education"? This argument borders on a entitlement mentality.  They want it their way, so we have to accommodate, even at the risk of our own reputation. And we have lost a valuable opportunity to "link secondary and postsecondary education" in a way that students get accustomed to the "rigors" of higher education.

We were also told in the beginning that dual enrollment would encourage more students to continue their education at Yavapai College. The Verde Independent reporter Yvonne Gonzalez reported, "The college donates more than $100,000 yearly in foregone tuition to dual enrollment high school students,...Dual enrollment on both the east and west sides of the county have increased by 40 and 27 percent respectively, according to Hughes' numbers." (7/1/2014) This must be a huge benefit to our taxpayers but at what cost to us and to our reputation? Will these students continue their education at Yavapai College? The article went on to say, "Hughes said these kids are 'a little more likely,' by about a handful of percentage points, to attend Yavapai College as students....'There are probably greater numbers from those schools too that are going on and choosing other institutions.'" Basically, we are offering tuition-free courses to students who are already planning to go to college and who will most likely choose a four-year institution.

Isn't this like giving tax advantages to the rich? We have not furthered the cause of higher education; we have not encouraged the underprivileged to experience college. Instead, we have subsidized students who are already planning to go to college. And if this is truly a service to our taxpayers, then shouldn't we be offering free tuition to all local high school graduates who pass the Compass test? That would be true equality of access.

While we focus all these resources on high school students who are already planning to go to college, who is focusing on the lower 25% of Arizona high school students, the ones who drop out? Yes, we are offering the top 25% of the senior class free tuition while the lower 25% are shuffled out the back door. Wouldn't our resources go a lot further in helping these students to obtain a better education leading to better careers? That was the original vision for community colleges.