兰德-Dual-Credit-Education-in-Texas_-Interim-Report_122页_1mb

Summary of Dual Credit Education in Texas

Core Content

This report provides an interim analysis of dual credit (DC) education programs in Texas, focusing on their accessibility, diversity, quality, and efficiency. It is part of a two-year study conducted by the RAND Corporation in collaboration with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and Gibson Consulting, funded by the College for All Texans Foundation. The research aims to inform policymakers on whether DC programs in Texas need reform and, if so, how to improve them to better support student success.

Main Objectives

The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• What institutional policies and practices shape how institutions advise, teach, and determine student eligibility for DC courses?
• How have DC participation rates and course delivery changed over time among different student groups?
• What are the academic outcomes of students who took DC courses versus those who did not, prior to HB 505?
• Do DC students complete college more efficiently than those who never took DC courses?

Key Findings

RQ 1: Institutional Policies and Practices

• DC students (prior to HB 505) had better college outcomes than non-DC students.
• DC programs vary in advising, teaching, and course eligibility across institutions.
• Some DC programs use common syllabi and department oversight to ensure course comparability.
• There are differences in advising practices based on location (e.g., distance from partner colleges, whether the school is an Early College High School) and resource availability.
• Guidelines by regional accrediting bodies set minimum qualifications for college instructors but do not guarantee equivalent academic backgrounds or teaching experience for DC instructors.

RQ 2: Participation Rates and Course Delivery

• DC participation has grown significantly in Texas, with a 650% increase since 2000.
• Participation rates vary by race/ethnicity, income, urbanicity, and academic background.
• African-American and Hispanic students have shown the highest growth in DC participation since 2000, but disparities in participation persist.
• Course delivery includes on-campus, online, and through Early College High Schools (ECHS).

RQ 3: Academic Outcomes

• DC students had higher grades in both DC and follow-on courses compared to non-DC students.
• They had higher college enrollment rates, particularly at four-year institutions.
• DC students were more likely to persist and complete college.
• However, the report does not conclude that DC education itself caused these better outcomes, as it lacks causal evidence.

RQ 4: Efficiency of Degree Completion

• DC students took about the same time and semester credit hours (SCHs) to complete a degree as non-DC students.
• Approximately 3% of DC courses were retaken in the first two years of college, often due to poor performance in DC courses.
• DC students completed degrees with a similar number of SCHs as non-DC students.

Limitations and Recommendations

• The findings from Phase I are descriptive and cannot determine causality.
• The report is unable to pinpoint the specific causes of disparities in DC participation.
• Due to these limitations, the key recommendation is to wait for findings from Phase II before making any changes to DC policy in Texas.

Next Steps

Phase II of the study will focus on answering six research questions, including:

• Are there systematic differences in curricula, course content, assessment methods, and teaching approaches between DC and college-credit-only courses?
• How can DC advising be improved to reduce unnecessary course-taking?
• How much do students' prior academic preparation and behavioral dispositions contribute to their success?
• What are the financial costs of DC programs to stakeholders?
• Why have disparities in DC participation rates persisted and widened over time?
• Are institutions expanding DC programs in response to HB 505, and are students still benefiting?

Key Information

• Dual Credit Education: Allows high school students to take college-level courses that count toward both high school and college credit.
• HB 505: A Texas law that expanded access to DC programs.
• 650% Growth: The number of DC participants in Texas increased by 650% between 2000 and 2015.
• Accessibility Concerns: DC programs may not be equally accessible to all students, particularly those from underserved communities.
• Quality and Rigor: Some critics argue that DC courses may lack academic rigor and are not equivalent to college-credit-only courses.
• Funding Sources: DC programs are funded by local property taxes, state budgets, student tuition, and federal financial aid.

Conclusion

The report highlights the growing importance of DC education in Texas and the need for further research to understand its long-term impact and effectiveness. While initial findings suggest that DC students perform better in college, the lack of causal evidence means that policy changes should be delayed until more comprehensive data is available. The study also emphasizes the importance of addressing disparities in access and ensuring that DC programs are high-quality, equitable, and aligned with both high school and college curricula.