The Shifting Role of Gatekeeping

A new paradigm emerges as dual enrollment for high school students moves from equity barrier to equity builder

Programs that allow high school students early access to college courses in high school — known as dual enrollment, concurrent enrollment, dual credit and early college — are popular, prevalent and growing. The field has seen tremendous growth over the past decade as federal and state policymakers have increasingly expanded their recognition and support of this important learning initiative.

With research pointing to demonstrated benefits such as higher high school graduation rates, increased college matriculation rates, improved performance in college and higher rates of post-secondary degree attainment, dual enrollment access and participation have good reason to be trending upward.

Between 2011 and 2021, the number of high school students under age 18 enrolled in college courses nearly doubled, escalating from 820,000 to 1.5 million, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Data System.

Course-Taking Trends

Dual and concurrent enrollment programs date back to at least the 1950s. They have grown from a niche program available to a select few high school students to becoming widely available across the country. Dual enrollment also is an emerging equity strategy.

A 2019 report by the U.S. Department of Education on dual enrollment growth indicated 34 percent of students take one or more college courses while in high school. In some states, the postsecondary course-taking rate exceeds the national average by 20 percent or more. Notably, in Indiana, Iowa and Idaho, at least 55 percent of high school graduates have completed a college class.

Between 70 and 75 percent of dual enrollment occurs through community colleges, according to the Community College Research Center at Columbia University. In the center’s analysis of fall 2021 data, the latest available from the federal government, roughly one in five high school students was dually enrolled in a community college, continuing a dramatic trajectory over the past two decades.

About 80 percent of dually enrolled students nationally take their college courses at their own school and an additional 6 percent take the courses at a school other than their home high school, such as a career center or academy. The overwhelming majority of dually enrolled students are taking their college courses at their high school either from a high school instructor who meets the college’s adjunct criteria or from college faculty teaching on the high school campus.

Variable Access

At the same time, though, reports from the U.S. Department of Education indicate minorities, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and first-generation college students, English language learners and students with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in the dual enrollment programs. Despite more than a million high school students enrolling annually, dual enrollment access and participation can vary widely, even within a state or school district.

The national data show student access and participation is uneven, perpetuating existing inequities in who benefits from postsecondary education. Unfortunately, entrenched practices, policies and mindsets have systematically impeded more equitable access for students.

Extending the benefits of dual enrollment is possible and is happening in many school communities. From my view as the head of the only national organization focused solely on supporting and advancing quality dual enrollment programs in all forms and names, I have connected with hundreds of programs and thousands of educators, and it is clear there is a paradigm shift underway in the field. Dual enrollment is moving from an equity barrier to an equity builder with the potential to increase college access and success for a much more diverse group of students.

While national reporting lags, we are seeing indications of a shift in who is offered the opportunity to enroll in these programs. The transformation is being driven by the interplay of research and practice.

Broadening Participation

In their early form, dual enrollment programs basically were designed to engage those already likely to attend and succeed in college. These programs were touted as a way to mitigate “senioritis” by offering high school seniors novel, rigorous course options.

Faded copies of early publications documenting programs from the late 1950s describe dual enrollment as designed for “superior students.” College gatekeeping metrics were applied to assess who was “superior” and decide who was in and who was out. Today, you can see the echoes of this history in many programs in participation requirements such as GPA or class rank, standardized test score cutoffs, the type of courses students are permitted to take and which students are invited to learn about dual enrollment opportunities at their high schools.

I encountered the echoes of this history early in my career as a dual enrollment program coordinator at Gallatin College of Montana State University. Well-intentioned requirements served a gatekeeping role that prevented students who were otherwise motivated, engaged and likely to be successful from participating in dual enrollment.

New to the job, I eagerly dug into the peer-reviewed research to better understand what we know about dual enrollment, what made it work and for whom it worked. Study after study revealed the positive impact of these programs on a wide range of students, particularly those traditionally underrepresented in higher education.

I found research papers calling for dual enrollment to be more inclusive, research showing increased degree attainment for dual enrollment students from low-SES backgrounds, as well as increased college enrollment and degree completion rates for non-white students, first-generation students, lower academically performing students and students with disabilities. These were exactly the students whom colleges and universities were eager to find, engage and support in pursuit of a degree or credential.

While building the program at the college, I sought connection to the broader dual enrollment community, leading me to the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships where I found conferences, webinars, publications and networking opportunities and connections with other professionals doing this work.

Connections with colleagues across the nation helped me understand the complex factors at work that create disparities among those who have access and participate. The most inspiring programs were those that were driving students through a shared vision that prioritized equitable access and student success. These high school/college partnerships were innovative and opening the door wide for students.

School leaders recognized the role these programs could play in changing student lives, and they were passionate about doing whatever it took to expand opportunities to all students. All their work started with partnership and a shared vision. The rest was just working out the details.

Mutual Understanding

For my program in Montana, the first step was meeting with each of our high school/district partners to discuss what we mutually hoped to accomplish. I shared current research and practice showing the range of students who benefit from dual enrollment. Defining our shared goals and discussing ways to measure progress created a foundation from which to build.

While this may seem an elementary approach, it is not uncommon for high schools and colleges to partner on these programs because it is an expectation or a requirement, so refocusing the work on the benefits to students was an important step.

Identifying who is, should be and could be participating in dual enrollment is deeply entwined with equity conversations. An early activity explored our program data so we could identify who was participating as a starting point for assessing what had to change. This led to a cascade of questions: How many students were coming to campus, how many online, how many at the high school? How closely did the demographics of students participating in our program match the demographics of our partner school districts? Were participation gaps based on income, race/ethnicity, course location or type? Why did participation gaps exist, and what outreach or program changes might close them?

The early discussions launched various new projects. We built a flow chart to outline what students needed to do to participate in a dual enrollment class, from recruitment in feeder classes to the enrollment and fee payment process. We used focus groups with students and families to tease out factors that positively and negatively affect participation and determined what was within the control of the high school to address.

Shared focus and goals built shared accountability and mutual respect and our partnerships blossomed from there. n

Amy Williams is executive director of the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships based in Chapel Hill, N.C.