Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Dual Credit Andrew Lofters Program Director Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Context of Dual Credit HB 505 – Removed CB restrictions on the number of semester credit hours (SCH) a student can take and removed limitations on the grade level at which a student can take dual credit As a result the numbers of students taking dual credit has risen Fall 2013 107,598 Fall 2014 112,361 Fall 2015 133,342 Fall 2016 151,589

Why Study Dual Credit? Expansion of dual credit has led to a number of concerns The rigor of dual credit courses – Are they really college level? Excess Hours – A transfer student with no dual credit has on average 15 SCH of successfully completed courses beyond those necessary for a bachelor’s degree, a student with dual credit hours has 21 Quality of advising

Dual Credit Actions Dual Credit Task Force UT System Study Rand Study Legislation Restrict offerings to only Core courses, CTE courses, and foreign language courses Study articulation agreements related to dual credit

Rand Study Led by the Rand Corporation Trey Miller – Rand Holly Kosiewicz – THECB Elaine Wang – Rand Liz Marwah – Gibson Consulting Scott Delhommer – CFAT Lindsay Daugherty - Rand

National Research General finds DC positively impacts student outcomes, but studies are mostly qualitative or descriptive Causal evidence of positive outcomes from Early College High schools, but the focus has been on short term outcomes Evidence this far focuses on short-term student outcomes, lack of evidence on implementation, efficiency, and costs

Interim Report Research Questions RC 1: What are the academic outcomes of high school students who took DC courses versus those who did not, prior to HB 505? RQ 2: What institutional policies and practices shape how institutions advise students, teach DC courses and determine student eligibility for DC courses? RQ 3: How have DC participation rates among different student groups and DC course delivery changed over time? RQ 4: Did high school students who took DC courses complete college more efficiently than students who never took DC courses?

Interim Report Research Question Findings RC 1 Finding: DC students (prior to HB 505) had better college outcomes than high school graduates who did not take DC courses. RQ 2 Finding: DC instruction and advising varied across colleges and universities. RQ 3 Finding: Prior to HB 505, DC eligibility rules promoted student success but limited access to traditionally underserved students. RQ 4 Finding: DC students took about the same time and same semester credit hours (SCH) to complete a college degree as their non-DC counterparts.

Interim Report - The Good News DC students tend to have higher grades in DC courses and follow-on courses in the same subject Higher college enrollment rates after high school More likely to enroll at a four year institution Less likely to require developmental education Higher college persistence and completion rates Less time to degree (number of semesters after high school)

Interim Report - The Bad News Students took more semester credit hours to degree The expansion of dual credit over the past two years is not accounted for in current data regarding time and semester credit hours to degree Advising may not be adequate

Second Phase of Study Assess how institutions have responded to HB 505 Conduct causal impact study to examine effects of DC programs on student outcomes Investigate rigor of instruction and assessment of student work in DC credit courses and college credit only courses Examine advising approaches across different delivery models Calculate the cost of DC education to the state and to students

Second Phase of Study-Research Questions To what extent do differences in the way colleges and universities approach delivery of DC affect the academic rigor of DC instruction and the quality of DC advising? Is there a way to improve DC advising to reduce the number of SCH a DC student earns toward a college degree? How much did students’ previous academic preparation and behavioral dispositions, versus what they learned in their DC courses, contribute to their success What are the financial costs of DC programs to stakeholders, given that Texas allocates funding to both high schools and colleges and universities to deliver DC and that DC students exhibit similar time-to-degree and SCH-to-degree and SCH- to-degree patterns as college credit-only students? Are institutions expanding DC programs in response to HB 505, and if so, ae students still benefitting?

Interim Report Can be found at - http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/9323.PDF?CFID=58153332 &CFTOKEN=26235995 March 17 - April 17: Public Comment to donna_white@rand.org August 17: Publication of Interim Report – Link will be provided on THECB website May 2017: Begin second phase research Questions: Rex C Peebles, PhD, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Quality and Workforce rex.peebles@thecb.state.tx.us

Introduced Legislation-85th Legislative Session SB 1091 SB 802 HB 1638 SB 1903 HB 2937

Dual Credit Contact: Andrew Lofters, Ph.D. Program Director Academic Quality and Workforce Andrew.Lofters@thecb.state.tx.us (512) 427-6239