Making Dual Enrollment Count: A Closer Look at States’ Public Reporting and Accountability Systems Marie O’Hara October 2016 Achieve is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit education reform organization dedicated to working with states to raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability and public reporting systems to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, work, and citizenship.

About Achieve Achieve is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit education reform organization dedicated to working with states to raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability and public reporting systems to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, work, and citizenship.

Research Questions How are states defining dual/concurrent enrollment? How are states using these indicators in their state reporting and accountability systems? What are some state models around dual enrollment public reporting and accountability system inclusion? What are trends across states as well as emerging issues? Identify considerations for states as they work to build a more comprehensive set of indicators into their reporting and accountability systems to promote and value college and career readiness Reviewed state and school report cards, feedback reports, waivers, technical manuals, and accountability formulas

Resources for States: Guidance Around CCR Indicators, Including Dual/Concurrent Enrollment Reviewed state and school report cards, feedback reports, waivers, technical manuals, and accountability formulas Transforming Public Reporting to Ensure College and Career Readiness for All: November 2012 Creating a Continuum of Actionable Academic Indicators of Student Readiness: July 2013 Making Career Readiness Count: May 2014 Integrating Earning College Credit into High School: August 2015 The College and Career Readiness of U.S. High School Graduates: March 2016 How States are Making Career Readiness Count: A 2016 Update – May 2016

Dual/Concurrent Enrollment: Public Reporting

What We Found Sixteen states report some measure of dual/concurrent enrollment. Seven states reported some measure of dual/concurrent enrollment success. Four states (CO, HI, OK, SC) report on both the participation and success of students in dual/concurrent enrollment courses for college credit. Five states report participation numbers in dual enrollment courses, but not completion of these courses. Participation and successful completion of dual enrollment courses are different. It is common for states to report dual enrollment as part of a combination, or “meta-indicator,” e.g. AP, IB, dual enrollment.

What We Found: Dual/Concurrent Enrollment Defined Across States Comparing student outcomes across states is difficult, if not impossible, as states take such different approaches Some states limit their indicator to those students who have successfully completed a credit-bearing dual enrollment course, or they may specify a certain grade that needs to be attained (e.g., “C”). Some states limit the range of dual enrollment courses that qualify, such as those in core academic or technical subjects. It may also require that credit is earned in certain postsecondary institutions such public technical, community colleges and universities, or accredited institutions. The criteria may also require that students attain certain number of credits (e.g., six or more credits or hours). Denominators differ, e.g., Juniors and Seniors, graduates, 9-12th graders We found states’ reported values range from 9% to 80% -- driven primarily by the denominator they choose to report against and how they define the indicator!

Public Reporting: Techniques To Build Understanding and Raise Sense of Urgency Performance or success, not just participation or enrollment, must be reported. Reporting the numbers, as well as percentages of students, makes the data more real, and increases the sense of urgency. Disaggregating reporting by subgroup shines a light on performance disparities. Data should be reported at the school, district, and state level. States should build in comparisons - vertical comparisons such as school to district to state, horizontal comparisons such as school rankings or showing where the school’s performance lies upon a spectrum, or trends over time. The way indicators are calculated and reported matters significantly for results

Public Reporting Highlight: LA School Report Cards What sets these states apart? LA: Louisiana includes the percent of graduates earning dual enrollment credit, compares the school to district and state numbers, provides information whether the data is moving in the right direction and compares to the previous year’s data.

Why Choosing the Right Denominator Matters – and why results are so hard to compare across states. A closer look at one CCR indicator. This figure illustrates how the reported outcomes differ for five states based on the denominator chosen, despite the fact that all have the same number of students earning a 3+ on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam. Using denominators with more selective pools of students — such as only those who enrolled in AP courses or those who took AP exams like States D and E do — sends the message that a fairly sizable percentage of students earn college credit in high school, when in actuality the number is far lower. Using the adjusted 9th grade cohort as the denominator as in State A presents a more comprehensive and honest picture of student performance on this indicator.

Public Reporting Highlight: SC School Report Cards What sets these states apart? SC: Reports both the number of students enrolled in and successful in dual enrollment courses, something only 4 states do (CO, OH, OK, and SC). However, they’re the only state to include this data on school report cards in such a disaggregated way. Too, the state compares schools to “high schools with students like ours” and includes trend data from the previous year.

Public Reporting Highlight: HI College and Career Readiness Indicator Reports What sets these states apart? HI: Dual credit participants are reported as part of the College and Career Readiness Indicators reports, an annual collaboration between the Hawai‘i State Department of Education and the University of Hawai‘i System, and coordinated by Hawai‘i P-20 Partnerships for Education. School and statewide results are presented, and 3 years of trend data are reported. In 2015, an additional Dual Credit Indicator was added for the percent of students earning 6+ credits.

Dual/Concurrent Enrollment: Accountability Systems

What We Found in States’ Accountability Systems Formula and bonus points are used to differentiate and classify schools. Fourteen states included some measure of dual enrollment in their accountability systems; these include both participation and success in coursework. Most commonly, states use a combination or “meta-indicator” that includes dual/concurrent enrollment, along with AP, IB, and potentially, a host of other measures. States rarely report measures that comprise a meta-indicator in a discrete way.

What We Found: More on the Meta-Indicators Meta-indicators are not all created equal; sub-indicators may not be equivalent and interchangeable. AP + IB + Dual Enrollment: All ways to “earn college credit.” Dual enrollment + additional career-ready measures (not a pure “earning college credit” meta-indicator). Earning a qualifying score on the AP, IB, or Technical Skills Attainment (TSA)/IRC or a qualifying grade in AP, IB, early college, dual enrollment, or approved dual credit courses. Students can meet state’s benchmark by demonstrating only one dimension of college or career readiness, rather than both.

Accountability Highlight: Georgia College and Career Readiness Performance Index Georgia’s College and Career-Ready Performance Index uses a 100-point scale informed by a wide array of performance indicators, including: % of graduates earning high school credits for accelerated enrollment via ACCEL, Dual HOPE Grant, Move On when Ready, Early College, Gateway to College, AP, IB – a meta-indicator, but all “earning college credit” indicators

Trends and Issues

Trends Across States Better visibility and functionality of report cards Virtually no reporting of subgroup results More states are using “combined” indicators that mask student outcomes by indicator Greater influence from accountability on public reporting than in previous years – district/school report cards are becoming the primary way SEAs report data to the public

Emerging Issues How might states use public reporting mechanisms to increase transparency and spur action to improve student outcomes? How can states better find the appropriate balance of uses across public reporting and accountability? How/will states weight dual/concurrent enrollment participation/success within their accountability systems under ESSA? Given the value this indicator has to students and parents, how to increase the number of states that report this information in a meaningful way?

Associate Director, State Policy and Implementation Support Marie O’Hara Associate Director, State Policy and Implementation Support Achieve mohara@achieve.org Questions?