1. NACEP Accreditation: Advancing Quality College Courses in High School and Improving Credit Transfer Kent Scheffel, President-Elect National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships kscheffe@lc.edu Kathleen Burns, Director, Advanced Credit Program University of Missouri - St. Louis burnska@umsl.edu

2. Who Said This? “I am a huge fan of dual enrollment.”

3. NCES Reports on Dual Enrollment 2002-03 and 2010-11 For those who like stats, this is a table which shows the numbers of high school grads that earned some college credit.

4. Students taking dual enrollment courses 7.2% annual growth 10% of high school students nationwide

5. High schools offering dual enrollment 82% of high schools nationwide 11,700 14,600

6. Location of courses by enrollment

7. Type of courses by enrollment

8. Rapid enrollment growth in high minority schools 7.2% annual growth overall

9. Rapid enrollment growth in urban and rural schools 7.2% annual growth overall

10. % of postsecondary institutions with dual enrollment programs 53% of all degree granting institutions

11. Share of 2,030 institutions with dual enrollment programs

12. Importance of Standards and Quality NYU Downgrades Dual Enrollment Not all colleges accept dual-credit hours amassed by Texas high school students Report Shows Dual Enrollment Best When on College Campus

13. Quality Standards: NACEP in State Policy

14. NACEP Standards: Guiding Principles as rigorous  College courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus  CEP students  CEP students are held to the same expectations and standards of achievement as on campus students  CEP instructors  CEP instructors meet the same requirements for on campus adjunct instructors, and are provided support by faculty in their discipline  CEP program oversight  CEP program oversight is sufficient to ensure the academic integrity of its courses, regardless of where they are taught and by whom A high quality concurrent enrollment program (CEP) is one where:

15. Faculty Collaboration is Critical by the academic department  Instructors must be approved by the academic department course-specific orientation  Instructors must receive course-specific orientation prior to teaching the course annual, discipline-specific  Ongoing annual, discipline-specific professional development curriculum, assessments, and grading scales  Mechanisms for alignment of curriculum, assessments, and grading scales  Faculty site visits  Faculty site visits to ensure that the college course taught in the high school is the same as the course offered on campus

16. Consistent Expectations academic criteria to enroll  Students meet the same academic criteria to enroll in course (placement testing, course prerequisites) content, learning outcomes, and grading scales  Courses must include same course content, learning outcomes, and grading scales assessed  Students must be assessed using consistent methods registration and transcripting  Course registration and transcripting is consistent with on campus procedures

17. Displaying Greater Accountability end of course student evaluations  Conducting end of course student evaluations for every CEP course section each term, regardless of the frequency of on-campus evaluations program evaluations  Preparing program evaluations through surveys of participating instructors, guidance counselors, and principals  Research longitudinal student success  Research longitudinal student success, including student alumni surveys Because of the added scrutiny that concurrent enrollment faces, programs can display greater accountability by:

18. Practitioner Perspective on the Value of Standards  Give students assurance that they enroll in true college courses  Aids students seeking credit recognition by adding legitimacy to their transcripts  Ensures that the college follows best practice  Enhances reputation of college and high school partners  Leverage to gain commitments from college faculty & staff  Deepens high school/college partnership and enhances communication among stakeholders

19.  Purpose of accreditation: program improvement and quality assurance  Evaluative, yet collegial, assessment of evidence  Burden of proof is on the institution  Each CEP uses unique language & operates in unique institutional and state policy contexts  Accreditation Guide is a resource used by the institution and by reviewers  There are many ways to meet a standard  Standards are reviewed both individually and holistically Peer Review Process

20. Shared Goal To ensure that college courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus NACEP 2011 Standards Other Missouri Rules MDHE Rules

21. Comparing NACEP Standards to Missouri Dual Credit Policy Common Elements  Instructors meet the same academic credential requirements (both)  Instructors must receive course-specific orientation prior to teaching the course (both)  Courses must include same course content and learning outcomes (both)  Students must be assessed using consistent methods (both)

22. Comparing NACEP Standards, cont.  Course must be evaluated by students as course is completed (both) NACEP requires evaluations 1 and 4 years after  Students meet the same academic criteria for the course (both), but MO also requires a 3.0 GPA for all students  Transcripts (both)  Evidence supporting meeting policy/standards (both)  MO does not provide a list for any specific evidence  NACEP is very specific as to the evidence that is required to meet each of the 17 standards  Professional Development  MO states that it should be the same as on-campus (typically no requirement)  NACEP requires that PD occurs at least once per year  Procedures for handling instructor non-compliance (NACEP)

23. Contact Us Kent Scheffel kscheffe@lc.edu (618) 468-5000 Kathleen Burns burnska@umsl.edu (314) 516-7005