Promoting Quality: State Strategies for Overseeing Dual Enrollment Programs
Saved in:
| Title: | Promoting Quality: State Strategies for Overseeing Dual Enrollment Programs |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Lowe, Adam I., National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) |
| Source: | National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships. 2010. |
| Availability: | National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships. 126 Mallette Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516. Tel: 919-593-5205; Fax: 877-572-8693; e-mail: information@nacep.org; Web site: http://www.nacep.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 16 |
| Publication Date: | 2010 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Indiana Commission for Higher Education Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Higher Education, Accreditation (Institutions), Quality Control, Governing Boards, Community Colleges, Politics of Education, Dual Enrollment, Educational Quality, Educational Policy, State Programs, Case Studies, State Policy, Educational Objectives, Articulation (Education), Secondary Education |
| Geographic Terms: | Florida, Illinois, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia |
| Abstract: | Few states have established systems for overseeing dual enrollment programs to encourage institutions to align their practices with quality standards. Five states (Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota), have established incentives or requirements for post-secondary concurrent enrollment providers to pursue the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) accreditation as one quality assurance mechanism. NACEP's peer-review accreditation process promotes the implementation of policies and practices to ensure that concurrent enrollment courses offered in the high school are the same as the courses offered on the sponsoring college campus. A number of states are currently designing or redesigning dual enrollment oversight systems, including Indiana, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming. While prior studies by the Education Commission of the States, the Community College Research Center, and the Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education have examined dual enrollment policies across the 50 states, none have looked in depth at the processes by which states conduct program oversight. This report is designed to fill that void, by illuminating dual enrollment oversight and review strategies among the following state-level entities: (1) Florida Department of Education; (2) Illinois Community College Board; (3) Oregon Dual Credit Oversight Committee; (4) South Dakota Board of Regents; (5) Utah System of Higher Education and Utah Office of Education; and (6) Virginia Community College System. The report presents these six as in-depth case studies, and does not evaluate or judge the practices. NACEP does not take a position favoring a particular form of dual enrollment program oversight, and instead offers this report to help further knowledge and understanding of state-level policies and practices that advance the goal of seamless education through secondary and post-secondary collaborations. A list of works cited and selected state resources is included. (Contains 4 footnotes.) |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Entry Date: | 2012 |
| Accession Number: | ED537071 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Few states have established systems for overseeing dual enrollment programs to encourage institutions to align their practices with quality standards. Five states (Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota), have established incentives or requirements for post-secondary concurrent enrollment providers to pursue the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) accreditation as one quality assurance mechanism. NACEP's peer-review accreditation process promotes the implementation of policies and practices to ensure that concurrent enrollment courses offered in the high school are the same as the courses offered on the sponsoring college campus. A number of states are currently designing or redesigning dual enrollment oversight systems, including Indiana, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming. While prior studies by the Education Commission of the States, the Community College Research Center, and the Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education have examined dual enrollment policies across the 50 states, none have looked in depth at the processes by which states conduct program oversight. This report is designed to fill that void, by illuminating dual enrollment oversight and review strategies among the following state-level entities: (1) Florida Department of Education; (2) Illinois Community College Board; (3) Oregon Dual Credit Oversight Committee; (4) South Dakota Board of Regents; (5) Utah System of Higher Education and Utah Office of Education; and (6) Virginia Community College System. The report presents these six as in-depth case studies, and does not evaluate or judge the practices. NACEP does not take a position favoring a particular form of dual enrollment program oversight, and instead offers this report to help further knowledge and understanding of state-level policies and practices that advance the goal of seamless education through secondary and post-secondary collaborations. A list of works cited and selected state resources is included. (Contains 4 footnotes.) |
|---|
