States should broaden eligibility requirements to permit students to participate in credit-bearing, college-level courses based on proficiency in those subjects even if they are not proficient in others. Student eligibility should also be jointly determined by secondary and postsecondary and use multiple measures: a combination of tests, end-of-course grades, teacher recommendations, and students’ work portfolios.

POLICY ELEMENT: Eligibility requirements are determined by the secondary and postsecondary sectors together.

Not in Evidence

Postsecondary institutions determine eligibility requirements for concurrent enrollment programs.

POLICY ELEMENT: High school students can participate in college courses based on their proficiency in those subjects, even if they are not proficient in others.

Not in Evidence

Students have to meet college admission standards for non remedial courses in all subject areas. More specifically, high school students need to meet minimum standards for state system institutions based upon scores on the ACT/SAT or a high school GPA of 3.0/4.0 and class rank.

POLICY ELEMENT: Eligibility is determined by a combination of tests, end-of-course grades, teacher recommendations, and student academic work.

In Evidence

Eligibility criteria provide multiple ways for students to become eligible for dual enrollment. For example, if students are unable to meet the minimum score on the ACT/SAT, they can still qualify for concurrent enrollment based on GPA and class rank.

POLICY ELEMENT: Eligibility requirements are determined by the secondary and postsecondary sectors together.

In Evidence:

School districts and postsecondary institutions jointly establish student eligibility requirements for concurrent enrollment programs.

POLICY ELEMENT: High school students can participate in college courses based on their proficiency in those subjects, even if they are not proficient in others.

In Evidence:

“To ensure that a student is prepared for college level work, an appropriate assessment shall be administered to the student prior to participation in all concurrent mathematics and English courses” (R 277-713-3(C)). The student also must meet the requirements for the same campus-based course by the sponsoring postsecondary institution.

POLICY ELEMENT: Eligibility is determined by a combination of tests, end-of-course grades, teacher recommendations, and student academic work.

In Evidence:

Utah code stipulates that an “appropriate assessment” be administered to determine readiness. However, the code does not preclude students from demonstrating readiness in multiple ways.

States should ensure that college courses offered to high school students use the same syllabi and exams as comparable courses taught on a college campus, and that dual enrollees can receive dual-credit so they earn both high school and college credits upon successfully completing courses. In addition, the postsecondary institution conferring credit should set the qualifications for faculty teaching dual-credit courses.

POLICY ELEMENT: Students have the opportunity to take college courses for dual credit so they earn both high school and college credits upon successfully completing courses.

In Evidence:

Concurrent enrollment students earn both secondary and postsecondary credits upon successfully completing college courses.

POLICY ELEMENT: College courses offered within secondary schools use the same syllabi and exams as comparable courses taught on a college campus.

In Evidence:

Postsecondary institutions must monitor course content, procedures, exams, and teaching materials to ensure that college courses offered through concurrent enrollment programs are comparable to offerings on the postsecondary campus.

POLICY ELEMENT: The postsecondary institution conferring credit sets the qualifications for faculty teaching courses taken for dual credit.

In Evidence:

The Utah Administrative Code clearly defines instructor qualifications for concurrent enrollment programs. High school teachers must be approved as adjunct faculty and supervised by postsecondary faculty to ensure the quality and comparability to courses offered on a postsecondary campus. Support services to instructors include professional development and curriculum and instructional advisement from the appropriate academic department at the partnering postsecondary institution.

States should develop funding policies that allow high school students to take college courses free of tuition and non-course-related charges, and that allow both districts and postsecondary institutions to claim per-pupil funding allocations to support the cost of offering college courses for dual-credit. There should also be provisions or special appropriations to support the development of early college schools targeting students who are underrepresented in higher education.

POLICY ELEMENT: Funding policies to support concurrent enrollment in the state create incentives for school districts to partner with institutions of higher education to offer dual credit opportunities for students.

In Evidence:

Rather than reimburse school districts and postsecondary institutions through average daily attendance and full-time equivalent student enrolment funding, both high schools and colleges receive a share of a state appropriation for concurrent enrollment based on the hours of college coursework completed by students.

POLICY ELEMENT: Funding policies for dual enrollment support access for low-income high school students who are interested in taking college courses.

In Evidence:

All concurrent enrollment students are exempt from tuition and fees.  Colleges can charge a one-time admission application fee (typically $30 to $60). Low-income students are eligible for waivers from these fees.

POLICY ELEMENT: Funding streams are flexible enough that funds can be used for professional development, books, lab fees, and student transportation.

Not in Evidence:

State policy does not preclude colleges from charging a one-time admission application fee (typically $30 to $60). Charges for textbooks are also at the discretion of local programs. Low-income students are eligible for waivers from these discretionary charges.

States should report annually on dual enrollment participation and impact and develop administrative structures to support program leaders and dual enrollment partnerships. States should also designate a state board or governing body as having the authority and responsibility to guide dual enrollment policy.

POLICY ELEMENT: States should designate a state board or governing body as having the authority and responsibility to guide dual enrollment policy, and develop administrative structures to support program leaders and dual enrollment partners.

Not in Evidence:

State policy does not clearly define oversight roles. Utah also lacks an administrative structure to support concurrent enrollment implementation statewide.

POLICY ELEMENT: States should report annually on dual enrollment participation and impact.

In Evidence:

The State Board of Education publishes an annual school performance report that identifies student participation in concurrent enrollment programs at the school, district, and state levels. The reports include data on student enrollment and credit hours earned by concurrent enrollment students.

States should develop unit-record statewide data systems that identify dual enrollees by demographic characteristics and monitor student progress longitudinally across the K-12 and higher education systems.

POLICY ELEMENT: States should develop unit-record statewide data systems that identify dual enrollees by demographic characteristics and monitor student progress longitudinally across the K-12 and higher education systems.

In Evidence:

A robust statewide longitudinal data system collects a broad range of student data. Implicit in state concurrent enrollment funding is the requirement to track student achievement on both the K-12 and postsecondary levels using a common system to identify dual enrollees.

States should require that districts and postsecondary institutions specify and document key roles and responsibilities in memoranda of understanding or cooperative agreements, including the provision of a college liaison for student advisement and support. States should also provide support and funding for programs designed to serve students who are over-age and undercredited, as well as youth who have dropped out of high school.

POLICY ELEMENT: States should require that districts and postsecondary institutions specify and document key roles and responsibilities in memoranda of understanding or cooperative agreements.

In Evidence:

Districts and charter schools must negotiate an annual contract with their higher education partners. The contract must cover courses offered, location, staffing, student eligibility, course outlines, texts, and materials, as well as administrative and supervisory services, in-service education, and reporting mechanisms.

POLICY ELEMENT: States should require each dual enrollment partnership to provide a liaison between high school and college partners, with responsibilities for advising students, assisting with course scheduling, and linking students to support services.

Not in Evidence:

The state does not directly support a liaison, but the annual concurrent enrollment agreement between districts/charter schools and partner institutions must indicate who will be responsible for providing student supports.