Dual enrollment has become a hot topic in Arizona. These community college courses, taught in the high schools to high school students by community college-certified high school teachers, have been the subject of:
On the legislative front, two of the three bills address what is known as the double-dipping issue. Some observers, like the OSPB (Governor's Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting) and ATRA (Arizona Tax Research Association), view the State as having to pay twice for a dual enrollment student since the high school receives State funding for each student enrolled, as does the community college. To counter this, House Bill 2212 would require agreements between the high schools and community colleges to prevent both school districts from both receiving state aid for the same pupil attending the same course. House Bill 2688, written by the OSPB, would reduce the funding per dual enrollment ftse (full time student equivalent) to twenty percent of that paid for an on-campus community college student. Both the funding-related pieces of legislation appear to have been pigeon-holed, which is to say, were assigned to a committee, but are unlikely to receive a hearing. The third piece of legislation, House Bill 2365, would create a study committee to consider, among other things, "minimum standards necessary to ensure the highest level of quality instruction." It's hard to believe, but, among the sixteen-odd members who would be appointed to the committee, there are no residential faculty from any community college. Given that even Board member Linda Rosenthal has reminded us that the residential faculty are responsible for the quality of the dual enrollment offerings, this appears to be a grave oversight. At its February 22nd meeting the Faculty Executive Council unanimously passed a motion in support of the addition of full time faculty to this study committee.
Some observers of dual enrollment, like the Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA) and the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB), contend that taxpayers are paying twice for the same student, since both the high school and community college involved are paid for each student enrolled in a dual enrollment course. Others, like MCCCD, view dual enrollment courses to be strictly community college courses that just happen to be taught on a high school campus to high school students. Therefore, the fact that the community college sponsoring the course receives State funding, as it would for any other student enrolled, is justified.
After a front page article in the Arizona Republic on October 28th, 1999, publicly raised this issue about whether the school districts are double-dipping, the MCCCD administration apparently felt it had to respond. By January a new position had been developed. Since high schools are funded by the State based on ADA (average daily attendance), and since a high school student is deemed full time if enrolled in four classes, it was decided that students could only enroll in dual enrollment courses for the fifth, sixth or seventh courses the students are taking. Conveniently, seniors would be exempt from this restriction.
The only problem is, the Governor's Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting isn't buying the new position. Apparently, Chris Bustamante and two other lobbyists were brought up to the Governor's 9th floor suite on Valentine's Day, and told that the "after 4 classes" position did not eliminate the double-dipping problem. Nevertheless, Linda Thor, President of RSCC, presented that position to the State Community College Board at its meeting at CGCC on February 18th for inclusion in a revision of the State Community College Board's regulation on dual enrollment. (See "SCCB Meeting 2/18/2000" article)
Rep. Dan Schottel, Chairman of the House Education Committee, held a meeting on dual enrollment in November that raised another, related issue. The State currently funds dual enrollment courses exactly as it does any other community college course. As a result, the compensation to MCCCD is significantly greater than the minimal costs incurred to sponsor a dual enrollment course. In fact, the government funding is so large, that MCCCD colleges have frequently sponsored these courses without requiring the high school students to pay tuition. Agreements between MCCCD colleges and high schools under which the students were not required to pay tuition were called the "wash method". The high school and the college involved assumed that if there were about a dozen students enrolled in the typical three credit hour dual enrollment course, who would owe the college about $1500 in tuition, that this would balance the approximately $1500 the college would owe the high school as payment to the high school for the adjunct faculty member. (The high school teachers are not paid for teaching dual enrollment courses since their salary from the high school is meant to compensate them for teaching the courses. Ironically, the teachers can't double-dip, even if the school districts can). As a result, the high school and the college just called it a wash, and no money changed hands. When the wash method was brought up at Rep. Schottel's meeting, Don Puyear, Director of the State Community College Board, appeared shocked. He retorted that the State Board approves all community college tuitions, and not charging tuition wasn't an option. The wash method apparently violated State Community College Board policy.
There are good reasons why faculty should care whether our District is double-dipping or even bothering to charge tuition. Under the current State funding formula and the wash method, dual enrollment courses generate tremendous amounts of tax revenue for the District, while it incurs few costs. Under the wash method, in particular, MCCCD paid the high school teaching the course nothing. This has created an enormous incentive for the colleges to run the maximum number of dual enrollment courses possible, whether the courses are academically justified or not. The result has been about what one would expect: Dual enrollment has grown to 1847 ftse (full time student equivalent) in 98/99, larger than the ftse enrollment of either SMCC or EMCC.
In the fall of 1997 MCCCD and the Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) set a goal of "insuring that every PUHSD graduate in the year 2001 and beyond will earn college credit prior to high school graduation." This goal, set out in a Phoenix Think Tank report, was described as intended to improve high school retention and graduation rates. Competition has erupted among Maricopa colleges as they compete to sign up high schools for dual enrollment courses. Valley students are regularly graduating from high school with over 30 credit hours completed in dual enrollment courses. Faculty observations of dual enrollment courses regularly suggest that college level work is not being done in dual enrollment classrooms. The danger is that the financial incentives are so great, that we will slide down the slippery slope to giving college credit for what is really high school level work, with the result that our course offerings will become increasingly unacceptable to the universities. When California community colleges went a similar route, it wasn't long before the state universities would no longer accept their transfer credits.
On Tuesday, February 8th, 2000, the MCCCD Board held a work/study session at which faculty made presentations on two topics. Carl Samuels and Larry Burgess made a presentation on the impact of full time versus part time instructor status on college student retention and academic performance in sequential courses. A second presentation was made concerning dual enrollment by Abby Hemingway, Nancy Short, Laura Cannon, Sandra Stuebner, Al Shipley and Gay GareschŽ. These presentations were recorded on video, and are available to be viewed. Just call Gay GareschŽ at (623) 845-3701 to borrow the video.
The following information on pages three and four is provided for your reference. Please feel free to remove these pages.
Glossary
Dual enrollment - refers to community college courses taught to high school students, usually in the high school during the school day and by a community college-certified high school teacher.
Concurrent enrollment - refers to high school students enrolled in a community college course, usually on the college campus, along with college-aged students. The high school students typically request that their high schools accept the college course to satisfy their high school graduation requirements.
The wash method - is a financial arrangement between a college sponsoring a dual enrollment course and the high school hosting the course. In the wash method, the high school and the college assume that the tuition students would pay for the college course is approximately equal to what the college would have to pay the high school for the adjunct faculty member. Hence, the two schools involved declare it a wash and no funds change hands.
Double-dipping - the students enrolled in a dual enrollment course are counted as part of the enrollment of both the high school at which the students take the course and the college sponsoring the course. Since both schools will request State funding on behalf of the same students enrolled in the same class, taxpayers are being asked to pay twice for the same student enrollment.
Dual Enrollment Legislation and Regulations
The intent section of Senate Bill 1240 (1984) reads: An act prescribing that a pupil may be granted credit for passage of courses in subjects required for graduation from high school taken at a community college or university;É; prescribing regulations regarding admission of intellectually gifted students under age eighteen to the community colleges and universities; Clearly, the legislation allows concurrent enrollment. Dual enrollment did not begin until a few years after the bill was passed.
ARS 15-701.01 (F) states: Graduation requirements established by the governing board may be met by a pupil who passes courses in the required or elective subjects at a community college or university, if the course is at a higher level than the course taught in the high school attended by the pupil or, if the course is not taught in the high school, the level of the course is equal to or higher than the level of a high school course. This statute would appear to preclude converting AP classes (Advanced Placement) to community college classes, since the courses are already being taught in the high school. Certainly, keyboarding classes could not be converted to college credit and satisfy this section of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
ARS 15-1821 (B)(1) states: No student under age eighteen shall be denied admission because of age,É, if the student has achieved at least a specified score on a college entrance examination. This portion of the ARS gives rise to the following portion of the Arizona Administrative Code as approved by the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges:
R7-1-301 B. Admission of students under 18 years of age 1. Admission to the community colleges in Arizona shall be granted to any student who is under age 18 and who achieves the following test scores:
a. SAT composite (verbal and math) of 930 or more, or an
b. ACT composite of 22 or more.
Questionable Dual Enrollment Practices
The State Board of Directors for Community Colleges (SBDCC) met at CGCC on February 18th, 2000, and dual enrollment was the first agenda item. Don Puyear, Director of the SBDCC, reviewed some of the funding and quality concerns regarding dual enrollment. He discussed the issue of whether a dual enrollment class is a college class being taught at the high school, or a "beefed-up" high school class. This issue is complicated by the fact that many dual enrollment classes are mixed, in the sense that some students are enrolled for high school credit only and some are enrolled for both high school and college credit. Then, Linda Thor, president of RSCC, presented a set of recommended changes to the current dual enrollment regulation, R7-1-709, that an association of community college presidents had drafted. One proposed change would require that all high school students be enrolled in at least four high school credits before enrolling in any dual enrollment courses. High school seniors who have enough high school credits to graduate, would be exempt from this requirement. This recommendation is intended to address the "double-dipping" issue; that is, that the State is paying both the high school and the community college to teach the same student in a dual enrollment class.
A second change to the regulation would identify which students can enroll in dual enrollment courses. The draft suggests that any student enrolled in the college course must either be enrolled for college credit, advanced placement, or be an honors student. The purpose of this stipulation would be to insure that only college-ready students would be enrolled in a class offering community college credit.
Another proposed change would allow all dual enrollment students to be admitted as special status students, under R7-1-301 part C. Currently, it would appear that high school students, largely being under the age of 18, would have to be admitted under part B of the State admittance regulation, which pertains specifically to students under the age of 18. Part B requires students to provide sufficient ACT or SAT scores to prove their college-readiness. There is no such requirement for special status students.
In ensuing discussion a representative from a rural district expressed concern about the recommendation that all students in a dual enrollment class be enrolled for college credit. She contended that her district may have only a half dozen students in a class who are ready to do college work. Since the high school cannot create a class for six students, the classes must be mixed. Other attendees felt that limiting dual enrollment to college transfer courses would preclude vocational/technology courses from dual enrollment offerings.
Michael Hunter, from the Arizona Tax Research Association, presented taxpayer concerns about double-dipping to the State Board. However, he also questioned the quality and transferability of the dual enrollment courses. He also recommended the addition of full time faculty to a proposed dual enrollment study group being considered by the State Legislature.
MCCCD FACULTY ASSOCIATION 1999-2000 OFFICERS
WILLIE MINOR, PRESIDENT
ROSEMARY KESLER, PRESIDENT-ELECT
TOM BUTLER, SECRETARY
MARK RICHARD, TREASURER
GAY GARESCHE, PEERPOINT EDITOR
FACULTY ASSOCIATION OFFICE
PHONE.....(480)731-8113
PEERPOINT! is the voice of the faculty in the Maricopa County Community College District. We welcome and encourage your suggestions, ideas, and comments. Let us know what you would like to see in PEERPOINT! You can share information with your Senate President, Campus Representative, or contact PEERPOINT! editor, Gay Garesche, 623-845-3701.