PETS President elect training seminar SETS Secretary elect training seminar
Kent Scheffel , President-Elect National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships
description
Transcript of Kent Scheffel , President-Elect National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships
NACEP Accreditation: Advancing Quality College Courses in High School and Improving Credit TransferKent Scheffel, President-Elect
National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment [email protected]
Kathleen Burns, Director, Advanced Credit ProgramUniversity of Missouri - St. [email protected]
Who Said This?
“I am a huge fan of dual enrollment.”
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.
Students taking dual enrollment courses
2002-03 2010-11
1,413,500
812,700
7.2% annual growth
10% of high school students nationwide
High schools offering dual enrollment
2002-03 2010-11
82% of high schools nationwide
11,700
14,600
Location of courses by enrollment
77%
18%
6%
SecondaryPostsecondaryDistance
Type of courses by enrollment
70%
30% Academic
focusCareer/Tech-nical
Rapid enrollment growth in high minority schools
<6% 6 to 20% 21 to 49%
>50%0.8%
6.2%
10.6%11.8%
High school % minority
7.2% annual growth overall
Rapid enrollment growth in urban and rural schools
City Suburban Town Rural
8.8%
2.7%
7.4%
12.0%
High school community type
7.2% annual growth overall
% of postsecondary institutions with
dual enrollment programs
Publi
c 2-ye
ar
Publi
c 4-ye
ar
Nonpro
fit 4-y
ear
For-p
rofit 4
-year
96.0%
75.0%
35.0%
6.0%
53% of all degree granting institutions
Share of 2,030 institutions with
dual enrollment programs
47%
26%
25%
2%Public 2-year Nonprofit 4-year Public 4-year For-profit 4-year
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
Quality Standards: NACEP in State Policy
~ State standards modeled on NACEP standards ~ State requires or incentivizes NACEP accreditation
NACEP Standards: Guiding Principles
College courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus
CEP students are held to the same expectations and standards of achievement as on campus students
CEP instructors meet the same requirements for on campus adjunct instructors, and are provided support by faculty in their discipline
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:
Faculty Collaboration is Critical Instructors must be approved by the
academic department Instructors must receive course-specific
orientation prior to teaching the course Ongoing annual, discipline-specific
professional development Mechanisms for alignment of curriculum,
assessments, and grading scales Faculty site visits to ensure that the college
course taught in the high school is the same as the course offered on campus
Consistent Expectations Students meet the same academic criteria to
enroll in course (placement testing, course prerequisites)
Courses must include same course content, learning outcomes, and grading scales
Students must be assessed using consistent methods
Course registration and transcripting is consistent with on campus procedures
Displaying Greater Accountability
Conducting end of course student evaluations for every CEP course section each term, regardless of the frequency of on-campus evaluations
Preparing program evaluations through surveys of participating instructors, guidance counselors, and principals
Research longitudinal student success, including student alumni surveys
Because of the added scrutiny that concurrent enrollment faces, programs can display greater accountability by:
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
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
Shared GoalTo ensure that college courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus
NACEP 2011
Standards
Other Missouri
RulesMDHE Rules
Comparing NACEP Standardsto Missouri Dual Credit PolicyCommon 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)
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)