Researchers outline strategies to expand access and success in dual enrollment in Indiana and North Carolina

Jenny Parks, vice president of policy and research at the Midwestern Higher Education Compact, opened a webinar where Julie Edmonds and Nina Arshofsky of the Early College Research Center (UNC Greensboro) presented comparative findings on dual enrollment in Indiana and North Carolina.

Edmonds and Arshofsky described how the states use different delivery models and policy levers to expand college coursework for high‑school students. Edmonds summarized the center’s evidence that dual enrollment is associated with higher high‑school graduation rates and increased college credit accumulation, and that, in some analyses, participation appeared to mitigate COVID‑era declines in postsecondary outcomes: "dual enrollment students have higher high school graduation rates, and they earn more college credits in high school," Edmonds said.

The presentation contrasted Indiana’s model—where most dual credit courses are taught by high‑school teachers on the high‑school campus—with North Carolina’s Career and College Promise (CCP), where most courses are taught by college faculty on college campuses or online. Arshofsky said Indiana statute requires each high school to offer at least two dual‑credit courses and described an Indiana College Core pathway (ICC) offering roughly 30 transfer credits that may transfer as a block to four‑year institutions. By contrast, North Carolina’s CCP includes distinct transfer, career‑and‑technical (CTE) and early‑college pathways supported by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and the community college system.

Costs and eligibility differ. Arshofsky said Indiana law caps non‑low‑income students at $25 per credit hour (about $75 per course) and that a 10‑course ICC pathway would cost no more than $750 under that cap; she also noted that Ivy Tech Community College and Indiana University have waived tuition for many students. In North Carolina, tuition for CCP courses is covered for students, though books, course fees and transportation can create barriers.

Eligibility rules also diverge. In Indiana colleges typically set prerequisites and there are no statutory age limits; students can begin in ninth grade if they meet requirements. In North Carolina, CCP tuition coverage generally applies to 11th‑ and 12th‑grade students who meet a 2.8 high‑school GPA or other readiness assessments, though some CTE pathways and early‑college programs admit younger students or allow principal waivers.

Participation and equity findings: Arshofsky reported that, in available Indiana data, about 60 percent of recent high‑school graduates had earned some dual credit, with participation concentrated among white and higher‑income students; ICC learners had high college‑attendance rates (over 92 percent in a referenced year). In North Carolina, roughly 30 percent of 12th graders participate in CCP pathways, and both states show gaps in transfer‑pathway participation by race, ethnicity and economic disadvantage; CTE pathways showed smaller subgroup gaps.

Presenters highlighted barriers and recommended practices. For high‑school‑taught dual credit, accreditation expectations from the Higher Learning Commission require additional graduate‑level discipline credits for high‑school instructors, increasing pressure to train and retain qualified teachers. Arshofsky said Indiana is responding with free tuition programs for teacher credentialing. For college‑taught courses, Edmonds and Arshofsky noted logistical barriers—transportation, calendar and daily‑schedule alignment, online access and course fees—that districts and colleges must negotiate.

To expand access and improve success, presenters recommended: strong secondary–postsecondary partnerships with dedicated staff time and regular data‑sharing; explicit memoranda of understanding that define responsibilities, course offerings and withdrawal policies; targeted and early recruitment that reaches families and students through community sites; multiple delivery modalities to address logistical constraints; and proactive supports (advisory periods, shared monitoring of college performance, tutoring and instruction in academic behaviors such as time management and self‑advocacy). Edmonds said targeted recruitment and intentional outreach reduce participation disparities: "we're doing some specific efforts to make sure that all populations of students...are aware of the opportunities," she said.

The presenters closed by sharing resources and a QR code linking to briefs, infographics and full reports on cost, implementation and evaluation findings and invited attendees to contact the Early College Research Center for templates, data and further collaboration. The webinar ended with a reminder that local MOUs and state regulations determine many operational details and that expanding access is an iterative process requiring leadership commitment and dedicated personnel.

Next steps: researchers offered to share MOU templates and data resources; attendees were encouraged to follow the center’s newsletter for publications and cost‑benefit reports.