Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
NACEP urges states to adopt four cornerstones to ensure quality as dual enrollment scales
Loading...
Summary
NACEP leaders told a Midwestern Higher Education Compact webinar that as dual-enrollment programs grow statewide, states should adopt a policy framework to "define, expect, empower and monitor" quality; preliminary findings from a Gates-funded study will appear in a forthcoming paper.
During a Midwestern Higher Education Compact webinar, Amy Williams, executive director of the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships, and Diane Lehi Barker, NACEP director of state engagement, previewed recommendations for state policy to safeguard the quality of expanding dual- and concurrent-enrollment programs.
Williams and Barker said the challenge arises when locally run programs become state initiatives backed by funding and policy. "When programs become an actual state initiative…who has that responsibility for program quality, and what is the role of the state?" Williams asked, arguing states must not leave quality solely to local programs.
NACEP is urging states to adopt four "cornerstones" of quality-focused policy: define quality, expect quality, empower actors (through capacity building, guidance and incentives) and monitor quality to add accountability and measure progress. "Define, expect, empower, and monitor," Williams said when summarizing the recommended framework.
The presenters said NACEP provides tools that states can use, including a national framework of best practices and program accreditation. Barker cited preliminary tallies from NACEP's review: about 10 states require or incentivize NACEP accreditation, 6 states have statute or system policy based on NACEP standards, and another 10 states have statutes or policies partially aligned with NACEP standards, a pattern she described as substantial variation across states.
Williams and Barker emphasized student supports as part of any quality definition, saying academic rigor is necessary but insufficient. They identified onboarding, advising, transition planning, campus connection and access to services as recurring weaknesses: "Tell me how you know that. Where is the data? Where is the policy? Where is the follow-up?" Williams asked, urging states to track not just enrollment but the student experience and outcomes.
On credit transfer, the speakers acknowledged national inconsistency. Williams pointed attendees to a University of Connecticut database that documents institutional credit-acceptance policies and quipped, "I will give anybody who fixes transfer in The United States $1,000," underscoring how intractable and fragmented transfer policy can be across states and institutions.
The presenters also addressed online and asynchronous delivery. They said virtual instruction can be delivered with integrity, but programs should document their partnership arrangements with high schools (MOUs, frequency of collaboration, and shared goals) and ensure virtual students receive the same supports—tutoring, library access, advising—as on-campus dual-enrollment students.
Williams said NACEP is using a Gates Foundation grant to study how states can take on these roles; preliminary findings were previewed and a fuller paper is expected in conjunction with NACEP's national conference this fall. Barker invited attendees to that conference (Oct. 27–29 in Orlando) and to NACEP resources available at nacep.org.
The webinar closed with hosts directing attendees to follow-up materials, a survey and an MEC-planned state policy workshop next summer aimed at state teams working through policy details.
