Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dual Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students and parents press board on dual‑enrollment access; staff cites state rule and PSAT as readiness option
Summary
Two students and a community commenter told the board they were denied access to college dual‑enrollment despite offers from University of Michigan‑Dearborn; administration cited MCL 388.513 and said PSAT/NMSQT scores can be used as readiness assessments and that individual college partnerships are possible.
Two students and a parent addressed the Hamtramck Board of Education on March 11, saying the district denied at least one student permission to pursue dual enrollment with the University of Michigan‑Dearborn.
A student identified in public comment as Megan told the board she was offered dual‑enrollment coursework by U‑M‑Dearborn but was denied by district staff. A community commenter cited Michigan law (MCL 388.513) and told the board that a district may only deny dual enrollment when the high school offers the same course or when a scheduling conflict makes the course unavailable. The commenter said dual enrollment is available to ninth through twelfth graders under state rules and challenged a practice of limiting local access to juniors and seniors.
During board discussion about the high‑school course catalog, staff said the district lists readiness measures consistent with state guidance and that tests such as the PSAT/NMSQT (PSAT) can be used as one readiness assessment (tenth grade is the youngest regular PSAT administration). Staff also said some colleges will enable single‑student agreements even without a standing district partnership and noted that dual‑enrollment credits generally carry a 'special rate' for students.
Board members asked for clarity on which assessments the district accepts, how students would be evaluated and how partnerships would be arranged. The board approved the high‑school course catalog and directed administration to provide clearer guidance on readiness assessments and the timeline for qualifying students.
No formal policy change was recorded at the meeting; the discussion centered on implementation and the need for staff to return with details on assessments, enrollment windows and support for high‑achieving students.
