Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dual Enrollment And Cte topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Pike board weighs subsidizing dual enrollment and CTE strategies to boost accountability points
Summary
Board members asked staff to model costs to subsidize dual-enrollment tuition (district currently paying roughly $160 per three-hour course) and explore incentives to increase participation and passing rates; staff will return in May with cost options and eligibility criteria.
Board members in North Pike engaged in an extended discussion about using district funds to boost dual-enrollment participation and Career and Technical Education (CTE) outcomes, with the goal of improving the district's score under the state accountability model.
Administrators said the district recorded about 69 dual-enrollment classes in the fall and 110 in the spring (some students enroll in multiple classes). Tina described the district's current approach to costs: the district pays a $110 course fee plus $50 per credit hour; for a typical three-hour class the district's share amounts to about $160 and parents were described as typically responsible for roughly $100 of the outlay. Administrators said payment timing (district invoicing from the college) can create confusion for parents and that communication about costs needs improvement.
Staff and board members discussed how dual-enrollment participation and performance are counted in the state model. Administrators explained that participation generally yields a single point for a student, while additional performance points require students to pass with a C or higher and performance points are capped; taking multiple classes in a single year does not proportionally increase participation points. Board members pressed for clarity on how junior- and senior-year participation are counted and whether encouraging multi-year engagement would be more effective than incentivizing single-semester increases.
Several board members, administrators and a parent proposed options to increase participation and passing rates: subsidize one or more classes for seniors, require a promissory note or repayment if students drop a course, prioritize funding for students who otherwise could not afford enrollment, and tie incentives to passing grades (C or higher). Mr. Collins and other board members said cost is likely a barrier for some students and recommended the district identify students who are academically ready but face financial constraints.
The superintendent and finance director said they could model multiple scenarios and return at the May meeting with cost estimates for different approaches: paying for one class per student, paying for two classes, or covering all classes for a targeted set of students. The superintendent said the district currently spends roughly $20,000 annually on tuition and could identify budget sources for any board-directed expansion, but that larger increases (for example, raising the district's subsidy to $100,000) would require explicit budget choices.
Administrators also discussed CTE and WorkKeys: national certifications and WorkKeys results count toward the accountability "readiness" category in a manner similar to dual enrollment and AP. The district pays for WorkKeys prep and testing and staff are exploring capacity limits and options to boost test preparation to increase readiness points.
The board directed staff to return in May with financial models and proposed eligibility criteria so the board can consider whether and how to fund expanded dual-enrollment support for the coming school year.
Next steps: staff will develop cost scenarios and recommended eligibility rules and present them at the May meeting for the board to consider incorporating into the 2025''2026 budget.
