Gregory D. Carlson North Dakota State University

This study is a policy analysis of dual credit policy in the states of Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana. Accompanying this analysis is a literature review addressing the fundamentals of policy analysis, state postsecondary education policy, postsecondary education finance, and state dual credit policies. Observations are provided regarding effective structure of state dual credit programs based upon analysis of these policies. Differences exist in among these states in program governance, funding, and eligibility.

Collaboration Education opportunities Program specifics vary by state MN, ND, & MT dual credit policies Literature Review: Dual Credit, Higher Education & Policy Analysis Discussion: comparing policies & literature Recommendations for dual credit policy

Policy variations include: College vs. K-12 control Institutional latitude Financial arrangements Admissions criteria Enhance participation and effectiveness

 Reasons for Dual Credit Policies: ◦ Senior year academic rigor ◦ College preparation ◦ Transition ◦ Collaboration ◦ Financial savings ◦ Student motivation (State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, 2006, p. 6)

 Dual Credit: “A program through which high school students are enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, taught at their high school, that fulfill high school graduation requirements and may earn the student college credits” (IPEDS, 2007).  Policy Analysis: a social and political activity ◦ moral & intellectual responsibility ◦ plan, budget, design, evaluate, and manage ◦ transparency ◦ values ◦ public relations

Dual Credit: state postsecondary policy postsecondary finance state dual credit policies Administration: political & bureaucratic Policy Analysis: fundamentals postsecondary application

 Economics keeps institutions alive  Root of participation  Funding: help first-generation and low-income  Benefits to: families, cities, states, nation, & world  Cultural, & political life  Bridge socio-economic gaps  Social mobility

 Access  Technology  Accountability  Efficiency  Investment

 Community College-Secondary Relationships  Enhancing senior year & reducing time to degree  Little federal involvement  Quality, Consistency, & Portability  Part of pathway  Technology  K-16 Initiatives

Birnbaum (1988):  Collegial (Consensus)  Political (Peace)  Bureaucratic (Rationality)  Anarchical (Making Sense)  Cybernetic (Balance)  Political: (Legislatures)  Bureaucratic: (Agencies)

 Bargain, compromise, & reach agreements  Dramatic circumstances required for drastic action  Power Is fluid, requires coalition management  Leaders: intuition, experience, & sense of situation  Legislature: “a supercoalition of subcoalitions with diverse interests, preferences, and goals” (p. 132).  Groups “change, overlap, are created and fall apart” (p. 140).  Power is negotiated  “Art of the possible” (p. 148)  Individual & Group Interests

 Coordination to accomplish large tasks  Administration based on merit  Hierarchical control system  Legitimacy: stability, regularity, & performance  Divide: labor, rights, & responsibilities  Exist “in all parts of all institutions” (p. 118)  Created by same processes

8 Steps (Bardach, 2005):  Defining the problem  Assembling the evidence  Constructing the alternatives  Selecting the criteria  Projecting the outcomes  Confront the trade-offs  Decide  Tell your story

 Deficit or Excess  Contributing Factors  Opportunities

 End Game  Literature  Best Practices

 Comprehensive to Focused  Models ◦ Market ◦ Production ◦ Evolutionary  Simplify  Design Problems ◦ Managing Cases ◦ Managing Arguments

 Scenarios

 Outcomes  Compare  Simplify

 “Twenty-Dollar Bill Test”

 “Grandma Bessie Test”  “What’s the answer?”  Consider the Audience

Procedures in Bardach (2005) Birnbaum (1988): Political & Bureaucratic Examples can provide guidance MN, ND, and MT MN and ND: proximity, history, & design MT: proximity, structure, & faculty experience

 Minnesota: Office of the Revisor of Statutes (1985, 2008); Mazzoni, (1986); Mullin (1997); Nathan, Accomando, & Fitzpatrick (2005)  North Dakota: Century Code (2008); Legislative Assembly (2009); NDUS (2003, 2005, 2007); Decker (2006)  Montana: State of Montana (2001); Office of Public Instruction (2006); Moe (2007a, 2007b); Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education (2009)

 Criteria: ◦ State vs. Institutional Control ◦ K-12 vs. Postsecondary Control ◦ Access ◦ Funding Considerations ◦ Licensure Requirements

 1985: Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act  Gov. Rudy Perpich and Rep. Connie Levi  Open-enrollment debate  Grades 11 & 12: college courses FT or PT  Tuition & book funds follow students  Purposes: ◦ Rigorous academic pursuits ◦ More academic options ( )

 Information: Grades  College student services  Accelerated courses  92% continued education (Mullin, 1997: Porter, 2003)  $10.9 M. saved: tuition, fees, & books (Boswell, 2001)  Noted for cost, HS & college credit, & course variety  Areas for growth: males, minorities, & information ( )

 1995: defeated PSEO: paying tuition from K-12 aid  PSEO (1997): DPI, NDUS, & Board of Voc. & Tech Ed.  College Courses: Grades 11 & 12  No licensure  Fees: students & parents ( )

 Decker (2006): ◦ FINDET ◦ Enrollment increasing (except -9 students in ) ◦ Above 3.0 GPA in NDUS  2009: HB 1273: Grade 10 ◦ WSC 2009: 220 dual credit students (185 in 2008) ( )

 2001: “Running Start”: Grades 11 & 12  Secondary-Postsecondary Partnerships  Tuition paid by students or district  P-20 Dual Credit Task Force (2006): ◦ High School & College Credit ◦ College syllabus & design ◦ State Coordination ◦ Reduced cost ( )

 Moe (2007a, 2007b): ◦ Online ◦ Financial savings ◦ Degree completion in less time ◦ Students “get lost in the maze of interests” (2007b)  Board of Public Education ◦ Class 8 Licensure (2008) ( )

 MN: (1985) Debate and robust participation  ND: (1997) 2009: Grade 10  MT: (2001) 2008: Class 8 License

Bardach (2005) Birnbaum (1988) MN: spirited debate, funding follows students, higher participation ND: agency support, student funded, Grades MT: K-12 role in availability, funding, and licensure

Common policy? MN & ND: Mandate ND: Funding? MN: Grade 10? MT: Access? MT resembling ND or MN?

 Technology to enhance access  Consider state policy guidance  Consider financial incentives  State data collection  Research on time to degree

Gregory D. Carlson  Graduate Research Assistant  North Dakota State University 