Double-Dipping for Course Credit: Are Dual-Credit Courses Living Up to the Hype That They Will Help Prepare Students for College, Reduce College Costs, and Make U.S. Students More Competitive?

Programs that let high school students attend classes have been around for 25 years and frequently are considered among the solutions to raising graduation rates, adding rigor to high school curricula, and taking a chunk out of costs. They've become popular, too. A 2005 report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that 70% of public high schools offered courses for dual credit. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation began its Early College High School Initiative in 2002 and has since grown to include partnerships with over 130 schools in 24 states. The classes are the product of an effort to pro-vide more options and better pathways to higher education by way of arrangements with community colleges and sometimes four-year colleges. Each benefits financially from the growth of dual-credit programs. The programs have flourished, yet serious questions have arisen over whether such programs do more harm than good. Dual-credit programs are available in all states, but only 46 states have policies governing them, according to NCES. Typically, they work this way: Dual-credit courses may be offered either on the cam-pus or at the high school. To earn credit, students usually must earn or C or better. Some students manage to accrue enough credits to obtain an associate's degree by the time they graduate from high school. Utah, for example, awards scholarships to students who complete an associate's degree by the time they finish high school. The dual-credit programs often have catchy names like Seniors to Sophomores and College Now. High school counseling offices hand out colorful brochures extolling the benefits of dual enrollment. And tuition and textbook rental are often free or at greatly reduced rates. Indeed, the purveyors of dual-credit programs usually have an economic incentive that correlates to the number of students enrolled. The financial incentive and its potential for abuse is nothing new; in 2003, California audited its dual-credit programs due to financial improprieties. Proponents of dual-credit programs typically cite three advantages: * Taking college-level classes is a useful transition to life. Dual credit courses are courses, and they offer full credit. In this sense, theyre not a transition, but rather the real thing. * Earning some credit during high school will improve a student's chances of completing college. If students can earn 20 or 30 credits during high school, they'll have fewer classes to complete to earn their bachelor's degree. But, students who enroll in dual-credit programs may be more motivated than their counterparts and may have had a higher graduation rate in any case. * Enrolling in dual-credit courses during high school will reduce a student's tuition burden during college. While this may be true in an individual situation, providing dual-credit courses does not address the underlying causes of tuition increases. Moving a education to a high school is an unsatisfactory approach to the cost issue. In the decades since A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, educators have made numerous attempts to improve secondary schools. But international assessments indicate that U.S. schools do poorly in comparison with other industrial democracies. The most recent PISA report compared academic progress of 15-year-olds in 34 nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and found that U.S. students ranked 12th in reading and 25th in math. Clearly, the expansion of dual-credit programs in recent years has not closed the gap between the U.S. and other economically advanced nations. Pushing students through a flawed system by offering college credit for classes doesn't seem to be helping. Not a good fit for all A few students in my dual-credit classes were positively brilliant. …