Controversy persists nationwide over pedagogical quality when it comes to dual credit, dual enrollment, concurrent enrollment—or whatever you call it when high school students take college courses that are fused with high school classes.
Reportedly, as indicated in this blog post from Dean Dad in Inside Higher Ed., some institutions have "more or less" handed high school teachers a syllabus for a college class and assumed the enrolled students would rise to the occasion. Presumably the high school teacher is fully qualified under regional accrediting standards to teach a college-level course. But reports persist also of "instructors of record," who are qualified, but mainly supervise (and verify the grades for) unqualified public school teachers who do the teaching and evaluating of students.
As reported here before, statistics indicate that dual credit students outperform other students in terms of college success. This correlation exists, as rudimentary reasoning suggests, because dual credit kids are stronger students to begin with. (Some call it "cherry picking.")
Now, however, aided by grants from at least one prestigious foundation, some states are recruiting "at risk" students for dual enrollment classes. The idea is that a college environment will turn struggling students around.
Dean Dad, as always, does an excellent job of probing the issue. He finds some of the current uses of dual credit disturbing.
For instance:
In the “weakest students” version, the program is pitched as “dropout prevention.” (Some of the Gates Foundation activities fall into this category.) The idea is to remove ‘at risk’ students from a dysfunctional environment and to place them in a college setting, where, the theory goes, the combination of climate change and revealed possibility will snap them out of their downward spirals.
And:
Kids who are struggling academically in high school will suddenly excel when placed in developmental classes at a community college? And what message does it send to the average or above average kids in high school when they’re left behind? The argument I can see for this approach, at least in theory, is the development of a new peer group with new expectations, but that won’t happen with developmental coursework.
The whole concept seems backwards. I’m all for anything that helps struggling kids find their way, but this just seems likely to backfire.
Community colleges are colleges. I understand the temptation to try to be everything to everyone, but at the end of the day, they serve the community best by being colleges. If the high schools need fixing, then the high schools need fixing.
Comments