Superintendents’ Perceptions of the Influence of a Statewide Dual Enrollment Policy on Local Educational Programming

Abstract

This study surveys superintendents about Ohio’s ambitious statewide dual enrollment policy (“College Credit Plus”), specifically examining its local implications from superintendents’ perspectives. In particular, we find that issues of funding related to this policy have become a growing concern, and that districts are frequently struggling to identify teachers who meet the certification requirements to teach dual enrollment courses. Overall, this policy has presented several challenges at local levels, especially for smaller, rural high schools. Nevertheless, most superintendents perceive that this dual enrollment policy has provided benefits to their students. In discussion, we position our findings within the broader literature and the continued calls for expanded dual enrollment programming. As a whole, this highlights the need for researchers to attend to specific dual enrollment policy details and how they affect local school district programming.

Full text

Superintendents’
Perceptions of the
Influence of a Statewide
Dual Enrollment Policy
on Local
Educational Programming
Dustin Hornbeck1 and Joel R. Malin1
Abstract
This study surveys superintendents about Ohio’s ambitious statewide dual enrollment
policy (“College Credit Plus”), specifically examining its local implications from super-
intendents’ perspectives. In particular, we find that issues of funding related to this
policy have become a growing concern, and that districts are frequently struggling to
identify teachers who meet the certification requirements to teach dual enrollment
courses. Overall, this policy has presented several challenges at local levels, especially
for smaller, rural high schools. Nevertheless, most superintendents perceive that this
dual enrollment policy has provided benefits to their students. In discussion, we posi-
tion our findings within the broader literature and the continued calls for expanded
dual enrollment programming. As a whole, this highlights the need for researchers
to attend to specific dual enrollment policy details and how they affect local school
district programming.
Keywords
dual enrollment, college credit in high school, education policy, dual credit
1 Department of Educational Leadership, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Dustin Hornbeck, Department of Educational Leadership, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA.
Email: hornbedd@ miamioh. edu
Article
International Journal of Educational
Reform
2019, Vol. 28(3) 253–277
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub. com/ journals- permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1056787919857255
journals. sagepub. com/ home/ ref

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
254
In the past two decades, dual enrollment programs—educational programs that enable
students to earn both high school credit and college credit—have considerably
expanded across the United States (Higher Learning Commission, 2013). As of 2016,
47 states have adopted dual enrollment policies (Zinth, 2015). These programs are
implemented in myriad ways, but their proliferation underscores that states view dual
enrollment as an important education policy. Closely related, a strong federal and
state-level policy drive is underway to enhance secondary students’ “college and
career readiness” (CCR).
As Malin, Bragg, and Hackmann (2017, p. 23) documented, for instance, the Every
Student Succeeds Act includes a major shift toward CCR, and with a “particularly
prominent” dual enrollment emphasis. Considering dual enrollment and college and
career readiness policies’ rapid expansion, and the fact that dual enrollment policies
invariably require signicantly shifted student programming, it is important to exam-
ine how such policies are being implemented “on the ground” from various vantage
points.
Accordingly, this study examines the implications of one major, state-level (Ohio)
dual enrollment policy at the local (school district) level, especially relative to the
perceptions of individual superintendents. To do so, this study surveys Ohio school
district superintendents regarding the state’s new dual enrollment policy known as
College Credit Plus (CCP). This study addresses how Ohio superintendents perceive
this policy to have impacted their local school districts (e.g., in terms of budget/
nances, curriculum/programming and planning, and options for students).
In the next section, we broadly review the literature on the subject of dual enroll-
ment, focusing especially on how these programs impact individual schools. We also
detail Ohio’s CCP policy, also reviewing some data suggesting the policy has signi-
cantly impacted high school programming and impacted many students’ curricular
options and school experiences. We then describe the research design of the present
study.
Review of Literature
Since the 1980s, dual enrollment policies have expanded in high schools throughout
the United States (Higher Learning Commission, 2013). Dual enrollment programs
oer multiple ways for students to earn college credits while still enrolled in high
school; each state program has dierent policies and regulations, with varying pro-
gram titles. These programs have substantially expanded since the passage of the No
Child Left Behind Act and as a consequence of an Obama-era educational initiative for
such programs to act as pathways to prepare students for college and careers (Arnold,
Knight, & Flora, 2017). As of 2016, 47 states had dual enrollment policies governing
local practice, while three leave policy to individual school districts (Zinth, 2015).
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a recent, high prole example of a
national policy that encourages the expansion of college and career readiness in high
schools and provides states resources which in some ways can help to expand and

Hornbeck and Malin 255
broaden dual enrollment programs (e.g., through Title I, II, III, and IV funds that can
be used to pay for costs) (Deeds & Malter, 2016; Malin et al., 2017). This shift appears
to reect a broad mission, manifested in ESSA and other policies, to ensure that stu-
dents are ready for college or for a career by the time they graduate high school (Malin
et al., 2017). This broad mission plays out in dierent ways, but often apparent are
policies and programs (e.g., dual enrollment) designed to bridge educational levels
and, ultimately, improve college access and completion.
It is important to consider the research supporting dual enrollment policies/pro-
grams, as well as scholarship that has noted challenges and concerns. The remainder
of this review of literature is structured accordingly.
Dual Enrollment Research: Benefits
A limited but growing body of research suggests dual enrollment programs, despite
substantial challenges (see next section), can augment students’ access to and success
in college (Harnish & Lynch, 2005; Hofmann, 2012; Karp, 2015). These programs
have accordingly been vigorously pursued as major strategies both for increasing col-
lege completion, and to enhance equity (e.g., augment historically marginalized stu-
dents’ college access and readiness; Karp, 2015).
Homan (2017) provides a thorough review of dual enrollment research. Two
important cautions should be noted, however. First, researchers have tended to focus
on one or a small number of states’ programs (and/or on dual enrollment within spe-
cic settings); policy and implementation level details vary widely by state (see Pierce,
2017), so ndings from such studies may not generalize to other locations/situations.
Second, selection bias (e.g., unobserved characteristics of students who dually enroll
versus those who are not) has challenged researchers in this realm (see Bailey, Hughes,
& Karp, 2003; Homan, 2017). Dual enrollment researchers have often attempted to
cope by controlling for observable characteristics (e.g., student SES), but these analy-
ses do not eliminate the potential for misinterpretation related to the ecacy of dual
enrollment (Giani, Alexander, & Reyes, 2014).
With those cautions in mind, here we highlight some key patterns and ndings:
Researchers have reported dually enrolled students to have higher grade point aver-
ages (e.g., Karp & Hughes, 2008), greater preparation for and understanding of skills
needed to attend college (Kim & Bragg, 2008; Lile, Ottusch, Jones, & Richards, 2018),
greater motivation and engagement (An, 2015), improved cognitive and noncognitive
performance (An & Taylor, 2015), increased college persistence (Karp & Hughes,
2008) and college completion (Giani et al., 2014), among other positive associations
and outcomes. Some research has also focused on benets of particular dual enroll-
ment coursework/subjects. For instance, Kim and Bragg (2008) and Giani et al. (2014)
have reported benets associated with dual enrollment math coursework in particular.
Some research also suggests dual enrollment may have particular benets for certain
populations of students—An (2012, 2013), for example, has reported positive eects
of dual enrollment for students experiencing poverty.

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
256
Thus, it appears dual enrollment (in some forms) can help to ease/improve students’
transitions between high school and postsecondary, and more specically these pro-
grams can be promising in terms of increasing college access and persistence/comple-
tion (Karp, 2015; Zinth & Barnett, 2018). Thus, we see research as oering considerable
impetus for policymakers who aim to employ dual enrollment as a strategy to enhance
CCR as well as to broaden students’ access to these options (see Zinth & Barnett,
2018).
Drawbacks and Unanswered Questions
Despite the many real or purported benets associated with the rise of dual enrollment
options for students, some studies have pointed to drawbacks and unanswered ques-
tions requiring further examination. To a large extent, we suspect these concerns
closely relate to particular policy details that vary widely by state (e.g., dimensions
related to who can access dual enrollment, who can teach these courses and where,
how costs are paid; see Pierce, 2017). The costs of dual enrollment for states and local
schools, concerns about student readiness, and issues with teacher certication have
all posed issues that states and local educators are needing to address.
Costs. One major challenge facing policymakers and practitioners relates to the costs
associated with dual enrollment programs (Pierce, 2017; Taylor & Pretlow, 2015;
Zinth, 2015). Presently, states take widely varying approaches to nancing dual enroll-
ment programs. Only 10 states require public universities and public high schools to
enroll any student that wants to participate, while other states have the option to part-
ner with local colleges and universities and decide how cost may work and arrange
various agreements. Twelve states require notication to parents that dual enrollment
policies exist and are available to their children (Zinth, 2015). With regard to funding,
some states require individual school districts to pay for dual enrollment programs out
of their budgets, while others are paid for through state funds or by individual parents,
and some with mixed approaches (Zinth, 2015). Ohio is one of four states (others
include Florida, Iowa, and Wyoming) that requires students’ school districts to pay
tuition costs (Pierce, 2017).
Howley, Howley, Howley, and Duncan (2013) studied one Midwestern state that
left funding dual enrollment up to the local district and found that tensions existed
between the local high schools and colleges and that they did not communicate eec-
tively with one another. Funding dual enrollment programs can be expensive, and
when students choose to leave a district it can cause other courses at local high schools
to be reduced in size and even canceled. Another concern is that students could possi-
bly lose out on credit if they attend a college that is out of their state despite earning
in-state credit through a dual enrollment program.
One way that local school districts attempt to rectify district nancial hardships is
by using local faculty to teach college courses (Zinth, 2015). Howley et al. (2013)
found that “border crossers,” which are teachers who are certied to teach dual

Hornbeck and Malin 257
enrollment courses, administrators, or college faculty that straddle the college/high
school border, are an important aspect of college and high school relationships. Border
crossers help establish relationships with colleges and high schools and can live in
both cultural worlds of high school and college. Additionally, teachers who meet cri-
teria to teach college level courses can save the school district money and make having
a college teaching credential more desirable for high school teachers for purposes of
employment (Howley et al., 2013; Zinth, 2015).
Textbook and transportation costs are other important nancial concerns associated
with dual enrollment programs nationwide (Marken, Gray, & Lewis, 2013). In many
states, textbooks are paid for by individual students and families which can leave some
students restricted from college courses due to costs. In Ohio, textbook costs are paid
for by the local school district as prescribed by statute. Transportation is another con-
cern for students who might not have transportation to and fro college campuses. This
issue has been found to be a restrictive complication, but some states have grant pro-
grams to help reimburse students (Thomas, Marken, Gray, & Lewis, 2013).
Student Readiness and Eligibility Concerns. Another area that begs questions in the
growing dual enrollment arena is whether or not participating students truly benet in
other social or cognitive areas (e.g., beyond measures of college readiness or likeli-
hood of college graduation; Hansen, Jackson, Mclnelly, & Eggett, 2015). Dual enroll-
ment might require students to leave their peers and begin to take classes geared
toward students whose ages are dierent and who are from dierent communities,
which some argue raises questions about maturity level and developmental appropri-
ateness. Dual enrollment rules vary by state with regard to grade level and/or age level
requirements, with some states requiring course prerequisites for students to dually
enroll, and others simply requiring parental consent for students to take college-level
courses (Hansen et al., 2015).
One study compared the writing of students in a college freshman level political
science class. The students were divided by those who had earned their entry year
writing course through dual enrollment credit and those who had not yet earned this
credit. The study found there to be no signicant dierence between those who had
earned dual credit writing credit and those who did not (Hansen et al., 2015). The
authors of the study speculate that cognitive ability and maturation play a larger role
than perhaps just earning college credits earlier in life.
Howley et al. (2013) also noted concerns regarding students’ maturity and readi-
ness for college curricula, suggesting dual enrollment programs are asking students to
mature more quickly, which might inadvertently cause students to miss out on key
adolescent social, cultural, and age-appropriate experiences. Additionally, some states
require that students pay tuition costs if they do not receive a passing grade for the
course (Zinth, 2015). Stipulations like these are concerning because local districts
cannot restrict students from enrolling in college courses, even if their academic past
indicates that they might not ready for college courses. Especially if such students are

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
258
experiencing poverty, being required to pay tuition costs under such circumstances can
be debilitating.
Moreover, the Higher Learning Commission (2013) conducted a 50-state study to
gain broad knowledge into existing dual enrollment state programs. This study sur-
veyed stakeholders in each state and found that the issues of nance were the major
concern with dual enrollment programs, but also found quality assurance to be a major
concern to respondents. One issue with regard to quality assurance of dual enrollment
programs related to student eligibility. As previously mentioned, this issue questions
student maturity levels and whether students are adequately prepared for college level
curriculum, rigor, and if college courses that are oered on high school campuses are
comparable in terms of college level rigor (Higher Learning Commission, 2013).
Fifteen states have specic grade-level requirements for enrolling in a dual enroll-
ment program, but some have none, which can even enable students in middle schools
to enroll in college courses if they meet the admissions criteria from the institution of
higher learning (Zinth, 2015). Nine states allow ninth graders to enroll, and two allow
tenth graders (Hansen et al., 2015).
Howley et al. (2013) also found that oering college course on high school cam-
puses to be a concern to high school and college level stakeholders as well as replacing
courses that were oered at the high school level for courses that are perceived to be
less rigorous and for a shorter period of time. As well, questions of replacing high
school course oerings with online courses are issues that were posed in studies,
which could lead to the replacement of high school faculty and sta due to the reduced
need of courses to be taught at the high school level; this creates a competitive nature
between high school course oerings and college courses—a student choice model
with the potential to limit some options for students who wish not to enroll in dual
enrollment programs (Howley et al., 2013).
Zinth and Barnett (2018) argued that dual enrollment options should be expanded,
especially to allow those who may be considered “middle achievers” to dually enroll.
In states where eligibility for dual enrollment participation is reserved for students
enrolled in advanced coursework or placed on a college preparatory track, there could
be other ways to identify students who might nd success in college courses, including
test scores, grade point average, attendance, and other measures (Zinth & Barnett,
2018). There are other ways that could be used to help prepare students at younger
ages to enroll in college courses, including summer programs, curriculum that helps
students more college ready taken in earlier grades, and more experiences on college
campuses. Zinth and Barnett argue that this eort is important because of growing
consensus that dual enrollment leads to better graduation rates and college completion
rates for all students.
Teacher Certification. Another emerging issue as dual enrollment programs become
more pervasive is teacher certication (Borden, Taylor, Park, & Seiler, 2013). Are high
school teachers adequately trained to teach with the appropriate rigor and depth
required for college curriculum? Each state has dierent teacher requirements for

Hornbeck and Malin 259
teaching in dual enrollment programs, and these requirements vary in many ways,
with some states requiring master’s degrees in content areas and observations from
college faculty, or some just require an agreement with a local college (Zinth, 2015).
Ultimately, it is up to the individual college, university, or institution of higher educa-
tion to ensure that state policy is carried out with regard to rigor and quality, but this
remains an area of concern (Borden et al., 2013). This issue can become particularly
tricky because most states allow a wide range of institutions of higher learning to par-
ticipate in dual enrollment oerings, including 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, tech-
nical colleges, tribal colleges, and junior colleges (Zinth, 2015).
Each individual college or university has diering credentialing processes for fac-
ulty, which can lead to questions of consistency for teachers who teach in dual enroll-
ment programs. As well, Kanny (2015) studied the individual experiences of students
enrolled in community college courses and found that some college instructors
expressed open disdain of teaching high school students. Hughes (2010) argues that it
is critical that instructors are chosen who have interest in teaching high school students
and that the right t is made between classroom dynamic.
International Context
Dual enrollment in an international context exists in many dierent forms but is more
pervasive in the United States for a couple of major reasons. First, secondary educa-
tion in other nations dier in many ways from the U.S. comprehensive high school
model. Second, it is important to make a distinction between dual enrollment or con-
current enrollment programs and early college programs. Graduating from secondary
school early and then attending college, often what early college means, is much dif-
ferent than a program that is designed to provide both secondary education credits as
well as college credits.
In the United States, dual enrollment programs oer students some oversight by a
college/university and high school, and some courses can be taken at a high school
campus taught by high school teachers. Attending college early is dierent than con-
current enrollment, which often means that high school credits have been fullled and
can apply to myriad of policies and options that exist. Early college exists in many
colleges around the globe, and some have dual enrollment policies. This section briey
examines the policies that resemble dual enrollment broadly in Europe, China, and
Canada.
In much of Europe, secondary school ends at the end of the tenth-grade year and
students then have the option to continue on to additional options such as vocational
schooling, other certicate programs, apprenticeships, or potentially some college
courses, though this is not typical (European Union, 2018). Secondary schools in
Europe are much more focused on a specic subject track that students choose, which
diers from the United States where students generally spend their rst 2 years of
college and most of high school studying a general curriculum of the liberal arts (West,
Stokes, & Edge, 1999).

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
260
When students in Europe apply for college, they are asked to declare a major, which
is much dierent from colleges and universities in the United States. This makes it
much more complicated when thinking about dual enrollment programs. Dual enroll-
ment is used for students to take courses at both their high school and at the college
level where students can receive credit from both institutions. In Europe, by the time a
student begins university, they have a very narrow focus on what they will be studying,
rather than taking general education credits (West et al., 1999).
The Canadian model of secondary schooling is very similar to that of the United
States. In Canada, dual enrollment is controlled by each provincial government. In
Ontario, for example, students can enroll in college courses that count for college and
secondary school credit, but there is not a general policy that determines who can par-
ticipate (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). Each student is reviewed on a case-by-
case basis for attending college courses and receiving credit. The primary purpose for
dual credit in Ontario is to meet the needs of students who “face signicant challenges
in completing the requirements for graduation but have the potential to succeed”
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, p. 5).
The public school system in China is complex, but simply put, it is possible for
students to earn college credit while in secondary school (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2016). Secondary school in China is sepa-
rated into junior secondary school from ages 12 to 14 and senior secondary from ages
15 to 17. Students in China are legally required to attend junior secondary school but
not senior secondary. In order to attend college in China, students must take the
Gaoko exam, which is the national exam used for college entrance. Students then
matriculate into a college or university. Gaoko exam requirements make it dicult to
use a dual credit program, though some exemptions do exist. One such exemption is
in an early college program called, the Special Class for Gifted Young (SCGY),
which is a rigorous program that allows a fraction of the top students in China to
matriculate into college after their eleventh grade year (Dai & Steenbergen-Hu,
2015).
Despite being a program that allows students to enter college early, those eligible
for SCGY must still take the Gaoko exam, and also must go through a rigorous screen-
ing process where they attend a week of courses taught by professors that help deter-
mine admittance (Dai & Steenbergen-Hu, 2015). While China has moved toward a
western model of a liberal arts curriculum, the higher education system in China is still
dominated by a system of tracking where students are admitted based on exam scores
and program admission, rather than general admission such as in the United States.
Few studies have been conducted and published studying early college matricula-
tion in China, Europe, or Canada. The United States appears to be leading the way on
the shift to college credit while in secondary school. Australia, New Zealand, and
many other countries globally have early college programs, but early college is dier-
ent from dual enrollment. Dual enrollment programs are unique in that students receive
the support of their local high school and they allow students to test the water of higher
education, often with the intention of giving students who might not nd success in

Hornbeck and Malin 261
college the experience needed to help them go to college. It remains to be seen if dual
enrollment policies like those in the United States and Canada will spread elsewhere.
Case Context: Ohio
Ohio is a state that requires all public schools, private schools, and public universities
to allow students to participate in dual enrollment courses. Ohio’s program, CCP,
replaces all post-secondary enrollment programs that exist for public school students
in the state. CCP has ushered in a dramatic expansion of student dual enrollment in
Ohio: from 13,233 students in 2013 to 64,482 in 2016 (Ohio Department of Higher
Education, nd).
Ohio’s CCP program is also noteworthy for several specic features which may
also largely explain the dramatic enrollment increases. On the funding side, Ohio’s
CCP program requires that individual public school districts pay the tuition costs and
textbook costs for each student who enrolls in college courses while still in high
school. As noted previously, Ohio is just one of four states requiring local school dis-
tricts to pay tuition costs. These features and others (e.g., liberal eligibility require-
ments, course weighting requirements; described below) combine to make Ohio an
important context in which to examine superintendents’ perceptions about how this
program is impacting individual school districts.
In 2014, the Ohio State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 59, thereby creating
CCP. When recommending the expansion of dual enrollment options for students in
Ohio, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents, the governing body for higher education
in Ohio, John Carey, wrote:
Ohio is failing to take full advantage of a highly eective educational strategy for bol-
stering college readiness, increasing postsecondary persistence and completion, lowering
out-of-pocket higher education costs for students, diversifying the college going popu-
lation, and developing more career focus. Multiple national research studies have shown
that eective dual credit programs have signicant positive impact in all of these areas.
(Ohio Board of Regents, 2014, p. 6)
Chancellor Carey went on to recommend sweeping changes to the existing policy
in Ohio, which were codied in 2014. Ohio’s CCP program is mandatory for both
public school districts and public institutions of higher learning. Students who attend
private schools are also eligible and can apply for funding directly from the Ohio
Department of Education (Ohio Revised Code, 2014). Individual public school dis-
tricts are required to pay for costs associated with CCP for individual students, and all
students are eligible to apply. If a student does not pass a dual enrollment course, s/he
is required to repay the tuition that had been covered by the local school district. Each
institution of higher education is able to determine admissions requirements for stu-
dents. Schools that give additional grade point average weight for AP courses are also

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
262
required to do so for CCP courses. Schools are required to oer professional develop-
ment for high school teachers that teach CCP courses (Ohio Revised Code, 2014).
Each local school board is required to pay for students that enroll in CCP Courses.
State statute sets a ceiling and a oor for how much colleges can charge for tuition in
the states, which is calculated based on “foundation funds” which are allocated to each
district by the state (Ohio Revised Code, 2014). Each district receives varying amounts
of foundation funds that are allocated per pupil that is enrolled in each district. The
ceiling for CCP is 83% of the per pupil funds, which is meant to mitigate problems that
could occur if a student elected to use more funds than were provided by the states.
Boards are able to negotiate tuition costs with colleges, but it cannot be above the
ceiling, or below the oor (dened as 25% of the ceiling; Ohio Revised Code, 2014).
If the district and institution of higher learning do not negotiate, tuition will default to
the ceiling if it is on the college campus, and 50% of the ceiling if the course is taught
by a high school instructor at the local school. State law prohibits public school stu-
dents from paying for public college tuition or being charged for books (Ohio Revised
Code, 2014). Private colleges and universities can charge more than the statutory ceil-
ing if districts elect to engage in agreements with private institutions.
Ohio’s CCP law indicates Ohio secondary students should be on a pathway toward
earning college credit, with the goal of 15 credits earned by the time students graduate
(Ohio Revised Code, 2014). It also requires that each district use “aggressive commu-
nication” to communicate to parents and students how the program works and who is
eligible (Ohio Board of Regents, 2014, p. 16). Overall, students are eligible starting in
grade seven, and each district is required to oer and advertise CCP options for all of
their student population.
Purpose of Study: Ohio Superintendents’ Survey Regarding
Perceived Impact of CCP
Considering the broad proliferation of dual enrollment programs nationwide, it is clear
that school district administrators and educators in nearly all states now must navigate
educational policy related to their state’s respective programs. Ohio is a state that has
a robust dual enrollment program, known as College Credit Plus (CCP). CCP, a pro-
gram that is mandated by state law, is available to all students regardless of age, and
every local school district is required to participate. The cost of the program is paid for
primarily by local school monies (Zinth, 2015).
We suggest Ohio is a prime state to study because its dual enrollment policy, while
more aggressive than most, is in keeping in some ways with recent research and advo-
cacy (e.g., see Zinth & Barnett, 2018) and therefore may be a forerunner of what is to
come in other states. Local school board superintendents are the chief executives for
school districts in Ohio, and policy changes that are directed by school boards are
carried out by superintendents.
Superintendents act as an intermediary between school districts and political man-
dates that come from many directions, and often work with others to see how

Hornbeck and Malin 263
mandatory educational policy can be integrated appropriately for their individual com-
munities (Kowalski, McCord, Peterson, Young, & Ellerson, 2011). Some school dis-
tricts in Ohio are very small, with under 1,000 students, while the largest district in
Ohio is Columbus City Schools with enrollment over 50,000 students (Ohio
Department of Education, 2017). In all cases, superintendents are directly responsible
to elected boards of education and must act as stewards for their districts as a whole,
which makes them key agents of knowledge for retrieving information about how the
CCP program in Ohio is impacting public school districts.
Methodology
To assess the perceptions of superintendents about the state-mandated CCP program in
Ohio, descriptive research methodology was used (Kothari, 2004). The researchers
developed and administered an electronic survey in an eort to gain insight into super-
intendent perceptions about how Ohio’s CCP Plus program is impacting local school
districts. This 11-item electronic questionnaire was developed using the Qualtrics sur-
vey program and emailed to the superintendents for all 612 traditional public school
districts (excluding charter schools, virtual schools, private schools, and vocational
schools).
The survey questions were developed from of our extensive review of key fea-
tures and issues/concerns related to dual enrollment policy. Survey items addressed
features and challenges related to policy implementation, nances, teacher certica-
tion and the identication and retention of dual enrollment teachers, student benets,
curricular oerings, and on other aspects of the program AP/IB/Honors program.
There were 11 total questions, eight of which were closed ended and utilized a Likert
format. Two questions were open ended in nature, and one was an identifying
question.
This survey did not request personal information from respondents, but did ask
them to list the school district for which they were employed as superintendent. As
with all surveys, there is potential threat to validity, and in this study one such threat
noticed by the researchers was that several superintendents did not provide their local
school district identifying information. However, the survey instrument was sent
directly to the email of superintendents from a list of information provided by the Ohio
Department of Education, and the Qualtrics program can identify duplicate survey
responses.
A total of 209 surveys were returned for a response rate of 34.2%. Of those that
listed their school district, 39% were rural districts, 31% were small town school dis-
tricts, 19% of school districts were suburban, and 11% were considered urban. Our
responses compared closely with demographics of actual state districts of 37% rural,
32% small town, 20% suburban, and 9% urban (Ohio Department of Education, 2017).
We used the denitions provided by the Ohio Department of Education for district
classication (Ohio Department of Education, 2017).

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
264
Results
Survey results are presented in two main subsections. First, we present quantitative,
closed-ended results. Second, we present qualitative, open-ended ndings.
Quantitative Survey Results
Two survey items concerned district nances/budget in relationship to CCP. The rst
of these asked superintendents whether they believed their district loses a signicant
of money due to the CCP program (5-point scale, from strongly disagree to strongly
agree with a neither agree nor disagree option; see Figure 1). Nearly 72% of respon-
dents agreed (40.4%) or strongly agreed (31.3%) that signicant nancial losses are
occurring amount of money to CCP. However, some superintendents did not agree or
chose the neutral option. A separate but related item asked superintendents the extent
to which they agreed/disagreed that it would be helpful to receive additional funding
from the state, using the same 5-item Likert scale. To this question, nearly 95% agreed
(23.6%) or strongly agreed (71.4%).
One item was designed to appraise the ease with which district teachers could be
identied who could teach CCP courses: Nearly 75% agreed (44.4%) or strongly
agreed (30.3) that “Few members of [their] faculty meet the requirements to teach
CCP.” A separate/related item asked superintendents the extent to which CCP has
“reduced the need for faculty members as a result of fewer students taking courses at
Figure 1. “My school district loses a significant amount of money due to CCP…”

Hornbeck and Malin 265
the district level.” On this item, a majority of respondents disagreed (42.9%) or
strongly disagreed (21.7%).
Superintendents were also asked to globally appraise the degree of student benet
from CCP (Figure 2). Specically, nearly three-fourths of superintendents agreed
(49.3%) or strongly agreed (23.6%) that “The students in our district have beneted
from the CCP program.”
Advanced classes were the topic of one question on the survey, and asked if local
Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or Honors courses were negatively
or positively impacted by the CCP policy. For this question, 55.33% of superinten-
dents that responded indicated that CCP had neither positively nor negatively impacted
their AP/IB/Honors courses; 9.14% of respondents indicated that CCP had a very neg-
ative impact, and 33.5% responded that the impact was negative; 2.03% responded
that CCP had a positive impact on their AP/IB/Honors courses. When broken down by
school type, small town and rural district superintendents reported more negative
results in this category than suburban and urban district superintendents. Specically,
49% of rural superintendents and 52% of small town superintendents reported either
very negative or negative impacts on AP/IB, as compared to compared to 17% of sub-
urban and 29% of urban districts.
Two closed-ended items (positioned rst and last, respectively) requested global
appraisals of the CCP program on districts, in relation to implementation and impact.
We asked superintendents to globally appraised the degree of diculty of CCP imple-
mentation (5-point Likert scale: not at all difcult, not difcult, neutral, a little
Figure 2. “Overall, the impact of the state-mandated CCP requirements on my district have
been...”

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
266
difcult, very difcult). Responses demonstrate a majority of superintendents per-
ceived implementation as dicult (47.4% dicult, 9.6% very dicult); however,
there was some variability on this item: A sizeable proportion viewed implementation
as neutral (24.24%) or not dicult or not at all dicult (18.6% combined). The nal
closed-ended item asked superintendents to rate the overall impact that CCP require-
ments had on their district. Here, 8.1% of superintendents viewed the overall impact
as very negative, 36.4% as negative, 2.53% as very positive, and 23.7% as positive,
with 29.3% selecting neither negative nor positive.
Qualitative Survey Results
The nal two questions of the survey were designed to elicit more open insights from
superintendents about how, if at all, the curriculum and nances have been aected by
the implementation of Ohio’s CCP policy. For these items, superintendent respondents
were asked to “answer each question with as much information that you can
provide.”
Impact of CCP on local curriculum offerings. The rst written response question asked
“How have CCP mandates impacted your local curriculum oerings?” The responses
to this question were coded into several general categories (presented below). For each
category, we exemplify superintendents’ perceptions.
CCP has created competition with traditional curricular offerings. Fifteen superintendents
expressed concern that CCP was requiring local districts to create new courses to com-
pete with CCP courses so that students stay in their local school. Described one, “The
CCP mandates have forced us to add new courses to try to compete with the oerings
the students can get at the colleges in the area. This has been positive in the sense that
it has made us create and oer the new courses, but challenging at the same time as we
have limited sta and still need to meet the required courses for graduation.” Another
wrote, “CCP mandates have challenged us to nd opportunities to provide college
courses in-house to keep kids on campus. We’ve made a concerted eort to balance
CCP with AP courses. We believe students can benet from both.”
Curriculum has not changed in any substantial way. Thirty-seven superintendents
expressed that their oerings had not changed as a result of CCP, and that more stu-
dents were taking AP or IB courses, which also oer ways to obtain college credit if a
minimum score is earned on a comprehensive exam. One superintendent wrote, “CCP
has not signicantly impacted our local curriculum oerings at [our] High School. We
oer a limited number of CCP courses within our building because of our student
population. Most of our students are still accessing AP and IB courses over CCP
courses.” Another response was, “It has had little impact because our students tend to
attend college outside of Ohio,” which suggests that CCP credits are not being

Hornbeck and Malin 267
perceived as benecial by students if they are planning to attending an out of state
college, where their dually earned credits will not be honored, a problem noted by
Zinth (2015).
CCP has opened new curricular opportunities to students. Seven superintendents
responded that CCP has provided new curricular oerings for their students and that
these would not have been possible without CCP. One comment in support of CCP
was:
In our rural blue-collar community, AP never got o the ground. [By contrast], CCP
makes sense to our families. Fortunately, because of grant funding, we have seven teach-
ers credentialed to teach CCP course in our high school of 450 students. So how has it
impacted our curriculum? We are now oering more advanced programming than ever
before. Also, it has led to oering AP Calculus in lieu of general calculus, but we cover
the cost of the exam if the student earns a three or higher.
This comment provided further suggestion that the benets of CCP may vary by
district type (e.g., perhaps it is more likely to benet rural districts). Another comment
to reinforce this included, “We are a small, rural school and cannot aord advanced/
CP courses. The CCP has allowed our students educational experiences that they
would never have had, otherwise.”
The survey question asking superintendents to rate the overall impact of CCP on
their districts, rural and small town superintendents were more likely to rate it impact
negatively: 43% of rural superintendents and 54% of small town superintendents rated
the impact as either very negative or negative, while 37% of suburban and 35% of
urban superintendents did the same. Also, 28% of rural and 13% of small town super-
intendents rated the overall impact as positive, while 43% of suburban and 41% of
urban did the same. Perhaps this pattern of responses is due to the smaller schools
having smaller budgets and related nancial hardships. It is also likely that unmea-
sured variables (e.g., proximity to community college, access to teachers who can
teach CCP courses, etc.) are exerting an inuence.
Students take CCP courses at local colleges or online to avoid more difficult courses offered
by the local high school. Twelve superintendents wrote about concerns over students
bypassing curriculum that is oered by the high school by taking a course online or at
a local institution that is looked at as less dicult by superintendents. One superinten-
dent wrote, “Students are leaving the rigors of AP for the ease of CCP.” Another
responded, “Students are taking easier English courses in the summer and avoiding
more rigorous courses taught by our sta.” One other concern was, “For one of these
local colleges, the coursework that we oer at our school is more rigorous that they
oer and students are going there. Not all college courses are equal but we have to
treat them like they are.”

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
268
Courses that were once offered by the local district have been cancelled and discontin-
ued. With 37 superintendent responses, this was one of the most prominent responses
indicated by survey respondents. Many of these concerns centered around AP courses
being canceled, while others were related to general courses that have been canceled.
One wrote “CCP has had the most impact on our ability to oer a wide range of higher
level courses to students due to the drain on the number of students left on campus to
take the courses.” Another superintendent wrote, “Changed oerings from AP to CCP.
(Fewer AP classes). Must look for post-secondary education institutes that will accept
the qualications that our teachers have to be able to teach the class.” Another noted,
“Two of our faculty members are accredited for CCP which has allowed us to oer two
in-house CCP courses. However, CCP has negatively aected enrollment in our AP
courses.” In total, 37 comments were related to this category.
Students have less time with guidance counselors because of increased CCP demands. There
were only two responses in this category, but it was not one that was encountered in
the literature. One superintendent responded, “CCP mandates have provided addi-
tional opportunities for our students, but the challenge has been dividing the work with
our counselors who are busy trying to meet social and emotional needs of children.”
This comment is regarding the role of guidance counselors, and the impact the addi-
tional work that the law required of them. They are often the sta members that are
required to schedule courses for students, and by having additional duties related to
this policy, it may impact the emotional counseling function of their job, which could
impact student needs.
District would like to offer CCP courses, but they have a hard time finding and keeping cer-
tified teachers. Seven superintendents had responses related to this category, with the
concern that teachers who have been certied might not stay in the district, or that it is
dicult for school districts to nd certied teachers for CCP, which goes beyond k-12
teacher certication. One superintendent noted, “Added CCP English, but have lost
two consecutive teachers that were CCP accredited, now have none.” Another indi-
cated, “We cannot oer programming in-house due to licensure of our sta but we are
also geographically isolated from opportunities.” One other concern was, “We would
like to oer CCP classes in house, but our teachers cannot meet the extensive require-
ments.” One response indicated that their only way to oer CCP was online, but at the
same time this respondent was concerned about the ease and quality of such courses.
Students fail CCP courses and then have to try and make up credit in other courses offered
by the local district. This category centered around concerns related to student readi-
ness for CCP. Only one superintendent wrote for this category:
It has increased rigor. However, improvements need to be made in the requirements of
students that are eligible to enroll. For example, against our advice a student enrolled in
CCP that failed several courses at the high school. Not unexpected she failed courses at

Hornbeck and Malin 269
our local university, this has set her on a path of non-graduation. Also, I question students
that are in middle school having the maturity to thrive in a college environment…
This demonstrates concern with the eligibility of students who enroll in CCP
classes. In Ohio, there is no age requirement for CCP, which means that students in
middle school can enroll in CCP courses.
CCP has created an imbalance in class sizes: CCP classes are small and make other courses
larger. The nal category reveals concern about class sizes as a result of CCP, with
one superintendent responding. The concern is related to CCP courses requiring addi-
tional resources that makes other general courses larger, which is seen as creating
inequities. One response was, “Master schedule at high school has been greatly
aected and creates more singletons. Class rosters are becoming extreme some real
small and some very large.” Another respondent wrote, “we have more oerings than
in the past, but it has increased class size in other courses because few qualify to take
these classes, but there is political pressure to have classes on site.”
Impact of CCP on school district funding. The second written response question asked,
“How have CCP mandates from the state impacted funding for your school district?”
The responses to this question were coded into several general categories. For each
category, we also exemplify concerns raised by superintendents.
Money is not paid back to the district when students fail courses. Seven superintendents
expressed their concerns about students who fail CCP courses and do not pay the local
district. The policy requires that the local district pay tuition costs for CCP, but if they
fail they are required to pay the local district back the money (Zinth, 2015). One super-
intendent wrote, “Families aren't able to pay for classes failed or not completed.”
Another wrote, “State Funding doesn't come close to covering the costs (tuition &
books). Also, recovering costs from students who fail a class is impossible.”
Textbook cost is a burden. Twenty-one superintendents responded that textbook costs
are very expensive for their districts. Moreover, some noted that each semester they
had to purchase new books because book requirements would change from course,
and/or with yearly book version updates. One response was, “Textbooks have been a
huge cost. It does not appear that our university partners are willing to assist in this
area.” Noted another, “The book costs are signicant and the district has no input on
book selection, we just pay all the bills.” One other superintendent responded:
The biggest impact has come from the cost of textbooks which the universities have
passed onto the public schools. Where we would normally replace textbooks on a ve
to ten year cycle the CCP books are replaced yearly thus increasing the costs associated
with the program. Textbook costs for CCP can add an extra $5,000 to $10,000 a year to
our budget.

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
270
There were 21 responses about textbook cost to the question asked about school
nances, which was one of the most pervasive concerns for this question.
CCP law has taken away the ability for individual districts to negotiate tuition cost with col-
leges and universities. Some superintendents wrote about the dierences of CCP and
the prior policy of Post-Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO), which CCP replaced.
Under PSEO, local schools could negotiate tuition costs with local institutions of
higher education, but CCP requires that a minimum tuition cost is incurred. One super-
intendent explained:
The arbitrary oor and ceiling suggestions have done away with our ability to negotiate
with our higher ed. partner. The cost of “one time use” textbooks will deplete our resourc-
es quickly, and there is no solution available to us. We fear that higher ed. sees CCP as a
“cash cow” that they can milk for all its worth. Very disappointing leadership decisions
in Columbus.
Another superintendent responded, “The law has prohibited our district and many
other districts from negotiating tuition under the per credit hour oor.”
CCP has had a significant negative financial impact on schools. This was a diverse cate-
gory, but was centered around the idea that CCP has been a nancial burden on district
budgets. There were 79 responses placed in this category. One way that superinten-
dents addressed this program was as an “unfunded mandate.” Below are examples of
superintendent responses:
They obviously hurt local districts. While the objective of allowing students to attend col-
lege during high school and for free is a good one, it is easy for the state to make decisions
when they are spending someone else's funds.
CCP costs a lot of money with no additional funding. It is yet another mandate that
stretches an already thin budget.
The tuition and the extraordinary cost of books is devastating to the overall budget
Hard to prepare a budget for the unknown costs of books and students take a variety of
courses that the district must fund that are not part of the general education requirements.
for college.
We have much more money going out for costs of books and it also impacts our schedul-
ing at the HS level. We have students who take classes in our HS, and some have to leave
to take additional classes on college courses.
Our district is disproportionately impacted - very few students 10–15 take CCP class o
our campus, however their cost is $200,000 plus books. The education that they receive

Hornbeck and Malin 271
at the CC compared to our HS is also less advanced, lower quality, and does not prepare
them for a four year IHE.
The funding is the most troublesome part for local school districts. Obviously, it impacts
our budget in a negative manner. The impact cannot be oset with stang reductions. If
the state would oer additional funds to cover CCP, I think you would see more cooper-
ation and promotion from local school districts.
The three main ways that CCP has impacted our funding are: 1. Loss of state foundation
money that follows the student to the college/university. 2. The ridiculous cost of the
textbooks that we incur for the students college courses (it is better this year but it is still a
huge cost). 3. We are paying the full tuition reimbursement for sta who are willing to be-
come qualied to teach CCP classes. We chose to do this to try to keep students at our HS.
The district has lost a signicant amount of money to pay for students’ college. It is not
free as the advertisements suggest, but rather we are forced to pass levies, and we tell
seniors where the money is going and that it was a state level decision to pass this cost
to the local taxpayer.
These quotations were chosen as representations of the other respondents. Many
concerns were raised about funding. Several superintendents included how much the
program costs in dollars, which is tough to place in context without specically iden-
tifying the local school district.
In order for districts to keep students at their local school, they pay for teacher certification,
which impacts budget. Teacher certication was also a way that funding has been
impacted according to the superintendent responses. One shared, “We have encour-
aged our sta to get the proper credentials so they can teach CCP courses on our cam-
pus. As an incentive to do this we are giving 100% tuition reimbursement for
coursework leading to CCP credentialing classes as opposed to the 60% we normally
give.” More than one response indicated that it costs the district less money if students
stay at their local campus, which makes having teachers with certication a nancial
incentive for their district.
Money has been diverted from other educational programming. There was some indica-
tion, four responses total, that CCP has required money to be pulled from other areas
in school districts to pay for CCP associated costs. One respondent wrote, “it costs us
money that we would spend in other areas.” Another wrote, “We are a capped district
as well as lost TPP reimbursement dollars... the additional dollars CCP has resulted in
more money deducted from state funds that was limited in the rst place”.
Taxpayers have not given their consent for their money to be spent on college courses. There
was concern by ve respondents that CCP programs were not approved by their local
community, and that they are not representative of community objectives. One

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
272
response said, “We have to pay for the tuition and the books, which we think is wrong.
Our taxpayers never gave permission for their tax dollars to be used to pay for college
tuition and books and supplies, they voted to fund K-12.” Another similar respondent
wrote, “Over the last 2 years we have lost between $25 - $50,000 to cover the expense
of CCP courses. When our local dollars pays 62% of our funding needs it becomes a
very hard topic to defend in a community of conservative republican voters who don't
accept or approve of entitlement programs.”
Small districts and districts with financial difficulty are unable to afford the costs associated
with CCP. The nal category listed is related to district size and districts with scal
problems. Four superintendents responded to this category; one superintendent
responded, “In a small school system that has minimal state assistance to begin with,
the impact is signicant.” Another response was, “Without additional state funding, it
has contributed to our current state of decit spending that must be addressed through
cuts.” Finally, one respondent wrote, “As a district in scal emergency, any nancial
drain is signicant. We work hard to contain all costs, yet we have no means of con-
taining the costs of CCP. As the program becomes more popular, we see more money
siphoned away from our students in the district.” A question that is raised is whether
or not more burden is being placed on smaller school districts.
Discussion
The answer to our research question about how Ohio‘s dual enrollment program,
called College Credit Plus, impacts local school districts is generally threefold. First,
we see a trend from superintendent responses indicating that local school district cur-
ricular oerings are changing as the result of CCP. Second, it is apparent that most
superintendent respondents view the local funding requirement as having a substantial
impact on local district nances. Third, we see that school districts are responding by
trying to assure that teachers employed by their local school district can become certi-
ed to teach CCP courses on campus.
According to many superintendents, CCP courses are replacing some other courses
that had previously been oered. This shift was viewed by some as a positive, and by
others as a negative. Some superintendents, for instance, viewed CCP courses as a way
for students to skirt more dicult courses that are oered on their campus, and others
viewed the additional courses as oering great opportunities for their students that
would not otherwise have been available. CCP allows certain required state courses to
be replaced by taking a college level alternative in a much shorter and sometimes
compacted period of time. One example of this is the U.S. government.
This course is required to be taken for graduation in high school and meets every
day of the week, often for an entire year. However, a student could potentially take a
government course at a local community college and avoid taking the government
class all together. Another example could be an eleventh or twelfth grade language arts
course. A student could avoid a year-long language arts class by taking an online

Hornbeck and Malin 273
composition course at their local community college. Is it possible to obviate statewide
required courses and contract these through local colleges? Could CCP lead to the
replacement of full-time faculty with adjunct faculty from outside institutions? Does
CCP just replace courses that used to be oered at the high school level and label them
as college-level courses?
The implications of local curricula as a result of dual enrollment policy leave many
unanswered questions. While the literature does not seem to take the issue of curricu-
lar replacement head-on, it does address the topic of student readiness for college
courses (Howley et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2015). Some wonder the impact on school
culture and adolescence as a result of the expanding option of dual enrollment, and the
responses by superintendents indicate that more research is warranted to study the
impact on local public high schools.
The results of this survey also reveal that many superintendents believe there is
benet in having credentialed faculty that are employed by their district, with some
covering the costs, rather than paying for student tuition to travel to an outside insti-
tution of higher learning. Some shared that it was desirable for funding purposes,
and others because it was good for the school culture to keep students on campus
with their peers. Still, some respondents expressed concern that it is very dicult to
nd faculty who possess CCP credentials and that their students have no local insti-
tution to access CCP. This issue potentially raises questions of equity and access,
and reveals what seems to be a competition between local schools and colleges.
Further, if this is a desirable credential for teachers, it raises important questions
about how CCP certication be integrated into a teacher preparation program at
colleges or universities.
The literature reveals that there is no consistent credential for teachers to teach dual
enrollment courses in states (Borden et al., 2013; Hughes, 2010; Kanny, 2015). The
literature also reveals how some teachers regret needing to teach high school students
at the college level (Kanny, 2015). Questions as to how a teacher should be creden-
tialed for dual enrollment programs should be studied further, and comparisons should
be made between high school trained teachers and college trained teachers and their
ecacy in the classroom.
Funding textbooks and tuition costs are at the center of nancial concerns for many
superintendents who responded to this survey. Relying on local school boards to use
funds out of their budgets has strained their resources, and it appears smaller districts
have been impacted more substantially. Finding sta with CCP credentials seems to be
the best strategy to mitigate many of the nancial issues that have come with CCP, but
this strategy raises additional questions. The issue of textbooks is one specic area that
preoccupied superintendents, which relates in part to the dierence in textbook
requirements at the high school level versus the collegiate level.
Various superintendents called CCP an “unfunded mandate” or argued that the pol-
icy in essence transferred money from local K–12 school districts to colleges and
universities. Textbook costs have been addressed previously in the dual enrollment
literature, though the focus has tended to be upon the cost of textbooks for individual

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
274
students (Borden et al., 2013; Marken et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2013) rather than for
school districts.
The Ohio law, which orders local school boards to cover both the costs of tuition
and textbooks for students, clearly impacts public school program and budgets but at
the same time may benet dually enrolled students who would otherwise struggle to
cover these costs. Ohio’s policy can be seen as heeding/aligning with those calls (Zinth
& Barnett, 2018) for expanding students’ access to dual enrollment, a compelling
aspiration but one that can have signicant and perhaps unforeseen implications if cost
burdens are placed entirely on school districts with no new state-level funding sup-
ports. Invariably, we must assume district monies are being redistributed from one
program to cover another, which might then negatively impact those students electing
not to dually enroll. We view this as an important area needing further study.
More broadly, state policies dier considerably and policy details (e.g., textbook
costs, certication requirements, enrollment requirements) have real eects at local
levels (see also Pierce, 2017). Our study adds nuance to these points and suggests
policy impacts also are not evenly distributed across the state; some districts may not
be markedly aected by dual enrollment policy changes, whereas others will be taxed
considerably, and/or will experience it as fostering new and positive opportunities for
their students.
Dual enrollment programs aim to oer students pathways to college and career
readiness while still enrolled in high school. Many superintendents who responded to
this study expressed that students in their districts are beneting from Ohio’s CCP
program, but at the same time noted issues, describing how their local school districts
are being nancially strained and/or how their curricula have changed. Such concerns
are ripe for further investigation, discussion, and study so that policies can be adjusted
and students can achieve maximum benets. Especially in light of the rapid expansion
of dual enrollment policies and their widely varying features, we concur with Thomson
(2017) that more research is needed to better understand who is beneting from these
programs and which features characterize more versus less successful programs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) declared no nancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
An, B. P. (2012). The impact of dual enrollment on College degree attainment: Do low-SES
students benet? Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 35(1), 57–75.

Hornbeck and Malin 275
An, B. P. (2013). The inuence of dual enrollment on academic performance and college readi-
ness: Dierences by socioeconomic status. Research in Higher Education, 54(4), 407–432.
An, B. P. (2015). The role of academic motivation and engagement on the relationship between
dual enrollment and academic performance. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(1),
98–126.
An, B. P., & Taylor, J. L. (2015). Are dual enrollment students College ready? Evidence from
the Wabash national study of liberal arts education. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
23.
Arnold, B., Knight, H., & Flora, B. (2017). Dual enrollment student achievement in various
learning environments. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 25–32.
Bailey, T. R., Hughes, K. L., & Karp, M. M. (2003). Dual enrollment programs: Easing transi-
tions from high school to College. CCRC Brief.
Borden, V. M. H., Taylor, J. L., Park, E., & Seiler, D. J. (2013). Dual credit in U.S. higher educa-
tion: A study of state policy and quality assurance practices. Chicago, IL: Higher Learning
Commission. Retrieved fromhttp:// edwebs2. education. illinois. edu/ sites/ default/ les/ news/
documents/4‐Dual%20Credit%20H‐Final/ index. pdf.
Dai, D. Y., & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2015). Special class for the gifted young: A 34-year exper-
imentation with early College entrance programs in China. Roeper Review, 37(1), 9–18.
46 Deeds, CMalter, Z2016
European Union. (2018). Education and training in the EU: Facts and gures. Europa. eu.
Retrieved from https:// ec. europa. eu/ eurostat/ statistics- explained/ index. php/ Education_
and_ training_ in_ the_ EU_-_ facts_ and_ gures
Giani, M., Alexander, C., & Reyes, P. (2014). Exploring variation in the impact of dual-credit
coursework on postsecondary outcomes: A quasi-experimental analysis of Texas students.
The High School Journal, 97(4), 200–218.
Hansen, K., Jackson, B., Mclnelly, B. C., & Eggett, D. (2015). How do dual credit students
perform on College writing tasks after they ARRIVE on campus? empirical data from a
large-scale study. WPA: Writing Program Administration-Journal of the Council of Writing
Program Administrators, 38(2), 56–92.
Harnish, D., & Lynch, R. L. (2005). Secondary to Postsecondary technical education transi-
tions: An exploratory study of dual enrollment in Georgia. Career and Technical Education
Research, 30(3), 169–188.
Higher Learning Commission. (2013). Dual credit in US higher education: A study of state pol-
icy and quality assurance practices. Chicago, IL: Higher Learning Commission.
Homan, SB. (2017). Dual enrollment: Bridging the agendas of college completion and equity
[doctoral dissertation], California State University, Fullerton.
Hofmann, E. (2012). Why dual enrollment? New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(158),
1–8.
Howley, A., Howley, M. D., Howley, C. B., & Duncan, T. (2013). Early college and dual enroll-
ment challenges: Inroads and impediments to access. Journal of Advanced Academics,
24(2), 77–107.
Hughes, K. L. (2010). Dual enrollment: Postsecondary/secondary partnerships to prepare stu-
dents. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(6), 12–13.

International Journal of Educational Reform 28(3)
276
Kanny, M. A. (2015). Dual enrollment participation from the student perspective. In J. L. Taylor
& J. Pretlow (Eds.), New directions for community Colleges: No. 169. Dual enrollment pol-
icies, pathways, and perspectives (Vol. 2015, pp. 59–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Karp, M. M. (2015). Dual enrollment, structural reform, and the completion agenda. New Direc-
tions for Community Colleges, 2015(169), 103–111.
Karp, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2008). Study: Dual enrollment can benet a broad range of
students. Techniques: Connecting education to careers (J1), 83(7), 14–17.
Kim, J., & Bragg, D. D. (2008). The impact of dual and articulated credit on College readi-
ness and retention in four community colleges. Career and Technical Education Research,
33(2), 133–158.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age
International.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, P. I., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. R&L Education.
Lile, J. R., Ottusch, T. M., Jones, T., & Richards, L. N. (2018). Understanding college-student
roles: Perspectives of participants in a high school/community college dual-enrollment pro-
gram. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(2), 95–111.
Malin, J. R., Bragg, D. D., & Hackmann, D. G. (2017). College and career readiness and the
every student succeeds act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 809–838.
Marken, S., Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2013). Dual enrollment programs and courses for high
school students at postsecondary institutions: 2010-11 (NCES 2013‐002). Washington DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Ohio Board of Regents. (2014). New College credit plus report. Retrieved from https://www.
ohiohighered. org/ ccp/ about
Ohio Department of Education. (2017). Enrollment date. Retrieved from http:// education. ohio.
gov/ Topics/ Data/ Frequently- Requested- Data/ Enrollment- Data
Ohio Department of Higher Education. (nd). College credit plus: second-year numbers show
student success. Retrieved from https://www. ohiohighered. org/ sites/ ohiohighered. org/
les/uploads/CCP/College%20Cred it% 20Plus- 110317. pdf
Ohio Revised Code. (2014). 3365.03 enrollment in CcP; eligibility. Retrieved from http:// codes.
ohio. gov/ orc/ 3365. 03
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). Dual credit programs:Policy and program requirements.
Retrieved from http://www. edu. gov. on. ca/ eng/ teachers/ studentsuccess/ DualCreditPro. pdf
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). Education in
China: A snapshot. Retrieved from https://www. oecd. org/ china/ Education- in- China- a-
snapshot. pdf
Pierce, D. (2017). The rise of dual enrollment. Community College Journal, 87(5), 16–24.
Taylor, J. L., & Pretlow, J. (2015). Dual enrollment policies, pathways, and perspectives: New
directions for community colleges, Number 169. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, N., Marken, S., Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2013). Dual credit and exam-based courses in
U.S. public high schools: 2010-11 (NCES 2013‐001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved fromhttp:// nces. ed. gov/
pubs2013/ 2013001. pdf

Hornbeck and Malin 277
Thomson, A. (2017). Dual enrollment’s expansion: Cause for concern. [Blog post]: National
Education Association. Retrieved from http://www. nea. org/ home/ 71701. htm
West, A., Stokes, E., & Edge, A. (1999). Secondary education across Europe: Curricula and
school examination systems.
Zinth, J. D. (2015). 50-state comparison: Dual/concurrent enrollment policies. Education Com-
mission of the States.
Zinth, J., & Barnett, E. (2018). Rethinking dual enrollment to reach more students: Education
Commission of the States.
Author Biographies
Dustin Hornbeck is a high school social studies teacher at Cedarville High School in
Cedarville, Ohio. He also teaches courses at Clark State Community College. Dustin
holds a PhD from Miami University. His research interests include dual enrollment
policy and virtual schooling. His work has appeared in several journals, including
Educational Policy and the High School Journal. He can be reached at
dustinhornbeck@ gmail. com
Joel R. Malin is an assistant professor at Miami University. His research interests
include complex, multi-sector reforms and knowledge mobilization. In the college and
career readiness area, his research has appeared or is in press with several journals,
including Educational Administration Quarterly and Teachers College Record. He can
be reached at malinjr@ miamioh. edu