When I first started writing a book about early college and dual enrollment five years ago, my proposed topic was Hamilton Junior High School (neither my family nor the book publisher is authorized). This idea was based on the similarities between the pluck and elan characteristic of both my college students and America’s hard-working founding father. Five years after I wrote this book, I had the opportunity to revisit the field for a revised edition, making it worth asking, after Thomas Jefferson’s song in the second act of Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton“What Can I Miss”: How has early college/dual enrollment changed over the past half decade?
Before I start answering that, first, a note about terminology: I use “dual enrollment” as an umbrella term for high school and college credit students in the same class, whether they are taught in high school or on campus, and “early college” for formal programs with dedicated student support, often taught on a college campus.
The Expanding Field
The first change in the role that I would not have predicted five years ago is the large and consistent growth in dual enrollment and early college enrollment. States such as Idaho, Indiana and Ohio have created large-scale dual enrollment programs, while other states such as Maryland and New York have also expanded efforts. When I started my book on dual enrollment in 2020, people in the field believed we were working with over a million students in total, but there was no clear number from the federal government. The new number of students enrolled in the Integrated High School Education Data Program is more than 2.8 million students, which is a clear result of progress in the short term.
I also did not understand at the time that dual enrollment and the first college would increase in terms of the number of models offered. Concurrent enrollment, where qualified high school faculty are recruited by colleges to teach in their high school building for college credit, is the simplest model for rapid growth. In the past half decade, many concurrent programs have been established or expanded, and many have sought accreditation through the National Alliance of Concurrent Education Partnerships, which has become an important policy in the field.
But other models have been successful as well: These include dual enrollment college and pre-college programs, Bard College urban high schools, wall-to-wall programs (every student attends early college, grades nine through 12), P-Tech programs (early college and technical education and internship), and high school enrollment and even high school enrollment. Many universities and colleges balance more than one model at a time, trying to measure what is unique about each model and the populations that thrive in them. However, no single model has been able to dominate, and the field seems poised to continue this diversity of models for the foreseeable future.
Transition to Greater Intervention
When writing the first draft of my book, I tried to grasp the tension between the roots of gifted education and its growth as an urban, inclusive intervention. Since then, there has been an eclipse of the original gifted education model—instead of offering dual enrollment and early college primarily as intellectual enrichment, the field has evolved more toward career programs and guided pathways.
Borrowed from the world of community colleges, guided pathways are a way to move students through a series of classes, leading to smooth transfer or employment outcomes. These interventions have had many positive effects on both community college and community college programs, and many in the field have built more flexibility into their programs to better meet the needs of students. Even if the programs do not fully embrace the guided paths, the concept of combining and sequencing college offerings and dual enrollment has spread, far from offering opportunities for one course at a time or relying on general education requirements.
In line with this movement toward targeted pathways, college/dual enrollment programs have included both career and technical education and more work-integrated learning. When I first started writing in this field, there were programs that were ahead of their time in working with employer partners and bringing real-world problems and issues to students. Over the past five years, this interaction with employers and employees has come close to what is expected in the industry.
Increased Confidence and Creativity
What has changed the most in the dual enrollment/early college sector in the last few years is its confidence. Five years ago, early college and dual student programs often struggled to define what aspects of their operations were most important, and the sector is now better able to distinguish itself from other high school reform programs. NACEP focuses on teacher development and communication between high school teachers and college faculty as a key selling point of the model. The level of communication college faculty and high school educators can develop through dual enrollment programs and early schools is unique to American education, different than the Advanced Placement program and other high school reform efforts. Using early college and dual student programs as a way to develop teacher credentials is also a growing area of innovation in the field (Alamo Colleges’ mission here to grow the pool of qualified teachers is changing).
This sector has also preserved and expanded its grassroots arts. Early college undergraduates and dual enrollees are responsible for the success of this model. The most innovative ideas in early college and dual enrollment never came from research institutions and scholarly research—they came from talented and creative practitioners, who pushed the envelope of what was possible in existing programs.
The Hamiltons of tomorrow
Most of the students I have included in this book agreed to talk with me to plan a new program, and seeing the changes in their lives has been encouraging. Simona Santiago, who I featured in my STEM chapter of the first book, has moved into college access through her work. Many of the students I profiled from Lawrence, Mass., quickly moved on to get a master’s degree after college and are now starting to look for work. The students I worked with at Middlesex Community College transferred to four-year institutions, won top internships and started graphic design businesses.
Unfortunately, higher education has not been particularly good at telling the success story of dual enrollment and early college programs. The strength of the early college/dual enrollment research base has only grown in the last five years, including the important work of Brian An (and Chad Loes) and Julie Edmunds (and her team), which has shown that these programs have a positive impact over time. However, this impact rarely finds its way into the pages of higher education journalism, and college and university leaders do not always praise its success either on campus or in public. Perhaps in the next five years, higher education will embrace the narrative of early college success and dual enrollment and highlight the success of its students and alumni.
