Update to State Dual 

Enrollment Policies: 

Addressing Access and Quality

By:

Melinda Mechur Karp, Thomas R. Bailey, 

Katherine L. Hughes, and Baranda J. Fermin

Community College Research Center,

Columbia University, Teachers College

Prepared For:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

2005
ii

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-99-CO-0163

with DTI Associates, Inc. and its subcontractor, the Community College Research Center,

Teachers College, Columbia University. Ivonne Jaime served as the contracting officer’s

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of

the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of

any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or

should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

September 2005

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.

While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Update to State Dual

Enrollment Policies: Addressing Access and Quality, Washington, D.C., 2005.

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at:

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cclo/cbtrans/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format

Center at (202) 260-0852 or (202) 260-0818.
iii

CONTENTS

Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Exhibit 1: State Policy Chart Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
This document provides new and additional explanatory information on the dual enrollment

policies highlighted in the 2004 report, State Dual Enrollment Policies: Addressing Access and

Quality. The update was generated based on ongoing work for the Accelerating Student

Success project funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult

Education. One of the major goals of the project is the identification of state-level policies that

support, or inhibit, the development and implementation of credit-based transition programs.

1

The original methodology used for the

report relied on Web site searches for

publicly available policy documents. For all

50 states, searches were conducted on states’

Web sites and databases such as Lexis-Nexis

and WestLaw. The findings were compared

to previously published policy scans from the

Education Commission of the States and the

Minnesota State College and University

System. This methodology, which is

described in more detail in the report,

allowed the research team to collect and

analyze state policies in a systematic,

consistent and expeditious fashion. 

During site visits conducted under the case

study phase of the project, the research team

determined that conversations with state

officials would enhance their understanding

of state policies. To gain these additional

insights and provide policymakers and

practitioners with a more complete picture of

the extensiveness of each state’s dual credit

policy, the team embarked on a new data

gathering effort. 

The new methodology, while complementary

to the original one, consisted of the

following. First, each state’s Web site was

revisited to discover whether any new dual

enrollment-related policies had been made

publicly available. In addition, in each state,

an individual responsible for dual

enrollment and knowledgeable about the

state’s policies was identified. These

individuals were identified either through

the team’s exploration of state Web sites or

through the newly available Academic

Pathways to Access and Student (APASS)

database at the University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign. To access the Web site,

visit www.apass.uiuc.edu/. 

State contacts were telephoned and asked to

confirm the original findings presented in

the 2004 report and, if necessary, provide

additional information about the policies.

Most frequently, such information related to

policies or regulations that were not publicly

available; recent state activities surrounding

dual enrollment policies and programs; or

local interpretations of policies that were not

UPDATE
2

discernible through publicly available

documents. After the call, state officials

occasionally forwarded additional legislative

or regulatory language that was not available

on-line. 

The newly gathered information was added

to each state’s profile, and the profiles were

re-analyzed. In most cases, these data

confirmed the findings in the 2004 report.

In a few cases, additional policies were

revealed. In these states, the policies either

were not publicly available or were so

obscure they required identification by a

state official. In other states, conversations

with state officials led to a better

understanding of subtle policy details and

state-level interpretation of those nuances. 

It should be noted that for consistency

between the 2004 report and this update,

data collection under both methodologies—

Web-based research only and Web-based

research plus telephone interviews—was

limited to policies in effect through

December 2003. While the data provide

only a snapshot of the changing dual

enrollment policy landscape, this update can

inform policymakers and practitioners as to

the implications of policy choices. 

In addition, readers should note that in

order to classify and summarize 50 states’

diverse policies, some details or nuances may

not be reflected in the text of the report and

in this update. Readers should also bear in

mind that local interpretations of state policy

may lead to programs operating differently

than state policy intends. However, both the

report and this update focus on policies as

written rather than on individual program

practices. 

An important finding based on the

supplementary information gathered is the

identification of two additional states—

Hawaii and New Mexico—with dual

enrollment policies. As before, the

comprehensiveness of these policies varies,

but snapshots of each state’s policies are

included in the update. The addition of

these two states brings to 40 the number of

states with dual enrollment policy.

Listed below is the information gathered

through the use of the new methodology. It

is presented in alphabetical order by state

and is followed by an updated matrix of state

policies. 

n Arizona permits students of any age to

participate in dual enrollment, and not

just juniors and seniors as previously

stated. 

n Colorado should be categorized as having

a double-funding system; therefore,

colleges do not lose funds as originally

reported. 

n Hawaii has state policy addressing dual

enrollment. The policy: limits

participation to juniors and seniors;

provides for college control of

admissions; limits course location to the

college campus; and stipulates that

students pay tuition. 

n Kansas offers dual enrollment

opportunities to juniors and seniors only.

Previously, age-related admission

requirements had not been identified.
n Kentucky’s policy stipulates that offering

dual enrollment is voluntary rather than

mandatory. 

n Maryland state policy leaves admissions

decisions up to the postsecondary

institution and allows participating

institutions to decide who pays tuition.

Dual enrollment is voluntary in

Maryland. 

n New Mexico has state policy addressing

dual enrollment. It includes stipulations

for state oversight of program quality;

provides for postsecondary institution

discretion over admissions; requires

secondary institutions to pay dual

enrollment students’ tuition; and allows

for double funding. 

n North Dakota has a partial policy for

dual enrollment funding. The policy

states that high schools receive average

daily attendance (ADA) funding for

dually enrolled students, but does not

explicitly state what happens to colleges’

full-time equivalent (FTE) funding. 

n Tennessee colleges develop and oversee

course content. However, when dual

enrollment courses are offered at high

schools, superintendents must also

approve course content. 

n West Virginia has an extensive state

policy for dual enrollment. The state: sets

advanced admissions requirements;

requires instructors to have college

credentials; limits course content;

requires state oversight for quality

control; requires students to pay tuition;

and has a partial policy for funding dual

enrollment. 

n Wyoming leaves tuition payment

decisions to partnering institutions

instead of stipulating which institution is

responsible for payment. 

The original report’s state policy chart and

its accompanying legend (pp. 3-7) contained

the following typographical errors:

n The original report’s state policy chart

stated that North Dakota leaves student

eligibility decisions to the postsecondary

institution, and that the state pays for

tuition. Instead, it should have stated

that North Dakota leaves student

eligibility decisions to the secondary

institution, and students pay tuition.

n The original report’s legend provided the

following definition for “Mandatory

Policies” under the State Policy

programmatic feature header: “High

schools must inform students of program

opportunities and colleges must accept

credit.” Instead, the definition for

mandatory policies should read, “High

schools must inform students of

program opportunities and accept

credit.”

The matrix that follows provides a brief

overview of the components of each state’s

dual enrollment policy. A check indicates

that the policy addresses one of the 10

programmatic features that framed the

analysis. These features are listed on the

horizontal axis of Exhibit 1, and include

program location, funding and target

population. To further guide your

interpretation, a legend of all terms used is

also included in this update. If a field is

blank, there are no state-level policies

guiding that program feature. 

3
4

Exhibit 1: State Policy Chart Update1

1 See Legend for a definition of the terms under each category of this matrix.

Programmatic Feautres

State State

Policy

State

Oversight

Target

Population

Admission

Requirements

–Student Age

Admission

Requirements

–Academics

Location Student

Mix

Instructor Course

Content

Tuition Funding

Alabama ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Freshman and

Sophomores

Permitted

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

Student

Pays

Alaska

Arizona ✓

Mandatory

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Freshman and

Sophomores

Permitted

✓

State

Requirements:

Combination

✓

Either

✓

College

Credentials

✓

Standardized;

College

Approval;

Limiits

✓

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Double

Funding

Arkansas ✓

Mandatory

✓

Freshman and

Sophomores

Permitted

✓

Secondary

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Either

✓

Student

Pays

California ✓

Mandatory

✓

Financial

Reporting

✓

Enrichment

✓

Secondary

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Either

✓

Mixed

✓

College

Approval

✓

Student

Pays

✓

Double

Funding

Colorado ✓

Mandatory

✓

Enrichment

✓

College

Campus

✓

Institution

Pays

✓

Double

Funding

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida ✓

Mandatory

✓

Enrichment;

Technical

Students

✓

State

Requirements:

Combination

✓

Either

✓

Limits

✓

Institution

Pays

Georgia ✓

Mandatory

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Postsecondary

Instructors

Only

✓

State

Approval

✓

State Pays

✓

Both

Lose

Funds

Hawaii ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

College

Campus

✓

Student

Pays

Idaho ✓

Mandatory

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

Institution

Pays

Illinois ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Advanced

Students

✓

Either

✓

State Pays

✓

Double

Funding

Indiana ✓

Mandatory

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

State Pays

✓

Partial

Policies
Exhibit 1: State Policy Chart Update (continued)

Programmatic Feautres

State State

Policy

State

Oversight

Target

Population

Admission

Requirements–

Student Age

Admission

Requirements

–Academics

Location Student

Mix

Instructor Course

Content

Tuition Funding

Iowa ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

Limits

✓

Student

Pays

Kansas ✓

Voluntary

✓

Enrichment

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

State

Approval

✓

Student

Pays

Kentucky ✓

Voluntary

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

Louisiana

Maine ✓

Mandatory

✓

Dual System

✓

State

Requirements:

Combination

✓

State Pays

Maryland ✓

Voluntary

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Double

Funding

Massachusetts ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Enrichment

✓

State

Requirements:

Combination

✓

Either

Michigan ✓

Mandatory

✓

Financial

Reporting

✓

State

Requirements:

Proficient

✓

Either

✓

Mixed or

High

School

Only

✓

Professional

Development

✓

Institution

Pays

✓

Both

Lose

Funds

Minnesota ✓

Mandatory

✓

Either

✓

Limits

✓

State Pays

✓

Double

Funding

Mississippi ✓

Voluntary

✓

Partial

Policies

Missouri ✓

Voluntary

✓

Policy

Compliance

✓

Advanced

Students

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

College

Credentials;

Professional

Development

✓

Standardized

Limits

✓

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Double

Funding

Montana ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

Secondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

Either

✓

Institution’s

Decision

Nebraska

Nevada ✓

Mandatory

✓

Quality

Control

5
6

Exhibit 1: State Policy Chart Update (continued)

Programmatic Feautres

State State

Policy

State

Oversight

Target

Population

Admission

Requirements–

Student Age

Admission

Requirements

–Academics

Location Student

Mix

Instructor Course

Content

Tuition Funding

New

Hampshire

New Jersey ✓

Mixed

✓

Enrichment

✓

Either

✓

Mixed or

High

School

Only

New Mexico ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

Institution

Pays

✓

Double

Funding

New York

North Carolina ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Enrichment

✓

Either

✓

Mixed or

High

School

Only

✓

Institution

Pays

✓

Both

Lose

Funds

North Dakota ✓

Mixed

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

Secondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

Either

✓

College

Credentials

✓

College

Approval

✓

Student

Pays

✓

Partial

Policies

Ohio ✓

Mandatory

✓

Freshman and

Sophomores

Permitted

✓

State

Requirements:

Combination

✓

Mixed

✓

Institution

Pays

✓

Both

Lose

Funds

Oklahoma ✓

Mandatory

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

Mixed or

High

School

Only

✓

College

Approval

✓

Student

Pays

Oregon ✓

Voluntary

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Juniors and

Seniors Only

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

Either

✓

College

Approval

✓

State

Approval

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota ✓

Mandatory

Tennessee ✓

Mandatory

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Freshman and

Sophomores

Permitted

✓

College

Campus

✓

Student

Pays

✓

Partial

Policies
7

Exhibit 1: State Policy Chart Update (continued)

Programmatic Feautres

State State

Policy

State

Oversight

Target

Population

Admission

Requirements–

Student Age

Admission

Requirements

–Academics

Location Student

Mix

Instructor Course

Content

Tuition Funding

Texas ✓

Voluntary

✓

State

Requirements:

Proficient

✓

Either

✓

Mixed or

High

School

Only

✓

College

Credentials

✓

Institution’s

Decision

✓

High

School

Loses

Funds

Utah ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Joint Decision

✓

Either

✓

College

Credentials

✓

College

Approval

✓

State Pays

Virginia ✓

Mandatory

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Juniors and

Senoirs Only

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

College

Credentials

✓

College

Approval;

Limits

✓

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Double

Funding

Vermont ✓

Voluntary

✓

Technical

Students

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

College

Campus

✓

Institution

Pays

Washington ✓

Mandatory

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Juniors and

Senoirs Only

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

Institution

Pays

✓

High

School

Loses

Funds

West Virginia ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Quality

Control

✓

Advanced

Students

✓

State

Requirements:

Advanced

✓

Either

✓

College

Credentials

✓

Limits

✓

Student

Pays

✓

Partial

Policies

Wisconsin ✓

Not

Specified

✓

Juniors and

Senoirs Only

✓

State

Requirements:

Combination

✓

Institution

Pays

Wyoming ✓

Voluntary

✓

Postsecondary

Institution’s

Discretion

✓

Either

✓

Mixed or

High

School

Only

✓

Secondary or

Postsecondary

Instructor

✓

Institution’s

Decision

✓

Double

Funding
8

State Policy

n Mandatory: High schools must inform

students of program opportunities and

accept credit.

n Voluntary: High schools and colleges have

the option of participating in program

opportunities.

n Not Specified: State policies do not specify

whether the program is mandatory or

voluntary.

n Mixed: High schools have the option of

whether to offer dual enrollment, but

colleges cannot refuse to participate in dual

enrollment. 

State Oversight

n Financial Reporting: Requires annual

reporting of programs’ finances.

n Policy Compliance: Programs must provide

evidence that they are complying with state

dual enrollment requirements.

n Quality Control: Programs must report

annually on their course offerings or student

outcomes.

Target Population

n Advanced Students: Dual enrollment

programs are intended to meet the needs of

academically advanced or gifted students.

n Enrichment: Dual enrollment programs are

intended to provide enrichment for students

who have special academic or vocational

needs.

n Technical Students: Dual enrollment

programs are intended to provide technical

education.

Admission Requirements: Student Age

n Juniors and Seniors Only: Student

participation is limited to juniors and

seniors.

n Freshmen and Sophomores Permitted:

Participation is made available to students in

grades nine or 10 and above.

n Dual System: Participation is open to all

students, but admission requirements vary

depending on students’ ages.

Admission Requirements: Academics

n State requirements:

n Advanced: Students must be 

academically advanced, as evidenced by

meeting criteria such as a grade point 

average of 3.0 or above and/or 1,000 or 

above on the SAT.

n Proficient: Students must be 

academically proficient, as evidenced by 

meeting criteria such as a grade point 

average of 3.0 or below and/or below 

1,000 on the SAT.

n Combination: Students must meet 

criteria that vary depending on the 

course of study they intend to 

undertake.

n Postsecondary Institution’s Discretion:

Admission requirements are set by the 

postsecondary institution partner.

LEGEND
9

n Secondary Institution’s Discretion: The

secondary institution partner sets admission

requirements.

n Joint Decision: Both the secondary and

postsecondary institution partners set

admission requirements.

Location

n College Campus: Courses must take place

on the campus of a postsecondary

institution.

n Either: Courses may take place at either the

high school or the college.

Student Mix

n Mixed: Dual enrollment students must take

the same classes as regularly matriculated

college students.

n Mixed or High School Only: Dual

enrollment students may take their classes

with regularly matriculated college students,

or in classes consisting only of high school

students.

Instructor

n College Credentials: High school

instructors must have the same credentials as

college faculty.

n College Approval: Colleges approve high

school instructors; instructors need not have

the same credentials as the colleges’ faculty.

n Postsecondary Instructors Only: Only

college instructors may teach the courses.

n Professional Development: High school

teachers must participate in professional

development.

n Secondary or Postsecondary Instructor:

Instructors may hold either a high school or

a college teaching credential.

Course Content

n Limits: States limit the types of courses that

may be offered through dual enrollment.

n College Approval: College must approve

course syllabus, textbook and/or exams.

n Standardized: Courses must use a

standardized curriculum, books and/or

textbook. 

n State Approval: State education agency

must approve course syllabus, textbook

and/or exams.

Tuition

n Student Pays: Student is responsible for

tuition costs.

n Institution’s Decision: College and/or high

school decides who is responsible for tuition.

n Institution Pays: College or high school is

responsible for tuition costs.

n State Pays: State is responsible for tuition

costs.

Funding

n Double Funding: Neither institution loses

funds—both are funded at their full rates.

n High School Loses Funds: High school

loses average daily attendance (ADA) funding

for dual enrollment students.

n Colleges Lose Funds: Colleges do not

receive full-time equivalent (FTE) funding for

dual enrollment students.

n Both Lose Funds: Both colleges and high

schools lose some, but not all, of their

FTE/ADA funding for dual enrollment

students.

n Partial Policies: Precise funding is not

specified, but it is clear that at least one

institution’s FTE or ADA funding is affected

by dual enrollment students.