Education Commission of the States is the trusted source for comprehensive knowledge and unbiased resources on education policy issues ranging from early learning through postsecondary education.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our publications and stay informed.

Request Assistance

Need more information? Contact one of our policy experts.

State Approaches to Funding Dual Enrollment Programs

This Special Report highlights the intricacies of dual enrollment program funding by using a case study approach to describe funding models in four different states: Alabama, North Carolina, Rhode Island and South Dakota.

This page provides several options for navigating this resource. Click on the questions below to explore design considerations for dual enrollment funding programs. To access individual case studies, click on the state buttons on the right side of the page. You can also download the full report by clicking on the button on the right.

Design Considerations for Dual Enrollment Funding

Tuition. While tuition is often addressed as a single cost in funding models, the tuition category covers a complex range of expenditures, including faculty salaries, operations and facilities. This complexity is inherent to tuition-based funding models for dual enrollment programs. In addition, many state funding models defray tuition costs at a negotiated reduced rate, which requires postsecondary institutions to subsidize a portion of costs even when the state pays. Finally, when state tuition funds are allocated only to postsecondary institutions, but some or all program courses are offered on high school campuses and/or taught by high school faculty, districts also subsidize tuition costs for dual enrollment programs.

Fees. To be eligible to receive state funds supporting dual enrollment programs, postsecondary institutions are often asked to waive all course fees beyond tuition. From a student perspective, this makes a certain amount of sense; the high school students participating in these programs are not generally participating in the on-campus services that those fees are meant to support. From an institutional funding perspective, however, institutions using course-based revenue models are effectively subsidizing a part of their operational costs when they agree to waive course fees, which can serve as a disincentive for institutional program participation.

Books and Supplies. Although a few dual enrollment programs have, through policy or precedent, dedicated state funding to cover the cost of books and supplies, more frequently the student is responsible for these costs. The cost of books and supplies is certainly lower than the cost of tuition but, with the average cost of a college textbook currently landing above $100, it can still be a significant barrier to participation. School districts may support a portion of these costs, and some programs use policy or guidance to set this as an expectation of the district partner. However, whether districts provide financial support for books and supplies is often left as a local decision that is not tracked at the state level.

Transportation. Transportation costs of dual enrollment programs — generally associated with the student’s travel to and from the campus of the postsecondary institution offering courses — is often left to students. To help alleviate this cost, states have sought to provide dual enrollment options that can be accessed online or through the high school campus, which removes the need to arrange transportation. In addition, when courses are offered on nearby postsecondary campuses, districts may provide transportation for participating students, usually through additional bus routes. Whether districts support student transportation costs largely remains a local decision not tracked by the state.

State. States can signal the value of dual enrollment programs through the allocation of funds. State subsidies can flow to all responsible parties to support equitable student access and create incentives for participation across education sectors. Yet state funds are limited and may not be guaranteed over time; dual enrollment is one of many priorities that must be addressed through a state’s education budget. In addition, access to state funds may require concessions in the form of subsidies from K-12 and/or postsecondary institutions.

Postsecondary. By subsidizing part of the cost of tuition and fees, postsecondary institutions demonstrate commitment to dual enrollment programs and support the growth of what can be, especially for community colleges, a significant portion of their student enrollment. In addition, investing in early attainment can build future student enrollment. However, if state support is low and program enrollment is high, the amount of subsidy required can serve as a disincentive for institutions to expand their participation.

District. School districts often feel mission-driven to support their students however they can. For dual enrollment programs, even when not required by state policy or guidance, districts often choose to provide a variety of supports to students including subsidizing costs, providing transportation, and delivering mentoring and advising services. Unfortunately, local dollars are limited, and program priorities may shift over time. Most importantly, districts with the fewest resources often have the largest lift in terms of supporting equitable access for their students.

Student. Relying on the student to cover the costs of dual enrollment programs widens equity gaps in access. The costs of tuition, books and supplies, as well as the logistics of arranging off-campus transportation, are most likely to be prohibitive to students who have historically been least served by programs. It is always possible that certain highly accelerated students may need to access opportunities that are not available through existing subsidized programs; states may use guidance to indicate that alternate arrangements are allowable for these exceptions.

Some states allocate appropriations for dual enrollment as a line-item categorical grant that exists outside of their core funding structures for K-12 districts and postsecondary institutions. Since the funding amounts for these grants are set annually or biannually in the state budgeting process, allocations may be driven more by the availability of funds in a particular year than by the level of student participation in the programs. If the line-item is not adjusted regularly for inflation and student participation, this model weakens state support as programs experience increased enrollment, pushing more of the financial burden for growing programs onto local districts, postsecondary institutions and/or the student.

North Carolina’s Career and College Promise program offers an example of an alternate funding model that is more responsive to program participation levels than line-item categorical grants. The state allocates program funds by incorporating dual enrollment students in the full-time equivalency student counts for participating postsecondary institutions. Instead of appropriating a set amount, the state funds institutions on a per-student basis through their general allocation. As a result, funding is responsive to student participation levels rather than subject to budgetary discretion. One drawback to this approach is that the year-to-year variability in allocation amounts can translate to less funding transparency for the program. To address this concern, North Carolina has recently passed legislation requiring additional reporting for program expenditures, bolstering the accountability that goes hand in hand with the flexibility of their funding model.

To fund dual enrollment services, some states encourage school districts or postsecondary institutions to defray some of the costs that would otherwise come to the student. While this guidance could help remove participation barriers for students — especially if coupled with state financial support — states do not all collect data on which districts and institutions are choosing to subsidize student costs or what services they are subsidizing. This reduces transparency about who ultimately bears the financial burden for those services. States can instead choose to make it a priority to collect and report on this information, which could inform decision makers on whether and where to allocate additional state investments.

Questions for Policymaker Consideration

State policymakers seeking to develop more equitable dual enrollment systems can use this list of questions to examine existing policies for potential equity barriers.

Questions for Policymakers (PDF)

State Case Studies (PDF)

Published:

Nov. 30, 2022

Education Level:

,

Resource Type:

Copyright 2024 / Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved.

chevron-downarrow-rightmenu-circlecross-circle