Does Concurrent Enrollment Improve College Access, Success, Time-to-Degree and Earnings? A Quasi-Experimental Analysis of Colorado Students. Technical Report. Report No. 19-15B
Buckley, Pamela; Pendergast, Philip; Klopfenstein, Kristin (2020). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED616064
-
examining25,262Students, grades11-PS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned any degree |
Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
37.00 |
22.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Two Year Degree |
Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
13.00 |
5.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Four year degree |
Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
26.00 |
18.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College Enrollment |
Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
77.00 |
52.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Annual earnings during year 5 after high school graduation |
Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
16051.51 |
14749.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Concurrent enrollment (CE) programs vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
82.00 |
77.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
5% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Colorado
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 38% No FRPL 62%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 172 high schools throughout Colorado. The setting focused on Colorado’s Concurrent Enrollment program, where high schools were matched for the analytic sample based on whether dual enrollment rates were either above the state median or below the state median.
Study sample
A total of 25,262 students in grades 11 and 12 were included in the study, from 2010 to 2014, consisting of five total cohorts. Forty percent of the student sample identified as being a part of a racial or ethnic minority group. Thirty-eight percent of the student sample was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 5% identified as English Language Learners.
Intervention Group
This study examines access to college level courses while in high school through Colorado’s Concurrent Enrollment program in postsecondary level courses while enrolled in high school. Through the program, high school students that participate in the Concurrent Enrollment program can enroll in postsecondary courses, with no tuition costs, earning credits that are transferable to any public Colorado university. The intervention condition was defined as 11th and 12th grade students who attempted Concurrent Enrollment credits while attending a high school that offered “ample” dual enrollment opportunities. Ample opportunities were defined as schools where the number of dual enrollment credits attempted in 2008-09 were above the state median.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition consisted of 11th and 12th grade students who did not attempt any dual enrollment credits while attending otherwise similar high schools that offered “few” dual enrollment opportunities. Few opportunities were defined as schools where the number of dual enrollment credits attempted in 2008-09 were below the state median.
Support for implementation
The study did not provide support for dual enrollment courses.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).