CTE-Focused Dual Enrollment: Participation and Outcomes. EdWorkingPaper No. 22-692
Edmunds, Julie; Unlu, Fatih; Phillips, Brian; Hutchins, Bryan; Mulhern, Christine (2022). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED625873
-
examining676,834Students, grades11-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Career and Technical Education (CTE) Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment in NC community college within one year |
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
39.50 |
29.20 |
Yes |
|
|
Enrollment in NC public postsecondary school within one year |
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
58.80 |
48.80 |
Yes |
|
|
Enrollment in UNC System school within one year |
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
21.50 |
21.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final high school GPA, weighted |
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.24 |
3.23 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Four-year high school graduation rate |
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.00 |
96.00 |
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.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- 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
North Carolina
-
Race Asian 3% Black 25% Native American 1% Other or unknown 18% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 41% No FRPL 59%
Study Details
Setting
This study examines the effectiveness of the CTE Pathway in Career and College Promise (CCP), the dual enrollment program for North Carolina state. Specifically, the study focuses on the CTE Dual Enrollment Pathway, which allows students in high school to take Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses for college credit, with a focus on courses that lead to a professional certification. The researchers used administrative data to identify students who did and did not participate in the program and examined the participation of seven cohorts of students; those who entered 8th grade in 2012 - 2013 through 2018 - 2019.
Study sample
The sample analyzed for this paper was composed of seven cohorts of students, those who entered 11th grade in the 2012-2013 school year (with an anticipated graduation year of 2013- 2014) through those enrolling in 11th grade in 2018-19 (with an anticipated graduation year of 2019-2020) in North Carolina public schools. Treatment students were students who were participating in the CTE dual enrollment pathway identified using the pathway participation indicator created by the Community College System. About half of the sample was female (49%), 3% were English language learners, 41% were eligible for free and reduced price lunch, and 10% had an IEP. Fifty-three percent of the analytic sample was White, 25% Black, 3% Asian, and 1% Native American. In addition, 12% of the sample was Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The treatment group (N = 63,216) included any student who had an indicator in the NC Community College database for participation in the CTE Dual Enrollment Pathway program at least once in 11th or 12th grade (as few as one course).
Comparison Group
The comparison group was taken using data from the same three databases (linked data from North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the UNC System, and the North Carolina Community College System) for propensity score matching to make a sample matched on demographic, achievement (e.g., 8th grade math/reading scores), and other student factors (e.g., absenteeism). The comparison group students did not participate in any CTE courses.
Support for implementation
CCP is overseen by collaborative teams that include membership from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI), the North Carolina Community College System, the University of North Carolina (UNC) System and the North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities. Each agency is responsible for providing necessary support as aligned to their specific role. The North Carolina Community College System has articulated a set of operating procedures that defined the different pathways and clarified eligibility criteria ("Curriculum Procedures Reference Manual: Career and College Promise" 2017) while NCDPI provides guidance and technical support.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).