Early College in the Comprehensive High School

• In Event: Transforming Comprehensive High Schools Into Early Colleges

Abstract

Objectives: This paper will present an overview of the early college model as conceptualized across the four projects for implementation in comprehensive high schools. It will also describe and reflect on the aspects of state policies and local school contexts that supported and hindered the work.

Theoretical framework: Early colleges are schools purposefully focused on postsecondary readiness for all students. They provide students with early access to college courses but offer comprehensive supports beyond dual enrollment. Dual enrollment is often seen as an add-on to the regular high school curriculum and can be implemented without changing other parts of the high school. In contrast, early colleges incorporate dual enrollment but also seek to transform other aspects of the school experience (instructional practices, academic and affective supports for student, the ways teachers interact with each other) to increase college readiness and allow almost all students to graduate from high school with at least some college credit.

Methods: For each of the four projects, logic models were developed to guide the work and evaluations. This paper synthesizes descriptions of the models and context completed for four separate evaluation reports. For each project, the logic model was revised to incorporate lessons learned either mid-way through or at the end of the project.

Data sources: Data that informed the logic model development came from interviews and surveys across the four projects. Contextual information was captured through interviews and a review of documents.

Results: The synthesis of the logic models for the four projects resulted in an overall conceptual model for early college implementation in comprehensive high schools. The conceptual model of the early college includes the components of the model expected to be implemented in the schools (called Design Principles and shown in Column 3), the implementation supports necessary for schools and districts (Columns 1 and 2), and the intended impacts on students (Column 4).

All four states had policy contexts that provided substantial support for early colleges, which facilitated expansion of the model. All four states already had the small early college model in place and all four states provided funding to offset the costs of dual enrollment courses.

Significance: This paper will delineate the differences between the early college and simple implementation of dual enrollment courses, presenting a conceptual framework that others can consider adopting.

Author

• Julie A. Edmunds, University of North Carolina - Greensboro