Ad Hoc Committee on Dual Enrollment

---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

Forty-seventh Legislature – Second Regular Session

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON DUAL ENROLLMENT

Minutes of Meeting

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Senate Hearing Room 109 -- 1:30 p.m.

Chairman Burns called the meeting to order at 1:43 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.

Members Present

Senator Gray Representative Knaperek

Gay Garesche Representative Lopez

Kevin McCarthy Representative Biggs, Cochair

Senator Burns, Cochair

Members Absent

Senator Arzberger Dr. Michael Block

Speakers Present

Amy Strauss, Joint Legislative Budget Committee

Dawn Nazary, Legislative Research Analyst, Senate Education Committee

Kristen Boilini, Lobbyist, Cochise College; Northern Pioneer College

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS

At the request of Chairman Burns, the Members introduced themselves.

OVERVIEW OF DUAL ENROLLMENT PROGRAMS/DUAL ENROLLMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

Amy Strauss, Joint Legislative Budget Committee, explained that dual enrollment classes are high school courses conducted for high school and college credit that are taught on the high school campus during regular school hours by a community college-certified high school instructor. In FY 2006, 36,750 students dual enrolled and about 937 courses were offered
(366 academic and 571 occupational) at 240 locations in nine districts. Ninety-eight percent of students who enrolled completed the course. There are basically three admissions policies for the state’s community colleges:

· General admission whereby the student must meet the following requirements: high school graduate or equivalency; 18 years old; demonstrates evidence of potential success; transfer student from another community college or university.

· Students under 18 years of age must score 930 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or 22 on the American College Test (ACT).

· Special Status students are admitted on an individual basis when admission is in the best interest of the student.

Ms. Strauss related that the community college districts enter into Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with the K-12 districts that spell out the responsibilities for tuition and fees. A standardized format is not followed and there is little state involvement in formation of an IGA. Districts that offer dual enrollment courses must set up Faculty Advisory Committees (FACs) to participate in course selection and implementation oversight, and courses offered must be approved by the FAC. She provided an update on concerns expressed by the prior Committee:

· Too many students were admitted on an individual basis as Special Status students who were not adequately prepared for a college level course. Currently, there have been no changes to the admission standards; students are still admitted according to the three admission policies.

· The FACs are not adequately fulfilling the role envisioned in statute, specifically that membership is not robust enough to adequately represent all of the disciplines taught in dual enrollment courses. There was little change in the makeup of the committees; the majority of districts made no changes or only made minor adjustments.

· Lack of consistency across districts in the IGAs and the fact that there is no state involvement in the provisions. Currently, the agreements remain district specific. There is no standardized format for the IGAs so there is little consistency across districts.

When Mrs. Knaperek said she thought the IGAs were reviewed several years ago and supposed to be standardized, Ms. Strauss responded that there are some requirements for what should be in the IGAs in statute; however, items like who pays tuition, for example, vary from district to district. The three admission policies are written in statute, but the districts can add different requirements, so that also varies.

Ms. Garesche indicated to Mrs. Knaperek that she understands the Maricopa District accepts all dual enrollment students as Special Status students. Mr. McCarthy commented that he does not know of any institution that requires an SAT and ACT score; not all dual enrollment students are Special Status, but it is a great majority.

Ms. Strauss advised Ms. Lopez that there is no data available to support the statement that Special Status students are not adequately prepared for college level courses.

Mr. McCarthy asked how many students took the 571 occupational courses and if the courses were connected to joint technological education districts (JTEDs). Ms. Strauss stated that the colleges are required to submit a dual enrollment report breaking down courses according to academic versus occupational, which she would have to review to obtain a student number. The report does not indicate if the occupational courses were connected to JTEDs.

Ms. Lopez remarked that if 98 percent of students who enrolled completed the course, those students were probably prepared for college-level classes. Chairman Burns stated that it is problematic if the majority of students in the classroom are not prepared, causing the course to be adjusted to fit the students.

When Ms. Lopez asked for data to support that, Ms. Garesche indicated that according to grade distributions, 80 percent of students in dual enrollment courses get an A or B, whereas at the colleges 56 percent get an A or B. This suggests that the high school students are either brilliant and performing well beyond the college students, or the course was brought down to the students’ level and the students are completing the courses partly because the course is not at the college level. Ms. Lopez said perhaps the students are very motivated to be successful.

Mrs. Knaperek remarked that she knows each district is different, but her son could have taken a dual enrollment course if she paid over $500. She did not, but he is in the class anyway, which contains dual enrollment students and non-dual enrollment students. She asked how often the mixed classes occur and if it is appropriate.

Ms. Garesche said in 2000, an Ad Hoc Committee on Dual Enrollment Quality in the Maricopa District wrote some standards for the Maricopa District only, and one thing the faculty insisted upon was that at least half of the students in the class should be enrolled for college credit. She understands that the most recent district committee wrote that requirement out of the standards last spring, but there was relatively small faculty representation. Faculty are concerned that mixing too many non-college credit students with college credit students compromises the level of the course.

Mrs. Knaperek noted that she did not even understand that her son could enroll in the dual enrollment class until there was a week left to do so, which could be an anomaly in planning, but it makes her wonder what is going on with the classes. The class is also over the Internet, about which she has questions. Mr. McCarthy surmised that someone in her son’s class is being poorly served, either the student who is taking the college course but is not being exposed to the academic standards that would be received in a true college course, or the student who is registered with no expectation of taking a college course but is actually forced to do so and may receive a grade far lower than he/she otherwise would have earned. Unless two different courses are actually taught in the same classroom at the same time, he would like to find out how that problem is approached.

Ms. Strauss advised that the FY 2006 dual enrollment report was due September 1, 2006 and has already been received. It is an annual report.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (Attachment 1)

Admission Guidelines

Chairman Burns stated that he has heard about problems when Special Status students are placed in dual enrollment classes, but are not necessarily ready for the class.

Mrs. Knaperek asked if the proposed recommendation means that a student who wants to enroll in dual enrollment would have to take an SAT or ACT test and score appropriately, to which Chairman Burns agreed. Mrs. Knaperek continued that the provision related to Special Status would remain intact; however, language would be inserted in statute that dual enrollment students who are subject to the mandatory minimum SAT or ACT scores for admission no longer fall under Special Status distinction.

Senator Gray asked if high schools no longer offer advanced placement (AP) courses in lieu of dual enrollment, and the percentage of how that has changed.

Dawn Nazary, Legislative Research Analyst, Senate Education Committee, responded that she will try to obtain the information.

Senator Gray conveyed that a number of students who testified in previous Committee hearings said they did not want to take an AP course because a final was taken at the end; the students preferred to take the community college course where it was not necessary to take a final to pass the course and receive credit. She said she received a letter from a student who went on to
Notre Dame, and it is interesting that the student could pay $77 for the AP course at the time. If she wanted to take the Physics course, she would have had to pay $338, yet not all community college courses transfer; however, if the student took the AP course and passed, that credit is transferable to over 3,000 colleges nationwide and overseas. The student’s comment was that she paid double for low standards. Senator Gray said she is not sure what has been gained with students who appear to be taking the easy way out.

Mr. McCarthy remarked that the student may have been referring to the fact that the transfer of credits from high school can be treated differently out of state. If the student took AP classes and passed the AP exam, it is very likely the college credit could be transferred. If the student took a dual enrollment course, it is unlikely that the college credit could be transferred. The school his children attended does not have dual enrollment classes because many of the students go on to four-year colleges outside Arizona and school staff does not want the students to expect that a college credit would be transferred when it would not.

Ms. Garesche said the concern in relation to Special Status students is that readiness at the Maricopa District for a course does not have to be proven, except for English and math, for which a placement exam must be taken and would even be required of students over age 18. In every other class, as a general rule, there is no exam to show that a student is college ready. The vast majority of courses have no pre-requisites because the university does not; therefore, when a student enrolls under Special Status there is no indication, outside of math and English, if the student is ready to do college-level work. There are pre-requisite courses in a math series, for example, and if the student has already completed the pre-requisite course with a C or better, the student does not need to take a placement exam, which would be mostly for students who have been away from high school for a time and return.

Ms. Garesche indicated to Mrs. Knaperek that most students take SATs early in the junior year, and since the majority of students who take dual enrollment classes are juniors and seniors, there is probably an opportunity to take the SAT prior to beginning the courses. Mrs. Knaperek stated that the SAT can only be taken at certain times, but there is a wait for the score before a dual enrollment class can be taken, so she is concerned about this being a barrier to students who are eligible.

Mr. Biggs said he does not know a community college in Arizona that requires a student to take an SAT or ACT test before enrolling, so he wonders why it should be required before a student takes a dual enrollment class with a community college. Even under the age of 18, his daughter, who is 17 and attending as a full-time student at a community college, did not need to take the SAT or ACT exam. Ms. Garesche responded that the statute says students under age 18 have to pass one of the tests; however, most community colleges are currently accepting students as Special Status students, which is why the testing is not required. She admitted that Glendale Community College, for example, gives a student under the age of 18 who enrolls as a concurrent enrollment student a reading exam because administration knows better than to place students in classes who are not ready to do college-level reading. That is strictly at the discretion of the individual college.

Mrs. Knaperek suggested that instead of SAT and ACT, the standard that Maricopa uses should be used. Ms. Garesche said there is reason to believe students enrolled in dual enrollment classes need to prove readiness for college level work or the instruction cannot take place at the college level, and the statute suggests that anyone under the age of 18 has to prove that by means of an SAT score. Perhaps the timing question could be dealt with by allowing a Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) in place of the SAT score.

Mrs. Knaperek asked what other dual enrollment classes students are taking. Ms. Garesche stated that she takes issue with the figure of 36,750 students dual enrolled and believes 24,000 of those are in the Maricopa District; that is a double count, not a head count. The Maricopa District has about 12,000 if it is a double count, which is about two-thirds, so it is important what the Maricopa District does in this regard. There is a dual enrollment report on the Maricopa District web site, which shows that students are taking a wide array of courses and are not limited to English and math.

Mrs. Knaperek said Ms. Garesche mentioned earlier that if a student passes the pre-requisite class and receives a C or better, the student is automatically eligible for dual enrollment classes without taking a placement test. That seems kind of “hit and miss” as well because the quality of a high school class in a school district in one part of the state may not be as high as at another high school. There should be some kind of statewide standard.

Ms. Garesche stated that the placement test the students take in the Maricopa District is produced by ACT as well, and a student with a tenth grade reading level would pass the exam. It is assumed that someone over the age of 18 would bring adult experience to the classroom, which means that person may not need to have quite the academic preparation that would be wanted of a student that has not even completed high school. There is a concordance between the ACT exam and the Arizona School Services Through Educational Technology (ASSET) placement test that is used in the Maricopa District, which requires such a low English score, for example, that if a student were to have that score at a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Tier 1 school, the student would be what used to be called a Prop 48 student, i.e., someone who could not take classes in their freshman year because the person was considered so academically unprepared. Therefore, the placement exam is probably not sufficient to show the student is ready for college level work, but it is simply accepted of the age 18 and older students who are expected to bring more to the class than just academic preparation.

Mr. McCarthy said it is worth noting that the minimum SAT score is in statute. Many of these requirements were put in place to deal with students who would be in a concurrent enrollment environment, who would be leaving high school and going on to Mesa Community College or Glendale Community College. What has evolved over the years is dual enrollment and the huge escape route using Special Status to allow the colleges, in conjunction with the K-12s, to tap into enormous revenue opportunities by counting students who are K-12. Merely codifying what the recommendation is would be restating existing law.

Mrs. Knaperek worried that juniors could possibly be left out. Her son took the PSATs during his sophomore year, but it was almost the end of the year before the scores were available. She does not believe the SAT can be taken during the sophomore year. Ms. Nazary clarified that the first opportunity to take the SAT is in the fall semester of the junior year and the scores are available by the end of that semester. A student could potentially enroll in a dual enrollment course in the spring semester of the junior year. Mrs. Knaperek indicated to Mr. McCarthy that the PSAT can be taken during the sophomore year, but it is not required.

Mrs. Knaperek said if the Committee adopts the first bullet, the pathways into dual enrollment would be through PSAT, SAT or ACT. There would also be the student who took the pre-requisite math classes who would not have to take the PSAT or SAT. Ms. Garesche said that would relieve the student of the necessity to take the placement exam, but not the entrance exam.

Ms. Lopez said she understands the first bullet requires the SAT, ACT and the discussed PSAT for students in dual enrollment courses, except students could get into the occupational in nature courses under the Special Status designation. Regarding Special Status, teachers who work with the students say the students are ready to take a college-level class, so she does not know why the Committee is second-judging professional high school teachers who know what the children can and cannot do. Chairman Burns responded that he is not sure it is the teacher who authorizes the Special Status, but Ms. Lopez indicated that she believes it is.

Chairman Burns iterated that he has heard from people in the business who are also professionals that students in the class are not ready for the class, which handicaps the students who are ready. Ms. Lopez stated that this discussion is based on someone’s perception or anecdotal evidence rather than data, and she does not like to make decisions based on anecdotal evidence.

Ms. Garesche opined that the parties with the best judgment would be the college faculty, and the best method to judge is by having the students earn a satisfactory exam score on one of the college entrance exams to determine whether the student is ready to do college-level work.
Ms. Lopez surmised that high school teachers would have an understanding, whether teaching a dual enrollment class or not, if a student is capable of making it at college level.

Ms. Nazary clarified that the recommendation would require a minimum SAT or ACT score and eliminate the Special Status category for students enrolling in academic courses only. There may be a different standard for occupational courses, but an alternative would be if the students were required to take the test and failed, there could be an individual case-by-case review and possibly Special Status for those students.

Mrs. Knaperek said many parents do not know if a child is ready for a dual enrollment class, and when parents are asked to pay $200 to $500, there must be some kind of standard in place. She would not oppose Ms. Nazary’s suggestion because a child may not do well on an SAT or PSAT, but could still be ready for the class. The teacher would be able to give some input on the student’s work and maturity level in the classroom.

Ms. Nazary related to Chairman Burns that the high school teacher who is certified to teach the dual enrollment course recommends a student to the college. The college chair faculty board then determines whether or not the recommendation is appropriate. The presumption is that the decision-making of the high school teacher considers parental input.

In relation to the recommendation to modify the SAT score, Ms. Nazary indicated to Mr. Biggs that she is looking into the new cut scores for the SAT, which was revamped a year ago. One of the considerations would be to make it equal to what the universities require for admission, but she will get back to the Committee.

Mrs. Knaperek opined that an SAT or ACT score at the same level of a university should not be used since this is a community college course that does not transfer everywhere. Ms. Nazary said the idea was brought about because the universities are actually accepting dual enrollment credit in some cases. She clarified that changing the minimum SAT score in statute is not to raise the standard, but to align it to the revamped SAT test.

Mr. Biggs moved that the Committee adopt the recommendations of the Arizona Senate Research Staff Memorandum dated November 20, 2006 (Attachment 2), the four bullet points contained on Page 1, with the modification that the mandatory minimum include PSAT, SAT or ACT scores. The motion carried.

IGAs

Ms. Nazary explained that the recommendation would require that each community college district put in place a uniform, consistent IGA for the 2009 school year. Prior to implementing the IGAs, templates would be developed by the community colleges and submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for review. The initial IGA would reference the courses taught for the 2009 school year, and any changes to the IGA would be submitted to JLBC for review. The IGA should include the financial provisions and format for billing of services, student tuition and financial aid policies, accountability provisions, responsibilities and services required of each party, type of instruction and quality of instruction.

Mr. McCarthy asked if the data received provides insight on the extent to which tuition changes hands in all instances or if financial aid is merely a waiver on the part of the community colleges for tuition. Ms. Strauss responded that is district-specific and would be included in the IGAs, which are in five large binders in her office that she has not been able to review. There is much variation and she has not been able to run the numbers.

Ms. Lopez questioned why the same IGA is needed across all systems. As a sitting school board member, she frequently reviews IGAs that are reviewed by the school and community college legal staff. Chairman Burns replied that he has to vote on funding and has a responsibility to taxpayers to make sure it is used properly. There have been some problems with dual enrollment, JTEDs and other programs where funding seems to be getting out of hand, so this recommendation is an attempt to establish standards in order to be able to track the funding and make sure it is not abused.

Mrs. Knaperek asked if provisions can be added to the IGAs and the recommendation would be the minimum. Chairman Burns replied that there probably could be some additional items. This could be a minimum, but complications could arise in the future if the additions become too extensive.

Senator Gray noted that there is an inequity whereby a student in a certain district does not have to pay any tuition while other districts charge up to $500 for the course, which is an injustice to students around the state.

Ms. Nazary said in relation to Ms. Lopez’s comments, the goal is that data from all community college districts related to the IGAs would be in a uniform format in order to be able to compare, for example, the financial provisions.

Chairman Burns related to Mr. Biggs that the TBD state oversight agency has not yet been identified. If someone has an acceptable suggestion, it can be done today; otherwise, it can be worked out during session in the legislation that comes out of the Committee.

Mr. Biggs moved that the Committee adopt the recommendation on Page 2 regarding IGAs with the two bullet points (Attachment 2). The motion carried.

Dual Enrollment Courses

Ms. Nazary explained the recommendations relating to dual enrollment courses:

· Establish a statutory definition of “dual enrollment course” as a college level course held at a high school or joint technological district centralized campus that is designed to lead a student toward completion of an academic program at a postsecondary educational institution or toward a career, and that is more rigorous than a comparable high school course.

· Establish separate definitions in statute for concurrent enrollment and dual enrollment.

· The courses must be certified by the governing boards of each community college district as meeting the statutory definition.

· Beginning in December 2007, dual enrollment courses offered and certified by the governing boards of the community college districts must be approved by a yet-to-be- determined state oversight committee within 120 days of the community college submission for approval.

Ms. Nazary clarified for Senator Gray that there are separate definitions in Title 15, but the definition in statute for dual enrollment is narrower. Senator Gray stated that the definition currently states that dual enrollment is comparable to a college course, which she would think is higher than the definition of “more rigorous than a comparable high school course.”

Mr. McCarthy said in reviewing the college classes taxpayers pay for at the community college level, it appears there is no limitation on what might be interpreted as a credit class, so if this is meant as a college course in pursuit of a degree, a little more “meat” would be needed to ensure that it says what is meant. Mrs. Knaperek said lifelong learning is in the current definition of college classes, but should not be in this definition.

Ms. Nazary said the definition currently in statute authorizes community colleges to offer college courses that may be counted toward high school and college graduation requirements at the high school during the school day. The more defined focus says it should also be more rigorous than a comparable high school course, which addresses the example Mrs. Knaperek gave at the beginning of the meeting where there were high school students taking the class for high school graduation requirements and dual enrolled students taking the class for college credit.

Ms. Lopez asked if a person who drops out of high school can take community college classes that would count toward high school graduation. Ms. Nazary replied that can happen with permission of the community college President.

Ms. Nazary related to Ms. Garesche that the intent was to have a definition that encompasses the requirements of A.R.S. 15-1821.01.3 and makes it clear that the courses must be more rigorous, so there is an unambiguous definition of what is expected of a dual enrollment course since the governing boards of the community college districts are going to certify the courses as dual enrollment.

Senator Gray reviewed some dual enrollment courses offered such as Techniques of Proofreading with six students in the class, Sketching with five students and Multi-Viewed Projections with four students. She asked what the higher than high school expectations or projections are for these types of courses and who is saying the courses are more rigorous so community college credits can be received. CPR and Observing Young Children only has four or five students in a class. She assumed an instructor is being paid to teach those few students since the district is receiving credit. Mr. Biggs stated that a few years ago, he would have thought that was interesting, but his daughter wants to major in drawing at Arizona State University, and sketching is drawing. He is not denigrating it as a major, but he had some eye-opening experiences in the last few years.

Mr. Biggs moved that the Committee adopt the four bullet points on Page 2 of the Memorandum as previously mentioned under the Dual Enrollment Courses provision (Attachment 2). The motion carried.

FACs

Ms. Nazary explained that the recommendation is that the membership of each community college’s FAC be submitted annually to JLBC and a yet-to-be-determined state oversight agency for approval. The data submitted would include at a minimum, and could include more if needed, the name of the member of the FAC, the member’s title, the courses the member teaches at the community colleges and the years of teaching experience.

Mr. Biggs moved that the Committee adopt the recommendation on Page 3 of the Memorandum with regard to FACs (Attachment 2). The motion carried.

Timing of Meeting

Ms. Nazary said the proposal is that the language in statute in relation to meetings of the Committee be changed from “shall” to “may” so there is flexibility on whether or not there is a need to meet after the dual enrollment tracking studies are submitted. Chairman Burns said there may not be any changes that need to be addressed once the report is reviewed.

Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the recommendations are silent on financing of dual enrollment courses, and the fact that taxpayers still pay twice is troubling. Recommendations were made in the past to fund dual enrollment courses at 50 percent for the colleges, which do little or no work, except push papers around. The recommendations should note that this is far from a good deal for taxpayers.

Senator Gray moved that the Committee adopt the recommendation to change the language from “shall” to “may” in relation to meetings by the Committee. The motion carried.

Financing

Mr. McCarthy moved that the Committee recommend that, at a minimum, dual enrollment courses be funded at 50 percent of the regular full-time student equivalent (FTSE) levels to the community colleges. The motion carried.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Kristen Boilini, Lobbyist, Cochise College; Northern Pioneer College, testified that over the last several years, the Legislature looked closely at dual enrollment programs and made a number of changes. Dual enrollment programs are only offered to juniors and seniors in high school, with the exception that 25 percent of the students can be freshmen and sophomores who are only admitted under established written criteria for waiving those requirements. Additional requirements were put into statute to guarantee the quality of the program and instruction. Courses offered for dual enrollment are evaluated and approved through the curriculum approval process of the district. The courses are at a higher level than courses taught at high school and transferable to a university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents. The courses are applicable to an established community college occupational degree or certificate program. Statute also requires that college-approved textbooks, syllabuses, course outlines and grading standards are applicable to the dual enrollment courses as if the courses were taught on a community college campus. She does not know what else can be done in statute to ensure the quality of the program without putting up additional barriers.

She noted that SATs, ACT and PSATs do put up barriers for certain students to enter the dual enrollment program and the higher education pipeline, which is a very important function of dual enrollment. PSATs are taken by the best and brightest students and are National Merit Scholar exams. PSATs are taken at the beginning of the junior year, generally the same time SATs or ACT are taken, so that would provide a barrier for certain juniors to enter the dual enrollment program. Also, it is a barrier for students who are not achieving at the highest level under PSAT, and it is very important to get those students into the higher education pipeline. There are sophomores and freshmen in high school who are able to take college-level language courses, which gets them in the higher education pipeline. The community colleges do have placement exams and ASSET exams in reading, math and English. Placement exams are also offered in many of the sciences, languages and a number of other academic courses. The community colleges are doing everything possible to ensure the statutory requirements are met and that the courses are available to students so credits can be transferred to the community college and university. It is also important to ensure that the door is open for any student who wants to participate in the program, provided the student’s parents, high school instructor and the department at the community college believe the student would benefit from the course.

Ms. Boilini indicated to Mrs. Knaperek that any student can take the PSAT, but if it is taken prior to the fall semester of the junior year, the student is not ready because the material on that exam has not been learned yet.

Mr. McCarthy said it has been established that these students are not only ready to take the PSAT, but college ready, so he does not know how that could be an argument against taking the PSAT. He asked how students in the classes who are not taking the college-level courses are dealt with, such as Mrs. Knaperek’s son. Ms. Boilini responded that she does not believe the ACT, SATs or PSATs are the only determination of college readiness. Students in dual enrollment courses who are not taking the course for credit are aware that it is a dual enrollment course and the level of rigor. There are courses in which the instructor is able to bifurcate the material and establish a different set of criteria for passing a dual enrollment course than a regular high school course.

Mr. McCarthy stated that he received many phone calls from high school teachers who tell a different story. That may be the design, but the anecdotal information he has heard is that the courses are being taught to all children in the class, which as a policy matter is a concern for students who are not taking a college-level course. He has not heard the instance where the curriculum was split. Ms. Boilini responded that she cannot speak to the phone calls he receives or the anecdotal evidence, but she described what she believes is the policy in dual enrollment.

Ms. Garesche said in the Maricopa District dual enrollment classes have always been single classes where everyone in the class is meant to be taking instruction at the college level, and all the requirements are the same of every student in the classroom.

Ms. Boilini indicated that she would be glad to inform the Committee on how each of the districts approach these requirements as there are some differences based on the types of courses offered and the students. Occupational courses are different than academic courses, and the definition of an academic course or an occupational course can change depending on what the student is pursuing and those types of things, so “one size fits all” does not fit all of the community colleges.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m.

________________________________

Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary

December 18, 2006

(Original minutes, attachment, and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON DUAL ENROLLMENT

December 12, 2006

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------