First, some context. Dual enrollment is an increasingly popular model that offers college-level courses to high-school students, promising to increase their college-going rates and save them money on their way to a degree. All but two states now have dual-enrollment policies, as detailed in this handy new guide from the Education Commission of the States. But students from wealthier families are generally more likely to take advantage of the programs. So, in 2016, the federal government began an experiment at 44 colleges in 23 states, letting low-income students use Pell Grants for dual enrollment.
In fact, the Pell Sites program not only failed to increase low-income students’ participation in dual enrollment, it may actually have decreased access. So much for good intentions.
It seems that putting Pell Grants in the mix made for a more-complicated process that ended up deterring low-income students, researchers found. In some cases, students were put off by having to fill out the (notoriously onerous) federal financial-aid form when previously they could have enrolled with state or school-district grants requiring far less paperwork. Students also feared limiting their access to Pell Grants later. Actually, using the Pell money for dual enrollment wouldn’t have had much impact on students’ overall eligibility, but as the Stanford University education economist Eric Bettinger told me this week, that wasn’t well communicated.
“It created more confusion and ambiguity for the students,” said Bettinger, a professor in the Graduate School of Education who conducted the research with a colleague and two graduate students. They examined enrollment trends at four institutions in four states over three years. Nationally, dual enrollment went up, Bettinger said, but not at those institutions.
One takeaway: The Pell Grant isn’t the answer to every problem — even every affordability problem. As Bettinger noted, it’s a program with a lot of “clunky” baggage, not only a complex application process (“the rectal exam that’s FAFSA,” as I recently saw it described on Twitter), but also arcane rules for students to remain eligible.
Those challenges are especially worth noting as Congress considers expanding Pell Grant eligibility to students enrolled in shorter-term education programs. Will that alone increase access and completion? Maybe not. What additional supports or counseling might help? (Hmm, “navigators” perhaps?) Let me know if you have other thoughts.
A related point that caught my attention: “Places with the greatest need tend to be those with the least room to scaffold policy implementation,” the researchers wrote in a blog post about the study. “These institutions and the students they serve may not be able to benefit from even the most well-intentioned policies.” That’s essential to remember not only for expanding Pell Grants, but also for lots of other ideas (or, say, ed-tech tools) that seem promising. Yes, sometimes innovations need to push the envelope, but imposing a new regimen without some confidence that it can be carried out does nobody any favors.
The Pell Sites program expired a couple of weeks ago. The study I described isn’t the only publication to note that the experiment didn’t quite work out. And the U.S. Department of Education was aware “that something structurally was amiss” with the program, Bettinger told me. When he and his team of researchers shared their results with department officials, he said, “they weren’t overly surprised.” The department has promised to produce an evaluation with recommendations for next steps, if any.
Meanwhile, the interviews with students that Bettinger’s team conducted as part of the study found that dual enrollment — “if done right,” he said — does have the potential to increase college-going and lower students’ costs. The key is to couple it with good academic and financial advising, he said, so students aren’t left with “dead credits” that don’t count toward their degrees.
Check these out.
Here are some education-related items from other outlets that recently caught my eye. Did I miss a good one? Let me know.
- The College Board’s decision to no longer publish AP test results broken down by students’ racial and ethnic groups has alarmed some researchers. The change is significant, Higher Ed Dive reports, because the organization “has come under fire for peddling products like the AP and SAT tests that critics perceive as disadvantaging marginalized groups in higher education.”
- Lots of punditry about federal public-service loan forgiveness centers on whether the programs amount to giveaways to certain borrowers earning good salaries. But a new study shows that some of the biggest beneficiaries could be teachers and nurses. The National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, by Diego Briones, Nathaniel Ruby, and Sarah Turner, also estimates that some 3.5 million borrowers owing $145 billion in student loans could now be eligible for forgiveness.
- Since the pandemic, more students (49 percent) than professors (35 percent) are expressing interest in hybrid courses, according to a new survey by Barnes & Noble College. At the same time, more professors (54 percent) than students (33 percent) show interest in fully in-person classes. The findings are part of a larger “College 2030” survey of approximately 2,600 respondents, and the report signals the “challenge for institutions to align the two groups’ differing preferences.”
Got a tip you’d like to share or a question you’d like me to answer? Let me know, at goldie@chronicle.com. If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to see past issues, find them here. To receive your own copy, free, register here. If you want to follow me on Twitter, @GoldieStandard is my handle.
