Advanced Placement vs. Dual Enrollment - Understanding Existing Research

 

    Existing research regarding my topic can be separated into three main categories. The research I reference in this review consists of related experiments conducted within the last two decades. Each section separates the lens through which the sample experiments were conducted, and how they related directly to my own research. Due to the lack of comparative research between Advanced Placement and dual enrollment through the lens of students of color, current research can be divided into three main sections - analysis of dual enrollment success in students of color, analysis of Advanced Placement success in students of color, and comparison of overall implications of both types of coursework for all students. 

Dual Enrollment Success in BIPOC Students

Karp & Hughes (2008)  and Swanson (2008)  focus on the benefits and impacts of dual enrollment courses on high school students, believing that dual enrollment is a key factor in increasing college readiness and CTE (Career and Technological Education) for all students. Karp & Hughes (2008) claim that dual enrollment courses benefit low-income students most, as these students benefit from early exposure to the demands of a college course. The study also found that students with lower GPAs benefitted more greatly from dual enrollment courses than those who were already considered high-achieving. This means that dual enrollment gave under-achieving students a chance to catch up and truly be competitive among their peers when it came to grades and academic performance.  Swanson (2008) believes that dual enrollment courses both increase a student's overall likelihood of enrolling in college immediately after graduating from high school and the probability of attaining a college degree within 4.56 years.  Additionally, they claim that by acquiring college credit during high school, students tend to have a more positive relationship with the idea of furthering their education, and it begins to feel more attainable to them.  Museus, Lutovsky & Colbeck (2007) focus specifically on access and equity in dual enrollment programs, as well as the implications that it may have on policy formation. They believe white and affluent students are far more likely to take advantage of dual enrollment programs than individuals of marginalized or less affluent communities, including BIPOC students.  Additionally, the authors provide explanations for the effects of these persistent inequalities, finding that one of the biggest causes of inequity is the lack of information provided to BIPOC students regarding options for dual credit. Furthermore, barriers such as out-of-pocket fee requirements, lack of transportation, and exclusion based on past academic performance still present major obstacles for BIPOC students. 

Advanced Placement Success in BIPoC Students

Davis, Joyner & Slate (2011) focus on the Advanced Placement performance among Black students within three different U.S. states in 2010 - Texas, Georgia, and California. The authors believe that these disparities are due not only to a lack of access to Advanced Placement courses for Black students nationwide but that each state individually has the power to exacerbate the achievement gap even further. The authors use the College Board 2010 report which summarizes Advanced Placement demographics and test scores to provide evidence for the achievement gaps in all three states. Though Black students made up 14.5% of the graduating class of 2009, they only made up 8.2% of the students who took an Advanced Placement exam. Only 28% of the 8.2% of students who took an Advanced Placement exam got a score of three (3) or higher. Over 50% of the Black students that took Advanced Placement exams scored below the benchmark of three (3), with the majority receiving a score of one (1).  Additionally, the authors provide explanations for the effects of this access and achievement gap.  Davis, Joyner & Slate (2011) claim that multiple factors play a role, including the expectation gap, the opportunity gap, the funding gap, the health gap, and the teacher quality gap. They also suggest that what takes place at home is just as important as what takes place in the classroom, meaning that efforts to close the achievement gap must be comprehensive and cross-disciplinary. Furthermore, the authors recommend increasing student access to Advanced Placement and rigorous coursework. They provide that there must also be a dramatic shift in the attitudes, knowledge, and skill levels of educators when it comes to supporting BIPOC students.  Whiting & Ford (2009) focuses on the underrepresentation of BIPOC students, particularly Black students, in gifted education and Advanced Placement classes. Whiting & Ford (2009) believe that this is due to the disconnect between counselors and students that stems from a lack of investment in BIPOC students from white administrators, as well as having lower overall expectations for BIPOC students. These authors use the statistics provided by the College Board in 2004 regarding BIPOC student enrollment and district BIPOC make-up to provide evidence for the excellence and equity gap within gifted education and Advanced Placement classes.  Additionally, the authors provide explanations for the effects of the excellence and equity gap within schools. Whiting & Ford (2009) claim that these impacts are exacerbated by the lack of AP and gifted courses offered in marginalized and impoverished communities. Furthermore, the authors recommend five distinct solutions. First, implementing early intervention and talent development initiatives in middle and early high schools. Second, creating advocacy and mentoring programs for student support. Third, collecting data and information to understand the true extensiveness of underrepresentation within each school or district. Fourth, improve family-school partnerships and communication. Fifth, increasing cultural competency among educators.

Klopfenstein (2004),  Klugman (2013), and  Kolluri (2018) focus on the equal opportunity for access and success in Advanced Placement classes for BIPOC students. Klopfenstein (2004) believes that, after race, class is the second most important factor when understanding the Advanced Placement participation gap. The author uses national Advanced Placement enrollment demographics to provide evidence for the enrollment gap within Advanced Placement programs and l to understand what classes certain students are enrolling in.  Klugman (2013) focuses on how access to Advanced Placement classes is stratified by race and class division. Klugman (2013) believes that the main barrier causing these inequalities was resource deprivation within marginalized, impoverished, and often majority BIPOC communities.  Additionally, the authors provide explanations for the effects of the limited access to Advanced Placement courses, including fewer opportunities after graduation and decreased interest and enrollment in postsecondary education. Klugman (2013) claims that while expanding access and options when it comes to Advanced Placement courses, the achievement gap is not closed, due to the fact that the same expansion that is taking place in marginalized communities is also taking place in affluent school districts. Furthermore, wealthy districts are quicker and more eager to implement new courses and opportunities due to perceived interest.  Kolluri (2018) believes that though the College Board has worked to expand the groups that it aims to serve, it still consistently underserves marginalized populations and less affluent communities. Kolluri also believes that the idea that the effectiveness of the college preparation Advanced Placement provides would suffer if the range of students served was broadened is foolish. The author uses statistics provided by the College Board to provide evidence for the effectiveness of Advanced Placement for getting college credit and for post-secondary preparedness, as well as to break down the demographics of the students served by Advanced Placement courses. Kolluri finds that, over time, the association between college preparedness and having taken Advanced Placement courses has declined, showing that Advanced Placement courses do not provide the postsecondary benefit it had or was believed to have. 

Comparing Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Effectiveness

Xu, Fink & Solanki (2019) focuses on the participation gaps in both Advanced Placement and dual enrollment courses between White and Black students and White and Latinx students. Xu, Fink & Solanki (2019) believe that both programs have persistent achievement gaps among the groups being studied. These authors use nationwide demographics and achievement reports to provide evidence for these gaps in success in both the Advanced Placement and dual enrollment programs between Black students, Latinx students, and their white counterparts.  Additionally, the authors provide explanations for the effects of these gaps. Xu, Fink & Solanki (2019) claim that the vast majority of districts have racial/ethnic gaps in AP and dual enrollment participation, and about a quarter of districts have racial/ethnic gaps equal to or larger than 10 and 7 percentage points for AP and dual enrollment, respectively. Furthermore, the authors recommend that outside factors must be accounted for in order to close these achievement gaps and that the solution cannot lie within the programs alone.