Previously considered the domain of the community colleges who expanded their mission-specific responsibilities in remedial education into college preparation for high school students, Concurrent Enrollment has recently drawn the attention of Nevada’s universities. With more than 15,000 potential CE students in Nevada, it’s not surprising the universities see CE as a means to mitigate the impacts of declining enrollment among their traditional students. But, as is so often the case, quality and rigor are often trampled upon in the race to more FTE.

In Nevada, Concurrent Enrollment is defined as “a postsecondary course taught at a high school by a high school instructor” in the Report and Recommendations of the Dual Enrollment Task Force formed by the Nevada Department of Education and NSHE.

Recently, several faculty members from different NSHE institutions have appeared at meetings of the Board of Regents to register their complaints during Public Comment periods about the sudden burst of Concurrent Enrollment (CE) activity across the state. Faculty members who expressed their concerns to the Regents cited issues ranging from inadequate enforcement of required credentials for high school teachers, to uncontrolled expansion of courses outside an institution’s traditional service area.

In response to these concerns, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance sent the following messages to the Board of Regents, the Interim Chancellor, and the institution presidents urging action to address a number of issues in Concurrent Enrollment.

1983 - CELEBRATING 40 YEARS - 2023

2023-10-04

Dear Regent,

We are writing to express concern about the rapid expansion of concurrent enrollment (CE) programs throughout the state and recent requests made to the Board of Regents to decrease concurrent enrollment teacher stipends. The Nevada Faculty Alliance recommends the following actions to ensure that CE programs offering baccalaureate-level instruction genuinely embrace the goals of improving access for underserved students and providing a pathway to college success:

• All CE programs in NSHE should be required to be accredited through the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships.
• CE instructors must be approved by college faculty and must meet the minimum standards required to teach on campus, i.e., a masters-level degree for most disciplines.
• CE instructors should be paid at least what a campus adjunct makes, on top of their normal teacher salary.
• College faculty liaisons should provide training for CE instructors and should regularly visit and observe CE classes to assure alignment with curricular standards, and these liaisons should be appropriately compensated for this work.
• NSHE should develop a comprehensive plan around CE offerings throughout the state, so that institutions are not competing against each other for students.

Concurrent enrollment programs have been promoted as providing access to underserved students. Failure to ensure the quality of these programs risks sending underprepared students into Nevada colleges and universities where they may be more likely to struggle and drop out, undermining our strategic goals to recruit, retain, and graduate diverse student populations.

Unlike well-established dual enrollment programs in career and technical education (CTE), which rely on national industry certification requirements for curriculum and instructor qualifications, CE transfer courses in Nevada are not currently required to adhere to comparable nationally-recognized standards.

We believe that all CE programs throughout the state should seek accreditation through the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP). This alliance has accredited programs in 27 states, but none in Nevada. NACEP accreditation would ensure Nevada CE programs are providing quality instruction by meeting a set of national standards, which are arranged around five areas:

• Partnership Standards
• Faculty Standards
• Assessment Standard
• Curriculum Standards,
• Student Standards.

We urge you to review the NACEP standards and hope you will give serious consideration to our recommendations above. NFA and its members stand ready to provide constructive input that can help NSHE build one of the most effective CE programs in the nation.

Respectfully,

The State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance

Jim New, President and TMCC Chapter President
Shantal Marshall, Vice President
Cheryl Cardoza, Treasurer
Kent Ervin, Past President
Ted Chodock, CSN Chapter President
Pete Martini, NSU Chapter President
Doug Unger, UNLV Chapter President
Todd Ruecker, UNR Chapter President
Heather Reardon, WNC Chapter President

We feel these are the minimum requirements for an effective CE program. NACEP establishes a baseline from which to build a quality program, but anecdotal evidence suggests that NSHE institutions are falling short in their race to build up FTE from an untapped resource.

To illustrate just a few of the concerns that have been raised, faculty have learned that some CE teachers do not hold master’s degrees, or the degrees they do hold are not from the appropriate discipline, both minimum requirements for teaching transfer courses in the system. Similarly, they are not receiving the level of training and resources that new instructors on campus receive. These issues would be avoided through adherence to NACEP Faculty Standards that require CE faculty to be approved by college faculty and meet the same minimum standards as those required to teach on campus. CE faculty must also be expected to participate in regular training programs with college faculty so that they can enhance their “pedagogy and breadth of knowledge in the discipline.”

Without extensive faculty involvement, it is difficult, if not impossible, to validate that the content and rigor of CE instruction are equivalent to instruction by college instructors. NACEP Curricular Standards point to the need for CE courses to align with the “pedagogical, theoretical and philosophical orientation of the respective college/university discipline” and that college faculty liaisons should regularly visit and observe CE classes to help promote alignment. It is imperative that NSHE institutions provide CE teachers with the resources necessary to teach a course at the same level as their college counterparts. If their teaching load and/or class sizes are higher than those of on-campus faculty, then class sizes should be reduced or instructional assistants should be provided to help support student learning.

Clearly, to meet NACEP standards, both CE teachers and their college faculty liaisons must go above and beyond their normal duties. A consistent system-wide compensation policy should be established to ensure both are adequately compensated. Allowing institutions to pay their individual part-time rate to CE instructors places community colleges at a disadvantage since universities pay a much higher part-time rate per credit. It appears NSHE intends to address this issue. At the July 21, 2023 special meeting of the Board of Regents, a presentation on dual and concurrent enrollment (slide 17) indicated that a policy in Chapter 3, Section 9 of the Procedures and Guidelines Manual sets maximum stipends for instruction. Unfortunately, Chapter 3 ends at section 8. A little housekeeping seems to be in order.

It goes without saying that a successful CE program will provide students the same experience and rigor that is offered to college students. Without that level of quality-control, the higher education system will suffer the consequences as increasing numbers of students discover that they are underprepared to progress through their college programs.

Without system-level coordination and faculty oversight of CE offerings throughout the state, we will continue to see the seemingly unchecked ability of institutions to organize courses anywhere in the state without concern about its impact on other institutions or local monitoring of instructional quality. It is becoming a race among institutions to beat the other to the FTE, which leads to weighted student credit hours (WSCH), which leads to budget impacts. Not surprisingly, in the end it’s all about the money. But, this unregulated competition combined with the erosion of standards for instructor qualifications and curricular standards is turning it into a race to the bottom. The benefits are short-term, but the damage will endure.