By Louisa Woodhouse, Senior Associate, Policy and Advocacy
Reading time: Eight minutes
In recent years, dual enrollment, or “concurrent enrollment”, programs have rapidly scaled across the nation: during the 2023-24 academic year, an estimated 2.8 million high school students took at least one college course while still in high school, representing an increase of about 12% from the year prior. A growing body of research indicates that dual enrollment increases the likelihood that students enroll in college directly after high school, and newer findings suggest that dual enrollment participation may also improve rates of postsecondary attainment.
Nearly every state has seen growth in dual enrollment offerings and participation, though no two models look alike. California’s College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP), Minnesota’s Concurrent Enrollment Program, and Texas’s Financial Aid for Swift Transfer (FAST) illustrate three effective yet distinct models for improving student outcomes and expanding opportunity. Read on to learn more about how these programs have served as an on-ramp for students in each state, providing the chance to obtain college credit free of charge.
California: College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP)
California’s College and Career Access Pathways program, enacted in 2016 through AB 288 and expanded by AB 30 in 2019, was designed to broaden access to college-level coursework specifically for students “who may not already be college bound or are underrepresented in higher education.” The program is offered at no cost to students and families. Community college districts enter into CCAP agreements with school districts, charter schools, or county offices of education, and classes are taught on high school campuses, during the school day, to only high school students. The state provides funding to school districts through a competitive grant process. Advocates in California, including the community college system and a statewide Dual Enrollment Coalition, are advocating for a $24 million increase in funding to support CCAP expansion - shifting offerings away from a patchwork model, and towards universal access for all students.
A central feature of CCAP is the program’s focus on stackable, pathway-aligned courses. Rather than allowing students to enroll in stand-alone dual-enrollment classes, CCAP sequences courses so students can make progress toward a certificate, associate degree, or successful transfer to a California State University (CSU) or University of California (UC) institution. A student might begin with an introductory Career and Technical Education (CTE) course, advance to a college-level class that fulfills an associate degree requirement, and ultimately apply those credits toward a four-year pathway at an institution within the CSU or UC system. This emphasis on seamless pathways ensures that early college credit translates into a tangible gain for students.
CCAP is California’s fastest-growing dual enrollment program. Nearly 165,000 students -
about one-third of the class of 2025 - took dual-enrollment courses statewide, with CCAP accounting for roughly 45% of all dual-enrollment participation. Student outcomes data found that 82% of CCAP students enroll in college after high school compared to 66% of graduates statewide. Within three years of enrollment, 21% of CCAP students earn a certificate or associate degree versus 14% of those who did not participate in dual enrollment.
Minnesota: Concurrent Enrollment
Minnesota’s Concurrent Enrollment program, launched in its initial form in 1985, is one of the nation’s longest-standing dual enrollment models. The primary objective of the Concurrent Enrollment model, also known as College in the Schools (CIS), is to provide rigorous, college-level coursework to juniors and seniors at public
high schools, free of charge. Of the 50,000 Minnesota students participating in a dual enrollment program, more than 60% are enrolled in a CIS program. Colleges and universities partner directly with school districts, and courses are taught on high school campuses during the regular school day by qualified high school instructors. While other dual enrollment models in the state are taught on campus at colleges and universities, the in-school design of the Concurrent Enrollment program is an intentional
effort to reduce transportation barriers and increase access and participation for students across the state - especially those in rural communities.
Concurrent Enrollment courses are taught by licensed high school instructors who must meet credentialing requirements set by the partnering college or university. In some cases, concurrent enrollment teachers work closely with college faculty to ensure that courses meet the same standards for content, quality, and assessment as those taught at the institution for higher education.
Generally, students participating in Concurrent Enrollment take courses that are easily transferable for general education credit, such as math, English, or foreign languages. Data from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education suggests that incoming first year college students in the state were able to transfer an average of 19.65 dual enrollment credits towards their degree. While the Concurrent Enrollment program does not require stackable courses, the model seems to contribute to improving postsecondary outcomes for students in the state. A recent study found that Minnesota dual enrollment students were more likely to complete a postsecondary degree or credential within four years of high school graduation compared to those who did not participate in dual enrollment (55% versus 50%). This finding also held true for economically disadvantaged students (50% compared to 43%).
Texas: Financial Aid for Swift Transfer (FAST)
The Financial Aid for Swift Transfer (FAST) program was established in 2023, during the 88th Texas legislative session, under House Bill (HB) 8. The law provides funding to participating public institutions of higher education, in order to offer dual enrollment, known in Texas as “dual credit”, courses at no cost to eligible students. FAST is designed to increase postsecondary access and affordability for Texas public or charter school students who are “educationally disadvantaged,” (defined as “eligible to participate in the national free or reduced-price lunch program” currently or at any time during the four school years prior to the student’s enrollment in the dual credit course). Institutions can opt into the FAST program by signing a program partnership agreement with a Texas school district or charter school.
Course delivery varies by agreement – some dual credit offerings are taught at the high school by a qualified instructor, while others are offered on the college’s campus by faculty of the institution. Notably, not all courses are eligible for the program. FAST-eligible
dual credit courses must provide students with joint high school and early college credit, or satisfy one of the following criteria: a career and technical education course, a foreign language requirement, a core curriculum requirement, or a field of study curriculum requirement.
The FAST program has implemented an innovative funding strategy. Each fiscal year, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) sets a “FAST tuition rate” (per credit hour). Funds are allocated to institutions to subsidize the cost of eligible students’ participation in the program for each semester credit hour they complete. For FY26, the tuition rate is $58.25. Participating institutions must also cap tuition rates for non-FAST students at the same rate. This requirement helps ensure that all students are better able to access dual credit opportunities.
While the FAST program is still new, early data suggests that the model has dramatically increased participation among educationally disadvantaged students. In its first year of implementation an estimated 250,000 students enrolled in dual credit programs, compared to just over 100,000 in the year prior.
Opportunities for Improvement
Each of these programs - CCAP, Concurrent Enrollment, and FAST - incorporate best practices for expanding access to dual enrollment opportunities. Most notably, they are all offered free of charge to students and families, and focused on stackable or transferable credits. However, there is still work to be done to ensure that dual enrollment programs are designed and implemented in a way that improves access, outcomes, and the affordability of postsecondary education for all students.
Many student groups remain underrepresented in dual enrollment, and certain dual enrollment participants lag behind their peers regarding postsecondary degree completion. In California, only 19% of first-generation CCAP participants earned a degree or credential three years after high school graduation, compared to 27% of those who were not first-generation college-goers. In Minnesota, white students make up 67% of the state’s high school
enrollment but 80% of Concurrent Enrollment participants. These findings indicate that the availability of dual enrollment alone is not enough to meaningfully impact gaps in college completion and student success.
Disproportionate participation in dual enrollment may also result from a lack of awareness or understanding about how these programs operate, who is eligible, and how they benefit students long-term. There is little public information about how dual enrollment offerings are promoted, and to whom they are promoted, yet studies indicate that marketing can be challenging for several reasons. First, school counselor shortages mean that students miss out on individualized advising and guidance about dual enrollment options. Secondly, dual enrollment messaging can pose challenges for states, districts, and schools, since programs and partnership agreements vary significantly. As these programs continue to evolve, more work is necessary to ensure that all students receive the information and advising needed to enroll in and benefit from dual enrollment coursework.
Conclusion
These three models demonstrate the varying methods used to improve dual enrollment programs and expand postsecondary opportunity, by reducing costs for students, removing logistical barriers, and aligning coursework with clear pathways into college and careers. California’s focus on streamlined pathways and transferable credit, Minnesota’s emphasis on delivering rigorous courses directly in high schools, and Texas’s targeted investment in low-income students each highlight different strategies for improving access and outcomes. As states look to strengthen early college options, program design and sustained investment will be essential to ensuring that dual-credit experiences are accessible for all students, and that they translate into meaningful progress toward an affordable postsecondary degree or credential.
Email to a Friend