As a Special Education Director, I spend a lot of time thinking about systems: how we coordinate across teams, how we staff hard-to-fill roles, and how we ensure students actually receive the services and opportunities we promise. Dual enrollment is no different. It can be a powerful way to help students prepare for college, but it only works when schools and colleges build strong, practical partnerships.
A recent policy brief, Strengthening Dual Enrollment Partnerships by Elizabeth Glennie and Julie Edmunds (RTI Press, 2025), offers a helpful look at how three New Jersey institutions of higher education (IHEs) expanded dual enrollment through the Opportunity Meets Innovation Challenge (OMIC) grant. The findings are especially relevant for district leaders who are trying to expand access for students who have historically been left out—particularly students from low-income backgrounds.
Dual Enrollment: A Quick, Clear Definition
Dual enrollment (sometimes called dual credit) allows high school students to take college courses while still in high school, earning both high school and college credit. Research summarized in the brief indicates dual enrollment programs can have positive impacts on postsecondary enrollment and degree attainment. In other words: when done well, dual enrollment can help students get to college and finish.
Dual enrollment can also reduce common barriers:
Academic barriers by building skills like problem solving, interpretation, and communication.
Financial barriers by reducing the cost of college through earned credits.
Cultural barriers by helping students gradually shift into the more independent expectations of college coursework.
Why Access and Equity Still Need Attention
Even though dual enrollment opportunities are widespread nationally, participation is not evenly distributed. The brief highlights that schools serving higher percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch are less likely to offer dual credit opportunities. Students whose parents did not complete high school and Black students also participate at lower rates than their peers.
From a district perspective, this matters because “offering dual enrollment” is not the same as “students can actually access and succeed in dual enrollment.” If the program has costs, unclear eligibility rules, limited advising, or not enough qualified instructors, the students who could benefit most may be the least likely to participate.
The Big Takeaway: Dual Enrollment Takes Coordination
Offering dual enrollment requires significant coordination between districts/high schools and IHEs. These systems were built separately and often operate on different calendars, expectations, and staffing models. Students may not know what courses qualify them for college-level work, and families may not know how registration, grades, and transcripts work on the college side.
And then there’s staffing. Just as we see therapist staffing shortages in special education (speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, school psychologists), dual enrollment also runs into a staffing reality: college faculty may not be available to teach at high schools, and high school teachers may not yet meet credentialing requirements to teach college courses.
What New Jersey’s OMIC Partnerships Did (and Why It Worked)
New Jersey’s OMIC grant supported three IHEs to create fee-free dual enrollment opportunities for economically disadvantaged students (students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch). Each IHE partnered with multiple high schools—11 high schools total across the initiative.
Over two years, results were substantial: 350 students earned 1,899 dual credits. One IHE doubled dual enrollment participation between 2020–21 and 2021–22.
So what did they put in place? The evaluation points to three practical “pillars” that districts can learn from.
Pillar 1: Build Partnership Structures That Don’t Depend on One Person
In strong programs, the partnership is not informal or dependent on a single champion. The OMIC partnerships established:
Dual enrollment management committees to guide the work
Named points of contact at both the district/high school and the IHE
Clear communication routines so student progress and program logistics don’t fall through the cracks
Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and articulation agreements to clarify responsibilities and course alignment
In my experience, this is the same kind of infrastructure that stabilizes any complex service delivery model. If you’ve ever had to manage related services across buildings, you know the value of clear roles, written agreements, and predictable communication.
Pillar 2: Grow the Instructor Pipeline (This Is the Bottleneck)
Dual enrollment requires qualified instructors. In New Jersey, high school teachers must have master’s degrees to teach college courses. That requirement can be a major constraint, especially in districts already struggling to recruit and retain staff.
The partnerships addressed this in several ways:
Identify existing qualified teachers (those who already meet requirements) and invite them into the program.
Use college faculty to teach at the high school, or teach online.
Create co-teaching and mentoring models where college faculty and high school teachers collaborate, with a pathway for teachers to become qualified adjuncts.
Offer professional development to build capacity and align course expectations.
Support teachers in earning master’s degrees (noting this is more feasible through 4-year institutions, or partnerships between 2-year and 4-year institutions).
One partnership used a mentoring model where faculty and teachers co-taught, and teachers later qualified as adjunct faculty. Another hosted a Summer Symposium to build co-teaching relationships and course materials. A third developed a pilot program enabling teachers to earn master’s degrees to meet credentialing requirements.
For districts exploring online options, this is also where virtual instruction can be a practical lever—especially when staffing shortages or geography make in-person staffing unrealistic. (This is a familiar concept to us at TinyEYE: when specialized expertise is limited locally, online service models can expand access while maintaining quality and compliance.)
Pillar 3: Build the Student Pipeline with Real Supports (Not Just Recruitment)
Even with qualified instructors, dual enrollment only works if students are ready and supported. College courses demand more independence, and many students—especially first-generation college-bound students—need explicit guidance to navigate college systems.
The OMIC partnerships focused on both recruitment and ongoing support:
Eligibility focus: students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch; some sites also considered academic indicators like enrollment in rigorous coursework.
Summer Bridge programs (2022 and 2023) with academic activities and counseling supports.
Mentoring in some programs, including current students mentoring younger students.
Wraparound supports during the year, including counseling from high school and college staff.
Belonging and navigation supports: college IDs, campus visits, and explicit teaching about resources like financial aid offices, libraries, and application portals.
Importantly, success was measured in the way colleges measure it: earning a “C” or better to receive credit. Most students met that bar, and in one partnership all students attempting dual credit earned it.
External Supports Matter: Intermediaries and the State
The brief also highlights that partnerships often need outside help to run well.
Intermediary organizations
All three partnerships received support from an intermediary organization that helped convene meetings, advise on MOUs, guide course articulation, provide teacher professional development, and develop student recruitment materials. Survey feedback suggested many participants found the support effective, while a substantial portion still wanted more support.
State supports
Participants reported wanting more state-level support in areas like articulation agreements, funding, guidance on curricula, student eligibility, ensuring access, and increasing the number of qualified teachers. Fewer than 20% of respondents felt the state provided enough support in these areas, and many were not aware of what state supports existed.
Practical Lessons District Leaders Can Use Right Now
If your district is considering expanding dual enrollment—or strengthening an existing program—these are the action steps I’d prioritize based on the brief’s findings:
Formalize the partnership with an MOU, articulation agreements, and a shared management team.
Assign named contacts on both sides and set a communication cadence (not “as needed”).
Make the instructor pipeline a strategy, not an afterthought: identify qualified staff, build mentoring/co-teaching models, and partner for credentialing pathways.
Invest in student readiness and advising through bridge programming, ongoing counseling, and explicit navigation supports.
Remove cost barriers when possible, especially for students from low-income backgrounds.
Consider online delivery strategically when staffing, schedules, or transportation limit access.
Dual enrollment is not just a program—it’s a cross-system partnership. When the structures are clear, staffing is planned, and student supports are built in, participation and success can grow quickly.
For more information, please follow this link.
