One of the arguments in favor of dual credit was that students would be able to shorten the time necessary to complete a degree. A related argument was that students would be more likely to enroll at the community college upon completion of their dual credit courses. However, a follow-up study was conducted on the initial cohort of dual credit students which was inconclusive in relation to these two goals.

Many difficulties were encountered in the initial attempt at establishing dual credit. Scheduling classes for four different schools posed significant challenges, including problems associated with inclement weather. Some college faculty reported discipline problems. Community college faculty were not used to, nor were they prepared to deal with, student discipline of this type in college-level courses. Other problems arose during those times of inter-school sports rivalry- particularly cross-town football rivalries.

The initial program was canceled in Spring 1993 for several reasons. First, there was no agreed-upon criterion for selecting new students. Second, one of the three original schools had no new students interested in the program. Finally, difficulties were encountered trying to make such a program available to other area high schools that might have an interest in participating. The college and the Regional Office of Education decided to channel Tech Prep funds in other venues.

In 1995, the dual credit program was reinstated at Parkland, and has since operated successfully. The initial course offerings were in auto mechanics, health-related courses were then added, and finally the program included a broad range of career-technical and academic courses. While many students take classes on the Parkland campus, others participate in college-sponsored classes in their home high schools.

Issues Related to Under-aged Students Attending College Classes

In both our earlier and later experiences with this program, we thought it important to fully understand the ramifications of working with younger students. The first set of issues dealt with students attending the college who are under the age of 16. To better understand the legal implications of under-aged students attending the college, Dr. Paul Thurston of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was consulted. Dr. Thurston identified three areas of the law he considered important. The first area concerned the law of negligence and the standards that are applicable to college staff and employees. The second area is the contractual relationship between the college and minors. The third is the potential for student-to-student sexual harassment because of younger students attending.

According to Thurston, the primary rule of law that applies to liability is the "reasonable care" standard - namely that the college has a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for its students. Basically, the application of this reasonable care standard calls for added vigilance on the part of all staff members to insure that the classroom settings and the labs are safe for younger, and in many cases, less physically developed students. There is considerable protection for community colleges and their employees in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1-101, et. seq.); but the best advice is to be constantly vigilant about student safety. College policies and instructional policies must ensure that safety measures are in place and that course syllabi and instructor practices call attention to potential dangers for students. Beyond this, insurance provides the best form of protection for injuries that might occur.

The second area of legal concern when dealing with under-aged students is one of the contractual relationships between the college and these students. Thurston called specific attention to the fact that minors are not recognized as able to enter binding contracts until they reach the age of 18 (16 if emancipated). Thurston strongly recommended that agreements be made with parents or guardians speaking for their children. This recommendation has implications for many forms the college requires, including applications.

The third area of legal concern with under-aged students is that of student-to-student sexual harassment. Younger students may be vulnerable to sexual harassment in a community college setting because of the age differential and less sense of responsibility on the part of the community college when compared to its high school counterpart. The standard of liability for the public school district and, presumably, a community college offering dual credit courses, was provided by the US Supreme Court in the 1999 decision, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. The Court held that the educational institution was liable under Title IX for private damages to a student on student-to-student sexual harassment claim only where the district acted with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment in its programs or activities. "We [the Supreme Court majority] conclude that funding recipients are properly held liable in damages only where they are deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which they have actual knowledge, that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school." This is a difficult standard for the injured student to meet. Still, there are powerful personal and educational reasons to be concerned about sexual harassment and to be alert to the educational environment and the potential or real effect that this environment has upon student safety.

An additional very important issue must be taken into consideration when offering dual credit or even home-school credit courses for students. Senior institutions such as the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have very strict limits about how many courses a student can take at the college level and still be considered an entering first-year student. This limit is usually less than one semester or 12-15 semester credit hours. While this may not be a significant issue for students enrolled in vocational classes who have no intention of transferring to a senior institution before completion of an Associate's Degree, it could easily surprise students who are trying to get a "jump start" on college. Parents need to be made explicitly aware of these facts before students are enrolled for credit.

A final issue is the right of privacy and reporting grades between institutions. It is essential that the college report individual grades to the high school where the students are enrolled. It is maintained that this is a legitimate "need to know" and does not violate students' rights to privacy. The college has on file an opinion that the college can share individual students' college placement assessments with the sending high school based on the need to know if sufficient safeguards are in place to protect against undue disclosure. High schools are reporting that such information is very helpful.

Recommendations:

1. Credit-taking students not covered by dual credit agreements must be 16 years or older.
   
   
2. Students taking courses not-for-credit must be at least 16 years or older unless accompanied by their parents/guardians.
   
   
3. Sports camps whose participants are younger than 16 should require and have on file signed parental agreements.
   
   
4. Staff providing instruction to students under age 16 must agree to security background checks.
   
   
5. Students taking dual credit or courses designed for the home-schooled should have specific signed parental permission slips that clearly show awareness of potential limits on the numbers of college-level credits the student may take without jeopardizing entering class standings at senior institutions.

Windham, P. (1998). High school and community college dual enrollment: Issues of rigor and transferability. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 5(2), 111-115.