academic affairs council - sdbor.edu · academic affairs council ... subject: concurrent credit...
TRANSCRIPT
******************************************************************************
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Information only.
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: 4 – P
DATE: January 26, 2017
******************************************************************************
SUBJECT: Concurrent Credit Analysis
During their October 2016 meeting, the Board of Regents reviewed an analysis on the High
School Dual Credit which produced a number of questions about how Concurrent Credit operates
within the Regental system. To respond to the questions raised during the meeting, and a number
of follow-up queries, the Concurrent Credit Analysis (see Attachment I) was prepared and shared
with the Board members.
1
*** Special Data Analysis ***
Concurrent Credit in the
Regental System
The Regental system has been involved in the delivery of Concurrent Credit activities for
more than two decades through engagement with a number of South Dakota School
Districts. Despite the expansion of the High School Dual Credit program beginning in
2014, campuses have continued to work with districts to serve their concurrent enrollment
needs. This report provides an in-depth look at recent concurrent enrollments, student
matriculation, and academic performance for data that are most recently available.
Despite the recent creation of the High School Dual Credit (HSDC) program in 2014, the
Regental system has been engaged in the delivery of Concurrent Credit for almost two decades.
As a point of distinction, “Dual Credit” when used to describe the HSDC program reflects college
coursework completed by high school students which simultaneously enroll traditional/non-
traditional college students. “Concurrent Credit,” however, represents high school students
enrolled in college coursework that is delivered by a qualified high school teacher, using the
syllabus developed by the partner institution, under the mentorship of a qualified faculty member.
Similar to dual credit activity, students earn both high school and college credit during their
experience; however only high school students are enrolled in the course. Regental institutions
are allowed to offer concurrent credit opportunities to participating high schools in South Dakota,
and must operate under Board of Regents Policy 5:3:3 Tuition and Fees: Special Course Types
seeking a request for an externally sponsored tuition rate of $40 per credit hour.1 These requests
are approved by the System Vice President for Academic Affairs in advance of the course offerings
and denoted on the Executive Director’s Interim Action Report included on each of the Board of
Regents meeting agendas. Attachment II provides a sample of a concurrent credit request for Fall
2016, and prior to approval a review occurs at the central office to ensure that: 1) a formal
agreement between institutions exists; 2) a copy of the approved syllabus is jointly constructed by
the faculty lead and high school teacher; 3) there is a designation for a faculty mentor; and 4)
1 Under this model, the instructional costs associated with delivering the course are provided by the school district
through the employment of the high school teacher. Specifically section E. of this policy outlines the requirements
that institutions are expected to maintain.
E. Externally Supported Courses: Use of this special self-support rate for either undergraduate or graduate
courses requires approval from the System Academic Officer.
1. Use of this rate has been approved for courses supported by the TII Part A, Improving Teacher
Quality State Grants.
2. Use of this rate for other courses must be approved by the System Academic Officer before the
course is advertised.
3. The third party must pay for the instructor’s salary (see BOR Policy 2:12 and COHE agreement),
course materials, and travel expenses for the instructor.
2
evidence of a Master’s Degree in the discipline, or 15 hours of graduate level coursework in the
content area (note that an official transcript traditionally accompany these requests.
Prior to the creation of the HSDC program, a significant number of the credit hours brought
in by students who earn “dual credit” represented concurrent credit activities delivered either by
Regental institutions or external institutions who abide by Board of Regents requirements. When
concurrent credit activity began to increase more than a decade ago, the Board of Regents
established that before a Regental institution could accept this credit from an external institution,
the institution must enter into an agreement that affirms the standards outlined by the Board. These
requirements were most recently revised by the Board during their March-April 2010 meeting, and
have now been carried forward into the AAC Dual /Concurrent Credit Administration Guidelines
that manage both HSDC and Concurrent Credit activities in the Regental system. Most recently,
these guidelines were reviewed by the Board of Regents during their April 2015 meeting followed
by a more comprehensive report on Dual and Concurrent Credit activities at the December 2015
meeting. Institutions depicted in Table 1 below have either signed agreements with the South
Dakota Board of Regents, or have earned National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships
(NACEP) accreditation.
Table 1
Regional Institutions with Signed Agreements with the South Dakota Regental System or Having
Established National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) Accreditation
Institutions with Signed Agreements Regional Campuses with NACEP Accreditation
Dakota Wesleyan University (SD)
Kilian Community College (SD)
Mount Marty College (SD)
Iowa Western Community College (IA)
Western Iowa Tech Community College
(IA)*
Metropolitan Community College (NE)
Wyoming Community Colleges (WY)
Riverland Community College (MN)*
North Dakota University System (ND)
University of Mary (ND)
Minnesota State University, Mankato (MN)*
Fond du Lac Tribal & Comm. College (MN)
Sitting Bull College (SD)
Iowa Central Community College
Southwest Minnesota State University
Minnesota State Community & Tech College
Eastern Iowa Community College
Hawkeye Community College
Indian Hills Community College
Iowa Valley Community College District
Kirkwood Community College
Northeast Iowa Community College
North Iowa Area Community College
Northwest Iowa Community College
Southwestern Community College
Central Lakes College
Mesabi Range Community and Tech College
Northland Community and Technical College
St. Cloud State University
University of Minnesota ~ Crookston
University of Minnesota ~ Duluth
University of Minnesota ~ Twin Cities
Nebraska Wesleyan University
Laramie County Community College
Sheridan College
*Institution has also established NACEP Accreditation.
3
Fall 2016 Concurrent Credit Enrollments
During the Fall 2016 term, three Regental institutions (BHSU, NSU & SDSU) sought
approval to deliver Concurrent Credit coursework with South Dakota School districts. Currently,
a total of 15 districts contract with Regental campuses to deliver coursework through externally
supported tuition rate requests. Eligibility requirements are outlined in the AAC Dual/Concurrent
Credit Guidelines stipulating that “All students in a concurrent enrollment course should be
enrolled for college credit. However, since meeting this standard is a problem for the state’s
smaller school districts, at a minimum more than 50% of the students in a high school-based dual
enrollment course must be enrolled for college credit.” All sections offered this Fall are in
compliance with this requirement, with six courses having credit bearing enrollments below the
70% threshold. The current enrollments for the 27 sections being offered during Fall 2016 can be
found in Table 2 below which represents a total of 1,053 students enrolled across the 15 districts
with 862 (82%) enrolled for college concurrent credit. This compares to 1,793 unduplicated HSDC
student enrollments for the Fall 2016 term with students enrolling in a total of 2,590 individual
courses. Table 2
Course Enrollments for School Districts Offering Concurrent Credit Through the Regental System
High School Course Total
Enrollment
Enrolled for
Credit
% Earning
Credit
Black Hills State University
RC Stevens HS MATH 102: College Algebra 15 9 60%
Belle Fourche HS BIOL 101/L: Biology Survey I & Lab 28 23 82%
Spearfish HS PHYS 111/L: Introduction to Physics/Lab 33 28 85%
Spearfish HS ENGL 101: Composition I 52 52 100%
Sturgis HS MATH 102: College Algebra 12 12 100%
Northern State University
Aberdeen HS HIST 151: US History I 32 19 59%
Mitchell HS MATH 102: College Algebra 92 57 62%
Mitchell HS ART 121: Design I, 2D 24 15 63%
Brandon V. HS MATH 102: College Algebra 100 65 65%
Watertown HS ENGL 101: Composition I 69 46 67%
Mitchell HS HIST 151: US History I 20 15 75%
Brandon V. HS MATH 123: Calculus I 68 54 79%
Brandon V. HS BIOL 101/L: Biology Survey I & Lab 54 43 80%
Brandon V. HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 54 43 80%
Mitchell HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 38 32 84%
Brandon V. HS HIST 151: US History I 65 60 92%
Brandon V. HS ENGL 101: Composition I 103 97 94%
Canton HS ENGL 101: Composition I 32 31 97%
Deuel HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 13 13 100%
Huron HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 10 10 100%
Deuel HS BIOL 153/L: General Biology II & Lab 11 11 100%
Huron HS CHEM 106/L: Chemistry Survey & Lab 8 8 100%
Aberdeen Ron. HS ENGL 101: Composition I 16 16 100%
TF Riggs HS HIST 121: Western Civilization I 19 19 100%
South Dakota State U.
Madison HS HIST 151: US History I 24 23 96%
Brookings HS ENGL 101: Composition I 43 43 100%
Madison HS HIST 152: US History II 18 18 100%
4
Additionally, guidelines also indicate that: 1) the high school teacher must have a master’s
degree in the discipline/subject or 15 graduate hours in the content area; 2) a faculty member in
the discipline be assigned to actively engage as a mentor; 3) the syllabus is developed by the faculty
member at the institution granting the credit; and 4) student evaluation and assessments are
developed jointly by the faculty and high school teacher with the same content mastery as expected
for college students. In particular, there are a number of reasons for the variation that exists in the
enrollment percentages for credit at the local school districts. First, the individual student
eligibility criteria establishes a high threshold for student enrollment for credit in the approved
courses which are outlined below.
1. Student Eligibility (Applicants must meet the criteria in one of the following three
requirements):
a. High School Junior eligible to enroll in a high school in South Dakota who
meets one of the following requirements:
i. Meet ACT college-ready benchmarks in all subtests; OR
ii. Rank in the upper one-third of their class; OR
iii. Score at or above the 70th percentile on a nationally standardized,
norm-referenced test, such as the ACT or SAT;
b. High School Senior eligible to enroll in a high school in South Dakota who
meets one of the following requirements:
i. Meet ACT college-readiness benchmarks in all subtests; OR
ii. Rank in the upper one-half of their class; OR
iii. Score at or above the 50th percentile on the nationally standardized,
Norm-referenced test, such as the ACT or SAT;
c. High School Junior or Senior eligible to enroll in a high school in South
Dakota who meets all of the following Undergraduate admissions
requirements:
i. ACT score of 18 (or 21 for USD & SDSM&T); and
ii. Successful completion of coursework requirements
Four Years of English
Three years of advanced mathematics
Three years of laboratory science
Three years of social studies
One year of fine arts
Students in the participating districts may have a desire to enroll in the course being
offered; however they are unable to enroll for college credit because they fail to meet one of the
three eligibility criteria outlined above. A number of districts establish their own requirements for
student entry into concurrent credit courses (i.e., the primary explanation for 100% credit bearing
enrollments), while others are still interested in allowing students to enroll in the course to take
advantage of the course offering by their existing staff. Second, despite the reduced cost of $40
per credit hour, there are a number of eligible students who can successfully complete the rigorous
course requirements, however they are unable to afford the $120 to $160 cost associated with
earning credit without financial aid options.
5
Concurrent Credit Matriculation
The detailed cost and performance analysis on the High School Dual Credit report provided
to the Board during the October 2016 meeting indicated that 49.7% of the credit hours completed
by seniors participating in the HSDC program transferred into the Regental system the year after
graduation. To determine whether the same trend existed for the Concurrent enrollment students,
institutions were asked to identify the seniors served during the 2015-16 academic year and were
matched against student enrollments within the Regental system during the Fall 2016 term. Table
3 below denotes that a total of 956 seniors were enrolled during these two terms, and a total of 509
(53.2%) were enrolled in the Regental system the following year. These numbers are consistent
with HSDC matriculation in that the majority of students eventually enrolled in Regental
institutions that did not provide their concurrent credit coursework. For example the largest
number of matriculated students (224 or 23.4%) attended SDSU despite serving only 53 (5.5%) of
the total enrollments. Inversely, NSU served 691 students resulting in 72% of the concurrent credit
activity in the system, with only 13 (1.4%) of the students eventually enrolling at that institution.
Table 3
Matriculation of High School Concurrent Enrollments into the Regental System in Fall 2016
Institution 2015-16
Enrollments BHSU DSU NSU SDSM&T SDSU USD
Non-
Regental
BHSU 212 45 1 1 20 19 13 113
NSU 691 27 18 11 20 192 112 311
SDSU 53 0 10 1 3 13 3 23
Total 956 72 29 13 43 224 128 447
BHSU 22.2% 4.7% 0.1% 0.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.4% 11.8%
NSU 72.3% 2.8% 1.9% 1.2% 2.1% 20.1% 11.7% 32.5%
SDSU 5.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% 1.4% 0.3% 2.4%
Total % 100% 7.5% 3.0% 1.4% 4.5% 23.4% 13.4% 46.8%
The enrollments depicted in Table 3 above were also compared against those students who
were also enrolled in HSDC coursework during this same academic term. Overall, a total of 192
(21%) of the students enrolled in the concurrent credit sections were also enrolled in HSDC
coursework at one of the six Regental institutions. The highest percentage appeared to be from
BHSU with 84 (40%) of their students simultaneously enrolled compared to only 92 (13%) for
NSU students (see Figure 1).
6
Figure 1
Student Simultaneous Enrollment in HSDC and Concurrent Credit Coursework During the 2015-16
Academic Year
Student Academic Performance
The admission criteria for entry into Concurrent Credit courses are identical to those
requirements for entry into the HSDC courses. During their October 2016 meeting, the Board
reviewed an analysis that evaluated the academic performance of HSDC students once they arrived
within the Regental system and began taking coursework throughout the 2015-16 term. It is
realistic to assume that academic performance of Concurrent Credit students would be consistent
considering the admission criteria that have been established. As additional evidence of student
long term success, an analysis had been prepared for the Academic Affairs Council in 2014 using
data available from the High School Transition Report to determine the relative academic success
of students who entered with concurrent credit from South Dakota high schools. This analysis
depicts the overall success of students prior to the time that HSDC was implemented in South
Dakota. The complete analysis can be found in Attachment I, with both the descriptive and
regression analyses performed indicating the “positive relationship between concurrent credit
participation and first-year academic performance.”
128
599
3784 92
16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
BHSU NSU SDSU
Concurrent HSDC/Concurrent
*** Special Data Analysis ***
Postsecondary Outcomes of
Concurrent Credit Students
“Concurrent Credit” programs – which allow qualified high school students to earn college
credit while still enrolled in high school – have become ubiquitous in the United States. The
Education Commission of the States (ECS) reports that forty-six US states maintain a state-level
program for dual enrollment delivery, and the National Association for College Admission
Counseling (NACAC) estimates that 88.8% of US public high schools offer concurrent credit
opportunities.1 In fact, some states have pushed the envelope so far as to encourage students to
complete entire associate’s degree programs before finishing high school.2 But do students
participating in these programs experience any educational benefit from having done so? The
current analysis explores this question by examining the postsecondary outcomes of students
entering the Regental system after earning concurrent credits.
Policy Background
For nearly two decades, the South Dakota Board of Regents has provided an administrative
framework for concurrent credit offerings in the state. There are two main routes by which
students may earn college credit in the Regental system through coursework delivered in a high
school classroom: 1) transferring in credits earned in concurrent credit courses offered by non-
Regental institutions, and 2) taking concurrent credit courses offered directly by Regental
institutions. The Board’s central policy statement with respect to concurrent credit is found in
BOR Policy 2:5:3f:1, which pertains mainly to the first of these routes.3 This policy specifies the
conditions under which (non-Regental) high school coursework may be accepted for college-level
credit by Regental institutions. Under this policy, college credit may be awarded for high school
coursework meeting one of three criteria:
1) Student achievement has been validated through AP or CLEP testing
(OR)
2) College credit was issued (in the original concurrent credit course) by a postsecondary
institution with which SDBOR has an existing concurrent credit agreement
(OR)
3) College credit was issued (in the original concurrent credit course) by a postsecondary
institution accredited by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships
1 Education Commission of the States (2008). Dual enrollment. Retrieved from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=950;
National Association for College Admission Counseling (2011). 2011 State of College Admissions. Retrieved from
http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/Documents/2011SOCA.pdf 2 Utah’s “New Century Scholarship” provides funding to qualified students (i.e., those earning an associate’s degree by the time
of high school graduation) who subsequently attempt to complete a four-year degree at an eligible in-state institution. For
general information, see http://www.higheredutah.org/scholarship_info/new-century-scholarship/ 3 Policy text available at http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/2-Academic_Affairs/documents/2-5.pdf
ATTACHMENT I 7
The delivery of concurrent credit courses by Regental institutions is regulated by policy guidelines adopted
by AAC and affirmed by COPS.4 These guidelines (which also serve as the basis for the inter-institutional
concurrent enrollment agreements noted above) lay out comprehensive rules and procedures for such
courses, including:
- Admission criteria for concurrent credit high school students
- Required qualifications for on-site high school teachers
- Participation of a supervising Regental faculty member
- Provisions for the development of a course syllabus and grading plan
The above policies and guidelines are meant to safeguard the academic integrity of concurrent credit
enrollment coursework, and consequently to ensure that students completing such coursework do in fact
benefit scholastically from their efforts. Across a range of indicators – from academic preparation to
enrollment persistence, and student achievement to degree completion – participation in concurrent credit
programs should serve as a springboard for a range of future postsecondary successes. In general, existing
scholarship has indeed linked concurrent credit enrollment participation to an array of improved academic
outcomes.5
But are such benefits realized in South Dakota? On the whole, there appears to be reason for optimism.
South Dakota has been recognized as a national exemplar for its concurrent credit enrollment management
practices. The National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP), for example,
highlighted South Dakota as a model for its efforts to establish uniform, rigorous quality assurance
standards.6 SDBOR has established robust concurrent credit agreements with nearly twenty different
postsecondary institutions and systems, in addition to forming tacit agreements with a more than eighty
other institutions via NACEP accreditation. Altogether then, the current analysis was conducted in order
to assess the postsecondary value (or lack thereof) of concurrent credit participation in the South Dakota
context.
Dataset and Purpose
SDBOR High School Transition Report (HSTR) datasets provide information on students matriculating to
the Regental system immediately after graduating from a South Dakota high school. The current analysis
relied on a “retrofitted” HSTR dataset using data from the Fall 2006 entering cohort. As a result, the
analyzed dataset included data for all first-time, full-time, (bachelor’s) degree-seeking students entering a
Regental university in Fall 2006 (after having graduated from an in-state high school during the preceding
school year). The analysis tracks these students through the subsequent six academic years (AY2006-2007
through AY2011-2012) to assess differences in academic performance between 1) students who completed
concurrent credit coursework prior to entering college, and 2) students who did not complete such
coursework. It should be noted that the postsecondary entry of the Fall 2006 cohort predates SDBOR’s
current concurrent credit policy framework. As a result, this analysis is not intended as a narrow evaluation
of SDBOR’s current policy, but as a broad appraisal of the concurrent credit concept.
4 These guidelines were last modified in March 2010. For text and further discussion of these guidelines, see
http://www.sdbor.edu/services/academics/DualCredit/documents/guidelines_dual-credit_BOR03-2010.pdf and
http://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda/2011/documents/Z.pdf 5 For examples, see North, T. & Jacobs, J. (2010). Dual credit in Oregon – 2010 follow-up: An analysis of students
taking dual credit in high school in 2007-08 with subsequent performance in college. Office of Institutional
Research, Oregon University System. Retrieved from http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/dept/ir/reports/
dualcredit/DualCredit2010FINAL.pdf and Swanson, J.L., (2008). An analysis of the impact of high school dual
enrollment course participation on post-secondary academic success, persistence, and degree completion. The
University of Iowa, College of Education. Retrieved from: http://nacep.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2008
_joni_swanson_summary.pdf 6 National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (2010). Promoting quality: State strategies for
overseeing dual enrollment programs. Retrieved from http://nacep.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/NACEP
_Promoting_Quality_Report_2010.pdf
ATTACHMENT I 8
Analysis
Of the n=2,649 students in the analyzed dataset (i.e., all bachelor’s degree-seeking students from the Fall
2006 HSTR cohort), approximately 17.8% (n=472) had earned concurrent credit prior to enrolling in the
Regental system, while the remaining 82.2% (n=2,177) had not. Table 1 presents a comprehensive
comparison of these two groups using a wide array of both pre-entry and post-entry performance indicators.
As seen below, the completion of concurrent credit coursework in high school appears to be positively and
strongly associated with other measures of academic preparation and performance. “Concurrent enrollers”
appear to outperform other students with respect to ACT performance, remedial (non-) placement, first year
GPA, second year retention, and persistence to degree completion. Perhaps most striking among the figures
shown here is that students with concurrent credits “out-graduated” students with no such credit by a
difference of 40.5% to 22.4% (four-year rates) and 74.2% to 54.0% (six-year rates). Such disparities signal
clear differences in these students’ likelihood for postsecondary success.
Table 1: Comparison of Concurrent Credit Students with All Other (non-Concurrent Credit) Students
Fall 2006 SDBOR High School Transition Report Cohort, Bachelor’s-Seekers Only
All Other
Students
(n=2,177)
Concurrent
Enrolling†
(n=472)
ACT Performance
Met All Four ACT Benchmarks 29.8% 49.4%
Mean ACT English 21.7 23.9
Mean ACT Math 22.4 24.2
Mean ACT Science 22.6 24.2
Mean ACT Composite 22.6 24.4
Remedial Placement
Remedial Placement (English) 12.8% 6.2%
Remedial Placement (Math) 25.7% 11.2%
Remedial Placement (Either English OR Math) 30.5% 13.6%
Remedial Placement (Both English AND Math) 8.0% 3.8%
Other Preparation Indicators
SD Opportunity Scholarship Recipient 23.7% 51.5%
Awarded AP Credit 10.0% 12.3%
First-Year Academic Performance
Mean First-Year GPA 2.70 3.09
Mean First-Year Attempted Credit 26.2 29.3
Mean First-Year Completed Credit 24.4 28.4
Retention Rates
2nd Fall Retention at Same Institution 71.7% 84.3%
2nd Fall Retention at Any BOR Institution 77.1% 88.8%
Persistence to Completion
Bachelor's Seekers Earning a Bachelor's Degree in ≤4 Years 22.4% 40.5%
Bachelor's Seekers Earning a Bachelor's Degree in ≤6 Years 54.0% 74.2%
Average Time (in Years) to Bachelor's Degree Completion* 4.72 4.52
* for those completing in in ≤6 Years
† Includes students transferring in any number of credits earned prior to postsecondary entry (Fall 2006)
ATTACHMENT I 9
The above measures speak to a marked difference in academic performance between concurrent credit
and their non-concurrent credit peers. However, what is not clear from the above table is whether
concurrent credit participation itself actually contributed to these students’ successes. Since high-
achieving, college-bound students would seem most likely to complete concurrent credit coursework
in the first place, it stands to reason that the postsecondary achievements of these students may have
occurred even in the absence of concurrent enrollment participation. In this light, concurrent credit
might be seen more as an effect of postsecondary preparation than as a cause.
The regression analysis below was conducted in an attempt to test the independent, causal influence of
concurrent credit participation on subsequent academic performance. The key question targeted by the
regression model is this: after controlling for incoming ability, does concurrent credit participation
continue to act as an independent predictor of postsecondary academic performance? The model
operationally defines a student’s “incoming ability” as his or her ACT composite score, and defines
“postsecondary academic performance” as the student’s cumulative first-year GPA. Concurrent credit
participation is defined in the model as having transferred in any number of college credits earned prior
to entry. Results from the model are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Multivariate Regression: First-Year GPA and Concurrent Credit, Controlling for ACT7 Fall 2006 SDBOR High School Transition Report Cohort, Bachelor’s-Seekers Only
Results suggest that, even after controlling for incoming ability, the positive relationship between
concurrent credit participation and first-year academic performance remains intact. While
standardized beta coefficients indicate that ACT performance (“ACT”) may be a more forceful driver
of first-year GPA, concurrent credit participation (“DUAL”) is nonetheless a significant, positive
predictor. Inspection of the results from an alternative model (not shown here) using a non-transformed
iteration of first-year GPA suggests that completing even one course through concurrent credit may
deliver a predictive benefit equivalent to a two-point increase in ACT composite score. Overall, this
analysis provides preliminary evidence for the utility of concurrent credit programming.
7 The model was executed with ordinary least squares regression using White’s heteroskedasticity-consistent
covariance matrix correction (HC3) for robust standard error estimates. The two predictors (dual enrollment
participation and ACT composite score) were regressed on a power-transformed iteration of GPA.
_cons -4.507183 .4375457 -10.30 0.000 -5.365186 -3.64918
ACT .5566299 .0193185 28.81 0.000 .5187474 .5945124
DUAL .8969897 .1922562 4.67 0.000 .5199862 1.273993
GPA Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Robust
Root MSE = 3.648
R-squared = 0.2603
Prob > F = 0.0000
F( 2, 2422) = 488.20
ACT 0.55663 28.813 0.000 2.0677 0.1313 0.4877 3.7147
DUAL 0.89699 4.666 0.000 0.3494 0.2116 0.0824 0.3895
GPA b t P>|t| bStdX bStdY bStdXY SDofX
ATTACHMENT I 10