September 15, 2025
Have you ever wondered if students taught by educators with advanced degrees perform better than those taught by instructors without such qualifications? This question has sparked considerable debate in educational circles.
Years ago, during a conference, a thought-provoking remark by Zakiya Smith Ellis labeled dual enrollment as “underexplored.” This observation resonates more profoundly with each passing year.
Recently, I found myself reflecting on this notion once again. The prevalent model of dual enrollment involves high school educators delivering college-level courses to high school students within their own institutions. This approach presents several clear benefits. It effectively addresses scheduling conflicts, as high school timetables often differ significantly from those of colleges. Additionally, it alleviates transportation issues since both students and teachers are already present on campus. Furthermore, high school educators are typically trained to engage with adolescents, potentially equipping them to better navigate the unique challenges of teaching 16-year-olds.
Legislators have increasingly embraced dual enrollment programs, recognizing their potential to provide new educational opportunities while simultaneously reducing costs. School districts appreciate dual enrollment as a strategy to retain high-achieving students in public schools and, more importantly, to encourage low-income students to remain in education. For colleges facing enrollment challenges, dual enrollment serves as a means to bolster Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs). Research consistently indicates that students who participate in college courses during high school are more likely to enroll in college and complete their degrees compared to their peers who do not.
This combination of political support and educational merit creates a compelling case for dual enrollment. However, the focus on faculty qualifications can sometimes be overlooked, yet it remains a crucial aspect of the discussion.
Specifically, I want to address the qualifications of instructors teaching traditional academic courses, particularly those categorized as general education—such as English, mathematics, and history. In contrast, courses in applied technical fields like welding or cybersecurity often do not necessitate advanced degrees, even when taught on college campuses.
For traditional academic subjects, institutions typically require instructors to hold at least a master’s degree in their field or a closely related area. This requirement aims to ensure a certain level of scholarly expertise in the classroom. While this serves as a useful benchmark, it is important to recognize that it is merely a proxy for quality.
Many high school teachers lack a master’s degree in the subjects they teach. Even when they do possess such qualifications, the high turnover rate among educators can render agreements based on specific teachers obsolete before colleges even become aware of the changes.
In the past, I have been quite firm regarding the necessity of degree requirements. However, it appears that neither my state nor the regional accrediting body places significant emphasis on this issue, making it challenging to maintain a competitive edge against institutions that do not prioritize such standards.
This situation raises two critical questions. First, do degree requirements genuinely impact student outcomes? Second, what are the implications if they do not?
Currently, I have not encountered robust data addressing the first question. At a recent dual enrollment conference at the University of Pittsburgh, I inquired about the availability of such data and was informed that it remains scarce. Do students enrolled in dual enrollment courses taught by instructors with graduate degrees achieve higher success rates—either in those courses or in their subsequent academic endeavors—compared to those taught by instructors without such credentials? This remains an empirical question, and I have yet to find a definitive answer. If anyone possesses credible data on this matter, I would greatly appreciate your insights—please feel free to reach out.
The more intriguing question, however, is what it signifies if research indicates that a graduate degree does not influence student success. Part of me wonders if the lack of investigation into this topic stems from a reluctance to confront the implications. While a graduate degree in a subject like history may not directly correlate with effective teaching, if it turns out to have no measurable impact on student outcomes, we may need to reevaluate the significance of credentials within academic institutions as well.