When “Free” Is Not Enough: Informational, Logistical, and Advising Barriers to CTE- Dual Enrollment

Background: Dual enrollment (DE) has expanded substantially over the past two decades and is widely promoted as a strategy for improving college readiness and attainment. Although research consistently documents positive outcomes associated with DE participation, there are longstanding inequities in access to DE. Career and technical education (CTE) focused dual enrollment (CTE-DE) has emerged as a promising pathway for broadening participation beyond traditionally college-bound students. However, limited research has examined the mechanisms that may restrict access to CTE-DE, particularly in contexts where financial barriers have been removed. Purpose: This study examines institutional barriers that school, district, and postsecondary personnel identify as limiting students’ access to CTE-focused dual enrollment opportunities in Leon County Schools, a mid-sized Florida school district. It also explores how these barriers vary across schools serving different shares of economically disadvantaged students. Guided by opportunity structure theory, the study examines how institutional processes shape access to CTE-DE, even when tuition and instructional materials are provided at no cost. The research questions ask: What institutional barriers do school, district, and postsecondary personnel identify as shaping students’ access to CTE-DE courses in a mid-sized Florida district? How do these barriers differ across school contexts? Research Design: This study employs a qualitative embedded single-case study design drawing on interviews and focus groups with administrators, counselors, and teachers across all six traditional public high schools in the district, the district office, and the district’s postsecondary technical college. Schools were categorized as low, moderate, or high socioeconomic status based on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Data were collected during site visits and systematically coded using a multistage analytic process that incorporated both deductive and inductive approaches. Findings from interviews and focus groups were triangulated with a content analysis of publicly available school and district materials related to career and dual enrollment programming. Conclusions: The findings identify three interrelated domains of barriers to CTE-focused dual enrollment access: informational barriers related to awareness and the timing of outreach; logistical barriers involving scheduling, transportation, enrollment processes, and seat availability; and advising barriers linked to gatekeeping practices and institutional incentives. Variation across school SES categories suggests that formal access to CTE-DE was mediated by school context, including the availability of school-based supports, family transportation resources, advising norms, Advanced Placement culture, and institutional incentives. The study concludes that expanding access to CTE-DE requires moving beyond cost-based solutions to address organizational, advising, and implementation conditions that vary across school contexts.