Overall college attendance has declined in recent years, with persistent and widening gaps in access and retention along racial and socioeconomic lines. The early-college high school (ECHS) model—where students can earn both a high school diploma and either an associate degree or transferrable credits—offers a promising solution. Research shows that ECHS programs increase postsecondary enrollment and degree completion, particularly among underrepresented students, while also reducing time to degree.
A recent EdWorkingPaper reinforces these findings. The authors analyze the long-term costs and societal benefits of ECHS programs relative to traditional high schools and find that ECHS programs deliver significantly higher payoffs without costing more. In fact, the study reports a 48:1 benefit-cost ratio, significantly exceeding earlier estimates of 15:1 (2021) and 17:1 (2019).
The research team used data from North Carolina, a national leader in early- college implementation. In the Tar Heel State, four-year ECHS programs are housed in stand-alone buildings on college campuses and are legally required to prioritize enrolling students from populations often underrepresented in higher education. Unlike traditional high schools, North Carolina’s ECHS programs are jointly funded by district allocations and host colleges. The researchers compared costs and outcomes for 2,345 students randomly selected to attend one of nineteen early colleges (the treatment group) with 1,728 students who applied but weren’t admitted due to space limitations and instead attended traditional high schools (the control group). The study measures total educational costs from ninth grade through six years post-high school graduation and yields three main findings.
First, ECHS programs cost approximately $6,000 more per student to deliver a high school diploma, primarily due to the addition of college-level instruction and advising. Yet among all students who earned associate or bachelor’s degrees—both ECHS and traditional students—those from ECHS programs incurred roughly $10,000 less in total societal costs compared to their traditional high school peers, yielding about $4,000 in net savings. While earlier studies attribute these savings to faster degree completion, this study points to a different source: ECHS students take more college credits during high school at lower-cost institutions. For example, among UNC System graduates, ECHS students attempted twenty-five fewer UNC credits and about forty more affordable North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) credits. In addition to the societal savings, students and families also experience greater savings in degree costs—$14,545 for a two-year NCCCS degree and $13,114 for a four-year UNC degree.
Second, when considering all students, regardless of degree completion, total societal costs for ECHS and traditional high school students are nearly identical six years after graduation. While the direct cost advantage of ECHS disappears for students who do not earn a degree, ECHS students generate, on average, nearly $16,000 more in societal benefits over these six years than traditional school peers. The researchers anticipate these benefits derive from higher tax contributions and reduced reliance on public assistance, highlighting the value of increased educational attainment. In short, ECHS programs deliver a better return on investment than traditional schools.
Third, ECHS programs generate net societal benefits across all subgroups—first-generation and non-first-generation students, students from and not from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds, and economically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students. These gains are statistically significant for all groups except for non-first-generation students, for whom the impact is only marginally significant. Societal benefits are especially pronounced for economically disadvantaged students, highlighting ECHS’s potential to reduce educational disparities and deliver substantial societal returns.
While the study draws on prior research to estimate these net benefits, it omits key data on degree attainment and earnings. In other words, we know ECHS programs yield societal benefits for all subgroups, but lack the underlying data critical for understanding exactly where those benefits come from. For example, how do earnings six years after high school graduation compare for Hispanic students who attended an ECHS versus those who attended a traditional high school? Without this context, it is difficult to assess the impact of ECHS programs on student outcomes, particularly for groups historically underrepresented in higher education. Disaggregated data on degree attainment and earnings data by race and socioeconomic status are essential for evaluating program effectiveness and understanding how ECHS impacts outcomes across demographic groups.
ECHS programs strengthen the transition from high school to college, helping students earn valuable credentials faster and at a lower cost. By earning college credits in high school, students can bypass general education courses and stay focused on their career goals. Amid a $1.7 trillion student debt crisis, ECHS programs also reduce the need to borrow—particularly for low-income, first-generation, and minority students—by shortening time spent in college and covering a substantial portion of required credits at no cost to the student or their family. Though ECHS programs require upfront investment from states and districts, they yield long-term savings by boosting college completion and increasing earnings.
As states and districts consider adopting ECHS models—like North Carolina has done at scale—future research should explore not only barriers to expansion, but variation in program design. Barriers include difficulties transferring ECHS credits across state lines, limited capacity for strong academic advising, and the need for sustainable funding to support students in this more rigorous alternative to traditional high school. ECHS programs are not monolithic; they vary widely in structure, including where they are housed, whether students take classes with traditional college students, and whether instruction is delivered by college faculty or high school teachers. Design choices influence both student experience and outcomes, so understanding which versions of ECHS drive the strongest results and evaluating the best fit for different local contexts is essential for effective expansion.
In short, early college high schools offer a promising and more equitable pathway from high school to college, though important questions remain. Evidence of their benefits is growing, yet we still need to understand how outcomes vary across different models, who gains access, and what happens to students who do not complete their ECHS programs. Regardless, the case for strengthening pathways between high school and postsecondary education grows stronger, especially as traditional models continue to fall short.
SOURCE: Brian Phillips, Julie A. Edmunds, Fatih Unlu, Elizabeth Glennie, and Christine Mulhern, “The Costs and Benefits of North Carolina’s Early College High School Model,” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (February 2025).
