DOCUMENT RESUME ED 317 246 JC 900 198 AUTHOR Bender, … · study. Part I includes "State Articulation Policies: Myths and Realities," by Louis W. Bender, which analyzes state-level

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 317 246 JC 900 198

AUTHOR Bender, Louis W., Ed.TITLE Spotlight on the Transfer Function: A National Study

of State Policies and Practices.INSTITUTION American Association of Community and junior

Colleges, Washington, D.C.REPORT NO ISBN-0-87117-213-5PUB DATE 90

NOTE 78p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility 142) CollectedWorks - General (020)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Articulation (Education); Case Studies; *College

Transfer Students; Community Colleges; EducationalLegislation; National Surveys; *State School DistrictRelationship; *Statewide Planning; *Transfer Policy;Two Year Colleges

ABSTRACTAn examination is provided of state policies rLiating

to transfer and articulation and of the transfer problems and issuesreported by community, technical, and junior colleges and students invarious states. First, an executive summary addresses such issues asmisunderstandings about the transfer/articulation phenomenon, trendsrevealed in state policies, concerns that have prompted increasedstate attention to transfer, and recommendations emerging from thestudy. Part I includes "State Articulation Policies: Myths andRealities," by Louis W. Bender, which analyzes state-level policies,legislative mandates, executive orders, regulations, and studies ofstate boards or other regulatory bodies. "Articulation andState-Level Information Systems: A Necessary Marriage," by William R.Odom, provides an idealized model of state-level articulationinformation systems. Part II consists of case study reports ofsuccessful transfer and articulation at the institutional or regionallevel in California, Florida, New Jersey, and Texas. This sectioncontains "New Jersey Institute of Technology and Transfer Relations,"by nary Thomas; "An Articulated Program between the University ofCentral Florida and Valencia Community College," by William MichaelHooks and Frank E. Juge; "The Articulation/Transfer Activities of theLos Rios Community College District," by Barbara L. Howard;"Addendum: Transfer Opportunity Program," by Phil DuBois and BarbaraL. Howard; and "A Context for Transfer Policy in Texas HigherEducation," by Gloria Ann Lopez and Dale Campbell. (JMC)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

SpotlightOn The

ANSFERFUNCTION

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUC". THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRP.4TED BY

J.Gollatscheck

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ER'Cl

111.- Pk- 10'

A National Study

of State Policies

and Practices U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOM( e of Educalionfu Research and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER IERICIX This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organiz, sonondlnalinc) it

0 Minor changes tunre been made In d.provereproduction quality

Points of view or opinionS slated m this ricx:uo,(nd do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

LOUIS W. BENDER, EDITOR

101b. Po-

AMLAICAN ASSOCIATION Or

COMMUNITY ANL, .JUNIOR COLL.L:C4L:

BEST COPY AV 5;1.ARLE

rilt1)( PPP) 111(t Atn(trt,..In .1,,,,ut.t.ttion uI ( untnittnit% tutti Junit,r (l'unitd in the

.111 mt.ht, itysttt ct.l. Nu it.trt ut tint, hunk itt.1% he rcptu,111; utlut tr.insinnicti In Ain tuin11)t h' .111%

1111'.1 llti, lt.tt(1ntk 11.11111 .,1, it 'MIMI', 1)11(41 /t I( h1 \

tin(1 rctrnt%,11 \tcnit %%Ithutit tAtittun pertinst,lint hunt fht pul)lishr.

\ III( .\ miu I lk ,111 SSM1.111.)11 nl ( MI111111111(1 Illd 1/11().;(,

N.111(111.11 ( cnitl Inr I 1101C1 I (111(

{)11c 1)1111(1111 ( 111.1u, N Vt. ., ',tuft 4 IttisInint,tutt. 1).( . :Int)

(Lim)Itil I I-..

About the Editor

Louis W. Bender is professor of higher educa-tion and director of the Southeastern Comrnu-nity College Leadership Program at The FloridaState University in Tallahassee. He is the au-thor, with Richard C. Richardson, Jr., ofFostering Minority Access and Achievement inHigher Education, a Ford Foundation sttidy ofarticulation between two- and fou -year insti-tutions An authority on state policies affect-ing community, technical, and junior colleges,Bender has served as a consultant to 37 statesat the institutional level and 14 states at the sys-tem or state level. He received the 1985 Dis-tinguished Service Award from the AACJC-affiliated Council of Universities and Colleges,and in 1989 he completed a three-year term onthe AACJC Board of Directors.

Contents1111111111111

PrefaCc' V II

Executive Summary ix

PART I

State Articulation Policies: Myths and Realities 3

Louis W. Bender

Articulation and State-Level Information Systems: A Necessary Marriage 23William R. Odom

PART' II

New Jersey Institute of Technology and Transfer Relations 33Cary Thomas

An Articulated Prop.= Ectween the University of Central Horida andValencia Community College 43

Wm. Michael Hooks and Frank E. jug()

The Articulation/Transfer Activities of the Los RiosCommunity College District 49

Barbara L. Howard

Addendum: Transfer Opportunity Program 6IPhil DuBois and 13,,,rbara I.. Howard

A Context for Transfer Policy in Texas 1Iighcr Education 6

Gioria Ann Lopez and Dale Campbell

Contributors '71

Preface

This report grew out of a study commissionedby the Board of Directors of the American As-sociation of Com;ounity and Junior Collegesat the 1989 AACJC Convention. During itsmeeting, Board members discussed transferproblems and issues reported by community,technical, and junior college students in differ-ent states. Concern for such students and thetransfer function of the two-year collegeprompted the AACJC Board to call for a na-tional study of state policies relatirg to trans-fer and articulation. The Board also requesteda limited number of case studies of exemplarypractices occurring in different parts of thenation.

As a result, this report is made up of two parts.Part I covers content analysis of documents andreports of state-level policies representing legis-lative mandates, executive orders, regulations,and studies of state boards or other regulatorybodies, supplemented with telephone interviewswith state officials from most states. A sepa-rate paper by William R. Odom, deputy ex-ecutive director of the Horida State Board ofCommunity Colleges, provides an idealizedmodel of state-level articulation informationsystems, a necessity before verification can hemade that practice is consistent with policy.

Part II is made up of case study reports of suc-cessful transfer and articulation at the institu-tional or regional level in California, Florida,

New terse'', and Texas. Many states have oneor more comparable exemplary institutional orregional illustrations of where transfer andarticulation work. Invariably, dedicated in-dividuals are the true source of the successfulpractice, not policies or mandates. However,those policies or mandates often provide theframework for action, needing only the humanelement.

Reports of studies related to articulation car-ried out within the states, together with agree-ments and policies of voluntary statewidegroups of two-year and four-year institutions,were included in the scope of this study when-ever they dealt with transfer or articulation poli-cies. There was no attempt to include therelated research literature, although AACJC haspublished several important V, arks on the sub-ject. Transfer: Making It IX ork, edited byRichard A. Donovan, Barbara Schaier-Peleg,and Bruce Forer, reports on the Ford Founda-tion-funded project promoting urban commu-nity college transfer opportunities for minoritystudents. Another publication, The Articula-tion/Transfer Phenomenon: Patterns and Di-retions, by Frederick C. Kintner and JamesWattenbarger, analyzed state patterns of artic-ulation/transfer agreements from those legal-ly based to those that were viewed as volun-tary. Kintner, also author of A' iddleman iicHigher Fducation. has studied articulationpractices in other countries as well. Dorothy

vii

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TRANSFER FUNCTION

Knoell, an acknowledged pioneer and authorityon transfer /articulation, is not only responsi-ble for many of the studies of the CaliforniaPostsecondary Education Cc mmissior., but alsois author of a new AACJC book, Transfer, Ar-ticulation, amid Collaboration: Twenty-FiveYears Later.

Funds were not available to support visits tostate capitals where extensive interviewingcould verify interpretations or remove ambigui-ties between policies and practices of two- andfour-year institutions or their state-level boardsand agencies. Only a ':ew states are able to pro-vide hard data to verify whether policies arebeing implemented. Hence, there is no guar-antee that performance is consistent with thepractice called for by policies identified in thisreport. As a consequence, the reader interestedin a certain policy Ldentified with a specific statewill need to determine the degree of c.cceptanceand level of success within that state beforereaching a conci,sion.

Various definitions or transfer and articulationcan be found in the literat ire. For this study,transfer was CLefined as a descriptor of the stu-dent who seeks to move from one institution toanother expecting credit reco;nition for course-work successfully completed and expecting tohe treated equitably with kill other students.Transfer also describes mechanisms used by in-stitutions to facilitate admission, credit recog-nition, and related services for such students.

Articulation refers to systematic efforts, process-es, or services intended to ensure educationalcontinuity and te: facilitate orderly, unobstructedprogress between i:vels or sygments of itissktu-tions on a statewide, regional, or institution-to-institution basis. Among the systematic efforts

viii

for education continuity are program of studyand course comparability or equivalency. Ex-amples of articulation processes are admissionand matriculation, orientation, counseling/ad-vising, and transfer/articulation ombudsman-ship. Systematic services include transfer creditevaluation and reporting mechanisms, financialaid, student flow and performance data, feed-back information, and collaborative programs.

Segment refers to those institutions of like mis-sion that are formally or informally identifiedas a system within the state, such as the two-year .iegment, state college segment, or univer-sity segment. In some states, the collectivity ofindependent institutions is viewed as a segmentas well.

Intersegmental refers to two or more segmentsof a state's postsecondary education delivery sys-

tem that plan and work together to resolve prob-lems or issues, enter into mutual agreements,and coordinate programs.

am indebted to the authors of the case studiesincluded in Part II who represent both two- andfour-year institutional officers as wail as stateagency officials. Acknowledgment and appreci-ation is also extended to the state officials whosupplied documents and reports, were inter-viewed, or reviewd manuscript drafts of the re-

port. Finally, thanks to Dr. Odom for the spe-cial section on state-level information systems,to John A. Pica, who served as research assis-rant during data collection, and im The FloridaState University for its contribution to hisproject.

Louis W. BenderProfessor of Higher aucation

The Florida State llniversity

Executive Summary

Why is the transfer/articulation phenomenonmisunderstood?

The nation's SO states are dissimilar in size, ge-ography, economy, demographics, and post-secondary edu,:ation delivery system;, yet theyare often described as the -arne in generaliza-tions or national norms reporn_d by research-ers, policy-makers, and the stational ane localpress. The transfer and articulation phe,mme-non is especially vulnerable to such fallaciousreporting, which masks significant changes tak-ing place in postsecondary education.

When higher education was viewed as a privi-lege, society accepted a.; appropriate the tra-dition of institutional autonomy and the cen-tral role of a faculty in determining the contentand performance requirements of each degreeprogram. Societal requirements and attitudeshave changed since the 1960s, with higher edu-cation deemed a right as well as a requirementif our nation is to compete on a global basis.The primary players in articulation efforts be-fore the 1960s were admissions officers andregistrars. During the 1980s the primary play-ers in articulation efforts were the transfer/articulation officers carrying out an ombuds-man role. There is clear evidence tilt:i faculty-to-faculty groups will be the key players in the1990s when states seriously address the prob-lem of transfer and articulation.

What trends can be identified from an analysisof state policies?

The majority of community, technical, and jun-college students who transfer apply to near-

by baccalaureate institutions. The ideal, there-fore, would be for such institutions to worktogether cooperatively to facilitate the move-ment and progress of such students. Failure oflocal educational policy-makers to work to-gether voluntarily is apparent from the in-creased involvement of state legislatures intransfer/articulation matters. During 1989, theyear this study was carried out, legislatures inat least 13 states considered bills or passed reso-lutions calling for action on transfer or articu-lation issues. The increased acti' ity of legisla-tures over the past five years makes it apparentthat the absence or failure of local voluntaryarticulation will be met by state-level manda-tory policies.

A reading of state policies reveals an attitudinalposture worthy of note as well. Legislative reso-lutions dealing with transfer and articulationwill, alrm,st without exception, reflect a con-cern for the students' interest, sometimes t o t hedetriment of traditions or values cherished bycolleges and universities. In sharp contrast, theinterests of institutions in often be found inpolicies developed by state coordinating agen-cies or voluntary institutional organizations.

IX


What concerns have prompted increased stateattention to transfer/articulation issues?

National calls for educational reform at the endof the 1970s resulted in many states mandat-ing strengthened academic programs at bothsecondary and postsecondary levels. Concomi-tant demands for quality enhancement resultedin increased admissions requirements, reap-praisal of general education requirements, andhigher test scores and GPAs. Few states dedi-cated the resources needed to involve the facultygrouds to align two-year college lower-divisionand four-year college upper-division programs.

Another major precursor of legislative concernis the compelling demographic changes in manystates, which are prompting an expectation thatcolleges and universities will proactively reachout to underrepresented ethnic minoritygroups, assuring success to and opportunity forcompletion of the baccalaureate degree, thegateway to the professions. Since minority stu-dents disproportionately enroll in two-year col-leges, there is an understandable desire by thepublic and its elected representatives that trans-fer and articulation result in increased represen-tation of these groups in the upper-division bac-calaureate institutions.

A third concern prompting state attention totransfer/articulation grows out of the burgeon-ing demand from applied associate degree grad-uates for baccalaureate opportunities. The rigorof many contemporary technical and parapro-fessional programs requires students whosepreparation would qualify them to pursue a

baccalaureate degree. Applied associate degreeprograms in health, business, technologies, andservice fields arc finding that their graduatesin increasing ratios are transcerring to bac-calaureate institutions.

What are the major areas among state transfer/articulation policies?

Nearly every state can certify it has a policystatement on transfer of credits for studentsmoving from two-year to four-year institutions.Some are general and essentially affirm the au-tonomy of individual institutions in determin-ing the conditions of transfer and creditawarded. On the other hand, some states havecomprehensive policies that are intended tomake transfer education a continuum from thesecondary school level, to the two-year collegelevel, to the four-year baccalaureate-degreelevel. Four major policies are:

State Articulation Agreements: Some articula-tion agreements call for recognition of the as-sociate in arts degree as meeting the generaleducation requirement for a baccalaureate de-gree program in any state-supported four-yearinstitution. Other state agreements do notrecognize the degree but specify a general edu-cation core which, when completed by the two-year college student, must be honored and ac-cepted by the four-year institution. A few stateshave articulation agreements that cali trans-ferability of all courses between pubic institu-tions in that state.

Mechanisms to facilitate course or programcomparability can also be found, includingcommon course numbering systems, courseequivalency gaides, and comp.iter-aided courserequisite and comparability information.

State-Level Iransfer/Articulation Bodies: Animportant mechanism for bringing about col-lective and continuing efforts to improve trans-fer and articulation statewide is a representa-tional body concerned with all aTects ofarticulation and transfer of students. In some

states these bodies are voluntary, while in anincreasing number of other stares such bodiesare assigned responsibilities and authority bythe legislature.

Transfer Student Services: An array of promis-ing services and initiatives can be found in statesthat have made a commitment to making ar-ticulation work. Transfer/articulation officersare designated in both two-year and four-yearir stitutions to promote transfer of students, toresolve grievances, and to improve faculty-to-faculty relations. Recruitment programs, orien-tation, counseling and advisement, and evenfinancial aid for students transferring to upper-division institutions are examples of positiveworking relationships, as illustrated in the casestudies included in tliic report.

Performance data and Feedback Systems: Whilethe movement toward more centralized deci-sion making at the state level has been rapid,state-level information systems needed to sup-port such decision making have been slow tobe developed. Only a few states have the capa-bility of determining whether their policies arebeing implemented or ignored. A state-level in-formation systems model by William R. Odomis included in this report.

What are some of the problems?

Institutional leadership is the key to successfultransfer and articulation. Presidents must believearticulation activities will he in the best interestof the institution. There must he mutual respectand trust between institutions. As illustrated inseveral case studies in this report, the role of thepresident is central to making articulation work.

Similarly, the mechanics of transfer and thecontinuum of education can only come through

A NATIONAL STUDY OF STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

faculty-to-faculty relationships. As facultyunderstand the different institutional missions,cultures, and resultant behaviors., respect fordifferences and trust in the integrity and col-leagueship of counterparts can result in power-ful and positive benefits for students and theinstitution,. Much remains to be done, how-ever, before such an ideal is realized.

Accrediting Agencies: As illustrated in the casestudies, accrediting agencies are sometimes eon-tributinr, to barriers and misunderstandings be-tween lower-division and upper-division facul-ties. Little has been done to document the scopeand nature of such intrusion, however.

What recommendations grew out of this study?

The Congress

It is recommended that Congress study theinjustice to federal financial aid recipients andthe cost to taxpayers of state-supported in-stitutions that require such recipients to re-peat coursework at receiving institutions thatalready had been successfudy completed atthe sending institution. Using the constitutional"welfare clause" authority, Congressshould enac- legislation that \you'd deny fed-eral funds to states that do not correct suchinjustices.

It is also recommended that Congress determinewhether regional or professional accreditingbodies violate the rights of federal financial aidrecipients when impc sing requirements that areessentially barriers to transfer and articulationbetween two-year and tour-year programs.(Only one regional. accrediting agency was iden-tified in this study as treating transfer and ar-ticulation in the same manner as ilftintlalaVe ac-UUIa

xi


The AACJC

It is recommended that the AACJC Board ofDirectors promote the importance of the trans-fer function by a planned national program thatsystematically focuses upon critical areas oftransfer and 'articulation. It is proposed that1991 be designated the "Year of Transfer andArticulation" in order for activities to be high-lighted and the nation to become involved.AACJC-affiliated councils could contribute totheir regional and state activities throughout theyear.

It is further recommended that three specificareas be addressed during the Year of Trans-fer, including: (1) the transfer fun(:tion andopportunities for underrepresented ethnicminority groups; (2) the transfer function andcareer education programs; and (3) movingfrom articulation to collaboration programs.

It is recommended that AACJC institute a pro-gram of identifying and reporting exemplarytransfer and articulation practices comparableto th ise included in Part II of this report.

xii

The .State Legislatures

It is recommended that state legislatures requirestatewide intersegmental and segmental reportson transfer and articulation activities to insurethat legislative intent and priorities for I Ornessto students and taxpayers are achieved.

It is also recommended that legislatures pro-v:de incentives for appropriate transfer/articu-lation/collaboration efforts of two-year andfour-year institutions for increasing the partic-ipation of underrepresented minority groups.

It is further recommended that legislatures pro-vide funds for the development of comprehen-sive student data systems and insist upon allinstitutions sharing information among and be-tween segments as well as with the legislatureand the public.

Finally, it is recommended that state legislatur4sdetermine whether c:tate aid programsare being violated by institutional practices orrequirements of accrediting agencie!: that wouldrequire comparable corrective action recom-mended for Congress at the national level.

PART Im

State Articulation Policies:Myths and Realities

Louis W. Bender

No two states can be described as the same;yet, researchers, policy-makers, and the national and local press continue to promulgate na-tional norms, generalizations, and claims thatmislead or deceive because they assume unifor-mity. Size, geography, economy, and demo-graphics, as well as dissimilar education gover-nance structures, are important determiners ofeach state's postsecondary education deliverysystems and their relationships. The individu-al differences of each state cannot be overem-phasized. Three aspects of such differences il-lustrate the variety of contexts for transfer andarticulation between lower-division and tipper-division institutions.

Two-Year Institutions. The term communitycollege often is the generic descriptor found inthe popular press as well as publications of na-tional organizations to refer to all types of pub-lic two-year institutions as though they are one.This simplistic technique is appropriate in manycases; however, it is quite misleading in regardsto transfer and articulation issues, particular-ly when national norms or averages arc re-ported. For example, New Hampshire lia; asystem of six vocational/ technical colleges,while Alabama has technical colleges, juniorcolleges, and community colleges olaking upits system of public two-year institutions. WestVirginia ha. both community colleges and "com-munity college components" of four-year statecolleges, while Indiana has branch campuses of

universities, vocational/technical colleges, andVincennes University, a public two-year insti-tution acknowledged as the only true "commu-nity college" in the state. Georgia and Tennes-see have both junior colleges and technicalinstitutes, while Connecticut, Minnesota, andNebraska have community colleges and tech-nical colleges. Ohio has branch campuses, com-munity colleges, and technical colleges. Itwould be ludicrous to discuss transfer and ar-ticulat:on issues as though these various typesof two-year institutions were a single model.Some of the policies discussed in this report aremore relevant to one type than another typeof two-year institution.

State System. Some states have consolidatedgoverning boards responsible for all publicpostsecondary institutions, resulting in statepolicies that apply to all levels and types of in-stitutions in the system. Georgia and Mas-sachusetts are examples of such states underboards of regents, while comparable system,.are governed as university systems in Alaskaand Hawaii. At the other end of cue continu-um, a few states essentially have "non syst,Ins,"where local determination predominates as aresult of little or no system authority at the statelevel (Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maine areexamples). The origin, nature, and scope ofstate policy will he quite different even thoughstate legislatures may perceive they arc callingfor comparable policies.

3


State Traditions. An important difference need-ing amplification for this national study is theindividual differences in traditions, varies, andphilosophy in relation to transfer and articu-lation efforts. Florida is credited by manyauthorities as exemplary in the comprehensive-ness of its transfer and articulation policies andpractices. Florida's universities and communi-ty colleges hold a keen sense of "system" eventhough the nine universities are under a singlestate-governing board of regents while localboards govern the 28 community colleges. Aconstitution-based State Board of Education(the only remaining colonial practice of itsmembers being the governor and elected cabi-net members) is responsible for all levels of edu-cation. Policies and procedures identified bycommunity colleges or universities typically areapproved or adopted by the state board for allpublic institutions. The Florida Legislature alsoplays a prominent role, making statutory pro-vision for various transfer and articulation mat-ters, which results in statewide implementation.This top to bottom authority/power configu-ration seems repulsive and unacceptably intru-sive to many outside the state, yet to mostFloridians it is workable and successful.

California, with quite similar transfer and ar-ticul-..:.on policies and practices, functions froma different perspective. The tradition and phi-losophy of voluntary participation and a bot-tom-to-top authority flow seems to be presentin California, where the legislature is encour-aged to fund incentives or pilot projects infostering transfer and articulation practices.Part of the reason may the fact that theUniversity of California System derives itsauthority from the constitution (similar to theUniversity of Mtehivn, the University of Min-nesota, and Ohio S ate University) and there-fore can be as autonomous or cooperative as

4

it wants to be. As revealed later in this report,the legislature's attitude appears to he shiftingtoward prescriptiveness.

The California Postsecondary Education Com-mission plays a key role in maintaining pub-lic, legislative, and institutional visibility andattention on transfer and articulation bymonitoring and reporting student flow patternsin annual reports, carrying out ongoing studiesand analyses of transfer and articulation, am.'promoting the transfer function among thepublic segments and independent institutionsof California. A quite different orientation canbe seen in several Middle Atlantic and New En-gland states where the historic traditions andvalues of private colleges and universities re-flect a strong institutional autononr ethic evenamong the public colleges and universities.There is little sense of "system" in such statesas Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, andVermont, where state planning and cow dinat-ing agencies are little more than advisorybodies.

Frederick C. Kintzer, a recognized authority ontransfer and articulation, attempted to catego-rize articulation agreements among states basedon the level c bin of authority. While help-ful, such classin does not communicatethe complexity of traditions. His typology listsIllinois as a state where articulation is legisla-tively mandated as is the case in Florida. Yet,Illinois is more like Michigan or North Caro-lina in that interinstitutional cooperation comesprimarily from voluntary institutional partici-pation in a statewide association rather thanfrom governmental agencies. However, eventhe players vary; the Michigan) Association ofCollegiate Registrars and Admissions [)Incasplays a central role in transfer and articulationpolicy formulation in that state, while

representative faculty are utilized in NorthCarolina and Illinois.

As a consequence, it is necessary to examineeach state within the context of its socio-political, economic, and educational charac-teristics. The issue of state-mandated as op-posed to voluntary participation has manyorigins.

TRENDS AND ISSUES CONCERNINGTRANSFER AND ARTICULATION

Historically, two- and four-year college trans-fer and articulation matters were primarily aninstitutional rather than a state concern. Thetradition of institutional autonomy and the cen-tral role of a faculty in determining the con-tent and performance requirements of each de-gree program were accepted by society asappropriate since higher education was viewedas "a privilege." The primary players in artic-ulation efforts before the 1960s were admis-sions officers and registrars Societal require-ments and attitudes have changed since the1960s, with higher education now beingdeemed "a right" and a requirement for an in-creasing portion of our population to developits capacity to the fullest. Durin,4 the 1980s theprimary players were transfer/articulationofficers carrying out an ombudsmanship role.In many states the evidence is cle,r that faculty-to-faculty groups will be the key players in the1990s if transfer and articulation problems areto be seriously and successfully addressed.

Voluntary /1Axalized VQrsus Mandated/Statewide

Research has verified that the majority of two-year college transfer students will applynearby baccalaureate institution. The ideal,therefore, would he for such institutions to


work together cooperatively to facilitate themovement: of students from one institution tothe other. As the case studies in Part II of thisreport demonstrate, such kcal articulation pro-grams are possible and are successful. Unfor-tunately, there arc too many cases in too manystates where the public two-year and four-yearinstitutions do not cooperate, sometimes actu-ally being adversarial competitors.

The 1980s may well be described by historyas the decade when transfer and articulationshifted, at least for public institutions, from thehands of local educational policy-makers tostate-level public policy-makers. In 1989, theyear this study was carried out, legislatures in13 states considered bills or passed resolutionsrelated to transfer and articulation. Perhapsmore important for educators is the shift to-ward prescriptiveness in legislative mandates,thus communicating to faculties an intoleranceof perceived abuses to the interest of the stu-dent and the taxpayer.

Illustrative of this trend is the Oregon legisla-tive charge in House Bill 2913, which directedtic State Board of Higher Education and St,iteBoard of Education jointly to develop generaleducation requirements and agreement:: en-abling associate of arts graduates of Oregoncommunity colleges to meet lower-divisiongeneral education requirements of four-yearpublic institutions in that state. A subsequentcharge from the legislature (July 10, 1987) re-quired the iJint committee of the two statehoards to (1) propose a set of general education requirements for transfer students; (2) es-tablish a common course numbering system forlow(rdivision coures offered by institutions01- the two segments; and (3) "propose systemsInd procedures tl at insure the enforceabilityof the zr,rcerlient,, re aCh ed


The 1989 General Assembly in Arkansas chargedits State Board of Higher Education with de-veloping a minimum general education core forbaccalaureate degrees "which shall transfer free-ly among all state institutions." The 1989 OhioLegislature required the Board of Regents inthat state to establish a study commission:

To make formal recommendations to theGovernor and 118th General Assemblyregarding implementation of a statewidestudent credit-hour transfer agreement toaddress the articulation problems associ-ated with students transferring from state-assisted technical and community collegesto state-assisted universities (Section 5, S.B.No. z68).

The legislative sentiment toward requiring im-proved transfer and articulation can be seen inthe language of a 1985 law of the ColoradoLegislature when assigning responsibilities andauthority to its new Commission on HigherEducation. It reads

The commission shall establish, after con-sultation with the governing boards of in-stitutions, and enforce student transferagreements between two-year and four-year institutions and among four-year in-stitutions. Govecning boards and institu-tions shall conform to such agreements andto commission policis relating to suchagreements. Such transfer agreements shallinclude provisions under which institutionsshall accept all credit hours of acceptablecoursework for automatic transfer to an-other state-supported institution of highereducation in Colorado. The Commissionshall have final authority in resolving trans-fer disputes (Section 23-1-107, I Ili No,1187).

6

Other state legislative budget amendments orresolutions signal an identifiable shift ofauthority for transfer of creditswhich oncesolely resided with departmental faculties in thename of academic integrity and institutionalautonomy --to state-level bodies and agencies.

Why are legislatures taking action th it is con-trary to the tradition of institutional autono-my and voluntary articulation arrangements?Analysis of testimony of legislative hearings andlegislative committee reports reveals a percep-tion in many states that students are beingtreated unfairly when transferring from one in-stitution to another. The general public am:!.their elected representatives perceive publiclysponsored or stir dolled postsecondary institu-tions as a system of interdependent and com-plementary elements that fit together as awhole, not as different, competing elements.Education is viewed as a process, not institu-tional forms or types. As a consequence, legis-lative testimony often is directed toward the un-fairness to transfer students and to taxpayerswhen both must pay the price of repeatingcoursework already successfully completed orwhen students are required to take morecourses than the native students in the same de-gree program.

Institution-Interest versus Student-Interest

A reading of state policies reveals an attitudi-nal posture in some cases that offers clues, ifnot insights. Legislative resolutions dealing withtransfer and articulation wil:, almost withoutexception, reflect a concern for the student'sinterest, sometimes to the detriment of tra-ditions or values elm by colleges anduniversities. In sharp contrast, the interest ofinstitutions can often he found in the wordingof statements or the composition of state

articulation groups. The North Carolina jointCommittee on College Transfer Students, spon-sored by the North Carolina Association ofColleges and Universities and used by the uni-versity system as the articulation policy makingforum, declares

These statew.de guidelines for collegiate ar-ticulation in North Carolina are uniqueamong the states in America. Preparedvoluntarily for voluntary use by represen-tatives of colleges and universities whichcarefully guard and value their academicindependence, the guidelines represent arecognition e the importance of commonreference points which autonomous insti-tutions may use in considering the admis-sion of and the granting of credit to trans-fer students. The development and generalacceptance of the guidelines stand as a ma-jor achievement in academic cooperation(Guidelines for Transfer, p. 2).

The policy of The University of Wisconsin Sys-tem (a governing board) was an exception thatdeserves to he quoted. Its undergraduate trans-fer policy includes the following declaration inthe introduction.

Mobility is a common human phenome-non. This is true among students in highereducation. For several reasons--a changein major, a family move, the economic andfamilial necessity of attending college closeto home---students are frequently facedwith the need to obtain their collegiate edu-cation from two or more institutions. Inresponse to these type of needs, 'the Uni-versity of Wisconsin System welcomestransfer students from other accredited ,:ol-leges and universities and from institutionswithin the system. Thus, a conscientious


effort has been made by the tJW Systemto create a student-oriented transfer pro-cess. The foremost goal is at policy that pro-vides a strong focus toward serving stu-dents and strives to treat continuing andtransfer students in the same way on pro-gram issues (e.g., degree requirements andprogram changes and notification) [June,1989].

Another example of institutional-interest incontrast to student-interest can be found in thepurposes and actions of state-level intersegmen-tal bodies, whether called councils, committees,or hoards. Representatives from the varioussegments typically make up the membership ofthese bodies, which are expected to addressproblems and issues of transfer and articula-tion whether identified by students or institu-tions. When baccalaureate representation isgreater than two-year representation, institu-tional interest will supersede student interest.Examination of agendas and findings of suchbodies often reveals interesting contrasts. Someare empowered only to provide advisory find-ings while others are empowered with bindingauthority. Usually, products of the advisorygroups maintain or champion the institution-al prerogative, while intersegmental groupswith binding authority typically evidencestudent-interest priorities. Furthermore, agen-das are quite different for those states wheresuch boards are primarily intended to addressgrievances and problem issues in sharp contrastto those states where the body proactivelyquests to facilitate improved articulation.

PRECURSORS OF LEGISLATIVE CONCERN

What has caused governors and legislatures tobecome so interested in transfer and articula-non? Editorials and testimony reviewed during


this study revealed three different sources. First,A Nation at Risk and similar national reportscalling for educational reform have resulted inmany state legislatures mandating the strength-ening of academic programs r.t both second-ary and postsecondary levels. Requirements forEnglish, math, science, and lioreign languagein high school college-preixicatory programshave resulted in additional admissions require-ments for the freshman class of public four-yearinstitutions in many states. In many cases,general education requirements have beenmodified or increased by the same institutions.As a consequence, problems, real or imagined,with transfer students have been identified. Insome cases, the root of the problem has beencommunications between institutions, while inother cases major philosophical differences havesurfaced.

A second precursor of legislative concern is thecompelling demographic changes in many states,prompting an expectation that colleges anduniversities will proactively reach out to under-represented ethnic minority groups and assureaccess to and opportunity for completion of thebaccalaureate degree, the giteway to the p. ofes-sions. Since minority groups ili,prop:;, tionate-ly enroll in two vcar institutions, there is anunderstandable desire by the public and itselected representatives that trawler and articu-lation result in increased representation of thesegroup; in the upper-division baccalaureate in-stitu,ons, For example, as early as 1974, theCalifornia Legislature passed a resolution call-ing upon the public segments of higher educa-tion to assure minority student initiatives. TheFoe: Foundation has also played a significantrole in promoting attention and action in nil-proved transfer opportunities for ethnic minoritystudents, which has influenced many states torevisit their transfer and articulation practices.

8

A third and increasingly visible pre sure growsout of the demand of graduates of applied as-sociate degree programs for baccalaureate op-portunities. The rigor of many contemporarynon-transfer technical programs requires stu-dents whose preparation would qualify themto pursue a baccalaureate degree. Graduates ofapplied associate degree programs in health,business, technologies, and service fields are in-creasingly transferring to baccalaureate insti-tutions. The national press has seldom reportedon this phenomenon. Perhaps it is due to thefact that little is known about this populationor their problems in the transfer and ',Articula-tion process, although several states are begin-ning to act on this serious matter.

MAJOR STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Nearly every sr!:,te can certify it has a policystatement on transfer of credit for studentsmovHg from two-year to four-year institutions,Some are general and essentially affirm the au-tonomy of individual institutions in determin-ing the con& ions for the transfer and awardof credit. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire arestates with such policies. An official in Ohioobserved that the Board of Regents articula-tion / transfer policy "guidelines" had been onthe books since 1977 but had never been im-plemented. As previously observed, the OhioGeneral Assembly included a provision in its1989 biennial budget bill calling for action onarticulation problems associated with studenttransfer. The New Mexico Legislature passedsimilar legislation in 1988. Concern for assur-ing equal access, equality of treatment ofstudents, and enhanced quality arc reflectedin the prescriptive nature of state legislaturesthat previously had been tolerant toward con-cepts of institutional autonomy and self-deternlination.

State Articulation Agreements

Associate Degree Recognition. The associatein arts degree (AA) is the universally acceptedcredential for programs designed to prepare stu-dents for upper-division baccalaureate study.In spite of AAC1C's 1984 associate degree poli-cy statement, which was intended to obtainadoption of common associate degree designa-tions to facilitate uniformity and standardizedmeanings, considerable variation still exists.Many states designate the AA as the degree forthose with a general education foundation anda social science emphasis, while the associatein science degree (AS) denotes programs withmath and science emphasis. Florida uses the AAfor both such programs. The associate in

science in Florida is the applied degree, whichmost states recognize by awarding the associ-ate in applied science degree (AAS). It is under-standable that confusion often exists over themeaning and relevance of the various designa-tions. The Missouri Coordinating Board forHigher Education promulgated guidelines forstudent transfer .and articulation in 1987 thatsuccinctly and clearly define the nature and pur-pose of each degree designation. These guide-lines could assist many states in their articula-tion efforts.

General Education Requirement: Concern fora prescribed course of study insuring that allgraduates possess a common core of college-level skills and knowledge is it the heart of thearticulation debate in man\ states. The argu-ment usually focuses on w'io defines the pro-gram. One of the most active states in focus-ing upon the general education transfercurriculum, California experienced a significantchange in 191'9 when the University of Califor-nia segment- for the first time delegated to thecommunity colleges the responsibility for


designating which courses meet the require-ments for a new transfer core curriculumadopted by UC, the California State Universi-ty, and the California Community Colleges.Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee prescribethe basic general education core that must behonored by the upper-division institution.Oklahoma also recognizes the associate degree:

If a student h:i'; completed an associate ofscience or associate of arts degree, thelower-divisiol general education require-ment of the 1.)accalaureate degree shall bethe responsiOility of the institution award-ing the associate degree, providing the gen-eral education requirements specified here-in are met. If, for any reason, a student hasnot completed an associate degree programprior to his or her transfer to another in-stitution, the general education require-ments shall become the responsibility of thereceiving institution. However, the receiv-ing institution will recognize general edu-cation credit for all transfer courses inwhich a reasonable equivalency of dis-cipline or course content exists, with thecourses specified as part of general educa.tion at the receiving institution, providedthat there is an appropriate correspondencebetween the associate degree and the bac-calaureate degree being sought (State Re-gents for Higher Education, March 1987).

Fhe number 'f credit hours required as partof the general education core vary from a mini-MUM of 1 6 credit hours in Iowa to 37 credithours in Oklahoma.

Three model, of general education programsarc described by the Missouri guidelines, in-cluding competency-based programs, topical orthematic programs, or distributional prograins.

9


The preponderance of general education re-quirements in state articulation agreementswould be of the distributional program model.

Course Credit: Delaware and Rhode Islandtransfer policies call for transferability of allcourses between the public institutions of thestates. A systematic review of courses by ap-propriate faculty of course content and profi-ciency requirements is used for development ofa matrix of course credit for all programsoffered by the institutions.

Course Comparability

Some legislatures have sought the equal and fairtreatment of transfer students by calling for de-termination and promulgation of course equiv-alencies, which requires faculty participation.

Common Course Designation Systems: Flori-da probably has one of the most comprehen-sive and operationally efficient common coursenumbering and designation systans. Groups offaculty from the nine universities and 28 com-munity colleges worked as task force groupsthroughout system development in the 1970s.During the '80s, faculty groups worked to keepthe system (which is fully computerized and on-line) up to date and current. A problem con-fronting this activity has been the occasionalexternal pressure of some national accreditingbodies insisting that all professional instructionbe at the junior and senior levels. Faculty teamsworking on the course numbering system havebeen forced to make compromises on the as-signment of numbers, which has resulted intr itisfer students having to repeat courses com-pleted as introductory coursework at th corn-munity college. The American Assembiy ofColleges and Schools of Business was identi-fied as one of the accrediting agencies that has

10

created such a problem. (The New Jersey In-stitute of Technology case study in Part 11 pro-vides further illustration.) The Florida commoncourse numbering system has been expandedto include vocational/occupational courses andhas been made available to independent collegesand universities, thus `irther facilitating trans-fer of community college students to upper-division institutions.

Nevada has developed a common course-levelnumbering system for all system institutions tofacilitate student advisement and registration.All community college transfer courses followa statewide course designation with equivalentuniversity lower-division courses. The systemalso includes numbering for developmentalcourses, which are non-transferable.

In Colorado, common course designators foracademic transfer courses were developed dur-ing the 1989-90 fiscal year by the ColoradoCommunity College and Occupational Educa-tion System. The initial goal was to promotecommonality across the two-year college sys-tem in order to assure more accurate contentof courses when providing transfer informationto the four-year institutions. A similar strate-gy is being carried out in Alabama under theleadership of the chancellor of the two-year col-lege system.

A quite different approach is used in Califor-nia, where course articulation is not predicatedon an effort to deteraur "equivalency," butrather upon "comparability." The CaliforniaArticulation Number (CAN) System does notattempt to have common course designationand numbering; instead, it requires an institu-tion to designate those identically numberedCAN courses that are acceptable "in lieu of"its own designated courses. Articulation

agreements t'.) accept wit: course "in lieu of" an-other are usually based on content covered dur-ing a comparable period and require a writtenagreement between two or more institutions toaccept and use a specific course completed onthe sending campus to meet a course require-ment at the receiving campus. Each campus re-tains and uses its own course number, prefix,and title and then adds the appropriate prefixand CAN when it has qualified the coursethrough written articulation agreements withat least four other institutions, including oneeach from the two upper-division segments.

Course Equivalency Guides: Use of courseequix alency guides to assist in the advisementof students and the transfer process is fairlycommon. In some states legislative action re-quires all institutions to maintain updatedequivalency guides as a result of legislative ac-tion, while voluntary efforts are carried out in-tersegmeritally or within segments in otherstates. Determination of equivalency practicesvaries and often offers evidence of faculty orinstitution attitudes. While joint participationof two-year and four-year faculti--; is a grow-ing trend, in a few states the prerogative forequivalency determination is the sole provinceof depart mental faculties of upper-division in-stitutions,, who carry out a judge and jury func-tion by ruling on course syllabi submitted tothe baccalaureate institution by the two yearcolleges and apparently without benefit of con-ferral or collaboration with faculty of the two-year college.

State-Level 1 ,ansfer / Articulation Bodies

An important mechanism for bringing aboutcollective and continuing efforts to improvetransfer and articulation statewide is the pro-vision for a representational body concerned


with all aspects of articulation and transfer ofstudents and with positive articulated practicesamong the institutions. Such bodies vary innomenclature, authority, and title :imongstates. The Articulation Council of California,while state-supported, is voluntary, with mem-bership drawn from the various segments of thepublic system as well as from the private sec-t.,r. Its agreements are non-binding but havebeen effective as guideline, in most cases.

Similar voluntary coordinating groups respon-sible for articulation grievance referral beyondthe campus level can be found in Arkansas,Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. InNorth Carolina, the voluntary Joint Commit-tee on College Transfer Students, sponsored bythe North Carolina Association of Colleges andUniversities, includes both the public and in-dependent sectors.

More legislative authority is vested in suchcoordinating bodies in Florida, Illinois, NewJet., y, New York, and Colorado. Florida's Ar-ticulation Coordinating Committee is ap-pointed by the Commissioner of Education andits recommendations can become directives un-der the rule making authority of the state boardor through legislative action. Membership ofsuch groups traditionally has been confined toinstitutional representatives; however, New Jer-sey's Transfer Advisory Board includes publicrepresentatives as well.

Comprehensive Student Data and InformationSystems

Several s:tates have developed computerrieddent academic advisement systems to aid incounseling and guidance. Florida's ad-visement and articulation system (SOLAR) pro-vides students with an academic plan according


to their selected major and upper-division in-stitution. The system is used in the high schoolsfor advisement A similar microcomputer-supported system in California is known by theacronym ASSIST (Articulation System Stimulat-ing Interinstitutional Student Transfer). It pro-vides information on transfer admissionrequirements, course recognition and compara-bility, as well as information on support serv-ices available at each institution. Some states,including Delaware, Nevada, and Rhode Is-land, have developed manual rather thancomputer-assisted systems.

Few states maintain the kind of comprehensivestudent data bases to monitor student flow andperformance that would aid in improving trans-fer and articulation. Information on applica-tions, transfer admission, credits recognized orrejected, or on transfer student performance,persistence, and academic status are often un-available and sometimes known but not shazed.A separate discussion of this topic and proposedideal model developed by William Odom, dep-uty executive director of the Florida Divisionof Community Colleges, concludes Part I of thisreport.

ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS AND THETRANSFER FUNCTION

A California legislative resolution in 1974(ACR 151, Hughes) called for higher educa-tion institutions to reach out to underrepre-sented ethnic minority groups and identifiedtransfer and articilation as mechanisms for as-

suring access and opportunity for a multi-cultural citizenry. In the early 1980s the FordFoundatiot, sponsored several research projectson access an I transfer of minorities to theupper-division baccalaureate programs as wellas a series of comilunity college-based transfer

12

opportunity program projects. A 1987 AACJCpublication, Transfer: Making It Work,described the critical areas addressed by theTransfer Opporuunity Project and listed otherphilanthropic foundation minority initiative ;.

Regrettably, too few states have encouraged ar-ticulated collaborative efforts between two- andfour-year institutions in increasing the numberof underrepresented minorities who arebaccalaureate-degree seekers. Incentive andoutreach programs seldom encourage bac-calaureate institutions to focus on two-year col-leges as a separate level for motivational,bridge, and guarantee programs for minorities.As a result, the secondary school often is thefocus of both the two-year and baccalaureateinstitutions in a competitive rather than col-laborative mode. Most state incentive programsare directed toward segmental rather than in-tersegmental efforts.

New Jersey has instituted a Challenge GrantProgram with priorities gig en to ethnic minoritystudent initiatives involving identification,motivation, and articulated programs by thetwo- and four-year institutions. Several of tl,initiatives have involved 2 + 2 transfer agree-ments. Both the State University of New Yorkand the City University of New York systemshave grant programs to encourage two- andfour-year consortia projects that promote pro-grams and services to underr, presented ethnicminority groups. California has also providedfunds that could he used collaboratively to serveethnic minority students.

Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and New York havescholarship programs that reserve awards for

minority transfer students. Arizona and Flcrid,1also prov. AC outreach program funding for bothinterseg,mental and segmental work with


secondary schools in minority identification andrecruitment programs. Several 2 + 2 + 2 agree-ments have "intent" language to emphasizeunderrepresented minority groups.

Studies on minority community college enroll-ments, transfer rates, and baccalaureate com-pletion rates have increased state policy-makers'attention to underrepresentation. Illinois hasbeen especially active in promoting the conceptof minority student baccalaureate achievementthrough transfer. The Illinois Board of HigherEducation included the following strategies ina 1989 working paper:

To provide encouragement of, informationabout, and assistance in transferring, bac-calaureate institutions should

Assign baccalaureate-major advisers tofeeder community and junior collegeswith high proportions of minority stu-dents to advise prospective minoritytransfer students regularly on courserequirements.

Adopt the concepts contained in the "Ar-ticulation Compar.A."

Offer admiss' n and financial aid awardsand provide iransfer credit evaluationsto transfer students early and in the sameCOMMUnication.

Provide a special orientation program,designed with input by previous trans-fers, for community and junior collegeminority transfer qudents beginning atthe community/junior college beforetransfer anti continuing at the bac-calaureate institution after transfer.

Establish summer bridge or transitionprograms to orient and accustom entering

minority transfer students (and their par-ents/spouses) to the institution's academ-ic expectations and campus life.

Establish a mentorship program forminority transfer students with facultymembers or more experienced peers.

Build student networks by creatingsmaller communities of identificationwithin each college to serve as a homebase for counseling, advising, tutoring,and meetings of study groups, clubs, aridorganizations.

To assure appropriate academic standards,baccalaureate institutions should

Provide annual, detailed information onthe progress of minority and other trans-fer students to feeder community andjunior colleges.

To assure equal treatment of transfer andnative students and to accommodate nontraditional minority students, baccalaureate institutions should

I fold registri,tion for transfer students onfeeder community and junior collegecampuses or bring community ancl jun-ior college transfer stucents to the cam-pus to register at the same time as na-tive continuing students register.

Allocate sufficient residence hall spacefor community and junior college trans-fers, including single parents, and en-courage 0n-campus living the first termafter transfer.

Provide child care services for childrenof students during all hours that classesarc Odd on campus.

13


Dorothy Knoell, a preeminent authority ontransfer and articulation, has proposed 1 newconceptu:dization of articulation as "collabo-ration" in the two-year and baccalaureate seg-ment for recognizing joint cooperative respon-sibilities to achieve critical social goals.Collaborative efforts in correcting under-representation of ethnic minority groups rep-resent a significant and worthy goal. (The LosRios case study in Part II provides an excellentillustration of initiatives directed toward under-represented groups.)

ARTICULATION OF CAREER EDUCATIONPROGRAMS

Maine's six vocational technical institutes weredesignated "colleges- during 1989, thus join-ing New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin,and several other states that have recognizedthe increased rigor and academic backgroundneeded for training programs for the para-professional, mid-management, and technicianmiddle manpower spectrum. As the programshave been upgraded, pressure has developed fordegree-granting authority. Some states autho-rize such institutions to award the associate inspecialized technology (AST) or the associatein specialized business (ASB) degrees, whichtypically include not less than 20 percent ofcoursework in general education and 75 or 80percent of the work in the area of specializa-tion and related coursework. Other institutionshave increased the general education compo-nent to approximately 40 percent, typicallyfound iii the associate of applied science degreeprograms. In many states the occupationalapplied programs are expanding the generaleducation component. As graduates of suchprograms have sought opportunity for bac-calaureate degrees, transfer and articulationproblems have developed. (The New Jersey

14

Institute of Technology case study in Part 11provides an in-depth illustration of articulatedapplied programs.)

In 1986 the California Legislature called on itsPostsecondary Planning Commission to studyand make recommendations on 2 + 2 + 2 artic-ulated career education programs. The TexasLegislature in 1987 assigned responsibility forthe former vocational technical programs to theState Coordinating Board, charging it with in-corporating such programs under the TexasModified Core Curriculum policies. And CieIndiana General Assembly directed the StateCommission for Higher Education in 1988 tostudy the compliance of the assembly's man-date that all state universities and the vocationaltechnical college system enter into articulationagreements to facilitate transfer of credits forcourses in the associate degree programs, to beeffective in 1989 -90.

Oregon transfer policies recognize up to 24credit hours from vocational technical coursesas "general electives" and promote 2 + 2 pro-gram articulation in the occupational fields.The Iowa Board of Regents policy recognizesup to 16 hours of vocational courses for trans-fer. Nevada's common course numbering sys-tem provides for occupational courses in theapplied associate degree programs, the same asin Florida.

MAKING ARTICULATION WORK

A review of all state policies and practices re-veals a diversity of programs and services that.if operative, wolld result in two-year collegestudents' unimpeded movement through upper-livision institutions with full recognition andcredit for all successfully completed courseworkand with their assmiliation into the student

booty with the least possible dislocation ortrauma. Furthermore, the ideal relationship oftwo-year and four-year institutions would becollaborative rather than articulated efforts.Recommendations of the Joint Committee forReview of the Master Plan for Higher Educa-tion of the California Legislature in its March1989 report could serve as model policies forevery state. When declaring the transfer func-tion as the central institutional priority of allsegments of higher education, the Joint Com-mittee recommended

The state shall guarantee by statute a placein postsecondary education for all quali-fied California students who wish to at-tend. All students who successfully com-plete the transfer curriculum at thecommunity college level shall be guaran-teed by statute future enrollment as upper-division students at the University ofCalifornia or at the California State Uni-versity. The grade point average requiredof all transfer students shall be the samewithin each segment regardless of theiroriginal eligibility, and all such studentsshall he treated equally with continuingstudents for admission to the programs andmajors of their choice.

Eligible students who have applied forfreshman admission to campuses of theUniversity of California or the CaliforniaState University and who are not admit-ted to the campus or college of their firstchoice may choose to pursue their lower-division coursework at a designated com-munity college. '1 hose students are guaran-teed upper-division admission to theuniversity campus and college of their firstchoice if they successfully complete thetransfer curriculum, including a prescribed


course of study and requisite grade pointaverage, at the designated communitycollege.

Every community college district shall de-velop formal transfer agreements guaran-teeing upper-division enrollment in specificmajors for community college transfer stu-dents, regardless of initial eligibility, withat least three campuses of the Universityof California and five campuses of theCalifornia State University, such agree-ments to be phased in over a period notto exceed January 1, 1992. The commu-nity college districts are encouraged to de-velop such agreements with as many cam-puses of the two university segments asfeasible. The Board of Regents of theUniversity of California and the Board ofTrustees of the California State Universityshall insure that all campuses of theirrespective segments participate in the pro-gram. Such agreements shall specify theprescribed course of study and requisitegrade point averages which shall guaran-tee entrance to the program of the student'schoice. The community college districtsand the university campuses shall developcoordinated counseling services so as tofacilitate these transfer agreement systems.

e The governing boards of each of the seg-ments are strongly encouraged and ex-pected to develop programs of concurrentenrollment and concurrent student mem-bership across ieginenzal lines, so thatcommunity college transfer students are af-forded 1(2 rights and privileges ofmatriculating university students.

The: Board of Rigouts of the tliiiver;ity ofCalifornia and the Board of TruAees of the

1 5


California State University shall ensure thatindividual university campus enrollmentplans include adequate upper-divisionplaces for community college transfer stu-dents in all undergraduate colleges and thateach undergraduate college on each cam-pus participates in developing articulationand transfer agreements with communitycolleges.

The University of California and the Cali-fornia State University shall require studentswho are not regularly eligible for admissionas first-year students (other than those ad.mined under special provisions) to completethe intersegmentally developed transfer corecurriculum or its equivalent at a COMMU-

nity college. University admissions officescan make exception to this rule under com-pelling circumstances. Those students whodo complete the required courses with therequisite grade point average shall then beassured access to the California Stag: Uni-versity or to the University of California as

transfer students with full degree credit forthat coursework.

The Board of Regents of the University ofCalifornia and the Board of Trustees of theCalifornia State University shall declare aspolicy that student, from historicallyunderrepresented gro,ips shall he affordedpriority in transfer admissions decisionsand shall design policies intended to facili-tate their success in achieving transfer,

The Board of Governors of the CaliforniaCommunity Colleges, the Regents of theUniversity of California, and the Trusteesof the California State lIniversity, with ap-propriate consultation with the academicsenates of the respective segments, shall

16

jointly develop, maintain, and disseminatea common core curriculum in lower-division general education for the purposesof transfer. Such a core curriculum is tohe designed and agreed to by January 1,1990, with full implementation on the fol-lowing academic year.

The Board of Governors of the CaliforniaCommunity Colleges shall have theauthority and responsibility to guaranteethat all community college students haveaccess to courses that meet the lower-division baccalaureate degree requirementsof the California public universities. TheBoard of Governors, with the cooperationof the Regents of the University of Califor-nia and the Trustees of the California StateUniversity, shall insure that all students areclearly and fully informed as to which com-munity college courses and units are trans-ferable arid that requirements in the com-munity colleges correspond to therequirements for, entry to, and success in,upper-division university coursework.

The governing boards of the University ofCalifornia, the California State University,the California Community Colleges, andthe Association of Independent CaliforniaColleges and Universities. and the StateBoard of Education shall he accountablefor the implementation of formal system-wide articulation agreements and com-parable courses numbering systems with-in and among the segments.

Every community college campus shallmaintain transfer counseling centers orother counseling services intended to coun-sel, advise, and monitor the progress ofcommunity college transfer students.

The governing boards of each of the seg-ments are strongly encouraged and ex-pected to develop new programs of out-reach, recruitment, and cooperationbetween and among the three segments ofpublic higher education, to encourage andfacilitate the successful transfer of studentsbetween the community colleges and theuniversities.

The Governor and Legislature shall pro-vide the financial support necessary for thecommunity colleges and the two publicuniversity segments to offer comprehensivetransfi r programs ant'. supporting servicesessential to an effective transfer function.

The choirs of the governing boards of thethree public segments of higher educationshall pre'ent annual comprehensive reportsto the Governor and Legislature on the sta-tus of transfer policies and programs andtransfer rates, indicating outstanding prob-lems of or obstacles to effective intcrseg-mental articulation and coordination.

The California Postsecondary EducationCommission steal; advise the Governor andthe Legislature biennially as to: (1) the perform:trice of all three public segments of

nia postsecondary education withrespect to the goals and objectives of tneserecommendations regarding transfer; (2)the effective transfer rates between thedifferent segments; (3) the adequacy ofstate support for these programs; and (4)further recommendations regarding theoperation of these programs.

The Governor and the Legislature shallmonitor the success of the segments inachieving their targeted enrollment levels

A NATIONAL STUDY OF ST/ TE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

and in implementing these reforms. sub-stantial failure to implement reform, toachieve the 60/40 ratio by the designateddates, or to significantly improve the trans-fer rate of historically undernrresentedgroups, shall precipitate legislative hearingsto show cause why specific budget alloca-tions should not he withheld pending fullimplementation of these goals and reforms.

An array of policies, practices, and mechanismsidentified during this study are intended tofacilitate a student's mobility from one insti-tution to another in achieving his or her educa-tional goal while at the same time respectingthe responsibility of each institution in deter-mining the natm e and form of programs toachieve its mission and reason for being. Thefollowing outline cit articulation programs andpractices illustrates the levels and areas of ef-fort taking place within different states at thistime.

ARTICULATION PROGRAMS ANDPRACTICES IDENTIFIED DURING THENATIONAL ARTICULATION STUDY

I. State LevelLegislative

MandiJesBudget ProvisosResolutions

State Planning and Coordinai iiiMaster Plan Policy/RecommendationsTransfer/ Articulation StudiesTransfer Student How and Performance

ReportsSponsor State At ticulation Working

GroupsLeveling and Orhe, Comparability/

Equivalency InitiativesMinority Student Incentive Policies

1/

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TRANSFFP FUNCTION

Program Review ArticulationRequirements

Sponsor Conferences and WorkshopsintLisegmental Coordinating and PolicyBodies

Articulate Core /General EducationRequirements

Grievance ResolutionPromote Program Articulation

Segmental Boards and AgenciesSegmental Common Course/Core

RequirementsSegmental Data and Information SystemsSegmental Common Calendars and

Reporting FormatsSegmental Minimum Admissions

RequirementsSegmental Limited Access Program

PoliciesPromote Intersegmental Programs

Statewide Voluntary Professional GroupsConcerned with Transfer/Articulation

Presidents, Deans' Councils (Both Inter-and Intrasegmental)

Transfer/ Articulation OfficersFaculty Representatives (Including

Disciplines)Professional Associations

II. Regional ActivitiesProfessional Voluntary GroupingsRegional Coordinating CouncilsRegional Meetings and WorkshopsRegional Consortia Projects

III. InstitutionalAdmissions

Upper-nivisiol, Entry Comparable toFreshman Sen, iccs

Joint (Guaranteed) AdmissionsOrientation and Preregistration ServicesPlacement Testing

18

(ommoni Electronic TranscriptsPrompt Transcript Assessment and

ReportingFinancial Aid Provisions

Y-ansfer Student ServicesRecruitmentCounseling/ Advising (Manual or

Computer-Assisted)Transfer/Articulation OfficersTransfer CentersCommon CatalogsVisits 'College Fairs

CurriculumFaculty-to-Faculty Articulation ActivitiesArticulated 2 +2 AgreementsArticulated Acceleration

Dual CreditAdvanced PlacementCLEPCredit by Ev.Concurrent Enrollment

Other Articulation ActivitiesJoint ProgramsJoint Use of FacilitiesCooperative Outreach ProgramsCollaborative Activities

In the final analysis, however, making trans-fer and articulation work is dependent upon thewillnigliess, commitment, and attitudes of peo-ple at the institutional level. People must knoweach other, communicate with each other, re-spect each other, trust each other, and worktogether. President-to-president and faculty-to-faculty relationships have resulted in clearerunderstanding of the different institutional mis-sions and institutional cultures making up a

state's system of postsecond.iry education.I WO-;;ear college faculty have come touniversity faculty members do care about stu-dents and arc committed to teaching and learn-ing. University faculty simultaneously have

discovered that their two-year college counter-parts are current in their disciplines and arecommitted to scholarship. A shared commit-ment to helping students, the common centralpurpose of all sincere faculty, can and doescome from joint articulation efforts.

Institutional leaders, especially chief executiveofficers, set the direction and tone by servingtransfer students and working with other in-stitutions. (See the University of Central Ho i-da/Valencia Community College and Texascase studies in Part II for illustrations.)

The Baccalaureate View: Baccalaureate in-terests in the transfer/articulation debate aretypically directed toward quality. Some ques-tion the quality of preparation provided bycommunity colleges as well as the quality ofperformance and persistence of their product.Differences among two-year colleges and differ-ences in the characteristics of their entering stu-dents make most state two-year college systems

vulnerable to question, skepticism, and doubt.The nature and quality of faculty and ,taff ofthe colleges and the emphasis placed on thetransfer function in comparison to the occupa-tional programs, developmental programs, andbusiness/industry services compound bac-calaureate institutions' concerns.

The ability of two-year institutions to verifylower-division collegiate-level courses togetherwith standards of rigor are important in satis-fying the baccalaureate view. Aumittedly, sonicof the ultra-conservative baccalaureate tradi-tionalists will not be convinced; however, thepublic and Ats legislative representatives will be.

Two -Year College View: Concern that transferstudents are treated the same as native students,

coupled with resentment of heavy-handed,

A NATIONAL STUDY OF STATE nUCIES AND PRACTICES

condescending attitudes from upper-division in-stitutio as, are often found in testimony andcomma no: of two-year college representativesin the debate. Anecdotal evidence is offered foreach but often lacks verification.

Two-year colleges simply do not know enoughabout themselves, their programs, the ex-periences of their transfer students, and theresultant need for self-corrective action. Two-year colleges; in each state must make a com-mitment to improving systemwide informationabout transfer and articulation as well as bewilling to address internal weaknesses.

Slate Poho-Maker View: There is a growingfrustration with reported transfer student in-equities and injustices resulting from instiar-tional competition, dissension, and uncooper-ativeness. It would appear that legislatures,reflecting public sentiment, are becoming in-creasingly intolerant of traditions, structures,and attirides of academe that place inscitutioninterest above the importance and worth of thestudent.

h :! long-term response to this view will be amovement from articulation practices to col-laborative practices between and among thepublic institutions in each state.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Congress

It is recommended that Congress study llhe in-justice to federal financial aid recipients and thecost to taxpayers of state-supported institutionsthat require such recipients to repeat coursework at receiving institutions that already hadbeen successfully completed at the sending in-stitution. Using the constitutional "IA cl fare


clause" authority, Congress should enact legis-lation that would deny feder,.I funds to statesthat do not correct such injustices.

It is alsc recommended that Congress determinewhether regional or professional accreditingbodies violate the rights of federal financial aidrecipients when imposing requirements that areessentially harriers to transfer and articulationbetween two-year and four-year programs.(Only one regional accrediting agency was iden-tified in this study as treating transfer and articu-lation in the same manner as affirmative actionpolicies.)

The AACJC

It is recommended that the AACJC Board ofDirectors promote the importance of the trans-fer function by a planned national program thatsystematically focuses upon critical areas oftransfer and articulation. It is proposed that1991 be designated the "Year of Transfer andArticulation" in order for activities to be high-lighted and the nation to become involved.AACJC-affiliated counci'.s could contribute totheir regional and state activities throughout theyear.

It is further recommendec that three specificareas be addressed during the Year of Trans-fer, including: (1) the transfer function and op-portunities for underrepresented ethnic minoritygroups; (2) the transfer function and career f.sciu-cation programs; and (3) moving front articu-lation to collaboration programs.

It is recommended that AACJC: institute a program of identifying and reporting exemplarytransfer and articulation practices comparable.o those included in Part II of this report.

20

The State Legislatures

It is recommended that state legislatures requirestatewide intersegmental and segmental reportson transfer and articulation activities to insurethat legislative intent and priorities for fairnessto students and taxpayers are achieved.

It is also recommended that legislatures pro-vide incentives for appropriate transfer/ artica-lation /collaboration efforts of two-year andfour-year institutions for increasing the par-ticipation of underrepresented minority groups.

It is further recommended that legislatures pro-vide funds for the development of comprehen-sive student data systems and insist upon allinstitutions sharing information among and be-tween segments as well as with the legislatureand the public.

Finally, it is recommended that state legislaturesdetermine whether state financial aid programsare being violated by institutional practices orrequirements of accrediting agencies that wouldrequire comparable corrective action as recom-mended for Congress at the national level.

SUGGESTED READINC;S

Listings of alt policy, study, and proceduresi.ources for each state used in this study can-not he made due to the limitation of space andthe variation in citations. Many states providedxeroxed copies of materials related to the study.Selected publications arc referenced belowbased on direct value to this study or judgedworthy of use by states seeking helpful infor-mation on transfer and articulation.

Handbook for Articulation Task Forces1985-86. Irene Wright, Facilitator, Academ-ic Program Articulation Steering Committee.State of Arizona.

Transfer Policies of Arkansas Colleges andUniversities. Arkansas Transfer AdvisoryCommittee. January, 1988.

California Faces . . California's Future: Edu-cation for Citizenship in a MulticulturalDemocracy. The Final Report of the JointCommittee for Review of the Master Plan forHigher Education. March, 1989.

Handbook of California Articulation Policiesand Procedures. Intersegmental Coordinat-ing Council. 1989.

Strengthening Transfer and Articulation Poli-cies and Practices in California's Colleges andUniversities: Progress Since 1985 and Sug-gestions for the Future. California Postsecon-dary Education Commission. 1987.

Progress in Implementing the Recommenda-tions of the Commission's 1987 Report onStrengthening. Transfer and Articulation.California Postsecondary Education Com-mission. 1988.

Transfer and Articulation with For.- -Year Col-leges. and Universities. A Repo, by the Boardof Governors of California Community Col-leges. March 9--10, 1989.

Articulating Ctireer Education Programs fromHigh School through Community College tothe Baccalaureate Degree. A Report to theGovernor , Legislature, and EducationalCommunity in Response to Assembly' Bill3639 (Chapter 1138, Statutes of 1986).


California Postsecondary Education Com-mission. December 14, 1987.

Reaffirming California's Commitment to'Transfer: Recommendations for Aiding Stu-dent Transfer from the California Commu-nity Colleges to the California State Univer-sity and the University of California.California Postsecondary Education Com-mission. 1985.

Transfer, Articulation, and Collaboration:Twenty-Five Years Later. A Report of a Re-search Project Funded by the Ford Founda-tion. By Dorothy M. Knoell, American As-.sociation of Community and Junior Colleges,1990.

Transfer Information System Feasibility Study.Colorado Commission on Higher Education.November, 1988.

Articulatio;t Study: The Role of Florida Cornniunity Colleges in Articulation. Florida StateBoard of Community Colleges Task Force onArticulation. September, 1988.

Transfer Study: A Five-Year Study of StudentsTransferring from Illinois Two -Year Collegesto Illinois Senior Colleges/Universities in the;',ell of 1979. Illinois Community CollegeBoard by Authority of the State of Illinois.May, 1986.

Performance Audit Report: Tran.sferringCourses to Regents' nil,ersities. A Reportto The Legislative Post Audit Committee bythe Legislative Division of Post Audit, Stateof Kansas. January, 1986.

Student Transfers. from Community Lollepesto Baccalaureate Institutions in Al ichigan.

11


Preliminary Report by Maureen T. Neal,Community College Services 1.1.1;t, HigherEducation Management Services, preparedfor the Michigan State Board of Education.February, 1988.

Credit Transfer: Guidelines for Student Trans-fer and Articulation Among Missouri Col-leges and Universities. Missouri Coordinat-ing Board for Higher Education. October,1987.

Articulation and Transfer: A Compendium ofUniversity Initiatives. By I)ympna Bowles,Director of Articulation, and Cerisa Mitch-ell, Associate Director of Articulation, Of-fice of Academic Affairs. The City Universi-ty of New York. 1987.

Report of the University Articulation TaskForces. Office of Academic Affairs. The CityUniversity of New York. 1988.

Guidelines for Transfer: Recommendations ofthe Joint Committee on College Transfer Stu-dents. University of North Carolina. 1987.

22

Re«mmtended Transfer Programs Guvle1987-1989: Update. Oregon State System ofHigher Education.

South Dakota Postsecomulam y Collegiate Artic-ulation Committee Report. July, 1989.

A Study of the Role of Community Collegesin the Achievement of the Bachelor's Degreein Washington State. Washington StateBoard for Community College Education.January, 1989.

Policy on Inter-College Trans f1, !mai Articula-tion Among Washington Public Colleges andUniversities. State of Washington Higher Edu-cation Coordinating Board. February, 1986.

intereJllege Relations Comnlission InformationBooklet. A Commission of the WashingtonCouncil on High School/College Relations.1986.

Transfer Information System?! Project Defini-tion. The University of Wisconsin System,January, 1989.

Articulation and State-LevelInformation Systems: A

Necessary Marriage

William R. Odom

One of the most significant trends in -,)stsecon-dary education over the past two decades hasbeen the increased involvement of state govern-ments in the development of policies and regu-lations affecting public institutions. Access andarticulation policies have been at the center ofmuch of this attention. A national study of ar-ticulation by the California Postsecondary Edu-cation Commission, Transfer, Articulation,and CAaboratbn Twenty-Five Years Later(1987), reached the following conclusion:

State legislatures enact bills and resolutions

expressing intent with respect to the treat-ment of transfer students and courses, with

implementation to be carried out by statecommissions or coordinating boards forhigher education by ti e adoption ofstatewide policies, regulations, and agree-ments (p. 57).

With the increase in state involvement comesa need finr more and better iriformation withwhich to address these policies, regulations, andagreements. As pointed out by Bragg l 1989),student tracking systems are in their early stages

of development in some states; however, college

staff need to be more involved at the state level

in establishing program guidelines, definingdata element definitions, and developingrepo''-ing formats.

Unfortunately, the systematic collection, stor-age, retrieval, analysis, and dissemination ofinformation at the stat level has not been ahigh priority of legislative budgets and thus haslagged behind the movement toward more cen-tralized decision making. This creates a seri-ous dilemmacentralized decision makingwithout centralized information. Althoughmany states have recognized this problem, fewh. :e taken pos' tive steps to solve it. Anotherfinding of the California Postsecondary Edu-cation Commission study was stated as tOilows:

A great /Ica; of progress has been made bycolleges and universities since the 1960s inthe use of clectro ac computers for the col-lection, storage and analysis of transferstudent data and related course and pro-.gram information. Still databases at thestate and systemwide levels are :lot estab-lished for the most part in a way that facili-tates student tracking from institution toinstitution or through progr .ms to the at-tainment of a baccalaureate degree. Nor

23


arc databases with information aboutcourses and programs usually organized ina way that aids articulation between andamong institutions . . (p.54).

Technology, in terms of systems design con-cepts, database systems, networking architec-ture, and hardware, is not a harrier to im-plementing state-level information systems. Amajor reason states have not made more prog-ress in developing these comprehensive infor-mation systems is related to the multi-agencyapproach that must be taken to design theselarge, complex systems. In most states respon-sibility for policy making and implementationis fragmented among various boards, panels,commissions, and committees. As a result ofthis organization, a great deal of coordination,communication, and negotiation between theseagencies is required to facilitate informationsystems design that ensures that databases canbe shared or interfaced. Another reason for thereluctance of states to move toward centralizedinformation systems is the fear of usurping lo-cal institutional management decision makingauthority. With highly centralized detail infor-mation, state agencies could become more in-volved in the day-to-day operational decisionsof the institutions or, at the least, second-guessthe local management. Thirdly, witl the sizeand complexity of these systems, there is a sig-nificant inves' meat related to then full im-plementation. State legislatures are reluctant toprovide appropriations to further centralizepolicy and decision making even though theyare a partner in causing this shift to the statelevel.

Despite these barriers, many states arc movingtoward the development of comprehensivestate-level information systems. Most statesrecognize that state-level information systems

24

must address the strategic objectives of theagencies, rather than be limited to automationof operational functions.

This chapter proposes a general approach todeveloping a state-level information system tosupport policy and decision-makers concernedwith addressing the various aspects of articu-lation. Further, it emphasizes the need to beable to track students through the entire post-secondary education system. Articulation, inthe context of this paper, is a set of policies,regulations, and practices that impacts themovement of students through a state systemof postsecondary education. These policies arenot simply related to articulation, but interre-late with numerous other state policies such asgovernance, structure, access, and minorityrecruitment.

ARTICULATION POLICY ANDINFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

State-level policy making in most states is verycomplex since it usually involves several agen-cies in the executive branch, as well as legisla-tive committees and staff. To develop an in-formation system to address articulationpolicies and issues, a multi-agency, strategic in-formation planning approach is necessary. Oneagency cannot develop the various informationsystems required to address all of the articula-tion policies and issues. Since the decision struc-ture is different in most states, the informationsystem planning approach proposed in thischapter is based on the state-level policies andissues re!ated to articulation. From an analy-sis of these policies, the information require-ments of the systems can be inferred and dataneeds specifically defined. Another step in thesystems design process, which is not di'.;:usscdherr, would be to overlay the results of this


analysis onto the various agency responsibili-ties and strategic plans. This step is necessaryto define specific agency responsibilities for im-plementing the information systems needed.

It is unlikely that a state would undertake thedevelopment of information systems simply toaddress articulation issues; rather this wouldbe just one set of the critical policy areas thatwould be included in a comprehensive systemsplanning effort. However, this chapter is limitedto presenting an approach that addresses thespecific subset of policies related to articulation,

rather than detailing a comprehensive strate-gic information planning process.

The following provides an example of the poli-cies, information requirements, and uses of in-formation that should be analyzed to identifythe systems requirements for the student data-bases. Furthermore, this approach is based ona student flow or tracking model that identi-fies the information requirements of studentsentering postsecondary education institutions,moving through the institutions, and exiting theinstitutions.

Objective 1 -To provide baseline information on students entering the institutions.

Policies:

Access policiesAdmissions policiesAssessment testing policiesRemediation /placement

policiesMinority recruitment policiesCurriculum programming

policiesCounseling and advisement

policies

Information Requirements:

Educational history enter-ing the system

Precollege experiences(employment, military.etc.)

Personal, family, demo-graphic information

Test scores on assessmentand placement tests

Student educational goals(degree objectives)

Pe sonal goals (non-degreeobjectives)

Use of Information:

Profiling of entering stu-dent characteristics

Evaluating minorityrecruitment activities

Pros iding feedback infor-mation to previous edu-cational institutions(hie schools)

Analyzing placementpractices

Identifying at-risk studentsEvaluating counseling and

advisement practicesAnalyzing need for and use

of financial aidAnalyzing program de-

mand by students

Objective 2-- fo provide a tracking capability fog students as they move through theinstitutions.

Progress assessment policiesGrading policiesRetention policiesRemediation policies

Co,oprehensive educationalrecord

Non-educational recordProgress assessment record

Tracking student prs grossAnalyzing degree program

progress and switchnigcharacteristics

25


26

Objective 2Continued

Policies:

''ounseling and advisementpolicies

Financial aid policiesProgram review poli :iesStaff development policies

Information Requirements:

Counseling and advisementnformation

Financial aid information

Use of Information:

Evaluating placementstrategies << id policies

Identifying program com-pletion rates

Identifying problem areasfor a particular group ofstudents

Profiling at-risk studentsAnalyzing drop-out inter-

vention strategiesEvaluating assessment test-

ing activities and policiesConducting program reviewDetermining staff dev&op-

ment needsProviding feedback to

previous schools (highschools and colleges)

Objective 3to provide follow-up capability for students exiting the institutions.

Credentialing policiesExit assessment policiesPlacement policiesAdmissions policies (next

educational level)

Exit interview informationProgram completion

informationEducational record at sub-

sequent institution ;Employment informationFollow-up information

from students

Analyzing students' subse-quent educational progress

Evaluating program effec-tiveness (program review)

Determining job placementrates

Determining employer andstudent satisfaction witheducational experience

Analyzing student progrtmobjectives and comple-tion rates

Analyzing, completion ratesof students placed in remedial courses/programs

Following up on drop-outs(i.e. students not complet-ing programs)

Another database that is needed to addressstate-level articulation issues is one that con-tains data about the educational programsoffered at each postsecondary institution. Acommon program coding structure should bedeveloped s, ) that similar programs offered atthe various institutions can be identified. A sin-gle database such as this will provide the capa-bility of generating an institution/program ma-trix for the postsecondary educational systemin the state. The program and student databasescan be interfaced using the program identifi-cation code and the student program objective.The records contained in the program data-bases should include the following types of datafor each program:

Program identification codeInstitutional codesProgram descriptionProgram objectivesRela'ionships with other programsEntry requirementsPrerequisitesCourse requirements for completionCredential awardedCompletion ratesAccreditation informationLicensing requirements of graduatesPlacement rates

The use of this database in the student flowmodel, and specifically articalation policy ana-lyses, are numerous. Conducting programreviews, analyzing minority recruitment andretention, providing feedback to schools previ-ously attended, aiialyzing completion andplacement rates, and conducting studentfollow-up and drop-out studies at a few of theuses of the information that can be obtainedfrom this database,

A NATIONAL STUDY OF STATE POLICIES AND PRACI ICES

A third database needed at the state level is onethat contains the specific courses offered at eachinstitution. A common course identificationstructure should be an integral part of the in-formation system so that similar courses offeredat the various institutions can be identified. Thecourse database can be interfaced with the stu-dent databases Ly using the course data elementin the student unit record since each course astudent takes is identified in this record. Thecourse and program databases can be interfacedby using the common course prefix and num-ber in the program database. The courserecords contain the following types of data:

Common course prefix and numberTitleDescriptionCredit hoursProgram relationshipLevel (freshman, sophomore, etc.)Institution codes

The information that can be provided in thecourse database is essential tc the developmentand analysis of articulation policies. The com-monality and transferability of courses shouldnot he contested on a case-by-case basis, ratherit should be a matter of state policy. Such a sys-tem provides the maximum protection to thestudents as they move between the institutionsin a state, and it should be an integral part ofthe state articulation agreement or policy.

STATE-LEVEL INFORMATION r.i'i"STEMS1'O SUPPORT ARTICULATION

State-level information systems that can sup-port articulation activities will usually be com-posed of several subsystems and their respec-tive databases. The essential core of thesesubsystems, which are requi:-ed to construct

2/


student flow models, contains the student, pro -g -am, and course databases. Developing andmaintaining these databases will usually be theresponsibility of several different state-levelgoverning or coordinating agencies that areresponsible for the various education deliverycomponents, e.g., public schools (kinder-garten-12th grade), community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities. Seldom are allof the components under, or within, one agen-cy. In order to have t1-. inter-agency coopera-tion required to integrate these several data-bases, it is necessary to develop an informationsystem planning structure that includes all ofthe boards or agencies that have a vested in-terest in the final system's design. This usuallyrequires a different type of planning frameworkthan typically exists at the state level. Such aframework must consider how autonomousagencies can structure themselves to plan sys-tems and to share information across organiza-tional boundaries. Furthermore, the results ofthese planning activities may require changesin technology, fiscal mechanisms to allocateand share costs, modification of database struc-tures and definitions, and cross-participation

28

in governance processes (Davies and Levine,1988).

Whatever the cost and effort, it is necessary tointegrate these subsystems so that data can betransferred quickly and efficiently betweendatabases. Integration provides for studenttranscripts to be sent from one institution toanother through an electronic mail system. Stu-dents being counseled at a community collegecan access by terminal the program require-ments for entry into upper-level programs ata university, and they can compare their cur-rent academic record with these requirements.Reports can be sent to individual high schoolson how their students performed at the post-secondary level, and universities can reportback to colleges in a similar manner. Analysescan be accomplished to determine how wellminority community college transfer studentsperform in various programs into which theymove at a university. These are just a few ex-amples of how the integrated state-level infor-mation systems support articulation activities.Figure 1. illustrates the interrelationships ofthese subsystems' databases.

Figure 1Information Systems Itektionships

CourseDatabase

ProgramDatabase

Student DatabaseCommunity College

Student DatabasePublic Schools

Student DatabaseUniversities

A NATION,-L STUDY OF STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

To ensure integration of the individual sub-systems, agreements must be reached on sta a-dards and conventions related to database de-sign and structure. It is this need to forge suchagreements that stretches the planning capabil-ities of the state agencies involved since thereis an obvious give and take, or consensus pro-cess, that must take place. For example, toequate courses that are offered at different in-stitutions, and sometimes at different levels, re-quires the involvement of faculty experts in thevarious disciplines. The establishment ofequivalent numbers for equivalent courses isnot only a complex analytical task, but one thatrequires a considerable amount of negotiation.This is particularly true when guaranteed trans-ferability of common courses is involved.

Interagency planning in the development and re-view of data element dictionaries is essential tothe integrative process. There are common dataelements being collected in the several studentdatabases. It is imperative that these common ele-ments be defined in the same way and that cod-ing conventions are the same so that data fromthe subsystems can be shared, combined, and ag-gregated. For example, there should be commoncoding conventions for such data elements as eth-nic group, institution code, degree awarded, andcourse grades. A common student identificationcode should be used in each of the student data-bases to ensure that standard accessing and in-terfacing methods can be developed. The pro-gram structure that is the framework of theprogram database should be common for allpostsecondary programs regardless of the typeor level of institution. This will provide a basisfor analyzing articulation policies and practiceson a programmatic basis, as well as for constru,i-ing student flow models that can follow studentsthrough the institutions and programs in the statepostsecondary education system,

Another important component of a state-levelinformation system is an electronic data com-munications network that links all of the pub-lic education entities to the data processingresources serving public education in a state.Such a network will allow computer resourcesharing and data transfer among educationalinstitutions at all levels throughout the state.There are four basic goals of such a network:

to provide equal access to computingresources for the educational entities in thestate;

to reduce the data burden on faculty andadministrators;

to rapidly and effectively exchange infor-mation within the public education system;and

to increase the accuracy and reliability ofdata used at the institutional and statelevels (Florida Department of Education,1.989).

While a network is not absolutely necessary tohave a comprehensive state-level informationsystem, the current state of the technology andthe need to address the aforementioned goalsmakes it advantageous to include this compo-nent in the interagency planning effort. Sincesuch a network cuts across the organizationalboundaries of several state agencies and in-volves the various levels of educational deliv-ery, it is necessary to have broad involvementin determining the specific: functions and re-quired architecture of the facility.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little doubt that 'gate -level ire .'olverth.Titin policy determination and evah.lation will in-crease in the next few years. Of particular

29


interest will he the policies that make assurancesto the student, as the consumer of education,that there is a coordinated and articulated publiceducation system in the state. These assuranceswill be in the form c:f articulation policies andpractices to protect the rights of students mov-ing through the system. In order to develop thesepolicies and to evaluate their implementationsuccess, there is the need for state-level infor-mation systems. Although these information sys-

tems are complex and costly to develop, stateswill recognize their vilue and support their con -

tii"ied development. A finding of the Califor-nia Postsecondary Education Commission stuE'was that the technology is now available toprove the compilation and delivery of compre-hensive information to transfer students, as wellas to track and report on their performance, butit continues to be underutilized in most statesand institutions of higher education (CaliforniaPostsecondary Education Commission, 1987).The development of multiorganizational state-level information systems over the next decadewill begin n remedy this problem.

States must recognize the need to structure a newand different planning approach that supports,or even requires, interagency cooperation in thedevelopment of information systems. This plan-ning structure must insure that the various in-formation systems, which have henceforth beenthe responsibility of one agency, can he inte-grated into a multiagency system that supportsarticulation and other state policy areas.

At the center of this planning process are thestanda, Is and conventions that must he agreedupon to insure the integration of the student,program, and course databases. A statewideelectronic data communications network willfacilitate and enhance the development of thestatelevel information systems.

30

REFERENCES

Bragg, A .K . "Beyond the College: State PolicyImpact on Student Tracking Systems." InT.H. Bers (Ed.), Using Student Tracking Sys-tems ['Wet-tint*. Neu' Directions for Com-munity Colleges, No. 66. San Francisco:jossey-Bass, Summer 1989.

!irush, B. and Hartwig, A. "Planning and Im-plementing A Multi-Institutional, StatewideStudent Information System." Cause/E/Pct,1987, 10(5), 26-33.

California Postsecondary Education Commis-sion. Transfer, Articulation, and Collabora-tion Twenty-Five Years Later. Sacramento:California Postsecondary Education Com-mission, 1987. Draft.

Davies, T.R. , and Levine, E. Multi-organi-zational Strategic Information Systems(MOSIS) in the Public Sector. Nation alGovernors Association Second Joint Confer-ence on Integrating Data. Washington, D.C.:National Governors Association, 1988.

Florida Department of Education. Florida In-

formation Resource Network; An Introduc-tion to FIR N. T:allahassee: Florida Depart-ment of Education, 1989.

Florida State Board of Community Colleges. "fheRole of. Horida Community Colleges in Articu-lation (1988). Tallahassee: Florida State Boa:- dof Community Colleges, September, 1988.

Western Interstate Commission on Higher Edu-cation. Improving the A rticrilatimi/TranNferProcess Between Iwo- and Four -Year Institu-tions. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Com-mission on Higher Education, 1985.

PART II

New Jersey Institute ofTechnology and Transfer Reiteions

Gary Thomas

While higher education in New Jersey datesback to colonial times (Princeton Universitywas founded in 1746, and Rutgers, the StateUniversity of New Jersey was founded in1766), a system of higher education that pro-vides education for a modern technological so-ciety is relatively recent. In part, this is the re-sult of private and public institutionalassessment of society's educational needs andoffering programs to meet those needs. Butmore importantly, New Jersey simply allowed(or encouraged) its citizens to go out of statewhere better educational opportunities existed.

In 1.965 the president of Princeton University,Robert F. Goheen, chaired a blue ribbon com-mittee on higher education that issued a report,A Call to Action. In the year of this report,60,000 New Jersey students left the stare, whileonly 30,000 of its students could be accommo-dated in the public sector of higher educationin New Jersey.

In 1967 the Board of Higher Fducation andDepartment of Higher Education wen e created.In 1970 the first master plan for higher educa-tion was issued and the state's philosophy ofhigher education established. Since the issuance

of the first plan for higher education, threeothers have been completed. A system of highereducation has taken shape that goes a long waytoward meeting the state's goal of providing in-creased and diverse opportunities for educat-ing students to their maximum potential.

In the late 1960s the present community col-lege system began to take shape. The commu-nity/county college system in New Jersey islargely an open admissions system with the dualmission of providing training in skills proficien-cy and two-year career oriented or transfer pro-grams. Nearly all the community colleges pre-pare students in a wid, variety of disciPlinesfor transfer to four-year colleges and un,versi-tes. The first two years of engineering and en-gineering technology programs are offered bymost.

In 1983 the Board of Higher Education issueda policy, "Full Faith in Credit," that requir,J1the public four-year colleges and universities toaccept the credits earned at the community col-lege as having the ,arne value as those taughtat the receiving college. Further, this policy re-quires the state colleges to accept the generaleducation portion of the work completed at the

33


community college as satisfying their owngeneral education requirement. Finally, as longas a transfer student remains in the same ma-jor, the state colleges can require no more than68 additional credits. This policy applies strictlyto the state colleges; however, the state-supported universities are also expected to fol-low it as closely as possible. While there hasbeen some movement toward the acceptanceof this policy, in many cases it is simply ig-nored, especially at the state-supporteduniversities.

New Jersey Institute of Technology, foundednearly 100 years earlier, began coope, dingwith the newly created community collegesfrom their beginning. NJIT, long known asNewark College of Engineering, began as es-sentially a technician training school. Early inthe 20th century, engineering programs wereadded to the technician certificate programs,and the college began its evolution into a tech-nological university. Throughout its history,however, the technician training program re-mained as part of its programmatic offerings.The technician certificate programs reachedpeak enrollment in 1967.

NJIT .s original technician training programshave essentially ceased to exist now that thecommunity colleges offer technician trat Hagprograms. The current NJIT certificate pro-grams have changed to emphasize post-baccalaureate and pre-baccalaureate certificatesin fields such as computer-aided design anddrafting, where MIT has a better equipmentbase than the nearby community colleges.

In 1971 NJIT joined the community collegesin the creation of an engineering, technologyprogram that became a model of cooperation,characterizing many of the programs that

34

followed. In the early part of the second halfof the 20th century, there was growing nationalrecognition of the need for a new edr .:ationalprogram to fall somewhere between the tradi-tional engineering program, which many peo-ple believed had gotten too theoretical, and thetechnician programs. NJIT created the bac-calaureate program in engineering technologyin 1971 for evening students iLlid in 1972 forday students. It was Treed that NJIT wouldnot offer the first two years of the program;rather, it would rely on the community collegesto do that, and it would offer only the upperdivision of the program.

NJIT's policy of cooperation and support forthe community college system was partly theresult of the philosophical commitment of thefaculty and the administration to this newlycreated system of higher education in New Jer-sey and partly a recognition of self-interest. Theepicenter of the 1967 Newark riots was onlythree blocks from the campus. The impact ofthe riots and the urban decline before and af-ter them continues to affect enrollment, espe-cially at the undergraduate level. This, coupledwith the demographic decline of the numberof students graduating iron high school andthe fact that New Jersey remains the largest ex-porter of undergraduate students in the nationhas made a necessity of virtue. NJIT supportsthe philosophy of the state goals for the sys-tem of higher education and chooses to use itsscarce resources to develop and support pro-grams where i t has a competitive advantageover other schools, It tries to anticipate changesin higher education and develop programs thatrespond to those Cianges. And, in the beliefthat perceived 'tuff() \'ernent in quality of thesystem of higher edit, ation will ultimately ben-efit N111' directly. it promotes policie,, that im-prove the entire system. NJIT has developed

the following sp. calk: programs to implementits policy on transfer relations.

ADMISSIONS

Students graduating from community collegesare admitted into NJIT's programs in threeways: students apply, have their recordsreviewed and, if appropriate, are admitted; :stu-dents complete a course-by-course articulatedprogram with satisfactory performance and areadmitted; and increasingly, students are admit-ted through signed joint admissions agreementsbetween the community college and NJIT.

Traditional Admissions

While there are special problems associatedwith articulating technological programs, thereare also some advantages. The primary diffi-culty is associated with professional accredita-tions. The advantages are associated with thehighly structural nature of the curriculum.

Where baccalaureate accrediting agencies exist,special care is needed in transfer relations be-cause the baccalaureate-granting institution isresponsible for the entire educational programwhether or not individual courses are offeredby another college. There are a wide varietyof such programs that are accredited at thebaccalaureate level (e.g. nursing, business,architecture, computer science, engineering,and engineering technology). Each of these pro-grams has special chan,cteristies and problems,but many of the transfer difficulties encounteredare corium

Sone states require that senior colleges anduniversities accept all students who graduatefrom an accredited community college. How-ever, most baccalaureate-accrediting agencies


require that the institution granting the degreebe responsible for all courses taken in the pro-gram., whether or not they are taken at thedegree-granting institution. Hence, even if

graduates of community colleges are acceptedautomatically into an institution, they mightneed to repeat many courses if those coursesdo not fit the requirements of the four-yeardegree-granting institution's curriculum. Fur-ther, even if the courses taken at a communitycollege have descriptions similar to the cor-responding ones at the senior institution, if thelevel and subject matter covered are not thesame as those required by the degree-grantinginstitution, students may not be prepared forthe advanced courses in the curriculum. Thisis especially true of mathematics and sciencepreparation for engineering curricula, sincemost of the professional courses are taken atthe upper-division level,

Further, students sometimes experience prob-lems with prerequisites, although their difficul-ties are not immediately obvious. Students mayhe able to pass one or two courses in a sequence(perhaps with reduced performance from thatwhich they could achieve with proper prepa-ration) before their difficulty is obvious. With-out continuing discussion between the engineer-ing faculty and the mathematics and sciencefaculties (even within the same institution) stu-dents may lack the neceisary skills to under-take certain upper-division courses.

In management curricula, the major accreditingagency has strict requirements on the place inthe curricula a particular course must he offered.In many instances, the maturity of the studentsis as important as the material covered. venthough a student may he able to pass a manage-ment course, if he or she has not completed abasic business course, such as economics, the

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TI;ANSFER FUNCTION

student will have an incomplete understandingof the material c,tvered.

For successful transfer relations to exist, theremust be ongoing discussion between the facul-ties of the schools who prepate students forgraduation. The faculty members of commu-nity colleges need to know how well theirgraduates do in specific senior institutioncourses. They need to discuss the impact ofpotential curriculum changes that wig, assist stu-dent at one college and how those changes im-pact students who do not transfer to that Aen-ior institution. Through such discussionsconfidence can be established between institu-tions and modifications made in both curricu-la and ack ;ement systems, thus assuring thatstudents have a reasonable chance of success.

Course Credit

Of nearly equal importance to establishingcourse equivalencies is making certain that stu-dents receive timely information concerning thecredit that will be awarded for those coursesso that students can accept or reject an offerof admission. Even thoug' NJn has course-by-course articulation ago ements with nearlyall of the community co112ges in New Jersey,few students move smog' hly through a curric-ulum, whethei or not it t' 2.rticulayd to anotherprogram. NJIT has appointed a full-time per-son in the registrar's office who is responsiblefor the awarding of transfer credit.

Even though students move from school toschool more today than in the past, clear,detailed articulation agreements betweenschools significantly help students transfer.Over the past 20 years MI -1: has establishedcurriculum-by-curriculum articulation agree-ments with nearly all of the community colleges

36

in the state. These agreements call for semi-annual meetings to discuss the success of trans-fer students in the various transfer programsat MIT.

Dual Admissions and Student Recruitment

Over the past several years, NJIT has begunworking out dual admissions agreements, inwhich a student is admitted simultaneously toa community college and NJIT. Such studentsneed not "apply" to NJIT again after the com-pletion of their program at the community col-lege. They simply notify NJIT of their programcompletion, forward their transcripts to NJIT,and begin attending classes on the NJIT cam-pus While the actual conditions of "transfer"to NJIT are essentially the same as those thatprevail under a traditional articulation agree-ment, one might ask What are the advantagesto the community college and NJIT? Whileknowing the number of students who will likelyattend is advantageous to planning, the mostimportant advantage to both is the ability tojointly market programs to studentpopulations.

NJIT actively recruited transfer students priorto the creation of the community college systemand will continue to do so in the future. Themethods used included advertising in local news-papers (as well as in the student newspapers ofthe community colleges), holding open hulls,' forpotential transfer students, and having acnis-sions officers and faculty visit community col-lege campuses to discuss transfer wi h students.With the growth of articulation agreements,NJIT often gained (at no charge) to theliterature distributed by the commtnitv collegeto its potential student pool. Sony iimes infor-mation about the articulated program was partof a mailing to every household in the county

or service region. In nearly every case, thearticulated programs were described in thecommunity college's catalog. In addition, NJITliterature about itself and the articulated pro-grams was made available to the admis-sions officers at the community college,who in turn gave it to potentially interestedstudents.

With the joint admissions agreements, how-ever, mutually supportive and coordinatedrecruitment can take place. NJIT supplies thenames and addresses of students in the com-munity college service area who are unlikely tobe admitted to NJIT as freshmen but who havepotential for success in their chosen field oncecertain deficiencies are removed. Often visitsto high schools in the region are coordinatedwith the admissions staff of the community col-lege. In this way, additional options cart be ex-plained to potential students.

These dual admissions programs have signifi-cantly increased the class size of particular pro-grams at the community college. The resultshave been so encouraging that other collegeshave approac!,ed NJIT to work out similar ar-rangements. The basic reason for success seemsto be that students like the certainty of ultimateadmission into a baccalaureate program.Through such a guarantee, a larger number ofthe state's citizens understand the logic of thehigher education system that came rather lateto New Jersey.

Of course, availability of places within the jun-ior class at NJIT is essential for such a programto secceed. this reason no agreements arecompleted for programs where availability can-not be assured. Currently only admission to thearchitecture program is limited due to spacelimitations.


STRNCJHENING RELATIONS WITHCOMMUNITY COLLEGES

Student recruitment and admissions activitiesallow for the development of truu that is neces-sary for many other activities to take place.These include cooperative education programs,upper-division courses offered on the campusof the community college, and the formationof consortia of colleges to address student learn-ing needs in specific fields.

Cooperative Education

NJIT offers a large cooperative educationalprogram with many options on both the gradu-ate and undergraduate levels. One of the mostpopular undergraduate cooperative educationprograms involves two work experiences dur-ing the junior year. For this prog, im to be opentc,' transfer students, there must be placementactivity while these students are still enrolledin their community colleges. For such a program to have maximum effect, the co-op stu-dent must be placed into a job that takes ad-vantage of the education the student hasreceived during the first two years of college.Further, it is typical for students to be "paired"on the job, that is, two students with approxi-mately the same background and level of skillsare identified by an employer to alternately filla poition. In this way the corporation has amore uniform-sized wor'. force. Co-op workplacements require that students be identified,interviewed, and scheduled for their work /study experiences. The school arranging theplacement must know the students' educationalbackground in detail as well as their education-al and professional plans after completing thecastudies, For community college stude.us to havean equal chance to participate with studentswho start as freshmen at the senior college, they


mm be interviewed while they are second-yearstudents at the community college. Further,their preparation must he equivalent to thatgiven to students who begin at the senior in-stitution and may be paired with them. The co.op director at the senior institution must workwith the potential co-op students at the com-munity college. Such activities require a highlevel of confidence between the correspondingadministrations of the two institutions.

During academic year 1986-1987, NJIT beganplanning for the implementation of a cooper-ative education program that placed studentsfrom community colleges in work experiencesprior to their first class at NJIT. Engineeringtechnology was chosen as the first program tohave students placed into co-op employmentunder this program. There were several reasonsfor deciding that thr transfer cooperative edu-cation program should begin with the engineer-ing technology program. The most importantof these reasons was that the vast majority ofNjIT's engineering technology students are eve-ning part-time students (that is they work dur-ing the day in a local industry and attend col-lege at night). Hence, they are already engagedin "work/ study" arrangements. A cooperativeeducation assignment might provide a work ex-perience more closely related to their field ofstudy. Further, previously no engineering tech-nology student has been eligible for NjIT'scooperative education program because of its2 t 2 nature and the NJIT co-op model that rc.

quired the completion of NJIT credit prior toplacement in a work experience.

Part-time students usually require at least twiceas long a period of time to complete their courseof study as full-time students (i.e. four years tocomplete the two-year tipper division). Further,informal work/study arrangements often reLnIt

38

in students working on a job that is not asso-ciated with their course of study, but is simplya means to pay for their education. A formalcooperative education program would allow stu-dents to complete the upper-division cotin three years rather than in two. Further, since

work experience is directly related to the stu-dent's future career, cooperative educationwould provide a more meaningful educationalexperience. Since engineering technology is moreclosely attuned to current engineering practicethan, is an engineering program, cooperativeeducation for such a program was ideal.

Work on the program began with a conferenceheld a". NJIT' to which several people from eachcommunity college were invited. The confer-ence began with several presentations on thenature of cooperative education and themechanics of the program at NJIT. The advan-tages of he program to the community collegestuder is were stressed. Finally, separate work-shops to discuss concerns were held at the var-ious institutions for academic deans, placementofficers, and financial aid officers.

Off-Campus Courses

In the early 1980s, NJIT began to expand thenumber of locations at which courses wereoffered. Prior to 1975 all cmcies offered byNjli. were given on the Newark campus. Inthe latter part of the decade, Nil' began to of-ler graduate-level computer science programsin western and southern New Jersey, in re-sponse to the growing number of profession-als working in suburban research and develop-ment corporations who wanted advancedstudy. To ease the transition to the Newarkcampus for engineer' (h technology students, in

980 undergraduate courses ,A.ere added in thesouthern New Jersey location.

There are now 11 sites in New Jersey (all butone co-located with a community college). Ina idition to some selected graduate programs,upper-division engineering and engineeringtechnology courses are offered at these sites.These programs meet a demonstrated need ofstudents enrolled in community college pro-grams. All of NJIT's engineering programs re-quire courses in the major during the sopho-more year; hence, students who transfer toMIT without these courses fall behind studentswho enter NJIT as freshmen. For example,NJIT's electrical engineering program requiresstudents who st NJIT to take two coursesin electrical mg during their sophomoreyear of study ame of the communiti collegeseither do not have an appropriate faculty mem-b,r to teach these courses or need this facultymember to teach other courses in the commu-nity college's program. Further, the communitycollege program must prepare students to trans-fer to a wide variety of upper-division engineer-ing colleges. As a result, the courses needed byNJIT's students may not be taught. However,with the support and urging of community col-leges, NJIT's own faculty began to offer thenecessary courses at the community collegesdurn g the evening hours. In this way studentsin tne second year of an engineering transferprogram who wished to transfer to NJIT couldtake the courses without additional commut-ing costs.

Consortia

During the past several years, there has beena growing recognition at NJIT and at many ofthe community colleges that program-orientedconsortia could provide benefits to both thecounty colleges and NJIT. For example, in19)84 NJIT began a program in computer..integrated manufacturing phis program

A NATIONAL STUD'i OF STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

addresses the rapid (iodine in the productionof goods within the United States during thepast decade. Advances in computer technolo-gy have created conditions where parts may bedesigned and analyzed on high resolution vide,-)terminals. After the designer is satisfied with,the part, the manufacturing lrocess (for exam-ple, cutting tool strokes) may be designed atthe terminal. Once the design and the manufac-turing process are complete, ':he computer codethat will control the movem :nt of the machineproducing the physical objc a is passed over anetwork to the factory floor where the prod-uct is manufactured. The physical object maybe tested, redesigned if necessary, packaged,and shipped. As the prociuct is used, data con-cerning its reliability ma;, be used to modify thedesign in subsequent versions of the product.

In order for students to take part in the dra-matic changes this technology causing in theway factories and businesses operate, expen-sive equipment must he purchased and facultywith appropriate expertise must he recruited.The state of New Jersey agreed to provide NJITwith the resources necessary to introduce ad-vanced manufacturing into its curriculum if ar-rangements were made to provide communityinlleges with ways to participate. In 1985 NJITconvened a meeting of the presidents of 10community colleges located within commutingdistance of NJIT's Newark campus. Throughthis and other meetings, it was agreed that a

"factory of the future" would be created atNUT and at community college facultywould have access to the factory to teach theproject and design courses they could r of teachon their c.impus. If the community co lege didnot have the faculty with appropriatezations necessary to teach these courses, NJIT'sfat 'thy would teach the courses. At t his point

the associated community cc

4 c.

Cllr i,es have

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TRANSFER FUND ION

asked to use the factory and NJIT's faculty toteach the project courses that require studentsto synthesize the knowledge that they havegained during the first two years. Hence, thestudents enrolled in the community college pro-grams will be instructed in part by NJIT'sfaculty on if s campus.

After the first three years of consortium oper-ation, a review process was begun. Severalrepresentatives from community colleges sug-gested that a consortium for all engineeringtechnology programs offered by New Jerseycolleges would be useful. As a result of this sug-gestion, NJIT has begun the organization of anengineering technology consortium consistingof NJIT and all of the community colleges thatoffer engineering technology programs. Thisunusual consortium may provide an arena fordiscussing educational improvements in en-gineering technology education. Similar rsortia in other programmatic areas could im-prove the education offered by a distributedsystem of higher education.

STUDENT OUTCOMES

Careful analysis of student learning in any pro-gram is necessary to improve the quality of theeducational experience. 'bhis is true whether ornot a portion of a program is offered by an-other institution. For example, in engineeringeducation the mathematics sequence taken bystudents is critical to their success. Not onlymust appropriate material he covered in the se-quence, but students must learn how to applythat knowledge to engineering problems. If itappears that students are experiencing difficultywith a particular portion of the engineeringcurriculum, the faculty member involved inteaching it can discuss the prohlems with thefaculty of other departments to find better ways

AO

of preparing the students for the materialthey must cover. On the surface it .night ap-pear that such discussions of courses taught atanother institution would be more difficult;however, in practice there appears to be littledifference.

Each year NJIT provides the various commu-nity colleges with information on the perfor-mance of NJIT students who transferred fromtheir college. Data provided consists of infor-mation on the average performance of all stu-dents who transferred during a given year, aswell as a record of the performance of individu-al students.

One of the mare useful measures of student per-formance of both individual students andgroups is the cumulative grade point average(GUM). If there is a large enough group of stu-dents transferring into a program from an in-dividual college, the CUM is also a useful mea-sure for understanding the preparation oftransfer students from the transfer institution.NJIT uses the ratio of the average GUM earnedby a group of students who transfer to NJITin a given year to the average GUM that thegroup transferred to NJIT. If the ratio is nearto one, it is assumed tha.t the lower-preparation for the particular prograni is ade-quate for the work in the upper division. Forexample, in a recent transfer class of over 50students from a partkular community coilcAe,the CUM ratio was 0.98 (that is, the group hadan average GUM of 2.8 from the communitycollege and earned an average GUM of 2.73in their first year at NJIT).

Thi', single ratio, of course, gives only a narrowview of transfer claps preparation. For exam..plc, rxpetience has shown that students witha GUM of 3.5 (out of a total of 4.0) or better

perform very well at NJIT regardless of th(' in-stitution from which they transfer. Admissionspersonnel at all levels and in various places inthe nation can corroborate that students whohave excellent performance in their high school,community college, or undergraduate schoolare very likely to perform well in their next aca-demic experience. Hence, it is even more im-portant to be able to predict the performanceof more nearly average students than it is topredict the performance of exceptional stu-dents. By understanding the performance ofaverage students, it is sometimes easier tounderstand the preparation provided by specificcourses and sequences of courses.

In its analysis of performance, NJIT preparesa matrix that displays the CUM earned at thecommunity college versus the CUM earned atNJIT. The CUM earned at each institution isdivided into cells that are 0.5 GUM points wide.Then the number of students who transferredin a given period is entered into the appropri-ate cell. For example, in the transfer class illus-trated in the last paragraph, six students whoseCUM from the cominunty college was between2.00 and 2.49 had CUMs at NJIT between 2.00and 2.49. If there were perfect correlation be-tween community college performance and per-formance NJIT, all of the student CUMswould lie along the diagonal of the matrix (i.e.their CUM at NJIT would bt the same as thatearned at the community college). This does nothappen, of course, because student performanceoften changes with level of se ly and becauseof the events that occur in the lives of individu-al students. However, there tends to be a corre-lation between community college performanceand NJIT performance.

In addition to these studies of average perfor-mance of relatively large numbers of students,


NJIT provides the community college with in-formation on the performance of each trans-fer student. This information includes the num-ber of credits transferred from the communitycollege, the number of credits completed atNJIT, the CUM of the student, and the cur-rent major of the student.

Maintenance of a dialog between communitycollege faculty and the NJIT faculty is difficult.It is not, however, significantly more difficultthan maintaining a dialog between the variousfaculties within the same institution. For ex-ample, it is typical for the faculty in the scienceand mathematics departments to answer to adifferent dean than the engineering, architec-ture, or management departments. Each ofthese departments has its own measure ofprofessional success. Each offers service coursesthat mint satisfy the needs of more than onecollege. Further, the demands of accreditingagencies are different. While the logistics of get-ting together may be easier when the facultiesof separate programs are on the same campus,the differences in demands on the faculties aresimilar even when they are separated by sig-nificant amounts r)f travel time.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, transfer arrangements make sense forall concerned: the student who may not havetaken high school seriously gets another chanceat a college education; the state is able to pro-vide students with opportunities to receive highquality college education at a reduced total cost;and the colleges are able to differentiate theirmissions without closing their doors to studentswho would otherwise be excluded from univer-sities for financial reasons or for deficienciesin preparation. However, at least in the cawof the technological profession',, the special

41


restrictions of the senior colleges should be keptin mind in developing transfer arrangements.

First, accreditation is beneficial to most curric-ula. However, accreditation reviews can causesenior colleges to change their curricula abrupr.-ly and in ways that can appear arbitrary tocommunity colleges. Second, most accreditingagencies require senior institutions to assumeresponsibility for the entire curriculum that thestudent follows whether or not the studenttakes all the courses at the same institution.Third, since success in technological educationdepends in large measure on the material nor-mally covered in the lower division, senior in-stitutions have legitimate concerns for what istaught in individual courses.

There are many reasons why students may wishto attend four-year institutions directly out of highschool; however, there are growing numbers ofstudents who do not. For these students, espe-cially fur students in the technologies, it is impor-tant to provide transfer opportunities that offerhigh quality education with natural breaks thatallow for the possibility of career reorientation.

42

While NJIT has never been alone within thestate of New Jersey in its support and initia-tive in facilitating transfer of students fromcommunity colleges, for more than a decadeit had an advantage over some of the universi-ties in the state in obtaining transfer students,at least in part because of its initiatives in sup-port of the higher education system. In recentyears other state-supported universities have be-gun to accept growing numbers of transfer tu-dents. Initially, this acceptance was limited tostudents v ho had demonstrated superior per-formance (i.e. to those with a 3.0 GUM or bet-ter on a 4.0 scale). However, as their experiencewith transfer students increases, it is clear thatNJIT will experience increased competition forthese students. Such competition means thatNJIT will be forced to work even more closelywith the state's community colleges to introducenew programs that make transfer simpler andassure better performance from those who dotransfer. In the process, it seems inevitable thatthe system of higher education will be strength-ened and the phenomenon of New Jersey ex-porting large numbers of its young people toother states will decrease.

An Articulated Program Between theUniversity of Central Florida and

Valencia Community CollegeNEM

Wm. Michael Hooksand

Frank E. juge

The University of Central Florida (UCF) andValencia Community College in Orlando,Florida, arc vibrant, growing institutions, serv-ing a population that has grown by 55 percentfrom 1980 to 1990 and a strong economy thatis driven by major corporations such as WaltDisney World, Martin Marietta Electronic andMissile Systems, American Telephone andTelegraph, and Westinghouse Electric Corpo-ration. The University of Central Florida servesthe needs of the immediate central Florida com-munity as well as an 11- county region. As auniversity, UCF seeks to serve a national andinternational constituency through both under-graduate and graduate programs. ValenciaCommunity College serves a two-county dis-trict (Orange and Osceola counties) within theregion served by UCF, providing associate inarts, associate in science, and continuing edu-cation programs.

The University of Central Florida each semes-ter serves over 20,000 credit students with anannualized FM of over 9,800 (based upon afactor of 40). Valencia Community College hasbeen growing at the rate of more than 9 percentper year for the past five years. Each sessionmore than 16,000 credit and 14,000 noncredit

students enroll in proF:-ams at three campuses,three permanent centers, and over 30 commu-nity and business locations. Over 8,800 full-time equivalent students (based upon a factorof 40) were enrolled at the college in 1989-90.

INITIAL ARTICULATION EFFORTS

During each institution's early years, in the late1960s and the 1970s, the faculty and adminis-tration focused primarily on the developmentof their own institutions. While there was somearticulation between the two institutions, it wassporadic and limited to a few specific programs,as each institution was trying to develop strongacademic programs and services and establishits identity within the community. The gener-al attitude of the institutions was, at best, oneof indifference, and, at worst, one of suspicion.There was little or no contact among adminis-trative staff. By the mid-1980s it had becoineclear that there was a need for more compre-hensive articulation between these twoinstitutions.

The University of Central Florida established itsmain campus on the easy side of Orlando in July1968 in what was, at that time, a sparsely

V.

43


populated ar!a. Valencia Community Collegeestablished its main campus on the west sideof Orlando, 20 miles away, also in a sparselypopulated area. In the intervening years, thecentral Florida population grew substantially,resulting in the establishment of Valencia's EastCampus, located within seven miles of the UCFcampus. Neither institution consulted the otherin planning any of its major campuses orfacilities.

The geographic proximity was related to an-other phenomenon: a shared student body.Each term, a large number of students are du-ally enrolled at both institutions. Further, thelarge number of students who transfer fromValencia to UCF confirms how interdependentthe two institutions have become. More than87 percent of those Valencia A.A. degreegraduates who continue their education at astate university select UCF. Thirty-nine percentof the undergraduate transfers from commu-nity colleges to UCF come from Valencia. InUCE's upper division, 30 percent of the stu-dents transferred from Valencia.

One of the reasons for this high transfer rate,other than geographic proximity, is the FloridaArticulation Agreement, which was adopted inMay 1975. Students who graduate from a com-munity college and hold an associate in arts de-gree are automatically admitted into one of thestate universities, and all of their courses areaccepted as transfer credit. Students may stillhave to complete certain prerequisites to he adnutted to a particular program, but they do nothave to meet the general education require-ments at the university.

The institutions share not only- students, butalso faculty and community resources. Both in-stitutions have strong college foundations and

44

invite community leaders to participate in ac-tivities as well as to serve as board members.On a number of occasions, the same commu-nity leaders were serving on each foundationhoard. While initially there was some concernthat an individual might only give to one insti-tution, just the opposite has been found. Those'ildividuals who tend to support one education-al institution are just as likely to provide sup-port for others.

Both institutions share adjunct faculty; in a fewcases full-time faculty have served as adjunctsfor the other institution. These various factorssuggested the need for more cooperation, butit wasn't until the mid-1980s that a strong levelof cooperation among administrative, academicaffairs, and student services personnel startedto become a reality.

EARLY STAGES OF COLLABORATION

In 1986 Paul C. Gianini, Jr., the new presidentof Valencia, sought to strengthen des with theuniversity and was enthusiastically received bythen UCI: president Trevor C')Ibourn, They metto discuss mutual concerns and informallyagreed that their institutions would work moreclosely together. The result was that several keyadministrators held luncheon meetings to get toknow one another better and to explore areasof potential collaboration. In the fall of 1986,a joint articulation coherence between the twoinstitutions was conducted. Administrators,faculty members, and other staff were lircrighttogether to review current areas of cooperation,examine concerns, and explore new opportu-nities for the mutual benefit of each organia-tion. This two-day conference resulted in a

"white paper" that was prr.;ented to the HoridaState legislature in the fall of 1987. Outliningpresent and future opportunities for cooperation

in the areas of academic programs, student serv-ices, business affairs, planning, resource devel-opment, and public relations, this documentserved as the centerpiece for the large number ofcooperative ventures undertaken since that time.

Once the ice was broken and the presidentssanctioned greater articulation and stressed theimportance of the relationship, administratorsdeveloped the perception that they would besupported in their articulation efforts. Interest-ingly, a level of trust and commitment devel-oped rather quickly between the presidents andamong several key administrators and spreadthroughout the institutions.

SPECIFIC ARTICULATED ACTIVITIESAND PROGRAMS

Academic skills center: The Florida Legslatureira adated that community colleges teach col-lege preparatory courses for those students withidentified deficiencies_ Since UCF is not chargedwith teaching such courses, and since some ofthe students admitted to the university wereidentified as needing these courses, LICEprovided facilities for Valencia to operate anacademic skills center on the T.JCF carripu ,.Valencia personrwl operate the ,.enter and pro-vide UCF students with college preparatory de-velopmental courses in mathematics and Eng-lish. University students simultaneously registerfor both university and community collegeclasses. Their enrollment records are trans-ferred electronically to Valencia. This processenables students to complete their registrationat the university without having to fill outduplicate forms or going to one of the Valen-cia campuses to complete the process.

Transfer student urientation: Each termstudent services staff conduct transfer student


oriental on sessions exclusively for Valenciastudents. Associate in arts degree students whoplan to transfer to UCF receive specific infor-mation about the university on the Valenciacampuses. In addition, both institutions are de-veloping "pre-transfer" orientation materials forstudents to use earlier in their community col-lege. experience.

Joint planning meetings: Faculty and adminis-trative staff have jointly worked on planningteams to design cooperative projects. Thesejoint sessions, called focus groups, provide asetting for developing ways in which studentneeds can be more effectively addressed viacooperative ventures. In 1988 eight focus groupsessions were conducted dealing with the needto improve the transition of students from oneinstitution to the other. These focus groups in-volved eight to 12 UCF and Valencia facultyand staff participating in 90-minute sessions,each related to one of the following topics: cur-riculum and faculty development, enrollmentmanagement/student services, management in-formation systems, 17brary /I.RC, TV /audio-visual, joint facilities, resource development-and academic computing.

Participants were asked to visualize the year2000 and describe the ideal set of programs andservices that should exist and the steps thatmight be taken in the next five years to ensurethat the institutions are jointly moving towardthese ideal programs. Ideas were captured onflip charts and audiovisual tapes, analyzed bya smaller planning team to enhance each insti-tution's comprehensive development plans, andused to prepare a cooperative articulationproject. This model has been repeated a nunher' or times wit): smaller projects. l'orplc, in early 1990, focus groups helped planjoint educational facilities in Osceola County',

45

SPOTHGHT ON THE TRANSFER FUNCTION

a rural but fast-growing are: served by bothinstitutions.

Tide /11 Articulation Project: As a result ofcooperative planning efforts, UCF and Valen-cia jointly submitted a five-year, $2.5 millioncooperative grant for funding from the U.S.Department of Education, Strengthening insti-tutions Program, authorized by Title 111 of theHigher Education Act. This project was sub-sequently funded in 1988 and is currently inits second year of operation. The grant enablesboth institutions to work cooperatively tostrengthen :h institution's academic and stu-dent service, irograms. The project foci onthose students who begin their postsect:iidarycareers at Valencia and who intend to transferto UCF. The project builds upon past cooper-ative efforts to support student success as mea-sured by achievement of the associate andbachelor's degrees, The project includes a num-ber of components, including joint faculty de-velopment, new and part-time faculty trainingprograms, joint institutional research, class-room feedback (assessment), workshops, tech-nical support, joint electronic access to studentdata, joint access to library holdings, and trans-fer student assistance programs.

E/cc trorac transcripts: Full-time computerprogrammers arc currently working on elec-tronic transfer of student grades and rancialaid information. The goal is to achieve an ef-ficient two-way information flow for Valenciastudents transferring to UCF along with LICEstudents taking courses at Valcncia in a dualenrollment capacity,

Two-Pius-Two Scholarship Pro(t;ram: A special"Two-Plus-Two" Scholarship Program hasbeen established. Annually, a joint fund-raisinggolf tournament is held, which has become the

46

largest fund-raising golf tournament in centralFlorida. Funds are raised to support: scholar-.ships. An added benefit is that faculty and staffinteract at the golf tournament, and both insti-tutions can benefit by informing participantsfrom the community of the importance of thescholarship program and the benefits of mutualinstitutional cooperation. The proceeds enablean outstanding Valencia graduate each year tobe awarded a scholarship during the ValenciaCommunity College commencement ceremonies.Recipients receive a cash award to cover thecompletion of their upper-division work at UCF.

Faculty-to-faculty activities: Each year thefaculty and department chairs in variousdepartments meet jointly to discuss commonconcerns and issues. During the past year,representatives from nursing, respiratory ther-apy, communications, mathematics, humani-ties, and technics' and engineering-related pro-gram met to discuss academic programs andstudent needs. Student services, computer serv-ices, and institutional research staff maintainregular contact and share information. Annu-ally, a high-achievers' day is held at UCF, whichbrings both faculty and students from Valen-cia to participate in student orientations andtours and provides opportunities for faculty-to-faculty meetings on the UCF Campus.

Specialized workshops have been held dealingwith writing across the curriculum. A specialtwo-day intensive session was held recently in-volving English and communications facultyfrom both institutions in a joint writing de-velopment program. Follow-up meetings withboth full- and part time faculty were heldthroughout the following semester.

joint "twit:tics ,joint -arse centers havebeen established and staffed by both institutions

at two different locations in central Floridaaway from the main campuses. In both centerslower-division credit courses are offered byValencia, and upper-division and graduatecourses are offered by UCF. In addition, thetwo institutions jointly sponsor special pro-grams such as real estate, computer training,management, and office skills institutes at thesecenters. These facilities provide an altemativelocation ft): students who cannot convenient-ly travel to one of the main campuses.

Joint seminars: From time to time, jointseminars are ;meld dealing with such topics asdrug testing, women's careers in higher edu-cation, classroom research, and leadershipdevelopment.

Army R(.) Army ROTC classes are taughton both campuses, with the UCF ROTCfaculty teaching Valencia courses. file programhas proven to he henefcial in minority studentrecruitment and retention. Students participat-ing in this program may receive a Two-Plus-Two Scholarship to support all four years oftheir undergraduate degree program.

Artir utitol pHIgrilinS: Several special articula-tion agreements have been established betweenValencia and 11(.1: dealing with co um associ-ate in science programs. In the nursing field,a transition program has been established forthose students seeking to transfer from Valencia with an associate degree in nursing to ob-tain a bachelor's degree in nursing, This spe-cial prop,' am allows a nurse from Valencia tocomplete his or her B.S. degree efficiently.Courses are taken at both Valencia and UCI:in an integrated program. I lospitality manage-ment, business education, and compuicr-integrated manufacturing programs have alsoestablished agreements.

A NATIONAL STUDY 6; POLICIES AND PRACTICES

instructional feedback center: A unique com-ponent of the Title III Articulation Project in-volves a joint research and faculty' support center. This center assists faculty with classroomfeedback activities involving student learningand assessment. Research support usingcomputer-assisted telephone interviewing andsurveying techniques will be provided to facultyat both institutions.

Joint library program: A project now under-way will enable students and faculty to haveelectronic access to card catalogs at both insti-tutions. The interlibrary, loan process has beengreatly strengthened as a result of a courierservice that delivers mail between the two in-stitutions. In addition, telefacsirnile machinesare located in the libraries of both institutionsto facilitate the exchange of journal articles.Materials are currently being developed thatwill provide training for students in the use ofthe libraries and the development of researchskills at both institutions. These efforts are be-ing made to standardize procedures to facili-tate the transition process for students.

Coitral Florida Higber &Inca-lion: Because both UCE and Valencia havebenefited greatly from their collaborative el-forts, other community colleges that providestudents to the University of Central Floridamight also benefit Irani cooperative ventures.Thus, a consortium of higher education insti-tutions was established that would involve fourother east central Florida community collegesalong with Valencia and the University of Cen-tral Florida. This consortium identifie corn

!Mill ;112as of inteiv,t and coordinates staff andprogram development activities among themember institutions. The consortium sponor',a number of professional development activi-ties involving faculty and staff from all member

4/

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TRANSFER FUNCiON

institutions. Some of the topics that have beenpresented include leadership development,mathematics workshops, writing across the cur-riculum, and humanities sessions. In 1990workshops are planned on adjunct faculty, ad-ministrative leadership development, institu-tional effectiveness, substance abuse, programassessment, and part-time faculty. The mem-ber institutions provide funding to support theactivities of a part-time executive director andsecretary to help coordinate these activities. Thepresidents of each institution serve on the boardof directors. A wide range of faculty arid staffare involved in the various projects sponsoredby the consortium.

CONCLUSION

In February 1988 the chairman of the Boardof Directors of the American Council on Edu-cation (ACE), Judith Eaton, asserted in a pre-sentation before the ACE annual meeting thatby neglecting the relationships with communitycolleges, four-year institutions were missing a

rich opportunity to boost the number of stu-dents who receive baccalaureate degrees. Eatonspoke as part of a panel with representativesfrom the Ford Foundation, AACJC, and Chica-go State University who concluded that poorfaculty communication between institutions isone of the greatest problems in the transfer pro-cess. Alison Bernstein, representing the FordFoundation, identified as transfer problems: yet

to be addrmed inadequate faculty involvementand insufficient data collection on transfer stu-dents, The cooperative activities being under-taken by Valencia and UCF address .hese prob-lems directly. Th;: manner in which theproblems are addressed, keeping the focus onthe student, agreement with the com-ments of ACE panelist Dale Parnell, presidentof AACJC, who said, "We won't forget that

4 8

students ought to be front and center in ourconsideration. Too often, we put students last."Many community colleges and four-year insti-tutions exist virtually side by side acro,,,, the na-tion, sharing common problems that invitecooperative solutions. The cooperative arrange-ments between UCF and Valencia demonstratethe synergism that can be created among insti-tutions resulting in short- and long-term sav-ings to the respective institutions.

In 1989 when Steve Altman was selected to bethe new president of UCF, Valencia's Cianinimet with him and shared the collaborative ef-forts underway between the institutions, Be-cause of his previous experience in other areasof the country, Altman was somewhat sur-prised by the positive degree of cooperation thatexisted. He expressed a strong desire that therelationship should continue to be encouraged,as it was extremely valuable to both institu-tions. Both presidents have been very vocal intheir support of one another, the strong rela-tionship that exists, and the many cooperativeactivities being implemented or in the planningstages between the institutions.

As UCF and Valencia continue to work to-gether, new areas of collaboration emerge.Mandated articulation, which was onlyminimally successful, was replaced by collabo-ration based on mutual trust and respect anda genuine desire to "do the right thing" for theshamed student population. Required articula-tion policies will not automatically produce col-laborative articulation. Both institutions musthave leaders who have the vision to see thebenefits of mutual cooperation to impiove In-dent success. The ongoing, personal relation-ship among colleagiu. at both institutions alsois essential to ensure that activities are cooper-atively planned and implemented.

The Articu lationiTransferActivities of the Los Rios Community

College District=al

Barbara L. Howard

This case study will deal not only with Califor-nia's emerging state policies for its education-al systems, but also with particular programsand activities that the Los Rios CommunityCollege District, the University of Californiaat Davis, California State University,Sacramento, and the University of the Pacifichave developed over a period of eight years.In this region, "Intersegmental Cooperative Pro-grams" had been in practice before many publications began describing their need.

The Los Rios Community College District isa large multi-campus district with a total dis-trict enrollment of approximately 48,000 stu-dents. The dire... canipuses are: American RiverCollege, 24,000 students; Sacrament() City Col-lege, 18,000 students; and Consumes RiverCollege, 8,000 students. There is a satellitecampus in Placerville that is a part of Con-till1M1CS River College. 1.os Rios also staff; four

additional outreach centers.

BACKGROUND

When the Intersegntental Coordinating (oustcii (IC(:) was established by the California Edu,,,-ation Round fable in 1 987, it Was chat 1.i,Cd

with strengthening cooperative efforts amongthe educational systems in order to promoteeducational equity and improve the academicpreparation, achievement, and progress of allstudents. The importance of coordinating ac-tivities among the educational segments hasiong been recognized. Such coordination, infact, is an underlying principle of the MasterPlan for Higher Education, for without strongand well-articulated academic programs andwithout an effective transfer process, the state'spromise of access for all citizens to a universi-ty education cannot he realized. Revisions ofthe Master Plan in 1973 and 1989 have placedincreasing emphasis upon articulation andtransfer as well as cooperation among the seg-ments. The 1989 report by a joint committeeof the legislature applauded the development-of the California Education Round Table andrecommended a number of specific activitiesconsistent both with the Round Table's orig,i-nal aims and with its purposes in establishing,the ICC (Ca/i/oinia . . Ca/don/his Fu-t/or, pp.

This increased emphasis on imerseginew al co-operation stems partly froni the growing -,1\vare-

m.'ss of how interdependent and interrelated

49


California's educational institutions have be-come. Because our institutions educate eachother's students and prepare each other'steachers, because our students are niore mo-bile than ever before, an because it, .idemicpolicy is more centralized, our educ ial in-stitutions are inextricably linked, and the ef-fectiveness of one institution inevitably dependsupon the effectiveness of others.

This fact has become even more compelling inthe 1980s because of new aallenges createdby the state's changing demographics and rap-id technological development. There is a strongconsensus among California's political, Lusi-ness, and educational leaders that the future ofthe state demands a more highly educated elec-torate and work force. More jobs will requirecollege training, and even students who are notgoing on to college will require better basicskills and a greater capacity for critical thoughtin order to meet the demands of an increasinglycomplex society and of a workplace wherethose who cannot he efficiently trained orretrained qualify only for the most -nenial jobs.As noted in a recent rcport from the Califor-nia Economic Development Corporation, with-out an educational system capable of prepar-ing all of California's citizens for the reality oftomorrow's econonrY, society will he "increas-ingly polarized between the rich and theunskilled."

However, the task of effectively educating allcitizens has become more difficult and morecomplicated, in part because demographicshifts in recent years have created a state muchmore diverse in ethnicity and cultural backgrounds. A greater proport:un of our studentsarc poor, Black, or I lispanic, and it is these stu-dents for whom the educational systems haveproven least successful, l he majority of

50

students in the K-I 2 system arc now fromgroups that have been considered "minorities,"and despite extensive efforts, the achievementlevels of these students are still substantiallylower than those of then peers. This "achieve.merit gap" is evident not only in schools, butin colleges and universities as well, where Blackand Hispanic students transfer, earn certifi-cates, and earn degrees at a much lower rate.According to the Master Plan report, 56 ofevery 1,000 white students entering the ninthgrade in California will receive a baccalaure-ate degree from a public institution within fiveyears; however, only 16 Black and 14 Hispanicstudents per thousand will achieve that goal(California Faces. . . California's Future, p. 3).

Whether one considers the problem from theperspective of educational equity, social justice,or economic imperatives, it is clear that Califor-nia must do a more effective job of retraining,educating, and graduating its Black and His-panic students. Social problems such as pov-erty, drugs, and crime, as well as linguistic orcultural barriers, may have more to do with thelow academic achievement of sonic studentsthan anything educational institutions do or failto do. A comprehensive approach involvingevery aspect of state policy is essential if we areto stop the waste of California youth. How-ever, that fact does not diminish the responsi-bility of the schools, colleges, and universitie!,to provide meaningl. 11 educational opportuni-ty to all of California's students, and that:responsibility can only be fulfilled through a

greater level of cooperation and mutualport aim has been practiced or has been necessary in the past. The problems arc simply toolarge and the causes too numerous for educa-tional institutions to add; ess independently ofeach other. Colleges ant' universities must as-sist schools in their efforts to restructure their

academic programs and to stimulate all sni-der is to fulfill their academie potential. Univer-sities and community colleges must work to-gether to facilitate and actively encourage thetransfer of students to baccalaureate institu-tions. All segments must work together to en-sure that curricula, assessment, and studentservices are aligned across the segments in waysthat support the smooth progress of studentsthrough California'.; educational systems.

Without these cooperative efforts, neither thestate nor its educational institutions can thrive.

In discussing the roles of the EducationalRound Table and the ICC, the Master Plan re-.

port noted that " . . . the Intersegmental Coor-dinating Council is more than a staff adjunctto the Round Table; it serves as a crucialstatewide forum where faculty, program ad-ministrators, and system representatives fromall segments can meet and confer on programinitiatives or shared projects. Seeking consen-sus, advising one another of the implicationsof segmental policy, devising new agendas--all these are valuable tasks" (CaliforniaFaces, . . California's Future, p.55).

Indeed, in its first two years of existence, theICC has served those functions and a numberof others. As a statewide forum, the council andits four cluster coordinating committees havebrought together representatives from facultyand administration, local institutions and sys-tem offices, large, well-established projects andsmall, innovative programs, and professionalorganisations and advocacy groups in orde, toshare info. nation, discuss critical educationalissues, and develop ways in whic 1- -ducatorscan work together more effective] 3 achievetheir common goals. The council ha.; 11s0 as-Stinted responsibility for ongoing intersegment al


programs, such as the Col:(!ge Nights/Trans-fer Days Program, designed to coordinate out-reach activities aimed at high school and com-munity college students, and has disseminatedcompeten-2y statements developed by the aca-demic senates of the university, state universi-ty, and community colleges to communicate totheir peers in the secondary schools the com-petencies necessary for students to succeed inpostsecondary education. In addition, the ICChas initiated or assumed responsibility for anumber of statewide publications, including:

Futures - -A brochure sent to every eighth-grader in the state, designed to inform stu-dents and their parents about the coursesnecessary to prepare students for college oruniversity work and to encourage studentsto pursue a college preparatory curriculum.

Systemwide and Statewide Assessment inCalifornia--A report on assessment prac-tices in all of the educational segments,designed to inform faculty, administrators,and policv-makers of current practices andfacilitate the greater coordination of assess-ment across the segments.

Handbook of California Articulation Poli-cies and Procedureshandbook of policiesgoverning the transfer of students and thearticulation of courses and programs in allof California's postsecondary institutions;the handbook is designed to assis': facultyand student service personnel in advisingstudents.

i)irectory of A itt:u/atIon Pran.Slei Person-directory of various studelt service

personnel in California's public and nide-pendcm postsecondary institutions, dis-tributed to every public high sctool in the


state as well as to postsecondary segments.(Annual Report o/ Intersegmental C:mr-&fruiting Council to the (:alilornia Educa-tion Round Table, pp. 1-3).

Revisions of the Master Plan in 1989 haveresulted in policies that direct the pitblic educa-tiona institutions, K-12, community colleges,California State Universities. and University ofCalifornia Systems to cooperatively develop andimplement programs designed to assist more stu-dents in obtaining a bachelor of arts degree, par-ticularly underrepresented minority students.

In California, and particularly northern Califor-nia, the educational system, K-12, communi-ty colleges, and public and private universitiesbegan working together approximAtely threeyears ago to develop programs that would startin kindergarten and take a student through toa baccalaureate degree. Along with the revisedMaster Plan, the appointment of the Intersegmental Coordinating Council has facilitated amore "working together" direction andrelationship.

The 'Transfer and Articulation IntersegmentalCoordinating Council Cluster CoordinatingCommittee serves as a forum for the review ofpolicies and programs dealing with the trans-fer of students from community colleges tofour-year institutions and with the progress ofstudents throughout educational systems. Thereview of the Master Plan for Higher Educa-tion, first by an independent commission andthen by a joint committee of the legislature, hasfocused a great deal of attention on transfer andarticulation issues. ;Vs°, educational leadershave developed a clear consensiy, that the sys-tems lutist cooperate more extensively in ()pierto insure the smooth progress of ( or)I,

students from one educational level to anodic- .

52

The increased attention to issues of transfer andarticulation and the increased emphasis on in-ter,,egmental cooperation have led to numer-ous proposals and new initiative's, some devel-or by the legislature, some by the segmentsor academic senates, arid some by individualcampuses. The committee has proven to be veryuseful in the communication and discussion ofthese ideas, issues, and initiatives.

The committee is eornp.)sed of faculty and ad-ministrators involved in the creation and im-plementation of educational policy in the areasof transfer and articulation. It maintains com-munication with key groups concerned withthese issues, such as the three stia.ewide aca-demic senates, the Intersegmental Committeeof the /V.:Act-Mc Senates, regional articulationorganizations or consortia, and various inter-segmental programs, such aS the Transfer Cen-ter Project, the ASSIST Project, and the Califor-nia Articulation Number Project. Thus, thecommittee consults with a wide range of profes-sionals interested in the improvement of trans-fer and articulation arid serves to Arengthencommunication among the various constituen-cies, promoting greater coordination andcooperation among these groups. Additional-ly, the committee serves to identify issues, con-dui t studies, and disseminate informationrelated to transfer and articulation.

The tripartite system of public higher educa-tion in California has long been recognized forits ability to serve a broad range of students.The transfer function is the cornerstone of theCalifornia educational system's guarantee of ac-cess to a bILLal,'IlrealV CICIVCC for all qualifiedstudents. Such access depends on the ability ofIli:: educational institutions to move studentsthroug,h the system from kindergarten to collegegraduation.

In 1960 rapidly increasing enrollments and con-cerns about student access to baccalaureate-J,ranting institutions prompted the developmentof a Master Plan for Higher Education inCalifornia. That plan recommended that thepublic four-year segments decrease their lower-diN ision enrollments, developing ;-'_n enrolltni_ntratio of 60 percent upper-division to 40 per-cent lower-divisi an students in order to accom-modate increasing numb, rs of transfers fromthe community colleges and thereby providemore students access to a baccalaureate degree.

In accordance with the 1960 Master Plan, boththe University of California and the CaliforniaState University increased their enrollment ofcommunity college transfer students. However,despite increases in the college-going rates ofethnic minority students, these students re-mained seriously underrepresented in the com-munity college transfer population and in allof higher education. Moreover, transfer ratesfor all students began to decline in the mid-1970s. To address this decline as well as theproblem of underrepresented ethnic minoritystudents, educators developed a number of in-novative statewide and regional programs,which were aimed at strengthening the trans-fer function and improving articulation.

The Los Rios District, along with its majorfeeder universities, University of California atDavis, California State University, Sacranien-to, and University of the Pacific, participate ina number of major statewide programs.

PROGRESS

Long before the Master Plan revisions in 1989were in place, the Los Rios Community CollegeDistrict and the University of California at1)avis joined together in what was one of the

A NATIONAL STUDY OF STAlE POLICIES AND PR CTICES

f;rst "intersegrr ental programs" in California.The program was called "TOP" (Transfer Op-portunity Program). Following several meetingsof staff who worked out the details, the pro-gram was presented to the Los Rios Board ofTrustees and the chancellor of the Universityof California at Davis in April 1983 when itwas officially adopted. TOP became the fore-runner of many intersegmental programs be-tween Los Rios and its main feeder universi-ties as well as other community colleges anduniversities throughout the state. Los Rios andUniversity of California at Davis were recent-ly honored by the American College bestingProgram National Recognition Program for the"Outstanding Institutional Advising Program"for 1989. The addendum to this chapter illus-trates this continuing program.

Since 1983 and the beginning of TOP, the LosRios Community College District has imple-mented and participated in many intersegmen-tal programs. The number of students, includ-ing underrrepresented students, transferring toa four-year university has steadily increased.

ARTICULATION AND TRANSFER ---ANINS-FITUTIONAL AND DISTRICT' PRIORITY

Articulation is the cornerstone for themany programs and activities in the LosRios District. Course articulation has al-ways been a top priority in our disirict. Wehave several thousand agreements betweenour campuses and four-ye r universitiesboth in typical tt ulster majors and voca-tional education programs. Articulationmust he in place, accurate, and updated ona regular basis in order for students totransfer successfully and for other programefforts to be successful. Many of Cahfor-Ma's policies and the Revised Master Plan

53


strongly recommend art' mlation activitiesbetween community r alleges and highschools, A great deal of time is spent onboth kinds of articulin ,on. Research showsthat students tend to enroll in institutionsof higher education that have complete andcurrent articulations. The: appropriatedepartment chairs (faculty) and the artic-ulation officers of both the university andthe Los Rios campuses sign the agreementsto make them offic al.

Transfrr. Due to the changing demograph-ics in California. a great deal of emphasisis placed on the recruitment and transferof affirmative action students as well as stu-dents from all cultures. Los Rios ranks veryhigh in the number of students transferringto four-year universities. Los Rios follow-up studies of transfer students found thatafter their first term at the university, theydid as well as and usually better than thenative students.

According to a recently released report by theCalifornia Postsecondary Education Commis-sion (CPL( ;), the Los Rios Community CollegeDistrict ranks second in the state for the totalnumber of students who transfer to the Univer-sity of California and the California StateUniversity systems. Fhe Los Angeles Commu-nity College District ranks first.

For the 1988-89 academic ''ear, Los Riostransferred 2,705 students to the UC and CSUsystems. The Los Angeles District-, which is thelargest in the state and more than IINVICC the Site

of Los kios, transferred 3,981) students.

The number of los Rios students transfer' ingto the t J ,,Ny,,tcm in 1988-89 increased by 26percent over the year before, troll' 377 to 476.

Transfers to the CSU sr,iein for the sameperiod increased by 4.5 percent: from 2,133 to2,229. The 2.6-percent increase in transfers tothe tIC system is almost five times higher thanthe statewide increase of 5,6 percent, while the4.5 percent increase to CSU is nearly threetimes the 1.6 percent statewide increase,

"Since our district is experiencing even greaterincreases than the state as a whole in the num-ber of students who transfer to the UC andCSU systems, it appears that the extra empha-sis we have placed on helping our studentstransfer is having results," commented Los RiosChancellor Marjorie K. Blaha.

The colleges of the Los Rios District haveworked closely with VC Davis, CSUS, and theUniversity of the Pacific to develop strongtransfer programs based upon well-articulatedprograms of study. The district developed aguaranteed transfer agreement over four yearsago, and that program has become a model inthe state. Under the agreement, a student whohas completed the appropriate coursework withacceptable grades is guaranteed admission tothe UC and CSU systems.

By identifying transfer students early, coun-selors and faculty ensure their passage throughappropriate coursework and provide smoothtransition to the universities.

An :malvsis of fall-only data shows that LosRios ranks first in the state for the number ofstudents transferring to the t JC System and sec-ond in the state for transfers to the CSUtern. For full-year transfers, Los Rios ranksfOlrth in the state to and second to CSU,

The CPFL report includes statistics for thenumber of ethnic minorities transferred to the

two state university systems for fall 1987 andfall 1988. For the Los Rios District, the numberof Asian students who trans'c'erred to the 1.1C sys-tem degreased from 23 percent to 18 percent,while the number of Hispanic and Black stu-dents increased from 9 percent to 10 percent andfrom 4 percent to c percent respectively.

Many of the following programs/activities areoriented toward transferring. All staff, faculty,and administrators work very hard to assist thearticulation officers in monitoring and increas-ing the number of Los Rios transfer students.

ASSISTArticulation System StimulatingInterinstitutional Student Transfer

ASSIST is a tremendous transfer/articulationsystem that play s a very important part in thetransfer and articulation procedure. Articula-tion agreements and progress checks for stu-dents can be denc quickly and accurately. Any-one can use it, as the directions are very clear.

Since 1985 the Los Rios Community CollegeDistrict has been a part of ASSIST. We were oneof the 17 community colleges originally fundedby the state. The transfer centers have had thiscomputerized articulation system available forcounselors and students since 1987. Los Riosis part of the Sacramento Valley Region thatmeets on a biannual basis to share data andprocedures. Staff from four universities and fourcommunity colleges attend on a regular basis.

Transfer Admission Agreemem----District,Campus, and University Commitment

This concept came from the Transfer CenterSteering (..:ommittee and is conducted under theauspices of t he Transfer Center and counselingdepartments. It is an agreement, guarantee of

A NATIONAL. STUDY OF STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

admission tor Los Rios students who meet eligi-bility requirements to either University ofCalifornia at Davis, California State University,Sacramento, University of the Pacific, Califor-nia State I Jniversity, Fresno, or Humboldt StateUniversity. It also includes a guarantee of ad-mission to the major of their choice.

The Transfer Admission Agreement began in1985. Surveys of students who transferred witha Transfer Admission Agreement were verypositive. University of California at Davis con-ducted a follow-up on its transfer students andfound that 75 percent of the students who hada Transfer Admission Agreement registered andcompleted their degree. They were better pre-pared and more knowledgeable about theuniversity and its procedures. Only 42 percentof the students without Transfer AdmissionAgreements actually registered.

Transfer Centers

The goal of the Transfer Center Project is to in-crease the overall transfer rate of students, par-ticularly underrepresented ethnic minorities, bycoordinating resources and services designed tofacilitate the transfer process. This project wasinitiated in 1985 and is established at sites serv-ing approximately 24,000 sat, lents annually.The project involves 20 community colleges, 14CSU campuses, eight VC campuses, and twoindependent universities. A recent independentevaluation of the project found chat the overalltransfer rates to 11C and CSU have improvedat the 20 campuses with state-funded transfercenters, and that the rates for Hispanic andAsian students are higher at these campuses thanat colleges V ithout transfer centers.

Each Los Rios campus has a well-developedtransfer center with a wealth of supplies furnished


by universi, ies 'Ind state monies. The Trans-fer Opportunity Program was brought into theTransfer Center Project, and the University ofCalifornia at Da is Transfer Center adviserspends two days a week at the two larger col-leges and one day at the smaller one. Staff fromLos Rios and California State University,Sacramento, also formed an agreement simi-lar to this one. The University of the Pacificis our independi nt university partner in thisprogram. An intersegmental committee over-sees the Transfer Center Project and is the poli-cy making group for Los Rios's three centers.This steering committee meets once a month.

Some of the many activities of the TransferCenter are making sure that transfer studentshave up-to-date information and providingworkshops on admissions, financial aid, hous-ing, how to fill out the applications, advertis-ing, at d making appointments for other four-year representatives, and providing trips to theuniversities. "On-the-spot admissions" aimedspecifically at affirmative action students gener-ates large numbers of transfers. The "Spring inDavis" and Crossover Enrollment at Califor-nia State University, Sacramento allows thosestudents who apply to the University of Califor-nia at Davis :end /or California State Universi-ty, Sacramento, to take one or two courses atthe university during their last term before theytransfer. All fees are waived for the students;the only cost to them is for hooks. This activi-ty gives the students an opportunity to ex-perience what its really like to take a courseat the university. California State University,1.resnc, later joined this activity.

CAN----4:alifomia Articulation Numbering System

In 1983 the state legislature directed the Cali-fornia Postsecondary Education Comm' 'skin

56

to tidy the feasibility of a common coursenumbering system for public postsecondary in-stitutions in California. The study recom-mended the implementation of the CAN sys-tem instead if common course numbering.Rather than requiring all institutions to use thesame cot rse numbers, CAN provides a cross-referenced course identification number forcommonly taught, lower-divison, transferablecourses. Under the CAN system, courses areevaluated for acceptance "in lieu of othercourses, not as direct equivalencies. CAN wasestablished in 1985 and operates under thedirection of an intersegmental advisory com-mittee. The advisory committee initiates andreviews policy, establishes program goals, andmonitors progress. Significant progress hasbeen made in the implementation of CAN inthe past four years. Over 3,800 courses havebeen qualified by the 108 college and univer-sity campuses now participating. In the viewof the CAN st itf, project activities have hada positive effect statewide in improving theunderstanding of articulation and in involvingfaculty more extensivc:y in the articulation ofcurriculum. l'aculty involvement in the CANProject is expanding, due in part to the effortsof the Intcrseg,mcntal Committee of the Aca-demic Senates and to activities developed as

Community College/California State 'CollegeJoint Projects.

MESA /MEP --Math Engineering ScienceAchievemeat/Minority Engineering Program

..Phis program was established at AmericanRiver College by the transfer center directorwith the aid of a regular counselor. Its goal isto he the "bridge" between the MESA programin the K-12 sector and higher education. Theprogram officially began in spring 1989 withthree students, and now 175 students arc

enrolled. Many 'activities have been put in placeto give these students incentives to transfer, andthe three universities are involved in the pro-gram. American River College began this pro-gram with very little funds but with institutionalcommitment. In July 1989, the college receiveda state grant of S30,000 to continue. This wasthe first MESA/MEP program in a communi-ty college in California.

Puente Project

The Puente Project, which is co-sponsored bythe California Community Colleges and theUniversity of California, is designed to addressthe problems that Mexican-American studentsexperience in community college Englishcourses. The Puente Project employs an innova-tive approach to teaching English compositionand provides students with additional counsel-ing services to assist them in the transferprocess.

Sacramento City College has been a part ofPuente for a number of years. The counselorwho teaches part of the classes and the facultyand Transfer Center director work closely to-gether to ensure sue( 'ss for these students. Stu-dents in the program do well and succeed atthe transfer institutions.

More than 60 faculty and counselors are par-ticipating in 20 Puente Proju is at communitycollege campuses throughout the state. Since1982 over 1,800 students have enrolled inPuente, with 83 percent y .ssfully com-pleting the developmental writing class and "')_percent completing English 1 A. Studies indi-cate that the success rates for non-PuenteMexican- American students in these writingcourses arc only 3.S. percent and 47 percentrespectively'.

A NATIONAL STUDY OE STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Early Alert

The Early Alert Program lets faculty at all threecampuses identify students who are not doingwell in their class by sending an "alert" messageto the counselor and/or to the Transfer Centerdirector. They then work together to assist thestudents in successfully meeting their goals.

Faculty-to-Faculty Meetings

1.os Rios has hosted a number of faculty-to-faculty (same discipline) meetings between com-munity ccliege and four-year faculty and be-tween high school and college faculty. Thesehighly successful meetings increase articulationand transfer and bonding among the faculty.Calif :rnia State University, Sacramento, andUniversity of California at Davis also hostfaculty meetings that include high school andcommunity college faculty.

Faculty ExchangeSacramento City Collegehas had a faculty exchange program with theUniversity of California at Davis for tl e pasttwo years. One of the University of Cal:forniaat Davis's faculty teaches English lit at Sacra-meato City for a year and one of SacramentoCity College's faculty teaches English-Subject Aon the Davis Campus. Next fall a professcr fromCalifornia State University, Sacramento, whoteaches "Administration of Justice," wil. teacha lower-division course that Sacramento CityCollege does not offer. A Sacramento City Col-lege faculty member will teael, a course atCalifornia State University, Sacramento. Theseexchanges not only benefit students, but also al-low faculty to share ideas.

2+ 2 and 2+ 2+ 2 Projects

Since 198.5 the Community College Board of(iovernors has identified high school articulation

51


as an important part of its basic agenda. LosRios has implemented two courses and programarticulation projects: the 2 + 2 VoL!ational Edu-cation Projects and the 2 + 2 + 2 Career Educa-tion Projects. These projects are designed to im-prove articulation in career and occupationalareas. Both projects have served to enhancefaculty-to-faculty communication, create a con-text in which faculty work together to improvestudent preparation, and involve faculty in staffdevelopment activities. The projects serve to for-malize the articulation of secondary school cur-ricula and to create cle-lr educational pathwaysfor students that enable them to move from onesegment of education to the next highest levelwithout duplication of effort.

The 2 -4- 2 projects, funded by federal grants andjointly administered by the State Departmentof Education and the California CommunityColleges, are designed to articulate vocationalprograms between the two systems. The desig-nation 2 + 2 refers to the last two years of astructured vocational program in the highschool and the first two years in a commun;tycollege competency-based program in the samecurricula area. Los Rios in conjunction v ithselected high school faculty have developedprojects in electronics, welding, auto body,home economics, aeronautics, business, writ-ing, mathematics, and computer science.

The 2 + 2 + 2 articulation projects focus on ca-reer education curriculum leading to a bac-calaureate degree. These state-funded projectsinvolve the last two years of the high schoolcurriculum, the first two years of the CO17111111-

nity college curricalum, and the last two yearsof an upper-division curriculum at :1 four-yearcollege or university. Los Rios projects includehug Mess, writin,, mathematics, home ,conom-ics, electronics, and computer science.

58

Capital Education Consortium

This is a consortium of high schools, Los RiosCommunity College District, the University ofCalifornia at Davis, California State Universi-ty, Sacramento, and University of the Pacificwho joined together approximately eight yearsago in order to pool resources and produceeducational programs and materials for high,chool and elemental -hoot students. Thethrust of the program is to help these studentsand their parents become more aware of theadvantages of a transfer program as well as be-ginning their transfer program at the Los RiosCommunity Colleges. Some of the consortium'sprojc,, have been

CollegeIt Can Make a Difference--Afolder that is mailed to all juniors in highschools in the greater-Sacramento area,providing them with information on appli-cation, admission procedures, and majorsavailable at the Los Rios campuses.

MESA College HandbillDistributed toall area high schools and providing simi-lar information to the "CollegeIt CanMake a Difference" folder.

College DaysTwo-day college fair heldat the University of California at Davis forall area students, faculty, and parents.

Matriculation

Etch of the Los Rios colleges developed a

matriculation plan three years ago. Funded toythe state, the plans were implemented in fail

987 to assist new college students in determin-ing goals and developing a plan of action tocomplete their goals successfully. The plan con-:;ists of the following:

1. Application to one of Los Rios's colleges;

2. Assessment to determine ability in reading,writing, and math;

3. Orientation to distribute pertinent materi-al, answer questions, and discuss what it'slike to be in college;

LI. Counseling to develop an "educational plan"with a counselor's assistance;

S. Registration to secure classes; and

6. Counselingeach student sees a counseloronce a semester to discuss where he/she is,changes in goals, plans, and possible careers.

CONCLUSION

Thi3 case study merely scratches the surface ofa number of innovative programs, most ofwhich were developed on an intersegmental ba-sis with staff and faculty from our major feed-er universities, University of California at Davisand California State University, Sacramento.

The goal has always been to develop programsand activities that promote success for all


students, particularly given the changing demo-graphics of California. Much has been doneand is being done. We still have a long way togo. We in I.os Rios feel p- ticularly proud thatwe truly have an institutional team--staff, in-structional faculty, and student servicesfaculty--who, because of a variet, of identi-fied needs, came together to plan, develop, andimplement these programs and activities.Equally important has been the support of theadministration, who provided funds and timethat were so desperately needed. Without inter-segmento.1 cooperation among the institutionsand a professional staff who trust and respecteach other, the programs that have been men-tioned would not be possible.

REFERENCES

Annual Report of the Intersegmental Coor-dmatini: Council to the California EducationRoun,itable, 1989.

California Faces . . California's Future: Edu-cation for Citizenship in a MulticulturalDemocracy. The Final Report of the JointComtnittee for Review of the Master Plan forHigher Education. March, 1989.

Addendum: TransferOpportunity Program

Phil DuBois andBarbara L. Hoivarci

INSTITUTIONAL DESCRIPTION

The Transfer Opportunity Program is the re-sult of a combi, led effort b.,' the University ofCalifornia at Davis, a public university, and theLos Rios Community College District, a two-year junior/community college. The Daviscampus is one of nine campuses in the Univer-sity of California system. The Los Rios Com-munity College District includes AmericanRiver, C:osumnes River, and Sacramento Citycolleges.

PROGRAM I)EVEI OPMENT

The Transfer Opportunity Program (TOP) wasdeveloped in response to a significant declinein the number of students transferring fromcommunity colleges to four-year institutions inthe California system of higher education. Thisdecline in transfers was particularly pronouncedamong stud, nts from ethnic minority groupsand educationally or economically disadvan-taged backgrounds.

In 1983 representatives liom the University ofCalifornia at Davis and the los Rios Commu-nity College District recognized the need for acooperative program to encom age students totransfer to 11C Davis and to ease their transi-tion from the community college. As a resultof their mutual concern, they agreed to estab-lish a collaborative program to iniprove the

articulation process between the two institu-tions and entered into a formal agreement thatoutlines their joint responsibilities for staff su-pervision, program evaluation, and funding.

TOP now includes 21 colleges in 13 districtsand has served as a model in the developmentof transfer center~ in community collegesthroughout California.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals of the program are (1) to identify, at-tract, and motivate potential transfer studentsto pursue their education through the bac-calaureate level; (2) to strengthen the academ-ie preparation, performance, and retention ofcommunity college district students who trans-fer to the university; and (3) to increase thetransfer participation rate of community col-lege district students who are underrepresentedor who do not traditionally enroll at theuniversity.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

l'OP is a unique program designed to strengthenthe transfer function through program acrivi-tie': coordinated by a t1C I )Avis Transfer Ad-viser. The adviser's salary U, shared with thedistrict. The adviser is availakle at each COM-

tnunity college at least one day r week to workwith counselors and advise students. In the Los

('61


Rios District, the transfer adviser spends twodays a week on the larger campuses and oneday a week on the smaller ones.

The TOP adviser provides detailed informationand assistance to students on admissions andtransfer requirements, financial aid, housing,tutoring, internships, student life and other uni-versity services. Typically, the adviser evaluatesstudent transcripts to assure that studmts havecompleted their high school requirements andthat community college courses are compara-ble and transferable to UC Davis, answers ques-tions about majors and career goals, arrangesfor campus visits, disseminates articulation pub-lications and newsletters, and enrolls commu-nity college students in concurrent universitycourses free of charge. In addition, the adviseroften participates in presentations to interestedgroups and organizations on Ile merits of TOPand the advantages of the program.

The TOP adviser also works with counselorsand students on developing a Transfer Admis-sion Agreement (TAA), which is an agreementbetween the Los Rios Community College Dis-trict and the Jniversity of California, Davis;California Sta,. University, Sacramento; and theUniversity of the Pacific, Stockton. This agree-ment guarantees admission to these universitiesone year in advance in all majors provided thestudent satisfactorily complete'; all eligibility re-quirements as specified in the agreement.

The program is monitored by a steering commit-tee composed of two or three individuals fromeach of the community colleg':s within the dis-trict and university representaives who includethe directors of undergraduau admissions, Rela-tions with Schools, Student }.special Services, andthe TOP adviser. The committee ensures coor-dination among campus units and community

62

colleges involved in the implementation of theprogram, develops policy and operational proce-dures in program development, monitors staffperformance and resolves problems in programmanagement, and reviews the program's effec-tiveness in meeting its stated objectives.

PROCEDURES USED IN PROGRAMEVALUATION

Program evaluation is the joint resrof the university and the community college.It involves student evaluations, data collectionby the university's Undergraduate AdmissionsOffice, and evaluation of these data by the jointSteering Committee.

Student evaluations are obtained through a

questionnaire mailed to students at the commu-nity college and the university. On occasion,only the students at the community college aresurveyed.

RESULTS/OUTCOMES

The impact of the Transfer Opportunity Pro-gram on the institutions involved and the stu-dents served by this program has been extreme-ly positive, as evidenced by students' evaluationsurveys and the resulting increases in the university's enrollment of transfer students. In addi-tion, the fact that the program, which startedwith one agreement just six years ago betweenthe university and the Los Rios CommunityCollege District, has grown to include a totalof Li agreements and five TOP advisers in 1989is further testimony to the program's succes,,in meetings its goals and objectives.

To date, three StItTeys of TOP students to CV;11-

Inn C the program's effectiveness and to ir-essSt Uclent satisfaction have been conductuii by

UCD's Student Special Services. Students haverated their advising very highly and have at-tributed their successful transfer to the uver-sity to the TOP adviser. The most recent studyindicates that TOP continues to meet the needsof tra ,fer students: 80 percent of the surveyedstudents those who entered fall 1988) thoughtthe I-OP adviser helped them with admissions;47 percent with financial aid; and 42 percentwith housing. Seventy-two percent of the re-spondents believed that the counseling and ad-vising services provided prior to transfer werebeneficial. One out of four thought that theywould not have transferred without the TOPadviser's assistance.

The success of TOP in increasing transfe; tothe university is also clear. In the last two years,there has been a significant increase in the enrollment of transfer students at UC Davis. Infall 1.987 there were 26 percent more TOPtransfer students than the previous year. In fall1988 TOP transfer students increased 33 per-cent and ethnic minority student transfers in-creased 56 percent. These figures compare quitefavorably to those reported for total campustransfers (which increased by only 8 percent)


and ethnic minority student transfers (which in-creased 21 percent).

To date, 314 community college students haveentered into Transfer Admission Agreements(TAA). Of these, 207 students have actuallyenrolled. The 25-percent loss from applicationto enrollment is much lower than non-TAA ap-plicants, in which there is a 60 percent loss fromapplication to enrollment.

POTENTIAL FOR ADAPTATION BYOTHER INS-, ITUTIONS

TOP has become a model program that has beenexpanded to include other institutions. Since thefirst TOP pat tnership was developed, 21 colleges;in 13 districts now participate. In addition, 33community colleges have now developed Trans-fer Admission Agreements with UCD.

The transfer centers that have been establishedin many of the co. imunity colleges through-out the state are a direct result or the TransferOpportunity Program. These centers have usedTOP's concepts and goals in order to preparestudents for transfer to four-year institutions.

P")63

A Col 4,ext for Transfer Policy inTexas Higher Education

Gloria Ann Lopezand

Dale Cal/vb.:41

The Texas Higher Education CoordinatingBoard was created by the Texas Legislature toprovide leadership and coordination for thehigher education system in Texas. Its govern-ing policies for better articulation and for fiscalaccountability were established by the HigherEducation Coordinating Act of 1965. Guidedby the principles of quality, access, diversity,funding, effective management, and accounta-bility outlined in the Texas Charter Of HigherEducation (1987), the staff of the Coordina,-ing Board extensively use the committee process

to assist in the formulation of state policy. Thus,a flexible partnership is encouraged throughbroad participation of administrators and

faculty at Texas community colleges and univer-

sities in conjunction with members of other stateagencies. Large distances between i.eographic lo-

caions of postsecondary institutions as well asdemographic considerations are major factorsfor using this cowmittee process.

The pullic higher education system it Texasserves over .300,000 students in 49 communityand junior college districts, one statewide technical institute system with four campuses, and.37 universities. Each year, over 1.50,000 firsttime students enter the community colleges and

technical institutes. According to a 1986 Coor-dinating Board study on transfer of first-timeentering students enrolled in general academiccourses in Texas public community and juniorcolleges, community college transfers representmore than 15 percent of the new students in 11of the public four-year universities, and over 19percent of the original student population trans-ferred to a Texas public university between fall1981 and spring 1985, making the transfer func-

tion a major issue when considering Texashigh( education issues.

By legislative act, the Coordinating Board is todevelop a basic core of general academiccourses that, when taken by a junior collegestudent during his or her first two years of col-legiate study, are freely transferable among allaccredited public institutions of Nigher educa-tion in Texas. Texas chose to develop a highereducation regional council system to promul-gate communication about curriculum and aca-demic transfer issues in partnership tfort be-tween the two -year colleges and universities and

he private colleges.

Oyer the years, faculty and adininistrators ofuniversities and junior colleges have collaborated

65

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TRANSFEP FUNCTION

with Coordinating Board staff on studies to de-vdop transfer curricula in a wide range of disci-pline majors and, after adoption by the board,for use statewide in facilitating student transfersfrom the community colleges to the university.

Faculty and administrators have also collabo-rated with the Coordinating Board staff on thedevelopment of the Community College Gener-al Academic Cours:! Guide Manual, a listingof descriptions of academic and developmen-tal cc arses acceptable to the universities fortransfer. These strategies for coordination andlinkage between the two higher education levelshave resulted in the creation of a cadre of ex-perts from the local institutional level who areknowledgeable about their institutions and thelegislation on transfer and articulation issuesthat drive the statewide committees towardaction.

Two case studies described below are illustra-tive of how the state has worked in partner-ship with its institutions to provide support andrecognition for indivk ual efforts and encour-agement and nurturilg or intrainstitutionalrelationships that improve articulation andtransfer issues.

INSTITUTIONAL. CASE STUDY

Early in the 1 98t)s, a group of educators fromthe community colleges and universities col-laborated in a series of workshops on the aca-demic preparation of students for Texas col-leges. The move was sp;trked by concerns fromthe academic instructional leadership that stu-dents' low level of basic skills prevented then'from handling college-level coursework.

John Grable, now president of liratosport Col-lege, was at that time lirazosport's academic

66

instructional leader. His personal interest andcommitment to providing quality instructionfor all students at Brazosport Colle)re led himto conduct an institutional research study ofreading level of students enrolled in historyclasses. His startling and alarming findings ledhim to conduct a larger study, which includedother community colleges and resulted in thereport, A Second Chance for Texans: RemedialEducation in Two-Year Colleges.

This report was one of several that eventuallyled the Texas Legislature to pass House Bill2182 in 1987, a mandate for an assessment,placement, and remediation program in Texascolleges and universities. The Texas Academ-ic Skills Program should help students to bemore prepared in performing their collegestudies.

Ideas Grable shared with Coordinating Boardstaff were the catalyst for a grant proposal tothe Fund for the Improvement of PostsecondaryEducation. The subsequent grant award re-sulted in a report, Improvement of Post-Secc whir), Educatum: College-1.mq Com-petencies, which defined college -level reading,writing, and math skills.

Through his indk ideal efforts to promote in-stitutional effectiveness and quality, Grable hasbeen proactive in raising awareness about thesuccessful solutions to trans:cr problems. Hehas worked with faculty and administrators atthe University of Houstol-Central Campus andSam Houston State Iniversity and receivedtheir agreement to admit any student who 'at-tends Bratosport College and to guarantee thetransfer of his or her coursework to theiruniversities without loss of credit. Fventually,the so ...Alt 1'1..111 receive ;1 eMllpliteriled receiptfor a four -VCctr coursework map at either

university. It will include coursework that mustbe taken at Brazosport College during; the firsttwo years as well as cour;ework to be Lakenduring the last two years at the university, withoccasional progress reports.

While data programmers at Brazosport Collegeare currently working on a program to producethe computerized four-year degree programmap, the institutional leadership is alreadycommunicating it to its other partners in theGulf Coast Regional Consortium. A secondproject related to transfer ;Mil/ides is the col-lege's participation in the Electronic TranscriptNetwork (ETN), considered a response to Sen-ate Bill 543, which calk for sending institutionsto receive feedback on their transfers. The goalis to (!fn. universities to provide feedback towan colleges on their transfer students:how trey perform academicl.11y after they trans-fer, whether they complete their studies, andjobs attained as a result of the baccalaureatedegree. This will result in improved data col-lection and tracking of transfer students.

STATE CASE STUDY

Coordinating Board .,taff initiated a coopera-tive effort in fall 1988 to facilitate the transi-tion of minority Auden*. transfers from com-munity/junior colleges to nnivesities on a pilotbasis.

The hoard, in pr'stnership with one communi-ty college ;Ind two universities, implemented theBlinn College Studerits' Ethnic 'Transfer Project:Sam Houston State University and Icy asA& M University (BEST). Taking a student-centered approach to the transfer of minoritystudents, the adnunistrilors and counselors ofthese institutions have encoural.-xd minority stu-dents who started at Blinn College to stay in

A NATIONAL STUDY OF STATE PDLICIES AND PRACTICES

college and to complete university baccalaure-ate degree programs through a variety of stu-dent development activities. As a result, enroll-ment of Blacks and Hispanics has increased atall three campuses. Under the direction ofRobert Wright, assistant to the vice presidentfor academic affairs, Blinn College providesacademic .advisement, career counseling, andstudy skills seminars to minority students.

Additionally, Blinn has implemented an earlywarning system designed to identify studentswho are in danger of dropping out of collegeand to provide them with immediate counsel-ing. A unique feature of the BEST project isparental involvement. For example, a break-fast is scheduled for parents during whichrepresentatives from the participating institu-tions are available to answer questions and pro-vide transfer information.

One value-added dimension of the BEST Proj-ect is to familiarize minority students withuniversity life and to avoid the transfer shocksyndrome. In an effort to assure a smooth tran-sition from the community college to theuniversity, minority students from Blinn Col-lege arc transported to either Texas A& M orSam Houston to attend University Day activi-ties. BEST students familiarize themselves withthe campus, receive financial aid information,and meet with university faculty and stall andother Blinn transfer students.

For the leadership of Blinn College, Sam Hous-ton State University, and Texas A& M Univer-sity, improving the transfer of minority studentsis a financial commitment as well. The BEST

')iect publishes a e;illege transfer newsletterthat is mad(d 0) each minority student. In addi-:ion, BEST students have been the recipients oftransfei scholarships by Texas A& M thiiversity.

6/

SPOTLIGHT ON THE TRANSFH FUNCTION

As a result of this succeshil pilot, a secondtransfer project, the South 'Texas Transfer Proj-ect, has been encouraged between SouthwestTexas Junior College and three additional stateuniversities (Southwest Texas State Universi-ty, University of Texas at San Antonic, andTexas A&I University in Kingsville). it is in thefirst year of implementation., although vicepresidents, academic deans, registrars, anddirectors of admission from each of the fourcolleges spent a full year planning the projectwith Coordinating Board staff.

As the two examples have demonstrated above,personal interest, institutioaal commitment,and trust are desired characteristics wf! need tofoster for all of our relationships if wt.. are toresolve articulation and transfer issues.

In recent years, the quality of the discussionsat the regional council level has diminished asfinancial and enrollment management demandsof the 1960s and 1970s have consumed institutional aitention. Unless a university is activelyinvolved in recruiting students by providingoutreach services, the regional councils resortto becoming vehicles for resolving the turf bat-tles between community/junior colleges ratherthan developing curriculum or resolving trans-fer disputes.

Several events in Texas have recently occurredto refocus attention on transfer and articula-tion issues.

In 1985 the Texas Legislature mandatedthe transfer of postsecondary vocationaleducation from the Texas Education Agen-cy to the Texas Higher Educat ion Coor-dinating Board. 'Hie action resulted in thecreation of the Community Colleges andTechnical Institutes Division, which serves

Ott

as an advocate for community ,:ollege is-sues, including transfer, in the state.

Legislation passed in 1989 has mandatedthat the Coordinating Board will now re-solve transfer disputes beiween any twohigher education institutions.

The demographics of Texas demand thatthe education of its minority populationimprove for its future economic well-being.Providing quality and supportive instruc-tion in community college and universitypartnerships will assist tt-n! transfer minori-ty student in completing his o her educa-tional goals.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATEPOLICY

The Community College Gen,ral AcademicCourse Guide Manual provides a mechanismfor allocating state funds to Texas communityand junior colleges for general education andacademic transfer courses, compensatory anddevelopmental studies programs, and otherunique-need courses.

The adoption of core curriculum guidelines bythe Coordinating Board in October 1989, re-cent institutional curriculum changes across thestate, and a ,..oncern that the 16 subject areatransfer curricula that the C.t)ordinating, Boardand all public colleges and universities haveworked with for over 20 years provide goodopportunities to review the course descriptionsfound . the manual ani to promo. e discus-sions surromiding, articulation and transferconcerns.

As A result, an advisory committ cf.' has hecharged the Commissioner of 1 lighcr

Education to update the Commiwitv Colles.TGeneral Acadern:, Course Guide Manual. Thecharge Iffects a number of important areas ofconcern to both community colleges and sen-ior universities, including review of transfer andarticulation issues (such is a common number-ing system), guaranteeing transfer of the associ-ate degree, and using regional councils asforums for artiadation of degree programs,development of curriculum, and facility of


transfer; definition of a desirable number of se-mester credit hours for the core curriculum ofassociate degree programs; review of the im-plementation of compensatory education --1;-cies; integration of college-level competenciesinto the state's core curriculum; and devel-opment of u,uidelines for institutions' compli-ance with Coordinating Board rules on reso-lution of transfer disputes for lower-divisioncourses.

6(,

Contributors

Dale Campbell Frank E. itigeAssistant Commissioner Associate Vice President for AcademicThe Texas Higher Education Coorclinati AffairsBoard University of Central Florida

Phil DuBois Gloria Ann Lope/Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Program Director for Transfer and BasicPrograms SkillsUniversity of California at Davis The Texas Higher Education Coordinating

BoardWm. Michael HooksVice Pr;:stdent for Planning, ',escarch, andDCV ell:7'111cm

Valencia rommunity College

Barbara I.. HowardDirector, Transfer ProgramsLos Rios Community College I)istrict

William R. OdomDeputy Executive DirectorFlorida State Board of (.ommunitv Colleges

Gary l honiasProvostNew Jersey Institute of I cchnology

/1

ilit...?'ia:1,101'N'il.1.,1-.S.H4.11:11,:.Z.11,1i4-11...1. M.;,,1?"1.E.1.1`1.:1E:i 31-70-

066t AV41 o l.urto s;-4150 jr L.) ,t

,,toj asnoLifiuppaLi) ;)nn . c )LOO 3ot.,005114-1'',,,Ak

., .,.

.... ,AANi:alaszno 1110(11.10...mi°

663116:0 loititv (3,9e14yratik.Atoot. *

.!., io tfoonooss:re,u6aPam,V. ::-

;

'0.2

Documents

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 317 246 JC 900 198 AUTHOR Bender, … · study. Part I includes "State Articulation Policies: Myths and Realities," by Louis W. Bender, which analyzes state-level