|
 |
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS |
State policy can make a difference in the effectiveness of statewide 2/4 transfer
performance. States that have a comprehensive, integrated approach to transfer policy
seem to do better than those that focus primarily on transfer as an academic and
institutional matter. Many of the states selected for this analysis have done a good deal to
strengthen their statewide transfer policies in the last few years, and these steps may
improve transfer performance in the years ahead. However, states that focus only on
academic policy are unlikely to energize 2/4 transfer. To focus on statewide performance
as well as accountability, the states need policies that relate funding and accountability to
academic strategies. This combination is particularly important for making transfer an
effective tool for diversity and mobility within higher education.
The comparative analysis of this study suggests that policymakers can benefit from a
fresh look at what is known about student flow and performance. No state is using all the
tools available to stimulate transfer performance, tools that include student aid, setting
goals, and rewarding transfer performance.
The following recommendations are intended to help states energize 2/4 transfer
performance.
- Develop baseline information on statewide transfer performance, including
retention and graduation of transfer students. Data on transfer performance is
a prerequisite to improving transfer policy and transfer effectiveness. The national
data show clear patterns about the factors that correlate with 2/4 transfer success:
the age, attendance patterns, and academic preparation of incoming students; the
institutional emphasis on transfer programs; and the relationships (including
geographic proximity) to receiving institutions. States need to understand the
correlates of success within their own state, to build upon them, and to identify
the missing ingredients for students and institutions that do not have a history of
success. States that do not have information about transfer performance should
begin by collecting baseline data, on both 2/4 and other types of transfer, for
sending and receiving institutions; performance data for 2/4 transfer students at
the four-year institutions; and subsets of transfer data by institution, region, and
ethnic group. States that do not have student-based tracking systems need to
develop them. Tracking should extend to in-state private colleges as well, since
they receive state funds that play a role in transfer performance. States will also
need to understand out-of-state transfer patterns for their students. In regions
where out-of-state transfers are common, it may be possible for states to forge
agreements about tuition reciprocity and transfer of credit, policies that will
smooth the path for these students.
- Clarify state policy and plans for 2/4 transfer, and set goals and measures for
2/4 transfer performance. States should set broad-based goals for 2/4 transfer,
and determine how they will measure 2/4 transfer performance. This policy needs
to be designed to meet the needs of the state and the students, rather than the
institutions. Performance goals and measures should include four-year as well as
two-year colleges. States should develop general goals for bachelor’s degree
attainment for 2/4 transfer students, which should address disparities in
baccalaureate attainment among racial and ethnic groups. Multiple indicators of
2/4 transfer performance should be developed, as these are preferable to any
single transfer rate; to be meaningful, the indicators must be monitored over time.
Transfer performance reporting should not be limited to full-time students or to
students who complete the associate degree prior to transfer.
- Identify and invest in core resources for transfer. As long as statewide goals
are met, not all public two-year institutions need to have identical goals for 2/4
transfer performance. States should identify the campuses that have weak transfer
programs, and either improve the programs or ensure that transfer-potential
students will have their needs met elsewhere. For example, if resources or student
demand are not sufficient to maintain transferable courses on all campuses,
students should be encouraged to take the courses they need on other two-year or
four-year campuses through distance learning, university-centers, or other
cooperative agreements. Special funding opportunities can provide incentives for
other institutions to share in this responsibility.
- Perform statewide transfer policy audits. States should audit their policies on
transfer and evaluate how these policies relate to performance goals and
measures. The policy audit should address both those academic policies designed
to influence transfer and statewide policies on reporting for time to degree,
remediation, financial aid, enrollment planning, tuition, funding, and
accountability. The principal purposes of this audit are to ensure that policies are
consistent and that performance measures (credits to degree versus time to
degree) do not inadvertently discourage transfer performance. States should also
use the most recent national research on student mobility in analyzing their own
student flow patterns, to learn how their students and institutions compare to
national data.
- Forge articulation and credit transfer agreements. Students in community
colleges should not have to negotiate transfer credit agreements on an individual
basis with receiving institutions. States that have not already done so should work
to ensure that there are common agreements between public two- and four-year
colleges about the transfer core curriculum. Articulation agreements that extend to
disciplines and majors should also be developed, beginning at the regional level if
statewide agreements are impractical.
- Focus on low-performing institutions. Improvements in educational equity will
require attention to low-performing urban community colleges. States that have
not already done so should create transfer improvement programs that partner the
state with two- and four-year institutions to strengthen transfer in institutions that
serve the highest number of at-risk students. The starting point should be an
objective analysis of the factors inhibiting transfer performance in the institutions.
Different program models for improving transfer performance could be tried,
using cooperative arrangements between community colleges, partnership
programs with four-year institutions, and student mentoring programs.
- Use financial aid as a tool to promote 2/4 transfer. Financial aid programs
should be evaluated to ensure that they do not exclude a large number of transfer
students through limits on years of enrollment or through reductions in awards for
part-time students. Financial aid can also create incentives for students to follow
the enrollment paths most likely to lead to retention and baccalaureate attainment.
For instance, we know that students are more likely to persist to the baccalaureate
degree if they complete their associate degree prior to transfer. A financial aid
program designed to support transfer could provide a stipend or a tuition
reduction at the four-year campus for 2/4 transfer students who earn their
associate degree at a community college. Maryland has recently implemented
such a program, which awards $3,000 a year to students with family incomes
below $95,000 who transfer from a two-year college to full-time enrollment in a
four-year bachelor’s degree program with 60 units or an associate degree.
- Include private institutions in transfer planning and performance
accountability. Private two- and four-year institutions play an important role in
serving 2/4 transfer students but are sometimes not included in statewide planning
and accountability systems. High-growth states should consider creating financial
incentives to encourage private institutions to recruit and retain 2/4 transfer
students, such as financial aid stipends or bonuses for baccalaureate degrees
awarded to transfer students.
|
