Reverse Transfer Implementation: Evidence from Credit When It s Due

“Reverse Transfer” Implementation:

Evidence from Credit When It’s Due

National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students Conference February 6, 2014

Jason L. Taylor, Ph.D. Robin LaSota, Ph.D.

Office of Community College Research and Leadership University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Agenda

•

Background & Context

•

Implementation Summary

•

Reverse Transfer in the States

–

Florida

–

Hawaii

–

Missouri

•

Next Steps

Reverse What??

•

Townsend (2001)

–

Reverse Transfer – “four-year students who transfer

to two-year colleges” (p. 33)

•

Bautsch (2013); Bragg et al. (2011); Ekal & Krebs

(2011); Taylor et al. (2013)

–

Two-year student transfers to four-year institution

(vertical transfer) without earning associate’s degree

and students’ credits transfer back to two-year

institution for associate’s degree conferral

–

“It’s the credits that are reverse transferred rather

than the students” (Bragg et al., 2011, p. 20)

Background

•

Students in an “All or Nothing” situation (Bragg et al., 2011)

•

Only 20% of students who transfer from a two-year to

four-year transfer do so with an associate’s degree (Hossler et al.,

2012; McCormick & Carroll, 1997)

•

Associate’s degree completion related to higher bachelor’s

degree completion rates (Ehrenberg & Smith, 2004; Shapiro

et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2013)

•

Students with associate’s degrees have higher lifetime

earnings and unemployment rates than students with just

HS or some college and no degree (Carnevale et al., 2011; de

Alva & Schneider, 2013)

Credit When It’s Due

•

12 states funded in 2012 to “expand programs

that award associate degrees to transfer

students when the student completes the

requirements for the associate degree while

pursuing a bachelor’s degree” (Lumina

Foundation, 2012, n.p.)

•

Research

–

Baseline Study, Policy Implementation and Data

Capacity Study, Impact Study

States:



Arkansas



Colorado



Florida



Hawaii



Maryland



Michigan



Minnesota



Missouri



New York



North Carolina



Ohio



Oregon

Funders:



Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation



The Helios Foundation



The Kresge Foundation



Lumina Foundation for

Education



USA Funds

Research Partner:



Office of Community College

Research and Leadership

Baseline Study: Policy Context

•

State Legislation

•

RT Pilots

•

State Infrastructure

–

Data Capacity & Technology

–

Existing Transfer & Articulation Policies

–

Performance-Based Funding

•

Participating Institutions and Anticipated

How Does Reverse Transfer Work?

– States and institutions are experimenting and testing models

• OK! How Does Reverse Transfer Generally Work? (Order depends on state and/or local context)

1. Identify Students who may be eligible (Based on state/institutional criteria)

2. Offer students opportunity to participate in RT (student

consents to transcript exchange, degree audit, degree conferral) 3. Completion of degree audit using existing Associate’s degree

policies

4. Identify degree barriers and opportunities: Policy and program changes for ‘near-completers’ – “Global equivalencies”, course waivers, advising interventions

Implementation Approaches

•

Continuum

of implementation centralization

& decentralization

•

Defining cohorts: stop-outs, currently

enrolled, single year, multiple years

•

Planning for the future

Key Implementation Issues

•

Reverse Transfer Process Design

–

Setting Eligibility Criteria

–

Consent methods

–

Expected outcomes of the degree audit

•

Technology Infrastructure and Roles

–

Identifying students

–

Transcript exchange

–

Performing degree audits

–

Course equivalencies

•

Marketing and Communication

–

Student outreach

Reverse Transfer in the States

•

Hawaii

•

Florida

Hawai’i

•

University of Hawai’i has a centralized implementation of

RT and a centralized data structure to support greater

automation of degree conferral

•

Seven CCs and three baccalaureate institutions

•

Each term, UH uses a web application (called STAR) to run

its screening process to find RT eligible students in seven

groups

1. Eligible for RT and continued enrollment at four-year 2. Eligible for RT and dropped out of four-year

3. Eligible for RT and receiving BA from four-year

4. Not eligible for RT, but 95% complete, and dropped out of four-year 5. Not eligible for RT, less than 95% complete, and dropped out of

four-year

6. Not eligible for RT, but receiving BA from four-year

Key Features of Hawaii’s Process

• Identified barriers to RT degree conferral (e.g. CCs with unique degree requirement and upper-level courses not having transfer equivalent at CC)

• Created global course equivalencies across all campuses in the UH system (e.g. foundation course or diversification course equivalent at all campuses)

• Campus-specific agreements for articulation/RT equivalencies (e.g. communication, writing, ethics, etc.)

• Work with registrars to instill confidence about RT degree

conferral from automated process, based on data about degree of risk of error

• System guide offers recommended process for each of the seven groups of students

Florida

•

Four participating universities and ten transfer partner

institutions

– FAU, FIU, UNF, and USF

•

Most Florida transfer students transfer with an AA,

however, the estimated transfer pool without an AA is

about 5,000 across these four institutions, in an average

term.

•

Recommend state criteria --

– at least 15 college credit hrs. at one sending institution

– completion of the 36-hour general education requirement

– Completion of 60 hours of college credit for an AA degree

– Good academic standing at both sending and receiving institutions

Key Features of Florida’s Process

•

Memorandums of Agreement signed by the

leadership of all partner institutions by region

(four MOUs)

–

Universities provide list of potentially eligible

students to each partner college and establish

timelines for work with the CC

–

Partner colleges conduct degree audits for students

on the lists, award the AA degree to eligible

students, and report awardees to the Florida

College system and university

Regional Consortia Plans (e.g. USF)

–

Streamline the verification of completion of general

education requirements

–

Improve degree audit process at colleges to facilitate

RT degree conferral

–

Address idiosyncratic AA degree requirements across

colleges sending to the partner university

–

Universities that can grant AA degrees themselves

may limit pool

–

Number of RT eligible students is reduced after

college’s auto-graduation process (prior to students’

transfer)

Missouri

•

Legislative Mandate

–

House Bill 1042: Mandates reverse transfer for all

publics and voluntary for private institutions

•

Steering Committee & Work Groups

–

Developed policy guidelines approved by MHEC and

institutional leaders

–

Developed Reverse Transfer Manual to be piloted by 5

regional partnerships in Fall 2013 & Spring 2014

• Defines eligibility criteria

• Defines roles and responsibilities for students, community colleges, and universities

• Provides direction on processes

• Communication development and support

Key Features of Missouri’s Process

•

Technology Infrastructure

– All institutions using (or plan to use) National Student Clearinghouse Electronic Transcript Exchange

– Subgrants awarded for technology support

•

Pilot Phase

– Pilot implementation underway

– Institutions developing consent processes, webpages,

communication protocols, and student tracking method and process

– Inform RT Manual before statewide scale-up

•

State Roll-Out

– Reverse Transfer Coordinator identified on each campus: training in April & July 2014

Next Steps

•

CWID grant period ends Sept 30, 2014

•

3 new states added in late 2013: GA, TN, & TX

•

CWID Research

–

Ongoing CWID Implementation Study

CWID Website

•

CWID Website:

Discussion and Questions

•

Is your state and/or local institution engaged

in reverse transfer or considering reverse

transfer adoption?

•

What are your experiences with reverse

transfer?

•

What are the opportunities and challenges

Questions/Discussion

Contact Information

Debra Bragg,

[email protected]

Jason Taylor,

[email protected]

Robin LaSota,

[email protected]