[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COLLEGE CREDIT MOBILITY: CAN TRANSFER OF CREDIT POLICIES BE IMPROVED?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 5, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-019 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Major R. Owens, New York
California Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Judy Biggert, Illinois John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida David Wu, Oregon
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Susan A. Davis, California
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
John Kline, Minnesota Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Cathy McMorris, Washington Tim Ryan, Ohio
Kenny Marchant, Texas Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Tom Price, Georgia John Barrow, Georgia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Vice Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John A. Boehner, Ohio Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Michael N. Castle, Delaware John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Sam Johnson, Texas Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Ric Keller, Florida Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Tim Ryan, Ohio
Cathy McMorris, Washington Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Tom Price, Georgia Virginia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Susan A. Davis, California
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina John Barrow, Georgia
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia Major R. Owens, New York
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New George Miller, California, ex
York officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 5, 2005...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'', Chairman, Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Day, Dr. Philip R., Jr., President, National Articulation and
Transfer Network, San Francisco, CA........................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Klebacha, Dr. Theresa A., Director of Strategic Initiatives,
Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL........... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Sullivan, Jerome H., Executive Director, American Association
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers,
Washington, DC............................................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Zimpher, Dr. Nancy L., President, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH............................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
COLLEGE CREDIT MOBILITY: CAN TRANSFER OF CREDIT POLICIES BE IMPROVED?
----------
Thursday, May 5, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McKeon, Boehner, Tiberi, Osborne,
Inglis, Boustany, Kuhl, Kildee, Wu, and Bishop.
Staff Present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member;
Alison Griffin, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf,
Professional Staff Member; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar,
Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Brad Thomas, Legislative
Assistant; Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative Associate/
Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education;
and Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative Assistant/Education.
Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on the 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order.
We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony
addressing the question of, College Credit Mobility, Can
Transfer of Credit Policies Be Improved?
Under Committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they
will be included in the hearing record.
With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record
to remain open 14 days to allow Members' statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted to the official hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today for
this important hearing on college credit mobility. I want to
welcome our witnesses and thank them for taking the time to
appear before the Subcommittee.
Today's hearing will examine if current policies regarding
the mobility of academic credit at the State and institutional
level create artificial barriers to higher education and to
examine the best practices that some States may be doing to
permit fair and efficient transfer of credit.
With data showing more than 50 percent of students attend
multiple institutions of higher education, it has become
increasingly important for students to have the flexibility to
transfer their credits from one school to another. And with
increasing numbers of nontraditional students pursuing higher
education for the first time or returning to school to complete
their education, it has become more important than ever that
college students are free to transfer from one institution to
another without unfairly losing credit for quality courses they
have completed.
I have heard from many in the higher education community
who believe there is nothing wrong with the current system. The
message I hear is: we're doing just fine; just send us more
money.
However, when institutional policies support the blanket
denial of credit transfers, I believe there is something wrong.
Artificial barriers to college credit mobility inhibit student
completion rates and help drive up the cost of post-secondary
education.
If students are blocked from transferring from a 2-year
institution to 4-year institution or from a proprietary
institution to any other institution for reasons considered to
be territorial or political, the student is forced to repeat
course work, extend the time to completion, and all this comes
at an additional cost. But this cost is borne not just by the
students but by parents and taxpayers as well. We are all
paying for students to take the same courses twice.
In addition, according to the College Board, average
tuition and fees at 2-year institutions for this school year
were only about 40 percent of those at public 4-year
institutions. Students and their families should be able to
take advantage of these low-cost institutions and the quality
education they provide to help hold down the families'
educational costs during their first 2 years of school, and
they should be able to plan ahead when they seek portability
with the credits they earn. I believe students should have good
information on where those credits will be accepted and have
the confidence they will not have to start over from the
beginning to finish their degrees at 4-year schools.
Recognizing the importance of college credit mobility,
Chairman Boehner and I introduced H.R. 609, the College Access
and Opportunity Act. To address the issue of college credit
mobility, our bill simply requires institutions to have a
transfer of credit policy, make that policy public, and follow
that policy. It is absolutely critical that institutions of
higher education provide better information to parents and
students so they can make informed decisions on what college or
university will meet their individual needs.
Our bill also ensures credits are not unfairly or
arbitrarily denied based solely on the agency or association
that accredits an institution, so long as they are recognized
by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It is important to point
out that the bill contains language specifying that
institutions retain all rights to deny credits based on the
criteria they themselves establish. It does not mandate what
course work must be accepted by any institution.
The witnesses that are with us today will talk about State
and institutional level programs that are working to address
college credit mobility. I applaud the work that is already
under way in some States and institutions to improve college
credit mobility for students, and I am eager to learn more
about these efforts. I also believe their testimony will show a
commitment to addressing the challenges of college credit
mobility.
As we enter the 21st century, it is our duty and obligation
to act, to drive improvements to the current system to reflect
today's increasingly mobile student body. I look forward to
hearing our witness testimony here today, and I thank you all
for joining us to discuss this important topic, and I look
forward to working with you as we move forward on this issue.
I now yield to Congressman Kildee for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]
Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning and thank you all for joining us today for this
important hearing on college credit mobility. I want to welcome our
witnesses and thank them for taking the time to appear before the
subcommittee.
Today's hearing will examine if current policies regarding the
mobility of academic credit at the state and institutional level create
artificial barriers to higher education and to examine the best
practices that some states may be doing to permit fair and efficient
transfer of credit.
With data showing more than 50 percent of students attend multiple
institutions of higher education, it has become increasingly important
for students to have the flexibility to transfer their credits from one
school to another. And, with increasing numbers of non-traditional
students pursuing higher education for the first time, or returning to
school to complete their education, it has become more important than
ever that college students are free to transfer from one institution to
another without unfairly losing credit for quality courses they have
completed.
I have heard from many in the higher education community who
believe there is nothing wrong with the current system. The message I
hear is, ``We're doing fine. Just give us more money.''
However, when institutional policies support the blanket denial of
credit transfers, I believe there is something wrong. Artificial
barriers to college credit mobility inhibit student completion rates
and help drive up the cost of postsecondary education.
If students are blocked from transferring from a two-year
institution to a four-year institution, or from a proprietary
institution to any other institution for reasons considered to be
territorial or political, the student is forced to repeat course work,
extend the time to completion, and all this comes at an additional
cost. But this cost is borne not just by the students, but by parents
and taxpayers as well. We're all paying for students to take the same
courses twice.
In addition, according to the College Board, average tuition and
fees at two-year institutions for this school year were only about 40%
of those at public four-year institutions. Students and their families
should be able to take advantage of these low cost institutions and the
quality education they provide to help hold down the families'
educational costs during their first two years of school, and they
should be able to plan ahead when they seek portability with the
credits they earn. I believe students should have good information on
where those credits will be accepted and have the confidence they will
not have to start over from the beginning to finish their degrees at
four-year schools.
Recognizing the importance of college credit mobility, Chairman
Boehner and I introduced H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity
Act. To address the issue of college credit mobility, our bill simply
requires institutions to have a transfer of credit policy, make that
policy public, and follow that policy. It is absolutely critical that
institutions of higher education provide better information to parents
and students so they can make informed decisions on what college or
university will meet their individual needs.
Our bill also ensures credits are not unfairly and arbitrarily
denied based solely on the agency or association that accredits an
institution, so long as they are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of
Education. It is important to point out that the bill contains language
specifying that institutions retain all rights to deny credits based on
the criteria they themselves establish. It does not mandate what course
work must be accepted by any institution.
The witnesses that are with us today will talk about state and
institutional level programs that are working to address college credit
mobility. I applaud the work that is already underway in some states
and institutions to improve college credit mobility for students, and
I'm eager to learn more about these efforts. I also believe their
testimony will show a commitment to addressing the challenges of
college credit mobility.
As we enter the 21st Century, it is our duty and obligation to act
to drive improvements to the current system to reflect today's
increasingly mobile student body. I look forward to hearing our witness
testimony here today, and I thank you all for joining us to discuss
this important topic and I look forward to working with you as we move
forward on this issue.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased
today to join you, my friend and my colleague and my Chairman
on today's hearing. This is an incredibly important issue to
students, schools and for the cost and efficiency of our
Federal student aid programs. I am very pleased that we have an
expert panel here today to help us in our discussions today.
The systems and policies our institutions, States and the
Federal Government have in place on transfer of credit are
significant to college access and graduation. The community
college student whose ultimate goal is a 4-year degree needs to
know up front which of his credits will transfer. A student who
returns to college after several years needs a clear
understanding how many existing credits will be considered.
While many students have successful transfer experience, those
who encounter problems are those we should be concerned about
today.
Lost credits translate into the need to repeat courses and
higher education loan debt. States have responded to this
problem through various means. Some States have created
articulation agreements and others have created common course
numbering among their institutions. Several State legislatures
have mandated their colleges and universities to resolve this
issue.
I do not believe that the Federal Government has all the
answers here. We can and should encourage States and
institutions to develop systems and policies to ease the
transfer of legitimate credits. We should also increase the
sharing of information between sending and receiving
institutions. All this must be done while respecting the right
of colleges to judge the acceptance of credits based on
quality.
Colleges to which students are transferring must have the
information to judge the quality and rigor of its students'
courses. Unfortunately, too little of this happens now. H.R.
609, introduced by Chairman McKeon, has several provisions
which are intended to address difficulties in transferring
credits. We need to find solutions for students who struggle to
transfer these credits.
I look forward to learning more about this. I am sure we
can pursue this in a very bipartisan way as Mr. McKeon and I
usually do.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking member, Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague,
Chairman McKeon at today's hearing on transfer of credit. This is an
incredibly important issue to students, schools and for the cost and
efficiency of our Federal student aid programs. I am very pleased that
we have an expert panel of witnesses to help inform us in our
discussions today.
The systems and policies our institutions, States and the Federal
government have in place on transfer of credit are critical to college
access and graduation. A community college student whose ultimate goal
is a four year degree needs to know up front which of his credits will
transfer. A student who returns to college after several years needs a
clear understanding of how existing credits will be considered. While
many students have successful transfer experiences, those who encounter
problems are those we should be concerned about today. Lost credits
translate into the need to repeat courses and higher student loan debt.
States have responded to this problem through various means. Some
States have created articulation agreements, and others have created
common course numbering among their institutions. Several State
legislatures have mandated their colleges and Universities to resolve
this issue. Unfortunately, too many States have done too little to
address this problem.
I do not believe that the Federal government has all the answers
here. We can and should encourage States and institutions to develop
systems and policies to ease the transfer of legitimate credits. We
also must increase the sharing of information between sending and
receiving institutions. All of this must be done while respecting the
right of colleges to judge the acceptance of credits based on quality.
Colleges to which students are transferring must have the information
to judge the quality and rigor of a student's courses. Unfortunately,
too little of this happens now.
H.R. 609, legislation introduced by Chairman McKeon, has several
provisions which are intended to address difficulties in transferring
credits. Rather than criticize those provisions, I simply believe they
do not go far enough. We need to find solutions for students who
struggle to transfer their credits. I look forward to learning more
about what we can and should do in a bipartisan pursuit of this goal.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses before us.
I thank you all for being here today.
First, we will hear from Dr. Philip Day. Dr. Day is
currently the Chancellor of City College in San Francisco.
Prior to arriving at City College, Dr. Day served as president
at community colleges in Florida, Massachusetts and Maryland. A
global traveler, Dr. Day has served on numerous State and local
educational agency boards and in leadership positions with
several professional associations.
He is currently the founding president of the National
Articulation and Transfer Network, a voluntary consortium of
schools dedicated to improving the transfer process to increase
access to post-secondary education for students.
I would like to yield now to the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Chairman Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio, to
introduce our next witness.
Mr. Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
introduce our second witness today, Dr. Nancy Zimpher.
Dr. Zimpher is currently the President of the University of
Cincinnati, not quite in my district, but almost. Prior to
assuming this role, she served as the Chancellor of the
University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and she was the Dean of
the College of Education at The Ohio State University.
Dr. Zimpher has been widely recognized for her expertise in
a range of higher education issues, and she currently co-chairs
the Ohio Board of Regents Articulation and Transfer Advisory
Counsel. The Council implements policies aimed at addressing
the issues of students that transfer their credits between
Ohio's colleges and universities, as well as increasing student
mobility through the Ohio higher education system.
I just want to say, welcome, and we are glad you are here.
Chairman McKeon. Following Dr. Zimpher, we will hear from
Dr. Theresa Klebacha. Dr. Klebacha is the Director of Strategic
Initiatives with the Florida Department of Education. In this
position, she oversees the State of Florida's Pathways to
Success Initiative. This program provides information to
students about Florida's groundbreaking efforts to provide
students easier opportunities to transfer credits between
public and participating private institutions of higher
education in the State.
Prior to joining the Florida Department of Education, Dr.
Klebacha worked in the Florida House of Representatives and as
an adjunct professor at Illinois State University.
Finally, we will hear from Mr. Jerome Sullivan. Mr.
Sullivan is the Executive Director of the American Association
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, AACRAO.
AACRAO is a nonprofit association of institutions of higher
education and campus enrollment services officials that provide
professional development, guidelines and voluntary standards
for higher education officials and provides a forum for
discussion regarding policy initiation and development at the
institutional level.
Mr. Sullivan's career in higher education has spanned
nearly 40 years. His particular areas of interest include
access to post-secondary education, veterans education and
nontraditional students.
Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would like to
remind you how those lights work. I think you have been told
you have 5 minutes, and the light is green at the start. And
when you have a minute left to go, it is yellow, and when your
time is up, its red light comes on.
With that, we would like to begin with you, Dr. Day.
STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP R. DAY, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ARTICULATION AND TRANSFER NETWORK, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Dr. Day. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am
grateful for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on
where the transfer policy in higher education can be improved,
and I am here to say it can, it must and it will.
In the spring of 2001, only a few blocks from the United
States Capitol, the leaders of seven national associations of
education and several college presidents joined the president
of Howard University and me in creating the National
Articulation Transfer Network. We had no office, no staff, no
funding and no mandate, but, undeterred, we ceremoniously
signed the cooperative agreement and began work.
Soon afterwards, at our first coalition meeting, we were
confirmed in our mission when a student named Aretha movingly
informed us that she had been accepted as a transfer student
with a strong grade point average and an accredited degree from
a prominent community college, but her chosen baccalaureate
institution had denied most of the 60 credits she had earned,
leaving only 26 credits, less than 1 year of academic course
work. The credits were eventually restored through our
intervention, but it was this Rosa Parks incident that
galvanized the resolve of NATN.
The National Articulation Transfer Network is a coalition
of more than 300 institutions and is chartered as a nonprofit
organization with a national board of directors. The initial
member institutions were community colleges, historically black
colleges and universities, Hispanic service institutions,
tribal colleges and the Council of Great City Schools. However,
we have been expanding with Asian-Pacific-Islander-serving
institutions and other post-secondary institutions.
Our original sponsors were the major leaders in education,
including the parent associations of the referenced minority-
serving institutions, as well as AACC, ACE, the Council of
Great City Schools, the League For Innovation, ASCU and AACRAO,
the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions
Officers, as you know.
The mission of NATN is to improve traditional articulation
and transfer patterns for students, enabling them to make
successful transitions from their high school to community
colleges and on to baccalaureate institutions, with special
attention to the network of minority-serving institutions.
We are dedicated to accomplishing this mission not just
locally or statewide but nationally, as today's students are
highly mobile, advancing through educational levels and across
institutions, increasingly moving beyond State borders and
swirling among traditional and nontraditional levels of career
training and education.
The development phase of NATN has been made possible by an
initial grant by FIPSE, by several congressional allocations
with assistance from the Congressional Black Caucus and
Hispanic Caucus and other key legislators and by funding from
Ford and the Lumina Foundation. We are now seeking funding for
the next phase of our work, nationalizing NATN.
The accomplishments of NATN may be described in two areas.
The first is improving transfer policy and practice. The NATN
framework classifies transfer at three critical levels:
institution to institution; program to program; and course to
course.
At the institution level, our general academic transfer
agreement ensures that associate degree graduates who meet the
admissions requirements of transfer institutions, usually a 2.5
GPA, can transfer all of their lower division credits to
fulfill graduation requirements at receiving institutions
across the country.
At the program level, we seek consensus on two articulation
blocks, the general education core curriculum and the field of
study or major core curriculum. The articulation agreement in
engineering-related program areas recently negotiated between
Miami Dade College, a member of our network from its inception,
with Georgia Institute of Technology, is an excellent example
of this approach.
Finally, at the course level, we anticipate a framework
which replaces traditional course-to-course articulation
practices with coursework aligned to learning outcomes or
competencies.
The second accomplishment of NATN is the development of Web
technology to facilitate the transfer process. Over the past 2
years, our interactive Web-based system for students and
advisers, CollegeStepz, has been developed.
The initial components are portal and introductory media,
college information and college search, as well as an
articulation transfer of information. A searchable data base
includes information on every college in the country, with
provisions for their transfer policies and agreements.
Eventually, and with sufficient funding, CollegeStepz will
embrace comprehensive articulation transfer processes, online
communications with advisers, education and career planning,
financial aid and student tracking. All of this work is
currently in operation at five regional pilot sites in Atlanta,
Baltimore-Washington, Houston, San Antonio and San Francisco,
with additional pilots expected to be under way this summer.
Let me say in closing what I think is required. There is no
question that higher education needs congressional support and
encouragement for a national effort in articulation and
transfer, but we need the encouragement to do it on a voluntary
basis, not on a mandatory basis, and certainly not with
burdensome reporting requirements.
The colleges and universities are getting the message and
demonstrating their support for the kind of engagement that
NATN offers, as evidenced by the participation of the three
largest associates, ACE, AASCU, and AACC, associations that
represent over 400 minority-serving institutions, HACU, NAFEO
and AIHEC and the network of 1,800 Servicemen's Opportunity
Colleges and, of course, AACRAO.
We need to encourage support and allow this grassroots
voluntary approach to prove that higher education can and will
get the job done. I would suggest, therefore, that in
conjunction with the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act, the adoption of a national goal to significantly increase
the numbers of students successfully transferring their degrees
and accelerating baccalaureate degree completion, especially
for students of color, through voluntarily compliance and
commitment.
The National Articulation and Transfer Network stands
ready, with your support and commitment, to help facilitate the
achievement of that goal.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Day follows:]
Statement of Dr. Philip R. Day, Jr., President, National Articulation
and Transfer Network, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am grateful for the
opportunity to address the subcommittee on whether transfer policy in
higher education can be improved, and I am here to say that it can, it
must, and it will.
In the spring of 2001, only a few blocks from the United States
Capitol, the leaders of seven national associations of education and
the presidents of an array of colleges and universities joined the
President of Howard University and me in creating the National
Articulation and Transfer Network. We had no office, no staff, no
funding, and no mandate. But undeterred, we ceremoniously signed the
cooperative agreement and began work. Soon afterwards, at our first
coalition meeting in Dallas with 25-30 institutions attending, we were
confirmed in our mission when a student named Doretha movingly informed
us that she had just been accepted as a transfer student with a strong
grade-point-average and an accredited degree from a prominent community
college on the West Coast and seeking to transfer to an East Coast
institution, but the nationally recognized baccalaureate institution
had denied acceptance of most of the 60 credits she had earned, leaving
only 26 credits, less than one year of academic coursework. The credits
were restored after intervention on our part, but it was this ``Rosa
Parks'' incident that galvanized the resolve of NATN. I want to tell
you now what we have done in just a few short years and where we hope
to go.
What is NATN?
The National Articulation and Transfer Network is a coalition of
more than 300 institutions, until recently led by a steering committee
but now chartered as a non-profit organization with a national board of
directors. The initial member institutions were Community Colleges,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. However, we have been expanding with
Asian-Pacific Islander Serving Institutions and other secondary and
postsecondary institutions. The sponsors who established NATN were the
major leaders in education: the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities, the United Negro College Fund, the American Association
of Community Colleges, the National Association for Equal Opportunity
in Higher Education, the American Council on Education, the Council of
the Great City Schools, the League for Innovation in the Community
College, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and most
recently the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
NATN is truly a coalition of forces for change.
The mission of NATN is to improve traditional articulation and
transfer patterns through the development of a continuum of pathways
for students, enabling them to make successful transitions from their
high schools to local community colleges and on to baccalaureate
institutions, with special attention to the network of minority serving
institutions. We are dedicated to accomplishing this mission not just
locally or statewide but nationally, as today's students are highly
mobile, advancing through educational levels and across institutions,
moving beyond state borders, and ``swirling'' among traditional and
non-traditional forms of career training and education.
Our accomplishments have derived from the organization of five work
groups, each with a chairperson and its members drawn from affiliated
institutions. The work groups have provided guidance with respect to
the development of articulation and transfer policies, the
identification and promulgation of best practices, and the launching of
an interactive web-site as the major resource for students and their
advisors, CollegeStepz. The work groups, which meet during annual
conferences, also collaborate through teleconferences and other work
sessions during the year.
The development phase of NATN has been made possible by a seed-
funding grant by the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education, and by Congressional
allocations between 2002 and 2004, with the assistance of the
Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses and other key legislators.
Additionally, NATN has also received private funding from the Ford
Foundation and from the Lumina Foundation for Education. We are now
seeking funding for the next phase of our work, nationalizing NATN.
What is Happening Nationally?
Before offering further commentary on NATN and its accomplishments,
I'd like to provide the subcommittee with a brief overview of what
colleges and universities are already doing to facilitate articulation
and transfer. Nationally, almost half of the students enrolled in
college begin their postsecondary education at the community college.
Of those who enter the community college, almost three-fourths (71%)
intend to earn a bachelor's degree, including students in vocational
programs. Still the transfer rate hovers between 20 to 25 percent
nationally, with minority students lagging as much as 10 to 20
percentage points below the transfer rate for white students. Some of
the factors related to the relatively low rate of transfer are heavily
influenced by patterns of attendance, student flow and numbers of
credit hours attempted per semester. However, there are other
institutional and systemic factors that influence this equation as
well. This is particularly troubling since nearly half of the minority
students in higher education are enrolled in community colleges.
Indeed, urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and
Detroit have community colleges that enroll ``minority majorities.'' If
we accept the baccalaureate as a keystone to upward mobility and
sustained prosperity, then such lackluster transfer rates are
untenable.
A recent publication of the American Association of Community
Colleges and the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, Access to the Baccalaureate, identifies several barriers
that impede the transfer of community college students. Variations in
institutional policies create situations where course credits are
transferred but not applied to the major, forcing students to repeat
courses and adding to their financial burden. Even students who have
earned traditional transfer degrees, the Associate of Arts or the
Associate of Science, are finding that limited seats are available
because of budget cuts and competing priorities. Moreover, there is a
persistent attitude among four-year faculty that community college
programs lack academic rigor. And community college faculty, likewise,
may not trust that their university counterparts will accept transfer
students, perceiving intransigence instead of interest. Even in states
where there are highly developed support systems, there are
insufficient incentives to encourage cooperation between educational
sectors or reward successful articulation and transfer, and students
are often left to their own devices to figure out the ``transfer
maze.''
Nonetheless, many initiatives and innovations have occurred at
state and local levels over the past decade. As a result, eighty
percent of the states have established articulation agreements between
two and four-year publicly-funded colleges and universities within
their states. However, the efficacy of such agreements is often tied to
the specificity of the language and the degree of enforcement. Giving
transfer more muscle, thirty-three states, such as in Colorado and
North Carolina, have created legislation that promotes cooperative
agreements with clearly established guidelines. Twenty-three states,
with the leadership of state boards of higher education, have developed
common general education core curricula (e.g., the California
Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum and the
Massachusetts Transfer Compact). To support this work, several states
have established statewide transfer councils. Arizona, for instance,
has transfer councils composed of two and four-year college
representatives for every major discipline, overseeing and recommending
the transferability of courses. A few states--Alaska, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming--have
established common course numbering systems, simplifying the transfer
process. At the same time, technology has provided sophisticated
solutions. FACTS in Florida and ARTSYS in Maryland enable students to
plot out a transfer course to the baccalaureate by examining course
requirements, programs of study, and course applicability through
dynamic Web technology.
Concurrently, many promising curricular initiatives are emerging.
Florida is developing a K-20 philosophy to focus on the entire
educational spectrum and enable the smooth transition of students from
elementary, middle, and high school through the community college and
the baccalaureate. Colleges in Kentucky and Oklahoma are experimenting
with ``completer colleges'' that offer a specialized baccalaureate,
such as a Bachelor of Professional Studies, or a curriculum pathway
that relates to the associate degree and guarantees full transfer and
applicability of credits. In another approach, Charter Oaks State
College in Connecticut and Excelsior College in New York have developed
baccalaureate degrees that ``consolidate'' credits which students may
have earned from many different colleges over time. A recent and
encouraging development is the replacement of the course-to-course
equivalency model for with a competency-outcomes approach to
articulation and transfer. Minnesota has a competency structure for
general education; Maryland has completed an outcomes-based program of
study for teacher education; and Washington is developing a competency-
based model for transfer. While these initiatives are promising, they
are nevertheless limited by state borders, leading to the need for, and
the potential of, a national network to promote best practices and
effective policy countywide.
What has NATN Accomplished?
The accomplishments of NATN may be described in two areas: (a)
fostering the adoption of policies and practices for improving transfer
and articulation nationally and (b) providing access via web-technology
to facilitate the transfer process by providing real-time information
for advising and counseling and to support student success.
1. Transfer Policy and Practice. NATN has developed a three-tiered
framework with accompanying models designed to maximize credit
transfer. The framework is based on extensive research in the field,
drawing both on the literature as well as best practices across the
country. Funding by the Lumina and Ford Foundations has fueled this
research while our work groups have created and refined the models to
support associate degree articulation for both transfer and career
programs--AA, AS, and AAS--and promoted regionally through articulation
and transfer councils organized by NATN.
The NATN framework classifies transfer at three critical levels:
institution-to-institution, program-to-program, and course-to-course.
At the institutional level, our General Academic Transfer Agreement
ensures that associate degree graduates who meet the admissions
requirements of the transfer institution--usually a 2.5 grade point
average-can transfer their lower division credits to fulfill graduation
requirements at receiving institutions throughout the country. This
transfer package generally consists of 60 credits, 36 credits in the
general education core and 24 credits in the major or electives.
At the program level, we seek consensus on two articulation
``blocks'', the general education core curriculum and the field-of-
study or major core curriculum. The articulation agreement in
engineering-related program areas recently negotiated between Miami
Dade College (a member of our Network from its inception) with the
Georgia Institute of Technology is in excellent example. Proposed
agreements at this level draw upon the best practices of states and
institutions in creating universally applicable core curricula, often
relying on learning outcomes or competencies as the currency for
articulation and transfer. Finally, at the course level, we anticipate
a framework which replaces traditional course-to-course articulation
practices with coursework aligned to learning outcomes or competencies.
2. Transfer Technology. Over the past two years, NATN's interactive
web-based system for students and advisors, CollegeStepz, has been
designed and developed in partnership with its technology contractor,
The Rsmart Group. The initial components include a portal and
introductory media, college information and college search, as well as
articulation/transfer information. A searchable database includes
information on every college in the country with provision for their
transfer policies and agreements. CollegeStepz is now accessible on the
web at www.collegestepz.net (soon to be .edu). Eventually, with
sufficient funding, CollegeStepz will embrace major new components for
comprehensive articulation/transfer processes, online communications
with advisors, educational planning and career planning, financial aid,
and student-progress tracking.
All of this work, promoting new transfer policies and practices
through articulation-transfer councils and using the web for student
success, is currently in operation at five regional pilot sites--in
Atlanta, Baltimore/Washington, Houston, San Antonio, and San
Francisco--with additional pilots expected to be underway this summer.
What is Needed?
In the beginning of this testimony, I suggested that we can and
will improve transfer and articulation in higher education. Now, let me
say, in closing, what is required. There is no question that higher
education needs Congressional support for a national effort. But we
need the encouragement to do it on a voluntary, good faith basis, not
on a mandatory basis and certainly not with burdensome reporting
requirements. Colleges and universities are getting the message and
demonstrating their support for the kind of engagement that NATN
offers, as evidenced by the participation of the three largest
associations (ACE, AACC, AASCU), associations that represent over 400
minority serving institutions (HACU, NAFEO, and AIHEC), and the recent
partnership agreement between NATN and the network of the
Servicemembers' Opportunity Colleges and CONAP Institutions (1800 post-
secondary institutions). We need to encourage, support and allow this
grass roots, voluntary approach to prove that higher education can and
will get the job done. I would suggest, therefore, in conjunction with
the re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, the adoption of a
national goal to significantly increase the numbers of students
successfully transferring their degrees and accelerating baccalaureate
degree completion, especially students of color,...through voluntary
compliance and commitment. The National Articulation and Transfer
Network stands ready, with your support and commitment, to help
facilitate the achievement of that goal.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
Dr. Zimpher.
STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY L. ZIMPHER, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF
CINCINNATI, CINCINNATI, OH
Dr. Zimpher. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Congressman
Kildee, Members of the Subcommittee, Ohio Members Boehner,
Tiberi and Ryan, and I want to thank especially State
Representative Shawn Webster back in Ohio for the leadership he
has provided in the model we are going to discuss on credit
transfer policies in Ohio.
Ohio has made significant changes in its transfer and
articulation policies, changes that will make the transition
from high school to college seamless and provide many more
options for students to be successful. Thinking ahead, 3 years
to 2008, a sample scenario provides a more concrete way to
illustrate the impact of Ohio's changes.
Latoya is a high school junior attending Cincinnati public
schools. She is thinking about majoring in nursing, and thanks
to Ohio's academic content standards, she has already taken
algebra I and II and geometry, good advice from her guidance
counselor for a career in nursing.
As a first-generation college student, she is a little
unsure what she needs to do to get ready for college, but in
Ohio, Latoya has a plan. She goes to Ohio's New Student Portal,
a Web-based access point for information about college
requirements, cost, application, financial aid materials.
Her guidance counselor suggests that she might want to look
at the courses on the student portal about nursing, which we
call Ohio's New Transfer Assurance Guide, not only in nursing
but in 38 career pathways, where students can identify the
courses they need to take, both in high school and in college,
to become, say, a nurse.
She also learns from this portal what she can take in high
school that will feed her major, and she can do so through
Ohio's post-secondary enrollment option without paying
additional fees for courses that she takes in high school that
feed her major.
After high school graduation, Latoya decides she wants to
start her college study in a local community college, in this
case Cincinnati State Community and Technical College. There
she can stay home, get acclimated to college, take courses at a
very affordable price and make progress on gen-ed and nursing
degree requirements. She knows that she can choose courses,
including courses in nursing, that are guaranteed for transfer.
She plans to transfer after 2 years to the University of
Cincinnati. Good idea. But this will give her a very affordable
way to begin her degree.
So Latoya submits her electronic portfolio of high school
and college post-secondary classes to Cincinnati State via the
State's newly christened electronic clearinghouse for
transcript transfer. Cincinnati State evaluates her portfolio
of courses and applies the appropriate credit to her college
transcript.
She begins taking her gen-ed courses and her foundation
courses for nursing, which she found in Ohio's Transfer
Assurance Guide. She knows that she has the State's guarantee
that her courses will transfer, and, when the time comes, her
college transcript is transmitted electronically to UC.
For Latoya, the process is easy. The State has made her
transfer of courses as simple as accessing her account with her
college ATM card. She knows her educational account balance and
can plan accordingly. She can focus on her courses, not on
filling out forms and standing in line.
This is a win-win for students, for our colleges and
universities and for our State. The students can plan a
seamless pathway from high school to college. Campuses get more
prepared students, making progress to degree, and the State
gets a highly trained workforce.
This is a wonderful scenario. We are more than 60 percent
of the way there through our Ohio Transfer Module, through
these transfer assurance guides and through the use of our
course applicability system.
As you might guess, this elegantly simple articulation and
transfer process did not evolve overnight. Building on our
original Ohio transfer module concept, public policymakers in
Ohio raised the bar significantly 2 years ago through House
Bill 95, mandating the removal of any remaining barriers to
Ohio's articulation transfer policies.
To meet this challenge, Ohio engaged all of its presidents,
provosts and significant academic administrators at our 37 2-
and 4-year public institutions and invited representatives from
our private 4-year colleges to participate. We convened over 50
committees, composed of campus leaders and over 400 faculty
members. Countless volunteers reviewed courses and curricular
activities.
In the fall of 2005, now, all students in Ohio public post-
secondary systems will be able to access this remarkable set of
transfer guides. Thanks to our Ohio Higher Education
Information System, all public 2- and 4-year institutions will
have electronic transcripts by 2006. By 2007, all Ohio college-
bound students will be using their very own ATM card, college
access card, to ensure full access to Ohio's transfer
guarantee.
Obviously, this Subcommittee has recognized that what works
in Ohio just might work for the Nation. We hope our efforts
serve not only as a model for others, but underscore the
complex mixture of academic decisionmaking and faculty seat
time, bolstered by a very sophisticated data system that is
today making the dream of transferability a reality in Ohio.
I thank you for your interest and would be happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zimpher follows:]
Statement of Nancy L. Zimpher, President, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Kildee, and Members of the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, thank you for this opportunity to describe
a statewide initiative that will, I believe, provide a model for
discussion during this hearing on credit transfer policies. My name is
Nancy Zimpher. I'm President of the University of Cincinnati and Co-
chair of Ohio's Articulation and Transfer Advisory Council of the Ohio
Board of Regents.
Ohio has made significant strides forward in ensuring that students
have easy access to all the resources of the state's comprehensive
system of public colleges and universities. Like many other states, we
have grappled with very difficult conceptual, educational and
logistical issues in developing a new policy for statewide transfer.
Ohio's model for transfer and articulation might serve as a useful
resource to other states challenged by similar issues. Students are
very mobile. Consequently, the opportunity to easily transfer courses
among campuses is a foundation for improving student access and success
in college. Educational access is critical, especially in a state like
Ohio, with its diverse education system. Therefore, Ohio needed to
consider all the various dimensions of access: affordability,
availability, aspiration, and academic preparation.
Ohio is a state that needs to increase the college education level
of its citizens to meet the needs of the knowledge economy and provide
the workforce of the future. In today's economy, it is increasingly
clear that learning must extend beyond high school. New knowledge is
being created at unprecedented rates and innovative technologies are
transforming old jobs and creating new ones. Being ranked 39th in the
nation for the percentage of its population with a bachelor's degree
doesn't bode well for the future of Ohio. We must seize on every
opportunity to increase the college participation of our citizens and
remove barriers that inhibit the mobility of students throughout the
higher education system.
Background
Ohio's articulation and transfer system is elegantly simple in
concept. Students will now be able to begin a course of study at any
college or university in Ohio and be guaranteed that significant
credits will transfer and apply to degree requirements statewide. The
policy places students squarely in the center of the educational
system. Further, since students make educational choices based upon
convenience, cost, interest, location, program availability and other
such factors, Ohio's new system removes barriers to these choices.
Ohio has actually been in the business of articulation and transfer
for 15 years. The first phase of the Articulation and Transfer Policy,
established in 1990, was a major achievement for the state at that
time. It improved the mobility of students by developing a foundational
concept: the Ohio Transfer Module. Students taking a complete module of
36-40 semester hours or 54-60 quarter credit hours comprised of general
education courses like English, math, and biology were guaranteed that
these courses would transfer statewide and take the place of the module
at the receiving institution. To ensure comparability of courses across
institutions, a statewide faculty committee reviewed each course's
level and rigor within the module.
We encountered a few difficulties. Students often just take
courses, not full modules. Consequently, if students didn't complete
the entire transfer module, they lost the ability to transfer courses.
The full intent of Ohio's transfer and articulation policy was not
being maximized in a way that would significantly provide students
access and success in college.
We began designing the next phase of the transfer and articulation
process a little over two years ago. Our work coincided with a
legislative mandate to fix any barriers and challenges that students
might be experiencing in the transfer of coursework. The General
Assembly gave us an aggressive time line to complete this work (April
15, 2005) and the flexibility to design the best strategy. We met the
deadline. The final report is written, and we are into full-scale
implementation. Students enrolled this coming fall will have a
statewide transfer guarantee that ensures they can make progress in one
of 38 different baccalaureate degree pathways, anywhere within the
public higher education system and in Ohio's participating private
institutions.
Ohio's Revised Policy
A few basic guiding principles framed Ohio's effort to revise its
transfer and articulation policy. Student success was the central focus
of the policy, rather than convenience to the state or campuses.
Students can expect fair treatment in the transfer and application of
credits to major/degree requirements and will be considered the same as
any student beginning or ending college on the same campus, what some
have called ``native'' students. Campus missions are preserved:
community colleges continue to focus on access to college, workforce
training, and programs offered at the associate degree level. The
public and private universities are the primary providers of
baccalaureate education. Finally, campus authority and autonomy is
maintained. Presidents, provosts and more than 300 faculty provided
leadership for the development of the new policy. While the Board of
Regents and the General Assembly were the driving force behind the
initiative, the Articulation and Transfer Advisory Council was a
critical entity in establishing the framework for the policy, one that
would work for Ohio's campuses and students.
With one significant change, the Ohio Transfer Module continues to
be the foundation of the transfer and articulation process. Students
will now be guaranteed the transfer of individual courses from the
general education module, without the need to complete the entire
module. A faculty subcommittee will continue to review courses for
rigor, level and appropriateness as part of the on-going process.
At the heart of Ohio's revised approach to articulation and
transfer is a new concept, the Transfer Assurance Guide (TAG). Transfer
Assurance Guides have been developed in 38 degree pathways for students
in eight disciplines/professions: arts and humanities, business,
communications, education, health, mathematics and science, engineering
and engineering technologies, and social sciences (see appendix A for a
list of disciplines). These pathways build on the general education
core by identifying major and pre-major courses that are also
guaranteed to transfer and apply to requirements anywhere in the
system. The Transfer Assurance Guide also becomes a primary vehicle for
advising students, even before the student leaves high school; another
building block to a truly seamless P-16 system in Ohio. This initiative
will fundamentally change how transfer and application of credits will
occur in Ohio and builds upon a decade and a half of work on improving
transfer.
Each TAG represents a specific pathway such as nursing,
mathematics, engineering, education, sociology or business. Under the
direction of the Ohio Board of Regents, 38 teams of faculty from two-
and four-year colleges and universities were brought together for each
Transfer Assurance Guide. Over a series of meetings, the teams
identified courses for each TAG and developed learning outcomes for
each course. The learning outcomes are the mechanism to ensure rigor,
quality and equivalency of courses across the system.
Campus leaders reviewed the Transfer Assurance Guides on multiple
occasions, provided comments back to the faculty panels, and ultimately
agreed to abide by the guaranteed transfer of courses in the TAGs.
This, as you may imagine, was not an easy process and many compromises
were made to arrive at final agreement on the course content of each
TAG (see appendix B for sample TAGs). Panels also made recommendations
of courses within the general education module that will help students
make appropriate choices for their intended major.
While the TAGs are relatively simple in concept, the results are
truly impressive. They represent a guarantee to students of academic
pathways to majors that ensure improved advising and a certainty of
course transfer and, more importantly, application of courses to the
major and degree. They remove barriers to transfer and allow for
student mobility across the system while ensuring the quality of the
educational experience through regular review by the faculty
subcommittee. Students that select courses in the TAG will know that
they will transfer, and they will not need to repeat the course at
another college or university, thus maximizing both student and campus
resources.
Implementation
The logistics of implementing such a comprehensive system of
transfer are complex. The Ohio Board of Regents is fortunate to have a
world class information system, the Higher Education Information (HEI)
system, as the backbone for electronic implementation. Using the course
titles and learning outcomes in each Transfer Assurance Guide, campuses
will identify equivalent courses and report them to HEI in order to
produce a statewide matrix of course matches. This course matrix will
be shared with all campuses and serve as the universal course
equivalency index for the state higher education system. The universal
course equivalency system will make it possible for colleges and
universities to guarantee that courses offered at different campuses
are equivalent and transferable for credit and to meet major/degree
requirements. By August 31, 2005, all campuses will have submitted
information on applicable courses in each TAG. Beginning in autumn term
2005, students will be able to complete courses and be guaranteed
transfer and articulation to degree requirements should they elect to
transfer in the winter of 2006.
We envision, however, a much more sophisticated transfer of
information through the development of a statewide Clearinghouse (Hub)
for the instant electronic transfer of transcripts between campuses,
both sending and receiving (see appendix C for a diagram). Students
will benefit from this system that has the speed and accuracy to
process very complicated data, and potentially many courses from a
variety of institutions. Campuses will benefit with greater efficiency
through creating a ``one-stop shop'' for processing the TAGs and
transcripts. We will also be able to develop a statewide application
process with the capacity to process high school transcripts in
addition to college transcripts. The Clearinghouse will offer students
access to a full array of electronic resources to assist them in
reaching their ultimate educational goal.
Ohio is also fortunate to have invested in the development of an
electronic, web-based advising tool to assist students and advisors in
transfer. This electronic advising/transfer tool, the Course
Applicability System (CAS), provides students and potential students an
efficient way to see how courses transfer across the system and how the
credits apply to a degree. All public campuses have implemented CAS as
an advising tool for use by advisors and students.
Ongoing Agenda
The Ohio Board of Regents envisions that with the full development
of the transcript clearinghouse, students will eventually have access
to a seamless electronic system for college application and transfer,
P-16. This will include an even greater electronic access to
employment, career, college and financial aid information. We will also
be developing more pathways (TAGs) in the future. The focus on learning
outcomes provides us with the opportunity to broaden our thinking about
education and include other models of how students learn and
demonstrate mastery of concepts (i.e. internships and field
experiences, portfolio based learning, interdisciplinary experiences).
The notion of describing specific levels of learning mastery is a major
paradigm shift and will more closely mirror the mastery of learning
that students will need to exhibit in actual work settings, thus
providing an opportunity to make learning more transferable and
integrated.
Conclusion
Ohio is implementing systemic change through one of the most
comprehensive and expansive curricular reforms in the state's higher
education history. Students will have the benefit of stronger and more
informed advising and will have options available that meet specific
needs (cost, location, etc.). They also will gain state assurance that
a consistent level of quality and rigor is maintained, backed by the
state's guarantee for the transfer and application of credits to
degrees. Ohio will have the benefit of a better and more effectively
prepared workforce. State resources will be more efficiently and
effectively deployed, and the success of the policy will be easy to
assess. We have put the student in the driver's seat in transfer and
have provided the tools to navigate the education system to his or her
highest educational aspirations.
Ohio's significantly enhanced articulation and transfer policies
and processes will substantially increase opportunities for students to
be successful in attaining educational goals. The full implementation
of the policy is a critical element of Ohio's efforts to improve
educational access and success and, in turn, begin to bridge the gap of
low educational attainment. These strategies are critical in meeting
the needs of the knowledge economy and the workforce of the future.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to any questions you may have.
[Attachments to Dr. Zimpher's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1019.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1019.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1019.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1019.004
------
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much.
Dr. Klebacha.
STATEMENT OF DR. THERESA A. KLEBACHA, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC
INITIATIVES, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FL
Dr. Klebacha. Good morning, Chairman McKeon, Congressman
Kildee and Members of the Committee.
My name is Theresa Klebacha, and, as the Chairman
mentioned, I am the Director of Strategic Initiatives for the
Florida Department of Education under Commissioner John Winn.
Thank you for inviting me to share with you Florida's
achievements in student transfer and success. In honoring my
time limit, I would like to dedicate my 5 minutes to making
three points about Florida's Pathways to Success.
One, it is all about the student. Florida's education
mission is very simple: Improve student learning and
achievement. We do this by striving to meet four goals: One,
maximize student achievement; two, provide access opportunities
and move students seamlessly across and between systems; three,
support academic programs that contribute to a skilled
workforce and economic development; and four, do all this in a
way that both maximizes both taxpayer dollars and student
return on investment. Our focus on the student has been
fundamental to our policies in Florida for decades.
The second point about our Pathways to Success, an
effective transfer system requires a comprehensive approach.
Florida has a comprehensive articulation infrastructure that
supports movement of students through the system down to the
basic course level. We have several mechanisms in place that
make this happen.
First, we support a two-plus-two system, where the first 2
years of a community college associate degree coursework is
guaranteed transfer to a State University. There, the second 2
years build toward a bachelor's degree for that student. Our
statewide articulation agreement guarantees the transfer of
credit without requiring students to repeat courses.
The second mechanism we have is that we engage
practitioners from the field to provide State level approval of
common prerequisites, in other words, major core curriculum,
those course requirements for all bachelor degree programs.
These courses are also guaranteed transfer among institutions
into a degree program. This allows the students to know ahead
of time what courses are required in their desired field, and
they can plan their programs of study using our unique online
student advising system.
Our third mechanism is that we support a course numbering
system that is the building block of our guaranteed transfer
policy. Our State practioner group engages faculty discipline
committees to assign course numbers based on course content and
faculty credentials. This system is what makes it possible for
students to transfer credit effortlessly as they move among
institutions.
To top it all off, in Florida, we put money behind student
program completion, transfer to higher academic levels or
placement into a job. This performance funding inspires
institutions to focus on outcomes of moving students through
and out, rather than loading student seats up front.
The third point that I would like to make about our
Pathways to Success is that, if you build it, they will come.
In other words, what I mean by that is it is not just about
public education. Our independent institutions recognize the
benefits of a system for students, and they also participate.
They have seats on our State level practitioner group that
makes decisions. They participate in our online student
advising system. They, too, have their own two-plus-two
articulation agreement with our community colleges. And they
participate in our common course numbering system to guarantee
the transfer of their credit to our other institutions.
Proprietary schools, in particular, are very interested in and
are taking advantage of this opportunity.
The independent institutions do all this voluntarily in
Florida. They see the benefit of advertising the guaranteed
transfer of credit for their students.
In closing, I will summarize Florida's three keys to
success: One, focus on what is best for students; two, take a
comprehensive outcome-based approach to transfer policy; and
three, create mechanisms that invite and engage both public and
private involvement.
I applaud your desire to make it possible for any student
in the Nation to experience the same rights and benefits that
Florida students already have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for allowing me, on
behalf of Florida, to be a part of your conversation. I welcome
your comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Klebacha follows:]
Testimony of Dr. Theresa A. Klebacha, Director of Strategic
Initiatives, Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL
Chairman McKeon, Congressman Kildee, and Members of the Committee:
Good morning. My name is Theresa Klebacha, and I am the Director of
Strategic Initiatives for the Florida Department of Education under
Commissioner John Winn. Thank you for the invitation to appear before
you today to share with you Florida's advances and achievements in
student articulation and success.
With 55.4% in 2002, Florida ranked 27th in the percentage of public
high school students continuing into some level of postsecondary
education immediately after graduation. Our state has been recognized
as a nationwide leader in creating a ``seamless'' transfer process for
these students. In fact, more than 70% of community college Associate
in Arts (AA) degree graduates in Florida now transfer to four-year
institutions and pursue bachelor's degrees within five years of
completing the AA.
Florida supports a vision of highest possible achievement for all
students.
In 2001, Florida moved to a K-20 education system, identifying
improving student learning and achievement across public and private
education systems as the primary mission. This mission, as established
in law, requires specific attention be directed to meeting four
statewide goals:
1. Highest Student Achievement
2. Seamless Articulation & Maximum Access
3. Skilled Workforce & Economic Development
4. Quality Efficient Services
This morning I will focus my attention on Florida's efforts at
meeting the goal of Seamless Articulation and Maximum Access. In
particular, I will overview our policies and practices, and spend some
time addressing how these policies maximize a student's ability to move
seamlessly within and between both public and private institutions.
Rather than read to you, I will paraphrase my comments and welcome your
questions at the end.
Florida strives to maximize students' movement through and across
systems.
Basic to efficient and effective articulation is the appropriate
alignment of curriculum and testing standards for K-20. This means
mechanisms must be in place to ensure that every student is prepared
for the next level of instruction before being promoted. An ultimate
goal is to ensure that graduation from high school means a student is
ready for college level work, without the need for remediation.
Students must first be provided access to quality instructional
opportunities.
Florida ensures geographic access to postsecondary opportunities
through its strategic placement of 11 state universities, 28 community
colleges, and 38 vocational-technical and adult education centers.
Additionally, Florida is home to 27 college and university members of
the Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida (ICUF), and over
600 proprietary institutional members of the Florida Association of
Postsecondary Colleges and Schools. All are appropriately licensed for
operation in the state.
Financial access to postsecondary education is provided through
state operational support that is balanced with a variety of student
financial aid options. This aid may be in the form of grants, loans,
scholarships, and/or various forms of employment. Financial aid can
come from several sources and agencies including the federal
government, the State of Florida, the colleges and universities, and
private organizations.
While access is an important component to ensuring student
advancement, Florida recognizes that equally as important is the
ability of the student to move across and within systems as
transparently and efficiently as possible.
Florida has a comprehensive articulation policy infrastructure.
Decades of legislative and policy decisions have contributed to
Florida's comprehensive articulation infrastructure. Unlike other
popular priorities that are implemented one policy direction at a time,
much care has been taken in Florida to create and nurture an entire
infrastructure of policies and practices that link and build into a
comprehensive articulation plan. The strength of the plan is its
recognition of the nature of student movement through postsecondary
education in Florida.
Many Florida students begin their college education at one of
Florida's open admissions community colleges, but plan to pursue a
bachelor's degree at one of Florida's public or independent four-year
colleges or universities. Currently, more than half of the juniors and
seniors in the State University System, as well as many students
attending independent four-year colleges and universities, began their
postsecondary work at a community college.
Florida supports a ``2+2'' system of student advancement.
The Associate in Arts (AA) degree is designed for students who
intend to earn a bachelor's degree from a four-year college or
university. The AA degree program meets general education requirements
as well as common prerequisites for a student's intended major. The
degree requires 60 semester credit hours and ensures admission to a
Florida public university.
Florida law provides for a Statewide Articulation Agreement that
ensures a seamless transfer process between and among postsecondary
institutions. This agreement ensures that if a student completes an AA
degree, admission to the State University System is guaranteed. During
the student's enrollment as a junior and senior at the university, the
student will not be required to repeat courses already satisfactorily
completed. It protects the transfer of equivalent courses and the
general education program completed by students during the freshman and
sophomore years at Florida public community colleges.
Additionally, state law requires all bachelor degree programs be
restricted to 120 semester credit hours in length, unless otherwise
approved at the state level, therefore ensuring that half of the degree
can be met through the AA lower-division work. These common program
lengths are intended to minimize the number of hours required for a
student to earn a degree while ensuring the quality of the educational
program.
The general education ``core'' is guaranteed transfer.
The Statewide Articulation Agreement also addresses the transfer of
general education coursework. The state's 36-hour general education
program is designed to introduce college and university students to the
fundamental knowledge, skills, and values that are essential to the
study of academic disciplines. General education requirements include
courses within the subject areas of communications, mathematics,
humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. The agreement
stipulates that public universities and participating ICUF institutions
cannot require students to take additional general education courses if
they have already successfully completed a general education sequence
at a community college.
Common prerequisites are identified, published and
guaranteed transfer.
Although completion of a community college AA degree guarantees
admission into the State University System, admission to a specified
program at a given university may not be guaranteed, particularly if
prerequisite courses were not completed by the student. Prerequisite
courses are required lower-division courses students must successfully
complete for a specific bachelor's degree. To assist students in
planning for transfer to desired degree programs, the state requires
identification and approval of ``common'' prerequisites across program
areas. Common prerequisite courses have been identified for more than
600 university bachelor's degrees across all public institutions. Since
Fall of 1996, common prerequisites have been offered and accepted by
state universities and community colleges.
Common course numbering makes the statewide guaranteed
transfer of credit possible.
Florida's Statewide Course Numbering System establishes the
``building block'' mechanism that allows the articulation
infrastructure to function. The system facilitates the transfer of
coursework by classifying courses according to subject matter and
faculty credentials, as assigned by one of 166 faculty discipline
committee coordinators. There are currently over 100,000 active courses
in the system. All public universities, community colleges, and
postsecondary vocational-technical centers are required to participate.
Private postsecondary institutions may volunteer to participate in this
numbering system for a fee established in rule.
According to Florida law, an institution accepting a transfer
student from another participating institution must award credit for
satisfactorily completed courses which are equivalent to courses
offered by the receiving institution, including consideration of
faculty credentials. Credits awarded must satisfy the requirements of
the receiving institution on the same basis as credits awarded to
native students. The credit awarded must be as though the course was
taken at the receiving institution.
Several ``best practices'' keep the articulation policy focused and
refined.
The Articulation Coordinating Committee represents the
involvement of practitioners.
To help coordinate this transfer process, representatives from
various public and private educational sectors meet regularly as the
statewide Articulation Coordinating Committee. This Committee was
formed in the early 1970s to discuss ways to help students move easily
from institution to institution and from one level of education to the
next. Primary responsibilities include approving common prerequisites
across program areas, approving course and credit-by-exam
equivalencies, overseeing implementation of local articulation
agreements, and recommending articulation policy changes.
Institutions are ``rewarded'' for student advancement and
progress.
In the late 1990's, Florida implemented performance funding
structures that ``paid'' institutions for student completion of
programs, continuous enrollment in higher learning, placement into a
job, and retention in a job. Implemented primarily in the workforce and
community college systems, the performance payment system resulted in
the streamlining of programs and alignment of resources to support
student advancement through the systems rather than payment for getting
students into the programs (a.k.a., ``seat time'' funding). As
institutions were funded based on student advancement, they sought and
supported partnerships with employers and public and private
institutions.
Online student academic advising provides information and
guidance to citizens.
In 1995, Florida created the Florida Academic Counseling and
Tracking for Students (FACTS) system as its central web resource for
postsecondary education advising. ``FACTS.org'' is available to assist
users in determining career objectives, choosing the major and
institutions that are best suited for them, applying for admission and
financial aid online, and tracking their progress toward a degree or
certificate. Students can also plan their courses and access their
grades and transcripts online. ``FACTS.org'' is the official repository
for several manuals and documents related to student advising and
articulation. This includes counseling handbooks, a common prerequisite
manual, a statewide articulation manual, the Independent Colleges and
Universities of Florida Articulation Agreement, Credit-by-Exam
Guidelines, Acceleration Mechanism Options, and a High School Planner.
Florida is expanding ``FACTS.org'' to provide degree auditing functions
to high school students that wish to plan their high school curricula
in preparation for course requirements in desired postsecondary
programs of study.
I would like to conclude my remarks by speaking briefly about the
involvement of Florida's independent postsecondary institutions in our
statewide articulation efforts.
Florida embraces its partnership with independent postsecondary
institutions.
In addition to providing independent postsecondary institutions
with state financial aid funding for student enrollment, representation
on the Articulation Coordinating Committee, and participation in
Florida's online student advising system (``FACTS.org''), there are two
primary ways these institutions play an integral role in the
articulation of Florida students.
One primary mechanism of independent involvement is through a
statewide articulation agreement, signed by the State of Florida and
the ICUF organization, to establish provisions for the transfer of
Associate in Arts degree students into private colleges and
universities. The Agreement guarantees that community college AA degree
students will enter as juniors, receive 60 credit hours toward their
bachelor's degree, and receive recognition of the general education
core courses taken at the community college. As regionally-accredited
institutions, the transfer of credit is already guaranteed, but the
agreement focuses on the transfer within degree programs. Most of the
ICUF institutions have volunteered to recognize this agreement.
A second, potentially more expanding role involves integration of
independent institutions into the mechanics of the articulation
process. In 1998, Florida law was amended to allow independent colleges
and schools, that are fully accredited by a regional or national
accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of
Education and are licensed to practice in Florida, to participate in
the Statewide Course Numbering System. Of the 100,000 active courses,
currently there are over 3,000 courses from 32 participating
independent institutions in the system. Of these, over 1,800 are
automatically transferable to at least one institution's AA or
bachelor's degree program. For a fee, proprietary institutions choose
to participate in the system as a way to ensure students that credits
earned will be accepted upon transfer to any other participating
institution.
In conclusion, Florida is poised to assist as needed.
I am very proud to report that Florida's comprehensive approach to
``Seamless Articulation and Maximum Access'' continues to support
policy innovation and student achievement. With these mechanisms,
Florida has been successful in maximizing the state's and Florida
families' return on investment for dollars invested in postsecondary
education.
I applaud your efforts to strengthen policies on a national level
to facilitate student movement; to put policies in place that do not
require a student or taxpayer to pay twice for the same instruction;
and to do it in a way that does not jeopardize the quality and
integrity of instructional programs.
Thank you for allowing me, on behalf of Florida, to play a small
part. I welcome any and all of your comments and questions.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF JEROME H. SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND ADMISSIONS OFFICERS,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Sullivan. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Mr. Kildee,
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jerry Sullivan, and I
am the Executive Director of the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. I am very
honored to be here today.
AACRAO is a nonprofit association of more than 2,400
institutions of higher education and approximately 10,000
campus enrollment service officials. As a national organization
of transfer of credit administrators who both send and receive
students, AACRAO is in a unique position to address this
hearing's topic. We recognize both great successes and
challenges in the current state of transfer and portability of
credit.
Transfer and articulation are complex phenomena involving
planned and unplanned movements of students among institutions
of higher education. The fundamental challenge with transfer,
whether planned or unplanned, is to aggregate coursework
conducted at different institutions with different academic
policies, different curricula and different levels of expected
rigor.
The institutional transfer process is complex and
deliberate, typically involving transfer professionals and the
faculty. It requires in-depth analysis of every course entry on
the transcript. Credit evaluation involves three distinct
judgments: First, an assessment of the quality of the course;
second, an evaluation of its comparability to courses at the
receiving institution; and finally, the course work must be
determined to be applicable to the program of study for which
the student has applied. The three-pronged standard benefits
students by ensuring they are not inappropriately placed in
courses for which they are ill-prepared.
Variations in institutional resources and staff complicate
credit evaluation. At many institutions, evaluations are
captured in course equivalency data bases that are available to
evaluators as a means of expediting the process. At most
institutions, however, the process is entirely manual and is
driven by the experience and the knowledge of evaluators.
At the State level, numerous efforts are underway to
promote transfer. States have employed various approaches,
ranging from informal efforts of transfer professionals that
try to do right by the student to more formal institution-based
agreements to State-mandated policies. Today, nearly every
State has some policy on the transfer of credit.
For students moving from 2- to 4-year institutions, the
States in general make tremendous efforts at setting up
articulation mechanisms, including Web sites that can be easily
accessed by students, parents and counselors.
There are many nongovernmental national efforts in place to
supplement institution-to-institution and State articulated
policies. Since 1977, AACRAO, for example, has maintained a
data base of institutional transfer credit practices. We are
currently engaged in a major effort to expand this data base
for use by institutions.
Since 1978, we have maintained an agreement with the
American Council of Education and the accreditation community
called the Joint Statement on Transfer and the Award of Credit.
I want to recognize the contributions of my fellow
panelists for their efforts to streamline transfer. The
National Articulation and Transfer Network, with which AACRAO
is pleased to be associated, is an important resource and
model. In Ohio, the development and implementation of the
Degree Ordered Reporting System, DARS, and Course Applicability
System, CAS, have proven effective at streamlining
equivalencies and portability.
Inefficiencies in the system: Well, while institutional and
State systems for transfer credit are largely successful, we
know that the system can be improved. The challenge is to
understand how credit determinations are made, how they are
made erroneously from time to time, and how to improve that
process.
Effective State policies are at the heart of programmatic
success and degree attainment for transfer students. We believe
that Federal policy could supplement these efforts, however,
and I would like to offer a few suggestions.
Federal transfer policies should be based on assumptions
that encourage students to matriculate toward degree
completion, that maintain a balance between public benefit and
administrative burden and that continue to recognize the
institutional economy of curricula and degree requirements.
Policies should not be one-size-fits-all.
First, the Federal Government could facilitate volunteer
data collection to provide receiving institutions with more
detailed information about courses for which credit is sought
by incoming transfer applicants. One possible information
collection dissemination mechanism for the effort could be the
College Opportunities Online Portal of the U.S. Department of
Education's Web site.
Another possible portal for submission of course
information would be the CollegeStepz web site, operated under
the auspices of the National Articulation and Transfer Network.
Such a site would voluntarily collect information, like
institutional course inventories, catalog descriptions,
syllabi, textbooks and faculty qualifications. This national
information repository would not only help credit evaluators,
it would help students.
Second, Federal policymakers should consider a disclosure
requirement for institutions that make claims with regard to
transferability of their course work to other institutions. It
appears that much of the student discontent about denials of
transfer credit are based on claims made by sending
institutions that turn out to be misleading.
Institutions that make claims about the transferability of
their credits to other institutions should be required to
provide the basis for the transferability claim, the number and
types of articulation agreements in which the institution
participates and the number of documented cases of successful
transfer on a course-by-course basis.
Third, Congress could authorize a grant program to promote
articulation agreements and increase degree attainment. Such
grants could be awarded on a competitive basis to institutions
to enable them to focus on improving transfer opportunities for
traditional and nontraditional students. Additionally, the
grants could promote articulation agreements amongst different
institutions in order to improve the degree completion for
incoming transfer students.
On behalf of the members of AACRAO, I want to thank you for
consideration of our views, and look forward to answering
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Jerome H. Sullivan, Executive Director, American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers,
Washington, DC
Introduction
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Mr. Kildee, members of the
committee, my name is Jerome H. Sullivan and I am Executive Director of
the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers. I am honored to have this opportunity to share the views of
our members with the Subcommittee regarding the portability of academic
credit and student mobility among institutions of higher education.
AACRAO is a nonprofit association of more than 2,400 institutions
of higher education and more than 9,500 campus enrollment services
officials. The campus officials who comprise our membership range from
front-line staff to senior administrators with primary responsibility
for admissions, enrollment planning, records management, administrative
computing and other important operations and student services central
to the smooth and efficient administration of colleges and
universities. Our membership includes public and private non-profit
institutions as well as for-profit collegiate institutions.
Today's hearing focuses on the portability of academic credit and
whether transfer of academic credit policies can be improved. As a
national organization of transfer of credit administrators who both
send and receive transfer students, AACRAO is in a unique position to
address this topic in terms of current practices among institutions,
within individual states and across the nation. We recognize both great
successes and challenges in the current state of transfer and
portability of credit. On the one hand, American higher education is
undoubtedly the most flexible and transfer-friendly system in the
world. On the other hand, student mobility is not entirely without
constraint, and carries costs for institutions and students. Clearly,
the more these costs can be contained or eliminated, the more efficient
and productive we collectively can become, and the more options
students will have. I would like to briefly address the present state
of affairs with regard to transfer and bring some of the pending
initiatives on transfer to the Subcommittee's attention. Additionally,
I'd like to offer a few solutions to ease credit portability and
student mobility.
Transfer: A Complex Issue
Transfer and articulation are complex phenomena involving planned
and unplanned movement of students among institutions of higher
education. Planned transfers may be facilitated by carefully negotiated
articulation agreements between institutions, and enable students to
start an academic program at one institution with the knowledge that
they will continue their program and obtain their academic credential
at another institution. It is important to note that not all planned
transfers are based on such prior institutional arrangements, and that
students may independently plan to transfer from one institution to
another without informing their advisors or having complete knowledge
of the credit-acceptance policies of the institution to which they
intend to transfer. But of course, not all transfers are planned.
Beyond planned transfers, unanticipated factors and the general
mobility of our society create numerous circumstances under which
students must move from one institution to another without prior
planning. Reasons for such movements can range from mismatches between
students and institutions to geographic relocations by the families.
The fundamental challenge with transfer, whether planned or unplanned,
is to aggregate coursework conducted at different institutions with
different academic policies, different curricula, and different levels
of expected rigor into an academic credential that the issuing
institution can stand behind. Transfer is complex, then, because
disparate and sometimes incommensurable coursework is brought together,
often without prior involvement of the institution from which the
student expects to graduate.
Who Transfers?
Once it was assumed that transfer students were young people who,
because they wanted to stay close to home for two years after high
school--for financial reasons or reasons of convenience attended a
local two-year ``junior college'' or ``community college'' before
transferring to a four-year institution. Today, nearly 60 percent of
community college students are over the age of 22. Sixteen percent of
all community college students are in their thirties; 10 percent are in
their forties; and 5 percent are in their fifties or older.
Transfer students are no longer only those who begin college at a
two-year institution and then move to a four-year. There are ``lateral
transfers''--students who transfer from a two-year school to another
two-year, or from a four-year school to another four-year. There are
also ``reverse transfers''--students who start at a four-year school
but graduate from a two-year school. And, there are ``swirling''
transfers--students who are enrolled in two or more schools
simultaneously. While it is still true that more students at two-year
colleges transfer about 42 percent--than those at four-year
institutions--about 23 percent one-third of college seniors have
transferred at some time in their career.
The Institutional Transfer Process
To better appreciate the transfer process, it may be helpful to
review the careful procedures institutions typically follow in handling
transfer decisions. The admissions process for transfer students is
significantly more complicated because beyond an evaluation of the
applicant's qualifications, separate determinations must be made about
credit acceptance and placement of the student. The process of transfer
credit evaluation typically involves transfer professionals and the
faculty, and requires an in-depth analysis of every course-entry on the
transcript. The credit evaluation process is abstractly divided into
three distinct judgments. First, an assessment of the quality of the
course must be made. Second, the course must be evaluated on the basis
of its comparability to courses at the receiving institution. Finally,
the coursework for which credit is granted must be determined to be
applicable to the program of study for which the student has applied.
For purposes of ensuring student success and protecting the integrity
of academic credentials, all three judgments must be made in the
affirmative for credit to be granted. Courses of poor quality, courses
for which the receiving has no general counterpart, and courses that
simply do not apply to the degree being sought should not, and are not,
typically ported over. This standard benefits students by ensuring that
they are not inappropriately placed in courses for which they are ill
prepared.
Concrete determinations with regard to the three-part analysis
described above can range in difficulty. Transfer professionals at
institutions with significant transfers-in often have a course-by-
course understanding of academic offerings of their feeder schools.
This course-level understanding is typically arrived at through
intensive reviews of course syllabi, textbooks and supplemental
materials used in courses, knowledge of faculty and their
qualifications at sending institutions, and lengthy consultations with
departmental faculty at the receiving institution in connection with
each course. Expensive and labor-intensive as it is, this process
represents the ideal method of credit evaluation. The good news is that
once a particular course from a specific institution has been
evaluated, if it is encountered again on a different student's
transcript, the same credit decision can be applied until the course
content changes. At many institutions, evaluations are captured in
course-equivalency databases that are available to evaluators as a
means of expediting the process. At most institutions, however, the
process is entirely manual, and is driven by the experience and
knowledge of expert evaluators.
State and Institutional Initiatives on Transfer
No single model of articulation and transfer can be identified as
the universal standard or even as the preferred model for the nation.
Most states employ a combination of approaches ranging from informal
efforts of transfer professionals that try to do right by the student,
to more formal institution-based agreements, to state-mandated
policies.
Historically, two-and four-year college transfer and articulation
agreements were primarily institutional initiatives rather than state
mandates. Now, nearly every state has some policy on transfer of
credits for students moving from two- to four-year institutions.
Striking differences have emerged, however, in articulation policies
and practices among the states. These differences include not only how
policies and practices were initially established, but also their
degree of selectivity, specificity and uniformity.
Some widely used transfer practices are statewide articulation
agreements, state-level transfer/articulation bodies, transfer/
articulation officers located at both two- and four-year institutions,
and feedback systems to determine whether state policies are being
implemented. Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Minnesota
provide examples of state-level agencies that have been directed by
their legislatures to establish policies relating to the flow of
undergraduate students between and among the institutions they
coordinate. The states, in general, are already making tremendous
efforts at setting up articulation mechanisms, including Web sites that
can easily be accessed by students, parents and counselors.
Vertical transfer (two- to four-year) is the type of transfer most
often addressed in state transfer or articulation policies. State
articulation policies are most likely to mandate transfer of general
education or transfer of associate degrees, focus mainly on transfer
among public institutions, and tend not to have an enforcement
mechanism.
At least thirty-eight states have transfer/articulation legislation
via statutes, bills or resolutions. Cooperative agreements comprising
formal voluntary agreements between institutions and formulated on a
course-by-course or per discipline basis exist in at least 40 states.
Transfer data is collected in 33 states for reporting and
accountability purposes. Eighteen states offer student transfer
incentive programs, including financial aid, guaranteed transfer
credit, and/or an admissions priority. Twenty-six states publish
student guidelines to outline requirements and types of articulation
agreements between institutions. Twenty-three states have a statewide
common core curriculum and eight states have common course numbering
for all institutions. Finally, at least five states have specialized
vocational-technical credit transfer organized via collaborations
between two-year colleges and vocational institutions.
Several common patterns are evident in the practices nationwide:
First, despite changes in students' enrollment patterns, even the newer
articulation and transfer policies focus almost exclusively on the
traditional view that students transfer solely from two-year to four-
year colleges. Second, state-level agreements tend to focus on transfer
between public institutions and do not take into account the
possibility of transfer to or from private or for-profit institutions.
A survey we conducted in 2002 of state transfer officers, however,
indicates that 66 percent of respondents have articulation agreements
between public and private institutions within their state and 41
percent have articulation agreements, privately arrived at, between
public institutions and proprietary institutions. Whatever the coverage
of a state's policy, however, one of the most evident trends is the
move away from voluntary agreements toward formal state-mandated
policies.
Current National Efforts to Facilitate Transfer
There are many national efforts in place to supplement and enhance
institution-to-institution and state articulation policies. Since 1977,
AACRAO, for example, has maintained a database of institution-to-
institution transfer credit practices, called Transfer Credit Practices
(TCP). When it began, information was collected from only one reporting
school in each state, typically a flagship, and disseminated in print
form. Now, as times, technology and transfer have changed, TCP is a
more robust, online database that includes several reporting
institutions from each state. The database reports the transfer
acceptance practices of reporting institutions and assists credit
evaluators in determining how other institutions within their state
evaluate course-by-course transfer credit. In addition, the AACRAO Web
site provides a comprehensive list (Attachment 1) of state practices
including mandates and articulation agreements as well as a variety of
articles and links to outside sources that help transfer evaluators
with credit applicability, equivalency and comparability
determinations.
Since 1978, AACRAO has maintained an agreement with the American
Council of Education and the accreditation community, now represented
by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), called ``The
Joint Statement on Transfer and the Award of Credit (Attachment 2).
This agreement, which emphasizes standards for evaluation of transfer
credit, advocates equal examination of course quality, comparability
and applicability.
AACRAO is engaged in other efforts, too, including a cooperative
agreement with the New England Transfer Association and participation
on the CHEA's Committee on Transfer and the Public Interest. Further,
our publication, The College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten
Student, offers research and practical advice to campus administrators
concerning everything from maximizing the effectiveness of articulation
agreements to addressing the specific and unique needs of an
institution's transfer population.
Obviously, AACRAO has done a lot of work on transfer issues. I
would also like to recognize the contributions of others, particularly
my fellow panelists, for their efforts to streamline transfer for both
institutions and students. The National Articulation and Transfer
Network with which AACRAO is pleased to be associated and its
CollegeStepz Web site is an important resource for minority and
underserved students. Further, its collection of nationwide
articulation data is a good step toward development of a national
research model. In Ohio, the development and implementation of the
Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS) and Course Applicability System
(CAS) have proven effective at streamlining equivalencies and
portability. The ability to plan coursework around the prospect of a
future transfer ensures that scarce time and resources are not spent in
classes that won't contribute to successful degree completion, wherever
it may be earned.
Inefficiencies in the System
While institutional and state systems for transfer of credit are
largely successful, we know that the system can be improved. There are
inefficiencies for both students and for institutions. Uncertainty and
lack of transparency cause significant difficulties for all parties in
the transfer process. Many students cite denial of transfer credit as
their primary source of concern. Students are sometimes misled to
believe that their coursework at one institution will automatically
transfer to another institution. Oftentimes students simply assume that
coursework will transfer, without fully understanding the nuances of
the evaluation process or the tremendous differences and diversity of
higher education programs. The very quality of choice that we so value
in American higher education precludes one national definition for each
course, and causes slight differences that must be painstakingly
evaluated as we review courses with identical titles from various
institutions. Where the differences are truly slight, credit must be
granted to expedite time-to-degree and avoid repetition and added costs
for the sake of marginal new learning. Where significant differences
are detected between courses of similar designation, however, for the
sake of both the student and the reliability of institutional
credentials, credit should not be granted. I don't believe any observer
of the transfer phenomenon would disagree with the foregoing statement.
The challenge is to understand how these determinations are made, how
they are made erroneously from time to time, and how to improve the
process.
As I noted earlier in this testimony, credit may be denied for a
number of reasons. Concerns about quality, comparability or
applicability can result in adverse decisions. These concerns are, on
occasion, caused or exacerbated by lack of adequate information about
the sending institution, its academic policies, or its curriculum.
Perhaps the greatest challenge in the evaluation process is this lack
of adequate information about the student's prior coursework. In many
cases, transfer evaluators at the receiving institution have only a
single sheet of paper--the transcript--through which to determine the
award of credit. The transcript lists the name of the sending
institution, the names of the courses the student took and the grades
the student earned. With this information the evaluator is left to
figure out much about the sending institution, the substance of the
coursework--whether it is comparable to courses taught at the receiving
institution--and the student's academic achievement. With such little
information, credit evaluators rely on quality measures like the
accreditation of the sending institution and course descriptions in
course catalogs to complete their evaluations. In addition to credits
from traditional colleges and universities, credit evaluators examine
and make determinations about credits earned through experiential
learning, distance education, international education and vocational
schools. When there is a question regarding the applicability or
comparability of a specific course, credit evaluators defer to faculty
members in the relevant field for guidance. Greater transparency of
sending institutions can alleviate such concerns, and facilitate
successful transfer of credit where appropriate.
Beyond the factual difficulties of the task of evaluation, other
issues compound the problems. These include proper disclosures and more
accurate advance information--to student and institutions--about
portability of credits, as well as a greater effort on the part of all
institutions to address the unique needs of the transfer population.
Possible Solutions
From our perspective, the primary national policy priority
regarding transfer is to enable and facilitate solutions that ease the
portability of credit. Successful policy solutions will recognize that
transfer is ubiquitous and will only become increasingly important as a
mechanism for students to attain degree completion. Such solutions
should be flexible enough to accommodate the myriad unique types of
students and institutions involved in the transfer of credit process
and should not be one-size-fits-all. Transfer policy should be based on
assumptions that encourage students to matriculate through the
educational system towards degree completion; that maintain a balance
between public benefit and administrative burden; and that continue to
recognize the institutional autonomy of curricula and degree
requirements.
In addition to the efforts AACRAO and others here today are already
engaged in, effective state policies are at the heart of programmatic
success and degree attainment for transfer students. We believe that
federal policy could supplement these efforts, however, and I'd like to
offer a few suggestions.
First, the federal government could facilitate a voluntary data
collection to provide receiving institutions with more detailed
information about courses for which credit is sought by incoming
transfer applicants. In creating better tools to support transfer
credit evaluation on campus, the federal government can eliminate much
of the friction in the system and promote the optimal outcome for
students. One possible information collection and dissemination
mechanism for this effort could be the College Opportunities Online
portal on the U.S. Department of Education's Web site. Another possible
portal for voluntary submission of course information would be the
CollegeStepz Web site operated under the auspices of the National
Articulation and Transfer Network. Such a site would voluntarily
collect information such as institutional course inventories, catalog
descriptions, syllabi, text books and faculty qualifications. This
national information repository would not only help credit evaluators,
it would help students better understand the academic offerings of
participating institutions.
Second, federal policymakers should consider a disclosure
requirement for institutions that make claims with regard to
transferability of their coursework to other institutions. It appears
that much of the student discontent about denials of transfer credit
are based on claims made by sending institutions that turn out to be
misleading. These claims are particularly troublesome when made at the
point of recruitment, when students are basing enrollment decisions on
them. Any claims about other institutions' credit acceptance policies
should be based on facts. We believe institutions making claims about
transferability of their credits to other institutions should be
required to provide: (1) the basis for the transferability claim; (2)
the number and types of articulation agreements in which the
institution participates; and (3) the number of documented cases of
successful transfer on a course-by-course basis.
Third, Congress could authorize a grant program to promote
articulation agreements and increase degree attainment. Such grants
could be awarded on a competitive basis to institutions to enable them
to focus on improving transfer opportunities for traditional and non-
traditional students. Additionally, the grants could promote
articulation agreements among different institutions in order to
improve the degree completion for incoming transfer students.
Conclusion
On behalf of the members of AACRAO, I thank you for your
consideration of our views. We appreciate your extraordinary efforts on
behalf of students and look forward to working with you as you advance
the cause of education.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much.
Well, you have given us a lot to think about, and I commend
Florida and Ohio for what you are doing. That sounds like that
would be a wonderful thing to see if all the States did that,
and if we could also work out an interstate policy, that would
be great. That is our goal, is to help students, to not punish
students, but rather to help them.
Members of Congress have documented evidence that some
institutions of higher education accredited by the regional
accreditors refuse to accept or even consider the transfer of
credit from schools that are nationally accredited.
Are you aware of this problem? How widespread and how
pervasive is this problem?
Dr. Day. We are aware of it. I am not 100 percent sure of
how pervasive it is. I know that, as far as our association,
NATN, is concerned, we have been open to working with any
institution as long as it is either nationally or regionally
accredited or enjoys special accreditation status. As with
anything, in the final analysis, it really gets down to the
issue of the individual institution and the student who is
coming from that particular institution.
Chairman McKeon. So you believe that the student should be
based on the school they have come from, not eliminated just
because of the accrediting body?
Dr. Day. Absolutely, that is basically the operating
principles that have been adopted by the Commission on Higher
Education Accreditation, that we should not be discriminating
solely on the basis of the type of institution that is sending
that student, i.e., a proprietary institution or whomever. It
is really about looking at the individual institution and the
student and bringing the two together and blending them in such
a way as it conforms to the types of issues that Jerry Sullivan
outlined for you.
Dr. Zimpher. Chairman McKeon, the Ohio system assumes a
nondiscriminatory policy. It is interesting if you say it the
other way, your accrediting body will not kick you out of the
system, but it alone won't get you in the system, either way.
But that is an important point to make. You do not have a
blanket ticket no matter what, because it all boils down to the
course and curricular equivalencies. You could almost do a
blind review, a 2-year institution whose name is not noted to a
4-year institution, because we look at the courses and the
curriculum and the equivalency thereof.
Chairman McKeon. I loved hearing your story about the
student 3 years from now and how it is going to unfold for
them, because that is what is driving this whole issue. That is
why we have this issue in our bill, is because we are concerned
that a student, especially one that is a first-time student in
their family, they go to school, they are given some guidance
on courses to take, and then, at the end of 2 years, find out
that those courses do not transfer or half of those courses or
a third of those courses do not transfer. And basically, I do
not think education is a waste of time, but taking the same
courses over and over again could be considered a waste of time
in comparison with being able to spread yourself out to take
other new classes.
We hear good things about Ohio and Florida. Some States are
not doing this. Could you give us any feeling about which
States are not and why they are not?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, nearly all States have some type of
policy that is driving in the direction of freeing up mobility.
Some schools, to go back to that previous question, probably do
use accreditation as a rationale.
I think typically what drives it is resources. It is
difficult on the receiving end. Often, schools are faced with a
situation of literally tens of thousands of applicants that
they try to weed through, and, as a result, there is, I do not
know whether it is a need, but a sense of, to get through it
all, one needs to jump to some umbrella reason to say no.
Chairman McKeon. Is a lot of that subjective, or is it
objective?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, to some extent, you could say it is
objective. What you are trying to do is say, here is a group of
institutions who a trusted third party, an accreditor, has said
they have reasonable criteria for the type of faculty and
program they put together and they are similar to you.
Chairman McKeon. What we are thinking of, and that is what
we have in our bill, requiring the institutions to have a
stated policy so that the decision is made here instead of
here, and the student can have the decision made up front and
not have wasted that time. And I think it will save all
institutions a lot of time, because if they have a policy, they
do not have to go back through and say, ``Well, this may or may
not be good, let's spend a lot of time discussing it.'' If they
have an objective, written policy, then everybody complies with
that, and there is no question.
A student cannot say I did not know, because it is there.
It is on the Web; they can look at it and use it. Their
counselors can use that in guiding them in course selection up
front. It makes, I think, a much smoother, seamless policy all
the way through.
Dr. Zimpher. I was just going to add that I think State
reciprocity is really going to help us here. Ohio is very well
situated, surrounded by five neighboring States that we have
reciprocal relations with already, and I can easily see how
Florida and Ohio, if we were able to have four or five national
pilots that looked similar to Florida and Ohio, I think you
could spread out from that direction.
I also think that the Web is exponentially our friend. This
idea of a student portal, where all kinds of information from
preschool to kindergarten to high school to college exists and
students can test out the viability of what they are taking,
this will help students be more engaged in high school and more
of a guarantee from high school to 2-year, 2-year to 4-year,
or, as we have not really mentioned today, a big part of the
Ohio system is 4-year to 4-year. It is really important.
Chairman McKeon. Right.
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Zimpher and Dr.
Klebacha, in developing the systems you have in Florida and in
Ohio, how do you avoid going to the lowest common denominator
on the quality of courses?
Dr. Zimpher. Well, Representative Kildee, when I mentioned
that 400 faculty across the State had been involved, if you can
imagine the time they have spent. They have looked at each
course syllabus in their respective institutions, and by making
the learning outcomes public and by using for the gen-ed
curriculum sort of a 95 percent transferability--and even for a
major course, it has to be at least 70 percent compatible with
learning outcomes from one institution to another--it has had
the opposite effect.
It has caused us to revise curriculum up to a standard, and
I think that is maybe counter-intuitive, but a lot of work by a
lot of people looking individually at the curriculum has really
raised the standard.
Dr. Klebacha. We have 191 faculty committees that are
around content areas. So one way to ensure that you do not go
to the lowest common denominator is you put them all in a room
together, and you make them work it out. They will fight among
themselves until they get to the point where they level out at
a quality, rigorous coursework level.
Not only that, we have at the State level that practitioner
group that I mentioned that reviews this and is a check and
balance at the State level for ensuring that it is in fact a
rigorous and quality program.
Dr. Day. Mr. Kildee, just to follow up on that, prior to
going to California, as the Chairman mentioned, I was in
Florida, and at the time, while all of this was being planned
and developed, I was the president of Daytona Beach Community
College in Florida. And my chief academic officer was one of
the key players on one of the major committees.
I have got to just give you some assurances, I think in the
words of the president of the University of Cincinnati, it
actually elevated the quality of both the discussion and also
the outcomes from the point of view of the course work. Because
not only did it bring all of the faculty and staff that Theresa
was talking about to discuss issues regarding common course
numbering, but after all of that was settled, we then went
through a process of what we referred to as leveling, what is
lower division and what is upper division, so there would be a
line drawn about what the community college's responsibilities
were and what the university's responsibilities were, so
everybody knew what their job was. Everybody knew where they
could focus their resources to get the very best effort. And
the same thing applied to the lower division in the University
of Florida system.
So, they are very comparable to what was going on in the
community colleges. So it does work but is a long, deliberative
process, and it does cost a lot of money.
Dr. Zimpher. I would add, Representative Kildee, that, in
Ohio, there is a pretty sophisticated higher education
information system. We are actually tracking cohorts of
students to make sure they have had success in transfer and
successful completion of their courses. So I think that kind of
data system, I know that you have been interested in data
systems and what you could do on a national basis, but the
advantage of our data system is you know where the student came
from, what courses he or she has taken, what grade level
achievement, whether or not it transferred to the next college
or 2- or 4-year institution. That is the kind of assessment
data I think we need, probably best generated at the State
level.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I am glad I asked that question.
Good answers, good responses. I got some good knowledge.
Dr. Day, you mentioned that the Federal Government could
provide some encouragement on a voluntary basis to achieve
this. Does H.R. 609 go in that direction?
Dr. Day. I think it is certainly trying to do that, but I
think the concern that we have, probably the largest concern,
is, despite all of the issues about posting policies, I do not
think that is a big problem. I think every institution would be
prepared to do that.
But the issue of the reporting, the subsequent and more
detailed reporting requirements that necessarily have to be
followed, from the point of view of not only the student that
is coming in but the student who is being accepted and the
amount of transfers as well as from the point of view of
separate accrediting agencies, I think the better approach on
that would be--because in each State, going back to Florida,
for example, I mean, one of the things that really drove that
train, if you will, on developing that system, was the
development of statewide accountability standards. The same
thing has just happened in California. Our chancellor of the
community college system has just now turned over to the
legislature and the Governor's office a whole new
accountability plan that is not focused on statewide data. It
is focused on districtwide data and has a compliment of
statewide data that we are all going to be compared to, and one
of the key elements of that is transfer.
I think the proper role of the Federal Government is to
ensure that the States are following through with that.
Getting back to Chairman McKeon's question about whether
there are different State practices. Well, it is rather spotty,
in fact. As good a three-tiered system as California has, there
is a lot of room for improvement. Not every State is like
Florida and not every State is like Ohio. But we have got to
try to build in some assurances that we move them and
incentivize them to move in that direction, because there is
certainly a lot of good people at the grassroots prepared to do
that because they care about the students that they are
serving.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon. The Chair yields to the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of questions.
Mr. Sullivan, in your testimony, you talked about some of
the constraints within the College Credit Mobility System that
carries cost for institutions. Tell us a little bit more about
cost, because I think we would like to know more about what the
costs are for students and the institutions.
Mr. Sullivan. I am glad to. As transfers are currently set
up, cost tends to fall on the receiving institution more than
on the sending institution. We think there could be some better
balance there.
The cost begins with personnel. Someone shows up on your
campus with the idea of transferring to you, whether that be
planned or unplanned. When it is planned, it is a little
smoother, because there can be articulation agreements, as we
heard here, in place. When it is unplanned, they show up often
with an unknown school and a series of courses that little is
known about. There will be a staff of X number of people trying
to discover whether or not those courses by the three criteria
make any sense for giving credit at that particular
institution.
I was at a panel similar to this out in California a couple
of years ago listening to one of the State universities out
there talking about how they did not have enough to get the job
done, and they had a staff of nine trained evaluators carrying
that out. That is a considerable expense.
Some of these ideas talked about here today begin to break
through that cost. By the sending institution being able to
provide more information online that an evaluator can look at,
that would breakdown some of that problem.
I think President Day's project, approach to this also
would begin to expand from State to State. His approach is that
they are looking at regions rather than nationwide, where you
would take a metropolitan area and faculty members can get
together and begin to work on that.
We know that most transfers take place within about 50
miles of the institution, so you can start to develop these
cells. It will bring down costs, and it will facilitate a great
deal of this, rather than everything taking one effort taking
care of the entire Nation, which probably will not work.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Are there any articulation agreements between liberal arts
colleges and universities or interstate transfer agreements out
there? Can any of you comment on some of that?
Dr. Day. None that I know of that are formalized and that
provide the student with the type of assurances that they would
be able to effectively move from one State to another.
There are agreements that exist that allow a student, for
example, the New England Compact Agreement, which allows a
student from Maine, my home State, for example, that might want
to go into and enjoy having access to a major that is not
offered by the University of Maine system, but if it is offered
by the University of Vermont, they will travel to the
University of Vermont, and they will pay the comparable tuition
of the State of Maine.
We have not approached that issue, but I think that you are
going to see that emerging on the horizon, whether it is
through the New England or the regional accrediting groups or
such organizations as WICHE, which is the Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education. I think everybody is focusing
on this issue.
But, again, while there are issues when you work within a
particular State, if you consider the State as a silo, you can
get all of the things organized as much as you want, but the
reality is that when somebody leaves Florida or Ohio and
decides to go to Pennsylvania or to Illinois, the reality is
they are at risk. That is the reason why we have to work
developmentally to build this block, this coalition, on a
local, regional and national level, so that we facilitate
transfer around this country, and we do not put students at
risk because of the fact that there is no room at the inn at
their local State University or in the system itself; because
of demands or demographics, they are forced to go out-of-state
to get access to the upper division and baccalaureate degree,
and that is when we have serious problems.
Mr. Boustany. I thank you.
Chairman McKeon. The Chair yields to the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for holding this hearing.
I want to thank the panel first for all of the work you are
doing in terms of facilitating the process by which students
transfer from one institution to another. I consider that issue
to be absolutely central to the issue of access and
affordability, which ought to be one of our concerns as we
reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
Dr. Day, I want to sort of follow up on the questions that
Mr. Kildee asked. You said in your testimony that you believe
that this issue required congressional support but that you
thought that support ought to take the form of, in effect,
encouraging schools to undertake volunteer activities as
opposed to the Federal Government imposing activities or
policies on schools.
Mr. Sullivan, you did not use those terms, you did not use
``volunteer,'' you did not use ``mandatory,'' but certainly the
thrust of your testimony would be that you agree with that
sentiment.
I guess my first question is to Dr. Zimpher and Dr.
Klebacha. Do you also agree that the role of the Federal
Government ought to be volunteer as opposed to mandatory in
encouraging schools to facilitate the process by which students
transfer from one institution to another?
Dr. Zimpher. Representative Bishop, I think if you parse
the bill out, what I know of it, I do not have deep knowledge
of it, I think the Federal perspective on nondiscriminatory
policies is an important one, and, as I said before, I think
that should not be the determinant one way or the other. So I
think it has been helpful to articulate at a national level,
say, in a bill of this sort, that there are certain principles
that should be adhered to.
But, yes, I think in the final analysis, States are better
equipped to move in these directions and move reciprocally with
other States.
I am not sure that a national data system is in our near-
time horizon, but I also learned a great deal from listening to
Florida today. I think we have many similarities in our system.
I think encouraging pilots, giving recognition to States that
have made progress, would be very important to voluntarily
encouragement of others.
Dr. Klebacha. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Bishop. I, too, agree that it should be voluntary. However, I
do believe that there is a role of Congress to establish basic
minimum expectations right up front: This is what we expect to
see; these are the goals we are trying to reach, put in place
motivations, performance funding, those kinds of things we did,
to encourage institutions to move toward the goals and
expectations, and, as Dr. Day mentioned, have performance
measures that you specifically will be looking at and
measuring, give credit to those that have met those and further
encourage them, and those that have not, perhaps they will once
they see that the students will gravitate toward the programs
that do adhere to those areas.
Plus, I like the idea of Congress serving as a repository
of information, because, to some extent, excuse me, Congress
encouraging a repository at the Federal level. We have a bunch
of information we could share up there. The same thing with
Ohio and these other States. Eventually, you will have a
network of information that can be tapped into for particular
quality indicators that our registrars are looking for. So I
would encourage voluntary participation.
Mr. Bishop. Let me, if I may, there is very specific
language in H.R. 609 which deals with the issue of
transferability of credit, and it imposes on the institutions
certain minimum requirements. I guess my question is, do you
see the imposition of those certain minimum requirements as a
mandate from the Federal Government? And, if so, is that a
mandate that you believe is reasonable, or do you see this as
sort of going over the line from encouraging and support of the
behavior on the part of the Federal Government to imposition of
behavior?
Dr. Zimpher. Representative Bishop, the specification of
certain data minimums, I think, is at issue here, because we
need data that are really useful. We need to know where
students have come from, what courses they have taken, whether
those courses were accepted at the receiving institution and
whether or not they continue to matriculate toward graduation.
As it is currently defined, I guess we are not quite sure
what national data system or minimum set of data entries would
do for us, except add a layer of data collection that may not
tell us where the student came from, what courses they took,
how successful they were and if they are matriculating. So the
concern, really, and I am sure we have to, I personally, have
to study it more, but the concern is that data that are
mandated as minimums be useful.
Mr. Bishop. Sir?
Dr. Day. I would support that, particularly as it relates
to the detail. When we say minimum, and then you take a look at
the real detail associated with the reporting requirements on
the data, that is going to be a lot of work and time and
effort.
I do think, however, that there are some things that
clearly need to be emphasized in the bill about the issue of
transfer policies. The principles that guide those transfer
policies, those ought to be all clear up front so that, in
terms of the truth in advertising, so the student knows what
they are getting.
I think also there has to be assurances, and I think this
is where the Federal Government working in concert with the
State--I do not know if it is really humanly possible for you
folks to be able to track how well institutions are doing from
an accountability standpoint. It is a lot easier for you to
track 50 States' performance than it is the 3,000-plus post-
secondary institutions, public, private, proprietary.
So I just think we ought to be looking at the States and
having some minimum requirements of those States that
essentially says we have got some performance criteria, we do
have some accountability standards and they relate to the core
mission of the respective institutions and one of my core
missions is transfer. So when we design an accountability plan
for the City College of San Francisco, I am going to be
specifying beginning to end to my State and to the State
legislature what I am going to do.
I think you need to get some assurances that indeed every
single State is doing that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon. Does every school have a transfer policy
of what they accept? What would be the problem with asking that
that be put on a Web site?
Dr. Zimpher. I think that is where we are going.
Chairman McKeon. That is exactly where we are going.
Dr. Zimpher. The student portal idea, which has many, many
pieces of information in it, will make it perfectly obvious
what the transfer policies are.
Chairman McKeon. That is all we are asking. That is what we
have been asking in the bill, is that every school have a
policy, that they do not make the policy based on the
individual student. That they have the policy, and the student
can then go to the Web site and know what that policy is, and
it is not going to be based on them; it is going to be based on
what they are doing.
The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here today.
I am looking at this from a little different standpoint in
that I was in the coaching profession for a long time, and we
dealt with a lot of transfers, and we looked at a lot of
transcripts. It was always difficult to figure out exactly how
good a student was. You could look at the transcript, and they
had had college algebra. They had had chemistry at the junior
college or community college level, and yet sometimes, you
would find that, once you got that student on the campus, that
those courses really did not translate into a very sound
academic base.
Some places, this probably was more peculiar to the
athletic community, you might find that, out of the 30, 35
hours that a student athlete transferred, that maybe almost
half of them were taught by members of the coaching staff at
the school. So just looking at the course title and the
syllabus and so on did not always tell the story.
There was one school, maybe it is perfectly legitimate now,
Azusa Pacific, I remember hearing about from time to time,
where athletes actually, through mail order, got quite a few
credits, and you had to be pretty nervous about that.
So we certainly want to be fair to the community colleges.
They do a great job, and we do not want to discriminate against
students who have done the work and have had sufficient
academic rigor.
But do you have any thoughts as to how you ferret out those
places that are really not operating in a legitimate fashion
and that are really not providing the necessary academic
background? Because there are so many things that are difficult
to ferret out just by looking at a syllabus or a transcript.
And I invite any of you to hazard an opinion here or----
Dr. Zimpher. Well, Representative Osborne, it really sounds
like there is a great deal of similarity in the course review
process that has been initiated in both Florida and Ohio.
Sheer numbers of faculty who have been brought to the table
from two- and 4-year institutions to review the course
syllabus, the expectations that the syllabus must express
learning outcomes, this is a transition from seat time or
credit hours to ``What did you learn?'' and ``What were you
expected to learn?'' the high degree of equivalency established
between courses that are judged from one campus to another;
An appeals process for disputes when there is disagreement
amongst the disciplinarians has really taken us a long way to
some more reliability that this course does what it says it
does.
And I think the public scrutiny makes a big difference. And
convening committees across multiple disciplines has certainly
been a key to our process in Ohio; it sounds like the process
in Florida.
Mr. Osborne. I thank you for that answer. But what I am
trying to say is that simply examining the syllabus and looking
at the supposed course content doesn't always tell the story.
And if you look at graduation rates--the NCAA tracks this
very closely--of junior college athletes as opposed to those
who enroll as freshmen, there is a stark contrast. And yet----
Dr. Zimpher. This is one place where tracking the success
of the transfer student can make that difference. Because what
happens to you, if you have taken a course that didn't have the
requisite content, is that you will not do well in the next
course that you take when you transfer.
So part of our data system is tracking the success of the
student after we have made the judgment that they do have the
academic content. So when they go on to the next level of
courses at the next institution, we will know if they are
failing those courses. It will suggest very directly that what
we thought was happening in that course was not.
Dr. Klebacha. If I may, sir. There is a certain benefit to
accreditation. And I am not for or against accreditation, but
what I am for is that there be established somewhere some basic
standards that any institution must meet in terms of assuring
the receiving institution that the basic standards, be they in
their transfer policy perhaps under the guidelines that we are
talking about--a receiving institution registrar would have a
certain level of good feeling or understanding that that
institution at least adheres to these minimum standards, which
automatically takes off the top faculty credentials, takes off
the top content review, takes off the top on a regular basis
what are your performance indicators, those types of content
quality indicators of an institution that a receiving
institution can be assured is OK to begin with.
And then they can focus more attention on the specific
courses associated with it--even, they could spend more time
going back and verifying to the extent that they need to. And
then, of course, you establish a track record of an institution
that continues to send you students. You can see from the
performance of their students whether there might be a
different issue as well.
Dr. Day. I would just, as Mr. Osborne, as the CEO of a
community college who has enjoyed the benefit of being the
national coach of champs in football in 4 of the last 5 years
that, in fact, the greatest level of success that we have with
our students is when we get them into the institution, coaching
and mentoring them, outside and off the field, and providing
them with support services. And when our students transfer,
generally speaking, we find that they have more success at
transferring to a senior institution if they have more of the
credit package that represents the associate degree.
If you take a student that has less than or just has 1 year
of experience, which a lot of colleges show up on my campus,
and they see a star and they know that they have cleaned up
their eligibility requirements and they now could be eligible
for NCAA criteria, you know, they do put pressure on them, they
try to recruit the student after they have only completed half
of what we would call our program.
What we try to do is to work with that student and say,
``Look, postpone your gratification in terms of transferring.
Stay with us; it is going to be much more successful.'' And we
find that when they have got that degree and they have got all
the general ed and when they have got all of the degree
requirements out of the way, when they transfer they are going
to do better and outperform the athletes that grew up in those
institutions as freshmen because they are that much better
prepared.
But if you take them prematurely, you are going to get what
you ask for, and there are some issues and some problems. And I
am just being candid with you; they couldn't get into the
University of Nebraska in the first place because they didn't
meet eligibility requirements, which meant that they weren't
academically ready for that type of an institution.
So we take them and we work with them just the same way as
we do all with students, regardless. And the longer we have
them, the more successful they are going to be at your level.
Mr. Osborne. Well, if you would grant me another 20
seconds, I would say that your observations are very correct,
that those people who have done the full 2 years and have got
their A.A. are much better candidates. And I think there are
some community colleges, some junior colleges that do a
tremendous job.
But there are the others, and therefore it is always
difficult to declare a national standard and say, ``Well, this
one size fits all.'' It is a little bit risky.
But, anyway, those are my observations. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McKeon. The Chair yields to the gentleman from Oregon,
Mr. Wu.
Mr. Wu. I thank the Chairman.
I represent an area where there are several community
colleges and one of our State universities. Portland State
University has agreements with the adjacent community colleges
to provide not only for transfer, but concurrent enrollment and
unified financial aid so that, for example, a student can take
a course at one of the community colleges in the morning, work,
and take a course at Portland State in the evening depending on
his or her needs.
In your experience, how common is that kind of arrangement
around the country? Is it quite common now, or is that still a
little bit unusual? Or is it geography dependent?
Dr. Day. I think in States like in California, where that
is currently being tested to the limits in terms of the
pipeline demographics of too many people coming out and too few
places, that pattern that you have just described used to be
pretty prevalent throughout the higher education system. And it
also was prevalent with the--between the high schools and the
community colleges, and you are aware of that practice.
But as the demands for enrollment have increased at all
levels of our system--and I think that this is very much the
case in other States as well, who are all trying to deal with
this burdensome level of demand--it becomes harder to agree to
allow a student from a local community college to sit in that
seat because they might be taking up the space of another
aspiring student who is a member of the university community.
But it absolutely should be encouraged. We ought to try to
work at it. But there are States that have had some problems
following through with what you are talking about.
Mr. Wu. It seems to me that that capacity constraint, that
is a little counterintuitive, because if you have a capacity
issue, by being able to cross-enroll, it seems that you would
get more efficiency out of the total education system.
So to ramp down that crossover ability when you have
capacity constraints, that seems very counterintuitive to me.
Dr. Zimpher. Well, as I heard the question, Representative
Wu, we have had some what we call ``bilateral'' and
``trilateral'' agreements for a long time that are going to
serve as a model for statewide agreements. But it doesn't ramp
up without the encouragement of statewide policy.
So I think--for a long time students have been able, for
instance, in Cincinnati to work from Cincinnati State to U.C.
We have some remarkable 2-year to 4-year degrees. Culinary arts
at the 2-year goes on to a bachelor's degree in culinary arts
at the University of Cincinnati. But we didn't have a sort of
systemic statewide impetus to make this more geographically
fluid.
So we are continuing to develop those bilateral, two
institutions, or trilateral agreements. And, in fact, if you
are in a bilateral agreement with two institutions and one of
them enters into another bilateral agreement with another
institution, we then calibrate that three ways so that it keeps
ramping up.
Mr. Wu. So what I am hearing is, without a little bit of a
nudge, we don't make progress in that direction.
Dr. Zimpher. I think that is what we thought in Ohio, and I
think that is why we have made a lot of progress. And the State
legislature is a very effective nudger.
Dr. Day. Mr. Wu, if I may, I don't want to give you the
impression that we are not doing--if you look at it totally
from a student's perspective, I mean, my No. 1 transfer feeder
institution is San Francisco State University, which is about a
mile and a half down the road from where my main hub of
activity is at City College of San Francisco.
The reality is that students advantage the system without
us having any formal agreement. I know that there are a lot of
students from San Francisco State University that come up Ocean
Avenue and study at my campus, and they take the courses. And
the only thing that they have to be assured of is that they are
taking a course that is equivalent to what we call the general
education core requirements that are common to the U.C.-C.S.U.
community college system.
Mr. Wu. My apologies for cutting you short. My time is
drawing short as I see from the color of the lights. And I just
wanted to ask a follow-up based on my colleague from Nebraska's
question and concern.
My experience in transferring high school, community
college, college credits was that the college and graduate
institutions I was in had a remarkably open policy, and they
depended entirely on the integrity of the professors in those
courses to evaluate the course materials from the prior
institution. And if they signed off on it, then you got credit;
and if you didn't get a professor to sign off on it, you
weren't going to get credit.
I am concerned--and the Chairman may be amused that he is
hearing this from a Democrat. I am concerned that setting any--
that setting national standards would somehow interfere with
this kind of autonomous process of independent evaluation by
faculty members.
Am I off base in this concern; or, you know, because I am
concerned, as Mr. Osborne said, about a one-size-fits-all
approach?
Mr. McKeon. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Wu. Yes.
Mr. McKeon. I think reference has been made to our bill
that we introduced, and we don't set any standards in the bill.
All we ask is that the institutions publicly publish their
policy for transfer, they set all--the schools set their
standards.
All we are saying is, put it out publicly so that the
student will know up front what the standards are, so when they
are at this school, they can take a course that they know will
transfer to this school, rather than taking the course and then
having to go hat in hand and say, ``What is the chance of
transferring?''
Mr. Wu. Reclaiming my time from the Chairman, my concern
with this is, would it permit a system where the only way that
you know that the credits transfer is to run it by a faculty
member at the transferring institution? If that happens to be
your standard, would it pass muster under the proposed
language? And there is a concern there about if you have prior
approval.
Mr. McKeon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Wu. Yes.
Mr. McKeon. So you are saying if the receiving institution
puts in their public policy that we will accept any English 101
class from any school if our English professor will approve it?
Mr. Wu. Yes.
Mr. McKeon. I guess, if that is what they want to put as
their policy, that is the risk you take, because they will have
the right to publish their policy.
Dr. Day. I think that there is probably another way to go
about this, specifying that level of detail. Regional,
specialized, and national accreditation criteria do outline
procedures and practices that should dictate how credit is
reviewed and assessed and provides for equivalency.
And so at the heart of it really is--and I can't speak for
national, but I know for specialized, because I have been
there, done that, as well as for regional, that the basic core
principle is, it is the responsibility of the college faculty;
and the presumption is, in certain program areas in particular,
that that is where the quality control issue has to be resolved
that determines whether or not the credit is equivalent to the
credits that are offered by that department. And I think by
simply abiding and reaffirming and supporting those criteria
and practices that are already--that every single institution
that enjoys some accreditation status has got to follow if they
are going to be accredited, then you have accomplished, in
effect, the objective that you are trying to achieve without
specifying in law that an English faculty member has to be
responsible for accrediting or determining the accreditation
status.
And I know you are not going to that level of extreme,
but--so----
Mr. Sullivan. Congressman Wu, I was just going to add to
that.
I think one of the problems that we see is that H.R. 609
goes beyond just asking for a policy statement. It actually
goes on to say how that process ought to be carried out, and it
leaves out some of the criteria that we currently use. And so
it is more than just stating a policy. It goes on, it
eliminates the evaluation process to analysis of comparability
and student performance.
And so the idea of quality and applicability gets left out
of this, and I can see that as a significant problem down the
road, and not really what the Committee would like to see
happening.
Mr. Wu. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sullivan, this is--I think
we are close to being on parallel courses here, but I am a
little bit concerned about what it looks like out the
windshield, as opposed to in the rearview mirror, if the
standard evaluations are, for example, at the end of a course
and you evaluate content for performance after a course is
taken. And if we are setting--and that is a rearview mirror
look.
And if we are setting something up as prospective criteria,
although I think we are on parallel paths, I just want to
express a little bit of concern about prospectively binding the
receiving institution, giving the receiving institution enough
flexibility to deal with the transferred credits and the
transferring student in an appropriate way so that the faculty
can ultimately be the control--quality control of both
coursework and students.
Dr. Zimpher. Representative Wu, I think that the Ohio and
Florida systems are a ``yes'' in strategy. They represent the
best thinking of the faculty, but they take the guesswork out
of student course credit taking.
Mr. Wu. Well----
Mr. McKeon. The time has expired.
Mr. Wu. I thank the forbearance of the Chairman. You will
forgive me for having question marks in my mind any time the
best of all possible worlds is presented on this Hill. We look
forward to working together. Thank you.
Mr. McKeon. The Chair yields to the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Tiberi.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the
panel that I wasn't here for your statements. I was talking to
some future college students, 8th graders from Columbus, Ohio.
I was plugging Ohio State, Dr. Zimpher. Sorry. But if they
don't go to Ohio State, U.C. would be a good alternative.
Dr. Zimpher. They could start there and transfer to U.C.
Mr. Tiberi. Just kind of following up on the latest line of
questioning, Dr. Zimpher, as a former nudger myself in the
State legislature, and having had conversations in the past
with the late Dr. Nestor at Columbus State and Val Moeller, now
the new president, who has been there for some time, and former
presidents Gordon Gee and Brent Kerwin at Ohio State about
formalizing a relationship between a 2-year college and a 4-
year college in Ohio may be unique, I don't know, because of
the growth of 2-year colleges and the number of 2-year colleges
that we have and the number of public 4-years that we have in
Ohio that are closely located to 4-years and 2-years.
We have come a long way since I was a student in college at
Ohio State of working together with 2-years and 4-years.
Columbus State in central Ohio where I used to live has grown
exponentially over the last 20 years. And many of those
students, like my little sister, started at Columbus State--not
for academic reasons, more for financial reasons--and ended at
Ohio State. And there were some difficulties back in the 1990's
when she transferred.
But as you said, nudgers have helped, and the universities
have worked together.
Do you think that there should be some more formal
agreements or laws put in place at the national and State
levels to force institutions to do a better job across the
country of aligning 2-years and 4-years or junior colleges and
4-years?
Dr. Zimpher. Representative Tiberi, it is nice to see you.
And thank you for your work on this Committee--Subcommittee.
I think Ohio has come a long way in part because of a
recent bill, House bill 95, which was introduced 2 years ago.
We have a 15-year-old transfer module, so we have been at this
a long time. But what we were doing is, we were saying to
students, you have to complete the entire module before you can
transfer. So students were taking some of the courses, but not
all of the courses, and then having to take courses over
because they had only done a part of the module.
Based on the encouragement of legislation in the Ohio
General Assembly, we have stripped that off. We are now looking
at the course as the unit of analysis. We have created these
pathways to majors. We have all of the 2- and 4-year
institutions agreeing to participate in this system.
We are moving, as you can see, to an electronic information
system. When I keep talking about the ATM card, I am really
talking about your ability to put a card in a machine and get
out an accounting of your courses.
So I think what we have managed to accomplish--and I guess
Representative Shawn Webster from Ohio would be pleased to hear
this as the sponsor of the bill--is that that partnership
between the legislature and the Ohio Board of Regents has made
a profound difference. And I would say, in 2 years' time, we
have done more than we were able to do in 15 years by that
stimulation.
But I think Ohio has a culture different than, say,
Florida. We have a coordinating board, you have a governing
board. We govern more by encouragement and influence than we do
by edict and by rule, and that is the working relationship we
had with the legislature. I am very supportive of that. And I
think, as a university president, working very closely with
President Moeller and President Ron Wright at Cincinnati State,
this is working well for Ohio.
Mr. Tiberi. Good.
Does anyone else want to comment?
Dr. Day. Let me just follow up and just metaphorically say
that if we hold their feet to the fire too much, they are never
going to show up and do anything at the dance.
This country's postsecondary higher education system from--
particularly from an accreditation standpoint, is based upon
the notion and the core principle of voluntary participation in
that process. And even though the words are there, ``voluntary
participation,'' the Federal Government says that if you want
to have access to Title IV(A) funding for student financial
aid, you have got to make sure that you are fully accredited by
a nationally recognized association. That is a good thing.
That is a good thing, but it doesn't--so there are some
generalized benchmarks and boilerplate criteria that I think we
can use. But I think if we really want the best results, in the
final analysis, the system has got to be voluntary, not forced;
it has got to make the best of all of the best practices that
we are hearing about in States like Florida and Ohio. And there
are others.
We also ought to be tapping into the regions that have for
a long time put a lot of heavy emphasis, as regional
accrediting groups have gone in to accredit institutions and
take a look at their programmatic infrastructure and their
array of student services. They always come in and evaluate us
on the basis of how well our graduates are doing and how well
they are getting from point A to point B.
I think, if we encourage and incentivize that system, it is
going to provide you with more than--more results than you are
expecting as opposed to forcing them and holding their feet to
the fire too much.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. Just in closing,
I would like to thank personally Dr. Zimpher for coming today.
We miss you in Columbus, but we are pleased to see a former
Buckeye doing so well at the University of Cincinnati. Thank
you.
Mr. McKeon. I detect a little prejudice for the Buckeyes.
And if you can spread that wealth around throughout the whole
State, that is probably good.
Thank you all for being here today, for your comments. As
we go through this process, I know I have learned some things
today, I hope all of the Committee has. And I know I am going
to go back and relook at some of the things that we have talked
about.
I hope you will stay in close contact with us. As we go
through the process of reauthorization, we encourage your
continued input. Thank you very much.
The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]