Transfer, Articulation, and Collaboration: Twenty-Five Years Later.

109 Pages·2007·6.77 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 318 528
JC 900 260
AUTHOR
Knoell, Dorothy
TITLE
Transfer, Articulation, and Collaboration:
Twenty-Five Years Later.
INSTITUTION
American Association of Community and Junior
Colleges, Washington, D.C.
SPONS AGENCY
Ford Foundation, New York, N.Y.
REPORT NO
1SBN-0-87117-211-9
PUB DATE
90
NOTE
109p.
AVAILABLE FROM
American Association of Community and Junior
Colleges, One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 410,
Washington, DC 20036 ($15.00).
PUB TYPE
Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Books (010)
EDRS PRICE
1001 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.
DESCRIPTORS
*Articulation (Education); *College Transfer
Students; Community Colleges; Educational Trends;
Higher Education; *Intercollegiate Cooperation;
*Transfer Programs; Two Year Colleges
ABSTRACT
Comparing data from two studies of community college
transfer conducted 25 years apart, this report describes policies,
programs, regulations, and practices governing relationships between
two- and four-year colleges at state, regional, and local levels. The
study that led to this report gathered information from 11 states on
transfer admission, assessment, remediation, baccalaureate degrees
for vocational students, equal opportunity programs, databases,
special arrangements to encourage transfer, state incentives, staff
preparation and development, and articulation. The 11 chapters of the
report focus on: (1) the need for and methods of the current study,
the differences between the 1965 and 1989 studies, and the aims and
focus of the report;
(2) the educational contexts of the early 1960's
and the mid- 1990's, with comparisons of governance, community college
mission, enrollments, admission, remediation, financial aid,
affirmative action, and articulation;
(3) the major dimensions of the
study; i.e., state-mandated policies and practices, voluntary
statewide and interinstitutional agreements, faculty involvement in
articulation, and special funding for transfer and articulation; (4)
admission policies and practices for limited access programs and
campuses and associate degree programs; (5) skills assessment and
remediation as articulation issues; (6) ethnic minority students and
the transfer function; (7) articulation of career education programs,
including information on secondary/postsecondary articulation, 2
2
+ 2 programs, special degree programs, and articulation of non-credit
coursework;
(8) databases of transfer data and state information
(9) other developments in areas of counseling, staff
systems;
preparation and transfer, program review, and joint use of facilities
and resources; (10) conclusions regarding undergraduate admission,
assessment, remediation, educational equity and opportunity, and
career education leading the baccalaureate degrees; and (11)
concluding comments with respect to the roles of states and faculty,
special funding, intercollegiate cooperation, and changes over the
25-year period between the two studies. National guidelines for
transfer and articulation, a detailed description of study
methodology, and state profiles are appended. (AYC)
Transfer,
Articulation
Collabaution
Twenty-FiveYears Later
a
THE REPORT OF A RESEARCH PROJECT
FUNDED BY THE FORD FOUNDATION
BY DOROTHY KNOELL
3
With Martin Ahumada, University of Arizona
Bruce Hamlett, California Postsecondary Education Commission
Kathleen Kistler, Colkae of the Redwoods
Carol McKenzie, Sacramento City College
Kevin Woolfork, California Postsecondary Education Commission
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office at Educational Research and improvement
MICROFICHE ONLY
MATERIAL IN
-JUCATIONAL
RESOURCES INFC"*.MATION
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER tER1C)
C This document nae been reproduced as
J. GOLLATTSCHECK
American Association of Community and Junior Colleges
frOm the person or organization
received
Changes have been made to Improve
Minor
California Postsecondary Educaf in Commission
chtir'gt
reproduction
Chtsirty
Points of view or opinions stalled in thadoow
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
2 ment do not net:Oise:14
reoresent (Aced
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
()ECU modem or
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
right 1990 by the Amritim
Association nt (:imintunit%
anti juniin Colleges
Pri
in the U.S.A.
All rights. reserved. Nil
p,ttt I ft this bt )( 0.;
tar
II
, .i
CC11 ( II- Iran SI
qi in ilil V tutor
11V MIS means, electrum(
( 1r
ineclitinit iil. itxtttding
photocupvtng, recuttfing,
in h% ;Inv in-
age anti rrtrirt;tl sYstnt. tvithout
written permission [ruin
the puhlisliet,
tt. tf by the Anirican
and I
III of ( :(11111111111
nor Colleges
\,
Nal it Ma
r !fight., hiticittion
One Dupont
NAV. Suite 1 In
%Vailtington,
2003 ti
('hone: l20:2) 7214.02011
ISBN 0.87[17-211A:1
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
During a panel discussion at AACIC: headquarters, Dorothy
Knoell and James Wattenbarger review the transfer and
articulation guidelines that appear in this book.
Dorothy M. Knoell, nationally known for her
research on transfer and articulation, is a staff
member of the California Postsecondary Edu-
cation Commission. While at the University
of California, Berkeley, she wrote From Junior
to Senior College: A National Study of the Transkr
Student with Leland L. Medsker. She has also
worked on urban community college projects
with the American Association of Community
and junior Colleges and the State University
of New York.
CONTENTS
1. Background for the Report
Need for the Study
Methods of the Study
2
Aims of the Report
2
Focus of the Report
3
Differences Between the Two Studies
5
Organization of tne Report
6
2. Two Contexts: Early 1960s to Mid1980s
7
Governance
7
Community College Mission
7
8
Enrollments
8
Admission
Remediation
9
Financial Aid
9
Affirmative Action
9
Articulation in General
9
3. Major Dimensions of the Study
11
State-Mandated Policies and Practices
11
Voluntary Statewide and Interinstitutional Agreements
13
Faculty Involvement in Articulation
16
Special Funding for Transfer and Articulation
17
4. Admission Policies and Practices
19
Admission Requirements and Standards
20
Selection Among Eligible Applicants to Limited Access Programs and Campuses
.23
Exceptions to Requirements and Standards
25
The Associate in Arts Degree
26
5. Assessment and Remediation as Articulation Issues
27
Types of Basic Skills Assessment
27
Remediation
29
CONTENTS
6. Ethnic Minority Students and the Transfer Function
33
Practices in the States
33
Ford Foundation Programs
36
7. Articulation of Career Education Programs
41
Secondary/Postsecondary Articulation and Collaboration
42
2+2+2 Programs
43
Special Degrees for Special Students
44
Articulation Involving NonCredit Coursework
Prospects
46
8. Data Bases and Information Systems
Data Needed to Monitor Transfer
47
Illustrations From Selected States
48
9. Other Developments in Articulation and Collaboration
53
Aids to Counseling About Transfer
53
Staff Preparation and Development
5''
r
Program Review for Articulation
J.?
Joint Use of Facilities and Resources
60
10. ConclusionsOld and New
63
Undergraduate Admission
63
Assessment
Retrediation
fi 5
Educational Equity and Opportunity
66
Career Education to the Baccalaureate Degree
66
Data Bases Related to Transfer
67
Other ConclusionsThen and Now
11. Concluding Comments
71
State Roles and Responsibilities
71
Faculty Roles and Responsibilities
72
Special Funding
73
Articulation as Collaboration
74
Comparing the Conclusions
75
National Guidelines for Transfer and Articulation
77
Appendix A: Methodology of the Study
83
89
Appendix B: State Profiles
References
105
vi
1.
BACKGROUND
FOR THE REPORT
governance and administration have accom-
NEED FOR THE STUDY
panied these functional changes. At the lo-
cal level, their separation from elementary
In 1960 the United States Office of Education
and secondary school districts has given them
made the first of two grants to the Center for
their own governing boards and administra-
the Study of Higher Education at the Univer-
tors, and their concomitant separation at the
sity of California, Berkeley, for a comprehen-
state level from state boards of education has
sive national study of the junior college trans-
fer function. That study resulted in the
led to state boards for community colleges.
With passage of the federal Higher Education
publication, From junior to Senior College: A Na-
Act of 1972, virtually all 50 states either es-
tional Study of the Transfer Student, by Dorothy
tablished or designated boards and commis-
M. Knoell and Leland L. Medsker (1965). In
sions to help plan and coordinate all post-
1985 the Ford Foundation made a grant to
secondary education; and while federal
the California Postsecondary Education Com-
incentives for planning and coordination
mission for another national study of current
failed to materialize, these new state agencies
policies, practices, and programs to facilitate
have for the most part played some role in
the flow of students from community colleges
coordinating student flow and program
through four-year institutions, with attention
articulation.
to collaboration, articulation, and transfer
among institutions. This report summarizes
Furthermore, many states have been or are
the findings of that study.
now thinking about producing new state in-as-
ter plans for postsecondary education. In the
In the 20 years that have elapsed since the
1960s. California's 1960 Master Plan for
completion of the first study, junior colleges
Higher Education was for most of them a
-rally
have become "community" colleges.
model, particularly as it elevated the junior
characterized as comprehensive, men t.nce.
colleges to full partners in higher education
dominant transfer function has become but
insofar as they were to share responsibility
one of several important functions; and
for educating students in the lower-division
rather than being viewed as "1 igh schools
portion of baccalaureate-degree programs.
with ashtrays," they are seen as full partners
Nowsome 25 years laternew master plan
in the interdependent family of institutions
studies in California and elsewhere are
of higher education. Modifications in their
TRANSFER: TWENTYFIVE YEARS LATER
At the conclusion of the visits, staff prepared
re-examining the community college mission,
state reports for internal use that included
its functions, and its relationship to other
references to documents pertaining to the
levels and types o' postsecondary education.
general themes and topical areas.
Thus, the Ford Foundation grant has enabled
the commission to look at transfer, articula-
AIMS OF THE REPORT
tion, and interinstitutional collaboration
A primary objective of this report is to dis-
generally, not simply because conditions have
seminate up-to-date information about poli-
changed since the 1960s, but because current
cies, programs, regulations, and practices
state planning efforts will benefit from the
governing relationships between two- and
findings of a new study.
four-year institutions at state, regional, and lo-
cal levels, with emphasis on those that facili-
METHODS OF THE STUDY
tate student flow and interinstitutional col-
With the assistance of a national advisory
laboration. This report seeks to offer examples
of good practice without reference to how
committee, project staff selected 11 states for
site visitsArizona, California, Colorado,
many states or systems of postsecondary edu-
cation embrace them. In other words, it takes
Florida. Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and
neither a statistical approach of counting how
Washington. Staff then conducted the study
many do what, nor a state-by-state descriptive
approach. Instead, based on interviews and
by interviewing state-level personnel respon-
sible for postsecondary policy determination,
analysis of documents in 11 states that have ex-
administration, coordination, and research
tensive two-year college systems or networks,
it identifies practices that seem particularly
in the 11 states and then analyzing statements
worthy of consideration by other states.
of policy and practice, guidelines, program
descriptions, research, and statistical reports
The study that led to this report was designed
related to transfer and articulation that were
to produce files of information about trans-
obtained from these states.
fer and articulation in the 11 states that may
be shared with those seeking more informa-
Explained in greater detail in Appendix A,
tion than can be reported here. It assembled
two-person staff teams conducted interviews
information in 10 topical areas: transfer ad-
in each state with personnel from the state-
wide coordinating/planning board or com-
mission, assessment, remediation, baccalaure-
ate degrees for vocational students, equal op-
mission, the state board for community col-
portunity programs, data bases,
special
leges, the state board(s) for public four-year
arrangements to encourage transfer, state in-
colleges and universities, and the association
for independent colleges and universities.
centives, staff preparation and development,
Where appropriate, they also interviewed
and articulation.
other higher education association and state
A second and equally important aim of the
education department staff; campus adminis-
report is to provide guidance to those who
trators, and state legislators and their staffs.
2
BACKGROUND FOR THE REPORT
Junior Colleges, and the American Associa-
regulate, make policy, establish practice, and
tion of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
develop programs concerning what appear
to be the appropriate roles of state legisla-
Officers. The staff hopes that this report will
tures, agencies for statewide coordination
be used by states and systems of higher edu-
cation to improve their interinstitutional
and planning, governing boards for systems
policies and practices.
of institutions, the facultycollectively and
in discipline-related or other subgroupsand
individual and receiving institutions. Since
FOCUS OF THE REPORT
states differ in site and complexity of their
higher education systems, governing and
Four general dimensions provided the
coordinating structures, and traditions with
themes for the study:
respect to the role of their two-year institu-
tions in providing initial access to the bac-
The role of the state in regulating, funding,
calaureate degree, there are no national solu-
and policy making to facilitate transfer and
tions to the complex problems of articulation
articulation;
and collaboration. Still, some conclusions
have emerged from the analysis on the 11
The feasibility of voluntary, statewide prac-
states that may be helpful to those attempt-
local agreements between
versus
tice
ing to increase opportunities for two-year col-
groups or pairs of institutions or divisions
lege students to earn baccalaureate degrees.
within them;
This report and the information files seek to
Faculty involvement in articulation activi-
be resources that will encourage and moti-
ties in relation to that of other college and
vate groups in all states to: review and update
university offices; and
existing guidelines for articulation and trans-
fer; or develop new guidelines. At the com-
Specially funded programs and activities.
pletion of the earlier study, the Exxon Foun-
dation funded an action project to enable
Since the 1960s, state after State has estab-
interested states to use the results of the study
in developing articulation guidelines ap-
lished commissions and agencies for coordi-
nation and planning and also state boards for
propriate to their particular conditions, while
community colleges that were previously
the American Association of Collegiate Regis-
under the jurisdiction of state boards respon-
trars and Admissions Officers developed na-
sible for elementary and secondary educa-
tional guidelines that have been updated peri-
tion. There has also been tremendous growth
odically by its membership. No such action
in undergraduate enrollments, the number
project is planned to follow the current study,
of postsecondary institutions, and the com-
although the staff has disseminated the find-
plexity of functions of both two- and four-
ings of the study by means of presentations
at the spring 1987 annual meetings of the
year institutions since the earlier study, all of
which have implications for articulation and
American Association for Higher Education,
interinstitutional collaboration.
the American Association of Community and
TRANSFER: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER
Frustrated by what may appear to be the in-
The nature and extent of faculty involvement
efficiencies of voluntary processes and the
in reaching articulation agreements com-
looseness of agreements that are reached by
prises the third general theme. Registrars and
such processes, state legislatures and other
admission officers often in their state and
rulemaking bodies are tempted to replace
national associationscounselors, student
voluntary agreements with statutes or regu-
personnel workers, and other college and
lations. Thus the first general theme for the
university administrators were usually the
principal participants in articulation and
investigation is the role of the state in man-
dating policies and practices in order to im-
transfer activities at the time of the first na-
prove transfer and articulation.
tional study, the findings from which were
used by the American Association of Colle-
Closely related to the first theme is the
giate Registrars and Admissions Officers to
secondthe extent to which policies, prac-
establish national guidelines for articulation
tices, and agreements are reached that are
and transfer.
statewide in nature and applicable to all pub-
lic colleges and universities, compared with
The role of non faculty does not appear to
agreements between and among particular
have decreased in importance during the last
two decadesparticularly at
systems, groups, or pairs of institutions.
the campus
Statewide policies may include independent
levelbut exploration by staff that led to the
as well as public colleges and universities.
current inquiry indicated that faculty mem-
policies may
However, state-mandated
hers may have become key players in articu-
require systems or other groups of institu-
lation activities in their particular disciplines.
tionsregional or with similar missions
Faculty involvement was therefore selected
and functionsto reach agreements in ac-
as a third general theme that cuts across var
cordance with state policy directives or
ious topical areas.
guidelines.
Finally the nature and extent of special or
Still other forms of agreements involving in-
categorical funding fbr articulation and other
stitutions are those reached by departments
collaborative activities comprises the fourth
or divisions within institutions: for example,
general theme, the alternative being the ab-
those responsible for general education, en-
sorption of such costs by institutions as part
gineering, or foreign languages, These lat-
of their regular operating budgets with few
ter agreements tend to be voluntary in na-
special projects to promote transfer. This
theme is related to the previous three inso-
ture and may be state- or systemwide as well
as applicable to only groups or pairs of in-
far as both state-mandated and statewide poli-
stitutions. Complementing the first theme of
cy implementation may be more expensive
mandated versus voluntary, the second con-
than voluntary; more localized activities and
cerns statewide versus institutional agree-
released time for faculty participation may
ments involving only pairs, groups, or par-
he more costly than the assignment of non-
systems of two- and four-year
ticular
teaching personnel to articulation and trans
institutions.
fer activities as part of their regular duties.
4
10