Transcript Pell Institute Moving Beyond Transfer Study Abby miller

PROMISING PRACTICES ALONG
THE TRANSFER PATHWAY:
EVIDENCE FROM TEXAS
THE PELL INSTITUTE
SPONSORED BY TG
ABBY MILLER & WENDY ERISMAN, PH.D.
SFARN | June 3, 2011| Philadelphia
Overview

Background



State Context
Bridging the Gaps
Sealing the Gaps
 Methodology
 Initial
& site selection
findings
 Policy Implications
Bridging the Gaps

Conducted site visits to five community colleges
performing better than expected at transferring lowSES students to four-year institutions

Site visits consisted of interviews with faculty and
staff and focus groups with low-income students

Identified common factors including subject-specific
articulation agreements, accelerated developmental
coursework, flexible scheduling, and data-based
decision making
Sealing the Gaps




Success doesn’t end at transfer
What happens to transfer students once at the fouryear institution? Are they succeeding in obtaining
bachelor’s degrees? Do they receive adequate,
targeted support? What challenges are they facing?
Visited five four-year institutions among top recipients
of transfer students from community colleges visited in
Bridging the Gaps
Compared transfer vs. “native” four-year graduation
rates to assess institutional transfer graduation
performance
“Transfer Gap” Rates
• THECB data compared four-year graduation rates of Fall 2004 transfers to “native” juniors*
Institution
Community
College
Transfers
"Native"
Juniors
Transfer/
Native Gap
Transfer
State Gap
Total
Transfer Gap
A
84%
75%
-9%
10%
1%
B
81%
70%
-12%
5%
-7%
C
75%
64%
-11%
-1%
-12%
D
79%
63%
-16%
-2%
-17%
E
78%
58%
-20%
-7%
-27%
Average
79%
66%
-14%
1%
-12%
* Transfers include students who began at community college or four-year institutions
Theoretical Framework
• “Transfer shock”
• Need for social/cultural capital, “transfer agents”
• Diversion vs. democratization
• Other institutional/student factors
Institutional Characteristics
• IPEDS 2008-09
Transfer acceptance THECB
Institution gap
rate
Classification
B
-7%
C
-12%
D
-17%
locale
town:
57%Doctoral
distant
town:
76%Doctoral
fringe
rural:
53%Comprehensive
fringe
city:
64%Emerging research midsize
E
-27%
76%Emerging research city: large
A
1%
size
MSI
(ug
status
headcount) (if any)
14,302
emerging
24,810 HSI
5,315HSI
27,812
18,985
Institutional Characteristics
• IPEDS 2008-09
Transfer
Institution gap
% Pell
Recipients
% underrep.
minority
% part-time
attendance
% over 24
years old
A
1%
33%
28%
16%
14%
B
-7%
21%
28%
19%
18%
C
-12%
70%
94%
37%
21%
D
-17%
17%
26%
23%
18%
E
-27%
33%
33%
30%
28%
Initial Findings

2 distinct transfer philosophies emerged:
Unique student challenges require specific, designated
services
 No special transfer treatment; labeling risks stigmatization
vs. integration




At universities where transfers are in the majority,
special services may not be needed
Not all transfers are equal (differences by credits, age,
motivation/aspirations, etc.)
Perceived to be successful due to freshman comparisons
Challenges
 Financial
 Lack
of continuity
 Need to “relearn” system
 Missed deadlines
 Institutional transfer scholarships typically merit-based
 Institutions prioritize funding for first-time students
 Working while enrolled delays graduation and limits Pell
 Did not need loans to cover costs at cc
Challenges

Social
 Lack

of engagement/campus integration
Academic
 Transfer
credits outside major capped 30 for in-state
tuition
 More challenging coursework/heavier workloads
Initial Findings

Transfer-specific services
 University
transfer centers
 Transfer “ambassador” mentors
 Transfer social and networking events
 Transfer career counselors
 Required, transfer-specific orientation
 Transfer financial literacy workshops
 Transfer financial aid portal
 Transfer scholarships
Initial Findings
 Nontraditional,
commuter and first-generation student
services
 Student
organization overlap
 Similar populations and challenges
 Provide social engagement and integration
 “Extended hours deck” for registration and other services
 Free commuter bus
 Childcare support
Initial Findings
 Data-driven
decision making
 Disaggregating
student outcomes data by transfer status
 Working with partnering community colleges to tweak
articulation agreements based on data
 Retention committees/leadership focused specifically on
transfers
Initial Findings
Community college partnerships
 Institutional articulation agreements
 Subject-specific
agreements get students on track to degree
completion
 Ensure that credits apply to major
 Curriculum alignment through faculty collaboration
 Reverse
transfer
 Overcome
roadblocks to data-sharing
 Inverted 2+2 degree – allows for core completion
Implications

State-level accountability system
 Identify
transfer as state priority
 Reward community colleges for transfers as well as
credential completion
 Reward universities for successful degree completion by
transfer students
Implications

Institutional:
 Need
 Need
to track transfer support services usage
for convenient, required transfer-specific
orientation with individual advising sessions and
networking opportunities
Implications
 Improved
advising for prospective transfers
 Recruiting
and advising on community college campuses
 Training for community college advisors on university campus
 Online degree audit systems
 Financial aid deadlines
 Financial literacy
Contact Us



Pell Institute: www.pellinstitute.org
Abby Miller: [email protected]
Wendy Erisman: [email protected]