Pell Institute Moving Beyond Transfer Study Abby miller
Download
Report
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]