Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education,...
Transcript of Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education,...
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
1/23
1
Written Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, before the
Senate Higher Education Committee
Personal testimony offered on April 11, 2012
Written testimony submitted to Committee Staff on April 4, 2012
This testimony features findings from a large-scale qualitative inquiry into
the efficacy of Texas state law and policy regarding the encouragement, support,
and success of transfer students toward bachelor degree attainment. While the
well-known "transfer swirl"the seemingly irregular movement of students
between and among universities and community colleges, in every direction and
combinationis significant, and makes complex any effort to define traditional
transfer patterns, the success of two-to-four year transfers is a particularly strong
state focus in Texas, and was the focus of this research.
It is important to note that this written testimony related to the research and
findings is not merely my own, but a product of my collaboration with Dr. Janet
Marling, Executive Director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer
Students, headquartered at the University of North Texas, and Dr. Amy Fann,
Assistant Professor of Higher Education at UNT. Additional support in executing
the research project was offered by Dr. Beverly Bower, Director of the Bill J.
Priest Center for Community College Leadership at UNT and Dr. Bonita Jacobs,
President of North Georgia College and State University, and Founding Executive
Director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students; and several
doctoral students at UNT.
Strengthening of transfer rates from two- to four-year colleges, and
ultimately baccalaureate degree attainment for these students will continue to take
on increasing importance in coming years. Economic circumstances accelerating
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
2/23
2
the growth of transfer students who start at a community college with the intention
of transferring to a 4-year institution; the intention of some public universities in
financially pressed states to cap or reduce enrollments as a means of cost control;
and the tendency of minority, financially disadvantaged, and first-generation
students to choose community college enrollment as a path to the baccalaureate, all
make the issues of successful transfer and ultimate degree completion more acute.
Additionally, research from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
(THECB) indicates only 20% of Academic Associate (AA) graduates even apply
to four-year institutions, despite a near-100% acceptance rate of transfer students
into Texas public universities. When coupled with a weak policy/practice
environment, this risk is exacerbated, as illustrated in recent research (Gross &
Goldhaber, 2009) questioning the efficacy of state policies relating to increasing
transfer success and graduation from a 4-year institution.
State policyan interaction of law, institutional behaviors, and regulation
can, in theory, have an effect on successful transfer. That has certainly been the
intention in the growth of policies such as common course numbering systems,
mandated reverse awarding of the Associates degree, financial incentives to
institutions for the graduation of transfer students, and required acceptance of
associate degree holders to junior status, and the focus they represent among policy
makers. However, virtually all research over the past decade has concluded that
state policy, weak or strong, has had little or no effect on transfer success, and
particularly on four-year degree completion. (Wellman, 2002; Anderson, Alfonso,
& Sun, 2006; Gross & Goldhaber, 2009; Roska & Keith, 2008).
The quantitative analyses dominating the research to date indicate little as to
whether these failures are ones of poor policy design or poor implementation of
policy. Regarding design, do policies offer sufficient incentive or penalties to
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
3/23
3
institutions to enhance performance? Likewise, are there unintended consequences
of policy that work against transfer focus, such as penalties for time-to-degree,
when many community college students are engaged in attenuated patterns of
enrollment? Regarding implementation, are institutions, particularly universities,
thwarting the intention of transfer policy by the most conservative of
interpretations of transfer eligibility and credit acceptance? These possibilities
have been suggested in the literature, but are essentially unsubstantiated by
research.
Student experience in the transfer process can tell us a great deal about how
policy translates into practice. Surprisingly, there is a paucity of research based on
the discourse with transfer and transfer-intent students on their institutional
experiences that relate to successful transfer. Existing research has been largely
small-scale and single-institution. Acknowledging the importance of this research
to improving individual institutional practice, such limited studies do little to
inform views of the efficacy of state policy on a larger scale.
Our research intended to fill these gaps and provide further inquiry into the
policies and programs that enhance and hinder transfer student success in the state,
an exercise essential to improving both and moving Texas closer to the college
graduation goals of Closing the Gaps by 2015. While the project is Texas-
focused, the findings and methods of inquiry could have national implications and
potential for replication. It will contribute to the national conversation, particularly
as the research relates to under-served students, where these issues and their
resolution are most directly felt.
The National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students, under which the
research was conducted, was established at the University of North Texas in 2002
by Dr. Bonita Jacobs. The first annual conference in 2003 drew some 300
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
4/23
4
participants from 39 states, and annual participation has ranged from that number
to about 400 attendees. In recent years, NISTS has conducted more funded
research and service, in addition to sponsoring smaller focused-topic conferences,
such as two on transfer issues for STEM discipline students in the Fall of 2010 and
Fall of 2011.
The National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (NISTS) has
worked with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) on two
major efforts to focus on transfer student rates and success. In February 2008, the
THECB and the University of Texas System co-sponsored the Presidents and
Chancellors Transfer Summit in Austin, Texas. About 150 high-ranking campus
officials were in attendance. The purpose of the summit was a facilitated
discussion of transfer issues and barriers as perceived by campus leaders. NISTS,
in support of the summit, conducted two statewide surveys before the meetings,
compiled a binder of reading materials for each participant, and wrote the final
report for the summit (THECB, 2008).
One clear recommendation that emerged from the summit was the need for
more transfer knowledge and issue awareness to permeate awareness below the
presidential level, and particularly among campus student service providers.
NISTS proposed to the THECB the creation of a statewide conference on transfer
students, and a contract was let through a competitive bid process. The May 2009
Texas Transfer Conference drew 1,000 participants to eight sites across the state.
The conference featured some simultaneous video content, but otherwise focused
on transfer issues, information sources, and best practices unique to Texas and the
regional areas of the eight meeting sites.
The research of this testimony, by NISTS personnel, faculty, and graduate
students at the University of North Texas, was sponsored by a research grant from
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
5/23
5
the TG Public Benefit Program, under an annual call for research proposals, with
preference given to proposals that aim to serve the needs of first-generation
college students or students who are from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in undergraduate and graduate education (Texas Guaranteed,
n.d.).
Research Method
The research design relied heavily on qualitative inquiry with some
quantitative examination of supportive data from existing institutional records.
Site visits, 1-2 days each during the Spring semester of 2010, involved interviews
with 4-7 administrators and 2 transfer student focus groups per campus. A
graduate course on qualitative inquiry built around the project was a source of
trained site investigators.
Fourteen institutions were originally targeted for study, seven four-year
institutions and seven two-year institutions. Four-year institutions were chosen
based on a combination of: 1) the size of their transfer enrollment (institutions
enrolling the highest number of community college transfer students), 2) location
within different state regions (regional diversity), and 3) inclusion of each of the
six Texas state higher education systems. Based on 2008 Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board (THECB) enrollment data, the primary criteria for choosing
the community colleges was the overall number of transfer students enrolling in
the selected universities such that community colleges sending the largest number,
or among the largest number of transfer students to each of the selected universities
were chosen. In the end, one two-year institution chose not to participate, resulting
in a total of 13 institutional site visits. These included six public universities and
six community colleges.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
6/23
6
In order to explore how campus administrators, at multiple levels, perceive
and enact transfer policies, a purposeful sample of interviews was conducted with a
cross-section of 4-7 administrators at each campus for a total of 67 individual
interviews and five small focus group interviews. The final report of the 2008
Texas Transfer Summit reveals that senior-level administrators are acutely aware
of transfer policies and their institutional implications. The selection of interview
participants included senior-level administrators who are involved in transfer
policy and/or implementation at either the institutional or the student level and
mid-level administrators responsible for directing and/or implementing
departmental activities serving transfer students. Targeted departments included,
but were not limited to, academic advising, admissions, financial aid, and the
registrar.
Student experience in the transfer process can tell us a great deal about how
policy is enacted through institutional practices. It is a difficult undertaking to
determine which students should be included in such a study. Previous studies have
used a variety of criteria (Driscoll, 2007; Engle, Bereo &and OBrien, 2006; Horn
& Lew, 2007; Roska, forthcoming). For our study we include only students who
indicated that they intended to transfer either on their application, or by indicating
intent to transfer as part of academic advising. Moreover, research has repeatedly
shown that economic disadvantage is a persistent barrier to transfer (e.g., Horn &
Lew, 2007). Additionally, we know that students who attend college full time
rather than part time are more likely to transfer (e.g., Driscoll, 2007; Cohen &
Brawer, 1996 ). Finally, we have very limited knowledge of the experience of
students who indicated intent to transfer but did not do so.
Given these factors, two student focus groups were conducted at each if the
sites. Each focus group lasted 90 minutes. The size of focus groups varied
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
7/23
7
between 4-15 students, with an average of 10 participants. Twelve student focus
groups were conducted at six university sites, (125 participants), and 12 student
focus groups were conducted at six community college sites (128 participants). We
enlisted the help of the community college counseling office and the university
enrollment management and student affairs divisions to identify students to
participate in focus groups. All had indicated a personal intention to transfer, and
most had actively engaged the process.
The individual campus research team consisted typically of one senior
researcher, and one graduate student researcher. The senior researcher was
responsible primarily for the administrative interviews, while the graduate students
conducted the focus groups. In each case, the hope was of enhancing dialogue and
openness by enhancing the peer relationship aspects of such assignments.
Common, basic interview protocols were used across all campuses, with
ample opportunity for improvisation and conversation. Typically, student focus
groups tended to hew more closely to the interview questions, while administrative
interviews tended toward less structure, even while care was given to covering the
"basic" questions. This likely reflects greater knowledge of specific issues on the
part of administrators, and their ability to reflect on experiences other than their
own.
All interviews and focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed.
Transcripts of the administrator interviews were reviewed by the project
investigators, and an initial set of codes developed for six specific transfer policies.
Two graduate students then went through transcripts and pulled out quotes based
on the list of codes. From these, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore
how administrators in universities and community colleges perceived and enacted
transfer policies, unintended consequences of these policies, and suggestions for
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
8/23
8
improving transfer policies and practice. Administrator interviews tended toward
more direct commentary on specific laws and policies, while student input
reflected more indirectly on those laws and policies, in the form of recurrent,
multi-site experiences of frustration or facilitation in the contexts of the practices
related to policies and laws.
Student focus group data was analyzed as part of the special TG project
research course. After an initial, independent review by each graduate student, two
teams of field researchers then coded each transcript at a descriptive level of
analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Next, the teams came together to discuss the
initial coding schema and arrived at consensus on a set of descriptive codes. Codes
were revised and continued to develop as data was received.
Findings
The research findings have been reported out in various forums along two
major themes: reflections on the student experience at the institutional level,
mostly with implications for institutional action to improved transfer rates and
success and to cut time to degrees; and reflections that have potential implications
for state law and policy modifications. Dr. Amy Fann of the research team has
been working with graduate students, those that conducted the focus group portion
of the field research, to develop the former particularly. Those findings are not the
subject of this paper, but it is worthy to note that the student focus group findings
were organized into fivemain sections: 1) Student experiences with transfer
policies; 2) Students perceptions of transfer advising; 3) Helping students build
transfer capital; 4) Using Websites to navigate transfer; and 5) Additional insights.
While not negating the importance of student feedback, this testimony
instead concentrates on findings related to administrator feedback that have state
law and policy implications. Feedback related to specific state policies will be
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
9/23
9
addressed first, with additional insights to follow. The authors also wish to note
that while some findings reflect only on the university or community college sector
and their implementation of state law, it is not their belief or their intention to
make an argument that one sector or the other is more to blame for transfer
difficulties. These are largely systemic issues, reflected not at one or two
locations, but more generally as the given across the state, institutions, and
governance systems.
Policy: Texas Common Corse Numbering System (TCCNS)
The Texas Common Course Numbering System is a voluntary, co-
operative effort among Texas community colleges and universities to
facilitate transfer of lower level undergraduate courses. By providing
a common number for courses that have been identified as equivalent
by the college or university that offers the course, courses can be
more efficiently transferred between two participating TCCNS
institutions. The common numbering applies only to academic and
degree program courses and does not apply to workforce and
technical degree programs. Students and academic advisors have
access to a fully searchable resource that includes common course
numbering for the 110 Texas postsecondary institutions that
participate in TCCNS (TCCNS, 2012).
Virtually every participant mentioned the Common Course Numbering
System has been highly useful for articulating course credit between institutions,
helped streamline transcript evaluation procedures, and benefited students by
helping to maximize the number of community college credits they can transfer to
the university. Students who have knowledge of the TCCNS, and know which
institution (s) they are interested in transferring to, can use the electronic system to
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
10/23
10
plan ahead and check if their intended courses will transfer to the university. From
the university perspective, an additional benefit of TCCNS is the increased
potential for recruiting transfer students from outside of the region, beyond the
local sending community colleges.
Although noting many positive aspects of TCCNS, about two-thirds of the
participants also described several of the Systems limitations, which include the
fact that TCCNS is a voluntary system, not all universities have chosen to
participate, and universities have final discretion in assigning course equivalencies.
This makes it more convenient and easier for senior institutions to evaluate
transcripts, but more difficult for transferring students and those who advise them
to know how community college courses will interface with university curricula.
One example is a large university that simply reverses the numbering of micro-
and macro-economics courses. This regularly results in community college
students enrolling in the course that they have completed at the community college,
rather than in the one that they have not. Since transcripts are not evaluated for
transfer credit in some cases before the term begins, the student finds out too late
perhaps even weeks into the classthat the course is a repetition and will not
advance degree aspirations.
Keeping courses in the system up to date is a perpetual challenge, especially
with myriad, and often changing, departmental course and curricular changes.
Participants commented on the fact the TCCNS is great when its up to date, but
frequently community college advisors reported that even for universities that do
participate in the TCCNS, university websites were out of date. There was
consensus among participants, even among those from institutions that have not
adopted TCCNS that it should be mandated for all institutions.
Policy: The 6-Drop Rule
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
11/23
11
Beginning with the fall of 2007 academic term, the 6-Drop Rule, (S.B.
1231), was passed to limit the number of times over an undergraduate
career a student can withdrawal from courses after the semesters
census date. The six drops are cumulative and apply to drops
incurred at both two-year and four-year institutions and at both in-
state and out-of-state institutions. After six drops, the student is
denied permission to drop any remaining courses. The law is designed
to encourage students to graduate in a more timely fashion thus
limiting the amount of debt and student loans they incur. Institutions
must track student withdrawals and have procedures for determining
the reasonableness of the withdrawal, in some case granting
permission to students to with draw from more than six courses. The
policy is not intended to penalize students whose life circumstances
cause them to withdraw from several courses.
Administrators appreciated the idea behind the policy in regards to
expediting student degree/certificate completion, but several were emphatic in their
desire to see the policy changed. Particularly troubling is the fact that students
enrolled in community colleges tend to drop courses at a higher rate than students
enrolled in four-year institutions for a number of reasons. Thus, community
college students who transfer are more likely to have already reached their 6-drop
limit than native students who have been enrolled for the same number of
semesters at a four-year institution.Transfer students are more likely to come up
against the 6-Drop rule after having transferred to the university.
The onus of tracking withdrawals falls upon institutions, and some
institutions have developed student-centered practices to help students avoid
running afoul of the policy, such as sending students an email at the end each
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
12/23
12
semester reminding them of their 6-drop status, and taking advantage of the
flexibility within the policy to individually determine if a student can have a
withdrawal exempted.
A handful of participants shared that the policy has no teeth behind it,
because institutions have discretion to administer the policy, taking maximum
advantage of mitigating circumstances. Yet, one noted, institutions feel compelled
to spend a lot of time administering it and some students are being penalized. In
spite of the loopholes in the policy, some transfer students, many of whom were
not even aware of the policy, find that it may adversely affect their GPA or degree
completion.
Policy: The 3-Peat Rule
Effective as of 2005-2006, the 3-Peat Rule places a limit on the
number of times a student may take a course and the
college/university will receive reimbursement from the state. The
intent of the policy is to discourage students from repeating courses,
and from the state having to pay, or reimburse institutions for
repeated courses. Since the institution cannot submit for
reimbursement a course when the student enrolls a third time in the
same, or substantially the same course, some elect to charge a higher,
or out-of-state, tuition rate which allows the institution to recover
some of the cost.
Like the 6-Drop Rule, several administrators explained that they understood
the intent of this rule, but noted that it is most likely to affect transfer students after
they have transferred to the university. Echoed in the student focus-group
interviews, few students seem to be aware of this policy until they receive a billing
statement in the mail for extra tuition.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
13/23
13
Policy: The 30 Excess Hour Rule
The 30 Excess Hour Rule went into effect for first-time students in fall
2006 and is intended to provide financial incentives for institutions to
facilitate expeditious degree completion. The rule refers to the amount
of hours a student can take beyond the 120 credit hours typically
required for most baccalaureate degrees. Students who go beyond the
30 excess hours may be charged out-of-state tuition. The rule also
applies to dual credit courses; but does not apply to remedial and
developmental courses (within 27 hours), special topics and seminar
courses, independent study, or continuing education courses repeated
to retain professional certification.
Consistent with administrator perceptions of previous policies, participants
were supportive of the spirit of the policy, but noted unintended consequences for
transfer students. This was particularly true given that previously, at both
universities and community colleges, it was permissible, advisable even, for
students to explore interests by taking different types of courses. The 30 Excess
Hour Rule is not only contra to the idea of course exploration but may place undue
burden on transfer students who for a variety of reasons may have stopped out of
school, changed their career plans and majors, started out without declaring a
major and/or attended multiple institutions.
Given the restrictive nature of the 30 Excess Hour Rule, some institutions
have been very thoughtful about changing requirements for certain programs by
reducing the number of hours so that students can take advantage of special
programs without going over the 120 hour degree plan. A university Associate
Provost for Undergraduate studies explained that prior to this policy, their study
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
14/23
14
abroad program required all students to have completed 24-30 credit hours in
residence for eligibility, but transfer students typically matriculated with 60 plus
credits, and as juniors, and the residency requirement meant that they would
exceed 120 credit hours. They therefore reduced the number the program eligibility
requirement to 12 hours, and students were allowed to apply for the program by the
end of the semester. Additionally, the university had the foresight to discuss this
change with transfer advisors at their feeder community college so that students
would be aware of and could begin planning for study abroad during their
freshman and sophomore years.
Policy: Field of Study Curricula
Field of Study Curricula, was developed by the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and states that if a student
successfully completes a field of study curriculum developed by the
THECB, that block of courses may be transferred to a general
academic teaching institution and must be substituted for that
institution's lower-division requirements for the degree program for
the field of study into which the student transfers, and the student
shall receive full academic credit toward the degree program for the
block of courses transferred.
While mentioned only intermittently by study participants, this policy has
implications for transfer students. A student who transfers from one institution of
higher education to another without completing the field of study curriculum of the
sending institution shall receive academic credit in the field of study curriculum of
the receiving institution for each of the courses that the student has successfully
completed in the field of study curriculum of the sending institution. Following
receipt of credit for these courses, the student may be required to satisfy the
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
15/23
15
remaining course requirements in the field of study curriculum of the receiving
institution, or to complete additional requirements in the receiving institution's
program, as long as those requirements do not duplicate course content already
completed through the field of study curriculum.
Policy: Credit Transfer for Associate Degree
On June 17, 2011, the Texas legislature enacted House Bill 3025,
Credit Transfer for Associate Degree, which addresses timely degree
completion for students in public higher education through the
reverse awarding of associates degrees. Specifically, students who
successfully complete at least 30 credit hours from a state two-year
institution; then transfer to a four-year institution and subsequently
earn a cumulative total of at least 90 credit hours; are given the
opportunity to earn an associate degree. The process of doing so
requires the university to notify and request permission from the
students to release their transcripts to their previous two-year
institution, which then conducts a degree audit and awards degrees to
those meeting the credit requirements.
Ideally, this legislation will produce more credentialed individuals and
provide students an important milestone in their academic journeys. Additionally,
two-year institutions will be able to count these students in their graduation rates
and universities will be filled with successful students who will potentially persist
to their baccalaureate degrees. Several of the participating institutions were
engaged in the reverse awarding of associates degrees prior to the legislative
mandate. The researchers anticipate this policy will support transfer student
degree attainment and success, but caution that without adequate resource
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
16/23
16
allocation toward establishing the infrastructure necessary to implement the policy,
its impact will be greatly diminished.
Additional Insight: Transfer Course Applicability to Degree Programs
Noted nearly universally by administrative participants, and echoed in the
transfer student focus group interviews, was not the transferability of courses, but
the applicability of those courses to students major, especially within certain fields
of study such as those in the hard sciences or music. Many students who transfer
having completed the 40-42 hour core block of general education courses, or who
have completed an associates degree may get transfer credit for all of their
courses, but find that some of the courses will not count directly for requirements
in their major field of study. When this happens, students have to take additional
courses, or may have to repeat courses. Since the TCCNS is not required of all
universities, ultimately, this is a course articulation issue between institutions, but
with implications for existing policies such as the 30 Hour Excess Rule. In certain
fields of study, such as engineering, business or music; and applied courses
students find that fewer of their courses count towards their major.
Several participants at both community colleges and universities discussed
that a major impediment to course applicability in the field of study are strongly
held perceptions at the university level that community college courses are not as
rigorous or rich in content. The applicability of transfer courses to students major
is also very much an academic advising issue. Administrators at community
colleges, and even at some universities, expressed frustration with the
unpredictability of the course evaluation and credit granting process, the lateness
of the evaluation relative to admission and enrollment, and beliefs that denials
were often based in untested, unproven disregard for the quality or equivalency of
community college credits. Community colleges also expressed frustration with
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
17/23
17
the irregular willingness of university faculty to enter into curricular structure
alignment to enhance future transfer patterns.
On a positive note, a few participants described how they have designed
programs, policies and/or created articulation agreements in certain fields to
maximize the acceptance of applied course credit, a trend we will very likely see
increasing in the near future given the push for baccalaureate attainment and
polices such as the 30 Excess Hour Rule.
Additional Insight: There appears to be little incentive for Texas
community colleges to shape student course taking for most efficient
transferability of credits to bachelor degree programs.
Community colleges are financially incentivized in two primary ways:
enrollments numbers, and degree completions. Indeed, there is a perception
among community colleges that the Texas core course policyunder which a
common set of general education courses are guaranteed for acceptance at
universities, but major-applicable courses are completely within the discretion of
receiving institutionsundermines degree completion at the community college.
Students with high transfer intention tend to leave when they know that they have
exhausted the quota of courses that are guaranteed transfer. There is not any
feature of funding formulas that reward community college for the kinds of
advising that would result in highest articulation of credits between institutions.
Not only is this kind of counseling thought to be cost and personnel intensive, but
community colleges that deal with multiple senior institutions of interest encounter
inconsistencies that make the work all the more complex.
Additional Insight: Texas universities generally believe that they should
receive more credit for bachelor degree completions by students who were not
first-year, first-time students at the universities.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
18/23
18
Financial rewards are made to colleges for enrollment in Texas, and students
classified as juniors and seniors make institutions eligible for more state subsidy.
But the financial rewards attached to actual graduation are restricted to students
who began their studies at the university. Universities, which often provide 75%
or so of the credit toward the degree, believe that they should be more rewarded
financially for that accomplishment. The issue is particularly acute for a few
universities that actually enroll more transfer students each year than first-year,
first-time students.
Additional Insight: The lack of a consistent Texas transcript format,
and a lack of transparency of student records across institutions, inhibits the
abilities of institutions to track student progress across institutions toward a
degree, and to make timely evaluations of transfer credit.
It is more common than not for students to receive final decisions on transfer
credits after they are accepted and enrolled, than it is to have that information to
help make application and institutional selection decisions. This also inhibits the
ability of students to factor credit acceptance into institutional choice.
Additional Insight: Student Experiences with Transfer Policies
Students were asked general questions about their goals and aspirations,
college choices, and where they received information about the transfer process.
We did not ask direct questions about specific policies because the research team
felt that students would not be likely to discuss policies by name. Nonetheless,
some students did speak directly to several transfer policies, including the 30-
excess hour rule, Texas Common Core Numbering System (TCCNS), and 6-drop
rule. As expected, it was university transfer students who spoke of the 30 excess
hour rule, and in most cases where mentioned, students indicated that they were
not aware of this policy until they had met with an advisor at the university level or
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
19/23
19
until they been billed for out-of-state tuition. The TCCNS was cited as difficult to
navigate and often discovered independently by the student.
From interviews with university administrators we learned that students are
more likely to encounter the 6-drop rule after they transfer, and although
institutions are allowed leeway in determining criteria for allowing students to drop
more than 6 courses, not all institutions implement the policy in the same way, or
in ways that tend to favor a wide variety of student life circumstances. One student
shared that she had learned about the 6-drop rule after having to drop a semesters
worth of classes due to family circumstances. In addition, a student who is not
aware of or advised about options for petition of this policy may choose to remain
in a class or classes to the determent of his/her GPA; which may have other
implications for competitive scholarships, fellowships or other future opportunities
such as application to graduate school.
Conclusion
The authors believe that they are identifying areas within the greater transfer
process that may be appropriate for further examination by policy makers.
However, they have been reluctant to make extensive and specific suggestions as
to what changes might be in order and under what state authority. Research can
help us discover what is. It cannot tell us what should be done, as this is a matter
of values and countervailing interests. The end of the six-drop rule, for example,
may increase student success but has some cost implications for the state. State
law and policy informed by how existing rules play out in practice, however, is an
important step toward crafting law and policy that can accomplish the ends that
regulators value.
The authors also believe that this study constitutes a model for similar
investigation of transfer and other higher education policies in statewide contexts.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
20/23
20
Marc Cutright, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Higher Education and
Research and Grants Director for the National Institute for the Study of Transfer
Students, The University of North Texas, Denton, Texas. Telephone: 940.369.7875.
E-mail: [email protected].
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not intended to
reflect the views of The University of North Texas.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
21/23
21
References
Anderson, G.M., Alfonso, M., & Sun, J.C. (2006). Rethinking cooling out at public
community colleges: An examination of fiscal and demographic trends in
higher education and the rise of statewide articulation agreements. Teachers
College Record, 108(3), 422-451.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Driscoll, A. (2007, August).Beyond access: How the first semester matters for
community college students aspirations and persistence (Report No. 07-2).
Davis, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. (ERIC No. ED498154).Engle, Bereo & OBrien (2006). Straight from the source: What works for first
generation college students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study
of Opportunity in Higher Education. Retrieved from
:http://www.pellinstitute.org/files/files-sfts_what_works.pdf
Gross, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Community college transfer and articulation
policies. Center on Reinventing Public Education, Working Paper #2009_1.Bothell, WA: University of Washington.
Horn, L., & Lew, S. (2007). California community college transfer rates: Who is
counted makes a difference. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.
Roska, J., & Keith, B. (2008). Credits, time, and attainment: Articulation policies
and success after transfer.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3),
236-254.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008). Texas Transfer Summit:
Report and recommendations.
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Events/TransferSuccessSummit/Report.pdf.
Retrieved February 27, 2009.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
22/23
22
Texas Guaranteed (n.d.) TG public benefit grant program. Retrieved from
http://www.tgslc.org/publicbenefit/index.cfm
Wellman, J.V. (2002). State policy and community college-baccalaureate transfer.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Report #02-6.
-
8/2/2019 Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, the Univers
23/23
23
Personal Profile
Marc Cutright, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at The
University of North Texas, where he has served on the faculty since 2007.
Additionally at UNT, he serves as Research and Grants Director of the National
Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (NISTS), and as Director for the
Center for Higher Education. The latter entity sponsors the annual UNT Texas
Higher Education Law Conference, the proceeds of which create scholarships
for students in the graduate programs in Higher Education at UNT. Dr.
Cutrights prior positions have included service on the faculty of Ohio
University, as a research associate with the Policy Center on the First Year ofCollege, and as communications director with the Center for Social
Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University. In addition to his
research and publication interests on student transitions in higher education, he
has been engaged in efforts to expand participation in higher education and
enhance its quality in the developing world, particularly East Africa.