by Jason Lane & Maria Khan
Transfer student success continues to receive a great deal of attention from educational leaders, system heads, and state officials. For decades, student mobility and credit transfer have been a topic of discussion and consternation for many. Recently, the American Council on Education (ACE) released a taskforce report on transfer of credit and the National Association of System Heads (NASH) has been tracking the work of multi-campus systems to improve the success of transfer students.
Prior to the pandemic transfer student mobility had been on the rise and so were the anecdotes of students who had lost credits, were misadvised, or were not able to complete their degree after transferring. The result has led several state officials to pursue legislation or regulation as a means to “fix” these problems and this legislation directly impacts how systems implement their own transfer policies and practices.
In a 2020 survey of public university systems by the Systems Center, a vast majority of respondents indicated that their legislatures were advancing or considering actions related to transfer and student mobility. The respondents included 24 systems in 19 states. Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that their state legislature evidenced an interest in transfer issues; while 83% indicated that their state legislature has undertaken at least some legislative action regarding transfer. The map below shows the states where legislative action has been undertaken and/or is under consideration (based on survey responses).
Legislative Action Undertaken by State Legislature (Based on Survey Responses)
Legislative Area 1: Guaranteed transfer of credits
A common anecdote that legislators tend to hear is about students (or a specific student) not being able to transfer all of their credits from one institution to another. In many cases, the credits will actually transfer; but bad policy, poor advising, or student decisions may result in some credits not “counting” toward the student’s degree requirements. The impact is that students end up taking credits they may not need for the degree, leading to increased costs, extending time to degree, or using up financial aid before completing.
The result can be policies that require some sort of guaranteed credit-transfer system, at least among public colleges and universities in the state. As an example, Wisconsin legislation mandates a framework for program-to-program articulations across the state’s public institutions and provides for private and tribally controlled higher education institutions in the state to opt-in to participate in those articulations. The most recent amendment to the requirements in 2019 increased the number of transferable credits to not less than 72 (previously 30) and established policies for ensuring that, beginning in the 2022-23 academic year, credits would be transferable and satisfy general education requirements at the receiving institution. Legislation in Utah creates a requirement for public institutions to “transfer competency-based general education courses from a regionally accredited institution to an institution of higher education.”
Legislative Area 2: Curricular Alignment / Common Courses
Curricular alignment typically focuses on mandating some form of curricular coherence across multiple institutions – which may include some or all of the public institutions in the state. One example of such alignment is requiring common course numbering for comparable courses across multiple colleges and universities (e.g., ENG 101, 201); often along with the requirement that courses with the same number be transferable for credit toward program requirements. In some states, the legislation may go further and mandate a common general education framework so that students at all institutions must complete courses in the same subject areas (e.g., mathematic, humanities, natural science). In most of these cases, a receiving institution cannot make a student retake a course in a subject area if they completed it at the sending institution.
For example, legislation in Utah requires the “articulation and the seamless transfer of courses, programs, and credit for prior learning within the Utah System of Higher Education.” Specifically, the system must have a common course numbering system for “course of similar curricular content, rigor, and standards” and allow students to transfer certain courses to meet program requirements. Legislation in Illinois requires public four-year institutions to “admit and grant junior status” to any community college student who meets proscribed requirements at the lower-division level and cannot make those students take more than 60 additional credits if they transfer in the ascribed 60-credit lower division requirements.
Legislative Area 3: Reporting on Transfer Requirements and Guides
Another area of focus has been on greater accountability and reporting. Such legislation may require colleges and universities to provide updates and/or reports about their efforts to improve the transferability of credits and the timeliness of transfer-student degree completion. Respondents indicate that such legislation can also include efforts to increase transparency such as listing courses and credits not accepted for transfer and publishing course sequencing and articulation agreements.
For example, in Texas, recent legislation requires institutions to provide an annual report to the state legislature and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board describing any lower-division courses (course name and type; name of the home institution) for which a transfer student is not granted academic credit at the receiving institution and the reason why credit was not granted. The same legislation requires each public junior college to submit an annual report analyzing the credits taken by students who either complete an associate’s degree or transfer to another institution in the previous academic year. Wisconsin’s legislation requires institutions to report on the description and implementation status of the required articulation agreements.
Legislative Action 4: Reverse Transfer
The concept of “reverse transfer” has garnered a great deal of public attention. Such initiatives create the opportunity for credits earned after a student has transferred to another institution to be counted at the previously attended institution in order to allow the student to earn a degree from the previously attended institution. For example, if a student transfers from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution after taking 45 credits, the student could then transfer 15 credits earned at the 4-year institution back to the 2-year institution and be awarded an associates degree (assuming all the credits meet the degree requirements).
According to our survey, more than 20 university systems have been implemented some version of this program. Many state legislatures appear to have taken notice, with some advancing legislation to mandate creation of such reverse transfer programs. Illinois’s Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act contains a section pertaining to the “the transfer of earned academic credit from a State university to a community college for the purpose of obtaining an associate degree at the community college.” It also requires the Illinois Board of Higher Education and the Illinois Community College Board to develop a coordinated policy to foster the reverse transfer of credit to any student who has accumulated at least 15 hours of academic credit at community college and sufficient number of academic credits at a state university in the prescribed courses necessary to meet requirements for an associate degree at a community college.
**********************************************
Here at NASH, we are taking first steps to build a NASH Transfer Network – a collaborative of systems – that can collectively also move towards this goal. To learn more about the NASH Transfer Network, feel free to reach Maria Khan (mikhan@albany.edu).