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 & site selection  Initial findings  Policy Implications

Bridging the Gaps Conducted site visits to five community colleges performing better than expected at transferring low- SES 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 four- year 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 Institution "Native" Juniors Community College Transfers Transfer/ Native Gap Transfer State Gap Total Transfer Gap A84%75%-9%10%1% B81%70%-12%5%-7% C75%64%-11%-1%-12% D79%63%-16%-2%-17% E78%58%-20%-7%-27% Average79%66%-14%1%-12% THECB data compared four-year graduation rates of Fall 2004 transfers to “native” juniors* * 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 Institution Transfer gap acceptance rate THECB Classificationlocale size (ug headcount) MSI status (if any) A1% 57%Doctoral town: distant14,302 B-7% 76%Doctoral town: fringe24,810 emerging HSI C-12% 53%Comprehensive rural: fringe5,315HSI D-17% 64%Emerging research city: midsize27,812 E-27% 76%Emerging researchcity: large18,985 IPEDS

Institutional Characteristics Institution Transfer gap % Pell Recipients % underrep. minority % part-time attendance % over 24 years old A1% 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% 30%28% IPEDS

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

 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

 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 to track transfer support services usage Need for convenient, required transfer-specific orientation with individual advising sessions and networking opportunities

 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 Implications

Contact Us  Pell Institute:  Abby Miller:  Wendy Erisman: