CA College Transfer Reform: 4 Solutions

The report proposes transfer associate degrees as a primary solution for streamlining the California community college transfer process. These degrees would incorporate a statewide general education (GE) curriculum with specific unit requirements, guaranteeing transfer and unit acceptance at four-year institutions. A crucial aspect involves lower-division major preparation courses or courses within a specific area of emphasis, applicable towards a major at the four-year institution. The design aims to minimize local add-ons or opt-out options for four-year institutions, except in specialized majors. The report cites the positive outcomes documented in six other states—Arizona, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington—that have implemented similar transfer associate degree programs (Moore, Shulock, and Jensen, 2009). The success of these models provides a strong case for the potential effectiveness of such a program in California. However, challenges remain in the design and implementation; this includes debate over whether to tailor degrees to specific majors or broader areas of emphasis to better serve the diverse student population.

A significant concern centers on guaranteeing catalog rights for students pursuing transfer associate degrees. This means ensuring students are held to the degree requirements in place when they began their studies, provided continuous enrollment (or minimal interruption). A community college administrator expressed frustration with the inconsistency in defining a 'fully-prepared' student for transfer, highlighting a major obstacle to student success. The inconsistent definition creates uncertainty and potential disruptions in a student's academic trajectory. The report emphasizes the need for a clear, consistent definition to maintain student progress and reduce confusion. This also highlights the need for greater communication and collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions to align expectations and ensure a smooth transition for students.

A key decision regarding the structure of transfer associate degrees involves whether they should be tailored to specific majors or focus on broader areas of emphasis. Faculty generally prefer major-specific degrees, giving them more control over curriculum. Administrators, however, favor area-of-emphasis degrees for easier implementation and greater applicability across various disciplines. Title V of the California Code of Regulations mandates 18 semester or 27 quarter units in a major or area of emphasis for any associate degree. The report highlights contrasting viewpoints and emphasizes that current associate degrees often don't perfectly align with transfer requirements, leading some community colleges to advise students to focus solely on transfer requirements, neglecting associate degree completion. The challenge lies in balancing faculty control over curriculum with the need for efficient and streamlined transfer pathways. The ultimate goal is to create a system that is both effective and manageable.

The report underscores the need for a common GE pattern to improve transfer transparency for students. While some believe the existing GE structure functions adequately, the lack of connection with majors is a critical flaw. The current system presents students with multiple GE patterns (CSU Breadth, IGETC, San Diego pattern, etc.), creating confusion and hindering the transfer process. One community college administrator noted the absurdity of students needing to understand these distinctions, emphasizing the need for a unified approach. The report acknowledges ongoing conversations about creating a common GE, but many argue that a common GE alone is insufficient; the crucial link to majors is missing. This section highlights the complexities of achieving a standardized GE pattern while respecting the autonomy of individual institutions and disciplines. The implications for student advising and program alignment are significant factors to consider.

The report emphasizes the urgency for reform, citing California's poor national ranking (42nd) in six-year bachelor's degree attainment for high school graduates (NCHEMS, 2009). It projects a significant shortfall of one million college graduates by 2025 compared to workforce needs (Johnson & Sengupta, 2009). This data highlights the need to address inefficiencies and barriers within the state's higher education system, which affects the overall production of college-educated workforce. The report notes that two-thirds of California's first-time college students begin at a community college, but only a small percentage successfully transfer to four-year institutions (25-35%, depending on the definition of transfer population). The significant number of students whose credits don’t transfer efficiently highlights the cost to both students and the state. This underscores the critical importance of systemic reforms to ensure a more efficient and effective pathway to bachelor's degrees.

The report proposes descriptor-based articulation, particularly the Course Identification Numbering System (C-ID), as a practical solution to improve course articulation. While a fully standardized course numbering system is seen as ideal, C-ID offers a more achievable approach. It aims to achieve the benefits of common course numbering while avoiding potential pitfalls of a fully standardized system. The report recommends continued funding for C-ID and encourages faculty and administrative leaders across all three public systems and private universities to participate in developing and approving descriptors. To maximize implementation, the report suggests incorporating an ‘opt-out’ policy. This policy would make courses widely accepted if approved by four or more campuses within a system, unless a compelling reason to opt-out is given. This approach balances the benefits of standardization with the need to respect individual institutional needs and practices.

While there's broad support for the C-ID project, the report emphasizes it shouldn't be viewed as a standalone solution. Its effectiveness relies on alignment with a common general education (GE) core or popular major preparation pathways. A UC administrator stated that C-ID alone provides some benefits, but it requires integration into a larger initiative to truly impact course articulation. The voluntary nature of C-ID facilitates implementation (easing concerns among university faculty about being forced to accept courses they deem inadequate), but it also lacks guarantees of widespread implementation. The report highlights the need for strategic integration of C-ID with other systemic reforms to maximize its impact on transfer and articulation. Without such integration, C-ID may offer only limited improvement to the overall transfer process.

The current Articulation System Stimulating Inter-Institutional Student Transfer (ASSIST) system, while widely supported, is outdated and inefficient. The Community College Transfer Task Force report (2009) describes the current system as cumbersome and incompatible with newer systems relying on ASSIST data. The ASSIST Executive Management Oversight Committee (EMOC) has recommended replacing the obsolete software. A draft summary points out that the software is obsolete and lacks backup systems. The report underscores the limitations of the existing system and advocates for the development and implementation of Next Generation ASSIST. This new system is presented as a crucial component for effective course articulation, requiring both support and full funding to be effective. The urgency to replace the system is highlighted by its obsolescence and lack of a viable backup.

The report identifies the creation of a statewide online academic planning tool as a critical solution to improve student transfer and articulation. This tool would provide students, faculty, and advisors with up-to-date information on transfer requirements, articulation agreements, and student progress. A UC administrator emphasized the importance of providing students with the best possible tools, recognizing their increasing reliance on self-advising. The tool's value is particularly significant for community college students transferring to multiple universities or taking classes at multiple institutions. It would also benefit four-year students seeking to understand course fulfillment across different majors and institutions. The proposed tool aims to centralize information that is currently dispersed, improving the overall transfer process and fostering better planning for students.

To fully realize its potential, the report emphasizes that a Next Generation ASSIST system must be fully funded and integrated with the statewide online academic planning tool. This upgraded system should offer a user-friendly interface providing searchable, up-to-date information on transferable courses, course-to-course articulation, major preparation articulation, GE/IGETC requirements, and data needed for future reforms (like transfer associate degrees). The current ASSIST system, built in 1985 and updated in the early 1990s, is described as cumbersome and inefficient, unable to easily integrate with newer systems. The system’s current limitations are highlighted, emphasizing the necessity for a modern replacement. This integration of Next Generation ASSIST with the academic planning tool is crucial to ensure a comprehensive and efficient resource for students navigating the transfer process.

The report highlights the need for two key elements for effective implementation: full funding and support for Next Generation ASSIST, and its tight coupling with a statewide online academic planning system. The academic planning system would utilize students' transcript data to help them track their progress towards transfer and degree completion across multiple institutions. While individual institutions are developing their own academic planning applications, a comprehensive statewide system encompassing all California colleges and universities (public and private) is deemed essential. The goal is to create a seamless, unified system that addresses the limitations of the current fragmented approach. Such a system would reduce the challenges students face when transferring between institutions.

A major hurdle to statewide transfer reform is the existence of silos within California's higher education system—the California Community Colleges (CCC), the California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC). Each system operates independently, with its own leadership, culture, faculty priorities, student demographics, and resource constraints. While some progress has been made in breaking down these silos through inter-institutional dialogue, they continue to negatively impact student transfer. A UC faculty member succinctly summarized the issue: “We have three separate systems that ultimately have no accountability toward one another, and I think that really holds us back.” The existence of these independent entities creates significant challenges in implementing and maintaining consistent standards and procedures, especially for students transferring between institutions.

The problem of institutional silos extends beyond the three main systems. Even within individual systems (like the CSU), campuses may operate independently, prioritizing institutional identity and specialized fields of study. This results in a lack of standardization and shared operating procedures, hindering seamless transitions for students. A CSU administrator noted that campus cultures often resist changes that require sharing resources or control, which makes system-wide reform very difficult. Another administrator emphasized that faculty across all segments (including community colleges) present a significant obstacle, with each having unique views of their discipline. This frequently leads to varying requirements across different colleges and majors that hinder transfer. This inconsistent approach makes navigating the transfer process extremely complicated for students.

Overcoming these systemic and institutional silos requires a long-term commitment to both systemic and cultural change. The report suggests discipline-based inter-segmental faculty meetings as a primary mechanism for fostering collaboration. A CSU administrator highlighted the need for “as much cultural change as systematic change.” This emphasizes that simply creating new systems will not work unless the underlying institutional cultures change to foster collaboration and a more unified approach to education. The report emphasizes the need for inter-segmental efforts to balance standardization with respect for individual campus and departmental differences. The report further suggests the use of incremental strategies to encourage widespread participation, beginning with the most receptive parties and using early successes to motivate wider buy-in.

The report acknowledges that faculty autonomy and skepticism towards reforms pose substantial challenges. The report highlights strategies to address faculty resistance, such as crafting messages focused on tangible benefits for faculty, rather than solely emphasizing student benefits. The lack of standardization in requirements and procedures is one major issue that affects faculty willingness to support broader reforms. This resistance stems from a desire to retain control over curriculum and the belief that reforms will dilute the quality of their programs. Another factor is the skepticism born from past failed initiatives, leading faculty to question the viability of future reforms. To build trust and facilitate collaboration, the report suggests faculty-to-faculty discussions to alleviate some distrust.

The report suggests that legislative mandates may be necessary to drive timely and efficient implementation of systemic reforms. The support for Assembly Bill 440 and similar legislation is cited as evidence of external support for mandatory reforms. Codifying transfer associate degrees in the California Education Code could ensure ongoing support and maintenance. Effective legislation should outline expected outcomes, including a common GE and major areas of emphasis, and provide a clear timeline for implementation. In addition to legislative mandates, the report advocates for an incremental approach, starting with areas where consensus is easiest to achieve and building upon initial successes to encourage broader participation. An incremental approach recognizes the complexity of addressing deep-seated institutional cultures and working towards a shared vision.

The report emphasizes the critical need for funding to implement the proposed systemic reforms. The initial step involves creating cost estimates for developing and implementing transfer associate degrees, including inter-segmental faculty commissions to discuss GE requirements and major preparation pathways. Cost estimates should also be developed for a statewide online academic planning system linked to Next Generation ASSIST, and for shared messaging and financial aid campaigns. These cost estimates should be weighed against potential cost savings and benefits resulting from the reforms. The report acknowledges the challenges posed by California's budget crisis, suggesting that finding funding is crucial to the successful implementation of these reforms.

A key challenge lies in securing faculty buy-in for the proposed reforms. The report highlights the importance of crafting a message that resonates with faculty across the three systems (CCC, CSU, UC). Interviewees suggested that this message should focus on the benefits for faculty, rather than solely emphasizing student benefits. A CSU administrator noted that faculty are protective of their current practices and that incentivizing them is crucial to promoting change. The report acknowledges faculty autonomy and the challenges posed by institutional resistance to change. The report also points to the skepticism among faculty due to past failed transfer initiatives. Therefore, the report suggests crafting a compelling case that focuses on faculty needs and concerns, fostering greater trust and collaboration.

The report suggests several strategies to foster greater faculty involvement in articulation and transfer reforms. An incremental approach is recommended, starting with areas where agreement is most likely (disciplines with similar existing structures) and expanding on early successes. This iterative strategy aims to build trust and demonstrate the benefits of collaboration. Another suggestion emphasizes the importance of broader buy-in from faculty beyond just elected officials in academic senates. Facilitating faculty-to-faculty discussions is highlighted as a crucial method to build trust and collaboration across different institutions. The report notes that while the majority of faculty aren’t involved in policy governance, securing their buy-in is essential for the success of these reforms. The report also emphasizes the potential role of statewide academic senates in promoting these initiatives.

The report discusses the high likelihood of legislative mandates for specific transfer and articulation reforms, particularly given the support for Assembly Bill 440 and similar legislation. Legislative mandates, interviewees argue, may be the only way to achieve dramatic changes. The report suggests that effective legislation should clearly define expected outcomes (including a common GE, major areas of emphasis, and guarantees for students who complete the degrees), along with a definitive timeframe and reporting requirements to the Assembly and Senate education committees. The report advocates for clear legislative guidance and oversight to ensure successful implementation of reforms. The prospect of legislative mandates is viewed by some as a necessary measure to ensure that reforms are carried out efficiently and effectively.