You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
By now, we all know that the pandemic has not only disrupted college for millions of Americans, but also increased the need for reskilling and additional education. Talk in D.C. and in state legislatures across the country acknowledges this new reality, with a renewed focus on short-term credentials, stackable pathways, learning portability and other approaches that help students move seamlessly -- and more quickly -- through postsecondary education and into work.
These are important conversations, but they will run aground if they don’t account for the existing state policy frameworks in place across the country. Our research has shown that, while states have been increasingly focused on student mobility, the vast majority of their policies still focus on linear two-year to four-year transfer -- potentially missing the 43 percent of students who transfer multiple times and others who accrue learning and credits in circuitous ways.
Before designing new models and policies around student mobility, it’s important that we first understand the current policy norms. Fortunately, the HCM Strategists team was already working on this prior to the pandemic, conducting and regularly updating a 50-state transfer policy scan that has informed our work in states, and which also supports Tackling Transfer. We wanted to better understand what policies states have in place that facilitate student transfer, improve credit transfer and applicability, as well as recognize student learning more broadly, and how those policies vary state to state. This information not only gives us a better understanding of how states are approaching transfer policy, but also where gaps exist that can and should be filled.
For the transfer policy scan, we looked at 16 transfer-specific state or systemwide policies such as guaranteed transfer of a credit core, advising support for transfer students, common course numbering, articulation agreements with private universities and the inclusion of dual credit. We built the scan using publicly available resources such as legislative and state agency websites, as well as data compiled from the Education Commission of the States. Our analysis showed that across all 50 states, there have been efforts to improve transfer through state or systemwide policy, but that significant barriers to student mobility remain unaddressed. Of the 16 policy elements we gathered data on, the areas covered can essentially be broken down into three categories: credit transfer and applicability, student supports, and finance mechanisms.
Credit Transfer and Applicability
A large majority of policies -- 11 of the 16 policy elements we identified -- focused on the construction and maintenance of academic pathways. This category of transfer policies is foundational to ensuring the multiple ways and places learning occurs can be applied toward credentials. Of these 11 policy elements:
- Thirty-eight states have curricular pathways mapped between two- and four-year institutions, usually within the public higher education segment;
- Twenty-six states include dual enrollment in their transfer policies, generally requiring that courses students complete for college credit while in high school are accepted for transfer;
- Eighteen states use common course numbering to provide clarity on how courses are articulated across institutions, though some of these policies focus on a single higher education system and do not apply to other institutions outside of that system; and
- Just 12 states have articulation agreements with private universities.
Student Supports
Three of the 16 policy elements focus more on direct support to students, such as advising and providing student-facing information about transfer. While these policies are less commonly implemented, research tells us that providing students with direct supports to help navigate their educational pathway produces better and more timely outcomes, particularly for the most underserved populations -- Black, Latinx, adult and low-income students. Other observations we noted from the scan include:
- Thirty-four states employ student-facing information about transfer; and
- Eighteen states have policies that ensure the utilization of common course numbering.
Finance Mechanisms
We only identified two examples, out of the 16 elements analyzed, for how state's support transfer through financial mechanisms. Though rare, we know the current financial model for postsecondary works against the business case of transfer for both institutions and students. Of these two policy elements:
- Fourteen states have a student success funding model that includes transfer students as a metric in either the two-year or four-year sector, or both; and
- Just three states offer financial aid support for transfer students.
On the whole, the 50-state scan showed us that there are promising signs that state transfer policy is adapting to better meet the needs of today’s “post-traditional” students. While there is room for continued improvement, a number of states are already adopting innovative policies that account for student mobility. For example, 22 states have reverse transfer policies in place, which can help students obtain an associate en route to a bachelor’s degree. This can both expand employment prospects for students who are pursuing work and school simultaneously, while also motivating students to persist through to their end goal. These kinds of innovative policies account for the unique pathways that students may take to earn a credential.
Transfer students face unique barriers, and some states are enacting policies that specifically address those barriers through advising, financial aid and clear communications. For example, Maryland state policy requires each public institution of higher education to have a designated transfer coordinator. The transfer coordinator advises and interprets transfer policies for students, faculty and administrators. In Virginia, the Two-Year College Transfer Grant Program is available to students who earn an associate degree at a public Virginia two-year college before transferring to a participating four-year institution to pursue a bachelor’s degree. Finally, in Arizona, the AZTransfer tool is made to be easily accessible and understood by students whether in high school, community college or at a university. Such approaches may improve the outcomes or close attainment gaps for transfer students of first-generation college or low-income backgrounds by providing direct support, financial assistance and clear and accessible information.
It is critical that we understand where policy lies in the field, to better equip us to acknowledge where we need to go. We at HCM Strategists are excited to leverage this 50-state information in a forthcoming Tackling Transfer report that will analyze how robust each state’s transfer policies are so that we know where to build from as we design a robust and equitable economic recovery. Armed with this information, it is our hope that policy makers, advocates, practitioners and researchers can use this information to refine and redesign transfer policies to be more responsive to the diverse needs of today’s highly mobile students, including returning adults, low-income students and students of color.
