Re: General Education  What transfer obstacles do you face?  What is your experience negotiating transfer in your own state or system?  What efforts has your state/system made toward transfer clarity and streamlining?  What is your experience negotiating transfer with out-of-state institutions? More or less cumbersome than in-state? Questions for the Attendees

Transfer poses challenges laterally as well as to 4-year campuses -Your college’s version of that class didn’t have X -At X college we require two of those; you have one

 Many of us have identified this issue INSIDE our states  And have developed strategies  Articulation agreements go in all directions  Common course numbering, etc.  California, of course, has over 100 gen ed strategies, one for every district  Success varies from state to state Translation and conversion exercises

Not too long ago, moving around in Europe was like bringing your transfer credits to another college A process with excruciating calculations that always left you with residual “credit” that didn’t “fit”; a pocket full of detritus

The Alliance wanted to know how we could create a zone of transfer where general education completed in one state was good in a number of states

 A grass-roots originated effort by academic leaders in the WICHE states to advance friction-free transfer for students in the region  Envisioned as a series of related projects over an approximate five-year span  Participation is voluntary in all projects About the Passport Initiative

New agreements and policies will allow transfer students to carry with them an Interstate Passport, signaling their completion of the general education core based on LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes, that will help streamline their pathway to graduation. Vision

On average …  27 percent of all transfer students cross state lines (Signature Report, NSC, 2012)  Transfer students who earn a B.A. take 1.2 years longer to do it (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2010)  The extra time costs a student over $9,000 for tuition and fees alone (WICHE, 2010)  Unnecessary duplication of courses costs time and money for students, institutions, states, the federal government, and taxpayers Why?

 LEAP outcomes serve as the translating device reconciling particular sets of outcomes from many campuses and many states  Mapping to a set of universal outcomes allows multiple campuses and states to synchronize LEAP Outcomes & Passport General Education in Hawaii General Education in Utah General Education in North Dakota General Education in Calif General Education in Oregon

 Developed by Association of American Colleges and Universities ( )  Multi-year process  Faculty at hundreds of institutions involved  Input from business community and reports  Analysis of accreditation requirements  Liberal Education and America’s Promise—students should prepare for 21st century challenges by gaining…  Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World  Intellectual and Practical Skills  Personal and Social Responsibility  Integrative and Applied Learning LEAP Outcomes

Scope of First Project Phase I Block

 Funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York: $550,000 over two years  Two-year project: Oct. 1, 2011-Sept. 30, 2013  Participants: 23 two-year and four-year institutions  Scope: Lower division general education core  Co-Chairs: Dr. Michel Hillman, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, North Dakota University System Dr. Peter Quigley, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs for the University of Hawaii System First Project

Three major components: 1. Research status of general education core in the WICHE states and relationship to transfer 2. Conduct a pilot project to establish block transfer agreements based on outcomes 3. Identify implications for institutional and state policy for a transfer framework based on outcomes Project goals

 Develop understanding of definition of general education core in WICHE states  Determine the role of outcomes in defining the core  Identify existing block transfer agreements for general education core  Determine how many students transfer among the WICHE states  Explore the relationship between state policy and transfer patterns 1.Research Component

Gen Ed Core  Eleven of 15 WICHE states have a statewide general education core  Three WICHE states (CA, MT, UT) have identified and aligned student outcomes from the Gen Ed core to the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes  Areas or disciplines that compose the Gen Ed core in 14 of the 15 WICHE states:  Communication – written or oral  Humanities/social or behavioral sciences  Quantitative skills/critical thinking (includes mathematics in some states)  Physical and natural sciences (includes mathematics in some states) Research Findings

Student Transfer Patterns in the WICHE States  Fall 2006 Cohort* = first-time, full- or part-time, pre- credential students of any age who began postsecondary education fall 2006  Total cohort = 668,583 students  Percentage of students who transfer = 33.6% *Data provided by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center Research Findings: Fall 2006 Cohort

Destination of All Transfer Students: In-State  Two-year students = 84.6%  Four-year students = 74.7% Out of State  Two-year students = 15.4%  Four-year students = 25.3% Research Findings: Fall 2006 Cohort

Frequency of Transfer A quarter of all students – both full- and part- time – transfer at least once Timing of Transfer:  Year 1 = 15.19%  Year 2 = 33.20%  Year 3 = 25.10%  Year 4 = 15.76%  Year 5 = 10.76% Research Findings: Fall 2006 Cohort

WICHE Region  Total number* of students in four-year and two-year schools in WICHE region in Fall 2006: 3,460,836, or 29% of national total  NSC data indicate that, nationally, 33% of students transfer—approx 1,142,075 annually in WICHE region  NSC data indicate that, nationally, 27% of those who transfer cross state lines—approx 308,360 annually in the WICHE region *IPEDS data Research Findings

 Identify existing block transfer agreements for general education core, both within states and between states  Determine when students complete the gen ed core – before or after transfer Forthcoming Research

2.Pilot Component Work with representatives of institutions in five WICHE states to achieve “Passport Status”  Assemble state teams of faculty and administrators to participate in project  Align lower division general education core with LEAP outcomes  Determine how students will demonstrate they have met learning outcomes  Compare and negotiate a regional transfer agreement  Sign “Passport Status Agreement” among participants  Provide participants an “Interstate Passport” stamp to be used on student records of eligible students

 California: California State University, Sacramento; Sacramento City College  Hawaii: Leeward Community College; University of Hawaii West Oahu  North Dakota: Dickinson State University; Lake Region State College; North Dakota State University; North Dakota State College of Science; University of North Dakota; Valley City State University; and Williston State College  Oregon: Eastern Oregon University; Columbia Gorge Community College; University of Oregon; and Lane Community College  Utah: Dixie State College of Utah; Salt Lake Community College; Snow College; Southern Utah University; The University of Utah; Utah State University; Utah Valley University; and Weber State University Pilot Participants

Dr. Debra David, Project Director, "Give Students a Compass“ CSU Office of the Chancellor Dr. Dick Dubanoski, Dean, College of Social Sciences University of Hawaii at Manoa Lisa Johnson, Director of Articulation and Transfer North Dakota University System Dr. Phyllis “Teddi” Safman, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs Utah Board of Regents Dr. Karen Marrongelle, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Standards and Collaborations Oregon University System Pilot State Facilitators

Passport Process Model

Passport Learning Outcomes Negotiation

Oral Communications Example

Comprised of registrars and institutional research staff from the pilot participating institutions Charge:  Determine most efficient and agreed-upon methods for recording the Passport on student records  Determine how performance data on Passport students should be tracked and delivered to sending institutions Task Force on Student Tracking

 Identify implications for institutional and state policy resulting from a transfer framework based on learning outcomes  Compile a list of challenges and opportunities resulting from the pilot  Determine which ones merit further research  Seek funding to conduct research and/or expand the project 3.Implications Component

1. Develop learning outcomes and proficiency level for rest of lower division general education areas: humanities, social and behavioral sciences, computer technology, and physical natural sciences 2. Establish mechanism at member institutions to record Passport on student record. 3. Establish student tracking mechanism at member institutions and share data for continuous improvement. 4. Conduct periodic review of learning outcomes and proficiency level for lower division general education to measure Passport student success. Initial Implications of New Transfer Framework

5. Establish centralized agency to monitor compliance with Passport agreement. 6. Develop new member process. 7. Determine and agree on the term that the Passport is in effect for students. 8. Update and maintain information on the web about the Passport and which schools participate. 9. Establish awareness campaign targeting provosts, registrars, and students. Initial Implications (continued)

Advisory Board Dr. Susan Albertine Association of American Colleges and Universities Dr. Michel Hillman North Dakota University System Dr. Nancy Krogh University of Idaho Dr. David Longanecker WICHE Dr. Susan Neel Utah State University-Eastern Dr. Karen Paulson NCHEMS Dr. Peter Quigley University of Hawaii Community College System Dr. Jane Sherman Washington State University Jeff Spano Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges

Nancy Shulock, Evaluator Professor and Executive Director, Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy at California State University, Sacramento Pat Shea, Principal Investigator Director, WICHE ICE, Western Academic Leadership Forum, Western Alliance of Community College Academic Leaders, WICHE Project Staff and Evaluator Cathy Walker, Research Analyst/Project Manager Robert Turner, Pilot State Coordinator Former Assistant Vice Chancellor, Oregon University System

Thank you! Pat Shea Passport PI Questions Peter Quigley Passport Co-Chair Cathy Walker Passport Project Manager