2. Missouri Reverse Transfer The Good, The Bad, The Ugly: But it is so worth It! 2016 National Policy Summit on Reverse Transfer January 24, 2016 Presenters Brenda Selman, Univ. Registrar – MU & Rep. University of Missouri System Dixie Williams, Missouri Committee on Transfer & Articulation Chair Elect

3. How “RT” in Missouri Came to Be  HB 1042 of 2012 required CBHE to develop a policy to foster reverse transfer  Required all publics to participate  Open to private, independent institutions  MDHE secured $500,000 Lumina and Kresge Foundation grant to implement Missouri Reverse Transfer Initiative (MRTI)  MRTI Steering Committee named by MDHE based upon campus nominations

4. Recap of Missouri Reverse Transfer  Started work in 2012  Developed a state-wide process for institutions through Missouri Dept. of Higher Ed sponsored Missouri Reverse Transfer committee  41 institutions engaging in the process to identify, contact, and help students through the MRT process  Full Launch in fall 2014  Phases  Phase I consisted of new transfers for the each semester. Once the "catch up" activities were completed, this became the population chosen each fall and spring term.  Phase II was made up of currently enrolled students not previously contacted.  Phase III was comprised of students not currently enrolled meeting the eligibility criteria.

5. Residency Requirement  Per Higher Learning Commission (HLC) guidance, a minimum of 15 credit hours is required at an institution for the awarding of an associate’s degree.  There is no requirement for the credit hours to occur at any particular point within the accumulation of the credit hours. In alignment with this guidance, 15 credit hours from a single institution is established as the minimum residency for the MRT.  Missouri petitioned to get policy changed  Applies to all HLC accredited 2 –yr. institutions if part of an official RT agreement

6. Missouri Policy  Student Eligibility  Students are not eligible for MRT if they currently possess an associate degree or higher.  Under certain circumstances, a student may be awarded simultaneously an associate degree through MRT and a baccalaureate degree.  Students should contact the Degree Granting Institution regarding their eligibility for other degrees.

7. Missouri Policy Cont.  The acceptance of transfer credit will be determined by the DGI.  Release of transcripts will be in accordance with the host institution’s policies.  The requirements for degree completion will be determined by the DGI and will be identified to the MRT student.  There will be no time limit on students completing the associate degree through the MRT. Students will remain in the program as long as they are continuously enrolled at the host institution.  The course requirements for degree completion will be determined by the DGI and will be identified to the MRT student. DGI’s are encouraged to substitute any institution unique course requirements.  Institutions will identify inactive students, those who have completed 15 hours with a single institution but never completed a degree, via an automated search and introduce those students to MRT.  When the degree is awarded by the DGI, the DGI will send an official transcript noting conferment to the four-year host institution.

8. Student Responsibility  In an effort to remain FERPA compliant, all students wishing to participate in MRT are required to “opt-in” to the program. By doing so, the student agrees to the exchange of transcript information between the two institutions and is automatically declared for degree candidacy.  If a student self-identifies to be removed from the program or graduates from the institution, this will result in an automatic “opting-out” of MRT by that student. If MRT decisions are not acceptable to the MRT student, that student is then allowed to appeal said decisions by contacting the articulation and transfer officer at the DGI.

9. Four-Year Institution Responsibility  To identify the student eligible for MRT and inform the DGI of the student’s desire to participate in the program.  Will not charge the student a transcript fee as part of MRT  Submission of all necessary transcripts to the DGI.  “Opt-out” student monitoring and reporting.

10. Two-Year Institution Responsibility  The DGI is responsible for reviewing the eligible MRT student’s records and in awarding the degree.  Will not charge the student a graduation or transcript fee as part of MRT.  They are required to submit a final transcript noting conferment to the four-year host institution.  Closing the MRT student out of the program.  Providing any notifications and/or updates to the MRT student.

11. Where we are Now in Missouri  Second full year of MRT in Missouri  In full swing across the state…based on work loads  Responsibility and remaining grant money transferred to MDHE sponsored Committee On Transfer and Articulation (COTA)  Sub-committee on COTA to continue to see oversite made of former MRT committee members  First Enhanced Missouri Student Achievement Study (EMSAS) report in September 2015  COTA is focusing on:  Continued and Ongoing training of campuses’ Reverse Transfer Coordinator’s  Phase III: To Be completed by June 2016  Remaining Involved in the National Student Clearinghouse work with Reverse Transfer

12. Phase III  Reaching out to Missourians who may qualify for MRT not currently engaged  Institutions:  Pulling formerly-enrolled, eligible students from our databases and reaching out to them (back 5 years)  One-time outreach  COTA & MDHE  Communication plans  MU Extension  Through State Lawmakers  Some radio spots across the state  Continue information on websites, etc. already rolled out

13. Missouri Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA)  Effective January 2015, COTA assumed the permanent oversight of the Missouri Reverse Transfer Program since the original steering committee disbanded.  COTA will continue to provide the support to all RTCs for the remainder of the implementation phase and address any subsequent issues that may arise.

15. Lessons Learned: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly  The Good  We have already graduated 272 students via RT (We will discuss this again in the Bad)  The Reward  We met the requirements of the legislation as well as Lumina Foundation (financer)  We remained focused on the student  Having MDHE behind this and the policy has been critical  One, state-wide agreement by which all schools participated – helped  Including private / independent schools has been beneficial for more students  Using a pilot to test the process helped get the kinks out  Training, training, training  Having one point of contact per institution was helpful  Having each institution’s Chief Academic Officer sign-off was important for initial roll out

16. Lessons Learned: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly  The Bad  Having had legislation driving us, we were not able to take advantage more fully of the new NSC process so now we have to “switch” over from the “drop box” method we implemented initially to a new “file” process  Funding helped us complete initial roll out, but has dried up and we have no financing to support institutions with developing the new file process  Once we met our “goal” laid out by the legislation, it is not a top priority for some institutions  Having one point of contact can mean that an institution doesn’t fully buy in and it becomes “one person’s” project or issue with which to deal  Limited finances for continued promotion  Lower Response Rate that Expected – Let’s Look at Data  Opt In vs Opt Out – Missouri is an Opt In State

17. Lessons Learned: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly – THE DATA

21. Lessons Learned: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly – More Data

22. Lessons Learned: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly  The Ugly  Technologically Tight – campus funding and personnel resources are so sparse at some institutions even seemingly small and easy technology implementations are difficult to implement  Change Weary - Missouri needs to shift to use the new NSC file option, but we just finished the “drop box” roll out about a year ago  Finance Fallow – Lumina grant funding is exhausted, so we lack money to help with the switch to new system  Out of site, out of mind - Difficult to reach back to previously enrolled students who are no longer engaged on either campus, but who may be eligible to use the process and for whom the legislation was written  “But they are mine!” - Some independents are dropping out as they do not want to share data and/or they are offering their own two-year degrees, so this is seen as “encouraging students to go elsewhere.”

23. But in the end it is so worth IT!

24. Promo Video: Celebrating the Grad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZn4mKzs-LY http://dhe.mo.gov/MissouriReverseTransferforstudents.php

25. Where to from here…  Future data will identify new students who meet the criteria  Continuing to engage in the NSC movement for National Reverse Transfer  COTA Conference will initiate discussion of “file vs box”  COTA guide state in developing a plan moving forward  Box &/or file?  State-wide or institutional option for ‘adding” or switching processes?  Continuing support and training for RTC’s regardless of process  Continue to look for ways to promote awareness amongst eligible student population

27. Missouri Reverse Transfer The Good, The Bad, The Ugly: But it is so Worth It! Contact Information: Brenda Selman: selmanb@missouri.edu Dixie Williams: dixiewilliams@missouristate.edu