1

Written Testimony of Marc Cutright, EdD, before the Senate Higher Education Committee Personal testimony offered on April 11, 2012 Written testimony submitted to Committee Staff on April 4, 2012 This testimony features findings from a large-scale qualitative inquiry into the efficacy of Texas state law and policy regarding the encouragement, support, and success of transfer students toward bachelor degree attainment. While the well-known "transfer swirl"the seemingly irregular movement of students between and among universities and community colleges, in every direction and combinationis significant, and makes complex any effort to define traditional transfer patterns, the success of two-to-four year transfers is a particularly strong state focus in Texas, and was the focus of this research. It is important to note that this written testimony related to the research and findings is not merely my own, but a product of my collaboration with Dr. Janet Marling, Executive Director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students, headquartered at the University of North Texas, and Dr. Amy Fann, Assistant Professor of Higher Education at UNT. Additional support in executing the research project was offered by Dr. Beverly Bower, Director of the Bill J. Priest Center for Community College Leadership at UNT and Dr. Bonita Jacobs, President of North Georgia College and State University, and Founding Executive Director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students; and several doctoral students at UNT. Strengthening of transfer rates from two- to four-year colleges, and ultimately baccalaureate degree attainment for these students will continue to take on increasing importance in coming years. Economic circumstances accelerating

the growth of transfer students who start at a community college with the intention of transferring to a 4-year institution; the intention of some public universities in financially pressed states to cap or reduce enrollments as a means of cost control; and the tendency of minority, financially disadvantaged, and first-generation students to choose community college enrollment as a path to the baccalaureate, all make the issues of successful transfer and ultimate degree completion more acute. Additionally, research from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) indicates only 20% of Academic Associate (AA) graduates even apply to four-year institutions, despite a near-100% acceptance rate of transfer students into Texas public universities. When coupled with a weak policy/practice environment, this risk is exacerbated, as illustrated in recent research (Gross & Goldhaber, 2009) questioning the efficacy of state policies relating to increasing transfer success and graduation from a 4-year institution. State policyan interaction of law, institutional behaviors, and regulation can, in theory, have an effect on successful transfer. That has certainly been the intention in the growth of policies such as common course numbering systems, mandated reverse awarding of the Associates degree, financial incentives to institutions for the graduation of transfer students, and required acceptance of associate degree holders to junior status, and the focus they represent among policy makers. However, virtually all research over the past decade has concluded that state policy, weak or strong, has had little or no effect on transfer success, and particularly on four-year degree completion. (Wellman, 2002; Anderson, Alfonso, & Sun, 2006; Gross & Goldhaber, 2009; Roska & Keith, 2008). The quantitative analyses dominating the research to date indicate little as to whether these failures are ones of poor policy design or poor implementation of policy. Regarding design, do policies offer sufficient incentive or penalties to

institutions to enhance performance? Likewise, are there unintended consequences of policy that work against transfer focus, such as penalties for time-to-degree, when many community college students are engaged in attenuated patterns of enrollment? Regarding implementation, are institutions, particularly universities, thwarting the intention of transfer policy by the most conservative of interpretations of transfer eligibility and credit acceptance? These possibilities have been suggested in the literature, but are essentially unsubstantiated by research. Student experience in the transfer process can tell us a great deal about how policy translates into practice. Surprisingly, there is a paucity of research based on the discourse with transfer and transfer-intent students on their institutional experiences that relate to successful transfer. Existing research has been largely small-scale and single-institution. Acknowledging the importance of this research to improving individual institutional practice, such limited studies do little to inform views of the efficacy of state policy on a larger scale. Our research intended to fill these gaps and provide further inquiry into the policies and programs that enhance and hinder transfer student success in the state, an exercise essential to improving both and moving Texas closer to the college graduation goals of Closing the Gaps by 2015. While the project is Texasfocused, the findings and methods of inquiry could have national implications and potential for replication. It will contribute to the national conversation, particularly as the research relates to under-served students, where these issues and their resolution are most directly felt. The National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students, under which the research was conducted, was established at the University of North Texas in 2002 by Dr. Bonita Jacobs. The first annual conference in 2003 drew some 300

participants from 39 states, and annual participation has ranged from that number to about 400 attendees. In recent years, NISTS has conducted more funded research and service, in addition to sponsoring smaller focused-topic conferences, such as two on transfer issues for STEM discipline students in the Fall of 2010 and Fall of 2011. The National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (NISTS) has worked with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) on two major efforts to focus on transfer student rates and success. In February 2008, the THECB and the University of Texas System co-sponsored the Presidents and Chancellors Transfer Summit in Austin, Texas. About 150 high-ranking campus officials were in attendance. The purpose of the summit was a facilitated discussion of transfer issues and barriers as perceived by campus leaders. NISTS, in support of the summit, conducted two statewide surveys before the meetings, compiled a binder of reading materials for each participant, and wrote the final report for the summit (THECB, 2008). One clear recommendation that emerged from the summit was the need for more transfer knowledge and issue awareness to permeate awareness below the presidential level, and particularly among campus student service providers. NISTS proposed to the THECB the creation of a statewide conference on transfer students, and a contract was let through a competitive bid process. The May 2009 Texas Transfer Conference drew 1,000 participants to eight sites across the state. The conference featured some simultaneous video content, but otherwise focused on transfer issues, information sources, and best practices unique to Texas and the regional areas of the eight meeting sites. The research of this testimony, by NISTS personnel, faculty, and graduate students at the University of North Texas, was sponsored by a research grant from

the TG Public Benefit Program, under an annual call for research proposals, with preference given to proposals that aim to serve the needs of first-generation college students or students who are from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in undergraduate and graduate education (Texas Guaranteed, n.d.). Research Method The research design relied heavily on qualitative inquiry with some quantitative examination of supportive data from existing institutional records. Site visits, 1-2 days each during the Spring semester of 2010, involved interviews with 4-7 administrators and 2 transfer student focus groups per campus. A graduate course on qualitative inquiry built around the project was a source of trained site investigators. Fourteen institutions were originally targeted for study, seven four-year institutions and seven two-year institutions. Four-year institutions were chosen based on a combination of: 1) the size of their transfer enrollment (institutions enrolling the highest number of community college transfer students), 2) location within different state regions (regional diversity), and 3) inclusion of each of the six Texas state higher education systems. Based on 2008 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) enrollment data, the primary criteria for choosing the community colleges was the overall number of transfer students enrolling in the selected universities such that community colleges sending the largest number, or among the largest number of transfer students to each of the selected universities were chosen. In the end, one two-year institution chose not to participate, resulting in a total of 13 institutional site visits. These included six public universities and six community colleges.

In order to explore how campus administrators, at multiple levels, perceive and enact transfer policies, a purposeful sample of interviews was conducted with a cross-section of 4-7 administrators at each campus for a total of 67 individual interviews and five small focus group interviews. The final report of the 2008 Texas Transfer Summit reveals that senior-level administrators are acutely aware of transfer policies and their institutional implications. The selection of interview participants included senior-level administrators who are involved in transfer policy and/or implementation at either the institutional or the student level and mid-level administrators responsible for directing and/or implementing departmental activities serving transfer students. Targeted departments included, but were not limited to, academic advising, admissions, financial aid, and the registrar. Student experience in the transfer process can tell us a great deal about how policy is enacted through institutional practices. It is a difficult undertaking to determine which students should be included in such a study. Previous studies have used a variety of criteria (Driscoll, 2007; Engle, Bereo &and OBrien, 2006; Horn & Lew, 2007; Roska, forthcoming). For our study we include only students who indicated that they intended to transfer either on their application, or by indicating intent to transfer as part of academic advising. Moreover, research has repeatedly shown that economic disadvantage is a persistent barrier to transfer (e.g., Horn & Lew, 2007). Additionally, we know that students who attend college full time rather than part time are more likely to transfer (e.g., Driscoll, 2007; Cohen & Brawer, 1996 ). Finally, we have very limited knowledge of the experience of students who indicated intent to transfer but did not do so. Given these factors, two student focus groups were conducted at each if the sites. Each focus group lasted 90 minutes. The size of focus groups varied

between 4-15 students, with an average of 10 participants. Twelve student focus groups were conducted at six university sites, (125 participants), and 12 student focus groups were conducted at six community college sites (128 participants). We enlisted the help of the community college counseling office and the university enrollment management and student affairs divisions to identify students to participate in focus groups. All had indicated a personal intention to transfer, and most had actively engaged the process. The individual campus research team consisted typically of one senior researcher, and one graduate student researcher. The senior researcher was responsible primarily for the administrative interviews, while the graduate students conducted the focus groups. In each case, the hope was of enhancing dialogue and openness by enhancing the peer relationship aspects of such assignments. Common, basic interview protocols were used across all campuses, with ample opportunity for improvisation and conversation. Typically, student focus groups tended to hew more closely to the interview questions, while administrative interviews tended toward less structure, even while care was given to covering the "basic" questions. This likely reflects greater knowledge of specific issues on the part of administrators, and their ability to reflect on experiences other than their own. All interviews and focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcripts of the administrator interviews were reviewed by the project investigators, and an initial set of codes developed for six specific transfer policies. Two graduate students then went through transcripts and pulled out quotes based on the list of codes. From these, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore how administrators in universities and community colleges perceived and enacted transfer policies, unintended consequences of these policies, and suggestions for

improving transfer policies and practice. Administrator interviews tended toward more direct commentary on specific laws and policies, while student input reflected more indirectly on those laws and policies, in the form of recurrent, multi-site experiences of frustration or facilitation in the contexts of the practices related to policies and laws. Student focus group data was analyzed as part of the special TG project research course. After an initial, independent review by each graduate student, two teams of field researchers then coded each transcript at a descriptive level of analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Next, the teams came together to discuss the initial coding schema and arrived at consensus on a set of descriptive codes. Codes were revised and continued to develop as data was received. Findings The research findings have been reported out in various forums along two major themes: reflections on the student experience at the institutional level, mostly with implications for institutional action to improved transfer rates and success and to cut time to degrees; and reflections that have potential implications for state law and policy modifications. Dr. Amy Fann of the research team has been working with graduate students, those that conducted the focus group portion of the field research, to develop the former particularly. Those findings are not the subject of this paper, but it is worthy to note that the student focus group findings were organized into five main sections: 1) Student experiences with transfer policies; 2) Students perceptions of transfer advising; 3) Helping students build transfer capital; 4) Using Websites to navigate transfer; and 5) Additional insights. While not negating the importance of student feedback, this testimony instead concentrates on findings related to administrator feedback that have state law and policy implications. Feedback related to specific state policies will be

addressed first, with additional insights to follow. The authors also wish to note that while some findings reflect only on the university or community college sector and their implementation of state law, it is not their belief or their intention to make an argument that one sector or the other is more to blame for transfer difficulties. These are largely systemic issues, reflected not at one or two locations, but more generally as the given across the state, institutions, and governance systems. Policy: Texas Common Corse Numbering System (TCCNS) The Texas Common Course Numbering System is a voluntary, cooperative effort among Texas community colleges and universities to facilitate transfer of lower level undergraduate courses. By providing a common number for courses that have been identified as equivalent by the college or university that offers the course, courses can be more efficiently transferred between two participating TCCNS institutions. The common numbering applies only to academic and degree program courses and does not apply to workforce and technical degree programs. Students and academic advisors have access to a fully searchable resource that includes common course numbering for the 110 Texas postsecondary institutions that participate in TCCNS (TCCNS, 2012). Virtually every participant mentioned the Common Course Numbering System has been highly useful for articulating course credit between institutions, helped streamline transcript evaluation procedures, and benefited students by helping to maximize the number of community college credits they can transfer to the university. Students who have knowledge of the TCCNS, and know which institution (s) they are interested in transferring to, can use the electronic system to

10

plan ahead and check if their intended courses will transfer to the university. From the university perspective, an additional benefit of TCCNS is the increased potential for recruiting transfer students from outside of the region, beyond the local sending community colleges. Although noting many positive aspects of TCCNS, about two-thirds of the participants also described several of the Systems limitations, which include the fact that TCCNS is a voluntary system, not all universities have chosen to participate, and universities have final discretion in assigning course equivalencies. This makes it more convenient and easier for senior institutions to evaluate transcripts, but more difficult for transferring students and those who advise them to know how community college courses will interface with university curricula. One example is a large university that simply reverses the numbering of microand macro-economics courses. This regularly results in community college students enrolling in the course that they have completed at the community college, rather than in the one that they have not. Since transcripts are not evaluated for transfer credit in some cases before the term begins, the student finds out too late perhaps even weeks into the classthat the course is a repetition and will not advance degree aspirations. Keeping courses in the system up to date is a perpetual challenge, especially with myriad, and often changing, departmental course and curricular changes. Participants commented on the fact the TCCNS is great when its up to date, but frequently community college advisors reported that even for universities that do participate in the TCCNS, university websites were out of date. There was consensus among participants, even among those from institutions that have not adopted TCCNS that it should be mandated for all institutions. Policy: The 6-Drop Rule

11

Beginning with the fall of 2007 academic term, the 6-Drop Rule, (S.B. 1231), was passed to limit the number of times over an undergraduate career a student can withdrawal from courses after the semesters census date. The six drops are cumulative and apply to drops incurred at both two-year and four-year institutions and at both instate and out-of-state institutions. After six drops, the student is denied permission to drop any remaining courses. The law is designed to encourage students to graduate in a more timely fashion thus limiting the amount of debt and student loans they incur. Institutions must track student withdrawals and have procedures for determining the reasonableness of the withdrawal, in some case granting permission to students to with draw from more than six courses. The policy is not intended to penalize students whose life circumstances cause them to withdraw from several courses. Administrators appreciated the idea behind the policy in regards to expediting student degree/certificate completion, but several were emphatic in their desire to see the policy changed. Particularly troubling is the fact that students enrolled in community colleges tend to drop courses at a higher rate than students enrolled in four-year institutions for a number of reasons. Thus, community college students who transfer are more likely to have already reached their 6-drop limit than native students who have been enrolled for the same number of semesters at a four-year institution. Transfer students are more likely to come up against the 6-Drop rule after having transferred to the university. The onus of tracking withdrawals falls upon institutions, and some institutions have developed student-centered practices to help students avoid running afoul of the policy, such as sending students an email at the end each

12

semester reminding them of their 6-drop status, and taking advantage of the flexibility within the policy to individually determine if a student can have a withdrawal exempted. A handful of participants shared that the policy has no teeth behind it, because institutions have discretion to administer the policy, taking maximum advantage of mitigating circumstances. Yet, one noted, institutions feel compelled to spend a lot of time administering it and some students are being penalized. In spite of the loopholes in the policy, some transfer students, many of whom were not even aware of the policy, find that it may adversely affect their GPA or degree completion. Policy: The 3-Peat Rule Effective as of 2005-2006, the 3-Peat Rule places a limit on the number of times a student may take a course and the college/university will receive reimbursement from the state. The intent of the policy is to discourage students from repeating courses, and from the state having to pay, or reimburse institutions for repeated courses. Since the institution cannot submit for reimbursement a course when the student enrolls a third time in the same, or substantially the same course, some elect to charge a higher, or out-of-state, tuition rate which allows the institution to recover some of the cost. Like the 6-Drop Rule, several administrators explained that they understood the intent of this rule, but noted that it is most likely to affect transfer students after they have transferred to the university. Echoed in the student focus-group interviews, few students seem to be aware of this policy until they receive a billing statement in the mail for extra tuition.

13

Policy: The 30 Excess Hour Rule The 30 Excess Hour Rule went into effect for first-time students in fall 2006 and is intended to provide financial incentives for institutions to facilitate expeditious degree completion. The rule refers to the amount of hours a student can take beyond the 120 credit hours typically required for most baccalaureate degrees. Students who go beyond the 30 excess hours may be charged out-of-state tuition. The rule also applies to dual credit courses; but does not apply to remedial and developmental courses (within 27 hours), special topics and seminar courses, independent study, or continuing education courses repeated to retain professional certification. Consistent with administrator perceptions of previous policies, participants were supportive of the spirit of the policy, but noted unintended consequences for transfer students. This was particularly true given that previously, at both universities and community colleges, it was permissible, advisable even, for students to explore interests by taking different types of courses. The 30 Excess Hour Rule is not only contra to the idea of course exploration but may place undue burden on transfer students who for a variety of reasons may have stopped out of school, changed their career plans and majors, started out without declaring a major and/or attended multiple institutions. Given the restrictive nature of the 30 Excess Hour Rule, some institutions have been very thoughtful about changing requirements for certain programs by reducing the number of hours so that students can take advantage of special programs without going over the 120 hour degree plan. A university Associate Provost for Undergraduate studies explained that prior to this policy, their study

14

abroad program required all students to have completed 24-30 credit hours in residence for eligibility, but transfer students typically matriculated with 60 plus credits, and as juniors, and the residency requirement meant that they would exceed 120 credit hours. They therefore reduced the number the program eligibility requirement to 12 hours, and students were allowed to apply for the program by the end of the semester. Additionally, the university had the foresight to discuss this change with transfer advisors at their feeder community college so that students would be aware of and could begin planning for study abroad during their freshman and sophomore years. Policy: Field of Study Curricula Field of Study Curricula, was developed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and states that if a student successfully completes a field of study curriculum developed by the THECB, that block of courses may be transferred to a general academic teaching institution and must be substituted for that institution's lower-division requirements for the degree program for the field of study into which the student transfers, and the student shall receive full academic credit toward the degree program for the block of courses transferred. While mentioned only intermittently by study participants, this policy has implications for transfer students. A student who transfers from one institution of higher education to another without completing the field of study curriculum of the sending institution shall receive academic credit in the field of study curriculum of the receiving institution for each of the courses that the student has successfully completed in the field of study curriculum of the sending institution. Following receipt of credit for these courses, the student may be required to satisfy the

15

remaining course requirements in the field of study curriculum of the receiving institution, or to complete additional requirements in the receiving institution's program, as long as those requirements do not duplicate course content already completed through the field of study curriculum. Policy: Credit Transfer for Associate Degree On June 17, 2011, the Texas legislature enacted House Bill 3025, Credit Transfer for Associate Degree, which addresses timely degree completion for students in public higher education through the reverse awarding of associates degrees. Specifically, students who successfully complete at least 30 credit hours from a state two-year institution; then transfer to a four-year institution and subsequently earn a cumulative total of at least 90 credit hours; are given the opportunity to earn an associate degree. The process of doing so requires the university to notify and request permission from the students to release their transcripts to their previous two-year institution, which then conducts a degree audit and awards degrees to those meeting the credit requirements. Ideally, this legislation will produce more credentialed individuals and provide students an important milestone in their academic journeys. Additionally, two-year institutions will be able to count these students in their graduation rates and universities will be filled with successful students who will potentially persist to their baccalaureate degrees. Several of the participating institutions were engaged in the reverse awarding of associates degrees prior to the legislative mandate. The researchers anticipate this policy will support transfer student degree attainment and success, but caution that without adequate resource

16

allocation toward establishing the infrastructure necessary to implement the policy, its impact will be greatly diminished. Additional Insight: Transfer Course Applicability to Degree Programs Noted nearly universally by administrative participants, and echoed in the transfer student focus group interviews, was not the transferability of courses, but the applicability of those courses to students major, especially within certain fields of study such as those in the hard sciences or music. Many students who transfer having completed the 40-42 hour core block of general education courses, or who have completed an associates degree may get transfer credit for all of their courses, but find that some of the courses will not count directly for requirements in their major field of study. When this happens, students have to take additional courses, or may have to repeat courses. Since the TCCNS is not required of all universities, ultimately, this is a course articulation issue between institutions, but with implications for existing policies such as the 30 Hour Excess Rule. In certain fields of study, such as engineering, business or music; and applied courses students find that fewer of their courses count towards their major. Several participants at both community colleges and universities discussed that a major impediment to course applicability in the field of study are strongly held perceptions at the university level that community college courses are not as rigorous or rich in content. The applicability of transfer courses to students major is also very much an academic advising issue. Administrators at community colleges, and even at some universities, expressed frustration with the unpredictability of the course evaluation and credit granting process, the lateness of the evaluation relative to admission and enrollment, and beliefs that denials were often based in untested, unproven disregard for the quality or equivalency of community college credits. Community colleges also expressed frustration with

17

the irregular willingness of university faculty to enter into curricular structure alignment to enhance future transfer patterns. On a positive note, a few participants described how they have designed programs, policies and/or created articulation agreements in certain fields to maximize the acceptance of applied course credit, a trend we will very likely see increasing in the near future given the push for baccalaureate attainment and polices such as the 30 Excess Hour Rule. Additional Insight: There appears to be little incentive for Texas community colleges to shape student course taking for most efficient transferability of credits to bachelor degree programs. Community colleges are financially incentivized in two primary ways: enrollments numbers, and degree completions. Indeed, there is a perception among community colleges that the Texas core course policyunder which a common set of general education courses are guaranteed for acceptance at universities, but major-applicable courses are completely within the discretion of receiving institutionsundermines degree completion at the community college. Students with high transfer intention tend to leave when they know that they have exhausted the quota of courses that are guaranteed transfer. There is not any feature of funding formulas that reward community college for the kinds of advising that would result in highest articulation of credits between institutions. Not only is this kind of counseling thought to be cost and personnel intensive, but community colleges that deal with multiple senior institutions of interest encounter inconsistencies that make the work all the more complex. Additional Insight: Texas universities generally believe that they should receive more credit for bachelor degree completions by students who were not first-year, first-time students at the universities.

18

Financial rewards are made to colleges for enrollment in Texas, and students classified as juniors and seniors make institutions eligible for more state subsidy. But the financial rewards attached to actual graduation are restricted to students who began their studies at the university. Universities, which often provide 75% or so of the credit toward the degree, believe that they should be more rewarded financially for that accomplishment. The issue is particularly acute for a few universities that actually enroll more transfer students each year than first-year, first-time students. Additional Insight: The lack of a consistent Texas transcript format, and a lack of transparency of student records across institutions, inhibits the abilities of institutions to track student progress across institutions toward a degree, and to make timely evaluations of transfer credit. It is more common than not for students to receive final decisions on transfer credits after they are accepted and enrolled, than it is to have that information to help make application and institutional selection decisions. This also inhibits the ability of students to factor credit acceptance into institutional choice. Additional Insight: Student Experiences with Transfer Policies Students were asked general questions about their goals and aspirations, college choices, and where they received information about the transfer process. We did not ask direct questions about specific policies because the research team felt that students would not be likely to discuss policies by name. Nonetheless, some students did speak directly to several transfer policies, including the 30excess hour rule, Texas Common Core Numbering System (TCCNS), and 6-drop rule. As expected, it was university transfer students who spoke of the 30 excess hour rule, and in most cases where mentioned, students indicated that they were not aware of this policy until they had met with an advisor at the university level or

19

until they been billed for out-of-state tuition. The TCCNS was cited as difficult to navigate and often discovered independently by the student. From interviews with university administrators we learned that students are more likely to encounter the 6-drop rule after they transfer, and although institutions are allowed leeway in determining criteria for allowing students to drop more than 6 courses, not all institutions implement the policy in the same way, or in ways that tend to favor a wide variety of student life circumstances. One student shared that she had learned about the 6-drop rule after having to drop a semesters worth of classes due to family circumstances. In addition, a student who is not aware of or advised about options for petition of this policy may choose to remain in a class or classes to the determent of his/her GPA; which may have other implications for competitive scholarships, fellowships or other future opportunities such as application to graduate school. Conclusion The authors believe that they are identifying areas within the greater transfer process that may be appropriate for further examination by policy makers. However, they have been reluctant to make extensive and specific suggestions as to what changes might be in order and under what state authority. Research can help us discover what is. It cannot tell us what should be done, as this is a matter of values and countervailing interests. The end of the six-drop rule, for example, may increase student success but has some cost implications for the state. State law and policy informed by how existing rules play out in practice, however, is an important step toward crafting law and policy that can accomplish the ends that regulators value. The authors also believe that this study constitutes a model for similar investigation of transfer and other higher education policies in statewide contexts.

20

Marc Cutright, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Higher Education and Research and Grants Director for the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students, The University of North Texas, Denton, Texas. Telephone: 940.369.7875. E-mail: Marc.Cutright@unt.edu. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not intended to reflect the views of The University of North Texas.

21

References Anderson, G.M., Alfonso, M., & Sun, J.C. (2006). Rethinking cooling out at public community colleges: An examination of fiscal and demographic trends in higher education and the rise of statewide articulation agreements. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 422-451. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Driscoll, A. (2007, August). Beyond access: How the first semester matters for community college students aspirations and persistence (Report No. 07-2). Davis, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. (ERIC No. ED498154). Engle, Bereo & OBrien (2006). Straight from the source: What works for first generation college students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Retrieved from :http://www.pellinstitute.org/files/files-sfts_what_works.pdf Gross, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Community college transfer and articulation policies. Center on Reinventing Public Education, Working Paper #2009_1. Bothell, WA: University of Washington. Horn, L., & Lew, S. (2007). California community college transfer rates: Who is counted makes a difference. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates. Roska, J., & Keith, B. (2008). Credits, time, and attainment: Articulation policies and success after transfer. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 236-254. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2008). Texas Transfer Summit: Report and recommendations. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Events/TransferSuccessSummit/Report.pdf. Retrieved February 27, 2009.

22

Texas Guaranteed (n.d.) TG public benefit grant program. Retrieved from http://www.tgslc.org/publicbenefit/index.cfm Wellman, J.V. (2002). State policy and community college-baccalaureate transfer. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Report #02-6.

23

Personal Profile Marc Cutright, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at The University of North Texas, where he has served on the faculty since 2007. Additionally at UNT, he serves as Research and Grants Director of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students (NISTS), and as Director for the Center for Higher Education. The latter entity sponsors the annual UNT Texas Higher Education Law Conference, the proceeds of which create scholarships for students in the graduate programs in Higher Education at UNT. Dr. Cutrights prior positions have included service on the faculty of Ohio University, as a research associate with the Policy Center on the First Year of College, and as communications director with the Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University. In addition to his research and publication interests on student transitions in higher education, he has been engaged in efforts to expand participation in higher education and enhance its quality in the developing world, particularly East Africa.