meeting compliance, missing the mark: full report from the campaign for college opportunity,...

8/13/2019 Meeting Compliance, Missing the Mark: Full Report from The Campaign for College Opportunity, November, 2012

1/16

A progress report on the implementation of historic transfer reform for students fromcommunity colleges to the California State University via Senate Bill 1440

November 2012

Meeting Compliance, bu Missing the Mark

FULL REPORT

C O M P L I A N C E

T r a n s f

e r

R e f o r m


2/162

Mee ng Compliance, but Missing the Mark November 2012

Introduction

Despite being a key tenet of the states 1960Master Plan, the transfer mission has not worked asintended. Only the savviest of students were able tonavigate the community college system in order to

transfer to a four-year university, most of whom s lldid so without having earned an associate degreeat the community college.

In 2010, the Campaign for College Opportunity,along with the California Community CollegesChancellors O ce, the California State University(CSU), the Student Senate for California CommunityColleges, and the California State StudentAssocia on, established a remedy for the troubledtransfer func on: Senate Bill 1440 (Padilla), theStudent Transfer Achievement Reform (STAR) Act.

For the rst me in the states history, this pioneeringlegisla on required the California CommunityColleges (CCC) to develop a pathway that alignedassociate degree and transfer courseworkrequirements, resul ng in an Associate Degreefor Transfer. Furthermore, the legisla on requiredthat the CSU campuses be similarly prepared toreceive the community college Associate Degreefor Transfer graduates.

As originators and a sponsor of SB 1440,the Campaign for College Opportunityintended for this historic legisla onto create a clear, statewide preferredtransfer pathway for students. As the

CCC and CSU systems make progresstowards implementa on, the Campaignis advoca ng that this become the

primary way that community collegestudents transfer to CSU.

Two years later, have the CCC and CSU systemsachieved robust transfer reform? In this report,the Campaign for College Opportunity conductsa data review to measure implementa on atindividual community colleges and CaliforniaState University campuses in order to presentprogress on implementa on, and to iden fy thelevel of campus compliance and the reasons for

progress or a lack thereof. This report also issuesrecommenda ons so that the historic legisla oncan ful ll its promise to California students, achievenecessary transparency and e ec veness withinthe colleges, and move students more e ec velythrough college and into the workforce.

This report demonstrates that, whiletremendous progress in facilita ng thisdrama c, statewide transfer reformhas been led at the system-wide level,the same momentum and e ort hasnot been replicated at all the individualcolleges and universi es.

For decades, community college students across California have faced signi cantbarriers to transfer. Inconsistent, duplica ve, and ever-changing courseworkrequirements frustrated and discouraged students, added expense to both

the student and the state, and contributed to an unacceptably low transfer rate of23% within six years for degree-seeking students in California. 1

1 Moore, Colleen, Nancy Shulock. 2010. Divided We Fail: Improving Comple on and Closing Racial Gaps in CaliforniasCommunity Colleges (October). Sacramento: The Ins tute for Higher Educa on Leadership & Policy. Available at: h p://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Div_We_Fail_1010.pdf.


3/163


In May 2012, the Legisla ve Analysts O ce (LAO),the nonpar san en ty that provides scal and policyanalysis to the California State Legislature, publishedReforming the States Transfer Process: A ProgressReport on Senate Bill 1440 as a requirement detailedin SB 1440. Along with the subsequent assessmentto be published by the LAO in 2015, the reportprovides recommenda ons for the Legislature toimprove SB 1440 compliance through statute. Thisprogress report is intended to compliment the LAOreports by delivering a closer inspec on on theperformance of individual colleges and universi es,as well as providing recommenda ons designedfor policymakers, system heads, and local campusleaders to administer.

BACKGROUND:PATHWAYS TO TRANSFER A higher educa on has substan al implica ons forstudents in the form of increased life me earningpoten al, as well as a reduced chance of incarcera onor experiencing poverty. The bene ts even apply tostudents who do not complete a bachelors degree;transfer students intending to go on to a four-year university may not ful ll their baccalaureaterequirements due to unforeseen circumstances, andthe students who obtain an associate degree along

the way have something to show for their years ofcollege educa on.

Before the passage of SB 1440, each of the112 community colleges established their ownrequirements to obtain an associate degree.Curriculum for degree requirements was ever-changing and not developed to align with transferpathways to the four-year universi es, which werecon ngent on separate agreements. Students couldface two sets of degree requirements in order tograduate with an associate degree and transferful llment.

Before SB 1440, transfer worked best if a newcommunity college student knew that they wantedto transfer and exactly which university they would

be transferring to. Without that level of certainty,students would take extra courses to ensure theycould be eligible at mul ple campuses and, o enmes, would not earn an associate degree in spiteof earning more than the 60 units required fortransfer or for degree comple on. Students weretransferring with an average of 80 units, or 20 morethan necessary. Upon arrival at a CSU, despite theire orts to adequately prepare, students might s llnd that they needed to complete addi onal lower-division coursework or repeat classes that were notaccepted at the CSU. At a me when courses are


4/164


in high-demand, with students dealing with longwaitlists, and as fees and tui on con nue to rise,this scenario is not only a signi cant cost in termsof me and money for the student, but also for thestate.

SB 1440 sought to reform this long-standing prac ceand establish a consistent associate degree andtransfer pathway that avoids duplica ve courseworkrequirements between the CCC and the CSU. SB1440 requires the CCC to create an Associate Degreefor Transfer program and the CSU to accept thestudents on this transfer pathway. SB 1440 requiredthe CCC and CSU systems to coordinate their e ortsat the statewide level.

SB 1440 also established a guarantee that students

who earn an Associate Degree for Transfer areadmi ed to the CSU with junior-standing. Junior-standing at the CSU is necessary to enroll in someupper-division coursework and to receive certaingradua on-tailored services, such as degree auditsand gradua on checks. Most importantly, it preventsstudents from transferring in and nding they havemore than two years of coursework le to completein order to earn a bachelors degree.

SB 1440 also prevents CCC from requiring addi onalcoursework for the comple on of an associatedegree (60 semester units, or equivalent to twoyears of full- me study) and the CSU from requiringaddi onal coursework beyond 120 semester unitsor 180 quarter units for all but a few high unitbachelors degree majors.

Students bene t from this simpli ed transferpathway as they are provided with clear expecta onsand realis c metables for pursuing their post-secondary educa on, thus shortening their me togradua on and reducing the total cost of degree

comple on. For the state, streamlining the transferprocess also has well-de ned advantages: it allowsthe CCC to serve 40,000 addi onal students and theCSU to educate 13,000 more students, an e ciencysavings of approximately $160 million annually.These savings are achieved because students on astreamlined transfer pathway are much less likelyto take unnecessary and duplica ve coursework oroccupy a seat that could be op mized by anotherstudent.

FIRST STEPS SB 1440 was signed into law in September 2010by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. However,securing a major transfer reform victory was only

the rst step in simplifying the transfer pathway. Inorder to carry out this ambi ous student-centeredlegisla on, CCC and CSU system leaders developeda statewide SB 1440 Implementa on & OversightCommi ee (IOC). The Commi ee is composed ofa diverse group of CSU and CCC representa vesincluding faculty, campus presidents, student serviceadministrators and, most importantly, students.

The most signi cant accomplishment of the IOChas been the development of the Transfer ModelCurricula (TMC). TMCs provide a uniform framework

of courses required for an Associate Degree forTransfer in a speci c major. The IOC has iden ed25 TMC majors, consis ng of the most commonlytransferred majors and which capture approximately79% of the CCC-to-CSU student transfer popula on.

Once a TMC is nalized by the IOC IntersegmentalCurriculum Workgroup, each CCC campus takes thisframework and develops a TMC-aligned AssociateDegree for Transfer. Simultaneously, the CSUworks to accept the TMC as similar to degrees attheir campuses based on an evalua on of degreerequirements, e ec vely establishing a clearpathway for SB 1440 students to transfer directlyfrom a CCC to a CSU.

Both the CCC and CSU systems, along with theAcademic Senate and other key stakeholders, havedone a tremendous job in facilita ng the crea onof the Associate Degree for Transfer program. Thecommitment of the CSU Board of Trustees to theAssociate Degree for Transfer pathway was mostvividly illustrated when, in March 2012, the CSU

announced that as a dras c cost-savings measure,enrollment for spring 2013 would be closed, withthe excep on of ten campuses that would onlyaccept SB 1440 students.

As much as system heads and others have embracedand advanced the development of this new transferpathway, the actual rollout of transfer degreeprograms at speci c community colleges and CSUcampuses has not been widespread.


5/165


Progress to Date & Analysis

The primary measurement of CCC implementa onis the number of Associate Degrees for Transfer that

have been developed or are currently in progressat each individual campus based on the ini al 18Transfer Model Curricula developed at the statelevel and in place as of February 22, 2012.

While 24 TMCs have now been nalized, theanalysis for this report has been restricted to theini al 18 because it is es mated that associatedegree development can take between 5-9 monthson average, and campuses have had much less meto respond to the six newer TMCs. The 18 ini alTMCs include the following majors:

Because CSU implementa on is based, most o en,on exis ng degree o erings and does not require as

much me, analysis includes two addi onal majors:Geography and Journalism. The deadline given bythe CSU Chancellors O ce by which colleges mustrespond to a nalized TMC has passed for each ofthese ini al 20 TMCs.

In order to evaluate progress made towards this preferred transfer pathway bythe individual ins tu ons, this report analyzes campus-level data provided byeach system. 1 The resul ng analysis is intended to provide stakeholders, such as

statewide and local governing board members, administrators, faculty, policymakers,and students, with a clear snapshot of the level of progress individual communitycolleges and CSUs across the state have made in implemen ng SB 1440.

1 The data used for this report was provided by the Chancellors O ces for California Community Colleges and the CSU andrepresents progress made as of October 26, 2012. The most up-to-date informa on regarding Associate Degrees for Transfer canbe found at h p://www.sb1440.org/Counseling.aspx under Available Degree Pathways at the bo om of the page.

1. Administra on ofJus ce

2. Art History3. Business Administra on4. Communica on Studies5. Early Childhood

Educa on

6. Elementary TeacherEduca on

7. English8. Geology9. History10. Kinesiology11. Mathema cs

12. Music13. Physics14. Poli cal Science15. Psychology16. Sociology17. Studio Arts18. Theatre Arts


6/166


California Community Colleges

The California Community Colleges ChancellorsO ce has set a goal of developing Associate Degreesfor Transfer for 80%, or 20, of the top 25 TMCs byDecember 31, 2013, and all TMCs by December 31,2014. Not all CCC campuses o er all TMC majors.

While there is data available to determine how manydegrees have been developed or are in progress ateach campus, it cannot be easily determined howmany of the TMC majors are currently o ered oneach campus, as the system does not maintain acentralized list.

An analysis of the data shows that:

Thus far, 501 TMC-aligned Associate Degreesfor Transfer have been developed, and another108 are in progress, among the 112 communitycollege campuses statewide.

Overall, the average community college hasnalized or is in the process of developing veAssociate Degrees for Transfer.

18 of the 112 colleges in the CCC system areleading historic transfer reform implementa on,having developed between nine and 18

TMC-aligned Associate Degrees for Transfer.

An addi onal 45 colleges have developed lessthan 9, but more than 4, Associate Degrees forTransfer.

49 community colleges have only developed 2-4Associate Degrees for Transfer.

The number of degrees that each community collegewas to develop was not explicitly stated within thelaw in an a empt to allow colleges some exibility.But, disappoin ngly, 18 community colleges havesa s ed SB 1440 with the bare-minimum complianceof two degrees in a narrow interpreta on of the lawin which the word degrees is pluralized.

In stark contrast, Fullerton College hasadopted all 18 ini al TMC pathways, andCitrus and Pasadena City colleges o er13, making them the strongest leadersacross the community college system.These campuses provide students with amyriad of op ons and opportuni es fortransfer.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE


7/167


College # of Degrees College # of Degrees College # of Degrees

Alameda, College of 2 Golden West 12 Porterville 5

Allan Hancock 5 Grossmont 3 Redwoods, College of the 4

American River 12 Hartnell 5 Reedley 7Antelope Valley 2 Imperial Valley 9 Rio Hondo 5

Bakers eld 4 Irvine Valley 6 Riverside City 6

Barstow 2 Lake Tahoe Community 5 Sacramento City 6

Berkeley City 6 Laney 3 Saddleback 4

Bu e 5 Las Positas 5 San Bernardino Valley 2

Cabrillo 6 Lassen 8 San Diego City 6

Caada 8 Long Beach City 10 San Diego Mesa 2

Canyons, College of the 5 Los Angeles City 4 San Diego Miramar 5

Cerritos 10 Los Angeles Harbor 3 San Francisco, City College of 3

Cerro Coso Community 3 Los Angeles Mission 3 San Joaquin Delta 9Chabot 6 Los Angeles Pierce 3 San Jose City 2

Cha ey 11 Los Angeles Southwest 2 San Mateo, College of 11

Citrus 13 Los Angeles Trade/Tech 2 Santa Ana 4

Coastline Community 5 Los Angeles Valley 3 Santa Barbara City 8

Columbia 2 Los Medanos 6 Santa Monica 6

Contra Costa 4 Marin, College of 5 Santa Rosa Junior 7

Copper Mountain 2 Mendocino 8 San ago Canyon 7

Cosumnes 5 Merced 5 Sequoias, College of the 3

Cra on Hills 10 Merri 3 Shasta 4

Cuesta 3 MiraCosta 2 Sierra 10

Cuyamaca 4 Mission 10 Siskiyous, College of the 8

Cypress 5 Modesto Junior 6 Skyline 7

DeAnza 4 Monterey Peninsula 3 Solano 3

Desert, College of the 9 Moorpark 11 Southwestern 2

Diablo Valley 5 Moreno Valley 3 Ta 7

East Los Angeles 5 Mt. San Antonio 6 Ventura 11

El Camino 9 Mt. San Jacinto 2 Victor Valley 7

Evergreen Valley 4 Napa Valley 5 West Hills Coalinga 2

Feather River 2 Norco 3 West Hills Lemoore 4Folsom Lake 6 Ohlone 4 West Los Angeles 3

Foothill 2 Orange Coast 6 West Valley 7

Fresno City 5 Oxnard 3 Woodland Community 4

Fullerton 18 Palo Verde 2 Yuba 2

Gavilan 7 Palomar 3

Glendale Community 4 Pasadena City 13 High-performing college

Minimum compliance college

Associate Degree for Transfer Progress for California Community Colleges 1

1 Count includes Associate Degrees for Transfer that have been developed or are in progress at each campus.


8/168


California State University

Analysis for CSU implementa on progress is basedon three criteria that concentrate on measuring howmany TMC major pathways each campus o ers SB1440 students. In order for SB 1440 to become thepreferred transfer pathway for CCC students, eachCSU campus needs to accept all of the TMC majorsas a transfer pathway and provide the most op ons(also known as concentra ons, specializa ons, ortracks) as possible to students that are intending totransfer into a desired program of study.

The importance of this depth of access directlycorrelates with how many major op ons areavailable to SB 1440 transfer students, and if thesestudents will have all of the major pathways open tothem as they are for na ve CSU students.

For example, as an SB 1440 student considerstransferring to con nue their post-secondaryeduca on in Business Administra on at a CSUcampus, all the degree op ons, such as Accoun ngor Marke ng, should be available as a concentra onfor their bachelors degree. If Accoun ng as a degreeop on is not available for an SB 1440 transfer student,that would mean that the transferring student doesnot have the same academic bene ts as a studentwho started on the campus as a freshman. In orderfor the ins tu on to provide a degree op on, theindividual campus assesses the TMCs similarity,a process whereby the course requirements underone of the completed TMCs is determined to besu cient prepara on for entrance as a junior into aCSU program of study.

The three criteria are as follows:

1. The acceptance of TMCs as similar, or thatat least one of the degree op ons within aTMC major currently o ered by the individual

campus is open to SB 1440 transfer students,represented by a percentage and ra o number;

2. The number of degree op ons within theTMC majors that have been deemed similar ascompared to the total number of degree op onsavailable within those programs, representedby a percentage and absolute number; and,

3. The number of degree op ons that wouldneed to be declared similar in order to have full

implementa on of the ini al 20 TMCs includedin this analysis. This gure represents thenumber of degree op ons that exist in programsfor which TMCs have yet to be accepted(excluded from the rst two criterion) and thenumber of degree op ons that have not beendeclared similar within TMC majors for which

some, but not all, degree op ons have beendeclared similar at the CSU.

An analysis of the data shows that:

Only 4 of the 23 CSU campuses have approved100% of the TMC majors o ered as similar. Only2 campuses have deemed less than 80% of TMCmajors as similar.

San Bernardino and San Luis Obispo are farbehind with less than 70% of the TMC major

pathways deemed similar.

Only 10 of the 23 campuses have deemedmore than 80% of the op ons within thoseTMC majors as similar. Consequently, studentswishing to transfer into the other 13 campusesin the system have fewer op ons available tothem as CSU students who started as freshmen.

Some campuses have not yet approved 100% of theTMC majors as similar, but s ll have high rates ofop on similarity, such as CSU Monterey Bay, where

nearly all the 15 TMC major pathways o ered atthis campus are deemed similar, and all 22 op onswithin these majors are available to SB 1440transfer students. It is also important to note theabsolute number of TMC major pathways adopted:Mari me, for example, achieves 100% in thepercentage of TMC major pathways deemed similarbecause of the fact that it o ers only one of the 20ini al TMC majors as a bachelors degree (BusinessAdministra on).

Sacramento, San Bernardino, and San Diegoare failing on nearly all measures of SB 1440implementa on. This group is made up of the onlycampuses where the possible addi onal degreepathways outnumber the current degree op ono erings available to SB 1440 students. Thesecampuses have a responsibility to open more degreepathways for SB 1440 transfer students; otherwise,these universi es are e ec vely closing the door onthousands of students who are op ng for this clear,statewide preferred transfer pathway.


9/169


SB 1440 Implementa on Progress for California State Universi es

CSU Campus

Percent/ra o 1 of

TMC major pathwaysdeemed similar

Percent/number ofdegree op ons within

similar TMC majors

open to SB 1440transfer students

Number of addi onalpathways that could

be made available with

full implementa on ofini al 20 TMCs 2

Percent Ra o Percent Number

Monterey Bay 87% 13/15 100% 22 0Mari me 100% 1/1 50% 1 1Sonoma 94% 17/18 91% 30 3Bakers eld 94% 17/18 95% 41 4Channel Islands 86% 12/14 92% 22 4Chico 95% 19/20 93% 37 5

San Marcos 81% 13/16 92% 22 7Long Beach 100% 20/20 80% 70 9Stanislaus 100% 18/18 86% 36 11San Francisco 90% 18/20 95% 36 12San Luis Obispo 67% 12/18 83% 29 13Humboldt 95% 19/20 72% 33 14Northridge 95% 18/19 70% 35 16Fullerton 95% 19/20 64% 28 17Pomona 76% 13/17 71% 24 17Fresno 89% 17/19 60% 29 21San Jose 95% 19/20 57% 25 21Dominguez Hills 80% 16/20 68% 44 23Los Angeles 95% 19/20 66% 45 24East Bay 100% 20/20 62% 26 28Sacramento 90% 18/20 61% 35 37San Bernardino 67% 12/18 56% 25 41San Diego 89% 17/19 41% 19 42

High-performing measureLow-performing measure

1 The ra o provided in this column is the number of TMC major pathways declared similar as compared to the number of TMCmajors o ered at each campus. Not all CSU campuses o er all TMC majors.2 This measure demonstrates how many addi onal degree op ons need to be declared similar at each campus so that each of thetwo preceding columns would equal 100%. NOTE: There are a handful of campuses, including Monterey Bay, for which TMC majorshave not been declared similar because all degree op ons within that major currently have a high-unit count.


10/1610


REASONS BEHIND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGESCommunity college and CSU leaders were

interviewed to discuss the progress made bycampuses described in this report. They shared manyreasons for why some colleges had aggressivelyimplemented mul ple pathways and why otherso ered very few across the two systems.

Rigid TMC Requirements. Some individualcampuses faced roadblocks in the development oracceptance of Associate Degrees for Transfer due tothe structural requirements of the pathway. SB 1440does not allow a community college to exceed 60units for the requirements of an Associate Degreefor Transfer and comple on of the transfer program.One interviewee noted that most of the semestercourses o ered at community colleges count for 4units. However, some campuses provide specializedclasses, such as those within the math or earlychildhood development disciplines, which count for5 units, pushing the coursework requirements above60 units and thereby discouraging the developmentof an Associate Degree for Transfer in that TMC.

Addi onally, there are some mes complica ons

in coun ng prerequisite coursework for the TMCrequired courses. For example, students may berequired to take a calculus course before enrollingin business administra on coursework. Prerequisitecourses that generally cannot be tested out of willcount towards the 60 units that are required for anAssociate Degree for Transfer, presen ng a challengefor faculty and administrators with the crea on ofthe degree for their campus.

CSU campuses face a similar issue in naviga ngthe post-transfer 60 unit cap due to major-speci crequirements for conference of a bachelors degreewhen determining a TMC major or its degreeop ons for similarity. There is currently no uniformguideline from either systems Chancellors O ce orstatewide Academic Senates, or the IOC on how toaddress these requirements.

Budget cuts. Challenges with implementa on werealso associated with fewer resources. Due to budgetcuts at the community colleges, adjunct faculty

members are currently teaching some of the TMCrequired courses. This has led to some campusesbeing reluctant to develop an Associate Degree forTransfer program around a TMC if the campus maynot be able to o er the course in the following years.

Interviewees at both the community colleges and theCSU also cited issues with TMCs for certain majors.A system-wide community college administratorshared that the psychology TMC has a requiredcourse that only an es mated 42% of communitycolleges o er. If a campus does not o er that speci ccourse and wants to make available an AssociateDegree for Transfer in psychology to its students,the campus would have to create a new course tosa sfy the TMC requirements, a di cult decisionat a me when many colleges are already reducingcourse availability. Therefore, the campus may feel

unable to o er an Associate Degree for Transfer inthat major.

Low mo va on. Lack of mo va on or viewingimplementa on as a low priority by campusleaders is another challenge. A sta member at onecommunity college in charge of implementa ondid not have the support of the administra on andfaculty to proceed ahead with developing AssociateDegrees for Transfer beyond the interpretedminimum requirement of two degrees.

Others at both the CCC and CSU shared that somemajor departments simply work quicker to approvecoursework and desire to implement AssociateDegree for Transfer pathways more so than otherdepartments; there are no deadlines at an individualcampus for SB 1440 implementa on, except thosethat are self-imposed.

Lack of Awareness. Lastly, the availability of theAssociate Degree for Transfer pathway is not beingcommunicated well to students in all cases. While

there is a statewide marke ng campaign led bythe two systems consis ng of a website, radioadver sements, and direct outreach to counselorsand sta through webinars and materials, messagesabout the bene ts of the Associate Degree forTransfer are s ll not being fully communicated at theindividual campuses. One reason is that the primaryfocus to date has been on se ng up the frameworkfor the degrees.


11/1611


Recommendations

However, the data shows that there remains adisparity between ins tu ons in both systems onthe number of TMC degree pathways developed.Through interviews, stakeholders who have ledthe SB 1440 implementa on process at individualcampuses provided insight into some best prac cesthat were employed, and this report compiles theseprac ces into recommenda ons that policymakers,system administrators, and campus leaders canexecute.

For Policymakers and the Legislature

Establish a meline and a higher benchmark forcompliance in statute.

As demonstrated earlier through the data analysis,nearly half of the CCCs have sa s ed SB 1440implementa on with only 4 or fewer degrees, and 18

of the 112 colleges have o ered just 2 degrees, thebare-minimum under the law. In order to encouragebroader campus par cipa on, statutory clari ca onis necessary. As part of a comprehensive plan ofac on, a meline (with enforceable penal es andincen ves) for both systems should be established.The IOC has iden ed 25 transfer degree programs,but these majors only meet the needs of 79% ofthe CCC-to-CSU transfer popula on. The deadlinefor implementa on of higher benchmarks shouldbe set for 2015, in order to align with the nal LAOreport. By se ng a standard with a clear goal, eachins tu on within both systems would con nue tohave the ability to use local approaches to achievebenchmarks.

Endorse the SB 1440 Implementa on & OversightCommi ee (IOC).

The CCC and CSU system leaders developed thestatewide SB 1440 IOC. However, since the IOC

is a voluntary body set-up by the two systems toaid in implemen ng SB 1440, there are no legalrequirements for con nued ac on to support thistransfer pathway. It is possible that momentum forthis transfer pathway will be lost without a strongcoordina ng body. The Legislature should supportthe con nued role of the voluntary commi eeoverseeing SB 1440 implementa on and considerdetailing its membership, frequency of work,authority, and goals in statute.

For System Administrators

Add TMCs in-demand by state and regionaleconomies.

The ini al focus for selec ng disciplines for TMCswere those with high volumes of transfer. Equallyimportant, but not necessarily of the same in

quan ty, are those degrees relevant to employerswith a need for skilled workers. The systems shouldexamine the use of TMCs in priority and emergingsectors, such as health, energy, life sciences,informa on and communica ons technology, etc.These pathways have employability poten al andplace importance on mee ng labor market needs.

Clarify system o ces responsibili es.

The IOC has not issued any guidelines for theCCC and CSU system o ces on responsibili es ormeasurements rela ng to SB 1440 transfer pathwayimplementa on. The role of each of the systemo ces should be to facilitate coordina on betweenins tu ons through improved communica on anddata sharing. Several interviews revealed that dueto the process of the transfer pathway adapta onat individual campuses, whereby both the CCC andCSU implement a TMC major simultaneously onceapproved by the IOC, there is li le communica on

The Campaign for College Opportunity developed SB 1440 to enact a clear,

statewide transfer pathway for Californias students that would become theprimary way community college students transfer to the CSU.


12/1612


between the systems. An example shared by oneCSU interviewee pointed to the fact that theircampus has approved degrees for which there isno CCC equivalent; without a degree program at acommunity college, the receiving transfer pathwaysare essen ally stagnant. The system o ces shouldbe willing to address this disparity by having the CCCrespond to this low-hanging fruit.

Because all SB 1440 students originate at thecommunity colleges, the CCC Chancellors O ceneeds to build the capacity of the system toproperly serve the students, par cularly throughthe increased use of data management resources.Interviews with community college sta noted thatchanges to course numbering and curriculum areprocessed only once a year, typically in the fall for

the next academic year. The implica on of this once-annual update is that when an Associate Degree forTransfer concludes the approval process, ar cula onsystems which track ar cula on agreementsand common course numbering, such as campuscatalogs, Assist.org, and C-ID, do not re ect newly-developed Associate Degrees for Transfer. A moreresponsive and mely system for communica ngnew degree o erings is needed, especially as moreand more Associate Degree for Transfer programsand pathways are implemented.

Through interviews, CSU admissions sta membershave revealed that thousands of applicantsincorrectly self-iden ed as SB 1440 studentsthrough the CSU applica on website, CSU Mentor.For the fall 2012 transfer class, over 10,000 studentsapplied as SB 1440 students, but only about 120new transfer students entered the CSU havingearned an Associate Degree for Transfer. In orderto determine if a students transfer pathway wascorrectly a ributed to SB 1440, CSU admissionssta had to spend signi cant resources and me toevaluate each of these applica ons. This could beresolved if the community colleges had the abilityto share e-transcripts (electronic versions of studenttranscripts), which could include a transfer studentscourse comple on history adapted to SB 1440transfer requirements.

In early October 2012, the CCC andCSU systems launched a new website,www.adegreewithaguarantee.com , which is

designed to serve as a comprehensive resourcefor students interested in pursuing the AssociateDegree for Transfer. CCC and CSU leaders mustcon nue to embrace the collabora on betweenthe systems and, in order to minimize issues goingforward, the IOC should outline responsibili es andmeasurements for system o ces. Furthermore, theCCC Chancellors O ce should embrace the use oftechnology services to provide improved processesfor course ar cula on that is more responsive tochanges and provide a way for the 112 colleges touse and share e-transcripts.

Reexamine the 18-unit major prep pre-transferrequirement, and consider other degree formats asa solu on.

One of the requirements for an Associate Degree forTransfer is that 18 units of the total 60 unit degreeprogram are to be within a major or area of emphasis.During the implementa on process, administratorsat the CSU have iden ed that the requirement thata student complete 18 units of major courseworkbefore transfer can be too restric ve and excessive,as most CSU bachelors degree do not require 18units of lower-division coursework in a major. Insome instances, various CSU campuses have haddi culty aligning upper-division coursework tomeet accredita on standards if a student completes18 units of subject prep in a major pre-transfer.

As a possible solu on, there can be more importanceplaced on area of emphasis programs. An area ofemphasis study allows a student to explore a broadercurriculum within an academic subject, which wouldalso bene t the receiving ins tu ons in determiningcoursework ar cula on from a less-specializeddegree program. Exis ng terminal associate degreeprograms at community colleges allow for the 18units to be taken within an area of emphasis. Thelanguage in SB 1440 allows for the crea on of anAssociate Degree for Transfer in a major or an area ofemphasis but, to date, the IOC has only recognizedmajor pathways. The intent of the transfer degreeis to o er an addi onal, robust transfer pathway tostudents; therefore, the IOC needs to o er moreexibility in TMC development to properly capturethe needs of transferring students.


13/1613


For Local Campus Leaders(Trustees, Administrators, Faculty, etc.)

Adopt a model template for degree design and aconsistent outline for the process.

Successful ins tu ons in both the CCC andCSU developed and ar culated a process foradop ng transfer degree pathways. A modeltemplate captures all of the required informa onstakeholders need for the implementa on of aTMC pathway, including a process for courseworkanalysis and arrangement of support sta . Once adegree design is re ned, it can be easily adapted toaccommodate other majors.

Addi onally, a process outline provides

stakeholders with a clear framework for a course ofac on, which allows a TMC pathway to be properlytailored to exis ng course o erings. Campuses thathave struggled with developing degree programslack instruc ons on a revision process when facedwith roadblocks; by having a model templateavailable with clear steps, stakeholders have abe er framework for implementa on. E ec vecampuses included deadlines throughout thestages during degree development that alignedwith the local governance process, such as boardmee ngs. Con nued use of an established templateand outline would aid a campus in tackling morecomplicated adapta ons. Although transferimplementa on deadlines need not be universalthroughout each system due to recogni on ofvarying governance structures between campuses,accountability measures must be developed andenforced.

Appoint a campus o cer or o ce to be taskedwith SB 1440 implementa on.

One of the trends that emerged through interviewswith the community college campuses that had alow number of approved degree programs was thelack of an individual or en ty on campus assignedto monitor and direct SB 1440 implementa on.Individual stakeholders on successful campusescould be a trustee, a member of the curriculumcommi ee, or a campus administrator. It has beendemonstrated that once minimum compliancehas been met on a campus, the mo va on forcon nued implementa on can be lost.

Sta at the local-level assigned to review TMCproposals possess a varying level of exper se in

curriculum development and compliance withar cula on requirements. By placing one personor o ce in charge of SB 1440 implementa on, thisen ty can distribute clear informa on to studentsupport sta , work with system o ces to overcomechallenges, par cipate in trainings on SB 1440, andother related du es necessary to implement thisunique pathway.

Require an update on implementa on at localgoverning board mee ngs.

Suppor ng a transfer culture on campusone thatbest serves the needs of students by being clear andtransparentis incumbent upon strong leadershipfrom all levels. The community college districtsBoards of Trustees are best suited to be able tounderstand the needs and challenges of theirdistrict and to be able to provide the vision neededto ensure robust implementa on at individualcolleges. There should be an opportunity for thetrustees to hear regularly from their administra onand academic leaders on the progress that their

district is making and discuss possible policy and/or budgetary modi ca ons that may be needed toensure full transfer reform.


14/1614


Students deserve greater clarity on how to transferand e ciencies from their colleges and universi esthat save them me and money. The state mustalso ensure that its resources are spent e ec velyand, in a me of constrained funding for higher

educa on, to nd ways to provide greater accessto students by elimina ng excessive course takingand freeing up space for incoming students. Fullyimplemen ng historic transfer reform can achieveeach of these goals.

Despite progress, it is clear that signi cant workremains. The results from the analysis in this reportshow that a majority of the CCCs could signi cantlyincrease the number of degree pathwaysavailable to their students, with only 18 collegesimplemen ng half or more of the degree pathways.The CSUs fare somewhat be er, with 20 campuseshaving approved at least 80 percent of the TMCmajor pathways, though much greater progress cans ll be made by the CSU campuses in approvingdegree op ons within these pathways.

To overcome challenges in SB 1440, this reportoutlines implementable recommenda ons that canbe adopted through statute, regula on, or prac ce.Overall, the Campaign for College Opportunityrecommends:

Greater accountability;

Firm melines forimplementa on;

Sharing of informa on; and,

Adop on of best prac ces to helplagging ins tu ons.

The Campaign for College Opportunity will con nue to work

with stakeholders to ensure that robust implementa onof the Associate Degree for Transfer pathway is realizedfor millions of California students.

Conclusion

The Campaign for College Opportunity developed SB 1440 in order to createa clear, statewide transfer pathway. Our main mo va on was to increasecommunity college student transfer from the unacceptably low rate of 23%.


15/1615


Methodology In order to gather and analyze the informa on used throughout this report, interviews were conducted by Campaignsta with system administrators, campus sta , and members and leaders from the Academic Senate for both thecommunity college and CSU systems from June 2012 to November 2012. The interviewees chosen re ect a broadselec on of ins tu ons, ranging in geographic area, enrollment size, and funding level.

The data used for this report was provided by the Chancellors O ces for California Community Colleges and theCalifornia State University and represents progress made as of October 26, 2012. The most up-to-date informa onregarding Associate Degrees for Transfer can be found at h p://www.sb1440.org/Counseling.aspx under AvailableDegree Pathways at the bo om of the page.

High-performing community colleges, detailed on page 7, were determined to be colleges that had developed orwere in process of developing Associate Degrees for Transfer for at least half of the 18 TMCs that were included inour analysis. Minimum compliance colleges are those that have only developed 2 Associate Degrees for Transfer.

Because the California State University SB 1440 implementa on data is more detailed and there exist various waysa college can ensure alignment with the CCC TMC pathways, campuses were determined to have a high or lowperformance based on individual measures (data on page 9).

Measure High Performance Low Performance

Deeming TMC majors similar 80% or more 70% or less

Deeming degree op ons similar 90% or more ~ 60% or less

Number of addi onal pathways acampus could implement

Less than 10 20 or more

Acknowledgments The Campaign wishes to thank the amazing leadership of both CCC Chancellor Jack Sco and CSU Chancellor CharlieReed who joined student leaders from both systems and the Campaign to ensure a stronger statewide transferpathway. The Campaign also wishes to thank the work and dedica on of Jane Pa on and Michelle Pila of theAcademic Senate for California Community Colleges, James Postma of the Academic Senate of the California StateUniversity, and the en re SB 1440 Implementa on & Oversight Commi ee for the countless hours developing thetransfer pathways, and the numerous leaders at individual campuses who carried this work forward working toturn a vision for e ec ve transfer into a reality and who con nue to work towards that common goal.

Data regarding SB 1440 implementa on at each CCC and CSU campus is accurate as of October 26, 2012, and wasprovided by Dr. Barry Russell, Vice Chancellor of Academic A airs at the California Community Colleges ChancellorsO ce, and Ken ODonnell, Senior Director of Student Engagement and Academic Ini a ves & Partnerships at theCalifornia State University O ce of the Chancellor. A special thanks to Dr. Barry Russell and Ken ODonnell inpar cular for their input and responses to inquiries as sta prepared this report.

A special thanks to our principal funders that made this project possible: the California Wellness Founda on, the

California Educa on Policy Fund, the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, the James Irvine Founda on, the LuminaFounda on, the Rappaport Family Founda on, and the Rosalinde & Arthur Gilbert Founda on. Thank you also toToni Gomez for conduc ng interviews and her contribu ons to this report.

Upon celebra ng the historic passage of SB 1440, our legisla ve champion SenatorAlex Padilla (D-20) exclaimed, Ahora a cumplir!, or Spanish for, Now to keep thepromise!, recognizing that our mutual commitment to ensuring that the intent ofthe legisla on is realized is our biggest responsibility.


16/16

Board of Directors

DAVID WOLF (Chair)Campaign Co-Founder

THOMAS A. SAENZ (Vice Chair)President & General Counsel, Mexican American LegalDefense and Educa onal Fund (MALDEF)

VAN TON-QUINLIVAN (Treasurer)Vice Chancellor, Workforce & Economic Development,California Community Colleges Chancellors O ce

MARCUS A. ALLENPartner, Englander Knabe & Allen

GEORGE BOGGSSuperintendent/President Emeritus, Palomar CollegePresident & CEO Emeritus, American Associa on ofCommunity Colleges

HERB CARTERFormer Chair, California State University Board ofTrustees

GARY K. HARTFormer Secretary of Educa on & State Senator

BILL HAUCKSenior Advisor, Goddard Claussen/West

WILLIAM G. McGINNISTrustee, Bu e-Glenn Community College District

ELOY ORTIZ OAKLEYSuperintendent-President, Long Beach City College

FREDERICK R. RUIZCo-Founder & Chairman Emeritus, Ruiz Food ProductsRegent, University of California

STEVE WEINERCampaign Co-Founder

The Campaign for College Opportunity is focused on a single mission: to ensurethat the next genera on of California students has the chance to a end college

and succeed in order to keep our workforce and economy strong.

Los Angeles O ce714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 745 | Los Angeles, CA 90015

Phone: 213.744.9434 | Fax: 877.207.3560

Sacramento O ce1512 14th Street | Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: 916.443.1681 | Fax: 916.443.1682

www.collegecampaign.org

meeting compliance, missing the mark: full report from the campaign for college opportunity,...

Documents