ERIC ED543251: Sealing the Gaps: Supporting Low-Income, First-Generation Students at Four-Year Institutions in Texas Post-Transfer

2011·4.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

2011
Sealing
the
gapS
Supp orting Lo w- in come,
Fir St-ge ne r ation
Studen tS at Four-Year
inSti tutio nS i n te xa S
poSt-tr anSFer
Abby Miller and Wendy Erisman
with Adolfo Bermeo and
Chandra Taylor Smith
the pell institute for the study of
opportunity in higher education
supported by tg through the public
benefi t grant program september, 2011
sealing the gaps
ABOUT
T P I
he ell nsTITuTe
For the Study of Opportunity
in Higher Education
The Pell Institute, sponsored by the Council for Opportunity
in Education, conducts and disseminates research and policy
analysis to encourage policymakers, educators, and the
public to improve educational opportunities and outcomes
of low-income, first-generation, and disabled college
students. The Pell Institute is the first research institute
to specifically examine the issues affecting educational
opportunity for this growing population.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1020
Washington, DC 20005
P 202.638.2887 F 202.638.3808
www.pellinstitute.org
2011
Sealing
the
gapS
Supp orting Lo w-income,
FirS t-ge ner ation
Studen tS at Four-Year
inS tit utio nS in texa S
poS t-tr anSFe r
Abby Miller and Wendy Erisman
with Adolfo Bermeo and
Chandra Taylor Smith
the pell institute for the study of
opportunity in higher education
supported by tg through the public
benefit grant program september, 2011
sealing the gaps
table of contentS acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
transfer student characteristics . . . . . . . 8
transition to four-year institutions . . . . 9
effects of community college
attendance on four-year outcomes . . . . . . . . . 9
effects of background characteristics
on four-year outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
effects of institutional characteristics
on four-year outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
practical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
state policy context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
transfer and articulation policies . . . . . . . . 15
excess credit hours cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
transfer challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
promising practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
transfer-specific services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
targeted student services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
community college partnerships . . . . . . . . . . 18
transfer tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
transfer philosophies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
statewide transfer accountability . . . . . . . . 20
coherent transfer pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 transfer advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
institutional transfer support practices . . . 20 transfer orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
financial aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 transfer center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
transfer success university (tsu) . . . . . . . 21 transfer housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
institutional background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 transfer support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
transfer student characteristics . . . . . . . . . 21 academic support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
transfer performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 student activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
transfer philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 major transfer challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
transfer policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 major institutional challenges . . . . . . . . . . . 39
community college partnerships . . . . . . . . . . 23 transfer success factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 first-year focused university (fyu) . . . . . 40
orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 institutional background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
financial aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 transfer characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 transfer performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
targeted low-income/ transfer philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
first-generation support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 transfer policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
major transfer challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 recruitment and orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
transfer success factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 transfer advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
transfer attentive university (tau) . . . . . 27 financial aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
institutional background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
transfer characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 major transfer challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
transfer performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 transfer success factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
transfer philosophy/approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 research-focused university (rfu) . . . . . . 46
transfer policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 institutional background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
community college partnerships . . . . . . . . . . 29 transfer characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 transfer performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 community college partnerships . . . . . . . . . . 47
financial aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 transfer philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
academic support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 transfer policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
transfer support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 transfer advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
targeted low-income, support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
first-generation support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 major transfer challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
transfer challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 transfer success factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
transfer success factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
transfer emerging university (teu) . . . . . 33
institutional background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 appendix a: case study institutional
transfer characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
transfer performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
transfer philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 appendix b: references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
community college partnerships . . . . . . . . . . 35
transfer recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
sealing the gaps
acknowledgements
We wish to extend our appreciation to We would like to extend a special acknowledgement to
everyone who participated in the university leaders who participated in this study for
this project. The research, analyses and final presentation opening their campuses and sharing information with
of this report represent the efforts of many individuals. us about their strategies for success. In particular, we
We would like to acknowledge the following persons for worked closely with each institutional research depart-
their various contributions: ment to collect data that supplemented our findings. All
campus representatives, from the president to administra-
» Adolfo Bermeo, Senior Scholar at the Pell Institute, tors, faculty, support staff, and especially students, ex-
who participated in site visits and contributed his un- tended a warm welcome and coordinated their schedules
derstanding of the community college system, the trans- to make time to meet with us. Their participation was
fer process, and low-income and first-generation college invaluable in our efforts to better understand the pro-
students. grams, policies, and people behind the numbers.
2 » Gabriela Borcoman, Senior Program Director for Plan-
None of the efforts would have been realized in the
ning and Accountability, Texas Higher Education Co-
production of this report if it were not for the generous
ordinating Board, for providing state-level data.
funding and research support from TG. We thank TG
» Holly Hexter, Consultant, Council for Opportunity in for valuing and providing funding support for research
Education and Lennox Alfred, Program Assistant, The projects that inform practitioners and policy makers. We
Pell Institute, for editing assistance. also wish to acknowledge Dr. Micki Neal, TG research
» Andrew Howard Nichols, Senior Research Analyst, analyst, for her valuable review of this report.
The Pell Institute, for site visit assistance.
Finally, we acknowledge that the responsibility for the
» Jodi Koehn-Pike, Director of Publications, Council for content of this report, including any errors or omissions,
Opportunity in Education, who provided assistance lies solely with the authors.
with the final publication.
• • • • • •
executive summary
The current administration depends well as effective articulation agreements with local four-
on community colleges year institutions were the keys to the success of the col-
to fulfill President Obama’s mandate for every American lege-transfer cultures at these Texas community colleges.
to complete at least two years of postsecondary education However, while the two-year campuses we visited were
(Biden, 2010). Community colleges currently enroll over successful at achieving the transfer mission to four-year
10 million students annually and represent more than 40 institutions, we felt that success did not end there. Rather,
percent of the nation’s undergraduate population (Bell, success culminates when a student completes his or her
2006, Cochrane and Shiremane, 2008). However, only end-goal, which in most cases is a bachelor’s degree.
11 percent of students who begin at community colleges
actually complete a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Department of This examination of community college transfer
Education, 2011). Community college transfer students student support, experiences, and outcomes at four-year
therefore play an important role in fulfilling the need for institutions in Texas aims to inform: 1) practitioners in
increased baccalaureate attainment.1 programs and on campuses who work with community 3
college transfer students, particularly with historically
Although we are beginning to better understand the chal- underrepresented populations; 2) institutional
lenges facing community college students, we are still decisionmakers who are concerned with improving
developing a clear picture of the institutional support their performance in terms of transfer graduation rates;
mechanisms that allow for successful transfer and even- and 3) policymakers, particularly at the state level,
tual degree completion. This study provides insight into who are interested in promoting transfer as a means
the experiences and outcomes of low-income, first-gener- for improving the baccalaureate degree attainment rate
ation and underrepresented community college transfer among their residents in order to ensure a more educated
students at four-year institutions, to help guide policy and workforce. Ultimately, our goal is that low-income and
practice at the institutional, state and national levels. first-generation students benefit from this research by
getting the support they need to ensure success through
The objectives of this research were to identify: 1) prom- bachelor’s degree completion.
ising institutional practices for retaining and graduating
low-income, first-generation community college transfer
students at four-year institutions, including any transfer- METHOds
specific support systems; 2) outcomes of transfer stu-
dents (i.e., graduation rates) at four-year institutions in A mixed methods approach guided this study. For the
comparison with “native” peers who began their post- quantitative analysis, we collected institutional data
secondary education at the four-year institution; and 3) from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
specific academic, personal or financial challenges faced (THECB) which compared the outcomes (i.e., gradua-
by community college transfer students that impede tion rates and GPA) of transfer students to the “native”
greater success. students who began at the four-year institution. Those
data yielded a list of 15 institutions to which the majority
This research builds on The Pell Institute’s recent study of students transferred from the five predominantly low-
which documented promising practices at six community income community colleges that The Pell Institute visited
colleges in Texas that performed “better than expected” during the first study.
in transferring low-income college students to four-year
institutions, based on institutional characteristics such as In order to make a fair comparison to transfer outcomes,
percentage of low-socioeconomic status (SES) students. The Pell Institute and THECB together selected a
Institutionalized academic and social support systems as comparison cohort of junior students based on the
1 According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 63%
of community college students enter postsecondary education
with goals of obtaining a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011).
sealing the gaps
number of credits with which transfer students in Texas we discovered is that one must take into account the
typically enter four-year institutions (above 45). Since institutional mission, leadership and culture to truly gain
institutions typically measure six-year graduation rates an understanding of the policies that ultimately affect
of freshmen, we tracked the four-year graduation rates transfer student success.
of juniors (who had already completed two academic
years). This information was used to calculate retention Data collected show that native students always graduate
and persistence rates of transfers in comparison with at a higher rate than their transfer peers at these four-
equivalent “native” juniors. year institutions in Texas. However, administrators
at several of the case study institutions believed that
Using THECB data, The Pell Institute developed a “total transfer students were performing better than native
transfer gap” rate which takes into account the “transfer students, because they were comparing transfer
gap” (difference between transfer and “native” junior graduation rates to those of freshmen. This is not a fair
4 four-year graduation rates) and the “state transfer gap” comparison, given that transfer students in Texas most
(difference between transfer graduation rate and the state commonly enter the four-year institutions with 45 credits
average transfer graduation rate). The institutions visited or more, at sophomore or junior status.2 As a result,
represent a mix of both high and low performers on all transfer students have already survived the attrition
three transfer gap measures. In all cases, “native” students commonly seen during and after the first year of college
outperformed transfers in terms of graduation rates. and so can be expected to complete their degrees at
higher rates than incoming freshmen.
We based site visit selection on these data to yield a di-
verse mix of institutions in terms of transfer performance, While community college transfer students face a host
retention and graduation rates, degree offerings, size, of challenges typically associated with low-income, first-
locale, and student characteristics. In addition, site visit generation and nontraditional-aged students, a few chal-
selection took into account the availability of institutions lenges emerged as specific to the transfer experience and
and willingness of institutions to participate and share particularly salient among students at the institutions vis-
data. We developed institutional profiles for each institu- ited. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced by community
tion visited, utilizing data from IPEDS, THECB and insti- college transfer students at these four-year institutions
tutional websites. in Texas is a lack of engagement, or connection with the
institution. Financially, transfer students commonly face
Each of the five site visits consisted of approximately either a loss of financial aid at the four-year level or lack
two days of interviews with staff and faculty, and focus of continuous aid due to missed deadlines and having to
groups with students. A case-study approach guided the essentially “relearn” the financial aid system. In terms
qualitative component of this study. While we analyzed of state policy, Texas recently reduced the number of ex-
interview data from site visits for common themes and cess credit hours eligible for formula funding from 45 to
factors that may either help or hinder transfer student 30, which has major ramifications for transfer students
success at four-year institutions, we took into consider- when the two-year and four-year degree programs are not
ation the unique combination of environmental factors properly aligned.
at each institution that together contribute to its overall
transfer performance (see methods for additional details). Transfer-specific practices identified include transfer
centers, transfer-specific advising, required transfer ori-
entation, transfer “ambassador” mentors, social and
FINdINgs
networking events for transfer students, transfer financial
literacy workshops, and transfer scholarships. Perhaps
Completion of the transfer pipeline at Texas four-year more important than offering transfer-specific services,
institutions is a complex story, and one that entails a host however, was the institution’s overall approach to and
of relevant factors at both the student and institutional understanding of students exhibiting characteristics
levels. We originally hypothesized that institutions with common among community college transfers: namely,
transfer-specific services would be the most successful
at retaining and graduating transfer students, but any
2 It is common for students in Texas to accumulate college credit through dual
pattern that may exist is not quite so simple. What enrollment coursework in high school, so the comparison may warrant further
refinement based on that assumption.
executive summary
first-generation, nontraditional-aged, and part-time. For institutions consider the transfer student population
example, many institutions offered targeted student or- in their strategic planning and goals, particularly now
ganizations, extended hour services, free transportation, that community colleges are becoming a common entry
and childcare support, which met the needs of transfer point into postsecondary education. Both in Texas and
students, many of whom are nontraditional aged and nationwide, it would serve institutions well to consider
work off-campus. Many administrators emphasized that the entire transfer experience within the context of
seemingly minor logistical considerations can make a relevant state and institutional policies as they plan the
huge impact in a student’s ability to persist. programs and services that guide their transfer students
toward bachelor’s degree completion.
Seamless integration between degree plans at the com-
munity college and four-year university levels also seemed Moreover, our findings lead us to endorse the need for
to be a critical component in transfer success. Such insti- Texas and other states to identify transfer as a state pri-
tutional partnerships included institutional articulation ority. The current structure of Texas’s higher education 5
agreements, curricular alignment, and reverse transfer accountability system does not place sufficient value on
agreements. Ensuring that students receive accurate, up- community college transfer success. Successful transfer by
dated information about transfer of course credits is criti- community college students should be tracked, and sys-
cal to timely degree completion at the four-year institution. tems put in place to reward community colleges that pro-
Cross-institutional training, online degree audit systems, mote transfer. In addition, recognizing four-year institu-
and joint admissions are some examples of additional ways tions for their role in assisting community college transfer
that two- and four-year institutions can work together. students in completing a bachelor’s degree will provide
them with additional incentive to develop policies and
In addition to institutional practices, an unexpected find- practices that promote transfer student success. While
ing that emerged is a stark contrast between two distinct universities are currently required to report to the state
transfer philosophies, both across and within the institu- the four-year graduation rates of transfer students, little
tions. Leadership, staff, faculty, and students alike either emphasis has been placed on these data by policymak-
express the need for transfer-specific support services to ers. Public universities should be required to report these
address transfers’ unique characteristics and challenges, graduation rates in comparison with “native” juniors,
or, due to transfers in some cases comprising a majority and successful institutions should be recognized for their
of the student body, institutions do not see a need for work in this area.
separate services. Rather, individuals holding the latter
philosophy design institution-wide programs and services
with transfer student characteristics in mind (namely, FURTHER REsEARCH
low-income, first-generation, nontraditional-aged, work-
ing or commuter students), and express concern that cre- Finally, this study, while gleaning a great deal of insight
ating separate transfer services would only serve to stig- into the transfer experience at four-year institutions in
matize or label these students, rather than facilitate their Texas, is exploratory in nature and merely scratches the
integration into the institution. Further research should surface on a number of challenges and strategies at stu-
explore the effects of any resulting difference in insti- dent, institutional and state levels. A larger sample size
tutional policies on transfer success rates using a larger at the national level would allow for a more definitive
sample of institutions. connection between institutional transfer philosophies
and transfer success rates. Further research into the con-
nection between practice and outcomes is critical to the
IMplICATIONs ANd RECOMMENd ATIONs
success of economically disadvantaged students who be-
gin the postsecondary pipeline at the two-year level with
Rather than a planned, concerted effort to support aspirations of achieving a bachelor’s degree.
transfer students, the majority of institutions offer
loosely connected transfer services that appear to • • • • • •
be more of an afterthought in reaction to increased
transfer enrollment. Our findings lead us to recommend
sealing the gaps
introduction
Through the research discussed in » Structured academic pathway: The institutions we
this report, The Pell Institute visited emphasized the academic mission of their in-
examined the experiences of community college transfer stitutions and the importance of academic rigor as an
students, many of whom are low-income and first- essential component of the transfer pipeline. Each has
generation college students, at four-year institutions in infused into their college campus the notion and impor-
Texas. The objectives of this research were to identify: tance of transfer, and thus they work with all students
1) promising institutional practices for retaining and to develop realistic four-year degree plans, regardless of
graduating low-income, first-generation community whether or not the students initially aspire to transfer
college transfer students at four-year institutions, upon enrolling in college. Elements of the structured
including any transfer-specific support systems; 2) academic pathway included subject-specific articulation
outcomes of transfer students (i.e., graduation rates) at agreements and accelerated developmental coursework.
four-year institutions in comparison with “native” peers
» Student-centered culture: Each of the institutions
6 who began their postsecondary education at the four-
emphasized personal attention, ease of service,
year institution; and 3) specific academic, personal, or
convenience, collaboration, and innovation. A culture
financial challenges faced by community college transfer
of change, access, and availability permeated all of the
students that impede greater success.
campuses we visited. Each is constantly innovating
and developing new ideas and programs. Elements of
This research builds on The Pell Institute’s 2009 study,
this student-centered culture included customer service
Bridging the Gaps to Success: Promising Practices for
focus, specialized advising, and flexible scheduling.
Promoting Transfer among Low-Income and First-
Generation Students, which documented promising » Culturally-sensitive leadership: The college presidents
practices of six community colleges in Texas that we interviewed displayed strong leadership, energy
performed “better than expected” in transferring low- and dedication to their institutions and students. Many
income and first-generation college students to four-year come from similar social, economic, and/or racial/eth-
institutions, based on institutional characteristics such nic backgrounds as their students. Their own personal
as percentage low-socioeconomic status (SES) students. experiences allow them to understand their students’
Institutionalized academic and social support systems lives, which helps shape their insights and expertise.
as well as effective articulation agreements aligning This common background helps foster a campus cul-
coursework requirements between two and four-year ture and environment that encourages students to take
institutions were keys to the success of the college- ownership of their academic experience, to participate
transfer cultures at these Texas community colleges. as active citizens of the institution, and to use their
A comprehensive knowledge about the experience of education to improve their individual lives and those
transfer students by the leadership in the highest levels of their families and communities. Elements of the
of the institution was also confirmed to be important. culturally-sensitive leadership include staff and faculty
Therefore, for the first study, we identified three common role modeling and data-based decision making (Taylor
themes among successful institutions: Smith, Miller, & Bermeo, 2009).