Evaluating State-Level Articulation Agreements According to Good Practice

Abstract

As we move into twenty-first century, transfer between two- and four-year colleges has become increasingly important. Many states are promoting transfer between two- and four-year sectors to increase systemic efficiency and effectiveness in educating their citizens. Thus, a state's master plan for public higher education typically supports twoyear colleges as initial step in may students' pathways to baccalaureate. To ensure ease of transfer, defined by Kintzer and Wattenbarger (1985) as the mechanics of credit, course, and curriculum exchange (p. iii), most states have emphasized documents (Bers, 1994, p. 249). This approach emphasizes development and ongoing maintenance of or official agreements related to course equivalencies, articulated 2 + 2 programs, legislative or agency related to transfer, and perhaps statistical reports about student transfer, persistence, and academic performance (Bers, p. 249). In a deregulated system, individual institutions may have responsibility for establishing articulation agreements about which courses, programs, and degrees will transfer from one institution to a receiving institution. In a more regulated system, may provide some general guidelines and incentives for institutions to develop these agreements; and in a highly regulated system, may mandate that associate of arts degree be accepted at all institutions, as in Florida, for example. The extent to which states have promoted transfer by developing articulation agreements was well studied in 1980s and early 1990s. For example, Kintzer and Wattenbarger (1985) documented four basic patterns of articulation found during 1980s. They found that eight states had formal and legally based guidelines and policies and 25 states had state system policies (Kintzer, 1996, p. 8). Also, Knoell (1990) compared articulation activities in early 1960s to those of mid1980s, and Bender (1990) looked at state-level policies, largely through studies of four states. This research was designed to update these works by documenting extent of articulation agreements at close of twentieth century and by evaluating these agreements according to four-key measures: * Transfer Directions-the kinds of transfer among colleges and universities covered in agreement; * Sectors-the types of institutions included; Transfer Components-degree-related aspects affecting ease of transfer; and Faculty Involvement-the extent to which faculty at community colleges and four-year institutions are actually responsible for crafting and maintaining statewide articulation agreements. These measures were drawn from literature on articulation and from statewide already operating in several states and identified during pilot phase of this study to form a basis for what constitutes good articulation. Seven guiding principles for establishing strong statewide articulation agreements were identified from literature and from state-level during pilot phase of this research (Ignash & Townsend, 2001). A brief summary of them is provided here as a context for this assessment of statewide articulation agreements. The first principle, that of parity among institutions, affirms that community colleges and four-year institutions are equal partners in providing freshmen and sophomore level undergraduate coursework. Stated differently, relationship between two- and four-year colleges and universities should not be one in which community colleges are subordinate. Knoell (1990) believed that parity among institutions should be a guiding principle in developing articulation agreements. The second principle involves parity of students and stipulates that native and transfer students should be treated equally by receiving institutions. The third principle asserts that faculty, as content area experts, should have primary responsibility for crafting actual statewide articulation agreements. …