| |
by
Estela López, Alan Sturtz and Germán Bermúdez of
the Connecticut State University System
For the past few decades, college graduation rates have remained stable—and
apparently low—throughout the United States. Policymakers, politicians,
the media and others want to know why more students are not completing
their degrees within the traditional four- to six-year timeframe and
why higher education has not done more to improve graduation rates.
To better understand what is happening, institutional researchers have
been collecting data that shows interesting patterns of student movement
across colleges and universities in the United States. These patterns
do not suggest the failure of higher education. Rather, they demonstrate
that the system works in new and powerful ways to provide access and
help students meet their educational goals and societal needs. But,
to measure these effects, we need to focus on the new ways that students
progress through college.
For a growing number of institutions, the cohort of students used to
measure graduation rates—the traditional full-time freshman beginning
college in the fall—no longer represents the majority of new students.
In the Connecticut State University System (CSU), for example, new full-time
freshmen in the fall semester represented only 41 percent of all entering
new students in academic year 2003-04. For Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis, this percentage is even lower—just one
third of new students arrive as a freshmen starting in the fall. The
State University System of Florida similarly reported that only 39 percent
of its 1997 cohort felt into this category.
In addition to looking at the characteristics of new student enrollment,
institutions also report on first-year retention rates—a key accountability
measure. CSU has been analyzing its retention rates for many years.
We have found that about 74 percent of CSU students return as sophomores
to the institutions where they began as freshmen a year earlier. But
because Connecticut does not have a state-level student unit record
system, we could not be sure where those other students were going after
freshman year. Through the National Student Clearinghouse, we found
out that instead of dropping out, an additional 12 percent of former
CSU freshmen enrolled elsewhere, raising the persistence rate among
these students to 86 percent. Students may not be staying in our universities,
but they are persisting by continuing their studies in other institutions.
We also found that students that came from out of state and did not
stay in one of our four universities most likely returned to their home
state.
These data confirm that student movement through higher education is
not linear, but often involves multiple stages or shifts toward alternative,
more appropriate destinations. Instead of a single-lane highway to a
degree, students move along a multiple-lane highway with connecting
access roads and side streets.
The multilane highway promotes access because it provides multiple points
of entry and a wider range of educational options to students. These
points of entry include first-time enrollment in the spring semester,
part-time attendance, transfers, dual enrollment and distance education.
These patterns of attendance reflect new challenges facing students
and present new challenges for institutions and educational systems.
But many of these patterns also reveal major improvements in access
to higher education. For example:
• Students can now take courses at locations that accommodate
their travel constraints, particularly for growing numbers of non-traditional
and low-income students.
• Working students can select academic schedules that accommodate
their work and family schedules.
• Students can fine-tune or broaden their education by taking
advantage of diverse educational settings and distance education offerings.
• Students can take courses at lower-priced institutions than
the one from which they ultimately intend to graduate—an important
factor for low-income students.
• Working students who do not need or want to complete a full
degree program can acquire the new skills and competencies demanded
in today’s fast-changing workplace
Moreover, research on student attendance patterns demonstrates that
the traditional cohort methodology used to measure graduation rates
is limiting. To understand the effectiveness of the higher education
experience, we need to follow the student through multiple institutions.
Forty-six percent of the 2003-04 bachelor degree completers at CSU entered
the system as transfers, rather than first-year freshmen. CSU is not
an exception: Victor Borden, associate vice chancellor for Information
Management and Institutional Research at Indiana University-Purdue University
Indianapolis, notes that two-thirds of the undergraduate degree recipients
at his institution started their postsecondary careers at another college
or university. In reporting graduation rates, not one of these transfer
students will be counted as completers for the institution at which
they first started or for the institution that grants them a degree.
Although these students successfully complete their higher education,
they are lost in the reporting system.
Policy implications
Multiple patterns of attendance introduce a higher degree of complexity
in the higher education landscape that is poorly understood by the public
and even by many higher education institutions. The newly revealed pattern
requires more flexible and explicit alignment of academic programs.
It demands more effective academic interactions and collaborations among
institutions and programs. It introduces major changes in student advising
and student life, and, perhaps most importantly, challenges many of
the common assumptions we make about students.
Most educational policy has been developed based on the needs of students
using the one-lane highway, now a minority, instead of the increasing
population of students exploring the multiple points of entry and advancement
the system present.
For instance, agreements between community colleges and four-year colleges
are based on the assumption of a linear transition from associate to
bachelor’s degrees in existing programs. The data, however, have
also shown significant “reverse transfer” from four-year
colleges to community colleges. Are these reverse-transfer students
complementing their education in ways that a rigid, linear system does
not permit? Are they sharpening their basic skills and then returning
to the four-year institutions or graduate school? Are they seeking to
acquire work-related skills they did not think relevant before?
Thanks to the information about the higher education institutions now
available through the Internet, many students have become knowledgeable
consumers and are finding the best options to achieve their educational
goals. They may even have found better and more cost efficient ways
to attain their educational goals and complete their degrees than it
is recognized.
Policies and programs that capitalize on the benefits of attending diverse
multiple institutions should result in a more accessible, flexible and
cost-efficient approach to getting a higher education today. In creating
such policies, additional issues must be considered.
Higher education is becoming analogous to industries that assemble products
in different places in an effort to maximize efficiency without compromising
quality (the Airbus 380 airplane is a good example). Students are, in
many instances, assembling their degree in different places. These students
are acquiring knowledge and skills that need to match the expected learning
outcomes of each degree program. So it is particularly important that
quality assurance frameworks be provided for students who earn credits
at different institutions.
For example, Alexander McCormick, senior fellow at the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, points out that student mobility and
the portability of credits present the problem of ensuring the “educational
coherence” of undergraduate programs.
Multidirectional transfer policies and agreements should be developed
to ensure that credits previously earned are not lost. Both credit transfer
for specific course content and robust maintenance systems that include
assessments (e.g. electronic portfolio systems to facilitate the portability
of credits and ensure quality and coherence of learning). Such systems
should truly reflect the wide scope and the progression of student learning
in any higher education program. The evidence of the learning should
go much beyond standardized testing approaches and should ideally include
a battery of summative and formative assessment reflective of learning
in a swirl environment. It must be recognized that a much comprehensive
approach is needed than has been normally required in traditional transfer
and articulation agreements.
System accountability
The traditional measure of graduation rates cannot continue to be the
sole indicator of institutional effectiveness.
Having many points and times of entry needs to be recognized as an effective
measure of institutional access and of successful transfer and articulation
policies. Traditional accountability measures tend to disregard transfer
data; transfer students are not counted in graduation rates. Performance
measures should recognize the importance of having successful transfer
opportunities. Institutions should create compatible systems that track
student progress, even if they leave. Groups of institutions have already
created common ways to follow student progress. The Joint Commission
on Accountability Reporting (JCAR), for example, has produced a Technical
Conventions Manual that serves as basis for all member institutions
to report on student academic advancement, transfer, graduation and
licensing passing rates. Institutions such as Northeastern Illinois
University in Chicago have adapted the JCAR to create more accurate
definitions in the regular reporting of student academic advancement.
Additionally, it is important to encourage scholars and institutional
researchers to examine why multiple attendance patterns have developed,
particularly among first-generation, low-income and nontraditional students.
Understanding the complexities of student attendance patterns will help
higher education do a better job with retention and graduation of traditional
and nontraditional students. We do a disservice to our students, our
institutions, and society in general, if we only accept one way of moving
through college and, as a consequence, limit access. The performance
of many comprehensive institutions such as those in our system is inadequately
measured when we disregard the success of nearly half of the students
who graduate. A more complete view of the system will also provide a
more accurate description of current trends in access, retention and
graduation in higher education. And it will certainly underscore the
need to strive for a higher education system that, while maintaining
its academic rigor, can also become more student-oriented, more flexible,
and more interconnected.
Grad Rates and Workforce Development
Multiple points of entry and multiple times of entry also enhance the
ability of nontraditional students and practitioners to enter or continue
their higher education at convenient moments in their careers. It is
critical to exploit this scenario in order to respond to the demand
of workers in areas of workforce shortages.
For example, we know that to address the nursing shortage, we need to
provide access to further education for individuals practicing at many
levels in this heavily differentiated workforce. The knowledge and skills
of certified nursing assistants, licensed practical nurses, registered
nurses, bachelor’s-level practitioners and master’s-level
practitioners should explicitly map into pre-college and college points
of entry into nursing preparation. Those with a license or degree at
a given level should always be able to accumulate credits at convenient
times to access the next professional step. Still another innovative
approach includes entry to the nursing career through accelerated programs,
thus enabling students who did not originally major in the field to
practice the nursing profession within a short time. The more effective
the education system in providing multiple access points and times,
the higher the likelihood that a workforce shortage crisis could be
resolved. Similar training and promotion systems are commonplace in
the corporate world and are the basis for professional advancement.
Teacher shortages can also be alleviated by providing multiple points
of entry to practicing individuals at the paraprofessional and professional
levels. We can invite college graduates to go back to school and get
certified to teach, create pathways to the teaching profession starting
at the associate level through solid articulation agreements with community
colleges, and provide alternative routes to certification for experienced
professionals in sectors other than education.
Waiting for students to enter college in the fall semester and move
through higher education in the traditional, linear way simply will
not produce the numbers of graduates needed to end shortages in these
or other critical areas.
Estela López is vice chancellor for academic
affairs with the Connecticut State University System
Alan Sturtz is director of institutional research and
planning and
Germán Bermúdez is associate executive
officer for academic affairs with the system
|
|
