Implementation Update: Reforming Transfer From CCC to CSU

Introduction

Transfer Important Pathway to Bachelor’s Degree. California’s students can begin their postsecondary studies at California Community Colleges (CCC) and transfer into bachelor’s degree programs at the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU). Unfortunately, transfer students often navigate a maze of academic requirements that vary across UC and CSU campuses, complicating their ability to earn a bachelor’s degree within 120 semester units (the equivalent of four years of full–time coursework).

State Recently Reformed Transfer Process. The Legislature and Governor enacted the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act in Chapter 428, Statutes of 2010 (SB 1440, Padilla) and Chapter 720, Statutes of 2013 (SB 440, Padilla). The act, reprinted in the appendix of this report, is designed to create clearer pathways from CCC to CSU, provide an incentive for transfer students to obtain an associate degree, and reduce the number of excess units students must take to fulfill CSU’s graduation requirements.

Two Reports Required on Impact of Act. The act requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to provide the Legislature an initial implementation update by spring 2012 and a more comprehensive analysis of transfer reform by early 2015. In our 2012 progress report, we found that CCC and CSU had made notable progress in streamlining the transfer process but both segments had room for improvement. This report fulfills the second reporting requirement. Below, we review the purpose and features of the act and assess CCC and CSU progress toward meeting its goals and requirements. We conclude with recommendations for the Legislature’s next steps.

Background

Transfer Process in California

1960 Master Plan for Higher Education Relies on Transfer as Pathway to Four–Year Degree. The Master Plan sought to ensure both access and quality for California’s postsecondary students by coordinating a three–tiered system of junior colleges, state universities, and research universities. The plan established different missions and student populations for each tier. It established the primary mission of CCC as providing academic and vocational instruction at the lower–division (freshman and sophomore) level to any student who could benefit. CSU’s mission is undergraduate education for the top third of California public high school graduates as well as graduate education through the master’s degree. UC’s mission is research; professional, doctoral, and other graduate education; and undergraduate education for the top one–eighth of high school graduates. The transfer process between the open–access CCC and the more selective public universities is a key component in maintaining access to higher education for all California residents. It ensures that all students have an opportunity to earn a bachelor’s degree from a public university even if they did not qualify for university admission directly from high school.

State’s Efforts Have Focused on Improving Transfer Pathways From CCC to CSU. As shown in Figure 1, CSU enrolls slightly more than half of CCC transfer students. Other CCC transfer students enroll at about equal rates in UC, private colleges in California, and out–of–state colleges. Given the large share of transfer students enrolling at CSU, most of the state’s reform efforts to date have aimed at improving CCC to CSU transfer pathways.

Two Significant Barriers to Transferring Between CCC and CSU. Historically, transfer students have faced conflicting and inconsistent preparatory requirements in two ways. First, for a given major, different CSU campuses could require different pre–major courses. Second, even when two CSU campuses had the same pre–major course requirements, they might disagree about which community college courses meet those requirements. For example, a Sacramento City College student planning to complete a bachelor’s degree in general communications might have wanted the option to transfer to CSU Chico or Fresno. CSU Chico required courses in public speaking, interpersonal communication, small group communication, and intercultural communication. CSU Fresno required students to complete two communication courses from a list of five. The five options included interpersonal and small group communication—two courses also required for Chico—but Fresno did not recognize Sacramento City College’s small group communication course as comparable to its own. CSU Fresno also did not recognize any of Sacramento City College’s courses as comparable to two other courses on its list. CSU Fresno did include argumentation among its options and accepted Sacramento City College’s argumentation course, but, as indicated above, argumentation was not required by CSU Chico. This variation complicated the transfer process, increasing students’ difficulty in identifying courses that would satisfy requirements at different CSU campuses and limiting students’ campus options. As a result, the transfer process has not been as efficient or effective as envisioned in the Master Plan.

Transfer Reform

Requires Community Colleges to Create Associate Degrees for Transfer (AD–T). The 2010 reform legislation seeks to improve the transfer process by having community colleges create associate degrees specifically designed to prepare students for transfer to CSU. These degrees, known as AD–T, consist of 60 units of transferable coursework, including a minimum of 18 units in a major or area of emphasis and either 39 or 42 units of general education. (CSU approves two ways for students to fulfill their general education requirements. In both cases, overlap may exist between the major and general education units, as some courses may satisfy both requirements.) By design, the AD–T are subject specific (for example, a student can receive an AD–T in biology or economics).

CSU Must Admit Transfer Students Who Earn AD–T. Beginning in fall 2011, a student who earns an AD–T with a 2.0 grade point average (GPA) is eligible to transfer to the CSU system at the upper–division level into a bachelor’s degree program of similar subject. As explained in the nearby box (Some CSU Campuses and Majors Are Impacted), some CSU campuses and programs are impacted and cannot offer a slot to every eligible applicant. Students who earn AD–T therefore are not guaranteed admission to any specific campus or program. CSU instead grants priority admission to (1) their local CSU campus and (2) a program or major that is “similar” to their community college major. Determination of which AD–T programs are similar to which CSU majors is left to the discretion of CSU campuses.

Enables Transfer Students With an AD–T to Complete Bachelor’s Degree at CSU in 60 Units. Once admitted to a CSU campus and program, the reform legislation requires that students with an AD–T be able to obtain a bachelor’s degree within 60 additional units of coursework. (Transfer students may need to complete more than 60 units at CSU if the bachelor’s degree requires all students—including those who entered CSU as freshmen—to complete more than the standard 120 units.) The statute also specifies that CSU cannot require students to repeat any courses that are similar to what they took as part of their coursework leading to an AD–T.

LAO’s First Review

Progress in First Two Years . . . In our 2012 progress report, we found that CCC and CSU had made significant progress in implementing the statutory goals, as highlighted below.

• The CCC and CSU Academic Senates Opted to Create Statewide Transfer Model Curricula (TMC). Although not initially required by statute, the segments worked together to create statewide curricula for the most popular majors among transfer students. Each TMC identifies a set of lower–division pre–major CCC courses that prepare transfer students for upper–division CSU coursework in a particular major. TMC use an already existing course identification system (see the box Common Course Numbering: A Building Block for Transfer Pathways) to serve as the basis for the new transfer degrees. By the time of our first report, the segments had created TMC for 18 of the most common transfer majors.
• Community Colleges Created More Than 400 AD–T. Fifteen colleges had developed or were developing AD–T for each academic program they offered that had an approved TMC.
• Most CSU Campuses Accepted Most TMC as Similar to One of Their Majors. CSU defined a CSU major as similar to a TMC if a student who completed an associated AD–T could successfully complete a CSU bachelor’s degree within 60 additional units. Using this definition, 7 of 23 CSU campuses recognized all 18 TMC developed by March 2012 as similar to their majors and another 9 campuses recognized all but one or two TMC as similar to their majors.
• CSU Developed Admission Processes. CSU developed a process to grant admission priority to transfer students completing an AD–T. The two segments jointly developed a short–term student verification plan for transfer applicants who identified themselves as on track to earn an AD–T.

. . . But Results Fell Short of Legislative Intent. In 2012, we also identified a number of concerns, as described below.

• Some Community Colleges Were Reluctant to Embrace New Degrees. While some colleges were rapidly developing new AD–T, overall progress systemwide was mixed. As of March 2012, most community colleges had developed four or fewer AD–T and three still offered fewer than two. About a dozen indicated at the time that they were planning to develop only a handful of AD–T.
• CSU Campuses Not Universally Accepting TMC. We identified substantial variation in the acceptance of TMC across CSU campuses, across majors, and within majors. Five CSU campuses had deemed at least 5 of the 18 approved TMC not similar to their corresponding majors. In some majors (sociology, art history, and political science), every CSU campus offering a bachelor’s degree in the discipline recognized the TMC as similar, whereas in others (geology and kinesiology) as many as one–third of CSU campuses deemed the TMC not similar. Within a major such as business administration, some campuses determined all concentrations, including accounting, entrepreneurship, finance, marketing, and management, to be similar, while others provided only one similar option out of as many as 12 concentrations offered at the campus.
• Unclear Whether CSU’s Admission Policies Were Sufficiently Prioritizing Applicants With AD–T. We also noted that it would require three or four admission cycles before we could evaluate the effectiveness of CSU’s priority admission policy.

Follow–Up Legislation

Follow–up Legislation Set Targets for Full Implementation. In response to these concerns, the Legislature adopted Chapter 720. The follow–up legislation added four new requirements:

• Universal Community College Participation. Colleges must create an AD–T in every major and area of emphasis offered by that college for which there is a corresponding TMC (1) before the 2015–16 academic year for any TMC finalized before the 2013–14 academic year and (2) within 18 months of approval for all other TMC.
• Greater CSU Campus Participation. CSU must (1) guarantee students earning an AD–T admission to a major or concentration that either is similar to the student’s AD–T or can be completed within 60 units, (2) develop an admission redirection process for students not admitted to the campuses they applied to, and (3) make every effort to accept AD–T in all concentrations within its majors.
• Creation of Area of Emphasis TMC. An area of emphasis is a designation broader than a major that prepares students for entry into a number of related majors. The segments must create two TMC in areas of emphasis before the 2015–16 academic year and two additional TMC in areas of emphasis before the 2016–17 academic year.
• Marketing. CCC and CSU must develop a marketing strategy to increase visibility of the new transfer degrees.

Implementation Review

The remainder of this report fulfills the second statutory reporting requirement, which tasks our office with evaluating (1) CCC and CSU compliance with transfer reform and (2) student results. Each of the following eight sections provides an implementation update on some aspect of transfer reform, an assessment of whether implementation is on track, and recommendations to address any related concerns. (The legislation also directs us to examine whether transfer reform should be extended to students transferring from CCC to UC. We think improving transfer pathways to UC raises additional issues beyond those we could address succinctly in this report.)

Common Course Numbering

Many Courses Have Common Number, With More on the Way. By June 2012, the segments had aligned 500 specific community college courses with a C–ID. As of November 2014, they had done so for more than 9,000 additional courses. The large increase in approved courses facilitated the creation of new AD–T. Faculty leaders expect CCC faculty to submit an additional 6,000 courses for review over the next year as they continue developing AD–T. (As a comparison, CCC campuses offered nearly 60,000 courses in the fall 2013 term. Not all of these courses, however, are major preparation courses—they include general education, remedial, and vocational courses.)

Faculty Teams Meeting Demand for Reviews, With Some Delays. The common course number approval process is time–consuming, involving three faculty members (two from CCC, one from CSU) for each course reviewed. Despite dedicated funding from the CCC Chancellor’s Office and CCC Academic Senate (supporting staff as well as small stipends and meeting costs for faculty reviewers), course approval has been delayed at times due to difficulty identifying a CSU faculty member who is available to participate for a particular discipline. Recent strategies for addressing course review backlogs, however, appear to be working such that the segments expect to meet the demand for course review in the coming year.

Transfer Model Curricula

Segments Create Additional TMC. To date, the segments have approved a total of 33 TMC, as shown in Figure 2. Faculty currently are developing one additional TMC (public health sciences) and are in the process of considering another handful.

Area of Emphasis Degrees Under Discussion. The area of emphasis TMC requirement envisioned associate degrees that would prepare students for a group of related majors instead of specializing in one major. Two area of emphasis TMC are under development. One, currently referred to as “Diversity Studies,” will prepare students for majors such as: ethnic studies; women’s studies; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender studies. Another, currently referred to as “Global Studies,” will prepare students for various international studies majors such as Asian or Latin American studies.

Segments on Track to Accommodate Most Transfer Students. In all, the 33 TMC shown in Figure 2 cover the majors selected by roughly 80 percent of students who transfer from CCC to CSU. Statute does not provide a specific goal for the number of TMC to develop or the proportion of transfer students to be covered by TMC. In our view, the segments have created a sufficient number of TMC to meet the spirit of the legislation. Because the remaining transfer majors are small, any additional TMC would each capture less than 2 percent of all transfer students.

Recommend Legislature Continue Monitoring Development of Areas of Emphasis. Although the segments have begun discussions regarding two area of emphasis TMC, we do not know whether CCC and CSU will approve these TMC by fall 2015, as required by statute. We recommend the Legislature continue to monitor progress on these TMC and on the two additional area of emphasis TMC required by fall 2016. The Legislature could consider additional action if the segments do not meet this requirement. Once these area of emphasis TMC are finalized, we recommend the Legislature monitor community college creation of AD–T in these areas of emphasis and CSU’s acceptance of these AD–T to determine how useful this new type of degree may be as a component of the state’s transfer reform.

Associate Degrees for Transfer

Each Community College Has an AD–T Target. The reform act requires, by fall 2015, colleges to offer an AD–T that corresponds to each of the first 25 TMC if they already were offering an associate degree in that subject. Community colleges vary in the number of degree programs they offer, and therefore the number of AD–T they must create to meet this requirement varies. For example, Fullerton College offers associate degrees in each of the first 25 TMC majors. By contrast, Palo Verde College offers associate degrees in only 5 of the 25 finalized TMC majors.

Community Colleges Expand Number of Transfer Degrees Offered. Collectively, the 112 community colleges currently offer over 1,600 AD–T and are developing more than 100 additional degrees—an average of 16 degrees per college. This is a significant increase over 2012, when we reported that the average number of AD–T per college was four. (Some community colleges developed a number of AD–T in majors they previously did not offer.)

More Than Half of Community Colleges Appear Close to Meeting Targets . . . Figure 3 illustrates community colleges’ progress toward their fall 2015 AD–T targets. As of January 2015, 12 colleges already have met their targets. Several other campuses had many AD–T already approved by the CCC Chancellor’s Office but were awaiting approval for some AD–T they had developed more recently.

. . . Others Not. Some colleges, however, are far below their fall 2015 targets and have not yet submitted the required AD–T for approval. Thirty–nine colleges are short of their targets by at least 20 percent of required AD–T (with the number of additional AD–T required varying from 1 to 14). Given the time required to develop and approve new academic degrees, these campuses could fall short of meeting their statutory targets. The CCC Chancellor’s Office indicates it will begin working with these campuses in January 2015 to help them develop additional AD–T.

Recommend Legislature Continue Monitoring Progress of AD–T Development. Because many community colleges are making progress toward their targets and the CCC Chancellor’s Office is planning to address areas of poor compliance, we do not recommend legislative sanctions at this time. Instead, we recommend the Legislature direct the CCC Chancellor to report the status of AD–T development relative to statutory requirements by November 1, 2015. If colleges are falling short of legislative targets at that time, further action may be required. (As described in our 2012 report, this could include commissioning external academic reviews or limiting state funding for campuses or departments that fall short of expectations.)

Marketing Associate Degrees for Transfer

Marketing Strategy Implemented to Promote Awareness of Transfer Degrees . . . CCC and CSU have primarily marketed AD–T by using grant funding and leveraging partnerships from other projects including the CCC advertising campaign, I Can Afford College, which promotes financial aid awareness. The segments jointly developed marketing messages, materials to distribute to high school and community college counselors and students, radio and internet advertisements, social media campaigns, and a website, all using the tag line “A Degree with a Guarantee.” On the website (adegreewithaguarantee.com), a student can search transfer degree offerings at individual CCC and CSU campuses and find CSU admission information. In addition to these efforts, the segments have presented information at annual high school and community college counselor conferences and mailed informational and promotional materials to counselors throughout the state.

. . . But Most Students Remain Confused or Unaware of AD–T. Despite these marketing and outreach efforts, several community college counselors report that most incoming students who intend to transfer are unaware of AD–T. Other students think they earned an AD–T when in fact they earned a regular associate degree. (These students comprise a large majority of self–identified AD–T transfer applicants to date.) The students’ confusion is understandable. After all, they earned an associate degree and intend to transfer to CSU. In addition to this confusion, some transfer students have expressed frustration with the CSU admission process because they did not understand that their transfer admission guarantee does not ensure admission to a specific campus.

Recommend Disseminating Additional Information to High School and CCC Counselors. We recommend the segments prioritize additional information for counselors and advisers over broader marketing approaches. High school counselors can help students understand CCC transfer pathways as they consider their postsecondary options. Community college counselors and faculty advisers can help students map their path to degrees during the education planning process. Students who did not learn about AD–T earlier could learn about them during this process. (CCC already may be on track to implement this recommendation, as the CCC Board of Governors recently adopted regulations regarding mandatory education planning for entering CCC students, and the state has provided substantial student support funding for these activities.) While broader marketing efforts can be helpful (and the segments have been resourceful in using existing funds and partnerships to this end), ensuring that the counselors and faculty who conduct education planning have helpful information and tools (such as easy–to–understand degree maps) is likely among the most cost–effective investments available to the segments.

Verification of Applicants Transferring to CSU

CSU Campuses Need to Know Which Applicants Are Earning an AD–T. Once a CSU campus has verification that a student is on track to earn an AD–T, it can provide priority admission or referral to another campus as required by statute. All CSU campuses provide several ways to verify a student’s AD–T status. These include formal CCC transcripts, informal printouts of transcripts, and paper or web–based verification forms completed by college personnel.

Identification Process at CCC Is Labor–Intensive. Community colleges typically have not identified on a student’s academic record the specific degree the student is pursuing until the student files for graduation or applies for transfer. At that time, CCC officials evaluate the student’s transcript to determine whether the student is meeting degree requirements. This transcript evaluation has served as the initial identification for many students on track to earn an AD–T at the community colleges. The evaluation can be complicated and time–consuming, especially when a student has attended multiple community colleges.

Current Verification Process Likely to Become Increasingly Cumbersome as Number of Applicants With AD–T Grows. To date, the number of students earning AD–T has been relatively small and community colleges have been able to complete the individual verification process. As the numbers increase, however, campuses are reporting difficulty managing the workload and indicate that the manual verification process may be impractical longer term. Colleges have very high student to counselor ratios—more than 700 to 1 systemwide—and some already have experienced difficulty meeting verification deadlines.

New Tracking Practices and Tools May Ease Verification. More recently, some community colleges have begun to identify students working toward AD–T earlier in the process, such as during their initial education planning sessions, and indicating this goal in their student records. Additionally, the CCC Chancellor’s Office is developing web–based tools for students and counselors to assist in academic planning, monitoring progress, and evaluating transcripts. The office expects that as more colleges begin identifying students earlier and using the online planning tools, the verification process will become more automated and less labor–intensive for community colleges. This should improve the timing and accuracy of the information CSU receives.

CSU Admission

For Verified Students, Guaranteed Admission Systemwide. From fall 2012 through spring 2014, more than 5,300 CCC students earning AD–T applied for CSU admission. About 2,100 of these students were identified as AD–T earners at the time of application, and CSU admitted all 2,100. (Some of these students did not earn an AD–T, even though CSU identified them as on track to do so.) The other 3,200 students did not indicate on their applications that they were earning an AD–T, or did not provide verification of their AD–T status. Although this second group of students did not receive admission priority under the state’s transfer reform, CSU admitted 93 percent of them—all but 238—under the university’s regular transfer admission policies.

Unclear if CSU Admitted Students to Campus of Choice . . . More than 97 percent of applicants with AD–T applied to one campus. Although CSU admitted all applicants with verified AD–T, some of these students may not have been admitted to their desired campus or program. Although statute does not guarantee admission to any specific campus or program, the legislation asks our office to determine the degree to which CSU was able to admit applicants to their campus of choice. The CSU Chancellor’s Office reports that it is unable to measure whether students were admitted to their first choice campus. Three campuses with every major impacted estimated that they denied admission to roughly 10 to 50 percent of AD–T applicants and redirected them to a nonimpacted campus. Most of the students they redirected were applicants from nonlocal community colleges.

. . . Or Program of Choice. As noted earlier, statute requires CSU to admit an AD–T student into either a similar program or a program that can be completed in 60 units. CSU reports that it is unable to measure the degree to which applicants were admitted into a similar program, as opposed to a different one that meets the 60–unit requirement. CSU campuses might have redirected some applicants who applied to an impacted program, such as business administration, to a non–impacted major that could be completed in 60 units, such as economics.

Systemwide GPA Bump Has Little Effect, Campus Policies Have Greater Impact. CSU implemented a systemwide policy providing admission priority to transfer applicants with AD–T, as required by statute. The policy provides a “bump” of 0.2 points to a student’s GPA (on a scale of 0 to 4) for admission to impacted campuses and 0.1 points for admission to impacted programs. Admission personnel we interviewed at several campuses reported that the systemwide policy has not made a difference for most students. Most applicants with an AD–T meet the requirements for admission to their campus of choice without the extra points, and for those applicants who do not meet the eligibility requirements, the GPA bump is too small to make them competitive. In response, several campuses have created additional policies to prioritize these applicants. For example, one campus awards applicants with an AD–T up to 0.8 additional GPA points for some of its impacted programs. Another campus first admits eligible local and nonlocal applicants with an AD–T before admitting other transfer applicants as capacity permits. These campus–initiated policies resulted in greater priority for applicants with AD–T than the systemwide policy.

Recommend Legislature Require CSU to Provide Data on Student Admission by Campus and Program. As noted earlier, CSU appears to be admitting all applicants with an AD–T somewhere in the system, but how many of these students campuses are redirecting to a different campus or program is unclear. We recommend the Legislature direct CSU to provide data annually, beginning November 2018, on the degree to which CSU admitted students to their campus of choice and to a program that is similar to their transfer degree. By 2018, CSU should have had adequate time to develop a system that can report these data.

CSU Acceptance of Transfer Model Curricula

More CSU Campuses Accept TMC. Figure 4 summarizes CSU’s acceptance of TMC as of November 2014. In general, campuses have embraced the majority of TMC, with 19 of 23 campuses accepting all but 1 or 2 TMC as similar to an existing degree program. Four of these campuses (Chico, Long Beach, East Bay, and Maritime Academy) recognize the 60–unit guarantee for at least 1 concentration in every TMC major. (CSU will report acceptance of two newer TMC, Child and Adolescent Development and Nutrition and Dietetics, by spring 2015.)

Within Majors, CSU Campuses Accept TMC for Additional Concentrations. As of November 2014, degree options for students with AD–T have increased notably since our 2012 report. In business administration, for example, 10 CSU campuses recognize the 60–unit guarantee for all concentrations they offer and another 7 recognize the guarantee for the majority of their business concentrations. By contrast, in 2012 only eight campuses had done so for all, and four for a majority, of their business concentrations.

Some CSU Campuses Lagging in TMC Acceptance. A few CSU campuses still have several majors they do not deem similar to a TMC. In addition, several campuses continue to recognize the TMC as similar only for a few concentrations within a large number of majors. Figure 5 shows a sample of CSU campuses and a subset of their business concentrations. Several of these campuses recognize general business, entrepreneurship, and human resources as similar to the business administration TMC, but not management, accounting, finance, and marketing.

Various Reasons for Not Accepting TMC as Similar to Majors/Concentrations. Campuses express the following reasons for not recognizing the 60–unit guarantee for certain majors and concentrations.

• High–Unit Degrees. Some CSU campuses require more than the standard 120 units for certain degree programs, for example, in computer science but also in other TMC majors. (Statute exempts high–unit programs from the 60–unit guarantee.)
• Degrees With Minors. Some disciplines tend to require students to complete a minor in addition to the major. For example, the national accrediting body for journalism requires that bachelor’s degree programs incorporate a minor (in history or politics, for example). Completing both the major and minor at the upper–division level may require more than 60 units.
• Majors With Multiple Tracks. Some majors offer distinct tracks for students. For example, kinesiology students planning to attend graduate school for physical therapy may require a different curriculum than those entering various fitness fields, and a single TMC may not accommodate the requirements of both tracks.
• Substantive Differences. CSU campuses report that some of their majors have notable substantive differences from TMCs such that they effectively should not be considered the same. Channel Islands, for example, offers an “applied physics” major that requires students to take unique applied courses instead of focusing on the general theory courses in the physics TMC.

Some Exceptions Justified, Others Less So. CSU faculty in a few majors understandably have struggled to fit the TMC structure to their disciplines for the reasons provided. (The segments opted to develop different pathways than the 60–60 framework for a few of these disciplines, as described in the nearby box, Developing Transfer Curricula for Specialized Majors.) For most of the majors and concentrations campuses have deemed “not similar” to a TMC, however, discrepancies are more a matter of faculty preference than fundamental differences in structure or content. In these cases, CSU faculty could make relatively small adjustments to their curricula that would align them to TMC.

CSU Efforts to Reduce High–Unit Majors Should Improve TMC Acceptance. The CSU Chancellor’s Office has directed campuses to reduce all high–unit bachelor of arts and science degree programs to 120 units. Campuses must request approval from the Chancellor for any exceptions to this policy. Ten campuses already have complied. The Chancellor currently is reviewing campuses’ remaining high–unit degree programs—about 40 in engineering and 40 in other majors—and determining whether to allow them to remain above 120 units. As the number of high–unit TMC–related majors declines, overall TMC acceptance should improve.

Recommend Legislature Continue to Monitor TMC Acceptance. CSU campuses still are reviewing new TMC and adjusting their degree programs, and each month campuses are deeming additional majors and concentrations as similar to TMC. Given CSU’s seemingly good faith effort and continued progress, we believe any legislative action to improve CSU’s compliance would be premature. We recommend, however, that the Legislature ask CSU to report on TMC acceptance by concentration November 1, 2015 and November 1, 2016. If acceptance continues to be low for certain campuses, majors, or concentrations, the Legislature could consider additional steps at that time.

Student Outcomes

Growing Number of CCC Students Earning AD–T. As of spring 2014, about 18,000 students have graduated from CCC with AD–T. As shown in Figure 6, the number of AD–T earners increased substantially, from 807 students in 2011–12 to nearly 12,000 students in 2013–14.

Growing Number of AD–T Graduates Enrolling in CSU. Of approximately 5,000 AD–T earners admitted to CSU from fall 2012 through spring 2014, more than 4,000 enrolled. Enrollments increased significantly from fall 2012, when only 161 students identified as AD–T earners enrolled, to fall 2013 when more than 3,000 enrolled. Although we do not have final data for 2014–15, CSU reports that nearly 7,000 new AD–T graduates enrolled in the fall term. Despite this considerable growth, the number of transfer students with AD–T is still modest relative to CSU’s annual new transfer class of more than 50,000.

First Bachelor’s Degree Graduates Emerge at CSU. As of spring 2014, about 200 AD–T earners emerged with bachelor’s degree from CSU, most them graduating in a few historically popular transfer majors (for example, business administration, psychology, communications).

Student Outcome Data Too Preliminary to Draw Conclusions. Many AD–T graduates began their postsecondary academic careers before transfer reform and did not set out intentionally to earn an AD–T. Instead, they happened to complete the required courses by the time the degree became available. The AD–T earners who transferred to CSU and graduated by spring 2014 are therefore not necessarily representative of future transfer students. These students also comprise a small portion of CCC and CSU graduates. In 2013–14, AD–T earners comprised 11 percent of all CCC associate degree graduates. The roughly 200 students who have graduated from CSU are very small relative to the roughly 80,000 bachelor’s degree CSU annually confers.

Unclear if Graduates Are Completing Fewer Units. As noted earlier, one of the goals of transfer reform was to enable students to earn a CCC associate degree within 60 units and a CSU bachelor’s degree within an additional 60 units. Although data on bachelor’s degree graduates to date would not be meaningful for the reasons described above, current and future evaluations of the act will require accurate and meaningful data on the number of units transfer students take. CCC is able to report the number of units its AD–T graduates complete, but current CSU data management practices do not permit the university to accurately measure unit accrual.

Recommend Legislature Require CSU to Provide Accurate Unit Count and Graduation Rates for AD–T Students. We recommend CSU make data on student outcomes under transfer reform publicly available. (CCC already publishes comparable data on its student outcomes.) For students in each cohort, data should include: (1) the number of transferable CCC units taken before the start of the first semester at CSU; (2) the number of units taken as fully matriculated CSU students, and (3) the proportion who graduate from CSU within two and three years. The data should distinguish between students who enroll and remain in a major similar to their AD–T and students who enroll in a different major, change majors, or add a minor, thereby forfeiting the 60–unit guarantee.

We recommend the first posting be due by November 1, 2018 and contain data on the student cohorts entering fall 2014 through fall 2016. By 2018, more students will have had an opportunity to enroll at a community college, select a major from a broad range of AD–T offered, complete their community college degrees, transfer to a CSU campus, and complete their junior and senior years. For these reasons, the graduating class of spring 2018 should provide a meaningful representation of AD–T transfers. In addition, three years should provide sufficient time for the CSU Chancellor’s Office to improve the accuracy of its unit tracking system.

Summary

Figure 7 summarizes our findings and recommendations.

Segments Mostly Complying With Legislative Requirements and Goals. Both CCC and CSU have made considerable progress in implementing transfer reform. The segments have adopted statewide processes that streamline transfer for a large majority of students. Community colleges offer or are developing AD–T for most approved TMC, and CSU campuses accept more AD–T for more majors and concentrations. Both the number of AD–T community colleges award and the number of AD–T graduates CSU campuses admit are growing rapidly. If these trends were to continue, the segments would meet the Legislature’s objective of making AD–T the preferred transfer pathway for students across the state.

Although Segments Lagging in Some Areas, Legislative Sanctions Would Be Premature. Despite the progress of many campuses in meeting transfer reform goals, some campuses are lagging behind. With the fall 2015 deadline for AD–T development approaching, some community colleges still have work to do, with several campuses far from meeting their targets. Likewise, CSU campus acceptance of TMC is lagging at a few campuses, particularly in some popular concentrations. Moreover, many students are confused about transfer reform, and challenges remain in student tracking and verification. The segments are making a good faith effort to comply with statutory goals, however, and new education planning tools hold promise to improve student awareness, advising, tracking, and verification. As a result, we believe corrective legislative action at this time would be premature.

More Information in Coming Years Could Help Legislature Continue to Track Segments’ Progress. The state’s transfer reform is too recent to assess its effectiveness in a comprehensive way. Within the year, CCC appears on track to make additional progress in developing and approving AD–T. CSU appears on track to make additional progress in accepting TMC as similar to its majors and concentrations. Students could become much more familiar with available transfer pathways and many more students could enter and complete those pathways. To help the Legislature monitor these areas, we recommend one near–term report from CCC (in fall 2015) and two from CSU (in fall 2015 and fall 2016) to track the segments’ progress in creating AD–T and accepting TMC. We also recommend CSU annually make data publicly available, beginning fall 2018, that would provide information on student outcomes.