U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Results in Brief:

Higher Education Articulation Agreements: 

A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce

September 2019

A barrier that students and mid-career professionals often face in attempts to advance their education level is that the coursework 

completed and credits earned in one institution of higher education (IHE) may not transfer to another. To address this issue, states 

have developed a variety of articulation policies and agreements to facilitate the transfer of credits and coursework between degree 

programs. Articulation policies are particularly important for individuals who begin their higher education coursework in a two-year 

college and later seek to transfer their credits to obtain a bachelor’s degree, which often is the case for teachers and caregivers in the 

early care and education (ECE) workforce. This study provides an in-depth examination of how six states and their IHEs have 

implemented articulation policies that include provisions specific to the ECE field, including approaches to articulation, governance 

structures, roles played by various stakeholders, and supports provided to transfer students.

Research Questions

1. In the six states examined in this study, what higher 

education articulation policies and practices have been 

implemented to support students seeking a degree in ECE? 

2.What governance structures do these states have in place to 

oversee ECE articulation policy? How do the states involve 

stakeholders in policy development and oversight? 

3.How do IHEs in these states implement ECE articulation 

policies? 

4.What supports do these states and IHEs provide for the 

transfer and articulation process? 

Study Design 

This report is based on case studies of six states with statewide 

articulation policies that address ECE degree pathways: 

California, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and 

Pennsylvania. The study also included 20 IHEs (10 two-year 

IHEs and 10 four-year IHEs) within those states.

Study findings are based on telephone interviews and focus 

groups with (1) state-level higher education administrators, 

policy staff, and representatives from articulation oversight 

committees; (2) senior academic administrators from IHEs, 

faculty, and staff, such as registrars, student advisors, and 

financial aid officers; and (3) students who had transferred or 

were planning to transfer between a two-year and four-year 

IHE within the state.

Readers should note that the six states are not nationally 

representative, and these case study data should not be 

generalized to other states. In addition, the selected IHEs and 

individual respondents may not be representative of all IHEs in 

each state.

Highlights

• All six states used transfer associate’s degrees and general 

education block transfers, which allow students to transfer 

courses as a set rather than on a course-by-course basis, to 

facilitate course and credit transfer for ECE students; half of 

the states also used guaranteed admission or common 

course numbering. 

• Four states established at least one statewide committee to 

oversee articulation, while the remaining two states 

oversaw articulation through a state higher education 

agency or system office. 

• Most IHEs (17 of 20) supplemented state-level articulation 

policies with intrastate and interstate regional articulation 

agreements formed between IHEs. 

• Most two-year IHEs (nine of 10) offered separate ECE degree 

pathways for students who planned to transfer and earn a 

bachelor’s degree versus students who planned to end their 

education with the associate’s degree. 

• In nearly all the IHEs (19 of 20), ECE faculty played several 

key roles in implementing articulation policies, such as 

evaluating course transferability (15 IHEs) and designing 

courses that reflect agreed-upon competencies (12 IHEs). 

• IHEs supported transfer students by providing online

information about transfer (12 IHEs), outreach programs 

(seven IHEs), transfer centers (six IHEs), and transfer 

student orientations (five IHEs). 

• Faculty and staff reported advising students on topics 

including career paths (16 IHEs) and financial aid (15 IHEs), 

referring students to degree planning tools (14 IHEs), and 

referring students to transfer advisors (three IHEs).
Statewide Articulation and Transfer 

Policies

All six states in the study used transfer associate’s degrees 

and general education block transfers to facilitate course and 

credit transfer for ECE students; half of the states also used 

guaranteed admission or common course numbering.

All six states instituted transfer associate’s degrees in ECE that 

allowed students to block transfer lower division coursework 

and enroll in their four-year degree program with junior status.

All six states had common general education requirements that 

allowed for block transfer of 30–35 credits. These common 

requirements reflected a shared understanding regarding the 

content, competencies, and learning outcomes to be expected 

of all first- and second-year students.

Three states offered guaranteed or priority admission into a 

public four-year institution for students who earned transfer 

associate’s degrees. Requirements for guaranteed admission 

included a minimum grade point average, minimum grades for 

specified courses, and passing scores on teacher licensure 

exams prior to admission.

Three states implemented common course numbering for 

equivalent courses at participating IHEs. These systems allowed 

faculty, staff, and students to track which courses would 

transfer and how they would fulfill degree requirements.

State-Level Governance and Oversight 

Four states established at least one statewide committee to 

oversee articulation, while the remaining two states oversaw 

articulation through a state higher education agency or 

system office.

In three of the four states with oversight committees, the 

committee had an ongoing role in monitoring, updating, and 

enforcing statewide policies after the policy was developed.

Another mechanism that three of the six states used to facilitate 

IHEs’ cooperation was performance-based funding tied to degree 

completion rates or adoption of common course numbering.

IHE-Level Implementation of 

Articulation Policies 

Most IHEs (17 of 20) supplemented state-level articulation 

policies with intrastate and interstate regional articulation 

agreements formed between IHEs.

Regional agreements formed between four-year IHEs and their 

two-year feeder institutions served to clarify how courses from 

a two-year IHE would transfer, offer additional transfer 

benefits beyond those required under state-level policies, or 

extend transfer benefits to students not covered under statelevel policies.

Most of the two-year IHEs (nine of 10) offered separate ECE 

degree pathways for students who planned to transfer and 

students who planned to end their education with the 

associate’s degree.

Having a separate terminal degree pathway allowed IHEs to 

meet the needs of students who planned to work in the ECE 

field in positions that do not require a bachelor’s degree or 

teacher licensure. However, students who earn terminal 

degrees and later decide to pursue a four-year degree were 

reported to encounter a loss of credits upon enrollment 

because not all terminal degree coursework is aligned with or 

transferable to the bachelor’s degree program requirements. 

In nearly all IHEs (19 of 20), ECE faculty played several key 

roles in implementing articulation policies, such as evaluating 

course transferability (15 IHEs) and designing courses that 

reflect agreed-on competencies (12 IHEs).

ECE faculty members — by virtue of their expertise in both the 

content and structure of their school’s ECE coursework — were 

largely responsible for determining whether and how courses from 

other IHEs would transfer. To evaluate a course’s transferability, 

faculty members reviewed syllabi, examples of student work from 

the course, and/or the qualifications of the instructors.

Transfer Supports for Students

IHEs supported transfer students by providing online 

information about transfer (12 IHEs), outreach 

programs (seven IHEs), transfer centers (six IHEs), and 

transfer student orientations (five IHEs).

More than half of IHEs provided transfer information on 

their websites or through referral to statewide transfer 

websites. Four-year IHEs sent representatives to community 

colleges to meet with faculty, staff, and prospective transfer 

students. Through transfer centers, several IHEs provided 

prospective transfer students with information regarding 

coursework, degree requirements, scholarship information, 

and transfer timelines. In addition, several four-year IHEs 

offered orientations to help transfer students acclimate to 

their new campus and plan upper division course sequences. 

Faculty and staff advised students on topics including career 

paths (16 IHEs) and financial aid (15 IHEs), referred students 

to degree planning tools (14 IHEs), and referred students to 

transfer advisors (three IHEs).

Faculty and staff at most IHEs advised students on career paths, 

degree options, and financial aid. Less frequently, they advised 

students on the transfer process. They also referred 

prospective transfer students to degree planning tools, such as 

degree maps and transfer guides, or to transfer-specific 

advisors. Despite the provision of these resources, students 

reported receiving inaccurate or insufficient guidance from 

advisors about the transfer process and about financial aid.

Additional Information 

The complete report is available at

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.