U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21-019 PDF 2005

COLLEGE CREDIT MOBILITY: CAN TRANSFER OF

CREDIT POLICIES BE IMPROVED?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

May 5, 2005

Serial No. 109-14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thelma D. Drake, Virginia 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

John Barrow, Georgia

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON, California, Chairman

Jon C. Porter, Nevada Vice Chairman 

John A. Boehner, Ohio 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thelma D. Drake, Virginia 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

John Barrow, Georgia 

Major R. Owens, New York 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on May 5, 2005 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st Century 

Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce ................ 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’, Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce ........ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Day, Dr. Philip R., Jr., President, National Articulation and Transfer 

Network, San Francisco, CA ........................................................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Klebacha, Dr. Theresa A., Director of Strategic Initiatives, Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL ..................................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22

Sullivan, Jerome H., Executive Director, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Washington, DC ..................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Zimpher, Dr. Nancy L., President, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, 

OH .................................................................................................................. 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

(1)

COLLEGE CREDIT MOBILITY: CAN TRANSFER 

OF CREDIT POLICIES BE IMPROVED? 

Thursday, May 5, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon [Chairman of the 

Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McKeon, Boehner, Tiberi, Osborne, Inglis, Boustany, Kuhl, Kildee, Wu, and Bishop. 

Staff Present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Alison 

Griffin, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf, Professional Staff 

Member; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Brad Thomas, Legislative Assistant; Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny, Minority 

Legislative Assistant/Education. 

Chairman MCKEON. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on the 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony addressing 

the question of, College Credit Mobility, Can Transfer of Credit 

Policies Be Improved? 

Under Committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they will be 

included in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow Members’ statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted to 

the official hearing record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today for this important hearing on college credit mobility. I want to welcome our 

2

witnesses and thank them for taking the time to appear before the 

Subcommittee. 

Today’s hearing will examine if current policies regarding the 

mobility of academic credit at the State and institutional level create artificial barriers to higher education and to examine the best 

practices that some States may be doing to permit fair and efficient 

transfer of credit. 

With data showing more than 50 percent of students attend multiple institutions of higher education, it has become increasingly 

important for students to have the flexibility to transfer their credits from one school to another. And with increasing numbers of 

nontraditional students pursuing higher education for the first 

time or returning to school to complete their education, it has become more important than ever that college students are free to 

transfer from one institution to another without unfairly losing 

credit for quality courses they have completed. 

I have heard from many in the higher education community who 

believe there is nothing wrong with the current system. The message I hear is: we’re doing just fine; just send us more money. 

However, when institutional policies support the blanket denial 

of credit transfers, I believe there is something wrong. Artificial 

barriers to college credit mobility inhibit student completion rates 

and help drive up the cost of post-secondary education. 

If students are blocked from transferring from a 2-year institution to 4-year institution or from a proprietary institution to any 

other institution for reasons considered to be territorial or political, 

the student is forced to repeat course work, extend the time to completion, and all this comes at an additional cost. But this cost is 

borne not just by the students but by parents and taxpayers as 

well. We are all paying for students to take the same courses twice. 

In addition, according to the College Board, average tuition and 

fees at 2-year institutions for this school year were only about 40 

percent of those at public 4-year institutions. Students and their 

families should be able to take advantage of these low-cost institutions and the quality education they provide to help hold down the 

families’ educational costs during their first 2 years of school, and 

they should be able to plan ahead when they seek portability with 

the credits they earn. I believe students should have good information on where those credits will be accepted and have the confidence they will not have to start over from the beginning to finish 

their degrees at 4-year schools. 

Recognizing the importance of college credit mobility, Chairman 

Boehner and I introduced H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. To address the issue of college credit mobility, our bill 

simply requires institutions to have a transfer of credit policy, 

make that policy public, and follow that policy. It is absolutely critical that institutions of higher education provide better information 

to parents and students so they can make informed decisions on 

what college or university will meet their individual needs. 

Our bill also ensures credits are not unfairly or arbitrarily denied 

based solely on the agency or association that accredits an institution, so long as they are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It is important to point out that the bill contains language 

specifying that institutions retain all rights to deny credits based 

3

on the criteria they themselves establish. It does not mandate what 

course work must be accepted by any institution. 

The witnesses that are with us today will talk about State and 

institutional level programs that are working to address college 

credit mobility. I applaud the work that is already under way in 

some States and institutions to improve college credit mobility for 

students, and I am eager to learn more about these efforts. I also 

believe their testimony will show a commitment to addressing the 

challenges of college credit mobility. 

As we enter the 21st century, it is our duty and obligation to act, 

to drive improvements to the current system to reflect today’s increasingly mobile student body. I look forward to hearing our witness testimony here today, and I thank you all for joining us to discuss this important topic, and I look forward to working with you 

as we move forward on this issue. 

I now yield to Congressman Kildee for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]

Statement of Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning and thank you all for joining us today for this important hearing 

on college credit mobility. I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for taking the time to appear before the subcommittee. 

Today’s hearing will examine if current policies regarding the mobility of academic credit at the state and institutional level create artificial barriers to higher 

education and to examine the best practices that some states may be doing to permit fair and efficient transfer of credit. 

With data showing more than 50 percent of students attend multiple institutions 

of higher education, it has become increasingly important for students to have the 

flexibility to transfer their credits from one school to another. And, with increasing 

numbers of non-traditional students pursuing higher education for the first time, or 

returning to school to complete their education, it has become more important than 

ever that college students are free to transfer from one institution to another without unfairly losing credit for quality courses they have completed. 

I have heard from many in the higher education community who believe there is 

nothing wrong with the current system. The message I hear is, ‘‘We’re doing fine. 

Just give us more money.’’

However, when institutional policies support the blanket denial of credit transfers, I believe there is something wrong. Artificial barriers to college credit mobility 

inhibit student completion rates and help drive up the cost of postsecondary education. 

If students are blocked from transferring from a two-year institution to a fouryear institution, or from a proprietary institution to any other institution for reasons considered to be territorial or political, the student is forced to repeat course 

work, extend the time to completion, and all this comes at an additional cost. But 

this cost is borne not just by the students, but by parents and taxpayers as well. 

We’re all paying for students to take the same courses twice. 

In addition, according to the College Board, average tuition and fees at two-year 

institutions for this school year were only about 40% of those at public four-year 

institutions. Students and their families should be able to take advantage of these 

low cost institutions and the quality education they provide to help hold down the 

families’ educational costs during their first two years of school, and they should be 

able to plan ahead when they seek portability with the credits they earn. I believe 

students should have good information on where those credits will be accepted and 

have the confidence they will not have to start over from the beginning to finish 

their degrees at four-year schools. 

Recognizing the importance of college credit mobility, Chairman Boehner and I introduced H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. To address the issue 

of college credit mobility, our bill simply requires institutions to have a transfer of 

credit policy, make that policy public, and follow that policy. It is absolutely critical 

that institutions of higher education provide better information to parents and students so they can make informed decisions on what college or university will meet 

their individual needs. 

4

Our bill also ensures credits are not unfairly and arbitrarily denied based solely 

on the agency or association that accredits an institution, so long as they are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. It is important to point out that the bill 

contains language specifying that institutions retain all rights to deny credits based 

on the criteria they themselves establish. It does not mandate what course work 

must be accepted by any institution. 

The witnesses that are with us today will talk about state and institutional level 

programs that are working to address college credit mobility. I applaud the work 

that is already underway in some states and institutions to improve college credit 

mobility for students, and I’m eager to learn more about these efforts. I also believe 

their testimony will show a commitment to addressing the challenges of college 

credit mobility. 

As we enter the 21st Century, it is our duty and obligation to act to drive improvements to the current system to reflect today’s increasingly mobile student 

body. I look forward to hearing our witness testimony here today, and I thank you 

all for joining us to discuss this important topic and I look forward to working with 

you as we move forward on this issue. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased 

today to join you, my friend and my colleague and my Chairman 

on today’s hearing. This is an incredibly important issue to students, schools and for the cost and efficiency of our Federal student 

aid programs. I am very pleased that we have an expert panel here 

today to help us in our discussions today. 

The systems and policies our institutions, States and the Federal 

Government have in place on transfer of credit are significant to 

college access and graduation. The community college student 

whose ultimate goal is a 4-year degree needs to know up front 

which of his credits will transfer. A student who returns to college 

after several years needs a clear understanding how many existing 

credits will be considered. While many students have successful 

transfer experience, those who encounter problems are those we 

should be concerned about today. 

Lost credits translate into the need to repeat courses and higher 

education loan debt. States have responded to this problem through 

various means. Some States have created articulation agreements 

and others have created common course numbering among their institutions. Several State legislatures have mandated their colleges 

and universities to resolve this issue. 

I do not believe that the Federal Government has all the answers 

here. We can and should encourage States and institutions to develop systems and policies to ease the transfer of legitimate credits. 

We should also increase the sharing of information between sending and receiving institutions. All this must be done while respecting the right of colleges to judge the acceptance of credits based on 

quality. 

Colleges to which students are transferring must have the information to judge the quality and rigor of its students’ courses. Unfortunately, too little of this happens now. H.R. 609, introduced by 

Chairman McKeon, has several provisions which are intended to 

address difficulties in transferring credits. We need to find solutions for students who struggle to transfer these credits. 

I look forward to learning more about this. I am sure we can pursue this in a very bipartisan way as Mr. McKeon and I usually do. 

5

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]

Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking member, Subcommittee on 21st 

Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Chairman McKeon 

at today’s hearing on transfer of credit. This is an incredibly important issue to students, schools and for the cost and efficiency of our Federal student aid programs. 

I am very pleased that we have an expert panel of witnesses to help inform us in 

our discussions today. 

The systems and policies our institutions, States and the Federal government 

have in place on transfer of credit are critical to college access and graduation. A 

community college student whose ultimate goal is a four year degree needs to know 

up front which of his credits will transfer. A student who returns to college after 

several years needs a clear understanding of how existing credits will be considered. 

While many students have successful transfer experiences, those who encounter 

problems are those we should be concerned about today. Lost credits translate into 

the need to repeat courses and higher student loan debt. 

States have responded to this problem through various means. Some States have 

created articulation agreements, and others have created common course numbering 

among their institutions. Several State legislatures have mandated their colleges 

and Universities to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, too many States have done too 

little to address this problem. 

I do not believe that the Federal government has all the answers here. We can 

and should encourage States and institutions to develop systems and policies to ease 

the transfer of legitimate credits. We also must increase the sharing of information 

between sending and receiving institutions. All of this must be done while respecting the right of colleges to judge the acceptance of credits based on quality. Colleges 

to which students are transferring must have the information to judge the quality 

and rigor of a student’s courses. Unfortunately, too little of this happens now. 

H.R. 609, legislation introduced by Chairman McKeon, has several provisions 

which are intended to address difficulties in transferring credits. Rather than criticize those provisions, I simply believe they do not go far enough. We need to find 

solutions for students who struggle to transfer their credits. I look forward to learning more about what we can and should do in a bipartisan pursuit of this goal. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. 

We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses before us. I 

thank you all for being here today. 

First, we will hear from Dr. Philip Day. Dr. Day is currently the 

Chancellor of City College in San Francisco. Prior to arriving at 

City College, Dr. Day served as president at community colleges in 

Florida, Massachusetts and Maryland. A global traveler, Dr. Day 

has served on numerous State and local educational agency boards 

and in leadership positions with several professional associations. 

He is currently the founding president of the National Articulation and Transfer Network, a voluntary consortium of schools dedicated to improving the transfer process to increase access to postsecondary education for students. 

I would like to yield now to the Chairman of the Full Committee, 

Chairman Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio, to introduce our next 

witness. 

Mr. BOEHNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to introduce our second witness today, Dr. Nancy Zimpher. 

Dr. Zimpher is currently the President of the University of Cincinnati, not quite in my district, but almost. Prior to assuming this 

role, she served as the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin 

in Milwaukee, and she was the Dean of the College of Education 

at The Ohio State University. 

6

Dr. Zimpher has been widely recognized for her expertise in a 

range of higher education issues, and she currently co-chairs the 

Ohio Board of Regents Articulation and Transfer Advisory Counsel. 

The Council implements policies aimed at addressing the issues of 

students that transfer their credits between Ohio’s colleges and 

universities, as well as increasing student mobility through the 

Ohio higher education system. 

I just want to say, welcome, and we are glad you are here. 

Chairman MCKEON. Following Dr. Zimpher, we will hear from 

Dr. Theresa Klebacha. Dr. Klebacha is the Director of Strategic Initiatives with the Florida Department of Education. In this position, 

she oversees the State of Florida’s Pathways to Success Initiative. 

This program provides information to students about Florida’s 

groundbreaking efforts to provide students easier opportunities to 

transfer credits between public and participating private institutions of higher education in the State. 

Prior to joining the Florida Department of Education, Dr. 

Klebacha worked in the Florida House of Representatives and as 

an adjunct professor at Illinois State University. 

Finally, we will hear from Mr. Jerome Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan is 

the Executive Director of the American Association of Collegiate 

Registrars and Admissions Officers, AACRAO. 

AACRAO is a nonprofit association of institutions of higher education and campus enrollment services officials that provide professional development, guidelines and voluntary standards for higher 

education officials and provides a forum for discussion regarding 

policy initiation and development at the institutional level. 

Mr. Sullivan’s career in higher education has spanned nearly 40 

years. His particular areas of interest include access to post-secondary education, veterans education and nontraditional students. 

Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would like to remind you how those lights work. I think you have been told you 

have 5 minutes, and the light is green at the start. And when you 

have a minute left to go, it is yellow, and when your time is up, 

its red light comes on. 

With that, we would like to begin with you, Dr. Day. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP R. DAY, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ARTICULATION AND TRANSFER NETWORK, SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 

Dr. DAY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on where the 

transfer policy in higher education can be improved, and I am here 

to say it can, it must and it will. 

In the spring of 2001, only a few blocks from the United States 

Capitol, the leaders of seven national associations of education and 

several college presidents joined the president of Howard University and me in creating the National Articulation Transfer Network. We had no office, no staff, no funding and no mandate, but, 

undeterred, we ceremoniously signed the cooperative agreement 

and began work. 

Soon afterwards, at our first coalition meeting, we were confirmed in our mission when a student named Aretha movingly informed us that she had been accepted as a transfer student with 

7

a strong grade point average and an accredited degree from a 

prominent community college, but her chosen baccalaureate institution had denied most of the 60 credits she had earned, leaving 

only 26 credits, less than 1 year of academic course work. The credits were eventually restored through our intervention, but it was 

this Rosa Parks incident that galvanized the resolve of NATN. 

The National Articulation Transfer Network is a coalition of 

more than 300 institutions and is chartered as a nonprofit organization with a national board of directors. The initial member institutions were community colleges, historically black colleges and 

universities, Hispanic service institutions, tribal colleges and the 

Council of Great City Schools. However, we have been expanding 

with Asian-Pacific-Islander-serving institutions and other post-secondary institutions. 

Our original sponsors were the major leaders in education, including the parent associations of the referenced minority-serving 

institutions, as well as AACC, ACE, the Council of Great City 

Schools, the League For Innovation, ASCU and AACRAO, the 

American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers, as you know. 

The mission of NATN is to improve traditional articulation and 

transfer patterns for students, enabling them to make successful 

transitions from their high school to community colleges and on to 

baccalaureate institutions, with special attention to the network of 

minority-serving institutions. 

We are dedicated to accomplishing this mission not just locally 

or statewide but nationally, as today’s students are highly mobile, 

advancing through educational levels and across institutions, increasingly moving beyond State borders and swirling among traditional and nontraditional levels of career training and education. 

The development phase of NATN has been made possible by an 

initial grant by FIPSE, by several congressional allocations with 

assistance from the Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus and other key legislators and by funding from Ford and the 

Lumina Foundation. We are now seeking funding for the next 

phase of our work, nationalizing NATN. 

The accomplishments of NATN may be described in two areas. 

The first is improving transfer policy and practice. The NATN 

framework classifies transfer at three critical levels: institution to 

institution; program to program; and course to course. 

At the institution level, our general academic transfer agreement 

ensures that associate degree graduates who meet the admissions 

requirements of transfer institutions, usually a 2.5 GPA, can transfer all of their lower division credits to fulfill graduation requirements at receiving institutions across the country. 

At the program level, we seek consensus on two articulation 

blocks, the general education core curriculum and the field of study 

or major core curriculum. The articulation agreement in engineering-related program areas recently negotiated between Miami Dade 

College, a member of our network from its inception, with Georgia 

Institute of Technology, is an excellent example of this approach. 

Finally, at the course level, we anticipate a framework which replaces traditional course-to-course articulation practices with 

coursework aligned to learning outcomes or competencies. 

8

The second accomplishment of NATN is the development of Web 

technology to facilitate the transfer process. Over the past 2 years, 

our interactive Web-based system for students and advisers, 

CollegeStepz, has been developed. 

The initial components are portal and introductory media, college 

information and college search, as well as an articulation transfer 

of information. A searchable data base includes information on 

every college in the country, with provisions for their transfer policies and agreements. 

Eventually, and with sufficient funding, CollegeStepz will embrace comprehensive articulation transfer processes, online communications with advisers, education and career planning, financial 

aid and student tracking. All of this work is currently in operation 

at five regional pilot sites in Atlanta, Baltimore-Washington, Houston, San Antonio and San Francisco, with additional pilots expected to be under way this summer. 

Let me say in closing what I think is required. There is no question that higher education needs congressional support and encouragement for a national effort in articulation and transfer, but we 

need the encouragement to do it on a voluntary basis, not on a 

mandatory basis, and certainly not with burdensome reporting requirements. 

The colleges and universities are getting the message and demonstrating their support for the kind of engagement that NATN offers, as evidenced by the participation of the three largest associates, ACE, AASCU, and AACC, associations that represent over 

400 minority-serving institutions, HACU, NAFEO and AIHEC and 

the network of 1,800 Servicemen’s Opportunity Colleges and, of 

course, AACRAO. 

We need to encourage support and allow this grassroots voluntary approach to prove that higher education can and will get 

the job done. I would suggest, therefore, that in conjunction with 

the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the adoption of a 

national goal to significantly increase the numbers of students successfully transferring their degrees and accelerating baccalaureate 

degree completion, especially for students of color, through voluntarily compliance and commitment. 

The National Articulation and Transfer Network stands ready, 

with your support and commitment, to help facilitate the achievement of that goal. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Day follows:]

Statement of Dr. Philip R. Day, Jr., President, National Articulation and 

Transfer Network, San Francisco, CA 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to 

address the subcommittee on whether transfer policy in higher education can be improved, and I am here to say that it can, it must, and it will. 

In the spring of 2001, only a few blocks from the United States Capitol, the leaders of seven national associations of education and the presidents of an array of colleges and universities joined the President of Howard University and me in creating 

the National Articulation and Transfer Network. We had no office, no staff, no funding, and no mandate. But undeterred, we ceremoniously signed the cooperative 

agreement and began work. Soon afterwards, at our first coalition meeting in Dallas 

with 25–30 institutions attending, we were confirmed in our mission when a student 

named Doretha movingly informed us that she had just been accepted as a transfer 

student with a strong grade-point-average and an accredited degree from a promiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21019 NNIXON
9

nent community college on the West Coast and seeking to transfer to an East Coast 

institution, but the nationally recognized baccalaureate institution had denied acceptance of most of the 60 credits she had earned, leaving only 26 credits, less than 

one year of academic coursework. The credits were restored after intervention on 

our part, but it was this ‘‘Rosa Parks’’ incident that galvanized the resolve of NATN. 

I want to tell you now what we have done in just a few short years and where we 

hope to go. 

What is NATN? 

The National Articulation and Transfer Network is a coalition of more than 300 

institutions, until recently led by a steering committee but now chartered as a nonprofit organization with a national board of directors. The initial member institutions were Community Colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. However, we have been expanding 

with Asian–Pacific Islander Serving Institutions and other secondary and postsecondary institutions. The sponsors who established NATN were the major leaders in 

education: the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the United Negro 

College Fund, the American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, the American Council on Education, the Council of the Great City Schools, the League for Innovation in the Community College, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and most recently the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. NATN is truly 

a coalition of forces for change. 

The mission of NATN is to improve traditional articulation and transfer patterns 

through the development of a continuum of pathways for students, enabling them 

to make successful transitions from their high schools to local community colleges 

and on to baccalaureate institutions, with special attention to the network of minority serving institutions. We are dedicated to accomplishing this mission not just locally or statewide but nationally, as today’s students are highly mobile, advancing 

through educational levels and across institutions, moving beyond state borders, and 

‘‘swirling’’ among traditional and non-traditional forms of career training and education. 

Our accomplishments have derived from the organization of five work groups, 

each with a chairperson and its members drawn from affiliated institutions. The 

work groups have provided guidance with respect to the development of articulation 

and transfer policies, the identification and promulgation of best practices, and the 

launching of an interactive web-site as the major resource for students and their 

advisors, CollegeStepz. The work groups, which meet during annual conferences, 

also collaborate through teleconferences and other work sessions during the year. 

The development phase of NATN has been made possible by a seed-funding grant 

by the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education, and by Congressional allocations between 2002 and 2004, with the assistance of the Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses and other key legislators. 

Additionally, NATN has also received private funding from the Ford Foundation and 

from the Lumina Foundation for Education. We are now seeking funding for the 

next phase of our work, nationalizing NATN. 

What is Happening Nationally? 

Before offering further commentary on NATN and its accomplishments, I’d like 

to provide the subcommittee with a brief overview of what colleges and universities 

are already doing to facilitate articulation and transfer. Nationally, almost half of 

the students enrolled in college begin their postsecondary education at the community college. Of those who enter the community college, almost three-fourths (71%) 

intend to earn a bachelor’s degree, including students in vocational programs. Still 

the transfer rate hovers between 20 to 25 percent nationally, with minority students 

lagging as much as 10 to 20 percentage points below the transfer rate for white students. Some of the factors related to the relatively low rate of transfer are heavily 

influenced by patterns of attendance, student flow and numbers of credit hours attempted per semester. However, there are other institutional and systemic factors 

that influence this equation as well. This is particularly troubling since nearly half 

of the minority students in higher education are enrolled in community colleges. Indeed, urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Detroit have community colleges that enroll ‘‘minority majorities.’’ If we accept the baccalaureate as 

a keystone to upward mobility and sustained prosperity, then such lackluster transfer rates are untenable. 

A recent publication of the American Association of Community Colleges and the 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Access to the Baccalaureate, identifies several barriers that impede the transfer of community college 

10

students. Variations in institutional policies create situations where course credits 

are transferred but not applied to the major, forcing students to repeat courses and 

adding to their financial burden. Even students who have earned traditional transfer degrees, the Associate of Arts or the Associate of Science, are finding that limited seats are available because of budget cuts and competing priorities. Moreover, 

there is a persistent attitude among four-year faculty that community college programs lack academic rigor. And community college faculty, likewise, may not trust 

that their university counterparts will accept transfer students, perceiving intransigence instead of interest. Even in states where there are highly developed support 

systems, there are insufficient incentives to encourage cooperation between educational sectors or reward successful articulation and transfer, and students are 

often left to their own devices to figure out the ‘‘transfer maze.’’

Nonetheless, many initiatives and innovations have occurred at state and local 

levels over the past decade. As a result, eighty percent of the states have established articulation agreements between two and four-year publicly-funded colleges 

and universities within their states. However, the efficacy of such agreements is 

often tied to the specificity of the language and the degree of enforcement. Giving 

transfer more muscle, thirty-three states, such as in Colorado and North Carolina, 

have created legislation that promotes cooperative agreements with clearly established guidelines. Twenty-three states, with the leadership of state boards of higher 

education, have developed common general education core curricula (e.g., the California Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum and the Massachusetts Transfer Compact). To support this work, several states have established 

statewide transfer councils. Arizona, for instance, has transfer councils composed of 

two and four-year college representatives for every major discipline, overseeing and 

recommending the transferability of courses. A few states—Alaska, Florida, Georgia, 

Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming—have established 

common course numbering systems, simplifying the transfer process. At the same 

time, technology has provided sophisticated solutions. FACTS in Florida and 

ARTSYS in Maryland enable students to plot out a transfer course to the baccalaureate by examining course requirements, programs of study, and course applicability through dynamic Web technology. 

Concurrently, many promising curricular initiatives are emerging. Florida is developing a K–20 philosophy to focus on the entire educational spectrum and enable 

the smooth transition of students from elementary, middle, and high school through 

the community college and the baccalaureate. Colleges in Kentucky and Oklahoma 

are experimenting with ‘‘completer colleges’’ that offer a specialized baccalaureate, 

such as a Bachelor of Professional Studies, or a curriculum pathway that relates to 

the associate degree and guarantees full transfer and applicability of credits. In another approach, Charter Oaks State College in Connecticut and Excelsior College in 

New York have developed baccalaureate degrees that ‘‘consolidate’’ credits which 

students may have earned from many different colleges over time. A recent and encouraging development is the replacement of the course-to-course equivalency model 

for with a competency-outcomes approach to articulation and transfer. Minnesota 

has a competency structure for general education; Maryland has completed an outcomes-based program of study for teacher education; and Washington is developing 

a competency-based model for transfer. While these initiatives are promising, they 

are nevertheless limited by state borders, leading to the need for, and the potential 

of, a national network to promote best practices and effective policy countywide. 

What has NATN Accomplished? 

The accomplishments of NATN may be described in two areas: (a) fostering the 

adoption of policies and practices for improving transfer and articulation nationally 

and (b) providing access via web-technology to facilitate the transfer process by providing real-time information for advising and counseling and to support student success. 

1. Transfer Policy and Practice. NATN has developed a three-tiered framework 

with accompanying models designed to maximize credit transfer. The framework is 

based on extensive research in the field, drawing both on the literature as well as 

best practices across the country. Funding by the Lumina and Ford Foundations has 

fueled this research while our work groups have created and refined the models to 

support associate degree articulation for both transfer and career programs—AA, 

AS, and AAS—and promoted regionally through articulation and transfer councils 

organized by NATN. 

The NATN framework classifies transfer at three critical levels: institution-to-institution, program-to-program, and course-to-course. At the institutional level, our 

General Academic Transfer Agreement ensures that associate degree graduates who 

meet the admissions requirements of the transfer institution—usually a 2.5 grade 

11

point average–can transfer their lower division credits to fulfill graduation requirements at receiving institutions throughout the country. This transfer package generally consists of 60 credits, 36 credits in the general education core and 24 credits 

in the major or electives. 

At the program level, we seek consensus on two articulation ‘‘blocks’’, the general 

education core curriculum and the field-of-study or major core curriculum. The articulation agreement in engineering-related program areas recently negotiated between Miami Dade College (a member of our Network from its inception) with the 

Georgia Institute of Technology is in excellent example. Proposed agreements at this 

level draw upon the best practices of states and institutions in creating universally 

applicable core curricula, often relying on learning outcomes or competencies as the 

currency for articulation and transfer. Finally, at the course level, we anticipate a 

framework which replaces traditional course-to-course articulation practices with 

coursework aligned to learning outcomes or competencies. 

2. Transfer Technology. Over the past two years, NATN’s interactive web-based 

system for students and advisors, CollegeStepz, has been designed and developed 

in partnership with its technology contractor, The Rsmart Group. The initial components include a portal and introductory media, college information and college 

search, as well as articulation/transfer information. A searchable database includes 

information on every college in the country with provision for their transfer policies 

and agreements. CollegeStepz is now accessible on the web at www.collegestepz.net 

(soon to be .edu). Eventually, with sufficient funding, CollegeStepz will embrace 

major new components for comprehensive articulation/transfer processes, online 

communications with advisors, educational planning and career planning, financial 

aid, and student-progress tracking. 

All of this work, promoting new transfer policies and practices through articulation-transfer councils and using the web for student success, is currently in operation at five regional pilot sites—in Atlanta, Baltimore/Washington, Houston, San 

Antonio, and San Francisco—with additional pilots expected to be underway this 

summer. 

What is Needed? 

In the beginning of this testimony, I suggested that we can and will improve 

transfer and articulation in higher education. Now, let me say, in closing, what is 

required. There is no question that higher education needs Congressional support 

for a national effort. But we need the encouragement to do it on a voluntary, good 

faith basis, not on a mandatory basis and certainly not with burdensome reporting 

requirements. Colleges and universities are getting the message and demonstrating 

their support for the kind of engagement that NATN offers, as evidenced by the participation of the three largest associations (ACE, AACC, AASCU), associations that 

represent over 400 minority serving institutions (HACU, NAFEO, and AIHEC), and 

the recent partnership agreement between NATN and the network of the 

Servicemembers’ Opportunity Colleges and CONAP Institutions (1800 post-secondary institutions). We need to encourage, support and allow this grass roots, voluntary approach to prove that higher education can and will get the job done. I 

would suggest, therefore, in conjunction with the re-authorization of the Higher 

Education Act, the adoption of a national goal to significantly increase the numbers 

of students successfully transferring their degrees and accelerating baccalaureate 

degree completion, especially students of color,...through voluntary compliance and 

commitment. The National Articulation and Transfer Network stands ready, with 

your support and commitment, to help facilitate the achievement of that goal. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

Dr. Zimpher. 

STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY L. ZIMPHER, PRESIDENT, 

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, CINCINNATI, OH 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Congressman Kildee, Members of the Subcommittee, Ohio Members Boehner, Tiberi 

and Ryan, and I want to thank especially State Representative 

Shawn Webster back in Ohio for the leadership he has provided in 

the model we are going to discuss on credit transfer policies in 

Ohio. 

12

Ohio has made significant changes in its transfer and articulation policies, changes that will make the transition from high 

school to college seamless and provide many more options for students to be successful. Thinking ahead, 3 years to 2008, a sample 

scenario provides a more concrete way to illustrate the impact of 

Ohio’s changes. 

Latoya is a high school junior attending Cincinnati public 

schools. She is thinking about majoring in nursing, and thanks to 

Ohio’s academic content standards, she has already taken algebra 

I and II and geometry, good advice from her guidance counselor for 

a career in nursing. 

As a first-generation college student, she is a little unsure what 

she needs to do to get ready for college, but in Ohio, Latoya has 

a plan. She goes to Ohio’s New Student Portal, a Web-based access 

point for information about college requirements, cost, application, 

financial aid materials. 

Her guidance counselor suggests that she might want to look at 

the courses on the student portal about nursing, which we call 

Ohio’s New Transfer Assurance Guide, not only in nursing but in 

38 career pathways, where students can identify the courses they 

need to take, both in high school and in college, to become, say, a 

nurse. 

She also learns from this portal what she can take in high school 

that will feed her major, and she can do so through Ohio’s postsecondary enrollment option without paying additional fees for 

courses that she takes in high school that feed her major. 

After high school graduation, Latoya decides she wants to start 

her college study in a local community college, in this case Cincinnati State Community and Technical College. There she can 

stay home, get acclimated to college, take courses at a very affordable price and make progress on gen-ed and nursing degree requirements. She knows that she can choose courses, including 

courses in nursing, that are guaranteed for transfer. She plans to 

transfer after 2 years to the University of Cincinnati. Good idea. 

But this will give her a very affordable way to begin her degree. 

So Latoya submits her electronic portfolio of high school and college post-secondary classes to Cincinnati State via the State’s 

newly christened electronic clearinghouse for transcript transfer. 

Cincinnati State evaluates her portfolio of courses and applies the 

appropriate credit to her college transcript. 

She begins taking her gen-ed courses and her foundation courses 

for nursing, which she found in Ohio’s Transfer Assurance Guide. 

She knows that she has the State’s guarantee that her courses will 

transfer, and, when the time comes, her college transcript is transmitted electronically to UC. 

For Latoya, the process is easy. The State has made her transfer 

of courses as simple as accessing her account with her college ATM 

card. She knows her educational account balance and can plan accordingly. She can focus on her courses, not on filling out forms and 

standing in line. 

This is a win-win for students, for our colleges and universities 

and for our State. The students can plan a seamless pathway from 

high school to college. Campuses get more prepared students, makVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\21019 NNIXON
13

ing progress to degree, and the State gets a highly trained workforce. 

This is a wonderful scenario. We are more than 60 percent of the 

way there through our Ohio Transfer Module, through these transfer assurance guides and through the use of our course applicability system. 

As you might guess, this elegantly simple articulation and transfer process did not evolve overnight. Building on our original Ohio 

transfer module concept, public policymakers in Ohio raised the 

bar significantly 2 years ago through House Bill 95, mandating the 

removal of any remaining barriers to Ohio’s articulation transfer 

policies. 

To meet this challenge, Ohio engaged all of its presidents, provosts and significant academic administrators at our 37 2- and 4-

year public institutions and invited representatives from our private 4-year colleges to participate. We convened over 50 committees, composed of campus leaders and over 400 faculty members. 

Countless volunteers reviewed courses and curricular activities. 

In the fall of 2005, now, all students in Ohio public post-secondary systems will be able to access this remarkable set of transfer guides. Thanks to our Ohio Higher Education Information System, all public 2- and 4-year institutions will have electronic transcripts by 2006. By 2007, all Ohio college-bound students will be 

using their very own ATM card, college access card, to ensure full 

access to Ohio’s transfer guarantee. 

Obviously, this Subcommittee has recognized that what works in 

Ohio just might work for the Nation. We hope our efforts serve not 

only as a model for others, but underscore the complex mixture of 

academic decisionmaking and faculty seat time, bolstered by a very 

sophisticated data system that is today making the dream of transferability a reality in Ohio. 

I thank you for your interest and would be happy to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Zimpher follows:]

Statement of Nancy L. Zimpher, President, University of Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati, OH 

Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Kildee, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

thank you for this opportunity to describe a statewide initiative that will, I believe, 

provide a model for discussion during this hearing on credit transfer policies. My 

name is Nancy Zimpher. I’m President of the University of Cincinnati and Co-chair 

of Ohio’s Articulation and Transfer Advisory Council of the Ohio Board of Regents. 

Ohio has made significant strides forward in ensuring that students have easy access to all the resources of the state’s comprehensive system of public colleges and 

universities. Like many other states, we have grappled with very difficult conceptual, educational and logistical issues in developing a new policy for statewide transfer. Ohio’s model for transfer and articulation might serve as a useful resource to 

other states challenged by similar issues. Students are very mobile. Consequently, 

the opportunity to easily transfer courses among campuses is a foundation for improving student access and success in college. Educational access is critical, especially in a state like Ohio, with its diverse education system. Therefore, Ohio needed 

to consider all the various dimensions of access: affordability, availability, aspiration, and academic preparation. 

Ohio is a state that needs to increase the college education level of its citizens 

to meet the needs of the knowledge economy and provide the workforce of the future. In today’s economy, it is increasingly clear that learning must extend beyond 

high school. New knowledge is being created at unprecedented rates and innovative 

technologies are transforming old jobs and creating new ones. Being ranked 39th 

14

in the nation for the percentage of its population with a bachelor’s degree doesn’t 

bode well for the future of Ohio. We must seize on every opportunity to increase 

the college participation of our citizens and remove barriers that inhibit the mobility 

of students throughout the higher education system. 

Background 

Ohio’s articulation and transfer system is elegantly simple in concept. Students 

will now be able to begin a course of study at any college or university in Ohio and 

be guaranteed that significant credits will transfer and apply to degree requirements statewide. The policy places students squarely in the center of the educational system. Further, since students make educational choices based upon convenience, cost, interest, location, program availability and other such factors, Ohio’s 

new system removes barriers to these choices. 

Ohio has actually been in the business of articulation and transfer for 15 years. 

The first phase of the Articulation and Transfer Policy, established in 1990, was a 

major achievement for the state at that time. It improved the mobility of students 

by developing a foundational concept: the Ohio Transfer Module. Students taking 

a complete module of 36–40 semester hours or 54–60 quarter credit hours comprised 

of general education courses like English, math, and biology were guaranteed that 

these courses would transfer statewide and take the place of the module at the receiving institution. To ensure comparability of courses across institutions, a statewide faculty committee reviewed each course’s level and rigor within the module. 

We encountered a few difficulties. Students often just take courses, not full modules. Consequently, if students didn’t complete the entire transfer module, they lost 

the ability to transfer courses. The full intent of Ohio’s transfer and articulation policy was not being maximized in a way that would significantly provide students access and success in college. 

We began designing the next phase of the transfer and articulation process a little 

over two years ago. Our work coincided with a legislative mandate to fix any barriers and challenges that students might be experiencing in the transfer of 

coursework. The General Assembly gave us an aggressive time line to complete this 

work (April 15, 2005) and the flexibility to design the best strategy. We met the 

deadline. The final report is written, and we are into full-scale implementation. Students enrolled this coming fall will have a statewide transfer guarantee that ensures they can make progress in one of 38 different baccalaureate degree pathways, 

anywhere within the public higher education system and in Ohio’s participating private institutions. 

Ohio’s Revised Policy 

A few basic guiding principles framed Ohio’s effort to revise its transfer and articulation policy. Student success was the central focus of the policy, rather than 

convenience to the state or campuses. Students can expect fair treatment in the 

transfer and application of credits to major/degree requirements and will be considered the same as any student beginning or ending college on the same campus, 

what some have called ‘‘native’’ students. Campus missions are preserved: community colleges continue to focus on access to college, workforce training, and programs 

offered at the associate degree level. The public and private universities are the primary providers of baccalaureate education. Finally, campus authority and autonomy 

is maintained. Presidents, provosts and more than 300 faculty provided leadership 

for the development of the new policy. While the Board of Regents and the General 

Assembly were the driving force behind the initiative, the Articulation and Transfer 

Advisory Council was a critical entity in establishing the framework for the policy, 

one that would work for Ohio’s campuses and students. 

With one significant change, the Ohio Transfer Module continues to be the foundation of the transfer and articulation process. Students will now be guaranteed the 

transfer of individual courses from the general education module, without the need 

to complete the entire module. A faculty subcommittee will continue to review 

courses for rigor, level and appropriateness as part of the on-going process. 

At the heart of Ohio’s revised approach to articulation and transfer is a new concept, the Transfer Assurance Guide (TAG). Transfer Assurance Guides have been 

developed in 38 degree pathways for students in eight disciplines/professions: arts 

and humanities, business, communications, education, health, mathematics and 

science, engineering and engineering technologies, and social sciences (see appendix 

A for a list of disciplines). These pathways build on the general education core by 

identifying major and pre-major courses that are also guaranteed to transfer and 

apply to requirements anywhere in the system. The Transfer Assurance Guide also 

becomes a primary vehicle for advising students, even before the student leaves 

high school; another building block to a truly seamless P–16 system in Ohio. This 

15

initiative will fundamentally change how transfer and application of credits will 

occur in Ohio and builds upon a decade and a half of work on improving transfer. 

Each TAG represents a specific pathway such as nursing, mathematics, engineering, education, sociology or business. Under the direction of the Ohio Board of Regents, 38 teams of faculty from two- and four-year colleges and universities were 

brought together for each Transfer Assurance Guide. Over a series of meetings, the 

teams identified courses for each TAG and developed learning outcomes for each 

course. The learning outcomes are the mechanism to ensure rigor, quality and 

equivalency of courses across the system. 

Campus leaders reviewed the Transfer Assurance Guides on multiple occasions, 

provided comments back to the faculty panels, and ultimately agreed to abide by 

the guaranteed transfer of courses in the TAGs. This, as you may imagine, was not 

an easy process and many compromises were made to arrive at final agreement on 

the course content of each TAG (see appendix B for sample TAGs). Panels also made 

recommendations of courses within the general education module that will help students make appropriate choices for their intended major. 

While the TAGs are relatively simple in concept, the results are truly impressive. 

They represent a guarantee to students of academic pathways to majors that ensure 

improved advising and a certainty of course transfer and, more importantly, application of courses to the major and degree. They remove barriers to transfer and allow 

for student mobility across the system while ensuring the quality of the educational 

experience through regular review by the faculty subcommittee. Students that select 

courses in the TAG will know that they will transfer, and they will not need to repeat the course at another college or university, thus maximizing both student and 

campus resources. 

Implementation 

The logistics of implementing such a comprehensive system of transfer are complex. The Ohio Board of Regents is fortunate to have a world class information system, the Higher Education Information (HEI) system, as the backbone for electronic 

implementation. Using the course titles and learning outcomes in each Transfer Assurance Guide, campuses will identify equivalent courses and report them to HEI 

in order to produce a statewide matrix of course matches. This course matrix will 

be shared with all campuses and serve as the universal course equivalency index 

for the state higher education system. The universal course equivalency system will 

make it possible for colleges and universities to guarantee that courses offered at 

different campuses are equivalent and transferable for credit and to meet major/degree requirements. By August 31, 2005, all campuses will have submitted information on applicable courses in each TAG. Beginning in autumn term 2005, students 

will be able to complete courses and be guaranteed transfer and articulation to degree requirements should they elect to transfer in the winter of 2006. 

We envision, however, a much more sophisticated transfer of information through 

the development of a statewide Clearinghouse (Hub) for the instant electronic transfer of transcripts between campuses, both sending and receiving (see appendix C for 

a diagram). Students will benefit from this system that has the speed and accuracy 

to process very complicated data, and potentially many courses from a variety of institutions. Campuses will benefit with greater efficiency through creating a ‘‘onestop shop’’ for processing the TAGs and transcripts. We will also be able to develop 

a statewide application process with the capacity to process high school transcripts 

in addition to college transcripts. The Clearinghouse will offer students access to a 

full array of electronic resources to assist them in reaching their ultimate educational goal. 

Ohio is also fortunate to have invested in the development of an electronic, webbased advising tool to assist students and advisors in transfer. This electronic advising/transfer tool, the Course Applicability System (CAS), provides students and potential students an efficient way to see how courses transfer across the system and 

how the credits apply to a degree. All public campuses have implemented CAS as 

an advising tool for use by advisors and students. 

Ongoing Agenda 

The Ohio Board of Regents envisions that with the full development of the transcript clearinghouse, students will eventually have access to a seamless electronic 

system for college application and transfer, P–16. This will include an even greater 

electronic access to employment, career, college and financial aid information. We 

will also be developing more pathways (TAGs) in the future. The focus on learning 

outcomes provides us with the opportunity to broaden our thinking about education 

and include other models of how students learn and demonstrate mastery of concepts (i.e. internships and field experiences, portfolio based learning, interdiscipliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21019 NNIXON
16

nary experiences). The notion of describing specific levels of learning mastery is a 

major paradigm shift and will more closely mirror the mastery of learning that students will need to exhibit in actual work settings, thus providing an opportunity to 

make learning more transferable and integrated. 

Conclusion 

Ohio is implementing systemic change through one of the most comprehensive 

and expansive curricular reforms in the state’s higher education history. Students 

will have the benefit of stronger and more informed advising and will have options 

available that meet specific needs (cost, location, etc.). They also will gain state assurance that a consistent level of quality and rigor is maintained, backed by the 

state’s guarantee for the transfer and application of credits to degrees. Ohio will 

have the benefit of a better and more effectively prepared workforce. State resources 

will be more efficiently and effectively deployed, and the success of the policy will 

be easy to assess. We have put the student in the driver’s seat in transfer and have 

provided the tools to navigate the education system to his or her highest educational 

aspirations. 

Ohio’s significantly enhanced articulation and transfer policies and processes will 

substantially increase opportunities for students to be successful in attaining educational goals. The full implementation of the policy is a critical element of Ohio’s 

efforts to improve educational access and success and, in turn, begin to bridge the 

gap of low educational attainment. These strategies are critical in meeting the needs 

of the knowledge economy and the workforce of the future. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to any 

questions you may have.

[Attachments to Dr. Zimpher’s statement follow:]

17


21019.001
18


21019.002
19


21019.003
20

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Klebacha. 

STATEMENT OF DR. THERESA A. KLEBACHA, DIRECTOR OF 

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FL 

Dr. KLEBACHA. Good morning, Chairman McKeon, Congressman 

Kildee and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Theresa Klebacha, and, as the Chairman mentioned, 

I am the Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Florida Department of Education under Commissioner John Winn. Thank you for 

inviting me to share with you Florida’s achievements in student 

transfer and success. In honoring my time limit, I would like to 

dedicate my 5 minutes to making three points about Florida’s Pathways to Success. 

One, it is all about the student. Florida’s education mission is 

very simple: Improve student learning and achievement. We do this 

by striving to meet four goals: One, maximize student achievement; 

two, provide access opportunities and move students seamlessly 

across and between systems; three, support academic programs 

that contribute to a skilled workforce and economic development; 

and four, do all this in a way that both maximizes both taxpayer 

dollars and student return on investment. Our focus on the student 

has been fundamental to our policies in Florida for decades. 


21019.004
21

The second point about our Pathways to Success, an effective 

transfer system requires a comprehensive approach. Florida has a 

comprehensive articulation infrastructure that supports movement 

of students through the system down to the basic course level. We 

have several mechanisms in place that make this happen. 

First, we support a two-plus-two system, where the first 2 years 

of a community college associate degree coursework is guaranteed 

transfer to a State University. There, the second 2 years build toward a bachelor’s degree for that student. Our statewide articulation agreement guarantees the transfer of credit without requiring 

students to repeat courses. 

The second mechanism we have is that we engage practitioners 

from the field to provide State level approval of common prerequisites, in other words, major core curriculum, those course requirements for all bachelor degree programs. These courses are 

also guaranteed transfer among institutions into a degree program. 

This allows the students to know ahead of time what courses are 

required in their desired field, and they can plan their programs 

of study using our unique online student advising system. 

Our third mechanism is that we support a course numbering system that is the building block of our guaranteed transfer policy. 

Our State practioner group engages faculty discipline committees 

to assign course numbers based on course content and faculty credentials. This system is what makes it possible for students to 

transfer credit effortlessly as they move among institutions. 

To top it all off, in Florida, we put money behind student program completion, transfer to higher academic levels or placement 

into a job. This performance funding inspires institutions to focus 

on outcomes of moving students through and out, rather than loading student seats up front. 

The third point that I would like to make about our Pathways 

to Success is that, if you build it, they will come. In other words, 

what I mean by that is it is not just about public education. Our 

independent institutions recognize the benefits of a system for students, and they also participate. They have seats on our State level 

practitioner group that makes decisions. They participate in our 

online student advising system. They, too, have their own two-plustwo articulation agreement with our community colleges. And they 

participate in our common course numbering system to guarantee 

the transfer of their credit to our other institutions. Proprietary 

schools, in particular, are very interested in and are taking advantage of this opportunity. 

The independent institutions do all this voluntarily in Florida. 

They see the benefit of advertising the guaranteed transfer of credit for their students. 

In closing, I will summarize Florida’s three keys to success: One, 

focus on what is best for students; two, take a comprehensive outcome-based approach to transfer policy; and three, create mechanisms that invite and engage both public and private involvement. 

I applaud your desire to make it possible for any student in the 

Nation to experience the same rights and benefits that Florida students already have. 

22

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for allowing me, on behalf of Florida, to be a part of your conversation. I welcome your 

comments and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Klebacha follows:]

Testimony of Dr. Theresa A. Klebacha, Director of Strategic Initiatives, 

Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL 

Chairman McKeon, Congressman Kildee, and Members of the Committee: 

Good morning. My name is Theresa Klebacha, and I am the Director of Strategic 

Initiatives for the Florida Department of Education under Commissioner John 

Winn. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to share with you 

Florida’s advances and achievements in student articulation and success. 

With 55.4% in 2002, Florida ranked 27th in the percentage of public high school 

students continuing into some level of postsecondary education immediately after 

graduation. Our state has been recognized as a nationwide leader in creating a 

‘‘seamless’’ transfer process for these students. In fact, more than 70% of community 

college Associate in Arts (AA) degree graduates in Florida now transfer to four-year 

institutions and pursue bachelor’s degrees within five years of completing the AA. 

Florida supports a vision of highest possible achievement for all students. 

In 2001, Florida moved to a K–20 education system, identifying improving student 

learning and achievement across public and private education systems as the primary mission. This mission, as established in law, requires specific attention be directed to meeting four statewide goals: 

1. Highest Student Achievement 

2. Seamless Articulation & Maximum Access 

3. Skilled Workforce & Economic Development 

4. Quality Efficient Services 

This morning I will focus my attention on Florida’s efforts at meeting the goal 

of Seamless Articulation and Maximum Access. In particular, I will overview our 

policies and practices, and spend some time addressing how these policies maximize 

a student’s ability to move seamlessly within and between both public and private 

institutions. Rather than read to you, I will paraphrase my comments and welcome 

your questions at the end. 

Florida strives to maximize students’ movement through and across systems. 

Basic to efficient and effective articulation is the appropriate alignment of curriculum and testing standards for K–20. This means mechanisms must be in place 

to ensure that every student is prepared for the next level of instruction before 

being promoted. An ultimate goal is to ensure that graduation from high school 

means a student is ready for college level work, without the need for remediation. 

Students must first be provided access to quality instructional opportunities. 

Florida ensures geographic access to postsecondary opportunities through its strategic placement of 11 state universities, 28 community colleges, and 38 vocationaltechnical and adult education centers. Additionally, Florida is home to 27 college 

and university members of the Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida 

(ICUF), and over 600 proprietary institutional members of the Florida Association 

of Postsecondary Colleges and Schools. All are appropriately licensed for operation 

in the state. 

Financial access to postsecondary education is provided through state operational 

support that is balanced with a variety of student financial aid options. This aid 

may be in the form of grants, loans, scholarships, and/or various forms of employment. Financial aid can come from several sources and agencies including the federal government, the State of Florida, the colleges and universities, and private organizations. 

While access is an important component to ensuring student advancement, Florida recognizes that equally as important is the ability of the student to move across 

and within systems as transparently and efficiently as possible. 

Florida has a comprehensive articulation policy infrastructure. 

Decades of legislative and policy decisions have contributed to Florida’s comprehensive articulation infrastructure. Unlike other popular priorities that are implemented one policy direction at a time, much care has been taken in Florida to 

create and nurture an entire infrastructure of policies and practices that link and 

build into a comprehensive articulation plan. The strength of the plan is its recognition of the nature of student movement through postsecondary education in Florida. 

23

Many Florida students begin their college education at one of Florida’s open admissions community colleges, but plan to pursue a bachelor’s degree at one of Florida’s public or independent four-year colleges or universities. Currently, more than 

half of the juniors and seniors in the State University System, as well as many students attending independent four-year colleges and universities, began their postsecondary work at a community college. 

Florida supports a ‘‘2+2’’ system of student advancement. 

The Associate in Arts (AA) degree is designed for students who intend to earn a 

bachelor’s degree from a four-year college or university. The AA degree program 

meets general education requirements as well as common prerequisites for a student’s intended major. The degree requires 60 semester credit hours and ensures 

admission to a Florida public university. 

Florida law provides for a Statewide Articulation Agreement that ensures a seamless transfer process between and among postsecondary institutions. This agreement 

ensures that if a student completes an AA degree, admission to the State University 

System is guaranteed. During the student’s enrollment as a junior and senior at the 

university, the student will not be required to repeat courses already satisfactorily 

completed. It protects the transfer of equivalent courses and the general education 

program completed by students during the freshman and sophomore years at Florida public community colleges. 

Additionally, state law requires all bachelor degree programs be restricted to 120 

semester credit hours in length, unless otherwise approved at the state level, therefore ensuring that half of the degree can be met through the AA lower-division 

work. These common program lengths are intended to minimize the number of 

hours required for a student to earn a degree while ensuring the quality of the educational program. 

The general education ‘‘core’’ is guaranteed transfer. 

The Statewide Articulation Agreement also addresses the transfer of general education coursework. The state’s 36-hour general education program is designed to introduce college and university students to the fundamental knowledge, skills, and 

values that are essential to the study of academic disciplines. General education requirements include courses within the subject areas of communications, mathematics, humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. The agreement stipulates 

that public universities and participating ICUF institutions cannot require students 

to take additional general education courses if they have already successfully completed a general education sequence at a community college. 

Common prerequisites are identified, published and guaranteed transfer. 

Although completion of a community college AA degree guarantees admission into 

the State University System, admission to a specified program at a given university 

may not be guaranteed, particularly if prerequisite courses were not completed by 

the student. Prerequisite courses are required lower-division courses students must 

successfully complete for a specific bachelor’s degree. To assist students in planning 

for transfer to desired degree programs, the state requires identification and approval of ‘‘common’’ prerequisites across program areas. Common prerequisite 

courses have been identified for more than 600 university bachelor’s degrees across 

all public institutions. Since Fall of 1996, common prerequisites have been offered 

and accepted by state universities and community colleges. 

Common course numbering makes the statewide guaranteed transfer of credit 

possible. 

Florida’s Statewide Course Numbering System establishes the ‘‘building block’’ 

mechanism that allows the articulation infrastructure to function. The system facilitates the transfer of coursework by classifying courses according to subject matter 

and faculty credentials, as assigned by one of 166 faculty discipline committee coordinators. There are currently over 100,000 active courses in the system. All public 

universities, community colleges, and postsecondary vocational-technical centers are 

required to participate. Private postsecondary institutions may volunteer to participate in this numbering system for a fee established in rule. 

According to Florida law, an institution accepting a transfer student from another 

participating institution must award credit for satisfactorily completed courses 

which are equivalent to courses offered by the receiving institution, including consideration of faculty credentials. Credits awarded must satisfy the requirements of 

the receiving institution on the same basis as credits awarded to native students. 

The credit awarded must be as though the course was taken at the receiving institution. 

24

Several ‘‘best practices’’ keep the articulation policy focused and refined. 

The Articulation Coordinating Committee represents the involvement of practitioners. 

To help coordinate this transfer process, representatives from various public and 

private educational sectors meet regularly as the statewide Articulation Coordinating Committee. This Committee was formed in the early 1970s to discuss ways 

to help students move easily from institution to institution and from one level of 

education to the next. Primary responsibilities include approving common prerequisites across program areas, approving course and credit-by-exam equivalencies, 

overseeing implementation of local articulation agreements, and recommending articulation policy changes. 

Institutions are ‘‘rewarded’’ for student advancement and progress. 

In the late 1990’s, Florida implemented performance funding structures that 

‘‘paid’’ institutions for student completion of programs, continuous enrollment in 

higher learning, placement into a job, and retention in a job. Implemented primarily 

in the workforce and community college systems, the performance payment system 

resulted in the streamlining of programs and alignment of resources to support student advancement through the systems rather than payment for getting students 

into the programs (a.k.a., ‘‘seat time’’ funding). As institutions were funded based 

on student advancement, they sought and supported partnerships with employers 

and public and private institutions. 

Online student academic advising provides information and guidance to citizens. 

In 1995, Florida created the Florida Academic Counseling and Tracking for Students (FACTS) system as its central web resource for postsecondary education advising. ‘‘FACTS.org’’ is available to assist users in determining career objectives, 

choosing the major and institutions that are best suited for them, applying for admission and financial aid online, and tracking their progress toward a degree or certificate. Students can also plan their courses and access their grades and transcripts 

online. ‘‘FACTS.org’’ is the official repository for several manuals and documents related to student advising and articulation. This includes counseling handbooks, a 

common prerequisite manual, a statewide articulation manual, the Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida Articulation Agreement, Credit-by–Exam Guidelines, Acceleration Mechanism Options, and a High School Planner. Florida is expanding ‘‘FACTS.org’’ to provide degree auditing functions to high school students 

that wish to plan their high school curricula in preparation for course requirements 

in desired postsecondary programs of study. 

I would like to conclude my remarks by speaking briefly about the involvement 

of Florida’s independent postsecondary institutions in our statewide articulation efforts. 

Florida embraces its partnership with independent postsecondary institutions. 

In addition to providing independent postsecondary institutions with state financial aid funding for student enrollment, representation on the Articulation Coordinating Committee, and participation in Florida’s online student advising system 

(‘‘FACTS.org’’), there are two primary ways these institutions play an integral role 

in the articulation of Florida students. 

One primary mechanism of independent involvement is through a statewide articulation agreement, signed by the State of Florida and the ICUF organization, to 

establish provisions for the transfer of Associate in Arts degree students into private 

colleges and universities. The Agreement guarantees that community college AA degree students will enter as juniors, receive 60 credit hours toward their bachelor’s 

degree, and receive recognition of the general education core courses taken at the 

community college. As regionally-accredited institutions, the transfer of credit is already guaranteed, but the agreement focuses on the transfer within degree programs. Most of the ICUF institutions have volunteered to recognize this agreement. 

A second, potentially more expanding role involves integration of independent institutions into the mechanics of the articulation process. In 1998, Florida law was 

amended to allow independent colleges and schools, that are fully accredited by a 

regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department 

of Education and are licensed to practice in Florida, to participate in the Statewide 

Course Numbering System. Of the 100,000 active courses, currently there are over 

3,000 courses from 32 participating independent institutions in the system. Of 

these, over 1,800 are automatically transferable to at least one institution’s AA or 

bachelor’s degree program. For a fee, proprietary institutions choose to participate 

25

in the system as a way to ensure students that credits earned will be accepted upon 

transfer to any other participating institution. 

In conclusion, Florida is poised to assist as needed. 

I am very proud to report that Florida’s comprehensive approach to ‘‘Seamless Articulation and Maximum Access’’ continues to support policy innovation and student 

achievement. With these mechanisms, Florida has been successful in maximizing 

the state’s and Florida families’ return on investment for dollars invested in postsecondary education. 

I applaud your efforts to strengthen policies on a national level to facilitate student movement; to put policies in place that do not require a student or taxpayer 

to pay twice for the same instruction; and to do it in a way that does not jeopardize 

the quality and integrity of instructional programs. 

Thank you for allowing me, on behalf of Florida, to play a small part. I welcome 

any and all of your comments and questions. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF JEROME H. SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE REGISTRARS AND 

ADMISSIONS OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Mr. Kildee, 

Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jerry Sullivan, and I 

am the Executive Director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. I am very honored to be 

here today. 

AACRAO is a nonprofit association of more than 2,400 institutions of higher education and approximately 10,000 campus enrollment service officials. As a national organization of transfer of 

credit administrators who both send and receive students, 

AACRAO is in a unique position to address this hearing’s topic. We 

recognize both great successes and challenges in the current state 

of transfer and portability of credit. 

Transfer and articulation are complex phenomena involving 

planned and unplanned movements of students among institutions 

of higher education. The fundamental challenge with transfer, 

whether planned or unplanned, is to aggregate coursework conducted at different institutions with different academic policies, different curricula and different levels of expected rigor. 

The institutional transfer process is complex and deliberate, typically involving transfer professionals and the faculty. It requires indepth analysis of every course entry on the transcript. Credit evaluation involves three distinct judgments: First, an assessment of 

the quality of the course; second, an evaluation of its comparability 

to courses at the receiving institution; and finally, the course work 

must be determined to be applicable to the program of study for 

which the student has applied. The three-pronged standard benefits students by ensuring they are not inappropriately placed in 

courses for which they are ill-prepared. 

Variations in institutional resources and staff complicate credit 

evaluation. At many institutions, evaluations are captured in 

course equivalency data bases that are available to evaluators as 

a means of expediting the process. At most institutions, however, 

the process is entirely manual and is driven by the experience and 

the knowledge of evaluators. 

26

At the State level, numerous efforts are underway to promote 

transfer. States have employed various approaches, ranging from 

informal efforts of transfer professionals that try to do right by the 

student to more formal institution-based agreements to State-mandated policies. Today, nearly every State has some policy on the 

transfer of credit. 

For students moving from 2- to 4-year institutions, the States in 

general make tremendous efforts at setting up articulation mechanisms, including Web sites that can be easily accessed by students, 

parents and counselors. 

There are many nongovernmental national efforts in place to 

supplement institution-to-institution and State articulated policies. 

Since 1977, AACRAO, for example, has maintained a data base of 

institutional transfer credit practices. We are currently engaged in 

a major effort to expand this data base for use by institutions. 

Since 1978, we have maintained an agreement with the American Council of Education and the accreditation community called 

the Joint Statement on Transfer and the Award of Credit. 

I want to recognize the contributions of my fellow panelists for 

their efforts to streamline transfer. The National Articulation and 

Transfer Network, with which AACRAO is pleased to be associated, 

is an important resource and model. In Ohio, the development and 

implementation of the Degree Ordered Reporting System, DARS, 

and Course Applicability System, CAS, have proven effective at 

streamlining equivalencies and portability. 

Inefficiencies in the system: Well, while institutional and State 

systems for transfer credit are largely successful, we know that the 

system can be improved. The challenge is to understand how credit 

determinations are made, how they are made erroneously from 

time to time, and how to improve that process. 

Effective State policies are at the heart of programmatic success 

and degree attainment for transfer students. We believe that Federal policy could supplement these efforts, however, and I would 

like to offer a few suggestions. 

Federal transfer policies should be based on assumptions that encourage students to matriculate toward degree completion, that 

maintain a balance between public benefit and administrative burden and that continue to recognize the institutional economy of curricula and degree requirements. Policies should not be one-size-fitsall. 

First, the Federal Government could facilitate volunteer data collection to provide receiving institutions with more detailed information about courses for which credit is sought by incoming transfer 

applicants. One possible information collection dissemination mechanism for the effort could be the College Opportunities Online Portal of the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site. 

Another possible portal for submission of course information 

would be the CollegeStepz web site, operated under the auspices of 

the National Articulation and Transfer Network. Such a site would 

voluntarily collect information, like institutional course inventories, 

catalog descriptions, syllabi, textbooks and faculty qualifications. 

This national information repository would not only help credit 

evaluators, it would help students. 

27

Second, Federal policymakers should consider a disclosure requirement for institutions that make claims with regard to transferability of their course work to other institutions. It appears that 

much of the student discontent about denials of transfer credit are 

based on claims made by sending institutions that turn out to be 

misleading. 

Institutions that make claims about the transferability of their 

credits to other institutions should be required to provide the basis 

for the transferability claim, the number and types of articulation 

agreements in which the institution participates and the number 

of documented cases of successful transfer on a course-by-course 

basis. 

Third, Congress could authorize a grant program to promote articulation agreements and increase degree attainment. Such grants 

could be awarded on a competitive basis to institutions to enable 

them to focus on improving transfer opportunities for traditional 

and nontraditional students. Additionally, the grants could promote 

articulation agreements amongst different institutions in order to 

improve the degree completion for incoming transfer students. 

On behalf of the members of AACRAO, I want to thank you for 

consideration of our views, and look forward to answering questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

Statement of Jerome H. Sullivan, Executive Director, American Association 

of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Washington, DC 

Introduction 

Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Mr. Kildee, members of the committee, my 

name is Jerome H. Sullivan and I am Executive Director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. I am honored to have this opportunity to share the views of our members with the Subcommittee regarding the 

portability of academic credit and student mobility among institutions of higher education. 

AACRAO is a nonprofit association of more than 2,400 institutions of higher education and more than 9,500 campus enrollment services officials. The campus officials who comprise our membership range from front-line staff to senior administrators with primary responsibility for admissions, enrollment planning, records management, administrative computing and other important operations and student 

services central to the smooth and efficient administration of colleges and universities. Our membership includes public and private non-profit institutions as well 

as for-profit collegiate institutions. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the portability of academic credit and whether transfer 

of academic credit policies can be improved. As a national organization of transfer 

of credit administrators who both send and receive transfer students, AACRAO is 

in a unique position to address this topic in terms of current practices among institutions, within individual states and across the nation. We recognize both great successes and challenges in the current state of transfer and portability of credit. On 

the one hand, American higher education is undoubtedly the most flexible and 

transfer-friendly system in the world. On the other hand, student mobility is not 

entirely without constraint, and carries costs for institutions and students. Clearly, 

the more these costs can be contained or eliminated, the more efficient and productive we collectively can become, and the more options students will have. I would 

like to briefly address the present state of affairs with regard to transfer and bring 

some of the pending initiatives on transfer to the Subcommittee’s attention. Additionally, I’d like to offer a few solutions to ease credit portability and student mobility. 

Transfer: A Complex Issue 

Transfer and articulation are complex phenomena involving planned and unplanned movement of students among institutions of higher education. Planned 

transfers may be facilitated by carefully negotiated articulation agreements between 

28

institutions, and enable students to start an academic program at one institution 

with the knowledge that they will continue their program and obtain their academic 

credential at another institution. It is important to note that not all planned transfers are based on such prior institutional arrangements, and that students may 

independently plan to transfer from one institution to another without informing 

their advisors or having complete knowledge of the credit-acceptance policies of the 

institution to which they intend to transfer. But of course, not all transfers are 

planned. 

Beyond planned transfers, unanticipated factors and the general mobility of our 

society create numerous circumstances under which students must move from one 

institution to another without prior planning. Reasons for such movements can 

range from mismatches between students and institutions to geographic relocations 

by the families. The fundamental challenge with transfer, whether planned or unplanned, is to aggregate coursework conducted at different institutions with different academic policies, different curricula, and different levels of expected rigor 

into an academic credential that the issuing institution can stand behind. Transfer 

is complex, then, because disparate and sometimes incommensurable coursework is 

brought together, often without prior involvement of the institution from which the 

student expects to graduate. 

Who Transfers? 

Once it was assumed that transfer students were young people who, because they 

wanted to stay close to home for two years after high school—for financial reasons 

or reasons of convenience attended a local two-year ‘‘junior college’’ or ‘‘community 

college’’ before transferring to a four-year institution. Today, nearly 60 percent of 

community college students are over the age of 22. Sixteen percent of all community 

college students are in their thirties; 10 percent are in their forties; and 5 percent 

are in their fifties or older. 

Transfer students are no longer only those who begin college at a two-year institution and then move to a four-year. There are ‘‘lateral transfers’’—students who 

transfer from a two-year school to another two-year, or from a four-year school to 

another four-year. There are also ‘‘reverse transfers’’—students who start at a fouryear school but graduate from a two-year school. And, there are ‘‘swirling’’ transfers—students who are enrolled in two or more schools simultaneously. While it is 

still true that more students at two-year colleges transfer about 42 percent—than 

those at four-year institutions—about 23 percent one-third of college seniors have 

transferred at some time in their career. 

The Institutional Transfer Process 

To better appreciate the transfer process, it may be helpful to review the careful 

procedures institutions typically follow in handling transfer decisions. The admissions process for transfer students is significantly more complicated because beyond 

an evaluation of the applicant’s qualifications, separate determinations must be 

made about credit acceptance and placement of the student. The process of transfer 

credit evaluation typically involves transfer professionals and the faculty, and requires an in-depth analysis of every course-entry on the transcript. The credit evaluation process is abstractly divided into three distinct judgments. First, an assessment of the quality of the course must be made. Second, the course must be evaluated on the basis of its comparability to courses at the receiving institution. Finally, 

the coursework for which credit is granted must be determined to be applicable to 

the program of study for which the student has applied. For purposes of ensuring 

student success and protecting the integrity of academic credentials, all three judgments must be made in the affirmative for credit to be granted. Courses of poor 

quality, courses for which the receiving has no general counterpart, and courses that 

simply do not apply to the degree being sought should not, and are not, typically 

ported over. This standard benefits students by ensuring that they are not inappropriately placed in courses for which they are ill prepared. 

Concrete determinations with regard to the three-part analysis described above 

can range in difficulty. Transfer professionals at institutions with significant transfers-in often have a course-by-course understanding of academic offerings of their 

feeder schools. This course-level understanding is typically arrived at through intensive reviews of course syllabi, textbooks and supplemental materials used in 

courses, knowledge of faculty and their qualifications at sending institutions, and 

lengthy consultations with departmental faculty at the receiving institution in connection with each course. Expensive and labor-intensive as it is, this process represents the ideal method of credit evaluation. The good news is that once a particular course from a specific institution has been evaluated, if it is encountered 

again on a different student’s transcript, the same credit decision can be applied 

29

until the course content changes. At many institutions, evaluations are captured in 

course-equivalency databases that are available to evaluators as a means of expediting the process. At most institutions, however, the process is entirely manual, 

and is driven by the experience and knowledge of expert evaluators. 

State and Institutional Initiatives on Transfer 

No single model of articulation and transfer can be identified as the universal 

standard or even as the preferred model for the nation. Most states employ a combination of approaches ranging from informal efforts of transfer professionals that 

try to do right by the student, to more formal institution-based agreements, to statemandated policies. 

Historically, two-and four-year college transfer and articulation agreements were 

primarily institutional initiatives rather than state mandates. Now, nearly every 

state has some policy on transfer of credits for students moving from two- to fouryear institutions. Striking differences have emerged, however, in articulation policies and practices among the states. These differences include not only how policies 

and practices were initially established, but also their degree of selectivity, specificity and uniformity. 

Some widely used transfer practices are statewide articulation agreements, statelevel transfer/articulation bodies, transfer/articulation officers located at both twoand four-year institutions, and feedback systems to determine whether state policies 

are being implemented. Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Minnesota provide examples of state-level agencies that have been directed by their legislatures 

to establish policies relating to the flow of undergraduate students between and 

among the institutions they coordinate. The states, in general, are already making 

tremendous efforts at setting up articulation mechanisms, including Web sites that 

can easily be accessed by students, parents and counselors. 

Vertical transfer (two- to four-year) is the type of transfer most often addressed 

in state transfer or articulation policies. State articulation policies are most likely 

to mandate transfer of general education or transfer of associate degrees, focus 

mainly on transfer among public institutions, and tend not to have an enforcement 

mechanism. 

At least thirty-eight states have transfer/articulation legislation via statutes, bills 

or resolutions. Cooperative agreements comprising formal voluntary agreements between institutions and formulated on a course-by-course or per discipline basis exist 

in at least 40 states. Transfer data is collected in 33 states for reporting and accountability purposes. Eighteen states offer student transfer incentive programs, including financial aid, guaranteed transfer credit, and/or an admissions priority. 

Twenty-six states publish student guidelines to outline requirements and types of 

articulation agreements between institutions. Twenty-three states have a statewide 

common core curriculum and eight states have common course numbering for all institutions. Finally, at least five states have specialized vocational-technical credit 

transfer organized via collaborations between two-year colleges and vocational institutions. 

Several common patterns are evident in the practices nationwide: First, despite 

changes in students’ enrollment patterns, even the newer articulation and transfer 

policies focus almost exclusively on the traditional view that students transfer solely 

from two-year to four-year colleges. Second, state-level agreements tend to focus on 

transfer between public institutions and do not take into account the possibility of 

transfer to or from private or for-profit institutions. A survey we conducted in 2002 

of state transfer officers, however, indicates that 66 percent of respondents have articulation agreements between public and private institutions within their state and 

41 percent have articulation agreements, privately arrived at, between public institutions and proprietary institutions. Whatever the coverage of a state’s policy, however, one of the most evident trends is the move away from voluntary agreements 

toward formal state-mandated policies. 

Current National Efforts to Facilitate Transfer 

There are many national efforts in place to supplement and enhance institutionto-institution and state articulation policies. Since 1977, AACRAO, for example, has 

maintained a database of institution-to-institution transfer credit practices, called 

Transfer Credit Practices (TCP). When it began, information was collected from only 

one reporting school in each state, typically a flagship, and disseminated in print 

form. Now, as times, technology and transfer have changed, TCP is a more robust, 

online database that includes several reporting institutions from each state. The 

database reports the transfer acceptance practices of reporting institutions and assists credit evaluators in determining how other institutions within their state 

evaluate course-by-course transfer credit. In addition, the AACRAO Web site proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21019 NNIXON
30

vides a comprehensive list (Attachment 1) of state practices including mandates and 

articulation agreements as well as a variety of articles and links to outside sources 

that help transfer evaluators with credit applicability, equivalency and comparability determinations. 

Since 1978, AACRAO has maintained an agreement with the American Council 

of Education and the accreditation community, now represented by the Council for 

Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), called ‘‘The Joint Statement on Transfer 

and the Award of Credit (Attachment 2). This agreement, which emphasizes standards for evaluation of transfer credit, advocates equal examination of course quality, 

comparability and applicability. 

AACRAO is engaged in other efforts, too, including a cooperative agreement with 

the New England Transfer Association and participation on the CHEA’s Committee 

on Transfer and the Public Interest. Further, our publication, The College Transfer 

Student in America: The Forgotten Student, offers research and practical advice to 

campus administrators concerning everything from maximizing the effectiveness of 

articulation agreements to addressing the specific and unique needs of an institution’s transfer population. 

Obviously, AACRAO has done a lot of work on transfer issues. I would also like 

to recognize the contributions of others, particularly my fellow panelists, for their 

efforts to streamline transfer for both institutions and students. The National Articulation and Transfer Network with which AACRAO is pleased to be associated 

and its CollegeStepz Web site is an important resource for minority and underserved students. Further, its collection of nationwide articulation data is a good step 

toward development of a national research model. In Ohio, the development and implementation of the Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS) and Course Applicability System (CAS) have proven effective at streamlining equivalencies and portability. The ability to plan coursework around the prospect of a future transfer ensures that scarce time and resources are not spent in classes that won’t contribute 

to successful degree completion, wherever it may be earned. 

Inefficiencies in the System 

While institutional and state systems for transfer of credit are largely successful, 

we know that the system can be improved. There are inefficiencies for both students 

and for institutions. Uncertainty and lack of transparency cause significant difficulties for all parties in the transfer process. Many students cite denial of transfer 

credit as their primary source of concern. Students are sometimes misled to believe 

that their coursework at one institution will automatically transfer to another institution. Oftentimes students simply assume that coursework will transfer, without 

fully understanding the nuances of the evaluation process or the tremendous differences and diversity of higher education programs. The very quality of choice that 

we so value in American higher education precludes one national definition for each 

course, and causes slight differences that must be painstakingly evaluated as we review courses with identical titles from various institutions. Where the differences 

are truly slight, credit must be granted to expedite time-to-degree and avoid repetition and added costs for the sake of marginal new learning. Where significant differences are detected between courses of similar designation, however, for the sake 

of both the student and the reliability of institutional credentials, credit should not 

be granted. I don’t believe any observer of the transfer phenomenon would disagree 

with the foregoing statement. The challenge is to understand how these determinations are made, how they are made erroneously from time to time, and how to improve the process. 

As I noted earlier in this testimony, credit may be denied for a number of reasons. 

Concerns about quality, comparability or applicability can result in adverse decisions. These concerns are, on occasion, caused or exacerbated by lack of adequate 

information about the sending institution, its academic policies, or its curriculum. 

Perhaps the greatest challenge in the evaluation process is this lack of adequate information about the student’s prior coursework. In many cases, transfer evaluators 

at the receiving institution have only a single sheet of paper—the transcript—

through which to determine the award of credit. The transcript lists the name of 

the sending institution, the names of the courses the student took and the grades 

the student earned. With this information the evaluator is left to figure out much 

about the sending institution, the substance of the coursework—whether it is comparable to courses taught at the receiving institution—and the student’s academic 

achievement. With such little information, credit evaluators rely on quality measures like the accreditation of the sending institution and course descriptions in 

course catalogs to complete their evaluations. In addition to credits from traditional 

colleges and universities, credit evaluators examine and make determinations about 

credits earned through experiential learning, distance education, international eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\21019 NNIXON
31

cation and vocational schools. When there is a question regarding the applicability 

or comparability of a specific course, credit evaluators defer to faculty members in 

the relevant field for guidance. Greater transparency of sending institutions can alleviate such concerns, and facilitate successful transfer of credit where appropriate. 

Beyond the factual difficulties of the task of evaluation, other issues compound 

the problems. These include proper disclosures and more accurate advance information—to student and institutions—about portability of credits, as well as a greater 

effort on the part of all institutions to address the unique needs of the transfer population. 

Possible Solutions 

From our perspective, the primary national policy priority regarding transfer is 

to enable and facilitate solutions that ease the portability of credit. Successful policy 

solutions will recognize that transfer is ubiquitous and will only become increasingly 

important as a mechanism for students to attain degree completion. Such solutions 

should be flexible enough to accommodate the myriad unique types of students and 

institutions involved in the transfer of credit process and should not be one-size-fitsall. Transfer policy should be based on assumptions that encourage students to matriculate through the educational system towards degree completion; that maintain 

a balance between public benefit and administrative burden; and that continue to 

recognize the institutional autonomy of curricula and degree requirements. 

In addition to the efforts AACRAO and others here today are already engaged in, 

effective state policies are at the heart of programmatic success and degree attainment for transfer students. We believe that federal policy could supplement these 

efforts, however, and I’d like to offer a few suggestions. 

First, the federal government could facilitate a voluntary data collection to provide receiving institutions with more detailed information about courses for which 

credit is sought by incoming transfer applicants. In creating better tools to support 

transfer credit evaluation on campus, the federal government can eliminate much 

of the friction in the system and promote the optimal outcome for students. One possible information collection and dissemination mechanism for this effort could be the 

College Opportunities Online portal on the U.S. Department of Education’s Web 

site. Another possible portal for voluntary submission of course information would 

be the CollegeStepz Web site operated under the auspices of the National Articulation and Transfer Network. Such a site would voluntarily collect information such 

as institutional course inventories, catalog descriptions, syllabi, text books and faculty qualifications. This national information repository would not only help credit 

evaluators, it would help students better understand the academic offerings of participating institutions. 

Second, federal policymakers should consider a disclosure requirement for institutions that make claims with regard to transferability of their coursework to other 

institutions. It appears that much of the student discontent about denials of transfer 

credit are based on claims made by sending institutions that turn out to be misleading. These claims are particularly troublesome when made at the point of recruitment, when students are basing enrollment decisions on them. Any claims 

about other institutions’ credit acceptance policies should be based on facts. We believe institutions making claims about transferability of their credits to other institutions should be required to provide: (1) the basis for the transferability claim; (2) 

the number and types of articulation agreements in which the institution participates; and (3) the number of documented cases of successful transfer on a courseby-course basis. 

Third, Congress could authorize a grant program to promote articulation agreements and increase degree attainment. Such grants could be awarded on a competitive basis to institutions to enable them to focus on improving transfer opportunities 

for traditional and non-traditional students. Additionally, the grants could promote 

articulation agreements among different institutions in order to improve the degree 

completion for incoming transfer students. 

Conclusion 

On behalf of the members of AACRAO, I thank you for your consideration of our 

views. We appreciate your extraordinary efforts on behalf of students and look forward to working with you as you advance the cause of education. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

Well, you have given us a lot to think about, and I commend 

Florida and Ohio for what you are doing. That sounds like that 

would be a wonderful thing to see if all the States did that, and 

32

if we could also work out an interstate policy, that would be great. 

That is our goal, is to help students, to not punish students, but 

rather to help them. 

Members of Congress have documented evidence that some institutions of higher education accredited by the regional accreditors 

refuse to accept or even consider the transfer of credit from schools 

that are nationally accredited. 

Are you aware of this problem? How widespread and how pervasive is this problem? 

Dr. DAY. We are aware of it. I am not 100 percent sure of how 

pervasive it is. I know that, as far as our association, NATN, is 

concerned, we have been open to working with any institution as 

long as it is either nationally or regionally accredited or enjoys special accreditation status. As with anything, in the final analysis, it 

really gets down to the issue of the individual institution and the 

student who is coming from that particular institution. 

Chairman MCKEON. So you believe that the student should be 

based on the school they have come from, not eliminated just because of the accrediting body? 

Dr. DAY. Absolutely, that is basically the operating principles 

that have been adopted by the Commission on Higher Education 

Accreditation, that we should not be discriminating solely on the 

basis of the type of institution that is sending that student, i.e., a 

proprietary institution or whomever. It is really about looking at 

the individual institution and the student and bringing the two together and blending them in such a way as it conforms to the types 

of issues that Jerry Sullivan outlined for you. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Chairman McKeon, the Ohio system assumes a 

nondiscriminatory policy. It is interesting if you say it the other 

way, your accrediting body will not kick you out of the system, but 

it alone won’t get you in the system, either way. But that is an important point to make. You do not have a blanket ticket no matter 

what, because it all boils down to the course and curricular equivalencies. You could almost do a blind review, a 2-year institution 

whose name is not noted to a 4-year institution, because we look 

at the courses and the curriculum and the equivalency thereof. 

Chairman MCKEON. I loved hearing your story about the student 

3 years from now and how it is going to unfold for them, because 

that is what is driving this whole issue. That is why we have this 

issue in our bill, is because we are concerned that a student, especially one that is a first-time student in their family, they go to 

school, they are given some guidance on courses to take, and then, 

at the end of 2 years, find out that those courses do not transfer 

or half of those courses or a third of those courses do not transfer. 

And basically, I do not think education is a waste of time, but taking the same courses over and over again could be considered a 

waste of time in comparison with being able to spread yourself out 

to take other new classes. 

We hear good things about Ohio and Florida. Some States are 

not doing this. Could you give us any feeling about which States 

are not and why they are not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, nearly all States have some type of policy 

that is driving in the direction of freeing up mobility. Some schools, 

33

to go back to that previous question, probably do use accreditation 

as a rationale. 

I think typically what drives it is resources. It is difficult on the 

receiving end. Often, schools are faced with a situation of literally 

tens of thousands of applicants that they try to weed through, and, 

as a result, there is, I do not know whether it is a need, but a sense 

of, to get through it all, one needs to jump to some umbrella reason 

to say no. 

Chairman MCKEON. Is a lot of that subjective, or is it objective? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, to some extent, you could say it is objective. 

What you are trying to do is say, here is a group of institutions 

who a trusted third party, an accreditor, has said they have reasonable criteria for the type of faculty and program they put together 

and they are similar to you. 

Chairman MCKEON. What we are thinking of, and that is what 

we have in our bill, requiring the institutions to have a stated policy so that the decision is made here instead of here, and the student can have the decision made up front and not have wasted that 

time. And I think it will save all institutions a lot of time, because 

if they have a policy, they do not have to go back through and say, 

‘‘Well, this may or may not be good, let’s spend a lot of time discussing it.’’ If they have an objective, written policy, then everybody 

complies with that, and there is no question. 

A student cannot say I did not know, because it is there. It is 

on the Web; they can look at it and use it. Their counselors can 

use that in guiding them in course selection up front. It makes, I 

think, a much smoother, seamless policy all the way through. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. I was just going to add that I think State reciprocity is really going to help us here. Ohio is very well situated, 

surrounded by five neighboring States that we have reciprocal relations with already, and I can easily see how Florida and Ohio, if 

we were able to have four or five national pilots that looked similar 

to Florida and Ohio, I think you could spread out from that direction. 

I also think that the Web is exponentially our friend. This idea 

of a student portal, where all kinds of information from preschool 

to kindergarten to high school to college exists and students can 

test out the viability of what they are taking, this will help students be more engaged in high school and more of a guarantee 

from high school to 2-year, 2-year to 4-year, or, as we have not 

really mentioned today, a big part of the Ohio system is 4-year to 

4-year. It is really important. 

Chairman MCKEON. Right. 

Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Zimpher and Dr. 

Klebacha, in developing the systems you have in Florida and in 

Ohio, how do you avoid going to the lowest common denominator 

on the quality of courses? 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Well, Representative Kildee, when I mentioned 

that 400 faculty across the State had been involved, if you can 

imagine the time they have spent. They have looked at each course 

syllabus in their respective institutions, and by making the learning outcomes public and by using for the gen-ed curriculum sort of 

a 95 percent transferability—and even for a major course, it has to 

34

be at least 70 percent compatible with learning outcomes from one 

institution to another—it has had the opposite effect. 

It has caused us to revise curriculum up to a standard, and I 

think that is maybe counter-intuitive, but a lot of work by a lot of 

people looking individually at the curriculum has really raised the 

standard. 

Dr. KLEBACHA. We have 191 faculty committees that are around 

content areas. So one way to ensure that you do not go to the lowest common denominator is you put them all in a room together, 

and you make them work it out. They will fight among themselves 

until they get to the point where they level out at a quality, rigorous coursework level. 

Not only that, we have at the State level that practitioner group 

that I mentioned that reviews this and is a check and balance at 

the State level for ensuring that it is in fact a rigorous and quality 

program. 

Dr. DAY. Mr. Kildee, just to follow up on that, prior to going to 

California, as the Chairman mentioned, I was in Florida, and at 

the time, while all of this was being planned and developed, I was 

the president of Daytona Beach Community College in Florida. And 

my chief academic officer was one of the key players on one of the 

major committees. 

I have got to just give you some assurances, I think in the words 

of the president of the University of Cincinnati, it actually elevated 

the quality of both the discussion and also the outcomes from the 

point of view of the course work. Because not only did it bring all 

of the faculty and staff that Theresa was talking about to discuss 

issues regarding common course numbering, but after all of that 

was settled, we then went through a process of what we referred 

to as leveling, what is lower division and what is upper division, 

so there would be a line drawn about what the community college’s 

responsibilities were and what the university’s responsibilities 

were, so everybody knew what their job was. Everybody knew 

where they could focus their resources to get the very best effort. 

And the same thing applied to the lower division in the University 

of Florida system. 

So, they are very comparable to what was going on in the community colleges. So it does work but is a long, deliberative process, 

and it does cost a lot of money. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. I would add, Representative Kildee, that, in Ohio, 

there is a pretty sophisticated higher education information system. We are actually tracking cohorts of students to make sure 

they have had success in transfer and successful completion of 

their courses. So I think that kind of data system, I know that you 

have been interested in data systems and what you could do on a 

national basis, but the advantage of our data system is you know 

where the student came from, what courses he or she has taken, 

what grade level achievement, whether or not it transferred to the 

next college or 2- or 4-year institution. That is the kind of assessment data I think we need, probably best generated at the State 

level. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. I am glad I asked that question. Good 

answers, good responses. I got some good knowledge. 

35

Dr. Day, you mentioned that the Federal Government could provide some encouragement on a voluntary basis to achieve this. 

Does H.R. 609 go in that direction? 

Dr. DAY. I think it is certainly trying to do that, but I think the 

concern that we have, probably the largest concern, is, despite all 

of the issues about posting policies, I do not think that is a big 

problem. I think every institution would be prepared to do that. 

But the issue of the reporting, the subsequent and more detailed 

reporting requirements that necessarily have to be followed, from 

the point of view of not only the student that is coming in but the 

student who is being accepted and the amount of transfers as well 

as from the point of view of separate accrediting agencies, I think 

the better approach on that would be—because in each State, going 

back to Florida, for example, I mean, one of the things that really 

drove that train, if you will, on developing that system, was the development of statewide accountability standards. The same thing 

has just happened in California. Our chancellor of the community 

college system has just now turned over to the legislature and the 

Governor’s office a whole new accountability plan that is not focused on statewide data. It is focused on districtwide data and has 

a compliment of statewide data that we are all going to be compared to, and one of the key elements of that is transfer. 

I think the proper role of the Federal Government is to ensure 

that the States are following through with that. 

Getting back to Chairman McKeon’s question about whether 

there are different State practices. Well, it is rather spotty, in fact. 

As good a three-tiered system as California has, there is a lot of 

room for improvement. Not every State is like Florida and not 

every State is like Ohio. But we have got to try to build in some 

assurances that we move them and incentivize them to move in 

that direction, because there is certainly a lot of good people at the 

grassroots prepared to do that because they care about the students that they are serving. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. The Chair yields to the gentleman from 

Louisiana, Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of questions. 

Mr. Sullivan, in your testimony, you talked about some of the 

constraints within the College Credit Mobility System that carries 

cost for institutions. Tell us a little bit more about cost, because I 

think we would like to know more about what the costs are for students and the institutions. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am glad to. As transfers are currently set up, 

cost tends to fall on the receiving institution more than on the 

sending institution. We think there could be some better balance 

there. 

The cost begins with personnel. Someone shows up on your campus with the idea of transferring to you, whether that be planned 

or unplanned. When it is planned, it is a little smoother, because 

there can be articulation agreements, as we heard here, in place. 

When it is unplanned, they show up often with an unknown school 

and a series of courses that little is known about. There will be a 

staff of X number of people trying to discover whether or not those 

36

courses by the three criteria make any sense for giving credit at 

that particular institution. 

I was at a panel similar to this out in California a couple of years 

ago listening to one of the State universities out there talking 

about how they did not have enough to get the job done, and they 

had a staff of nine trained evaluators carrying that out. That is a 

considerable expense. 

Some of these ideas talked about here today begin to break 

through that cost. By the sending institution being able to provide 

more information online that an evaluator can look at, that would 

breakdown some of that problem. 

I think President Day’s project, approach to this also would begin 

to expand from State to State. His approach is that they are looking at regions rather than nationwide, where you would take a 

metropolitan area and faculty members can get together and begin 

to work on that. 

We know that most transfers take place within about 50 miles 

of the institution, so you can start to develop these cells. It will 

bring down costs, and it will facilitate a great deal of this, rather 

than everything taking one effort taking care of the entire Nation, 

which probably will not work. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Are there any articulation agreements between liberal arts colleges and universities or interstate transfer agreements out there? 

Can any of you comment on some of that? 

Dr. DAY. None that I know of that are formalized and that provide the student with the type of assurances that they would be 

able to effectively move from one State to another. 

There are agreements that exist that allow a student, for example, the New England Compact Agreement, which allows a student 

from Maine, my home State, for example, that might want to go 

into and enjoy having access to a major that is not offered by the 

University of Maine system, but if it is offered by the University 

of Vermont, they will travel to the University of Vermont, and they 

will pay the comparable tuition of the State of Maine. 

We have not approached that issue, but I think that you are 

going to see that emerging on the horizon, whether it is through 

the New England or the regional accrediting groups or such organizations as WICHE, which is the Western Interstate Commission on 

Higher Education. I think everybody is focusing on this issue. 

But, again, while there are issues when you work within a particular State, if you consider the State as a silo, you can get all of 

the things organized as much as you want, but the reality is that 

when somebody leaves Florida or Ohio and decides to go to Pennsylvania or to Illinois, the reality is they are at risk. That is the 

reason why we have to work developmentally to build this block, 

this coalition, on a local, regional and national level, so that we facilitate transfer around this country, and we do not put students 

at risk because of the fact that there is no room at the inn at their 

local State University or in the system itself; because of demands 

or demographics, they are forced to go out-of-state to get access to 

the upper division and baccalaureate degree, and that is when we 

have serious problems. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

37

Chairman MCKEON. The Chair yields to the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for holding this hearing. 

I want to thank the panel first for all of the work you are doing 

in terms of facilitating the process by which students transfer from 

one institution to another. I consider that issue to be absolutely 

central to the issue of access and affordability, which ought to be 

one of our concerns as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. 

Dr. Day, I want to sort of follow up on the questions that Mr. 

Kildee asked. You said in your testimony that you believe that this 

issue required congressional support but that you thought that support ought to take the form of, in effect, encouraging schools to undertake volunteer activities as opposed to the Federal Government 

imposing activities or policies on schools. 

Mr. Sullivan, you did not use those terms, you did not use ‘‘volunteer,’’ you did not use ‘‘mandatory,’’ but certainly the thrust of 

your testimony would be that you agree with that sentiment. 

I guess my first question is to Dr. Zimpher and Dr. Klebacha. Do 

you also agree that the role of the Federal Government ought to 

be volunteer as opposed to mandatory in encouraging schools to facilitate the process by which students transfer from one institution 

to another? 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Representative Bishop, I think if you parse the bill 

out, what I know of it, I do not have deep knowledge of it, I think 

the Federal perspective on nondiscriminatory policies is an important one, and, as I said before, I think that should not be the determinant one way or the other. So I think it has been helpful to articulate at a national level, say, in a bill of this sort, that there are 

certain principles that should be adhered to. 

But, yes, I think in the final analysis, States are better equipped 

to move in these directions and move reciprocally with other 

States. 

I am not sure that a national data system is in our near-time horizon, but I also learned a great deal from listening to Florida 

today. I think we have many similarities in our system. I think encouraging pilots, giving recognition to States that have made 

progress, would be very important to voluntarily encouragement of 

others. 

Dr. KLEBACHA. Thank you for the question, Congressman Bishop. 

I, too, agree that it should be voluntary. However, I do believe that 

there is a role of Congress to establish basic minimum expectations 

right up front: This is what we expect to see; these are the goals 

we are trying to reach, put in place motivations, performance funding, those kinds of things we did, to encourage institutions to move 

toward the goals and expectations, and, as Dr. Day mentioned, 

have performance measures that you specifically will be looking at 

and measuring, give credit to those that have met those and further encourage them, and those that have not, perhaps they will 

once they see that the students will gravitate toward the programs 

that do adhere to those areas. 

Plus, I like the idea of Congress serving as a repository of information, because, to some extent, excuse me, Congress encouraging 

a repository at the Federal level. We have a bunch of information 

38

we could share up there. The same thing with Ohio and these other 

States. Eventually, you will have a network of information that can 

be tapped into for particular quality indicators that our registrars 

are looking for. So I would encourage voluntary participation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me, if I may, there is very specific language in 

H.R. 609 which deals with the issue of transferability of credit, 

and it imposes on the institutions certain minimum requirements. 

I guess my question is, do you see the imposition of those certain 

minimum requirements as a mandate from the Federal Government? And, if so, is that a mandate that you believe is reasonable, 

or do you see this as sort of going over the line from encouraging 

and support of the behavior on the part of the Federal Government 

to imposition of behavior? 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Representative Bishop, the specification of certain 

data minimums, I think, is at issue here, because we need data 

that are really useful. We need to know where students have come 

from, what courses they have taken, whether those courses were 

accepted at the receiving institution and whether or not they continue to matriculate toward graduation. 

As it is currently defined, I guess we are not quite sure what national data system or minimum set of data entries would do for us, 

except add a layer of data collection that may not tell us where the 

student came from, what courses they took, how successful they 

were and if they are matriculating. So the concern, really, and I am 

sure we have to, I personally, have to study it more, but the concern is that data that are mandated as minimums be useful. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sir? 

Dr. DAY. I would support that, particularly as it relates to the 

detail. When we say minimum, and then you take a look at the 

real detail associated with the reporting requirements on the data, 

that is going to be a lot of work and time and effort. 

I do think, however, that there are some things that clearly need 

to be emphasized in the bill about the issue of transfer policies. 

The principles that guide those transfer policies, those ought to be 

all clear up front so that, in terms of the truth in advertising, so 

the student knows what they are getting. 

I think also there has to be assurances, and I think this is where 

the Federal Government working in concert with the State—I do 

not know if it is really humanly possible for you folks to be able 

to track how well institutions are doing from an accountability 

standpoint. It is a lot easier for you to track 50 States’ performance 

than it is the 3,000-plus post-secondary institutions, public, private, proprietary. 

So I just think we ought to be looking at the States and having 

some minimum requirements of those States that essentially says 

we have got some performance criteria, we do have some accountability standards and they relate to the core mission of the respective institutions and one of my core missions is transfer. So when 

we design an accountability plan for the City College of San Francisco, I am going to be specifying beginning to end to my State and 

to the State legislature what I am going to do. 

I think you need to get some assurances that indeed every single 

State is doing that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

39

Chairman MCKEON. Does every school have a transfer policy of 

what they accept? What would be the problem with asking that 

that be put on a Web site? 

Dr. ZIMPHER. I think that is where we are going. 

Chairman MCKEON. That is exactly where we are going. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. The student portal idea, which has many, many 

pieces of information in it, will make it perfectly obvious what the 

transfer policies are. 

Chairman MCKEON. That is all we are asking. That is what we 

have been asking in the bill, is that every school have a policy, that 

they do not make the policy based on the individual student. That 

they have the policy, and the student can then go to the Web site 

and know what that policy is, and it is not going to be based on 

them; it is going to be based on what they are doing. 

The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 

Osborne. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here today. 

I am looking at this from a little different standpoint in that I 

was in the coaching profession for a long time, and we dealt with 

a lot of transfers, and we looked at a lot of transcripts. It was always difficult to figure out exactly how good a student was. You 

could look at the transcript, and they had had college algebra. They 

had had chemistry at the junior college or community college level, 

and yet sometimes, you would find that, once you got that student 

on the campus, that those courses really did not translate into a 

very sound academic base. 

Some places, this probably was more peculiar to the athletic community, you might find that, out of the 30, 35 hours that a student 

athlete transferred, that maybe almost half of them were taught by 

members of the coaching staff at the school. So just looking at the 

course title and the syllabus and so on did not always tell the 

story. 

There was one school, maybe it is perfectly legitimate now, Azusa 

Pacific, I remember hearing about from time to time, where athletes actually, through mail order, got quite a few credits, and you 

had to be pretty nervous about that. 

So we certainly want to be fair to the community colleges. They 

do a great job, and we do not want to discriminate against students 

who have done the work and have had sufficient academic rigor. 

But do you have any thoughts as to how you ferret out those 

places that are really not operating in a legitimate fashion and that 

are really not providing the necessary academic background? Because there are so many things that are difficult to ferret out just 

by looking at a syllabus or a transcript. And I invite any of you to 

hazard an opinion here or——

Dr. ZIMPHER. Well, Representative Osborne, it really sounds like 

there is a great deal of similarity in the course review process that 

has been initiated in both Florida and Ohio. 

Sheer numbers of faculty who have been brought to the table 

from two- and 4-year institutions to review the course syllabus, the 

expectations that the syllabus must express learning outcomes, this 

is a transition from seat time or credit hours to ‘‘What did you 

learn?’’ and ‘‘What were you expected to learn?’’ the high degree of 

40

equivalency established between courses that are judged from one 

campus to another; 

An appeals process for disputes when there is disagreement 

amongst the disciplinarians has really taken us a long way to some 

more reliability that this course does what it says it does. 

And I think the public scrutiny makes a big difference. And convening committees across multiple disciplines has certainly been a 

key to our process in Ohio; it sounds like the process in Florida. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I thank you for that answer. But what I am trying 

to say is that simply examining the syllabus and looking at the 

supposed course content doesn’t always tell the story. 

And if you look at graduation rates—the NCAA tracks this very 

closely—of junior college athletes as opposed to those who enroll as 

freshmen, there is a stark contrast. And yet——

Dr. ZIMPHER. This is one place where tracking the success of the 

transfer student can make that difference. Because what happens 

to you, if you have taken a course that didn’t have the requisite 

content, is that you will not do well in the next course that you 

take when you transfer. 

So part of our data system is tracking the success of the student 

after we have made the judgment that they do have the academic 

content. So when they go on to the next level of courses at the next 

institution, we will know if they are failing those courses. It will 

suggest very directly that what we thought was happening in that 

course was not. 

Dr. KLEBACHA. If I may, sir. There is a certain benefit to accreditation. And I am not for or against accreditation, but what I am 

for is that there be established somewhere some basic standards 

that any institution must meet in terms of assuring the receiving 

institution that the basic standards, be they in their transfer policy 

perhaps under the guidelines that we are talking about—a receiving institution registrar would have a certain level of good feeling 

or understanding that that institution at least adheres to these 

minimum standards, which automatically takes off the top faculty 

credentials, takes off the top content review, takes off the top on 

a regular basis what are your performance indicators, those types 

of content quality indicators of an institution that a receiving institution can be assured is OK to begin with. 

And then they can focus more attention on the specific courses 

associated with it—even, they could spend more time going back 

and verifying to the extent that they need to. And then, of course, 

you establish a track record of an institution that continues to send 

you students. You can see from the performance of their students 

whether there might be a different issue as well. 

Dr. DAY. I would just, as Mr. Osborne, as the CEO of a community college who has enjoyed the benefit of being the national coach 

of champs in football in 4 of the last 5 years that, in fact, the greatest level of success that we have with our students is when we get 

them into the institution, coaching and mentoring them, outside 

and off the field, and providing them with support services. And 

when our students transfer, generally speaking, we find that they 

have more success at transferring to a senior institution if they 

have more of the credit package that represents the associate degree. 

41

If you take a student that has less than or just has 1 year of experience, which a lot of colleges show up on my campus, and they 

see a star and they know that they have cleaned up their eligibility 

requirements and they now could be eligible for NCAA criteria, you 

know, they do put pressure on them, they try to recruit the student 

after they have only completed half of what we would call our program. 

What we try to do is to work with that student and say, ‘‘Look, 

postpone your gratification in terms of transferring. Stay with us; 

it is going to be much more successful.’’ And we find that when 

they have got that degree and they have got all the general ed and 

when they have got all of the degree requirements out of the way, 

when they transfer they are going to do better and outperform the 

athletes that grew up in those institutions as freshmen because 

they are that much better prepared. 

But if you take them prematurely, you are going to get what you 

ask for, and there are some issues and some problems. And I am 

just being candid with you; they couldn’t get into the University of 

Nebraska in the first place because they didn’t meet eligibility requirements, which meant that they weren’t academically ready for 

that type of an institution. 

So we take them and we work with them just the same way as 

we do all with students, regardless. And the longer we have them, 

the more successful they are going to be at your level. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, if you would grant me another 20 seconds, 

I would say that your observations are very correct, that those people who have done the full 2 years and have got their A.A. are 

much better candidates. And I think there are some community colleges, some junior colleges that do a tremendous job. 

But there are the others, and therefore it is always difficult to 

declare a national standard and say, ‘‘Well, this one size fits all.’’ 

It is a little bit risky. 

But, anyway, those are my observations. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MCKEON. The Chair yields to the gentleman from Oregon, 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. I thank the Chairman. 

I represent an area where there are several community colleges 

and one of our State universities. Portland State University has 

agreements with the adjacent community colleges to provide not 

only for transfer, but concurrent enrollment and unified financial 

aid so that, for example, a student can take a course at one of the 

community colleges in the morning, work, and take a course at 

Portland State in the evening depending on his or her needs. 

In your experience, how common is that kind of arrangement 

around the country? Is it quite common now, or is that still a little 

bit unusual? Or is it geography dependent? 

Dr. DAY. I think in States like in California, where that is currently being tested to the limits in terms of the pipeline demographics of too many people coming out and too few places, that 

pattern that you have just described used to be pretty prevalent 

throughout the higher education system. And it also was prevalent 

with the—between the high schools and the community colleges, 

and you are aware of that practice. 

42

But as the demands for enrollment have increased at all levels 

of our system—and I think that this is very much the case in other 

States as well, who are all trying to deal with this burdensome 

level of demand—it becomes harder to agree to allow a student 

from a local community college to sit in that seat because they 

might be taking up the space of another aspiring student who is 

a member of the university community. 

But it absolutely should be encouraged. We ought to try to work 

at it. But there are States that have had some problems following 

through with what you are talking about. 

Mr. WU. It seems to me that that capacity constraint, that is a 

little counterintuitive, because if you have a capacity issue, by 

being able to cross-enroll, it seems that you would get more efficiency out of the total education system. 

So to ramp down that crossover ability when you have capacity 

constraints, that seems very counterintuitive to me. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Well, as I heard the question, Representative Wu, 

we have had some what we call ‘‘bilateral’’ and ‘‘trilateral’’ agreements for a long time that are going to serve as a model for statewide agreements. But it doesn’t ramp up without the encouragement of statewide policy. 

So I think—for a long time students have been able, for instance, 

in Cincinnati to work from Cincinnati State to U.C. We have some 

remarkable 2-year to 4-year degrees. Culinary arts at the 2-year 

goes on to a bachelor’s degree in culinary arts at the University of 

Cincinnati. But we didn’t have a sort of systemic statewide impetus 

to make this more geographically fluid. 

So we are continuing to develop those bilateral, two institutions, 

or trilateral agreements. And, in fact, if you are in a bilateral 

agreement with two institutions and one of them enters into another bilateral agreement with another institution, we then calibrate that three ways so that it keeps ramping up. 

Mr. WU. So what I am hearing is, without a little bit of a nudge, 

we don’t make progress in that direction. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. I think that is what we thought in Ohio, and I 

think that is why we have made a lot of progress. And the State 

legislature is a very effective nudger. 

Dr. DAY. Mr. Wu, if I may, I don’t want to give you the impression that we are not doing—if you look at it totally from a student’s 

perspective, I mean, my No. 1 transfer feeder institution is San 

Francisco State University, which is about a mile and a half down 

the road from where my main hub of activity is at City College of 

San Francisco. 

The reality is that students advantage the system without us 

having any formal agreement. I know that there are a lot of students from San Francisco State University that come up Ocean Avenue and study at my campus, and they take the courses. And the 

only thing that they have to be assured of is that they are taking 

a course that is equivalent to what we call the general education 

core requirements that are common to the U.C.-C.S.U. community 

college system. 

Mr. WU. My apologies for cutting you short. My time is drawing 

short as I see from the color of the lights. And I just wanted to ask 

43

a follow-up based on my colleague from Nebraska’s question and 

concern. 

My experience in transferring high school, community college, 

college credits was that the college and graduate institutions I was 

in had a remarkably open policy, and they depended entirely on the 

integrity of the professors in those courses to evaluate the course 

materials from the prior institution. And if they signed off on it, 

then you got credit; and if you didn’t get a professor to sign off on 

it, you weren’t going to get credit. 

I am concerned—and the Chairman may be amused that he is 

hearing this from a Democrat. I am concerned that setting any—

that setting national standards would somehow interfere with this 

kind of autonomous process of independent evaluation by faculty 

members. 

Am I off base in this concern; or, you know, because I am concerned, as Mr. Osborne said, about a one-size-fits-all approach? 

Mr. MCKEON. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. WU. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. I think reference has been made to our bill that 

we introduced, and we don’t set any standards in the bill. All we 

ask is that the institutions publicly publish their policy for transfer, they set all—the schools set their standards. 

All we are saying is, put it out publicly so that the student will 

know up front what the standards are, so when they are at this 

school, they can take a course that they know will transfer to this 

school, rather than taking the course and then having to go hat in 

hand and say, ‘‘What is the chance of transferring?’’

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time from the Chairman, my concern 

with this is, would it permit a system where the only way that you 

know that the credits transfer is to run it by a faculty member at 

the transferring institution? If that happens to be your standard, 

would it pass muster under the proposed language? And there is 

a concern there about if you have prior approval. 

Mr. MCKEON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WU. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. So you are saying if the receiving institution puts 

in their public policy that we will accept any English 101 class 

from any school if our English professor will approve it? 

Mr. WU. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. I guess, if that is what they want to put as their 

policy, that is the risk you take, because they will have the right 

to publish their policy. 

Dr. DAY. I think that there is probably another way to go about 

this, specifying that level of detail. Regional, specialized, and national accreditation criteria do outline procedures and practices 

that should dictate how credit is reviewed and assessed and provides for equivalency. 

And so at the heart of it really is—and I can’t speak for national, 

but I know for specialized, because I have been there, done that, 

as well as for regional, that the basic core principle is, it is the responsibility of the college faculty; and the presumption is, in certain program areas in particular, that that is where the quality 

control issue has to be resolved that determines whether or not the 

credit is equivalent to the credits that are offered by that departVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\21019 NNIXON
44

ment. And I think by simply abiding and reaffirming and supporting those criteria and practices that are already—that every 

single institution that enjoys some accreditation status has got to 

follow if they are going to be accredited, then you have accomplished, in effect, the objective that you are trying to achieve without specifying in law that an English faculty member has to be responsible for accrediting or determining the accreditation status. 

And I know you are not going to that level of extreme, but—

so——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congressman Wu, I was just going to add to that. 

I think one of the problems that we see is that H.R. 609 goes beyond just asking for a policy statement. It actually goes on to say 

how that process ought to be carried out, and it leaves out some 

of the criteria that we currently use. And so it is more than just 

stating a policy. It goes on, it eliminates the evaluation process to 

analysis of comparability and student performance. 

And so the idea of quality and applicability gets left out of this, 

and I can see that as a significant problem down the road, and not 

really what the Committee would like to see happening. 

Mr. WU. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sullivan, this is—I think we 

are close to being on parallel courses here, but I am a little bit concerned about what it looks like out the windshield, as opposed to 

in the rearview mirror, if the standard evaluations are, for example, at the end of a course and you evaluate content for performance after a course is taken. And if we are setting—and that is a 

rearview mirror look. 

And if we are setting something up as prospective criteria, although I think we are on parallel paths, I just want to express a 

little bit of concern about prospectively binding the receiving institution, giving the receiving institution enough flexibility to deal 

with the transferred credits and the transferring student in an appropriate way so that the faculty can ultimately be the control—

quality control of both coursework and students. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Representative Wu, I think that the Ohio and Florida systems are a ‘‘yes’’ in strategy. They represent the best thinking of the faculty, but they take the guesswork out of student 

course credit taking. 

Mr. WU. Well——

Mr. MCKEON. The time has expired. 

Mr. WU. I thank the forbearance of the Chairman. You will forgive me for having question marks in my mind any time the best 

of all possible worlds is presented on this Hill. We look forward to 

working together. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKEON. The Chair yields to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Tiberi. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the panel 

that I wasn’t here for your statements. I was talking to some future college students, 8th graders from Columbus, Ohio. I was 

plugging Ohio State, Dr. Zimpher. Sorry. But if they don’t go to 

Ohio State, U.C. would be a good alternative. 

Dr. ZIMPHER. They could start there and transfer to U.C. 

Mr. TIBERI. Just kind of following up on the latest line of questioning, Dr. Zimpher, as a former nudger myself in the State legislature, and having had conversations in the past with the late Dr. 

45

Nestor at Columbus State and Val Moeller, now the new president, 

who has been there for some time, and former presidents Gordon 

Gee and Brent Kerwin at Ohio State about formalizing a relationship between a 2-year college and a 4-year college in Ohio may be 

unique, I don’t know, because of the growth of 2-year colleges and 

the number of 2-year colleges that we have and the number of public 4-years that we have in Ohio that are closely located to 4-years 

and 2-years. 

We have come a long way since I was a student in college at 

Ohio State of working together with 2-years and 4-years. Columbus 

State in central Ohio where I used to live has grown exponentially 

over the last 20 years. And many of those students, like my little 

sister, started at Columbus State—not for academic reasons, more 

for financial reasons—and ended at Ohio State. And there were 

some difficulties back in the 1990’s when she transferred. 

But as you said, nudgers have helped, and the universities have 

worked together. 

Do you think that there should be some more formal agreements 

or laws put in place at the national and State levels to force institutions to do a better job across the country of aligning 2-years and 

4-years or junior colleges and 4-years? 

Dr. ZIMPHER. Representative Tiberi, it is nice to see you. And 

thank you for your work on this Committee—Subcommittee. 

I think Ohio has come a long way in part because of a recent bill, 

House bill 95, which was introduced 2 years ago. We have a 15-

year-old transfer module, so we have been at this a long time. But 

what we were doing is, we were saying to students, you have to 

complete the entire module before you can transfer. So students 

were taking some of the courses, but not all of the courses, and 

then having to take courses over because they had only done a part 

of the module. 

Based on the encouragement of legislation in the Ohio General 

Assembly, we have stripped that off. We are now looking at the 

course as the unit of analysis. We have created these pathways to 

majors. We have all of the 2- and 4-year institutions agreeing to 

participate in this system. 

We are moving, as you can see, to an electronic information system. When I keep talking about the ATM card, I am really talking 

about your ability to put a card in a machine and get out an accounting of your courses. 

So I think what we have managed to accomplish—and I guess 

Representative Shawn Webster from Ohio would be pleased to hear 

this as the sponsor of the bill—is that that partnership between the 

legislature and the Ohio Board of Regents has made a profound difference. And I would say, in 2 years’ time, we have done more than 

we were able to do in 15 years by that stimulation. 

But I think Ohio has a culture different than, say, Florida. We 

have a coordinating board, you have a governing board. We govern 

more by encouragement and influence than we do by edict and by 

rule, and that is the working relationship we had with the legislature. I am very supportive of that. And I think, as a university 

president, working very closely with President Moeller and President Ron Wright at Cincinnati State, this is working well for Ohio. 

Mr. TIBERI. Good. 

46

Does anyone else want to comment? 

Dr. DAY. Let me just follow up and just metaphorically say that 

if we hold their feet to the fire too much, they are never going to 

show up and do anything at the dance. 

This country’s postsecondary higher education system from—particularly from an accreditation standpoint, is based upon the notion 

and the core principle of voluntary participation in that process. 

And even though the words are there, ‘‘voluntary participation,’’ 

the Federal Government says that if you want to have access to 

Title IV(A) funding for student financial aid, you have got to make 

sure that you are fully accredited by a nationally recognized association. That is a good thing. 

That is a good thing, but it doesn’t—so there are some generalized benchmarks and boilerplate criteria that I think we can use. 

But I think if we really want the best results, in the final analysis, 

the system has got to be voluntary, not forced; it has got to make 

the best of all of the best practices that we are hearing about in 

States like Florida and Ohio. And there are others. 

We also ought to be tapping into the regions that have for a long 

time put a lot of heavy emphasis, as regional accrediting groups 

have gone in to accredit institutions and take a look at their programmatic infrastructure and their array of student services. They 

always come in and evaluate us on the basis of how well our graduates are doing and how well they are getting from point A to point 

B. 

I think, if we encourage and incentivize that system, it is going 

to provide you with more than—more results than you are expecting as opposed to forcing them and holding their feet to the fire too 

much. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. Just in closing, I 

would like to thank personally Dr. Zimpher for coming today. We 

miss you in Columbus, but we are pleased to see a former Buckeye 

doing so well at the University of Cincinnati. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKEON. I detect a little prejudice for the Buckeyes. And if 

you can spread that wealth around throughout the whole State, 

that is probably good. 

Thank you all for being here today, for your comments. As we go 

through this process, I know I have learned some things today, I 

hope all of the Committee has. And I know I am going to go back 

and relook at some of the things that we have talked about. 

I hope you will stay in close contact with us. As we go through 

the process of reauthorization, we encourage your continued input. 

Thank you very much. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ