States and institutions increasingly rely on articulation agreements to streamline vertical transfer, although the effectiveness of those policies on transfer student outcomes remains unclear. To better understand this effectiveness, we explored a partnership between the College of Engineering at a mid-Atlantic research university and two community colleges located within the same state. We interviewed engineering faculty and academic advisors (i.e., the street-level bureaucrats who implement policy) to explore how an articulation agreement influences processes and policies related to coursework transfer. Our results revealed complexities in the implementation of the articulation policy as it collides with an enrollment management university policy that differs in purpose. Their collision has challenging implications for transfer students and for the faculty and advisors responsible for interfacing with those students.
AndersonG.SunJ. C.AlfonsoM. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 261–291.
2.
BaileyT.JaggarsS. S.JenkinsD. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Harvard University.
3.
BaileyT.MorestV. S. (Eds.). (2006). Defending the community college equity agenda. Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
BaxterP.JackS. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
5.
BensimonE. M.DowdA. C.WithamK. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by design. Diversity & Democracy, 19(1), 1–8.
6.
BrodkinE. Z. (2003). Street-level research: Policy at the front lines. In LennonC.CorbettT. (Ed.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 145–164). Urban Institute Press.
7.
CarnevaleA. P.StrohlJ. (2013). Separate and unequal: How higher education reinforces the intergenerational reproduction of White racial privilege. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A57695
8.
CejdaB. D. (1997). An examination of transfer shock in academic disciplines. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21(3), 279–288.
9.
CheslockJ. J. (2005). Differences between public and private institutions of higher education in the enrollment of transfer students. Economics of Education Review, 24(3), 263–274.
10.
CohenA. M.BrawerF. B.KiskerC. B. (2014). The American community college (6th ed., Vol. 1–1 online resource.). Jossey-Bass.
11.
CorbinJ.StraussA.StraussA. L. (2014). Basics of qualitative research. SAGE.
DoughertyK. J.LahrH. E.MorestV. S. (2017). Reforming the American community college: Promising changes and their challenges (Working Paper No. 98). Community College Research Center.
14.
DowdA. C. (2012). Developing supportive STEM community college to four-year college and university transfer ecosystems. In National Academy of Sciences (Ed.), Community colleges in the evolving STEM education landscape: Summary of a summit (pp. 107–134). National Academies Press.
15.
DowdA. C.PakJ. H.BensimonE. M. (2013). The role of institutional agents in promoting transfer access. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(15). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1187
16.
DunnW. N. (2015). Public policy analysis. Routledge.
17.
EatonJ. S. (1994). The fortunes of the transfer function: Community colleges and transfer 1900-1990. In BakerG. A.DudziakJ.TylerP. (Eds.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 28–40). Greenwood Press.
Garcia FalconettiA. M. (2009). 2+2 statewide articulation policy, student persistence, and success in Florida universities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3–4), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802581109
22.
GianiM. S. (2019). The correlates of credit loss: How demographics, pre-transfer academics, and institutions relate to the loss of credits for vertical transfer students. Research in Higher Education, 60, 1113–1141.
23.
GofenA. (2013). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493.
HellerD. E. (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
HillC. J. (2005). Casework job design and client outcomes in welfare-to-work offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 263–288.
27.
HillsJ. R. (1965). Transfer shock: The academicperformance of the junior college transfer. The Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3), 201–215.
28.
HodaraM.Martinez-WenzlM.StevensD.MazzeoC. (2017). Exploring credit mobility and major-specific pathways: A policy analysis and student perspective on community college to university transfer. Community College Review, 45(4), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117724197
29.
HoffmanE.StarobinS.LaananF. S.RiveraM. (2010). Role of community colleges in STEM education: Thoughts on implications for policy. Practice and Future Research, 16(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v16.i1.60
30.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383.
31.
HonigM. I.HatchT. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
HopeJ. (2018). Follow best practices to recruit transfer students. Enrollment Management Report, 22(9), 1–5.
34.
HosslerD. R. (1984). Enrollment management: An integrated approach. College Entrance Examination Board.
35.
HosslerD. R. (2004). How enrollment management has transformed–or ruined–higher education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(34), B3–B5.
36.
HosslerD. R.BontragerB. (2014). Handbook of strategic enrollment management. John Wiley.
37.
HudsonB. (1989). Michael Lipsky and street level bureaucracy: A neglected perspective. In BartonL. (Ed.), Disability and dependency (pp. 41–52). Routledge.
38.
HuffmanM. C. (2012). An analysis of Virginia transfer policy and articulation agreements: A comparative study of community college transfer and native students—Enrollments and outcomes in a teacher preparation program. https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1015379307.html?FMT=ABS
39.
HumphreyK. B. (2006). At the crossroads of access and financial stability: The push and pull on the enrollment manager. College and University, 82(1), 11–26.
40.
IgnashJ. M.TownsendB. K. (2001). Statewide transfer and articulation policies: Current practices and emerging issues. In TownsendB. K.TwomblyS. (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 173–192). Greenwood Publishing.
41.
IshitaniT. T. (2008). How do transfers survive after “transfer shock”? A longitudinal study of transfer student departure at a four-year institution. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 403–419.
42.
JainD.HerreraA.BernalS.SolorzanoD. (2011). Critical race theory and the transfer function: Introducing a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(3), 252–266.
KnappM. S.BamburgJ. D.FergusonM. C.HillP. T. (1998). Converging reforms and the working lives of frontline professionals in schools. Educational Policy, 12(4), 397–418.
46.
KopkoE. M.CrostaP. M. (2016). Should community college students earn an associate degree before transferring to a 4-year institution?Research in Higher Education, 57(2), 190–222.
47.
LaananF. S. (2004). Studying transfer students: Part I: Instrument design and implications. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(4), 331–351.
48.
LaananF. S.StarobinS. S.EgglestonL. E. (2010). Adjustment of community college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–209.
49.
LaSotaR.ZumetaW. (2016). What matters in increasing community college students’ upward transfer to the baccalaureate degree: Findings from the beginning postsecondary study 2003-2009. Research in Higher Education, 57(2), 152–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9381-z
50.
LeslieD. W.BerdahlR. O. (2008). The politics of restructuring higher education in Virginia: A case study. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 309–328.
51.
LipskyM. (1969). Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
52.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
53.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th ann. ed.: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
54.
LoyensK.MaesschalckJ. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society, 42(1), 66–100.
55.
MajoneG.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation as evolution. In PressmanJ.WildavskyA. (Eds.), Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation (3rd ed., p. 163–180). University of California Press. (Original work published 1978)
56.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.
57.
MeyersM. K.VorsangerS. (2007). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In PetersG.PierreJ. (Eds.), The handbook of public administration (pp. 245–255). SAGE.
58.
MontagueN. R. (2012). Articulation agreements: No credits left behind. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(1), 281–298.
59.
MooreC.ShulockN.JensenC. (2009). Crafting a student-centered transfer process in California: Lessons from other states. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, California State University, Sacramento.
60.
MorrisC. (2016). Study says “momentum matters” for community college transfer students. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 33(1), 8–8.
61.
NataleS. M.DoranC. (2012). Marketization of education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 187–196.
62.
NichollsG. M.WolfeH.Besterfield-SacreM.ShumanL. J.LarpkiattawornS. (2007). A method for identifying variables for predicting STEM enrollment. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 33–44.
63.
OgilvieA. M.KnightD. B. (2019). Post-transfer transition experiences for engineering transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118820501
64.
OgilvieA. M.KnightD. B. (2020). Engineering transfer students’ reasons for starting at another institution and variation across subpopulations. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19, 69–83.
65.
O’MearaR.HallT.CarmichaelM. (2007). A discussion of past, present, and future articulation models at postsecondary institutions. Journal of Technology Studies, 33(1), 9–16.
66.
PhelanD. J. (2000). Enrollment policies and student access at community colleges. Policy paper. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED439763
67.
ProttasJ. M. (1978). The power of the street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 13(3), 285–312.
68.
RileyD. (2017). Rigor/us: Building boundaries and disciplining diversity with standards of merit. Engineering Studies, 9(3), 249–265.
69.
RoksaJ. (2006). States, schools and students: Contextualizing community college outcomes. New York University.
70.
RoksaJ. (2009). Building bridges for student success: Are higher education articulation policies effective?Teachers College Record, 111(10), 2444–2478.
71.
RoksaJ.KeithB. (2008). Credits, time, and attainment: Articulation policies and success after transfer. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708321383
72.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
73.
Santos LaananF. (2007). Studying transfer students: Part II: Dimensions of transfer students’ adjustment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(1), 37–59.
74.
ScottP. G. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 35–58.
75.
SnowdenM. L. (2010). Enrollment logics and discourse: Toward professionalizing higher education enrollment management. Texas A&M University.
76.
StakeR. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
77.
TaylorI. (2007). Discretion and control in education: The teacher as street-level bureaucrat. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(4), 555–572.
78.
TerenziniP. T.LattucaL. R.RoH. K.KnightD. B. (2014). America’s overlooked engineers: Community colleges and diversity in undergraduate. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/107460
TsuiL. (2007). Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the research literature. The Journal of Negro Education, 76, 555–581.
81.
WangX. (2020). On my own: The challenge and promise of building equitable stem transfer pathways. Harvard Education Press.
82.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
83.
ZackaB. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Harvard University Press.
84.
ZinserR. W.HanssenC. E. (2006). Improving access to the baccalaureate: Articulation agreements and the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program. Community College Review, 34(1), 27–43.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
