By Jane Sherman, passport state coordinator
Of the 10
states with Interstate Passport Network member institutions, two have included
all public colleges and universities as Network members from the beginning, and
one is working toward that status now. How and why did those two states each
decide to join en bloc? Why is the third contemplating that step now? And how
is that different from individual institutions’ motivation to join the Network?
The primary
characteristic that Utah and South Dakota had in common prior to the
introduction of Interstate Passport was the extensive work their faculties had
accomplished in defining a fully-transferrable, common, lower-division general
education core across both two- and four-year institutions. Both efforts had
been led by the state-level higher education board or commission, and both had
involved close attention to the student learning outcomes that were expected in
general education and, therefore, in the common courses.
Even though
both systems relied on common courses, rather than on learning outcomes alone,
it was important that learning outcomes had been articulated at both the
program and course level. That meant that a comparison between the statewide
lower-division general education outcomes and those of Interstate Passport was
easily accomplished and the similarities were readily apparent. Utah then
simply adopted each institution’s general education core as that institution’s
Interstate Passport Block. South Dakota, in a slightly different process,
adopted a statewide Passport Block based on the common subset of courses that
all of its institutions offered in their general education core in their
catalog of common courses.
Each of the
two states also had a singular characteristic that oriented it toward Network
membership. According to Teddi Safman, assistant commissioner for academic affairs
(ret.), Utah has long been a leader in student learning outcome-based
initiatives. For example, it was an early LEAP state and has done significant
work on Degree Qualifications Profiles. Faculty members from all of its
institutions have been meeting in discipline-based groups for many years to
build common understanding about learning outcomes. According to Dr. Safman,
“When faculty members from different institutions get together, magic happens.”
Utah institutions and faculties were intrigued by seeing practical applications
of their work on agreed upon learning outcomes that would further benefit
students.
South Dakota
is one of the states in the middle of the country whose population of high
school graduates is not growing. Paul Turman, system vice president for academic
affairs at the SD Board of Regents at the time, and new chancellor of the
Nebraska State College System, explained that South Dakota institutions would
like to draw more students from neighboring states, and making transfer more
efficient and cost-effective was an attractive opportunity. Dr. Turman noted
that some faculty members were initially concerned that joining Interstate
Passport would mean allowing it to dictate South Dakota’s general education
program, but those fears were quickly allayed.
In the end,
in both cases the institutions did not see Interstate Passport in any way as
disruptive within the state and were willing to forego the minimal autonomy
each maintained over potential transfer students arriving from out-of-state
Network members. In exchange, their students who might transfer to out-of-state
Network members would benefit, and the institutions would enjoy an advantage in
recruiting students from out-of-state Network institutions. Both Dr. Safman and
Dr. Turman emphasized that while trusted leadership at the state level was
helpful, early and continuous involvement of faculty was the critical element
of the process.
The third
state, currently working toward statewide adoption, is in a very different
position. Its primary incentive is very much the lack of a truly effective
common core with slight, but protectively guarded, variations among
institutions and between sectors. A certain lack of trust between sectors also
plays a role, as it does in so many states. However, the goodwill and
perseverance among all of the higher education leaders has brought this state
close to the point of fully recognizing that the learning outcomes approach of
Interstate Passport can be their lifeline out of the maze. Courses and credits
do not need to be an exact match as long as there is agreement about what
students are expected to learn in a lower-division general education program.
And Interstate Passport’s feedback tracking system will show whether the
sending institutions are, indeed, adequately preparing the students they send
on to other institutions.
In other
words, both internal consistency and
internal disarray can be powerful
incentives for a state as a whole to turn to the opportunities offered by
Interstate Passport membership.
On the other
hand, seven states have started with only two, or even one institution as
Network members. In most of these cases a visionary leader has recognized the
opportunity that Interstate Passport offers to solve a challenge the
institution is facing or to help move the institution toward a desired goal.
One or two institutions in a state can act as a pilot leading the way for
partner schools to follow, especially if multiple articulation agreements have
resulted in overly complicated arrangements.
Some of the
challenges that leaders say have drawn them to Interstate Passport Network
membership include:
“We have performance funding that’s partly
based on post-transfer completions and we’re interested in anything that might
help.”
“We are a
community college right across the state border from a university that’s much
more convenient for our students.”
“Our
legislature has mandated our comprehensive universities increase their transfer
enrollments – we think the Interstate Passport might help.”
“We want to
focus more on learning outcomes to get ready for our upcoming accreditation
review.”
“Our state
sends a lot of transfer students out of state, and we want them to have a
better transfer experience.”
“Our
statewide learning outcomes are pretty general and not well used – Interstate
Passport could help us take it to the next level.”
“Our
statewide course equivalency system is out of date and inhibits innovation –
there must be something better.”
“We are a
LEAP state (or institution) and would like to take practical steps in using the
LEAP learning outcomes.”
“We have a
legislative mandate to ‘fix’ transfer, but don’t want to standardize our
courses.”
“We attract
students from a neighboring state – but would like to attract a lot more.”
In other
words, the initial motivation of individual institutions and their leaders is
nearly as diverse as the number of institutions. And, we’re eager to hear more
about how Interstate Passport has solved institutional or state challenges as
additional members join the Network.
