A State Perspective on Transfer Technology Challenges and How To Address Them

Transcription

1 A State Perspective on Transfer Technology Challenges and How To Address Them Ken Sauer, Ph.D. AACRAO s Second Annual Transfer Conference February 17, 2009 Tampa Marriott Waterside Tampa, Florida

2 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act 1 (SEC Articulation Agreements) The Secretary shall carry out a program for States, in cooperation with public institutionsof higher education, to develop, enhance, and implement comprehensive articulation agreements among such institutions in a State, and (to the extent practicable) across State lines by

3 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act 2 (SEC Articulation Agreements) Such articulation agreements shall be made widely and publicly available on the websites of States and such [i.e. public] institutions. 3

4 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act 3 (SEC Articulation Agreements) In developing articulation agreements, States and public institutions may employ strategies including management systemsregarding course equivalency, transfer of credit, and articulation; The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to States and public institutions 4

5 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act 4 (SEC Report and Study on Articulation Agreements) The Secretary shall conduct a study [that] shall consider what strategies are being employed, including common course numbering, general education core curriculum, and management systems; and barriersto the implementation of articulation agreements, including technological and informational barriers. 5

6 Why a State Perspective on Transfer? Importance of the Public Sector Gubernatorial and Legislative Involvement State Agency Policy, Planning, and Coordinating Responsibilities 6

7 Advantages of Statewide Approaches Affects All Public Institutions Communicates a Consistent Message to Students Gives Students Choices and Options 7

8 Challenges of Statewide Approaches Enormous Amounts of Data Generated because All Campuses and All Programs Are Included Databases Must Change When Courses Change Flexibility Needed for Individual Student Circumstances Policies Stop at the Border: Out-of-State Students 8

9 State Technology Transfer Model Essential Components 9

10 State Technology Transfer Model Component 1: Institutional Capabilities 1. List All Courses 2. List All Degree Programs 3. Identify and Reveal Equivalenciesfor Courses Taken at Other Institutions 4. Generate sfor Prospective Transfer Students 5. Allow Students To e-import Transcript Information for Courses They ve Taken 10

11 State Technology Transfer Model Component 2: Student Capabilities 1. Ability To Store Transfer-Related Information in a Student Account 2. Ability To Electronically Populate Accountswith Transcript Information for Courses Previously Taken 3. Ability To Run sagainst Target Transfer Institutions and Degree Programs 4. Ability To Store Results of Scenarios 11

12 State Technology Transfer Model Component 3: System Architecture 1. A Transfer HubWhere Students Can Establish Accounts 2. All Participating Institutions Linkedto the Transfer Hub 12

13 Components of a State Technology Transfer Model Vendor 1 Vendor 2 States or Vendor 6 for Their Transfer Hub Student Accounts Transcript Information for Courses Taken Previously Transfer Equivalents for Courses Previously Taken s Resulting from Applying Transfer Equivalents Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Vendor 5 13

14 State Technology Transfer Model Component 4: Related Support Structures 1. Informative, Student-Friendly Transfer Portal 2. Leadership TeamResponsible for Overall Implementation and Performance 3. Advisory Group(s)To Ensure Transfer Hub (Web Site) Is Functional and Accurate 4. Technical Group(s)To Develop and Maintain Functionality of Transfer Hub 5. Networking Softwarefor Updating Course Information and Evaluating Transfer Equivalencies 6. Funding 14

15 Components of a State Technology Transfer Model Vendor 1 Vendor 2 States or Vendor 6 for Their Transfer Hub Student Accounts Transcript Information for Courses Taken Previously Transfer Equivalents for Courses Previously Taken s Resulting from Applying Transfer Equivalents Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Vendor 5 15

16 s 1 (Including s and Transfer Equivalency Guides) Market Share by Number of Institutions (Source: Individual vendor websites) SunGard Banner 1,600 Oracle/PeopleSoft 800 Datatel 760 Jenzabar

17 s 2 (Including s and Transfer Equivalency Guides) Market Share by Percentage of Institutions (Source: EDUCAUSE) SunGard Banner 39.1% Oracle/PeopleSoft 16.2% Datatel 13.8% Homegrown 12.7% Jenzabar 10.7% Other 7.5% 17

18 Components of a State Technology Transfer Model Vendor 1 Vendor 2 States or Vendor 6 for Their Transfer Hub Student Accounts Transcript Information for Courses Taken Previously Transfer Equivalents for Courses Previously Taken s Resulting from Applying Transfer Equivalents Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Vendor 5 18

19 Transfer Hub Vendors/Systems Most widely used (Has Full Functionality): u.select (formerly CAS, developed by Miami University) Other Vendors/Systems: ARTSYS AcademyOne Decision Academic 19

20 States with u.select Client Campuses Many Clients Few Clients 1. Ohio Texas 3 2. Minnesota California 2 3. Indiana Colorado 1 4. Arizona Massachusetts 1 5. Kentucky North Carolina 1 6. Illinois New York 1 7. Oregon 8 7. Oklahoma 1 8. Pennsylvania 1 9. Washington Wisconsin 1 Subtotal 213 Subtotal 13 Total Number of u.select Client Campuses: 226 source: Indiana Commission for Higher Education 20

21 u.select Licensees in States with Many Clients State Client Campuses Licensee(s) Ohio 70 Ohio Board of Regents Minnesota 37 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities 4 University of Minnesota Indiana 33 Indiana Commission for Higher Education Arizona 22 Arizona Board of Regents Kentucky 21 Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education Illlinois 18 Illinois CAS Oregon 8 Oregon University System Total

22 u.select Client Campuses by Sector Public Sector Independent Two-Year Four-Year Sector Total Ohio Minnesota Indiana* Arizona Kentucky Illinois Oregon Total *Indiana will license between additional independent over the next two years 22

23 License Does Not Equal Implementation because: Interface Do Not Exist Lack of Leadership or Responsibility Insufficient Knowledge Resource Constraints 23

24 Needed Software Interfaces Interfaces That Link the Transfer Hub (u.select) to Essential Vendor Systems: 1. 2.Transfer Course Equivalency Tables 3. System 24

25 Chart 1 Transcript Electronic/Request Import Interfaces in a Fully Functional Transfer System* SunGard Banner *Modeled off the Indiana and Illinois configurations Oracle/PeopleSoft States or (CAPP or Degree Works) redlantern u.select for Their Transfer Hub Student Accounts Transcript Information for Courses Taken Previously Transfer Equivalents for Courses Previously Taken s Resulting from Applying Transfer Equivalents Datatel (Colleague) redlantern (no ) (DARwin/u.achieve) Jenzabar 25

26 Chart 2 Transfer Course Equivalency Interfaces in a Fully Functional Transfer System* SunGard Banner *Modeled off the Indiana and Illinois configurations Oracle/PeopleSoft States or (CAPP or Degree Works) redlantern u.select for Their Transfer Hub Student Accounts Transcript Information for Courses Taken Previously Transfer Equivalents for Courses Previously Taken s Resulting from Applying Transfer Equivalents Datatel (Colleague) redlantern (no ) (DARwin/u.achieve) Jenzabar 26

27 Chart 3 Interfaces in a Fully Functional Transfer System* SunGard Banner *Modeled off the Indiana and Illinois configurations Oracle/PeopleSoft States or (CAPP or Degree Works) redlantern u.select for Their Transfer Hub Student Accounts Transcript Information for Courses Taken Previously Transfer Equivalents for Courses Previously Taken s Resulting from Applying Transfer Equivalents Datatel (Colleague) redlantern (no ) (DARwin/u.achieve) Jenzabar 27

28 For Two Reasons: 1.In SomeCases, They Need To Be Developed 2.In AllCases, There Is No Secure Plan To Maintain Them, as SIS Vendors Release New Versions of Software 28

29 To Solve the Interface Problem and To Ensure Full Functionality and Spread Implementation of State Transfer Systems This, a Conclusion of a Joint Effort by Illinois and Indiana, Prompted the Two States To Take Action 29

30 Letter To Major SIS Vendors A December 22, 2008 a Letter to SunGard/Banner, Oracle/PeopleSoft, Datatel, Jenzabar Proposed A Collaborative Approach To Solving the Interface Problem Indiana and Illinois Invite Others To Join in This Collaborative Effort 30

31 Other Challenges: Dissimilarity of s From a Student Perspective, How a Can Seamless Feel Be Achieved Navigating among s from Different Vendors? How Can Vendor Innovation Leading to New Features and Formats Be Balanced with a Need for Standardization? s Have a Clunky Feel to Them 31

32 Other Challenges: Transfer Hub More Attention Needed to Dashboard Metrics, in Order To: Better Identify and Address Weak Spots in Usage Monitor Progress and Make a Persuasive Case to Funding Entities 32

33 Concluding Thoughts 1 State Systems and Beyond State Transfer Technology Systems Are Essential and Will Become Much More Widespread in the Near Future Regional and National Systems, Based on Tying Together State Systems, Will Inevitably Follow International Linkages among Systems Are on the Horizon 33

34 Concluding Thoughts 2 We Need To Collaborate To Foster a Consensus around a Common Vision for State Transfer Technology Systems Identify Technical Problems and Solutions to Them Identify Non-Technical Problems and Explore Ways To Solve Them Promote Best Practices 34

35 Concluding Thoughts 3 Who are the We? Federal and State Officials College and University Administrators and Student Support Personnel National Associations Vendors Standards Groups 35

36 Contact Information: Ken Sauer, Ph.D. Senior Associate Commissioner for Research and Academic Affairs Indiana Commission for Higher Education 101 West Ohio Street, Suite 550 Indianapolis, Indiana (317) ext