Search

A barrier that students and mid-career professionals often face in attempts to advance their education level is that the coursework completed and credits earned in one institution of higher education (IHE) may not transfer to another. To address this issue, states have developed a variety of articulation policies and agreements to facilitate the transfer of credits and coursework between degree programs. Articulation policies are particularly important for individuals who begin their higher education coursework in a two-year college and later seek to transfer their credits to obtain a bachelor's degree, which often is the case for teachers and caregivers in the early care and education (ECE) workforce. This report examines articulation policies and practices in six states with policies that include provisions specifically for ECE. The study involved telephone interviews and focus groups with state-level higher education administrators and staff, as well as administrators, faculty, and students from 20 IHEs within the six states (including both two-year and four-year institutions). The examples and experiences of these states and IHEs may be applicable to other fields as well and may be useful for policymakers, higher education administrators, and faculty seeking to improve the efficacy of their broader articulation policies and practices. Key findings include: (1) All six states in the study used transfer associate's degrees and general education block transfers, which allow students to transfer courses as a set rather than on a course-by-course basis, to facilitate course and credit transfer for ECE students; half of the states also used guaranteed admission or common course numbering; (2) Four states established at least one statewide committee to oversee articulation; the remaining two states oversaw articulation through a state higher education agency or system office; (3) Most IHEs (17 of 20) supplemented state-level articulation policies with intrastate and interstate regional articulation agreements formed between IHEs; (4) Most two-year IHEs (nine of 10) offered separate ECE degree pathways for students who planned to transfer and earn a bachelor's degree versus students who planned to end their education with an associate's degree; (5) In nearly all IHEs (19 of 20), ECE faculty played several key roles in implementing articulation policies, such as evaluating course transferability (15 IHEs) and designing courses that reflect agreed-on competencies (12 IHEs); (6) IHEs supported transfer students by providing online information about transfer (12 IHEs), transfer centers (six IHEs), outreach programs (six IHEs), and transfer student orientations (five IHEs); and (7) Faculty and staff advised students on topics including career paths (16 IHEs) and financial aid (15 IHEs), referred students to degree planning tools (14 IHEs), and referred students to transfer advisors (three IHEs). [For "Higher Education Articulation Agreements: A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce. Volume 2 -- Final Report," see ED613451. For "Results in Brief: Higher Education Articulation Agreements--A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce," see ED613450.]

This volume contains the technical appendices for "Higher Education Articulation Agreements: A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce." The study provides an in-depth examination of how six states and their institution of higher educations (IHEs) have implemented articulation policies that include provisions specific to the ECE field, including approaches to articulation, governance structures, roles played by various stakeholders, and supports provided to transfer students. Appendices include: (1) Profiles of the Six Case Study States; (2) Study Design and Methodology; (3) Interview and Focus Group Protocols; and (4) Analysis Codebook. [For "Higher Education Articulation Agreements: A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce. Volume 1 -- Final Report," see ED613452. For "Results in Brief: Higher Education Articulation Agreements--A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce," see ED613450.]

At state and institutional levels, leaders are discussing and enacting policy changes that could shape the future of higher education for decades-especially public higher education. But when citizens talk about the mission of higher education today, their conversations are different from those of policymakers. How do their values and concerns intersect with the arguments and ideas leaders are putting forward? What are their hopes for-and concerns about-higher education? What do they value? What changes do they need to think about and deliberate? This report to the Kettering Foundation, prepared by Public Agenda, describes the thinking of college students, parents, professors, employers, retirees, and others who gathered in more than 115 public forums, titled "Shaping Our Future," around the country in 2012-2013 to deliberate on the future of higher education. Using a short issue guide, they considered three alternative options for higher education: Emphasizing science and technology education to help the economy; Offering students a rich, broad education and emphasizing principles such as responsibility, integrity, and working together; Expanding opportunity by helping more students attend college and graduate. The aspirations, observations, and sometimes-conflicted feelings voiced by forum participants are summarized in this report, along with some further questions that arose: What does it mean to be well educated? What does it mean to be prepared for a world of work that changes continually? How do we make higher education affordable-for governments and for students? What do we mean by "equal opportunity" in higher education? The country needs and could benefit from more public deliberation on the future of higher education, bringing leaders together with students, faculty, and citizens in the broader community to engage these questions. [This report was written with Christopher DiStasi. The National Issues Forums Institute, The American Commonwealth Partnership, and The Democracy Commitment were collaborating institutions in the production of this report.]

Response to Intervention has garnered recent interest from policymakers, researchers, and educators. Studies of its effectiveness have found it promising, and state education agencies are increasingly interested in the approach. This report supplies basic information about state planning and implementation of the approach in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The report focuses chiefly on states, but also illustrates implementation of Response to Intervention with examples from three local education agencies. The report identifies four main reasons why Southeast Region states adopted Response to Intervention: (1) To address disproportionality (overidentification or underidentification of students from minority subgroups for special education); (2) To promote overall student achievement; (3) To better integrate general and special education; and (4) To inform, or possibly determine, special education eligibility for students with learning disabilities. All six Southeast Region states were adopting Response to Intervention at the state level: from planning in Alabama and South Carolina, to pilot initiatives in Florida and North Carolina, to statewide rollouts in Georgia and Mississippi. Leadership for such efforts has been split, residing sometimes in special education departments and sometimes in general education departments. Southeast Region states have different strategies for scaling up Response to Intervention. Some are beginning with an exclusive focus on the elementary level; others are rolling out the approach to all grade levels. All six states have Response to Intervention initiatives that focus on reading, yet it is almost as common for the state initiatives to focus on mathematics and behavior. States encounter both facilitating factors and challenges as they plan and implement Response to Intervention. Collaboration among state education departments and external partners is an important consideration for state planning. Challenges arise for planners working across special and general education and include blending funding, developing staff training, and staging rollouts so as not to overwhelm schools with new and complex practices. More work is needed to share and empirically compare states' experiences with such concerns as funding options, state planning practices, fidelity in implementation, identification of effective mathematics and behavior interventions, and secondary school implementation. Five appendixes are included: (1) Study Methodology; (2) State Key Informant Interview Protocol; (3) Local Education Agency and School Key Informant Interview Protocol; (4) Discussions of Response to Intervention in the Literature; and (5) Summary of Southeast Region State Response to Intervention Activities. (Contains 6 notes, 3 boxes, and 13 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]

The adult general education programs administered by the Division of Workforce Development in Florida's Department of Education were subjected to a justification review. To assess the programs' performance, the number of literacy completion points (LCPs) earned by each program and system and the number of LCPs earned per enrollee were analyzed. The analysis established that both community college and school district adult education programs have demonstrated measurable improvement in literacy completion. Both the community college and school district systems attained higher numbers of LCPs and generated more LCPs per student in the academic year 1999-2000 than in that of 1998-1999. Both systems also improved in LCPs per student in adult high school and adult basic programs, and both systems produced comparable numbers of LCPs per General Education Development student in the 1999-2000 school year. However, school district job and education placement rates remained low for adult basic education and English for speakers of other languages programs, department guidelines for assessing and documenting student progress were not being consistently applied among institutions, and school district adult education programs lacked a clearly defined and enforced statewide residency requirement. Nine exhibits are included. A list of community colleges and school districts in each of Florida's workforce development regions is appended. (MN)

A barrier that students and mid-career professionals often face in attempts to advance their education level is that the coursework completed and credits earned in one institution of higher education (IHE) may not transfer to another. To address this issue, states have developed a variety of articulation policies and agreements to facilitate the transfer of credits and coursework between degree programs. Articulation policies are particularly important for individuals who begin their higher education coursework in a two-year college and later seek to transfer their credits to obtain a bachelor's degree, which often is the case for teachers and caregivers in the early care and education (ECE) workforce. This study provides an in-depth examination of how six states and their IHEs have implemented articulation policies that include provisions specific to the ECE field, including approaches to articulation, governance structures, roles played by various stakeholders, and supports provided to transfer students. [For "Higher Education Articulation Agreements: A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce. Volume 1 -- Final Report," see ED613452. For "Higher Education Articulation Agreements: A Study of State Policies Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce. Volume 2 -- Final Report," see ED613451.]

Florida educators, parents, and school board members are intensely debating the issue of tracking and ability grouping. After summarizing recent research affirming the deleterious effects of ability grouping, this report describes a survey of 600 Florida educators regarding their perceptions of this practice and their beliefs about its effectiveness and efficacy. The stratified random sample was equally divided among teachers, school principals, and central office supervisors and represented the state geographically, socioeconomically, and educationally (by levels). The survey, which had a 49 percent response rate (n=293), was divided into four parts: student characteristics; district or school grouping practices; respondent's perspectives on homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping; and additional aspects of grouping practices in the respondent's school or district. The results suggest that students in Florida's public schools experience a substantial amount of ability grouping that escalates as they move from elementary grades on through high school. The majority of Florida educators appear to be opposed to ability grouping as currently practiced and supportive of heterogeneous approaches, but are uncertain about the effectiveness of alternatives. Florida educators are also anxious about the resistance they receive from parents of gifted and talented students and from vocal, influential teachers and administrators opposed to heterogeneous grouping. (Contains 51 references.) (MLH)

Response to Intervention (RTI), as a model for improving services to all students, has been a growing phenomenon since the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) defines RTI as "the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions" (NASDSE, 2006, p. 5). IDEA permits, but does not require, local education agencies (LEAs) to use an RTI model when determining the educational needs of a student with disabilities. Specifically, RTI may be used as part of the process for determining eligibility for special education services under the category of specific learning disabilities. As states and LEAs have begun to respond to this provision through funding, technical assistance and/or explicit mandates, institutions of higher education (IHE) programs are increasingly recognizing and responding to the demand for educational personnel prepared to implement an RTI model at both the system and individual student level. The purpose of this document is to describe how personnel preparation programs in six states currently incorporate RTI into their curricula. The degree to which RTI is incorporated into personnel preparation curricula, interdisciplinary collaboration is involved in developing and implementing RTI-related coursework and IHE faculty collaborate on SEA- and LEA-level RTI initiatives appears to vary from IHE to IHE. However, IHEs included in this study share a common commitment to the core principles of RTI and the importance of preparing education professionals to work within an RTI framework. Increasingly, school psychology and special education programs require familiarity with RTI on the part of their graduates and several general education as well as other programs are also requiring RTI-related coursework. Several special education and school psychology programs also require an RTI-related field placement experience. In addition to teaching courses that address RTI, most faculty members interviewed provide leadership to state- and local-level RTI initiatives and offer inservice trainings to LEA staff. Although challenges to the implementation of successful RTI curricula exist, particularly in terms of lack of buy-in on the part of general education faculty, interviewees identified a number of program strengths and generated several recommendations for other IHE programs planning to integrate RTI into their personnel preparation curricula. Perhaps most importantly, interviewees stressed the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the infusing of RTI-based concepts across the curriculum. (Contains 3 footnotes.)

The general education requirements of 27 public community colleges and 9 state universities in Florida, as determined through a review of those institutions' catalogs, were compared with the general education requirements of Central Florida Community College (CFCC). Results showed CFCC's 39-hour requirement in general education to be more demanding than the general education requirements of the majority (78.5%) of community colleges and the majority (67%) of state universities. CFCC's nine-hour requirement in each of the areas of communications, humanities, and science was more demanding than the requirements of both community colleges and state universities. Its nine-hour requirement in social sciences was more demanding than the requirement of the majority of universities. CFCC's policy allowed no flexibility for electives in comparison to the majority of universities and 36% of the community colleges which made such provision. It was recommended that CFCC reduce from 39 to 36 the semester hours required for general education, and reduce from 9 to 6 the semester hours required in the areas of communications, humanities, social science, and science in order that students might take free electives congruent with the needs of their major programs. (Author/JDS)

A study of various forms of credit or non-credit used in Florida colleges and universities examines their relationship to traditional college credit, courses, and programs. An expansion in the kinds of credit and their usage is a focus of concern of Florida's Statewide Course Numbering System (SCNS). The practices of Florida postsecondary institutions as they created all forms of credit are reported, and the results of a search for the formal authority and constraints on the uses of the different kinds of credit are outlined. The creation and maintenance of a reliable statewide inventory of courses at the 37 state-supported two- and four-year colleges has raised a number of large and small issues, including the integrity of data collection, inconsistencies in catalog listings, general education patterns, authority and potential changes, developmental-remedial courses, and conversion of occupational courses to the SCNS classification system. Appendices contain a variety of documents from the SCNS and its study, and charts of program and award data from Florida's 28 community colleges. (MSE)

Designed to highlight the progress made by community colleges in the United States in the area of international education, this report presents a collection of materials representing various state and institutional initiatives and efforts. Part I contains articles by Hugh Adams and William Greene, and Maxwell King and Seymour Fersh that provide a history of the development of international education; examples of efforts to advance international education at Brevard Community College (Florida), the Los Angeles Community College District (California), and Pennsylvania community colleges; and other general reports. Part II presents excerpts from legislation and reports illustrating the progress made in Florida in advancing international education. Part III provides information on projects and programs supported by grants from the U.S. Department of Education, and materials on five representative two-year college international programs. Finally, part IV presents materials on Broward Community College's (Florida) "Internationalizing the Curriculum" project, including excerpts from the grant proposal and final report, and sections from instructional modules related to international education which were created by Broward faculty members who received Department of Education funding. (HB)

In compliance with 1983 state legislation, the Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission reviewed five Regional Coordinating Councils for Vocational and Adult General Education during 1990-91, focusing on staffing arrangements. As part of the review process, the commission distributed a questionnaire to all 28 of the councils' executive directors in August 1990 and examined prior evaluation materials gathered from the councils. In addition, commission staff and the specialist for regional coordinating councils attended the meetings of five councils and interviewed members and staff. The five councils reviewed were Region 1 (Pensacola), Region 5 (Tallahassee), Region 14 (Lake-Sumter), Region 17 (Hillsborough), and Region 27 (Miami-Dade). In general, the evaluation showed that the councils have provided a forum for regular communication at the local level. Some councils have established strong linkages between the educational and business sectors of their communities, although some have not. The following recommendations were made: (1) the legislature should continue to appropriate funds for the councils; (2) councils should draw up a contract or performance standards for their executive directors; (3) lay members with ties to the business community should be appointed to councils; and (4) the specialist for regional coordinating councils should withhold funds to councils that have not submitted all required documentation. (Appendixes include: (1) Florida statutes relating to regional coordinating councils; (2) executive directors' questionnaire and selected results; (3) information chart on five councils selected for 1990-91 evaluation; and (4) follow-up to 1989-90 recommendations.) (KC)

In 1990, a statewide study was conducted to examine issues which affected the teaching of science in Florida's community colleges and to make recommendations for improvement. The study involved reviews of the literature and existing data, the selection of an advisory committee and committee meetings, site hearings, and the creation and distribution of a survey. The study focused on the following issues: (1) the preparedness of entering freshmen; (2) the performance of community college science majors at the junior and senior levels; (3) the nature of the science experience for nonscience majors; (4) the acceptance of community college science credit toward the baccalaureate; (5) the quality of academic advising for community college science majors; (6) opportunities for improving the knowledge and skills of community college science faculty; (7) the degree to which there were professional exchanges between community college faculty and their counterparts in high schools and universities; (8) efforts to increase the number of minority science faculty; (9) problems associated with the supervision of part-time science faculty; and (10) the need for updated scientific instructional equipment. Based on study findings, 12 recommendations were made, focusing on ways to improve articulation, curriculum, instruction, faculty, and equipment and facilities. Appendixes provide the survey instrument and a listing of attendance at site hearings. (JMC)

The Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission was directed to assess the general education curriculum in the state's public community colleges and state universities with particular regard to implementation of State Board Rule 6A-10.030, FAC (Gordon Rule) and other state policies. Four sections present: general education curriculum reforms and requirements; the student survey; the transcript analysis; and conclusions and recommendations. The transcript analysis shows that state university students who completed the Gordon Rule requirements scored significantly higher on the College-Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST) mathematics and essay subtests than students who had not completed this requirement prior to taking CLAST. Seven recommendations include the following: an expanded transcript analysis involving computerized student transcripts and at least 50% of Florida's universities and community colleges should be conducted in 1991; state policymakers should not depend primarily on institutional grades as a yardstick or reliable measure of educational competence; and each state university and community college should examine its institutional policies and procedures to ensure that students are in compliance with Rule 6A-10.30, FAC. Appended are copies of the student survey instrument and student comments. Tables and figures are included. Contains 11 references. (SM)