r. Jan Ignash is a noted scholar in the areas of transfer and articulation, college curriculum, and state-level governance of colleges and universities. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education at the University of South Florida. Her research interests relate to transfer and articulation, college curriculum, and state-level governance of colleges and universities.

UPDATE: You have an interesting background that includes experience teaching high school. Those experiences add depth and understanding to your research in higher education. How have those experiences impacted your perspective on articulation and transfer, and how were you drawn to this research agenda?

Dr. Ignash: I started out in Michigan as a high school teacher. I did that for about 4 years. It was during that time the state started getting Vietnamese refugees in the high schools. Counselors would put them in my French classes because many of them spoke French better than they spoke English. I was intrigued by teaching individuals with native languages other than English. But, I realized if I intended to pursue that direction in education I really needed additional training. So, I went back to school and pursued a master’s in TESOL.

After completing the degree, I joined an Indiana University education program. That program sent 120 U.S. faculty from Midwestern universities like Illinois State, Michigan State, Indiana University, and others to teach college freshman and sophomores in Malaysia. We worked with Malaysian students toward completing the A.A. degree with the expectation that the successful graduates could then transfer to U.S. bachelor’s programs. The Malaysian government had oil money back then and felt that by importing faculty and engaging in a large scale education program they could maximize the number of educated citizens. Through this program the Malaysian government hoped to create a middle class. Because of what I observed in that program, I became interested in the whole idea of transfer and articulation. So, I looked around for graduate programs and found UCLA and Arthur Cohen. The rest is history.

UPDATE: In a 2003 article in New Directions for Community Colleges you and Barbara Townsend examined the role of community colleges in providing teacher education. In that article you covered factors influencing the discussion at that time and made some predictions. Could you update us on the status of that topic?

Dr. Ignash: Your question is timely, because right now we are working on updating the chapter on the Associate in Teacher Education for a special issue of the Community College Review that should be published this spring. Barbara Townsend is acting as guest editor for that particular issue. Not every state calls that program by the same name. Let me give you a preview of what we are finding.

The teacher shortage that we discussed in 2003 continues. More states are turning their attention to articulating teacher education programs. There are several routes community colleges can take to help ease the shortage. Some states have passed a provision allowing 2-year colleges to offer 4-year degrees, although that may not be an appropriate solution in other states. States tend to be influenced in that regard by population growth which, of course, increases the need for teachers. In Florida, for example, we have three colleges that are predominately community colleges but also offer bachelor’s degrees. St. Petersburg College is an example. I believe they have approximately 800 students currently enrolled in that teacher education program, and they have already graduated over 300. This whole discussion is being driven by demographics. In states like Florida the population has blossomed, and predictions are that it will continue to grow. K-12 schools are being pushed to find enough teachers. In other states where the population is more stable, the need is reduced and so is the discussion about the community college role in teacher education.

There is a caution in this demand-driven environment. I do think that community colleges need to look down the road and forecast how long demand is likely to last in their particular state. For example, we expect the baby boom bubble will start to decline between 2006-2012 in most states. If colleges have ramped up to offer 4-year degrees and that demand abates significantly, if enrollment drops off, issues are going to arise about excess resources and faculty. Harold Hodgkinson, one of our nation’s premier demographers, puts it really well; he indicates that this isn’t really rocket science. We can accurately predict the number of traditional age students who will be in the pipeline for the next 18 years because they have already been born. So it is possible to make some pretty good projections 15 years in advance or more.

One of the reasons state level research interests me is because the situation in every state is different. Population patterns have enormous influence on program needs. In Florida, the I-4 Corridor between Tampa and Orlando is experiencing phenomenal growth. We don’t see that growth slacking off at all. In that part of the state there are K-12 students in little pod classrooms that have been assembled in a hurry just to meet classroom demands for new students. There will be as many as 30 or 40 of these set-ups in addition to the main classroom buildings because the existing facilities cannot accommodate all the students.

Nevada and Utah are examples of other states that have passed legislation permitting community colleges to offer 4-year degrees in selected areas, including teacher education. Deborah Floyd at Florida Atlantic University is a good resource for additional information, as is the Community College Baccalaureate Association. Florida is one of the states that has approved offering 4-year degrees at traditional community colleges. Right now, a number of Florida community colleges are looking at offering 4-year degree programs in seven different discipline or degree areas. In majors like early childhood education, math and science, or nursing, some community colleges are making a case to their state offices that added programs would increase access to high demand occupations. If community colleges can show there is sufficient demand not being met by the 4-year institutions, approval may be given by the state for such development. In a few cases, where there is still capacity at the 4-year institutions, community colleges are being asked to cooperate more fully to promote access and transfer.

UPDATE: Alternative certification programs are a big issue right now in teacher education. What do you see is the community college role in that area?

Dr. Ignash: Out of all the routes we can take to facilitate the training of more teachers, this is the one that engenders the most controversy. I think that has mostly to do with the wide variety of alternative certification programs available. Some of these programs are truly quality programs and others have been accused of using a rubber stamp approach to certify people without really training them to teach. These people are then thrown into the classroom without either the knowledge or support that promotes good teaching. You get the greatest range of programs and program quality under alternative certification systems. The number and status of these programs keeps changing. National Center for Education Information conducts a state-by-state annual analysis of alternative teacher certification and is a good resource for information on this. The results of these surveys are available either through their web site or through their sister organization, National Center for Alternative Certification (http://www.teach-now.org).

The other area in which community colleges do quite well is professional development for teachers. The biggest problem here is that in most states teachers want to receive graduate credit for completing programs because salary increases and promotions are typically linked to advanced training. Community colleges can provide wonderful professional development opportunities, but cannot award the graduate credit needed to fulfill some of the continuing teacher education requirements.

One other caveat with regard to teacher education needs to be mentioned. Regardless of the approvals given to teacher education programs at the state level, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is the organization that has the overall responsibility for evaluation and accreditation of programs. A newcomer in this arena is the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), which has been gaining influence recently. The September 22, 2006, issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a good story on these two accrediting bodies.

At one time, teacher education in this country was provided by community colleges. Teachers were scattered around the countryside in some very sparsely populated areas. They typically taught students who would alternate going to school with working on the farm, for example. Most people back then didn’t get beyond an 8th grade education. Philo Hutcheson has written an excellent article or two on this topic and is a good source for additional information.

UPDATE: You have done a good deal of significant research and analysis with regard to the articulation process. I am specifically referring to two articles from 2000, both written with Barbara Townsend. In the Winter 2000 issue of the Community College Review, you wrote “Evaluating State-Level Articulation Agreements According to Good Practice.” Then in November of that year, you and Dr. Townsend presented a paper called “Assumptions about Transfer Behavior in State-Level Articulation Agreements: Realistic or Reactionary?” at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education in Sacramento, CA. In addition, you have had two more recent articles on the same topic in the Journal of Applied Research in the Community College (Spring 2005). Could you bring us up to date on some of the more critical issues regarding articulation?

Dr. Ignash: I recently completed a national study of transfer in occupational and technical areas with the endorsement of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) organization. In conducting that research I was surprised to find the number of states that were articulating the Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degree and other applied degrees. We found in this 2004 study that of the 40 states responding to the survey, 31 reported using at least one of three pathways to articulate occupational degrees to a baccalaureate. This is a very significant finding. There were also 33 states that required some minimum credit hours in general education courses as part of the occupational program. Most states have always required 15 to 18 hours of unspecified general education courses, but this survey found that 32 out of 33 states had specified a core in certain subject areas. In addition, 20 states had detailed credit hours that were within a limited range of subjects. This study found a trend toward more sophisticated occupational transfer agreements in more and more states.

The occupational curriculum that in the past had been considered terminal is being recognized as a pathway to transfer through a variety of mechanisms. For example, some schools are taking any 2-year degree and capping it with a B.S. in something like Organizational Studies or Business and Labor for example. We also found an ‘upside down degree’ or an inverse degree pattern. Washington State has developed a good illustration of this type of degree. This pattern occurs when the A.A.S. degree in any field is accepted in transfer and applied toward a bachelor’s in ‘general liberal studies,’ ‘general education,’ or some other general designation.

One of the things that impresses me is how many states are paying attention to articulation; I don’t just mean traditional articulation patterns. States are exploring the articulation process through atypical pathways to bachelor’s degrees. Some people will argue whether that is really necessary, but I do feel that it is exciting to see states trying innovative methods of improving access to the baccalaureate.

There is no doubt that accountability in higher education is driving some of this innovation. [K-12 educators have always worked in an environment that demands strong public accountability, and almost the entire general population attends school and is familiar with them.] But until recently, fewer people have first-hand experience with the “Ivory Tower.” Currently, however, two-thirds of the American population or more are at least ‘tasting’ college. Even if they don’t complete a degree, they become familiar with colleges and universities. They are more likely to be ‘loving critics’ of us—or sometimes not so loving.

One of the things that is important to my research in the future is the implementation of articulation programs in various states. A program that is fabulous on paper but not well implemented leaves a lot to be desired. States have to ask themselves whether measures have been established that will generate good data about how well the articulation agreement is doing several years after implementation. Are students transferring without loss of credit? Is articulation in certain majors working better than in others? Are certain parts of the state having more success with articulation? We have Cliff Adelman’s wonderful national studies, but within individual states, I don’t think the outcomes of articulation are being studied and documented as well as they could be.

Some states have data education warehouses that track students. The topic is being explored at the national level and was mentioned in the Spellings Report. Some have voiced concerns about privacy issues: FERPA issues. I disagree. The FERPA guidelines stipulate that anyone who has a legitimate educational interest in the data should be able to conduct studies using individual student records. If the data can be reported honestly while not identifying any individual student, researchers and educators in colleges, universities, and state agencies have the right to conduct studies using student unit data. The real issue is being certain that the information is secure and that the systems will ensure suitable privacy. If the data can be maintained in a secure environment, the information generated will be invaluable. What this would allow us to do is to tell students that if their major is engineering or art, for instance, then they shouldn’t even consider hopping around from institution to institution on the path to degree completion. Counselors and advisors at both community colleges and 4-year institutions know that students don’t have the information they need to make intelligent decisions. Students lead rushed lives and many juggle school, job, and kids. They don’t know where to get information or how to get it.

Advisors are overworked and may not have the time to dig deeply enough to figure out what a student doesn’t know. Students sometimes avoid advisors for various reasons. A lot more research regarding transfer is needed that uses the student as the unit of analysis. We have a lot to learn concerning the biggest barriers for students as far as transfer is concerned. Both quantitative and qualitative data are needed. High schools, community colleges, and 4-year institutions are all in this together.

The last time I looked, about 27 states had bona fide, state level Pre-K-16 systems in place that attempt to bridge the educational sectors. In Florida, we call it K-20. It is a tough issue and very long term. Consistent leadership at the state-level can get everyone to pull together. If there is a curriculum change at the high school level, it will take five to eight years before students entering college demonstrate any effect of those new high school policies and programs. In states with governing boards, changes can be made more quickly. In states with coordinating boards decisions are made by consensus and usually take longer.

There are many challenges to the establishment and maintenance of a good articulation policy and process. Take student success for example. What is meant by student success? Is a student a success only if he or she transfers and completes a baccalaureate? What does that mean about those students who stop out to get a better job? Aren’t they successes too? States tend to be very careful about how they present information on transfer because the data make it appear that institutions are not performing when they may actually be doing very well.

Another issue is the energy and resources necessary to maintain articulation policies, especially on a statewide level. When I worked at the higher education state agency in Illinois, the panel reviewing the early childhood education curriculum met for two years to work out an articulation agreement that addressed both the general education component as well as four courses in the major. After these agreements are developed, then panel members at both local and state-levels take the responsibility for monitoring them. Over time, faculty and staff come and go; people retire. As membership changes new panel members may have a different understanding of the process. In the meantime, changes in the field trigger curricular changes. On top of all that, the students change. Every few years there needs to be a thorough review of the agreement. I know that Illinois, for example, reviews these agreements every five years. Florida, too, has an articulation coordinating commission that is charged with monitoring the policy. In some states institutions are not really committed to the monitoring process. The institutional representatives change frequently and continuity is lost so the process is constantly starting over. When Barbara Townsend and I wrote about this component for the Community College Review [Ignash & Townsend, 2000] we evaluated states’ different transfer indicators. The book, Community Colleges: Policy in the Future Context [Townsend & Twombly, Eds., 2002] includes a chapter where Barbara and I rated states’ articulation policies. At that time there were very few states with systematic, data driven monitoring to improve the articulation function.

Most institutions and most faculty believe that they do the very best job teaching their students, but they may be cautious about accepting the education students receive at other institutions as equivalent to theirs. Within this context the 4-year ‘senior’ institutions have been known to pull rank on community colleges, which can derail the articulation process. Strong leadership at the state level can bring all the interests together, legitimately convene meetings, and create fair rules and encourage an open forum. But then they need to get out of the way and let the institutions do their jobs.

UPDATE: You are working on a grant through the Lumina Foundation that is looking at articulation in an urban setting. Tell us about that project.

Dr. Ignash: We are in the second year of a 4-year grant working with metropolitan areas in Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; and Tampa, FL to analyze urban patterns of articulation and transfer. These are all metropolitan areas with 1 million or more people. We are looking at what we can to remove barriers in articulation and transfer particularly in underrepresented groups. The project is called UTRN: The Urban Transfer Research Network. Our hope is that we can determine how to improve the transfer process for students and to provide recommendations concerning different pathways. This information should help develop better policies and programs in the future. It takes a number of years to develop really good information and valid data. Then more years are needed to see if programs are having any effect. One of the reasons I like being in a faculty position is that it’s possible to conduct longitudinal projects like the UTRN project.

Dr. Ignash’s most recent publications include a Spring 2005 volume of the Journal of Applied Research in the Community College on transfer and articulation and a Spring 2003 volume of New Directions for Community Colleges on the community college role in teacher education. She is currently a co-Principal Investigator on two Lumina Foundation for Education grants concerned with articulation and transfer. Readers wishing more information about Dr. Ignash, her publications, or research may contact her at ignash@coedu.usf.edu.