Unit VIII Scholarly Activity

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2002

Assessing the Transfer Function: benchmarking best practices from state higher education agencies

JOHN F. WELSH, Of� ce of the University Provost, University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA

ABSTRACT State higher education agencies in the US are in a propitious position to improve the educational environment for students who transfer from one institution to another within a state. This paper reports on the results of a nationwide survey on the assessment of the transfer function by state higher education agencies. Using a benchmarking methodology, the paper suggests some ‘best practices’ of state higher education agencies in the organisation and use of transfer student information systems. The paper has relevance for institutional personnel and public policy makers since the number of transfer-oriented institutions and the number of transfer students are increasing across the globe.

Background

State higher education boards and agencies in the US play an increasingly important role in higher education, both through the � nancing of public higher education and as the primary progenitors of public policy toward higher education. Although 47 of the 50 states in the US already had a state higher education agency by 1970, the impact of state governments on higher education in the US escalated in importance since the mid-1980s when national and state policy makers began to focus more attention on the quality, accessibility, and accountability of higher education (Ewell, 1995; McGuinness, 1997; Newman, 1987). Today, every state, and Puerto Rico, has a state higher education board comprised of lay representatives and an agency comprised of professional staff.

As the primary conduit between state governments and public institutions, state higher education agencies acquired authority and responsibility to collect and interpret infor- mation on student and institutional performance to inform and guide state policy processes. State higher education agencies are uniquely situated to understand and to improve the environment for students for select higher education dynamics. Inter-institu-

ISSN 0260-2938 print; ISSN 1469-297 X online/02/030257-1 2 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0260293022013861 5

258 J. F. Welsh

tional transfer and articulation is one such dynamic because state governments are able to (1) establish multi-institutional databases and (2) develop and monitor policy pertain- ing to inter-institutional phenomena (Rifkin, 2000). Recent research suggests that the improvement of the transfer environment is an important policy goal for state higher education agencies, surpassing such recurrent concerns as faculty salaries, the quality of undergraduat e education and student � nancial aid as a state policy issue (Russell, 2000, p. 4).

McMurtrie (2001) reports that the improvement of the transfer environment is an international imperative since community, technical and other transfer-oriented colleges are increasing in numbers and importance around the globe. The need for state, regional or provincial public higher education agencies to assess the mobility and academic performance of transfer students increases commensurably.

The increased interest of state higher education agencies in transfer students is contradicted somewhat by the legacy of research on state support for the transfer function of post-secondary institutions. Policy makers frequently emphasise the import- ance of state support for fully articulated and coordinated opportunities for students, but research since the 1960s demonstrates little support for the transfer function of institu- tions (Cohen & Brawer, 1989; Kintzer, 1989; Knoell & Medsker, 1965). Other research demonstrates that state higher education agencies tend not to have information systems or databases that can be used to support students who transfer from one institution to another, despite their opportunity to do so (Ahumada, 1993; Clagett & Huntington, 1991; Ewell & Jones, 1987, 1991).

Ahumada argues that the lack of state commitment to improving the transfer environment threatens important functions of community and technical colleges, partic- ularly, because, “few databases at the state and systemwide levels have been established to facilitate student tracking from program to program, or from institution to institution, on through the attainment of the baccalaureate degree” (1993, p. 143). Rifkin acknowl- edges the important role of state coordination and state-level transfer and articulation initiatives, but also indicates that the state role must be bolstered by “an integrated technical infrastructure that can support student information systems, articulation and transfer data from both two- and four-year institutions in the state” (2000, p. 7).

While Cohen and Brawer (1987) and Lenth and Russell (1991) agree with Ahumada and Rifkin, there is some evidence that the state policy and planning environment for student transfer has changed as a result of four dynamics: (1) increased data management capacity in state higher education agencies, particularly in the ability of both institutions and the state to track the academic progress of students in multi-institutional contexts (Ewell, 1995); (2) increased attention to student outcomes driven by accrediting agencies, state policy makers, and the reporting requirements of the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 (Lenth & Russell, 1991; Russell, 1999); (3) increased political pressure at the state level to improve inter-institutional transfer and articulation (Newman, 1987; Rodriguez, 1994; Russell & Chisholm, 1995; Walleri, 1990); and (4) the creation of regional consortia within and among states to share student mobility and performance information (Adams, 1999; Trainer, 1996).

In 1999, the State Higher Education Executive Of� cers (SHEEO), which is the national organisation for state higher education executives, published a national survey of its member agencies that demonstrated that no fewer than 42 states maintain ongoing student information systems that include data elements on transfer students (Russell, 1999). SHEEO also observed that at least 39 states collect unit records, or data on individual students, which permit tracking student mobility and performance from one

Assessing the Transfer Function 259

institution to another, at least among public institutions within the state. The SHEEO study discovered that almost all state higher education agencies routinely collect data on post-secondary student transfers, suggesting potential for these agencies to promote changes or improvements in the transfer environments within public higher education systems. However, analysts such as Ahumada (1993), Rifkin (2000), Bragg (1989), and Cohen and Brawer (1989) demonstrate that state higher education agencies do very little with data to improve educational outcomes for students who transfer from two-year to four-year institutions.

Given improvements in data collection and management in state higher education of� ces, an important research and policy question is to what extent is there a disconnect between the capacity of state higher education agencies to collect, manage and dissemi- nate information on transfer students and their practice in using this information to improve transfer environments within states? A more operational way of stating the issue is to ask what are the characteristics and uses of transfer student information systems in state higher education agencies that optimise transfer effectiveness for students who transfer, particularly within public higher education?

In an effort to understand the current role of student information systems and how state agencies use the information to assess the environment for transfer students, this study reports on a nationwide survey of transfer student information systems in state higher education agencies in the US. Drawing data gleaned from interviews with chief academic of� cers, policy analysts and/or research of� cers in the higher education of� ces of all 50 states and Puerto Rico, the research benchmarks some of the best practices among states in the characteristics and uses of student information systems in state higher education agencies to improve the transfer of students from two-year to four-year institutions.

Methodology

In the winter and spring of 2000, pro� les of the transfer student information systems in each state’s higher education agency were developed based on interviews with the agency’s chief academic of� cer, chief research of� cer and/or principal policy analyst assigned to transfer student issues for each of the 50 states and Puerto Rico. Respondents were initially identi� ed through an appendix to the 1999 SHEEO study (Russell, 1999). The agencies were then contacted to discuss the project and arrange for a telephone interview with staff members responsible for the management and use of the agency’s student information system or databases on transfer students. On occasion, additional staff from the agency were included in the interviews to add depth to aspects of the inquiry.

The interviews with staff in the state higher education agencies were preceded by a pilot study of a schedule of interview questions that tapped into � ve analytic dimensions that were developed from existing research literature on student information systems in state higher education agencies. Particularly helpful in the development of the interview schedule were the writings of Ewell (1995), Lenth and Russell (1991), Russell (1999), Russell and Chisholm (1995), Ahumada (1993) and Rifkin (2000). The � ve dimensions are discussed below:

(1) Purpose of the information system. Questions on this dimension were crafted to ascertain the primary purposes or policy goals served by the collection and use of information on transfer students.

260 J. F. Welsh

(2) Structure of the information system. The major objective of the questions on this dimension was to understand how the information system is con� gured. Does it include unit records on individual students or is the data aggregated by institution? Can it track student movement and progress from one institution to another?

(3) Scope and content of the information system. The third dimension concerns the range of institutions included in the information system and the types of data elements that are captured. Particularly important is whether data elements on student academic performance or progress toward a baccalaureate degree are included in the system.

(4) Uses of the information system. This dimension addresses how data elements from the system are reported and used by the state higher education agency and public institutions within the state. The primary interest in including this dimension is to ascertain whether state policy makers or institutions use the data to inform their policy initiatives or to improve transfer processes.

(5) Impact of the information system. Finally, it is important to determine whether transfer student information systems have any type of impact on students or the transfer environment in the state.

Once information on the � ve dimensions was collected from each state higher education agency, state staff reviewed the accuracy of the pro� le of responses. The responses to each question included on the interview schedule were coded by response type. Response codes were then organised into a matrix that permitted a summary of responses and a state-by-state comparison on each dimension.

The � ve dimensions culled from existing research literature and the responses to the interview schedule provide an opportunity to suggest some ‘best practices’ for state-level transfer student information systems and to benchmark the number of states adhering to best practices on each dimension. Benchmarking is an increasing popular research and policy tool in the higher education community that enables organisations, institutions and units to improve their performance through the measurement of activities and comparing them to a set of articulated standards or practices. The philosophy underlying bench- marking is that learning from ‘best practice cases’ or ‘best practice principles’ is an effective way to improve the speci� c practices of any one organisation (Alstete, 1995; Camp, 1989; McNair & Leibfried, 1992).

State higher education agencies and the institutions they serve can use identi� ed best practices to benchmark the use of the data in their transfer student information system as a vehicle to improve their service to policy makers and transfer students. A national perspective on transfer student information systems can provide state higher education agencies with a sense of how they ‘measure up’ to articulated standards in the structure and use of transfer student information systems.

Findings and Analysis

Initial exploration of the data con� rmed the observation by SHEEO that the majority of state higher education agencies collect and are prepared to use information to pursue improvements in the transfer environment (Russell, 1999). No fewer than 43 (86%) states and Puerto Rico report at least one database or information system on transfer students, suggesting that the context for data gathering and management has changed since the late 1980s. However, the data also reveal that only 47% of state higher education agencies are able to report any evidence of use or impact of the information system on the transfer environment.

Assessing the Transfer Function 261

These observations suggest that most state higher education agencies are not using the information they collect to assess the academic performance of transfer students. The practices of some states in the collection, management and use of information on transfer students provide some indication of how state higher education agencies can assess the transfer function and help improve the transfer environment for students. The following identi� es some of the ‘best practices’ of state higher education agencies based on the data collected about transfer student information systems.

Best Practice One: the purpose of the information system

The interviews with state higher education of� cers suggest that best practice states clearly articulate and widely communicate policy objectives for improving the environ- ment for transfer students, including the collection and use of data to monitor the ability of transfer students to meet their educational goals.

The primary set of questions posed to state academic and research of� cers about their transfer student information systems pertained to the policy objectives that the data are intended to ful� ll. The interview schedule was structured to identify the state higher education agency’s most important purpose in collecting information on transfer stu- dents. Table 1 summarises the array and frequency of responses to queries about the primary purpose or objective served by the transfer student information system.

The data reveal that, while it is the most frequently cited policy objective, only 27% of all state higher education agencies in the US identify improvement of the transfer environment as a primary policy objective for collecting information on transfer students. Respondents from states that cited this objective reported that transfer effectiveness is a signi� cant policy issue that requires a database to inform staff and policy makers, assess transfer and articulation agreements or to otherwise improve education opportunities and outcomes for transfer students. One state chief academic of� cer characterised this type of response very succinctly,

Our legislature and state board of higher education have a commitment to making transfer between institutions as easy as possible.

Another state chief academic of� cer commented:

We have a very clear statewide policy on admissions for freshmen and for transfer students, which assures them that they can get in. We monitor that and, in fact, just completed a transcript audit of transfer students last year.

Another indicated: “our main interest is to track the success of community college students at our four-year institutions”.

Following the interest in improving the effectiveness of the transfer process, 11 (22%) of the states report that the primary purpose of the system is to support institutional and state planning, which was focused on student mobility and enrollment management issues, and 7 (14%) report that their main interest in collecting the data is to ful� ll their interest in outcomes assessment. Of� cials from these states indicated that the interest in using data on transfer students to support institutional and state planning or outcomes assessment does not preclude an interest in enhancing transfer effectiveness. Similarly, state interests in outcomes assessments or promoting accountability do not preclude states from also trying to use the data to enhance the transfer environment, since transfer issues can be subsumed within these other categories.

However, a question arises about which objectives best serve the interest in assessing and improving educational outcomes for transfer students. The data demonstrate that all

262 J. F. Welsh

T A

B L

E 1 .

S ta

te p o li cy

o b je

ct iv

es ad

dr es

se d

b y

tr an

sf er

st ud

en t

in fo

rm at

io n

sy st

em s

N um

b er

of S

H E

E O

of �

ce s

P er

ce n ta

ge of

S H

E E

O P

er ce

nt ag

e of

al l

id en

ti fy

in g

o f�

ce s

w it h

T S

IS S

H E

E O

o f�

ce s

ob je

ct iv

e id

en ti

fy in

g o bj

ec ti v e

id en

ti fy

in g

o bj

ec ti

v e

P ri

m ar

y po

li cy

ob je

ct iv

es id

en ti

� ed

by re

sp on

d en

ts :

(N 5

4 4 )

(N 5

4 4)

(N 5

5 1)

1 .

E nh

an ce

tr an

sf er

ef fe

ct iv

en es

s 14

3 2 %

2 7 %

2 .

S up

p or

t in

st it u ti o n al

an d

st at

e pl

an n in

g 11

2 5 %

2 2 %

3 .

In te

re st

in o ut

co m

es as

se ss

m en

t 7

1 6 %

1 4 %

4 .

P ro

m o te

ac co

u nt

ab il it

y 5

1 1 %

1 0 %

5 .

P ro

v id

e ge

n er

ic in

fo rm

at io

n on

st ud

en ts

4 9 %

8 %

6 .

R ep

o rt

IP E

D S

da ta

3 7 %

6 %

T ot

al 44

10 0 %

8 7 %

N o te

s: T

ab le

in cl

u de

s P

u er

to R

ic o .

S H

E E

O 5

S ta

te H

ig he

r E

d uc

at io

n E

x ec

u ti v e

O f�

ce rs

; T

S IS

5 T

ra n sf

er S

tu d en

t In

fo rm

at io

n S

ys te

m ;

IP E

D S

5 In

te g ra

te d

P o st

-s ec

o nd

ar y

E d u ca

ti on

D at

a S

y st

em .

Assessing the Transfer Function 263

of the states that identi� ed improvement of the transfer environment as the primary policy goal could provide evidence that they were using the data to improve the transfer environment and student outcomes. This was not the case for states that cited other policy objectives. An important concern is that the relative importance of efforts to improve the transfer environment are diminished as policy objectives diverge or become diffuse, broad and vague.

Best Practice Two: the structure of the information system

A second best practice in statewide transfer student information systems is the ability to track student transfers among all post-secondary institutions within the state on a continuous basis. The top section of Table 2 provides the data gathered on the structure of transfer student information systems, including the (1) frequency of data collection; (2) the type of data collected, whether it is unit record data on students or data aggregated by institutions prior to submission to state higher education of� ces; and (3) whether the system has the capacity to track student mobility. Best practice states, those most likely to collect and use data to improve educational outcomes for transfer students are those that collect data on a continuous basis, collect unit records on students and have the capacity to track students from institution to institution. The data indicate that most of the states that have transfer student information systems organise their system along these lines.

Chief academic of� cers from three states clearly articulate the importance of the continuous collection of unit records on students:

Because we have a unit record system, we can track multiple transfer points and look at student performance once they transfer.

The database for the reports that come out of the system is a unit record database. For every student in the post-secondary system, there is a record that is then combined or merged with the university record to verify that they have transferred and to expand the record to pick up information on retention and graduation and academic performance.

Our system actually has both aggregated data and student unit records. We collect student data on various characteristics and that sort of thing. We also report to our board on the effectiveness of transfers and that’s at the aggregate level.

Not every state that has an information system with these features actually uses the data to assess student outcomes and improve the transfer environment, the continuous collection of unit record data on students enables state higher education agencies to monitor student mobility and performance, analyse raw data according to the state’s policy interests, and aggregate institutional data for reporting and accountability.

Best Practice Three: assessing the educational progress of students

A third suggested best practice is the inclusion of data elements in transfer student information systems, which enables policy makers and institutional staff to assess the educational performance and progress of students. Table 2 indicates that a majority of states (89%) include transfer students in the computation of institutional retention and graduation rates, which gives them some information on how transfer students perform

264 J. F. Welsh

T A

B L

E 2 .

F ea

tu re

s o f

st at

e- le

v el

tr an

sf er

st ud

en t

in fo

rm at

io n

sy st

em s

P er

ce nt

ag e

of N

u m

b er

o f

S H

E E

O o f�

ce s

P er

ce n ta

g e

o f

al l

S H

E E

O o f�

ce s

w it

h T

S IS

S H

E E

O of

� ce

s re

po rt

in g

re p or

ti ng

fe at

ur e

re po

rt in

g fe

at u re

F ea

tu re

s id

en ti

� ed

by S H

E E

O re

sp o nd

en ts

: fe

at ur

e (N

5 44

) (N

5 51

)

S tr

u ct

u re

o f

th e

S y st

em :

1 . C

on ti

nu o us

d at

a co

ll ec

ti o n

4 1

9 3 %

8 0%

2 . C

ol le

ct io

n o f

st u de

n t

u n it

re co

rd s

3 4

7 7 %

6 7%

3 . C

ap ac

it y

to tr

ac k

st u de

nt m

ob il it

y 3 2

7 3 %

6 3%

C o n te

n t

of th

e S y st

em :

1 . In

cl u de

s tr

an sf

er st

u de

nt s

in re

te n ti o n

an d

g ra

d u at

io n

ra te

s 3 9

8 9 %

7 6%

2 . In

cl u de

s ad

d it io

na l

ac ad

em ic

ou tc

om es

d at

a 3 1

7 0 %

6 1%

In te

ra ct

iv it

y o f

th e

S y st

em :

1 . E

le ct

ro n ic

ac ce

ss to

da ta

1 3

3 0 %

2 5%

2 . A

d h o c

o r

pe ri

o d ic

re p o rt

s 9

2 0 %

1 8%

Im p ac

t on

th e

P ol

ic y

E nv

ir o n m

en t:

1 . E

v id

en ce

o f

im p ac

t on

tr an

sf er

an d

ar ti cu

la ti

on 2 4

5 5 %

4 7%

2 . S

u pp

or t

fo r

st at

e p o li cy

in it

ia ti

ve s

1 1

2 5 %

2 2%

N o te

s: T

ab le

in cl

ud es

P u er

to R

ic o .

S H

E E

O 5

S ta

te H

ig h er

E du

ca ti

o n

E x ec

u ti

ve O

f� ce

rs ;

T S IS

5 T

ra n sf

er S tu

de n t

In fo

rm at

io n

S ys

te m

; IP

E D

S 5

In te

g ra

te d

P o st

-s ec

o nd

ar y

E d u ca

ti on

D at

a S

y st

em .

Assessing the Transfer Function 265

relative to ‘native’ students. A smaller majority (70%) collect additional information on the academic outcomes of transfer students.

One research of� cer indicated that the system in his state:

… has the capacity to tell us about the students who have completed an associates degree and their grade point average. It tells us how well community college transfer students do compared to ‘native’ students at the universities.

Another describes the type of student performance data captured at the state level: “We [the state agency] have student enrollment and student outcomes, degrees awarded, courses taken, grades earned”.

Another research of� cer indicated the level of frustration in her state because the information system does not include data about student performance:

We interviewed students and professors from all of the systems and they told us that they feel that transfer is used [only] as an enrollment management tool by the four-year systems. They’re real frustrated and concerned that as transfer occurs, there are a lot of speci� c behaviors that would increase transfer, but there is no support because we don’t have the information.

If state governments are to have any meaningful role in the assessment of student outcomes, and the improvement of outcomes for students, they must collect information on the academic performance of transfer students.

Best Practice Four: the interactivity of the information system

While state governments can have a signi� cant impact on the opportunities and outcomes transfer students experience, signi� cant improvements can also occur at the campus level. In order to optimise improvements in the environment for transfer students, institutions must have convenient access to multi-institutional databases or to systems that include information on the students they send and receive. A fourth suggested best practice is that state-level transfer student information systems will have the technological capacity that enables institutions to interact electronically with the system.

Table 2 summarises the data on how institutions within states interact with state-level databases and information systems pertaining to transfer students. Very few states provide either electronic or periodic written reports to institutions on transfer students. However, there is some reason for optimism as some states are capitalising on developments in technology and data warehousing to improve institutional accessibility to information on transfer students. One research of� cer commented:

Within the next year, we plan to get to a point where institutions can (electronically) tap into the data warehouse directly through security measures that are designed to protect the privacy of individual student records.

Another commented on his state’s system:

It’s an entirely web-based system. You can actually get a pretty good feel for it by going to the Board’s home page. You can actually see the information system pieces. It’s completely documented on the web, all of our � le layouts, our data and load speci� cations, the data and load rules, all data that come into the system by the web, we’ve got a very elaborate set of query tools out there that campuses use to access their data.

266 J. F. Welsh

The data on the interactivity of state-level transfer student information systems are somewhat discouraging from the standpoint that convenient accessibility to the infor- mation may underpin improvements that institutions are able to promote in the transfer environment. If the information on transfer students is inaccessible, or provided only on an ad hoc or periodic basis, institutions are extremely limited in their ability to promote data-driven change.

Best Practice Five: linking information with policy initiatives

The � nal suggested best practice concerns one of the most dif� cult challenges in assessment: closing the loop or using the information to make improvements in instruction, curricula and services. Best practice states link their transfer student information system with policy initiatives aimed at improving the environment for transfer students and use the data to inform policy discussions about system coordination and inter-institutional transfer and articulation.

The data in Table 2 reveal that slightly less than half of the states were able to identify evidence that their collection of information on transfer students have had transfer and articulation dynamics within their states. One academic of� cer summed up a sentiment expressed by several of his colleagues:

I’m not sure the data is directly responsible for creating transfer agreements, but it validates transfer agreements … Data speaks very loudly when people say, “We have a problem with this”. Our data allows us to respond to those comments and questions and to say, “There does seem to be an issue we need to explore further”.

Other state of� cers suggested that there were clear links between their transfer student information systems and the improvement of the transfer environment:

[The information system] had a lot of impact because it is the basis for decision making at the state level … This allows a great deal of assessment of success, for example, in graduation rates.

We got bit about six or eight years ago pretty hard with the anecdotal, “I can’t transfer” saw. It’s gone. It’s gone because there’s been a broader awareness, there’s been education, what’s reasonable to transfer. Six or eight years ago it was a signi� cant issue that is now a non-issue, because it was resolved.

In other cases, state of� cers indicated that there were no signi� cant state initiatives devoted to improving the environment for transfer students, or that state information systems were not linked with efforts to improve outcomes for transfer students. The failure to relate the data in transfer student information systems to policy initiatives designed to improve transfer dynamics, sub-optimises the assessment process. The fundamental purpose of all assessment in higher education is to use information to improve the quality of programs and services. The failure of state governments to use data on transfer students to improve student academic outcomes is no less a sub-optimi- sation of the assessment process than the case of an academic department that fails to collect and use student outcomes information to improve its instruction and curricula.

Assessing the Transfer Function 267

Conclusions

While questions about the legitimacy and appropriate roles of government in higher education are tremendously important in themselves, this study focuses exclusively on student transfer, a phenomenon that state governments in the US have identi� ed as a key policy issue and one that they are uniquely suited to address (Russell, 2000). State higher education agencies are in a propitious position to collect information on transfer students and to use the information in a positive way to improve outcomes for transfer students. State higher education of� ces also affect the priorities and behaviors of institutions. If state higher education agencies make improvement of the transfer process a greater priority, it is likely that it will become more of a priority for institutions.

A public commitment by state higher education agencies to assess the transfer function and to use the results to improve the transfer process is a powerful message about the need to increase access and participation rates in higher education, particularly for under-represente d populations. The results from this study are somewhat mixed. There is clearly the capacity among state agencies to collect, manipulate and report data on transfer students. However, there is also varying commitment to articulate policy objectives and to design and use information systems in a manner that leads to improved opportunities and outcomes for students.

A study that benchmarks best practices in the assessment of the transfer function by state, regional or provincial higher education agencies may be of considerable value to institutional personnel who assess inter-institutional transfer and articulation or who have responsibility for managing the enrolment of transfer students. It may also have value for policy makers, and those who in� uence them, who are interested in improving student access and success within the entire range of post-secondary educational opportunities, but who have a particular interest in supporting institutions that have an important transfer function.

Notes on Contributor

JOHN F. WELSH is Associate Provost and Associate Professor of Education at the University of Louisville. He teaches courses in higher education administration and higher education � nance. His research interests focus on assessment and information systems in higher education. He has published in a variety of higher education and social science journals. Correspondence: John F. Welsh, Of� ce of the University Provost, 209 Grawemeyer Hall, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCES

ADAMS, J. (1999) Learning from transfer data exchange , Michigan Community College Journal : Research and Practice, 5(2), pp. 53–67.

AHUMADA, M. (1993) Inter-institutiona l transfer and articulation : the role of databases and informatio n systems, Community College Journa l of Research and Practice, 17(2), pp. 141–152.

ALSTETE, J. (1995) Benchmarking in Higher Education: adapting best practice s to improve quality. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 5 (Washington , DC, The George Washington University) .

BRAGG, A. K. (1989) Beyond the college : state policy impact on student tracking systems, in: T. BERS (Ed.) New Directions for Community Colleges: using student trackin g systems effectively , No. 66 (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass) .

CAMP, R. C. (1989) Benchmarking : the search for industr y best practice s that lead to superio r performance (Milwaukee , WI, American Society for Quality Control/Quality Press).

268 J. F. Welsh

CLAGETT, C. G. & HUNTINGTON, R. (1991) Assessing the transfer function : data exchange s and transfer rates, Community College Review, 19(4), pp. 21–26.

COHEN, A. M. & BRAWER, F. (1987) The Collegiate Function of Community Colleges (San Francisco , Jossey-Bass).

COHEN, A.M. & BRAWER, F. (1989) The American Community College (San Francisco , Jossey-Bass) . EWELL, P. T. (1995) Working over time: the evolution of longitudina l student trackin g databases , in: P.

EWELL (Ed.) New directions for institutiona l research : student tracking : new techniques , new demands, No. 87 (San Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .

EWELL, P. T. & JONES, D. (1987) Principles of longitudina l enrollment analysis : conductin g retentio n and student � ow studies, in: J. A. MUFFO & G. W. MCLAUGHLIN (Eds) A Primer on Institutiona l Research (Tallahassee , FL, Associatio n for Institutiona l Research) .

EWELL, P. T. & JONES, D. (1991) Assessing and reportin g student progress : a response to the new accountability (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).

KINTZER, F. C. (1989) Articulatio n and Transfer: A Review of Current Literature on Statewide and Inter-Institutiona l Models and Trends. ERIC Document 311 946 (Trenton, NJ, New Jersey State Department of Higher Education) .

KNOELL, D. M. & MEDSKER, L. L. (1965) From Junior to Senior College: a national study of the transfer student (Washington , DC, American Council on Education).

LENTH, C. & RUSSELL, A. B. (1991) Statewide Student Data Systems and Capabilitie s to Report Postsecondar y Graduatio n Rates (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).

MCGUINNESS, A. (1997) State Postsecondar y Education Structure s Sourceboo k (Denver, Education Commission of the States).

MCMURTRIE, B. (2001) Community college s become a force in developin g nations worldwide, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 May, 47(37), p. A44.

MCNAIR, C. J. & LEIBFRIED, K. (1992) Benchmarking : a tool for continuou s improvement (New York, John Wiley and Sons).

NEWMAN, F. (1987) Choosing Quality: reducin g con� ict between the state and universit y (Denver, Education Commission of the States).

RIFKIN, T. (2000) Improving Articulatio n Policy to Increas e Transfer (Denver, CO, Community College Policy Center, Education Commission of the States).

RODRIGUEZ, E. (1994) State-leve l Educationa l Reform: collaborativ e roles for higher educatio n (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).

RUSSELL, A. B. (1999) The Status of Statewide Student Transition Data Systems: a survey of SHEEO agencies (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).

RUSSELL, A. B. (2000) Issue Priorities and Trends in State Higher Education (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).

RUSSELL, A. B. & CHISHOLM, M. (1995) Tracking in multi-institutiona l contexts , in: P. EWELL (Ed.) New Directions for Institutiona l Research: student tracking : new techniques , new demands, No. 87 (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass) .

TRAINER, J. F. (1996) New Direction s for Institutiona l Research: inter-institutiona l data sharing, No. 89 (San Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .

WALLERI, R. D. (1990) Tracking and follow-up for community college students : institutiona l and statewide initiatives , Community/junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 14(1), pp. 21–36.