1 / 50

Transfer Credit Process Redesign and Change Management

Transfer Credit Process Redesign and Change Management. Anna Hawkey Jablonski, University of La Verne Patricia Hernandez, University of La Verne. One University, Multiple Identities. Founded in 1891 by the Church of the Brethren as a small, private liberal arts college in La Verne, CA.

kael
Download Presentation

Transfer Credit Process Redesign and Change Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transfer Credit Process Redesign and Change Management Anna Hawkey Jablonski, University of La Verne Patricia Hernandez, University of La Verne

  2. One University, Multiple Identities • Founded in 1891 by the Church of the Brethren as a small, private liberal arts college in La Verne, CA. • Over the years it has also become: • A graduate professional school • A system of regional campuses • A provider of online degrees and non-degree courses • 8500 total student population • 2000 traditional undergraduates • 3500 adult students

  3. POINT A (2008): Turnaround Times We had a 90-Day Turnaround Time on admission evaluations for students in the continuing education programs. This created problems in various areas: • Financial Aid • Academic Advising • Appeals

  4. POINT A (2008): Staffing The Evaluations umbrella included the following areas: • UG admission evaluations • UG transfer work • UG major course substitutions and adjustments • UG Graduation evaluations (aka degree progress checks) • UG, Grad, Doctoral grade changes • UG, Grad, Doctoral degree postings Evaluations staff was made up of (almost) seven employees: • 1 FTE Evaluator for all traditional undergraduate evaluations (no degree posting) • 1 FTE Evaluator for all graduate degree postings and graduate grade changes • 2.4 FTE Evaluators for all other evaluations and degree postings • .5 FTE Articulation Assistant (student employee) • 1 FTE Asst. Registrar/Articulation Officer • 1 FTE Assoc. Registrar (overseeing evaluations, articulation, degrees and policies) • 1 vacant FTE Evaluator not approved for replacement by “Vacancy Management”

  5. 2 Populations + 2 GEs = 2 Processes • Evaluations for MC students were performed one or two times, depending on how many in progress courses were completed prior to matriculation. • Turnaround time ranged from 1 to 6 weeks.   • Evaluations for RC students were performed a minimum of three times. • Turnaround time ranged from 1 to 3 months.

  6. This is going to take a while…

  7. This is going to take a while…

  8. This is going to take a while…

  9. This is going to take a while…

  10. This is going to take a while…

  11. This is going to take a while…

  12. 2 Processes = ∞ Policies • The only comprehensive transfer policy that existed on paper was a hard copy from 1992. • All other policies were generally documented via photocopied memos pinned to bulletin boards. • No clear policies existed because the politics that governed the interactions between the main campus and the regional campuses made compromise very difficult. • The adoption of a new, universal GE was the opportunity we needed to begin implementing change.

  13. POINT B (2013): Turnaround Times • We have a 5 day turnaround time! • 83% decrease from 30 day turnaround time • 94% decrease from 90 day turnaround time • The time to complete an admission file has decreased by 55%! • From a 90 minute average to 40 minutes

  14. POINT B (2013): Staffing The Evaluations umbrella now includes the following areas: • UG admission evaluations • UG transfer work • UG major course substitutions and adjustments • UG Graduation evaluations (aka degree progress checks) The Evaluations staff is now made up of (almost) six employees: • 3.5 FTE Evaluators for all undergraduate evaluations (no degree postings) • 1 FTE Articulation & Evaluations Assistant (articulation & evaluation support) • 1 FTE Assistant Registrar (overseeing all evaluations and articulation processes and policies)

  15. POINT B (2013): Staffing Training: • All Evaluators are trained on all transfer procedures and policies. • There is a fully revised and faculty approved Transfer Policy Manual and a brand new Articulation Manual for reference and training on Evaluations policies and procedures. Centralized Communication: • All communication has been centralized to one main email account and phone extension. • We are all using the same set of data, so the results are the same for everyone.

  16. POINT B (2013): Staffing Evaluator Daily Report: • Each Evaluator completes a daily report of how their time was distributed throughout the day. • Overtime is strategically planned and must be preapproved.

  17. One Campus, One Process! Both populations of students are admitted through their respective admission offices. The admission packet is received and audited for completeness and logged into the admission evaluation log, and placed in queue. Admission files are logged in the same day they are received, and are processed in the order they are received.

  18. (Mostly) Automated Articulation All files are first reviewed using the Banner Articulation Module • Includes over 76,000 courses • 40 articulation agreements • More courses added daily – all course decisions are recorded.

  19. Clear Decision Making Process • If the Evaluator is not comfortable making an independent decision based on the course outline, it is sent to the Assistant Registrar for review. • If the Assistant Registrar cannot make a determination, the course is sent to the faculty. • If the faculty does not respond within two weeks, the course is sent to the Associate Dean.

  20. Major Articulation Major applicability is determined strictly by faculty review • Once the course decision is recorded in the Articulation Module, it will be applied to all eligible students.

  21. Degree Audit Redesign • CAPP has been redesigned and WebCAPP is fully implemented. • Web and hard copy match! • The Transfer Center no longer runs CAPP reports for transfer updates.

  22. It’s a whole new world… Consistent Application of policies and procedures • New Transfer Policies (and those manuals to go along with them!) Faculty Accountability • Faculty are required to respond to course reviews within 10 business days. Fostering Relationships • We have established strong working relationships with Regional Campuses and Main Campus Admissions.

  23. How did we get from here: To here??? The long and winding road…

  24. Performance Management Group 2009 – Transfer Process Redesign Project: • Project Sponsors • Project Directors • Steering Committee • Project Team

  25. Shared Goals • Students and prospective students will receive information they need to make informed decisions in a timely manner. • Coursework from other institutions will be evaluated consistently and accurately. • Staff will have access to accurate information to help students and prospective students understand their degree progress and degree completion options. • Students will have the option to independently access accurate information regarding their degree progress. • Financial aid awards will be made based on accurate student status.

  26. Sounds Easy, Right? First we all had to agree on a few fundamental ideas: 1) The transfer credit assessment is not a purely academic activity; these assessments are used by students to make decisions about where to go to college. 2) The Registrar is responsible for the academic transcript, so any staff making decisions that will impact the transcription of academic work must report to the Registrar – otherwise accountability is impossible. 3) Adult and traditional undergraduate students all receive the same degree and are all students of the same university. This means they all deserve equal treatment and their records will undergo the same procedures.

  27. The Seven Step Process Step 1) Initial Prospective Student contact. Step 2) Send Prospective Student’s academic documents to Registrar’s Office for evaluation. Step 3) Perform preliminary assessment of transfer courses. Step 4) Discuss preliminary assessment with Prospective Student.  Step 5) Review completed application file & grant or deny admission. Step 6) Confirm or correct the preliminary assessment & accept the transfer units. Step 7) Complete incoming student processes and register.

  28. The Seven Step Process: Buy In • Make sure at each level of discussion, people from each impacted area are represented and involved in the decision making. • Base all conversations on data!!! • Be ready to make people uncomfortable.

  29. Implementation: Data Driven Decisions First, we created a spreadsheet of 185,000 courses pulled from five years of transfer credit records. • Any course that appeared with the same GE designation three or more times was automatically approved for that GE credit. • Any course listed only once or twice, or listed multiple times with multiple designations, was sent to the faculty for review.

  30. Implementation: Course Coding Previous coding scheme for transfer work: • Course prefixes used were standard general elective, vocational, or GE codes – TXXX, TVOC, and TWE1, TMTH, etc. • Course number was either XXXX for lower division, or 3XXX for upper division • We entered the course prefix and number assigned by the sending institution in the Title field. • TWE1 XXXX ENGL 110 • TXXX 3XXX HISTORY 325 • TVOC XXXX AUTO TECH 2B

  31. Implementation: Course Coding New Coding Scheme: ENGL 110 College Writing A (CSWA) = WRT 110 HIST 325 History of Latin America = HIST 3XX AUTO 2B Brakes, Shocks and Struts = VOC 0XX

  32. Implementation: Course Coding

  33. Implementation: Mass Articulation • We converted catalog data from 40 schools to Excel spreadsheets (some institutions provided the data). • These spreadsheets were uploaded into Banner to create full catalogs for each of these feeder schools. • Meanwhile, our Articulation Officer reviewed each course to determine transferability. • These transfer credit decisions were also entered into the Excel spreadsheets and input into Banner. At the time we launched the module, we had 64,000 courses already articulated!

  34. Implementation: Mass Articulation

  35. Implementation: CAPP Redesign

  36. Implementation: CAPP Redesign

  37. Implementation: CAPP Redesign

  38. Implementation: Staffing Restructure

  39. Implementation: Staffing Restructure

  40. Implementation: Staffing Restructure

  41. Passing the torch…

  42. The Devil Is in the Details

  43. Restructuring Staff and Procedures • Building rapport • Assessing individual skills • Hiring to fit our team • New process training • Streamlining processes

  44. Accountability All Around • Customer Services Metrics • Business Process Metrics • Financial Impact Metrics • Learning & Growth Metrics

  45. Implementation – SUCCESS! • Turnaround Time • Consistency • Pleasant Working Environment • Collaboration • Advisor Access to Information • Student Empowerment • Cultural Change

  46. Looking Forward Still to do: • Preliminary Evaluations • Academic Progress Worksheet • Tracking WebCAPP Use • Workflow What we have learned: • Learning & Growth • Strengthening Relationships • Stepping outside of our comfort zones

  47. We achieved successful implementation!Or have we?

  48. Contact Information • Anna Hawkey Jablonski, University of La Verne • Email: aJablonski@laverne.edu • Patricia Hernandez, University of La Verne • Email: phernandez@laverne.edu

More Related