Meeting Summary Notes
January 9, 1997
Office of Oregon Community College Association
Judith Ramaley, Portland State University
Jim Arnold, OSSHE Academic Affairs
Jim Buch, University of Oregon
Patsy Chester, Linn-Benton Community College
Bill Hill, Sherwood SD
Dave Phillip, Clatsop Community College
Jesse Welch, Pacific University
Penny Wills, Portland Community College-Cascade
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Office of Community College Services
Joyce Benjamin, Oregon Department of Education
The meeting was called to order by Judith Ramaley at 10:00 a.m.
Ramaley acknowledged the absence of the Chancellor's Office staff member previously assigned to JBAC, Thomas Coley. Coley has relocated to Cleveland, Ohio to take a position with Cuyahoga Community College. Ramaley thanked Coley for his years of service to the JBAC and wished him well in his new position.
Jim Arnold was introduced as the incoming Chancellor's Office staff member assigned to JBAC. Arnold briefly described reorganization efforts underway in OSSHE Academic Affairs, including his appointment as Director of Community College Articulation.
Penny Wills announced that the new student services building at PCC-Cascade will be dedicated in a ceremony on January 16, 1997, from 4:00 - 6:00 p.m.
2. Minutes of the Meeting of December 5, 1996
The minutes were approved unanimously.
3. Report of the Student Transfer Committee
Dave Phillips distributed the minutes of the December 9, 1996, meeting of the Student Transfer Committee (STC). The topical areas discussed by the STC at their meeting are outlined below, including comments made during today's JBAC meeting.
AA/OT Issues and Problems
Specific examples of problems that students encountered regarding the AA/OT were requested by, and forwarded to, the STC. Chemeketa brought up issues with OSU, WOSC, and PSU; LBCC addressed a problem with OSU; and STC members identified a variety of other issues.
Comments on the AA/OT issues included:
· it is important to get faculty together from the CC and OSSHE institutions to assess course content compatibility--some four-year faculty may be deciding about course transferability without enough information
· there is a genuine difference in philosophy and approach between and among faculty groups about what curriculum "should be"
· "technical" issues associated with transfer exist as well as "block transfer" issues
· as long as transfer occurs in terms of "course equivalencies" then we are going to continue to have problems; the transfer degree should be accepted in its entirety, not course by course
· in order to more effectively articulate, and clarify, the intent of the AA/OT, the JBAC may want to consider sending out a formal communication: e.g., one clear intent of the AA/OT was that students transferring with that degree would have junior standing for registration purposes
· the AA/OT does not always guarantee admission to any public four-year institution in Oregon
· in any communication from JBAC, we need to emphasize flexibility (rather than the often-practiced rigidity of course-by-course transfer); the original intent behind the AA/OT is not generally understood
· we need to address such issues as how many professional-technical credits are allowed; what about course numbering problems? These issues should be agenda items for the March meeting (so that they can be addressed at the next STC meeting)
· when can we accommodate proficiencies into the AA/OT?
· we need to be aligned with the OSSHE Solution Team and their efforts.
JBAC members agreed to add an item to the workplan on this issue to read: "clarify the meaning of block transfer and how the AA/OT will be handled during transfer-student transcript evaluations at OSSHE colleges and universities."
K-16 Education Reform Changes
The JBAC workplan agenda item to "revise the AA/OT to reflect K-16 education reform changes" will be addressed by inviting Bob Olson from the PASS Project office to the next STC meeting. The STC believes it needs to learn more about CIM/CAM and its alignment with PASS.
Elaine Yandle-Roth distributed the publication Teacher Support Oregon Standards which has been sent to every teacher in the state.
Professional-Technical Course Numbering
With regard to professional-technical course numbering, the STC wanted to know if the Interinstitutional Assessment Committee (IAC) had a position on the acceptance of professional-technical courses. There is hesitancy on the part of some OSSHE institutions to accept such courses. Nancy Goldschmidt of the Chancellor's Office will be contacted to solicit input from the IAC.
Other comments in the discussion included:
· perhaps it would be useful to examine one academic content area, define what a student in that program should know, and determine how that relates to the curriculum -- and what does it say about competencies?
· as some OSSHE institutions change to 4- and 5-credit courses, problems creep into the common course numbering system which was implemented to address curricular concerns across the sectors
· the issue of communication between OSSHE and independent institutions was raised; more and better communication should take place to address matters of common concern (Ramaley will raise this issue with Chancellor Cox; Arnold will raise with Vice Chancellor Clark)
· What do independent institutions do with CIM/CAM competencies? How does the proposed OSSHE tuition freeze impact independents?
· with respect to the AA/OT degree, no real problems have arisen from the 4 and 5 credit courses.
4. Discussion of JBAC Workplan
JBAC members examined the current workplan and suggested modifications. Each item on the workplan was discussed and identified as either "short term" or "long term" in terms of proposed or possible action. Revised language was suggested for some items to make them more clear and the entire document will be revised in time for the next JBAC meeting. Three sections will be developed: (1) items completed; (2) items for short-term action; and (3) items for long-term action.
Yandle-Roth addressed item "P" on the workplan of December 5. She suggested that we undertake the creation of an "in-English" document of questions and answers pertaining to the alignment of proficiency systems. It is time that we put together information that will assist people in understanding the relationships between the developing systems. Perhaps it would be best to develop documents for faculty and another for the general public. Yandle-Roth and Arnold will pull together a working group on this issue, drawn from ODE and PASS staff. Another suggestion was to develop documents for three groups, (1) parents, (2) faculty and (3) policy makers. Whatever documents are developed need to be products produced in language the particular constituencies are able to understand.
Joyce Benjamin raised the issue of the use of technology in managing transfer issues and whether the information needs of transfer students and advisors are being considered in the technology plans for the various sectors. ODE is preparing a technology plan that will go to the Board of Education at their January meeting. The big questions are how do we plan for technology together?; what communications systems/technologies relate to what we do?; how does JBAC feed information to technology groups?
5. Next meeting
The date of the next JBAC meeting is February 13. Salem was indicated as the preferred location, perhaps Chemeketa Community College. (Yandle-Roth will investigate.) Members will be notified by Jim Arnold.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Prepared by Jim Arnold
Office of Academic Affairs/OSSHE
January 21, 1997
Revised: March 5, 1997URL: http://www.osshe.edu/aca/1-9-97.html