Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
December 12, 2001
Conference Call

Members Present
Rick Levine, Rogue Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Ken Gilson, Western Oregon University
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Michele Sandlin, Oregon State University
Mary Kay Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Rick Levine called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.

1. Introductions and Announcements

Jim Arnold noted that Michele Sandlin was attending her first JBAC meeting and welcomed her to the group.

2. Minutes of the November 1, 2001, Meeting

The minutes of the November 2001 meeting were approved as submitted. 

3. JBAC Workplan for 2001-02

The workplan for 2001-02, revised at the last meeting, was discussed again, point by point.

1.      Review and reconsider the recommendations from the Student Services Action Team, focusing particularly on the topics of academic calendar and residency, consulting with external constituencies regarding these topics, and making further recommendations, as appropriate.

Discussion: The issue of academic calendar was before the Board of Education last week. An OAR is being prepared that will allow individual community colleges to adopt a calendar of three 11 week terms to coincide with the Oregon University System. The proposed OAR will address the funding formula issues so that colleges will not be financially penalized. The Board was very supportive of this concept and community colleges will likely be able to do this next fall (2002). (Chemeketa is adopting such a calendar next fall.) Although this is a very favorable development, it does present contractual issues and challenges for some colleges (faculty contracts would lose five days). Additionally, the issue of residency was a topic of discussion at the last JBAC meeting and at the Academic Council-CAO Joint Meeting in November. Although no resolution was reached, it was suggested that developing more explicit advising materials regarding residency issues is a possible approach.

2.      Provide for continuing effective communication between and among the postsecondary sectors, including such efforts as the JBAC web page, the Articulation Hotline list, and JBAC member participation in the annual OUS articulation and transfer conference.

Discussion: This is an ongoing, year-to-year, item for the workplan. The JBAC has sponsored and maintained a web page since 1997, which is the major centralized resource for articulation and transfer information in the state. The website includes the Articulation Hotline: a listing of names and phone numbers of individuals at the campus level with responsibility for transfer-student issues (which is updated every fall). Further, JBAC member participation in the annual articulation and transfer conference remains excellent; 8 of the 11 current members attended the conference on December 7th.

3.      Consider and/or provide recommendations to the OUS Academic Council and community college Chief Academic Officers on specific and explicit initiatives to promote inter-sector collaboration and enhancement of the transfer function. Recommendations may come in such area as (1) faculty involvement in curriculum design and program development for the purpose of minimizing barriers to institutional admissions and enhancing course and credit transfer; (2) proposing modifications in the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree; and/or (3) developing proposals for prototypes of Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer degrees in various disciplinary areas.

Discussion: With the current efforts of the Student Transfer Committee, modifications to the AA/OT, and the development of an AS/OT, are underway and being discussed at the Academic Council and CAO level. (This topic is also addressed below.)

4.      Assess and report progress to the Joint Boards regarding a K-16 approach to course and credit transfer, teacher education, early collegiate options, distance learning and standards-based entrance and exit standards.

Discussion: This is a function of the JBAC that occurs on an ongoing basis.

5.      Continue to analyze and standardize the procedures for data sharing between the Oregon University System and the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development. Examine data for trends that may lead to recommendations for changes in student transfer polices and procedures. This work should include progress on recommendations arising from the November 2000 JBAC transfer student data report, and include:

Discussion: These items are all a part of Arnold’s personal workplan for the year, with new data and analysis anticipated by next spring. At the mention of the evaluation report on the co-admission programs in the Portland metro area, Arnold offered to furnish copies with the next JBAC mailing. The suggestion was made to add a bullet to the workplan that would address the desire to share data with the Oregon Independent Colleges. 

6.      Assign tasks to and/or consult with external groups working on issues with transfer implications (e.g., the Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee (OWEAC) and the Oregon University System’s Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS ) project.

Discussion: This is something that JBAC engages in on a regular basis.

7.      Develop guidelines for articulation of career ladders where proficiency requirements cut across academic and professional technical program degrees and courses.

No discussion.

The consensus of the membership was that this document (as amended, for item number 5) will stand as the workplan for 2001-02.

4. JBAC Operational Guidelines

This topic was discussed at the November meeting. It was hoped the suggestion that the JBAC engage in fewer in-person meetings would allow for participation of both community college and OUS presidents. Elaine Yandle-Roth has recently talked to the Commissioner, with Preus-Braly indicating that she would email the Chancellor soon stating that she still has the proposal for restructuring the JBAC under advisement. The Commissioner has indicated that she has no problems with the proposal, except for the issue of presidential representation, although she would like to accommodate the OUS proposal if possible. Questions still exist, however: Do presidents make a vital contribution to the JBAC? Could there be such a function as a “presidential liaison?” Could we rewrite the expectations of presidents? 

One member suggested the inclusion of a community college president without an OUS president. Other members seemed to be in favor of an equal balance with regard to presidents.

Levine offered if that the membership is altered, it would be desirable to ensure that the necessary power is still available to implement the changes that JBAC recommends. Further, the concept of a “liaison role” doesn’t seem to be very attractive from a presidential perspective. Why else would presidents participate if not for the leadership role?

Goulard and Phillips have taken the proposal to the CIA and the discussion was much along the lines of the JBAC’s discussion. 

Phillips suggested the inclusion of the phrase “or academic officer” in the line specifying a student affairs/services officer. The goal would be to enhance the academic side and streamline the student services side. Toward this end, the recommendation was made to specify TWO provosts, academic vice presidents, etc. from each sector and to combine the registrars/admissions officers position into ONE position from each sector.

Levine stated that he will continue on in his role until these issues are decided. The date for the transition (adoption of new guidelines) should probably be specified in the guidelines.

Yandle-Roth will again talk to Preus-Braly about this discussion and Arnold will brief Vice Chancellor Clark and Chancellor Cox.

5. Student Transfer Committee Report

Dave Phillips indicated that he was still trying to reach Joan Ryan of Clackamas Community College, the contact person for the business chairs/deans group, regarding the AS/OT-Bus proposal.

Phillips reported that he led two sessions at last week’s Articulation and Transfer Conference, with over one hundred individuals attending his presentations. Some of the major questions raised during those sessions, regarding the recent work of the Student Transfer Committee, were:

Regarding the Proposed AS/OT Degree

1.   Can the AS/OT Business be structured so that students are not only admitted to the OUS institution with junior standing for registration purposes, but also admitted to the business program (school, college, etc.)?

2.   Will the proposed AS/OT-Bus be available either on-line and/or through distance education delivery? (as is the current AA/OT)

3.   If a community college does not offer all of the required courses for an AS/OT (i.e. PCC does not offer Mth 245 and Mth 241), can other courses be substituted (i.e. Mth 251, 252)? Will the degree be "unwrapped" if one or more of the required courses are not included?

4.   Should (could) the AS/OT Business include 12 credits of professional-technical courses as does the current AA/OT?

Regarding the Proposed Modifications to the AA/OT

1.   Should we include language to clarify the writing requirement? Is the intention that if writing courses are 4 credits that students would complete both WR 121 and WR 122? Or could a student meet the requirement by completing WR 121 and WR 123? or WR 121 and WR 227?

JBAC Discussion regarding the AS/OT:

The general impression Phillips received was that the proposed AS/OT is a very positive development, with the potential to favorably impact a number of transfer students in the state.

Mary Kay Tetreault expressed some concerns over program quality that may emerge as a result of the standardization forced by such a degree. This is an issue that can be address by the business chairs/deans group. That group can also address the issues emerging from the conference discussions.

When Phillips talks to Ryan of Clackamas, he will advocate for his attendance (along with Arnold and Yandle-Roth) at the next business chairs/deans meeting.

JBAC Discussion regarding the AA/OT:

The response to the AA/OT modifications were also very positive at the conference, although there was one question raised about the writing requirement (see above). Phillips recommended that the modifications for the AA/OT go to the Joint Boards for approval at their next meeting on January 18th. Arnold will facilitate seeing this as an agenda item for that meeting.

6. The 2001 Articulation and Transfer Conference

Arnold reported that approximately 254 individuals participated in the annual Articulation and Transfer Conference held last Friday, December 7th at Chemeketa Community College. Two general and eighteen breakout sessions made up the day and the evaluation forms indicate quite favorable feedback. He thanked the large number of Chemeketa staff who helped make the day such a success.

7. Implementing EDI in Oregon

Sandlin initiated a discussion of how to promote statewide participation in implementing EDI (Electronic Data Interchange). Oregon State University has decided to implement this system because of its cost savings potential (personnel, paper, etc.) and is now up and running. Portland Community College and Portland State University are involved in this as well. In January and February, OSU will be involved in a training effort with Gonzaga University. Oregon State University believes that this system will help support their activities in co-admissions and is looking for support from JBAC on this issue. Is there support for this statewide?

OSU is able to serve as a resource for any campus that is interested; just contact OSU and they will provide information about getting started with EDI. 

Phillips suggested that this could be very useful and suggested putting this on the agenda for the joint CIA/CSSA meeting of the community colleges in February. Perhaps a demonstration could be arranged? Mark Wahlers inquired into the possibility of having OICA representatives involved. Bell and Goulard thought that was a good idea; Wahlers will invite OICA staff.

There is an annual conference sponsored by EDI that is very hands-on in its approach; those new to the system leave the conference knowing how to implement. The next conference is in Spokane in October 2002.

Sandlin expressed appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the topic and for the suggestion to talk to the community colleges and OICA representatives in February.

8. Adjournment and Meeting Dates

The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 a.m.

The JBAC schedule for the remainder of the year is:

January 16, 2002**               Chemeketa Community College 10:00-2:00
February 13, 2002                Conference call 10:00-12:00
March 13, 2002                     Conference call 10:00-12:00
April 17, 2002**                     Chemeketa Community College 10:00-2:00
May 15, 2002                        Conference call 10:00-12:00
June 12, 2002                       Conference call 10:00-12:00

**denotes in-person meetings at Chemeketa Community College


Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
December 18, 2001