Meeting
Summary Notes
December 18,
2002
Conference
Call
Members
Present
Mary
Kay Tetreault, Portland State University, Chair
Jim
Arnold, Oregon University System
Dave
Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Michele
Sandlin, Oregon State University
Karen
Sprague, University of Oregon
Glenda
Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Mark
Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine
Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Mary
Kay Tetreault called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. and Jim Arnold called
the roll.
1.
Announcements and Suggestions for the Agenda
Michele
Sandlin requested that the topic of “EdFund” be added to the agenda.
2.
Minutes of the October 9, 2002, Meeting
The minutes of the October 2002 meeting
were approved as submitted.
3.
JBAC Annual Report, 2001-02
Arnold
reported that the 2001-02 annual report was finalized, posted to the JBAC
website (http://www.ous.edu/aca/01-02annrpt.htm), and copies distributed to
Board members at the December 4, 2002, meeting of the Joint Boards Working
Group. Copies have also been distributed to the OUS Academic Council.
4.
Report from the Student Transfer Committee, Including Related Meetings and
Issues
Associate
of Science Transfer Degree Proposals
Dave Phillips reported on the most recent meeting of the Student
Transfer Committee, held on October 23, 2002. During that meeting, an
update was provided on the progress toward an AS/OT in Business, as well as an
extended discussion on a proposed “generic” AS/OT. This latter conversation
included grappling with such questions as “how is this different than the
AA/OT?” and “how does this satisfy student needs?”
One issue with the AA/OT is that the
degree has not been implemented uniformly by the community colleges; there are
several different versions. About half of the colleges have versions that
more-or-less correspond directly to the statewide general guidelines,
but another half make use of sequence requirements, or in some other way put
their own “stamp” on the degree (by way of computer science, cultural, and/or
health & fitness course requirements, for example). Students who attend
more than one community college can find themselves in a trap with competing
sets of requirements from college to college. The question was posed: what
would it take for the 17 community colleges to all implement the same
AA/OT degree? Some suggest that it would take “a mandate from above”: say, a
Joint Boards of Education directive that the degree should be implemented
uniformly as described in the statewide general guidelines.
There is, of course, significant
resistance to eliminating sequence requirements from those AA/OT degrees at the
colleges that choose to offer it that way. Some colleges and their faculty
members fear loss of enrollment in some courses should sequences be dropped
(and they are probably correct); the JBAC should take this issue seriously.
Tetreault inquired about the issue of
faculty control of the curriculum. Tepper replied that that is a major
consideration at Clackamas Community College where the faculty are quite intent
on maintaining sequence requirements.
Phillips indicated that questions
foremost in his mind are “what is the AA/OT?” “what is its purpose?” The
AA/OT is a statewide degree, developed so students can go on to an OUS
institution with lower-division general education requirements satisfied and
have junior standing for registration purposes. This is quite different than
any other degree. The initial implementation of the degree was uniform, but
with the JBAC-recommended changes to the degree over the years, local
modifications have evolved.
Is there anything that the JBAC can do?
Can we take action to take on this? The conversation is taking a lot of energy
on some campuses and it appears to be going nowhere in particular.
If there is reluctance to pursue
statewide mandated conformity, how do we proceed? All of the degrees do meet
statewide requirements, even if some of the requirements are not necessarily in
students’ best interests. Some community colleges even tell students to go to
another college to complete the degree, given the complexity of putting
together a degree program on some campuses with courses from a variety of
institutions.
Some individuals on campuses say
directly that the degree is “not working.” Andy Duncan (OUS) gave a
presentation at the recent Articulation & Transfer Conference that pointed
out the complexities associated with the myriad general education requirements
and how students who fail to complete the degree before transfer can be
severely affected by the differences in their coursework when compared to the
lower-division general education requirements of the OUS campus to which they
transfer.
Is it possible for a mandate to be
issued? This could only be done through the Joint Boards and this would be a
very huge step for the JBAC to recommend and the Joint Boards to act upon.
Yandle-Roth indicated that the primary
issue here is one of “sequences or not.” Maybe it is possible to develop some
kind of “regional approach” to considering transfer (among community colleges
as well as from community college to OUS).
Three possible “fixes” to the sequences
issue which have been proposed during past meetings of the JBAC and the Student
Transfer Committee (STC) (see, for example, the JBAC minutes of October 9, 2002,
and the STC minutes of October
23, 2002), but not discussed at length at this meeting, are: (1) the
development of a generic AS/OT (that must be implemented according to statewide
guidelines); (2) a “mandate” from above (Joint Boards) that would enforce
conformity of implementation of the AA/OT; and (3) a “petition” process whereby
a student who starts an AA/OT at a non-sequence-requiring college and then
transfers to a sequence-requiring college could petition for completion of the
degree without sequences (which would necessarily lead to more bureaucracy in
the implementation of the degree).
Perhaps an acceptable “fix” to the
AA/OT problem is the development of an AS/OT that would be adopted only
as the JBAC develops and recommends. That is, if a college chooses to
offer the degree, it must conform exactly to the statewide guidelines.
Tetreault commented that this is a very
complex issue and asked if anyone had a recommendation. The suggestion was made
to develop a policy document that lays out the issues the JBAC has discussed
and to make some recommendations. Arnold agreed to produce a draft document
that the Student Transfer Committee could consider and discuss at its January
29th meeting and then bring back to JBAC.
With regard to the Student Transfer
Committee’s discussion of the generic AS transfer degree, some confusion was expressed.
Arnold, Tepper and Yandle-Roth all were of the opinion that the STC had
expressed a desire for the proposal not to proceed any further and were
surprised at November meetings (CIA, joint CAO/Academic Council) where the
proposal was presented as “alive”.
The discussion then turned to the
proposed AS/OT in Business. Tetreault indicated that she had talked with PSU
Business School staff who explained to her the recent discussions of the
Statewide Business Chairs and University Deans group. In addition to preparing
a student for transfer to an OUS institution (with the intention of pursuing a
business degree), it also would be a degree for community college students who
want a credential that specifies “business” as their degree. This would be of
some advantage in certain areas of employment. Yandle-Roth indicated that the
AS/OT-Bus is significantly different from the AAS degree is Business. The
transfer degree would make the student more marketable as the skills required
in the transfer degree are much higher than the AAS degree. The focus is
keeping the student’s options open for transfer to an OUS business
school/program. Arnold indicated that the only “needs assessment” in this area
has been informal, in terms of reports from the campuses that students are very
interested in having such a degree available to them. Karen Sprague cautioned
against using degrees to replace advising.
The Academic Council is set to discuss
the AS/OT-Bus issue again at their next meeting tomorrow, and Arnold agreed to
email JBAC members with the outcome of that discussion. (Note: The Academic
Council subsequently agreed to accept the latest AS/OT-Bus proposal on December
19, 2002, the last step needed before taking it to the Boards of Education and
Higher Education.)
With respect to the generic AS/OT, do
we want to stop working on it? Does the JBAC want STC to move forward? The JBAC
charged the STC with further work on the generic degree, with regard to
specific discipline-specific examples. Sandlin agreed to forward such examples,
drawn from the OUS experience with their generic AS transfer-degree agreements.
Proposed
AA/OT Guiding Principles and SP111
The Student Transfer Committee also
conducted an extended discussion of the language for the proposed AA/OT
guiding-principles draft (as initiated by the JBAC last year). Lane Community
College (LCC) faculty members have been especially active in examining the
language for the proposed guidelines, and three LCC faculty members were in
attendance as guests at the STC meeting. There was a discussion of the
migration of speech requirements over time, as well as the role of studio arts
courses in the transfer degree. The outcome of the discussion was that we need
to go back to the genesis of the development of AA/OT requirements to see what
the prevailing philosophy of the time was, and what concerns were raised. There
was the opinion that there is the need to look at the educational outcomes
desired rather than merely specific courses that make up the distribution
requirements. Yandle-Roth and Jim Buch agreed to go back to archival documents
to give the STC a better sense of the origins of the AA/OT requirements, hoping
that will give us a better sense of where to go with these issues.
The next STC meeting is scheduled for
late January.
5. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions
Yandle-Roth reported that she met with
the registrars group of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association in
November. The issued addressed was “what would it take to initiate a data
exchange between community colleges and the independent institutions?” The
outcome of the discussion was that the OICA campuses are unable at this time to
get their data so organized to complete a data exchange similar to the one
community colleges conduct with the Oregon University System. OICA issues an
annual data report that furnishes some of the desired information, such as the
number of admitted transfer students from community colleges to OICA campuses,
but no information on student performance is available. In sum, the outcome of
the discussion is that it is not possible to conduct a data exchange program
similar to the CCWD/OUS program at this time.
6. Transfer
Activity in Oregon Postsecondary Education
Arnold announced that the transfer
activity report is now finished and dated with today’s date. Copies of the
report have been distributed to the Joint Boards Working Group already, and a
PDF version of the full report is available at the JBAC website (http://www.ous.edu/aca/OregonTransfer02.pdf).
Arnold would like to JBAC members to read the report and engage in another
discussion of possible policy implications arising from the data at the
February meeting.
7. Report from 2002 Articulation & Transfer Conference
Arnold
reported that the 2002 event was, from all appearances and reports, a huge
success. Almost the same number of individuals participated this year compared
to last (about 250). The Chancellor’s keynote address was a particularly big
hit and received many positive comments on the evaluation forms. Arnold thanked
the numerous JBAC members who participated in this year’s event.
8. JBAC Workplan Review
After the last
JBAC meeting, and that discussion of the JBAC workplan, Arnold and Yandle-Roth
got together to draft a new version of the document, this time with a revised
format. That document was included with the JBAC materials for this meeting.
While most members were supportive of the new format, the suggestion was made
to include an “outcomes” column that would indicate when an item had been
addressed and/or completed. (For example, the “annual report” item would be
shown to have been completed in November.) Also, there was a suggestion for a
“to do” list for the year, and the person or group responsible. Arnold and
Yandle-Roth agreed to continue working on the format and content of the
workplan and present it at the next meeting.
9. Other Topics
OregonMentor. Sandlin
inquired about EdFund and OregonMentor (a planned statewide web project for
admissions, advising, and financial aid information for students). Was there a
presentation done to solicit community college involvement? No one knew of any
such efforts.
EDI. Sandlin
asked to have “EDI Implementation” as an agenda item for the next meeting in
January.
Common
calendar.
Where are we in the move toward a common academic calendar for the community
colleges and OUS campuses? Some of the colleges have made a move to coincide
their fall term calendar with OUS, but not all are there. A recent survey on
this issue, issued over the CIA listserv, did not have all colleges reporting
in with their status. No movement has been made on this issue on a statewide
basis. Only individual colleges have taken action.
10. Meeting Schedule and Adjourn
The
next meeting will be the conference call in January. The meeting was adjourned
at 10:40 a.m.
The remaining meetings for
the year are as follows:
January 15, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference Call
February 19,
2003 10:00 - 2:00 at OSU
March 19, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference
Call
April 16, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference
Call
May 14, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference
Call
June 11, 2003 10:00 - 2:00 at OIT Metro
Prepared by Jim
Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
Revised: January
15, 2003
http://www.ous.edu/aca/12-18-02.htm