Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Student Transfer Committee

Meeting Summary Notes
February 8, 2000
OIT Metro
Portland, OR

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, OUS Academic Affairs
Mary Brau, Lane Community College
Jim Buch, University of Oregon
John Duarte, Oregon Institute of Technology
Pat North, Eastern Oregon University
Johnnie Stokes, Mt. Hood Community College
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Office of Community College Services

Guests Present
David McDonald, Oregon University System
Christine Tell, Oregon University System

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.


1. Introductions

Members and guests introduced themselves.

2. Meeting Notes from April 14, 1999

The summary notes from the April 14, 1999, meeting of the Transfer Committee were approved as submitted.

3. Proficiency-based Admission and Implications for Transfer Students

Dave McDonald reviewed recent PASS (Proficiency-based Admission Standards System) implementation strategies as well as the January 2000 discussion with the Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC) regarding PASS implications. In all that PASS is doing, OUS wants to be sure to be aware of the implications for transfer students, even though the original intent of PASS was to develop admission standards for first-time freshmen.

Christine Tell indicated that PASS has been primarily a research and development effort of the Oregon University System for five years, with perhaps not enough attention given to the "bigger picture." Specific proficiency standards/criteria have been identified and a document explaining them were provided to Committee members prior to the meeting.

The original reason for PASS was the proficiency environment created by K-12 school reform efforts in the state. PASS is now working with 65 high schools around the state and has an Eastern Oregon Consortium of schools, run from Eastern Oregon University. PASS has concerned itself with working with English, Math and Science teachers in particular and students are working with these teachers to produce acceptable collections of work. Teachers get together to cross-score student work four times a year. With all this activity, high school students could be thinking about their postsecondary options as early as the 9th grade.

For the proficiencies that must be met under PASS requirements, teacher verification is the preferred but not exclusive way to go. Other ways of measuring these proficiencies exist. PASS proficiency information can also be used for placement into the most appropriate course level. Under PASS, students will come to postsecondary education with much more information about their skills than ever before.

Recently, the PASS model has moved away from using a numerical score to reflect proficiency levels to using a letter score: E=Exemplary; H=High-level Mastery; M=Meets the proficiency; W=Working toward the proficiency; N=Not meeting the proficiency. At each of the 65 PASS high schools, English, Math, and Science teachers are involved. These teachers have the charge to involve other teachers in their buildings.

Oregon will host a national forum in May 2000 for proficiency-based assessment and admission.

The University System will continue to proceed with the full implementation of PASS, though we don't yet know what all the "interface" issues (between sectors) will be. What issues will come up for community colleges as a result of PASS? If possible, it would be desirable to avoid unnecessary problems. PASS is not the "preferred" admission mode until 2005, but well before then students will be showing up on campuses with PASS information about themselves.

A definition of "preferred mode" was sought. McDonald indicated that "preferred" would mean that PASS is at the central point of how the University System approaches admissions to institutions, and that this information would be first in importance in determining placement, credit, and scholarships.

The Committee proceeded to brainstorm a list of issues and questions associated with PASS and student transfer issues, along with other issues that may involve both OUS and the community colleges.

The verbatim list (in bold) produced from the session flip charts follows [additional notes from the discussion are included in brackets]:

1. AA/OT

[Will there be an admission preference for those with PASS proficiencies over those with an AA/OT?]

2. Transfer from CC
24 hours - 32 hours
+ writing/math

[At what point will we say the high school record doesn't count? When will a student's college-work be used to assess ability and admission granted on that basis?]

a/b not all Proficient

4. Rec's - (math)
Not all met
Will student be admitted?

[What about students who, like now, do not meet certain requirements such as the Math 105 requirement? At present, some campuses "blink their eyes" at the math requirement. How many pieces of evidence from PASS will be required to establish the math proficiency?]

5. Hybrid PASS
trad'l profile to eval student readiness

6. Comparable mechanism to PASS for students from non-PASS route

[For example, for a transfer student with 50 earned hours, would we go back to look for PASS proficiencies?]

7. How does an applicant demonstrate b/g (transcript) of preparation

8. Flexibility of adm. policy at OUS campuses retained

[Will campuses be able to "draw their own line?" At what point do we look at high school record?]

9. Point of CC/H.S. record taking precedence
24 - 36 hours

[Different OUS institutions use different points: UO, 36 credits, EOU, 24 credits]

10. CIM/CAM links
level of performance on state-wide tests and appl. Pool

[Students don't have to earn CIM to demonstrate PASS proficiencies. PASS calls for a collection of work over time, which is different than CIM]

11. PASS utilization @ C.C.

[Will PASS information start to be utilized at community colleges? What will they do with this information? How will they use it? Will there be a "back door" to OUS? That bypasses PASS, going through a community college entry to OUS?]

12. Training of CC faculty in PASS as an instr. tool

[How about training community college faculty in PASS proficiencies? especially, English, math?]

13. Training of OUS evaluators
complexity of transfer student academic profile

[How does training take place for admissions professionals who have to deal with very complex situations/decisions? How do we begin to understand what all this extra information means?]

14. PASS transcript and CC input of info
transfer to OUS

[For the next x number of years, we won't have PASS information on transfer students. How will community colleges interpret PASS information? Will this information have more value than a "regular transcript" does? Will a community college be able to add to the PASS transcript/student record?]

15. Benefits of PASS on OUS placement or award of credit
shorten time to degree

["Implications teams" at each of the OUS campuses are charged with figuring out how to use PASS information, for example, in placement, awarding of credit, etc.]

16. Using PASS (H/E) as credits from CC AA/OT = Prof. Credits

[If community college awards credit on the basis of PASS proficiencies, and the student then earns an AA/OT, how will that transfer to OUS?]

17. 2 + 2 HS/CC

18. OUS award of credit @ certain level and relationship to CC award of credit

[Most of the community colleges have 2 + 2 articulation agreements with high schools. Courses are transcripted as both high school and college course. How will a course transfer with a "P" grade?]

19. Does college credit bypass PASS proficiency

[Community colleges could award credit based on PASS. How will OUS handle this?]

20. Will all of Oregon H.S. students have PASS profiles?

21. SAT / ACT req'd?

[Will all Oregon high school students be assessed for PASS proficiencies by the time they graduate?]

22. Rolling adm.
no pass

[Will SAT still be required? Will admission be on a rolling basis? (SAT information is a part of proficiency information that's part of PASS scoring)]

23. Receipt of H.S. diploma and eligibility to be admitted

[The high school diploma in not necessarily a good indicator of college readiness -- based on seat time]

24. Early Options

25. WA Program "Running Start"
PASS - lower division courses

[What are the implications for PASS if a "Running Start" type (Early Options) program were to be initiated?]

26. a. Early admit - OUS

[How will OUS campuses admit "early" under PASS?]

b. how much (sufficiency)
PASS Prof. (data) is needed to make an early decision (Jan / Feb)

[How much information do we need to have to admit? We currently require 6 semesters of record and a plan to take the "right" courses.]

c. OUS adm dir. / evals and OUS faculty id. decision rules
align course / prof with adm.

[Admissions staff and faculty need to get together to make decisions about standardizing proficiency standards for admission.]

27. Home schooling

[How will home-schooled students meet proficiencies? Assessment centers at high schools, ESDs, community colleges? How will this work? High school faculty at community colleges? Community college faculty?]

28. PASS inflation

[PASS ensures comparability of scores, whereas letter-grade system differs from school to school. "E" and "H" scores require external verification.]

29. Course Approval Process

[How does the high school course approval process work in the PASS environment?]

30. Transcript


After constructing the list of issues above, the Committee decided to rearrange and prioritize the list. Four categories emerged, listed below (with category titles and the issues/questions from which they arise).


Category 1. Directed toward the question: What are the minimum number of college-level hours needed by a student to be admitted on the basis of college work only?

Category 2. Directed toward the question: Should there be standard PASS proficiency levels for all institutions?

Category 3. Training issues pertaining to faculty.

Category 4. Other implementation issues.

The PASS project has made some progress in some of these areas. For example, transcripting has been addressed in cooperation with the 4-J school district. Another report to the Student Transfer Committee may be in order on some of these issues.

Category 3 issues are those where educational sectors will bump into each other and we all need to have further discussion.

The big, central question remains: At what level will college credit be awarded for PASS proficiencies? (answer this and the answers to many of the other questions may soon emerge) Further: How do courses map to proficiencies?

What does the Student Transfer Committee need to have from this discussion? Would it be helpful to have faculty from two- and four-year sectors agree on outcomes for core first-year courses? What are the next steps to take? To get on the agenda for OWEAC (Oregon English and Writing Advisory Committe? OMEC (Oregon Mathematics Education Council)? Write a letter to these groups to take up issues of performance levels -- and how it fits into undergraduate course work?

PASS Implications Teams come together to meet on February 28th. EOU may be able to provide further information on what's been happening there with some of these issues. (Pat North will forward information to Christine.)

Information gathered at Implications Teams meeting will be distributed to the Transfer Committee via email and then on to JBAC.

Jim Arnold will put transcribed flip chart material on the web and notify the Committee when available.

4. Course Numbering Issue for Portland Community College

Jim Buch presented background on the issue. It has come to the attention of the University of Oregon that Portland Community College renumbered some of its lower-division math courses. The old and new numbers are:

Old Number

New Number








From a practical perspective, this situation offers up such questions as:

Questions and issues raised by the Committee included:

The Transfer Committee recommends to the Joint Boards Articulation Commission that the "core courses," and their outcomes, for the AA/OT be identified and made widely available to all institutions. Further, groups such as OWEAC and OMEC, or any other appropriate discipline group, be consulted in developing this list of courses and outcomes.

While the above recommendation, if acted upon by JBAC, addresses the core course outcomes issue, a mechanism for notification still is a needed element. The Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development may want to work toward a system of posting such changes.

The Committee agreed that the above recommendation would be taken to the full Joint Boards Articulation Commission for further review.

5. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
February 23, 2000