Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
April 17, 2002
Chemeketa Community College
Salem, OR

Members Present

Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Ron Dexter, Oregon Department of Education
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Mary Kay Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.

1. Introductions, Announcements and Suggestions for the Agenda

Jim Arnold distributed a document previously promised to JBAC (at the January 2002 meeting) by Dave McDonald of OUS entitled “Review of OUS Course Approval Process.” If anyone would like to follow-up on the contents of the report they should contact McDonald directly at

Further, Arnold announced the following:

Members inquired as to the record of the February 1st meeting of the Business Chairs/Deans. Arnold replied that a brief meeting summary had been produced by Joan Ryan of Clackamas Community College but that the main record of the meeting was the revised AS/OT-Bus proposal itself. Arnold indicated that he will send out, via email to JBAC members, the February 1st meeting summary notes, the May 10th agenda, and the revised AS/OT proposal.

The last announcement was provided by Ron Dexter who indicated that he will be retiring in June and that the Department of Education will be appointing a new representative to JBAC next year.

2. Minutes of the February 13, 2002, Meeting

The minutes of the February 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. AA/OT Review: Campus-by-Campus Comparison

Yandle-Roth distributed “A Comparison of AA/OT Requirements Among Oregon Community Colleges.” This document provides, on the first page, for academic year 2001-2002, a college-by-college, side-by-side look at the total credits required for the degree; an analysis of the adequacy of the writing, math, and speech requirements; a breakout of the distribution requirements (by credits required in the various disciplinary areas and total number of credits); and any additional requirements the college imposes for the degree (e.g., in health/wellness or cultural diversity). The second page outlines a college-by-college look at any anticipated changes for 2002-2003. And the last page lists some comments/questions about courses used in the distribution requirements.

Yandle-Roth noted that any requests for course changes by the colleges go through her in the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development. She observed that the typical AA/OT degree is in the 90-93 credit range; some colleges have courses that are in the “additional requirements” category. There appears to be good alignment in the general education requirements among the colleges, although there is a spread in the number of credits for the distribution requirements (from 42-54 credits). Some colleges still require sequences and some use AB lists. The observation was made that students risk problems when transferring from one community college to another when that transfer is from a college that does not require sequences to one that does require them.

Yandle-Roth further indicated that the last page of the document is for the purpose of helping to determine whether or not certain courses are consistent with the original intent of the degree. Various course numbers and titles are being examined. For example, there are some studio courses that do not necessarily meet AA/OT criteria. And some criminal justice courses are in question.

Regarding the observations about the “original intent” of the degree, the suggestion was made to develop some “guiding principles” regarding the transfer degree, in order to assist colleges, at the campus level, in determining whether or not proposed new courses fit into the AA/OT framework. Yandle-Roth indicated that she will develop a statement of principles & clarifications for JBAC review that will speak to the inclusion of courses in the distribution requirementsas well as speech and computer science courses. These criteria, then, will list criteria to be used in any particular disciplinary area in order to be included in the AA/OT.

Yandle-Roth wanted to make sure that everyone understood that there are no big problems with the colleges’ various versions of the AA/OT; only minor clarifications are needed. She will draft the principles/clarifications/criteria document based on her understanding of the original intent of the transfer degree and present a draft at the May meeting.

4. Transferring Reading Courses

Yandle-Roth reported that she is still in the process of organizing a meeting of the small group designated to address the reading course transfer issues.

5. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions

Yandle-Roth reported that she is still in the process of organizing a teleconference meeting of the small group designated to address the data sharing issues. She anticipates a meeting to be held on either April 23rd or 24th (next week).

6. Organic Chemistry Update

Arnold reported that a concern about the OUS organic chemistry transfer policy has been expressed by one of the community colleges. Specifically, the WOU website reportedly indicates that organic chemistry transfers in as a 100-level elective and the question arose if that is really consistent with the OUS policy adopted in 1999. Arnold said that he took this inquiry as an opportunity to do a quick review of the current status of organic chemistry courses at OUS campuses and distributed a list of those courses offered in 1999 (at the time of the policy’s adoption) and a list of courses offered currently. (The observation was made that the OSU catalog is incorrect in the omission of Chemistry 331 and 332; OSU does still currently offer those courses.) Some minor changes have been made, primarily the addition of one course each to the sequences at both EOU and OIT. With regard to the WOU question, Arnold continues to explore the current practice on that campus with Registrar Ken Gilson (and JBAC member, who is absent today). Arnold will report back on this issue when more information had been gathered, though he noted that he does not expect any problems to be uncovered. No student complaints have been received in the Chancellor’s Office since the implementation of the policy in 1999.

7. Review of Most Recent Data Match Information

Arnold reported on the status of the most recent activity in the OUS-CCWD data-match project. He has been working for the last several weeks on compiling and organizing the latest data; he has greatly expanded the number of questions asked of the data. The first year’s data (the “pilot year” data from 94-95/95-96) has been dropped from the report which now begins with the 95-96/96-97 data and goes up through the 99-00/00-01 year. All told, five consecutive years of transfer student data are now available for reporting and analysis. The report underway will ultimately be a comprehensive successor to the “What the Data Say” report of November 2000.

Arnold walked the group through several tables of data, asking for input and advice regarding the numbers. He emphasized that in the plan for putting together this report, the interests of the JBAC were paramount in terms of the current workplan that calls for:

All of these areas have been addressed in this latest collection of data-match information.

The sense of the group was that Arnold was “on track” in terms of developing this latest report.

Phillips asked if community-college-specific information would be distributed to campuses as it had been in the past. Arnold replied that he had not established a process for that yet but recognized the need for such distribution.

One specific suggestion for additional data involved the “average number of credits at OUS graduation for students who had transferred with an AA/OT degree.” Craig Bell indicated that a breakdown by community college would be valuable.

With regard to the final form of the report and when it would be delivered, Arnold said that he did not know. It is possible that one large report would be delivered to the Joint Boards of Education in November 2002; alternatively, the sheer volume of data may make for several small reports. Vice Chancellor Shirley Clark will guide Arnold in developing the timelines and final form of this report.

8. Workplan Review

As the discussion of the item began on the workplan, Phillips noted that a number of community colleges will be moving to the ten-week calendar for Fall 2002. Further discussion of the workplan was deferred until next meeting as the group was asked to relinquish their meeting room. Phillips asked Arnold and Yandle-Roth to supply a written summary of workplan progress in advance of the May meeting.

9. Adjournment and Meeting Dates

The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

The JBAC schedule for the remainder of the academic year is:
May 15, 2002                        Conference call 10:00-12:00
June 12, 2002                       Conference call 10:00-12:00


Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
April 25, 2002