Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Meeting Summary Notes
April 18, 2001
Videoconference Sites: OIT Metro, Rogue Community College, Eastern Oregon University
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System (Metro)
Craig Bell, Portland Community College (Metro)
Ron Dexter, Oregon Department of Education (Metro)
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College (Metro)
Adrienne Hill, Southern Oregon University (RCC)
Rick Levine, Rogue Community College (RCC)
Sheldon Nord, Oregon Institute of Technology (RCC)
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College (Metro)
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development (Metro)
Andy Duncan, Southwestern Oregon University Center (Metro)
The scheduled start time of 10:00 a.m. was delayed for technical reasons (the EOU site was unable to connect and RCC came online late). Jim Arnold called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m.
1. Minutes of the March 14, 2001, Meeting
The minutes of the March 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.
2. Credit for Prior Learning: Joint Boards Meeting Preparation
Arnold described the draft version of the docket write-up for the May Joint Boards meeting entitled "Course and Credit Transfer Issues: Credit for Prior Learning." After discussion, the members approved the language, stating that it accurately described the JBAC's process regarding the Credit for Prior Learning issue and the final recommendations that evolved. The suggestion was made that it might be possible to more completely frame the discussion in the context of proficiency-based movements. Further, the name of "Commission on Colleges" should be more precisely be described as the "Commission on Colleges and Universities."
3. Expanded Options Update
Dexter reported that the most recent development in the Expanded Options bill (SB783) was the half-hour of relatively intense testimony against the bill yesterday in Senate Education.
The evolution of this bill has taken it to the point where it now includes services for at-risk youth. Additionally, DOE has called for a cap on liability to participating high schools so that a school of 1000 students would lose, at most, the equivalent of a half-time teaching position. AOI has stated that they could support the cap if it would sunset in four years.
After hearing testimony yesterday from community colleges regarding the potential for harm to community college, Senator Gordly asked for specifics of these claims, in writing. Two administrators from Chemeketa have been working with the work group on this bill to try and find acceptable language. Community college presidents are generally opposed to this bill as it now stands, but if some elements are fixed some community colleges may end up supporting it.
Phillips noted that there had been dire predictions of the impact of Washington state's Running Start program prior to implementation, but they have made it work.
4. AA/OT Issues
Andy Duncan, Director of the Southwestern Oregon University Center, was in attendance today to discuss concerns about the AA/OT. Although he is a Chancellor's Office employee, he works directly with students on a community college campus. At community colleges, students are advised into associate-degree completion, as degree completion generally serves campus goals. However, at Southwestern Oregon Community College (SWOCC), students who complete an AA/OT and then transfer, even if they are "well-advised" and "do everything right," often end up taking more than 20 credits that are of no use to them when pursuing a baccalaureate degree. Maybe ten years ago the AA/OT worked for students, but the OUS general education requirements have changed during that time.
As an example of course requirements mismatch, when a SWOCC student transfers to Eastern Oregon University's CUESTE (teacher education) program, they generally are required to take 25-30 hours more than are really needed. The question is does the AA/OT degree really work for such students?
There is no easy solution. SWOCC and some other community colleges still have sequence requirements for the AA/OT that tend to inflate course requirements at those institutions. And, there is the matter of the evolving nature of higher education and student choices: now there are more students in business, computer science, and the sciences who are not typically well-served by the AA/OT degree upon transfer. Do all students need the broad general education background demanded by the AA/OT?
One aspect of the problem is that community colleges use faculty as advisors, and they are, not uncommonly, ill-informed about OUS program completion requirements. Another problem is that students advised into the AA/OT believe that they will have junior standing for registration purposes AND junior standing in their major (the latter is rarely the case).
Could/should we abandon the AA/OT in favor of individual articulation agreements from campus to campus? (A lot of work, and a large number of agreements, would be required.)
Goulard made the observation that the Student Transfer Committee (STC) has started to examine the concept of an Associate of Science transfer degree in business. This action has been initiated because of the concerns of many community college and OUS staff who participated in the annual fall articulation and transfer conference. There seems to be widespread recognition that a "one size fits all" for transfer degrees leaves something to be desired and that we could be doing better by our students by offering other options.
Hill observed that SOU and RCC are moving toward more individualized articulation agreements, several of which are now in progress. Arnold noted that Arizona has established three different types of transfer degrees (Associate of Arts, Science, Business). Phillips invited Duncan to the next meeting of the STC, which will continue its discussion of other Associate of Science transfer degree possibilities. Arnold will add Duncan to the mailing list for that meeting (and will mail out the materials for that meeting to all JBAC members).
5. Fall 2001 Articulation and Transfer Conference
Arnold announced that the next fall conference will be held on December 7, 2001, at Chemeketa Community College. Further, although the conference has variously been called the "counselor conference" and "community college conference" in recent years, a more appropriate title would be the "articulation and transfer conference." This is especially true with the increasing involvement and participation of the independent colleges. An independent college representative is now on the conference planning committee. Hence, the term "articulation and transfer conference" is now the preferred designation for this event.
Arnold solicited ideas for a conference theme and or individual sessions. Some topics that were suggested include:
Arnold will keep the JBAC advised of the progress of the conference planning group in the coming months.
6. Adjournment and Next Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m. In deference to the Oregon Distance Education Forum scheduled for May 16th, the members remaining at the end of the meeting proposed that the next JBAC meeting take place on May 15th, from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. at OIT Metro. Phil Creighton and Rick Levine will be consulted and the membership notified of the details.
Prepared by Jim Arnold