Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Student Transfer Committee

Meeting Summary Notes
June 5, 2002
OIT Metro
Portland, OR

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Jim Buch, University of Oregon
Mickie Bush, Concordia University
John Duarte, Oregon Institute of Technology
Pat North, Eastern Oregon University
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Diane Watson, Linn-Benton Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Department of Community Colleges & Workforce Development
Dana Young, Blue Mountain Community College

Guests Present
Joan Ryan, Clackamas Community College
Michele Sandlin, Oregon State University
Holly Zanville, Oregon University System
Michael Dalton, Oregon University System

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

1. Introductions, Announcements, and Suggestions for the Agenda

Members introduced themselves. No one had any additions to the agenda. Jim Arnold addressed a few housekeeping items and announcements, including:

• Jennifer Chapman of PSU is attending in place of Terrel Rhodes today;
• Jim Buch of UO, longtime Transfer Committee member, is retiring this year (but will still be on campus for the next few months).

2. Minutes of the September 28, 2001 Meeting

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

3. Report from the Education – Arts & Sciences Summit (April 25, 2002)

Holly Zanville and Michael Dalton of the OUS Chancellor’s Office joined the meeting by phone and Arnold distributed two documents related to the April 25^th Summit (“Education and Arts/Sciences in the Preparation of Teachers: Summary of Oregon Arts and Sciences Summit” and “Outline for an Action Plan”). Zanville gave a brief history of the Summit meetings, which originally had come about from a small group that met during the spring of 2000, addressing the topic of how Oregon’s teachers are going to be prepared. A larger meeting, the first annual Summit was held in April 2001 at which time an initial “action plan” was developed. That first action plan was to be reassessed at the second Summit held in April 2002. At this second meeting, conference attendees also heard from representatives from California and Louisiana, who talked about major initiatives in their states to address supply and demand issues as well as their plans to prepare a quality teacher workforce. Supply and demand issues as related to Oregon’s teacher workforce were also addressed. In some breakout sessions, and particularly at the final general session, many concerns regarding transfer and articulation were raised and that is why this topic is being brought to the Student Transfer Committee today.

Dalton directed the group’s attention to page 2 of the Summary document and, in particular, the mention of the Teacher Preparation Advising Guide. An advising guide for math and science teachers has been around for some time, thanks to the OCEPT project, but it has been noted that this guide did not serve the needs of future teachers in other academic areas. Advising guides for prospective teachers in the social sciences and language arts have now been developed, but there has also been the argument that they are too specific. What about more basic information for those still undecided about teaching as a possible career goal? Hence, a more general publication, the Teacher Preparation Advising Guide, is under development and a draft version is available at the O-QAT website (along with the other guides referred to). These guides will continue to undergo revision and eventually be posted to OUS campus websites.

Observations made in the discussion that followed included the following points:

• The need for better communication between community colleges and OUS campuses remains evident. Students need more and better information about education programs before they transfer.
• The outline for an action plan includes both statewide issues and campus initiatives.
• While Appendix B of the advising guide lists the teacher preparation programs in the state, there needs to be much greater clarity which are four-year programs (allowing initial licensure after completion of the baccalaureate) and which are fifth-year programs. The literature needs to be very explicit.
• Should the community colleges have a common advising guide? Or, will the O-QAT advising guide satisfy the needs of everyone? And should there be included, in the present advising guide, a table of education contact people at community colleges (as there are for four-year campuses)? (YES, there should be such a list.)
• At the pre-education advising conference (Decemer 5, 2001, at Chemeketa), the information was that there were large numbers of pre-ed students in the community college pipeline. There has historically been a struggle in identifying such students, however. We need better early-identification mechanisms.
• How are we to get out the message that requirements are always changing? How do we keep up with the change? How do we create a communication device/network so that students are prepared for an environment of ever-changing requirements?
• There are statewide and campus changes taking place. Advising of students needs to take into account the changes at the program level (at the campus the student is transferring to).
• LBCC has advisors designated to attend to the needs of pre-education students. Clackamas doesn’t require advising and doesn’t have an education major.
• Other states have talked about or implemented transfer degrees that articulate directly to teacher preparation programs. What about an AA/OT in Oregon that is designed for teachers? Could this, at all, work in Oregon?
• Is the bigger problem with prospective elementary/middle teachers? (in terms of requirements for teaching?) Don’t prospective secondary teachers know that they will have to major in a content area?
• A recent examination of some college catalogs, showed that they do not generally have prescriptions for what courses pre-education students should take. We definitely need better communication of information for prospective teachers.
• What about the talk regarding an Associate of Science transfer degree? Could/should there be an A.S. oriented toward education? The Transfer Committee is currently working on an A.S. in Business as a prototype A.S. transfer degree. We have committed to do the work on that degree first before tackling any others.
• Maybe not everyone would agree that a transfer degree in education is necessary. It is an idea that would need to be tested.
• Could the Deans of Education come up with a recommendation for how to go about planning for teacher education? Actually, this is exactly what the draft advising guide is intended to do.
• We need to make campus staff aware that this advising guide is available. It should be sent to admissions, advising, deans of ed offices for distribution. At community colleges, counselors should have this document available.
• What about the new requirement that all instructional aids have at least an associate’s degree? Wouldn’t this be a logical group to be advised about what it takes to be a licensed teacher? (At the present time, we don’t have statewide data about the educational background of instructional aids. We do know that some have backgrounds that include a bachelor’s degree.) The challenge in working with instructional aids would be designing programs that could accommodate their particular schedules and allow them to keep working while continuing their education.
• Do community colleges have an association/group that meets regularly to discuss teacher education issues? The December 5, 2001, pre-ed advising conference was one attempt to fulfill that need, but no one knows of an organization for this purpose.

Phillips concluded the discussion with the observation that many, many teachers will be retiring in upcoming years and we need to replace them. Toward that end, we need to keep finding better ways to recruit potential teachers.

4. Progress on the Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer Degree in Business

Phillips introduced this topic by describing the February statewide meeting of the Business Chairs and Deans that he attended (along with Arnold and Yandle-Roth). That meeting got off to an interesting start, with some considerable resistance being offered toward the general concept of a transfer degree in business. However, not too long into the day, the meeting took a turn that focused on “how to work together” to make such a degree a reality. One limitation of that February meeting was that only one OUS campus (PSU) was in attendance. While a lot of progress was made on the degree prototype that day, it was recognized that more OUS campuses need to be involved since the degree would not ever be a reality without their full participation and support. Hence, a concerted effort was made to get more OUS campuses to the May meeting of the same group.

Joan Ryan, the chair of the business program at Clackamas Community College and facilitator of the past two Chairs/Deans meetings, then went on to describe further the May meeting. This time, more OUS campuses were involved: OSU, UO, SOU, and EOU had representatives at this meeting. This meeting followed the same pattern of the earlier meeting (given the introduction of new players), in that very strong initial resistance was expressed that needed to be worked through. There is very strong support among the community colleges for a degree such as is being proposed (with the exception of LBCC – who has a very good transfer arrangement with OSU). The community college business representatives would very much like to see a transfer degree that would not only satisfy a student’s lower-division general education requirements, but also guarantee admission into the business school of the OUS campus to which they transfer.

The progress made during the May meeting is reflected in a degree outline and other material distributed to Transfer Committee members. A task force was appointed by the Chairs/Deans group to continue to work on details that remain unresolved, including the issues surrounding math courses. Business schools continued to remain attached to the lower-division requirements of their particular programs, especially in mathematics. The “business-specific requirements” portion of the proposed degree are fairly prescriptive in an attempt to make them standard across the colleges. The “additional requirements” section is a campus-specific listing of (primarily) required math courses.

At the February meeting, Portland State University came to the position of guaranteeing admission to their business program upon completion of the requirements for the AS/OT-Bus and a 2.75 GPA. No other campus has yet committed to such a position.

There was considerable discussion about whether or not this proposed degree would satisfy the lower-division general education requirements for students receiving the degree, but who, for one reason or another, did NOT end up pursuing a business degree. (Students may not satisfy GPA requirement for admission, or may change their minds about their major, for example.) Ultimately, the Student Transfer Committee and JBAC would have the opportunity to make a recommendation in this area, which would likely favor the student (the degree would satisfy OUS general ed requirements regardless of student’s ultimate major). Perhaps this is an issue that can be addressed by the Business Chairs/Deans task force as well.

There are no sequence requirements for this proposed degree. With regard to a question about what courses/disciplines constitute “Arts & Letters”: that is left up to the individual colleges constructing the degree.

Arnold made the observation that the biggest obstacle to finalizing the degree is that there has been no convergence yet on the part of the Business Schools toward reaching a compromise degree. Math pre-requisites are a large area of contention, and the conversation at the Chairs/Deans level has continued to expose a divergence of opinions rather than convergence. While the AA/OT was legislatively mandated, these efforts toward an AS/OT are not. Before this degree can become a reality, more common ground must be found. What has emerged so far is progress toward good advising guides, not necessarily a degree.

Phillips reminded everyone that the purpose of such a degree would be to assist students, AND that there are requirements that each student must meet to earn a degree. This concept has been shared with, and endorsed by, many groups including the Joint Boards Articulation Commission, the Council of Instructional Administrators, the Academic Council, and the State Board of Education. Of course, the degree needs the “buy in” from all Business Schools. We should also recognize that it might be best simply to develop some version of this degree and to see how it works. It can be modified and improved over time (as has the AA/OT).

5. Proposal for a “Generic” AS/OT

Michele Sandlin, Admissions Director at Oregon State University (and JBAC member), was present to discuss an alternate proposal for an AS/OT degree. She indicated that what she is proposing fits quite well with the previous discussion and whether or not an AS/OT-Bus would satisfy general education requirements regardless of the transfer student’s ultimate choice of major. Part of the goal of proposing a “generic” transfer degree is to ensure that a student’s gen ed requirements are met with the degree in hand. Oregon State University has a “direct transfer” Associate of Science degree arrangement with the community colleges in the state of Washington and is in the process of developing an agreement with Hawaii. Additionally, an agreement with Linn-Benton Community College has been in place for years, and one is under development with Portland Community College. There are lots of major-specific “check sheets” in place and it should be possible to incorporate good advising checklists into an overall, generic, Associate of Science degree framework. A handout was distributed with what Sandlin described as a “first cut” at what such a degree may look like (and how it would compare to the current AA/OT in terms of credits).

Questions and issues raised in the discussion included:

• What does this proposed degree do that the current AA/OT doesn’t do?
• How would the “discipline specific” credits work?
• With the arrangement with LBCC, only certain disciplinary courses are allowed, and students must be in one of those sequences. (Chemistry, physics, biology, for example.)
• Blue Mountain Community College advises students into its Associate of Science degree because it articulates directly with EOU programs and is less restrictive than the AA/OT.
• If such a generic degree were to be offered, clear distinctions would need to be made between the new degree and the AA/OT. What would be the advantages of this type of AS/OT?

Phillips suggested that, while this is an interesting proposal, the Student Transfer Committee and JBAC has been committed for some time to the notion of discipline-specific transfer degrees as have been developed/implemented in other states. We have chosen Business as a starting point because of the widespread existence of programs and the large number of students choosing this field as a major.

Buch suggested that he would like to take this proposal back to his campus and talk to faculty about it for their reaction. What’s right about this proposal? What’s not? Phillips indicated that he will discuss this with the Council of Instructional Administrators at the next meeting (July 18/19 in Astoria). Dana Young will take this to the Council of Student Services Administrators. Yandle-Roth suggested that we pose the question of whether or not a common set of science courses would fit into such a degree.

6. AA/OT Review

Yandle-Roth distributed a handout detailing the results of a recent college-by-college review of AA/OT implementation. This was accomplished, first, through an examination of individual catalogs and, then, sending out the initial results to the colleges for review. The first page of the review document answers the question: what are the colleges actually requiring for their AA/OT degrees? Most colleges require 90 credits for the degree, with three campuses at 93. The most variability in the degrees is in the distribution requirements, and some colleges have campus-specific “additional requirements” (mostly in the areas of health/wellness, computer literacy/science, cultural diversity, and/or student success). Not many changes are being proposed for the degrees in the near future (second page of the review). There is no major movement for those colleges still requiring course sequences to change that element of their degree.

The third page of the review lists some areas where there were questions or concerns. For example, one area was the Fundamentals of Acting sequence at BMCC: is this a studio course sequence or more “main line” academic? (Studio –skill development – courses are not generally acceptable for inclusion in the AA/OT degree.)

As a result of this review, the JBAC had asked Yandle-Roth to draft language that could be added to the Notes & Clarifications section of the AA/OT degree description, which would expand upon the purpose of the degree and what can be included in it. This draft language (also available in the minutes of the May JBAC meeting) was part of the handout distributed by Yandle-Roth and she solicited feedback from the group on this document. A major point of discussion was whether or not SP111 (Fundamental of Speech; public speaking) should be the required course in the oral communication/rhetoric portion of the AA/OT. After much debate, members decided that they would like to go back to their campuses and review the rationale for the original language of the AA/OT which some campuses have interpreted as allowing courses other than SP111. No further changes were recommended to the draft Notes and Clarifications section.

7. Miscellaneous Issues

Yandle-Roth reported that the reading courses transfer issue is on hold until next Fall when another small group can be convened to work through the issues. The immediate concern expressed by PCC has apparently been resolved by a course title change and subsequent acceptance of the course by PSU.

8. Adjournment and Next Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Wednesday October 23, 2002
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
OIT Metro, Room 139

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
June 7, 2001

http://www.ous.edu/aca/6-5-02.htm