Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
December 2, 1998
OIT Metro,
Portland, Oregon

Members Present

Martha Anne Dow, Oregon Institute of Technology, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Roy Arnold, Oregon State University (via phone)
Jim Buch, University of Oregon
Jon Carnahan, Linn-Benton Community College
Pat Loughary, Blue Mountain Community College (via phone)
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Mark Wahlers, Concordia College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Office of Community College Services


Tamara Dykeman, Oregon Community College Association
Holly Zanville, Oregon University System (via phone)

Martha Anne Dow called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.

1.  Announcements

J. Arnold reviewed the meeting agenda and noted that Holly Zanville would be joining the group via conference call at 11:00 a.m. to report on the FIPSE/ONE project.

Elaine Yandle-Roth distributed the draft version of the legislative concept language that would repeal the provisions of HB 2387 (1997).

2.  Minutes of November 4, 1998

The minutes of the November 4, 1998, meeting were approved as submitted.

3.  Report from the November 20, 1998, Joint Boards Meeting

Dow reported that the JBAC Annual Report and the Course and Credit Transfer Plan were presented to the Joint Boards at the meeting on November 20th. The JBAC Work Plan was approved, as were the recommendations concerning the Joint Boards Articulation Agreement and the change in the AA/OT to include 12 professional-technical credits. The time for the presentation to the Joint Boards was limited and little discussion was generated.

With respect to the AA/OT revision, the JBAC needs to publish the revised guidelines for the degree and see that they are widely distributed. The guidelines will be published on the JBAC web page as well.

The status of WR 115 courses was questioned. The JBAC should probably have more concrete guidelines for "115" and "95" so that the writing courses can be examined and either validated as "college level" (and the numbering kept at 115), or identified as "remedial" (and renumbered below 100). Should we ask OWEAC for an update?

With respect to the change in the AA/OT professional-technical credits:

Is this the proper time to also include mention of WR 115 in the AA/OT guidelines? Should we be including a statement that indicates that the Joint Boards has agreed to include WR 115 as an elective in the AA/OT as long as the course conforms to the requirements for college-level courses as specified by OWEAC?

Should we try to encourage institutions to move forward on this issue-have OWEAC help us identify courses and send out a list to all campuses? or has information about WR 115 been widely enough disseminated as things stand now?

We need to get clarification of status of WR 115 on each campus.

The JBAC should send out written guidelines for WR 115 to all institutions for examination by the English faculties, and expect back a response in a timely manner regarding the status of WR 115 courses (i.e., "college level" or "remedial").

WR 115 does NOT have to be the same at all campuses at the same time in order to have valid course equivalencies, which are associated with the specific term that a course is offered.

Community colleges should submit the status of their WR 115 courses to Yandle-Roth at the Office of Community College Services. The language to be added to the AA/OT guidelines for WR 115 should specify that the change is "effective Fall term, 1998-for students enrolled in WR 115 courses which have been approved by the Office of Community College Services."

An approval process should also happen on the OUS side that will validate current WR 115 as "college level" or seek to renumber any course that is "remedial." Dow will meet with Shirley Clark to seek advice regarding the most appropriate process to follow in order to explore the matter with provosts.

We should ask OWEAC to forward to the JBAC what they've decided upon as college-level criteria. When a course meets the criteria for college level, the WR 115 number stands, when it does not, then the course should be renumbered to 95 (or 49, if that's the most appropriate for a particular campus).

Yandle-Roth and J. Arnold will work on the AA/OT guidelines language and contact the community college and OUS campuses regarding WR 115.

4. Update on the Oregon Network for Education (ONE) and the OUS FIPSE Grant

Holly Zanville, OUS Chancellor's Office, joined the group by conference call to discuss recent developments and progress on the ONE home page as well as the OUS FIPSE grant. The Oregon Network for Education (ONE) is a web site, designed to serve as a one-stop educational "mall" for the State of Oregon. Currently there are 7 "storefronts" at the site, with an anticipated 8th "door" which will be devoted to distance education opportunities in the postsecondary sectors. Zanville directed the group's attention to the press release in their packet which described the project and the competition process under which the FIPSE grant was awarded. In the first year of the three year project, a web-searchable common catalog of distance education courses will be developed; there are currently on the order of about 1,000 such courses that might be available for inclusion. A letter was just sent out to 42 postsecondary institutions in the State, requesting contact person information from them so that the status of distance education efforts on all campuses can be determined. Information was also provided regarding the format for information desired on each institution's distance education offerings. After the development of the common catalog, the next step (in the second year) is to develop a "common course marketplace" that would enable campuses to share some courses for residency credit (that is, establish criteria for what it would take for the courses offered by other institutions to be counted as a campus' "own"). Additionally, the project will ultimately work on developing a financial formula/model for assigning costs and revenues among campuses and for designations as "host" institutions for students seeking degrees via distance education.

5.  Report from the November 13, 1998, OUS-CC Conference

J. Arnold and Yandle-Roth reported on the OUS-Community College conference, sponsored by OUS, on November 13th. The event was held on the OSU campus in Corvallis, with attendance at about the same level as last year's event. Feedback on the event has been almost entirely positive. Yandle-Roth reported on the roundtable session she facilitated at the end of the day, which was especially well attended (about 40). Among the topics that were addressed were: (1) department "oddities" still plague transfer students, (2) 3 & 4 credit courses are problems, (3) Chemeketa Community College is in the process of developing a "virtual transfer center," (4) the AA/OT is working reasonably well, (5) more electronic information available for advising is desired, (6) residency remains an issue for transfer students, (7) the Articulation Hotline list should contain department level information, (8) the course equivalency tables should have a "last time updated" feature, and (8) interest remains in the Associate of Science transfer degree concept.

Jon Carnahan commented on his experience as a presenter at the conference, and that there was feedback on the limitations of the AA/OT with community college campuses "loading" their version of the degree with campus-specific requirements. The suggestion was made to issue an "advisory" from the JBAC to campuses that such loading of the degree may limit its utility and popularity. The Student Transfer Committee will take a look at this issue.

6. JBAC Work Plan Revision and Priorities

Two of the items in the JBAC Work Plan were identified at the last meeting for further discussion. These items are:

With respect to the "communication strategies" bullet, the observation was made that JBAC does have problems with communication and that most staff at the department level of campuses probably have no knowledge at all of the JBAC or its work. (This is an observation that links to the observation that department-level contact names on the Articulation Hotline list are desired.) How do we make information more available? The suggestions were made that

Dow indicated that she would also communicate with OUS provosts regarding the desire to have the JBAC home page address listed in catalogs.

With respect to the "inventory" item of the Work Plan, Yandle-Roth indicated that she was responsible for a similar list for the community colleges in years past, that it was a very large task, and the information little used. There are probably "key" items that the JBAC should keep track of, however, and these should be identified. The JBAC should brainstorm such a list of key activities when Judy Patterson is able to join us. The language of the Work Plan should be modified to read: "identify and monitor key educational improvement activities in Oregon having an impact on student transfer and program articulation." This agenda item should be carried over to the next meeting, and perhaps should involve the deliberation by the Student Transfer Committee as well.

On the topic of "data sharing," Yandle-Roth indicated that she will mail out the latest reports for the data sharing team.

7.  Student Transfer Committee: Membership and Plans

Dave Phillips indicated that he has heard from most, but not all, of the STC membership about their desire to continue on with the work of the committee. Pat Loughary has suggested a replacement for himself and Dow indicated that Linda Newell's (OIT Registrar) willingness to serve. Phillips will convene the STC afer the holiday season and start to work on its agenda. At the top of the list will be a continuing exploration of the Associate of Science transfer degree.

8.  Course and Credit Transfer Plan

J. Arnold commented on the latest draft of the Course and Credit Transfer Plan, indicating that the expanded Executive Summary is the most major change since the draft the JBAC last examined. The Plan was presented to the Joint Boards on November 20th and drew few comments or questions. The Plan will next be reviewed and discussed at the joint meeting of the Academic Council and the Chief Academic Officers on December 17th. The final version will be taken to the Joint Boards Working Group on January 13th. There is the possibility that the entire report/plan will be set aside if the legislative concept bill, repealing HB 2387, is passed.

9.  Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. The next meeting will be on January 6, 1999, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at OIT Metro.



Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
December 7, 1998