Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Mike Corcoran, Southern Oregon University
Agnes Hoffman, Portland State University
Craig Kolins, Portland Community College
Karen Sprague, University of Oregon
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Ed Watson, Linn-Benton Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development
David McDonald, Oregon University System
Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
1. Introductions, Announcements, Reminders
Jim Arnold called the roll. There were no announcements.
2. Meeting Notes from January 14, 2004
The meeting notes from January 2004 were approved as submitted.
3. More-Better-Faster Ideas
David McDonald, OUS Director of Enrollment Services, joined the meeting today to discuss events currently transpiring with the newly-reconstituted Board of Higher Education. McDonald is a staff-support person (with Connie Green of the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development) to the Board committee on "Excellence in Delivery and Productivity," chaired by Board member Gretchen Schuette. This committee has been referred to as the "More-Better-Faster" group. The specific purpose of McDonald's visit is to solicit ideas regarding better collaboration of community colleges and Oregon University System campuses and to identify, if possible, means to gain more efficiencies in the movement of students between and among the sectors. This information may be used in furthering the work of the Board committee.
Phillips indicated that Schuette met with a large group of community college (academic and student services) administrators on February 6, 2004, and had an extended conversation about what ideas they thought had high importance. A subcommittee of that group (comprised of Guy Sievert, PCC, Brenda Brecke, SWOCC, and Reine Thomas of CGCC) was formed to put some structure to the ideas, and a draft document has been distributed summarizing that discussion. This document outlines proposed activity in three areas: dual-enrollment (with both high schools and OUS); general education core outcomes; and "underpinnings" (such as maximizing technology infrastructures). Phillips indicated to McDonald that he contact the members of the subcommittee that produced this document for further ideas and clarifications.
Tepper indicated that CSSA (the Council of Student Services Administrators for the community colleges) also went through a similar exercise. Yandle-Roth observed that the general education outcomes suggestion is obviously one already of high interest to the JBAC.
Hoffman offered three suggestions:
McDonald indicated that there is a deadline of about three weeks to gather ideas in this area and decide which ones will be high priority. The goal of the Board is to demonstrate to the legislature the ability to set and meet short-term goals and then ask for funding for larger, longer-term goals and projects.
Other comments in the discussion included:
Action: None required on part of JBAC. Members may contact McDonald directly (firstname.lastname@example.org) if they have further ideas.
4. Report from the January 22, 2004, Student Transfer Committee
Glenda Tepper, chair of the Student Transfer Committee (STC), reported on the January 22nd meeting. The group spent some time discussing the transferability of reading courses (to be covered by Yandle-Roth in agenda item #7). Most of the STC's time was spent discussing the charge from the JBAC to develop a proposal regarding a transferable general education core. Ultimately, the STC decided to focus on what both the two-year and four-year institutions have in common: they are all accredited by the same body, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities and must adhere to Policy 2.1, General Education/Related Instruction Requirements. Hence, the STC produced a "template" for general education that has all the core areas, including communication, mathematics, humanities/fine arts, natural science, and social science. This template does not have specific course requirements, credits, or outcomes designated, but only has placeholders for such in each of these areas. Also included was sample "outcomes language" from three different universities. The document was not designed to be a specific proposal, but rather to move the discussion forward.
Action: None required.
5. Report from the February 2004 Academic and Student Services Officers Meetings
Phillips reported on the discussions that occurred at the meetings during February 5-6 at Lane Community College. (The community college chief academic officers met jointly with the OUS Academic Council, the community college Council of Instructional Administrators (CIA) met jointly with the Council of Student Service Administrators (CSSA), and the CIA and CSSA each held meetings of their own.) The two primary topics at the joint meeting of the academic officers were dual enrollment programs and the general education core. There is a lot of attention at the present time, both at the national and state levels, regarding articulation and transfer and part of the transfer dilemma is attributable to the phenomenon of students attending multiple institutions. At the joint meeting, there was general receptivity to and consensus on the general education core concept. There was the suggestion for the need to establish a working document regarding how to establish agreed-upon outcomes for the general education core areas and how to put together a task force that would be able to formulate a process for this work.
The general education core template (referred to above in the STC report), provided a good start to the discussion. Everyone appears to be doing a lot of work around outcomes and the work undertaken here should complement the activity already underway. There was agreement that we don't want two totally separate pathways for students, but rather that the general education core should be superimposable on the AA/OT.
Other comments and questions offered in the discussion included:
Philips suggested that we need to do two things:
Phillips further suggested that a small subgroup of JBAC get together to develop a framework which would then be shared with other groups for their reaction. Phillips volunteered himself, Miller, Tepper, Wahlers, Arnold, and Yandle-Roth. Mike Corcoran also volunteered in the effort. Phillips will contact Miller regarding his schedule and availability and get back to the rest of the members to set up a meeting.
Action: Corcoran and Hoffman will meet with academic advisors on their campuses and report back to JBAC. Phillips will contact Miller and the other task-group members to set up an in-person meeting very soon.
6. Articulation Agreements
Hoffman recently sent and email out to JBAC members regarding the proposed Annual Course Change Summary. Along with the proposed format for the document were several questions that needed to be answered. The discussion focused on this set of questions.
A suggestion was made to provide only the minimal information necessary to identify the change.
Arnold will maintain the web-links page at the JBAC site.
This initiative was discussed at a recent OUS registrars meeting and all of the university campuses are supportive. The level of interest of the community colleges needs to be determined. Some community colleges would have an easier time doing this than others. Southern Oregon University will approve changes for the coming year during spring term and information could be posted then. Community college campuses operate significantly differently and make continuous changes all year long. Yandle-Roth, however, may have access to a lot of this information for many campuses. Philips will communicate with the chief academic officers of the community colleges to enlist their support in this effort.
It is recommended that updates be performed annually.
Action: Corcoran volunteered to create an "example" of how an institution's page for presenting this information would look, which he will share with the JBAC.
7. Reading Course Transferability
Yandle-Roth indicated that a web board has been created for the group which will be convening to discuss these issues. A date for the first meeting is now being negotiated.
Action: Yandle-Roth will send out the final membership list to JBAC members when the group has been finalized.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
JBAC meetings for the remainder of the year are:
|March 16, 2004||1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.||Conference Call|
|April 14, 2004||10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.||OIT Metro|
|May 18, 2004||1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.||Conference Call|
|June 8, 2004||1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.||Conference Call|
Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
February 18, 2004