Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
January 16, 2002
Chemeketa Community College
Salem, OR

Members Present
Rick Levine, Rogue Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Ron Dexter, Oregon Department of Education
Ken Gilson, Western Oregon University
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College (via phone)
Michele Sandlin, Oregon State University
Mary Kay Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Guests Present
Mickie Bush, Concordia University (via phone)
David McDonald, Oregon University System
Diane Mulligan, Portland Community College

Rick Levine called the meeting to order at 10:18 a.m.

1. Introductions and Announcements

Everyone present introduced themselves, including guests McDonald (OUS) and Mulligan (PCC). Arnold requested that an item “JBAC Website” be added to the agenda. (Note: this item was discussed under #6: JBAC Workplan.)

2. Minutes of the December 12, 2001, Meeting

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

3. Transferring Reading Courses

Reading course transferability between community colleges and OUS is an issue of concern to Portland Community College. There is confusion about what courses will transfer, and where, as well as questions about the course titles and numbers and the influence of titles/numbers on any particular course’s transferability. Diane Mulligan from Portland Community College (Dean of Student Support Services, Sylvania campus) joined the Commission to discuss these concerns.

Elaine Yandle-Roth first distributed a document that lists Reading courses taught at all community colleges and public universities in the state. Of the common course numbers (115, 116, 117), there is little commonality among the course titles. Mulligan stated that PCC has proposed to change the title of their 115 course so that it would then be transferable. PCC’s 115 is not being accepted by all OUS campuses; EOU, OSU, and WOU accept PCC Reading courses in transfer, but the other OUS campuses do not. PSU states that it objects to the PCC title for 115, “Speed Reading.” PSU’s Robert Mercer has subsequently indicated that with a title change, PSU would accept PCC’s 115 course. Michele Sandlin indicated that OSU’s philosophy has always been that the course is accepted on the basis of its content, not title.

Yandle-Roth posed the question about the desirability for state standardization in this area, that is, whether or not to initiate a discussion parallel to the WR115 issues the JBAC has previously addressed. Among members, there was support expressed for a shared understanding of course outcomes in this area. (Some campuses have course outcomes available for inspection on the web, some do not.) Yandle-Roth suggested that the Student Transfer Committee (STC) or some other task group might address these Reading course issues, although Phillips questioned the ability of the STC to determine standardization in this area. Goulard inquired about the possibility of CCWD convening a group to examine these issues and make a recommendation. Additionally, the possibility of taking this matter to CIA was explored, with the ultimate goal of convening faculty members to examine Reading courses. There is an upcoming CIA meeting on February 7th, and Goulard & Yandle-Roth will add this to the agenda for that meeting. A group will be needed to discuss standards, outcomes, and alignment with OUS. There is an obvious need for OUS to be involved in this discussion, and Arnold will explore how to proceed on this with Vice Chancellor Clark.

4. Updates on PASS, PREP, and CAM

Dave McDonald of the Oregon University System indicated that this is the second year of the gradual implementation of PASS. At the present time, OUS is trying to assess the impact of impending budget cuts on K-12 schools, standards, and OUS PASS implementation. Further, a very large challenge in K-16 education is data transfer. There is a virtual flood of student data and the information is not standardized enough to flow smoothly between educational sectors. There is a need to share information in order to create the student academic profile. Washington Mutual has awarded a grant to look at school-level implementation strategies. PASS is working with about ten districts, with outreach to students and parents and working with ODE on alignment of PASS with CIM & CAM. With respect to a question about transfer students and how academic work is transcripted, McDonald acknowledged that a mobile student population presents its challenges for this work. PASS has been active in training OUS admissions-office staff during the PASS implementation process. A study of the (high school) class of 2001 has begun that will track progress through OUS as a follow-up to the PASS transcript information those students presented upon admission.

Ron Dexter addressed recent developments with the CAM and distributed a document entitled “High School Certification and Diploma Requirements.” He explained the various cells of the table, indicating how the CIM, CAM, and diploma are all related. With respect to the CIM and CAM, Dexter noted that there are common English standards for all students, but there are various options for math (i.e. the CIM and CAM standards for math are different). Not all the elements of the CIM are required for the CAM. And four new areas are now required for a diploma (effective 2004?), including the development of an education plan and building an educational profile; evidence of students’ ability to apply what they know and can do; evidence of students’ ability to meet the six career-related learning standards; and career-related learning experiences. Some school districts have worked on implementing educational plans for students. Some points to note from this comparison chart: (1) it is possible to get a CAM without first getting a CIM; (2) the CAM is not required for a diploma (PASS will keep the diploma requirement.); and (3) the chart is a hybrid of seat time and proficiencies. Further, it is anticipated that the public will pay attention to the condition that the CAM is now related to the diploma.

With respect to second language requirement for OUS, McDonald noted that last year fewer than 200 of 10,000 students did not meet the seat-time requirement upon entry to OUS. McDonald indicated that he will furnish Arnold with material related to current high school course offerings for inclusion with the next JBAC mailing.

Yandle-Roth distributed a document describing a basic outline of PREP. She indicated that, as a viable program, PREP is “sleeping.” Another round of discussions will take place with the community colleges to revive the program. Dexter expressed a desire that PREP “wake up” and become integrated into the proficiencies picture in the state.

5. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions

At the last meeting of the JBAC, the Commission had added an item to the 2001-02 Workplan, stating the intention to pursue “data-sharing efforts with members of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association (OICA) in order to implement a tracking system (e.g., performance, persistence) for students who transfer to those campuses.” Mark Wahlers indicated that he had contacted Gary Andeen (Executive Director of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association) regarding this subject, though he was unable to attend this meeting of the JBAC. Wahlers subsequently invited Mickie Bush, registrar at Concordia, to address briefly some thoughts on data sharing. Bush indicated that the OICA registrars meet together on an annual basis, and that they periodically have discussed how to share data with community colleges. In the past, there have been concerns about FERPA in terms of any data sharing efforts between the two sectors. With new technology there may be opportunities available now that have not been previously. The OICA campuses are open to discussion about what is needed to engage in this kind of activity; most of the campuses are interested in attracting transfer students and that goal would drive their interest in data. Of course, different campuses in both sectors have different capabilities. Willamette, George Fox and Concordia, for example, are all on Banner and can identify where their students transfer from. Bush volunteered to facilitate a discussion within OICA on this subject and was advised to communicate with Marilyn Kolodziejczyk of CCWD. Gary Andeen does put together an annual data report from the independent institutions, and that should be a good starting point. It was agreed that Yandle-Roth would convene a meeting (likely a conference call) that would involve Bush, Kolodziejczyk, Arnold and herself to pursue this matter.

6. JBAC Workplan

Arnold again noted (see agenda item #5) that the workplan was revised as a result of last month’s meeting to include the item about data-sharing efforts with members of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association and asked if the language proposed was acceptable. No one offered any objections. The observation was made that no timeline was associated with this item, though the group agreed that being kept apprised of the progress made by the sub-group named above would be adequate.

Arnold then initiated a discussion of the second item of the current workplan: “provide for continuing effective communication between and among the postsecondary sectors, including such efforts as the JBAC web page, the Articulation Hotline list, and JBAC member participation in the annual OUS articulation and transfer conference.” He noted that the JBAC website, in existence since 1997, has always been integrated with, and buried deep within, the OUS web page structure. If someone does not have the pages bookmarked, it is often not that easy to find them. Therefore, Arnold proposed some options that may be useful to explore in terms of both accessibility and appearance of the JBAC website. First, the establishment of a unique domain name (“OregonTransfer.org” was suggested) would probably be desirable. Second, a complete overhaul of the “look and feel” of the website would be good to give it a unique, and more up-to-date appearance. Arnold distributed two versions of a prototype front page that he has recently been working on. The Commission enthusiastically supported both suggestions and gave Arnold the go-ahead to work on both the domain name and appearance issues. If funding cannot be secured from OUS to subsidize the domain name, institutions represented at the JBAC table may be able to assist.

7. AA/OT Modifications to the Joint Boards

Phillips reported that the proposed modifications to the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree will go to the Joint Boards for action on January 18th.

8. JBAC Operating Guidelines

Levine and Goulard both received faxes from the Commissioner in the past few days soliciting feedback on the most recent letter from Chancellor Cox and the proposal for revised JBAC Operating Guidelines. Levine has made a recommendation to the Commissioner that the most recent changes to the proposal be accepted and that the JBAC proceed, therefore, without presidents as members/chairs. He further recommended the language of the new guidelines be revised to include the involvement of both the Chancellor and the Commissioner to “arbitrate issues with individual institutions” when needed. The reasoning behind this proposal is that without presidents, the role of the JBAC may, at times, need to be more supported by the Chancellor and Commissioner.

Other comments included the observation that most of the JBAC issues are instructional/student services in nature and are addressed quite adequately without presidents being involved. Tetreault stated that her president finds it most appropriate that she participate in JBAC, not him. Levine offered that he believes the changes are a good move and reflect the maturity of the group. He has recommended that the Commissioner respond to the Chancellor’s proposal affirmatively.

9. Additional Reports from the Articulation & Transfer Conference

Arnold distributed a revised data sheet regarding conference attendance, illustrating the growth of the Articulation & Transfer Conference over the years, as well as the distribution of participants for the 2001 conference (by both educational sector and functional area represented). When asked about the details for the 2002 conference, he replied that the location and date will be announced later in the spring.

Phillips reported during the last JBAC meeting on his experiences as a facilitator for two of the conference breakout sessions. He reiterated that there was much interest by conference participants in the proposed AS/OT-Bus degree.

Sandlin facilitated one breakout/roundtable session at the conference. Of interest to participants in her session was the possibility of major-specific AA/OT degrees and the proposed AS/OT-Bus. Also discussed were the topics of the Credit for Prior Learning policy, the change in the OUS transfer credit limitation policy, and the transferability of professional-technical credits.

Yandle-Roth cofacilitated a session with McDonald on PASS and PREP. Since many participants were not very familiar with either system, the presentation necessarily started with a discussion of the current proficiencies/standards environment.

10. Adjournment and Meeting Dates

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

The JBAC schedule for the remainder of the academic year is:

February 13, 2002             Conference call 10:00-12:00
March 13, 2002                  Conference call 10:00-12:00
April 17, 2002**                  Chemeketa Community College 10:00-2:00
May 15, 2002                     Conference call 10:00-12:00
June 12, 2002                    Conference call 10:00-12:00
**denotes in-person meetings at Chemeketa Community College

 

 

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
January 25, 2002

 

 

 

http://www.ous.edu/aca/1-16-02.htm