Joint Boards Articulation Commission


Meeting Summary Notes
January 17, 2001
Portland State University - Urban Center
Portland, Oregon

Members Present
Phil Creighton, Chair, Eastern Oregon University
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Ron Dexter, Department of Education
Adrienne Hill, Southern Oregon University
Rick Levine, Rogue Community College (via phone)
Sheldon Nord, Oregon Institute of Technology (via phone)
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Janine Allen for Mary Kathryn Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Guests Present
Jim Buch, University of Oregon
Marilyn Kolodziejczyk, Community Colleges and Workforce Development (via phone)

 

Phil Creighton called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.

1. Announcements

Jim Arnold informed the group that Marilyn Kolodziejczyk would be joining the meeting by phone for her agenda item early in the meeting. He also directed the group's attention to the enclosures sent out with the JBAC mailing this month, noting the information there that pertains to the work of the Commission. Finally, Arnold reported that the JBAC transfer data report (presented to the Joint Boards in November) continues to generate a lot of interest. Many copies have been sent to interested parties all around the country, and the state of Texas (Higher Education Coordinating Board) has invited Arnold to present the report to their Board meeting on January 25, 2001.

2. Minutes of the December 13, 2000 Meeting

The minutes of the December 2000 meeting were approved as amended (insertion of one word in item 7). The revised minutes are available at http://www.ous.edu/aca/12-13-00.html.

3. 2001 Transfer Assembly Project

Commissioner Cam Preus-Braly recently received an invitation to participate in this project, run by the Center for the Study of Community Colleges in Los Angeles, which has been tracing the rate of transfer from two-year colleges to four-year colleges/universities across the county. A small group of interested parties (including Jim Arnold and Bob Kieran, OUS; Elaine Yandle-Roth and Marilyn Kolodziejczyk, CCWD) subsequently determined that participation in this project is appropriate at this time. Kolodziejczyk reported on some of the considerations regarding project participation.

Kolodziejczyk stated that Oregon did not participate in this effort initially because of lack of data. Since 1994-95, however, data gathering has improved and we now have some historical data that may fit within the parameters of this project. The challenge for participation is to come up with a cohort that makes sense and is consistent with data furnished by other states. Kolodziejczyk indicated the need to check out some definitions with project staff so that the appropriate data are forwarded.

The issue was raised about the importance of consistency with national numbers and/or determining what data is most useful for us here in Oregon. The sense of the group was that our data needs to match what other states are doing (with respect to determination of transfer rates) AND that we should be asking additional Oregon-specific questions.

The question about counting of co-enrolled students was raised: how do we account for such students in these data?

Kolodziejczyk indicated that she would continue to work on this project and keep JBAC informed of progress.

4. Transfer and Articulation Issues: Reports from the OUS-CC Fall Conference

Arnold reviewed the purposes and structure of the OUS-CC Fall Conference, held December 8, 2000, at Western Oregon University. That day was designed to have precipitated discussions in the areas of transfer and articulation that were, in turn, to have led to recommendations being developed for consideration by the JBAC. The presentations at today's meeting are from two of the primary group facilitators from the conference: Elaine Yandle-Roth who facilitated groups on "common course numbering, course outcomes and course equivalencies;" and Jim Buch, who facilitated groups on "current issues in transfer and articulation."

Common course numbering, course outcomes and course equivalencies. Yandle-Roth stated that a large number of issues were discussed, with many or most items having been addressed before. Topics included:

Creighton suggested that a subcommittee of registrars might be convened to monitor course changes and make this information available on the web. Arnold noted that the DARS/CAS software products, which he demonstrated at the conference, are set up to make this kind of information available. Large issues are organizing the information in the first place and then finding the time/personnel to do the data entry required.

Phillips suggested that criteria be developed for what's to be included in the areas of humanities, arts/sciences courses. The suggestion was made to put this on the Student Transfer Committee agenda for February.

Current issues in transfer and articulation. Jim Buch of the University of Oregon, and former JBAC member, also facilitated groups at the December 8th conference. He stated that many of the same issues were discussed in his sessions and will focus now on some concerns with a slightly different emphasis.

Yandle-Roth commented that we can perform data analyses today that we could not accomplish five years ago. For example, Lane Community College has been able to provide Kolodziejczyk with identifiers (for college high courses) that may then be used to track the performance of those students at OUS campuses via a data match effort. This is a good tool that we could/should be using more; we now have the ability to generate good data with regard to performance of college high students.

Buch indicated that if two main themes were to be identified from the conversations on December 8th, it would have to be (1) truth in advertising, and (2) faculty communication.

Phillips indicated that, from this discussion, a number of topics have arisen that the Student Transfer Committee could take under advisement, including:

5. Early Options Update

Ron Dexter reported on progress in the area of Early Options. He had also reported to the Board of Education on this topic yesterday. Two more meetings of the intersector work group on early options will take place this week prior to another report to the Joint Boards Working Group on Friday afternoon.

Two bills have now been introduced: SB 65 is the same as the original (unamended) version of SB 428 from last session; and SB 64, which refers the matter to the voters if SB 65 does not become law.

Dexter reported on the scope of current activity in both community colleges and OUS institutions, indicating that as many as 18% of juniors and seniors in the state may be enrolled in some kind of dual credit program or course. Admittedly, these numbers may be inflated due to the unduplicated nature of some of the headcount data. In any event, a large number of students are being served and there is a need for better data in this area. One group, especially, that is being undercounted would be those high school students traveling to college campuses, earning both high school and college credit for their work. (PCC noted that they have three different mechanisms by which students may earn dual credit.)

The intersector group, comprised of CCWD, OUS, DOE, COSA, OCCA, and Governor's Office representatives, will meet again on Friday morning to continue work on a counter proposal to SB 64/65. The ultimate goal is to try and find common ground with the proposers and sponsors of the AOI bills. The Joint Boards Working Group will be briefed on progress this Friday. The next step will be to meet with Senator Gordly (the bills' sponsor) to discuss where this process goes from here.

This topic will continue to appear on future JBAC agendas for updates as long as there is movement in this area.

6. PCC Proposal for 5-Credit Math Courses and Credit for Prior Learning: Report from Academic Council Discussions

Arnold reported that the Academic Council had discussed the proposal from PCC to change some of their math courses to five credits. (Minutes from this portion of the Academic Council discussion had been mailed to JBAC members). OUS provosts expressed appreciation that PCC would seek their input. One concern expressed was whether or not more course content was actually being added. In the area of course transferability, however, there seemed to be little concern; community college students would be given credit for the equivalent (four credit) course at the OUS campus, with the "extra" one credit likely appearing as an elective. Since there was not unanimity of opinion regarding how the credits would be applied, though, Arnold was asked to find out more regarding this type of credit transfer; subsequent investigation confirmed that this would not be a transfer issue. Students are already experiencing this process with no problems. Arnold has reported back to PCC on the essence of the provosts' discussion.

7. Deferred Items

Agenda items regarding credit for prior learning, the JBAC workplan, and the June meeting date were deferred until next meeting.

8. Next Meeting

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Wednesday, February 14, 2001
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Chemeketa Community College
Building 2, Board Room

 

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
January 31, 2001