Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
November 15, 2000
Oregon Institute of Technology - Metro Center
Clackamas, Oregon

Members Present
Phil Creighton, Chair, Eastern Oregon University (via phone)
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Ron Dexter, Department of Education
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Rick Levine, Rogue Community College (via phone)
Sheldon Nord, Oregon Institute of Technology
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Mary Kathryn Tetreault, Portland State University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Office of Community College Services

Phil Creighton called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. and the remainder of the meeting was facilitated by Sheldon Nord.

1. Announcements

Jim Arnold directed members' attention to the materials mailed out prior to the meeting, specifically the documents from Washington state describing their new A.S. transfer degree. Although discussion of this material is not scheduled for today's meeting, members expressed the desire to explore this topic at next month's meeting.

2. Minutes of the October 18, 2000 Meeting

The minutes of the October 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Early Options Update

Elaine Yandle-Roth reported that immediately following the October JBAC meeting, a meeting at the Department of Education was convened for the purposes of discussing early collegiate options. This meeting was primarily a K-12 group, and those attending included Yandle-Roth, Ron Dexter, Cam Preus-Braly (CCWD), Ozzie Rose (COSA), John Marshall (OSBA), Kate Dickson (ODE), Andrea Henderson (OCCA), and Jeanne Thorne (Governor's Office). The group addressed AOI's interest in this area, specifically SB428 from the last legislative session. The bill will be introduced again this time and some kind of response needs to be made regarding the Governor's concerns expressed in his veto message of the bill in 1999. Details of SB428 were discussed and a short list of other possible early-options considerations, developed by Rose and Marshall, were addressed. One outcome was the request to staff to develop a comparison of SB428 and the Rose/Marshall proposal.

Following the ODE meeting, another group of staff met (on November 13), and included Yandle-Roth, Arnold, Dexter, Holly Zanville (OUS), Greg Harpole (CCWD) and others from ODE. At this meeting, comparisons of the early options proposals were made and subsequently refined.

The topic of early options will be considered by the joint meeting of the chief academic officers of the community colleges and OUS tomorrow (November 16) and the full Joint Boards meeting on Friday (November 17).

Ron Dexter indicated that struggles with the current proposals are in several "program parameters," such as: full-time vs. part-time student participation; eligibility of private higher education institutions in the program; how is the program to be funded?; possible loss of dollars to school districts; who pays for transportation and books?; the inclusion of professional-technical courses; etc.

As it is now understood, it is the intention of AOI to refine the bill and reintroduce it this legislative ession. We have the opportunity to get appropriate stakeholders together and come up with a thoughtful proposal.

Dave Phillips indicated that Clatsop Community College has been working with Washington State's Running Start program for about 8 years. Students in that program can take one class or a full-time load. It is possible to obtain a high school diploma and an associate's degree at the same time through participation that program. Funding has been an issue. All juniors and seniors in the state are informed of the availability of the program, but students have to be recommended by their high school and go through the community college's assessment process. Students provide their own books, transportation, and special fees. Washington has done research on the outcomes of students enrolled in Running Start.

The suggestion was made that Oregon operate such a program on a cost recovery model, and that overhead costs need to be captured as well as tuition and fees. Also, any provisions for home-schooled students seem to have been overlooked.

With respect to budgeting models, the sense is that if superintendents have the choice between keeping funds in their district or not, they will tend to protect their budgets.

As indicated earlier, this is on the agenda for the Joint Boards this week. It will be discussed there and then the discussion will be expanded to a larger group, including AOI. Dave Phillips volunteered one of his staff members, Steve Rogers, Director of Admissions, to participate in the larger group discussion.

The JBAC will be updated on progress at the December meeting.

4. Credit for Prior Learning Recommendations

May Kay Tetreault reported that the latest language of the JBAC recommendations on credit for prior learning were accepted by the OUS Academic Council at its last meeting. Phillips, however, reported that the Council of Instructional Administrators, meeting at the same time last month as the Academic Council, had significant issues with the wording of the last sentence of recommendation 3, namely:

3. Accurate information about the use and transferability of each of the options for gaining credit for proficiency-based assessment should be made available to students. These credits may be accepted for elective credit only and may not apply to specific requirements in a student's major.

The CIA desires that, instead, the last sentence read:

Credits that are part of an AA-OT degree according to these guidelines must be accepted as part of the AA-OT degree.

The CIA does not want the AA-OT to be unbundled when CPL credits are part of that degree.

Tetreault indicated that she would contact Shirley Clark and attempt to get this item on the agenda of the joint academic officers meeting tomorrow.

5. November Joint Boards Meeting

The meeting of the full Joint Boards of Education will take place on Friday, November 17, 2000, and Creighton will present the JBAC Annual Report and the working draft of the workplan. Arnold will present the transfer data report.

6. Review of Transfer Data Report Recommendations

Arnold reviewed the four recommendations from the transfer data report that would be brought to the Joint Boards this week. These items have been incorporated into the working draft of the current version of the JBAC workplan:

7. JBAC Workplan

Nord reported that the two workplan subcommittees he had been assigned to chair had met via conference call recently. He distributed a report on the work of the group designated to address the student services action team recommendations, indicating that there was likely little left for the JBAC pursue in terms of these recommendations.

Phillips made the recommendation that items number 2 and 3 of the workplan (indicating that the JBAC "accept" the recommendations of the student services and credit for prior learning action teams) be modified to read that the JBAC would "consider and adopt, as appropriate" those recommendations.

Goulard questioned the need for item number 1 of the workplan, about documenting progress of the "course and credit transfer plan." Is this a worthwhile item anymore, given that it was produced for the 1999 legislative session? Arnold indicated that the call for research and data collection, called for in that report, is being met with the current transfer data report.

8. Constitution of JBAC Membership

Creighton initiated a discussion on the work and mission of the JBAC, noting that the workplan had been reworded and subcommittees established to further the work of the Commission and to make the group more goal/action-oriented. Is there a way to accomplish more? Should the group, perhaps, think about a reconstituted membership? Is the current composition of the group, the "right" composition?

Yandle-Roth gave a brief history of the JBAC and its predecessor groups over the last 15 years or so.

Phillips indicated that the JBAC has a special group, the Student Transfer Committee (STC), already formed and willing to take on assignments, as long as a specific charge is given. He suggested that the STC might be willing to take on the issues of data collection and revisit the AS/OT concept.

9. OUS-CC Fall Conference

Arnold advocated for full attendance of JBAC members at the annual OUS-CC fall conference, to be held this year at WOU on December 8th. Of the JBAC members in attendance, most said that they would be able to attend.

10. Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held at Oregon Institute of Technology Metro Center (Room 139) on Wednesday, December 13, 2000.



Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
November 22, 2000