Meeting Summary Notes
December 12, 2001
Conference Call
Members
Present
Rick
Levine, Rogue Community College, Chair
Jim
Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig
Bell, Portland Community College
Ken
Gilson, Western Oregon University
Liz
Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Dave
Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Michele
Sandlin, Oregon State University
Mary
Kay Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark
Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine
Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Rick
Levine called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
1.
Introductions and Announcements
Jim
Arnold noted that Michele Sandlin was attending her first JBAC meeting and
welcomed her to the group.
2. Minutes of
the November 1, 2001, Meeting
The
minutes of the November 2001
meeting were approved as submitted.
3. JBAC
Workplan for 2001-02
The
workplan for 2001-02,
revised at the last meeting, was discussed again, point by point.
1.
Review and reconsider the recommendations from the Student
Services Action Team, focusing particularly on the topics of academic calendar
and residency, consulting with external constituencies regarding these topics,
and making further recommendations, as appropriate.
Discussion: The issue of academic calendar was before the Board of Education last week. An OAR is being prepared that will allow individual community colleges to adopt a calendar of three 11 week terms to coincide with the Oregon University System. The proposed OAR will address the funding formula issues so that colleges will not be financially penalized. The Board was very supportive of this concept and community colleges will likely be able to do this next fall (2002). (Chemeketa is adopting such a calendar next fall.) Although this is a very favorable development, it does present contractual issues and challenges for some colleges (faculty contracts would lose five days). Additionally, the issue of residency was a topic of discussion at the last JBAC meeting and at the Academic Council-CAO Joint Meeting in November. Although no resolution was reached, it was suggested that developing more explicit advising materials regarding residency issues is a possible approach.
2.
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.
Discussion:
This is an ongoing, year-to-year, item for the workplan. The JBAC has sponsored
and maintained a web page since 1997, which is the major centralized resource
for articulation and transfer information in the state. The website includes
the Articulation Hotline: a listing of names and phone numbers of individuals
at the campus level with responsibility for transfer-student issues (which is
updated every fall). Further, JBAC member participation in the annual
articulation and transfer conference remains excellent; 8 of the 11 current
members attended the conference on December 7th.
3.
Consider and/or provide recommendations to the OUS Academic
Council and community college Chief Academic Officers on specific and explicit
initiatives to promote inter-sector collaboration and enhancement of the
transfer function. Recommendations may come in such area as (1) faculty
involvement in curriculum design and program development for the purpose of
minimizing barriers to institutional admissions and enhancing course and credit
transfer; (2) proposing modifications in the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer
degree; and/or (3) developing proposals for prototypes of Associate of
Science/Oregon Transfer degrees in various disciplinary areas.
Discussion: With the current efforts of the Student Transfer Committee, modifications to the AA/OT, and the development of an AS/OT, are underway and being discussed at the Academic Council and CAO level. (This topic is also addressed below.)
4.
Assess and report progress to the Joint Boards regarding a
K-16 approach to course and credit transfer, teacher education, early
collegiate options, distance learning and standards-based entrance and exit
standards.
Discussion: This is a function of the JBAC that occurs on an ongoing basis.
5.
Continue to analyze and standardize the procedures for data
sharing between the Oregon University System and the Department of Community
Colleges and Workforce Development. Examine data for trends that may lead to
recommendations for changes in student transfer polices and procedures. This
work should include progress on recommendations arising from the November 2000
JBAC transfer student data report, and include:
Discussion: These items are all a part
of Arnold’s personal workplan for the year, with new data and analysis
anticipated by next spring. At the mention of the evaluation report on the
co-admission programs in the Portland metro area, Arnold offered to furnish
copies with the next JBAC mailing. The suggestion was made to add a
bullet to the workplan that would address the desire to share data with the
Oregon Independent Colleges.
6.
Assign tasks to and/or consult with external groups working
on issues with transfer implications (e.g., the Oregon Writing and English
Advisory Committee (OWEAC) and the Oregon University System’s Proficiency-based
Admission Standards System (PASS ) project.
Discussion: This is something that JBAC engages in on a regular basis.
7.
Develop guidelines for articulation of career ladders where
proficiency requirements cut across academic and professional technical program
degrees and courses.
No discussion.
The
consensus of the membership was that this document (as amended, for item number
5) will stand as the workplan
for 2001-02.
4. JBAC
Operational Guidelines
This
topic was discussed at the November
meeting. It was hoped the suggestion that the JBAC engage in fewer in-person
meetings would allow for participation of both community college and OUS
presidents. Elaine Yandle-Roth has recently talked to the Commissioner, with
Preus-Braly indicating that she would email the Chancellor soon stating that
she still has the proposal for restructuring the JBAC under advisement. The
Commissioner has indicated that she has no problems with the proposal, except
for the issue of presidential representation, although she would like to
accommodate the OUS proposal if possible. Questions still exist, however: Do
presidents make a vital contribution to the JBAC? Could there be such a
function as a “presidential liaison?” Could we rewrite the expectations of
presidents?
One
member suggested the inclusion of a community college president without an OUS
president. Other members seemed to be in favor of an equal balance with regard
to presidents.
Levine
offered if that the membership is altered, it would be desirable to ensure that
the necessary power is still available to implement the changes that JBAC
recommends. Further, the concept of a “liaison role” doesn’t seem to be very
attractive from a presidential perspective. Why else would presidents
participate if not for the leadership role?
Goulard
and Phillips have taken the proposal to the CIA and the discussion was much
along the lines of the JBAC’s discussion.
Phillips
suggested the inclusion of the phrase “or academic officer” in the line
specifying a student affairs/services officer. The goal would be to enhance the
academic side and streamline the student services side. Toward this end, the
recommendation was made to specify TWO provosts, academic vice presidents, etc.
from each sector and to combine the registrars/admissions officers position
into ONE position from each sector.
Levine
stated that he will continue on in his role until these issues are decided. The
date for the transition (adoption of new guidelines) should probably be
specified in the guidelines.
Yandle-Roth
will again talk to Preus-Braly about this discussion and Arnold will brief Vice
Chancellor Clark and Chancellor Cox.
5. Student
Transfer Committee Report
Dave
Phillips indicated that he was still trying to reach Joan Ryan of Clackamas
Community College, the contact person for the business chairs/deans group, regarding
the AS/OT-Bus proposal.
Phillips reported that he
led two sessions at last week’s Articulation and Transfer Conference, with over
one hundred individuals attending his presentations. Some of the major
questions raised during those sessions, regarding the recent work of the
Student Transfer Committee, were:
Regarding
the Proposed AS/OT Degree
1. Can the AS/OT Business be
structured so that students are not only admitted to the OUS institution with
junior standing for registration purposes, but also admitted to the business
program (school, college, etc.)?
2. Will the proposed AS/OT-Bus be
available either on-line and/or through distance education delivery? (as is the
current AA/OT)
3. If a community college does
not offer all of the required courses for an AS/OT (i.e. PCC does not offer Mth
245 and Mth 241), can other courses be substituted (i.e. Mth 251, 252)? Will
the degree be "unwrapped" if one or more of the required courses are
not included?
4. Should (could) the AS/OT Business include 12 credits of professional-technical courses as does the current AA/OT?
Regarding
the Proposed Modifications to the AA/OT
1. Should we include language to
clarify the writing requirement? Is the intention that if writing courses are 4
credits that students would complete both WR 121 and WR 122? Or could a student
meet the requirement by completing WR 121 and WR 123? or WR 121 and WR 227?
JBAC
Discussion regarding the AS/OT:
The
general impression Phillips received was that the proposed AS/OT is a very positive
development, with the potential to favorably impact a number of transfer
students in the state.
Mary
Kay Tetreault expressed some concerns over program quality that may emerge as a
result of the standardization forced by such a degree. This is an issue that
can be address by the business chairs/deans group. That group can also address
the issues emerging from the conference discussions.
When
Phillips talks to Ryan of Clackamas, he will advocate for his attendance (along
with Arnold and Yandle-Roth) at the next business chairs/deans meeting.
JBAC
Discussion regarding the AA/OT:
The
response to the AA/OT modifications were also very positive at the conference,
although there was one question raised about the writing requirement (see
above). Phillips recommended that the modifications for the AA/OT go to the
Joint Boards for approval at their next meeting on January 18th. Arnold
will facilitate seeing this as an agenda item for that meeting.
6. The 2001
Articulation and Transfer Conference
Arnold
reported that approximately 254 individuals participated in the annual
Articulation and Transfer Conference held last Friday, December 7th
at Chemeketa Community College. Two general and eighteen breakout sessions made
up the day and the evaluation forms indicate quite favorable feedback. He
thanked the large number of Chemeketa staff who helped make the day such a
success.
7.
Implementing EDI in Oregon
Sandlin
initiated a discussion of how to promote statewide participation in
implementing EDI (Electronic Data Interchange). Oregon State University has
decided to implement this system because of its cost savings potential
(personnel, paper, etc.) and is now up and running. Portland Community College
and Portland State University are involved in this as well. In January and
February, OSU will be involved in a training effort with Gonzaga University.
Oregon State University believes that this system will help support their
activities in co-admissions and is looking for support from JBAC on this issue.
Is there support for this statewide?
OSU
is able to serve as a resource for any campus that is interested; just contact
OSU and they will provide information about getting started with EDI.
Phillips
suggested that this could be very useful and suggested putting this on the
agenda for the joint CIA/CSSA meeting of the community colleges in February.
Perhaps a demonstration could be arranged? Mark Wahlers inquired into the
possibility of having OICA representatives involved. Bell and Goulard thought
that was a good idea; Wahlers will invite OICA staff.
There
is an annual conference sponsored by EDI that is very hands-on in its approach;
those new to the system leave the conference knowing how to implement. The next
conference is in Spokane in October 2002.
Sandlin
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the topic and for the
suggestion to talk to the community colleges and OICA representatives in
February.
8. Adjournment
and Meeting Dates
The
meeting was adjourned at 11:43 a.m.
The JBAC schedule for the
remainder of the year is:
January
16, 2002** Chemeketa
Community College 10:00-2:00
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
December 18, 2001
http://www.ous.edu/aca/12-12-01.htm