Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
December 13, 2000
Oregon Institute of Technology - Metro Center
Clackamas, Oregon

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

Phil Creighton called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. and the remainder of the meeting was then facilitated by Sheldon Nord.

1. Announcements

There were no announcements or additions to the agenda.

2. Minutes of the November 15, 2000 Meeting

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

3. Report on Joint Boards Meeting of November 17, 2000

Creighton reported that he, Jim Arnold, and Elaine Yandle-Roth attended the Joint Boards of Education meeting on November 17th, and that Board members were informed of the continuing work of the JBAC and invited to comment on the current draft of the JBAC workplan. Arnold also presented the JBAC's transfer data report, which was well received.

Yandle-Roth reported that this Joint Boards meeting was the most positive and interactive session of that group she had ever experienced, and reinforced the notion that the transfer data report stimulated a lot of discussion and interest. Dave Phillips indicated that the transfer data report also generated a lot of interest at the OUS-CC conference held last Friday at WOU.

4. Early Options Update

Yandle-Roth led the discussion of early options, reporting that, after the JBAC's general discussion last meeting of the AOI and other proposals regarding early options, feedback was sought from the Academic Council/Chief Academic Officers meeting and the Joint Boards of Education. Subsequently, a meeting was recently held to further the discussion; participants were Shirley Clark, OUS, Cam Preus-Braly, CCWD, Kate Dickson, ODE, and Jean Thorne, Governor's Office. This group agreed to come back with further ideas/responses in order to continue development of a better overall proposal for an Oregon early options program. Arnold distributed a memo from Shirley Clark/Holly Zanville that outlined some of OUS' thinking in this area in terms of some "guiding principles."

Phillips suggested that early options be a topic for discussion at the February joint meeting of the CIA and CSSA. Yandle-Roth indicated that there was a good discussion of the topic at the recent joint academic officers meeting, with general agreement that any statewide program would be difficult to implement without any new funding. Among other topics that arose during that discussion were (1) the ability to dictate entrance standards, (2) would the program operate on a cost-recovery model?, and (3) could an institution say "no" if seats were unavailable? The observation was made that many of the issues discussed at the joint meeting are covered in the memo from Clark/Zanville.

With regard to the question of "what is the definition of postsecondary institution?", it was suggested that staff is leaning toward that of "a regionally accredited institution." Apparently Superintendent Bunn supports the notion of including independent colleges in the definition.

What is the role of JBAC in this discussion? Although JBAC is one of the review bodies for this topic, the agency heads are really the ones with responsibility in this area.

Other issues discussed included:

The summary of topics emerging from this discussion, then, to pass along to the Kate Dickson, et al. group, were identified as:

5. Credit for Prior Learning Recommendations

Tetreault and Arnold distributed a copy of that portion of the minutes from last month's Academic Council meeting addressing Credit for Prior Learning. Those minutes reflected a discussion over the words "should" and "must" in the first recommendation and questioning the entire final sentence of the third recommendation.

The JBAC discussion then led to new wording for both recommendations #1 and #3:

1. Credits completed through proficiency-based assessment methods should be accepted for transfer among all Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) accredited postsecondary institutions in Oregon. Allowance is made for individual campuses to accept credits consistent with NASC guidelines.

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 will may be accepted for elective credit only and may not apply to specific requirements in a student's major.

Phillips indicated he thought the CIA would support the above language. These revised recommendations will be taken by Tetreault to the Academic Council for further discussion. Arnold will notify Phillips of the results of the Academic Council deliberations.

6. Washington State Associate of Science Transfer Degree

Arnold offered a description (as outlined in documents distributed to JBAC members last month) of the process in Washington state that led to the development of a statewide A.S. transfer degree. Phillips indicated that there was great interest among participants (both OUS and community college representatives) at the recent OUS-CC conference in developing such a degree here in Oregon. There is certainly an interest in producing a business A.S. transfer degree, even though the last time this was attempted basic philosophical difference among the business programs were evident.

The suggestion was made that perhaps one way to go is to develop regional rather than statewide degrees.

Phillips indicated that the assignment of exploring a transfer A.S. degree is one that the Student Transfer Committee (STC) would accept. The group could look at specific examples of how such degrees are working elsewhere and attempt to create something here.

Goulard noted that although there appears to be strong interest at the grassroots level: would the provosts support such a degree? Actually, it is probably the wiser course of action to ask the Student Transfer Committee to explore the topic and then inform the Academic Council and Council of Instructional Administrators of the work being done.

Phillips and Arnold will convene the STC after the new year.

7. PCC Proposal for 5-Credit Math Courses

Arnold shared a recent inquiry by Portland Community College (PCC), which has solicited feedback from the University System on a proposal to change some math courses from 4 to 5 credits.

Craig Bell of PCC offered to shed some light on this topic. He indicated that a substantial revision of the entire math curriculum at PCC is being undertaken at the college, largely as a result of a Title III grant. There are a number of reasons behind the proposal, including pedagogical changes and the infusion of technology into the curriculum. Still, Bell emphasized, this is still a proposal...nothing has been decided upon and a lot of discussion is still taking place. Instructor loads, space, and other issues are being considered. The math department at first wanted to extend the number of contact hours to 5 without changing credit hours, but then the proposal was made to also change the credits. Also being considered at the present time is a 4-credit proposal that would include 3 hours or lecture and 2 hours of lecture/lab.

Clatsop Community College has made the decision that 5 credits make sense in some cases; student learning and technology in the classroom are issues that were considered.

Given that this is still a proposal, is a discussion by the provosts (scheduled for tomorrow) appropriate? This is really a topic for the math chairs so that the full range of issues may be defined.

The group agreed that the bigger issue here is the transferability of credits -- when credit hours change from one institution to another.

This also leads to the ongoing concern about bringing faculty groups together by discipline to discuss issues of common concern. Is there a way for CCWD to allocate some resources for such discussions? The suggestion was to approach such conversations under the umbrella topic(s) of the A.S. transfer degree and/or early options: i.e., give faculty groups some particular, identifiable topic(s) to address. Issues of course/program alignment could then also be identified.

8. JBAC Workplan for 2000-2001

Creighton encouraged committee chairs to convene their groups and report on their assignments at future meetings.

9. Report OUS-CC Fall Conference

Arnold reported that the fall conference went quite well, with record attendance and lots of enthusiasm generated for the day. He reminded the group that the focus of the day was to flesh out topics and recommendations for JBAC consideration and suggested that group facilitators be invited to future JBAC meeting to discuss the concerns they heard. Jim Buch of UO and Yandle-Roth will be invited to report at the next meeting.

10. Next Meeting

LOCATION AND TIME CHANGE!The next meeting will be held at the Portland State University Urban Center, SW 5th & SW Mill (Conference Room 511) on Wednesday, January 17, 2001, from 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. (Park in Parking Structure 2...permits will be mailed.)




Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
December 20, 2000