Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
February 13, 2002
Conference Call

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Ken Gilson, Western Oregon University
Michele Sandlin, Oregon State University
Mary Kay Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m.

 

1. Introductions and Announcements

All participants identified themselves at the beginning of the call. No one had any announcements or suggestions for the published agenda.

2. Minutes of the January 16, 2002, Meeting

The minutes of the January 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. JBAC Operating Guidelines Update

Phillips reported that following the last JBAC meeting he exchanged voicemails with Commissioner Cam Preus-Braly regarding the most-recent recommendations for the proposed JBAC Operating Guidelines. Phillips confirmed that (1) Rick Levine has resigned from JBAC and (2) the community college presidents now support the notion that (University and community college) presidents not be represented on (and chair) the JBAC. Hence, the Commissioner appears poised to respond to the Chancellor on the matter of JBAC membership and the overall operating guidelines. Phillips indicated that the reconstituted membership of JBAC would now probably be:

(1)       OUS chief academic officer
(1)       Community college chief academic officer
(1)       OUS chief academic officer or associate academic vice president or the equivalent
(1)       Community college chief academic officer or associate academic vice president or the equivalent
(1)       OUS senior student affairs/services or academic officer
(1)       Community college senior student affairs/services or academic officer
(1)       OUS admissions officer or registrar
(1)       Community college admissions officer or registrar
(1)       Oregon Department of Education (ODE) senior program or policy area officer
(1)       Independent Colleges representative (from the categories of OUS and Community college staff indicated above)
(1)       OUS Chancellor's Office senior staff
(1)       CCWD senior staff

Elaine Yandle-Roth indicated that the effective date for the new guidelines is proposed to be July 1, 2002. JBAC members were supportive of the latest version of the proposal and agreed that the Commissioner’s response to the Chancellor would put the finishing touches to this process.

4. Transferring Reading Courses: Follow-up From CIA Discussion

Yandle-Roth reported that the Council of Instructional Administrators met last week and heard from PCC’s Diane Mulligan on the topic of Reading course transferability. Mulligan expressed to CIA the same concerns that she had reported to JBAC at the January meeting about the reluctance of some OUS campuses to accept Reading courses in transfer — as well as the lack of standardization among the community colleges regarding the Reading courses (specifically, RD115, 116, 117). The CIA agreed that a small task group would be formed, consisting of faculty and administrators, that would be charged with developing standard outcomes for these courses. Yandle-Roth expressed the desire to address the standardization of course numbers, titles and outcomes. Some names have already been suggested as members of this group and others will be nominated soon; Yandle-Roth will attempt to set a meeting date in the very near future (hoping to conduct most business by conference call and/or email).

5. Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer Degree in Business: Follow-up from Business Chairs/Deans Meeting

Phillips reported on the meeting of the statewide business chairs/deans meeting held at Clackamas Community College on February 1, 2002. The community colleges were well-represented at the meeting, though only one OUS campus (PSU) was in attendance. The meeting started out with some expression of skepticism about the need for or desirability of a transfer degree in Business. However, by the end of the day, Phillips observed that there seemed to be genuine enthusiasm by everyone around the table for the degree proposal that emerged. During the discussion, the mathematics requirement created much debate, though the group came to agree that eight credits minimum, with four credits in statistics, would likely be adequate preparation. With regard to the business-specific requirements, the accounting sequence was thoroughly discussed; the opinion of the group was that these courses (211, 212, 213 or 211, 213) lack any standardization across the state. An outcome of this meeting was that the accounting instructors, statewide, in their upcoming April meeting, would work toward course/sequence standardization. The business department chairs/deans will meet again on May 3rd to continue work on the degree; effort will be made to increase participation of the OUS campuses.

Arnold noted that the OUS provosts have been briefed on this proposed degree on at least a couple of occasions, and that he will discuss this with them again (as soon as tomorrow’s Academic Council meeting) in order to encourage OUS business school participation. Arnold further noted he had advocated at the meeting that completion of an AS/OT-Bus would guarantee admission to the OUS Business School of the student’s choice. At the meeting, PSU seemed to indicate tentative support for that concept, in that the proposal developed lacked only one course and a GPA requirement that differed from their Business School admission requirements.

Phillips stated that he has continued to emphasize that this is entirely new degree and that any resemblance to the current AA/OT may be purely coincidental. The AS/OT may, indeed, have a minimum GPA associated with it, as well as even more rigorous math requirements than are currently being proposed.

6. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions

Yandle-Roth indicated that she has spoken with Marilyn Kolodziejczyk, who noted that some data matching activity has happened with OICA institutions in the past (typically with data being forwarded from individual campuses). It appears possible to make some progress in this area in the near future, and Yandle-Roth will soon put together a meeting of the relevant parties.

7. AA/OT Disability Modifications

Arnold had previously forwarded an email to JBAC members which had originated with Nancy Hart, disabilities coordinator at Lane Community College. Hart expressed concerns regarding accommodating students with disabilities as they pursue an AA/OT degree, most typically students who present a documented math disability (though other areas/disciplines were not excluded). Such students often have a goal of a baccalaureate degree that does not involve math. At the community college this might involve the student pursuing a general studies associate’s degree and then negotiating with a four-year campus to accept a substitute course for the math requirement. Hart expressed hope that the JBAC will develop a systematic (statewide) process for course substitution so that students with disabilities may complete an AA/OT.

The question was raised whether or not it is within the purview of JBAC to develop and then approve courses for substitution in the transfer degree. The answer seems to be “no.” At most of the OUS campuses, one cannot earn a baccalaureate without meeting a math requirement and, when that is a difficulty for students, reasonable accommodations are made at the campus level to ensure student success in the problem areas. Observations were made by several members that this issue is probably not one appropriate for a statewide “solution.” The sense of the Commission is that issues pertaining to students with disabilities are best addressed at the campus level, centered on individual student needs; if there is a legitimate need for course substitution, it should be made on the needs of that particular student. This is not a problem that should be addressed with a state-level list of approved or recommended courses or other state-mandated action. The JBAC agreed that although the process may now involve some irregularities, attempts at standardization from “the top” would get in the way of addressing individual students needs by the campuses which, ultimately, award the degrees.

The outcome of the discussion was Arnold would report “the sense of the JBAC” in the meeting minutes and that, once reviewed by the membership, share the minutes with Hart.

8. Other Topics

EDI. Michele Sandlin solicited feedback on the presentation to the CIA/CSSA joint meeting last week on the topic of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange). Phillips responded that it was very well done and that he’d learned a lot about the system. He observed that his institution, Clatsop Community College, is tiny, and may have a difficult time financing such a product. Sandlin reported that the cost of EDI is based on an institution’s size. In response to a question, Sandlin also emphasized that participating campuses do NOT have to be on Banner. Craig Bell indicated that PCC has been interested in this product for a long time and will continue to work on this, especially in conjunction with PSU.

Sandlin indicated that the system is especially important for OSU, in terms of their dual-enrollment agreement with Linn-Benton Community College and the agreements with other campuses that are part of OSU-Cascades. Wahlers indicated that Concordia is impressed with EDI and asked if Sandlin might be available for another presentation to the OICA registrars group in the Fall.

Arnold indicated he has suggested that the four OUS regional campuses share the cost of purchasing and maintaining a fifth-site EDI system and that at least two of the four have responded positively to the suggestion. Support for the system would be supplied by ITS from the Chancellor’s Office in Corvallis. When asked if CCWD might be able to host EDI centrally for the community colleges, Yandle-Roth thought that that was a possiblity.

Student Transfer Committee Meeting. The Student Transfer Committee (STC) has a meeting scheduled for March 1. However, the group suggested postponing that meeting until after the next meeting of the Business Chairs/Deans meeting on May 3, when the next discussion of the AS/OT will occur. (The STC meeting has been subsequently rescheduled for May 10.)

AA/OT Revisions. Phillips reported that the Joint Boards gave final approval to the revisions for the AA/OT on January 18, 2002, and that the revised guidelines are now posted on the JBAC website.

JBAC Website. Arnold reported that no movement has been made on the JBAC website proposal discussed at the last meeting and that he will keep the group apprised of any future progress.

9. Adjournment and Meeting Dates

The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

The JBAC schedule for the remainder of the academic year is:
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 meeting at Chemeketa Community College

 

 

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
February 18, 2002

 

 

http://www.ous.edu/aca/2-13-02.htm