Meeting Summary Notes
February 14, 2001
Chemeketa Community College
Salem, Oregon

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

Guest Present
Marj Enneking, Portland State University

Phil Creighton called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.

Arnold provided explanations for the supplementary materials mailed out in the JBAC packet, including: a new version of the transfer data report (which has a revised Table 16 on page 15 of the report); an updated version of the OUS general education requirements comparison chart (also available at http://www.ous.edu/aca/gened.htm); and the draft version of the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Student Transfer Committee on February 22, 2001.

The minutes of the January 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.

Tetreault reported that the latest JBAC language for the Credit for Prior Learning recommendations will be considered by the OUS Academic Council tomorrow (February 15, 2001), as the topic was deferred from the Council's December 2000 meeting. Tetreault and Arnold will report back to JBAC next month on the outcome of that discussion.

Phillips reported that the latest language for the Credit for Prior Learning recommendations is acceptable to the community colleges, having been discussed recently by the Council of Instructional Administrators (CIA).

Phillips also reported that he also informed the CIA of the continuing interest in an AS/Oregon Transfer degree, which emerged in the discussions of the transfer degree at the December OUS-CC conference. This topic is a major item on the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Student Transfer Committee (STC). In preparation for this discussion, recent documents from Washington state about their new AS transfer degree have been shared, the OUS general education requirements comparison chart has been updated, and a matrix of lower-division requirements for OUS business programs is being developed. The STC will examine the possibility of an AS transfer degree for business students first, then, perhaps, for other disciplinary fields (e.g., engineering, sciences, etc.).

Cautions and comments offered by JBAC members included:

• Can the business faculties look at this soon? (Yes, the STC would likely take any interest in the degree to OUS and community college business faculties in a timely manner.) Is business represented on the STC? (No.) The proposal in Washington state was developed by faculty in both sectors; unless we do the same thing here, any movement could "backfire."
• There was not a lot of discussion at CIA on this issue, but there seems to be support. LBCC and OSU have created an "AA/OT like" Associate of Science degree for their students.
• The AA/OT degree was legislated. Developing an AS/OT degree does not have a similar motivating factor. This is more of a grass-roots effort. A challenge may be in recruiting a "champion" to work on this cause.
• The AA/OT itself will be examined by the STC. Perhaps, with the evolving nature of OUS general education requirements, the current version of the AA/OT is out of date.
• The Academic Council and CIA have discussed this before, but ideas (and times) may have changed. We need to gauge support in those areas as well as at the Joint Boards level.

This item continues the discussion of transfer and articulation issues originating from the OUS-CC Fall Conference. Previously we have heard from Phillips, Yandle-Roth, and Jim Buch, all of whom led group discussions at the conference. Today, Marj Enneking, Professor of Mathematics at Portland State University, reports. She led discussions on the topic of "pre-education advising." Enneking addressed the following topics from those sessions:

• Advisors. A general lack of availability of information was expressed by participants. Advisors simply aren't adequately prepared in the area of education and in advising students who aspire to be teachers.
• Early identification. How do we identify education "majors": students who are interested in becoming teachers? Few undergraduate programs in "education" exist. How do we find out who is interested in the first place?
• Program consistency. There is a spectrum of requirements for education students and they vary widely from campus to campus, which makes it very difficult for "pre-education" students to know what constitutes relevant experience. Early field experiences are needed, though campus expectations in this area vary considerably.
• Resources. Early advising resources are needed and should be distributed statewide. There should be statewide workshops for pre-education advisors; a web-site clearinghouse featuring teacher education programs is needed; and more publicity should be generated regarding the articulation agreements that address the needs of students in education.
• Arts & Sciences vs. Education. A chasm exists between the Arts & Sciences faculty and education faculty. There needs to be better coherence, understanding, and general philosophy that teacher preparation begins in the freshman year.

The recommendations for consideration by JBAC included:

• Encourage/facilitate more pre-education specific articulation agreements among institutions. Publicize articulation agreements widely.
• Facilitate a coordinated course number system and/or regularly updated and available course-equivalency information.
• Sponsor regular state and regional pre-education workshops and information sessions that involve college and departmental advisors, teaching faculty, and School of Education representatives.
• Maintain and regularly update a statewide web site of information on teacher education programs and requirements. Expand the Advising Guide.
• Develop scholarship and/or forgivable loan programs to support increased quality and diversity of new teachers in areas of teacher shortage.

Specific recommendations for campuses included:

• Adapt campus student information systems to enable early identification of pre-education students, regardless of major. (E.g., a "career interest" field is being implemented in the Student Information System at PSU.)
• Provide undergraduate majors and courses, and teacher education programs, especially appropriate for students interested in early childhood-elementary, elementary-middle, and middle-high school licensure. (The elementary-middle track, especially, is not getting enough attention.)
• Develop and disseminate coordinated and consistent content expectations for entrance to all teacher education programs.
• Provide (to faculty and advisors, for statewide Advising Guide and web site) up-to-date information on programs and entrance requirements. (Some programs have very rigid requirements, some quite relaxed.)
• Make widely available names of, and contact information for, department advisors and other key resource people.
• Provide and facilitate training, support, and on-site campus visits to all those advising pre-education students. (Often times, there is no training at all for those advising in these areas.)

Creighton suggested that the recommendations above should be considered seriously for inclusion in the JBAC workplan. Dexter expressed appreciation for Enneking's work in this area. He noted that the latest CAM design incorporates a career interest designation.

A group led by Sen. Gordly met on February 2, 2001, to discuss the latest AOI bills regarding early options. The Board of Education will discuss the topic again tomorrow (February 15). Dexter reported that further research on the impact of the early options program in Minnesota showed the loss to public schools in that state was about $17.5 million.

Some legislators appear to be interested in an early options program in Oregon under the impression that it could be of benefit in addressing the school dropout problem. Information from Minnesota, however, indicates that primarily the top one-third academically were served.

More information about progress in this area will be available after the next meeting hosted by Sen. Gordly on February 23, 2001.

Arnold distributed a memo he prepared for Vice Chancellor Shirley Clark on his recent visit with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Arnold indicated that the questions posed by the Texas group focused on the areas of:

• Credit acceptance/credit loss. They admit to lack of data in this area and would like to know more about the scope of this issue, specifically why courses don't transfer. Anecdotes regarding lack of credit transfer are abundant.
• Professional-technical courses. How has Oregon handled transferability of p-t courses?
• Issues of "quality." Comments were made about perceived quality differences between offerings at two- year and. four-year institutions. What guarantees can be made of quality of courses presented for transfer?
• Course level. There is confusion over how to handle courses offered at the sophomore level on a two-year campus and at the junior level on a four-year campus. Organic chemistry was cited as an example. (One president of a four-year campus candidly indicated that he though organic chemistry was offered in the upper division because of their funding model.)
• Lack of data. The opinion was expressed that more diligence is needed in terms of data collection related to the transfer process.
• Core curriculum. Texas has recently legislated the transferability of a general education core among all public institutions. Students are even given credit for "partial completion" of the core. The system is too new to have provided any data speaking to how well this is working for students/institutions.
• Advising issues. There is an unevenness of advising from campus to campus, poor information sharing, and lack of communication of information that would be of benefit to students. Even "good advising" doesn't matter when students don't listen, fail to plan, or don't take advice.

Levine indicated that he needs to consult with/convene his subcommittee before reporting out any progress. Arnold indicated that he believes the goal of "demonstrating improved and more effective communication between and among sectors" is being achieved, given the discussions recently stemming from the OUS-CC fall conference.

Creighton, Yandle-Roth, and Arnold will get together to propose the date and location for the June 2001 meeting (now tentatively scheduled for June 13th, location TBA).

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Wednesday, March 14, 2001
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
OIT Metro, Room 139