Joint Boards Articulation Commission Meeting Summary Notes for March 16, 2004

Conference Call
 

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Mike Corcoran, Southern Oregon University
Agnes Hoffman, Portland State University
Craig Kolins, Portland Community College
Karen Sprague, University of Oregon
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Ed Watson, Linn-Benton Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development

Guests Present
David McDonald, Oregon University System 

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

1. Introductions, Announcements, Reminders

Jim Arnold called the roll. Arnold announced that there would be a JBAC group photo taken at the April meeting when the group convenes at OIT Metro for our last in-person meeting of the year. 

2. Meeting Notes from February 17, 2004

The meeting notes from February 2004 were approved as submitted.

3. Report from the Task Force on General Education

A meeting of the JBAC general education task force was held on March 1, 2004, at Portland State University. Attending this meeting were Phillips, Arnold, Miller, Corcoran, Yandle-Roth and Tepper. Although this group was charged with devising a process for developing the concept of the lower-division transferable general education core, that goal was not accomplished in the short time available. The product of the meeting was a letter in Phillips' name to Gretchen Schutte, President of Chemketa Community College and Chair of the Board of Higher Education's Workgroup on Excellence in Delivery and Productivity. (see full text of letter below) The letter was sent on March 3 and was available to the Board Workgroup for their March 4th meeting. The letter outlines seven features of a statewide general education core and specifies four elements that a development initiative would require.

The process to be developed will ultimately be one that is outcomes based. SOU has a process started that parallels this. LBCC undertook a 4-year process in this area, and UO is 2 years in to a 5-year cyclical review of their general education courses.  The UO has taken a look at how their "group-satisfying courses" (in general education) match up with revised criteria adopted in 2001.

Comments in the discussion included:

• Perhaps there is another way to approach this, at least in the short term. How about a credit-hour approach to general education, where institutions would recognize the "general education satisfying nature" of each other's courses? (the "AA/OT model")
• The process is envisioned to be a 2-5 year process, with resources needed to back the process up.
• If the process indeed would take that long, it would need to be taken off the table for consideration by the Board Workgroup.
• We could produce a "deliverable" built on the AA/OT general education core by attaching outcomes language to each of the areas already in existence. This kind of goal could be accomplished in a couple of years.
• Some campuses have developed "criteria" for general education courses, and if such criteria could be widely agreed to, then courses could be matched against those criteria. Maybe we could convene campus individuals (faculty, administrators) to see if agreement could be within reach.
• Can we pick off part of the process that we can accomplish and get to work on that?
• A certificate for general education core completion is one goal we are shooting for.
• We probably don't have 3-5 years to work on this. This is a golden opportunity to get something done in the current political environment. We need to see what happens with the work of the Board Workgoup, especially with regard to resources and the mandate to do the work.

Action: See agenda item #4.

4. Report from the Board of Higher Education Workgroup on Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

David McDonald of the Chancellor's Office updated the group on the Board of Higher Education Workgroup on Excellence in Delivery and Productivity. The Workgroup has a charge to produce an outline of a set of funding priorities for the legislature, which is due to DAS by June. The Workgroup will make a presentation of their suggestions to the Board of Higher Education on April 2. There is no guarantee, however, that the suggestions submitted will appear in the Governor's budget. The Workgroup is looking for approximately five areas to forward. The five items currently under consideration are:

• Student data system
• Dual-enrollment framework/Common-core curriculum
• High school accelerated curriculum menu
• Online education
• Retention

After the report to the Board at the April meeting, the Workgroup would like to come back to JBAC for further work on the common core concept, as well as the dual-enrollment framework. The Workgroup will be looking to JBAC to convene its common core task force, possibly reconstituted with more academic officers, to propose a process for development. One question that specifically needs to be addressed is: can we actually do this in two years? This question requires an answer by April 1.

Action: JBAC must communicate with the Board Workgroup on Excellence in Delivery and Productivity by April 1 with an opinion about the length of the possible process for development of a transferable general education core curriculum.

5. Curriculum Change Notification Website

Corcoran had previously sent out a web page prototype (in Microsoft Word format) for our review. The next step is to put up an HTML version on the SOU website and invite comments. Hoffman offered to email some suggestions to Corcoran before uploading the HTML version. Yandle-Roth will send out a notice to community colleges informing them of this JBAC effort.

Action: Corcoran will develop an HTML version of the prototype web page and Yandle-Roth will notify community colleges of our efforts.

6. Reading Course Transferability Task Force

Yandle-Roth  reported that there had been no progress on this issue since the last meeting.

Action: Yandle-Roth will continue to work on scheduling a meeting of the Task Force members.

7. Questions Regarding SOCC Speech Course

Yandle-Roth reported that Southwestern Oregon Community College had requested approval for SP220 "Gender in Communication"  to meet the Communications/Rhetoric distribution requirement of the AA/OT. Yandle-Roth had tentatively ruled that this course was "not approved" for meeting this requirement, pending consultation with JBAC. JBAC members concurred with Yandle-Roth's assessement. (Perhaps, when general education core outcomes are further defined, this issue may be revisited.)

Action: None required.

8. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

JBAC meetings for the remainder of the year are:

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
March 22, 2004
Revised: April 20, 2004
URL: http://www.ous.edu/aca/3-16-04.htm

Here is the letter from Dave Phillips to Gretchen Schuette referred to in item #3 above:

March 3, 2004

Dr. Gretchen Schuette, President
Chemeketa Community College
4000 Lancaster Drive NE
Salem, OR 97309-7070

Dear Gretchen:

  Please accept this letter in your role as Chair of the Excellence in Delivery and Productivity Workgroup of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education. I am writing as Chair of the Joint Boards Articulation Commission and on behalf of the Transferable General Education Core Task force of the Commission. We realize that approximately 30 percent of the students who transfer to an OUS institution have earned an AA/OT degree. We also realize that a portion of the remaining 70 percent of transfer students may experience some difficulty transferring courses. We also realize that an increasing number of students are enrolling in multiple institutions, often simultaneously. Based on our research of how other states are addressing transfer issues and recent discussion among provosts and community college instructional and student services administrators, we believe that Oregon should develop a statewide, fully transferable general education core curriculum that might have the following features:

1.                  Include the major areas of knowledge as stipulated in Policy 2.1 General Education and Related Instruction, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.

2.                  Be based on widely accepted educational outcomes: e.g., knowledge, skills, and attitudes (as opposed to a specific set of courses).

3.                  Be universally transferable among all Oregon public, post-secondary institutions and participating private institutions.

4.                  Allow components of the core (e.g. natural sciences, social science) to be earned at multiple institutions yet be fully transferable among institutions.

5.                  Complement the general and distribution requirements of the existing AA/OT degree.

6.                  Provide institutional autonomy to identify how its curriculum addresses the identified outcomes yet ensure full transfer when students move between institutions.

7.                  Have strong links with the work that has been completed for the proficiency-based student admission system (PASS).

Many of the state’s stake holders (presidents, provosts, instructional and student services administrators) have discussed and embrace the concept of a transferable statewide general education core based on educational outcomes. They believe it will address many transfer issues and shorten the time to degree completion. Our interest and support, however, is not sufficient to move the concept to reality.

As you realize from your past experience, this type of initiative requires:

§         Intersegmental faculty input and collaboration.

§         A mandate to complete the task.

§         Centralized coordination.

§         Funding to support coordination and faculty meetings/workshops including travel and perhaps stipends.

We are requesting that your workgroup support the development of a statewide transferable general education core curriculum, including the items in the bulleted list above.

Any of the members of the JBAC General Education core Curriculum Taskforce would be happy to discuss this with you and/or the workgroup further. Jim Arnold and John Miller will be attending the Board meeting in Corvallis on March 4 and would be happy to discuss this further with you. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

David W. Phillips, Chair
Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Page Top