Meeting Summary Notes
April 17, 2002
Chemeketa Community College
Salem, OR
Members
Present
Dave
Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim
Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig
Bell, Portland Community College
Ron
Dexter, Oregon Department of Education
Liz
Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
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 10:30 a.m.
1.
Introductions, Announcements and Suggestions for the Agenda
Jim Arnold distributed a document previously
promised to JBAC (at the January 2002 meeting) by Dave McDonald of OUS entitled
“Review of OUS Course Approval Process.” If anyone would like to follow-up on
the contents of the report they should contact McDonald directly at
David_McDonald@ous.edu.
Further, Arnold announced the
following:
Members inquired as to the record of
the February 1st meeting of the Business Chairs/Deans. Arnold
replied that a brief meeting summary had been produced by Joan Ryan of
Clackamas Community College but that the main record of the meeting was the
revised AS/OT-Bus proposal itself. Arnold indicated that he will send out,
via email to JBAC members, the February 1st meeting summary notes,
the May 10th agenda, and the revised AS/OT proposal.
The last announcement was provided by
Ron Dexter who indicated that he will be retiring in June and that the
Department of Education will be appointing a new representative to JBAC next
year.
2.
Minutes of the February 13, 2002, Meeting
The minutes of the February 2002 meeting
were approved as submitted.
3.
AA/OT Review: Campus-by-Campus Comparison
Yandle-Roth distributed “A Comparison
of AA/OT Requirements Among Oregon Community Colleges.” This document provides,
on the first page, for academic year 2001-2002, a college-by-college,
side-by-side look at the total credits required for the degree; an analysis of
the adequacy of the writing, math, and speech requirements; a breakout of the
distribution requirements (by credits required in the various disciplinary
areas and total number of credits); and any additional requirements the college
imposes for the degree (e.g., in health/wellness or cultural diversity). The
second page outlines a college-by-college look at any anticipated changes for
2002-2003. And the last page lists some comments/questions about courses used
in the distribution requirements.
Yandle-Roth noted that any requests for
course changes by the colleges go through her in the Department of Community
Colleges and Workforce Development. She observed that the typical AA/OT degree
is in the 90-93 credit range; some colleges have courses that are in the
“additional requirements” category. There appears to be good alignment in the
general education requirements among the colleges, although there is a spread
in the number of credits for the distribution requirements (from 42-54
credits). Some colleges still require sequences and some use AB lists. The
observation was made that students risk problems when transferring from one
community college to another when that transfer is from a college that does not
require sequences to one that does require them.
Yandle-Roth further indicated that the
last page of the document is for the purpose of helping to determine whether or
not certain courses are consistent with the original intent of the degree.
Various course numbers and titles are being examined. For example, there are
some studio courses that do not necessarily meet AA/OT criteria. And some
criminal justice courses are in question.
Regarding the observations about the
“original intent” of the degree, the suggestion was made to develop some
“guiding principles” regarding the transfer degree, in order to assist
colleges, at the campus level, in determining whether or not proposed new
courses fit into the AA/OT framework. Yandle-Roth indicated that she will
develop a statement of principles & clarifications for JBAC review that
will speak to the inclusion of courses in the distribution requirements—as well as speech and computer science courses. These
criteria, then, will list criteria to be used in any particular disciplinary
area in order to be included in the AA/OT.
Yandle-Roth wanted to make sure that
everyone understood that there are no big problems with the colleges’ various
versions of the AA/OT; only minor clarifications are needed. She will draft the
principles/clarifications/criteria document based on her understanding of the
original intent of the transfer degree and present a draft at the May meeting.
4.
Transferring Reading Courses
Yandle-Roth
reported that she is still in the process of organizing a meeting of the small
group designated to address the reading course transfer issues.
5.
Data Sharing with OICA Institutions
Yandle-Roth reported that she is still
in the process of organizing a teleconference meeting of the small group
designated to address the data sharing issues. She anticipates a meeting to be
held on either April 23rd or 24th (next week).
Arnold reported that a concern about
the OUS organic chemistry transfer
policy has been expressed by one of the community colleges. Specifically,
the WOU website reportedly indicates that organic chemistry transfers in as a
100-level elective and the question arose if that is really consistent with the
OUS policy adopted in 1999. Arnold said that he took this inquiry as an
opportunity to do a quick review of the current status of organic chemistry
courses at OUS campuses and distributed a list of those courses offered in 1999
(at the time of the policy’s adoption) and a list of courses offered currently.
(The observation was made that the OSU catalog is incorrect in the omission of
Chemistry 331 and 332; OSU does still currently offer those courses.) Some
minor changes have been made, primarily the addition of one course each to the
sequences at both EOU and OIT. With regard to the WOU question, Arnold continues
to explore the current practice on that campus with Registrar Ken Gilson (and
JBAC member, who is absent today). Arnold will report back on this issue when
more information had been gathered, though he noted that he does not expect any
problems to be uncovered. No student complaints have been received in the
Chancellor’s Office since the implementation of the policy in 1999.
7.
Review of Most Recent Data Match Information
Arnold reported on the status of the
most recent activity in the OUS-CCWD data-match project. He has been working
for the last several weeks on compiling and organizing the latest data; he has
greatly expanded the number of questions asked of the data. The first year’s
data (the “pilot year” data from 94-95/95-96) has been dropped from the report
which now begins with the 95-96/96-97 data and goes up through the 99-00/00-01
year. All told, five consecutive years of transfer student data are now
available for reporting and analysis. The report underway will ultimately be a
comprehensive successor to the “What the Data Say” report of November 2000.
Arnold walked the group through several
tables of data, asking for input and advice regarding the numbers. He
emphasized that in the plan for putting together this report, the interests of
the JBAC were paramount in terms of the current workplan that calls for:
All of these
areas have been addressed in this latest collection of data-match information.
The sense of the group was that Arnold
was “on track” in terms of developing this latest report.
Phillips asked if
community-college-specific information would be distributed to campuses as it
had been in the past. Arnold replied that he had not established a process for
that yet but recognized the need for such distribution.
One specific suggestion for additional
data involved the “average number of credits at OUS graduation for students who
had transferred with an AA/OT degree.” Craig Bell indicated that a breakdown by
community college would be valuable.
With regard to the final form of the
report and when it would be delivered, Arnold said that he did not know. It is
possible that one large report would be delivered to the Joint Boards of
Education in November 2002; alternatively, the sheer volume of data may make
for several small reports. Vice Chancellor Shirley Clark will guide Arnold in
developing the timelines and final form of this report.
8.
Workplan Review
As
the discussion of the item began on the workplan, Phillips noted that a number
of community colleges will be moving to the ten-week calendar for Fall 2002.
Further discussion of the workplan was deferred until next meeting as the group
was asked to relinquish their meeting room. Phillips asked Arnold and
Yandle-Roth to supply a written summary of workplan progress in advance of the
May meeting.
9.
Adjournment and Meeting Dates
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
The
JBAC schedule for the remainder of the academic year is:
May 15, 2002 Conference call
10:00-12:00
June 12, 2002 Conference call
10:00-12:00
Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
April 25, 2002
http://www.ous.edu/aca/4-17-02.htm