Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
May 15, 2002
Conference Call

Members Present

Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
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 10:05 a.m.


1. Introductions, Announcements and Suggestions for the Agenda

Jim Arnold called the roll of members. There were no announcements or suggestions for the agenda.

2. Minutes of the April 17, 2002, Meeting

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

3. Report from the May 10th Business Chairs/Deans Meeting

Elaine Yandle-Roth reported on the meeting of the statewide business chairs/deans group that she and Arnold attended on May 10th. This was an all day meeting held at Linn-Benton Community College devoted, as was their February meeting, solely to the topic of the proposal for an Associate of Science transfer degree in Business. As there were participants present that were not involved in February (EOU, OSU, OSU, UO had representatives in attendance this time), much the same “processing” was required. In the end, since a final product could not be agreed to, a special task force (subcommittee) was named to “clean up” the final recommendations and circulate them to other stakeholders (e.g., Academic Council, Council of Instructional Administrators).

The group made progress toward a degree that may have to be offered at two different “levels.” The first level of this AS degree might include the “business” designation, allow a student to transfer with lower-division general education credits met at the receiving campus, and register as a junior. Admission to the business school of choice would not be guaranteed, however. The second level of this transfer degree would be institution-specific, include additional, required business courses, and allow entry directly into the business school.

The group in attendance on May 10th could not come to any kind of compromise agreement in terms of constructing a prototype transfer degree; all participating OUS campuses maintained that all of their specific business-school pre-requisites would need to be met by a transfer-degree student. Hence, much of the discussion was devoted to examining the possibility of a degree that would include a combination of ALL business programs’ lower-division requirements – and effectively leave little room for electives.

Phillips indicated that he had received a brief written report from the Clatsop Community College business program representative to the meeting. That communication had indicated some expression that the legislature might be involved in mandating a degree. Arnold assured Phillips that he had tried to communicate to the participants that involving the legislature in curricular matters was not a desirable route to take.

The topic of common course numbering (for business courses) was addressed briefly during the meeting; common course outcomes were not. Oregon Independent Colleges were not represented at the meeting.

The task force appointed by the business chairs/deans is to be led by Jim Arnold of OUS. Arnold indicated that Joan Ryan of Clackamas Community College, the facilitator for the last two business chairs/deans meeting, will be present for the next meeting of the Student Transfer Committee on June 5th.

4. AS/OT Proposal from Oregon State University

Given the difficulties with constructing a disciplinary-specific AS degree (such as the business degree discussed above), Michele Sandlin, on behalf of Oregon State University, proposed that the JBAC and Student Transfer Committee consider a “generic” AS transfer degree such as OSU has in place with Washington State Community Colleges (and is developing with Hawaii). With a generic AS transfer degree, a variety of majors could be accommodated.

Phillips suggested that this be added to the agenda for the June 5th Student Transfer Committee meeting. Sandlin indicated that she will have a written document ready to distribute to the group before that meeting and Arnold agreed to distribute it ahead of time. The STC will make a recommendation to JBAC on how to proceed with this concept.

5. Transferring Reading Courses

Yandle-Roth indicated that a conference call meeting was held recently to address the issues previously raised at JBAC regarding the transferability of reading courses. The composition of the small group that met by conference call was not really appropriate to make much progress on this issue, however. The participants initially named to this group have been difficult to schedule into a meeting. (Only two campus staff were present for the meeting: one from Portland State University and one from Central Oregon Community College.) Yandle-Roth indicated that she will attempt to recruit individuals to participate in another meeting during the fall term. Craig Bell reported that the initial PCC issue has been resolved: with a course title change, PSU is now accepting a reading course that had previously been in question.

6. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions

Yandle-Roth announced that a conference call meeting is scheduled for June 10th at 10:30 a.m.. Participants will be herself, Jim Arnold, Mickie Bush (Concordia University) and Marilyn Kolodziejczyk (CCWD/OCCURS). The topic will be the JBAC workplan item: “Explore data-sharing efforts with members of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association in order to implement a tracking system (e.g., performance, persistence) for students who transfer to those campuses.”

7. AA/OT Guiding Principles

Yandle-Roth noted that she had sent out, the previous day, an email version of a proposed revision to the “notes and clarifications” section of the current AA/OT degree. This effort was a result of the discussion at the last JBAC meeting regarding the campus-by-campus comparison of AA/OT requirements and the desire to offer additional guidelines and structure to the degree. Such guidelines may be particularly useful for community college faculty who develop courses that may be considered for fulfilling AA/OT requirements. The revised notes and clarifications section proposed by Yandle-Roth is as follows:


[The following notes are not intended to be part of the actual "Guidelines" (above), but rather serve to clarify some aspects thereof. As such, they are attached to these "Guidelines" as reference material for participating institutions.]

Courses that are developmental in nature, designed to prepare students for college transfer courses, are not applicable to this degree.

The "General Requirements" above represent minimal minimum skill competencies. As such, they may be open to demonstration of proficiency. Each community college is encouraged to establish how students may demonstrate competency in lieu of completing the course(s). 

The Speech course is intended to focus on developing formal presentation techniques similar to those included in Fundamentals of Speech (SP 111).  Courses such as Interpersonal, Intercultural, or Small Group Communications help students develop important skills but do not meet the intent of this requirement.  (What about the Distribution Requirements?  Would we consider these skill courses?  I wonder if Intercultural Communication might not get at the “global” issues?  Do we need to develop parameters to “make sure it” meet the general requirements?)

Courses used to meet the "Distribution Requirements" must be at least 3 credits each.

Skills courses (e.g. studio art and music performance) do not meet the intent of this section.  A limited number of skills course credits were originally accepted for completion of the “B” list courses but with the elimination of sequence requirements and the A & B lists these “B” list courses converted to elective status.

Computer courses used in the Math/Science/Computer Science area must meet the intersegmental Computer Science chairs group criteria for a science course. This includes CS 120, 121, 122, 161, 162, 171, 260, and 271 from the list of commonly numbered courses.

In Arts and Letters, the second year of a foreign language may be included, but not the first year. ASL is considered a foreign language.

The determination of whether a discipline or course meet Arts and Letters or Social Science designation is left to the granting college.  A course by course determination is to be made (e.g. a few Criminal Justice courses may meet the social science or Forest Engineering may meet a science requirement) when not all courses with a given prefix would qualify.

The minimum number of credits required for an associate degree is specified in Administrative Rule as well as in this agreement.  Colleges may add requirements (e.g. computer science, health and PE) and may require more than the 90 credits but the total number of credits required for the degree should not exceed the low 90’s.


This proposal, in addition to suggesting new language, also poses some questions (to be answered by JBAC), such as: the role of “intercultural communications” courses and skills courses; what courses/areas should be included in the broad disciplinary areas of the degree; and the minimum number of credits for the degree.

Yandle-Roth asked if this was generally what was anticipated in terms of the assignment of producing a “guiding principles” document? Generally, the group accepted this as good progress. Guidelines are very useful given the high rate of staff turnover, and can help with the work of curriculum committees. This document will also be shared with the Student Transfer Committee.

8. Organic Chemistry Update

Jim Arnold reported on his investigation of the organic chemistry transfer policy. As reported last month, some concern had been expressed over the organic chemistry listing in the Western Oregon University articulation tables on the Web. Upon consulting with the WOU registrar and chemistry department, Arnold reported that the policy for transfer of organic chemistry (and the opportunity for students to obtain upper division credit) was being adhered to by the campus.

9. Workplan Review

A brief review of the annual workplan had been prepared by Arnold for review by the group. Individual workplan elements, including commentary on progress-to-date, follows:

1. Review and reconsider the recommendations from the Student Services Action Team, focusing particularly on the topics of academic calendar and residency, consult with external constituencies regarding these topics, and make further recommendations, as appropriate.

The Student Services Action Team recommendations have not been specifically re-examined during 2001-02. However, several community colleges are reportedly poised to make the move, for Fall 2002, to an academic calendar that will match the Oregon University System calendar. Further, the differences in the residency requirements for community colleges and OUS have again been discussed at the JBAC level as well as examinations of the issues involved at the November 2001 joint CAO/Academic Council meeting and the February 2002 meeting of the Council of Student Services Administrators.

2. Provide for continuing effective communication between and among the postsecondary sectors, including such efforts as the JBAC web page, the Articulation Hotline list, and JBAC member participation in the annual OUS articulation and transfer conference.

The JBAC web page has been maintained and kept up to date. The Articulation Hotline list underwent its annual update during Fall 2001. Several JBAC members attended and participated in the December 7, 2001, Articulation and Transfer Conference, including facilitating several sessions.

3. Consider and/or provide recommendations to the OUS Academic Council and community college Chief Academic Officers on specific and explicit initiatives to promote inter-sector collaboration and enhancement of the transfer function. Recommendations may come in such area as (1) faculty involvement in curriculum design and program development for the purpose of minimizing barriers to institutional admissions and enhancing course and credit transfer; (2) proposing modifications in the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree; and/or (3) developing proposals for prototypes of Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer degrees in various disciplinary areas.

No activity in area (1) has been recorded. For area (2), the Student Transfer Committee and the JBAC finalized recommendations during Fall 2001 for minor modifications to the AA/OT that were approved at the January 2002 Joint Boards of Education meeting. Additionally, a statewide review of the structure and delivery of the AA/OT has been initiated. For area (3), a prototype for an Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer degree in Business has been developed and forwarded to the Statewide Business Chairs and University Deans group. The JBAC, in cooperation with CIA, has started an examination of the transfer of reading courses.

4. Assess and report progress to the Joint Boards regarding a K-16 approach to course and credit transfer, teacher education, early collegiate options, distance learning and standards-based entrance and exit standards.

After several years of work on the issue of transfer of credits earned for prior learning, OUS adopted the JBAC-recommended guidelines in this area with a memo from Vice Chancellor Clark in September 2001. A review of the (1999) OUS credit transfer policy regarding organic chemistry is underway.

5. Continue to analyze and standardize the procedures for data sharing between the Oregon University System and the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development. Examine data for trends that may lead to recommendations for changes in student transfer polices and procedures. This work should include progress on recommendations arising from the November 2000 JBAC transfer student data report, and include:

• Enhanced follow-up on students in Oregon who earn the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree, to include tracking of these students more than one year past their degree.

• Expansion of data-collection efforts on students simultaneously enrolled in two-year and four-year campuses.

• Expansion of data-collection efforts on transfer students to assess their academic major after transfer.

• Explore data-sharing efforts with members of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association in order to implement a tracking system (e.g., performance, persistence) for students who transfer to those campuses.

A comprehensive update to the November 2000 “What the Data Say” report is being compiled; data included will speak to the first three of the bullets above. No progress has been made to date on any data sharing initiatives between community colleges and OICA.

6. Assign tasks to and/or consult with external groups working on issues with transfer implications (e.g., the Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee (OWEAC) and the Oregon University System’s Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS) project).

The JBAC heard progress reports on PASS, PREP and the CAM. A conversation with OWEAC is scheduled for mid-May regarding the transferability of writing courses.

7. Develop guidelines for articulation of career ladders where proficiency requirements cut across academic and professional technical program degrees and courses.

No activity reported.

Comments offered by members on the workplan elements above included:

1. Where are community colleges on the calendar move? No “list” of colleges changing their fall term calendar exists, so there is no official information to share about who is moving to an eleven-week calendar. Colleges that had previously expressed great interest were COCC, LBCC, Clackamas, PCC, and Chemeketa. Many colleges, however, have held off making the move until more is known about the effects of the funding cap and the re-definition of the reimbursable unit. Goulard reported that Chemeketa has decided to stay at 12 weeks for the time being. Bell reported that PCC has similarly adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

2. The JBAC web page has been maintained and the hotline list updated this year. Arnold announced that the articulation and transfer conference this year will be held on December 6th at Marylhurst University.

3. No additional recommendations are proposed at this time. On those listed, some progress is being made (e.g., AS/OT degree), however slowly.

4. Sandlin indicated a desire to insert some mention into the workplan regarding electronic data interchange (EDI) and will forward some suggested language to Arnold for the JBAC’s consideration in this area. Further, Sandlin indicated that Barbara Balz of OSU is now the EDI coordinator for Oregon.

6. The suggestion was made to include the topic of reading course transferability into the workplan. Arnold mentioned that he will be discussing dual-credit writing courses with OWEAC at their May 17th meeting at Clackamas.

Phillips suggested that the workplan be a recurring item on the JBAC agenda each month.

10. Adjournment and Meeting Dates

The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

The final meeting for the academic year is:

June 12, 2002           Conference call 10:00-12:00


Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
May 28, 2002