Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Student Transfer Committee

Meeting Summary Notes
June 5, 2003
OIT Metro
Portland, OR

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Mary Brau, Lane Community College
Mickie Bush, Concordia University
John Duarte, Oregon Institute of Technology
Randy Hernandez (for Martha Pitts), University of Oregon
Paul Hill, Portland Community College
Dea Hoffman (for Pat North), Eastern Oregon University
Agnes Hoffman (for Terry Rhodes), Portland State University
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Department of Community Colleges & Workforce Development

Guests Present
Sonya Christian, Lane Community College
Sam Collie, Portland State University

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

1. Introductions, Announcements, and Suggestions for the Agenda

Members introduced themselves. There were no suggestions for the agenda. Jim Arnold acknowledged some of the transitions happening with the Transfer Committee membership. Dana Young is no longer at Blue Mountain Community College and has accepted a position at a college in Wyoming. Pat North has left Eastern Oregon University for Ohio State University (and Dea Hoffman is representing that position at today’s meeting). Transfer Committee chair Dave Phillips will likely need to decide on how to best fill the positions left open by the departure of Young and North. (Arnold has already consulted with the community college Council of Student Service Administrators regarding the Young position, and they may have a recommendation soon.) Paul Hill from Portland Community College is now a Transfer Committee member, attending his first meeting. Arnold also announced the arrangements for lunch.

2. Minutes of the January 29, 2003, Meeting

The minutes of the January 2003 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Approval and Implementation of the AS/OT-Bus

Arnold reviewed the process that was followed, ultimately leading to Board of Education approval of the AS/OT-Bus degree at the April 18, 2003, meeting. Arnold and Elaine Yandle-Roth had presented the degree proposal to the Board at the March 2003 meeting as a discussion/information item. The Board was uniformly enthusiastic about this degree and ultimately voted unanimously, the next month, to approve it. Community colleges must now have their own AS/OT-Bus degrees Board approved, and CCWD has developed a form to request that approval. Only degrees that conform to the statewide guidelines may be submitted for approval.

Arnold and Yandle-Roth have worked on a short, one-paragraph description of the degree for those campuses needing such a description for Federal (or other) reporting purposes.

Phillips asked the question regarding whether or not this degree is a “substantive change” for accreditation purposes. The answer to this is not known at this time.

Action: Phillips will explore this accreditation issue in the near future (to determine if a “statewide plan” might be developed, and if the accrediting body would accept such a plan).

4. “Fixing” the AA/OT Report

Arnold summarized the history of the development of the recent JBAC policy memo: “Do we need to ‘fix’ the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer degree?” – a report requested at the December 2002 JBAC meeting to describe the range of options discussed in recent times regarding various “problems” associated with the block-transfer degree. This latest draft of the document is slightly different than the version shared at the January Transfer Committee meeting; most notably, this version has a paragraph added addressing the concept of a statewide transferable general education core curriculum. The community college Council of Instructional Administrators (CIA) has discussed the gen-ed-core concept at their last two meetings and the idea has generated some interest. The CIA has not expressed much interest in the proposal for a top-down mandate regarding uniform implementation of the AA/OT. A CIA subcommittee will be convened this summer, however, on issues regarding the AA/OT, such as sequences and educational outcomes of Art & Letters components.

Members engaged in a short discussion regarding some of the data presented in the policy memo, specifically analyzing the difference in definitions of a “transfer activity” student compared to an “admitted/enrolled” transfer student. Arnold indicated that the data presented were to demonstrate that about 50% of any year’s AA/OT graduates subsequently enrolled at an OUS campus the year following graduation (whether or not they were admitted). And, that, of any year’s admitted and enrolled transfer students from an Oregon community college, about 30% of those had received AA/OT degrees.

The question was raised: Has this policy memo been of any use? Yes. Glenda Tepper observed that the memo has been read widely at Clackamas Community College and stimulated much discussion campus-wide about their requirements for the AA/OT.

Further questions: Can a general education core system be proposed for the state of Oregon? Would such a system help students for whom the AA/OT does not work?

Points made in the discussion include:

• The AA/OT does work for many students and institutions need to keep what we have and pursue a discussion about other options. Many students would likely be served by a system such as a transferable general education core.

• Can this group (the Student Transfer Committee) coordinate with the CIA on these issues? (especially given that a subcommittee has been named to address transfer degree issues?)

• A number of discussions about a “generic” AS/OT degree have been held without much momentum being gained. Oregon State University, however, continues to pursue that option and has arrangements with colleges in Washington and Hawaii.

5. The Transferable General Education Core Curriculum: Report

Phillips noted the report prepared by Arnold on the activity in other states regarding a transferable general education core: “Statewide transfer policy: The transferable general education core curriculum.” Phillips asked the Committee to share their impressions of the report and to offer any opinions about whether or not this is worth pursuing in Oregon.

Comments and questions included:

• In the state of California, while students are able to earn the transferable general education core there (the “IGETC”), institutions were still held accountable for associate’s degree completions.

• There would be a need to capture the “complete picture”: generate data that would document the numbers of both general education core recipients and associate’s degrees awarded.

• A general education transferable core could be the credit equivalent of a professional-technical certificate, and awarded/documented similarly.

• A comparable kind of educational program is happening in health fields. In nursing, for example, a student must complete a prescribed set of prerequisites.

• If we decided to pursue this course, gaining the necessary acceptance statewide would take a while.

• From a private institution’s perspective, this would be a good idea. Many students say they go to community college “to get the gen ed (requirements) completed.”

• Students could transfer more expeditiously and flexibly with a gen ed core completion point. We should be this flexible.

• From one who advises forestry majors who transfer to OSU, Phillips knows that, for those students, earning an AA/OT is the wrong thing to do. The idea of a general education core is attractive; a student could take four terms at a community college and transfer directly to their major program at an OUS campus. Forestry and engineering students would be greatly advantaged.

• This may be a difficult sell to faculty in terms of the integrity of a gen ed core.

• If we had a true statewide core, including OUS campuses, intra-system (OUS) transfer could be greatly facilitated.

• If everyone (all state campuses) could “buy” a general education transfer core, students could be greatly benefited.

• A gen ed core should be viewed as an alternative exit point. That is, there could be a gen-ed-core exit and the associate’s degree exit. And/or maybe an earlier exit point? Could we, perhaps, accomplish this in “modules?”

• A system that takes into account ALL directions of transfer would be desirable.

• What is the RIGHT thing to do for students? That is the question to be asked and answered in this discussion.

• Not every community college student has the goal of completing an associate’s degree. We need to focus on student goals.

• The mission of community colleges is broader than just degree completers. We need to capture that general education core completers are successes (even though they leave the college prior to a degree).

• Wouldn’t it be good if an agreed-upon general education core fit the AA/OT?

• Such a system would ease transfer among community colleges, but only if ALL colleges participated. (Note: this is envisioned, if pursued, as a total statewide program for the community colleges.)

• How could this proposal be pursued? It is possible that the process would be very similar to the process utilized for the recent adoption of the AS/OT-Bus: a process that involved multiple stakeholders, much statewide discussion, and major involvement of the JBAC, CIA and OUS Academic Council. Arnold suggested that once a serious proposal was floated, it would likely take the efforts of community college and University System “champions” of the idea to give it energy and push for its adoption.

• If the Transfer Committee is enthusiastic about this idea, it would be appropriate to generate some activity in this area. For example, we could ask OWEAC to talk about outcomes in writing for the general education core. The same thing could be asked of speech/communication faculty. And math. Maybe science? Is it possible to develop and seek consensus on outcomes? Should the Transfer Committee propose an outline for credits in a distribution model?

• Phillips noted that Illinois (on its website for the Illinois Articulation Initiative) has made available descriptions for general education outcomes. Such guidelines allow faculty to identify courses that align with outcomes. We could share some of these descriptions, or something similar, for faculty here in Oregon to react to.

Phillips indicated that he sensed the group was willing to head in a direction to explore this further. Anything we can do to help students prepare for the baccalaureate is worthwhile. Preparing students in that way is part of the community college mission, and adopting a transferable general education core may help fulfill that mission.

Action: How should our process proceed? First, Phillips will report to the JBAC next week on the deliberations of the Transfer Committee. He will inform that group that we are interested in continuing to study this matter. At the July 16-17^th meeting of the CIA, Phillips will report on the Transfer Committee progress as well. He will summarize “the concept” and solicit feedback. He will encourage coordination with the CIA subcommittee charged with studying AA/OT issues. And, Tepper will take this to the Council of Student Services Administrators in August to get their reaction. After that, the combined reactions can be communicated back to the Transfer Committee and we can decide where to go from there.

6. Proposed AA/OT Guiding Principles: SP 111

Elaine Yandle-Roth re-introduced the long-standing discussion of the Transfer Committee regarding inclusion of speech as a general education component of the AA/OT. The evolution of the interpretation of the speech requirement in the AA/OT is at issue. Originally, the speech requirement was interpreted to mean a “stand and deliver” (public speaking, SP 111) type of speech course; over time, colleges have chosen to include such courses as interpersonal communication, persuasion, and inter-cultural communication as acceptable for fulfilling the speech requirement of the AA/OT. The question: how broad (or restrictive) should the speech requirement be?

Comments and questions in the discussion included:

• Do we really want to limit the requirement to just SP 111? (or shouldn’t this really be a campus decision?)

• Should we take a look at the knowledge/skills we desire from a speech requirement, and see if we can define the requirement in terms of outcomes?

• There is no “standard” speech requirement in the general education programs at OUS campuses. UO has no speech requirement at all.

• Is this worth putting in System time? Aren’t we better served by working on an outcomes model?

• Yandle-Roth indicated that if we choose to proceed on this issue, she has drawn up a proposed timeline for tasks to be accomplished.

• Phillips indicated that the Illinois Articulation Initiative website lists outcomes for writing and speech.

• One means of handling this discussion would be to see what happens with the discussion of the transferable general education core. Another approach would be to gather various campus speech/communication faculty and examine the requirement for the purpose of making a recommendation in this area.

• One member suggested that this is not a particularly huge problem, especially in the event of a broader general education discussion.

Action: The Transfer Committee will defer any further work on this particular issue until more is known about the extent of the general education core proposal.

7. Skills (Experiential) Courses and Faculty Analyses of Syllabuses

Mary Brau distributed two handouts, one from Lane Community College outlining her college’s criteria for a course’s inclusion in the AA/OT Arts & Letters requirements, and the first page of an UO document that outlined undergraduate general education requirement policies. Lane has developed such criteria for Arts & Letters, while the criteria for Social Sciences are now nearing completion; the corresponding criteria in sciences are on a more delayed schedule.

Brau indicated that her “homework” for this meeting has not been done. At the last meeting, a plan had been made to compare a sample of LCC course syllabuses to the undergraduate general education criteria from the UO. However, since LCC has not yet compared courses to their OWN criteria, the comparison to the UO criteria has been postponed until a later time.

The Transfer Committee discussion of last fall addressed LCC’s “experiential courses” and their fit into the Arts & Letters requirements for the AA/OT. In the list of LCC Arts & Letters criteria distributed today, items 8 (“…incorporate interactive learning activities, including performance or studio experiences”), 9 (“…require learning at the level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation”), and 11 (“…require readings and research with experiential courses”) speak to experiential courses and their inclusion in Arts & Letters. At Lane, the faculty now need to compare their own syllabuses to the newly-established criteria.

At PCC, Hill noted that their faculty will, similarly, be doing “curriculum mapping.”

Phillips noted that there are misperceptions of what really happens in experiential courses.

With regard to the originally planned activity, it has not yet been determined whether or not LCC courses meet UO criteria.

Action: Brau and Martha Pitts will have more progress on this syllabus examination activity by next fall’s meeting.

8. Miscellaneous Transfer Issues

Hernandez noted that recent contacts with community-college colleagues yielded information that those campuses are bulging at the seams and may not be able to handle additional enrollments for remedial work. Where will students needing remedial courses go to take them? Community college members acknowledged cuts in sections due to budget considerations, though PCC indicated that some lower-level math and writing sections have been added to address just this issue.

Tepper noted that articulation agreements with private institutions are on the increase.

Arnold noted that SB 870 was amended and no longer requires EOU, TVCC, and BMCC to change to semesters. The bill now calls for a “feasibility study” regarding semester conversion for those three campuses.

9. Adjournment and Next Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Thursday, October 30, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
OIT Metro, Room 139

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
June 10, 2003

(revised on November 4, 2003)

http://www.ous.edu/aca/6-5-03.htm