Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
September 10, 1998
OIT Metro

Portland, OR

Members Present

Martha Anne Dow, Oregon Institute of Technology, Chair
Janine Allen, Portland State University
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Liz Goulard, Clackamas Community College
Pat Loughary, Blue Mountain Community College
Mark Wahlers, Concordia College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Office of Community College Services


Guests

Joanna Blount, Southwestern Oregon Community College
Kathy Campbell, Chemeketa Community College
Dick Stenard, Eastern Oregon University


Martha Anne Dow called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.


1. Introductions and Announcements

This was the first meeting of the JBAC for this academic year and new members were in attendance. All members and guests introduced themselves.

Dow noted that expansion of the OIT Metro building is underway, which will lead to new opportunities of collaboration with Clackamas Community College.

Some members who were not able to attend today expressed frustration at the lack of availability of a telephone hook-up. Dow indicated that we will meet in locations from now on that have that capability.


2. JBAC Membership

Jim Arnold asked members to check their contact information (address, phone, fax, email) on the membership list and to forward any corrections to him. An OUS provost has still not been appointed, but that will be taken care of soon by the Chancellor.

3. Minutes of July 28, 1998

The minutes of the July 28, 1998, meeting were approved.


4. Draft Version of the 1997-98 JBAC Annual Report

Elaine Yandle-Roth distributed a draft of the JBAC annual report. She noted that recommendations from the Credit for Prior Learning Action Team are still to come and may be available by the October meeting. The recommendations from the Student Services Action Team appear in the report slightly reworded from that group's report to the JBAC. The report also includes sections on the Articulation Hotline, the JBAC web page, and the upcoming year's JBAC workplan. Appendix material is still to be added.


5. Draft Outline of Plan for Course and Credit Transfer

Arnold stated that he and Yandle-Roth had produced a first draft of an outline for the "plan" to be submitted to the 1999 legislature - and that that outline had been further refined in a meeting with Dow and Jon Carnahan. Feedback on this version of the draft outline is sought from the JBAC membership.

The political implications of this document were noted. Yandle-Roth reminded the group that Representatives Luke and Jenson had visited JBAC meetings the previous year to discuss this topic. The Office of Community College Services has submitted a legislative concept paper for the repeal of the amendments established by HB 2387. Presumably, that legislation is being drafted now. If the Governor does not submit such legislation, we still need an entré to the legislature to repeal the legislation or to introduce the "plan" that we need to submit.

In response to a question about "what is expected?" in this plan...Yandle-Roth suggested that we don't really know. Dow suggested that we take a look at this issue from a legislator's perspective and work on the plan that way. We need to talk to legislators and find out what they want. And, we need to implement a strategy of fully educating key figures.

Other comments on the outline and the drafting of the plan included:

Arnold attempted to summarize what suggestions had been made for the plan so far:

Additional points included:

Arnold suggested that the JBAC continue this report as a standing item every meeting until the plan is finalized. The ultimate deadline is to have the document prepared in time for the December Joint Boards meeting. He will rearrange the outline and continue writing.


6. Student Action Team Recommendations

Dick Stenard, Joanna Blount, and Kathy Campbell were present to lead an extended discussion on recommendations presented in the Student Services Action Team report, submitted at the most recent (July, 1998) JBAC meeting.

 

Student Information. Stenard began by noting that the issue of access to student information is the most fundamental issue of all. Student services staff need such information for the smooth processing of students throughout systems. Two kinds of information exist: directory information (name, address, phone number, etc.) and educational record information (grades, etc.). There is not a common set of practices among community colleges and OUS institutions regarding the dissemination and sharing of student data. There are good reasons for different practices, but as we become more and more integrated (the community college and OUS sectors, especially with respect to co-admissions and co-enrollment) the access to information becomes critical. The basic technology is available to accommodate wide-spread information sharing (i.e., the web), and the law allows more than is currently being done. The "easy part" of serving students in this new environment is the instructional part; getting students to the classroom and then keeping them there is the challenge.

Blount agreed that the technological capability is there but that her institution does not give out student information, whether it's the military, MasterCard, or other institutions.

Additional points made in the discussion included:

Academic calendar. OUS has a common academic calendar for start/stop dates each term. The community colleges are not a system, however, and have a variety of start dates - often depending on local issues and events (e.g., the Pendleton Roundup).

Residency. OUS has rules (OARs) that are much more restrictive than the community colleges. This is a big issue for out-of-state students who are attending a community college and expecting to transfer to a four-year campus. They pay resident tuition at a community college then discover that they are non-residents when transferring. There should be a way to establish residency while still enrolled in postsecondary education.

Satisfactory student progress. Every campus has a different definition/policy with respect to what satisfactory progress means. Could OCCS and OUS (i.e., Elaine and Jim) collect information on these definitions? The recommendation from the Action Team was that there should be common agreement.

Standard tuition rates. The proposal that the same courses on community college and OUS campuses be charged at the same rate is a "hot button" issue. OIT is now offering lower division courses at community college rates and this is a burden to both OIT and OUS. There are states that do have different tuition rates for lower and upper division courses.

All of the above issues are ones that need continuing discussion. Stenard suggested that the recommendations of the Student Services Action Team eventually make their way to the Joint Boards for consideration. Action on these items would not only be good for students, but also for institutions. The level of "customer satisfaction" would rise if we attended to these issues.

One "do-able" item might be to get agreement on satisfactory student progress. Another "do-able" issue to tackle might be a standardized 2.0 GPA for transferring into an OUS institution. The most fundamental issue is sharing student information.


7. JBAC Workplan for 1998-99

Arnold presented the draft workplan for 1998-99. The two new major items listed are (1) the submission of the course and credit transfer "plan" called for in HB 2387 and (2) the continuing discussion of the Student Services Action Team recommendations. Some additional detail was sought for some of the proposed items and Arnold will revise the document slightly for consideration at the next meeting.


8. Next Meeting Dates

Suggestions were sought for regularizing the meeting dates of the JBAC. Both the FIRST WEDNESDAY and the FIRST THURSDAY were suggested. Arnold agreed to post this suggestion to the JBAC email list and solicit further reaction.


The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.



Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
September 22, 1998