| Originator: | Michael Hensley |
| Submitter: | Michael Hensley |
| Date Created: | 04/05/2007 Date Submitted: 04/05/2007 Status: Approved |
| Attendance : | Arizona Board of Regents Coconino Community College Maricopa Community Colleges Northland Pioneer College Pima Community College University of Arizona |
| Meeting Minutes : |
Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:00 AM 3:00 PM Arizona State University Downtown Campus Meeting Summary I. Welcome and Introductions Members Present: Maria Harper-Marinick (co-chair); Ron Pitt (co-chair); Kathleen Corak (rural comm. college); Kate Dillon Hogan (CC member-at-large); Jennie Scott (Pima); Eric Henderson (rural comm. college); Jerry Hogle (UA); Bill Fee (UA); Stephanie Jacobson (ABOR) Ruth Jones (ASU-Tempe); Elsie Moore (ASU-West); Michael Hensley (ATASS); Ann Huber (ATASS); Laura Haldane (AAATF); Colleen Stitt (AAATF); Valerie Pierce (ATAC); Kathryn Kozak (GEATF); Rebecca McKay (CAS Team); Andy Beier (CAS Team); Caryl DuBrock (ASSIST) Guests: Kathy Wigal (ASU) and Randy Skinner (EAC) II: Approval of September Meeting Summary Motion: Jerry Hogle moved to accept the September Meeting Summary, with a second from Ruth Jones unanimously approved. III. Subcommittee Reports Technology: All that the team promised to complete by this time is complete. A timeline has not yet been established for the new release of CAS which was anticipated for the fall but because of staff turnover and staff training issues it has been delayed. Updates were provided on server replacements. Budget: Matching funds for FY 2007 will be requested from institutions in early December. The FY 2007 budget was permanently increased by $35,000 reflecting the hardware and software upgrades; annual budgets reflect a 3% merit increases with appropriate ERE costs. The FY 2008 budget includes a one time $70,000 cost for the replacement of the external disc, replacement of the server from Fall 2004, and designing interfaces to non-DARS course equivalencies tables. Additionally the First Review of the 2009 Budget was presented which included the replacement of two servers and the 3% merit increases. Maria and Ron decided that the disc maintenance should be independent of ASU; though theoretically more costly, it preserves CAS independence. Communication: A draft of the video script was distributed; APASC members were asked to review and provide comments; kudos to Rene Blatte; the final script will be shared with students; APASC will review final script at January Retreat (10 minutes); ensure that the script refers to programs we have (we do not have a veterinarian program). It is being designed to focus on the partnership between the community colleges and universities, therefore is not a stand alone marketing tool for community colleges. The message should include only programs for which there are bachelor degrees; all of the higher education options should be referenced: community colleges, universities, community colleges to universities; and students are lucky to live in Arizona, because of the many higher education options. A DVD will be sent to districts; it was recommended to use high school counselors for feedback. There will be further discussion about distribution at the February meeting. Include a Native American in the student mix. Additional considerations of the Communication Subcommittee include a plan to talk with lobbyists to learn how to effectively communicate what we have (AzCAS) to the Legislators. The first Newsletter went online on the CAS web site Summer of 2005. The committee will discuss how often it should be printed, and other operational details. Evaluation: Hezel and Associates were selected to study the Arizona Transfer Model; Stephanie distributed A Proposal to the Arizona Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee from Hezel Associates, LLC, and a Brief Outline of Activities and Tasks which includes the timeline that was discussed at the kickoff meeting in early November. JCC will announce to the community college presidents that this project has begun. Students and staff will be surveyed as part of the process. It is her understanding that no informed consent is required since only directory information (name and email address), will be requested. Stephanie will provide interim reports to APASC. Maria thanked Stephanie for her work and leadership in this project. Stephanie asked about travel expenses for those traveling to focus groups. Action: Ron and Maria have been authorized, by consensus, to approve mileage if requested. APASC Membership: At this point, Ron brought up the fact that, with ASU combining the administration of its campuses, which will result in only one ASU representative on APASC, consideration should be given to the structure of APASC. He and Maria suggest a two year rotating term for the universities; the rotating member would be assigned by the appropriate Provost. Stephanie suggested that the universities consider a representative from one of the smaller campuses, but that this not be a requirement. Ruth indicated that there is no rule that the community colleges and universities have four representatives, they could each have three. Action Item: The proposal to have a rotating university position, with a recommendation that strong consideration be given to a representative from a smaller university campus, will go forward to the JCC. IV. Standing Committee Reports Academic Advising Articulation Task Force: The TSO Chatlines are not utilized often, perhaps because there are not many issues to discuss, folks do not know how to use them, or do not have access to them. Each member was asked to discuss the chatlines with their campuses, so there is an awareness of them. NACADAs Regional Conference will be held in Phoenix in May of 2007. It covers a five state area and serves about 300 participants. Ron asked if the Arizona Transfer System could be highlighted; it has been and those presentations have been well received. Also, can the July Conference be promoted at that time. Roxie Catts is a co-chair and can be contacted (catts@email.arizona.edu) or 520-626-8667 for more information. Admissions & Records Articulation Task Force: Ann reported on behalf of the co-chairs, neither of whom could attend. Stephanie reviewed the fact that the Arizona Transfer model will be evaluated by Hezel and Associates, and that the Admissions and Records ATF will play an important role in helping them obtain information. Mike provided contact information and costs for transcript translation and interpretation agencies. The JCCs interest in a common course numbering system was discussed, and the members of this ATF are very concerned about this issue; it has been brought up in the past and what we have should accommodate student needs. The SAIS legislation was discussed recognizing that many students do not know their numbers. Ron indicated that NAU will use the PeopleSoft student numbers. The legislators will require these numbers for tracking purposes. Institutions cannot use Social Security Numbers for student identification numbers, yet they are needed for financial aid distribution. Out-of-state students do not have SAIS. Maintaining multiple identification numbers for students is becoming more complicated. ASSIST: Caryl Dubrock summarized that report. ASSIST ID clean-up is going well; Melinda is working closely with the consultants on the evaluation of the Transfer Model; the consultants were hoping to have access to the data, however, they learned how complex the system is so the ASSIST team will provide what is needed. Standard reports on transfer students are being developed based on: the number of hours completed; distribution of hours completed; graduation over a six year period; grade point average; etc. The reports will be available in the next couple of months. ATAC: New ATAC members need training. Consideration will be given to on-going training each meeting as well as other training venues. Maria recommended that a packet be made available to new members; there is a handbook available. Kate DH recommended that ATAC revisit an ATAC Calendar providing guidelines for the timeframe needed from the time a discussion begins (for curricular changes) through effective implementation. There used to be standard deadlines but we are currently more flexible. The new CEG Change Forms were used at ATF meetings this fall, successfully by some ATAC members, others need more training. ATAC members were encouraged to talk with all of their campus representatives to various ATFs to ensure that they provide the same institutional information at all ATF meetings. ATAC is also involved in the matrices rewrite. ATASS Business Analyst/CAS: Mike demonstrated the new Statewide Meeting Calendar, which can be linked to from the Faculty Tab. Articulation Facilitator: Ann has attended many meetings, which has been useful in the learning process. Two reoccurring themes include the desire for better participation in the ATF meetings and a sense that it is time to look at the ATF structure to determine if change is needed. Joint Conference Committee: Stephanie indicated that one concern generated from the JCC meeting was that if a proposal was developed, for example a community college wanting to offer a four year degree, how is it determined where it goes for approval/funding? There are some recommendations in the report that was disseminated. This will be discussed further at the February APASC Meeting. Quality Team: The discussion of if/how the AAS to BAS programs can be incorporated in CAS is ongoing. Although ASSIST cannot provide the success rate of students who complete the AGEC and/or an Associates degree then pursue a baccalaureate degree through distance learning, the individual campuses should be able to. More institutions are being added to the Common Course Matrices, therefore consideration is being given to how to change the display of this information. At the February APASC meeting there will be a demonstration of Google Documents. The goal is to learn what technology is available to encourage more efficient communication among members of APASC. GEATF /AAC&U Report: Kate K. discussed the exercise that was conducted at the recent GEATF meeting in which members were asked to indicate how their general education student learning outcomes coordinate with the national categories of student learning outcomes. The GEATF members were asked to take this information back to their campuses for further discussion. In developing common learning outcomes, should recommendations come from the top, down or from the bottom, up, or something in between? The thought was that it should come from the bottom up, but with the support and leadership of the administration. Regardless, faculty should be involved, therefore, take it to all of the ATFs in the fall of 2007. Jerry indicated that outcomes and assessments are very important, however, difficult in the general education arena. And not all community colleges have a central General Education Committee. Can/how do the CAOs become involved? Can/should members of the GEATF make a presentation to the AAAA members? There is an AAAA meeting next week then in March of 2007. [Meeting actually scheduled in February.] A presentation at the March meeting would allow time so that substantive information could be shared. Kate DH asked if there could be a prepared document that the GEATF members can share with their CAOs? Mike will send a summary of the poster session to the GEATF members (Kitty also wanted a copy). Ron indicated that ASU and NAU are restructuring their general education programs. Jerry said that the UA reviewed their general education in 2005-2006 and made only minor modifications. Action Item: GEATF should be prepared to make a presentation at the March AAAA Meeting [February] regarding the progress of the committees work on developing student learning outcomes. V. ATF Issues: How many transfer degrees are there? Mike led the discussion regarding the number of degrees in the Transfer Model. There is confusion regarding the AAEE degree, referenced in CAS. Concern was shared regarding the current Transfer Model and the desire not to have a proliferation of AGECs and degrees. Some community colleges designed their degrees, including the AAEE, after the Model. It could actually fit under the AA Degree however, with careful planning, since the curriculum is very prescribed. It was also suggested that the AAEE degree stand; students would use the AGEC-A. Students need to make an early decision. A subcommittee might be formed at a later date to review this more thoroughly, perhaps in conjunction with Web redesign for the future. Currently there are four transfer degrees listed in CAS. Action Item: Pull together old subcommittee for the AAS/BAS degree. Fall 2006 ATF Attendance: Ann requested that this be placed on the agenda since a number of ATFs expressed concern about lack of faculty participation. Mike distributed a mid-year report of attendance for members to review. Participation will continue to be monitored; a mid year report will be compiled each November. Business/Math ATF Issue: The Business Common Course Matrix was reviewed at the Business ATF. Members requested that the note from the Quantitative Methods box, which was originally added at the request of APASC, be removed. They felt footnote 017 should suffice. Kate DH then brought up the concern, for which Business is an example, but not the only one, that as universities change their degree requirements is the Transfer Model considered or are students being left un/under prepared to transfer into the desired degree program? This is currently of concern in at least the Business and Math ATFs. The philosophical concern is that within the Transfer Model, which entity has what authority? The universities have authority over the content of their degrees; APASC does not. Some curricular changes are driven by accreditation issues, others to ensure students are competitive in the workforce. We rely on the ATFs, however, to discuss curricular changes to ensure that the Transfer Model agreements are not compromised, and to bring appropriate issues to APASC. In the past when degrees have had different requirements, we defaulted to the highest course level (math, for example). Kate K. indicated that some of the community colleges do not have all of the required courses or enough sections to meet these requirements. Universities do allow students to submit a petition, if needed. Further, it was noted that, if the Business ATF removed the Math line from the Common Course Matrix, they would be in compliance (but they want to include math). And, since there is an AGEC and a Common Course Matrix, they theoretically are in compliance. It is not clear how large a problem this is or could become. We need to determine how to assess how many students are negatively impacted by changes such as these. Although the TSO was developed to deal with aspects of the Transfer Model that dont work, they do not deal with curricular issues. The universities will need to provide information/data regarding the success of native vs. transfer students in programs of concern. This will be discussed further at the February APASC meeting. Other ATF Issues: There was a brief review of some of the issues the discipline specific ATFs wanted to go before APASC including: attendance; information regarding the progress of the APASC goals; concern about the configuration of the ATFs and whether APASC is willing to fund food or any other expenses incurred by faculty, particularly those who sponsor/participate in multiple ATFs; etc. These will be discussed in more detail at the February Meeting. VI. P-20 Council Report Stephanie Jacobson The Council is interested in student preparation for both the work place and for higher education, looking for success in both arenas. They are currently focusing on math preparation. They tried to engage the Math ATF, but no one volunteered to participate in the P-20 Council. Someone from the P-20 Council should attend the Math ATF. A goal is to increase standards for high school graduation. There is a subcommittee on alignment. There has been discussion regarding a need to do a statewide study on gaps for access to higher education in Arizona. VII. Progress of establishing two new ATFs - Ann Huber This process is going slower than anticipated, so there is not yet a recommendation to bring to APASC to establish either one. VIII. When universities change the common courses. Michael Hensley There was discussion regarding what happens when a university makes changes to the common courses. The ATFs should be involved early in the process to allow sufficient time for implementation. The GEATF had a resolution statement. This issue will be discussed further at the February meeting and Mike will provide a one page summary for review. Action Item: Mike will send the link about GEAFT resolution to APASC members. IX. Issues from the JCC Meeting for APASC review A. Common course numbering system: Florida has a statewide curriculum control system; California is investigating something like a common course numbering system. This was presented to the Admissions and Records ATF and they are not in favor of it. Eric went through something similar when he was in Nevada, and it was an arduous process; they did not have what Arizona has. Stephanie indicated that we do take our Transfer Model for granted. Action Item: A list of the CCM courses and AGEC courses will be reviewed to determine what, if any commonality there is. Mike did note that Math has common numbering among the community colleges, not the universities. It is important to educate the JCC on what we have providing very good data. Coconino and NAU learned from a survey that a rather large percentage of those surveyed are not using AzCAS. We should attempt to obtain more data regarding this issue. B. Success of students who take dual enrollment courses in high school. It is recognized that these students are self selected and some are taking courses that are not dual credit. ASSIST does have a data field from which these data can be collected, however, few institutions populate it. Institutional researchers would have to be involved in the data collection and evaluation process. C. Transferring university courses back to community colleges so that the associates degree can be awarded. Community colleges did not want a policy regarding this issue at the onset of the Transfer Model. A copy of a draft of proposed language was distributed at the meeting for review. Institutional policies exist for the number of units that must be completed for a degree to be awarded. The data from ASSIST suggest that students are doing well if they stay longer at the community colleges. Ron would like some general language in CAS for students to learn about the transfer back process. There was discussion about an automatic trigger in the student information systems regarding the completion of an AGEC/degree, so that students understand their option; this is an advising issue. The CAS system has community college to universities agreements; we continue to work on university to community college transfer. Ruth would like more discussion regarding double dipping for the degrees. Will the community colleges use an upper-division course to meet general education requirements? Universities have policies regarding double dipping and other issues in awarding degrees. Rons recommendation for policy language regarding the transfer back of courses from the universities to the community colleges follows: Students who first enroll in a community college are encouraged to complete both an AGEC and an Associate's Degree prior to transferring to a university. Recognizing that this is not always possible, the universities and community colleges agree in principle that students may transfer courses taken at a university back to the community college to complete requirements for both the AGEC and the Associate's Degree. Policies which govern the number of credits that may be "transferred back" vary among the community colleges. Students who believe they may be able to "transfer back" credits from a university to a community college to complete requirements for either an AGEC or an Associate's Degree should consult with an advisor at the community college. Motion: Accept the policy language that Ron presented, Kitty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. This now needs to go to the JCC for a vote before it becomes policy. X. Restructuring ATFs: As institutions restructure programs to: accommodate accreditation requirements; meet industry standards; develop more interdisciplinary curricula; and/or better utilize institutional resources, ATF members are asking if the current ATF structure meets their needs. Ron asked ATAC to discuss this, to suggest which groups might meet together, or how to otherwise structure/restructure the ATFs. This will address a concern shared earlier regarding institutional costs to participate in so many ATF meetings. XI. Other items: A. July Conference: Kate DH reviewed the progress thus far. A Draft of the Conference Scheduled was shared. Dr. Mark Milliron has agreed to provide a Keynote. We anticipate 225-250 participants. Kate will have much of the planning done before the end of December, and will continue to work with this committee. B. Communicating with the membership: Ann asked if the membership would prefer meeting materials shared electronically or via the mail. It was agreed that, at least for the next meeting, the materials will be sent electronically unless otherwise requested. It was also suggested that materials need not be provided two-three weeks in advance. That one week would do, particularly if that meant most/all documents would be provided at the same time. XII. Retreat Update: January 11 12, 2007 It will be held at the Gold Canyon Golf Resort, beginning at 1:00 pm Thursday and concluding at 12:00 noon on Friday. Rooms have not been reserved or guaranteed. Snacks will be provided Thursday afternoon but dinner will be on your own; Friday breakfast will be provided at 7:30 am and snacks mid-morning. XIII. APASC Meeting Schedule a. January 11 & 12 2007 Retreat (See above and more information to follow.) b. February 9, 2007 (UA) c. Thursday, April 19, 2007 (originally scheduled for April 13, 2007; location TBA, but most likely in the Phoenix Metropolitan area) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:36 PM. |
| Document | Document Name | Size | Document Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review Document | Admissions & Records ATF Meeting Summary | 27,648 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Academic Advising ATF Summary Report | 28,160 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Articulation Facilitator Report | 29,696 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | ATAC Meeting Summary | 30,208 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | ATASS Technical Subcommittee Report | 27,648 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | ATF Issues and Concerns Summary Report | 32,256 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Business ATF Report | 28,672 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Communication Subcommittee Report | 30,720 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Evaluation Subcommittee Report | 84,992 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | GEATF Report | 34,304 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | JCC Report | 36,352 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Quality Team Meeting Summary | 27,648 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Quality Team Wiki & Blog Summary Report | 32,768 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | ATASS Server Diagram | 212,992 bytes | application/msword |
| Review Document | Agenda | 36,352 bytes | application/msword |