| Originator: | Ann Huber |
| Submitter: | Ann Huber |
| Date Created: | 12/06/2011 Date Submitted: 12/06/2011 Status: Approved |
| Attendance : | Arizona Board of Regents Arizona State University Maricopa Community Colleges Mohave Community College Northern Arizona University Northland Pioneer College Pima Community College University of Arizona |
| Meeting Minutes : |
Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee March 4, 2011 Meeting Notes / APPROVED Present: [voting members] Gail Burd; Maria Harper-Marinick; Stephanie Jacobson; Suzanne Miles; Karen Pugliesi; Jeanne Swarthout; David Young [ex officio members] Melinda Gebel; Michael Hensley; Ann Huber; Rebecca McKay; Erin Woodell Guest: Michael Rourke Absent: Greg Gillespie and Kent Scribner Motion: S. Jacobson moved and S. Miles seconded a motion to approved meeting notes and adopt consent agenda items. Motion carried. AZTransfer.com Marketing: D. Young and E. Woodell E. Woodell was asked to demonstrate the results of some of the projects on which she has been working. D. Young indicated that the administrative functions/sites of AZTransfer.com will be pulled and a new web site with new branding is being developed, and is part of what E. Woodell demonstrated. AZTransfer will have a much stronger student focus. Participants were complementary about the work that E. Woodell has done. Shared Unique Numbering System: S. Jacobson Significant advances have been made since the last meeting. The Joint Council of Presidents (JCP) and the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) agreed to implement the SUN system rather than the system in which the agreed upon courses would have the same prefix, number, title, outcomes, etc. With SUN, 204 courses have been identified as fitting the requirements of the legislation. Phase I has dealt with those courses that are already equivalent at all institutions. Originally there were ninety courses, however, 13 more have been added for a total of 103 multidirectional courses. Those courses are now entered and accessible online. Phase II has already begun. M. Hensley is doing an analysis of the other 101 courses that were identified for inclusion in SUN; spreadsheets and course lists are being prepared for pertinent colleagues to resolve the issues about direct equivalencies. This work will continue through the fall of 2011 since some courses will need to be discussed at the Fall ATF meetings. The implementation plan indicates that the SUN number must be included in catalogs, class schedules and transcripts. Schools should begin planning now, to determine how to implement SUN so that by January of 2012 that process is underway. E. Woodell has developed two logos for the SUN project, one that institutions will be asked to place in their catalogs and the other to be used for marketing purposes. The SUN System will look very different from the Course Equivalency Guide. K. Pugliesi asked if the number of units need to be equivalent; members agreed they do not. However, the universities were charged to do a pilot project taking one course and determining how to establish it as a ?common course? with the same course prefix, number, title, outcomes and units. Once the universities have worked through that process, the community colleges will be brought into that conversation. Chief Academic Officers need to ensure that appropriate staff members on their respective campuses are working now to determine how to implement SUN. Although APASC could facilitate a meeting of an IT group, or include this as an information item at the A&R ATF meeting, each institution is responsible for the implementation of SUN on their own campuses. R. McKay asked if the Admissions and Records ATF members will be updated on SUN. D. Young stressed that the information should come from the CAOs to their staff who will be involved in the implementation of SUN. This is not an APASC project and APASC has no authority in its implementation. The only update at this time is to inform members that they will hear more from their CAO?s. Erin will send the web link. S. Jacobson indicated that SUN is a great advancement. The Arizona Student?s Association (comprised of students from the three universities) was originally critical of the system, however, they are less critical as it unfolds. Arizona Community College President?s Council Update (ACCPC): J. Swarthout Members of the ACCPC adopted a Strategic Vision Plan. It will go forward only after the community college boards have approved it. It will then be discussed with the Arizona Board of Regents and lined up with their Vision 2020 Plan. ABOR Update: S. Jacobson A new brochure was distributed, explaining the ?Enterprise Model?. Additionally, ABOR is refining and carrying out the Vision 2020 Plan even as budget cuts are implemented. They are still committed to developing low cost options such as partnerships with community colleges, Colleges @ ASU and delivering baccalaureate degrees in three years. General Education Articulation Task Force Mission and Goals: K Pugliesi At the February GEATF meeting, members approved Mission and Goals along with the recommended text for the APASC Bylaws. This information was submitted to APASC. The GEATF?s recommendation for membership was that it would ?. . . consist of faculty and/or staff articulation facilitators from each member institution.? Based on the goals, it seemed that they would be most effectively met by faculty rather than articulation staff. APASC members discussed whether or not there is still a need for this group, since the AGEC is well established, and the agenda items focused on general education seem to be few. M. Harper-Marinick suggested that if they are now dealing with articulation issues, that would be an extension of the work of ATAC, not GEATF work. ACTION ITEM: APASC staff will discuss the flow of information as it relates to the AGEC, and recommend to future status of the GEATF. APASC becoming a ?legal entity?: D. Young and J. Swarthout Hiring E. Woodell demonstrated that APASC is currently a non-entity. There is no authority to hire. Some staff report to ASU, others are under the auspice of ABOR (E. Woodell, M. Hensley and A. Huber). The flow of funds is also handled through both ASU and ABOR. Additionally, the Governor?s Office has approached APASC co-chairs requesting that APASC take on new projects. D. Young and J. Swarthout met with NPC?s attorney and will meet with ABOR lawyers to discuss this issue further. J. Swarthout indicated that APASC cannot avoid being assigned more projects, yet the leadership consists of volunteers. It will be investigated to determine both the benefits and drawbacks. Engaging Students in the Work of APASC: D. Young The common course numbering legislation was brought to the forefront by students. Students are not feeling as though the system is serving them, so we need a process that guarantees their input. E. Woodell will develop several focus groups for feedback on SUN and include students. S. Jacobson indicated that when she met with Erin Hertzog and asked her if she thought there would be an advantage having a student group consisting of community college and university students, she agreed. ASA could be instrumental in establishing this student group. Every institution does not need to be included in the group, but a good representation of rural and urban is critical. Process for Approving Exam Score Recommendations: A. Huber A. Huber indicated that discussions at ATF meetings to determine if commensurate credit could be agreed upon for specific exam scores began formally in 2002, with a request by APASC to consider Advanced Placement (AP) and the College Level Examination Program (CLEP). Legislation was passed in the spring of 2010 which is listed under the ?general powers? of the Board, requiring that the universities under the Board ?. . . in consultation with the community college districts . . . develop and implement common equivalencies for specific levels of achievement on advanced placement examinations and international baccalaureate examinations in order to award commensurate postsecondary academic credits . . . .? K. Pugliesi asked if an ATF agrees to lower the amount of credit that an institution awards, is that institution required to award the agreed upon credit? S. Jacobson suggested that the institutions work in good faith assuming that progress will be made on many, and for some exams there will not be agreements. We do need to do the best that we can. ATFs can make recommendations to the institutions; the institutions have to determine if those will be accepted. ACTION ITEM: The APASC Executive Committee will discuss this further and report at the April APASC meeting. Transfer Guides: K. Pugliesi K. Pugliesi asked if there is a possibility that the Transfer Guides could change, since they are currently labor intensive to maintain? Additionally, at some point could AZTransfer facilitate the evaluation of out-of-state transcripts? R. McKay indicated that transfer guides will soon be retired. They use to be less work when all universities used DARS; now only one school uses DARS. Meeting adjourned at 11:37 AM. |