Joint Boards Agenda

Draft Minutes May 2, 2008

Minutes of the Joint Boards of Education

Portland State University

May 2, 2008

1)  Welcome, Introductions, and Overview

Director Kirby Dyess called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. and invited the participants to introduce themselves.

OSBE members present: Jerry Berger, Lew Frederick, Artemio Paz, Jr, and Duncan Wyse.

OSBHE members present: Don Blair, Kirby Dyess, Hannah Fisher, Brian Fox, Jim Francesconi, Paul Kelly, Rosemary Powers, and Preston Pulliams.

Members excused: James Sager, Office of the Governor; Nikki Squire, Brenda Frank, Steve Bogart, OSBE

Staff present: Lee Ayers (IFS), Connie Green (CCWD), Krissa Caldwell (CCWD), Ed Dennis (ODE), Mark Endsley (OUS), Ryan Hagemann (OUS), Lesley Hallick (OHSU), Bob Kieran (OUS), Margie Lowe (Governor’s Office), Salam Noor (ODE), George Pernsteiner (OUS), Mary Robinson (OUS), Hilda Rosselli (WOU), Bruce Shaffer (OUS), Karen Sprague (UO), Marcia Stuart (OUS), Susan Weeks (OUS), and Elaine Yandle-Roth (CCWD).

2)  Unified Education Enterprise Update and Recommendations

Director Berger introduced the agenda item by noting that the Unified Education Enterprise (UEE) was formed four years ago by the Joint Boards with the purpose of helping coordinate Kthrough collegiate work. Many initiatives have been undertaken, new relationships established, and, to date, some worthwhile things have been accomplished. He expressed hope that at this meeting the Joint Boards would adopt some important recommendations.

Director Berger recognized the members who had participated on the UEE: Nikki Squire from the OSBE; Dalton Miller-Jones, Tony Van Vliet, and Preston Pulliams from the OSBHE; and James Sager, Governor’s Office. He also recognized those who had staffed the UEE: Connie Green, Karen Sprague, Bob Turner, and Salam Noor.

a)  AAOT Recommendations

The UEE asked the Joint Boards to approve the Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer (AAOT) Degree, Dual Credit, Communication/Marketing, and a draft of Senate Bill 342 that will be finalized and presented at the meeting in November. Director Berger began with the AAOT update. He called on Elaine Yandle-Roth to begin the presentation. Ms. Yandle-Roth thanked Hilda Rosselli and Karen Sprague who have been very active in the process of developing the new requirements. It was noted that 20 years ago, at the request of the legislature, the first Oregon Transfer Degree was formulated. The AAOT Degree has since been periodically updated. The most recent update was in 2002 and was the largest revision in the 20-year time period.

When staff began studying the AAOT Degree, they discovered that it worked very well in the transition from the community colleges to OUS institutions. There appeared to be more problems in transitioning between community colleges. This arose around misunderstandings of what the degree was supposed to do and could and couldn’t do. An analysis seemed to point to transitions from one community college base with certain requirements to another institution that had added requirements to the base; e.g., students from community college A might have been on track and completed most of their requirements at that institution, but when they transferred to another community college they found that they had more coursework to complete. Resolving these issues became a first task of the UEE.

The Council of Instructional Administrators, in January 2007, began discussions about what was needed in general education and in the AAOT Degree. One of the points of agreement was that there should be consistency among the community colleges. Translated, this meant that instead of “this is the base and you can add to it,” it meant “there will be an agreement on a single set of requirements and you can’t offer the degree with anything added.” If a community college wanted to add the AAOT Degree, they had to offer it as agreed. That is a major change, Ms.Yandle-Roth explained.

Initially, the provosts agreed that if the community colleges could agree on the requirements, the universities would accept them. However, after several meetings, the provosts raised some very tough questions that forced a re-examination of the AAOT Degree. Some of the concerns were relative to sequences of courses, minimum requirements, and different levels of electives, as well as GPA and other issues. Several years ago, the Oregon Transfer Module was created, which was used as part of the AAOT Degree that will need to be addressed as restructuring if the degree continues. There was agreement on the requirements for the degree presented to the Joint Boards. There will still need to be some additional wording changes, a preamble added, and formatting changes.

Director Berger pointed out that the work had focused on the curriculum of 17 independent institutions, each with its own local board, and they had reached agreement on one degree. "It's incredible what our staffs did, statewide, to help students. This is really ground-breaking work in that people were willing to give up what they said were their pet courses or pet beliefs to have one thing that works for students," Director Berger said. "It’s really good work and I appreciate it as a member of the UEE."

"This is really a minor miracle as far as I’m concerned, in terms of getting 17 institutions to agree on a good thing. It is wonderful," Director Pulliams added. He commended all of those involved for very good work.

Director Powers asked about the cultural literacy item that Ms. Yandle-Roth said would be embedded into the content in courses and questioned if there were criteria. It was explained that there is not presently a common set of criteria. This is one of the areas under consideration. The same kind of work will be extended to information and cultural literacy.

Director Fox asked if there were specific course designations or set class titles that count under each section. Ms. Sprague explained that, at present, each institution that offers an AAOT has a list of courses that are appropriate for the various categories. This is an area where considerable work still needs to be completed. Some of the work in this area came out of one of the provisions of Senate Bill 342 – another item on the Joint Boards agenda. The plan was to resolve some of the problems that students encountered in transferring. For instance, if a student earned an AAOT degree, all of the course work would transfer automatically to the four-year institutions. Some of those courses on their own, however, outside the AAOT, don’t transfer—at least not as general education. At the present there is no rational way to evaluate the courses on their own. "What we decided was needed was some set of criteria that everyone could agree to that would define, for example, Arts and Letters courses. So that’s the big process that is currently underway."

Director Dyess asked for a motion to approve the Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer Degree as presented. Director Pulliams so moved, seconded by Director Fox. On a voice vote, all Board members present answered yes. There were no negative signs or abstentions. Motion carried.

b)  Dual Credit Recommendations

Dual credit is defined as a student taking college-level courses while in high school. At the present time, 17 community colleges, as well as several of the universities, offer dual credit. There are a number of frequently asked questions about duel credits: Is the arrangement working? Are people being successful? Are high schools giving away credit? A decision was made for UEE to add this topic to its agenda.

Statistically, one in seven Oregon high school juniors or seniors took advantage of dual credit. Director Burger emphasized the number, "One in seven. We know that an estimated $9 million in tuition is being saved by students and parents on dual credit options." However, UEE felt that more information was required to make informed decisions.

Karen Sprague explained that it was important to determine how large the programs were and whether the concept was being implemented statewide or just in the Willamette Valley. UEE appointed a task force composed of an equal number of individuals from the OUS, community colleges, and K-12. Upon examination, it was found that the programs had much larger enrollments than originally imagined. Across the state, there is some kind of program in every high school. Some high schools, of course, offer many more courses and a greater range of subject matter than others. However, there are opportunities everywhere in the state. Bob Kieran (OUS Institutional Research) and Marilyn Kolodziejczyk (OCCURS Director at CCWD] found a way to obtain student records and analyze them. Ms. Sprague explained that this work constituted the most systematic analysis done on the topic of dual credit. A goal was to compare the academic performance of students who took the same kind of course – for example, a particular writing or math course – either as dual credit or as a regular university or community college counterpart. Then an examination was done on how students performed in the next course of the sequence – not just any course – but how they did in the course that would logically follow the sequence.

Mr. Kieran indicated that the analysis started with the performance of the students in the high schools, in course sequences that could be analyzed. The first goal was to analyze the dual credit students to see if they were successful in the next level and also to look at the general student population that took those same first course sequences in the college setting. In essence, there was a control group against which the dual credit students could be compared. The study was restricted to those that were in the sequences, which was a smaller percentage of the students, but incorporated some of the big discussion items like mathematics, writing, and foreign language, in particular, Spanish. Caution was exercised in the conclusions, because those students who take dual credit courses, in general, are expected to be more motivated, advanced, and prepared. "So we couldn’t really conclude whether the dual credit instruction was better than that in college or in a two- or four-year public institution," Mr. Kieran explained. "The question was whether they were adequately prepared to go on to the next sequence."

In general, the analysis discovered that students were able to perform at the same level or better than the students who had taken the first course in a college setting, whether it was at a community college or at a four-year school. The study looked at retention as well, once students enrolled in college. It was found that they were retained at a higher percentage than the native students who hadn’t taken dual credit courses. The difference between the performance in community colleges and separately at OUS was examined and students were successful at the same percentage or better at both sectors. It did not seem to matter whether the next course in the sequence was at a two- or four-year public institution, with regard to success.

Some shortcomings were discovered in the data that will be examined in the coming year. With just one year’s worth of data, Mr. Kieran explained, the current report is only a snapshot of a larger picture. There will be more conclusive data in the coming years.

Director Fisher asked if staff had done any extrapolations in terms of family income levels of students who enrolled in the dual credit programs. Mr. Kieran responded that they had not done that kind of analysis. Continuing, Director Fisher offered that this kind of information could be important because it is a "money saver," particularly important for students who are low income. Mr. Kieran admitted that one of the shortcomings in the collection of these data was that, at this time, they were not able, centrally, to identify the high school affiliation of the students. Work is underway to correct this but it may take considerable time. Once it is available, some indicators of schools with large concentrations of students on free and/or reduced lunch, could be added. "It is always hard, at every level, to look at income," Mr. Kieran explained. "We only have income data on a certain sector of students and that skews the results. The students for whom we don’t have income information are the higher income students who aren’t applying for financial aid."

One aspect of the data analysis centered on the question: Does an “A” in a dual credit course, for example, or a “B,” correspond to or mean the same thing as an “A” or a “B” in the corresponding college course. If it does, it means that the student has achieved the same level of understanding and, therefore, should be equally prepared to go on to the next course. Mr.Kieran disaggregated the data by the grade earned in the first course and plotted it against the grade earned in the second course. (A copy of the chart is available in the Board's Office.) Ms.Sprague pointed out that this type of presentation was a good way to avoid serious misunderstandings when the data are presented in an understandable way.

UEE recommended, first, that all of the dual creait programs be continued. Expansion of the program is limited because there are not enough teachers across the state who have the qualifications required to teach these courses. "The rule right now in Oregon is that high school teachers must have the same qualifications as a faculty member at the sponsoring institution. So, for example," Ms. Sprague explained, "if it is a community college sponsoring the program, the community college standards for their faculty have to be met. Likewise for an OUS institution, which in most cases means a master’s degree in the subject or higher." This presents major challenges in small high schools. For instance, in eastern Oregon, when the single teacher of the course with the appropriate qualifications leaves or retires, there usually is no replacement, and the program can't be continued. One of the steps the Task Force has taken is to prepare a policy option package to obtain funding to support these programs.