Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee
Meeting Notes
April 22, 2003
Participants:
Members: Rene Delgado (AAATF), Richard Drum (AWC), Richard Duran (Pima CC; co-chair), Bill Fee (GEATF & ATAC), Kate Dillon Hogan (community college at-large), Stephanie Jacobson (ABOR), Ruth Jones (ASU Main), Jim Lamb (Central), Ron Pitt (NAU; co-chair), Don Richardson (GEATF), Randy Richardson (UA), Mark Searle (ASU West), Casey Self (AAATF), Anna Solley (Maricopa via teleconference)
Others: Stewart Barr (Philosophy ATF), Linda Burns (CAS), Debra Campbell (Philosophy ATF), Amy Fountain (CAS), Zoila Gamero de Tovar (ASU), Melinda Gebel (ASSIST), Dave Padgett (Pima CC), Gretchen Schmidt (Articulation Facilitator), Regent Gary Stuart
APASC began the meeting with a discussion of the evaluation of the transfer model. Ron suggested that a subset of ATAC begin to look at the curriculum components of the transfer model over the summer and report to APASC in the fall. Regent Stuart suggested that the evaluation wait until after the summer – by then, the policy decisions related to Changing Directions would be announced. Ruth suggested that that ATAC begin looking at and documenting the assumptions that are inherent in the transfer model. Kate agreed and asked Regent Stuart about ABOR and the universities’ commitment to the integrity of the transfer model. Regent Stuart stated that ABOR and the universities are committed to the transfer model. A discussion about the university changes in admissions standards followed. A discussion about student participation in the evaluation of the transfer model then occurred. APASC asked ATAC to look at the idea of putting a student survey on CAS in conjunction with the evaluation of the model.
APASC appointed an ATASS Technical Committee whose charge is to examine and plan for the infrastructure of the ATASS technical systems. This planning should be completed in conjunction with budget planning annually. The Quality Team will still take care of the operational issues and planning oversight for the technical systems. The Technical Committee is comprised of the following individuals: Joe Matt, Linda Burns, Randy Richardson, Kate Dillon Hogan and Jim Lamb. The Technical Committee will report to APASC at the November meeting and will have a plan to submit with the budget at the February meeting. Ruth moved to accept. Mark seconded. Vote was unanimous to accept.
There were a few changes to the February 2003 meeting minutes. On page 1, “the group allowed Dave Padgett to serve…” – spelling error. Kate asked if she could send language to replace the BPC 100 statement on page 3 of 6. Gretchen stated that she would make both changes to the February 2003 minutes. Randy moved to accept minutes pending changes. Kate seconded. Vote passed unanimously.
Gretchen gave an overview of the budget committee’s request to update the position description for the CAS Transfer Analyst position to reflect the actual responsibilities of the position and then to increase the salary accordingly. The position responsibilities have grown increasingly more technical since the position was created and the job description and salary have never been updated. Gretchen stated that the budget committee recommends that the salary increase be funded in FY 2004 using the carry forward in the ATASS budget as part of the continuation in FY 2005. Anna asked about the amount of the carry forward in the account housed at ABOR. Gretchen states that the carry forward is estimated at $52K. Anna asked about the use of the carry forward to fund the additional ATASS position. Ron and Richard stated that they did not feel that spending the carry forward down would be the best course if action in current budget times. The carry forward would have to be used if there was a revertment by the state in the coming budget cycles. Richard Drum moved to accept the proposal. Stephanie seconded. Voted passes unanimously.
As a follow up, Kate asked for a revenue and expenditures sheet for the portion of the ATASS budget housed at ABOR that included the carry forward and the ARU funds. Gretchen stated that she would take care of that and make sure it was in the June meeting materials.
Ruth then provided an overview
of the need for an additional CAS position to support the systems housed at
ASU. Rebecca is pregnant and will be on
maternity leave in the fall and then will come back part time for the time just
after her leave. Kate asked if any
carry forward funds could be used to cover Rebecca’s position in 2004 while she
is out of the office. Ruth stated that
if the new position was approved as part of the FY 2005 budget request, ASU
would backfill the position in FY 2004.
Richard Drum asked what the scenario would be if the position is not
funded by the institutions. Anna asked
what the actual impact would be on the community colleges. Gretchen stated that the funding for the
position would be split in 2 and that the community colleges would divide based
upon FTSE. Randy asked what activated
we are going to stop if there is a substantive budget cut. Ruth stated that APASC needs to identify
what activities to stop if the budget is not approved. Stephanie stated that this is a very specialized
system and to allow a shortage in staffing would be shortsighted. Kate asked about using ACRES in a fee for
service model. Amy responded that ACRES
is built with multiple use software – the new ATF chatlines and TSO application
use the same software so to charge for the use of ACRES would be
difficult. After further discussion,
Ruth moved to accept the budget with the new staff line with further detailed
discussion at the June APASC meeting.
Mark seconded. Randy asked
whether there would be a logical end for the need for additional staff. He noted that APASC needs a long-term plan
for staff support. Anna recommended
that the new CAS position be voted upon at the June meeting after APASC had
discussed the strategic plan and had more
information about available resources including the use of carry forward
funds. Kate noted that the ATASS staff had doubled since 1998 and that there is
a need for long term planning. Debra
Campbell noted that there has been an unbelievable improvement to the systems
for the user in the last 3 years. The
vote passed with one ‘no’ vote – Anna voted against adding the new CAS position
to the budget request.
Stephanie handed out a letter from the ACCA to the ABOR central office staff recommending a new structure for the Joint Conference Committee. The ACCA recommendation for community college representation would be two trustees (1 urban and 1 rural) and two presidents (1 urban and 1 rural). Stephanie asked the group to discuss whether the ABOR representation should be adjusted accordingly. Mark Searle stated that the representation would no longer be peer to peer and what are the implications of that discrepancy. Regent Stuart stated that the are both political and structural reasons for the representation to be peer to peer. Regent Stuart stated that he would like there to be an organizational meeting after June 30th, the date that the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges is disbanded. The new JCC will then have to craft a mission statement for the new group. There was a motion to endorse the structure for the new JCC as recommended by the ACCA. Anna moved. Jim Lamb seconded. Vote passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #5 – University-to-University Articulation and Changing Directions Update
Randy stated that the universities are being asked by the Regents to examine university-to-university articulation. Randy noted that UA cannot allot any additional resources to articulation as a whole so if the Regents moved forward with a detailed university-to-university articulation plan, UA would have to divert resources from community college-to-university articulation efforts to satisfy that request. Randy also discussed the Changing Directions admissions policy change that the Regents would review at their upcoming meeting. The transfer student admissions policy will not be changed as part of the revised policy. Randy distributed the Board book item to APASC.
Agenda Item #6 – Status Report on Arizona Regents University (ARU) Agreement
Gretchen gave a verbal update on the Quality Team progress on the ARU agreement. Gretchen stated that she had sent the progress report included in the materials to Ted Christensen at ABOR and had not received a response or further direction for the project. The Quality Team is in a holding pattern until a more specific scope and direction document is provided by the ARU project management team. Amy added that the original MoU stated that the statewide staff would receive the project specifications from the ARU project management team and that had not been received yet. Ruth added that there are communication difficulties between the ARU director and the project management team members. The delay in progress on this project was not a fault of the statewide staff. The clarity of the tasks at hand have not yet been approved. Gretchen stated that she would continue to update APASC on the progress of the project.
Gretchen gave an overview of the paper and the reason that APASC was asked to address the transfer issues. Ron suggested that all APASC members send comments and responses to Gretchen prior to the June APASC meeting and then Ron and Gretchen would develop a response for APASC review in June. Everyone agreed.
Agenda Item #8 – ATF Issues for Discussion
Stewart Barr and Debra Campbell came to APASC on behalf of the Philosophy ATF to request a standard for faculty qualifications for community college faculty members. This is an issue that has been raised many times in the chair reports from the Philosophy ATF. Richard Duran responded that the minimum standard for hiring faculty for all 10 community college districts are those standards developed by NCA. Any standards for faculty qualifications above and beyond the NCA standards are controlled by the individual districts. Richard stated that he did not feel that it was within the purview of APASC to weigh in on faculty standards. Anna stated that as far as Maricopa is concerned, the recommendation from the Philosophy ATF is part of the Maricopa standards. Stewart stated that there are colleges in the state that have used faculty that have fewer qualifications than the standards listed by the Philosophy ATF. Richard Duran stated that each district is free to choose the category but most districts have adopted the SBDCCA standards. APASC stated that the state law is outlined in the Philosophy ATF request and they would not make additional recommendations.
Gretchen asked APASC if chair training should continue to be conducted in 3 regional sessions as it was in Fall 2002. APASC agreed and NAU, Maricopa and UA/Pima volunteered to host. Ron asked that the technological changes to the statewide systems as well as an overview of the Changing Directions proposals be included in the presentation.
All common course matrices were accepted with the exception of the English matrix. There were questions about some changes to the draft matrix and since no chair report was received, the changes could not be clarified. The English changes will be revisited in the fall 2003.
Stephanie asked about footnotes in the common course matrices, who places them in the matrices, and their purpose. Stephanie felt that the footnotes make the matrices very confusing for students. ATAC was asked to revisit the topic of footnotes and discuss a way to make the common course matrices clearer for students. Kate moved to accept the common course matrix changes, with the exception of the English matrix. Mark seconded. Vote was unanimous
There was a discussion about developing a best practices page to give recognition to successful ATF work. The conversation was tabled until there was further discussion about staff workload and priorities in staffing.
“It is recommended that, for use in the AGEC, courses from regionally accredited higher education institutions, should be evaluated using individual community college’s institutional guidelines for including a course in their AGECs.”
The GEATF co-chairs moved to accept the proposals with the language as amended. Ruth seconded. Vote was unanimous. Gretchen stated that she would send the proposals to the registrars, admissions offices and the advising task force.
There was an addition to the language in the addendum to the ASSIST security agreement based on review of legal council. This was the second reading of the language. Mark moved to accept the addendum to the ASSIST security agreement with the updated language. Ruth seconded. Vote was unanimous.
Melinda gave an overview of the ASSIST steering committee
meeting. Dave Padgett asked #10 on the
deliverables “Train new ASSIST users to extract data” was complete on
ongoing. Melinda stated that there
continues to be users group training sessions.
The ASSIST steering committee is now taking care of the data
documentation as outlined in the original deliverables in the ASSIST agreement. Randy asked Melinda to give him a sense of
how to give IR folks a sense of why you should use ASSIST instead of
institutional IR data. Melinda stated
that it is a training and awareness issue.
The only way to get transfer data is by using ASSIST. Richard Duran asked about #7 in the
deliverables “Resolve ASSIST student data inconsistencies with individual
institutions” – are we along the way to solving institutional issues with the
data. Melinda stated that there are
standard required data elements and that the major issues with data
inconsistencies have been resolved.
Agenda Item #11 – Report from the Arizona Transfer Articulation Committee (ATAC)
Bill gave an overview of the ATAC report. There were no comments or questions.
Agenda Item #12 – Report on CAS
Amy gave an overview of
the items on the CAS report. There were no questions or comments.
Rene introduced Casey Self, the new university co-chair for the AAATF – Casey is an advisor at ASU Main. Rene reported on the AAATF and TSO meetings in Sedona in February. The Spring 2004 meeting will be held in Laughlin in conjunction with the Arizona Advising conference. Don Richardson commended Rene and Lynne Tronsdal on their work as co-chairs of the AAATF.
Gretchen reported that all community college districts except Coconino have developed the curriculum for the AAEE degree and will have the degree implemented in the Fall 2003. Coconino is waiting to hire a faculty member to oversee the coursework for the new AAEE before developing the curriculum. Gretchen also reported that the AAEE workgroup will meet over the summer to discuss advising models for the new degree as well as how to list the new degree information on the ATASS site.
Kate reported on the progress on the pilot program for Peace Corps volunteers. The program was discussed quite a bit at the AACC convention. There was a conference call among the institutions interested in participating in the pilot program. The institutions thus far are Maricopa, ASU Main, ASU West and NAU. Kate will continue to report to APASC on the progress of the pilot program.
Kate reported that HBCUs – historically Black and Hispanic serving institutions were developing a network to support students in transfer. A website is under development to support the process. Maricopa will participate in the project and Kate wanted to invite other institutions to participate if they wanted.
Agenda Item #17 – Invitation to
AAC&U conference on general education
Gretchen reported that she was invited to attend the AAC&U conference on general education in Washington, DC in May. The conference organizers asked that a legislator from each state attend the conference as well. Gretchen was working with Rep. Jim Waring’s office to make arrangements to attend the conference.
Agenda Item #18 – ATF Attendance
2002-2003 meetings
APASC reviewed the ATF attendance for the 2002-2003 meeting cycle. Randy stated that he felt the UA attendance numbers were unacceptable and that he and Bill would make an effort to increase attendance in the upcoming academic year. Kate noted that structural issues at the rural community colleges contributed to low ATF attendance – often 1 faculty member sits on multiple ATFs which keeps that individual from attending all of the ones he/she is assigned. Gretchen agreed to send a copy of the ATF attendance to the CAOs at all of the institutions.
Agenda Item #19 – Institutional Updates
Agenda Item #20 – APASC Meeting
Schedule
The meeting schedule for the upcoming year was confirmed. APASC scheduled a meeting at NAU on June 3rd to complete the budget discussion and follow up on other lingering items.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05pm