Members and Designees: Chuck Bantz (representing Milt Glick), ASU; Chuck Connell, NAU; Dan Fishco, Coconino CC; Dave Padgett (representing Carol Gorsuch), Pima CC; Bill Fee (representing Paul Sypherd), UA; Gordon Hall, SBDCCA; Alfredo de los Santos Jr., Maricopa CC District; Glenn Irvin (representing Elaine Maimon); Bruce Stanfield, Eastern Arizona College; Tom Wickenden-APASC Chair, ABOR.

Others Attending: Kate Dillon Hogan, in-coming Articulation Facilitator; Dick Spining (Chair Academic Advising ATF), Eastern Arizona College; Don Richardson, Maricopa; Don-Paul Benjamin, ABOR staff; Holly Carpenter, ABOR staff; Dave Schwalm, ASU-E; Vernon Smith (co-chair of Language ATF), Rio Salado CC, Maricopa District; Louie Olivas, ASU; Lucy Rock, Central Arizona College; Linda Wagoner, Mesa Community College.

1) The meeting was called to order by APASC Chair, Tom Wickenden.

2) The October 8, 1997, meeting notes were approved as corrected to reflect that Glenn Irvin represented ASU-E.

3) Report from Language ATF on APASC Request for Input on Language Competency Assessment and Recording.

Vernon Smith, co-chair of the Language ATF, reported that the his ATF supports the idea of uniformity in a language proficiency exam. Regarding terminology, his group, like APASC and others, are continuing to discuss this; both "foreign language" and "second language" have unacceptable connotations for some. The Language ATF is scheduled to meet on February 27 at ASU-W at which time APASC's requests, including terminology, will be discussed and recommendations arrived at. It was pointed out that "non-English" is the term being used by the Arizona Association of Academic Adminstrators (community college CAOs and other academic officers). If terminology is to be changed, AAAA should be notified at once. Smith reported that a subcommittee of the Language ATF has met to develop common criteria for common language competencies. Based on these competencies, uniform assessment instruments will be designated. There is a concern regarding access for students to assessment. The ability to assess students should, ideally, be distributed throughout state community colleges and universities using a common instrument and common competencies. The competencies, in general, are reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The recommended level continues to be fourth semester proficiency. In response to whether language with a strong oral tradition and little or no written tradition would be accommodated, Smith said an exception should be available, but cautioned that an exception should not function as a "loophole." In response to a question about whether it is possible to identify experts throughout the state who can assess language, Smith indicated that the ATF was discussing developing an assessment which is mobile (can be given at multiple sites) so long as it can be properly proctored. The oral portion of a language could be assessed over the phone or via computer voice link or telecommunication. Smith added that a statewide assessment effort is rare among the states. Only Oregon thus far has attempted this ambitious project; Arizona will likely be a leader if it succeeds. Regarding documentation of proficiency, Smith listed various possibilities: 1) A transcript reflecting completion of a "202" language course (fourth semester proficiency); 2) A College Level Placement Test (CLEP) or other test score as appropriate; 3) Certification by a designated person. The documentation could also assist in placing a student for subsequent language instruction.

Action: APASC stressed that it is important for the Language ATF, at its February meeting, to develop firm recommendations regarding all issues raised in the October 8, 1997, document: "APASC Recommendations Regarding the Assessment of Foreign Language Proficiency."

4) Follow-up on Proposals to Restructure/Rename ATFs.

The proposed criteria for creating new ATFs was presented for APASC adoption. Recommendations for altering the criteria made at the October APASC meeting have been incorporated.

5) Consideration of Requests for Creation of New ATFs.

APASC reviewed documentation related to requests to create two new ATFs: Technology and Early Childhood. There was some discussion that, as a natural progression of the ATF process, the faculty may request the creation of more ATFs. Having faculty who are closer to degrees may assist in articulation tasks such as identifying common courses. The more articulation tasks APASC assigns to the ATFs the more likely the faculty may feel the need for more ATFs. As ATFs increase, resources may become an issue re: the number of faculty available from smaller institutions to attend multiple ATFs. Some of this will be addressed by email and other communication means, such as the development of computer "chatlines," however it appears that ATF faculty still prefer to meet face-to-face, so eventually a balance will need to be considered between the number of ATFs and faculty/institutional resources available to staff ATFs. It may become necessary to differentiate between ATF issues which can be resolved electronically and those which require face-to-face discussion. A philosophy of maximizing a once a year face-to-face meeting and using electronic communication otherwise may have to be considered.

6) Consideration of Creating an APASC Co-Chair.

A community college sub-committee chaired by Carol Gosuch, Pima, developed an APASC Co-Chair Proposal (see Attachment A). The community college nominee for co-chair is Dan Fishco, Coconino CC, who will serve a two year term from 1998-99. A university nominee to replace the current chair is sought for a one-year term 1998-99; this person should be identified by the next APASC meeting. In Spring 1999, a university co-chair nominee will be named to a two year term, 1999-2001. It was recommended that at least one co-chair be from the Phoenix area to coordinate efforts with the Articulation Facilitator who will presently be based in Phoenix.

7) Update on Presentation of 1997 Progress Report to Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

On December 18, 1997, community college and university representatives presented the final draft of the Joint Conference Committee's 1997 Progress Report on the New Model and Support Services for Transfer Students in Arizona to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. In a December 22, 1997, letter from JLBC Director, Richard Stavneak, the JLBC gave the Report a favorable review and laid out directions for the future work of the Transfer Articulation Task Force. The letter is included as Attachment B.

8) Update on Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) Action Regarding Arizona General Education Core Curriculum (AGEC) and Associate Degrees.

At their meeting on January 8-9, 1998, the ABOR approved the following addition to Board policy 2-102, Undergraduate Admission Requirements:

APASC recommended this policy change at its October 8, 1997, meeting. Other statewide groups also endorsed the policy change: The General Education ATF, the Joint Conference Committee, and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona. The university admission directors and others have indicated that there will be some challenges involved in implementing this policy. This topic will be discussed at the February 13, 1998, meeting of the Arizona Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AzACRAO). A major issue is how can community college registrars best notify university admission offices of students who have completed, or are in the final semester of, their AGEC or associate degree? This is critical since transfer students tend to apply for university admission during their last community college semester before the AGEC or degree is completed. The issue on notification of the eminent completion of the degree is an immediate on since implementation of the new ABOR policy is scheduled to begin with students applying for admission for summer/fall 1998. The AGEC completion notification issue is less pressing, since the AGEC will not be available until Spring 1999. Computer system programming and re-programming may be necessary, and such changes have resource and time line implications. The Statewide Student Information System may need to be involved in implementing the APASC requirement to track the relative success of transfer students admitted under the new ABOR policy.

9) Update on Common Courses, Pathways, and New Degrees and Discussion of 1998 Progress Report Format.

APASC reviewed a summary of common university degree requirements identified by ATFs as of December 4, 1997. These courses were included in the 1997 progress report to the JLBC. All ATF have identified at least six common credits for at least one degree. A maximum of 28 credits were identified by the Business ATF. The average was 14 credits. Pathways have also been preliminarily identified the degrees included in each ATF. Work on pathways continues. The requirement for 4^th semester language proficiency is essential for the associate of arts degree general pathway. The ATFs should be praised for their efforts thus far and should continue to identify additional common courses and refine pathways. Should the ATFs be asked to report on remaining, non-common, unique lower division requirements? The ATFs are feeling a bit overloaded; APASC needs to take care in assigning additional tasks. The associate degree charts developed to aid ABOR Regent Judy Gignac in her post-JLBC hearing discussions with Representative Laura Knaperek were presented to APASC as good formats, with some additional information, to use for the 1998 progress report and as devices to use in training faculty and informing students.

10) Update on funding proposal for Arizona Transfer Articulation Support Services (ATASS).

A "Phase I" ATASS demonstration project has been funded to a maximum of $300,000 using $100,000 from the State Community College Board's teacher certification fund and a match of $100,000 each from the community college districts and the universities. The demonstration project will include activities similar to the Course Applicability System and the Data Warehouse. The articulation facilitator is being funded from January through June 1998 by the universities. The SBDCCA presented to the Legislature a plan for continued funding of ATASS and the universities and community colleges will unite in efforts to secure Legislative funding. Continuing funding will be sought for subsequent ATASS phases as follows:

Phase II (FY 1998-1999) Limited Statewide Implementation $500,000

Phase III (FY 1999-2000) Full Statewide Implementation $300,000

Phase IV (FY 2000 and beyond) Continuous Support for Statewide Implementation $300,000

The JLBC staff has recommended for FY 1998-99 a one-time appropriation of $300,000 for "Phase II" providing this is matched by an additional $200,000 ($100,000 from the community colleges and $100,000 from the universities). The governor's budget does not include a recommendation, but it is hoped that the JLBC proposal will go forward providing the universities and community colleges provide the match. There is no proposal at present for continued funding from the Legislature of Phases III, IV, and beyond. The JLBC budget document also includes a footnote directing the community colleges and universities to continue to meet in a study committee (the Transfer Articulation Task Force), to establish definitive timelines, and to report semi-annually on progress, once in June and once in December.

11) Update on "CAS" and Data Warehouse.

ASU is moving forward with activities to support the Course Applicability System (CAS) and the Data Warehouse (DW). ASU has graduate assistants working on CAS and ASU staff members are functioning as project leaders for CAS and DW. The original CAS prototype development partner, Miami University (Ohio) DARS, is continuing to support CAS through a consultant which DARS has funded to work with ASU. A draft memo of understanding has been completed for the DW. A similar MOU is being developed for CAS delineating deliverables. ASU is refining the budgets for the demonstration phase of both projects. The projects are moving forward in the technical sense. A demonstration for the JLBC in June 1998, might be possible depending upon technical progress.

12) Update on Articulation Facilitator.

Kate Dillon-Hogan, who currently serves as ASU's Director Of Student Financial Assistance, has accepted the position of Articulation Facilitator. Her official start date is March 15, 1998. The universities have agreed to support an articulation facilitator position with funding from January 1, 1998 through June 30, 1998 with the understanding that, beginning July 1, 1998, the universities and community colleges will equally share funding for continuation of the position. Funding for the articulation facilitator has been included in Phase II of the ATASS budget proposal, but the agreement between the community colleges and the universities to fund the position will be followed even if the position is not funded by the Legislature as part of ATASS.

13) Update on Academic Advising.

APASC received an update regarding the work of the Advising ATF from AATF Chair, Dick Spining. AATF is scheduled to meet on February 6 in conjunction with a statewide meeting of academic advisors. There is still concern that the AATF is not included in the ATF Handbook. Representatives at the meeting responsible for the handbook indicated that this would be done. All Transfer Student Ombudsmen (TSOs, informally to be called "Om-buddies") have been identified by all community colleges and universities. The TSOs have been discussing consistency in their view of their role. They are not "fix-it" people, but are there to monitor the system and make sure it's working. It was suggested that the TSOs should be represented on the AATF. A subcommittee is working on an advising handbook; they are leaning toward an electronic manual available on the Internet. There will be resource issues associated with expanding and enhancing advising.

14) Report from APASC Course Level Criteria subcommittee (APASC Goal III).

The subcommittee members are chair, Chuck Bantz (ASU); Don Richardson (MCCD); Bruce Stanfield (EAC); and Ron Pitt (NAU). They presented a proposed "Criteria for Upper/Lower Division Courses" (see Attachment D).

15) Progress Reports on Support for the ATFs (APASC Goals I & II).

Discussion deferred.

16) Progress Reports on Advising Systems and Transfer Centers (APASC Goal VI).

Discussion deferred

17) Other Items/Announcements.

Discussion was postponed on the issue of a student who begins at the university, has academic troubles, then goes to a community college and does well, is disadvantaged for readmission into the university or into certain university majors because his good work at the community college does not impact his original university GPA. Dave Schwalm will report suggestions to APASC regarding this issue at the next meeting.

• April 16, 1998, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., ABOR Central Office, 2020-North Central Avenue, Suite 230, Phoenix
• June 24, 1998, 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., ASU Administration Building, 2^nd Floor Board Room #202
• October 2, 1998, 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., ASU Administration Building, 2^nd Floor Board Room #202
• February, April, June, October, 1999

ATTACHMENT A:

APASC CO-CHAIR PROPOSAL

(APASC sub-committee: Carol Gorsuch (chair), Pima; Mary Briden, Maricopa; Dan Fishco, Coconino CC; Gordon Hall, SBDCCA; Dave Padgett, Pima; Don Richardson, Maricopa; Bruce Stanfield, Eastern Arizona; Irene Wright, Maricopa)

ATTACHMENT B:

Joint Legislative Budget Committee Letter

ATTACHMENT C:

Integrating the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC)
with the 1998 University Admission Requirements
(updated 11/4/97)

The General Education Articulation Task Force (GEATF), the Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee (APASC) and the Joint Conference Committee (JCC) recommend that the Arizona Board of Regents review and approve the following statement regarding an exemption from the 1998 Arizona university admission requirements for students who complete specific post-secondary curriculum prior to university transfer.

Students who complete the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC-A, AGEC-B, or AGEC-S) with a minimum 2.0 on a 4.0=A scale, or students who complete an associate or higher degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary institution with a minimum 2.0 on a 4.0=A scale for Arizona residents and a minimum 2.5 on a 4.0=A scale for non-residents, shall be considered to be exempt from Arizona university admission requirements.

APASC wishes to emphasize the following clarifications regarding this statement:

1. Completion of the AGEC or an associate degree or higher as described in this statement exempts a student from admission requirements only; such completion does not guarantee that a student will be admitted to a specific degree program.

2. Only completion of the AGEC or an Arizona Associate of Arts or an Arizona Associate of Business or an Arizona Associate of Science degree guarantees block transfer to fulfill all lower division undergraduate liberal studies requirements and specific lower division major requirements. Block transfer is not guaranteed for an Associate of Applied Science Degree, or any other associate degree, or any other combination of community college coursework; nor does the completion of these other associate degrees, or other combinations of community college coursework, guarantee that all units will transfer or be applicable to a degree program.

3. Beginning in 1998, university and community college researchers should gather data and report on the success rates of students who are admitted under this exemption to monitor and evaluate the relative success and performance of those admitted as:

   a) AGEC completers

   b) Arizona Associate of Arts completers

   c) Arizona Associate of Business completers*

   d) Arizona Associate of Science completers

   e) Arizona Associate of Applied Science completers

   f) Completers of other Arizona or non-Arizona associate degrees

   * Added to evaluation list 10/31/97

Criteria for upper/lower division courses