COTA Meeting Minutes, January 2006

Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA)
Missouri Department of Higher Education
January 17, 2006

Approved February 21, 2006

Participants: Evelyn Jorgenson, Karen Finkenkeller, James Scanlon, Jeanie Crain, Alton Lacey, Kandis Smith, Marsha Drennon, Julio Leon

MDHE Staff: Robert Stein, Laura Vedenhaupt, Jeremy Kintzel

Guests: Michael Prewitt, Jean McCann

Chair Evelyn Jorgenson called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

A motion was made by Dr. Marsha Drennon and seconded by Dr. Alton Lacey to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2005 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

CBHE Recommended High School Core Curriculum

Dr. Jorgenson reiterated prior consensus that any revised CBHE recommended high school core curriculum should align at minimum with revisions to high school graduation requirements adopted by the State Board of Education. Members discussed areas in which the core curriculum might provide further detail:

• alignments of electives and required science courses
• variation in guidelines for different sectors and admissions standards

Dr. Stein cautioned the committee to consider the balance of increased requirements in some course categories with necessary decreases in others. MDHE staff will research DESE guidelines on the applicability of individual courses to defined categories, i.e. speech as a language arts core course.

COTA directed MDHE staff to communicate with institutions requesting volunteers for a subcommittee to examine the CBHE recommended high school core curriculum. MDHE staff will address a letter to chief academic officers which will:

• define a charge from COTA including prescribed components of the revised core curriculum
• request volunteers from all sectors specifically including chief academic officers and admissions staff
• define the size of the subcommittee and a timeline for a report to COTA

Dr. Kandis Smith, Dr. Jeanie Crain, and Dr. Jorgenson volunteered to review the letter prior to its delivery and to serve on the subcommittee. A motion was made by Dr. James Scanlon and seconded by Ms. Karen Finkenkeller to approve the recommendations regarding formation of the subcommittee. The motion passed unanimously.

Transfer and Articulation Conference

Dr. Jorgenson reported that volunteers were interested in serving on the Transfer and Articulation Conference Coordinating Committee (TACCC), but that an official liaison from each sector was needed as a starting point. ICUM has named Rita Gulstad, Dean of Extended Studies and Learning Resources at Central Methodist University. MCCA forwarded several names, but it was unclear which was intended as the official representative of the public two-year sector. Dr. Terry Barnes, President of Mineral Area College, has been contacted for clarification and will address the issue at the February 2006 MCCA meeting. COPHE has not volunteered a sector representative; Dr. Barbara Dixon and/or Dr. Brian Long will be contacted for further direction. Ms. Finkenkeller will provide a name from the proprietary sector.

Course Applicability System/ConnectEDU

COTA had discussed Academy One/Course Applicability System and ConnectEDU with company representatives of each system during a conference call at the December 13, 2005 meeting. Dr. Jorgenson said that Ozarks Technical Community College was using ConnectEDU as part of a required course for all transfer students. Moberly Area Community College and State Fair Community College have expressed interest, but implementation would have to follow other extensive hardware/software upgrades now in progress. Dr. Jorgenson said that institutional adoption of either product would not be mandatory, but that wider participation would provide greater relevance for students. Questions remain regarding management of course equivalencies, set-up, and maintenance obligations. Dr. Jorgenson said that Ozarks Technical College has built costs associated with ConnectEDU into fees charged to students enrolled in the required transfer class. Dr. Stein said if there were interest in both systems, COTA would be ideally suited to make a recommendation to institutions. Members agreed to encourage participation in further face-to-face meetings with representatives of both companies, perhaps as part of the 2007 Transfer and Articulation Conference.

Dual Credit

A Missouri community college had inquired about implementing dual credit courses geared toward under-prepared students. The current dual credit policy is directed explicitly to high-achieving students, but there is interest in offering remedial courses for at-risk students during the school day. This approach, as opposed to a supplemental activity, would create less conflict with extra-curricular activities and might improve student motivation. By using the dual credit framework, college faculty would have access to teach in high school during the school day.

Dr. Jorgenson expressed reservations and said approval might imply belief that participating high schools were not capable of preparing students for collegiate-level work. Dr. Jorgenson also reiterated that developmental courses were often non-credit courses, which would complicate their integration into the dual credit policy. Dr. Scanlon and Dr. Crain stated that further implications might be created if students who had taken developmental dual credit courses in high school remained unprepared for college-level work. Dr. Jorgenson said that the availability of open admissions did sometimes reduce focus on high school work, and that Moberly Area Community College administers the ASSET test to high school students to illustrate areas for further study that might be necessary in order to avoid enrollment in developmental courses. COTA directed Dr. Stein to notify the inquiring institution that developmental dual credit was outside the realm of state policy, and encourage the institution to work with high school partners to find other collaborative activities (e.g., assessment) to benefit at-risk students.

Another institution had requested clarification regarding the 90 th percentile ACT/SAT scoring eligibility requirement for high school freshmen and sophomores. Institutional staff had inquired whether the 90 th percentile score needed to be a composite score, or whether it could be a relevant subscore, i.e. math subscore. Dr. Crain said eligibility requirements should reinforce limits on dual credit enrollment, especially since the Dual Credit Policy only guarantees a maximum of five courses for credit transfer. Dr. Smith said use of subscores might further encourage students to focus on areas of strength at the expense of their weaknesses. Dr. Jorgenson suggested that subscore admissions might create inequalities in relation to subject areas for which no subscores existed, e.g., psychology. Dr. Stein suggested MDHE staff could communicate with high school counselors through regular DESE mailings regarding the intent of policy concerning eligibility requirements. Committee members reached consensus that composite scoring should define dual credit admission for high school freshmen and sophomores, and that MDHE staff should communicate accordingly with high school staff.

Update of Transfer-Friendly Subcommittee Work

Committee members were joined on the conference call by transfer-friendly subcommittee co-chairs Dr. Mike Prewitt and Ms. Jean McCann. Dr. Prewitt said the subcommittee had discussed logistics and administration of a "transfer-friendly" rating system, and had discussed reservations and potential alternatives. Ms. McCann said the committee was planning to approach the issue from an annual "report card" structure -- collect institutional self-evaluations and provide targeted feedback with a summary of positive transfer practices. Ms. McCann said the survey issued by the subcommittee had resulted in only limited feedback and would be re-distributed. Dr. Jorgenson said that good practices needed to be quantified before moving on to the second charge, which directed consideration of the rating system. Dr. Jorgenson requested that the survey be provided to COTA members; Ms. McCann agreed.

Dr. Prewitt and Ms. McCann said the subcommittee had been uncomfortable with labeling institutions. Dr. Crain reinforced that the system would be voluntary, but could cultivate the development of good practices. Committee members stated that a prospective report card system would have to reflect the fact that some students' "bad transfer experience" had worked exactly according to established policies, but that students were misinformed or had unrealistic expectations. Dr. Prewitt said that many transfer/articulation issues were centered in teacher education articulation. Committee members directed Dr. Prewitt and Ms. McCann to report again at the April, 2006 COTA meeting.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, at the MDHE offices in Jefferson City. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. in the First Floor Conference Room.