STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE
1102 Q STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 324-2358
HTTP://WWW .CCCCO.EDU
Minutes
Articulation Officers Regional Representatives Meeting
October 9, 2008
Location:
Red Lion Hotel, Sacramento CA
Attending:
Deanna Abma, Kate Clark (phone until lunch), Jane Church, Dave DeGroot, Pete Dixon,
Bruce Johnston, Greg Keen, Dave Mack, Duane Short (for Mary Jennings-Smith), Jeff
Spano, Maggie Van Riper
Absent:
Mary Jennings-Smith (Duane Short attending)
Minutes:
Morning Session - Articulation Officers Only
Item 1 - Systems Office Report by Bob Quinn
1. Bob Quinn introduced himself as the new Articulation Coordinator, replacing Joanne
Vorhees. Also mentioned was Marianne Estes serving as the interim Transfer
Coordinator in Chris Yatoma’s vacancy. Both Bob and Marianne report to Jeff
Spano.
2. Articulation Addendum due November 17th. So far only 29 of the 110 campuses
have submitted. Please remind your regional campus’ to submit. Bob will also send
out a reminder via the art-all@cccco.edu listserv.
3. CCC AOs encouraged to use the art-all@cccco.edu listserv for community college
only correspondence versus using the CIAC listserv. Requested that Bob send out
instructions on its use.
4. The annual Articulation Officers grant in the amount of $1,000 was appropriated to
the Districts upon budget signing. Memo for identifying proposed spending plan
report and certification will be coming out shortly with completion required by
November 15. The apportionment of $1,000 may be increased during P1 if additional
funds are made available.
5. An organization chart depicting the Chancellor’s Office leadership and Jeff Spano’s
responsibilities was distributed.
6. The Regional Representative roster was distributed and requested that any errors be
brought to Bob’s attention
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE
1102 Q STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 324-2358
HTTP://WWW .CCCCO.EDU
7. Also related to the roster Bob asked that any Regional Representation changes be
brought to his attention. At the time both Deanna Abma and Jane Church mentioned
they will be transitioning out.
Item 2 – ASSIST Update by Jeff Spano
1. Governance changes are in place at ASSIST. Related to primary oversight is an
Executive Management Oversight Committee (EMOC) consisting of Jeff Spano from
CCCCO, Rachel Hendrickson from CSUCO, and Sue Wilbur from UCOP. The
EMOC once to twice a month to discuss ASSIST related issues and initiatives.
Under the EMOC is an ASSIST advisory team of intersegmental representatives from
different roles throughout the colleges. This team meets twice per year and met the
first time this August.
2. Staffing changes have also occurred at ASSIST. Several programmers have left and
have been replaced by contract programmers working out of UCOP and supervised
by Jane Meyer of UCOP and a member of the ASSIST Technical Advisory
Committee. Eric Taggert and Larry Coon have voluntarily left ASSIST and there are
no plans to replace either at this time.
3. Hardware was upgraded and a new hosting center, NACS at UC Irvine, was selected.
All hardware and network infrastructure is now supported by NACS.
4. A software upgrade is the next pending initiative at ASSIST. Currently the software
relies on old Java technology and is no longer supported by Microsoft. A “Vision”
meeting was held in Oakland in May to discuss the guiding principles, scope, and
functional needs of ASSIST into the future. Next a consultant will be contracted to
help develop requirements specifications with input from a project advisory team (to
be formed still). The requirements specifications will be then put out to bid. This redesign is expected to cost two million dollars and take a few years to implement.
5. The ACS site in Irvine was relocated and is now adjacent to the campus at the Center
for Educational Partnerships Building.
Item 3 – Regional Issues (ALL)
1. CAN
a. Considerable discussion on this topic, primarily the contradiction between the
numbers usefulness and the fact they are not maintained. The general
consensus among us AOs was as follows:
i. Advise recommending their discontinuance in catalogues after Spring
2009;
ii. Continue using them locally for advisement purposes to help students
find similar courses on other campuses as needed;
iii. Voluntarily remove our courses from the CAN list if they are no longer
consistent with those dated CAN descriptors; and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE
1102 Q STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 324-2358
HTTP://WWW .CCCCO.EDU
iv. Ask for an updated listing of CAN courses. AO reps ready to vote CAN
#'s out of catalog starting 09-10 catalog. Decided to wait for
confirmation from CSU LDTP tomorrow at NCIAC as to when CAN is
being sun-setted for LDTP - is it S09 or two years from when
descriptors are posted.
b. Dave Mack volunteered to draft a system wide message which after review
would be distributed.
2. C-ID
a. Request to encourage our appropriate faculty to go to the C-ID website
(www.c-id.net) to review learn about C-ID and, most importantly, review course
descriptors and provide feedback. The course descriptors have been
developed inter-segmentally with CCC, CSU and UC faculty working together.
b. It was requested we invite Michelle Pilati (C-ID Chair) to the next regional reps
meeting.
3. Second Semester Composition Course for IGETC Certification
a. The general response was to indicate it as one of two possible courses not
being certified under the new partial certification and allow the UC the make
the determination, warning the student that there may be some difficulty. Kate
will ask the question further at upcoming UCI workshops.
4. Question regarding policy on faculty written textbooks
a. Decided the question is best posed to other AOs using art-all. Kate will pursue
with her regional requester.
Item 4 - System Level Response to Out-Of-State Requests for Articulations, Transfer
Agreements, MOUs, etc
1. Much discussion about how so many want Associate Degree only as transfer
preparedness and how it is not appropriate for CCC graduates. Many nationals
consider students completing their IGETC has therefore completed their core
curriculum. It was noted the system has 100,000 students that transfer out of state.
2. It was noted that the Academic Senate has a subcommittee on Statewide Transfer &
Articulation. Take it there?
3. It was also noted that the Dallas CC System has a packet and a model to possibly
benchmark.
4. Next Steps:
a. Kate to come up with some recommendations for national groups to work with.
b. Attempt to get resolution from ASCCC and by in from CSSOs.
c. Verify CCC Chancellor’s Office support via funding meeting expenses etc.
d. Group consensus to bring together AOs (Bernie Day, Deanna Abma & Kate
Clark) and Transfer Center Directors to work on proposed language and
possible CSU GE/IGETC type templates for articulation agreements with outof-state institutions.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE
1102 Q STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 324-2358
HTTP://WWW .CCCCO.EDU
Item 5 - CCC GE AP List Progress Report – Dave DeGroot
1. Due to agenda time constraints this topic was limited to a handout only
Item 6 - Associate Programs – Stephanie Low
1. Handouts provided by Stephanie
2. Stephanie recapped her item via a post session email:
The Inventory of Approved Programs has a field for “transfer status” of credit programs. While
we have been reviewing applications to revise non-compliant degrees, we have been very careful
to enter the transfer status of the existing, non-compliant degree into this field for the revised
degree. This activity brought to our attention that many colleges were not aware of this field in
the inventory or what its values mean, and as a result, we started to pay closer attention to the
catalog language used to describe students’ options for general education patterns in order to be
sure that students are given information about selecting the appropriate GE pattern if they intend
to transfer.
Our approach has been that if a proposed degree is intended for transfer, then we are requesting
that the college develop and propose language that recommends the CSUGE or IGETC pattern
for students who intend to transfer, with a strong statement that advises students to select the
appropriate pattern with assistance from a counselor. When the proposed degree is not intended
for transfer, then the local GE pattern has been allowed. Exceptions are made when the major or
area of emphasis requires a large number of units in lower-division preparation coursework, in
which case the degree description needs to explain this, after which the local GE pattern is
allowed.
Proposal:
The System Office will approve two degrees when colleges want to give students options based
on individual academic goals. One degree will be given transfer status (with proper
documentation as required) and will include the recommendation to complete either CSUGE or
IGETC, with advice from a counselor. The other degree will not have transfer status and will
allow students to complete the local GE pattern. Both degrees can be submitted with a single
application. However, the two degrees will be entered separately into the inventory and will be
assigned separate unique codes. It will not be necessary for colleges to list both degrees in
catalogs, unless there are differences in the major or area of emphasis requirements. This degree
structure was approved for revised degrees at the colleges in Ventura CCD, so you can see what
the listing looks like on the inventory for Moorpark, Oxnard or Ventura College. The degrees are
listed in the 49 T.O.P. category (4901.00, 4901.10, etc.).
We’d like feedback about this issue. Does this really matter on your campus? Are there
consequences that we have not considered? Will your college have the resources to track whether
a student is awarded the non-transfer or transfer degree?
Afternoon Session – Joint Session with Articulation Officers and Transfer Center
Directors
Item 7 - MAP Systemwide Feasibility Study Presentation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE
1102 Q STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
(916) 324-2358
HTTP://WWW .CCCCO.EDU
1. Presentation by Jim Gaston, IT Associate Director, SOCCCD
2. MAP is an online transfer planning tool for use by students. MAP identifies courses
taken by a student, courses required per the selected transfer institution, and courses
that still need to be taken. The student can then store and take that plan to a
counselor for verification. More information is at www.socccd.edu/map
3. The CCC Chancellor’s Office is currently supporting a one time grant awarded to
SOCCCD to investigate whether the MAP product has system wide applicability. If
feasible, it would be developed to integrate with Banner, PeopleSoft, and Datatel
applications. Colleges could opt in for use.
4. A report on the outcome of the grant study is expected Spring 2009.
Item 8 - Legislative Update by Dave DeGroot and Roberta DelRosario
1. It was mentioned that both Dave and Roberta were stepping down in their liaison
role, and replacements would need to be identified.
2. Dave mentioned Concurrent enrollment was extended as is - didn't loose it, but not
what Portantino wanted. So, he'll be back trying to expand it.
3. It was also mentioned that gains were made for students that can take advantage of
exemptions of the 5% rule during the summer - look at bill.
4. Dave notes there was nothing significant to report from his legislative 'networking'
visits yesterday . . . keeping the door open!
Item 9 - CSU LDTP Discussion (ALL)
1. Report from Jeff Spanos of the CSU LDTP summit held October 8th in Long Beach to
see what can be done to get the CCC to engage in partnership. CCC was
represented by Mark Wade Lieu, Jane Patton, Jeff Spano, and Michelle Pilati. Again,
our CCC reps expressed our concerns, especially SDSU concern. CSU claimed no
promotion on their part for SDSU Accountancy type articulations, but that it is up to
faculty to determine how they articulate. Jeff felt good conversations, but . . .
2. After Jeff's presentation he had to leave. Much discussion occurred on the subject much of what we have said for years. However, some AOs that have been very
opposed to LDTP are starting to participate
3. Those of us that are still advocating holding out suggested to our AO rep, Deanna
Abma, on the LDTP Advisory Board (meeting next month) that if CSU would:
a. Commit to adding the LDTP articulations to existing campus-to-campus
articulations vs. deleting them in favor of the LDTP articulation agreements
(repeal SDSU Accountancy) and
b. Publish TCSU numbers and list which CSU Campuses will accept them CCC
articulation officers would engage in the LDTP process.
Meeting Concluded at 3:00 pm