Spring 2012 - Washington State Board for Community _ Technical

Document Sample
Spring 2012 - Washington State Board for Community _ Technical Powered By Docstoc
					                                                  Meeting Minutes
                                            SPRING ATC MEETING
                                  Location: Spokane Falls Community College
                                                  April 19-20, 2012
                              Library -- Bldg. 2, Room 206 for ITV accommodations

Thursday, April 19

10:00-10:15am            ATC Meeting Begins – Library -- Bldg. 2, Room 206
                         Rep. Jim Brady and Pam Praeger, President

10:15-11:15am Introductions
Please briefly introduce yourself, your school, your department, and your title. Please respond to one of the two
questions in your introduction: 1) Describe the most interesting innovation(s) occurring on your campus OR 2)
How do you address overt (or covert) resistance to change?

Janet Danley, Walla Walla, Clarkston Campus. Innovation – Title III grant to add technology to classroom and further
develop distributed instruction. More hybrid courses will be developed as these are especially useful for rural students.
Craig Lewis, Everett. Innovation – math and English faculty are changing their assumptions about developmental
education, are exploring how to move students through more effectively, and are developing a more diagnostic
Norma Goldstein, Shoreline. Innovation - virtualization of tutoring, advising, regional symposium on digital arts,
convergence of new technologies and degrees.
Rolita Ezeonu, Highline. Innovation- finished first year in gateway to college program that supports 16-20 year old HS
drop outs, engage faculty with students
Kyle Hammon, Lower Columbia College. Innovation – implementing a bucket course for precollege English.
Mary Soltzman, South Puget Sound; precollege reformation, bucket courses.
TR Gratz, Centralia. Innovation – BAS in management nearly approved
Joyce Loveday, Clover Park. Innovation – precollege math reform, bucket, modularizing instruction to provide support
where needed.
Mike Brandstetter, Bates. Innovation – working to engage faculty who are used to being isolated. Mike and the other
deans work hard to examine themselves to ensure they themselves are modeling the desired behavior.
Bruce Hattendorf, Peninsula. Innovation – changes in developmental math supported by Gates Foundation grant on a
very short timeline. Considering developing a Statway in precollege math.
Meg Dalzell, Whatcom. Innovation – has an ABE instructor who is deaf, and therefore deaf students can receive
instruction in ASL, and thereby eliminate costs of an interpreter.
Deb Meadows, Columbia Basin. Innovation –president has created a council that focuses on innovation and change to
better support a strategic approach to change management.
Gail Bruce, Skagit. Innovation – new president is supporting development of a strategic plan, opening lines of
Liz Cunnigham, Bellingham. Innovation – ATD college first year, reading apprenticeship – infusing reading throughout
programs and classes. Monthly meetings of faculty to coordinate.
Mike Flodine, Tacoma. Innovation – new technologies to make use of Tegrity lecture capture – it’s becoming increasingly
popular; it’s proven useful in emergency situations.
Peter Lortz, North Seattle. Innovation – precollege math 098 linked to a science course; president’s faculty diversity
initiative influencing hiring.
Chad Hickox, South Seattle. Innovation – as a district, Gates foundation grant to align curriculum and placement scores
for math and English in the district. Faculty are looking at outcomes for each level starting with ESL through Composition.
 David Chalif, Edmonds. Innovation – first year of full implementation for math redesign, all computer-based, mastery
Ray Korpi, Clark. Innovation – new Title II for First Year Experience, outcomes assessment, precollege redesign in math
and English, new IBEST grants for transfer, moving a large division to a main campus location from their previous location
in rented facilities.
Nancy Dick, Lake Washington Technical College. Innovation – opened new building in fall, requests for space now
possible given the move.
Roya Sabeti, Pierce Puyallup. Innovation – ATD “declare and prepare” model from TCC is being adopted, ABE/ESL faculty
adopting technology such as tegrity, clickers.
Gina Huston, Olympic. Innovation – precollege innovations in English bucket; will be submitting a Title III grant,
partnering with WSU engineering leading to lab expansion
Joyce Hammer, Green River. Innovation – math transcript placement, College Spark grant received to support doing that
for English placement.
Rick Underbakke, Wenatchee. Innovation – he finds the most vocal opponent and makes them the committee chair.
Jim Brady, Spokane Falls. Innovation – reform efforts in math, finishing Title II grant, part of the Affinity Network, College
Spark grant to provide the math placement test to all HS students, using HS core standards.
Tomas Ybarra, YVCC. Innovation – institutional change process begun several years ago, promote change in context of
the resources at hand; work in progress – institutional research virtual office that provides useful data to support data-
driven changes (office of institutional effectiveness) – mine the talent within the organization.
Carrie Abb, Yakima. Innovation – common course impact statement developed by faculty; discussions among faculty
about common course outcomes at the program level (Workforce, ESL/ABE, etc.)
Sue Peralt, YVCC. Innovation – making changes to transfer degree brings opportunity for wide faculty engagement.
Peggy Moe, Renton. Innovation – Reading Apprenticeship is part of their ATD strategy, building a culture of evidence,
online inservice for online instructors that benefits everybody – faculty, staff, students.
Kara Garett, Big Bend. Innovation – connect Basic Skills and dev ed faculty, increasing use of dev ed student portfolios –
and this has expedited placement at higher levels, even into ENGL 101
Joyce Caroll, Bellevue. Innovation – faculty professional development to support faculty and student services staff across
silos. Good communication has led to elimination of the use of COMPASS writing scores, and now working on multiple
alternative assessments to determine placement – simultaneous placement in to ENGL 101 and a precollege STEPS
classes; also sponsored the Cabrillo model FELI this June, foundation-funded.
Michelle Andreas, SBCTC. Innovation – leading private institutions (MIT, Stanford)are now offering free online instruction
with grades, and this is radically changing the world of education, especially in, e.g., credit for prior learning.
Michael Darcher, Pierce, Fort Steilicoom. Innovation – hiring new faculty this year seems innovative, organization
Joan Youngquist, Skagit Valley (attending by ITV). Innovation – having a clear reason for change helps (it’s a law, data)
and giving ownership to the solution to the ones who must implement; SAI dollars go into an innovation fund.

11:15-11:30am             Update from IC – Laurie Clary by email:
Here is what happened at the Winter Instruction Commission that involves our ATC work:


        Dorna Bullpitt shared concerns from the Articulation & Transfer Council regarding the Washington 45.
         (This is on the ATC spring agenda so I am sure Michelle will have more information)
        ATC had been requested to look at criteria in allied common courses being proposed for common course
         numbers and determined there is no need to add further criteria to their review process. IC concurred.
        A request was brought forth from ATC that the philosophy course commonly numbered PHIL&106 be
         replaced with PHIL&120 [symbolic logic], PHIL&117 [traditional logic], and PHIL&115 [critical thinking],
         with the hope the three new courses that are being recommended can be implemented in fall 2012.
         Dorna Bullpitt moved that the Instruction Commission accept ATC’s recommendation that these three
         common philosophy courses be accepted as commonly numbered courses. Sandra Fowler-Hill seconded
         the motion. Motion carried.
        Jeff Wagnitz distributed a handout and provided background on the need for reciprocity of pre-college
         course placement levels as students transfer from one college to another. After discussion, it was agreed
         IC would consider different language and will address the issue at the spring meeting with
         recommendations for action. The pre-college reciprocity proposal is coming back to ATC as you can see
         in the meeting handouts posted on the web. While the new language isn’t everything that ATC
         discussed, I believe it is the best we can do in light of the forces beyond our control that are driving this

    11:30-11:45am          CCN – Norma Goldstein

    for more information on Common Course Numbers, see
    And about the ATC’s role in adopting/maintaining CCNs, see

Core to College Project is a national K-12 movement to identify college-ready standards in English and math. It has
a 4-year plan for implementation; Gates Foundation is providing support to validate the assessment. The
Washington version of this project is related to and builds on goals from the Transition Math Project (TMP) such as
validation of standards, curriculum alignment, and providing a more seamless transfer opportunity for students.

ECE CCN – see – These
are stackable certificates developed by a collaboration of faculty leads, and are based on NAEYC professional
Background: Funding from WA Department of Early Learning (DEL) for the Bridges program in early learning was
eliminated based on faulty data, poor process, and to mitigate the effects, Race to the Top federal grant money
given as scholarships to ECE students. Modeled on opportunity grant scholarships – all this led to 45 credit
certificate – statewide – using CCNs; colleges that don’t offer the certificate can’t get the scholarship money. It
needs to be implemented right away.
Question: how comfortable are ATC members voting on CCNs proposed at this meeting? This is really important to
get done since funding (Student Opportunity Grant) is tied to having CCNs in the certificates. We normally have a
year or more to plan and implement CCNs, and in this case that time is still available, but schools must adopt
changes to use the new certificates. One school, Whatcom, will submit for all a request for the new certificates
and SBCTC will also expedite changes to existing programs/certificates. Concerns – most are in favor, but have
some issues at the detail level, e.g., use of the ampersand – which most think indicates transfer class – students
may think they could use an ECE course with an “&” notation as a transfer course. Universities have been involved
in the planning. Universities are accepting ECE& courses IF there are articulations in place. Universities and
advisors are now just going to have to figure it out that the “&” by itself doesn’t mean transfer. We will vote
tomorrow on the CCNs.

12:00-12:45pm              Lunch (Call for “I’ve been wondering …” questions, Peggy Moe) Science Bldg. Room 141

         Restricted electives and new academic transfer courses – Joyce Loveday
Restricted courses are those that can be used for elective only in a transfer degree. They are performance or prof-
tech typically.
Our process is to introduce proposed courses in the ATC spring meeting, then vote in the fall. Votes must be
unanimous. Also voted on at IC, approved only if unanimous.

Gail Bruce proposed that College Success course should move from restricted elective to unrestricted.
 Background: There is a burgeoning, assessment-based emerging field of first year success courses. It is apparent
that the course is not like a typical transfer course. Motivational tools, brain-based learning are usually added to
curriculum. A BI student typically get credit (eg. UNIV 101 at Central) for such a course. CTCs are putting inFirst
Year Experience (FYE), College Success, and study skills, so we’ll need to be thoughtful about the number and
prefix given.
Comments: This is very timely! It is in part an issue of equity for CTCs and BI institutions. Some CTCs don’t
currently even offer it for credit now. It should be commonly numbered with a fairly tight description to address
concerns of BIs. Concerns: faculty qualifications of those who teach the course. Course should be foundational,
introductory in nature, rather than tutoring or workshop courses. Some colleges had very idiosyncratic curricula.
 Strong support for developing more than institutional-specific topics. If it’s a required course, we’d have to look
at transferring students coming in with similar but not identical courses. We have to be careful – let’s make sure
we don’t create a situation where in two years, we have a taskforce to clean up CCN discrepancies.

1:00 pm           Executive Committee Report

Treasurer’s Report:

          Current balance: $5157.00

          Current balance reflects that we paid off the Fall 2011 and Winter 2012 catering, food, misc. expenditures

          Items pending that would be deducted from the current balance:

          Microphones and mixer: $664.67
          Spring catering bill from Spokane Falls CC: TBD

Secretary’s report (VOTE). Minutes pproved with spelling corrections and dollar amount for visitors.

President’s report

          Congratulations to everyone for surviving another year!
          Winter meeting – Joyce Hammer at Green River at Kent campus. January 24,25.
          Fall meeting – Renton – October 18, 19 (WCCHA meets the same day), or 25, 26
          Spring – location, tentative – April 18-19
          Please avoid CBC, and make available by electronic access.
          ICRC is Oct 11-12
          WACTC, Ed Commission, IC, are main collisions to avoid. CUSP

          AFA Associates of Fine Arts – Norma reports: look for more discussion on this topic starting this June.
          Please send note of interest to Norma. Michelle: next steps – an AFA proposal will be brought to JTC, who
          would decide whether a work group would be formed to create an MRP.

1:20 Presentation from Central WA U.
Margaret Badgley, AVP, and Cindi Torres, Des Moines campus director, contact

Dual Enrollment Initiative to be launched statewide among all CTCs. One goal is to promote AAS and AAST degrees;
8 University centers in place.
For more information, see

Running Start students not eligible for dual enrollment.

Program benefits: $50 application fee waived, students connected to support and information throughout the
CWU system, access to library,
1:45-2:30pm        SBCTC Report – Michelle
·     Project-Lead-The-Way
·     Washington 45
·     HECB Status
·     BUS& 201 Check-in
·     PLA and PL Reciprocity
·     Legislative Update
To meet the mandates from the last legislative session, Michelle has created a check list of items. These need to
be included in catalogs and/or on websites

                                        ATC IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST
The following must be readily accessible for students on your web page

        A list of your college courses that meet the distribution requirements for the Direct Transfer Agreement.
        College webpage linked to the HECB site that shows actual courses accepted for AP, IB and CLEP
         Note: If the HECB does not have your college’s correct link posted to its website, please email the correct
         URL to Randy Spaulding at RandyS@HECB.WA.GOV
        Washington 45—list of transferable courses.

        Update to the Transfer Degree inventory.

        MRP for Business –notification to Michelle of intent to offer content for BUS& 201.

        Diversity reciprocity agreement.

        No D- grades in the DTA.

To-Do ensure our advising and student support VPs get the information about the WA 45.
Recommended to publish on each college website information, background, and context as well as the list of
courses. The intent is to provide a list of courses that will be accepted as meeting the general education

Added in the special session last time was requirement for CTCs to add Project Lead the Way (PTLW) scores (but
only if we do) to their publicized policies on International Baccalaureate, CLEP, etc. PLTW is all gray area elective,
because the courses are professional technical. The courses are not even HS science credit.

Michelle’s report is continued at 4:30

Break 2:20

2:30-3:00pm       Placement Reciprocity – Jeff Wagnitz and Bill Moore

Context: National drive to establish consistency among states for HS graduation requirements. There is greater
attention on remediation and developmental education. At least one state is considering legislation to remove
funding form community colleges and universities for developmental education.

Jeff: proposals: in the context of the WA legislature mandate for efficiency – use multiple indices to more
accurately place students in their precollege and college courses
Language for System Placement Reciprocity addresses ambiguities such as whether college level placement or not.
Answer: yes, it does need to include college level, since dev ed placement at one college could be college level at
another. If we don’t include college level, we are inviting criticism and further ambiguity.
Won’t this invite students to shop the system for most advantageous placements? Perhaps, so we will require
students be enrolled. It might actually be rare for a student to shop the system, but we can avoid another political
How long should we allow? Answer: one year.
This is a degree of standardization, yet it preserves local autonomy in how each school creates their own multiple
Question: did the workgroup consider whether there should be reciprocity in minimum grades? For example, if the
sending college requires a 2.0 minimum, but the receiving institution requires a 2.7, and a transferring student has
a 2.2, what is the result? Answer: no, the workgroup did not consider this question.

In general, the intent is to address “college” level placement, not make a distinction between precalc ready vs
math in society ready. There may need to be a pathway level discussion to make this distinction. It may be subject
to negotiation and best left to placement based on multiple indices.

Strong suggestion: let this be at the policy level, and not get mired in details.

Problem: given the high degree of non-conformity among the CTCs in precollege (multiple tracks, unequal number
of levels), it is premature to make a decision.

But remember, despite the complicated nature of the problem, we’ve been working on the problem long enough,
and that to prolong it further invites the presidents to mandate a common assessment and cut score.

Comment: the intent is to smooth transfer of students among CTCs, to protect them from having to do
unnecessary coursework.

Concerns: time given to students to claim reciprocity (1 year), when a local requirement is only 6 months.
Response: that very situation is one of the reasons legislators mandated the policy.

Concern: at Engl 101 – that’s fairly uniform. But in precollege, there are differences and some pathways are not
linear. Also, advising staffing may not be sufficient to absorb all these changes. Further, revisions to the SAI
structure (levels of precollege) are making them less useful at this time in setting placement.

Comment: last year’s major initiative to revise precollege has many impacts on this proposal. The concept of
reciprocity is a way to respect the work staff and faculty are doing to help students. We are talking about entrance
into college level courses. Students come to us in many different ways (IB, AP, COMPASS, ABE, Accuplacer, HS
transcripts, etc.) and the number of ways may actually be increasing, this is a safety net for our students, not
something focusing on student success.

The SAI is not keeping up with the very high degree of innovation… wouldn’t it be better not to refer to SAI in the
policy? It’d be better for neighboring colleges to work out details?

Strong suggestion to take out reference to SAI.

At this point, the ATC is to make a recommendation to the IC. Jeff will incorporate these suggestions into the
version taken forward to the IC.

3:20-3:30 Break

Presentation on the new accreditation process – Tomas Ybarra, VP Instruction and Student Services, Yakima Valley
Community College
Tips, Techniques, and pitfalls to avoid
YVCC received a good evaluation, so they’d be a good model to follow. The new process is more system-oriented,
and reviews how the component parts work together to support continuous improvement.

Reports are now due in years 1, 3, 5, 7. The reports are more focused, and require detailed responses. Chapter 2
is the one that most closely resembles the old Standard 2. The reports also call for updates on reports filed in
previous years. For example, in year three, the report can include new information and experience relevant to the
report filed in year 1, even fundamental changes in mission statements.

The evaluators commented favorably on how they found so many people involved in the process at YVCC, and how
knowledgeable all of them were. YVCC created an Institutional Effectiveness Team that consisted of 45 that
included faculty, administrators, classified and exempt staff. The group was given a specific charge, and was made
responsible to develop and help vet the report. They reviewed the college mission, then reviewed and approved
the draft study before it was reported to the senior administrators.

Every unit of the college was tasked to carefully review their contribution to the college’s core themes. Each unit
had to think about how they assessed their outcomes. They received a recommendation to fix inconsistencies in
reporting and documentation of outcomes.

YVCC used graphics to get across their points rather than an extensive narrative. The graphics showed
relationships among parts of the college, also some tables to quickly show indicators, evidence, cross reference
information, eg., objective 1.1 and 1.1.a, 1.1.b.

Baseline, target, outcome
Problem in language – descriptive is taken to mean a type of statistic, but YVCC didn’t mean it that way; they
meant it as qualitative.
Measures – quantitative and qualitative indicators… Direct and indirect measures of performance – both were
acceptable. In future – what YVCC will do is label the indicators as quantitative and qualitative

While it’s tempting to set ambitious targets, when you’re dealing with real people, you have to allow yourself time
to accomplish significant change. Depending on the situation faced, significant shifts may be revealed by very
small numeric changes.

Also, the background is changing, so holding steady may in some ways reflect improvements; it’s up to the college
to demonstrate that context and interpretation for the evaluators.

For example “…as demographic becomes more diverse, a change that is often accompanied by a decrease in

There must also be integration among and some redundancy in the summary analyses at the end of each chapter.

YVCC prepared a CD with live links to online documents, but found during the site visit that visitors did not avail
themselves of all resources.

Next time around, we’ve been warned that assessment of students and of instruction will receive even more
scrutiny than before – year 3 report.

If the report contains glaring factual errors, then those can be addressed in a rebuttal, but if there are
inconsistencies, then let it go, and learn what you can from those inconsistencies; who made the observation and
what was their perspective, and what was their perspective as an evaluator.
For example, comments may reveal the perception of one who’s not got much direct experience in an assignment.

It’s good to have a conversation before the summary presentation at the commission, get the small, picky stuff out
of the way.

Suggestion: invite evaluators from around the state; mock visits are excellent preparation for a site visit.

YVCC set only 3 core themes.

A random sample of syllabi and corresponding course plans to review outcomes (program, course) and assessment
of those outcomes was the method the visitors used to determine whether a systematic assessment program is in
place. They want to see collective evidence – that’s where the very large team of 45 was especially helpful. That
revealed large scale implementation.


Michelle’s report, continued:
CPL and PL reciprocity…
We are charged to provide reciprocity for individual courses, even if the course doesn’t have an exact equivalent,
or if the course credit is awarded by credit by prior learning.
Language will be added to make explicit that CPL credit is included in the reciprocity agreement. There are
accreditation standards that apply.

There’s an ongoing work group, and they need to be working hard on the BIs to provide protection of credit for
prior learning.

Motion: Accept inclusion of language explicitly recognizing credit for prior learning in our reciprocity

Motion carries.

Business MRP and BUS&201 – a workgroup including faculty created a list of course outcomes, sent out for
review, with the instructions that if Michelle hasn’t heard from the college by May 1, we will assume that the
college will not adopt the CCN. The college will then use their own unique identifier.

The list of those who accepted it will be posted on June 1.

We’re changing the MRP so that a student must take BUS&201. Currently, the Q/SR courses listed on BUS MRP
require 10 credits of precalculus, business calculus, calculus, finite math, or statistics. New language in the
MRP:..10 cr must include … higher level math… gets rid of biz stats.

Budget proviso: language that takes $2M and targets it to STEM enrollments. Plan at this point is to do something
like what was done previously for High Demand; list to be updated; likely we’ll not set higher targets, but rather
reduce target by STEM proportion (including prof/tech) then increase it by the amount represented by STEM
students. Course listing based on CIP … working on a formula, being vetted by IC and instruction VPs.

We’ll be accountable for the STEM enrollments, and they will have to have an accounting of the money.

It will benefit us greatly to ensure we’ve got a clean system of coding, intent codes, course codes.

Pre-med students will be included (bio classes will be included), but not nursing students. This is about hitting
targets of STEM growth.
Efficiency Governance… consultants were hired to make tough recommendations, looking at cost and value
propositions. Financial information that is consistent among colleges; nine colleges are case studies for the entire
system, and will be used to establish baseline values. Based on this analysis, criteria will be developed for making
governance changes across the state.

Timeframe: meet with board in June with recommendations, then final recommendation in September, final
report to Legislature in Dec.

HECB – going away July. New Student Achievement Council is being formed; governor will pick executive director,
will have reduced authority, BA approval to be from state board. Role – research and master planning. Public BIs
will be even more independent than before.

5:00-5:15 pm Election of ATC Officers for 2012-2013 (VOTE) - Joyce Loveday

5:15 pm            Business Meeting concludes for Thursday

6:00 pm            Dinner - Science Bldg. Room 141 “How do you ? … I’ve been wondering …” Peggy Moe

Friday, April 20

7:30 am            Breakfast – Science Bldg. Room 141
8:15am             Meeting resumes -- Library -- Bldg. 2, Room 206

VOTE: CCN proposal for 14 ECE courses
Yes: unanimous
No: 0
Abstain: 1

Developmental education IBEST. Coding remains a problem, but ARC is working on it. To assess the effectiveness
and to track SAI points, we need to record placement scores and retain that on the student record.

SAI is being reviewed by statewide task force – what counts, funding model, Presidents, VPs, representatives from
several IC councils gave input. Goal of SAI is to get students up to college level, and to support innovation, not
provide disincentive.

Statewide work group to develop RN to LPN (BSN) nursing degree. UW Bothell is leading the way and brought it to
the JTC. It will hopefully be a 3+1 degree; WGU is also involved and is holding the highest standards.

What are the outcomes for the efficiency governance workgroup? Answer: a set of recommendations to be
presented to WACTC thence to the legislature.

JTC will hear next week about the statutory nature of the DTA, and how this affects the many provisos. The effect
is that the provisos need to be cleaned up. For example, students transferring to the UW must take an extra 15
gen ed credits. Other provisos pertain to math.

8:00-9:30 am

Professional Development – small group discussion
“Virtual Choir” – view video clip and then discuss in your small group how innovation and collaboration can build
YouTube video

TED talk link

Virtual Choir 2.0 –

One dean used this video as a seed to start a conversation about how to come together as a team, as a
The best online classrooms sing, like a virtual choir.
Challenges to innovation, to teaching online – you can’t do this or that, answer, right – we can do different things,
not the same but effective nonetheless.
The UW Human Interface Lab would be a good field trip to learn more about problem solving, crowdsourcing,
emerging technologies.
Common themes – these are tools to bring humans together, to establish and strengthen relationship.

Innovations such as decoupling assessment from teaching and learning makes so much more possible. This is the
WGU model. There are many cross-checks, analysis to minimize bias, and ensure validity. Suggestion: have WGU
present to us on their assessment method. It may be there are some elements that we can adapt for our students
and our teaching methods.

Many members voiced the opinion that supporting innovation is best done by financial support from the top, not
by directive.

Other examples – faculty, presented with a challenge, can demonstrate and model behaviors such as
disagreements voiced with civility. Students comment that they learned a lot from the disagreements among the
team of faculty.

The latest, greatest best thing is not necessarily any better than previous innovations, nor is the latest open course
material from MIT any better than what our small campus faculty are doing. That wonderful new fully online text
may merely be the one that doesn’t sell….


Updates on the Math in the DTA - Jim Brady, Spokane Falls CC

background: goal - take precollege math requirements out of the DTA

Aligning Q/SR description in the DTA with those courses we actually list.
The pathways currently in the proposal:

    1.   precalc
    2.   finite or biz precalc
    3.   math for elem ed
    4.   stats based on statway
    5.   math 107 with a common core of topics used by both BIs and CTCs

    Course numbers aren’t part of the discussion at this point. However, topics for Math&107 are being narrowed
    proportional reasoning
    mathematics of personal finance
    descriptive stats
    growth and linear decay

TCC has been working to establish equivalencies with their BI partners - college level intro stats is gaining in
acceptance. The Statway project is recognized as valid pathway leading to a college level math course.

The plan is to have draft proposal ready by June 1, 2012 for JTC summer meeting.
MOTION: ATC will send aresolution to IC and JTC that contains
     encouragement and support for the workgroup getting this done.
     support the workgroup to conclude their work by June 1
     and that we are very appreciative of the work they’ve accomplished thus far.

Approved by acclamation. Craig will be representing us at IC and will take forward the resolution.
Our Econ, chem, history, chem faculty will need to hear the message that their courses aren’t in the spirit of the
QSR agreement, and clean up during the next year will take these courses out of the QSR list.

Logic - they may be open, but PHIL& 120 specifically has not yet been brought to the floor for discussion. Michelle
will take it formally to JTC next week, and will direct the workgroup to take up that part of the discussion.

Misconception - many don’t understand the difference between the degree and articulation. What about the
math phobic? Dev ed killed more students than logic ever saved... the path to logic was through a lot of dev ed

Timeline for implantation: vote next fall, winter at the latest. Any incoming spring 2013 students will be under the
new rules.

Clarification on diversity reciprocity agreement – Kyle.
The list of diversity courses and requirements is posted at the ATC website. Please check with your institution,
particularly credentials evaluators, to share information about implementation of the reciprocity agreement. It’s
up to students to ask for application of the agreement.

Suggestion: the agreement needs to be an item of discussion at ARC; Craig will do this.

10:40am          New Financial Aid rules and how the rules impact our students. Presentation from Margerie
Davis, Spokane CC.

Ability to Benefit
Pace of Progression

While there are a number of absolutes in the new rules, there are also many areas that are open to interpretation
and local discretion.

Effective July 2011, Higher Ed Act, Title 4A - goal to improve program integrity and to improve student success.
Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) provisions were modified to comply with regulations.
Measurements include Pace of Progression, GPA, credits completed. Any student not meeting any one of these
measurements would be placed on FA warning.
Pace of Progression- students must meet >67% of credits attempted; measured quarterly or annually, local choice.
Pace is measured by credits completed in the program divided credits attempted in the program.
The policy is applied to all students, whether or not the student is on FA. If a student is moving more slowly, but is
self-paying, there is no consequence. If a student later applies for FA, all previous enrollment counts.

What about a student that changes programs? Local institutions can decide how many times this may be done.
Spokane allows 3 program changes. A DTA or AA is one program. Attempted credits are based on enrollment level
at census day.
Incompletes, W, Z’s and zeros are counted toward Pace of Progression.
Schools may require different paces of progression for each class level (freshman, sophomore, etc.).

Students must complete the minimum number of credits or they will be placed on warning or suspension.
Completion is defined as a C or better. This measure is cumulative; a single course with a D may be ok, so long as
the collective GPA is > 2.0

At the end of the sixth quarter - minimum cumulative college level GPA must >2.0.

Maximum time frame 125% for state, 150% for federal support. Remedial credits are excluded from cumulative
attempted up to a maximum of 45 credits. The Pell grant program is based on the number of quarters, and there is
a limit.

FA warning - students may receive aid for one more quarter. If they are not successful during that warning
quarter, they will then be placed on suspension.

To re-establish eligibility - it’s up to the institution to allow an appeal process. Suspended students are allowed a
maximum of 2 appeals, no matter how old. Denials are final and cannot be reviewed by an academic standards

Students may self-pay 10 credits, increase pace of progression to 67%, and raise GPA to 2.0; then must meet with
an academic counselor; and they must complete a degree plan. Students denied for exceeding maximum
timeframe may be reinstated for federal FA only - state FA cannot be reinstated.

Spokane allows two certificates, two degrees, or one certificate and one degree. Stackable certificates are allowed
if they are embedded within a larger program.

Student success or tutoring courses covered if required by program, if it’s an elective within the allowable number
of elective credits. The situation is still evolving.

What details of FA are within local control? It’s online - but in general we can just ask our FA people whether
something is local choice, federal or state policy.
Repeats - music or art - repeats may be allowed, depending on course content, if the content is different, then it
may be allowed.

11:45 BAS – Deb Meadows and Nancy Dick
Goal: eliminate barriers and provide more transfer options.
ATC members should encourage offering AASTs in prof tech so that more BAS can be awarded. And that may
mean careful review so that students’ opportunities are not inadvertently limited.

BAS work group will meet at the next IC meeting.

VPIs have agreed upon criteria for BAS approval, and these are posted on the IC website.

Deb and Nancy are willing to serve as resources for CTCs interested in developing their own BAS degrees.
11:50 D- grading issues – Craig Lewis
Some schools were granting DTAs to students who earned less than a 1.0 in a course. The ICRC handbook is very
clear, however - any course to be transferable must be a D or better. D- grades can still be awarded, but such
courses simply can’t be used for the DTA. CTCs now are carefully reviewing their practices, and we are seeking to
ensure all campuses and all registrar staff are aware that the DTA cannot be awarded if it’s based on a D- grade.
 Some campuses have chosen to remove the D- grade as an option.

The BIs have been gracious in accepting DTA intact without unwrapping it. Now however, we must be very careful.
Starting next fall, BIs may start reviewing course by course if we don’t make sure this is very clean and that we are
not awarding a DTA unless contributing courses are all above than 1.0 grades.

Point - some colleges are retaining the D- grade for prof tech courses, yet some students may eventually want to
use a course in a transfer program, so please urge caution.

again - thanks to Michelle!! ATC Chairperson Janet Danley also thanks ATC for their work, tremendous positive
accomplishments, and much hard work and heavy lifting. Many ATC members have served on task forces, ad hoc
groups, and have provided very quick feedback and suggestions when asked.

In the new year we hope for better treatment from the legislature. We also may expect the coming year to be
difficult for our classified staff given the 3% cut, so we may plan for way to help mitigate and soften the blow to a
very valuable part of our workforce. At some campuses, faculty and administrative staff are also being reduced by
the same amount.

To-do list

        meeting location determination -

                  Fall - Renton, Oct 18-19
                  Winter - Green River, Kent Jan 24-25
                  Spring - Columbia Basin, April 18-19

List of ATC 2011-12 accomplishments

        Math 107 and Math in the DTA
        ECE CCN communication
        ATC Implementation Checklist
        What happens to provisos

    To-Do’s: ensure our advising and student support VPs get the information about the WA 45.
    create operational group to develop procedures for placement reciprocity
    maintenance of CCN - ask faculty include course descriptions, bullet points

12:10 pm          Meeting Adjourns – Boxed lunches will be available for pick up outside the meeting room

Shared By: