The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand on February 3, 1993, in Columbia 150 at 3:36 p.m. The minutes of the January 6, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed.
President Brand announced that no resolution of the proposed dual numbering of the course in Exercise and Movement Studies "EMS 491 /591 Statistical Methods 1" has been reached. This course offering was questioned during the discussion on the Report of the Curriculum Committee at the January 6, meeting of the Assembly. The course will stay at the 600 level for 1993 94.
Mr. John Gage, member of the Academic Standards Committee, introduced the following motion: "College Credit earned on a high school campus prior to graduation from high school may be validated for transfer credit only by demonstrating proficiency as determined by the respective university department." Mr. Michael Hibbard, President of the University Senate, asked that he be allowed to report the action of the Senate on this motion after Mr. Gage had completed his presentation. The Senate Report would be more easily understood at that time as it depended upon Mr. Gage's explanation. President Brand agreed to recognize Mr. Hibbard after Mr. Gage made his presentation.
Mr. Gage stated that the motion was aimed at protecting the integrity of the University transcript and was based on the fact that the University Charter gives to the University faculty the control of curriculum. The motion did not include the Advanced Placement courses as they are tightly controlled, have very high standards and the integrity of the program could not be questioned. The aim of the motion was to bring to "Project Advance" the control, standards, and integrity that is found in the Advanced Placement program.
"Project Advance" is a program that was developed on the East Coast in the 1970's. The idea behind the program was quite creditable in that gifted high school seniors would commence earning college credit while still in high school. Oregon joined the "Project Advance" program before the end of the 1970s.
The majority of the courses that Oregon students take in "Project Advance" are in Mathematics and English. Recently courses in Biology, Economics and Political Science have been added. The rapid growth and popularity of the program has resulted in a loosening of the standards. In 1985 guidelines were put together by various interested parties to bring standards, oversight and quality to the program. The guidelines could not be made mandatory and thus they are largely ignored. Because of this no regulations or standards are in place that would govern the granting of college credit by the institutions involved in the oversight of the program at various high schools.
In Oregon the Community Colleges and Portland State University over see "Project Advance" courses on various high school campuses. Portland State University does an outstanding job of regulating the courses they credit. Eleven of the sixteen Community Colleges in Oregon take part in "Project Advance." That is, these eleven transcript the courses taken by the high school students at the high school level as though the classes were taken on the college campus, under direct supervision and regulation of the community college and the credits are equal to those granted by the community college. Some community colleges do not even make an attempt to meet the guidelines, instead they ignore them completely, while others seem to pick and choose which of the guidelines they wish to follow.
The Academic Standards Committee has spent three years investigating "Project Advance." This decision to look into the program followed unsuccessful attempts to get the Chancellor's Office interested in looking into the academic integrity of the program. It was found that one Community College had transcripted 1900 high school students over a very wide spread area and never had looked at what was actually being taught. Postdated credit on transcripts has been found and some student have completed 56 hours of college credit while in high school. So it is evident that seniors are not the only students taking the classes.
Students who have taken English classes in "Project Advance" and who have entered the UO with credit for WR 121 have not shown satisfactory proficiency in WR 122 that would indicate that they would have completed 121 successfully at the UO. Entrance tests in English and Mathematics fail to show a level of proficiency that would waive the requirements for the mandatory courses in these two disciplines but since they have "Project Advance" credits on their transcripts the requirement has been met. The UO thus accepts and gives credence to credits that are not of the calibre that the UO expects its students to meet in the awarding of degrees. The Chancellor's Office continues to show no interest in the establishment of standards that could be enforced that would guard the integrity of the credits being earned/given/accepted through "Project Advance."
Mr. Michael Hibbard was recognized at this time to report on the discussion and the vote of the University Senate when it considered this motion. Mr. Hibbard made some general statements on the discussion in the Senate and that the Senate passed the motion on to the Assembly with a very strong "do pass" endorsement. The Senators were interested in protecting the integrity of the University and its academic programs and in making sure that courses offered at the high school level that purportedly were of "college level" were indeed at that level Mr. Hibbard concluded.
Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, commented that the University got into very serious trouble in the early 1980s when it was discovered that bogus credits were being put on transcripts by some junior colleges so that athletes at the UO would be eligible for admission or so that they would be eligible to play football at the University. The fixing of transcripts is a very serious business and the UO should not be placed in a position where it has to accept such fraud or be a party to the fraud.
President Brand inquired of Mr. Gage on how this motion would fit HB 3565 (now law)? Mr. Gage stated that the time envisioned for high school students to be in high school could be no more than 3 years under HB 3565. This motion is in the spirit of the law as it states quite clearly what the UO standards are, what would be accepted as a proficiency in a particular course, and that the articulation between the high schools and the University would be much more clear. It, the motion, states how the UO expects to ascertain what credit a student will be given prior to entering the University. Everything will be clear and precise and thus the articulation will be made much easier.
Mr. Norman Wessells, Provost, stated that a message needs to be sent that a significant number of students will be ready to take college level courses very early on and that the focus must be on what the expected proficiencies will be, what standards must be met and what quality of education is expected. Private colleges are pushing hard toward the establishment of the "3 year baccalaureate." This would result in more work being taken in the high school or the prep school that would be of college calibre. This push toward the "3 year baccalaureate" cannot but have an impact on public four year higher education. The motion before the Assembly anticipates the establishment of these proficiencies and standards.
Mr. Siegel joined in by pointing out that the University presently has had for some years the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) and Credit by Examination. The former is a subject examination that gives the student the opportunity to by pass such courses as American history, or calculus, by passing examinations prepared by CLEP. The latter gives the student the right to challenge undergraduate university courses by examination without formally registering in the courses. Both of these programs work well and have proven to be very worthwhile.
In responding to a question about "political land mines" that the motion might generate, President Brand stated that some noise might be heard about the University being elitist, but that the quality argument should win out.
The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
With the Legislative session now underway the President stated that it would be several weeks or months before budget matters commence to solidify. The main topic now is the discussion on "faculty productivity." This is the buzz word and each of the OSSHE institutions is putting together information for the State Legislature on the subject. The UO will be visited by a delegation of legislators, as will each campus, so that the legislators can see and visit with faculty. The topic of productivity is one that is national and not just an Oregon topic. In fact, the President pointed out, the discussion in some states is much more strenuous heated than it is in Oregon.
The Level I (6 %) budget cuts (for fiscal 1993 1995) will be announced by February 15, which will also be the time that those who received letters this past August will know if the letter is withdrawn or if the letter stands. Level II (9 %) cuts will be ready by March 15, but will not be implemented until the budget is actually known. It is possible that some individuals that received a letter in August will not know if they will be let go until the Level II cuts are or are not implemented.
The business of the meeting having concluded the meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. Keith Richard Secretary