===== Original Message From "Kathy Walsh" (kwalsh@cocc.edu) =====

Peter, We at COCC appreciated the opportunity to listen in to your discussion with MHCC faculty. I expect that I will receive more faculty comment tomorrow, but am sending you this, which captures the flavor of much discussion I am hearing here at COCC. By the way, the first invitation we saw to enter your discussions came too late for the first several of those meetings.

Kathy Walsh
Vice President for Instruction
Central Oregon Community College

From: Cora Agatucci

Sent: Thu 11/11/2004 2:37 PM

To: Kathy Walsh

Subject: FW: GenEd.Transfer Module

FYI - have also posted to Humanities, AA Discussion & Chairmoot Discussion. --c

GenEdTransferModule

2. I "Strongly Disagree" that the Gen.Ed. Transfer Module is an option that will have little effect on our AAOT degree.

Reasons: JBAC began trying to reduce AAOT minimum requirements almost as soon as the block transfer agreement went into effect, long pressuring Oregon CC's (like us) to eliminate any AA requirements - e.g. sequences & health requirements- above JBAC AAOT minimums. JBAC's primary justification has long been low AAOT completion rates. It seems very clear to me that the Gen.Ed. Transfer Module, as well as its still-born precursor the common Gen Ed Core movement (which probably didn't get far because OUS institutions cannot agree or will not compromise on their individualized bacc core requirements), will do nothing to increase AAOT completion rates. It seems equally clear that JBAC has abandoned its previous rationale-increase in AAOT completion rates-and tactics for pressuring Oregon CC's to reduce individual AA degree requirements (though OUS institutions don't seem willing to standardize their own individualized bacc core requirements). This new tactic seems to point to the real objective: to move students out of CCs and on to OUS institutions "more better faster." In other words, the Gen.Ed. Transfer Module looks to me like an OUS recruitment device - deceptive in seeming to offer transfer students some advantage given the concerns expressed under #1 above.

The new hammer being used at present to pound Oregon CC's into submission is the threat that if we don't accept this undesirable Gen Ed Transfer Module, the Oregon legislature will impose on us some even more unacceptable alternative (see below). Such an argument is logically and pedagogically flawed, but perhaps might be more compelling if the amorphous dire alternatives were articulated. What are the legislature's goals? We, too, must value a "deepened partnership with OUS," but their goals and ours seem increasingly competitive rather than complementary. Is COCC's primary objective to increase OUS enrollments? How will these various initiatives serve our students?

The questions and criticism raised by the anonymous message (part of which is copied below) posted by J. Downing to Chairmoot & Academic Affairs discussion conferences, capture many of my own concerns:

"There are many things wrong with this proposal. First, while there are requirements for composition, speech, and math literacy (at minimal levels) there are none for computer literacy or health literacy. Besides the obvious negative impact on HHP as a department, a college student can't really be literate at the basic skills level without these two crucial components. (It's not really necessary to reference the progress in medicine/health science and computer science & applications that make each of these, in some sense, more important than the "traditional" disciplines the proposal favors. I think for this reason alone, the proposal is a "non-starter"--DOA.)

"Also, this seems like the familiar "solution in search of a problem." The AAOT has been and continues to be the best and most adequate way to address the key transfer concern among Oregon colleges-i.e., the guarantee that lower division distribution or "breadth" coursework at the CC level will be honored at the 4-year level. The only possible rationale for having a "module" at all would be to facilitate transfer among OUS schools, which lack the articulation that has existed among Oregon CCs for so long. I feel this is a problem that the OUS schools could work out for themselves. ((--Anonymous, posted by J. Downing to Chairmoot & AA discussion conferences).

3. I "Strongly Agree" that the Gen.Ed. Transfer Module is an option that will have a negative effect on our AAOT degree. Reasons: See my responses to #2 above.

4.

Thanks for listening,

Cora Agatucci