Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
Transfer Oversight Committee Meeting Notes
September 8, 2005, 10:00 a.m.
Wells Fargo Place Room 508
St. Paul, MN

Present:
Ray Anschel, Nancy Black, Monte Bute, Joan Costello, Jean Evens, Louise Hoxworth, Debra Japp, Mary Kesler, Greg Mulcahy, Larry Oveson, Annette Schoenberger, JoAnn Simser, Dan Sperling, Michael Spitzer, Steve Whipple, Scott Wrobel, Carol Ziehlsdorf, Brian Donovan (guest for Anne O’Meara)

Not Present:
Derek Hudyma, Betsy Ingram-Diver, Anne O’Meara, MSCSA representative

1. Committee Structure
An agenda item was requested for the next meeting to discuss how the TOC functions in terms of whether a chair should be elected from the group and how the agenda is set.

2. Review meeting notes from last Oversight Committee meeting, held on January 21, 2005:
The January 21, 2005 meeting notes were distributed.  There was a request to clarify the notes regarding the World Languages issue to add a reference to the website.

3. Transfer Oversight Committee Charge Statement:
The purpose of the committee was discussed to expand its scope to include transfer in general in addition to the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. 

Composition of the group was discussed.  There are two new positions on the committee:  college and university transfer specialists.  Discussion revolved around the addition of these positions to the committee and whether their role on the committee was about representation as college and university transfer specialists or as a member of MSUAAF.  It was noted that if the positions were vacated, we need to know the role we would be replacing.  There was agreement to add under, “Committee Composition,” the following language (underlined):  “The Transfer Oversight Committee consists of representation from the faculty associations (Inter Faculty Organization and Minnesota State College Faculty), student associations (Minnesota State University Student Association and Minnesota State College Student Association), administrative and service faculty (Minnesota State University Association of Administrative and Service Faculty), chief academic officers, transfer specialists including representation from state colleges and state universities (MSUAAF) and Office of the Chancellor Program and Collaboration staff…”  It was noted that all state university transfer specialists belong to MSUAAF, so MSUAAF will be represented.  The state university transfer specialist is appointed by MSUAAF. There is a need to add student representatives from MSCSA to the committee.

Recommendation:
Send revised charge document to Meet & Confer for IFO, MSCF, MSUAAF, student associations, leadership council and sent to the CAO mail list and then to Linda Baer.

4. Accounting Discipline Update:
The consensus was that the project has been underway and is working satisfactorily.  The 2005-2006 work plan was distributed and outlines the continuation of the project.  There will be a call for resubmission of proposals that weren’t approved in the first round as well as submission of new proposals.  If anyone has questions, they can be directed to JoAnn Simser or Louise Hoxworth.

5. Discussion of “D” Grades:
There was discussion of the issue of the discrepancy of how “D” grades transfer among institutions and the apparent conflict in the laws and institutional policies and procedures that relate to this issue.  There was concern about transfer students starting with a clean slate which treats them differently than native students.  A distinction was made between “D” grades transferring when they’re part of an AA or MnTC (they transfer) and when the “D” is outside of an AA or MnTC (they don’t transfer) as being the accepted practice in many states.  A point was offered that if transfer is non-MnTC, the receiving institution decides; if it is MnTC, the sending institution decides.  It was noted that the law requires the course to transfer based on the sending institution; therefore, a “D” should transfer. A suggestion was made that if all institutions required “C” grades or above, compliance with the law would be simplified.  However, if the “D” grade counts at the home institution and it works for a native student, we no longer have a choice—the receiving institution has to accept it.  The language in the law was noted: “Once a course has met the criteria necessary for inclusion in the Minnesota transfer curriculum in any area of emphasis, the course must be accepted for full credit in that area of emphasis at all Minnesota state colleges and universities.”  There was consensus that if there is disagreement in the law, MnSCU needs to decide what the interpretation should be; otherwise, the issue will remain unresolved.  Suggestions made to either delete or change the second bullet in “next steps” to “Transfer courses are not may or may not be computed in the receiving institution’s cumulative GPA,” and to reiterate the point that major departments at receiving institutions make decisions on minimum course grade transfer to meet major requirements.

Recommendations:
1) Draft another version of clarification for Transfer of “D” grades and add to the agenda for the next meeting.
2) Request legal interpretation of the 2001 Omnibus Higher Education Bill and the 1991 Minnesota Public Higher Education Transfer Agreement in regard to the transfer of courses with D grades.

6. Status of General Education Definition/MnTC Institutional Self Evaluation:
A status report of the general education definition was given: the MSCF Academic Affairs Committee recommended a definition of General Education.  The IFO Academic Affairs Committee presented their definition.  MSCF was not ready to embrace it.  Both faculty groups are willing to look at the definition of general education; however a plan would be required to look at processes and resources with adequate time to do it and with leadership from Linda Baer.  A suggestion was made to recognize that since we’re all accredited by the HLC, we all need to be aligned with the HLC definition of general education—this could be adopted as additional information for the Academic Affairs & Standards Council at the colleges.  The issue of having academic integrity in the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum was noted and that there are too many “outliers;” the issue is too big to ignore.  There is no statewide definition and nothing in policy that defines general education.  The MnTC should be designed and controlled by faculty and include a coherent knowledge base.  There is a need to review general education at institutions. It requires leadership from the Office of the Chancellor—Linda Baer could send a memo to lay the groundwork for the process.  Do the guidelines need to be reviewed?  Should MnSCU take a position and then engage the U of M?  There was agreement that the timeline is unrealistic and needs to be moved back a year.  Could CTL be involved in developing a definition of general education or in educating faculty concerning the MNTC? 

Recommendations:

1. Revise the Proposed Institutional Self-Evaluation for the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum extending timeline to 2006-2007.
2. Seek transfer oversight committee agreement on Checklist of Evaluation criteria for courses to be included in the MNTC as discussed 9/8/05
3. Review Guidelines for the Review and Design of a Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. Determine if proposed changes are presented to the U of M.  Direction from the Senior Vice Chancellor is desired as to whether the guidelines are reviewed with or without the U of M.  The Chancellor, Gary Langer and Linda Baer need to be informed.
4. Continue discussion at the next meeting.

7. Pending Federal Legislation Regarding Transfer:
Item was presented as FYI—no discussion.

8. Academic Forgiveness:
A Position Statement was presented and questions were raised about who drafted it—who are the members of the group and what date was it drafted?  There was agreement that it needs to go to meet & confer.   There are financial aid implications in having an academic forgiveness policy as it allows students to return to school.  The issue does not pertain only to transfer students.  It was suggested that there could be a recommendation that individual institutions explore having their own Academic Forgiveness policy. 

Recommendation:
Request that Mike Lopez address the Transfer Oversight Committee regarding A Position Statement on Academic Forgiveness at the 10/21/05 Transfer Oversight Committee meeting.

9. Policy Revisions 3.17/ 3.25 and proposed revisions to 3.21:
A task force on associate degrees will be reviewing proposed changes to Policy 3.17/3.25. This item is an FYI since it may affect transfer. The target date of Dec. 1 is unrealistic.  Policies are reviewed every 3 years.  The Graduate Council is seeking to add master’s degrees to Policy 3.21 as there is no current policy on minimum/maximum for transfer at the graduate level.
Current policies and procedures may be found at http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/index.html.

Recommendations:

1. The Transfer Oversight Committee should be involved in proposing revisions to Policy 3.21 Undergraduate Credit Transfer.
2. A request was made to show the changes/additions to policies when they’re presented to this group.

10. Credit for Prior Learning:
A survey is being conducted to find out current practices for credit for prior learning.  What prompted the survey were several things: state legislation about CLEP, questions from employers to provide credit for work experience, veteran’s (awarding credit for military experience), etc.  In determining how institutions are handling credit for prior learning, a policy may be developed.  Many colleges and universities are looking for more direction.

Note: Recommendations are made by consensus of the group. Objections are duly noted.