Council of Faculty Senate Presidents
Response to
Discussion Draft: Core Outcomes Initiative
Model Transfer and Articulation Process
Kansas Board of Regents
Transfer and Articulation Task Force
January 2011
February 8, 2011


I. COFSP has the following questions about the Core Outcomes Initiative before we can state a position on its potential role as the implementing body:
• How far along is the Core Outcomes Project? Is there a document that contains the entire work of the Core Outcomes Initiative to date? We find only the 2009-10 Report on the BOR website. It appears from the 2009-10 Report that there is still far from universal participation and agreement. With a once per year meeting, it is not clear that this project will be far enough along by Fall 2012 to serve as an implementing/approving body or even to guide transfer and articulation. What could be done to get wider participation in this project and move it along faster?
• How do the Technical Schools/Colleges and Trade Schools fit into the transfer and articulation issues?
• What does “provide faculty with tools to make a decision” mean? How might the role of faculty change? What are examples of the “tools” and “decisions?”
II. Concerning system-wide oversight, our questions and concerns are the following:
• How pervasive are the issues of transfer and articulation? What data is available on the magnitude of the problems? If the problems are relatively small, then there might be a more efficient and effective manner in which to handle these issues. Some specific questions that might be answered are:
o What exact issues exist with the current articulation agreements and transfer of courses?
o How much discrepancy exists among the Regents universities?
o What would be the costs of the potential recommended changes?
• How necessary is the detailed, system-wide oversight that the Task Force proposes? Our concern is that this will be costly in a time of very tight budget constraints and could add a great deal of bureaucratic difficulty.
• In addition to cost concerns, we hope the Regents will be mindful of issues of academic freedom and autonomy of individual faculty and the uniqueness of the mission of each university. We believe that preservation of academic freedom and autonomy of the Regents universities and their faculties is key to a vibrant and productive academic climate.
• We also note that there already exists, a “Transfer Agreement and Articulation Guide” for Kansas public community colleges and universities that addresses transfer of students with baccalaureate-oriented A.A. or A.S. degrees. How has this agreement informed the work of the task force and the arguments for more standardization?
III. COFSP believes that many of the perceived issues might clear up with more transparency rather than by standardizing transfer of all courses across all universities. In regard to transparency, we offer the following suggestions:
• We note that the convening of the task force this academic year has brought the transfer and articulation issues to the forefront at most of our universities, when, in the past, it may not have been. We are convinced that no Regents university faculty or administrative person wants unnecessarily to impede transfer students in their progress toward degrees. With the work of the task force making these issues apparent, we suggest allowing each of the universities to tackle its own issues before resorting to more system-wide oversight.
• We are supportive of a state-wide database so that articulation agreements and issues and transferability of courses from community colleges to the universities will be as transparent as possible. We believe that the process for reviewing course descriptions and syllabi at each university needs to be clearly stated to help eliminate any impressions that we are arbitrarily deciding what transfers and what does not. There is currently more information publicly available from each university, such as transfer equivalency guides, than may be commonly known, and a state-wide database could make this information more apparent. We do not want to see major policy changes unless more transparency shows major discrepancies among the universities and seeming arbitrariness in decisions.

At this point, our perspective remains that outside course transfers should rest with the individual universities, as it is each university's faculty and administration that establishes and certifies that students have met the requirements for their degrees. The universities have a responsibility to the students and the students' future employers, as well as a need to maintain the professional standards under which programs are accredited. However, if the research shows that there is much unevenness in transferability, without obvious reason, or if there seems to be arbitrariness in the decision process, then we are certainly supportive of measures to correct the problems.
 
Kansas Council of Instructional Administrators & Presidents
(Community College Vice Presidents of Instruction & Presidents)
Response to One Page Discussion Draft on Transfer and Articulation

Kansas community college presidents and KCIA members were asked to submit suggestions to the Transfer and Articulation Task Force regarding the development of new transfer and articulation guidelines. The information below is a compilation of those ideas and suggestions. Some of the recommendations listed below are included in some form within the January 2011 Discussion Draft for the Task Force and others support the general “charge” for the Task Force. Although this list is specific, please understand is it not complete even at this point in time. The 2-year presidents and KCIA members would appreciate being able to continue to contribute additional ideas as the Task Force meets throughout the coming spring.

We believe it is time in Kansas to create very comprehensive articulation and transfer guidelines that will eliminate situations where students have to “retake” general education coursework because an institution or department chair arbitrarily determines it doesn't meet a perceived standard or have difficulty even determining a course of study at an institution because transfer standards vary so greatly across the state.

What's best for students must be the primary consideration because students have everything to gain with revised guidelines which are supported by KBOR. They will save both money and time but more importantly be assured there is an established standard for general education and assessment in Kansas no matter which institution they choose to attend. It's a win-win for all. The 2-year institutions are firm in our belief that this is the appropriate time to create system-wide change to support students and their learning opportunities.


.